A Pattern of Anecdotes

You’re building a maintenance shed on your land. You’ve got all the necessary permissions from your local governments. The DNR knew it when the project got started. Oh, and the land is completely dry. But halfway through, the DNR says it’s a wetland, so you have to tear it down.

Or, they make you spend tens of thousands on erosion prevention because you built an addition to your restaurant, which has overlooked the Fox River for decades, even though the addition has zero effect on the original restaurant, the overhang, or the river.

Or, a tiny garter snake, virtually identical to every other breed of garter snake – means you can’t develop the land you purchased to develop.

Or, the pier your parents put in decades ago is suddenly non-compliant, and you have to change it, remove it, or start paying fines.

All these things actually happened. Some of them were stopped before any harm could be done. Others, not so much.

Legislative Republicans – like any of us who resent bureaucratic strong-arming – are in a bit of a snit about it. Not just these few examples, but about a pattern of overregulation and overzealous enforcement at the Department of Natural Resources.

The DNR says there is no such pattern.

DNR Secretary Scott Hassett responded, "I don't really like this trial by anecdote - these are the kinds of things that you hear with any regulatory agency. It's more of an open season on us.”

Anecdotes? Maybe. But harmful to the individuals involved, nonetheless. An intrusion on their rights – new, or expanding, or seemingly meaningless, random, without direction from state law.

And if a state agency can, out of the blue, change the rules that affect your property, what’s to stop them from doing the same with mine?

Or all of ours?

And so: legislative Republicans and the DNR circle each other warily, because too many citizens and landowners are complaining about an overreaching department, arrogant with power, which creates and enforces rules seemingly at whim.

There’s always been – and hopefully there always will be – a distrustful watchfulness between the Legislature (primarily the Republicans) and the bureaucracy. If there’s one thing I want from my elected representatives, it’s that. Distrust the bureaucracy. Never take your eyes off them.

None of this is to say that we don’t need any rules. I can’t, for example, raise pigs in my backyard. Or open a hamburger joint on my back porch. Or play my radio as loud as possible with all the windows open.

We need rules, and we need somebody to enforce them, because what I do with my property affects my neighbors. My freedom to use my property ends when it infringes on their right to use theirs.

On a grander scale, one could make the same argument about environmental regulations – that protecting wetlands (whether or not they’re wet) and endangered species (whether or not they’re in danger) is what’s best for our long-term enjoyment and our long-term health.

If I step on the 2,438th-to-last Butler garter snake, for example, it could help wipe that species out, which will mean a less diverse and thus weaker ecosystem, which theoretically could mean bad things for all of us.

That’s the basis of all these rules. All the bureaucracy. All the red tape. All the hassle and interference that, depending on your level of tolerance for things nitpicky and intrusive, causes property owners to pull their hair, grind their teeth, and call their legislators.

But here’s the rub. To make and enforce rules, government has to have power. Government is made of people. People and power tend to make a rotten mix.

The DNR has power, and some of us – many of us – think they’re making far too frequent use of it.

The DNR secretary called it “trial by anecdote.” Well, maybe it is. But every anecdote has a person behind it. That person has rights, which can’t be simply dismissed by calling his situation an anecdote.

Besides, if you put enough anecdotes together, you find a pattern.

Legislative Republicans think they see one. For the sake of all our rights, they should look closer. Even if they’re wrong.

A Christian on TV

I just watched the premiere episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

Over a week late, I know. A four-kid lifestyle means the wife and I don’t watch TV when TV is actually on. We tape, and play catch-up on weekends.

Studio 60 is supposed to be the hot new show this year. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Created and written by Adam Sorkin, whose West Wing holds the record for most Emmys won in a single year.

I hadn’t heard much about the show, other than the all-star cast and early opinions of the critics. Now that I’ve seen it, I’m wondering why. There was vast potential for pre-show buzz.

Warning: spoilers ahead.

The setting: a Saturday Night Live-type variety show. The head writer freaks out on live TV after a network flunkie refuses – at the last second – to allow a skit that might cause Christians to take hostages, issue death threats, and set off car bombs.

Oh, no, wait…he’s afraid Christians will be offended, complain, possibly boycott their sponsors. That’s what it was.

So. Head writer fired, and the brand new (impossibly young) network boss hires back the show’s original writer and director.

Now here’s a twist: one of the main characters is a devout Christian, who wears her faith openly. And another twist: she just broke up after a long relationship with the old/new writer who is now back in charge of the show.

Here’s the scene I thought might have caused a scene: Harriet Hayes (played by Sarah Paulson) arguing with Matt Albie (played by Chandler Bing), her ex.

HARRIET
When you were promoting the movie I was holding your hand every step of the way. When I had a CD to promote in 52 markets in 15 days, you disappeared.

MATT
I didn't disappear.

HARRIET
You got cold and you got mean.

HARRIET
Right after you went on The 700 Club is that timing lost on you?

HARRIET
It was an album of spiritual music, those are the people who buy spiritual music!

MATT
I don't care if it was an album of the three wise men covering the Doobie Brothers, you put on a dress and sang for a bigot.

HARRIET
I sang for his audience, not every one of whom is necessarily the grotesque stereotype you'd like them to be. Most of these people have nothing except their faith, and that moves me.

MATT
Throw in the Halloween costumes and you got yourself a Klan rally.

WHACK!--

HARRIET smacks MATT across the face...

HARRIET
(pause)
I'm sorry.

MATT
Fortunately I'm on about 8000 milligrams of painkillers right now.

Wow. A Klan rally. Now that’s a grotesque stereotype. Not to mention a little bigoted on Matt’s part. It’s also a neat bit of irony, since fear of offending Christians was driving the whole plot in the first place.

More importantly, Harriet’s faith (and what looks like Matt’s intolerance toward people who share that faith) was, in a back-seated sort of way, at the core of why they broke up.

Look! A controversy! Let’s gin up some buzz!

Well, if there was any pre-ginning, I missed it. And if there’s been any controversy, I’ve missed that, too.

Which is a good thing. We’re a little over-outraged in this country as it is. A little too much perpetual offended-ness. Jesus had a thick skin. We should, too.

The worst-case scenario, obviously, is that Harriet becomes a stereotypically uptight, over-righteous, preachy, intolerant bore. Middle-case: her Christianity simply fades away. Disappears.

This is, honestly, what I expect from mainstream Hollywood, and I see little reason not to expect it again. Sorkin’s West Wing tended to lapse into leftist punditry, especially in its last years. And the actor portraying Harriet is, a few minutes of internet research reveals, a lesbian.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, and not that it necessarily means anything. Any actor or writer should want to portray the character honestly, and interestingly. By assuming they won’t, I stereotype them the same way I’m afraid they’ll stereotype the character.

So. Best-case scenario: this exchange between Harriet and Matt is simply the first taste we’ll have of two characters who have human depth, flaws, and inconsistencies.

Maybe that’ll happen. Maybe not. Let’s wait and find out, and save being offended for later.

Meantime, enjoy the snappy dialog. That’s what I’ll be doing.

Supporting a Moderate

Liberal. Moderate. Conservative. There’s no precise definition for those words, when they’re used as political labels.

Sure, we know what they mean. But still…they’re nebulous. Shifty. Moving targets, for a number of reasons.

They’re not exclusive categories, for one thing. It’s not that uncommon for someone to be a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.

And just look at the Free Trade issue. It’s a staple of market-based – conservative – economic philosophy, but many hard conservatives are for closing the borders. Protectionism. Anti-free trade.

And then there’s the relativity problem. You can be pretty conservative, but still not as conservative as Pat Buchanan. One can be pretty liberal, but still not as radically liberal as – oh, just to pull a name out of thin air – Tammy Baldwin.

Here’s the funny part: if one candidate is way over to the left, you’d think it would make her opponent look more conservative, by comparison. Like a really, really bad basketball player, making his average opponent look like a star.

But it doesn’t work that way. A good, strong conservative candidate can still look like a moderate, compared to the radical lefty he’s running against.

The radical lefty, for whom you have to tack three extra pieces of paper to the left side of the scale, just to fit her on there someplace.

Hey, that brings me back to Tammy.

There may be more liberal members of Congress than Tammy Baldwin. But not many. Since her election in 1998, Tammy’s been reliably to the left of…well, she’s over there with Ed Garvey, I’d say. The late Paul Wellstone. Pre-presidential-run Hillary Clinton.

Liberal. Pro-abortion, anti-military, pro-big government, pro-spending, pro-taxes, pro-socialized medicine.

Did I leave anything out?

Here’s an example. There is room for polite disagreement on some aspects of the abortion issue. The morning-after pill, the incest exception, how to define what constitutes a risk to the mother’s life.

There is very little disagreement in other areas. For example, partial birth abortion. An abortion performed so late in the pregnancy that the baby could survive on its own, outside the womb.

Tammy Baldwin voted to allow just those kinds of procedures.

Should minors be allowed to cross state lines to have abortions, without their parents’ consent? Even without their knowledge? Baldwin voted to allow that.

And when an unborn baby is injured during an assault on the mother, should that count as a crime all its own? Yes, most of us say. A horrific crime. But Baldwin voted no. According to her, an unborn child – no matter how developed, or how wanted – isn’t protected under the law.

This is radical, off-the-charts, pro-abortion liberalism that most of us simply can’t fathom.

There are other issues. Baldwin voted against increasing domestic supplies of oil. To allow nanny-state lawsuits against restaurants and gun manufacturers. She voted to stop military recruiters from recruiting on college campuses, and against securing our southern border against illegal immigration (at least twice).

She voted against every one of the President’s tax cuts. They hurt working families, you understand. Never mind that federal tax receipts have skyrocketed since those tax cuts took effect.

She voted against earmark reform – against requiring accountability for amendments that spend taxpayer money. And, most recently, she voted against requiring photo ID at the polls. To rent a video, or get a library card, or buy cold medicine, well, yes, for those you need to prove who you are. But not to vote. Not according to Baldwin.

None of these positions, by themselves, make her a radical lefty. All of them, put together, do. Only a district with a radically liberal center and a lot of union power would elect someone so far away from the mainstream. She’s so far to the left she makes her opponent – Dave Magnum, a solid conservative – look like a moderate.

And, compared to Tammy, that’s just what he is.

Anti-War Referendums March On

Here we go again.

Tonight, the Sauk County Board will consider putting an anti-war resolution on the county-wide November ballot. It’s the same resolution Baraboo passed in April: “Should the U.S. begin an immediate phased pullout of its troops from Iraq,” or some similar thing.

As I’ve said before, it’s the word “phased” that throws me. It’s meaningless. It seems to demand something, but doesn’t. Like a caricatured British gentleman trying to express anger, but unable to get past the pleasantries. “Terribly sorry to bother you, old bean, but if you don’t mind too, too terribly much…”

That sort of thing. It’s foreign policy by Monty Python.

Even a staunch supporter of the war could get behind a “phased” withdrawal, depending on who gets to decide what “phased” means. One could say we’ve been conducting a “phased” withdrawal for some time already, so why not vote yes?

And that, as I’ve said before, is the anti-war strategy: get more people to vote yes by using ill-defined language. Then cast the results as proof that the public Hates Bush and his War Based On Lies.

If we want a referendum on the war, then let’s have one. At the very least, take out the word “phased.” Call for the U.S. to begin an immediate withdrawal.

It’s simple, it’s easy, and there’s no ambiguity.

Okay, so there’s a little ambiguity. A practiced politician will be able to stretch “immediate” out for quite some time.

But still. If the facts are on the anti-war side (as the anti-war Left surely believes), there should be no problem with removing that word.

Better yet, ask the question we know the Left really wants to ask. Should Bush and Cheney be impeached?

This isn’t me being ridiculous. At least two Wisconsin communities are asking exactly that: should Congress immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President?

That question stands a much smaller chance of passage, though, which hurts anti-Bush momentum. So it stays off the ballot, no matter how badly Bush-haters want it.

Here’s a thought: why does the question have to be negative? Pollsters know that simply asking a particular question can pre-bias the answers. So let’s turn the question around.

War opponents can’t really object, can they? Not if they really believe the facts, and the public, are on their side.

For example, Ozaukee County voters will have this on their ballots in November:

"Do you support the efforts of the United States and its military in waging a war on terror throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, until such a time as organized terrorism is eliminated and citizens of all countries can be assured of their safety to go about their tasks of everyday life?"

That’s a little wordy for my taste. How about something simpler, like: “Should our troops remain in Iraq?” Or “Should the U.S. military continue its work in Iraq until the Iraqi government can maintain peace on its own?” Or, my favorite: “Should the U.S. continue to oppose terrorism around the world with all the resources at our disposal?”

Let’s ask one of those.

Right. I know. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It’s a distraction, based on lies and billion-dollar oil profits. Osama was never there, and if he had been, Saddam would have killed him.

Even if that were true, our presence in Iraq is a lynchpin in our efforts. At the very least, Iraq gives us a reason to station troops in that part of the world. Lots and lots of troops. The Middle East is terrorism’s outlet mall. If we’re serious about taking terrorism on, we need to concentrate power there.

That’s what I think, anyway.

Thankfully, I expect the Board to reject this resolution. It failed in committee, because nobody would even move to consider it. I’m betting it goes down.

Otherwise, well, a crowded ballot is about to get more so. So stay tuned.

No Referendum, No Hope

Well, that’s it then. My children are destined. Not for greatness, but for…um…dunno. Ditch digging, I guess. That is, if they can figure out which end of the shovel goes down.

And it’s all my fault.

I opposed Baraboo’s school referendum. Voted against it. Even put a sign in my yard. 3,076 people agreed with me, and 2,942 disagreed. Referendum failed. The district will have to make do with the $25 million that they have and, according to those disagreers, $25 million means substandard schools.

This is of particular import to me, as three of my four children already attend Baraboo public schools. One of them will, someday, choose my nursing home. If they can read the brochures.

I’m considering pulling them out. The kids, I mean. Taking them out of school entirely.

And why not? Without the referendum, they’ll be lucky to get even a rudimentary education. At least, according to the bitter post-election letters that are already appearing in the local paper. So they might as well get some work done around the house. The yard. The dusting. The laundry. Have the martinis ready when the wife and I get home from our nightly reveling, what with all the extra money we saved by shortchanging their futures.

In fact, given the utter and irreversible ruin we’ve dropped on them, the district might as well slash spending even more. Why not? The damage is done. Nothing more to lose by giving us back all our taxes.

I think the whole thing was summed up pretty well by one school board member, at a public meeting held the day before the referendum.

Board member Jill Ellinwood said just coming to the meeting choked her up. "What this referendum is about is one thing and one thing only, and that's opportunities for children," she said. "Everything that we've had to cut… everything that we've been fighting for is all about opportunities for children."

I’ll stop making fun for a moment: Ms. Ellinwood’s feelings are real. She honestly believes we needed – and I mean needed – this referendum. Her disappointment, probably, is also very real.

As much as I disagree with her, the board, and the rest of the referendum supporters, I respect their dedication and their passion. Even the ones who chose to lash out after they lost. I do feel bad that they feel bad. I don’t want anyone to think otherwise.

I just can’t figure them out.

We already spend a lot on public education. The state spends about 40% of its general fund – income, corporate, and sales taxes – on it. Add to that over 43% of all property taxes paid in Wisconsin. In all, Wisconsin spent over $11,000 per student last year. Nearly $10 billion. Maybe more. This year, it certainly will be more. And next year, still more.

How can that not be enough?

How can $25 million not be enough for a place the size of Baraboo? By their own reckoning, spending in the Baraboo School District is growing by about 5% each year. This year’s budget is 4.7% bigger than last year’s.

These are healthy numbers. We’re really happy when jobs or income or the GDP grow like that. But for schools, it’s doom and gloom. Depression. Bitterness. Despair. Not just in Baraboo, but everywhere. Every school district, every local government, county department and state agency. They simply can’t function without more money.

And I mean MORE money.

But that’s all beside the point. We can quibble over numbers all day long and, by bedtime, some of us will still lie awake wondering how we’ll ever afford it, while others will wonder how we’ll ever get by.

Here’s the real point: referendum supporters say it’s about opportunity. Giving our children what they need. If we don’t spend more, our children will have less, if they have anything at all.

Our children’s opportunities – their futures – depend on the government. On taxpayers being willing to pay more. Our children’s potential, success, and future happiness depend on what somebody else is willing to do.

That’s where their logic leads. I reject it, and I refuse to teach it to my kids.

Up On The Ledge

It’s Primary Day. The primary election – the day we whittle our number of candidates per job down to two each. Mostly.

Forgive me if I’m a little bit bored by it all. It’s important, I know. We do have big choices to make in the Attorney General’s race. Some lucky voters have Congressional primaries, or state legislative ones.

But the big battles are yet to come. Primaries cast a pretty pale shadow, compared to the November general election. In fact, if it weren’t for the Spend-More school referendum on our ballot in Baraboo, I’d have to remind myself to vote.

Maybe that’s why, instead of steeling myself for a long night of pins and needles and watching returns, I’m distracted today by a 15-year-old memory.

I was in the Army, at the time. In Monterey, California. I’d just lost five bucks, because the Packers had just lost to the Bears. Again.

I don’t remember much about that game, except two things: the final score, and one play. The Bears fumbled a punt, right around their own 30. Green Bay recovered.

And there was trash talking. And it was good.

But wait! A referee had blown his whistle early, and thus had blown the call. Even the ref knew it, and right away. You could see him nodding. My fault.

Part of the game, right? Blown calls. Besides, the Bears still would have won. This was 1991. The Packers weren’t very good.

Final score: 10-0. That was the last time the Packers were held scoreless. The last time, until two days ago. In case you’ve been off-planet for a while, I’ll recap: the Bears beat the Packers on Sunday, 26-0.

Since then, I’ve found myself in the odd position of arguing that yes, the Bears really are that good, with a Bears fan who says no, they’re not.

Yes they are. They have to be. Otherwise…well, it’s gonna be a long season.

This was the same Packers team I remember from last year. The one that ranked in the top ten in total defense. Ranked first in passing yards allowed.

You heard me. I didn’t believe it, either, but it’s true. And our quarterback threw for nearly 4000 yards – enough to put him in the top five in the league.

And that team went 4-12. It just doesn’t compute.

But:

Talk about an intangible. We’re talking about the nebulous difference between did and almost-did: the quality of get-it-done-ness.

Convert the third and two! Force a punt when you need it most! Punch the ball into the end zone instead of settling for the field goal!

They can’t do it. Particularly when the chips are down, this is an intangible the Packers simply lack.

Different year, same story. Favre had a rotten game, but Ahman Green ran for 110 yards – a 5.5 yard average. Donald Driver made his usual half-dozen spectacular plays.

Yes, the Bears topped 100 rushing yards, but they only averaged 3 yards per rush. That’s good run defense, against a good running offense.

But the pass defense was bad. Worse than bad. At times, our secondary looked like they were wearing blindfolds. And the offense only converted one third down out of eleven. They failed to convert on 3rd-and-one three times, and 4th-and-inches once.

Ahman Green running well, but you can’t convert a third-and-one? You can’t score at all?

The Packers are like a baseball team that hits two singles every inning. Sure, they racked up 18 hits, but they never got anybody across the plate. That’s what I saw in the Packers last year, and that’s what I saw again on Sunday.

And yet…I’m ever the optimist. Here’s why: they went for it.

Down 10-0 in the second quarter, near midfield, with momentum heavily on the Chicago side, head coach Mike McCarthy went for it on 4th down.

That’s not the safe play. It was a good sign. He gets it. This is important.

So, maybe I’m grasping at straws. Well, why wouldn’t I? Last year, I tried talking people down from the ledge when the Pack blew their opener. This year, I’m up there myself.

And this ledge is pretty narrow.

Accountability and Fighting Bob Fest

Hold them accountable!

That’s the rallying cry for this year’s “progressive” love-o-rama, that annual mass of liberal, radical, socialist thought that takes place, every year, about a mile from my house: Fighting Bob Fest.

And I say: yes. Let’s hold them accountable. And let’s start with Fighting Bob Fest’s creator and mentor, Ed Garvey.

Ed Garvey, the über-liberal – sorry, I mean über-progressive – curator of FighingBob.com. Gnashingly liberal, yet cunningly pragmatic. That’s Ed Garvey.

What do I mean? Well, for one thing, Garvey’s not afraid to call out his own side. That’s the “gnashing” part. Like when he took Democrat leadership to task, just before their state convention:

…they sure as hell don't want to discuss campaign finance reform and the governor's lack of leadership on the issue, not to mention his questionable fundraising from state vendors, utilities and casino advocates.

Read this one, too.

And here’s one for the Republicans:

Green reported that he has raised $1.4 million and his Republican opponent has raised $67,000. Terri McCormick has $1,000 and change in the bank and Mr. Per Diem Gard has $657,000 in the bank. Surprise prediction: Gard will win the primary.

The system is broken. The realtors, bankers, utilities and WMC members nominate their candidate. I don't know Terri McCormick and you won't get to know her either... Why? No money. Ideas, maybe, but no money so bye-bye.

Different party, same message. He’s a gnasher, Ed is.

But now for the “cunningly pragmatic” part.

Garvey gave us his definition of “progressivism” back in 2003. It went, in part:

Most important of all, it requires a belief that the powers that ought to be can prevail over the powers that be. Progressives must be less concerned about a single election than with the philosophical framework within which the candidates operate and support those who believe in economic and social justice. (emphasis added)

So. Who did Garvey support for President in 2004? The maverick reformer who wore crumpled suits, demanded withdrawal from Iraq, and preached that money is the root of all political evil? Or the aristocratic millionaire who voted for the Patriot Act and for/against/for the war and whose allies spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get him elected?

If you chose option A, you’re wrong. Garvey went with John Kerry, not Ralph Nader.

Progressivism at its finest.

There could be a good reason. Maybe Garvey decided it was more important to Re-Defeat Bush! than to honor his principles.

Or maybe he’s not really so “progressive.” He’s simply courting the Loony Left, winning them over, so he can reel them in for the Democrats on Election Day.

He’ll deny it, of course.

And…guess what? I know how he can prove it. Here’s something else Garvey said (or at least endorsed) last year:

At the Milwaukee People’s Legislature on Saturday, the group enthusiastically argued that "contributions" or "gifts" to candidates or incumbents should be labeled as "bribes."

…

A bribe is given to convince a public official to vote a certain way to help the one who offers the bribe. But wait. Did the wholesalers give money to the governor for "good government," or do they have a particular agenda?

Good question. I once wondered whether he would apply that same question to LaFollette himself.

He hasn’t. Not as far as I know.

Okay, then. Let’s apply it to somebody else. Let’s say…just to pick someone at random…oh, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.

If Baldwin isn’t the single most liberal member of Congress, she’s awfully close. Not coincidentally, she’s a mainstay at Fighting Bob Fest. She’s speaking there again this year.

By the way, she wins elections by out-spending her opponents. By a lot. She outspent her opponent 3:1 in 2000. In 2002, it was 7:1. In 2004, 3:1 again.

It’s wrong when Mark Green and John Gard do it. That’s what Garvey said.

And Baldwin’s money isn’t coming from around here. In 2000, nearly 60% of her contributions came from out of state. In 2002, it was 46%. In 2004, 48%.

People in Boston and LA give her money because…they care deeply about south central Wisconsin?

Or are those bribes, paying for a particular agenda?

Garvey’s question. Not mine.

Now’s your chance, Ed. Prove your commitment to Progressivism. Call Baldwin out! Call her to progressive repentance, tomorrow, in public, at Fighting Bob Fest! And then endorse the Green Party candidate for Governor!

That’s what a real Progressive would do. But, whatcha wanna bet…Garvey won’t?

Shut Up Already!

Those darn Christians are at it again. We just can’t keep our religion to ourselves.

The Baraboo News Republic would prefer that, I think. The religious among us should stay out of sight, out of mind. Remain firmly in the closet, except for Sundays and holidays. Speak when spoken to. That sort of thing.

This is the second time in three months I’ve been offended by a BNR editorial that simply dismisses an opposing viewpoint because that viewpoint might be influenced by religious belief. This time, the issue is Plan B – the “day after” contraceptive. The FDA recently approved it for over-the-counter use – one no longer needs a prescription to buy this powerful hormonal drug.

The BNR thinks that’s a good thing. Further, they think it should be available to minors, also without a prescription. Which means without the necessity of parental consent.

As a pro-life issue, Plan B isn’t nearly as cut and dried as, say, partial birth abortion. Or as abortion in general. Or as RU-84, the “abortion pill.”

Still, there are questions about the safety of Plan B. Whether or not it should be taken without a doctor’s advice. There are ethical questions. And there are questions about parental rights.

There is room for disagreement here.

Yet, the BNR chooses to paint opposition as extremism from the Radical Religious Right:

Whether it’s birth control or stem cell research, right-to-life groups have hidden behind exaggerated scientific claims to push their religious agenda on public policy. At the end of the day, conservatives think people shouldn’t be having sex outside of marriage. That’s fine, so long as this religious belief isn’t imposed on everyone by way of law. (BNR Editorial, Sept 2, 2006 - emphasis added).

Damn theocrats.

Okay, maybe I’m being oversensitive. That paragraph isn’t exactly a smoking gun, proving rampant anti-religious sentiment. Yet it makes me uncomfortable. It offends me, for several reasons.

For one, the BNR’s characterization seems to indicate blind, ignorant slavishness. It implies that there’s no reason behind the opinion.

Religious belief isn’t like that, no matter what the non-religious think. There is reason involved, both in the belief itself, and in the opinions which follow that belief. There are good, honest, public policy reasons for the pro-life agenda, including opposition to Plan B.

But not as far as the BNR can see. No rational disagreement here.

It’s true that pro-life Christians want to influence public policy. That’s their right. They are, after all, Americans. Taxpayers. Voters. With all the same rights as everybody else, including the right to try and influence their government.

Why is that a problem?

It’s not like we’re trying to write weekly church attendance and Bible study into law. Not trying to require that everyone be baptized with feathers and pig’s blood.

We’re not trying to force conversion to Christianity at gunpoint or anything. And even if we were, we’d be wasting our time. It doesn’t work that way.

Really, is lobbying and politicking by the Christian Right any different than that of the environmental lobby? Or the anti-smoking lobby? Or the seatbelt/motorcycle helmet lobby? Advocates of stricter zoning laws? How about supporters of universal and socialized health care?

They’re all trying to impose their view of what’s best on the rest of us, whether we agree with it or not.

Using terms like “extreme right” and “pushing religious beliefs on public policy” is rhetorical dismissiveness. Like calling those who support the war “chickenhawk.” It’s meant to discredit the source. Attack the messenger, because once you’ve successfully smeared him, it no longer matters what the message is. Anything the messenger says is suspect.

I admit to doing some of this myself. For example, I like to call Ed Garvey the über-liberal, King of Wisconsin’s Moonbats. His followers are the Loony Left, radical wingnuts who drool with Bush hatred.

But then, I’m an ideologue. A pundit, of sorts. A partisan practitioner of political spin, both by aptitude and by inclination.

Is the BNR, also? They’re not supposed to be.

I think Garvey and his followers are ridiculous. So I don’t take them seriously.

The BNR doesn’t take politically active Christians seriously. One wonders: do they have the same reason?

When Gamesmanship Goes Wrong

School starts Tuesday. That means it was time, earlier this week, for annual orientation visits. Meeting teachers, finding lockers, delivering supplies for the coming year.

Imagine my surprise when I found – at our local elementary school – a table of “Vote Yes” campaign material. Buttons. Propaganda. Explaining how important it is that we pass the spend-more referendum, on the ballot in September.

This struck me as…unseemly. I have little doubt that the materials themselves were paid for with private money, but still. Promoting one side in a referendum? On school grounds? Government property?

I’m sure they would have let the Vote No side have their own table, too, had they only asked. Assuming they were aware of the opportunity.

Were they?

One does wonder: if it’s okay to promote a referendum, would it also be okay to promote a school board candidate on school grounds? How about an Assembly or Senate candidate? Preferably one who wants to dump the revenue caps, and let school boards raise and spend whatever they want without any limits, without referendums?

Am I going too far? I fail to see why. Promoting a position and promoting a person who holds that position aren’t all that different.

It’s political gamesmanship. Making use of an advantage at hand. Unseemly, maybe. Inappropriate, maybe. Dirty? Well, maybe. It depends, and besides, you’ll never be able to prove it. The best either side can hope for is some decent media coverage.

Governor Doyle’s been getting some of that. He was in Baraboo this week, announcing a $626,000 grant “to support job creation.” That’s part of about a million and a half he announced this week, getting press all along the way.

If I were a cynic, I’d say Governor Doyle was running for re-election. Oh, right. He is.

No big deal. The state hands out taxpayer money all the time. Can’t blame Governor Doyle for taking advantage of that to get himself some good press.

All’s fair in love and war, and politics is…well, one of those. If not both. I’m not shocked. Odds are you aren’t, either.

And I’m not surprised – odds are you aren’t, either – that the Wisconsin Ethics Board ruled against Mark Green, Republican candidate for Governor. They ordered him to return over $400,000 of campaign money, even though he followed every single law and rule – to the letter – to get it.

The Ethics Board is supposed to be independent. Four Democrats, four Republicans, and one Libertarian. All four Dems and the Lib voted together on the ruling.

You did everything right, Mark, and we’re still voting against you. Because…why? Because it’ll mean better headlines for our side. Not to mention fewer TV commercials for yours.

As political gamesmanship goes, this was particularly ugly. Even the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said they got it wrong – and that’s likely the last time they’ll ever side with Green.

Oh, sure, the Democrats will have their own examples. President Bush does, after all, fly around in Air Force One, even during campaign season.

And don’t forget the 2000 election. Still a liberal favorite. Vote-rigging and voter-intimidation, especially in Florida, leading the Bush team to a razor-thin electoral (but not popular-vote) victory.

Odd, considering that less than a year later this same Bush team would fool the world into believing it was Islamic radicals – not the U.S. government itself – who destroyed the Twin Towers. You’d think they could rig an election better.

Gamesmanship has backlash. Usually, it’s nothing you can see. It evens out. One side puts out a negative press release, the other side counters and then attacks on some other front. The water is muddied, until nobody can see through it.

That’s the goal, here: the Doyle administration is beset by scandal. Pay-to-play has reached heights unheard of since, at least, the Chuck Chvala era. They need to muddy up the waters, and they’re doing it by using a supposedly neutral entity to slander Mark Green.

But. It’s so obviously partisan. It so obviously ignores the facts. It’s proving that, when there’s an election on the line, Democrats hold nothing sacred.

It’s breathing new energy into Republican efforts.

How’s the saying go? I’m rubber, you’re glue.

Boing.