Boots and Fables

Ol' Boots Robinson promises to play hardball with any recall petitioners he sees, argue with them till he's blue in the face, record, video and photograph them, boycott their businesses, publicize their names, and do whatever he can to make their lives miserable.

He's from Texas, you know, and that's what they do to liberals down there. Just ask Rick Perry what he'd do if Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake showed up there.

Maybe United Wisconsin should make sure it has the Robinsons' address and send a steady stream of people. We can start a pool on how long before he blows his cork, goes apoplectic and foams at the mouth. And we could record, video and photograph it.

But that would be wrong

Missing The Bigger Picture

It started when Owen Robinson posted his column regarding the limits of government, which includes this:

Time after time we are seeing the inherent limitations of our federal government. It is not capable of acting to correct our nation’s and world’s ills. It can’t plug the gushing oil well in the gulf. It can’t make companies hire people. It can’t thwart illegal aliens. It can’t create Mideast peace. It’s not a matter of desire; it’s a matter of capability. Our federal government is not God and has a limited capacity to effect change.

These are but a few recent examples of government’s inability to properly manage certain things. It’s not government’s fault. It would never be able to manage such complex events. It is our fault in supposing that our government should manage such events. In fact, wiser people would recognize that such events are properly resolved with creativity, assertiveness, and intelligence which government is naturally incapable of achieving.

This simple inadequacy of government to manage complex events is what makes me fear the coming onslaught of government-run health care. It’s one thing for President Obama to claim responsibility and authority of the BP oil spill as it continues to spew oil into the gulf. It’s quite another thing for President Obama to claim responsibility and authority for grandma’s next chemotherapy treatment.

Government has a role and a purpose, but it is necessarily limited because government can never be as flexible or creative as the private sector in finding solutions. Let us recognize the limits of government and turn to ourselves when adversity presents itself.

PaddyMac is besides himself with glee regarding Owen's post.

The Brawler points out that the government has been responsible for many great things, like reducing poverty among the elderly.

But what all three of these gentlemen miss is the obvious, bigger picture.

Where Owen said that the government will never be as "flexible or creative as the private sector" in fixing things, what they fail to realize or admit is that most often, as with the BP oil spill, it is the private sector that screwed it up so royally that the no one can fix it. It is also the private sector that then turns to the government to clean up their mess.

Because The First Foot Tasted So Good

Last week, Jessica McBride wrote an ill-advised piece trying to defend her infidelity by acting offended that the media would even cover the story, trying to ignore the fact that her paramour was the Milwaukee Chief of Police.

Apparently liking the taste of her foot, this weekend McBride chose to put her second foot in her mouth as well.

She starts out complaining about the comments allowed to stand at the JSOnline blogpost about the affair, which I pointed out last week. This quickly degenerates into a rambling rant about bloggers in general. This ends up in her again playing the victim and that the whole internet is misogynistic.

To show how disjointed and ironic her ramblings are, here are a few puzzling excerpts:

The Internet is, in many ways, a sexist environment. Most of the citizen blog sites are run by older men without journalistic training or standards and, when a woman crashes into the parlor to join the political talk over the brandy, watch out – you’ll get harassed until you voluntarily leave the room. But I expect more of sites like jsonline.

Should she really be calling anyone out about journalistic training or standards?

Granted the name calling and vitriol isn’t limited to women, either. It’s part of a coarsening of discourse in general. Just ask Charlie Sykes. There are bloggers who basically spend all of their energy calling him names and attacking his personal life rather than challenging his ideas. They are small minds.

This is not a hearty, strong intellectual clash on the issues (I love those sorts of debates). These are playground antics. If people said to my face what some bloggers (or Journal Sentinel comment posters) have written about me (and others) on the Web, I’d get a temporary retraining order against them. It’s abuse.

Oh, the hypocrisy is enough to give me a headache. Was she serious when she typed that? Has she ever reviewed her own stuff, much less Sykes'. It is nothing but abuse to the subject of the post, as well as the poor souls that read the tripe.

But the most alarming thing is the last line:

Oh, one other thing: I might reactivate my blog soon. As anyone who knows me knows, I don’t silence easily, and certainly not through intimidation from Internet bullies.

Oh, the humanity!!

With a tip of the crown, go to Boots and Sabers (yeah, I know, one of the signs of the apocalypse when Owen and I agree), for more on the matter.

He Works Hard For His Money

Last week, I pointed out how the squawkers rarely take a position that is in favor of the common worker.

Owen Robinson took umbrage with my post and offered a rebuttal:

How about…. all the flippin’ time? Let’s see… opportunity, freedom, low taxes, vibrant business environment, merit pay, and on and on and on. Yes, capper, we support policies that are best for all workers. I suppose that militant union goons may benefit a few, but certainly not the working class.

Let me rebut his rebuttal:

• Opportunity, as long as your the right skin tone and don't have a record.
  
• Freedom to not be able to say what you think or offer advice, or to even be sick.
  
• Low taxes didn't benefit me, I'm not part of the uber-rich.
  
• I thought the business environment sucked. Which is it?
• Merit pay: You merit a raise if your the CEO's son-in-law, or your a crony of the elected official in office.

Let's not forget that workers' pay has stagnated over the last decade, while the CEOs' have enjoyed exponential increases in pay and bonuses. Nor does it address that the CEOs are doing everything they can to prevent workers from unionizing, as pointed out here and here.

But that is not why I'm writing this post. The thing that prompted me to write was when tag-along Preview Paddy chimed in with his, "Yeah, what he said" post, which he ironically titled:

"If I'm not working class, why am I doing so much of it?"

OK, Paddy, whatever. If you think copying and pasting from Owen, Dad29 or the National Review is hard work, you are in a world of trouble if the paper ever folds.

Most of us bloggers do what he does every day, for free, while holding down one or more jobs.

Would An Organized Political Party Act Like This?

Nah. But that doesn't stop the RPW and their apologists.

Chris Schneider, the erstwhile Dennis York, blogging over at the WPRI Think Tank Command Central gets to take the official snark shot at Jeff Wood. It's replete with "joint committee" and Big Lebowski jokes and all those other compassionate, sympathetic bromides that the WPRI scribblers maintain are the hallmarks of Conservative action. One wonders what "policy" Schneider was researching when he wrote this attack.

Lest we forget, it wasn't so very long ago that Jeff Wood was one of the RPW's shining stars, tasked with being the saddle-pal of Crazy Frank as they ramrodded the ill-fated TABOR Bill to its quick and certain demise.

Now that Wood has turned his back on the "leadership" of RPW, his former groupies are only too happy to pile on him while he's down. Remember this post for the next time Charlie tries to convince us that conservatives are, somehow, travellers of a higher road. The next time Belling or Wagner start bitching that Liberals are mean you can point them in this direction.

Jeff Wood will pay for his transgressions. He will pay in time and money and honor. If he's smart he'll come out stronger and better. If he's smart he'll ignore the piffle falling off WPRI and their ilk. But then, that's just good policy any day.

Who are the 'morally weak?'

Owen "Old Lady" Robinson rates the candidates for the Waukesha Freeman in an election roundup column:

[State Sen. Alberta] Darling has always been a middling Republican. Her fiscal record is solidly conservative, but she’s pro-choice and overly sympathetic to the morally weak.

"Morally weak" is clearly a code phrase. But for what?

People who are so morally weak they don't have any money?

They commit crimes?

They have sex outside of holy matrimony? Do it with people of their own gender? Get abortions?

Some would say it's a sign of moral weakness, or lack of morals, to engage in torture, or to engage in unjustified war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Maybe what he means is that Darling supports George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Iraq war.

But, somehow, I don't think so.

What's your theory?

Owen's Next Challenge

Owen Robinson, of Boots & Sabers, took the second biggest plunge of his life last weekend.

Now, I offer a new challenge to him:




That is if Wendy let's him. :)

Fischer's Next Job: Public Relations Specialist

The other day, Fischer puts up a post blasting away at anonymous commenters on the Internet. While the example he used does indeed show how mean people can be, one cannot help but wonder what his true intentions were when he wrote this.

In the comments thread of this post, we see a Mr. Zippy, who rightfully points out that some of the forefathers of this great country of ours wrote the Federalist Papers under the alias of Publius.

Fischer then does the only thing he apparently knows. He resorts to whining and name-calling. He bemoans how "mean" people have been to him. He seems to have forgotten that the reason he even came to our attention was because he was being a bully to a young blogger, and was doing this same sort of name-calling that he is complaining about, and then some. His attacks were of a personal nature. His misbehaviors are so egregious that he has even been called on it in Milwaukee Magazine, not just once, but twice.

Because of his boorish behaviors, he came under more and more scrutiny. Since then, we have found out that he is ethically-challenged and has bilked tax payers of their hard earned money.

But the real irony is in his complaints of people choosing to be anonymous, or using a pseudonym, like our founding fathers used the moniker of Publius. Many people have written about the right to remain anonymous and/or to use a pseudonym. Greater minds and writers, from the left's Jay Bullock to the right's Owen Robinson to a Great King have all written in support of this constitutional right. Needless to say, all of these people are better writers and deeper thinkers than Fischer could hope to be, which might explain his anger, his bitterness, and his petulance.

This is all just leading up to his hypocrisy on the issue, since his boss, state Senator Mary Lazich, has already told us that he does her writing for her blog. This means, dear reader, that he too writes under a pseudonym. Yet he complains about others who choose to do so.

But despite his misogynist tendencies, his ethical lapses, his megalomania, and his churlish and childish name-calling, Fischer does have one redeeming quality. He reads Whallah! You see, when he complains about having his writing skills unfavorably compared to those of a fetid mouse turd, it came from this here post.

Free Speech

Ah, is a King's work never done?

After returning from a lovely weekend in the countryside, I come back to find a plea for help. It seems that at issue is the issue of free speech, as protected by the First Amendment.

McBride, in her weekly space-filler at the Waukesha Freeman, takes state Representative Don Pridemore to task for suggesting a bill that would require third party groups running ads in elections to name the people that donate to their cause. As usual, McBride's argument is convoluted and circular. She tries to make a point, but offers no rationale behind her point. For a more clear and well written piece on this issue, I found Owen Robinson, in on of his rare posts of more than a few words, to be much clearer in presenting the issues.

Now, obviously, I don't have a problem with anonymity, as that neither capper, nor King of the Left Hate, are the names that my parents gave to me. Nor is my real name Liz Woodhouse. However, I am also a mere blogger. I am but a single voice among the thousands on the Internet. My influence on any given election is negligible, as evidenced by Walker's re-election. Oh sure, sometimes a blogger will strike gold and find a piece of information that could change an election drastically, but those times are rare.

The same can't be said for the third party ads. Their influence on elections are undeniable. Every election cycle, our TVs, our radios and even some web pages, like the JSOnline, are inundated in political ads. Many, if not most, of these ads are produced and paid for by these third parties. They have also become increasingly negative and vulgar, and often play very loosely with the facts. All one has to do is look at the latest kerfuffle regarding All Children Matter to see some of the problems with these groups.

In his post, Owen argues that naming the people that contribute to these organizations could have some real, and some very negative, impact on the people that donate, without really affecting the outcomes of the elections. I respectfully disagree with him.

While Owen's scenarios could hold true, that is only if the person continues to donate to these groups. The person also has a right to contribute to any group or movement that is more responsible on how they get their message out. There may still be repercussions, but that is much less likely if there are no slanderous statements made in the first place.

I don't know if there is a solution that everyone could be happy with, but I personally believe that there is some sort of compromise possible. Something to the effect that anyone donating less than a set amount, say $100 to a movement, can remain private. This way, most average individuals would have their privacy remain intact, but the people that would be more of an impact player would be named, so that people can see who's really behind a group. This way, the average citizen could still support whatever cause they wish to without fear of repercussion, but those with greater sway and swag would be identified, and their real intents may become clearer.

One other issue that demonstrates McBride's poor journalistic skill is her use of attributions, or lack thereof. McBride writes:

The speculation derived from a blogger who admits she was completely making it up. The best line came from Freeman columnist James Wigderson, who opined that he’d like to see my husband in the state Assembly because "after the first meeting he’d probably demand mandatory Breathalyzer checks for his colleagues."

Now, I am sure James is pleased to see his name in print again, being the publicity hound that he is. But why wouldn't she name the other blogger, who actually helped to inspire at least this paragraph, and several posts? Is it jealousy? Or is there some other reason, like maybe Paul is really toying with an idea of running?

Who knows? But for those of you who might have missed it, as I wrote last week, the blogger is Cindy Kilkenny, and this is her post.

And on an ending note, it is no wonder that McBride would be against this sort of bill. She is probably afraid that if it was noted that, say she or her husband, had donated to one of these sliming agencies, she might receive the same treatment that she gives to other people who chose to cast aside their cloak of anonymity.

A Spectacle of Speculations

Earlier this week, as some of you may have noticed, McBride closed her blogs to the public. Yesterday, Xoff informed us that McBride self-reported that she closed the blogs due to "being too busy."

All of this has led to a small wildfire of speculation as to why McBride deprived us of her witticism and biting insight (well, something about her insight really bit).

There's been speculation that it may be due to pressure from her husband, Paul Bucher, the super trial lawyer, and a big case he is active in.

Likewise, there's been some that wonder if it deals with a lawsuit the Buchers have filed.

Some have proposed that UWM had finally put pressure on her to knock it off.

Then there is some thought that this could stem from a possible actionable offense done during the lead up to the Supreme Court elections.

Cindy Kilkenny offered us a plausible theory that Paul is again planning to run for an office again.
This theory appears to have been debunked by Owen Robinson and James Wigderson.

Another theory is that she was just sick and tired of being bombarded with criticism in her messages and emails. (But why would anyone question her? She's a UWM School of Journalism "faculty member", dang it!)

As for yours truly, I have no idea why she did what she did. Nor do I really care. While it is true that I, and the others here at Whallah!, have watched her like a hawk, and was always happy to point out flaws to her logic and arguments, I personally hold no animosity towards McBride or Bucher. Just to their wrong-headed, mean-spirited stances.

If something comes out of this, of course we will notify you,, the reader, about it. In the mean time, we will enjoy the silence, and pick up where we left off with Sykes, Belling and the rest.

Overdose Of Irony

Owen Robinson had put up a post worthy of recommendation. In his post, he laments the decline of civility in the blogosphere:

I don’t see this happening in the Wisconsin blogosphere anymore. It has evolved, or devolved, into the crass identity politics which everyone laments. It’s rarely about debating the issues. It’s about tearing each other down. It’s sad and pathetic. And, with all due respect, it ticks me off.

I read with great interest the debate in the Wisconsin blogosphere regarding the latest Wisconsin Supreme Court election. There were lengthy posts on the race. Some of them were of depth and substance. But even of those, far too many were also laced with insults and filth. It seemed to matter less about what was said than who said it. This has become commonplace.

This may seem ironic, coming from this site, but I whole-heartedly agree with Owen. Unfortunately, sometimes things do get too personal. For the most part, I do try to stay on issues, rather than personalities. But sometimes the hypocrisy is too much to ignore.

Anyway, Sykes links to this posting, and offers his support. Apparently, his support is only in the form of words, as that he has at least three sites on his blogrolls in which the authors routinely cross that line, both in their posts and in their comments elsewhere.

Of course, Sykes' agreement to Owen's sentiments is no less ironic than Whallah's. After all, he gave us the COEXIST issue, made it worse, and didn't start this year out very well either.

Your daily overdose of irony comes from this:

Living And Dying Off A Prayer, Part I

By now, most, if not all, of you should have heard of the tragic case of Madeline Kara Neumann. She was the 11 year old girl that was allowed to die from untreated diabetes. There is currently a number of viewpoints being put out there, regarding whether or not the parents should be charged.

The problem comes up with the current State Laws. When I worked in foster care, the rules was plainly laid out in Wisconsin State Statute 48.13 (10):

Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian neglects, refuses or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child.

The following causes also cover times when there is reasonable cause to believe that such neglect could occur, and if the parent, guardian or legal custodian fails to get psychiatric and/or alcohol and drug rehab for the child.

However, in the years since I've worked in that field, a new law has been added. This law allows parents to eschew common sense and medical practice and to allow prayer to be the only option. This would be fine for a consenting adult. It is an entirely other matter when it involves a dependent, like a child. This is not acting in the best interest of the child, which is the sole basis for Chapter 48.

People are all over the map with this one.

3rd way, over at folkbum's, comes down that the parents should be charged, and shows us how scary people can get with their beliefs.

Tim Schilke, writing at GMToday, goes along with charging the parents for neglect. He also explores how this relates to recent cases of child abuse stemming from religious beliefs.

Owen Robinson contradicts himself by saying that the parents should be charged, but then defends the law that would prevent them from being charged.

Our own PaddyMac waffles on the whole thing, then tries to distract us by saying, "Yeah, but, what about those unmarried people?". He fails to recognize how his own argument is weakened by the fact that Madeline's parents were married. (For the record, Paddy is correct that there is a higher correlation between unmarried parents and child abuse. However, being unmarried cannot be used as an exemption to the law, as he advocates regarding prayer.)

Matt Jividen, writing for the Daily Cardinal, brings in other thorny issues, related to the matter, but says it very well with this:

This prayer stipulation is a sticking point for many in the religious right, but I don’t understand how that jives with some of the religious right’s other stated platforms. In many cases, these are the same groups sparing no expense in their fight to protect the rights of an undeveloped bunch of cells in a woman’s womb, but will do nothing to protect that child from immense physical pain associated with untreated terminal illness once the fetus is born.

Pro-life and quality of life, apparently, are two separate issues. In many cases, these same groups will attempt to block the removal of a feeding tube from a terminally ill brain-dead woman, but will simultaneously stand behind legislation which blocks the medical treatment of otherwise healthy children doomed by nothing more than being born to parents holding fundamentalist beliefs?

This is indeed a complex and delicate issue but one that demands action. First of all, we need to amend the law in a manner which typifies prayer-only therapy in children with serious medical problems as a matter of criminal neglect. Simultaneously, we must be careful not to undermine the rights of the vast majority of parents who are choosing what’s best for their own children. The decision to deny a child medical attention for religious reasons should be handled just as child abuse is in this country, and though that may be a dangerous door to open, I think it’s necessary. A nanny state? I don’t know, but at the very least we should start protecting the rights of the powerless who are suffering needlessly by no choice of their own. On the other hand, what consenting adults choose to do to or for themselves is a whole different matter.

As I personally see it, having worked in the system for a number of years, I agree whole-heartedly that the parents should be charged. I also strongly support that this law needs to repealed. But in all likelihood, the parents will have any criminal charges dropped, as long as they agree to a CHIPS (CHildren In need of Protection and Services) Order. If they would be charged, expect this to go all the way to the now activist-judge filled State Supreme Court.

A Star IS Born

A woman by the name of Margaret Welch pays Boots and Sabers a visit.

In the process she takes husband and wife Robinson to the woodshed.

Worth the price of admission.

Hang 'em first, ask questions later

The blogosphere merry-go-round spins today:

McBride's protege screws up in a confusing post about dropped charges against protestors at an Army recruiting center.

Charlie Sykes, Steve Egg, Owen Robinson, and probably other assorted wingnuts jump on the report -- checking no facts, of course -- and denounce Dist. Atty. John Chisholm, who had nothing to do with the municipal charges being discussed.

Illusory Tenant sets it straight.

And McBride walks gingerly, pointing out that the charges are municipal,not dissing the original post by her friend Rebecca Kontowitz Kontowicz, and reserving the right to criticize Chisholm later. What she fails to do is look at whether any charges were warranted and whether they could be made to stick. But the wingnut lynch mobs never let the facts get in the way.

UPDATE: Sykes offers a correction. So does Egg , after a little prodding.