Timeo Danaos Et Dona Ferentes

When I heard this piece of news, I was momentarily relieved.

I understand that the jury may be out on the economic impact of the Madison smoking ban. What I could not understand, however, was the refusal of an exemption for cigar bars. No, this was not originally offered.

I should say cigar bar (singular) because to my knowledge, there is only one. Think about the owner of such an establishment when the government that rules your city basically tells you that you will go out of business.

To put it more plainly, who would go to an non-smoking cigar bar. Isn't cigar smoking a sine qua non of the cigar bar.

Why momentarily relieved, you ask?

Well, I thought that Mayor Dave had come to his senses and realized that compromises could be made and that maybe-just maybe-he is a more reasonable person than I had originally thought. This was not to be.

He makes two of the most annoying general arguments that are clearly fallacies of reasoning (read the article to pick these out).

Mayor Dave, I accuse you of commiting the "slippery slope" fallacy and that old favorite post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You see, dear magistrate, just because one action MAY lead to another, it cannot be asserted that it WILL. The "slippery slope" is false because it supposes a chain of cause and effect into the future which is clearly impossible.

Also, you will note that just because Event X precedes Event Y, it does not mean that X causes Y. Let's posit a fun example. My birth in September of 1977 preceded the election of Ed Koch as mayor of New York City by two months. One could say that the two are related.

A less extreme example. You have a chicken vindaloo for dinner. It is spicy and you have nothing to drink. You go out to get a beverage and, while on the way, are killed by ruffians. It could be said, were post hoc ergo propter hoc true, that your liking for spicy food caused your death.

But wait. Maybe I am committing the greatest fallacy of them all.

Yes, you guessed it. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I supposed that the mayor, because he is the mayor, has some sort of higher faculty for diagnosing problems and hashing out solutions. Isn't that what politicians should do?

Should but don't. Silly boy. I know better than that.

Love Crazed Sex Goddesses

The title, unfortunately, is the best thing about this post. I am mired in laundry, Thomas Hobbes and fin-de-seicle Vienna. As Dubliners say about their cathedral (which has no spire) it is utterly pointless.

• NY Governor George Pataki (R) is not recovering from surgery. Why, if you are not related or a NY resident, should you care? He has made presidential noises in past months and it is a sure bet that he will not run again to remain in Albany. A dark horse? Yes, and this makes it all worse. You don't want a diseased president, do you? Well, they are all (to some extent) symptoms of systemic disease, but you get the picture. We are talking actual contagion here.
• Maybe this is the best man for the White House in 2008: Michael Jesus Archangel (R-Michigan). He is both Jesus AND the archangel Michael. Talk about yer holy package deal. I like the machete in the picture and his website is worth a read. Well, it proves that, in theory, any native born person over the age of 35 can run for president.

Can But Won't (Or And Did)

Today in particular, one such as myself feels compelled to speak on the subject of the "holy day of obligation" among people in personal relationships. Yes, I am naturally speaking of Valentine's Day.

One such as myself, you ask? As a relatively embittered and cynical person who would love to believe that people and their motives are inherently good (but keeps being presented evidence by the cosmos that they are the exact opposite), I also am in the delicate position of having a majority of my friends involved in relationships, either marital or otherwise.

Should this limit what I can and cannot say? Of course not.

So, indeed, what could I say (I am not saying that I will) about this hallowed day?

First, I could indeed make the practical and historical argument that the personality of St. Valentine is not on sure ground at all. It could have been one of three martyrs or simply (according to the ancient Romans), the day on which birds seemed to begin to mate. So there is that that I could, but may not, say.

I could also point out that this is another commercialized holiday where the feelings of people (the basest of these, I might add) are played upon by countless industries to fetishize these emotions, commodify them and make them just another part of our consumer society. That, however, would be too easy and not totally consonant with my beliefs. I think that if you are clever enough, within the law, to create demand out of nowhere and bilk idiots of their disposable income, you deserve every penny you earn and I only wish that I was as clever as you.

I could, it seems, extend that argument to the nature of personal relationships themselves. I could say that the exchange of gifts and, euphamistically, physical expression of emotion are part and parcel of the same process of exchange. Gifts are given, and in return, acts are performed. One might counter by saying that these certain salacious acts are done of will and for genuine feeling for the person. It cannot be argued, however, that it is natural for human beings to reciprocate when given something of value. What form that reciprocation takes, I would maintain, is not as important as the fact that it takes place. I could even go as far to invoke the crass desigantion of this day as "National Steak and a Blowjob Day." That is to say, that is something I could say.

Taking this argument even further, how can one argue that directly exchanging goods of value for services, be they "romantic" or otherwise is wrong? I am, naturally, speaking of prostitution. What laws that prohibit prostitution basically say is that you can yield temporary sovereignty over your body and its functions for free but not for a price.

How, then, is this consistant with a view that someone should be compensated for their exertions? Well, I guess they are, but why be indirect about it? It is when the exchange of money and the exchange of "emotion" come into direct contango that the problems seem to arise. Set this dichotomy in a society that has its moral basis (and, rightly or wrongly, many of its legal strictures) and very foundation in a group of Protestant English religious fanatics, and you are bound to get some interesting notions of marriage, relationships, prostitution and sexual morality in general. One could argue that.

We could take another path, and I could argue that only a fool or a slave willingly surrenders freedom for security and it is no different in a personal relationship than in society as a whole. At the end of the day, one should at least have dominion over one's person and mind. To not have this is slavery. When in a relationship, it seems that this freedom is abrogated time and again for the purpose of compromise and security, knowing that to render such freedom might serve to protect the basis of the relationship, whatever it may be. Interpersonal relatioships should be for the mutual betterment of the minds and souls of those involved and this condition cannot occur amongst unfree actors. What results is a dangerous mix of freedom and domination wherein neither party seems completely at ease with the results at any given time. That is, for example, another thing I could assert.

In closing, I realize that a lot of what I said above is hypothetical. It may not seem to apply to your situation. Remember, of course, that this is what I COULD say, not what I am indeed saying. Because someone would have to be a really horrible human being to believe those things I said, right?

Right?

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!"