Just a knife.

Seeing a lot of people say Jacob Blake was "armed," and thus his shooting was justified. According to DOJ, there was a knife on the floorboard of the car he was trying to enter, but he had no other weapons on him. https://t.co/oH6432izaW

— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) August 27, 2020

Things that are not actually "buried."

Gee, look at this "long-buried" 1989 column that I found simply by searching "Bernie Sanders" in https://t.co/DyMrsy52Aj. In it, Sanders claims Fidel Castro's Cuba has "no hunger, is educating all of its children and is providing high quality, free health care." pic.twitter.com/n9nYzs8NYH

— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) February 24, 2020

Bernie's competition is stunningly noncompetitive.

And as ever... people see what they want to see.

Winning.

Donald Trump got 46.1% of the popular vote. Mitt Romney got 47.2%. https://t.co/bV5w4SheQF

— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) April 20, 2019

"If one is willing to grant Clinton a bit of comedic license ('basket of deplorables' really is a funny line), her change in tone might actually help her in the long run."

"The two candidates are polar opposites; Trump can't build a wall between his brain and mouth, while Clinton is painfully lawyerly and cautious. This was a rare moment where it appears she said something she actually thought, not something that had been run through the Public Opinion-o-Tron 3000 before being fed into her mainframe."

Writes Christian Schneider in USA Today.

My opinion is: She said something she actually thought because she incorrectly believed it would serve her cause. I don't give credit for that. As for Trump, he's not saying everything he thinks, and if you think he is, congratulations, you are his dupe. 

"Despite what you've heard, tenure is unchanged."

Explains Christian Schneider in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This piece begins with some funny — funny now — material:

A century ago, the American Association of University Professors issued its famous "declaration of principles" in response to several high-profile faculty firings. These principles, such as insisting that only faculty members may judge one another, were meant to protect academic freedom within university systems.

What immediately followed could be considered the Golden Era of Terrible Research. In 1916, University of Wisconsin-Madison psychology professor Michael Vincent O'Shea developed a child development theory that said children shouldn't be scolded for having dirty hands and bad table manners, and that 16- and 17-year-old boys shouldn't be allowed to show interest in girls. University progressives were busy working their eugenics theories, which they believed would create a master race if the feebleminded were sterilized.

That same year, UW-Madison medical school professor H.C. Bradley gave a speech in which he extolled the nutritional virtues of cannibalism. Bradley said the "ideal food would be man flesh" and other meats are indigestible when compared with "human steak."

Schneider's key substantive point — which I've blogged already — is that "tenure will be alive and well, it just will be the responsibility of the regents, not state law." This protection at the state level (which goes back only to 1973) is unique in the nation.

Meanwhile, at Talking Points Memo, "Josh Marshall Says Goodbye To One Of America’s Great Public Universities" is the front-page teaser, going to a piece titled "Goodbye, Madison," which NOWHERE mentions that the change is only moving tenure from the state statutory level to the regent level, putting Wisconsin in the same position as everywhere else. This deceptive article is illustrated with a photograph of Governor Scott Walker looking like an idiot who doesn't give a damn.

You know, it was just a year ago that liberals were getting upset about Michigan taking a decision away from the state university's regents and putting it into the state law. If the level at which university decisions are made matters, which way does it matter?

"Within minutes, Star Wars enthusiasts and Walker non-enthusiasts alike descended like locusts, parsing every syllable of what was clearly a joke..."

"Questions from these people flooded Twitter — who is 'that boy?' Who is 'another?' In the original quote, wasn't Yoda referring to Princess Leia? Or alternately, Anakin Skywalker? And what does a woman look like in person? It was just the latest example of a phenomenon that has gripped society in the Internet age. Once an oxymoron, social media has given rise to the 'nerd bully.'"

From "The nerd uprising is upon us," by Christian Schneider.

"Other columnists have argued that the conservatives' quick action to replace Abrahamson is overplaying their hand."

"But it is no such thing; the chief's chair is rightfully Roggensack's, and delaying her ascension to the seat simply would be giving oxygen to Abrahamson's charade."

Writes Christian Scheider in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (about the lawsuit Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson brought to keep her position as chief after Wisconsin voters amended the state constitution to change the selection process from seniority to a vote of the 7 justices).

By the way, I wouldn't have used the word "ascension." When you're elected to a position, do you ascend? Funny that bothered me. It was just yesterday that I finished reading the book "Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson)," by Robert A. Caro. It's the story of how Lyndon Johnson first got his senate seat in 1948. It wasn't by winning an election. It was by stealing an election... most outrageously.

Why did Scott Walker attack the University of Wisconsin's century-old "Wisconsin Idea" slogan/mission?

"On the one hand, the Wisconsin Idea is a relic of Progressive-Era gasbaggery. The idea that the Wisconsin public university system could reach its fingers into every corner of the state was cooked up by university leaders like Charles Van Hise when he wasn’t trying to rid the state of 'defectives' through the practice of eugenics. In the past 100 years, anyone who rightly criticized any wasteful practices at the UW were met by howls of 'but the Wisconsin Idea!,' as if the mere invocation of the term constituted the last word. On the other hand, the Wisconsin Idea is a pleasant, optimistic goal. With the Wisconsin Idea as its guiding principle, the UW-Madison has become a world class public university.Further, discovering and disseminating knowledge, stimulating society by developing heightened cultural, intellectual, and humane sensitivities, and public service to improve the human condition are all wonderful things. And if it brings pride to those who work for or attend the university that those things set the UW apart from other public universities, then great. Which is why when Gov. Scott Walker decided to strike portions of the university’s mission statement and add sections of his own, it came off as a really weird fight to pick. For instance, Walker struck the portion of the statement that says, 'Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.' Should the university be researching more lies?"

Writes Christian Schneider on a topic I feel compelled to explore in greater depth, but I haven't got time right now, so I'll just say, in answer to that last question above that the statement — "Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth" — is itself a lie. Of course, it's politically weird, to cross out truth, but that statement about truth is a lie. So if you really, seriously, wanted to be meticulous about truth, you would cross out that lie about truth.

But who can be that meticulous in political discourse? Not Scott Walker. And not the university that must inspire and retain the confidence of the people of the state. Inspiring the people of the state to care about us and love us and support us, we obviously have a purpose to which the search for truth is not basic — a purpose that we serve by asserting that truth is basic to all of our purposes.

How to think about the question "Was Mary Burke fired from Trek?"

Christian Schneider offers 4 pointers:

1.  The debate seems to be largely one of semantics...

If your father and brother decided they wanted to remove you from your position in the family company, they wouldn't label you "fired." They'd probably do what they could to shield you.

2.  When asked for sales number from Burke’s European days by the Associated Press, John Burke said that he “did not have detailed financial records from that far back, but there was one year where the company had a loss.” The idea that a multimillion dollar corporation that operates around the world doesn’t keep financial records from 20 years ago is preposterous.  If there are no records, then where does Mary Burke get the numbers that she raised sales from $3 million to $50 million? Further, how is it that Trek has enough institutional memory to trash its ex-employees who are named in the initial story, but can’t seem to remember why Mary Burke left the company?...

These are Schneider's substantive points. Point 3 is just tweaking liberals for treating this one secretive big corporation differently from others. Point 4 refers to the assertion made (by whom?) that Burke "moved Trek’s European offices from Frankfurt, Germany to Amsterdam because she 'didn’t care for the German people' and because Amsterdam 'better reflected her lifestyle.'" I don't see what that has to do with whether Burke was fired, and Schneider seems to be repeating what he admits is "entirely hearsay" because it might offend the many people of German extraction who live in Milwaukee, "the most German city in America."

Anyway, that hearsay, even if true, is paraphrase. A preference for Amsterdam as a base for an American bike company might be quite sound, and who knows what casual things one might say explaining that decision to confidantes?

ADDED: Another former Trek employee comes forward, this time in defense of Mary Burke: "As Mary does everything, she put her heart and soul into the task," Denise DeMarb wrote. "Did she make mistakes, probably. Was she under pressure, certainly. Did she perform a huge feat — yes she did." DeMarb is president pro tem of the Madison city council.

When Obama came to Milwaukee on Labor Day, he did a photo op with Governor Walker but not with Walker's Democratic Party opponent Mary Burke.

Why? Apparently, it's because Walker wanted to be seen with Obama and Mary Burke did not want to be seen with Obama. So, again: why? Citizen Dave (former Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz) says that Burke didn't want to seem "too close (metaphorically and literally) to an unpopular president," and Walker chose to highlight "Burke's unwillingness to stand with the president symbolically." Walker "had nothing to risk."

I'd put that more positively: Walker is a Republican hanging onto his popularity in a blue-to-purple state, and showing his relaxed camaraderie with Obama makes him seem moderate and able to work with others. It's similar to Chris Christie, when he was up for reelection in 2012, walking with Obama amid the wreckage of Hurricane Sandy. Except Christie was making a play for help after the disaster and risked looking as though he wasn't conservative enough for Republicans who might reconsider whether he's the right fit as a 2016 presidential candidate. But Walker needs nothing from Obama, and he benefits from looking capable of relating to Democrats. He's in no danger of seeming as if he's secretly liberal. His conservative credentials are firmly established, and no one would think he was aligned with Obama. So he's free to do photo ops just to look friendly and normal... and dignified and substantial.

But back to Burke. The President, her party's leader, comes to her state, and she avoids him? Citizen Dave says that "Burke campaign's strategists -- they're thinking too much." Her campaign strategists? What about her?  Dave says: "It seems to me that when your party's president shows up in your state, a gubernatorial candidate should just go stand with him, tell the crowd that he's great, and let him say the same thing about her. Nobody would hold that against Mary Burke." But do we hold it against her when she avoids him? It seems timid, at the very least, and, indeed, Dave proceeds to talk about her missing an opportunity to fire up "the base... especially African Americans."

Would the people in the middle really have held it against her if she'd stood with the President? Dave seems to think there was no risk, but Obama's Labor Day visit was quite union-oriented. He spoke on a stage where the scenery was a lot of people in AFSCME t-shirts and at least one prominent blue fist t-shirt. I think Ms. Burke had something to worry about there, looking too connected to the public employee unions.



The Democratic Party's "base" here in Wisconsin may love that visualization of our state as a blue fist, but I think it's offputting to those of us in the middle who see the value of peace and good order and who will probably determine the outcome of the election.

ADDED: I'm just now reading Christian Schneider's piece and realizing that Mary Burke was present on the stage (of what was called "Laborfest") and that she departed at the point when Obama began speaking:

Burke's desire to avoid being photographed with the unpopular president is particularly comical, given that everyone knows that her jailbreak was entirely a product of campaign strategy....

Yet Burke's photo op had to be sacrificed at the altar of campaign "strategy."...

Burke wanted to avoid the visual of standing near Obama because she knows the picture would be run over and over to equate her politics with the president's....

[Burke] may even get the chance to dodge Obama again before the big election. The only question will be why he allows her to disrespect him so — if he comes back, he should jump into the background of every photo op in which she takes part. Call it the "Photobama." 

AND: For the original post, I took my facts from Mayor Dave, who wrote: "Mary Burke, who attended the rally, did not appear on-stage with the president." Based on that, I speculated that she might not have liked the t-shirt scenery, especially the blue fist. But now I think I understand that she was on the stage and she ducked out specifically to avoid appearing with Obama. That's really flagrant Obama-shunning, and I withdraw my speculation that she might have had the alternative motivation of wanting to avoid the appearance of too close an alliance with the public unions that Governor Walker is known for having tamed.

A football note.

I think we can all agree that after the opening drive of a preseason game, Packers are now the favorites to win the Super Bowl this year.

— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) August 16, 2014

Reading TNR's "Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker" is "like going to a movie called 'Godzilla,' only to find out that it's a Keira Knightley Victorian era period piece."

Christian Schneider "kept waiting for a single example of Walker's 'toxic racial politics' and found exactly none."

In monster movies, directors have to make a decision as to when to finally reveal the monster. Audiences generally get at least a half hour of rustling trees and shaking water glasses before the monster finally bursts onto the screen.

But in MacGillis' article, though the trees rustle and the water ripples, the monster never appears.

"Somewhere, someone needs to create a 'Ridiculous Legal Document Hall of Fame.'"

"It would proudly house the contract visitors have to sign to enter Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. And it would feature the $416 million lawsuit filed against Michael Jordan in 2006 by an old man who complained that he suffered harassment because he looked too much like the basketball star (despite being six inches shorter). Last week, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley produced a legal document so preposterous it would warrant its own wing. Bradley's recusal from a state Judicial Commission case against fellow Justice David Prosser is a nakedly partisan hit job."

Opines Christian Schneider in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (Read the whole thing.)

Did you watch the Tammy and Tommy debate?

I did, and one of the things I said out loud while watching it was: "I'm glad I didn't blog that I was going to live-blog this." I had, however, blogged to predict that it would be boring, which it mostly was.

We did get some laughs, especially when Tommy said "I built Wisconsin," which he later modifed to "We built Wisconsin." I lost count of the number of times he said he was governor "for 14 years," which was nearly always followed by the statement that he lowered "taxes 91 times," which tied to Tammy having no "record to run on" and being "a taxer and a spender." Those were his talking points.

Scott Walker says "They are so desperate... they have to make crap up..."

"It is sickening… I think this will backfire, and I think there are a lot of Democrats across the state that will say that this is what is exactly what is fundamentally wrong about politics in America today."

And he predicts that he'll win "by a large margin"... because "voters have had it — they’re disgusted and they’re ready to move on."

Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch — who faces a recall election on June 5th — makes a great joke, apparently by accident..

Christian Schneider reports from a Tea Party rally in Caledonia, Wisconsin:

Kleefisch, who is facing a recall challenge on Tuesday from Madison firefighter Mahlon Mitchell, began her fiery speech by invoking David and Goliath. She likened the “big union bosses from out of state” to Goliath, accusing them of coming to Wisconsin to “pick a fight with David.” Kleefisch pointed out that in the story, David had five stones, then rattled off a number of the reforms Governor Scott Walker enacted, calling them her “stones.”

Pausing briefly, Kleefisch raised her voice, and said, “Our opponents, despite their money and their muscle, don’t have the stones!” After a few seconds of stunned laughs and cheers, she continued. “I was in the middle of a sentence,” she cautioned. “Our opponents don’t have the stones to move Wisconsin forward like you do,” she clarified.

Later, Kleefisch would tell me that her timely pause wasn’t intentional. “I was in the middle of telling a Bible story and people just started laughing. I can’t explain it,” she said.

Did Kleefisch intend/notice her own joke?
	It was totally planned.
	It was accidental but she noticed it and pretended she didn't get it.
	It was accidental and she didn't even get it when nudged to see it.
pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: I need to expand the permutations of the first option:

Did Kleefisch intend/notice her own joke?
	It was totally planned and she understood it all along and pretended she didn't.
	It was planned, but not by her, and she got it later but pretended she didn't.
	It was planned, but not by her, and she never got it.
	It was accidental but she noticed it and pretended she didn't get it.
	It was accidental and she didn't even get it when nudged to see it.
pollcode.com free polls

"2011 was a year when unions said 'it wasn't about the money'..."

"... before many of them (including Madison city workers) rushed back to the bargaining table to 'Walker-proof' their benefits before the new collective bargaining law went into effect."

While statewide unions said they would accept the increases in health and pension contributions, many local unions clearly weren't reading from the same playbook.

Speaking of money, during the summer, unions spent over $20 million to [try to] unseat six Republican state senators who voted for Walker's plan. This exposed exactly why it's about the money. Government employees merely serve as conduits for taxpayer funds to work their way to the unions, who then spend money electing obeisant legislators to negotiate favorable contracts. Shockingly, lefty "good government" groups appear not to have a problem with this blatant purchase of favors.

Christian Schneider in Isthmus, "The Wisconsin left made a spectacle of itself in 2011." Read the whole thing.

"More Details Emerge in Wisconsin’s ‘Chokegate.'"

A very interesting article by Christian Schneider at The National Review:

The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.

As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.

That sounds like Schneider interviewed Prosser, but we're only told that he had "multiple sources with first-hand knowledge."

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs... During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

Indeed, if we believe Bradley said "That’s only because you broke us apart" when someone pulled her back from behind, it would seem that the "pressure" that would have occurred but didn't would have been the result of her forward movement toward Prosser. That's the evidence a criminal defense lawyer would milk if there were an actual trial here.

During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.

Bizarre.  What an immense breakdown of collegiality! And given this horrible, complicated incident, why did anyone choose to incur the damage to the court's reputation by dumping it into the press? As Schneider notes, if Bradley had initiated any kind of formal criminal procedure, Prosser would have had procedural protections. Instead, "the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story." Who were the 3 sources? We don't know whether all (or any) of the 3 sources were eyewitnesses, but if they were, it's hard not to conclude that they were Bradley and Abrahamson. There would still need to be one more source antagonistic to Prosser. Maybe all the sources were court personnel who heard about it second hand, and the Center for Investigative Journalism based its story entirely on hearsay. I hope so.