Milwaukee Bucks sued by St. Hubert for trademark infringement on secondary logo

Kinda funny that a rich Jewish guy who owns the Bucks approved a new logo that bears striking resemblance to a pictorial representation associated with St. Hubert, a Christian proselytizer and patron saint of hunters.

Or for the less sophisticated: "Golly, that thar picture looks a lot like the one on that bottle uh Jägermeister we drank when your sister Brenda married your cousin Billy Ray."

Doyle can create a perfect Republican storm on ethics reform

Hi folks. I'm back from, well, recess. Unlike a lot of bloggers, I just don't write if I don't find anything particularly newsworthy or interesting to write about. I figure that my silence better serves you than poorly-written drivel just to fill space. There are a lot of bloggers out there who could learn a thing or two in that regard, mostly the ones who insist on posts consisting mostly of links to news articles along with insightful commentary like "Heh," "Hmmm," or "Interesting." But I'm not going to name names here.

I'm back because I think the Doyle campaign could use some help with strategy over this whole ethics thing. From where I sit on the jungle gym, it's not that hard.

Jimmy, you need to listen to the reformers here and call a special session to take up SB 1. Demand that both houses pass it as is, without amendment. Then, sit back and watch the shenanigans you will have unleashed, like a plague of locusts, onto the Republicans. Follow me here, big guy.

Ethics reform isn't going to be anyone's number one issue as we head to the polls this fall. Okay, maybe it'll be Mike McCabe's, though I'm not sure anyone is sufficiently ethical to earn his vote - not even him. Ethics reform is, however, a strong undercurrent in Wisconsin politics with all of the assorted convictions we've seen in regard to the caucus scandal. People across the state know their government smells funny right now. They're not sure if it's the Republicans or the Democrats, or maybe both. Both sides need some insulation on this issue (hey Pocan, your hands were in the cookie jar too, so stop acting like your s%#! doesn't smell), and SB 1 can provide it. Hey, if ever there was a group of 132 people that pretty much needed a full-time babysitter to keep them honest, it's the Wisconsin State Legislature.

Furthermore, Republicans can't do ethics reform on their own. They need the Democrats for credibility. The only people with less credibility on ethics than Republicans are oil company executives who, perhaps not coincidentally, all seem to be Republicans.

Mind you, I'm not sure I'd trust an ethics reform bill put together entirely by Democrats, but I'm not about to lead that crusade. After all, as Republican leadership knows, I'm just a lonely anonymous voice out here in the wilderness with a small circulation (Big ups to my folks in the Capitol press room and at The Washington Post! Thanks for your loyal readership!)

Governor, I know that your fine folks in the East Wing read my blog when they are not playing minesweeper or fighting on behalf of Wisconsin's working families. So I'm going to tell them what to tell you...

Calls the special on ethics reform and loudly proclaims your support for SB 1. Make sure you've got the Democratic army lined up in the Assembly, and call Mark Green out. Green says if he were governor, he "would have taken [SB 1] up and gotten this done."

Hmmm... okay Marky Mark. If you think you'll be able to work constructively with the Legislature, it shouldn't be asking too much for you to find 11 Republicans to vote for this out of 59. Let's call those 11 legislators the "funky bunch," just for the hell of it.

Green's support of SB 1 puts him in direct contrast to the erstwhile leader of the Assembly, John Gard, who has his eyes on a bigger prize as well. That means Gard has to put two coherent sentences together telling us why both the sitting governor and Republican gubernatorial hopeful don't have a clue about what they're talking about. Maybe they're wrong because, according to John Vincent Gard, dad is "the man." (more on the Gard television debut in a post tomorrow)

Here's where the "as is" part comes in, Jimmy. If you don't demand the bill without amendment, surely some hungry power broker like, oh, let's say Mark Gundrum, will get his pudgy little fingers all over the bill and screw it all to hell. What we need is for Green and Gard to essentially be fighting for control over the same caucus. That means no changes to the bill. Compromise could ruin this.

Trust me here, Jimmy, there are at least 11 legislators in that caucus who will be more loyal to Green than to Gard. If Green needs this to cover his ass, he'll probably find the votes he needs. Then it's up to Gard as to whether he wants to stand in the schoolhouse door. If he does, the 8th District Dems won't even have to do the dirty work. Terri "Kamikaze" McCormick will be lobbing the grenades on your behalf.

It's a win-win, Governor. If the Republicans can't pass SB 1, Gard looks like an obstructionist and Green looks like someone who can't lead the troops. If the bill does pass, you sign it into law. Green will try to take credit for it, but that's where you can point out that Green only managed to get the funky bunch to vote for the bill. Real leadership isn't getting a sixth of your party on board. It's more than Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. It's getting everyone on board, like you did. Of course, the more people Green gets, the lonelier Gard looks in obstructing the bill on a procedural vote back in May. Meanwhile, the ADCC can start prepping the following lit piece...

Jim Doyle supports real ethics reform.
Mark Green supports real ethics reform.
(Democratic Assembly challenger) supports real ethics reform.
(Judy Krawczyk/Karl Van Roy/Debi Towns/Rob Kreibich/Gene Hahn) does NOT support real ethics reform.

Or if they do vote for SB 1, opponents can point out that they voted against the pulling motion to vote on SB 1 back on May 2nd. That makes them flip-floppers. Either way, good stuff for Assembly Democrats to make Republican vulnerables look extreme compared to their party's would-be leader. And that's good for you, Governor, because it might bring you a few steps closer to Speaker Tom Nelson (see endnote).

Jimmy, this special session is like chucking a snowball down a mountain. By the time it gets to the bottom, you've got a virtual avalanche of political goodness. You've just gotta have enough faith to throw the snowball. And if you think Georgia Thompson and the Adelman contributions are a problem, just announce that you're giving the Adelman money back when you call the special session.

Think about it, Governor. And if SB 1 passes, I would like to be considered for the position of Inspector General. C'mon. It'd be fun. Go Go Gadget subpoena power!

(By the way, do you ever wonder if the Assembly GOP regrets writing Tom Nelson off as a carpetbagging Wellstone clone two years ago? Tom Nelson was their biggest nightmare and they were all too dumb to realize it until it was too late. Hmmm... a bachelor's degree from a small, private liberal arts college in the Midwest followed by a graduate degree in public policy from an Ivy League institution. Does that sound like anyone else we know?)

Despicable

Normally he's just kooky, but if what David Seitz says in the MJS is true, Sen. Tom Reynolds has crossed into an entirely inappropriate line by offering unsolicited assistance in "converting" an openly gay constituent.

Apparently the Senator never learned that a politican's job is to listen to public opinion and perhaps try to lead by shaping it broadly. Sending mail to a constituent on how he can become "ex-gay" without that constituent's permission or request is wholly and completely inappropriate. And I joke about Reynolds needing a new job, but now I'm deadly serious. Any elected official who would do that is wholly and totally unfit for public office.

Hey Bob Dohnal, why don't you crawl out from under your rock and defend that?

If this is true, Sen. Reynolds needs to resign. Like, yesterday. And if not, his constituents need to ensure his "conversion" to "ex-public servant" in November.

Count von Count: "9.. 9 points for wingnuts... AH AH AH!"

From the latest Strategic Vision poll...

23. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson included; Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 28%
John McCain 25%
Tommy Thompson 21%
Mitt Romney 5%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 10%

Oh no, oh my! It's a herd of RINOs at the top of the pack!! That's right, wingnuts. Four-fifths of self-identified Republicans are currently supporting moderate Republicans for president. Now, I know it's early and numbers are fickle, but that's quite a hole you're starting from. Let's see, Gingrich... 5... plus Frist... okay, 2 more... plus Santorum... 1, and he'll be free because he's going to lose in November... George Allen... 1 for the redneck... that's 5 plus 2 plus 1 plus 1...

Nine! Nine percent for the conservatives!

80 to 9. Even if I gave you the three point margin on the top four moderates, we'd still be at 65 percent. Not too shabby, RINOs!! Throw Condi in the mix and the RINOs still rack up 70 percent.

But hey, the nine percent is all out there blogging, so feel free to talk amongst yourselves and overestimate the support for your causes, okay?

Supervisor to York: Most politicians are a little bit despicable

I like Dennis York. He's pretty much the reason I started this blog. I enjoy his work. That picture of Georgia Thompson in a sombrero is fantastic. And I think that it's great that he wants to rattle off a 1,129-word rant about Doyle's use of Alzheimer's Disease as a component of the stem cell debate.

However, before York climbs onto the soapbox, perhaps he should also tell the Bush Administration to end its despicable stem cell charade too. After all, any sixth-grader doing research for a biology report on stem cells can find this website put together by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH says, in part:

Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

That'd be straight from the mouth of the National Institutes of Health. A part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Whose secretary is appointed by the White House. An office held by a Republican. And confirmed by the Senate. Also controlled by Republicans.

So is Doyle being misleading when he talks about stem cells having some potential to help those with Alzheimer's disease? Well, I don't know. The NIH seems to agree with Doyle - or more likely, Doyle is agreeing with the NIH. Perhaps York or his hand puppet would like to sit down with the NIH and tell them how they've got it wrong.

In highlighting his support for stem cell research, Doyle has clearly chosen a winning wedge issue for the fall. Perhaps that's the greater frustration for Republicans. I appreciate and understand the objections of some individuals to embryonic stem cell research. Their beliefs are sincerely and strongly held, and their perspectives are important in the policy debate surrounding this research.

However, that position is a big loser among moderate voters and independents. Sometimes principles gain you votes. Other times they cost you votes. Republicans are not going to win a debate on embryonic stem cell research with the squishy middle because they are the ones most likely to view this issue from a completely pragmatic standpoint.

In fact, conservatives lost the embryonic stem cell debate 25 years ago, when doctors began using in vitro fertilization to help couples with fertility issues have children. Now, two and a half decades later, we've got hundreds of thousands of unclaimed embryos just sitting around. Nobody's ever coming for them. Only 2 percent of unclaimed embryos are put up for adoption. (I could go on, but instead will direct you to a well-written piece by William Saletan from last June on this very issue.) The rest are just left to sit in a freezer. And then what?

Would Republicans have the embryos sit in a freezer forever? Should they be turned over to Jack Voight's office as unclaimed property? Would the GOP prefer we draft single women to gestate these cellular wonders and then create some version of Boys Town for these embryo kids? Do we dispose of them as medical waste? Or do we make them available for medical research?

This is where conservatives find themselves in a difficult position. To most people, freezing embryos indefinitely is just punting on the decision until later - and ultimately, medical research seems far more practical than disposing of the embryos. In the case of research, there's at least an intent to produce some kind of positive result from the destruction of an embryo. To many, that is far more respectful of human life than throwing the embryo in the dumpster, tossing it into the incinerator, or flushing it down the drain. It's the same logic by which many people support organ donation - that out of death, something positive might occur for those who remain.

Sure, conservatives can argue that fertility clinics should stop producing embryos en masse for IVF treatments. Perhaps clinics should only produced as many embryos as will be implanted at any one given time. But the likelihood of getting the public to oppose IVF outright is about the same as the likelihood of pro-lifers climbing into a time machine and going back to change the course of history. Mind you, the latter could be really funny. I'd love nothing more than to watch a bunch of pro-lifers standing outside fertility clinics with pictures of petri dishes and guys in white lab coats, harassing middle-aged couples who want to have kids. That'll do wonders for their cause. Besides, they already had that debate back in the 70's - and lost.

Meanwhile, I will contemplate writing a post entitled "Green's Despicable Catholic Charade." After all, the bishops have intoned for decades that in the present day, the death penalty contradicts the teachings of the Church. That hasn't stopped Mark Green from supporting it. The Church also rejects the use of birth control for family planning, an issue that Mark Green seems eerily silent on. Perhaps someone should ask him about it. Or the Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization. Shall we expect an IVF ban from the Green administration?

Most politicians are a little bit despicable. They will stretch the truth to the point of breaking in an attempt to cast themselves in as favorable a light as possible. They will cherry pick the teachings of their church that are most convenient and find weak rationalizations for selling out the rest.

If Green can't even manage to follow the teachings of his church, why should I have any faith in him to listen to the voters - or at least, any more so than Jim Doyle? So call out Jim Doyle if you like, but in doing so, realize that Mark Green is no better. Both will do or say just about anything to get elected.

A positively awful tune you must listen to.

Apparently the Association of International Glaucoma Societies has a hymn. Here are the lyrics:

Glaucoma, Glaucoma, Glaucoma
Constricting vision slowly
Halted by progress of science
Vision of a world united
Beyond all science knowing

I think I heard this sung at the Unitarian church by the UW Hospital once. Or on an episode of South Park. One of the two. I can't remember which.

Do they think this is the Olympics? Does a disease really need a hymn?

Grading "Paul's wife"

Watchdog Milwaukee has a post up about the ratings that "Paul's wife" has received on Myspace.com for her teaching efforts at UW-Milwaukee. Classic stuff. Makes me wish they had something like this when I was in school.

But I thought that perhaps the Myspace crowd was biased, so I wandered over to ratemyprofessors.com to see what students there had to say about "Paul's wife." (Hey, if she can't bring herself to refer to J.B. Van Hollen by name on her blog, I'm giving her the same treatment over here.)

In fairness, there were a few good ones over there...

Jessica is a great teacher. She has a really great way of making you understand the material. She is intelligent, concise, and interesting. She really made class fun, and I enjoyed her "boring" stories:) Take her if you have the chance, it's worth your while.

Jessica seems nice, and is pretty interesting. The only lecture is at 8am Mondays. There is a lot of projects and writing involved.

But of course, this one is far more interesting...

Biased **** beyond belief. Trashed the integrity of the entire department. She grades based on how hard you appear to laugh at her boring stories. I used to sit there and count off how many minutes she would be late, and then how many she'd talk about her boring kid, or her stupid life or her trouble finding parking... Generally 1/3 of classtime was wasted on her general blabber. It's a VERY easy A though, if you're willing to kiss her ass.

And that's from a student that gave her an average rating. The students who gave her poor ratings didn't leave comments.

Now, the obvious question: what are the odds that "Paul's wife" left herself the glowing review?

Shooting for veto record, Doyle calls special session, demands 17 more bills to reject

Today, Jim Doyle held a forceful press conference in which he ordered the Legislature to convene in special session and pass 17 additional bills, so that he might veto them when they cross his desk.

"I am not going to finish second to that bitch Napolitano," Doyle was heard screaming to his aides through a door to an East Wing conference room earlier in the day.

Janet Napolitano, the first-term governor of Arizona, has scored national media attention by vetoing her 115th bill of the term, breaking a record previously held by Bruce Babbitt. Like Doyle, Napolitano has been forced to work with a Republican-controlled Legislature for the length of her term.

Doyle currently sits second in the nation, with 101 vetoes.

"I have said countless times that we must work to make Wisconsin number one, and that includes the number of vetoes issued," said Doyle. "I demand that Speaker Gard and Majority Leader Schultz bring their members back to pass 17 more bills that threaten the safety of the public, provide needless tax cuts to their campaign donors, and offer trivial, meaningless solutions to the problems faced by our working families."

"It shouldn't be hard, as they've been doing it all session," Doyle continued. "I don't care if Gard even has to send a few members home to get a majority, like with the death penalty vote. I'm okay with that. (Assembly Minority Leader Jim) Kreuser's already promised me his caucus won't give you guys a hard time about it."

Doyle issued a direct threat to legislators if they did not comply with his request.

"Wisconsin has a chance to be number one, and nobody will get in the way," said Doyle. "My good friend Chief Soft Money has already promised a massive media buy calling Republican legislators obstructionists if they fail to produce 17 more bills. Why 17 when 15 will do the trick? Well, the Chief has said that he needs 17 more veto pens to give to my 'special donors,' the ones I never get to know by name."

Then, in a moment of candidness, Doyle added, "Surely you all understand how this works, guys. If I don't get the veto pens, I will be forced to mint some of those stupid f#$*ing coins like McCallum did and give those away. The National Governors Association will never let me live that down. Besides, I've already got the pens."

When asked for comment, Napolitano seemed surprised at Doyle's announcement. "I always kick his ass at sheepshead when the NGA meets," said the Arizona governor. "He must be trying to get back at me. But if he's issuing me a challenge, he needs only look at my fantastic veto record in Arizona that's got me sailing towards reelection. You want me to bring it, Doyle? Bitch, check the scoreboard. It has already been broughten."

Note: Just a little satire for my readers in the East Wing. By the way guys, is Xoff cutting that ad yet about Green ducking a straight answer on a Jensen pardon? Because that s#*% is golden. Look forward to seeing lots of it on TV this fall. Good Lord!

For my 100th post, come see Tom Reynolds look like an idiot

I've spent a couple of days pondering the topic of my 100th post. We've seen and been through a lot together in the last 6 1/2 months, and I wanted the topic of this post to reflect the spirit in which this blog was created in the first place.

And then the Spice Boys gift-wrapped my 100th post, for me, giving me video of Sen. Tom Reynolds trying to throw someone out of a public meeting at a public library in Wauwatosa.

Here's an open question to the people of the 5th Senate District: why do you put up with this guy? You do realize that while he might vote the right way, Tom Reynolds does more to damage the credibility of the conservative agenda than anyone in the state, right? The guy's become the poster child for your little "movement" and you have to know that it completely destroys your chances of being taken seriously by anyone who has not yet consumed the Kool-Aid.

The best thing you could've done for yourselves is found an articulate, polished conservative to run against this buffoon, and then do everything in your power to get him through the primary. There are lots of them out there. Mark Gundrum. Mark Gottlieb. Robin Vos. Leah Vukmir. The rational people of this state are still a bit saddened that Vukmir decided not to run against Reynolds.

It's not that Reynolds is a Christian. It's not that he's conservative. It's not that he homeschools his kids and then authors bills providing tax breaks for homeschoolers. It's that he embarrasses you every damn chance he seems to get. Asking potential employees about their sex lives, hanging out with Ralph Ovadal, attending the International Conference on Homo-Fascism, depicting his family in a manger scene on his Christmas cards, asking staff to steal signs from state parks, the rape/murder/dismemberment death penalty trifecta, his reported refusal to hire women at the behest of his wife.

By legislative standards, the guy is a little off. His former staff recognize it, other staff recognize it, other legislators recognize it, lobbyists recognize it. Pretty much anyone that comes into contact with this guy on a regular basis knows he's a bit different than the other kids, and not in a good way.

Some people talk about how it's good to have an elected body that looks like the people it represents. In that case, people who would be an embarrassment to public office don't have to worry about not having a seat at the table. Tom Reynolds has your back.

Understanding race in America

The Washington Post is beginning a series of stories on the identity of black men in America. For starters, you should read the first story. It's interesting and well-written. You should probably read the rest of them too, especially if you're a whitey from the suburbs like me.

Why is it important for white people to hear black perspectives on race in America? Well, let's try this on for size. It's from the end of the story:

Several years ago, Franklin D. Gilliam Jr., a political scientist at UCLA, set out to understand more deeply the perceptions people have of black men. He chose a provocative topic for his experiment: crime. In his test, he showed groups of viewers a mock newscast, which included a short account of a robbery at an automated teller machine during which the victim was killed.

Gilliam manipulated the image of the "suspect" in the newscast, sometimes depicting him as black, sometimes as white and other times not at all. Afterward, the participants were asked to identify the suspect's race. Most of the viewers accurately recalled whether a black or white face was shown. But 60 percent of those shown no image remembered seeing one, and an overwhelming majority of those said they saw a black face. In fact, they had not seen a face at all. To Gilliam, that meant that when people saw crime, they often expected a black man to be linked to it -- not necessarily because of blind racism but because of the images they had consumed their entire lives.

Up front, I don't agree with those that believe that African-Americans should be entitled to special preferences until the second coming of Christ. I don't believe white people should spend every waking hour wracked with guilt about a situation that most of us did nothing to cause. At the same time, I think it is woefully naive when a bunch of white suburbanites (mostly Republicans) want to pretend that somehow we're "all caught up" on racial equality after blacks spent their first two centuries on the continent enslaved by white people and spent the third being treated as second-class citizens.

Forty years of getting to use the urinals in the whites-only men's room doesn't necessarily level the playing field. Anyone who thinks that we foster racial understanding by turning a blind eye to racial differences needs to get out and see more of the world. Pretending that black people and white people are the same is great in theory, but it doesn't make it so in fact.

I'm not saying that African-Americans need special treatment. They surely don't need - or want - our pity. They do, however, need our understanding.

Why? Well, ever look at Congress? A state legislature? Mostly middle-aged white guys. Considering how lots of those middle-aged white guys want to christen themselves the saviors of poor black families everywhere by peddling programs like school choice and welfare reform, don't you think it might behoove some of them to actually take the time to read about the African-American experience? I mean, surely we don't expect to see folks like Tom Lothian or Scott Newcomer or Tom Petri or Jim "Piggy" Sensenbrenner in Milwaukee, actually talking to black families and their concerns before attempting to solve them all anyway. Hell, Newcomer can't even be bothered to reside in the district he represents. Maybe reading a series like this in The Washington Post would do them some good.

Some would have you believe that the problems faced by black America are entirely the fault and responsibility of blacks. Others would have you believe that the problems faced by black America are entirely the fault and responsibility of whites. And as with so many issues, reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Do I have all the answers? Hardly. But the only way to resolve many of the issues that exist is through understanding, and the only person's understanding you can fully control is your own.

Also, as a side note, I'm tired of hearing white guys bitch and moan about how hard they have it too. It's about as obnoxious as when men turn into 3-year-olds when they get sick, pouting and whining and wanting someone to take care of them. Speaking from experience, being a white guy is easy - and I wasn't even born into wealth or power or anything like that. Everyone needs to stop acting like whitey has it hard in America. He doesn't.

Note: Jenna has another take on this issue over here. I wrote this post in the morning before trolling any of my usual blogs. I would offer her a hat tip but I have already advised someone in my private life to shoot me if I ever used that stupid phrase on my blog.

Is this the new look the Bucks are unveiling on draft night?

Because if it is, it's about as ugly as finishing two games below .500 and having nothing more than the 39th pick in the draft in a few weeks. Way to go, Sen. Kohl!!

Maybe if we're lucky they can do a little better on the uniforms than one of the last teams to sport the Christmas tree colors, the New Jersey Devils:


I'd like to remind my readers that the Devils were a hapless, wayward franchise wearing these dreadful sweaters. Then, they changed the green to black in 1993-94. Since then? Four finals appearances and three Stanley Cups. Coincidence?

The Bucks in red, white, and green. What say you, readers? Good? Bad? Or just plain ugly?