MJS misses the mark on gun story.

John Diedrich reports today in the MJS that Badger Outdoors, located in West Milwaukee, once again led the nation in the number of guns sold that were later recovered during criminal investigations. Hardly good publicity for Badger Outdoors. Unfortunately, Diedrich seems to have missed the point by centering the article around Badger's role as a supplier of firearms.

Said Badger co-owner Mick Beatovic, "We are not the bad guys, damn it. I don't care what those numbers say."

And you know what? As a moderate Republican who is okay with many (but not all) gun control laws, I think Beatovic is exactly right. I think it's unfortunate that guys like Mick Beatovic are made to look like the bad guys here. They're not. The problem has to do with the gun laws we don't have and the way we enforce the ones we do.

Beatovic says he's done background checks on behalf of private parties looking to sell weapons. He believes all gun transactions should require a background check. Said Beatovic, "Anyone in their right mind should not be against it - and that comes from a gun owner and NRA member."

He's dead right. All gun sales, whether private party or from a retailer, should require a background check. We're not just talking gun shows. Gun shows get picked on all the time, unfairly. The overwhelming number of criminals either obtain their weapons illegally (e.g. through straw buyers) or through private transactions. If you are the primary OR secondary seller of a gun, you should be required to do a background check on the buyer. Period.

That ties in perfectly to state law, which makes it a crime to purchase a weapon knowing it will be used in a crime or to purchase a weapon for a felon. Requiring a background check means law-abiding citizens can sleep at night knowing they aren't selling their gun to someone who cannot own it legally. By isolating legal sales we make it easier to pursue illegal sales. And to get criminals to talk, I would encourage district attorneys to use lighter penalties, under certain circumstances, to entice criminals to report those who are illegally selling weapons. Those who are trafficking firearms illegally are the biggest source of the problem.

Wisconsin requires a waiting period on the sale of handguns. Perhaps it should consider restricting the number of handguns an individual can purchase in a fixed period of time. That would make it harder for straw buyers to peddle firearms. The Second Amendment only gives you a right to keep and bear arms, not the right to acquire them the same way people buy stuff at Sam's Club. And honestly, other than law enforcement, who needs to buy more than one handgun a month?

Require safety training prior to purchasing a handgun. If I have to prove that I can drive a car safely before I get an automobile license, why shouldn't I have to prove that I can use a gun safely as a condition of gun ownership? Allow police to maintain records of handgun sales. We've got lots of options that pose little inconvenience to those looking to own a weapon legally.

The problem isn't Mick Beatovic. You think this poor guy is sleeping well tonight? He's like any good business owner. He wants to make an honest living. If there's a problem, he wants to be part of the solution. But lawmakers and law enforcement have to help him be part of the solution. The former has to give us the laws we need. The latter has to vigorously enforce the laws we've got. And in the meantime, the press needs to stop demonizing small business owners who are just trying to make a living and want to do the right thing.

Why I'm glad Mark Pocan blogs.

Representative Mark Pocan: Assembly in Session Today to Create Press Releases, Deal with "Gadgets"

Just read it. Hilarious. I wonder if Owens refers to the elevator as a "gadget" too?

As usual, Tom Still gets it

Tom Still has a great column on WisOpinion today reminding the wingnuts that if they ever bothered to leave their own country, they'd hear that the battle over English has already been won on economic grounds, without having to resort to xenophobia.

A recent piece in The Wall Street Journal quotes the State Department as saying that 27% of Americans have valid passports. Do the math. That means three-quarters of Americans don't have valid passports. In other words, they've never left North America at all, or at minimum, haven't done so in a long while. People who travel abroad even semi-regularly would never allow their passport to expire. That alone explains why so many Americans seem to have difficulty understanding why the world sees us as it does, but that's another post for another day.

These bogeyman images of Mexicans invading our country, refusing to learn English, and somehow sabotaging our sense of national unity is absolute balderdash. There are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made in support of more stringent immigration controls. Conservatives would be wise to employ those instead of resorting to fear-mongering. Just as Still points out so eloquently, the battle over English has already been fought - and won.

I can hear Carol Owens calling the drafters right now...

In case you hadn't heard, Hun Sen, Cambodia's freedom loving, morally conservative prime minister, is calling for the ban of 3G cell phones in his country because his wife is concerned that people can view pornography on them. Gasp!

Surely our freedom loving, morally conservative Chairwoman of the Assembly Committee on Family Law will not stand for this kind of technological smut in Wisconsin either. After all, she's already proposed legislation in past sessions to ban cell phone use while driving.

Meanwhile, after reading yesterday's MJS, I have to wonder if the high priests of morality in Germantown are now going to count 3G cell phones as "adult-oriented" merchandise?

Tinkering around the edges

If anyone remembers Dennis York's ill-fated exploration of templates, well, I guess it's my turn. Feel free to let me know what you think, but either way I might just be going back to the old one tomorrow.

Memorial Day

Today, on Memorial Day, I wanted to find something that exemplifies the characteristics of a country that so many have given their lives in defense of. A country where you can live your dream with a little natural talent and some hard work. A country where opportunity is for everyone, not just the privileged or the wealthy. A country where greatness is found all around us, in ordinary people who do extraordinary things.

So today, I invite you to join me in watching the following video as a celebration of the American dream. And while you watch it, think about the sacrifices made by so many soldiers and their families so that kids on playgrounds all across America can grow up safe from harm and have dreams as high as the sky and as wide as the horizon.

Jenna's response: A Cliff's Notes Version

Though you may wish to read Jenna's complete response to my discussion of a McCain candidacy, I will give you the most important parts, again because your time is precious and because you probably need to water the lawn on your day off in the midst of this scorching May heat wave:

"The Recess Supervisor has responded to my question... it's a very thought-provoking piece."

"The RS... is absolutely correct."

"I agree... with the Supervisor's analysis of the field of contenders."

"Yes, the conservatives within the GOP love McCain."

The rest is pretty superfluous. You've got the main points already. I am right. Conservatives love McCain.

End of story...

A Beach on the Hudson? Maybe the worst idea ever.

Yahoo! News today informed me that there's an effort by some New York state officials and environmentalists to construct a beach on Manhattan's West Side.

Anyone who's even been to Manhattan knows that the Hudson River is a bit... grungy. That seems more diplomatic than referring to the Hudson as a "crap-filled cesspool," which would not be inaccurate.

Now I'm all for urban renewal and revitalization, and the West Side could certainly benefit from continued efforts in that regard. But a beach? Will people actually dip their feet in that river?

"I'll swim in the Hudson now," said Carter Craft, director of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, a local environmental group. "It's safe if you know what you're doing."

When I hear someone say that, I really want it to mean "It's safe if you know how to swim" and nothing more than that. But methinks there's something, um, murkier to what Craft says.

Maybe that's because in the next paragraph, the article states "Advocates warn that swimmers must stay out of the river for several days after rainfall - when the city's drainage system dumps raw sewage directly into the Hudson. Within a three-minute walk from the proposed Hudson River Park Beach site, muddy discharge is visible around one of the pipes."

Muddy discharge? Tasty. Perhaps these same people would like to also create a beach on the Susquehanna across from Three Mile Island?

Plant some grass or wildflowers? Fine. Turn it into a park? Fine. A beach? Maybe the state should find out if people will actually use a beach on the Hudson before it appropriates funds to construct and maintain it.

The allure of John McCain

I enjoyed my unprovoked exchange with Jenna regarding the UW System's admissions policies so much that I'm going to dare to try again. Many of my liberal and moderate readers are probably fearing for my safety, but I'm not too concerned. There are certain conservative bloggers that I think are actually capable of discourse and I shall count Jenna among them.

Jenna opined on her blog today about John McCain, and why someone she believes is so plainly distasteful to the GOP base keeps getting brought up in '08 presidential speculation. As someone who inhabits a different corner of the Republican Party, I'd like to openly discuss my thoughts on the matter. Jenna, you've probably heard it all before, but indulge me for the sake of civil discourse in the blogosphere.

In my opinion, McCain's name comes up largely because he's the GOP's media darling. We can't discount that. But that's not very interesting to discuss, so I'll stipulate to that point and move on.

Politically, John McCain has become the darling of two factions within the GOP. First, moderate Republicans have always loved him because to them, he's a contrast to the absolutely directionless nature of the Bush administration. Most of us haven't stopped loving him since 2000, when we voted for him the first time.

Right now, it almost seems like Bush is just waiting for a plane to fly into another building. Without a national crisis, he's got no agenda, no leadership skills, and looks like a deer in the headlights most of the time. For everyone who loved Bush for being such a no-nonsense straight-shooter, you've now got a presidency every bit as poll-driven as the Clinton administration (need proof? Watch that immigration speech again). If it weren't for 9/11, Bush's first term would've been his second term and he likely would have been bounced clear out of office in 2006 (or are people set to tell me that Bush would be re-elected if this were his first term in office?)

There are many people who see 2008 as an opportunity at redemption for McCain, a man they believe was infinitely more qualified to be president than the incumbent. This is also a sentiment held by supporters of Al Gore (we'll get to him later). Fact is, the media's giving a huge thumbs-up to anyone who ran against Bush the first time (which is funny, considering the merciless treatment Gore got from the media in the 2000 campaign).

And then there's the other faction: the establishment Republicans who desperately do not want to lose in 2008. This includes members of the 2000 and '04 Bush camp, who are making a calculated decision that McCain is the best (and some would argue only) option to beat back a strong Democratic challenge in '08.

This is where it will be helpful to take a tour of the sad state of 2008 GOP candidates. It'll come in handy later.

Everything you need to know about George Allen and why he screams loser is written here. Granted, it pains me to have to link to Free Republic, but it's the only place I could find with the full text of the article. Leave it to the anarchists at FR to trample on the intellectual property rights of The New Republic, but it's coming in handy right now so I'll leave them alone for now. Read the article. Conservatives can bitch about it being a hit piece, but every one of the issues raised in the article is a) something that Allen couldn't explain away and more importantly, is b) something really easy for the public to get its mind around. A president that carries a spitting cup with him for his chew and drove a car with a confederate flag plate on the front back in high school - in California, not the south? George Allen was a rich white kid who grew up in California and had an unhealthy obsession with Confederate history. This guy's got more baggage than a transatlantic flight. And besides that, Allen's sister claims he dangled her over Niagara Falls by her ankles on a family trip to the natural wonder. Read that sentence again and then tell me that's the kind of guy you want in the White House? Good luck with that. Dangling women over waterfalls does not poll well among likely voters.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. I have nothing against Mormons, but I don't even need to discuss any of the high points of a Romney candidacy because he's Mormon and that's enough to tank him right there. People though there were problems with JFK's Catholicism? America is not ready for the LDS to take over the White House.

Condoleezza Rice has nice credentials but no political experience, and Republicans running a black woman right now will look like a desperation ploy. Independent voters will suspect that Condi was picked solely because she was a black woman, the very kind of tokenism the GOP needs to avoid the appearance of at all costs. Run Condi and undecideds will just become even more cynical about the GOP. If the GOP wants to run a black woman for president, they damn well better be sure that she wins. If they can't guarantee it, they're best to stay clear.

George Pataki? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Why do people keep floating his name out there? Pataki wouldn't even carry New York in a general.

Bill Frist? Boring. Painfully ineffective as Senate Majority Leader. Candidacy smells just like that of the last Senate Majority Leader to win the Republican nomination and we know how well that turned out.

Mike Huckabee could be a decent candidate if the Democrats had a lower profile nominee, someone like Evan Bayh. Problem is, that's not going to happen. Neither is a Huckabee presidency.

Through no choice of their own, the GOP will need a high-profile candidate to counter whatever gets thrown at them by the Democrats, which if I were a betting man right now, I'd say will be Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. Now, some wingnuts will chuckle and laugh and make jokes just like the rubes over at Free Republic, but both would be extremely formidable opponents.

Rick Lazio learned the hard way back in 2000. New York's native son got his ass kicked by a carpetbagger who bought a house in Chappaqua and had never lived in New York a day in her life. Didn't matter. Hillary Clinton won by 12. She is shrewdly moving herself towards the steely, tough, Margaret Thatcher sort of mold that could be quite successful in a general election. And her husband, personal foibles aside, is one of the smartest political minds of our lifetime.

Republicans should be equally concerned about the darling of Cannes, Al Gore. Word is that Gore is telling his major donors from 2000 to feel free to sign up with other Democratic candidates. But if he changes his mind, Gore has rediscovered his game. He's funny, he's self-effacing, and he's passionate. He's everything that Robo-Gore wasn't in 2000. Sure, he's a bit professorial at times (read: know-it-all) but after six years of Bush that's almost refreshing. And if he runs, here's hoping he ignores Naomi Wolf and leaves the khakis and polo shirts at home. What the hell was that all about anyway? I want a president, not a Land's End model.

Republicans need a candidate in 2008 with national stature, high favorable ratings, and an ability to run competitively in 50 states. Someone with credibility on national security issues, and preferably with a willingness to be tough on spending, something Bush and Congress have failed at miserably. That's the appeal of McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Personally, the wonk in me would love nothing more than to see Newt Gingrich run. Gingrich comes with a hell of a lot of downside, but he's smart, brainy, and has solutions. Congressional Republicans haven't had an agenda since Gingrich rolled out the Contract with America back in 1994. Without him as Speaker, the GOP congressional majority has gone from a juggernaut to something resembling Lord of the Flies, complete with Jim Sensenbrenner as Piggy, the fat, spectacled kid who needs to be pushed off a cliff. But something tells me that Gingrich is biding his time, possibly for 2012 or 2016.

That's a really long answer to Jenna's question. The short answer is this:

People believe that McCain can win because the media tells us he can and because the GOP has failed miserably thus far in its attempts to find an appealing alternative. That's not to say they won't, but their present choices aren't going to get the job done - unless they're just looking to win the primary and lose the general.

Doyle administration turns blind eye to tax-owing smoking scofflaws

Pat Marley wrote in yesterday's MJS about how the Doyle administration continues to drop the ball on collection of use taxes on online cigarette purchases. Kudos to Pat for pointing out that Wisconsin has so far turned its back on at least $3 million owed to the state by its citizens.

According to Doyle flack Dan Leistikow, the Governor believes that online cigarette sales should be outlawed. Whatever. According to Green flack Rob Vernon, the man who would be governor believes that these taxes should be collected by the seller, not from the buyer. Fine. That'll take a change in federal law. Let's see if Green bothers to offer that one up himself while Congress is still in session.

Both of these are fine answers. But it doesn't excuse either from suggesting that in the meantime, Wisconsin should sit on its hands and do nothing. Online vendors are providing the Department of Revenue with a virtual "cheat sheet" that tells them where to find those who owe money and exactly how much they owe. It is highly unlikely that the cost of collecting these back taxes would be greater than the amount of taxes to be collected.

Sure, one can argue that lots of untaxed out-of-state purchases are not duly reported by citizens on their state income tax forms. I get that. But most of those retailers aren't required by law to turn over identifying information to states. Tobacco retailers are. Bricks-and-mortar retailers in Wisconsin can't refuse to collect taxes on cigarette sales. Why should we place them at a competitive disadvantage to out-of-state sellers? Because Doyle and DOR are too lazy to enforce existing law?

This would be like a district attorney declining to prosecute a bank robbery even though the bank has video that clearly identifies the perpetrator. Citizens wouldn't stand for that. Why should we stand for this amazing display of disregard for the state's finances? Remember, the $3+ million you collect here is $3+ million that you don't have to collect someplace else.

Governor, if you need another $3 million for one of your various hair-brained initiatives, I think you know exactly where the hell you can find it. Don't ask taxpayers for any more money before you start working to collect what's already owed.

2006 GOP Convention Resolutions: A Cliff's Notes Version

In an effort to get you the news you need without having to sift through tons of garbage about the Patriot Act and the rights of numismatists to collect whatever the hell it is they collect, I've compiled the following "best of" resolutions that will give you, my dear readers, a glimpse of what the wingnuts were up to last weekend in Appleton.

2006-02 Right to Keep and Bear Arms

WHEREAS, in those states which have adopted such legislation there has been a significant drop in crime, as criminals realized they could no longer count on finding easy (unarmed) prey

You've gotta love it when a room full of lay people assumes that it can somehow find causative relationships in data. Guess all those people in goofy hats on the resolution committee are economists and statisticians.

2006-03 Crime and Punishment

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, supports the following changes in law enforcement:

B. Revise the legal system to limit the number of appeals to no more than four (4), and
C. Bar the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners

And now they want to limit access to the courts by those convicted of crimes. Is there going to be a Scott Jensen exception to this one? Because I'd bet they'd give him a fifth appeal if he wanted it. Building and staffing all these prisons - you know, the ones that make our corrections system way more expensive than Minnesota's yet makes us no safer - is way more costly than allowing prisoners to appeal their convictions.

2006-04 Capital Punishment

WHEREAS, prisoners confined for life are not only a burden to the taxpayers

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, that the death penalty be re-instituted for certain specific heinous crimes for which any lesser penalty would be an injustice.

Yeah, that's right. The Republicans want to kill prisoners because it's cheaper than incarcerating them. Aren't these the same wingnuts that, in regard to abortion and stem cell research, lecture us about the sanctity of human life and tell us that you can't put a price on it? Apparently, in regard to the latter, you can.

2006-06 Family Values and Preservation of Parental Rights

J. Urges our local leaders and legislators to support restrictions on pornography in public places to the greatest extent constitutionally permissible, and limits on minors' access to pornographic sites on the Internet at schools and libraries.

Is a legislator's state-issued laptop a "public place"? Just checking. Guys, you might want to make sure you're exempt from this one. It could be embarrassing.

2006-10 Fairness in Agricultural Production, Service, and Marketing

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled:
A. Opposes any farm program that interferes with a free, competitive market, and
B. Supports the elimination of rules and regulations that interfere with the free flow of dairy products, and opposes the setting of a basic floor price for milk

Hear that, farmers? They're coming for your subsidies. Why are you voting Republican again?

2006-12 Election Reform

B. Urges passage of legislation to eliminate same-day voter registration, and
C. Urges passage of legislation to return to the requirement that voters show they are unable to vote on Election Day before they are issued an absentee ballot

Forget the merits or demerits of photo ID for a moment. Republicans just want to make it really hard to vote. For all the Republicans talk about efficiency, they really do like those 3-4 hour lines at the polls. It's a real travesty to let people vote ahead of an election at the clerk's office after all. It might mean that parents can pick up their kids from daycare on time the day of an election.

2006-17 Gambling

C. Call a state referendum on the reduction or abolition of gambling in the State.

First off, you can't do much about on-reservation tribal gaming. And have you forgotten that voters approved the lottery exception 2-to-1 back in 1987? We've already had this vote and you lost. Deal with it.

2006-18 Education

D. Urges our state legislators and local school boards to push for curriculum changes that place greater emphasis on the basics, including science, social studies, mathematics, reading, and phonics and eliminate all programs whose objectives are social engineering or advocacy of special interests, and

E. Urges the state legislature to stop schools from advocating gay and lesbian behavior, and

Um... "advocating gay and lesbian behavior"? You've got proof of teachers telling little boys to kiss each other on the playground? Telling little girls to feel each other up? I think you may be mistaking tolerance for advocacy. It's not the place of schools to teach intolerance. In America, we leave that to close-minded parents and houses of worship. Also, where are all of these school programs aimed at social engineering or advocacy of special interests? Guess we better get rid of the French Club. They promote the understanding of French culture, and that's gotta be a special interest.

2006-19 Heath Care

WHEREAS, basic health care is beneficial to life and to restoring health, and should be readily available for all persons:

.... but don't ask us to ensure that it actually is available for all persons.

2006-24 Smaller Government

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, urges the Federal Departments of Education, HUD, Energy, Transportation, HHS, Labor, Agriculture, National Endowment for the Arts, and Public Broadcasting System be abolished

HHS? Didn't they watch sweeps week? Who's going to respond to bird flu? Kitty Rhoades? Brett Davis? The rest of the bird flu task force? Do we really want to put anything of importance in the hands of these people? Also, most conservatives I know secretly think that public radio is the only thing worth listening to in the car.

2006-25 Conservative Direction: GOP

WHEREAS, the Republican Party of Wisconsin at the local, district, and state level at the Convention, has passed numerous resolutions of a conservative nature; favoring a smaller less intrusive government, a right to bear arms, and a directive to secure our borders, etc.; and
WHEREAS, these resolutions are the direction that the people of the party want their representatives to adhere to; and
WHEREAS, the people of the party recognize that while they cannot compel their representatives to vote in this manner, they can and do expect them to:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, urge the Republican Party to withhold all promotional and financial support of those candidates that do not consistently subscribe to this overall conservative agenda, be they incumbent or new candidates, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party actively and vigorously seek candidates that will go in this conservative direction, and respect the wishes of party members.

Now this is where it's at. Everyone watch the convention wingnuts write intolerance into the party's own governing document. Rick Wiley, Papa Smurf of the wingnuts, tried to spin this to The Capital Times by saying that "I think they were talking about being fiscally conservative." Hmm... don't think gun owning and border security have much to do with fiscal conservatism, Rick. I think that's social conservatism. In any case, I think you've got about 18 people in the Assembly and maybe five or six in the Senate who'll qualify for assistance under this resolution. And honestly, it'd be great if you tried to enforce this one. It'd just hasten your trek back to the minority.

2006-26 Smart Growth Comprehensive Planning Repeal

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, opposes Smart Growth and calls for the law to be promptly repealed by the state legislature.

Never mind that comprehensive planning actually helps municipalities to control spending and that it's immensely popular with the public. Let's kill it.

2006-28 U.S. Senate Filibusters

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, insist that the U. S. Senate eliminate the use of the filibuster in cases of Presidential nominations.

Hillary Clinton will thank you for this one in a few years.

2006-30 Light Rail and Metra

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, that no public funds be expended on light or commuter (METRA) rail in Wisconsin.

Screw public transit. We love the roadbuilders!

2006-31 End Stewardship Fund Land Purchases

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, shall stand opposed to Stewardship Fund land purchases and calls for the ending of the Stewardship Fund. Furthermore, the State should be selling land instead of purchasing more land.

Nevermind that stewardship is one of the most popular government programs ever enacted by the State of Wisconsin, even among Republicans. They must hand the tin ears out with the name tags at the registration table.

2006-32 Civil Rights

WHEREAS, the Republican Party was formed in March of 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin, to address the issue of slavery, and addressed racism as a moral issue in its first platform in 1856; and
WHEREAS, Republicans single-handedly passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of citizenship and voting for all Americans, with not one Democrat in Congress voting for either of those two constitutional amendments and in its first 14 years of controlling Congress, Republicans passed 23 civil rights laws each over almost unanimous opposition of Democrats, and
WHEREAS, The 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Civil Rights Bill were passed because of strong Republican support and the Republican Party has a proud record of standing for moral issues and for the inalienable rights of every individual:

Once again, Republicans brag about how they haven't done anything to advance the cause of civil rights and equality for over forty years. Trust me, while I'm sure that many African-Americans are thankful for what you did for them back in the 1860's, they're probably looking for something a bit more present-tense when they consider whom to vote for. Just a hunch.

So there you have it. And fret not, my little wingnuts. I promise I'll give the moonbats the same treatment when they gather in La Crosse in a few weeks. What's good for one is good for the other.

UW Admissions Policies: Much Ado About Nothing

There's been a lot of uproar today over an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in which the UW System discusses changes to its admissions policies in order to ensure compliance with a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The thing that seems to be bothering conservatives is the notion of holistic review - that is, that the System will no longer simply admit certain students based on formulas involving their class rank and test scores. UW-Whitewater's new policy, for instance, states that "favorable consideration" will be given to students who have "community involvement, volunteerism, foreign language study or study abroad, social involvement, diversity in its broadest sense, special talents and abilities, disability status and unique or individual circumstances."

Some conservatives (Jenna's got a good round-up here) seem to think that this means the sky is falling and that scads of white kids with great test scores are going to be denied so that poor black kids who studied abroad and have bad grades can go to college. Absurd, if you ask me. I mean, Whitewater's favorable consideration list is a big enough hole to drive a truck through. It's just saying "We're actually going to read your application from now on," just in 50 or 60 words that have probably been vetted and approved by the school's legal counsel.

No student in the UW System should be automatically admitted, even one with a 4.0 GPA and a 36 on the ACT, and this is coming from a blogger that was one point away from going two-for-two there. The kid completes an application, at least do him and everyone else the service of looking through it before you quickly put him in the admit pile. There's no doubt in mind that this kid will never be declined a spot at UW-Madison. So all this talk about smart, rich, white kids need not bother to apply is a load of crap. Yeah, that's for you, Kevin. Trust me, there are a lot of smart, rich, white kids at UW-Madison. The important adjective to the university is "smart." And under criteria already being used by UW-Madison, it will remain that way. Test scores, class rank, and GPA remain the most significant components of a student's application to the university.

And that brings me to exactly why there's no reason for anyone to be concerned about this alleged shift in the UW System's admissions policy: there's hardly any shift at all.

Let's say that I sit down with a pile of applications for UW-Madison and Steve Nass sits down with the same pile. Each of us is required to admit the same number of students.

Odds are that even though Steve Nass and I don't agree on much politically, we're probably going to agree on 90-95% of the kids who are going to be admitted. I'm certain that the kid who turns in 3.8/32 ACT is going to get a one-way ticket to the admit pile from either of us. The other 5-10% is going to be subjective. Nass might like the kid with the 3.65/27 ACT/class president, I might like the 3.60/29 ACT/volunteered at a local hospital. We have to appreciate that when we talk about these changes to the admissions process, we're talking about precious few spots in an undergraduate class.

So who, if anyone, might be affected by any change in UW's admissions policy? Well, the answer is simple: marginally qualified candidates. We're talking about applicants who are on the fringe anyway; candidates whose test scores and essays are not so compelling that they would be unanimously admitted regardless of the competition.

These students are always going have their fate determined subjectively. Some members of the admissions committee might feel like they are worthy of admission. Others might feel that different candidates are more deserving.

What's the alternative to holistic review? Conservatives seem to believe that the entire admissions process can be boiled down to some simple, one-size-fits-all formula. We shouldn't be surprised since they've tried the same things with K-12 financing and TABOR.

Chris over at Spotted Horse, for instance, seems to think we should do it all based on test scores and transcripts. Problem is, things like transcripts and class rank sometimes tell you precious little about what a student can accomplish academically.

Anyone who's been through school knows that grading is an entirely subjective matter. Some teachers are tough. Others hand out A's like they're going out of style. A kid in the 85th percentile in Whitefish Bay may well be a better candidate for UW than a kid in the 95th percentile in Oostburg based solely on the abilities of his or her high school peers. And what do you do with candidates that have mismatched qualifiers? What do you do with a kid that's got a 3.9 GPA and a 26 on the ACT? Assume that his teachers were easy on him? What about a kid with a 2.9 GPA and a 34 on the ACT? Assume he's got bad work ethic and underachieved during high school?

Now what if you've got one spot left and these are your two choices. Are you really sure you want to do this without knowing a little about their backgrounds? Because if you're human, you've already started to draw conclusions about these students based on numbers alone. Wouldn't you rather have more information? What if the kid with the 2.9 GPA did poorly in school early on because of an eating disorder or depression? What if the kid with the 3.9 and the 26 has difficulty with standardized tests because of a learning disorder like dyslexia - even with the special testing conditions afforded to disabled students? Wouldn't you want to know that?

What humors me is that some conservatives seem to suggest in that making the important decisions of which marginal candidates are going to be admitted to a university, the admissions committee should apparently have as little information as possible to help guide its decisions. Is that a general rule in their decision making process, or just one reserved for admissions committees?

Sadly, some legislators are once again just looking for another excuse to take cheap shots at the UW System. Rep. Krebich, the reason nobody consulted you about developing these policies is that you're hardly qualified or experienced in dealing with matters of university admission. You chair the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities and before that you read a tele-promp-ter for a living. I mean, maybe your award winning feature back in 1988 entitled "Rubber Duck Race" made you an expert on the matter. Or your 1990 feature titled "Gorby's T-Shirt Man."

Rick over at Shark and Shepherd hits it right on the head at the end of his post when he says he's "not sure you're going to see much change in who gets in and who does not." He's exactly right. Steve Nass, Rob Kreibich, and a handful of conservative bloggers are looking at a molehill right now and screaming "Mountain! Mountain!"

Oh yeah, and by the way, the thing we should all be a little concerned about in that article is UW-Whitewater's admission that it previously accepted candidates automatically if their class percentile and ACT score added up to more than 100. For those following along at home, that's 75% and a 25 of the ACT - hardly a stellar candidate for the rigors of university education. Nass' release was titled, in part, "Academically Qualified Students Need Not Apply." Perhaps Whitewater could twist that a little into its new slogan: "Academically Qualified Students Are Not Applying." Guess the old adage is true: those who can, do; those who can't, go to Whitewater.

And if you're reading this, Kevin Reilly, are you still looking for someone to do public relations for you? Consider this my job application. My email is on the right-hand side. Look forward to hearing from you.

Update: Seth at In Effect shares his thoughts on the matter.

Wingnuts descend on the Fox Valley; hilarity to ensue

Ah yes, we are counting the hours until hundreds of rabid, poorly-dressed conservatives descend on Appleton, like a plague out of Revelation. They'll be bringing with them stupid hats, terrible lapel pins, and sequined American flag vests that look like something out of a high school show choir's back closet. They'll drink, they'll eat, and they'll pass a ridiculous platform that every Republican candidate will push away from, like a boat pushing away from an oversized party dock desperately in need of DNR regulation.

According to RPW Chairman Rick Wiley, the importance of Mark Green winning the governor's office is "...huge. That's why the RNC is so interested and focused on the race itself... Having Mark Green in the governor's office and the Mark Green/RPW structure in place as the presidential race starts in 2008 is huge."

But is it really important? Or is this just Rick Wiley trying to spin the relevance of his little organization and justify the enormous salary he pulls down? Let's take an historical look at the importance of the governor's office, and more importantly, RPW, when it comes to success in statewide races.

Even with King Tommy at the helm, RPW never once managed to deliver Wisconsin for a Republican presidential candidate. Bush 41 lost in '88. He lost again in '92. Dole lost in '96. Bush 43 lost in 2000 and '04. It's foolish for anyone to assume that Mark Green, with a far more limited appeal, will ever be able to do better. Unless the Republicans nominate a guy like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani in 2008, just save yourself the anguish and color Wisconsin blue already.

But now, the real point. Anyone who donates money to the RPW should just stop. Or flush it down the toilet. Flushing it isn't tax deductible either but at least you know where's it going. What's RPW done for anyone lately? Bueller? Bueller?

Let's hop in the wayback machine for a bit. Other than Tommy, what's the last statewide race of importance that RPW helped to nail down? Sorry, Jack Voight is not an acceptable answer. No offense Jack, but you hand out unclaimed property and administer EdVest and that's about it.

Guess what? Don Hanaway was elected Attorney General back in 1986. And Bob Kasten was elected to the U.S. Senate. That's your answer. Other than Tommy, it's been 20 years since a Republican won a prominent statewide race in Wisconsin. Since then it's been an endless reign of Kohl, Feingold, Doyle, Lautenschlager, Grover, Benson, and Burmaster. With a record like that, why in God's name should anyone have any faith in RPW to do anything other than screw s@#% up?

So everyone can go off to Appleton this weekend, hobnob with the candidates, get blasted at the hospitality suites, and act like there's reason to celebrate. Sure, RPW throws a mean party. That's nice. But perhaps attendees, instead of bashing Democrats for three days, should put Rick Wiley on the hot seat. Ask him the tough questions about why RPW's got virtually nothing to show for all of the money it's gotten in the last 20 years. Ask him what they plan to do this year to be more effective than they've been in the past. Ask him why you should keep sending him money when you could just as easily steer it directly to candidates or to other causes. It's better to ask these questions now than the day after the election, when you're staring at the ceiling and trying to figure out how Jim Doyle and Peg Lautenschlager both managed to get reelected. On that day, it'll be too late.

Then on Sunday you should all sober up and take a long, hard look in the mirror. Maybe that morning, when Mike Huebsch leads the prayer breakfast, you should bow your heads and pray for some divine guidance. Perhaps you should reflect quietly on why Republicans have had virtually no statewide success in a place everyone says is a swing state. Is it the organization? Is it the candidates? Is it the message? It's gotta be something, right? After all, RACC and CERS have done fine for themselves all this time. For Democrats to clean up for 20 years in non-Tommy statewide races, RPW must be doing something wrong. Maybe you should just pray for RPW to stay the hell out of the way.

Here's hoping you'll figure it out. After all, democracy is always best served by a balance of power.

Friday thoughts

• Thanks to the Spice Boys for the link to my recap of the Terri McCormick open records debacle. Because of you, I had to look up the meaning of the word "gadfly." I think I like the following definition best:

  gad-fly n. Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals.

• The "Even Tom Reynolds and Blind Squirrels Sometimes Find Nuts" award for the week goes to The Capital Times, for its editorial today encouraging the application of common sense in the sentencing of former Speaker Scott Jensen next week. As TCT notes, putting Jensen in a state prison is just a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. Does anyone think present or future legislators will be deterred from wrongdoing by throwing Jensen into a state prison instead of giving him work release? Given the debacle over campaign finance and ethics reform in the last few weeks, I think we know what the answer to that question is. No, it won't make a dime's worth of difference. Jensen's got three little kids at home and has a clean criminal record prior to this conviction. Put him in work release and let him do something constructive with his life. We'll all be better off for it.

• Two thumbs up for Paul Barrows, who, on top of being vindicated by a campus appeals panel, has also shown how poorly the UW System would function if it always listened to Republicans. Let's not kid ourselves. The rush to judgment on Barrows was largely a product of frothing, spiteful ignorance on the part of UW-hating conservative legislators. So Wiley gives in, quickly passes judgment, and now look at the mess you've created. Not only is there a decent chance that Barrows will get his old job back, but he's also filed papers with the Claims Board seeking compensation for his hasty reclassification into a lower-paying job.
  

• Will he or won't he? Tommy Thompson is now rumbling that he might have a decision on the gubernatorial race as early as Sunday. His endorsement of Mark Green's chances ("I hope he can win") is not the sort of thing anyone on Green's team is putting on a lit piece anytime soon. Seth over at In Effect has some interesting thoughts on TGT and on Mark Belling's sudden conversion. Why Belling is adoring someone who loved spending and governed as a moderate is unclear to me, but then again, most all of what Mark Belling says doesn't resonate in my head. I will only say that, judging by what has been printed, it seems that TGT is more interested in running for president than in being governor. Private citizen is a difficult platform from which to launch a campaign for the nation's highest office. Governor of a swing state? Much, much better. TGT's decision may end up hinging on his own plans for 2008 or 2012.
  

• Leading candidate for worst political calculation of the year: Kathy Falk. The brightest hope for Dems in the next 5-10 years may be committing political suicide with her unwillingness to take the gloves off against AG Peg Lautenschlager. Running as Peg Lautenschlager without an OWI conviction doesn't seem to be winning over the Dem party faithful. With a loss in the '02 gubernatorial primary and a loss in the '06 AG primary, it's tough to see her shaking the "loser" label in another statewide race. And it could be a long, long time before Tammy Baldwin hangs it up in Congress.

• It's not just the fiscal conservatives that feel disenfranchised these days. There's been a good deal of talk as of late, on Boots & Sabers and elsewhere, about the discontent that many fiscal conservatives feel with all levels of their government. Peggy Noonan even chimed in on the issue in a recent column in The Wall Street Journal. I may make a rare weekend post on Saturday night that will explore this idea further. It's not just fiscal conservatives that are ready to sit this one out.
  

Wonder if we'll be seeing activity at TommyThompson.org anytime soon?

The Spice Boys chimed in yesterday in the Sunday MJS, throwing more fuel on the Tommy for Governor fire. (And as an aside, thanks to the Spice Boys for getting someone to own up, on the record, to funding these Strategic Vision polls. According to their column, SV boss David Johnson says the firm is eating the cost.)

As speculation continues to intensify leading up to the 2006 RPW Convention in Appleton, I would like to point out that at least if TGT is running, he's been planning ahead for awhile.

Take, for instance, the following information obtained from Network Solutions.

Registrant: Prange, Phillip **

44 E. Mifflin St.
MADISON, WI 53703-2134
US

Domain Name: TOMMYTHOMPSON.ORG

Administrative Contact :
Prange, Phillip **
prange@gatewayventure.com
44 E. Mifflin St.
MADISON, WI 53703-2134
US
Phone: 608-252-9245
Fax: 123 123 1234

Technical Contact :
Network Solutions, LLC.
customerservice@networksolutions.com
13200 Woodland Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171-3025
US
Phone: 1-888-642-9675
Fax: 571-434-4620

Record expires on 31-Jan-2009
Record created on 31-Jan-2001
Database last updated on 30-Jun-2004

Nice to know that they've been squatting on a domain, just in case.

At this point, a TGT run for Governor could be the only thing that allows Republicans to weather a Democratic storm in 2006. Mark Green won't have any kind of coattails outside of Northeast Wisconsin. TGT, on the other hand, could singlehandedly save his old gubernatorial and HHS staffer Brett Davis, Gene Hahn, Mark Pettis, and a handful of others in competitive races outstate. Tommy at the top of the ticket could be the difference between Assembly Republicans coming back at 60 or at 55. It could help to shore up potential challenges to Zien and Schultz, allowing Senate Republicans to direct their money elsewhere.

According to one source in the outer orbits of the Tommysphere, Green's less-than-stellar polling numbers against Doyle may be the deciding factor in whether TGT jumps in the race. Republicans have to accept that there's probably a 50/50 chance right now that they're not going to win a Green/Doyle matchup. Doyle's money advantage could really damage Mark Green. Against TGT, it probably won't matter.

If you're TGT, and you're looking at numbers saying that you are an overwhelming favorite in a primary and a general without having spent a dime, that's gotta be tough to walk by. It's gotta be even tougher when you know that if you don't run, Republicans may well lose the race.

If the WisPolitics Stock Report is correct, Green would reportedly drop out if TGT climbed into the ring. Of course, that would immediately make Green a huge favorite in any other race he might decide to climb into, be it for his old Congressional seat, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General.

So to my readers, I invite your thoughts on the following matter: Would you rather have Tommy and what is probably a sure thing in November, or Mark Green, even though the party's chances of losing the top race may be far greater?

A Belated Cinco de Mayo Gift to Legislative Staff

Hey legislative staffers, take a break from post-session catching up and swing over here. You can whack at a piñata just like legislators took blindfolded shots at you last week.

Rep. Don Friske (R - Merrill), offered a bill, AB 1189, that among other things would have required ethics training for all state employees. To his credit, Friske worked with Rep. Mark Pocan (D - Madison) to fix one glaring hole in the bill: it didn't require legislators to attend the same training sessions as other state employees. Surely, considering how many of them have been convicted of or plead guilty to felony charges lately, you'd think this would be a reasonable requirement.

Then, all of a sudden, this bill that was such a cornerpiece of the Assembly Republicans' fluff agenda on campaign finance and ethics reform gets tabled during the last week of session and is never taken off the table for a vote. Hmmm...

Nevermind that the former Assembly Majority Leader is sleeping at a Huber facility, and nevermind that the former Speaker is about to be sent to the hole next week. Legislators are obviously whiter than the snow in December when it comes to ethics.

If the public ever wanted greater proof that these guys just don't have a clue, here it is. What a great message for Assembly Republicans to sell to an already demoralized staff. Now, we've got actual proof that when push comes to shove, legislative leaders think they are the saints and staff are the sinners. They're too busy doing... um... whatever it is legislators do between now and November to be bothered to watch a few videos about how to be more ethical than their predecessors.

To top it off, Rep. Terri McCormick, kamikaze candidate in the 8th Congressional District, set off on the world's largest fishing trip, submitting an open records request to the Assembly Chief Clerk trying to ferret out information on various perks received by Assembly staffers.

For those of you that missed the whole McCormick open records debacle, here are copies of the emails sent out last week.

______________________________________________
From: Fuller, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:37 AM
To: *Legislative Assembly Republicans; *Assembly Chief Clerk's Office
Subject: Open records request.

The Assembly Chief Clerk office received an open records request records from Representative Terri McCormick. The following information was requested:


- Monthly staff salary histories for all legislative staff from 2001 to present.

- Monthly perks for Republican legislative staff from 2001 to present.
For those legislative staff who don't know what a perk is: A perk is a benefit given to an employee in addition to a salary, for example, the use of a car or membership in a club.

The Wisconsin State Assembly does not provide perks to legislative staff.

- Per diem payments/expenses made to Republican legislative staff from 2001 to present.
Section 13.123 (1) Wisconsin Statutes, and Legislative Joint Rule 85 authorize legislators to claim a "per diem" allowance for each day spent in Madison on legislative business. Therefore, Legislators are only authorized per diem.

- ALEC travel reimbursements made to Republican legislative staff from 2001 to present.
Legislative staff have never attended or have been reimbursed for any ALEC travel. Additionally, ALEC pays all costs and related expenses for legislators to attend their seminars in the form of a scholarship.

This information is provided to the requester under Wisconsin Statutes Section 19.35(1)(b) and the Wisconsin AssemblyÂ’s open records policy:

“RIGHT TO INSPECTION. (b) Except as otherwise provided by law, any requester has a right to inspect a record and to make or receive a copy of a record which appears in written form. If a requester appears personally to request a copy or a record, the authority having custody of the record may, at its option, permit the requester to photocopy the record or provide the requester with a copy substantially as readable as the original.”

This information will be researched, compiled, prepared and made available to her on May 10, 2006. If you have any questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me at 266-5811. Thank you.

Later in the day comes McCormick's response to Fuller's email:

_____________________________________________
From: Rep.McCormick
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:43 PM
To: *Legislative Assembly Republicans
Subject: Re: Open Records Request

Dear Assembly Legislators and Staff Members,
I would like to clarify the request placed with the Assembly Chief Clerk on February 28, 2006. My verbal inquiry with the Chief Clerk was of a general nature.

The request was to evaluate why my office was denied a 2nd staff person during my 2nd term in the legislature as the Chair of Economic Development. It was also to request the personnel policy so that I knew when pay raises and other matters could be resolved.

Unfortunately, this request was not answered "as soon as practicable" as stated by law. A 2nd request was issued on March 1st, a 3rd on March 10, a 4th was placed on April 21. Unfortunately, I did not receive so much as an acknowledgement of this request until April 21st, and the rest of you were not notified until the last day of session.

It has been an honor to serve with all of you in the State Assembly. I assure you this request was not a targeted request - it will be used for my office purposes only.

Sincerely,
Terri McCormick
State Representative
56th Assembly District

The best part of the email exchange, of course, is Patrick Fuller's saying "For those legislative staff who don't know what a perk is..." The very fact that he's explaining it says it all.

Assembly staff haven't gotten a cost of living adjustment in about five years. They help pay for their health care now as well. The people who get all the perks - per diem, mileage, junkets to resorts to hang with lobbyists - they're called legislators. Rep. McCormick might know that if her staff situation looked less like a merry-go-round. Hell, if conservatives want a tighter restriction than income growth or inflation for their next version of TPA, they should tie increases in state spending to increases in Assembly salaries.

It's not about the numbers, it's about who's paying for the questions.

Another poll from Strategic Vision came out today. 800 likely voters, +/- 3 percent.

Nothing has really changed. President Bush is still wildly unpopular. People disapprove of both the Legislature and the Governor. And Tommy Thompson still kills Mark Green (69-20 among Republicans) and Jim Doyle (58-30) in polling for the gubernatorial race.

It's not so much the polling results that interest me these days. It's that, well, it's hard to believe that Strategic Vision is doing charity work. That they're paying people to make thousands of phone calls to get answers to these questions out of personal or corporate curiosity. That they're running an "ask nine questions, get the tenth free" special.

Surely we can assume that Jim Doyle and Mark Green are not paying a polling firm to release numbers showing that both are losing badly to a former Governor of Wisconsin. Similarly, we can assume that the Republican Party of Wisconsin and Democratic Party of Wisconsin are not paying for this kind of bad publicity either.

So that leaves the unanswered question: if Strategic Vision isn't doing this as a freebie, who's paying them to ask questions that show how popular Tommy Thompson is?

"What's Good for the Goose Should Be Good for the Gander," or "Republicans Botch Ethics Reform"

Today, the Wisconsin State Assembly is serving up what is quite possibly the grandest display of arrogance and legislative hypocrisy of the session, and they're doing it in the name of ethics reform.

Assembly Bill 1188 would require state employees who leave to work on campaigns to foot the bill for their health insurance premiums during their leave of absence. The bill is being offered by Assembly Republicans as a weak-kneed bait-and-switch from SB 1 and AB 226. They want to use this bill (and a few others) to hide behind when voters correctly accuse them of doing nothing to clean up politics in Madison.

I'm not going to argue the merits or demerits of the bill. I think valid arguments can be made on both sides. The biggest problem with the bill is its woeful inconsistency. It completely ignores a group of people who collect a state paycheck and benefits and do nothing but campaign for the five months prior to the election: state legislators.

Just like legislative staff, state legislators also get their paychecks and health insurance from the State of Wisconsin. They, however, apparently see no problems at all in getting pay and benefits while shunting staffers to campaign payrolls. After all, who are we kidding? Legislators don't really do any legislative work between June and November of an election year. They're all handing out candy and literature at parades and shamelessly sucking up to voters. Is that worth $3,797.42 (plus benefits) a month to the State of Wisconsin? I think not.

So perhaps my readers should call their representative today (1-800-362-9472) and demand an answer to the following question: why is it okay for a legislator to get a paycheck and benefits to campaign, but not okay for a legislative staffer to do the same sorts of things? Surely it is not too much to ask them to be consistent, right?

What's especially funny is that the lead author of this sham reform bill is none other than Mark Pettis. Talk about someone who has benefited to the nth degree from state employees covering his butt every two years. There's your guy. And he's authoring this bill? Note to Ann Hraychuck: maybe you'd like to point this out when Pettis tries to call himself a reformer. Pettis is pretty much an embodiment of what the system can accomplish on a legislator's behalf. I think that all ended up on the record when legislative staff testified in the Jensen trial.

Anyone whose name is on this bill - Democrat or Republican - should be ashamed of themselves. What they are suggesting, to no great surprise, is that staff be held to a different and higher standard than they would ever hold themselves.

Legislators need to get over themselves and stop trying to scapegoat their staff for all of their own ethical shortcomings. Why is it that Gary George, Chuck Chvala, Brian Burke, Scott Jensen, Mickey Foti, and Bonnie Ladwig have all been found (or plead) guilty of what basically amounts to misconduct in public office, and legislators are still telling staff and other state employees that they're the ones that need to be watching videos on ethics? Everyone in and around that building knows that it's legislators that need to sit down and watch the videos and listen to the lectures. It's legislators who continually blur the line between right and wrong. It's legislators that have their staff running errands, playing chauffeur, and babysitting the kids while they're napping or playing games on their laptops on the floor. The staff, the lobbyists, the lawyers. Everyone seems to get it but you, leggies.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you think staff who work on campaigns should have their salaries and health insurance premiums paid out of a campaign account, one of you should be brave enough to hold you and your colleagues to the same standard. I know you read this on the floor. C'mon. Just one of you. I dare you to offer the amendment and see how quickly legislative leaders flee to caucus.

Here, I'll even help you. Marlin Schneider almost got it. His amendment to this legislative abomination would treat all state elected officials like legislative staff, but only if they are running for a different office. In other words, the gravy still flows freely in the land of incumbency.

What you need to do is call Rick Champagne (6-9930) over at the Legislative Reference Bureau. Ask him to redraft AA 2 to AB 1188, but on page 1, line 8, strike the phrase "that he or she does not currently hold." That should be enough to make it apply to all state elected officials running for any state elected office, including the one they currently occupy.

The problem is that you won't. You guys live for double standards. One need look no further than the open records exemption you grant yourselves to understand how that works. So sadly, Wisconsin will probably get one more reason today to be ashamed of its public servants. You could work on real ethics reform, but instead you expect the people of this state to swallow this garbage. Disgraceful.

WSJ provides job advice to Capitol staffers

I was thumbing through the Wisconsin State Journal yesterday and ran into a great column that, with some tweaking, applies perfectly to life in the legislature.

You can find it online here. It's about a good-looking woman with absolutely no job skills who manages to get one undeserved promotion after another.

Over the years, many who have worked in legislative leadership offices have deserved to be there. But if you substitute "ass-kisser" for "good looking" you've pretty much got an understanding of how the others got there. So this one goes out to all the hard-working, competent, qualified legislative staff - Republicans and Democrats alike - who never played in the right volleyball or softball league, slept with the right people, or kissed the right ass to get a job in leadership or over at the caucus.