26 जून 2011
"Can 'fake' Democrats really pull an upset" in the Wisconsin recall primaries?
Here in Wisconsin, 6 Republican senators are facing recall elections, and there must be a challenger in that election. How is it determined who that challenger will be? Republicans are forcing primaries by fielding Republican candidates vying for the challenger position in the recall election. This apparently isn't just a delay tactic. Wisconsin has open primaries, so there is nothing stopping voters who like the current Republican senator from showing up at the primary and voting for a Republican challenger instead of the Democrat, which would make the ultimate recall election a battle between 2 Republicans.
If, as Franklin says, it's hard to educate voters, why would that problem favor one primary candidate over the other? We're talking about districts that went Republican in 2008, which was a strong year for the Democrats. Why shouldn't the people who want a Republican senator head over to the open primary and vote for the Republican? I think a lot of people are irritated that recall elections are happening at all, that Democrats have failed to accept the results of the last regular election. These people have every reason to come out to the primary and protest against the whole misguided recall movement.
... Mordecai Lee, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, [says] the primary elections are likely to have very low voter participation, and low-turnout elections tend to attract more conservative voters than high-turnout races....It seems to me that the whole idea of recalling a senator is a protest, and anyone trying to unseat him might as well be called a protest candidate. What makes the Democrat challenger "real" and the Republican challenger "fake"?
Charles Franklin, a political scientist at UW-Madison, considers the likelihood of a protest-candidate win as "remote but not impossible."
"What makes it remote," he says, "is that it requires a tremendous amount of coordinated effort" to educate voters on which candidate to favor, and then get them to the polls.
If, as Franklin says, it's hard to educate voters, why would that problem favor one primary candidate over the other? We're talking about districts that went Republican in 2008, which was a strong year for the Democrats. Why shouldn't the people who want a Republican senator head over to the open primary and vote for the Republican? I think a lot of people are irritated that recall elections are happening at all, that Democrats have failed to accept the results of the last regular election. These people have every reason to come out to the primary and protest against the whole misguided recall movement.
Gov. Walker signed the budget bill today, applying his powerful veto pen to 50 items.
What did he veto?
... Walker struck out dozens of budget provisions, including one that would have allowed bail bondsmen in Wisconsin. He also used his veto pen to bar public employees from collecting pensions unless they work for a state or local government for five years or more.Yes, think about what that means and what he might have done with it if he were the arrogant dictator the protesters have been making him out to be.
As previously announced, the GOP governor also vetoed a provision that would have allowed most fired Milwaukee police officers to continue to receive pay while they appealed their dismissals. Walker has the broadest veto powers of any governor in the country, allowing him to strike out entire provisions of the budget or rewrite sections by selectively crossing out words.
Wearing khakis, a blue shirt and no tie, Walker signed the budget Sunday afternoon at Fox Valley Metal-Tech in Green Bay before a crowd of about 100 people. The governor originally planned to hold the event at the nearby Badger Sheet Metal Works, but changed those plans Friday after the Journal Sentinel reported the company was headed by someone convicted of tax evasion. A few hundred protesters gathered outside the manufacturer, chanting "Shame!" as those invited to the speech entered the parking lot. They held signs decrying budget cuts and chanted, "Recall Walker!"Was Meade there to get it on video? We shall see!
"List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters."
#1 on the list of 100 Longest Entries on Wikipedia — a hilarious list that had me asking Who the hell is Larry Norman? and Fanny Crosby? And why all the fuss about Italian moths? And euphorbia?
(Via Instapundit.)
(Via Instapundit.)
How stupid/evil was Bill Lueders's attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?
Yesterday morning, I first read the story written by Bill Lueders — of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism — saying that "Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers earlier this month."
I'm linking to the publication of the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, because it seems to be the original version of what Lueders wrote. The version that now appears at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has been — according to a note in red at the top, time-stamped 10:15 p.m. — "updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations." But "updated" does not mean that there is an update at the bottom of the original text, adding new material or noting mistakes. The article has been rewritten, so the flaws that I am going to write about here can no longer be detected.
I first read the Lueders article after it was noted in an email that went out to the Wisconsin Law School faculty. I won't quote that email, but my immediate emailed response was: "I think it would make an interesting object of study for a journalism class."
By the way, the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, as you might imagine, purports to model high journalism values. It is "a first-of-its-kind alliance with public broadcasting journalists in six cities around the state, plus students and faculty of the journalism school at Wisconsin’s flagship university." Wisconsin's "flagship university" is, of course, the University of Wisconsin—Madison, my place of employment. I'm not inclined to hurt my own university, but I will make my observations as I see them. This is an object of study for the little journalism class of the internet that is this blog post.
Over the course of the day, yesterday, on lefty blogs and Twitter, there were vicious attacks on Prosser, with many opponents of Prosser (and Scott Walker) asserting that Prosser must leave the court. He should resign (or be impeached or recalled). I linked to a blog post over at Think Progress, where Ian Millhiser concluded:
I first noted the Lueders article in this post, where I excerpted 2 paragraphs and wondered about Lueders's reference to his sources: "The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships." Lueders said he had "three knowledgeable sources," and that he had contacted Prosser for a response and that Prosser had said "I have nothing to say about it."
The Journal Sentinel then cites "another source" that said "that Bradley attacked Prosser." Here we get the first allegation that Bradely "charged him with fists raised" and that Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," blocking her, resulting in hand-neck contact.
The Journal Sentinel begins a new paragraph with "Another source..." If that is not miswritten, we now have a third source — "another" and then "another" — that's the second and third source. This third source, like the second source, has Bradley coming at Prosser "with fists up" and Prosser reacting defensively. This source — which I'm seeing as the Sentinel's third source — confirms the first source in saying that Bradley called it choking at the time. This source also has a Justice (not Prosser) reacting by saying "You were not choked."
Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.
I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?
Maybe Prosser had "nothing to say about it" because the "reconstructed account" Lueders recited contained the allegation that Bradley charged at him with raised fists. Prosser did comment later in the day — a day full of destructive attacks on him, which speculated about the meaning of his absence of comment. Those attacks assumed that Prosser knew the story in the form that would appear in Lueders's article. But did he? I want to know!
In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said:
Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?
Now, let's go back to what Ian Millhiser said: "Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous." All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?
Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.
And what are the methods of ouster? Refer to the list in Millhiser's post: 1. Resignation, 2. Impeachment, 3. Removal by Address, and 4. Recall. A newly reelected official, under Wisconsin law, cannot be recalled for a year. Unlike Prosser, who was just reelected, Bradley is subject to recall. Impeachment and removal by address are procedures that take place in the state legislature. But the state legislature is controlled by the Republicans, who aren't likely to go after Prosser. Only Bradley is vulnerable to impeachment and removal by address if the legislature is influenced by political ideology. And if either justice is removed, the replacement will be named by Governor Scott Walker, so only Bradley's ouster will change the conservative-liberal balance on the court.
See what I mean about stupid? If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out? If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil. And make no mistake about how stupid: His article initiated a day of furious writing by liberals that threatens to hurt Bradley and the liberal interests in Wisconsin.
ADDED: I corrected a mistake in the paragraph that begins "Maybe Prosser had 'nothing to say about it'..." It was originally missing the word "had" and said "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited contained the allegation" instead of "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited did not contain the allegation..." UPDATE: It was right the first time, as someone in the comments pointed out! I uncorrected it. And now it's un-uncorrected. Sorry for the confusion!
ALSO: Instapundit says: "It’s as if the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is just a partisan hit shop or something."
IN THE COMMENTS: Bill Lueders himself responds:
Lueders doesn't say how much (if at all) he probed into the context of what happened. I'm puzzled by his lack of curiosity about a story that is so inherently hard to believe. Why did the Journal Sentinel so quickly turn up a more complex version of the story? Was Lueders willfully incurious? Why did he pass on such an odd story without asking the questions that an ordinary person would instinctively ask? Or did he ask those questions? Did his sources insist that Bradley was sitting or standing peacefully and Prosser suddenly lunged at her? Or did he snap up the useful version of the story and run with it? It just doesn't add up to me.
I'm linking to the publication of the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, because it seems to be the original version of what Lueders wrote. The version that now appears at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has been — according to a note in red at the top, time-stamped 10:15 p.m. — "updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations." But "updated" does not mean that there is an update at the bottom of the original text, adding new material or noting mistakes. The article has been rewritten, so the flaws that I am going to write about here can no longer be detected.
I first read the Lueders article after it was noted in an email that went out to the Wisconsin Law School faculty. I won't quote that email, but my immediate emailed response was: "I think it would make an interesting object of study for a journalism class."
By the way, the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, as you might imagine, purports to model high journalism values. It is "a first-of-its-kind alliance with public broadcasting journalists in six cities around the state, plus students and faculty of the journalism school at Wisconsin’s flagship university." Wisconsin's "flagship university" is, of course, the University of Wisconsin—Madison, my place of employment. I'm not inclined to hurt my own university, but I will make my observations as I see them. This is an object of study for the little journalism class of the internet that is this blog post.
Over the course of the day, yesterday, on lefty blogs and Twitter, there were vicious attacks on Prosser, with many opponents of Prosser (and Scott Walker) asserting that Prosser must leave the court. He should resign (or be impeached or recalled). I linked to a blog post over at Think Progress, where Ian Millhiser concluded:
Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous.I agreed with Millhiser that "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.
I first noted the Lueders article in this post, where I excerpted 2 paragraphs and wondered about Lueders's reference to his sources: "The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships." Lueders said he had "three knowledgeable sources," and that he had contacted Prosser for a response and that Prosser had said "I have nothing to say about it."
He repeated this statement after the particulars of the story - including the allegation that there was physical contact between him and Bradley - were described. He did not confirm or deny any part of the reconstructed account.Later in the day, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel came out with an article that revealed more complexity to the allegations. I wrote about that post last night, noting the account of "a source" who had spoken to "several" of the justices who witnessed the incident (there were "[a]t least five"), and said that Prosser "put his hands around" Bradley's neck, without "exert[ing] any pressure," which Bradley "described as a chokehold."
The Journal Sentinel then cites "another source" that said "that Bradley attacked Prosser." Here we get the first allegation that Bradely "charged him with fists raised" and that Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," blocking her, resulting in hand-neck contact.
The Journal Sentinel begins a new paragraph with "Another source..." If that is not miswritten, we now have a third source — "another" and then "another" — that's the second and third source. This third source, like the second source, has Bradley coming at Prosser "with fists up" and Prosser reacting defensively. This source — which I'm seeing as the Sentinel's third source — confirms the first source in saying that Bradley called it choking at the time. This source also has a Justice (not Prosser) reacting by saying "You were not choked."
Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.
I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?
Maybe Prosser had "nothing to say about it" because the "reconstructed account" Lueders recited contained the allegation that Bradley charged at him with raised fists. Prosser did comment later in the day — a day full of destructive attacks on him, which speculated about the meaning of his absence of comment. Those attacks assumed that Prosser knew the story in the form that would appear in Lueders's article. But did he? I want to know!
In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said:
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.
Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?
Now, let's go back to what Ian Millhiser said: "Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous." All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?
Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.
And what are the methods of ouster? Refer to the list in Millhiser's post: 1. Resignation, 2. Impeachment, 3. Removal by Address, and 4. Recall. A newly reelected official, under Wisconsin law, cannot be recalled for a year. Unlike Prosser, who was just reelected, Bradley is subject to recall. Impeachment and removal by address are procedures that take place in the state legislature. But the state legislature is controlled by the Republicans, who aren't likely to go after Prosser. Only Bradley is vulnerable to impeachment and removal by address if the legislature is influenced by political ideology. And if either justice is removed, the replacement will be named by Governor Scott Walker, so only Bradley's ouster will change the conservative-liberal balance on the court.
See what I mean about stupid? If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out? If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil. And make no mistake about how stupid: His article initiated a day of furious writing by liberals that threatens to hurt Bradley and the liberal interests in Wisconsin.
ADDED: I corrected a mistake in the paragraph that begins "Maybe Prosser had 'nothing to say about it'..." It was originally missing the word "had" and said "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited contained the allegation" instead of "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited did not contain the allegation..." UPDATE: It was right the first time, as someone in the comments pointed out! I uncorrected it. And now it's un-uncorrected. Sorry for the confusion!
ALSO: Instapundit says: "It’s as if the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is just a partisan hit shop or something."
IN THE COMMENTS: Bill Lueders himself responds:
As our original story reported, the Center and WPR made individual inquiries to every member of the Supreme Court...So, it's a mystery how the Journal Sentinel came up with the 2 sources who portrayed Bradley as the physical aggressor. Lueders does not say whether he went back to his original sources to inquire about about the truth of that story — unless Bradley was one of the original sources. Whether Bradley was one of the original sources or not, he's giving us only an ambiguous statement with respect to the question whether she did anything like charging at Prosser with raised fists. We get the conclusory assertion — not in the form of a direct quote — that she "ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault." Her version could be that Prosser verbal statements made her extremely angry and refused to leave her office, so it was his fault that she ran at him with raised fists. What exactly happened? Why didn't she call the police?
We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred. No one said or suggested in any way, shape or form that Bradley was the aggressor, a charge that Prosser himself has not made. The Journal Sentinel says it found sources who contend this, so we updated the story to reflect that, but I do not know who these sources are and have no way to gauge their credibility, as I do for the sources we had.
As you know, Justice Bradley has now publicly accused Prosser of putting his hands around her neck and ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault....
We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld.
Lueders doesn't say how much (if at all) he probed into the context of what happened. I'm puzzled by his lack of curiosity about a story that is so inherently hard to believe. Why did the Journal Sentinel so quickly turn up a more complex version of the story? Was Lueders willfully incurious? Why did he pass on such an odd story without asking the questions that an ordinary person would instinctively ask? Or did he ask those questions? Did his sources insist that Bradley was sitting or standing peacefully and Prosser suddenly lunged at her? Or did he snap up the useful version of the story and run with it? It just doesn't add up to me.
At the Painted Fern Café...
... talk about what you like. I'm working on a slightly complicated insight into the Wisconsin Supreme Court story, and I don't like to keep you waiting for the first post, but I need to take a few extra minutes with this. I woke up realizing something. Look back at my posts about the incident from yesterday, and maybe you'll see it too.
25 जून 2011
An alternate account of the Prosser-Bradley confrontation surfaces: Did she "charge him with fists raised"?
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel presents new detail to the undersourced report that everyone's talking about today:
The NYT has picked up the story: "Wisconsin Judge Said to Have Attacked Colleague." The NYT article refers to the Journal Sentinel's new article this way:
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.
ADDED: Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign. If that happens, then the tactic of leaking the original version of the story to the press will have backfired horrifically for Democrats, as Governor Scott Walker will name the Justice to replace Bradley. If both Justices erred and must resign, that will be 2 appointments for Walker, both of whom, I would imagine, will be stronger, younger, and more conservative than Prosser, and, with Bradley gone, the liberal faction on the court will be reduced to 2, against a conservative majority of 5.
AND: Remember, the legislature has the power to impeach, so it is Bradley who is at the greater risk as the story, suppressed for 11 days, comes out. The legislature could play neutral and impeach both Prosser and Bradley, but that would give 2 appointments to Scott Walker.
ALSO: People may assume that the man is larger than the woman, but — from what I have heard — Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser. Bradley is also 7 years younger than Prosser, who is 68.
A source who spoke to several justices present during the incident told the Journal Sentinel that the confrontation occurred after 5:30 p.m. June 13, the day before high court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.According to the Journal Sentinel, Prosser issued a statement today, saying the accusation against him "will be proven false."
At least five justices, including Prosser and Bradley, had gathered in Bradley's office and were informally discussing the decision. The conversation grew heated, the source said, and Bradley asked Prosser to leave. Bradley was bothered by disparaging remarks Prosser had made about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said. Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said. "He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck," the source said. The source said the act "was in no way playful."
But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser. "She charged him with fists raised," the source said. Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," the source said. "He blocked her." In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley's neck.
Another source said the justices were arguing... [and] Prosser said he''d lost all confidence in [Abrahamson's] leadership. Bradley then came across the room "with fists up," the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back. Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice - the source wouldn't say who - responded, "You were not choked."
The NYT has picked up the story: "Wisconsin Judge Said to Have Attacked Colleague." The NYT article refers to the Journal Sentinel's new article this way:
Late Saturday, a separate Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report described a physical encounter in which two sources offered conflicting accounts of what happened, including one in which Justice Bradley was said to have charged at Justice Prosser.I'm reading the Journal Sentinel's account as referring to 3 — not 2 — sources, with 2 of the 3 versions portraying Bradley as the aggressor: "the source... another source... [a]nother source...."
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.
ADDED: Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign. If that happens, then the tactic of leaking the original version of the story to the press will have backfired horrifically for Democrats, as Governor Scott Walker will name the Justice to replace Bradley. If both Justices erred and must resign, that will be 2 appointments for Walker, both of whom, I would imagine, will be stronger, younger, and more conservative than Prosser, and, with Bradley gone, the liberal faction on the court will be reduced to 2, against a conservative majority of 5.
AND: Remember, the legislature has the power to impeach, so it is Bradley who is at the greater risk as the story, suppressed for 11 days, comes out. The legislature could play neutral and impeach both Prosser and Bradley, but that would give 2 appointments to Scott Walker.
ALSO: People may assume that the man is larger than the woman, but — from what I have heard — Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser. Bradley is also 7 years younger than Prosser, who is 68.
"Few states have done so good a job as Wisconsin when it comes to retaining a sense of a distinct radical history."
Says John Nichols at The Progressive:
That understanding is essential to the spread of uprisings and movements like the one that has developed in Wisconsin....
Make no mistake: What is often referred to simply as “Wisconsin” has spread. And it will continue to spread if activists in other states go to their own histories for inspiration.
Every state has radical roots....
In each state, we need to reclaim our progressive history, honor this heritage, and celebrate its continual life. There should be yearly progressive festivals in every state to invoke this unique collective progressive memory....
The empowerment comes from sensing that we are a part of something constant and strong.
Think Progress explains "Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office."
We've already been talking about this rather odd report that Prosser "grabbed" Justice Ann Walsh Bradley "by the neck." No one was arrested, and the story only got into the press via "at least three knowledgeable sources" that cannot be named because "professional relationships" need to be "preserv[ed]."
Ian Millhiser speculates about what might be done if it is, in fact, true that Prosser did this.
But sure. If Justice Prosser committed a criminal attack on another Justice, he shouldn't be on the court, even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying. And let's have the whole story. Maybe there are some other Justices who don't belong on the court. Clear out everyone who doesn't belong on the court. How will they be replaced? By appointment of the Governor — the formidable Scott Walker.
Is that what you want, Think Progress?
Anyway, Think Progress outlines the methods of ousting Prosser:
UPDATE: A more nuanced report from the Journal Sentinel has (unnamed) sources disagreeing about what happened. Someone is saying Bradley charged at Prosser with fist raised, and she ran into his defensively raised hands, then cried choked.
Ian Millhiser speculates about what might be done if it is, in fact, true that Prosser did this.
Like all accused criminals, Prosser enjoys a presumption of innocence and he should not be condemned until the evidence clearly shows that he is guilty.It's very poor writing to say "accused criminals" when you mean "persons accused of a crime" and you're trying to stress the presumption of innocence. But no one was arrested, there's no pending prosecution, so why is he even saying that Prosser is accused of a crime? We don't even have a whole report of what supposedly happened. If there were a prosecution here, the whole story would come out — all sorts of details about the justices, and not just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event. Who would end up looking the worst here? A decision was made, privately, to suppress the incident, and then 3 individuals — who? — decided to leak it out in a way that is, presumably, affected by subjectivity and political interest.
But sure. If Justice Prosser committed a criminal attack on another Justice, he shouldn't be on the court, even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying. And let's have the whole story. Maybe there are some other Justices who don't belong on the court. Clear out everyone who doesn't belong on the court. How will they be replaced? By appointment of the Governor — the formidable Scott Walker.
Is that what you want, Think Progress?
Anyway, Think Progress outlines the methods of ousting Prosser:
Resignation...This is the easiest way for Prosser to end the controversy and give Scott Walker the chance to appoint a virtuous, strong, smart conservative. Walker should pick someone with nerves of steel so to stand up to any verbal aggression without resorting to felonious neck-wringing.
Impeachment...News flash: Wisconsin has a Republican legislature.
Removal by Address: A supermajority of both houses of the state legislature can also remove Prosser through a process known as “removal by address.”...
Recall: As a last resort, Prosser may be removed by a recall election using the same process that was recently invoked to attempt to recall several state senators.But you can't start this process until 1 year after his reelection, so settle down, people. But what is the point of all this? If Prosser goes, Walker appoints someone younger, more vigorously conservative, and without the baggage of old intra-court grudges. I think the point is to discredit Prosser and the conservative majority on the court, to undermine the public's faith in the work of the court. But I agree with Millhiser that if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go. I doubt that's true, however, because there was no arrest. That's why we're getting the story in this unsourced, piecemeal form.
UPDATE: A more nuanced report from the Journal Sentinel has (unnamed) sources disagreeing about what happened. Someone is saying Bradley charged at Prosser with fist raised, and she ran into his defensively raised hands, then cried choked.
NY Post is still kicking Anthony Weiner, this time for buying "pathetic" flowers for Huma.
They only cost $22.97, purchased at a — gasp! — bodega:
CORRECTION: The headline originally said "... flowers for Human."
"It's ridiculous, and it could make her angrier," said Elayne Rapping, a professor of American Studies at SUNY Buffalo. "He knows there are photographers and reporters outside of his house. He could have easily called up a florist and had flowers delivered to her -- this seems to be more of a gesture for the press than for her. A way of him saying, 'I'm being a good husband.' "Well, let's make sure that gesture backfires. (Can't the guy get some credit for patronizing a neighborhood shop and for not being snooty?)
A clerk at the ritzy Madison Avenue Florists identified Weiner's peace offering as orange roses, white carnations and blue agapanthuses -- and added that they're a lame way to say, "I'm sorry."Call in the ritzy clerk to sniff at the disgraced Weiner! I love the remark "It's ill-conceived." I'm going to use that in casual conversation when I get the chance.
"It's ill-conceived," the clerk said. "Carnations are not really popular among women these days -- and orange roses? He should have stuck to red."
CORRECTION: The headline originally said "... flowers for Human."
"Abrahamson's clique wanted to game the system in order to buy time for the Democrats to make their political comeback..."
"... either in this summer's recall elections or in the 2012 election cycle in a case brought by Democrats, including the Assembly minority leader and the Dane County district attorney, against the majority party."
Isthmus columnist David Blaska goes after Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
ADDED: Meanwhile, there's this very odd story titled "Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow justice by the neck."
Isthmus columnist David Blaska goes after Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
ADDED: Meanwhile, there's this very odd story titled "Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow justice by the neck."
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.A need to preserve professional relationships, eh? Hmmm.
Details of the incident, investigated jointly by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.
"Unless you're willing to kill and kill and kill every year, you have to look at these other things."
I am willing to kill and kill every year.
The comments over there at the Isthmus are hilarious. One "blake trimbell" says: "Murdering geese will not solve anything and should not be our earth friendly, progressive city of Madisons` initiative." But murdering geese is the perfect solution! If the parks were teeming with rats, would you invoke progressivism? But rage on, Mr. Trimbell, because you're helping expose "progressivism" to the light of mockery.
I was going to make fun of some more of the comments, but now I see they're all from Trimbell.
"It's a fairly unusual situation with an invasive species that has no natural predators in our ecosystem," says [Ald. Mark Clear, who sits on the Board of Park Commissioners]. "[Canada geese are] not migratory and have settled in and made the parks their home. Many of our beach closures are directly related to poop."The ruined shorelines are reason enough to destroy the vermin. You want more evidence that they are making swimming in the lakes dangerous? I don't.
Opponents of the roundup...say the city hasn't proven that the bacteria blamed for at least 84 beach closures last year came from goose droppings...
"Where is the risk?" [asks Lori Chadli, a Madison resident]. "People like to blame them, because they see the droppings, but there's no evidence."
According to a 2011 report..., conservation resource supervisor with the city Parks Department, seven of 42 water samples collected in 2003 tested positive for a virulent strain of E. coli. This same strain.... was found in 50% of the goose fecal samples collected.
The comments over there at the Isthmus are hilarious. One "blake trimbell" says: "Murdering geese will not solve anything and should not be our earth friendly, progressive city of Madisons` initiative." But murdering geese is the perfect solution! If the parks were teeming with rats, would you invoke progressivism? But rage on, Mr. Trimbell, because you're helping expose "progressivism" to the light of mockery.
I was going to make fun of some more of the comments, but now I see they're all from Trimbell.
Canadian geese are beautiful creatures who deserve to live on this planet as much as any other speices. They were thought to be extinct in 1950, until a flock was discovered in Minnesota in 1962. Wouldn't it be awful if they became close to extintion again?In a word: no.
Let's watch old episodes of "Columbo."
Now that we're thinking about how much we love Peter Falk. Here's the complete first season. Let's start there. I ordered it.
(I never watched the show back when it was on, because I just wasn't a TV-watcher at the time. I either didn't have a TV or only had a small black-and-white TV until 1981. The first season was 1971, when I was in college. We went to movies constantly back then, including "Husbands," one of our favorite movies, which came out in 1970. TV was for kids and old folks, as far as I was concerned. Maybe some news event. But I didn't even watch the moon landing when it was on TV.)
(I never watched the show back when it was on, because I just wasn't a TV-watcher at the time. I either didn't have a TV or only had a small black-and-white TV until 1981. The first season was 1971, when I was in college. We went to movies constantly back then, including "Husbands," one of our favorite movies, which came out in 1970. TV was for kids and old folks, as far as I was concerned. Maybe some news event. But I didn't even watch the moon landing when it was on TV.)
Blogging is like making albums, says Bob Mould, but writing a book is different.
A video interview with the Wall Street Journal.
Buy his memoir here. And here's "Husker Du: The Story of the Noise-Pop Pioneers Who Launched Modern Rock."
ADDED: At 7:55, the interviewer asks him about his sexual orientation: Mould knew from an early age that he was gay, but he didn't reveal that to the general public until much later. Does he regret that? Mould says he wonders what his "work would have appeared to be" if he had been out when he was, say, 23. "It would have recontextualized the work."
Noting that others did the "heavy lifting" of being the spokespersons for gay musicians, he says he was "so focused on my music that I didn't have time to be gay.... I was very self-hating.... I felt keeping my work separate from my sexuality was really important and was one of the things that drove me crazy... not wanting to admit that they were intertwined. Wanting songs to be gender neutral."
It's an odd stunt in rock music — isn't it? — to keep sexuality out of it, to make it gender neutral. But his point is that he wanted to reach a large audience, so, given the small proportion of potential listeners who are gay males, you can understand that he would want to make the songs seem applicable to more people — not that everyone listens to song lyrics to find resonance with things in their own lives.
AND: Writing that update got me thinking about Cole Porter, who was gay, but wrote some amazing love songs — like "Night and Day" — that millions of listeners who are not gay men resonate with, even knowing he was gay.
ADDED: Robert Christgau reviews both of the books I've mentioned. Christgau tells us that Mould claims to have a 175 IQ.
Buy his memoir here. And here's "Husker Du: The Story of the Noise-Pop Pioneers Who Launched Modern Rock."
ADDED: At 7:55, the interviewer asks him about his sexual orientation: Mould knew from an early age that he was gay, but he didn't reveal that to the general public until much later. Does he regret that? Mould says he wonders what his "work would have appeared to be" if he had been out when he was, say, 23. "It would have recontextualized the work."
Noting that others did the "heavy lifting" of being the spokespersons for gay musicians, he says he was "so focused on my music that I didn't have time to be gay.... I was very self-hating.... I felt keeping my work separate from my sexuality was really important and was one of the things that drove me crazy... not wanting to admit that they were intertwined. Wanting songs to be gender neutral."
It's an odd stunt in rock music — isn't it? — to keep sexuality out of it, to make it gender neutral. But his point is that he wanted to reach a large audience, so, given the small proportion of potential listeners who are gay males, you can understand that he would want to make the songs seem applicable to more people — not that everyone listens to song lyrics to find resonance with things in their own lives.
AND: Writing that update got me thinking about Cole Porter, who was gay, but wrote some amazing love songs — like "Night and Day" — that millions of listeners who are not gay men resonate with, even knowing he was gay.
ADDED: Robert Christgau reviews both of the books I've mentioned. Christgau tells us that Mould claims to have a 175 IQ.
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)
संदेश
