When Men Act Like Boys

Editor's Note: Lance Burri has gone on a mission trip to the absolute furthest fringes of the civilized world. When (if) he returns in the first week of July, he will begin publishing original columns again (actually, I'm back already, but I just spent 13 hours driving and am disinclined from writing a column). Until then, we will publish from the Best of Lance Burri Collection.

The following column first ran on March 14, 2006.

I tend to agree: it’s not fair, in a schoolboy sort of way. Not fair, not fair, NOT FAIR.

And…so?

A group called the National Center for Men (and I’ll be using that word loosely today) has filed a federal lawsuit, citing discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Women, they complain, have choices about pregnancy that men don’t have. Women can choose to have the child or to abort it, and the father has nothing whatsoever to say about that decision. If the mother chooses abortion, the might’a-been Dad can’t stop her.

In the reverse, if the mom chooses to become a Mom to the formerly unpredicted and assumedly unwanted child, the dad can’t stop her from doing that, either. Eighteen years of child support, coming up.

These particular dads (again, using a term loosely) say that’s not fair: they should have just as much right to abandon the child as their former one-night-stand did.

They’re calling it “Roe vs. Wade for Men.” Sounds like a shampoo.

On one level, I agree with them. It’s not fair. Women can make choices about having children or not having them, and in most cases, the men just have to pay.

But that level – it’s somewhere down around the elementary school playground, where the basic unfairness of life could be rebutted simply by picking up your ball and going home.

The men who have formed this group, and have filed this lawsuit – they presumably have left the playground behind, and are living in an adult world. So, really, I should spend my sarcasm not on them, but on the world itself – on a society which invites adults to avoid responsibility, rather than demands that they accept it.

I should, but I won’t.

What would John Wayne have said to these…uh..."men?" I'm not sure, but I bet there’d be fisticuffs. Except he wouldn’t call them fisticuffs.

I’m not gonna hit ya. I’m not gonna hit ya.

You know the rest. And if you don’t, get thee to the video store.

Whose definition of “man” includes whining about the unfairness of it all? Women have more reproductive “choices” than men? Tough. Here’s an idea: keep your pants on.

That is, after all, the core issue. Sex. Women can have wild unprotected sex with the knowledge that whatever happens, they’re covered. Men, on the other hand, might actually have to live with the consequences of their decision to get busy.

We don’t like that. Consequences. We want what we want, we want it all now, and we don’t want to be bothered with any silly repercussions.

Eat your favorite foods and still lose weight!

That’s the whole idea behind abortion in the first place. We should be able to do what we want, with as few consequences as possible – the consequence in this case being the babies.

Well, reality has something else in mind. Sex has consequences, both emotional and physical. Pregnancy is one of them. And, in the vast majority of cases, pregnancy can only occur due to the choices made by two individuals.

These men want the right to help create a baby – the direct result of their own freely-made decision – and walk away with no strings.

It used to be that women didn’t just jump into bed willy-nilly, partly because of the potential consequences. It wasn’t in their best interests.

Modern birth control and abortion have changed that. Maybe now it’s time for men to realize that jumping into bed willy-nilly isn’t in their best interests.

But not if this group has their way. Like children, they see someone else being immature and irresponsible, and rather than being offended by that and expecting better, they say: me too!

Maybe I spent too much of my youth reading pseudo-medieval adventure fiction – you know, the kingdoms and knights and heroes ready to sacrifice all for the good of their whatever. Honor. Chivalry. That sort of thing.

Because I seem to have grown up with these odd ideas about taking responsibility for my own actions, even when those around me don’t. That – and I know how corny this sounds – is what a man does.

That’s not what these men are doing – or rather, it’s not what they want to do. They want to share in an exception from responsibility – if they don’t have to do it, we shouldn’t have to, either.

And the irony is: it’s probably better that we give them that exemption. Otherwise, they might become fathers.

Our House

Editor's Note: Lance Burri has gone on a mission trip to the absolute furthest fringes of the civilized world. When (if) he returns in the first week of July, he will begin publishing original columns again. Until then, we will publish from the Best of Lance Burri Collection.

The following column first ran on April 11, 2006.

My house has a door. We lock it when we leave, and when we go to bed.

In my whole life, no one has ever tried to enter my house without my (or my family’s) permission. Not that I know of, anyway.

Let’s say somebody did. Came right in, uninvited, started making a sandwich in my kitchen. Maybe did the dishes. Maybe told me he plans to stay, and he’ll pay me something for rent, help with the groceries, do some work around the house. He says he’ll generally stay out of the way.

I didn’t invite him, and don’t want him. But he’s being generally useful, and has nowhere else to go. Am I obliged to let him stay?

No. I’m not.

But we are, apparently, obliged to let people stay in our country, and to ignore the fact that they let themselves in without permission, without knocking, without even acknowledging their host.

This became obvious after spending some time walking through Madison’s anti-anti-illegal-immigration rally yesterday.

I had three basic observations: one, the pro-illegal-immigrant side doesn’t use the word “illegal.” No such thing.

Two, the protesters don’t want to acknowledge that we, the other side, understand and appreciate the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, and that we are very much in favor of the former, while very much opposed to the latter.

To them, there is no difference.

And three, they believe there should be no difference. Any immigrant, regardless of how they arrived here, should have equal status with any other immigrant, legal or illegal. And any immigrant, legal or illegal, should have all the rights and privileges of any citizen.

There should be no door. Our house should be open to all, without reservation. Our refrigerator is your refrigerator. Well, yes, I did think I’d handle the TV remote myself. It does belong to me, after all.

Silly me.

Yes, I know, we’ve spent decades ignoring our own laws. We, Americans, have helped create this problem. What are we supposed to do now? Find, arrest, and deport all 12 million illegals at once?

That would be difficult, to say the least. Not to mention bad for the economy – many of those 12 million are doing actual work at actual jobs. One can only assume that their employers need that work done.

But…I wonder how many people – legal citizens – are right now stealing office supplies, growing marijuana in the backyard, driving home after one too many drinks, looking at kiddie porn, cheating on their taxes?

How many of us will do those things this week? Twelve million? I wouldn’t be surprised.

We don’t turn a blind eye to those crimes. If we’re aware of them, we act. Today. Even if it’s twelve million people. We don’t worry about their families, their employers, the economy.

Those effects are not our fault. Not the fault of those who enforce the law, nor the fault of those who insist that the law be enforced. The person who is breaking the law – that person is at fault.

This does not apply, it seems, to those who break immigration laws.

Fine. Many illegals are working hard in this country, providing for their families, going to school, going to church. They’re exactly the kind of people we want to welcome into our country, except for that little unpleasantness about breaking that one law.

One blogger has already offered his compromise: expand immigration laws to let more people in more easily, but all the illegals have to go. I’ll go one step further: any illegal who has a job (or whose spouse or child has a job), who has no criminal record (other than that one thing, of course), and is in this country right now – not tomorrow, not next week, not six months from now, but now – can stay.

We remove the word “illegal” from everyone who meets those criteria. We “normalize” them. Offer amnesty. Plus, we expand our quotas (or whatever you call them) to let more people in.

In return, everybody – and I mean everybody – acknowledges the word “illegal.” Breaking immigration laws is the same as breaking any other law. Plus, we get strict, full-fledged, zealous enforcement of our laws and our borders from this point forward.

You might end up back in the country you came from. You might end up somewhere else. Not our problem.

That’s a better deal than I’d offer a stranger I found using my bathroom.

If I Eat Another Donut, the Terrorists Will Have Won

Editor's Note: Lance Burri has gone on a mission trip to the absolute furthest fringes of the civilized world. When (if) he returns in the first week of July, he will begin publishing original columns again. Until then, we will publish from the Best of Lance Burri Collection.

The following column first ran on October 27, 2006.

We, Americans, are fat. We, Americans, use too much gas.

Truisms, if not outright facts. And for the first time, they’ve been linked. One is at least partly a product of the other, according to this new study:

Weight gain means lower gas mileage

Want to spend less at the pump? Lose some weight. That's the implication of a new study that says Americans are burning nearly 1 billion more gallons of gasoline each year than they did in 1960 because of their expanding waistlines. Simply put, more weight in the car means lower gas mileage.

Using recent gas prices of $2.20 a gallon, that translates to about $2.2 billion more spent on gas each year.

"The bottom line is that our hunger for food and our hunger for oil are not independent. There is a relationship between the two," said University of Illinois researcher Sheldon Jacobson, a study co-author.

Thanks to the New Jersey Supreme Court, national Democrats were desperately in need of their own October Surprise. Viola: being fat is bad for you in ways you never knew.

It’s bad for individuals, healthwise. It’s bad for society, because of the greater drains on health care resources. We already knew about those.

And now this. “(Researchers) estimated that more than 39 million gallons of fuel are used each year for every additional pound of passenger weight.”

It’s hurting average Americans in the pocketbooks. Not by much: the study says that if you lose 100 pounds, you’d save about $40 a year at today’s prices.

But collectively, as a nation, a billion fewer gallons a year means lower global demand, which should – absent other factors – bring prices down at the pump.

Not to mention the few billion dollars not going into the pockets of Middle Eastern terror-supporting dictators. Our ravenous consumption of beer and sausage and deep-fried Twinkies is helping keep our enemies fed!

Support the troops! Eat salad!

It’s the perfect issue for a Democratic Party poised to take control of Congress. Imagine: an issue both of national health, and of National Security, that the President continues to ignore!

Congressional investigations. CEOs of Hostess, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola testifying under subpoena. Lawsuits. Tax penalties on businesses which don’t provide nutritional counseling and exercise programs. New entitlement spending. Whole new bureaucracies. The U.S. Department of Six-Pack Abs, a Cabinet-level agency. Nanny state nirvana!

Democrats Care More about us, and about Peace in the Middle East. No, they won’t put more domestic oil on the market, but by God, they’ll use government power to save us from ourselves!

But it doesn’t stop there: this issue goes further. Big Food. Big Oil. Big Pharma. Wal-Mart. All the Dems’ biggest bugaboos.

A corporate conspiracy, hatched in the most palatial boardrooms. First, get the people hooked on the burgers, the soda, the fried, fatty, butter-drenched and Super-sized Culture of More.

Fatten them up, so Big Oil can suck them dry.

Forget comprehensive health care plans that include preventative care. Push employees onto over-stretched under-funded government health care, then let Big Pharma hook them on diet pills!

National security? Hah! We’ve got profits to reap!

And it doesn’t stop there. For example, I could lose a couple (okay, maybe ten) pounds. But what difference will it make? I’ve got four kids. They’re all growing, and the law won’t let me stop feeding them. That means our collective family weight is going up, not down.

Not only that, but what does every big family need? A minivan. A big, heavy minivan that seats eight plus the luggage and gets…what? Lousy gas mileage!

What segment of society is most likely to have lots of kids? The Christian Right, who are President Bush’s biggest allies. And President Bush is in whose pocket? Big Oil’s.

And try this on for size: what’s the latest Muslim scare? That they’ll take over, eventually, simply because they have more babies than the West. They’ll breed us out! We need bigger families, which means larger vehicles, carrying more weight but getting worse gas mileage….

…but that means spending more on gas, more money flowing into the Middle East, more financial support for terrorism…

…and therefore greater chance that Republicans – the party of national security – will retain power.

Karl Rove is beyond genius.

What’s that, you say? Twisted logic? That’s right. Twisted. Like a pretzel. A big, soft, warm pretzel, dripping with melted cheese, and a bottle of beer to wash it down.

The diet starts tomorrow. I swear.

To Pay for Government, Turn to Government

Let's say you owe me five bucks. You’re supposed to pay me today, but you’re a couple dollars short.

No problem. I hand you two dollars, which you immediately hand back, along with the other three.

Sounds a little bit comical, right? Like something from a Leslie Nielsen movie.

Or like something the government might do:

Low- and moderate-income seniors can find help paying property taxes under a pilot program Dane County is rolling out ahead of the July 31 property tax deadline.

Dane County's Home Loan Program -- or HELP -- is similar to Madison's Modified Reverse Mortgage Program in that it helps senior homeowners pay their taxes through a loan secured by a home mortgage.

We’ll just ignore that borrowing money to pay ongoing expenses is a really bad idea. Everybody else in this story is.

Madison’s program handed out $80,000 in loans this year – nearly double last year – to 22 households. The Dane County program will make $60,000 available to, they figure, between 18 and 24 households, payable “when the property is eventually sold,” at an interest rate of “between 4.2 and 4.6 percent,” as long as you’ve got some equity built up.

The government collects the taxes. The government hands you a small portion of those taxes. You hand it right back, and viola! Your property taxes are paid.

A government program for people who can’t pay their property taxes! Funded with…property taxes!

Brilliant! And why?

(Carol) Matoushek (of the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups) said seniors struggling to afford their property taxes in Dane County is "definitely" a growing problem.

"In some cases, people are leaving Dane County for counties where taxes are less expensive," Matoushek said, adding that the pilot program could help people stay.

Taxes affect people’s behavior? Funny, I’d swear I’ve heard that somewhere before.

I guess it’s good that somebody’s noticing. But, geez, is this really the best solution?

Just to brainstorm a little, here – just to throw out the first idea that wanders randomly into my head – what say we bring the tax burden down, instead of using people’s tax pain to justify more government spending? Let those senior citizens keep a little more of their own disposable income, thus making them better able to pay their taxes without a shiny new government program which, naturally, requires tax revenues to exist?

A smaller, less expensive government. That just might work!

How about we eliminate those two tax-relief programs? That’s $140,000 right there. Then maybe a half-position each, since they’ll no longer require a supporting bureaucracy.

Yeah, I know, in Dane County that much means exactly squat. It certainly won’t make up for a four-figure government aid check.

But it’s ironic: the governments in Madison and, to a lesser degree, Dane County are controlled by the kinds of liberals who support bigger government and the taxes that feed it. They’re the ones who want things like the oil tax, and the hospital tax, and more taxes on businesses, and more taxes on services.

They’re the ones who want a higher tax burden, which drags our disposable income down, which makes it harder for us – especially those of us on fixed incomes – to pay that tax burden.

And then they turn around and create a tax-funded program to help us pay the taxes, which they helped drive up. Because they care.

I guess it’s gratifying, in a way. It means that even in liberal Madison, leaders can see that property taxes hurt. That they’re too high already, and they’re not getting any better, and people need some relief.

Yes, their first reaction is to create more government programs. More government spending. That’s their first reaction to everything. They are creatures of habit, as, to some extent, we all are.

Still, their diagnosis is right on. Admitting that you have a problem is always the first step. And they’ve admitted it.

It’s a start.

Father's Day: I'm Not a Fan

I’m not a big fan of Father’s Day.

You’re not really supposed to say things like that. It‘s not polite, for one thing Wouldn’t want the wife and kids to think I don’t appreciate their loving adoration.

I also wouldn’t want my father to think I don’t appreciate him. Any more than he already thinks that, anyway.

In fact, I owe my father a great deal. If it weren’t for him and his pig-headed insistence that I learn to think critically and logically, I might not be the staunch conservative I am today. Thanks, Dad!

He loves it when I tell that story.

But back to Father’s Day.

These past few days, the unceasing inundation of Father’s Day messages has been impossible to ignore. On the radio, the television, the internet – you just can’t do anything without seeing the same message, over and over: don’t forget Dad this Sunday! Whatchagonna get ‘im?

Which is, naturally, aimed at telling children and Moms: you gotta get him something!

That’s capitalism. I respect that. And yet, I fear, my family will feel obligated.

I hate that they might feel that way – if not now, then someday. And not because “they oughta be showing their gratitude every day.” That’s not it at all.

It’s because the job of Dad is one that doesn’t – or shouldn’t – require any gratitude.

What, exactly, am I being thanked for? For sitting down to dinner with the family every night? Providing a regular male presence in the house? Bringing home the paycheck? Backing up my wife when some kid or other needs a little yank away from the delinquency they so seem to crave?

That's just...well, that's just being Dad. Being thanked for that would seem to imply that, by God, we should be thanked!

You’ll accept my parenting and like it, kid! Why, if it weren’t for me, you’d be off rooting around in the garbage hoping to find an old banana peel for dinner!

Seriously, when we farm out the chores and tighten up the curfews and turn the TV off on school nights, do we really expect them to appreciate it?

Well, no. Of course not. They’re kids. They don’t know what’s best for them. That’s why they have parents. Plus, if they did appreciate it – if they were filled with gratitude for being ordered to mow the lawn, for instance...

“Dad told me I have to do the dishes and sweep the floor and vacuum out the car today! Yessss!”

What fun would that be?

But I’m getting off the subject.

All of us parents know that, if our children knew all the things we know, they would be grateful for what they have, and for what we do. But they don’t know those things, and are frequently not grateful.

One might think, then, that having a special day set aside to show fathers some gratitude would be a good thing. And, fine, I suppose it is.

But. Once we’ve established that they should be grateful, it’s a short step to deciding that we want their gratitude. Or, in the case of Father’s Day, that we want a new wireless mouse, or that cool 5-bladed razor with the additional blade “for the tricky spots.”

From there, it’s a short step to deciding that we deserve it, and from there, to expecting it.

Which seems to happen everywhere, always, to everyone already. So much of society seems to want. To deserve. To expect. You’d better show me some respect, because I do X. Oh, and there better be a good pay raise along with that, too, because what I do is important!

Father’s Day might not have started out in that same vein, and it may not have the same veneer of expectancy. Yet.

But I for one would prefer that fatherhood remain something that we do, simply because that’s what we do. That’s what men do. Or we’re supposed to, whether thanks follow, or rewards, or a turkey dinner cooked in the turkey fryer I got for Christmas and haven’t had a chance to use yet.

It’s not about the credit. Fathers do what fathers do because that’s what fathers do.

So I appreciate the thank-you. Really. But if it doesn’t come next year, I’ll still be here, being Dad.

Taking the Credit

When you’re the Governor, you take the credit. Whether it’s yours to take or not.

Case in point, the Wisconsin Taxpayer Association reports that Wisconsin’s tax burden, measured as a percentage of personal income, fell from 6th to 8th nationally in 2005.

Governor Doyle raised the roof:

“We've worked hard in this state, Democrats and Republicans, to hold the line on taxes, and give middle class families relief in the areas they need it most. We've made progress in lowering the tax burden on Wisconsin citizens and businesses, but we still have work to do.”

As a former Speaker of the House once said, "Son, if you can't take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women, and then vote against 'em, you don't deserve to be here."

That appears to be Governor Doyle’s philosophy, as well.

It’s gotta be. Today, he’s taking credit for a lower (comparatively) tax burden. Yesterday, he proposed – and legislative Democrats approved – more than $1.7 billion in new taxes and $1.2 billion in potential new property taxes for the next two years.

In some circles, that’s called irony. In others, it’s called chutzpah.

Almost Clintonian chutzpah, at that. Remember Bill Clinton’s campaign promise to cut middle-class taxes? Once in office, almost immediately, he changed his tune. Tax increase.

At least Clinton gave us an excuse – said he’d worked harder than ever before, but the deficit was just too big, too entrenched. There was no way around it.

To his credit (I suppose), Doyle makes no such excuses. He simply ignores his past statements. For example: “Going forward, my mind will be open to every solution -- except one. We should not -- we must not -- and I will not -- raise taxes. Wisconsin's problem is not that we tax too little. It is that we spend too much.”

That was in his 2003 State of the State address, when it was still cool to be fiscally conservative.

Today, well, there’s no need! Wisconsin has dropped out of the...um...seven highest taxed states!

Sigh. Even if that were a desirable goal, the rankings don’t really mean anything. The numbers do. According to WTA, state and local governments took 12.13% of our personal income in 2005, down from 12.18% the year before.

A whopping cut of 0.4%.* Don‘t spend it all in one place!

But that’s not what brought our ranking down. Alaska and Rhode Island leapfrogged past us, because their taxes went up more than ours went down.

This demonstrates a weakness in this particular measurement. If every other state doubled their taxes tomorrow, our ranking would plummet, but the real numbers would remain. The government takes over 12% of income earned in this state – and that’s just the taxes, not the fees.

And that’s just the state and local governments. Add federal taxes in, and the numbers come out to 33%: one dollar of every three earned.

Which, of course, means people still have two dollars left. Go to work, government!

And the Democrats are.

The Hospital Tax, which will be passed on in the form of higher prices. Insurance companies will have to pay more, so they’ll have to raise premiums, which will make insurance even more expensive, which will give liberals and Democrats even more cause to cry for universal health care.

The oil tax, which will not only hit us in the gas tanks, but also in the retirement funds. About everyone who has a pension, IRA, or 401K also owns oil company stock, because oil companies are profitable, thus fund managers like them. And Democrats hate them.

And the cigarette tax: not so much a tax on smokers as a tax on smokers who have no access to the border, or to an Indian reservation, or to the internet, or to the black market.

Legislative Democrats applauded last week, when the new tax rankings came out. They applauded in 2003, during Governor Doyle’s State of the State.

They want credit for a miniscule and insignificant reduction in the tax burden. And then they want to raise taxes.

And if Republicans can stop them from raising taxes, well, give the Democrats time. Eventually, they’ll want credit for that, too.

* UPDATE - This number was incorrect when this column was first posted. It's been corrected.

How Many More Taxes Can You Afford?

Earlier this week, the Janesville Gazette asked: “How many more taxes can you afford?”

That’s not as straightforward as it looks. Can I afford more? Well, sure, depending on what you mean by “more.” I’m sure another five bucks would fit into our budget pretty smoothly. Ten, even.

A year, I mean. Ten bucks a year.

So if we can afford that much, then maybe just a little more. Or even a little more than that. Sooner or later, we’ll start to feel it. Sooner or later, “just a little more” will force us to make some decisions. Skip a family trip. Cut back on “extras.” Shop at Wal Mart more often.

Nice bit of irony there.

We have other options, too. We try to save regularly. You know, prepare for our retirement, especially since Social Security will be gone by then. And we give to our church and a couple other charities. We could cut back on that.

Or we could just make the kids eat in shifts, instead of feeding all of them every day.

So, you see, we could pay more in taxes. It would simply require some decisions on our part.

If only the government would make the same kinds of decisions.

But now I’m being ridiculous.

The Gazette never answers their own question, but they clearly think the Governor is asking too much.

As legislative work on the governor's budget proposal continues, it has become clear that there's no end to the funds that Doyle is willing to raid to support his initiatives. If money is within reach, he'll grab it.

Actually, that’s “Doyle and the Democrats.” So far, Democrats have refused to scale back Doyle’s tax increases, even a little bit.

When the Joint Finance Committee – the Legislature’s main budget-writing committee – finishes their work (tonight), this will cease to be Doyle’s budget. It’ll be the Democrats’ budget. They gave those tax increases the thumbs up. All $3 billion of them.

So what’s the big deal? According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Wisconsin ranked 44th nationally in economic growth last year.

Granted, there appear to be some regional trends involved. Still, why should Wisconsin rank so low?

Taxes are a factor. Lower them – give business an incentive – and that ranking can change.

Sen. Ted Kanavas:

We cut the “angel” investment tax and, according to a report by the Wisconsin Technology Council, this cut resulted in a 54% increase in early-stage investment in Wisconsin businesses. Compare that 54% increase to the 11% national average and you can see that a simple tax cut can have a dramatic impact on Wisconsin’s economy.

The Legislature passed that bill in 2003, when it was still all-Republican. Governor Doyle signed it that year, when he was still pretending to be fiscally responsible.

And it worked! Go figure.

And now for something completely different, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, demanding higher taxes on those evil purveyors of ill-gotten profits: hospitals!

There are at least 109 tax-exempt hospitals and medical centers in Wisconsin with a total property value exceeding $6 billion. If these hospitals and medical centers were not tax-exempt, local governments statewide would have collected an additional $70 million* (at 2005 local tax rates)...

This is, probably, just a ploy to make the Democrats’ health care tax - a surcharge on hospitals - more palatable.

Or, maybe…

Raise taxes on hospitals, which increases health care costs, which increases demand for government-paid, i.e. socialized – health care. Which is exactly what IWF and the Democrats want.

Not quite up to evil genius status, but…how about “cleverly malevolent?”

Increasing hospitals’ costs by $70 million means those hospitals will raise their prices, and/or cut back on their service, personnel, equipment.

In other words, they’ll prioritize. They’ll make decisions, based on their new financial situation. Much like my family would, if our taxes went up. It’s not that difficult a concept.

In both cases, the results are bad. For us, and for those who would otherwise benefit from the economic freedom we previously had.

The Gazette concludes:

Rather than creating more tricks for taking our hard-earned money, Doyle and the Democrats must work harder to cut spending. If legislators can't ease the money grab, Doyle and the Democratically controlled Senate should be easy targets when voters next go to the polls.

Let’s hope.

Rallying the Base, Evil Genius Style

So we’re all really mad at the President right now.

Which, I think, might be just what the President wants.

We, conservatives, have put up with a lot the last six years . A lot of big-government programs . A lot of big-government spending. Accepted it, figuring: as long as we get the tax cuts, as long as we get the judicial nominees, as long as we get a strong foreign policy.

But they may have gone too far this time. As if the pork and the Social Security failure and the government-knows-best agenda that is spending taxpayer money faster than even the Clinton administration spent, now they’ve gotta go soft on immigration.

And it’s not just the going soft: it’s the way they’re talking about conservative critics. President Bush accused them of using “empty rhetoric.” Said critics don’t want “what’s right for America.” Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said opposing de-facto amnesty is hypocritical. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) actually used the word “bigots.”

Granted, I’m no deport-’em-all purist, but this is a bridge too far. The President and his Republican allies are using standard liberal hateful-Republican rhetoric. They sound just like the Kennedys, and the Clintons, and the Doyles.

That stings. Which, again, might be just what the President wants.

I’ll explain. The 2006 elections were catastrophic for Republicans, and as of today, 2008 doesn’t look much better. That’s something we have to wrap our minds around: next year’s elections are shaping up to be good for the Democrats again. Not as good as last year, but still good.

There are reasons for that. American politics moves like a pendulum: the longer one party is in power, the greater the other party’s prospects.

So that’s a problem. General public discontent over the war is another . And don’t be fooled by approval ratings: Congress’ ratings are as low as or even lower than President Bush’s right now, sure. But Congress is an abstract. President Bush is a real live person. His ratings mean more.

It’s gonna be a tough election.

As a general rule, when facing a tough election, the first thing to do is secure the base. Then you rally the base.

National Republicans aren’t doing that. On the contrary, they’ve spent the last few years alienating the base: first with their Democrat-like spending sprees, and now with an immigration bill that’s long on amnesty and short on border control.

Stupid? Out of touch? Sure looks that way.

And yet, I think we might be forgetting one crucial thing. Maybe two.

One, President Bush has made a career out of people thinking he’s slow-witted and/or out of touch.

That, and Karl Rove is an evil genius.

Keep in mind, he’s a real life evil genius, which is different from the evil geniuses you see in the movies. Those evil geniuses are always going apoplectic, lashing out irrationally when their evil plans go awry.

Real evil geniuses don’t do that. It’s counterproductive. Real evil geniuses have backup plans, and backup plans for those backup plans. And then, because something always goes wrong, they keep right on thinking of new plans.

So what’s the plan?

Well, first, knowing that politics is a pendulum and Republicans don’t have forever, they accomplished a few things, then started spending like Kennedys. Which handed power back to a group of Democrats who, clearly, weren’t ready for it.

The next step: give the base something to rally around.

Republicans can’t rally their base when their base is angrier at Republicans than they are at Democrats. Thus, Bush and Rove give us another target: this President, whom we’ve supported, worked for, defended, supported some more, and who we feel has let us down. Even betrayed us.

This President, who isn’t running - who can’t run - for re-election.

President Bush has set himself up as the Anti-Conservative. He’s setting himself up as The Enemy. The rallying point for conservatives who want something - someone - they can believe in.

Yeah, okay, so they’re probably not doing it intentionally. Rove the Evil Genius is an American myth, which I’m happily passing along.

Still, the effect remains. If I were running for president, I’d be defining myself by attacking the incumbent - something a member of the incumbent’s party can’t usually do.

The remaining question is: which of the presidential candidates will be first to figure that out?

Why Aren't Our Schools Doing More?

Why aren’t our schools doing more?

Or…well, should they do more?

Of course they should! Our children need it!

Um. A little background, and then an explanation: why those thoughts recently ran through my head, and how I got them to stop.

Our youngest child is only a Summer away from kindergarten. The last bird in the nest, getting ready to take his first plunge-and-fall while learning how to fly.

We face a peculiar problem with this one, besides my wife’s inevitable reaction to sending her youngest off to full-time school. That’ll be fun.

This particular kid is abnormally quick to learn. Reading, math, puzzles, games. Third-grade level, sometimes. He does worksheets for fun. He can find states on the map. He reads my columns, sometimes, as I’m writing them.

He’s five.

We think we should encourage this. Maybe he’ll grow up a genius, maybe not. But if not, it shouldn’t be for lack of opportunity.

So. We visited a few people in our local school system – “system,” in this case, including private schools. We asked: what do you do with a kid like this? What’s available?

We learned two things. One, our kid isn’t unique. There are others, right here in little Baraboo.

Two, there is no advanced program. Nothing special for kids who move past the regular material quickly.

That’s not unique, either. There’s no real drive for advanced or, as they’re called, “gifted” programs anywhere in Wisconsin.

The Journal Sentinel reported this week:

These inconsistencies have led parents and others to sound alarms about the state of gifted education, invoking some of the same civil-rights arguments that spurred landmark legislation in the 1970s for students with disabilities.

They say gifted kids need special attention and programs, too.

“Special needs” kids, formerly known as learning disabled, have programs. And extra funding. State law mandates it.

No problem with that, of course. Some students may never catch on to algebra or be able to explain MacBeth, but we should give them as much help as we can.

But…don’t students on the other end of the spectrum – the faster-learning, “gifted” kids – also have “special needs?” By ignoring them, leaving them to catch whatever advanced classes or opportunities may happen to cross their paths, aren’t we shortchanging them? Making it less likely they’ll go on to greater things?

Could be.

Of course, over time, we’re going to have to look a little harder at what we mean by “gifted.” Some kids are academically gifted. Some simply learn faster.

Some kids have a talent for music. Or for working with their hands. What do we do with the kid who loves engines, can take one apart and put it back together from the time he’s 8?

Isn’t that kid also “gifted?”

Well, yes, he is. Or she. Let’s not be chauvinistic. Give that kid a program!

Over time, the label “special needs” has expanded, grown, until over 12% of Wisconsin students are considered so – up from about 6% thirty years ago. Granted, maybe we’re just better at diagnosing things today, but that doesn’t explain why some school districts have over 20% “special needs,” while others have 4%.

But so what? Let the definitions expand, so we can better educate every child. This student in a learning disability class, that child in a smarter-than-the-teacher class.

We used to do that. We called it “tracking.” We did away with it, in part because educational “reformers” hated the idea of “pigeon-holing” kids.

Whether that was right or wrong, the parent/taxpayer in me wonders why we can’t offer something special for the over-achievers.

That, and the parent/taxpayer in me thinks we‘re already asking too much of our schools.

It isn’t just the money, although that is a consideration. We spend billions on public schools, and even that – according to the educracy – isn’t nearly enough.

Ever-growing expectations is one of the reasons school spending has grown to what it is today. We expect more, more, more: not just from schools, but from all of government. Every problem. Every need. Every dissatisfaction. Why can’t the government do something?

I’ve suggested before: our schools provide 12-plus years of free education, in nice big buildings, with books, and computers, and university-trained teachers.

That’s a lot of opportunity, provided by the all-generous taxpayers. It may not be everything. It can’t be everything. But it’s a lot.

If we need more, well, maybe that’s up to us.