"Simply touching the breast area" is not sexual assault, Bucher told Judge Ralph Ramirez.Now, behave yourselves with the comments!
The former Waukesha County district attorney said two elements are required before sexual assault charges can be filed: touching and sexual gratification.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Money Quote Of The Day
From JSOnline:
I'm Sure It's Only Coincidence
Did anyone else notice that on Sykes' first day back from vacation, the National Weather Service issues an air quality alert. For particle pollution, nonetheless. It adds a whole new meaning to when the fecal matter hits the fan.
Taking The Not-So-Swift Boat
After such a long hiatus, most people would have come back refreshed and ready for action. Not McIlheran. After a long absence, McIlheran is back, and fumbles out of the starting gate.
He warns his reader, that with the upcoming election, the term "swiftboating" will be used often. He defines swiftboating as:
There are some things that PaddyMac is missing. One is that the term has already been used. Repeatedly. In fact, I'm not sure it ever went away.
Paddy also chooses to use a rather skewed view to argue his points. The common definition is rather different that what he would have us believe:
But, for the sake of argument, let us use McIlheran's definition for a moment, and see how it applies to his own bio, which appears at the top of his post. The bio reads:
McIlheran technically fits the definition of a columnist, so that is OK, but I would consider him more to be a propagandist. But for him to claim that he is "generally a right-wing guy" is like saying the Iraq War is generally an expensive debacle. In other words, a gross understatement. Why is he ashamed to say what he really is?
And for the good links? Get real. I would hardly consider McBride, THEB, RDW, Sykes, or Harris to be good reading. You could find better writing on the back of a box of a kids' cereal.
Hey, swiftboating, McIlheran-style, can be fun!
He warns his reader, that with the upcoming election, the term "swiftboating" will be used often. He defines swiftboating as:
It's useful, then, that Henry P. Wickham at American Thinker outlined just what the word meant as it emerged from the 2004 presidential campaign: "The word means, or should mean, the exposure of a fraudulent autobiography of one seeking political office or public influence. It is the correction of a personal and professional record that has been selectively and dishonestly compiled, as the Swift Vets did so effectively to that of John Kerry."
There are some things that PaddyMac is missing. One is that the term has already been used. Repeatedly. In fact, I'm not sure it ever went away.
Paddy also chooses to use a rather skewed view to argue his points. The common definition is rather different that what he would have us believe:
Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair
or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.
But, for the sake of argument, let us use McIlheran's definition for a moment, and see how it applies to his own bio, which appears at the top of his post. The bio reads:
Patrick McIlheran
Journal Sentinel editorial columnist, generally a right-wing guy, links to good reading on the Web and offers commentary besides
McIlheran technically fits the definition of a columnist, so that is OK, but I would consider him more to be a propagandist. But for him to claim that he is "generally a right-wing guy" is like saying the Iraq War is generally an expensive debacle. In other words, a gross understatement. Why is he ashamed to say what he really is?
And for the good links? Get real. I would hardly consider McBride, THEB, RDW, Sykes, or Harris to be good reading. You could find better writing on the back of a box of a kids' cereal.
Hey, swiftboating, McIlheran-style, can be fun!
Monday, April 21, 2008
Is Wiggy going Whallah!?
From the Library and Pub:
Is Mary Lazich stealing Kevin Fischer's sandwich from the office 'fridge and this is his subtle way of telling her to knock it off? Fischer explains why lunches are stolen at the office and who are the likely culprits.But who in their right mind would want to eat what Fischer eats?
Today, An Alliance. Tomorrow, A Cabal?
State Rep Pridemore's press releases become more quixotic by the day. Today he has stepped back into the first person to chastise Owen and to accuse Owen of:
It seems like just days ago that Bucher was a Liberal or a candidate or a non-candidate and now he's the leader of his own alliance.
It's a little early for paranoia to set in at Pridemore HQ. Isn't it?
coming after me [Pridemore] which plays into the hands of the
Bucher/Wisconsin Right to Life alliance
It seems like just days ago that Bucher was a Liberal or a candidate or a non-candidate and now he's the leader of his own alliance.
It's a little early for paranoia to set in at Pridemore HQ. Isn't it?
Must've Been A Slow Weekend
As I surveyed the blogosphere to make sure all was well in the kingdom, I noticed a recurring theme.
To make a long story short, an officer with the Franklin Police Department, who is an Afghanistan War veteran, came back home and resumed his career as one of Franklin's finest. Said officer put up a magnet of an American flag on the outside of his locker. The FPD, like most law enforcement agencies have a broad rule stating that this is not allowed. The police chief apparently spoke to the officer, reminding him of the rule. The officer acknowledged understanding and put the magnet inside his locker, which is perfectly allowed. Story over, right?
Wrong. Wagner has to put his two cents in. He way overcharges for his opinions, by the way. Fischer also is so upset about the issue, he posts on it not just once, but twice. Again, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Anyone who has served in the military, or who has worked in the law enforcement area, which in itself is operated in a paramilitary fashion, is well aware of the need for discipline and structure. A rule may seem silly to a lay person, but there is usually some reason for it to be in effect. That reason is usually to maintain order and discipline among the officers and to treat everyone equally.
Of course, maintaining a sense of order and treating everyone equally has never been a long suit for most conservatives, but that is besides the point.
I pondered on what would cause these two to get themselves in such a lather. I highly doubt it was the subject itself, since even the officer in the story was OK with the rule and had no problems with being a team player.
I thought maybe Fischer was all up in arms because John Michlig, of Sprawled Out, pointed out that it wasn't much of a news story, and how silly TMJ and FranklinNow made themselves look by trying to make it into one. Fischer has some issues with John. For one, John has held Fischer accountable for being honest in his self reporting. The other is that John is ten times the reporter and a hundred times the writer that Fischer would ever be. (Not to take away from John, but a fetid mouse turd could outwrite Fischer.)
But that doesn't explain Wagner's faux outrage, only Fischer's.
Then Sir Grumps, Knight of the Dolorous Countenance (his choice, not mine), points out that perhaps they might have been celebrating the 172nd anniversary of unnecessary whining.
To make a long story short, an officer with the Franklin Police Department, who is an Afghanistan War veteran, came back home and resumed his career as one of Franklin's finest. Said officer put up a magnet of an American flag on the outside of his locker. The FPD, like most law enforcement agencies have a broad rule stating that this is not allowed. The police chief apparently spoke to the officer, reminding him of the rule. The officer acknowledged understanding and put the magnet inside his locker, which is perfectly allowed. Story over, right?
Wrong. Wagner has to put his two cents in. He way overcharges for his opinions, by the way. Fischer also is so upset about the issue, he posts on it not just once, but twice. Again, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Anyone who has served in the military, or who has worked in the law enforcement area, which in itself is operated in a paramilitary fashion, is well aware of the need for discipline and structure. A rule may seem silly to a lay person, but there is usually some reason for it to be in effect. That reason is usually to maintain order and discipline among the officers and to treat everyone equally.
Of course, maintaining a sense of order and treating everyone equally has never been a long suit for most conservatives, but that is besides the point.
I pondered on what would cause these two to get themselves in such a lather. I highly doubt it was the subject itself, since even the officer in the story was OK with the rule and had no problems with being a team player.
I thought maybe Fischer was all up in arms because John Michlig, of Sprawled Out, pointed out that it wasn't much of a news story, and how silly TMJ and FranklinNow made themselves look by trying to make it into one. Fischer has some issues with John. For one, John has held Fischer accountable for being honest in his self reporting. The other is that John is ten times the reporter and a hundred times the writer that Fischer would ever be. (Not to take away from John, but a fetid mouse turd could outwrite Fischer.)
But that doesn't explain Wagner's faux outrage, only Fischer's.
Then Sir Grumps, Knight of the Dolorous Countenance (his choice, not mine), points out that perhaps they might have been celebrating the 172nd anniversary of unnecessary whining.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Who's Clucking Now?
For any of those of you who may still be a little confused about the unofficial post and counterpost going on between McBride and the Illusory Tenant before the Supreme Court Election, Other Side has painstakingly, and very creatively, explained it for us, with the use of illustrations.
It's All Greek To Me
While enjoying my short time at the summer palace, I had chance to do some reading. One of the things that I found interesting was a quote, which was attributed to Euripides. The quote read:
Well, this piqued my curiosity, so upon return home, I did a quick search, and found some other quotes attributed to this great writer:
and, lastly,
It quickly dawned to me some obvious facts that historians have, before now, have either ignored, or simply just weren't aware of.
One is that they must have had a version of talk radio in ancient Greece.
The other is Euripides is obviously the Greek word for Whallah!
A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
Well, this piqued my curiosity, so upon return home, I did a quick search, and found some other quotes attributed to this great writer:
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.and
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
and, lastly,
The company of just and righteous men is better than wealth and a rich estate.
It quickly dawned to me some obvious facts that historians have, before now, have either ignored, or simply just weren't aware of.
One is that they must have had a version of talk radio in ancient Greece.
The other is Euripides is obviously the Greek word for Whallah!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Taking A Holiday
Seeing as that McBride has gone underground, Sykes has gone across the pond, McIlheran has been MIA since Beer Day (wonder if there's a coincidence there), and Fischer and Wagner are such lightweights, that your King will be going to tour his summer castle* for the weekend.
Hopefully, my cohorts, Zach, Other Side, Grumps, Xoff and the rest will keep you up to date.
Be safe and behave, my good people.
Hopefully, my cohorts, Zach, Other Side, Grumps, Xoff and the rest will keep you up to date.
Be safe and behave, my good people.
*I know it's small for a King like me, but it is only the summer place.
Pride Goeth Before A Fool
Fischer has found a group of young people of which he can take real pride.
It's not any group noted for scholarly achievements.
It's not a group that wants to end the debacle in Iraq.
It's not a group of youngsters that want to bring freedom to Tibet.
Nope, none of that. He takes his pride in a gang of thugs who want to make it easier for another Virginia Tech massacre.
Apparently for Fischer, and people like him, there just isn't such a thing as too much bloodshed.
UPDATE: For a more thoughtful and well-written piece on why this group is such a bad idea, please check out the wonderful Emily Mills.
It's not any group noted for scholarly achievements.
It's not a group that wants to end the debacle in Iraq.
It's not a group of youngsters that want to bring freedom to Tibet.
Nope, none of that. He takes his pride in a gang of thugs who want to make it easier for another Virginia Tech massacre.
Apparently for Fischer, and people like him, there just isn't such a thing as too much bloodshed.
UPDATE: For a more thoughtful and well-written piece on why this group is such a bad idea, please check out the wonderful Emily Mills.
This Should Be His Banner
Fischer, the megalomaniac, decided to issue a warning to his readers:
Although, in the interest of conciseness, he should change it to simply:
MyCommunityNOW has issued a Blog Blizzard warning for FranklinNOW.
A flurry of blog activity on Kevin Fischer’s This Just In is expected to hit within the hour. Numerous blogs on various subjects will be posted in rapid succession.
You are encouraged to stay indoors close to your computer with snacks and a favorite chilled beverage until the blog blizzard moves through later this evening.
Although, in the interest of conciseness, he should change it to simply:
WARNING: Snow job coming at ya!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
