As one who was raised in the great Wisconsin tradition of going out for a slog in the woods with a high-powered weapon to kill Bambi, I laughed out loud when I came across the news release from the DNR . They want hunters to be on the lookout for drug-growing operations as they search for the elusive 30-point buck in the woods over the next nine days.
Remember the story I did about a month ago, about how 78 cops of various sort spent the day on the Navarino Wildlife Refuge up in Shawano County, after getting a tip that there was highly addictive and extremely dangerous marijuana growing there? Some small-game hunter saw a couple shacks and the remains of a huge marijuana growing field, and tipped the narcs.
Of course, they got there after the good weed had been harvested and processed, but managed to pull a couple stragglers out of the ground and proclaim it a successful bust.
Now, the DNR wants anybody out there hunting during the nine-day gun deer season to be on the lookout for “anything suspicious”. They warn us not to put ourselves in any danger, but if we spot something suspicious, we should back out the way we came in, and then when we’re safely away, write down the location and any other observations, and call the cops.
After all, a 30.06 with a sight or a 12-gauge is no match for a 9-millimeter Glock, or an Uzi, or an AK-47, or whatever weaponry the pot-growers might have.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if my youngest brother, who is an accomplished sportsman and conscientious hunter, spots a grow operation, the narcs will not be notified. Being the oldest of the three brothers, I would probably proffer a different suggestion.
But that’s just a hypothetical, ya know.
A lot of my Madison pals don’t understand this hunting thing at all. I always get a charge out of the guy who ties a dummy dressed up in blaze orange on the hood of his car, and drives around town. OK, point made, in a humorous way. You don’t like hunters. Save Bambi.
My dad taught all three of his sons how to hunt. He was a decorated World War 2 vet, combat infantry, who knew his way around a firearm or two. And the first thing he taught us, before there was any talk of hunting, was firearm safety. Between my dad, his brother, and my grandpa, who was a law enforcement officer, they had enough handguns, shotguns, and high-powered rifles to equip a formidable contingent.
The first rule we learned was that the gun is ALWAYS loaded. No matter what, there was absolutely NO horseplay with weapons. And when we earned the privilege of buying a license and hunting with dad, safety was always the number-one consideration. Always be SURE you’ve got a clear shot, and that there are NO hunters anywhere near your target.
I never worry when I’m around my brothers with firearms. We know what we’re doing.
What do I worry about? The city-slicker investment banker from Chicago, who’s been invited up to Wisconsin by a client, to join him for the thrill of the hunt. No gun? Don’t worry, we have plenty. No license? We’ll getcha one Friday night. No training? Don’t worry, nothing will happen. Famous last words.
So be safe out there, hunters.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Gimme A Double Cheeseburger
There’s a fight going on between the second-largest hamburger chain in the world - Burger King - and the company’s franchise owners, who control 90% of the chain’s 12 thousand locations.
It’s all over the cost of a burger.
The franchise owners are suing the King over its one-dollar double cheeseburger promotion, saying they’re losing money on every one they sell. The franchisees don’t want Burger King to have total control over where they set their prices on menu items.
The dollar-deal went nationwide about a month ago, even though the franchise owners had twice rejected the deal because of the expense involved. Burger King says its research shows the dollar double cheeseburger deal will draw more people into the restaurants, and they’ll spend more money.
Franchise owners say the math just doesn’t work.
So how much does it really cost to make a double cheeseburger? According to the lawsuit the franchisees filed, and franchise owner Dan Fitzpatrick of South Bend, Indiana, it’s $1.10. If you add up the cost of the meat, the bun, the cheese, and the other toppings, it’s about 55 cents. Half the total. Fitzpatrick says the other half covers typical Burger King expenses, like employee wages, rent, royalties, equipment, advertising, and the other standard costs of doing business.
When Burger King introduced the dollar double cheeseburger, they were hoping it would lure more people to come in and eat there. They had hopes it would boost business by 20%.
You’ve seen the ads on TV….fast-food restaurants are slashing prices to try and get us to come back. Even the national burger chain headquartered here, in Sauk City - Culvers - has just started advertising a four-dollar meal deal. It seems everybody from the number-one chain, McDonalds, to the smallest local outfits, are advertising some sort of low-cost deal to drum up business.
But a fast-food analyst for Deutsche Bank told the Associated Press that as much as half the gain in business from increased traffic could be lost, because we’re simply spending less when we order food.
The poor economy has hit the fast-food business as hard as every other kind of business.
If the fast-food industry had to rely on people like me for business, they’d be broke. I’ll stop at a fast-food place two or three times a month at most. I’ve tried the pricey new Angus third-pounder at McDonalds, and I like it a lot. But for my money, the butter-burgers at Culvers are very hard to beat.
By the time the Burger King suit has wended its way through the federal court system, the fate of the dollar double cheeseburger will long since have been determined. But it’s interesting for me to learn that the actual cost of the product, all told, is a buck-ten. I thought it would have been higher.
I may stop in and try one of those dollar double cheeseburgers…..before the promotion ends!
It’s all over the cost of a burger.
The franchise owners are suing the King over its one-dollar double cheeseburger promotion, saying they’re losing money on every one they sell. The franchisees don’t want Burger King to have total control over where they set their prices on menu items.
The dollar-deal went nationwide about a month ago, even though the franchise owners had twice rejected the deal because of the expense involved. Burger King says its research shows the dollar double cheeseburger deal will draw more people into the restaurants, and they’ll spend more money.
Franchise owners say the math just doesn’t work.
So how much does it really cost to make a double cheeseburger? According to the lawsuit the franchisees filed, and franchise owner Dan Fitzpatrick of South Bend, Indiana, it’s $1.10. If you add up the cost of the meat, the bun, the cheese, and the other toppings, it’s about 55 cents. Half the total. Fitzpatrick says the other half covers typical Burger King expenses, like employee wages, rent, royalties, equipment, advertising, and the other standard costs of doing business.
When Burger King introduced the dollar double cheeseburger, they were hoping it would lure more people to come in and eat there. They had hopes it would boost business by 20%.
You’ve seen the ads on TV….fast-food restaurants are slashing prices to try and get us to come back. Even the national burger chain headquartered here, in Sauk City - Culvers - has just started advertising a four-dollar meal deal. It seems everybody from the number-one chain, McDonalds, to the smallest local outfits, are advertising some sort of low-cost deal to drum up business.
But a fast-food analyst for Deutsche Bank told the Associated Press that as much as half the gain in business from increased traffic could be lost, because we’re simply spending less when we order food.
The poor economy has hit the fast-food business as hard as every other kind of business.
If the fast-food industry had to rely on people like me for business, they’d be broke. I’ll stop at a fast-food place two or three times a month at most. I’ve tried the pricey new Angus third-pounder at McDonalds, and I like it a lot. But for my money, the butter-burgers at Culvers are very hard to beat.
By the time the Burger King suit has wended its way through the federal court system, the fate of the dollar double cheeseburger will long since have been determined. But it’s interesting for me to learn that the actual cost of the product, all told, is a buck-ten. I thought it would have been higher.
I may stop in and try one of those dollar double cheeseburgers…..before the promotion ends!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Finding A Job When You're 60
It was one year ago today that I was summoned to the office of the Chief Financial Officer of the Mid-West Family Broadcast Group, a company I’d been a shareholder with for 30 years, and in front of two witnesses in a 7-minute meeting, I was handed my walking papers.
The Monday after Thanksgiving I handed the papers to my lawyer, and she took over. Six weeks later, the legal battle was over, and I won a (sealed) settlement. A week after that, I started my next life as a self-employed writer and landed a huge project. And started this blog.
So, when I read the account of Elizabeth Miller of Merrimac, which just made the papers late last week, I was keenly interested. She was 59 years old in April of 2007 when she was applying for work as a grant writer. She’d been working as a grant writer for the past ten years.
On a conference call with two employees of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, she finished the phone interview with them, hung up, and then went to make another call. When she picked up the phone, she heard the two still talking about her. According to Miller, they were guessing that she was about 59 or 60 years old.
Miller says she heard them say a lot of employees at InterVarsity were about 59 or 60 years old, and would be retiring in five years. Miller says the two agreed they didn’t want to add to that problem by hiring her, so they decided to call another woman and interview her for the job. That woman was 29 years old and no grant writing experience.
So they hired her.
As you might imagine, Elizabeth filed a federal age discrimination lawsuit. InterVarsity will have its day in court with Elizabeth, and InterVarsity’s spokesman - an old friend and former fellow broadcaster Gordon Govier - says they’ll present their side, and thinks they’ll win.
Not if Elizabeth is telling the truth, and a jury is involved. Slam dunk.
My termination at Mid-West had nothing to do with my age, and my lawyer never alleged that it did. I was 59 years old, but it was house politics. They said it was the economy. The other guy that was fired that day was 52. Another long-time shareholder and employee. When they whacked us, they knocked a huge chunk off their payroll. That much is certain.
Even if Elizabeth Miller wins her suit against InterVarsity, she’ll still face the same prejudice if she looks for work. It ain’t easy being 60 and trying to convince a 20- or 30-something human resources person you still have a lot to offer.
But, like any other prejudice, most folks can be pretty good at covering it up. And that’s the hard part. You know it’s going on, but you can’t prove it.
Truth is often not that easy to come by. And even if you uncover it, it may not “set you free”. Sometimes uncovering the truth is very expensive.
As the lawyers say, bring a big wallet, and prepare to lose. Good luck, Elizabeth.
The Monday after Thanksgiving I handed the papers to my lawyer, and she took over. Six weeks later, the legal battle was over, and I won a (sealed) settlement. A week after that, I started my next life as a self-employed writer and landed a huge project. And started this blog.
So, when I read the account of Elizabeth Miller of Merrimac, which just made the papers late last week, I was keenly interested. She was 59 years old in April of 2007 when she was applying for work as a grant writer. She’d been working as a grant writer for the past ten years.
On a conference call with two employees of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, she finished the phone interview with them, hung up, and then went to make another call. When she picked up the phone, she heard the two still talking about her. According to Miller, they were guessing that she was about 59 or 60 years old.
Miller says she heard them say a lot of employees at InterVarsity were about 59 or 60 years old, and would be retiring in five years. Miller says the two agreed they didn’t want to add to that problem by hiring her, so they decided to call another woman and interview her for the job. That woman was 29 years old and no grant writing experience.
So they hired her.
As you might imagine, Elizabeth filed a federal age discrimination lawsuit. InterVarsity will have its day in court with Elizabeth, and InterVarsity’s spokesman - an old friend and former fellow broadcaster Gordon Govier - says they’ll present their side, and thinks they’ll win.
Not if Elizabeth is telling the truth, and a jury is involved. Slam dunk.
My termination at Mid-West had nothing to do with my age, and my lawyer never alleged that it did. I was 59 years old, but it was house politics. They said it was the economy. The other guy that was fired that day was 52. Another long-time shareholder and employee. When they whacked us, they knocked a huge chunk off their payroll. That much is certain.
Even if Elizabeth Miller wins her suit against InterVarsity, she’ll still face the same prejudice if she looks for work. It ain’t easy being 60 and trying to convince a 20- or 30-something human resources person you still have a lot to offer.
But, like any other prejudice, most folks can be pretty good at covering it up. And that’s the hard part. You know it’s going on, but you can’t prove it.
Truth is often not that easy to come by. And even if you uncover it, it may not “set you free”. Sometimes uncovering the truth is very expensive.
As the lawyers say, bring a big wallet, and prepare to lose. Good luck, Elizabeth.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Nose As Long As A Telephone Wire (Liar, Liar....)
Our newest state Supreme Court Justice, Michael Gableman, ran an ad in his campaign accusing sitting Justice Louis Butler of causing the release of a convicted rapist, who went on to molest another child. This was back when Butler was a Public Defender. The ad called Justice Butler “Loophole Louie”.
The ad was a lie. A complete, total fabrication. A few “true” statements stitched together in a way that created a lie. Whether or not the ad was a lie is not even an issue. Even the three-judge panel tasked with coming up with a recommendation on how to deal with Justice Gableman admits the ad was a lie.
It’s just that they apparently don’t care.
The three judges late last week issued a report recommending that the Supreme Court dismiss the ethics complaint against Justice Gableman. Even though the three judges admit that Gableman’s “Loophole Louie” ad stacked a series of statements together in a completely false and deliberately misleading way, they say it’s OK.
If you or me or any other regular person pulled that kind of crap during a police investigation, we’d be charged with obstructing justice. Pull that kind of crap in a courtroom, giving testimony, and you’ll be charged with perjury.
The state’s largest-circulation newspaper, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, titled its editorial lambasting the three-judge panel “A lie is a lie is a lie”. The paper’s editorial board came to the same conclusion that any reasonable person would, namely, that Louis Butler played absolutely no role in the rapist’s release.
Gableman’s ad was a lie.
The saving grace here, is that the highest court doesn’t have to follow the three-judge panel’s recommendation. It can simply ignore the recommendation; it can censure Justice Gableman for lying in his campaign; it can dole out a suspension without pay; it can even have Gableman removed from the state Supreme Court.
But - and it’s a big but - Justice Gableman has no choice but to recuse himself from the decision. He can’t vote on his own fate. And given the way the best state Supreme Court money can buy has been functioning lately, it could very easily be a 3-3 deadlock. If that happens, Gableman is off the hook.
On a loophole, so to speak.
Most kids, except the ones who are sociopaths or pathological liars, learn early in their development the concept of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Their parents or peers teach them that deliberately misleading somebody, about something important, is wrong.
Michael Gableman besmirched the reputation of a good man in his quest to gain access to that fancy chair in the Supreme Court Chamber in the Capitol. The voters put him there, but they were lied to.
Somebody should do something about that.
The ad was a lie. A complete, total fabrication. A few “true” statements stitched together in a way that created a lie. Whether or not the ad was a lie is not even an issue. Even the three-judge panel tasked with coming up with a recommendation on how to deal with Justice Gableman admits the ad was a lie.
It’s just that they apparently don’t care.
The three judges late last week issued a report recommending that the Supreme Court dismiss the ethics complaint against Justice Gableman. Even though the three judges admit that Gableman’s “Loophole Louie” ad stacked a series of statements together in a completely false and deliberately misleading way, they say it’s OK.
If you or me or any other regular person pulled that kind of crap during a police investigation, we’d be charged with obstructing justice. Pull that kind of crap in a courtroom, giving testimony, and you’ll be charged with perjury.
The state’s largest-circulation newspaper, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, titled its editorial lambasting the three-judge panel “A lie is a lie is a lie”. The paper’s editorial board came to the same conclusion that any reasonable person would, namely, that Louis Butler played absolutely no role in the rapist’s release.
Gableman’s ad was a lie.
The saving grace here, is that the highest court doesn’t have to follow the three-judge panel’s recommendation. It can simply ignore the recommendation; it can censure Justice Gableman for lying in his campaign; it can dole out a suspension without pay; it can even have Gableman removed from the state Supreme Court.
But - and it’s a big but - Justice Gableman has no choice but to recuse himself from the decision. He can’t vote on his own fate. And given the way the best state Supreme Court money can buy has been functioning lately, it could very easily be a 3-3 deadlock. If that happens, Gableman is off the hook.
On a loophole, so to speak.
Most kids, except the ones who are sociopaths or pathological liars, learn early in their development the concept of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Their parents or peers teach them that deliberately misleading somebody, about something important, is wrong.
Michael Gableman besmirched the reputation of a good man in his quest to gain access to that fancy chair in the Supreme Court Chamber in the Capitol. The voters put him there, but they were lied to.
Somebody should do something about that.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The End Of The World....or not.
Roland Emmerich is a German-born movie director who loves disaster and special effects. His 1996 movie “Independence Day” was a whiz-bang scenario of aliens invading Earth. His 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow” made Al Gore happy. It was Emmerich’s interpretation of global climate change killing us all.
This weekend, I saw his latest offering, titled “2012”. It was standard Emmerich fare - lots of over-the-top special effects, a soundtrack that will temporarily deafen you, huge cities destroyed, and our attempt to escape from the destruction. John Cusack trying to save his family from certain death, battling every obstacle imaginable. I was, however, disappointed. The plot stinks and the effects are good, but not great.
As some reviewer said, Emmerich gets an “A” for special effects, and an “F” for science. I’ll give him a “B” for special effects, and “F” for science, but an A+ for three direct references to Wisconsin. And Woody Harrelson is pretty good as a crazy talk-radio guy.
The movie is based on the incorrect belief that the ancient Mayan calendar “runs out” on the 21st of December, 2012. Some say Nostradamus made a similar prophecy. The problem is, even the Mayans know their calendar doesn’t “end” in 2012. Mayan archaeologist Guillermo Bernal says there are Mayan calendar inscriptions that go out well beyond the year 4772.
A Mayan calendar cycle, the 13th Baktun, ends on 12-21-2012, but - as any Mayan can tell you - that just means another cycle begins.
But that would wreck the anticipation Emmerich tries to set up in the movie.
Long before this Hollywood blockbuster was even in pre-production, there were plenty of novels published about December 21st 2012 being the “end of days”. Google “2012 end of the world” and you’ll get more than 35 million hits.
Some people - gullible people - take this sort of stuff really seriously. The media are full of stories of people who are actually worried that the world is going to end in a couple years and they’ll never see their kids grow up.
Shortly after the release of “The Day After Tomorrow”, my wife and I were at a dinner party at a friend’s home on the fashionable west side of Madison. Several of the people there, and this was before the second drink, were talking about how the movie is “proof” of global warming. And these were partially-educated adults!
Rather than be my usual snarky self and embarrass my wife, I resorted to stronger doses of Crown Royal.
We do love to be scared at the movies, though. And the special effects for “2012“, while not much better than the stuff in his 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, are still good. But I expected better stuff. The effects in the “Terminator” and “Transformers” movies are much better, if you ask me. The plot development is often tediously predictable.
The run-time of two hours and 35 minutes is excessive; but, most “blockbuster” movies are way too long these days. Add in the six trailers and the ads they run before they roll the feature film, and you’ve got nearly three hours invested.
Worth it? Yah, but barely.
This weekend, I saw his latest offering, titled “2012”. It was standard Emmerich fare - lots of over-the-top special effects, a soundtrack that will temporarily deafen you, huge cities destroyed, and our attempt to escape from the destruction. John Cusack trying to save his family from certain death, battling every obstacle imaginable. I was, however, disappointed. The plot stinks and the effects are good, but not great.
As some reviewer said, Emmerich gets an “A” for special effects, and an “F” for science. I’ll give him a “B” for special effects, and “F” for science, but an A+ for three direct references to Wisconsin. And Woody Harrelson is pretty good as a crazy talk-radio guy.
The movie is based on the incorrect belief that the ancient Mayan calendar “runs out” on the 21st of December, 2012. Some say Nostradamus made a similar prophecy. The problem is, even the Mayans know their calendar doesn’t “end” in 2012. Mayan archaeologist Guillermo Bernal says there are Mayan calendar inscriptions that go out well beyond the year 4772.
A Mayan calendar cycle, the 13th Baktun, ends on 12-21-2012, but - as any Mayan can tell you - that just means another cycle begins.
But that would wreck the anticipation Emmerich tries to set up in the movie.
Long before this Hollywood blockbuster was even in pre-production, there were plenty of novels published about December 21st 2012 being the “end of days”. Google “2012 end of the world” and you’ll get more than 35 million hits.
Some people - gullible people - take this sort of stuff really seriously. The media are full of stories of people who are actually worried that the world is going to end in a couple years and they’ll never see their kids grow up.
Shortly after the release of “The Day After Tomorrow”, my wife and I were at a dinner party at a friend’s home on the fashionable west side of Madison. Several of the people there, and this was before the second drink, were talking about how the movie is “proof” of global warming. And these were partially-educated adults!
Rather than be my usual snarky self and embarrass my wife, I resorted to stronger doses of Crown Royal.
We do love to be scared at the movies, though. And the special effects for “2012“, while not much better than the stuff in his 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, are still good. But I expected better stuff. The effects in the “Terminator” and “Transformers” movies are much better, if you ask me. The plot development is often tediously predictable.
The run-time of two hours and 35 minutes is excessive; but, most “blockbuster” movies are way too long these days. Add in the six trailers and the ads they run before they roll the feature film, and you’ve got nearly three hours invested.
Worth it? Yah, but barely.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Why Do We Still Call It A "Phone"?
You can place and receive telephone calls with them, but if that’s all your cell phone does, you’re in the dark ages. Or so it would seem, based on a new worldwide survey of 8,000 cell phone users by the hugely respected marketing firm Synovate.
There’s no question Americans are attached to their cell phones. 82% of the Americans surveyed said they never leave their home without their cell phone. Nearly half of the Americans surveyed say “they cannot live” without their cell phone.
And you thought the microwave oven was hot stuff.
The Synovate survey says these small devices are so widespread that as of last year, more people on the planet owned cell phones than did not. And, in a lesson for marketers, the survey says most people do not think of their cell phone as a media platform at all. They classify it differently from mainstream media like TV, radio, even the internet.
So much for the FM radio app for the iPhone. It’s not radio’s savior.
Even a basic cell phone these days is a lot more than just a phone. Two-thirds of the cell phone owners on the planet use it as an alarm clock, and more than half of the Americans surveyed said they regularly used their cell phone as a wake-up alarm. Two-thirds of cell phone users worldwide us it as a camera, and about a third play games on their cell phone.
And we’re not talking here about really smart cell phones, which have things like GPS, apps that help you surf the web, read and send e-mail, and even update your Facebook status or Tweet on the fly.
We haven’t even mentioned text messaging, another thing the “basic” (dumb) cell phone can do. Almost three BILLION text messages are sent every day, and it’s proved to be a real financial banquet for the wireless industry. From basic communication, to flirting, even to dumping a partner is done by text now. (Thankfully, only 4% of Americans say they’ve dumped somebody by text.)
A third of the people worldwide admit they’ve lied about their whereabouts via text message. Nearly ten percent of Americans say they’ve set up a first date via text.
If I call my 20-something kids on their cell phone, it almost always goes to voicemail and they respond eventually. If I text them, even if they’re at work, I get almost instant response. My son has an iPhone and my daughter has some sort of Blackberry-like device.
It seems as if for young Americans, their cell phone is the remote control device for their life. They carry it everywhere and are lost without it. Almost half of the Americans surveyed say ther sleep with their cell phone nearby every night.
I leave mine on the kitchen counter when I go to bed. But my wife has her iPod Touch next to her on the nightstand. If one of the kids texts her, it makes a sound like a cat’s meow. That’s sure to rouse the dog, even if we sleep through it.
It’s our family’s own personal 9-1-1 system, I guess. Maybe we can't "live" without our cell phones, after all.....
There’s no question Americans are attached to their cell phones. 82% of the Americans surveyed said they never leave their home without their cell phone. Nearly half of the Americans surveyed say “they cannot live” without their cell phone.
And you thought the microwave oven was hot stuff.
The Synovate survey says these small devices are so widespread that as of last year, more people on the planet owned cell phones than did not. And, in a lesson for marketers, the survey says most people do not think of their cell phone as a media platform at all. They classify it differently from mainstream media like TV, radio, even the internet.
So much for the FM radio app for the iPhone. It’s not radio’s savior.
Even a basic cell phone these days is a lot more than just a phone. Two-thirds of the cell phone owners on the planet use it as an alarm clock, and more than half of the Americans surveyed said they regularly used their cell phone as a wake-up alarm. Two-thirds of cell phone users worldwide us it as a camera, and about a third play games on their cell phone.
And we’re not talking here about really smart cell phones, which have things like GPS, apps that help you surf the web, read and send e-mail, and even update your Facebook status or Tweet on the fly.
We haven’t even mentioned text messaging, another thing the “basic” (dumb) cell phone can do. Almost three BILLION text messages are sent every day, and it’s proved to be a real financial banquet for the wireless industry. From basic communication, to flirting, even to dumping a partner is done by text now. (Thankfully, only 4% of Americans say they’ve dumped somebody by text.)
A third of the people worldwide admit they’ve lied about their whereabouts via text message. Nearly ten percent of Americans say they’ve set up a first date via text.
If I call my 20-something kids on their cell phone, it almost always goes to voicemail and they respond eventually. If I text them, even if they’re at work, I get almost instant response. My son has an iPhone and my daughter has some sort of Blackberry-like device.
It seems as if for young Americans, their cell phone is the remote control device for their life. They carry it everywhere and are lost without it. Almost half of the Americans surveyed say ther sleep with their cell phone nearby every night.
I leave mine on the kitchen counter when I go to bed. But my wife has her iPod Touch next to her on the nightstand. If one of the kids texts her, it makes a sound like a cat’s meow. That’s sure to rouse the dog, even if we sleep through it.
It’s our family’s own personal 9-1-1 system, I guess. Maybe we can't "live" without our cell phones, after all.....
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Scooter Jensen: STILL Not In Prison
If you’re reading this Thursday morning, the Jensen clock on the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s Big Money Blog has just ticked over to 2,582 days. That’s how long it’s been since Scooter Jensen was criminally charged with misconduct in public office.
The Democracy Campaign is keeping track of this, because Scooter’s case is one of the worst examples of how money and influence can “game” the justice system. It’s been over seven years since he was charged with using state-paid employees to work on political campaigns, something expressly forbidden by state law.
Scooter’s defense? Everybody else was doing it (namely, the Democrats), and that’s what led the state’s highest court to decide Tuesday that he may well yet get still another trial, on his home turf, in Waukesha County.
To my way of thinking, saying “everybody else was doing it” is an admission of guilt, not a defense.
When the state Supreme Court eventually gets around to making a decision on still another trial for Jensen, whose expensive lawyer argued his client should get a new trial so he can introduce evidence that he wasn’t the only one breaking the law, it may well be a 3-3 vote. Justice Prosser won’t be allowed to vote on this one. Justice Prosser was a character witness for Jensen in one of the many earlier legal rounds.
Not to get too far ahead of the story, but if the state Supreme Court ends up tied 3-3, the decision of the lower court will be affirmed, and Jensen will end up being tried (again) here in Dane County. That decision is probably a few months away.
Maybe the State Journal was right, when it editorialized yesterday that no matter what the Supreme Court decides, or doesn’t decide, Scooter has already lost the case in the court of public opinion. The paper says “regardless of the outcome, he will never be able to dodge disgrace”.
I hope they’re right.
The case is unusual. It’s been so long since Scooter was charged, that the state legislature has passed new laws which Scooter’s expensive lawyer says should apply. Dane County D-A Brian Blanchard, the prosecutor, says the laws that were in effect when Scooter was charged should apply. Seems simple to me. It’s not Blanchard’s fault the case has dragged on for years.
All the other politicians charged with Scooter in the so-called “caucus scandal” have been to trial or done their deals and have served their sentences.
But Scooter has gamed the system very well, delaying, denying, and using campaign money to pay the huge legal bills.
Eventually, though, he will have his FINAL day in court on this matter. For the people of the State of Wisconsin, that day can’t come soon enough.
The Democracy Campaign is keeping track of this, because Scooter’s case is one of the worst examples of how money and influence can “game” the justice system. It’s been over seven years since he was charged with using state-paid employees to work on political campaigns, something expressly forbidden by state law.
Scooter’s defense? Everybody else was doing it (namely, the Democrats), and that’s what led the state’s highest court to decide Tuesday that he may well yet get still another trial, on his home turf, in Waukesha County.
To my way of thinking, saying “everybody else was doing it” is an admission of guilt, not a defense.
When the state Supreme Court eventually gets around to making a decision on still another trial for Jensen, whose expensive lawyer argued his client should get a new trial so he can introduce evidence that he wasn’t the only one breaking the law, it may well be a 3-3 vote. Justice Prosser won’t be allowed to vote on this one. Justice Prosser was a character witness for Jensen in one of the many earlier legal rounds.
Not to get too far ahead of the story, but if the state Supreme Court ends up tied 3-3, the decision of the lower court will be affirmed, and Jensen will end up being tried (again) here in Dane County. That decision is probably a few months away.
Maybe the State Journal was right, when it editorialized yesterday that no matter what the Supreme Court decides, or doesn’t decide, Scooter has already lost the case in the court of public opinion. The paper says “regardless of the outcome, he will never be able to dodge disgrace”.
I hope they’re right.
The case is unusual. It’s been so long since Scooter was charged, that the state legislature has passed new laws which Scooter’s expensive lawyer says should apply. Dane County D-A Brian Blanchard, the prosecutor, says the laws that were in effect when Scooter was charged should apply. Seems simple to me. It’s not Blanchard’s fault the case has dragged on for years.
All the other politicians charged with Scooter in the so-called “caucus scandal” have been to trial or done their deals and have served their sentences.
But Scooter has gamed the system very well, delaying, denying, and using campaign money to pay the huge legal bills.
Eventually, though, he will have his FINAL day in court on this matter. For the people of the State of Wisconsin, that day can’t come soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
