I will try to make more frequent appearances here in the future.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenthers argue that the Federal government should exercise no power not explicitly given to it in the Constitution. Perry and Pawlenty are using this argument to claim that, should the Congress and President enact health-care reform, they can keep it from applying to their states. (This is quite similar to the “Nullification” theory that helped lead to, and was settled by, the Civil War.)

He won’t do it, but I wish Barack Obama would send Perry, Pawlenty, and any other Tenther governors the following letter:

Dear Governor X,

In accordance with your expressed desire that your state not be subject to any Federal program not explicitly authorized by the Constitution, as of now I am cutting off all Federal funds distributed to your state or to individuals or institutions therein for the following purposes:

Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Veterans’ health care
Immunization
Transportation infrastructure (e.g. highways, bridges, rail)
Air traffic control for flights within your state
Education of special-needs students
FEMA assistance after hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters
HIV/AIDS prevention and services
CDC investigation and technical assistance
Certification of health care providers and suppliers
Scientific and technological research
Highway safety
Job creation and retention
Child support enforcement
Unemployment insurance administration
Adult literacy and English language acquisition
Crime victim compensation
[etc., etc.]

Congratulations on your new sovereignty. Let me know how it works out.

Comparisons have been made to GOP Presidents who made speeches to schoolchildren, but what the wild reaction made me think of is my own reaction to the news that then-President Reagan had been shot. I was liberal even then, and it would have been hard to find an action or opinion of Reagan’s with which I agreed. But I was upset by the shooting and would have been horrified if he had died: he was, after all, the President of the United States.

But the immediate conspiracy theories — and the willingness of conservative parents to keep their kids out of school rather than risk their being exposed to ideas they (the parents) disagree with — are the final proof that conservatives will never accept Obama as a legitimate President. (That doesn’t mean they’re all “Birthers” — that’s just one concrete way of delegitimizing Obama.) I don’t think it’s just about race, though it would be hard to deny that’s a contributing factor. For whatever reason, they reject him: he’s not their President, and I dare say a fair number of them would celebrate if he were assassinated. I realize that’s a terrible thing to say, but scan the righty blogs and I think you’ll agree.

The guards had made us dump all liquids, just like at the airport (though it was even more ludicrous in this situation). After sitting in the heat for a while, I reluctantly got in line to pay $3.00 for a bottle of water, which the vendor insisted on pouring into a cup.

Then I asked for some ice. “No,” I was told. “Security reasons.”

Security reasons?!? What possible threat could crushed ice in the water they’d just poured me pose to Obama? Even with C. C. Sabathia’s arm, I don’t think I could have hit him with a fragment. Were they afraid I’d lurk in waiting and stuff ice down his shirt?

We’ve become sheep. People tell us something is for security and we passively accept it. Maybe that’s why there’s been next to no MSM coverage of the police-state repression tactics being used in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

Reader Advisory Committee Member Kelly Kasum Ressel, for instance, criticizes those meddling local bureaucrats who mandate that pool owners put up proper fencing to keep children out. She complains that this places the responsibility on the pool owner rather than where it belongs, on the children’s parents. What she actually has a quarrel with is the old common-law doctrine of the attractive nuisance, which does exactly that. The governments are actually helping pool owners, since if sued under that doctrine they can argue that erecting a fence that complies with local ordinances is exercising reasonable care.

Shouldn’t even “Advisory Hits” have some standards?

Patrick Dorwin of Badger Blogger is quoted in the so-called “Best of the Blogs” implying that drilling in the ANWR will bring down our heating-oil prices this winter. I hate to break it to you, Patrick, but any new drilling wouldn’t yield actual fuel for at least 10 to 15 years — until about 2030, according to the Bush Administration itself — and when it does, it’s not going to make much of a dent in prices. I know that polls show that half of Americans think expanded drilling will lower gas prices by next year, but one would hope our “best” bloggers would stick to the facts rather than faux populism.

Now let’s turn to the letters page. Hoo boy. James Pawlak thinks our history textbooks ignore all the “persons seeking religious freedom” who populated the U.S. Without going too deeply into the history of the American colonists, I can tell you that the most commonly used examples — the Pilgrims and Puritans — wanted the freedom to practice their religion and make sure everybody else in their colony practiced it, or else. That’s not the usually intended meaning of “religious freedom.” (I’m not even going to get into Pawlak’s views on the role of white men in American history.)

Retired MPD Captain Glenn D. Frankovis thinks Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn should send some officers to St. Paul to help with security at the Republican National Convention. What concerns me here is that he twice refers to this as sending “troops.” This paramilitary mindset is a dangerous one, and all too common in those running security for large political gatherings. I hate its spread to urban police forces.

Then there’s blockhead William A. Draves, who thinks that a small gap between Wisconsin males’ and females’ ACT scores — in favor of males — while Wisconsin colleges are graduating more women than men is evidence of some sort of anti-male conspiracy. Of course, Draves either doesn’t know or chooses to ignore that test scores are but one aspect of students’ qualifications that college admissions offices evaluate; high school grades weigh at least as heavily, if not more, and girls generally outdo boys in that arena. He also plays statistical games by not telling us the percentage of college applicants that are male, only the percentage of graduates, as if the other number doesn’t matter.

Well, I’m exhausted. It’s tough when people are being wrong in the newspaper. Especially those the newspaper itself chooses to feature.

In truth, I think a requirement limited to Milwaukee is a bad idea that could backfire; I’d like to see a statewide mandate, or better yet (dreaming here), a national one. But that’s not Smith’s problem with the plan.

Our noble columnist ratchets up the class-war rhetoric, opening by informing us that “leftists … never stop coming up with new ideas to steal other people’s money” and sarcastically inquiring why 9to5 isn’t also demanding that all workers get company cars. Gee, Al, I dunno, maybe they’re holding out for corporate jets?

I might have more patience with Smith’s failure to understand the difference between paid sick leave and a company car, or with his complaints about confiscating people’s wealth, if I hadn’t recently finished reading an advance copy of Mystic River author Dennis Lehane’s new book, The Given Day, a historical novel about the years 1918-19 which focuses on labor unrest, climaxing with the disastrous Boston Police Strike of 1919. (Don’t look for it in stores yet, as it’s not coming out until late September, but you can pre-order it here.)

This isn’t a book review, so I won’t be going into detail, but I will say that, though flawed, the book is well worth reading, and not just because it provides a salutary reminder of what workers and labor organizers had to face less than a century ago — it’s also an entertaining story. (Before Patrick McIlheran’s Reality Patrol arrests me, I do understand the difference between fact and fiction, but there’s a great deal of verifiable historical fact behind this fiction.)

In the same way that the TV series Mad Men reminds us why we need feminism, The Given Day vividly illustrates the need for labor unions (and laws protecting the right to organize). Of course, if the last several decades hadn’t seen the systematic dismantling of organized labor, most Milwaukee workers would be unionized, and a proposal like 9to5’s would be unnecessary.

But it’s Smith’s rhetoric that reminds me most viscerally of the novel, and of the real-life anti-labor forces from which it draws its inspiration. Smith compares requiring sick leave with mob lootings of people’s homes, and clearly thinks those stuck in dead-end jobs with no benefits deserve their fate, given his casual admonition that if they don’t like it, they should “expand their skill set.” Those who opposed organized labor also compared workers’ demands to theft, and were similarly contemptuous of those who were anything but grateful to have employment, no matter how terrible the pay and conditions.

To move away from the fictional past to the semi-fictional present, Smith hauls out the old “tax hell” nonsense. This tired idea bears even less scrutiny given MillerCoors’s recent decision to leave Milwaukee for Chicago — not exactly known for its low-tax, low-regulation environment — in part because of Chicago’s transit system, the kind of improvement for Milwaukee that those of Smith’s ilk rabidly oppose.

It seems that conservatives have really taken to this idea of a Second Gilded Age. One little hint, guys: Mark Twain coined the term “Gilded Age,” and it wasn’t complimentary.

I understand, and even forgive, the statutory reference to Laverne and Shirley (and Lenny and Squiggy). But was it really necessary to refer to Milwaukee as “the frumpy hamlet to the north”? Twice?!

I would like to invite Mr. Mariotti for a visit — one that would extend beyond Miller Park. Actually, I’d like to make him eat that “frumpy,” as well as the frozen custard he imagines Bud Selig throwing up. Is that too hostile?

Obama, Reagan and the world of make-believe

Barack Obama visited Mount Rushmore the other day, full of audacious curiosity. He asked a ranger about the chase scene across the monumental faces in [Alfred] Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest” — “How did they get up there in the first place?” The Associated Press says he asked. “They didn’t. It was a movie set,” the ranger replied. One must note that when we had an ex-actor as president, he didn’t need that whole movies-are-make-believe bit explained to him, much as Reagan’s critics implied so.

There are two mendacious claims here. The first is that Barack Obama’s failure to realize that the Mt. Rushmore scene in North by Northwest was not filmed on location is evidence that he doesn’t understand that movies aren’t real life. That’s ridiculous. All it proves is that Obama doesn’t know much about making movies — hardly a disqualification for the presidency.

The second claim is that St. Ronald Reagan, contrary to his (no doubt liberal) critics, did understand that movies are make-believe. In fact, there is plentiful evidence that the late ex-President conflated film and real life on numerous occasions.

Let’s start with this:

Reagan regaled audiences about a B-17 pilot who would not bail out of his crippled plane on his way back from a European mission because his wounded gunner couldn’t make the jump. The pilot comforted the lad: “Never mind, son. We’ll ride it down together.” Reagan asserted that the pilot was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously.

However, military author-historian Lawrence H. Suid relates in his book “Guts & Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film,” that he couldn’t verify such a story, either through the White House or the Air Force History Office.

Suid eventually located the source. A World War II veteran recognized that the story was too perfectly similar to a scene in a popular 1944 air drama about the Battle of Midway, “A Wing and a Prayer,” starring Don Ameche and Dana Andrews. In a climactic scene, the radio operator tells his pilot that the plane is afire but he can’t move. The pilot returns, “I haven’t got the altitude, Mike. We’ll take this ride together.”

Also, a number of sources, including Ron Kampeas of the JTA News Service, report that Reagan, who spent World War II in Hollywood making training films, told both Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and famed Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal about his experiences filming newly-liberated concentration camps. Sympathetic biographer Edmund Morris relates that while Reagan was involved in editing raw footage of the death camps and was genuinely horrified, “He (Reagan) would sometimes say, ‘I was there at the liberation of the camps. I was there with Eisenhower’s Army. I saw the Jews being liberated. I saw the dead bodies.’”

There are other examples I could recount. Next time McIlheran wants to slam Obama, he might think about having more evidence for his claims; next time he wants to defend Reagan, he might do some research first. (I here give him the benefit of the doubt — something he rarely gives liberals — and assume he was not deliberately lying.) Google is a good place to start, Patrick.

Hey, you kids get off my lawn!

(“Shorter” concept invented and perfected by bloggers much more clever than I am.)

The hazards of judges' campaigns being funded by interest groups and of the politicization of decisions as an election approaches are obvious. I'm also concerned about the problem of low information in judicial elections, where even in a high-profile contest voters may make their decision based simply on whether a candidate is labeled "liberal" or "conservative," which can be a simplistic and misleading way to sum up a judge's record.

Of course, appointive systems present their own problems, some of which are laid out articulately in the article's comments.

Some local conservatives have alleged that the advocates of ending judicial elections are expressing sour grapes over Butler's defeat, or, more perniciously, that we are elitists who don't trust "the people" to make sound decisions. But democracy, like capitalism, only functions smoothly and well when all parties are fully informed. That's why most of us are at a disadvantage when we take our cars to the shop, or ourselves to the doctor: we are not expert enough to evaluate the recommendation, and it comes down to trusting the mechanic or physician.

Similarly, most people — and before you cry "elitist," I include myself — simply don't have the knowledge to evaluate and compare prospective judges' records and qualifications. As voters, we end up trusting TV commercials or local pundits, who may have their own agendas.

It may be that in choosing judges, as in choosing other government officials, democracy is the worst system except for all the others. But I'd like to see a serious, non-partisan consideration of whether Wisconsin's judges should be appointed, and if so, what system might strike the best balance between expertise and accountability.

I would also like a magical sparkle pony.

(Hat tip to Patrick McIlheran. Yes, really: English usage is not a conservative or liberal issue. And yes, of course this post’s title is [sic].)

It’s not as if McIlheran was making any political points (though I suppose it’s possible to read into his “Quick Hit” a general criticism of single mothers). He didn’t even blame the government!

Not that many people get to use the Journal Sentinel editorial page as their pulpit. Is it too much to ask that those who have that privilege actually have something to say?

This is, of course, insane.

Do these W supporters really swallow their own pundits’ line about “Bush Derangement Syndrome”? Do they truly believe that a sizable bloc of their fellow citizens hates the President so much that they want the country to “lose” a war, become more vulnerable to terrorism, and plunge Iraq into (more) bloodshed, just to say nyah-nyah-nyah in Bush’s face?

Generally, when I debate people, I try to understand their point of view. I understand how someone can — even now — support the war in Iraq. Even assuming the person is not just a duped puppet of Fox News, even if he or she knows the truth about Saddam and 9/11, about the WMDs, about Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia — even then, I can understand the reasons that lead them to support the war.

Apparently that’s just liberal wussiness. People with balls (either male or female) don’t try to understand their opponents; they just shrilly accuse them of terrible motives, call them crazy, lather, rinse, repeat.

If this was confined to the Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins of the right, it would be easier to ignore. But it is all over the right-wing echo chamber. Yet how can ordinary people — the kind who write to the paper — believe these things about those they work with and talk to every day?

Once, years ago, a conservative informed me, with a completely straight face, that all liberals were either liars or dupes. At the time, I thought he was an outlier. I know now I was wrong.

Meg: Father, that man’s bad!

More: There’s no law against that!

Roper: There is, God’s law!

More: Then let God arrest him!

Alice: While you talk he’s gone!

More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down (and you’re just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

According to the paper’s editorial board, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker “must agree to give on rail.” Well, as long as we’re wishing, I’d like a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian mess. And a pony.

Remember how the Knights Who Say “Ni!” in Monty Python and the Holy Grail reacted to the word “it”? Well, that’s how Walker reacts to the word “rail.” Stick the word “light” in front of it, and he’ll act like Dracula confronted with a crucifix.

Walker will never, never, never compromise on rail. Any proposed transit solution that depends on his doing so might as well be the new Harry Potter book, because it’s just as much of a fantasy.

Yes, Michael Monyelle, on parole for a sexual offense, is to be tried as a sexual predator, with the possible result of lifetime commitment, because of the deviant fantasies he confessed to his parole agent.

Before anybody jumps in and accuses me of defending child molesters: I’m not. I’m as disgusted and alarmed by the fantasies attributed to Monyelle in the Journal-Sentinel article as any non-pedophile would be. I don’t want him ever to hurt a child.

But there are a couple of things to note here. Monyelle was in prison not for molesting young children, but for having consensual sexual contact with two girls, one 16 and one 14, when he was 19 and 20. Illegal, yes, but not in the same category as pedophilia. Also, the J-S reports that in 2005 he was taken into custody for parole violations three times for not reporting deviant thoughts to his treatment group and delaying reporting them to his parole agent. Sounds like a fine Catch-22 the state has created.

Remember that Monyelle has not been accused of acting on any of his evil thoughts, merely of having them. Then the state’s psychologists come in with their Minority Report-esque predictions of the likelihood that Monyelle will engage in sexually violent behavior, and before you know it we are actually locking someone up, possibly for life, because of his thoughts.

It’s hard to look at Monyelle, to read about his fantasies, and not to think, “Yes, please lock him up and never let him out!” But we need to keep in mind the precedent that’s being set.

If we could really predict, with 100% certainty, who would commit a crime and who would not, we’d be living in a very different world. But we’re humans, with a limited understanding of our own minds, and we have no business imprisoning people for theoretical crimes we think they’re likely to commit when they’ve done nothing else to warrant punishment.

Just as the problem with “Mallard Fillmore” is not that it’s conservative, it’s that it isn’t funny, the problem with Mr. Legacy Pundit’s column isn’t that it’s conservative, it’s that it’s mind-bendingly stupid.

It was today’s column about taking sides in a civil war that provoked this rant. Of course there are times when it makes sense to take sides in a civil war, when there are clear good guys and bad guys, and anyone who says otherwise is being either disingenuous or historically forgetful.

However, the question is whether it makes sense to take sides in Iraq’s civil war. Who are the good guys, and who the bad? Jonah doesn’t even suggest whom he sees as the heroes. In fact, he himself points up the problem when he says, in his next-to-last paragraph, “… the 21st [century] will be a lot more ugly if Sunni Salafists or Iranian pawns win in Iraq.”

But aren’t those essentially the two competing sides? Sure, there are (dwindling numbers of) Sunni and Shiite moderates, as well as lots of people who don’t give a damn about politics but just want to live in peace and safety. But they’re not the ones with the mortars and bombs.

Jonah doesn’t think he needs to figure all this out. All he’s interested in is trying to prove liberals are hypocritical for not wanting to take sides in Iraq when they want to take sides in Darfur. And, as usual, he only proves how limited his own brainpower is.

There are intelligent conservatives out there. Why, oh, why, must the J-S keep running this dreck?

Reading the Journal-Sentinel’s series on school violence, it strikes me that we are conducting a long-term experiment on the results of doing the exact opposite. We do things to children that we know are damaging, we do them repeatedly, and then we are surprised and appalled when the children act violent.

How would any of us have felt as children if we were taken away from our parents, even if they were bad parents? And how would we have fared if after that not once, not twice, but twenty or thirty times we were rejected by the adults into whose care we had been given?

I don’t envy foster parents their job, and of course we can’t expect them to be therapists or miracle workers, but there has to be something better to do with a young child who is acting out — almost literally screaming for help — than to move her from house to house to house, never to be loved, never to be able to relax and feel at home. This isn’t just bad policy; it’s child abuse.

Sure, the county provides therapists and social workers, but in many cases their services are inadequate. Understandably. I don’t see how all the therapy in the world will help a child who, already traumatized by bad parenting, is literally told over and over again that he or she is unwanted.

And when that child grows up, well, let’s just say we shouldn’t expect a model citizen.

Reform of the foster care system is more than a necessity, it is a moral imperative. Children taken into care are generally troubled to begin with; we must stop spending the rest of their childhoods abusing them.

As for the year just passed: Sure, many terrible things happened and continue to happen (as The Onion so perfectly put it), but I prefer to think of 2006 as The Year America Began to Come to Its Senses.

So let's welcome the new year in hope, and ready to light a fire under those newly-empowered Democrats!

(And don't miss the Marx Brothers marathon on Turner Classic Movies, starting with Duck Soup at 7:15 CST.)

"There are only three kinds of people. Those who can do math, and those who can't."

That's not even a lie, it's a joke — and one I've heard before.

Clearly, the members of the Burlington Liars Club need more experience listening to truly expert liars before they attempt to judge next year's contest. I have two suggestions:

• Patrick Buchanan, as, in the wake of Gerald Ford's death, he repeats — to sympathetic ears — the tale of how his old boss (Richard Nixon, for you young folks) was unfairly hounded from office, the victim of a coup by Democrats still angry about their 49-state loss.
• Sundry members of the Wisconsin Republican Party, local talk radio hosts, and other right-wing media figures who have successfully convinced most Wisconsin residents that there is evidence of massive voter fraud, especially in Milwaukee.

Any other nominations?

But all this is by the way. Trying out material for his stand-up act, Damaske explained to a JS reporter why he had chosen Watertown for his comeback: It has a more "conservative" government, in contrast to the liberal political climate of Muskego.

The punch line could be snappier, but still — "liberal" Muskego, hee! Yup, only 69% of those moonbats voted for Dubya last time.

Maybe it's only funny if you live in Waukesha County.

Keep working on your act, Chuck. I think comedy's more promising than your political career.

Sure, the facilities are on the spartan side, but at least we won't make the dieters go on 25-mile hikes. With just a bit more supervision to make sure our clients don't overdo it and starve to death, I think we've got a cash cow. Scott Walker, don't miss this exciting entrepreneurial opportunity!

What makes the last allegation more amusing is that Nixon's domestic policies would place him in the left wing of the current Democratic party. His foreign policy wouldn't have pleased the likes of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin either.

But his crimes needed to be laid out for the nation to see. Ford did the country an enormous disservice by pardoning Nixon.

There are thoughtful, intelligent conservatives out there. P-Mac is not one of them.

If it weren't enough that on his blog in the past week he has suggested that it's a wonderful victory over the forces of oppression that a Texas school district is returning to the term "Christmas vacation" (approvingly quoting a blogger who says that "the lefties are all upset" about the "dirty words" Christmas and Easter); that global warming is a hoax whose proponents are really interested in increasing centralized government power, and that liberals who believe what the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists say blame all the problems on Bush; that we can "win" in Iraq if that country's civilian leadership and police force will only man up, and that the Iraqi economy is flourishing and trickling down; that climate change (which isn't real) will be good for the economy….

Even if none of that disturbed you, you would have to take note of his sickening entry about Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) stroke, where McIlheran talks about what a good thing it would be if the GOP got control of the Senate — via Johnson's death or disability — but piously notes that he and other right-wing bloggers are of course praying for Johnson's recovery.

If I thought it would help, I'd pray for McIlheran, but I think he'd be better served by a visit to the Wizard of Oz.

Eat some figgy pudding. Don your goy gay apparel. Go a-wassailing. Make merry.

I'm going to turn up The LeeVees' "Hanukkah Rocks" (the holiday's over, but it's a great album) and then enjoy a traditional Jewish Christmas: a movie and Chinese take-out.

In terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis: Peace on Earth, and good will to all people.

I despise the phrase, but it's impossible to call this anything but an outbreak of Political Correctness.

In the first place, it's ironic to be marketing Festivus poles, since the character of Frank Costanza "invented" the holiday in part to protest the commercialism of Christmas. But therein lies the point: Festivus is associated with the Costanzas, not with Michael Richards's increasingly tiresome Kramer character. I imagine the Doyle posse's thought process: Festivus=Seinfeld=Kramer=Michael Richards=racism.

Apparently, by the transitive property of racism, anything and everything associated with Seinfeld must now be shunned by us good liberals. So the next time someone drops a "not that there's anything wrong with that" or a "no soup for you" in your direction, you'll know he or she's a bigot.

This is the sort of thing that right-wingers love to club us over the head with. There are so many real things to be outraged by; the last thing we need to do is invent silly new ones.

Of course, this isn't the right-wing's culture war after all; it's the "War on Drugs." Just another unwinnable war, being fought at great cost in money, lives, and civil liberties, which only makes the situation worse.

I sometimes wonder what I'd do if a cop asked to search me and my car (assuming I was clean). On one hand, he has absolutely no right to search (nor, in my opinion, the right even to ask without probable cause). On the other hand, if I say no, he can make my life hell — which is why all those "consent searches" you see on the police blotter are bogus.

Those Franklin kids are lucky they're not the wrong color, or they probably would have ended up with at least "resisting arrest" or "disorderly conduct" charges. The scope the drug laws present for police abuse is appalling.

I want it to be clear that I am not attacking the particular officer involved; he was just doing the job he's been trained to do. He's not responsible for our FUBAR legal system. Where is the local politician brave enough to take it on?