Expectation in Packerland

Friday, July 28. The Green Bay Packers’ 2006 training camp begins, and the Brewers trade away their best hitter.

Coincidence? Of course not.

Usually, nothing – and I mean nothing – competes with the start of football season in Wisconsin. The Packers suck up all the oxygen. There’s precious little left over.

I suppose a memo made its way around the Brewers’ front office this week: football starting, baseball’s over.

Things could have been different this year. The Brewers are sliding since the All Star game, yes. But they’re still within striking distance of the playoffs. They could have made August and September interesting.

Instead, we’re writing off the second half of their season.

And the Packers? Will we be writing their season off by Game 9? Or will we still have something to hope for?

It’s been a while since that’s even been a question.

Last year, I predicted another NFC North championship, even after the Packers lost their opener at Detroit. Surely, I said, the Pack will turn things around.

Wrong. Wrong. Twelve times, wrong. And now?

I’m ever the optimist. I see an all-Universe quarterback coming back to lead a high-powered offense, anchored by two veteran running backs in the final year of their contracts. New parts for an offensive line that didn’t work last year.

I see a new and energetic coaching staff, ready to inspire the troops to glorious action (a little advice for them here). An improved defense, and a kick returner who will, finally, make us forget about Desmond Howard. Even if I don’t know – yet – who that kick returner is.

That’s my optimism talking. The same optimism that kept me loyal, even through the Forrest Gregg years.

To insert a touch of realism:

• The offensive line will gel. Or not. Clifton and Tauscher will be fine at the tackles. Ditto Scott Wells at center. Or not. At least we’ve seen him before. But…Colledge? Spitz? Coston? White? Who? For the second straight year, we have an entirely new interior line.
  
  
• The offense will be better, if Donald Driver isn’t our only receiving threat. If Green and Davenport stay healthy.
  
  
• The defense will either respond to the new infusion of talent (Hawk, Woodson, Manuel) with new intensity and consistency, or they’ll fail to build cohesion and chemistry and will fall in a cloud of bickering me-ism.
  
  
• Brett Favre will do better this year than last year. He’ll break the all time records for pass attempts and touchdowns. He’ll come within one season of the record for passing yards. Unless he gets hurt.

That’s it. That’s all I can really be sure of.

Experts are picking the downsides of my predictions. They’re picking the Packers to finish third or, embarrassingly, last in the NFC North. For the second straight year. After three straight division titles.

How did the Packers sink so far, so fast? And can they do better this year?

No, not can. Of course they can. Will they?

As festering as that question is, here’s a worse one: how did Chicago win 11 games last year? And will they do that again?

If they do, it’ll be the first time they’ve won back-to-back championships since 1988, when Mike Ditka was coach.

Good God, it’s the 1980s again. Sequined gloves and big feathered hairdos and the Bears playing good football.

Can we at least have Reagan back, too?

Sure, there’s hope. Their situation at running back is tremulous, possibly poisonous. Their quarterbacks are journeymen and/or unproven. Their defense is, well, a typical Chicago defense, but it’s hard to maintain that kind of chemistry. Maybe they’ll slow down. A little.

But let’s not be Democrats about this. It’s not enough to hope bad things happen to the other side. Our side has to do good things. It’s not enough to wait for the stars to align. We have to be proactive. Make it happen. Don’t wait for the other guy to fail.

When Bears coach Lovie Smith arrived in Chicago, he said his first goal was to beat Green Bay.

The Bears had been bad for a very long time. Smith figured: time to get back to basics.

Well, maybe it’s time for the Packers to do the same. Get back to basics. Beat the Bears.

Before we start expecting as little from the Packers, come November, as the Brewers seem to expect, here in July.

Feingold Passes the Health Care Buck

Is anybody even listening anymore? I guess somebody must be.

Legislative Democrats seem to think so.

Senator Russ Feingold was in the news today proposing universal health care, with some of the same twists his former Wisconsin State Legislature colleagues have included in their own…um…proposals.

That is to say: it’s not universal, and it doesn’t include details.

Here’s the plan: Feingold wants to “authorize” statewide “pilot projects” to achieve “universal health care” in “a few states,” which have to meet “certain minimum standards” and receive approval from “a Health Care Reform Task Force,” which, I surmise, doesn’t yet exist.

The pilot programs would last for five years, and would be funded, in part, with $32 billion in federal dollars. Feingold said the money would be “fully paid for through offsets.” Among these offsets:

• Increasing the rebate that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid...

Tax increase.

• Increasing the passenger security fee collected by airlines...

Tax increase.

• Extending customs and border fees, set to expire in 2014, for two years...

Tax increase.

Let’s review: Feingold’s plan includes zero details; leaves figuring those details out to somebody else; takes the “universal” out of “universal health care”; creates a whole new bureaucracy; and raises taxes to pay for it.

Remind you of anything? It reminds me of something. Several somethings. Over the course of just a few weeks last year, legislative Democrats proposed plans that did (or claimed to do) all the same things Feingold’s plan “does,” and didn’t do all the same things Feingold’s plan doesn’t.

Which is to say: they increased taxes and bureaucracy, and passed the buck on to somebody else.

Most recently, it was Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) and Representative Terese Berceau (D-Madison), who wanted to raise taxes on large corporations.

Before that, it was Senator Mark Miller (D-Madison), who wanted to create not just one, but two new levels of health care bureaucracy.

And before that – this one was my favorite – Senator Judy Robson (D-Beloit) with her “bill to require a bill,” which did nothing but demand that the Legislature pass universal health care.

Hot potato! Hot potato! Kordell, get out there and punt!

These are not stupid people. On the contrary: they are intelligent, well-educated and, in at least one case, thoughful. I think so, anyway.

So why, oh why, do they propose these things?

Senator Feingold knows.

“In my 14 years of holding listening sessions across the state, Wisconsinites have mentioned health care more than any other issue,” Feingold said. “With an American-style approach to reform, that gives flexibility to the states and fuels innovation, real health care reform is within reach. I support guaranteed health care coverage for all Americans and this bill moves us toward that goal.”

He supports guaranteed health care coverage for all. He cares.

This isn’t really about providing health care. It’s not about solving a problem. If it were, all of these intelligent, educated, professional legislators who have dozens (if not hundreds) of researchers and attorneys at their disposal would actually write a real, detailed plan for achieving universal health care.

Then they’d fight for their plan.

That’s what others are doing. The Gielow/Richards “Wisconsin Health Care Plan,” for example. It raises taxes, creates new bureaucracy, gives too much authority to government and treats private property like a loan from the state.

But it also lets the free market work. Acknowledges human nature. It could become something even a conservative could support. What’s more, it has details. They’ve made a concrete proposal, and they’re working to make it – or some reasonable facsimile thereof – happen.

Not the Hansen/Miller/Berceau/Robson/Feingold just-look-how-much-I-care legislative bloc. They’re creating new bureaucracies, demanding that somebody Do Something!, and passing the details on.

Don’t bother me with details. Just make sure the camera gets my good side.

Buck? What buck? It never got here. I never saw it.

Another day, another plan. Another plan that goes nowhere. And then, tomorrow, another plan. Because we care.

Is it naïve to think that sooner or later, people will stop listening? That people will see these “plans” for what they are?

Maybe. Probably.

The Democrats sure seem to think so.

Referendum 2.0

Was there ever any doubt?

On April 4, voters in the Baraboo School District said no to a 5-year, $7.5 million spending referendum.

On September 12, we’ll vote on the same thing again.

It was almost preordained that the school board would try again, considering the small margin of defeat the first time – only 66 votes out of 6,000 cast. That’s what school districts do: if the first referendum fails, they come back a few months later and try again, usually with the same referendum, or one very similar.

If at first you don’t succeed: nag, nag again.

This is the flaw in Wisconsin’s school funding system, from the fiscal conservative’s point of view. School boards get as many chances as they want to pass their spending referendums. They only have to succeed once. Opponents have to succeed every single time, and there’s no second chance if they fail.

So. Here we go again.

How I wish Scott Walker hadn’t dropped out of the election. Would the Board have put a spending referendum on September’s ballot in the face of thousands of Republican voters, massing to the polls to decide which Republican candidate is the more fiscally conservative?

I know, that shouldn’t matter. It’s not a partisan thing. Just because somebody’s voting Republican doesn’t mean they won’t support the referendum.

Besides, given the last-second manner in which the Board approved the referendum, I don’t think they considered primary election dynamics.

After two and a half hours of discussion on a pending referendum question Monday night, the Baraboo School District Director of Business Services Jim Long dropped a bomb on the School Board: To get a referendum on the Sept. 12 ballot, they had to file the question with the County Clerk's office by the end of the day Wednesday.

That’s right: they went into a meeting to talk about another referendum, but didn’t know until the meeting was more than two hours old that they had two days to get it on the September ballot.

Doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, does it? Doesn’t exactly give you that warm and cozy feeling of knowing your leaders know what the hell they’re doing. That they’re right there on top of things, ready to spend as much time as necessary considering and discussing and debating before finally settling on what they figure is the best plan.

Just like the last referendum, this one has the feeling of: oh, crap, we’d better do…uh…something!

But then, they didn’t really need any time. They already knew what they were going to do. Six of the seven Board members went into Monday’s meeting ready to vote yes, let’s have another referendum. Whether they had five weeks, five hours, or five minutes to discuss it, this sucker was a done deal.

So here we go again.

Part of me is ready to give in. I’m tired. Tired of having to prove that yes, of course I care about education. Of course I want my kids to have opportunities. Yours, too. I’m tired of being asked whether I feel guilty. Of having to explain that supporting the schools doesn’t mean just opening my wallet and saying “here.”

Of having to explain that my children’s opportunity and success and happiness don’t depend on what somebody else is willing to do.

It’s exhausting.

That, of course, is the idea. Wear the opposition out. Beat the drums, chant the lines: caring, education, value our children! Sooner or later, it’s going to work. The referendum will pass.

Now. I’m honestly not too concerned about that. As I’ve said before, the important thing is that we get to vote. They can’t spend more than this much, without asking us first.

But. If all we’re going to do is throw more money at the schools, then nothing will change. And I want things to change.

Passing the referendum equals more money, which equals less incentive to change.

Funny thing is, the other side – the spend-more side – wants things to change, too. They want the revenue caps to change – they want more authority to spend more, without having to consult those pesky, ignorant, knuckle-dragging voters.

The same equation applies: passing the referendum reduces the pressure, and the incentive for change.

Of course, that’s a longer-term view. It requires looking past the next couple of years. It requires confidence in people to look to their own opportunity, success, happiness.

Which, as I think we’ve established, the pro-spending side doesn’t do.

No Standard? No Problem!

The Wisconsin Supreme Court weighed in on Indian casinos again last week. The majority opinion went something like this: Constitution, shmonstitution.

Some history: in 1992, the State of Wisconsin agreed to allow blackjack and slot machines at Indian casinos. The following year, we amended the state Constitution to strictly limit gambling. Bingo, raffles, pari-mutual betting and the state lottery were specifically allowed. No others.

Because the Tribal compacts pre-dated the constitutional change, blackjack and slots were grandfathered in for the Indian casinos only.

Then, in 2003, Governor “Diamond” Jim Doyle agreed to vast expansions of gambling at Indian casinos. He made the compacts perpetual – they would never end, never require re-negotiation. Not only that, but the Tribes could offer several new games, like poker, roulette, and craps.

Given the constitutional amendment of 1993, one might think those compacts would be unconstitutional.

Not so, says the Court. In their decision:

We conclude that the 1993 Amendment to Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution does not invalidate the Original Compacts. Because the Original Compacts contemplated extending the Compacts and amending the scope of Indian gaming within the Compacts, we further conclude that the parties' right of renewal is constitutionally protected…and that amendments to the Original Compacts that expand the scope of gaming are likewise constitutionally protected by the Contract Clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

And:

The essence of what is at issue here is whether Wisconsin should break treaties with Tribes by walking away from its contractual obligations.

I’m not a lawyer. Far be it for me to disagree with the eminent legal minds that sit in those chairs.

And yet I will. The “essence of what is at issue here” is not whether we can “walk away from contractual obligations.” It is whether those contractual obligations – the 2003 compact extensions – were valid in the first place.

On Friday, the Supreme Court said yes, they are, even though they conflict with existing constitutional law.

That’s odd, because usually you can’t enter into a contract that conflicts with the law. You can’t sign a contract for an assassination, or a burglary, or to supply cocaine to a drug dealer.

Well, you can, but the authorities will stop you from honoring it, if they can. And if the other party doesn’t hold up his end, you can’t exactly sue him for it. And no judge will accept the “walking away from contractual obligations” defense.

Unless it goes to the Supreme Court, that is.

When the Governor signed the new compacts in 2003 he committed the state contractually to things that were expressly against the law. Friday, the Court said: no problem.

I know, the Court opined that “the Original Compacts contemplated extending the Compacts and amending the scope of Indian gaming.” Ergo, no form of gambling is prohibited at Wisconsin Indian casinos. Just pencil it into the compacts, and it’s gravy.

This kind of “reasoning” has far-reaching implications. It means we’re going to ignore what’s specifically written down, in favor of what previous intentions might have been.

If that’s the standard, then even those laws we consider to be rock-solid – the ones written into our Constitution, supposedly beyond the Court’s reach – can be rewritten by a sufficiently activist Court.

For example, consider the marriage amendment, on the ballot this November. We want to prevent activist courts from re-defining marriage to suit their own political worldviews. That’s why we’re trying to put that definition in the Constitution.

What’s to stop a future Court from ruling that, because today’s statutes use the term “husband and wife,” neither of which is defined by gender; and because many same-sex couples consider themselves to be married, those relationships should have been legally recognized as marriages pre-Amendment, and should thus be grandfathered in?

Because clearly, the law “contemplated” female husbands, and male wives.

And, because recognizing some but not others would violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Wisconsin’s marriage amendment must therefore be ignored.

After all, we amended the Constitution to limit gambling in 1993, and the Court said: tough noogies! It may be specifically written down, but that’s no longer the standard.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m reaching. Maybe the Court will reverse themselves in a future ruling.

Otherwise, it appears that even the Constitution isn’t safe from judicial activism. Not in Wisconsin.

Getting More for Less

Should the local school board give teachers whatever they want, because they’ve earned and deserve it?

Or should the teachers be ready to give some things up, to help the district through difficult financial times?

Or should they just keep negotiating until both sides are happy?

Those were the choices in an online poll, run by my hometown newspaper (UPDATE – the poll is down now – I’ll link to the results when they’re posted). As of earlier today, “Teachers should accept some cutbacks” was in the lead with about 47%, while “Give them what they want” and “keep negotiating” were splitting the rest of the 300+ votes cast.

My gut feeling is that the teachers know they have to – maybe even should – be ready to accept cutbacks. The school district doesn’t have the money to do all the things they want, the way they want.

On the other hand, I’m sure teachers feel they’ve given up enough already – small or nonexistent raises, less job security, etcetera.

They may wonder why they have to accept less. I admit, I also wonder that. Why do we have to accept less, while we continue to pay more and more for schools?

I’ll have another “why” to ask soon. A bigger one.

But first: what if we could give our teachers raises, and still hire more (or lay off fewer) teachers, without a referendum, and without raising taxes?

Teachers would be happier. Administrators would be happier. Taxpayers would be happier. And it’s possible to do.

Here’s an example. In April, the Kenosha Unified School District announced 124 layoffs. The big reason: rising costs. One of the reasons for that: WEAIC, the teacher-union-owned insurance company, handles the district’s health insurance.

WEAIC wanted a 20% increase in premiums - $8.4 million more. The district didn’t have it.

So they convened a committee, studied the issue, and found United Healthcare Corp., another insurance company, which only wanted a 2.84% increase.

That’s significantly less, and for very similar (if not identical) health plans. The teachers get their insurance, the district balances the books. Everybody wins.

But the teacher’s union said no, we’re sticking with WEAIC.

Why? Why wouldn’t the union agree to a new provider, who could provide the same service for a lot less money? When that money would have meant more teachers – something the union surely wants, since it means more members? Something the union says they want, since more teachers mean smaller classes, and smaller classes mean better education?

Every kid deserves a great school, right?

More than 70% of the state’s school districts use WEAIC, including Baraboo. This is the case, even though other less expensive options exist. For example, the state insurance pool grew at 2/3 the rate of WEAIC’s between 1998 and 2004, and is significantly cheaper today.

The state insurance pool bids out insurance contracts. Competition works.

Now, it’s not certain that Baraboo would save any money by switching health insurance carriers. Because of the intricacies of the state’s school funding system, any money saved on health insurance might simply be shifted into salaries, with no actual savings to the district.

And…so what? If we can pay our teachers more without raising taxes, isn’t that a positive outcome?

Of course it is. The unions are always complaining about teacher pay – this would help alleviate that complaint. And it would help attract more qualified people into the field, and into our district.

So…why? Why won’t the union go along with it?

And here’s the bigger “why”: why don’t school districts make a bigger deal out of this?

This is a public relations loser for the union. Not just a loser – a disaster.

School districts should force the issue. Demand up front that they be allowed to bid out health insurance. If the union says no, well, let the headlines tell the story.

The voters won’t put up with it. And the end result: better service for the kids, with less pain for the taxpayers. Less friction between the taxpayers and the district. Less fragmentation in communities fighting over school costs.

It won’t solve everything, but it will mean more resources for our children’s educations. Because that is the most important thing.

Right?

Kevin Barrett: A Lasting Black Eye

As the legendary coach has been quoted to say: what the hell’s going on out there?

Dr. Kevin Barrett, Ph.D, who claims the U.S. government was behind the attacks of 9/11, and Bali, and Madrid – that they were “inside jobs” meant to spark a religious war and destroy civil liberties – got the thumbs up to teach a class on Islam to UW undergrads. He is officially a part-time lecturer at the University of Wisconsin.

Two plus two equals five. Or at least, believing so doesn’t disqualify you from teaching math at the UW.

But then, Barrett doesn’t just “believe” that 9/11 was an inside job. He knows it!

That’s what he said on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes.” The evidence is overwhelming! That nineteen young Muslims armed only with boxcutters could have done it themselves – that’s the wildest conspiracy theory of all!

Universities are institutions of learning, dedicated not only to the “free exchange of ideas,” but also to the discovery of fact. Thus, many of us wondered whether Barrett should be allowed to peddle his nonsense at our University.

Yes, he will, according to the University itself.

…after conducting a 10-day review of Barrett's past teaching and his plans for a fall class on Islam, Provost Patrick Farrell determined that Barrett was fit to teach and that the alternative theory on 9-11 had a place in the classroom when taught along with other viewpoints.

Farrell said academic freedom demanded the decision and that it would have been a mistake for the university to succumb to outside pressure.

"We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas," Farrell said in a written statement. "That classroom interaction is central to this university's mission and to the expansion of knowledge. Silencing that exchange now would only open the door to more onerous and sweeping restrictions."

Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts won the Cold War. FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by a decade. Jesus died hanging from a cross some 2,000 years ago, but came back to life three days later.

Let’s see those radical theories get some class time at UW.

The University of Wisconsin didn’t need another black eye, much less one that will keep swelling shut over and over again. They aren’t having the best year, public relations-wise. Big raises for top administrators; skyrocketing tuition (except for non-residents!); ridiculous amounts of job security for top staff, a new race-based admissions system. And that’s hardly all.

And let’s not forget the UW Regent who told UW leaders not to talk about sensitive issues.

Because the UW is committed to free speech, and the free exchange of ideas.

Hey, maybe Dr. Barrett does belong at UW after all. Appearing on Fox News yesterday, Barrett told host Sean Hannity "No, you're the extremist. Fox News is the biggest bunch of extremists on the planet." And “I don’t think you’re the most appropriate guy to be on the airwaves, spewing your venom.” And “I think you guys should be taken off the airwaves."

This he said, while in the middle of a raging debate over whether his own crackpot theories deserve First Amendment protection and a government salary!

Hypocritical? Arrogant? Or just stupid?

Maybe he was being ironic? If so, he needs to practice his irony more before he tries to use it again. Even the always-objective Ann Althouse took him seriously.

It’s not too late for UW to dump this guy. There’s no perfect solution – no way out that leaves UW unblemished. But there is a way, and Barrett supplied it himself on national TV.

Tell him: we supported you, Dr. Barrett, because we believe in the free exchange of ideas. Given your performance on Fox News, you obviously don’t. Your disdain for opposing viewpoints and the freedom to express them is an embarrassment to us (something has to embarrass the UW, doesn’t it?). We find that we can no longer support you. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Hypocritical, yes. Imperfect. There's still some pain on the horizon for UW administrators.

But the UW would be getting rid of a what’s sure to be a continual headache for them. More importantly, they’d be coming down on the side of fact.

And isn't that what our Universities are for?

OWN's Illogic on Gas Prices

Hey, “W”, what’s up with our gas prices?

I only ask, you know, because the President has complete control over gas prices. Or, at least, he could ask his oil buddies – the ones he started the war for – to take some of the edge off. Get us back to the $2.50-range or so per gallon.

That would be awfully good for his poll numbers. Wonder why he doesn’t do it?

I shouldn’t make too much fun – the President does have some short-term influence over gas prices, but only so far as he can spook futures traders, and drive futures down. Not necessarily the kind of power we want our chief executive using.

But others are asking the same question, and seriously, more or less. “One Wisconsin Now,” or OWN, the newest lefty-progressive wannabe-Wellstone-groupie organization to appear on the political landscape, asked it in a press release just yesterday.

Hey, “W”, what’s up with our gas prices?

Today, One Wisconsin Now called on President Bush and Congressman Mark Green to spend their time together next week explaining to the people of Wisconsin why gas prices have more than doubled since Bush took office.

When George Bush took office the average national gas price was $1.46 per gallon and yesterday gasoline prices approached $3.20 per gallon in the Milwaukee area. According to the AAA Wisconsin Web site, the average cost in the state for a gallon of regular unleaded Wednesday afternoon was $3.033, compared with $2.916 a month ago and $2.299 a year ago.

Good Lord, Mr. President! Do something!

OWN’s stated purpose is to “re-light the flame of Wisconsin's proud progressive tradition.” “Progressive,” of course, is just a euphemism for liberal. And not just liberal, but Moonbat-liberal, and a few minutes on their website bears that out. They’re libs. Pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research (except they don’t say embryonic). The term “right wing” is an epithet. The name Mark Green to be mentioned only with sarcasm and disdain.

They want a higher minimum wage, a fair tax system, and by God, they want lower gas prices!

To be fair, the release isn’t all about gas prices. It’s really about renewable energy. OWN wants us to move away from fossil fuels and onto wind power, solar power, bio-fuels.

They want us to change the way we do things. Change the way we live. They believe it will be for the better. Maybe they’re right.

And the incentive for us to make that move is...

...

...

Use the power of the Presidency to lower gas prices?

I’m not following their logic. But then, I’m not using the right logic. I’m not using political logic.

See, gas prices are beginning to affect people’s behavior. Truck sales are down. Hybrid and motorcycle sales are up. Gas mileage is in vogue, because the cost of gas has made it so. It’s so expensive, we don’t want to use as much.

That’s Supply and Demand in action. When prices rise, demand falls. But liberals tend to ignore actual laws, in favor of unproven theories. Global warming comes to mind. Oh, and the more gas we burn, the more greenhouse gases we produce, right?

So using less gas is good for global warming. And it helps promote conservation. Right? So shouldn’t “progressives” like OWN love higher gas prices?

They want to change the status quo. The status quo is cars. We’re Americans. We love our cars. We love to drive.

But to change the status quo – to convince people to change habits and pleasures that developed over lifetimes – you have to provide an incentive. Higher gas prices are providing that incentive.

OWN should be cheering, not complaining.

But then they couldn’t take political advantage of public anger over gas prices. They couldn’t take a cheap partisan shot at the President. So. Principles out the window.

How very...liberal.

The Big Choice: Independence

We, therefore…solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…

The Declaration of Independence

Today, we call that the money quote. At the time it was written, it was high treason.

One simply did not tell the King and his Parliament to get lost. Royal subjects, living in royal colonies, did not simply quit and deprive His Majesty of those subjects and colonies.

To attempt it was to sign one’s own death warrant.

And yet, they did. In July and August of 1776, fifty-six members of the Continental Congress approved, passed, publicized and signed a document which accused King George of dozens of “repeated injuries and usurpations,” and then told him, in effect, not to let the door hit him in the ass on his way out.

Eagerly. Confidently. They couldn’t wait to wrap their fingers around the quill and tell King George exactly what they thought of him, and torpedoes be damned!

Or did they? One wonders: is it really possible that none of them hesitated? Wondered if it had really come to this. That this – actual secession – was the only move left to them?

At the moment of truth, did none of them think – there’s still time to get the heck out of here, before the King finds out!

You’re a rich landowner from Virginia. Wealthy. Influential. Important. Carrying on the family name and honor, raising children to do the same after you. Signing could mean losing everything. Property and family both.

Somebody hands you the quill. Your turn. How can you not pause? Have second thoughts? Cold feet? Feel fear?

This was no little thing, and these weren’t men with nothing to lose. But, for over 15 years, a succession of taxes and edicts had come down from Parliament and the King, whittling away at the colonies’ ability to live, profit, grow, pursue happiness.

The Declaration says, “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

In other words, the devil you know is preferable to the one you don’t. The status quo is usually preferable to the unknown, no matter how bad the status quo is.

The Pilgrims went through it. Made the choice, and left the familiar maybe-safety of Europe for the unknown dangers – and the freedom – of the New World.

The Signers faced and made a very similar choice.

And what if they hadn’t? What if the signers had decided that the “forms to which they are accustomed” were sufferable after all?

They could have gone the United Nations route. Instead of a strong and committed Declaration, they could have written a feeble, toothless document, asking King George to please just stop, if it isn’t too much trouble. That is, if you wouldn’t horribly mind.

Or they could have rejected the Declaration entirely. They had that option.

We would still – probably – be an independent nation today. Canada is. They gained partial independence in 1867, more in 1931, and full independence in 1982, all with Britain’s blessing.

What sort of independent nation we would be – that’s another question. Without the Declaration and the Revolution, we wouldn’t have spent 15 years arguing over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – documents designed to specifically limit the kind of centralized government the Crown and Parliament represented and still do. Ripping off the band-aid forced us to become something we may not have become, otherwise.

But none of that happened. The Declaration was voted on, passed, and signed, despite the dangers the signers knew would follow. The war began in earnest. Independence achieved. The end of the beginning.

There is no modern parallel to the weight of that decision. Not in this country. Whatever risks we face are ridiculous in comparison. Hurt feelings, nasty editorials, angry letters, tarnished reputations. Now and then, taking the Big Stand will cost us an election.

We face so much less, because they faced so much more. Because even if they did hesitate, even if they were scared, they still put their names on the paper.