Why The Irish Don't Speak Irish

This is a bit of a "recycled post." I wrote this piece for a discussion forum in one of my graduate seminars here at the UW. It is in a seminar concerning language, nationality and migration. My argument seems to be that the Irish language is certainly a huge part of Irish national identity but no-one seems to care that hardly anyone speaks/learns it anymore.

Let me know what you think.

First, how many speakers of Irish are there in the Republic of Ireland today? According to statistics provided by the Irish Government in 2004, there are 1,570,894 speakers in total. Of these, 339,541 reportedly use Irish everyday as their primary language. To give a little perspective, the population of Ireland is 3,917,203. Clearly, Irish is a minority language at least as a primary use language is concerned. Yet, Ireland is officially a bilingual state (Irish and English). Irish will even become a working language of the EU in 2007, owing no small part to the Irish presidency of the EU in 2003.

What is the connection between the Irish language and the history of Ireland in the last 200 years? To start with another question, when was the last time in Ireland's history when Irish was spoken by more than half of the population? According to the 1841 census (which yielded a population of 8.1 million), about 4 million of these reportedly spoke Irish as their primary language (1).

Who were these people, broadly speaking? They were laborers, cottiers, the working-class and generally the poorer and lower reaches of Irish society in what was still a predominantly rural society. They were concentrated mostly on the west coast in such places as Donegal and Galway (2).By 1851, however, the situation was markedly different. After the depridations caused by the Great Famine (1846-1851), it was reported that less than 25% of the remaining population spoke Irish at all and less than 5% were monolingual (3). This started what was to be seen as a long cycle of decline in daily usage of the Irish language. Why?

Demographically, the population was decimated by the Famine. Institutionally, English had (especially since the Act of Union in 1801) become the language of state, law, commerce, industry and (increasingly) church. Knowledge of English equalled social mobility. It was also the case that those who immigrated during the Famine were not Irish speakers nor were they the poorest people in Ireland. They were mostly English speakers from the south and west. This left a significant vacuum of population that needed to fill the essential workings of administration, business and "the system" in Ireland - a development that occasioned many more to learn and use English alone (4). This was also aided by the establishment of a system of national schools in 1830 that didn't instruct pupils in Irish at all (5).

Bearing this in mind, how did the Irish language become a central plank in the platforms of Irish nationalists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? After the collapse of the Fenian movement in the 1860's and the disappointment of the Land League in the 1880's, Irish nationalism, which had become political rather than revolutionary since the time of Daniel O'Connell in the 1830's, changed dramatically after the death of Charles Stewart Parnell in 1891. There were two dominant strains of nationalism: the old political nationalism represented by the Irish Parliamentary Party and John Redmond. There was also a new nascent cultural nationalism pioneered by Eoin MacNeill, Patrick Pearse and the Gaelic League. A central focus of this cultural nationalism was the "de-anglicization" of Ireland and the return of the Irish language.When did the leadership change?

After the Third Home Rule Bill passed in April of 1914, Redmond and the IPP thought that their path had finally made some real progress. This legislation was tabled indefinitiely upon the outbreak of the Great War in August of 1914. This blow proved fatal to the political nationalists, and it was from these elements (together with the cultural nationalists and socialist trade unions) that the new nationalism was formed, with the revitalization of the Irish language as a primary goal (6). It was this group that led the Easter Rising in 1916, presided over the rise and victory of Sinn Fein in the 1918 parliamentary elections and led Ireland into battle in the Irish Civil War (or Anglo-Irish War) in 1919-1921. This revolutionary generation would preside over Irish language policy for years to come (7).

Between 1925 and 1937, the constitution of what would become the Republic of Ireland was debated. The taioseach (prime minister), Eamon de Valera was in the forefront of this process. He fought with the IRA in the civil war and was a fluent Irish speaker. Under his leadership, the Irish language became a central part of the legal and cultural basis of the new republic. This was enshrined in the 1937 constitution which de Valera helped to draft (8).This did not, as we have seen, match the situation "on the ground."

Independence from Britain did not immediately spark feelings among the Irish people for independence from its language. As the "founding generation" passed from political life in the 1950's, a new generation of Irish politicans came to prominence and the Irish language was not a primary concern anymore. Starting with Taioseach Sean Lemass in 1961, Irish leaders began to look to industry, trade and a greater role for Ireland in Europe as their primary goal.

It was in this period that the "leakiness" of the official status of the Irish language began to show and it continues to the present. All legislation is supposed to be published in Irish and English, but it rarely is. To recieve a Leaving Certificate from an Irish university, students used to have to pass an exam in Irish, but this requirement was done away with in the 1970's. Also gone in 1971 was the requirement of Irish proficiency for positions in the civil service, military or Garda Siochana. This was all coupled with the increased move to the Gaeltacht (the Irish speaking areas) of English speakers and the general effects of Ireland's "turn towards Europe" beginning with their entrance into the Common Market in 1972 and leading through the "Celtic Tiger" of economic expansion in the 1990's (9).

In attempts to address this, the Official Languages Act was passed in 2003. It's intent was to expand the use of Irish in public lige and protect the linguistic and cultural integrity of the Gaeltacht (10). This act has not been in force for long enough to see any real effects on the state of the Irish language. The department responsible for the enforcement of the act, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht affairs, is (if their missions statements are to be believed) committed to the preservation of the irish language and the cultural milieu of its use. To do any less, the department believes, would be to relegate the key aspects of irish culture to the mists of history and to rob the Irish diaspora worldwide of their cultural and linguistic roots. In today's Ireland, however, this department often loses out for funding and support as Ireland continues to develop into a "modern" European state.

On the other hand, one can understand the position that the government finds itself in. Why continue to finance something that seems to inspire so little interest among the citizens? It is well for the diaspora to care about the language, but in the strict purview of government finance, is this a central concern? Has the Gaeltacht become a sort of linguistic cultural park financed with taxpayer dollars, effectively on life support? To quote one of my favorite television programs of all time, Yes, Minister, subsidies should be for art and culture and not for things people actually want. It is for things that they ought to have but don't.

NOTES
1. Gearoid O Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine: 1798-1848 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1972), 157.
2. Brian O'Cuiv, A View of the Irish Language (Dublin: Irish Government Stationery Office, 1969).
3. O Tuathaigh, 158.
4. Ibid. (for the situation in Ireland). For immigration to the United States, see Reginald Byron, Irish America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 52-53. For the Irish diaspora in general, refer to Tim Pat Coogan, Wherever Green Is Worn: The Story of the Irish Diaspora (London: Hutchinson, 2000).
5. R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600-1972 (London: Penguin, 1988), 341.
6. K. Theodore Hoppen, Ireland Since 1800: Conflict and Conformity (London: Longman's, 1989), 130-131.
7. Ibid., 137-138.
8. James Lydon, The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present (London: Routledge, 1998), 372-373.
9. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_language
10. See several of the "sidebar topics" at http://www.pobail.ie/en/.

The Devil You Know

Well, this is indeed rare.

A political prediction that I made, based on my research, was right on.

According to a new Chicago Tribune/WGN poll, the front-runners in the Illinois governor's race are Gov. Rod Blagojevich for the Democrats and Judy Baar Topinka for the GOP.

If you read the Trib article, or just have a general sense of people and their level of satisfaction with Blago, one might wonder why he is in such a commanding lead. The old idea of the "incumbent's advantage" cannot be discounted. As I pointed out, outside of the Chicago area, Edwin Eisendrath does not have much recognition. Even around Chicago, he is known as a "Lake Shore Liberal," rich, socially liberal, but more retiscent on the wasting state money side. It can also not be ignored that his great moment of fame came over twenty years ago and many voters of today (barring political addicts like myself) don't remember him.

As for the GOP, Topinka's success in office (read: ability to massage the system and not get pinched) and generally moderate (read: unknown) stands on issues make her popular with moderates and some conservatives who are put off by the likes of Jim Oberweis and his "no-immigrants-unless-they-are-cheap-labor-in-my-dairy" stance. The poll states that 59% of likely GOP voters consider immigration reform a necessary plank in the party platform. Remember, though, this is among those identifying themselves as Republicans. While this may have a chilling effect in the primary, this issue will surely be dampened by the time the General Election rolls around in November.

Being a third-party voter, I am rarely ever right when it comes to politics. This, however, seems to be the classic "smell two piles of shit and tell me which smells better" debate.

Devil you know or devil you don't? At the end of the day, aren't they both still bad?

Man Is A Political (Party) Animal

When I was trying to decide what to do to cover the SOTU a while back, I weighed my options. I have no net access at home and I have a laptop computer that can be called "portable" in a loose, somewhat quaint sense. I could have sat here in the computer lab, watched a webcast and blogged real time. That, alas, was also not an option. As liberal as UW-Madison is with the liquor laws, I think a cooler in a computer lab would have been a bit much.

So, we are going low-tech to high(er) tech. Reproduced below for you, transcribed lovingly from the Blatz-soaked originals, is my "notebook" from the SOTU. I must warn you that I write fast and bad and, naturally, alcohol intensifies my already sub-par penmanship. First, a few facts...

Network of Choice - CBS. Why CBS? I also don't have cable and CBS was the least blurry.
Drink(s) of Choice - Blatz with "Sno-Shoe" Shots. Sno-Shoe is, for the uninitated (read:lucky), a 90-proof mix of brandy and peppermint schnapps.
Recording Equipment - OfficeMax legal pad, yellow, letter size and a pen. The barrel of the pen read "Grand Geneva Resort and Spa - Lake Geneva, WI." Yes, you needed to know that.

Without further ado, the notebook for the 2006 SOTU. Bracketed text was added for clarification after the fact.

• Cindy Sheehan already got arrested. Decided to get it out of the way early.
• "Pivotal speech?" I think not.
• "Renewed civility?" No matter how many times, it's still funny.
• Alito looks like my JR high math teacher.
• No civility with the midterm elections...What difference between GOP/DEM, [CBS News correspondent John] Roberts???
• Frist behind the prez. OOOOOHHHH...
• O.K., isolationism is bad.
• 122 democracies? Like Singapore?
• Fight for OUR freedom? O.K., but let others fight for theirs.
• Man, lotsa history talk, GWB.
• Sassy wink at dead Marine's family?
• Egypt, Hamas and Israel - never in a million fucking years.
• Liberty, the right of all humanity. O.K., natural law.
• ISOLATION IS THE WORD APPARENTLY.
• PATRIOT ACT - OH GOD NO!!! So, you don't really buy the whole liberty thing after all?
• "appropriate members of Congress" decide on wiretaps? FREEDOM/SECURITY...Hilary looks pissed.
• Econ policy lip service. I agree, but I don't think you really believe it. Isolation is indeed bad.
• How 'bout 100% tax cuts?
• Cut the deficit? Not with that defense budget you won't.
• Nice Clinton joke.
• HALF-CROWD APPLAUSE...they threw him off!
• Baby boom commission. O.K. FOR NOW. Why I am against government funded health care.
• Ouproduce America? NO? Why? UNIONS!
• Of course Frist likes medical liability reform.
• We are developing the tube technology.
• Ethanol? 6 years? Right...
• Depend on for. oil past? What of global trade?
• MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION A PRIORITY? WHATTHEFUCK?? JUST PUT ME OUT OF A JOB, WHYDON'CHA.
• Granted, humanities jobs are NOT high wage.
• Health of culture, activists courts + marriage, nat. disaster- what a catch-all. Decline? Maybe not
• Alito and Roberts in one sentence with half a cheer - oh fuck [playing the drinking game as I was, such a response was worth quite a lot].
• If life begts life, how are stem cells wrong? Seems logical enough
• No new AIDS infections? Oh, boy...
• History comes down to choice? How 'bout the choice to blunder?

Insightful? Maybe. Confusing? Sure. Coherent? Not really. In the moment? You bet.

Baseball For Nerds

Drop what you are doing and have some fun!

Play Supreme Court Baseball at the Oyez Project.

Well, I consider it fun so it is probably the exact opposite.

Will Shannon: The Dewar's Profile

Well, not exactly. I thought, however, that I would post something like this to "lighten the mood" after the rather heavy offerings lately. It is like the sorbet after the kielbasa, kraut, potato dumplings and kluski noodles that make up the Polish (I guess) meal that has been this blog.

For a poet, I am a hell of a...whatever it is that I do.

Anyway, thanks to Frema for the rubric

Four jobs I’ve had
1. Plumbing Parts Salesman, Builder's Square, Tinley Park, IL.
2. Overstressed and Hung-over Trading Floor Clerk, Chicago Board Options Exchange.
3. Men's Suit Salesman (less stressed/hung-over), Value City Department Store.
4. Graduate Assistant/Department Bitch, History, De Paul University

Four movies I can watch over and over
1. Fletch
2. Glengarry, Glen Ross
3. Blues Brothers
4. Waking Ned Devine

Four places I have lived
1. Oak Forest, IL (my parent's house)
2. Midlothian, IL (my parent's other house)
3. Rensselaer, IN (collapsing dorm building)
4. Madison, WI (house built in 1866 w/mysterious neighbor)

Four TV shows I love
1. Father Ted
2. Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister
3. The Prisoner (I think just about the best T.V. show ever made)
4. Simpsons/Seinfeld (I consider these part and parcel of my generation's culture)

Four places I’ve vacationed
1. London, UK
2. Lake Geneva, WI
3. Pittsburgh, PA
4. Paris, France

Four of my favorite dishes
1. Italian Beef sandwiches
2. Gyros
3. Kielbasa and anything
4. Anything deep-fried, really

Four sites I visit daily
1. Fucking Myspace
2. Drudge Report
3. This one (naturally)
4. Madison.com

Four places I would rather be right now
1. In a bar with free drinks and no asshole undergrads.
2. The same, but in Pittsburgh (GO STILLERS!)
3. The same but in the ethereal plane with A.J.P. Taylor, my spititual mentor
4. Some sort of giant gyro spinner carnival ride

Well, there you have it. Pointless? Sure.

I was gonna post the SOTU comments, but I just don't feel like it now.

Sorry...you'll have to wait. Lucky you.

Re-Balancing The Supreme Court?

So the foregone conclusion has come to pass, Samuel Alito, Jr. is our newest justice to SCOTUS, and the conservatives can now have their field day with abortion, gay marriage, eminent domain, pornography, criminals and all of that good stuff that they have been itching to mess with just as soon as that swing vote O'Connor was gone, right?

Not so fast.

Perhaps the scions of the right, in their glee, have forgotten the total count in the court. Let's see...

Traditionally Votes Liberal
Stephen G. Breyer
John Paul Stevens
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
David H. Souter
Anthony Kennedy

Traditionally Votes Conservative
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
John Roberts
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Even though those last two can hardly be called "traditional," the count to me seems to be five to four. Now, I realize that there can be more leeway in decision and that these lines are not set in stone (witness the strange alignment of justices in the Kelo v. New London case from last year). These people are, after all, independent brains in bodies that sometimes make decisions based not on their supposed political background but for other factors and occasionally with the law in mind.

On anything historic or potentially divisive, however, these seem to be the lines that would divide the court and the "liberal" justices still have the majority.

When will it be time to worry about the "balance" of the court?

Well, if you put stock in such things, sooner than you may realize.

For you see, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens is eighty-six years old, according to his biography. He was nominated by Gerald Ford in 1975 and is the oldest sitting justice currently on the court. Now, I am not sure about his health, but going by the numbers, he is over the average life expectancy for an American male by over ten years. What the upshot of this is the fact that President Bush may get to make another nomination to the high court before his term is over.

What the Democrats must hope for, therefore, is to win the 2008 Presidential Election (no mean feat, that) AND have Stevens survive long enough to be replaced by a Democratic president. This means nothing, as there are multiple cases of justices countering the political persuasion of their respective appointers. Stevens was appointed by Ford, Kennedy by Reagan, Souter by G.H.W. Bush. They can go turncoat to the respective cause at any point.

Or, if you like it a bit less cynical, they truly fulfill their role as members of an independent judiciary, judging matters great and small on their merits and not as a "thank you" to the president that appointed them to a life term.

See, folks, that is the part that should REALLY worry you. One branch of the government that is headed by an unelected board of people who serve until they retire or die. A branch that was never intended to "legislate," but to make rulings on legislation and its concurrence with the law of the land.

In the end, it is again the system and not the situation that is unbalanced.

Dithering On Doyle

Since I wrote two weeks ago, much has happened in the life of Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D).

Or has it?

He had a major victory when his veto of the concealed carry law was upheld by two switched votes. I think that concealed carry should be legal and encouraged everywhere. An armed society is a polite society. Sure, there are risks with allowing people to carry guns everywhere, but I will always maintain that the majority of gun violence does not take place using legal, licenced firearms carried by qualified individuals. Also, the police cannot always be counted on to be there or to do their jobs. It makes everyone a first responder. I digress a little, but I think responsible firearm ownership forms one of the pillars of a free society. Not in Wisconsin, though, I guess.

He is also leading his opponents in fundraising for the 2006 gubernatorial race. This would be encouraging for his backers, but the fall-off in the second half of the year shows a bit of weakness. With all of the recent give-backs and general financing wierdness, some of this "good" news may be dampened a bit.

Where does all of this leave Gov. Doyle? I wager that the price of Doyle shares experienced some volatility, but are as of now unchanged. He seems to be competing with his opponents, but in a state where Republican voters outmatch Democrats almost 5 to 1, it is anyone's guess.

Perhaps he is not as squeaky clean as before but, hey, HE'S A POLITICIAN. It's like eating or sleeping for them. They have to do it; it's part of their lifestyle.

Doesn't make it better, just makes it clearer.

Loose Ends, Words And Deeds

I know that I never finished with what I think of Blago's chances of again being governor of Illinois. In a sentence, neither the primary nor the election are gimme victories for Blago. Eisendrath is a shrewd politician who navigated the choppy waters of the Chicago City Council in the 1980's (remember Council Wars?) If Blago makes it through, he will most likely face (at least in my opinion) Judy Baar Topinka. Of the rest of the GOP candidates, Ron Gidwitz certainly is rich (as is Jim Oberweis) and he is trying to take the education issue away (which is not hard with Blago). Topinka is an old Springfield hack, having served as treasurer under both the GOP and the Dems. Look for crossover votes and also the "Chicago-area Republican" factor here.

Now, there will be more interesting and national morsels of political goodness to come, such as the Alito confirmation and the State of the Union address. Remember there that the context is far more crucial than the content. Think mid-term election year here.

So, join me now. The SOTU is tonight at 8:00P.M., CST. But don't just be there.

Play along with the SOTU Drinking Game.

Yes, That's Two Years From Now...

...but let's have some fun anyway.

I am going to post a list of names of possible presidential candidates from both parties. You, the reader, peruse them and then comment on your take on their possible candidacy, their stand on issues, why you think they are assholes, whatever. Also feel free to suggest other people. This is just a list of who I happen to think are possible contenders.

(the below are in alphabetical order)

Democrats

• Sen. Evan Bayh (Indiana)
• Sen. Joseph Biden (Delaware)
• Gen. Wesley Clark
• Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (New York)
• Sen. John Edwards (North Carolina)
• Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
• Sen. John Kerry (Massachusetts)
• Gov. Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
• Gov. Tom Vilsack (Iowa)
• Gov. Mark Warner (Virginia)

Republicans

• Sen. George Allen (Virginia)
• Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas)
• Sen. Bill Frist (Tennessee)
• Fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Georgia)
• Fmr. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
• Sen. Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)
• Gov. Mike Huckabee (Arkansas)
• Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
• Gov. George Pataki (New York)
• Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice
• Gov. Mitt Romney (Massachusetts)

I have put these names into totally unscientific poll form. Click here to take the poll.

When you are done, come back here and post your comments here, not at MisterPoll.com.

There we are, let's have some fun with electoral politics, my favorite public bloodsport. HST was right when he said it's better than sex.

As ever, the Good Doctor brings it all together.

Judge Foust, You Shoulda Known Better

Well, I guess my gut feeling in my post "Convicted Felons Go To Jail, Right?" was right on (for once).

Judge William Foust, citing precedent, argues that he is powerless to intervene with the House of Corrections in Milwaukee County and force convicted felon Brian Burke to serve his sentence in a jail cell.

While I'd like to tell the judge to grow a pair and challenge this, I guess it is outside the purview of the judiciary to challenge the decisions of the executive branch (wait a minute, isn't that what judicial review is?)

Anyway, I guess there is nothing he can or is willing to do. What he should have known is what I suspected of those who thought he would actually go to jail. Being a judge, and part of the "system," Foust must have some innate trust that the system will ultimately work for all concerned.

A belief, apparently, that allows a politically connected felon to intervene with his old chums in the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department and pull the ol' switcheroo on the whole sentencing thing. Foust, how deluded are you?

I think this almost goes without saying, but he never should have allowed him to leave Dane County. He should have been forced to serve his term in Madison.

Being a felonious ex-legislator and lobbyist, the state capital seems to me to be the logical choice.

Jim and Rod: Chasin' The Dream In '06

Last week, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) both gave their State of the State addresses for 2006. In and of themselves, the speeches sounded like they always do. Both Doyle and Blagojevich looked back (I suspect to pat themselves on their respective backs) to their accomplishments and laid out the "legislative agenda" for the coming year. An agenda, incidentally, that will most likely be ignored by legislatures in each state that are controlled by the opposition party. Well, either ignored or compromised out of relevance.

The similarities between Doyle and Blagojevich do not end there, however. Each man, a first-term incumbent Democratic governor, faces re-election this year. When this is the case, the state of the state address is often seen as the unofficial kickoff for the re-election campaign. Both men also face a difficult road to re-election, but let's make a wild prediction before we get into a deeper consideration of each case.

Jim Doyle will have an easier time getting re-elected than Rod Blagojevich.

Why do I say this? In general, both men are not as popular as a supporter (which I am not of either) would hope with less than a year to election day. Both are facing mounting ethics questions concerning campaign finance, the cause du jour as of late. I believe ultimately that it is how each man has led and the persona that the electorate sees their leader as possessing that could tip the scales leading to a Doyle victory and a Blagojevich defeat.

First, Wisconsin and Jim Doyle. A disputed poll taken in October of last year showed Doyle in a dead heat with Republican challenger U.S. Representative Mark Green (R-Green Bay). The dispute, as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel points out is the small number of respondents and the statistical model on which the poll was based. Even when it was redone, the results were still placing Doyle and Green at almost even keel, at least statistically.

To be sure, Doyle faces a tough battle to stay in office. A curiously timed ethics reform bill may seem to some like trying to sweep corruption and funding "mishaps" under the rug before the election. In a broader scope, Doyle, a Democrat, faces a re-election campaign in a predominantly Repuclican state. From my understanding, Madison and Milwaukee are the two biggest strongholds of the Democrats in Wisconsin. The rest of the state, with the exception of the Native American reservations in the north, seems pretty solidly Republican. Naturally, Green and the other GOP challenger, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker will pull out a tried and true weapon out of the Wisconsin GOP arsenal. They will invariably continue to paint Doyle and his supporters as Madison and Milwaukee liberals who are out of touch with the concerns of the "real" Wisconsin.

Although Doyle has the benefit of being an incumbent, he cannot rely on crossover votes alone. It seems to me that there is little of the cross-party feelings for Doyle that there was for former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, who served from 1987 to 2001 (making him Wisconsin's longest-serving governor). He, much like former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson (R) was a Republican who Democrats would vote for. There is no such feeling, it seems, for Jim Doyle.

What does Doyle have, you ask? Wisconsin's economy, especially the manufacturing sector, has done well since Doyle has been governor. I, however, think that this is a poor way to assess an executive's performance, as the economy is driven primarily by private individuals. I have always questioned this link, but people seem to think that it is important. The government can meddle in the economy, but growth and expansion mostly take place when the government backs off or removes hinderances to economic growth (anyone remember the 1992 Presidential election?)

He also has an asset that The Capital Times (Madison) oddly portrays as a weakness. They say that Doyle is an "effective, if unimaginative, leader" who has failed to inspire people to vote for him again. Granted, the shoes of Tommy Thompson are hard to fill. He made Wisconsin a model for welfare reform and school choice. The school choice program, incidentally, was mentioned by Doyle in his speech and he said it should be extended statewide.

Why do I and the Capital Times differ? Think of your political leaders. So what if they lack some imagination, especially a governor? Most of what the governor wants to happen gets diced up by the legislature anyway. There is never any shortage of ideas in and outside of the party. If Doyle is having trouble, I am sure that his party and supporters can fill his plate to overflowing with suggestions for legislation. "Effective," in this case, I take to mean that he fills the bullet points in the job description and dosen't break the rules (the jury is still out on this).

So the guy is boring. In my completely subjective opinion, Doyle seems mostly harmless. Typical disrespect for what I think should be the purpose of a state government and way to quick to throw money around but, hey, he's a politician. It's what they do. Doesn't make it right, though.

Would you rather boring yet effective or charismatic and ineffective? He is a bit underwhelming, but this is not necessarily bad. I am not sure how many people would feel this way.

That is the choice that faces Wisconsin voters come this November.

Next, Illinois, Blago and what I see as his more serious problem of re-election.

The State Of The State Of The State

I have a few things in the works regarding my (now) two states of interest and their governors and their respective state of the state addresses.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) gave his last night. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) gives his tonight.

I will save most of the analysis for later, but I can wager a guess though the speech content might sound similar, the surrounding circumstances of an impending re-election campaign for both speakers changes everything.

I will also in the coming days, although I will indeed go to hell for it, make some observations about governor's races nationwide and the 2006 elections in general and their possible impact (descending further into punditry Tartarus) on the 2008 presidential election field.

Join me in the abyss, won't you?

Convicted Felons Go To Jail, Right?

Wrong. At least if you are former Wisconsin state Senator Brian Burke (R-Milwaukee).

When I moved to Wisconsin, I was under no illusions that the state government was any less corrupt or back-handed than in Chicago, Cook County or Illinois. What I did expect, however, was that the corruption would (to steal a phrase from Studs Terkel) not be as "theatrical" as in Illinois.

Then comes the conviction and subsequent legal posing in the case of Burke.

The background of this case could have very well come from Chicago. Burke, who served as a Milwaukee County prosecutor and Milwaukee alderman before his 1988 election to the state senate, was once the front-runner to be the Attorney General of Wisconsin. It was during this campaign that he paid aides to solicit donations. When this matter came before the Dane County Circuit Court this year, it was also revealed that he altered documents that were subpoenaed by the prosecution in this case. Read this article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel for further background.

On November 29, 2005, Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Foust convicted Burke of misconduct while in office (a felony) and submitting falsified documents (a misdemeanor). Accompanied by the requisite pleading of loved ones and influential cronies, Foust passed his sentence. When I heard this sentence, I thought that things would be different here in Wisconsin.

Foust actually sentenced Burke to serve six months in the Dane County jail and pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The judge made it clear that he was to serve the time in jail, and not on house arrest. Finally, I thought, one of these corrupt bastards would finally feel the sting of waking up for half a year behind bars.

It was at this point that my Chicago political upbringing snapped back into line.

Was I crazy? Did I actually think that a prominent state politico would find no way out of going to jail?

My gut feeling was right, apparently, and the legal posturing that has taken place would make an old Cook County machine hack proud.

Foust, while being clear on the jail time, allowed that Burke could serve his time in Milwaukee instead of Madison. When he was transfered home to Milwaukee, however, he was placed on home detention under the Huber Law. Big surprise there seeing as he used to supervise these people. He is allowed to go to his job as (get this one) a lobbyist during the day and return home at night. So rather that sitting in a jail cell in the Dane County Jail, he is at his doublessly plush home in Milwaukee still working and coming home at night.

Basically, therefore, the sentence for the felony and misdemeanor was merely a bookkeeping issue. Instead of Dane County and jail it is now Milwaukee County and loose house arrest.

This political sleight-of-hand, fortunately, did not go unchallenged. Yesterday, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard filed a little used motion: a "request for clarification of sentence." This urges Judge Foust to send a letter to the Milwaukee House of Corrections and the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department stating that the purpose of the sentence was to have Burke serve time in an actual jail and not his home. Read the story in The Capital Times (Madison) for more detail on these motions and Blanchard's request.

As the Capital Times story rightly points out, this is a difficult matter. It is standard procedure that, in a criminal conviction, once the judge passes the sentence, it is then in the hands of the sheriff to decide what constitutes the "jail." I guess that Burke's pals in Milwaukee decided that his home was close enough to the House of Corrections. Maybe we should ask the inmates at each facility about their living conditions.

What Foust needs to do is impress upon the Milwaukee County Sheriff that if he knew Burke would avoid actual jail time by being sent to Milwaukee, he would have never allowed it. This would just be an opinion, and one with no legal force at that. Still, Foust did make the ruling and was quite clear in his desire to see Burke behind bars.

There are several issues at work here that make for a typical case of influence politics and avoidance. Of course, the large issue here is the ability of a convicted felon, albeit a prominent one, to avoid the letter of a criminal court judgement. The Milwaukee County Sheriff knew full well that Judge Foust intended Burke to serve time but because of Burke's connection to the office, the term "jail" became instantly flexible. If the sheriff in Milwaukee wants to try and argue that the House of Corrections is overcrowded and Burke's house arrest was because of jail overcrowding, he should have sent Burke back here to Dane County where I am sure there is plenty of room.

Second, and perhaps more egregious, is the application of the Huber Law in this case. While the text of the law (read it at the above link) techincally allows any prisoner to leave incarceration to attend work, medical appointments or counselling, one must wonder about the spirit of the law in this case. I imagine that the law was instituted for those who could benefit from regular work and pay and who may be supporting a family on the "outside." I can also see allowing people, naturally, to leave custody for medical reasons or state-ordered counselling (although there is potential for abuse here). That seems, at least to me, to be the spirit of the Huber Law.

What it was not created for, however, was people like Brian Burke. It was not intended to allow a felon who betrayed the electorate and was convicted to go to a lobbying job during the day and return to his well-heeled home at night. Somehow I feel that when this law was first formulated in Wisconsin in 1913, the framers did not have a millionaire former congressman, convicted felon lobbyist in mind for the reformative and practical benefits of regular work during imprisonment.

I guess I should have known better than to think politicos in Wisconsin were any less connected than in Chicago, Illinois or anywhere else. This editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal typifies the response of people who actually expected Burke to serve time because he was sentenced to do so.

I don't want to be so jaded, but political developments make it a necessary defense mechanism against undue optimism.

Whoever coined the phrase "youthful optimism" obviously had no interest in politics.

Separation of Church And State? Not In Illinois.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is currently being questioned about the legality of his $1 million pledge of state funds to rebuild Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago after a recent fire.

The questions involve the spending of state money to rebuild a church or its property.

The answer to this question should be obvious. The state should not give churches money to rebuild/improve their property. Yet this is exactly what Blago is doing.

How does he explain it? He says that the money from the state will go to rebuild the school and administrative buildings of the church and not the sanctuary itself.

If it was anyone else but Blago, I would think this was a joke.

I would think that no sane person, or at least one with a few neurons, would think that there is a difference between buildings owned by a church and their functions. Sure, the functions are differentiated, but this does not change the fact that THEY ARE OWNED BY A CHURCH!

What is really involved here is the fact that Blago is scared going into an election year. He needs to rally the base and part of this base is African-Americans in Chicago. By making this gesture of state money, he is showing that he will speak to community interests and that Springfield cares and so does he.

They care so much, in fact, that they are willing to ignore the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Illinois to show it.

This blatant indirect vote-buying by the governor shows, as the Jack Abramoff affair is at a national level, that money equals influence. This is not altruism on Blago's part. It is a savvy political move in an election year where he may face a contentious primary for the Democratic party. Granted, he is the incumbent governor. He cannot forget, however, that he is the first Democrat from the Chicago area to be governor since Dan Walker in 1973. Downstate may be laughable to most Chicago-area people, but it can decide elections.

As for the larger issue, this is a fine farewell as an Illinois taxpayer to have my money go to fund a political hand-out to a church that I do not attend in a move that abrogates a basic tenet of American government.

Churches, you are tax-exempt entities. Raise the money yourselves among the members of your congregation. Seek outside funding if necessary. Just not from the state.

Oh, and by the way, if you think that my objection is because this is an African-American congregation and I am a racist ex-suburbanite, you are too ignorant to understand my larger points anyway.

Sorry I couldn't simplify it for you.

Booze and Tobacco: Notes From The Front

• There is legislation before the Missouri state legislature to ban the sale of cold beer. It is thought that this will reduce drunk driving arrests by making it less attractive for people to open beer in the car. This is one of the stupidest pieces of legislation that I have encountered recently (and I am from Illinois). It inconvienences people unnecessarily and has what may be considered as limited deterrent value. Granted, it will make people less likely to consume the beer on the way home. This will not, however, deter the truly desparate person who could care less at what temperature their beer is sold. I can see this piece of legislation failing for these reasons and through no small effort, if it makes it any farther, of Anheuser-Busch (the world's largest brewer who happens to be headquartered in St. Louis). What common sense might fail to prevent Gussie Busch might prevent by lobbying.
• A judge in Virginia is tossing out DWI cases where guilt is presumed. Which, to my knowledge, is damned near all of them. Judge O'Flaherty makes some vaild points about the "small print" in the law that seems to be endemic to all such laws around the nation. First, by picking a limit of .08, it makes the term "intoxicated" artificially rigid. The breath test does not account for a myriad of factors, yet refusal to take one leads to immediate suspensions and consequences. Second, while the court does allow the defendant to challenge the fact that they were intoxicated, notice the legal sleight-of-hand here. The burden of proof, always on the prosecution, is now shifted to the defense. In a sector of the law where rights are suspended and legal certainties thrown to the wind, it is nice to see someone challenging these assumptions. Do I think people should be allowed to drive drunk. Not on your life. What I do think, however, is that the facts of the case in DWI cases need to be considered more than they are. The courts assume that all drunk drivers are the same and put the wheels of the system into motion. It is unfair and needs some serious reconsideration.
• Elk Grove Village, IL, considering a smoking ban, is also considering a ban on tobacco sales. Smoking bans are unfair and anti-small business enough as it is, as we have began to see here in Madison, WI. Well, congrats to Mayor Craig Johnson of Elk Grove Village. You just did Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz one better. To say that you have become more anti-business than Mayor Dave is no mean feat indeed. What Mayor Johnson is forgetting in mulling over this concern is the fact that residents of Elk Grove Village CAN STILL LEGALLY SMOKE IN THEIR HOMES IN ELK GROVE VILLAGE! Here again, as with Missouri and beer, the convienence of the consumer and the profit of the businessperson is a great target for crusading moralistic neo-Puritans in government.

Which Side Are You On?

One Year On: What Have We Learned?

As we are close to the anniversary of this blog, I felt it necessary to consider our place vis-a-vis the major issues of the day. Y'know, take everything into account from the past year and see if we have indeed become better people for considering and dealing with our world.

What a sad failure that exercise is.

The fact of the matter is that we have learned nothing and I doubt that we ever will. Look back at the year that we came through and it proves the assertion.

Hurricane Katrina and the response? Further proof that the government does not care about the people or their safety or lives.

The Karl Rove/Judith Miller/Robert Novak/Valerie Plame (and more) situation? Further proof that the "governing class" cares not for you or I. They scandalize each other and make each other look foolish for the benefit of whom? Nobody, that's who. Further proof, furthermore, that the "secret diplomacy" and government that people so readily assume is gone since the end of WWI is still the lingua franca of those who matter.

My piece on eminent domain of the past year? A shout in the dark as the forces of state development march on. Who ever thought that John Locke and his ideas would be dangerous again?

The basic rights of all Americans to do with their bodies (the most organic form of property) what they wish? Shot down by smoking bans, an ascendant neo-prohibitionism and the rejection of gay marriage. Americans are losing their basic rights daily. I have tried to stem the tide. I hope that all of you act similarly.

Where do we go from here? I guess, for my part, I will continue to try and give my readers a different perspective on the events of the day and give the reminder that rights are taken easily.

What can you do? Never stop feeling uncomfortable with the state of affairs. Question and it will become plain. Also, keep reading this space. I love writing for you. I hope I offer something that is worth reading.

Look forward to more commentary from me. As for you, keep a look out.

I close with the old Chinese curse:

"May you live in interesting times!"

An Era Ends, The Homoginization Rolls On

As I sit here at my old family home, I am greeted by this piece of news. After 107 years, Chicago's landmark Berghoff Restaurant is closing.

First, the personal. I have many fond personal memories of the Berghoff. As a kid, their Christmas decorations were always the highlight of a trip to the Loop. They still are some of the best in the city, rivalling those of Marshall Field's (another local name that disappears on the first of the year). We took high school field trips there with the German Club. I took a group from my undergraduate institution on a tour of Chicago Loop architecture and we ate there. On a more regular basis, I ate there when I worked and later went to graduate school in the city. It was probably the first German food I ever ate. Was it the best? I think that title goes to Karl Ratzsch's in Milwaukee. It sure was good, though.

On a more general level, this represents a further move away from local business and towards national, corporate sameness. Chicago used to seem...well...different. It did not have the same sights, businesses, cultural institutions that you could find anywhere else. This added to the unique neighborhood life made Chicago a special place to live. It was not New York or Atlanta or Los Angeles or Cleveland or Salt Lake City or anywhere else. Special places and people made Chicago what it was.

Now, as I walk around downtown, it is not the same place that it was when I was a kid. This may be because I changed, but I cannot help but notice that Chicago is starting to look like anywhere else. National chain businesses are doing away with local business. The distinct Chicago dialect is frowned upon and is slowly dying as the neighborhoods change, gentrify and lose their sense of place as a space with specific meaning. As people increasingly live in separate compartments in the sky, they are in a different spatial understanding that someone who is more connected to their environment.

Housing begins to look the same, businesses look the same, people sound the same. The only differences are where the [fill in the blank] is in [fill in the "place" name].

The separation is complete. Life in the urban landscape has become sterile, interchangable, replaceable, disposable and ultimately vapid and self-destructive. Place is replaced by indifferentiated space. Sure, it is separated by function and property ownership laws, but this is about it.

The innate meaning that people inscribe on the landscape become standardized and impotent. The city can be replicated and destroyed, rebuilt in a day and torn down without a trace. People play their roles, interact in predictable ways and days merge, blurring time.

Much ado about an old German restaurant? Perhaps. It cannot, however, be ignored that our lives are ever more standardized and dull. The Industrial Revolution did good things, but rarely in history is anything all good (or bad).

Remember, only you can help you change this.

NOTE: If the questions of space, place and meaning are of interest, these books are quite useful:

• Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. (His Topophilia is also quite good)
• Italo Calvino, Imaginary Cities.

The Jenks Response

One of the regular readers of this space, Matthew Gordon "The Beer Tsar" Jenks, has responded to some of my recent posts in rather copious fashion. First off thanks to all who read and respond here. You make doing this worthwhile. Secondly, I will respond/clairfy/expand on some of the aforementioned Beer Tsar's musings as of late (for the original texts, refer to the below referenced posts on this site and the comments therein):

• "Blame Canada." - While I never expected an exodus of everyone from the "blue" states (that would involve my parents) moving to Canada, the results of the election did seem to land like a dull thud. The seeming coincidences of history, however, seem to be playing out. The Ol' Second Term Curse seems to be creeping in and one must wonder about the mid-term elections next year. Will the Democrats get their act together? They have an opportunity to really do something, but as of late, they seem to have trouble getting elected to much more than dog catcher or the joke jobs (Chicago building inspector, for example). As for Belgium, you make some good points. Germany ran over them twice and threatened a third time (during the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War). I can see how the classic French rentier mentality survives; it has often been said that Frenchmen fly their flag on the left, but vote on the right. I think, moreover, that it must be said that Belgium, as we know it, has only existed since 1830 and they are in no way innocent of horrible atrocities in the past. Any time they want to deride the USA, remind them of King Leopold II and his "humanitarian" record in the Congo. That'll shut 'em up. Brussels may be a nice city and home of the EU, but it was built on the blood of millions of Africans. Let them choke on their Chimay with that.
• "The 'Smoke-Filled Room' Commits Suicide." - Well put. As all of you know, I have long been an enemy of the nanny state. The state takes so much. We must fight tooth and nail for what we can salvage of our rights. It is sad, however, that we must concentrate on the mere dignities of life and not the "big" issues concerning our eroding rights. This news today, however, was a good sign. A good fight led in part by Russ Feingold, but if he thinks this is the basis for a presidential run, he's nuts. He will be a latter day Dennis Kucinich.
• "Bucky Vs. A Dead Pope? Advantage Bucky!" - Football and polka? So, you were at the Essen Haus this fall? That describes a large part of my social life. Anyway, I never claimed that Wisconsin is claiming to be a b-ball powerhouse. Their gradual rise over the past years has raised us, I think, to the level of a "regional power." In traditional "Great Power" politics (thanks for the idea to my hero, A.J.P. Taylor), we have not gained Great Power status. Hockey is another issue. We are the best in the land, excepting that one upset against Michigan Tech last week (which was avenged the next day by a 7-0 drubbing). All of the Colorado college hockey teams like bitch-ass Colorado College and it's less hot sister the University of Denver can do various lewd things to certain regions of my anatomy. Namely the ballsack. Sorry for that...I really hate Colorado (with the exception of a few select people).
• "Packers: Take Your Ball And Go Home." - I am a Chicago Bears fan, and you are telling me about teams needing time to rebuild? What the hell were the Dave Wannstead years? Well, and Dick Jauron...and Lovie Smith. The Bears have shown flashes of greatness lately, but are plagued by injury and fines. We must consider, after the embarassing loss to a desparate Pittsburgh team, that the world has not come to an end and that Atlanta is immenently beatable. As for the Packers, yes it is the time to rebuild and regain strength. Chicago teams are notorious for screwing up when it counts, so it could happen. Perhaps it is because I would have no other team as our rivals...we are the classic pairing. Still, it is a great moral victory for the Bears to beat the Packers, regardless of the condition/record of either franchise. It is like any classic rivalry...it can make a bad season good or a good one feel less glorious. I know here at Wisconsin, we had a decent season for King Barry's last, but the Minnesota game is always crucial. Being a Notre Dame fan, I needn't lecture you on classic football rivalries.

So there you go, Jenks. Thanks again and perhaps we shall gather on the ground of the Hoosier State once again.

Blame Canada

I felt that this post needed to happen.

I have had considerable feelings against Canadians (and Americans who would represent themselves as such) recently, and I felt the need to make everything clear.

Apart from the governing class in Canada (a story about which, as related to me be regular COTL reader Greg, will be discussed in turn), I felt the need to compile the...

List Of Canadians Will Shannon Does Not Hate

Gordon Lightfoot
Stephan Jackson and his dad, Gord.
Dr. David Mc Donald, Ph.D.
David Clayton Thomas
Kids in the Hall (Scott Thompson, David Foley, Mark McKinney, Bruce McCullough and Kevin
McDonald)
John Candy
Eugene Levy
Dave Thomas
Joe Flaherty
Rick Moranis
Catherine O'Hara
Harold Ramis
Dan Ackroyd
Andrea Mitchell
Billy Bishop
The Band
Neil Young

See. just admit that you are a Canuck and we will be fine.

As for you Yankee Doodles who claim otherwise, I have one message. There are two crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States: treason and counterfeiting.

The punishment for both is hanging.

I am not kidding.

Christmas Time In The City, Mike Royko Style

I have been resisting saying or doing anything Christmas related this year. The seemingly forced festivity does not correlate with my general mood of stress and impending deadlines. I need another thing to worry about like I need a kick in the shorts.

I did, however, remember a piece by one of my all-time heros, Mike Royko, that always struck me at this time of year. It is reproduced below.

It is one of hundreds of Royko's columns that prove that he was one of the greatest newspaper columnists of all time. Nobody captured the mind, heart and soul of a city like Mike Royko did with Chicago. It's too bad he's gone.

If you get a chance, see the Mike Royko exhibit at the Newberry Library.

This column was originally published in the Chicago Daily News on December 19, 1967.

Mary and Joe, Chicago Style

Mary and Joe were flat broke when they got off the bus in Chicago.

They didn't know anybody and she was expecting a baby.

They went to a cheap hotel. But the clerk jerked his thumb at the door when they couldn't show a day's rent in advance.

They walked the streets until they saw a police station. The desk sergeant said they couldn't sleep in a cell, but he told them how to get to a welfare office.

A man there said they couldn't get regular assistance because they hadn't been Illinois residents long enough. But he gave them the address of the emergency welfare office on the West Side.

It was a two-mile walk up Madison Street. Someone gave them a card with a number on it and they sat down on a bench, stared at the peeling green paint and waited for their number to be called.

Two hours later, a caseworker motioned them forward, took out blank forms and asked questions: Any relatives? Any means of getting money? Any assets?

Joe said he owned a donkey. The caseworker told him not to get smart or he'dbe thrown out. Joe said he was sorry.

The caseworker finished the forms and said they were entitled to emergency CTA fare to County Hospital because of Mary's condition. And he told Joe to go to an Urban Progress Center for occupational guidance.

Joe thanked him and they took a bus to the hospital. A guard told them to wait on a bench. They waited two hours, and then Mary got pains and theytook her away. Someone told Joe to come back tomorrow.

He went outside and asked a stranger on the street for directions to an Urban Progress Center. The stranger hit Joe on the head and took his overcoat. Joe was still lying there when a paddy wagon came along so they pinched him for being drunk on the street.

Mary had a baby boy during the night. She didn't know it, but three foreign-looking men in strange, colorful robes came to the hospital asking about her and the baby. A guard took them for hippies and called the police. They found odd spices on the men so the narcotics detail took them downtown for further questioning.

The next day Mary awoke in a crowded ward. She asked for Joe. Instead, a representative of the Planned Parenthood Committee came by to give her a lecture on birth control.

Next, a social worker came for her case history. She asked Mary who the father was. Mary answered and the social worker ran for the nurse. The nurse questioned her and Mary answered. The nurse stared at her and ran for the doctor. The doctor wrote "postpartum delusion'' on her chart.

An ambulance took Mary to the Cook County Mental Health Clinic the next morning. A psychiatrist asked her questions and pursed his lips at theanswers.

A hearing was held and a magistrate committed her to the Chicago StateHospital.

Joe got out of the House of Corrections a couple of days later and went to the County Hospital for Mary. They told him she was at Chicago State and the baby had been placed in a foster home by the state Department of Children and Family Services.

When Joe got to Chicago State, a doctor told him what Mary had said about the baby's birth. Joe said Mary was telling the truth. They put Joe in a ward at the other end of the hospital.

Meanwhile, the three strangely dressed foreign-looking men were released after the narcotics detail could find no laws prohibiting the possession of myrrh and frankincense. They returned to the hospital and were taken for civil rights demonstrators. They were held in the County Jail on $100,000 bond.

By luck, Joe and Mary met on the hospital grounds. They decided to tell the doctors what they wanted to hear. The next day they were declared sane andwere released.

When they applied for custody of Mary's baby, however, they were told it was necessary for them to first establish a proper residence, earn a proper income and create a suitable environment.

They applied at the Urban Progress Center for training under the Manpower Development Program. Joe said he was good at working with wood. He was assigned to a computer data-processing class. Mary said she'd gladly do domestic work. She was assigned to a course in key-punch operating. Both got $20-a-week stipends.

Several months later, they finished the training. Joe got a job in a gas station and Mary went to work as a waitress.

They saved their money and hired a lawyer. Another custody hearing was held and several days later the baby was ordered returned to them.

Reunited finally, they got back to their two-room flat and met the landlord on the steps. He told them Urban Renewal had ordered the building torn down.The City Relocation Bureau would get them another place.

They packed, dressed the baby and hurried to the Greyhound bus station.

Joe asked the ticket man when the next bus was leaving.

"Where to?'' the ticket man asked.

"Anywhere,'' Joe said, "as long as it is right now.''

He gave Joe three tickets and in five minutes they were on a bus heading for southern Illinois--the area known as "Little Egypt.''

Just as the bus pulled out, the three strangely dressed men ran into the station. But they were too late. The bus was gone.

So they started hiking down U.S. 66. But at last report they were pinched on suspicion of being foreigners in illegal possession of gold.

[Copyright Chicago Tribune (c) 1997]

The "Smoke-Filled Room" Commits Suicide?

Read it and weep, Chicago smokers.

The regular readers of this space know what I think of this issue. There is no more need to kvetch about that part of the issue.

What struck me was a turn of phrase from the past, a term coined in Chicago that popped into my head upon reading this development.

The phrase "a smoke-filled room" was coined in Chicago on June 11, 1920 at the Blackstone Hotel during the Republican National Convention.

The power brokers of the party could not come to a consensus on a candidate. They recessed into a room at the Blackstone and made the decision that Warren G. Harding was their man. The Associated Press reported that the decision was made in a "smoke-filled room."

Ever since, the phrase has been used in political circles to denote a back-room compromise wherein the leaders make an unpopular decision without the input of the people.

The city that birthed the phrase, by textbook example of its eventual definition, made the conditions for its genesis impossible.

Put that in your pipe and...well...at least sleep on it, Chicago.

Bucky Vs. A Dead Pope? Advantage Bucky!

This is the sort of story that makes me glad I slog through local news every day.

For those who are lazy or fingerless, it seems that the telecast of the UW-Madison vs. UW-Green Bay basketball game tomorrow trumps a made-for-TV biopic on the late Pope John Paul II. People are actually mad that they have to stay up until one in the morning to see Jon Voight play the late pope.

Read the damned story. I am not clever enough to make this up.

Bucky (who will most likely administer a thorough rogering to UW-GB), in a real sense, is of more concern than the pope. Well, not actually...

It is not REALLY the dead pope. If he were brought back to life, THEN I could see it trump a non-conference basketball game mid week. As it stands, however, it is just a made for TV movie with Jon Voight as the pope. Is this really the sort of programming that is so timely that one must stay up 'till all hours of the night to see the first time it is broadcast.

The pope is not going to be any less dead. Tivo it or tape it. I guarantee you that the ending will always be the same. Just like that movie Titanic. The boat sinks. Save yourself the trip.

We also are in an area of the country lousy with Scandie and German Lutherans who could not give a good god damn about a movie on the pope, or even Martin Luther for that matter. They want b-ball action from the Kohl Center and by jingo they'll get it. I cannot blame them. This is also the HOME OF THE UW-MADISON, where people care about all of the games, especially against other Wisconsin institutions. You should have seen the place when they played Marquette last weekend. Tickets were going for over $200.

You tell me that these people really care about a toss-off made for TV yawn festival on a story that interested parties already know well and uninterested don't care to learn about.

So, save your breath, set the recording device of your choice and go to bed. He'll still be dead in the morning.

Packers: Take Your Ball And Go Home

I try to keep the content of this blog fairly erudite. Discussing matters of importance and depth, I attempt to make people think and encourage them to respond in a dialogue that hopefully enriches everyone.

Sometimes, however, I must use this space for other reasons.

This post is one of them.

Since I moved to Wisconsin back in August, I have been waiting for this day. My first Bears/Packers game in Wisconsin. As a life-long Bears fan, I relished the notion of being that one jerk in the bar in Wisconsin pulling for the Bears. If they lost, I would have to shut up and go home.

This, thankfully, was not an issue.

Granted, the Packers are just about the shittiest team in the league right now (not to mention the rampant injuries and Favre being an old man), but the Bears are for real. Read the recap of the game and see what I mean.

I have been taking considerable joy this year hearing Packer fans whine and moan about their team. But the happiness that I feel today is worth it.

Now, I must face the prospect of a Bears playoff run in the same year that the White Sox won the World Series (believe me, that last one has still not completely sunk in).

These are the problems you don't mind having.

Rights: A Distant Memory

Stop what you are doing right now and read Nat Hentoff's latest commentary in the Village Voice.

Yep, that's right. The U.S. Supreme Court has, in a big way, lost its jursidiction.

Now people who have suffered some of the most vile and horrid abuses at the hands of the state cannot even gain access to the highest court in the land.

But, frighteningly enough, that is not the worst part.

This even extends to violations of the writ of habeas corpus.

Yes, that most fundamental right that has been a standard in English common law since the thirteenth century, inherited into our common law since the time of the colonies. It is simple, basic and fundamental to the functioning of a free, just and open society.

And now, because of legislative doubletalk and desire for power-without-consequence, this right may be denied to those who should have it the most.

Hentoff makes a special case of the Gitmo detainees, who are doubtless the reason for this bit of legislative detritus.

Think, for a moment, about the implications of a decision like this.

In one fell swoop, one branch of government limited the access of the citizenry (supposedly the granter of power to any government) to another branch of government-the one that should redress grievances of abuse by private parties and the state alike. What is worse is that the limits were placed, voted on and approved BY THE BODY WE ELECT!

I have always been suspect of the Supreme Court, its unelected membership and their ability to affect long-term change without input from the people. One need only to look at the allegations being leveled at Samuel Alito and his now-famous memo to see that these people wield entirely too much power. Now the legislature, who are supposed to be accountable to the people on occasion, have done it. I have never respected many of the people mentioned in the Hentoff piece, and over the past few years, my respect for John McCain has been slipping significantly.

What this proves conclusively, for those who have not yet noticed, is that the legislature and indeed the entire government does not care about the rights of the citizen-even rights as basic as being told why one is being put in prison.

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, I would rather live in a country governed by the first 535 people in the Washington D.C. phone book than by the U.S. Congress. How much worse could they do?

The Bill of Rights and the rights guaranteed by common law are slowly but surely dying in the United States. When we remove the scales from our collective eyes and realize this? We elect these people year after year without thinking of the larger implications of giving such people power. WE are the source of that power, the governed. We give the government power over our lives. They have taken too much and it is time to take it back.

To conclude, I am not sure what can be done. I do, however, take some inspiration in the words (not exactly literally) of Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

From The Mundane To The Picayune

Just a few quick items and observations:

1. This is quite disturbing but not at all surprising. Leave it to the government and the military to engage in a disinformation campaign in their quest for a "free Iraq."
2. Way to keep Hillary honest, Breslin! You are almost as good as Mike Royko. Not quite, but close.
3. Some might call this tasteless, but I think it's brilliant. Laughter heals and satire is needed in such a terrible situation. Those who think otherwise are the people who botched the whole thing in the first place.

Just a taste, as it is semester's end and I am buried under mounds of bound materials.

I am only kidding a little.

At Home With Booze And Tobacco: A Reflection From Madison

(This was originally a response to an email from Matt Jenks regarding the move in Chicago to ban forties. It is reproduced here with links inserted for several of the stories and facts mentioned therein).

Perhaps it is for the best that I moved to Wisconsin when I did. I am quite a fan of the fo'ty. I like to keep a few in the back of the fridge either to prime the pump at the start of the evening or as a nightcap. Nothing says "sweet dreams" like forty icy cold ounces of Camo, Big Bear, OE HG800 and the like.

Madison is a city with real identity problem when it comes to drinking. It is, undoubtedly, awash with booze every day of the week. There is, however, a constant battle between Mayor Dave (the closest thing to a socialist without waving a red book above your head) and the bar owners over power and control. First, about two years ago, the mayor forced campus-area bars to get rid of their drink specials. I hear from my compatriots who have lived here for a while that they were truly monumental (like buy one beer, get five free, 50 cent pitchers). Since that, there has been a scandal involving bars and price fixing of drinks to bilk students out of money. I think that these are just the stupid students who fail to realize that cases of Blatz can be had at area grocery stores for $6.99.

For my part, I don't do much of my drinking at bars. I have a corner tavern that I have started to haunt somewhat regularly, but this is usually at the beginning of the night to eat or to watch the Badger games on Saturdays. I like the fact that, at home, the booze is bought and paid for, I am in control of who is there, what is on the TV, what music is playing and what the temperature. Then there is the issue of smoking.

I am a fairly regular cigar and pipe smoker. Nothing spells relax-o-tation than a glass of bourbon and a cigar the size of a Pringles can. I must stay home to do these things in tandem because of the aforementioned mayor who would make a better prime minister of Sweden than mayor of a mid-sized American city.

For as of July 1, 2005, there is no smoking inside of bars and restaurants in the City of Madison. This, coupled with the pressure on drinks prices, has caused the bar owners around campus, and the Dane County Chapter of the Tavern League of Wisconsin to spearhead an effort to recall the mayor for being decidedly anti-business. I am proud to say that this, among other things, motivated me to register to vote here (I was going to anyway) so that I could sign the petition.
This new law, apart from depriving an already put-upon citizenry of what little joy remains in modern life, has basically signed the death warrant for several local establishements. The most profoundly effected by this have been the bars and restaurants that border on other municipalities in the Madison (except Shorewood Hills which has more stringent smoking regulations than even Madison does).

Also, and most ludicrously, is the fact that no exception was made for cigar bars. That's right, you cannot smoke in a cigar bar, nor can you enjoy a hookah of flavorful tobacco in a Middle Eastern restaurant (a most enjoyable experience, I must say). The city, in doing this, has basically handed these business their "Going-Out-Of-Business" papers. If there was ever any doubt that the mayor and his cadre on the city council and the county board are attempting behavior control and social engineering by legislation, this fact should make it clear.

Now, I understand the notion that the heatlh of employees is an issue in all of this. This issue must be looked at on a local level. There seems to be a plethora of employment opportunities at the same level of experience and pay as restaurant and bar workers in the Madison area. Even a cursory look at the UW jobs site and the local papers lists many jobs in environments that are smoke-free. I hate to use a trite trope, but nobody has a gun to your head, forcing you to work in a bar.

So, where does this leave us all? I think that we all need to take appropriate political action against people like Mayor Dave and declare our independence from laws that deprive us of freedom to act as we choose. In the meantime, however, perhaps speakeasies need to have a resurgance or people will have to follow my lead and say...

"When It Comes To Smokes and Liquor, There's No Place Like Home."

Paris Burning: Intellectual Laziness On My Part

(This is in response to the comment posted by my friend Aaron Cynic on the previous post. I felt I needed to retract a few things and clarify others. Hey, I am an imperfect human.)

Perhaps I made this comment in haste and didn't fully think it through.
I stand by the notion that the French government, like all governments, is ignorant of the concerns of the people that it holds power ocer. I also agree that coercion is never the answer to dealing with the population.

What I was concerned with, and perhaps "neutralize" was the wrong word, is the violence against people and property. Sometimes it becomes necessary to take drastic action to get the government to stand up and take notice. That was the source of my reminder to the French government of their past of such action, not only in 1789, but in 1830, 1848, 1870, 1968.
These people are disenfranchised and therefore do not have access to the system by which political change can be affected. Naturally, then, they must use other means to have their concerns heard.

I am sure that after the last two weeks, the French government has taken notice and possibly might make some changes. Frustration plus disenfranchisement plus poverty can equal disaster. This is clear.

So, to sum up, I retract my unfortunate choice of language and suggestion that people be put down mercilessly. This was an error in judgement made in haste.

As for religion and the French government, I think the record of history speaks for itself. The French government, since the time of Napoleon Bonaparte, has actively sought to subordinate the will of the church to the will of the state. The majority of French people are nominally Catholic. This does not, however, translate into very strong feelings. Churches in France remain empty on most Sundays.

I think that the French identify more with their nationality than with religion and this strikes at the root of the problem at hand. This identity is being defined by different people in different ways and there is a lack of agreement so wide that it has caused violence and a strong-armed response.

I still stand behind the notion that dialogue is better than violence. I do understand, however, that sometimes talk won't work or is not an option. In this case, unconventional means must be taken to bring the issue to the fore.

I am, to reiterate, against government violence against citizens. This breaks the essential contract of democratic government.

I just always prefer peace to conflict. Sometimes, unfortunately, this is not an option.

Thanks, Aaron, for keeping my on my toes with this. I spoke in haste, didn't think things through, and you called me on it.

Also, thanks to Matt Jenks for agreeing with some of my flawed statement (a part that I did not retract above.)

Now, there are some true friends and intellectual fellow travellers.

Thanks again.

Paris Burning and the "Clash of Civilizations"

I felt compelled (before engaging my responses to the last post) to offer a few observations concerning the sustained violence and rioting in France among certain populations that feel that the French government is not respecting their rights.

Click here for the story from the perspective of the larger Arab community.
Click here for the response of French ultra-nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Beyond the ancillary concerns raised by this issue (such as the growth of the right in post Cold War Western Europe and the crisis faced by the French government), the main issue at stake here is the idea of the clash of civilizations.

That term, in its modern form, comes from a 1992 Foreign Affairs article by Samuel Huntington in which he argues that the civilizations of the West and the Arab world are so fundamentally different that their clash in violent conflict is inevidable. This assertion is predicated on the notion that religious ideals run at the heart of every culture and governmental system.

While I would be an idiot to deny that religion is a crucial aspect of culture and society, I must believe that, for most of the world, these personal beliefs can be curtailed in a secular form of government. I believe that governments must, for a start, be completely devoid of religious pretension or the hopes of imparting religious principles and dogma on a population. Unless this can be, no further progress can be made.

Does this smack of Fukuyama and his notion that the end of history comes with the triumph of liberal democracy. Yes and no. Liberal democracy is, in my opinion, the best and fairest way to govern. I cannot, however, agree that this is the final stage of the process. There are still many places where people are mistreated, underrepresented and generally shoved aside by a state that does not have their best interests in mind. Now, I do agree that states usually DON'T have the best interests of their people in mind, but at least with a liberal democracy, your chances seem to historically improve.

The French state is, for all of its problems, a secular one, as are a growing majority of governments in the Islamic world (if there is one thing you could never accuse Saddam Hussein of it is of being an Islamic extremist). The more specific issue here is how this secular state treats religious minorities. Can they legally be denied access to jobs, aid and the benefits of French citizenship. No, but it happens anyway. Do they come from parts of the world where things are a lot worse than they are in France? You bet.

Citizenship is, anymore, a more difficult subject to grasp. With borders falling and linkages of all sorts in place, saying that I am an " " is getting harder and harder. What makes one "French?" The fact of being born there? Living there? What can help to integrate these people into what appears to be a more closed society than our own?

What is clear, however, is that violence and rioting will not make conditions better for the people who most certainly have problems with their current situation. Did it ever occur to them that rioting only makes the police and the state more mad and less likely to compromise with leadership? On the other side, does the French government realize that sticking disaffected immigrants with no hope or prospects in delapidated housing projects is a recepie for disaster?

In a country with a revolutionary tradition and mythology like France, such measures should strike a particular chord with the leadership. Torch bearing mobs of people who want a bigger slice of the pie? Ring a bell?

What is to be done? Neutralize the radicals like the head rioters and the likes of Le Pen. Sit down with people, individuals and hear their concerns with the honest intention of making an equitable solution for all people involved. Remember the individual? The basis of society? Treat people as such and not just as a group to be herded and ignored and you take a step to progress.

Monolithic solutions lead to totalitarianism.

Only individual rights lead to peace.

An Exercise In Community Commentary

Seeing as I often offer my views individually, I thought that I would do my next round of commentary in a somewhat different way.

Below you will find three pieces of opinion/commentary on issues of the day with larger implications. Pick one (or two or all of them), give it a think and respond via a comment to this post, making reference to the piece that you read. All of these struck me as "discussion-worthy," and I wanted to see what all of you think. Feel free also to post your response on your own site and link to it here.

1. Maureen Dowd on the feminism, sex roles and images of gender.
2. Anna Quindlen on correlating Iraq and Vietnam.
3. George Will on the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court.

I will post my responses as well.

Happy thinking (though, not necessarily happy thoughts).

HOLYFUCKINGSHIT Redux

Sorry I had to erase that post. Not because of content, but the large size would push all of these posts down and you would not get the news and comment as quickly as before.

Which you like, right?

Right?

P.S. The Cubs still blow goats.

The News: Scary (Like Halloween)

Let's give this some quick coverage and comment so that I can get home and ignore the doorbell:

1. New Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito, Jr. Where do these people come from? Well, you can't say that the president didn't have a couple of backups. At least this guy WAS a judge at some point. He may not be a Scalia clone. Sloppy seconds?
2. Good to see that some things never change in Russia. Can you give us a definite no, there, Vlad? As a European historian, I never like to hear a Russian leader talk like this.
3. This never really changes either. To quote Rowan Atkinson as Blackadder in Blackadder III, "We don't like the French. We hate them. We fight wars against them!"

So there.

What's On Will's Mind?

Well, lots. Here, for your perusal, are some scattered items that have crossed my mental plain recently.

The Origins of World War I. Was it really the end for the ancien regime in Europe as Arno Meyer would have us believe? I would tend to agree, but would also say that different countries have different systems and different developments. Can it be that simple?

Praxeology. This man's ideas are fascinating.

Postmodernism, relativism and the study of history. I agree with the ideas of Professor Winschuttle in principle, but he comes off as somewhat of a polemicist. How can we engage these brutalizers of the discipline and beat them at their own game? Or have they structured it so that they always win? Or was Henry Ford right when he said history "is just one goddamned thing after another?"

Immanuel Wallerstein. Over-simplistic or brilliant argument of synthesis?

Just lettin' you know what has got a hold of my brain banana.

How about you?

Winston Churchill, A Sox Fan?

Not really just for the recent baseball victory, but a good sentiment for all life. If we work hard and pay attention, we will all win well-deserved victories.

For this situation specifically, I think there are no more deserving group of fans that need a big win than us intrepid, maligned South Siders.

Sir Winston Spencer Churchill called...will you accept the charges?

Now It's Our Turn

WE DID IT!!!

Take that Cubs fans. Feel kinda sad? Well, you should. Nothing beats a loveable loser like, um, a winner.

Congrats guys! You earned it and the South Side is 100% behind you.

"Chicago White Sox, 2005 American League Champions."

Has a nice ring to it, eh?

The Iron Lady On Iraq

(Read my previous post. It's ranting is the main thought for the week. This is simply another interesting distraction).

I have tried to keep my views on the Iraq situation to a minimum on this site, it being the single most overanalyized happening since 9/11. In short, I believe that it is good that Saddam is gone, the military victory was a given, and it seems now that we were not really sure what we were getting into. Positive steps are being made, but a better plan would have naturally given better results.

That said, I read something in The Independent today that really caught my attention.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain (1979-1990), has expressed her doubts over Britain's involvement in the Iraq war.

She agrees that Saddam had to go but that the strategy was convoluted and that involvement has become problematic.

People need to pay attention to these words coming from this person.

Why, you ask?

Three words. The Falklands War.

Yes, folks, this is the PM that led Great Britain into a war with Argentina over a few barren islands with scrubby coastline and a few inhabitants. Broadly, it was Thatcher's belligerence that led to the confrontation.

When a person who started a war over useless islands criticizes your war...

Fine, Go To Canada. More Freedom For Us.

In talking to many of my colleagues here at this educational institution somewhere in the American Midwest (I won't say exactly, but the keener among you I am sure can hazard a guess), it seems that there is a love fest between young, liberal intellectuals and Canada.

It seems that they want to move there, become Canadian citizens and live happily ever after in such riveting places as Toronto (which is like Pittsburgh without a decent football team). They even go as far as to claim they are Canadians when asked about their identities abroad. They are ashamed to be Americans and want to get out of here as soon as possible.

I am, naturally, not new to this position. It seems that whenever things get tough in the US of A, the cowards and fatalists throw up their hands, strap on their skates and head north. They see Canada as the USA without problems, issues or difficulties. They point to the kind, socialist policies of the Canadian government that care for you from cradle to frozen grave. Incidentally, have you ever noticed that real Canadians (not these wannabes) all have a standard, ten minute speech on the benefits of socialized medicine? I think it is like their Pledge of Allegiance.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I am no blind, jingoistic patriot of the "America: Right or Wrong" stripe. We have our problems, societal hangups, economic challenges and political calcification just like any modern bureaurcatic nanny state. It is the nature of the modern state to suffer from such byzantine entanglements because the state becomes an entity unto itself: hard to change and impossible to get rid of.

What I do take considerable umbrage with is the attitude of these people that the idea of America is flawed, that the nation is beyond repair and that the best thing to do is run for the border and I ain't talkin' Taco Bell here.

By all means, get mad, get angry, but then get busy making change happen. Raise peoples awareness of issues, go to meetings of governmental bodies and let 'em know what you think. Exercise those rights that make this nation the great place that it is and can be.

I think that, along with this hatred of America, comes a doubting that the ideas that formed our nation are good, useful and viable, or ever desirable. As almost any schoolkid (at least fifteen years ago they probably could) can tell you, the "idea of America" comes out of the ideas of Enlightenment. From the words of the likes of John Locke, Baron Charles le Secondat de Montesquieu, the Marquis de Condorcet and many more, the vision of a rational, just and fair society migrated from Europe to the newly minted USA. These ideas, in my opinion, form the core of ideas for the most just, fair, equitable and humane society that mankind could ever hope to create.

Is it flawed? Sure is and the authors were the first to admit it, especially the framers of the Constitution. They allowed the thing to be amended, allowed for regular elections and generally put their trust (hesitant in the case of Alexander Hamilton) in the people to forge their own destiny as individuals gathered in a nation.

Now who could possibly have a problem with this? The intellectual of the sort who views the reason of the Enlightenment as stifling and, even worse, the hoary father and mother of the horrors that were inherent in the "short" twentieth century (1914-1991). The likes of Adorno and Horkheimer, in Dialectics of Enlightenment, place the combine of reason, technology and the growth of the state in both at the center of the development of conditions that would lead to Hitler, the Holocaust, Stalin and the terrors that would supposedly bring on this "postmodern" world in the first place.

What must be remembered of Adorno and Horkheimer is the times that they made their ideas were the immediate aftermath (and I mean immediate) of the terror of WWII. No one knew what to make of it; they were just trying to get over the daily fear of death, invasion and incarceration. I suspect that in want of an explanation for the absurd horror of war, they sought the cause in the intellectual heritage of the past centuries.

What is endemic in these ideas is that the Enlightenment saw its end, and thankfully, in the terror of the Second World War and we are now in a period of reaction where the evil forces of reason are in retreat. The postmodern condition allows, in my estimation, for an even more crass brutalization of humankind by the mere fact that it removes it as a prime actor in history.

Apart from atmospheric happenings, most of what goes on here is the doing of people and the "games people play," such as economics, military conquest, social formation, culture and so on. To remove people from the center of this dynamic is to render the whole enterprise on planet Earth meaningless. In this state, take their conclusions to the radical end. Since we are so unimportant and that history will roll on without us, why not some Jonestown-like mass suicides. With the prime actor removed, it shouldn't make a difference.

This is somewhat of a simplification, but the point should be made. Postmodern thinking in opposition to the Enlightentment is the sophistry of the worst order. I prefer to agree with the likes of Jurgen Habermas, Peter Gay and Roger Chartier in thinking that the Enlightenment is not complete and that we are still living in a distinctly modern world. The postmodern idea is simply a radical offshoot of the modernist project of eternal reason and progress. The Enlightenment will never end, but it can change.

It is the legacy of those years that are left to us to ponder, use and define. It is our world, but in a certain way, we play by their rules. We have been bequeathed this great idea of a reasonable and just society that can foster progressive change through the actions of its concerned and thoughtful citizens. THIS is America and it is the America that we should all strive to build.

Or we can be cowards, move to Montreal and bemoan the stupid, philistine Americans with their complete lack of ideas about progress, reason, fairness and true freedom.

Give me a fucking break.

What Ever Would Derrida Say?

Being a historian in this day and age, one gets bombarded with the language of postmodernism, poststructuralism, cultural studies, linguistics and all other such ideas and modalities.

While they are important and can offer the historian a valuable tool for considering sources (although the good historian is always critical of his/her sources and their nature as biased items), the lingo and pretention of the postmodern zealots gets old quick. One also gets the idea that they themselves are not sure what they are on about.

This is why this site, the Postmodernism Generator, is simply brilliant.

Click on the link and PRESTO! Your own postmodern critical essay, complete with references. Don't like it? Click the link at the bottom of the page and get another.

These brilliant folks use a random generator with discursive language to generate these things.

Also, read the wonderful story of Professor Alan Sokal of NYU. A physics professor, he wrote a postmodern critique of science as a parody (it was utterly meaningless) and it was published by a cultural criticism journal. The link takes you to dr. Sokal's site.

Or, since it's Friday, get drunk and pass out again.

Blowback Is Hardly The Word

Well, folks, our fearless leader has done it once more, but it is slightly worse. With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court (you remember, the unelected branch of our government that serves lifetime terms and can change the way the nation works?), he seems to have done the opposite of what everyone thought he was going to do.

Remember that people, in general, thought that John Roberts was a nice, safe candidate with the complete lack of a past or any charisma? Well, this turned out to be true; what was certain, according to most, seemed to be that the next nomination would be a strong conservative with a record to match who would squeak by the Senate, but once there, would move the Court right for the forseeable future?

Not so much. What GWB actually did was reward an old crony with the most plum of sweet government jobs and managed to piss off exactly the people he was hoping to please. Maybe he figured that, what with the "person with no past" Roberts doing well, that a blank slate is the best move.

Not surprisingly, the Internet is simply awash with commentary, whining and general sturm und drang. Here is a fun sampling, but first, my take.

I think that Bush sprung a surprise on the GOP faithful with a crony patronage appointment. While this sort of thing CAN be overlooked at lower levels (hey, I am from Chicago), n0t really for the Supreme Court. She seems, and yes I knew who she was before today, to be somewhat unqualified for the job. She has never been a judge, for a start. Yes, she is a lawyer, but she is the president's personal attorney. Just cause your boss is famous dosen't make you a good lawyer. She may be yet another Trojan horse conservative who will sink the fangs in as soon as robe and gavel are proffered; on the other hand, she could turn into another David Souter.

All in all, I think that this was a smart play from the standpoint of the administration and its machinations. I am not sure if Karl Rove was involved in this, the boss might have just done this one by himself. How can you tell? Well, she has some problems and some strange inconsistencies in her past, but I don't think enough to scuttle her. Bush just has to keep those 55 guys in GOP lockstep and the miracle will happen again. Hell, maybe Scalia is sick...

Now that sampling:

Conservative Bitching and Moaning
Pat Buchanan
Rush Limbaugh
Bill Kristol
Shitload of Conservative Blogs
One conservative group that supports the decision

News, Rumors and Other Sniveling About The Whole Thing
Whoops! Looks like she supported banning abortion! Minus one for George!
She was the Lottery Commissioner of Texas. Jeez, not the first time GWB got her a job.
She gave money to Al Gore...in 1988. Might not count, but BidenKennedyDurbin will make a mention.