Shoot a Deer, Save the World!

Editor's note: Lance Burri has been abducted by his wife and children, who are holding him in an unknown location and demanding a "vacation" in return for his release. Until such time as Lance has made good on their demands, we will continue to publish from the Best of Lance Burri Collection.

The following column first ran on December 7, 2007.

Divorce sucks. Ask most any divorced person, and they’ll tell you.

And now we’ve got a whole new reason to think so: the divorced are bad for the environment!

"A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," said Jianguo Liu, an ecologist at Michigan State University...

More households means more use of land, water and energy, three critical resources, Liu explained in a telephone interview.

… A household uses the same amount of heat or air conditioning whether there are two or four people living there. A refrigerator used the same power whether there is one person home or several. Two people living apart run two dishwashers, instead of just one.

I suppose the same could be said for adult children living with their parents, rather than striking out on their own, but let’s not give them any ideas. If you’re already feeling guilty about that divorce, rest assured: it’s even worse than you thought!

But wait! Married couples are far more likely to have more children than divorced couples. This owes to the fact that, crude barroom jokes notwithstanding, married couples tend to have sex more often than divorced couples.

And, as we already know, children are bad for the environment:

A radical form of “offsetting” carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate change is proposed today – having fewer children.

Each new UK citizen less means a lifetime carbon dioxide saving of nearly 750 tonnes, a climate impact equivalent to 620 return flights between London and New York*, the Optimum Population Trust says in a new report.

So rest easy, divorced people! You’re actually helping the environment.

Unless, that is, you spoil your kids in a guilty and misguided attempt to make sure they love you. Sure, son, you can eat that box of Twinkies while spending six hours a day playing Nintendo. Just don’t tell your mother.

That leads to fat kids and, as we all know, obesity is bad for the environment:

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.

On the other hand, divorced people are, as they say, back in the game. Dating. So they’ll want to get into shape. Buff up a little. Lose some weight, which will save gas and, thus, help the environment.

That probably doesn’t completely wipe out the childhood obesity factor, since children grow and gain weight naturally as a result of their being, y’know, children.

Still, it’s an offset.

So let’s review: having fewer kids plus losing weight minus letting your kids get fat equals environmental neutrality.

It must be true. You read it on the internet.

Of course, the formula doesn’t quite work if you’re Jewish:

…a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka [sic] to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia [sic] campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

Ah, our friends of the Jewish faith: carrying on a rampage of Zionist imperialism by making the planet unfit for human life, which, as we all know, hits the poor – i.e., the Palestinians – hardest.

Still with me? Yes? So you’re lost, too, then.

Luckily, Jews living in Wisconsin have an easy way to balance the requirements of their religious observances with those of the environment: become hunters.

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

Surely, bagging a moose will offset those candles! Moose are in short supply around here, true, but don’t worry. Three or four whitetails should have about the same effect.

It’s enough to make one think: we could probably beat global warming once and for all, if only we got rid of all the obese, divorced, Jewish non-hunters in the world.

Or at least recruited more anorexic, polygamous, atheist (but non-incense burning) Ted Nugent fans.

Boiling the frog

New column up over at FoxPolitics.net. Sort of a response to a letter to the editor in my local newspaper (not online, unfortunately) - an interesting and well-written letter, despite its Kucinich-like moonbattery.

She's worried about the heat turning up a little more, and a little more, and a little more, until we've got us an Imperial presidency and a police state.

Her solution: impeachment. For a start.

More power to her.

Hey, I said there was Kucinich-like moonbattery.

Go read the whole thing.

Obama das Grosse

Barack Obama went to Europe. Perhaps you heard?

And, boy, they just love him there. At least, that’s what I heard. And read. And saw. It's all over the news.

A very successful trip, in part because of the Obama campaign’s own machinations. For example: that blue flyer, printed in German because it was aimed at Germans, inviting them to come see Obama in Berlin.

Hadn’t heard about that? It’s pictured to the right. The Obama campaign spent time, resources, and money having them produced, printed, and distributed, trying to attract a nice big Berlin crowd to witness Obama’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment.

And it worked. The Washington Post described the crowd as a “huge throng,” “estimated at 200,000 – the largest of his presidential campaign.” Obama has “generated enormous enthusiasm in Europe,” according to the Post.

Well, good for him. Maybe he’d prefer to stay?

Judging by my own travels through the internet, conservatives think there’s something funny about all this – in particular, about that campaign flyer. Something odd. Fishy. Improper, perhaps.

Liberals think there’s something funny about conservatives’ reactions. Basically: so? They distributed a flyer. In German. So what?

I’ll try to explain.

Obama is a U.S. Senator running for President of the United States. Right? So: why is he campaigning in Germany?

Because that’s what this looks like: distributing literature, promoting an event; trying to gin up a nice big crowd to give the appearance of momentum and popularity. Standard campaign tactics.

Except…usually, you target the people who can vote.

What if, just for example, an Assembly candidate from Milwaukee held a rally in La Crosse? What if Barbara Lawton – running for Governor in 2010 after Jim Doyle becomes Obama’s Secretary of the Interior – holds a campaign rally in California or, worse, Illinois?

Would we look at that and think: wow, look how much they like her!

Or would we think: what the hell is she doing over there, when she should be over here?

Now, this comparison isn’t entirely fair. Foreign relations is a big, big part of a president’s job, and visiting foreign countries is a good way to show voters back home that you'll be active and able in that capacity.

So, fine. Go overseas. Meet with leaders. Pose for the cameras. Hold press availabilities to talk about foreign policy, the war, the things you’ve learned and the things you think your administration can accomplish.

Maybe…oh, I don't know. Visit some wounded soldiers. Or something.

This shows the folks back home that you can do international relations. You don’t need to give a speech to an enormous cheering crowd for that. You certainly don’t need to spend precious campaign funds on it.

So. Why did he?

It could have been ego: come on, this is the Obamessiah. The Obamessiah can’t be seen in public without an adoring throng in tow!

It could have been arrogance: they think they’ve got the American electorate in their pocket already, so they're wooing the German masses now, too.

Or, it could have been that Obama believes Americans care what Germans think about our election. Somebody at the campaign thought: yeah, let all the folks back home see a big excited European crowd chanting his name! Good stuff!

Maybe so. Or maybe…well, I don’t think so. I think it’s a little like somebody you barely know giving you advice on how to raise your kids. How to do your job. Like someone suddenly appearing alongside you while you're out for a jog, instructing you on how to improve your stride.

Maybe he's right. In an annoying, know-it-all, sticking-your-nose-in-uninvited sort of way. But you don't know him. He doesn't know you.

Why should you listen to him?

Naturally, some Americans will be swayed – or, more likely, reinforced – by the sight of massive European crowds cheering Obama on. These Americans are, I'm willing to bet, already voting for Obama.

Most of us, though…I’m just guessing, but I’ll bet this’ll look like Obama saying we should like him because they like him.

Conform to the world, America. Do it their way.

Fighting for the Eurocentric Left…that might work. Fighting for the Great American Middle?

Far be it from me to stop him. Obama das Grosse!

New Column

Over at FoxPolitics.net, my latest column: this one about what Europeans think about our presidential choice, and whether we should care.

A blurb:

With all due respect to Europe’s long history and their literature and architecture and to the fact that the seedlings of modern liberal democracy took root there well before the American Revolution closed the deal: up yours. Up. Yours. If we’d wanted you to vote in our elections we’d have invaded and conquered and forced you into the Union back when Manifest Destiny was still in vogue.

I should have mentioned their beer. We do appreciate their beer.

Note that this marks the first time I have used the phrase "up yours" in a column.

Go. Read.

Hit Jobs on the Tavern League

My goodness, but the state’s editorial boards are having the vapors over the Tavern League of Wisconsin lately.

Over the course of a few days this week, the Tavern League was the subject of several negative stories in at least three papers, including this editorial in the Appleton Post Crescent:

It (the Tavern League) lobbied Wisconsin legislators on 47 bills and proposals last year alone and contributes thousands of dollars to political campaigns.

Wow. Thousands of dollars. Thousands.

Tenacious and more than 5,000-members strong, the Tavern League of Wisconsin is the largest organization of its kind in the country.

While its president, Rob Swearingen, recently pointed out that the league primarily comprises small businesses and "mom-and-pop" taverns, the group wields incredible power in Madison.

During the last session, the league successfully passed or blocked five of 11 legislative proposals it actively lobbied. And last year, it flexed its muscles to help defeat a proposal for a statewide smoking ban.

Five out of eleven. Five wins, six losses. Math isn’t my strong suit, I’ll admit, but…isn’t that a losing record? And a lot less than the 47 bills mentioned in the first paragraph. Thousands of dollars doesn’t buy what it used to, I guess.

I shouldn’t be so sarcastic. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC), something called the “Tavern Industry PAC” contributed $17,750 to a various legislators in 2007, and over $43,000 in 2005 and 2006. They’re actually in the top 20 or 30 PACs doing business in Wisconsin.

So, assuming that the “Tavern Industry PAC” belongs to the Tavern League, then the League is throwing some weight around.

Good for them, I say. Others, not so much.

The fact that a group of people with similar interests might get together and pool their efforts in petitioning their government…that just irks some people.

"They are able to stop things that they don't like, and they are able to get much of what they want," said Mike McCabe, executive director of the government watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. "I don't think there's any interest group that bats 1.000, but their batting average is pretty high."

Well, that’s true, .455 is a pretty incredible batting average. In baseball. In politics…I’m sure it’s not bad, as long as one of the “outs” isn’t the one that puts you out of business.

The Tavern League has “more than 5,000 members,” according to their website. Those members are tavern owners. Small business owners, who are, almost by definition, community leaders.

They’re neighborhood taverns. Rural taverns. They sponsor softball teams and volleyball leagues. They open at 5 am in November to serve hunters breakfast. They show the big game on eight big-screen TVs.

And they have employees, and friends, and regular customers.

And they have business with their government. They’re trying to stay in business in a place that isn’t always friendly to business. Sometimes they’re competing with Indian casinos, which don’t have to play by the same rules.

Yes, taverns make their money primarily by selling alcohol. Alcohol is a vice. People will, sometimes, make bad choices. Do stupid things. Drunkenness is bad. Drunk driving is worse.

Thus, taverns are prime targets for legislative action. Some of that is justifiable and good, some of it is fad-of-the-day pandering.

Given all of this, taverns feel the need to keep an eye on what their government is doing, and if necessary to petition their government. They have that right. Or, at least, I think I read that somewhere once.

And since strength comes with numbers, they band together, and hire someone to represent them. They support candidates who support – or whom they hope will support – their side of the issues.

Okay, so that's the romanticized version. Reality is, as reality tends to be, more…textured.

Still, one wonders: why has the Tavern League, with their "thousands" of dollars come under such scrutiny lately? Why not the plumbers? Or the credit unions? They both spent more than the taverns. There are nine union PACs higher on the spending list than the taverns are.

Were they as successful? Sounds like no. Reading those articles, you come away thinking the Tavern League did better, despite spending less.

So. If the money wasn't the key…something else was.

I wonder – as the papers didn't – what that might have been.

Give me Liberty, or give me...more random testing for my own good!

My latest is up over at FoxPolitics.net. I take a random drug testing program in DePere and turn it into the Great Commie Invasion.

It wasn't even really that hard. Go have a look.

Just what they asked for: more campaign spending!

The usual suspects ought to be pleased.

They won’t be for long. They never are. But for the time being…maybe they can spend one pleasant weekend; a day, maybe two, enjoying the summer, taking a swim, popping a couple cold ones. One weekend spent without concern over our general societal decay. Just one.

And then it'll be back to the hand-wringing.

Four years ago, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC) calculated the number of legislative races that went uncontested – in which the incumbent had no challenger whatsoever, and would therefore coast to easy re-election.

The news wasn't good: thirty percent of Wisconsin's legislative races that year – thirty-four Representatives and Senators – were unopposed.

That's bad. Widespread uncontested races undermine the whole point of representative democracy. It means no accountability for those officials. It's like thirty percent of next year's college bowl games ending in forfeits.

We wouldn't put up with that.

And so, four years ago, WDC rent their clothes and gnashed their teeth over the Power of the Incumbency, and the money that scares off potential challengers.

I eagerly await their reaction to this year’s lineup. Why? Because we’ve got good news. No, not good news: great news.

Only fourteen percent of legislative races in Wisconsin are uncontested this year. Only sixteen legislators – four Senators, twelve Representatives – will run for re-election unopposed. Less than half the total from four years ago.

And note: this number includes Rep. Jeff Wood, who changed affiliation from Republican to independent at the last possible moment to (he hoped) prevent anyone from running against him. It's likely that will fail, though, and he will have an opponent in November. Maybe two.

Which will bring the number of uncontested races to 15.

But back to the topic at hand. Why is this – 15 or 16 uncontested races instead of 34 – good news?

To take WDC's explanation from four years ago, it's good news because it means people aren't so afraid of the money anymore. Or, at least, they aren't as afraid of it today as they have been in the past.

That’s odd, when you think about it. I mean, there’s been no comprehensive campaign finance reform. No great overhaul of the system to level the playing field; to lessen the fundraising advantage incumbents usually have.

Whatever advantages incumbents had in 2004, they still have today. For some reason, though, it matters less. Opposition is up, the power of incumbency is down, Democracy is ascendant. Usual Suspects, relax! Have a cold one! Take the weekend off!

Only one weekend, though, because now that you’ve gotten what you wanted, another problem awaits.

See, when a race isn’t contested, candidates have little reason to do much. Oh, they’ll still do a little. Put out some signs, go to the fairs, knock on some doors. But they won’t put in nearly the same effort that they would if they had an opponent.

More contested races means more people putting out more effort. More signs, more brochures, more phone calls. More commercials.

So, now, quick, put two and two together: we’ve got more contested races, which means more of all those things, which means we’ll also have more…

…

…if you guessed campaign spending, you’re exactly right!

More contested races means more money. It means more fundraising. More candidates spending more time making phone calls to ask for money. It means more spending. More advertising. It might mean more third-party spending, what with control of the state Assembly hanging by a thread and both sides trying to gain every advantage they can.

A couple years ago, WDC was again aghast (when are they not?) that legislators had raised nearly $3.4 million in campaign contributions – the equivalent of sixty five cents for every man, woman, and child in Wisconsin.

Horrific! Ridiculous! Unnecessary! Corrupt!

Yeah. If that was a horrific amount of money, just wait: this election cycle will leave it in the dust.

And you know why? Because WDC got what they wanted: fewer uncontested races.

Epic, but selective, outrage

My latest is up at FoxPolitics.net: the whole story about Epic's "boycott" of WMC and its supporters has bothered me for a while, and I finally figured out why.

An excerpt:

If I ran…oh, say a paper products business: I might find it amusing to make Epic a really good offer, only to mention later that I’ve just joined WMC.

Or, perhaps, I could announce that I won't do business with…oh, I don't know…just to pick any liberal activist group at random…One Wisconsin Now or their supporters. Oh, whaddayaknow? Epic’s CEO donated $24,000 to OWN.

Ha. I kid. If I ran a business – any business – I’d never chase business away like that.

Those aren't the real money graphs, though. You wanna see those, you gotta click.

Governor Barbara Lawton?

My latest is up over at FoxPolitics.net:

Personally, I'd very much enjoy a Lawton candidacy. Heck, I’ll even campaign for her.

No, not because her relative inexperience and Garveyesque liberalism will make her an easy mark. No, not because we might get to see Democrat operatives Hillaryize another female candidate.

We happily anticipate these things, yes, but they’re not the reason. The reason: Lawton supports a conservative, supply-and-demand approach to economic growth.

Read the whole thing.