They’re typically allies, but apparently the lovefest have come to an end for Republican activists Robert “Bob” Dohnal and J.J. Blonien.

According to state records, Dohnal is hoping to cash in with a lawsuit against Blonien.

Hat tip: Dan Bice

It’s getting to be that time — the time when newspapers and every news outlet that wants to claim they have some insight publishes polls about one candidate or another.

Yes, we’ve all heard about the poll putting Tom Barrett over both Scott Walker and Mark Neumann in the race for Governor next fall. The reality is that much can happen between now and next November and a poll taken today means little.

So ignore those polls until a month or so before the election. If they show a significant gap between the candidates, they might be a harbinger of things to come. If not, they’re just some pol or some pundit jumping up and down over something that matters little.

Local leaders aren’t used to looking at thinking about the needs of their community in terms of age, but they should.

Consider how all of us benefit society. In our young lives we symbolize hope and optimism. As enter our working years we keep the engines of industry and commerce going. As we enter our golden age we can share wisdom and a less harried calm with our fellow man.

At least that’s the way it is in a perfect world. In real life everyone struggles to get by and we compete for finite resources to improve the lives of our families — whichever age we fall into.

That’s why good zoning is so important. A community with mostly children may forget its seniors. A community with mostly seniors may forget its children. Communities which favor one group or another do so at their collective peril.

Consider Brown Deer for instance. A village of 12,000 in Milwaukee’s northern suburbs has, over the last 10 years built two very large apartment buildings with the requirement that they be only used for senior living. Another is being built on one of their last few parcels — changing it from commercial to residential.

But why is this not good?

Although we all have needs as human beings, we are not all treated the same by our government. Consider this — children do not have the right to vote. They rely entirely on others for their livelihood. Our taxes pay for schools and everyone pays. Seniors do not have the same ability to productively work at the same level as their younger years. Both groups, our young and our old need some sort of aid. Just as children have schools, seniors are the beneficiaries of medicare and social security. But a key difference in both of these groups is that seniors get to vote and that vote, when it comes to children, is cast locally and since schools are a local issue and taxed locally, the decisions of seniors can be the deciding factor.

As a side note, social security and medicare are paid federally zoning does not come into play.

Communities like Brown Deer who haphazardly approve housing which favors one age group over another do so at their own peril. In Brown Deer, school referrendums have gone down in flames in large part because of an organized senior population which has united to oppose additional school spending.

Young people who are looking for a new home want the best for their children. They are looking for a home in a community with good schools. Communities which reject school spending will have fewer young people wanting to purchase homes in those communities. That will drive down property values which in turn will increase the burden of essential services on those who remain.

The restructuring of MPS is running into hurdles and roadblocks.

Critics of MPS correctly point out that the school system has been poorly managed and many business and community leaders look to the Mayor of the City of Milwaukee for a fix. Unfortuately the current system gives the Mayor no voice and no control over the running of MPS. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett would like the authority to appoint the Superintendent of MPS. Since the Mayor ends up taking on much of the blame for the failing schools, it makes sense that he would have control over it.

Not surprisingly, the MPS school board members aren’t in favor of this. They’ve rallied to maintain control and anti-reform advocates have found allies in an unlikely coalition in the State Assembly. Since any change of this magnitude for MPS would require a change in state law, a coalition of democratic legislators from the central city and the entire republican caucus has vowed to oppose the reform.

Why?

The answer isn’t obvious but it’s borne from fear and cynicism.

The central city democrats oppose it out of fear that the Mayor, whoever will be in that position, would be difficult to control and his or her could make sweeping changes that they perceive would be harmful. Urban anti-reform advocates say that this would reduce their ability to have a say in the political process since elected school board members who no longer have a say in the appointment of the new Superintendent of Schools. They miss one key element here — the Mayor is an elected position who they will continue to be able to vote for or against even if this proposal passes.

Republicans oppose the bill because it would give a win to Mayor Barrett who happens to be running for Governor. Desperate to grab onto power, they don’t feel they can allow Barrett to win on any issues — especially anything that has to do with reform. If Barrett were to succeed to cobbling together a majority of legislators to support his plan, he would emerge as a leader who has fought for reform and that would make him a formidable candidate in the election for Governor this fall.

Right now the only thing bottling up a vote on MPS reform is the State Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, a Democrat. Decker doesn’t want to schedule a vote on the bill and if it is a Democrat who kills the reform, then Barrett loses. If it turns out that it is the Republicans who have united to oppose the reform, and the bill goes down, then Barrett gets a major win because he will be able to travel the state saying that his reform efforts would have passed, but the Republicans opposed them. And who would the public like to see in office, those who oppose reform, or the champion of reform?

Maybe it’s just a lack of understanding of the political process. Maybe it’s just ignorance. Either way, what the Catholic Church did to Julie Lassa, the state legislator, can be neither forgiven nor excused. Lassa, it seems, is doing her part by making church leaders pay for their sins.

State Senator Julie Lassa is one of those pro-choice democrats who was also Catholic. An Archbishop on a mission, then-Archbishop Burke, decided to make an example out of her and denied her communion and also denied her ability to have her child baptized in the church.

What a bone-headed move.

To scorn an individual is one thing. To scorn their child is heartless and cruel. Burke not only turned his back on Lassa, he turned his back on an infant who bore no blame for the disagreement that Burke had with Lassa.

Lassa is seeking revenge.

Now she has a bill before the legislature to virtually eliminate the whole statutes of limitations on lawsuits. This would have a devastating effect on the archdioces since many sex scandal victims of the Catholic Church cannot file claims because it is way beyond the statues of limitation. Lassa wants to eliminate those statutes which would open up the church to lawsuits which in turn could bankrupt the archdioces.

The Journal-Sentinel belives it’s a great thing and they want to be a part of it. Their recent editorial suggested that the bill was a good thing and the only redress for victims of sexual abuse by clergy. They fail to address all of the good that the church does as though this bill would somehow make it possible for victims to gain closure. But that’s simply not true. Victims would get money from the church which doesn’t amount to closure – it just amounts to taking away funds from an organization whose clothing the poor and feeding the hungry.

It seems as though the Journal-Sentinel isn’t looking at the big picture here. If the Catholic Church has to deal with more lawsuits, it would likely go bankrupt and calls for the church to help the poor will go unanswered. Those that have no means cannot offer help. If you strip away the archdioces means, they will be unable to come to the aid of those who so desperately rely upon them.

Lassa has also been a victim here though. Because she is pro-choice, she and her child were singled out as not being eligible for the benefits of the sacriments. How out of touch did the church have to be? Did they just think that there actions would never have ramifications? Apparently Burke forgot that Jesus was both a forgiving and understanding man — both traits that then Archbishop Burked lacked.

None of this is to excuse what happened with the sexual abuse scandal that wracked the archdioces. But Lassa’s bill will do little to soothe the hearts of those who were wronged. Lassa’s bill does little but offer her the ability to retaliate against a church that has turned its back against her and her child. The catholic church preaches about extending compassion to others but denied that compassion to Lassa and after the way they treated her, she’s not about to turn the other cheek.

How is everyone else in the world doing? Are they struggling to make ends meet?

Who cares.

Unfortunately that twisted sentiment is one that “welfare queens” and corporate CEO’s share. Neither really cares about the next person just trying to get by. Welfare queens care less that someone else has to work hard to pay their way. Corporate CEO’s could care less about the workers under them and whether they’ll be able to pay their own bills.

Both have convinced themselves they ought to get more.

Are either any better? Of course not all people on welfare are bad people trying to scam the system just like not all corporate CEO’s are looking to screw over their workers to earn themselves million dollar bonuses. But right now it’s not the welfare queens that are making small amounts off the system that are the problem. Corporate CEO’s on the other hand are. The CEO’s aren’t looking at taking large cuts in their own salaries but they are looking to cut their staffs at the worst possible time in our economy.

Yet who makes the headlines? Who do we as a society seem to get more enraged over? The person who indefinately lays off a thousand workers or the person who get their check for a few hundred dollars a month? Forgive me if I am too logical here, but shouldn’t we be more outraged at the person who chose to throw people out of work so they can justify a fat bonus for themselves?

Just last week there was a story in the news about a corporate executive who was outraged because the bank that she worked for had capped her salary at a few hundred thousand for the year because our government, who with the power of our taxes which helped to bail out the bank, demanded the capped salary. Well maybe, just maybe, that exec should have been enraged when she saw that the decisions in her bank were so lousy that they would lead to the bank needing a bailout. Did she think of that?

So forgive me if I’m not compassionate enough for the corporate CEO’s and the corporate executives who are bringing home hundreds of thousands and in many cases millions of dollars while the staff underneath them is having their salaries cut or their jobs eliminated. Forgive me if I don’t feel pain over the fact that they might not be able to afford to pay cash for that new yacht they were thinking of picking up, or that month long vacation to a warm climate where white sand beaches and the smell of coconut drinks are their only care in the world while their workers worry about how they’re going to feed their families.

The problem is that a general lack of civics, decency and morals that have pervaded the business world. At no time do many of these folks stop to think about how their fellow man will be affected. At no time do they think, “gee, maybe this will hurt someone”. No, their thought is for themselves and what’s strictly in it for them. They think, like the welfare queens that society has bashed for over thirty years now, that they deserve everything they get little thought goes to the thousands of workers and former workers who are struggling to figure out how they’re going to pay the mortgage this month.