• Presty the DJ for July 1

    July 1, 2019
    Music

    Today in 1963, the Beatles recorded “She Loves You,” yeah, yeah, yeah:

    Four years later, the Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” reached number one, and stayed there for 15 weeks:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for July 1
  • Presty the DJ for June 30

    June 30, 2019
    Music

    Here’s an odd anniversary: Four days after Cher divorced Sonny Bono, she married Gregg Allman. Come back to this blog in nine days to find out what happened next.

    Birthdays start with Florence Ballard of the Supremes …

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for June 30
  • Presty the DJ for June 29

    June 29, 2019
    Music

    There was a definite horn rock theme today in 1968, as proven by number seven …

    … six …

    … two …

    … and one on the charts:

    Today in 1971, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were sentenced on drug charges. And, of course, you could replace “1971” with any year and Jagger’ and Richards’ names with practically any rock musician’s name of those days.

    Or other people: Today in 2000, Eminem’s mother sued her son for defamation from the line “My mother smokes more dope than I do” from his “My Name Is.”

    Birthdays start with LeRoy Anderson, whose first work was the theme music for many afternoon movies, but who is best known for his second work (with which I point out that Christmas is less than six months away):

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for June 29
  • On women’$ $occer

    June 28, 2019
    Sports, US business

    The U.S. women’s national soccer team plays at France in the Women’s World Cup today at 2 p.m. Central time.

    John Phelan writes about the team and its complaint against the United States Soccer Federation, and an ugly truth therein:

    The US women’s soccer team is currently playing in the World Cup in France, defending the title they won in 2015. They’ve had an incredible start, scoring 18 goals in the group stage—a record for the tournament—and beating Spain to reach the quarterfinals.

    Some see this success as fresh evidence in support of the case for equal pay for male and female players. According to a lawsuit filed on March 8 by the US women’s soccer team, their players are being paid less than the men, in some cases earning just 38 percent of their pay per game.

    The United States Soccer Federation (USSF) denies the pay differences are related to sex. This week, the two groups agreed to enter into mediation to resolve the dispute.

    The pay gap feud entered the national discussion in 2018 following an impassioned speech from FIFA world champion Abby Wambach. The New York Times reports:

    In spring 2018, Abby Wambach, the most decorated soccer player in American history, gave a commencement address at Barnard College that went viral. The player who had scored more goals than any other, male or female, in international competition described standing onstage at the ESPYs the year after she retired in 2015, receiving the Icon Award alongside two peers, Peyton Manning and Kobe Bryant. “I felt so grateful,” she recalled. “I had a momentary feeling of having arrived; like, we women had finally made it.”

    As the athletes exited the stage, each having, as Wambach put it, “left it all on the field for decades with the same ferocity, talent and commitment,” it occurred to her that while the sacrifices the men made for their careers were nearly identical to her own, their new lives would not resemble hers in one fundamental way. “Kobe and Peyton walked away from their careers with something I didn’t have: enormous bank accounts,” Wambach said. “Because of that, they had something else I didn’t have: freedom. Their hustling days were over; mine were just beginning.”

    I don’t doubt Wambach when she says that she, Manning, and Bryant “left it all on the field for decades with the same ferocity…and commitment” and that “the sacrifices the men made for their careers were nearly identical to her own.” But if there is a case for equal pay, this isn’t it. The first hard lesson is that pay is not dependent on your effort but on your product.

    … Abby Wambach was paid less because her efforts generated much less product—revenue—for her employers than Peyton Manning and Kobe Bryant’s comparable efforts generated for theirs. When Bryant played his last game for the LA Lakers in 2016, they sold $1.2 million worth of Bryant merchandise that day. I can’t find similar figures for what Abby Wambach generated for her last team, the Western New York Flash, but I doubt it was anywhere near that.

    So what’s the story with revenues for the US men’s and women’s soccer teams? The Wall Street Journal reports:

    In the three years after the U.S. women’s soccer team won the 2015 World Cup, U.S. women’s games generated more total revenue than U.S. men’s games, according to audited financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation.

    Doesn’t this disprove US Soccer’s argument that the difference in pay between the men’s and women’s teams is “based on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex”?

    Not so fast. These figures relate to “gate” and “game” revenues. But, as the WSJ points out:

    …ticket sales are only one revenue stream that the national teams help generate. U.S. Soccer brought in nearly $49 million in marketing and sponsorship revenue in 2018, nearly half of its $101 million operating revenue, according to federation records.

    US Soccer sells these broadcast rights and sponsorships as a bundle, not separately for each team. As a result, it’s hard to tell how much of, say, Budweiser’s sponsorship is attracted by the men’s team and how much by the women’s. Presumably, sponsors are paying to get their name in front of potential customers. Considering that data show TV viewing figures for the men’s team are higher than for the women’s team, this might suggest that the men’s team is the attraction for a disproportionate amount of that broadcast and sponsorship revenue. This would explain the pay disparity.

    If pay is dependent on the product, what decides the value of that? This is the second hard lesson. Not only is your product not related to your effort, but the value of that product is also determined subjectively by the consumer.

    Abby Wambach and Kobe Bryant play different sports, so maybe it’s unfair to compare them. The US women argue that they are underpaid relative to men playing the same sport. How can the same output be valued differently? …

    Why wouldn’t US men’s and women’s soccer be perfect substitutes? Maybe sports consumers are sexist. Maybe the women’s product isn’t as good as the men’s in some objective way. From a pay perspective, the reason is irrelevant. There is no economic reason why similar effort should yield similar pay and no reason why different products should yield similar pay.

    The US women currently in France have won three World Cup titles. The US men have never won a World Cup and failed to even qualify for the 2018 tournament. The women’s team’s achievements are hugely impressive. If you want to reward them with cash rather than words, put your money where your mouth is. Show you value their product by spending on it.

    Apparently in the view of at least one team member, getting people to spend money on their product is not necessary, based on this CNN report:

    American women’s soccer co-captain Megan Rapinoe is not planning to go to the White House if the national team wins the World Cup.

    A reporter from Eight by Eight, a soccer magazine that looks at the sport and its place in culture, asked Rapinoe if she was excited about going to the White House if her team wins the Women’s World Cup.

    “Psssh, I’m not going to the f*****g White House,” she fired back before the reporter finished the question. “No. I’m not going to the White House. We’re not gonna be invited. I doubt it.” …

    In May, Rapinoe called out the soccer’s leadership for not doing enough to level the pitch for men and women players. She acknowledged “strides” had been made toward the better treatment of women, but FIFA essentially has “unlimited resources” and a historic lack of investment in women’s games.

    “I would like to see a major paradigm shift,” she said.

    Rapinoe is also one of 28 players suing the United States Soccer Federation, alleging the men’s national team earns more than they do even though they play more games and win more matches

    But, as Phelan noted, generate less revenue than the underperforming men’s team. And yet apparently Rapinoe is fine if conservatives do not support her soccer team.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on On women’$ $occer
  • How the truth is no fun

    June 28, 2019
    Culture, media

    Readers have probably heard the line that the difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.

    Well, not always, if the word “sense” involves in some sense truth. Author Ron Franscell claims that what crime fiction connoisseurs believe about crime may not be accurate:

    Between your gullibility, urban legends and Hollywood, you’ve swallowed a lot of, um, bull about crime, cops, and courts. You’ve consumed so much crapola that I’m surprised you aren’t on Ducky’s slab. But here are some fabrications, fables, and fairy tales about forensics and felonious foolishness (not to mention wrongful alliteration) that you’ve accepted as gospel since the first season of “Starsky and Hutch.”

    MYTH #10: Serial killers run rampant

    FACT: Every year, between 15,000 and 20,000 people are murdered in the US. Of those, only about 1% are committed by serial killers, according to FBI statistics. By comparison, four times as many murders are committed by spouses. The lesson is clear: You’re screwed if you marry a serial killer.

    Myth #9: You have a right to one phone call

    FACT: Not necessarily. You have certain constitutional rights when you’re arrested, but not a phone call. At last count, only 11 states grant an arrested suspect either a right to one phone call or to communicate with a lawyer or loved one upon booking. In other states, it’s a decision left to a city or county to set its own policies. And that goes for texting, too. And definitely for sexting.

    Myth #8: Cops are laid back and indifferent—even glib—at horrible crime scenes

    FACT: It makes for interesting TV when a detective or medical examiner blithely sips his Starbucks and wisecracks with his partner while surrounded by dismembered corpses. But cops are people, too. No matter how many bloody crime scenes they’ve worked, the horror of slaughtered people—especially kids—always affects them. Crime scenes are grisly, murders are ugly. No matter how many crime shows you’ve watched, nothing on TV can compare to the real thing. Good cops learn to compartmentalize the revulsion, but that doesn’t mean it has no effect. Think you’re tougher than all that? Take a whiff of a decomposing body and keep your lunch down. I dare you.

    Myth #7: You might wake up in a bloody tub missing your kidneys

    FACT: You’ve heard the story at a cocktail party, right? A friend of somebody’s cousin’s hairdresser got drunk in a crowded bar and met a hottie. Things get randy and they get a room. Then the guy wakes up in the hotel bathtub, immersed in icy water, with a note on the toilet: “We’ve taken your kidneys. Call 9-1-1 or die.” It’s an urban legend. It has never happened to anybody. A hoax. And everybody knows your heart is worth more in the global organ black market.

    Moreover, according to Hannibal Lecter, your liver is tastier, particularly served with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

    Myth #6: Cops have fabulous computers, databases, and fancy war rooms

    FACT: No, they don’t. Maybe their computers are better than yours, but they still freeze up. Nobody has the glitzy, big-screen murder boards and super-databases where, with a few clicks, they can learn what toppings you had on your pizza last Friday. It’s a TV fantasy. Sorta like the quirky TV forensic chicks who can zoom in on surveillance video to see the species of bugs on a passing car’s windshield. Almost no law enforcement agency has the cash or tech savvy to do what you see on a typical prime-time cop show. Just imagine how Barney Fife’s life would be different today if Mayberry had an Abby Sciutto.

    Myth #5: Criminal profilers catch bad guys

    FACT: TV has really messed up crime-fighting. It treats profilers as half clairvoyant and half SWAT team. Profiling ain’t anywhere as glamorous or involved in busting bad guys as “Criminal Minds” would make you believe. Profilers never finger actual bad guys; profiling merely helps investigators narrow the pool of suspects—a little. It’s more like this: Some former psych majors who know something about criminology drop in to the squad room, deliver a list of traits their “unknown subject” (UnSub) probably exhibits, then leave. The real work is done by real cops with real guns.

    Is profiling magical? Nope. Some recent studies show that Joe Blow is almost as good at it. Hey, a wisecracking, beer-drinking TV profiler named Joe Blow…

    Myth #4: Medical examiners can tell pretty precisely when you died

    FACT: Nope. “Time of death” is a best guess. We often see TV coroners and medical examiners doing some quickie liver poking, which results in a fairly precise determination of when the death happened. TV has only 47 minutes or so (with those annoying commercials) to solve a case, so the writers can’t waste precious seconds with science-y stuff. There’s just no time for the real ways to determine a body’s expiration, such as body temperature, rigor mortis, lividity, decomposition, stomach contents, cloudiness of the corneas, potassium levels in eyeballs, insect activity, and crime-scene artifacts.

    Myth #3: DNA is precise and infallible

    FACT: It’s pretty cool but reports of DNA’s effectiveness are greatly exaggerated by … wait for it … TV. The illusion is so complete that there’s something called the “CSI effect,” which causes a lot of jurors and judges in criminal trials to believe DNA is incontrovertible evidence of guilt (or that its absence is a major forensic and prosecutorial failure). Fact is, fewer than 1% of all major crimes like murder, rape, and assault are solved with DNA. Old-fashioned fingerprints actually provide slightly better evidence.

    Myth #2: Lie detectors detect all lies.

    FACT: Nope. Too many factors prevent polygraph examinations from being infallible. The questions, the skill of the examiner, even the quality of the machine all play a role. In fact, even if you know nothing about beating a lie-detector test, you have better than a 1-in-10 chance of passing when you’re lying your ass off.

    Myth #1: Typing your PIN backwards at the ATM will summon the cops

    FACT: Nope. Another urban legend. Think about it: if somebody’s holding a gun to your head, how likely are you to even remember your PIN frontwards, much less backwards? Even if your ATM alerted cops, the bad guy would likely be long gone with your money and you’d be dead before they arrived. And wouldn’t robbers get wise about all that fumbling around? Here’s a test: Thumb-type on your iPhone the last four digits of your Social Security number backwards … then text it to me.

    Now that you’ve had your gullibility, urban legends and Hollywood beliefs shattered, I’ll add one: Journalism is boring to watch take place.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on How the truth is no fun
  • Presty the DJ for June 28

    June 28, 2019
    Music

    Today in 1975, David Bowie found “Fame”:

    Today in 1978, the UN named Kansas ambassadors of goodwill:

    Two birthdays today are from the same group: Drummer Bobby Harrison was born two years before bassist Dave Knights of Procol Harum:

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for June 28
  • The shrinking state of Illinois

    June 27, 2019
    US politics, Wisconsin politics

    I saw this on social media Wednesday:

    University of Michigan–Flint Prof. Mark J. Perry shows the other side of that meme, so to speak:

    The No. 1 U.S. state for outbound migration in 2017 was Illinois, moving up from No. 2 in the previous year. And Wisconsin is one of the top beneficiaries of this migration pattern.

    There were 534,527 moves in 2017 for Illinois — 339,435 outbound moves (63.5% of the total) and 195,092 inbound moves (36.5% of the total), for a -27.0% net outflow. That put the Prairie State far ahead of No. 2 New York at -22.7% net outflow and No. 3 New Jersey at -19.3%. This is based on a recent analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual “State- to-State Migration Flows” database for 2017 that I did for a report titled “Top 10 Inbound vs. Top 10 Outbound U.S. States in 2017: How Do They Compare on a Variety of Tax Burden, Business Climate, Fiscal Health and Economic Measures?”

    When compared on a variety of 10 measures of tax burdens for individuals and businesses, business climate, state fiscal health, labor market robustness and economic growth, the migration patterns of U.S. households (and businesses) followed some predictable patterns.

    There is strong empirical evidence that Americans “vote with their feet” and are moving from high-tax states that are fiscally unhealthy, economically stagnant and unfriendly toward businesses to fiscally sound states that are more economically vibrant, dynamic and business-friendly, with lower tax and regulatory burdens and that offer more economic and job opportunities.

    No surprise there. And no surprise that Illinois led the coun- try in outbound migration in 2017 given its poor rankings on most of the 10 measures of business friendliness, tax burden and economic dynamism. In addition, the Mercatus Center ranks Illinois No. 50 for state fiscal condition, mostly due to its large ($446 billion) and growing unfunded pension liabilities.

    Where are the outbound households and businesses from the Land of Lincoln moving? One increasingly popular destination is across the northern border into Wisconsin.

    In 2017, nearly 27,000 people left Illinois for Wisconsin, compared with fewer than 13,000 moving in the opposite direction — for a net inflow to Wisconsin of nearly 15,000 people. That followed a record net inflow of nearly 16,000 in 2016, 11,500 in 2015 and 15,370 in 2014 (Figure 1).

    There has been a net outflow from Illinois to Wisconsin of more than 116,000 residents between 2006 and 2017. About half of that net gain has taken place in the past four years at an average net gain for Wisconsin of nearly 40 residents moving from Illinois every day between 2014 and 2017. …

    On 14 different measures of labor market dynamism, economic growth, various tax burdens, business climate and fiscal health, Wisconsin comes out ahead of neighboring Illinois on all but one of those measures — state individual income tax rate. Taken together, these results suggest that compared with Illinois, Wisconsin is a relatively more pro-growth and fiscally sound state, a more economically vibrant and business-friendly state, with a lower tax and regulatory burden for businesses and a more robust labor market.

    Overall, the Badger State offers citizens, workers and businesses greater economic and job opportunities, with greater future prospects for economic growth than the Prairie State. Reflecting the greater relative degree of economic vibrancy and business friendliness in Wisconsin compared with Illinois, residents and businesses are increasingly leaving the Land of Lincoln for brighter economic opportunities across its northern border.

    The state-to-state migration flow patterns that exist at the national level are consistent with what is happening between Wisconsin and Illinois at a local level, summarized as follows: Residents and businesses in Illinois are increasingly “voting with their feet” and escaping across the northern border to Wisconsin — at a net rate of 40 every day — from a relatively stagnant, high-tax, fiscally unhealthy, business-unfriendly state to a fiscally sound state that is more economically vibrant and business-friendly with greater economic prospects for resi- dents, businesses and workers.

    One key takeaway from this analysis is that it’s relatively easy to attract a net inflow of residents and businesses from a fiscally insolvent neighboring state with a struggling economy like Illinois, and Wisconsin is certainly doing that and deserves credit for doing so. To maintain that inflow from Illinois and to attract migration from elsewhere, Wisconsin should pursue the proven formula for states to attract those inflows: low tax burdens, less regulation, greater fiscal stability, right-to-work laws, resisting calls for higher minimum wages and creating business-friendly climates. Wisconsin is doing very well on many of those measures, especially compared with its neighbor to the south.

    Further improvements in the Badger State’s attractiveness to residents, workers and businesses will pay off in the same way that it’s now working to attract large and increasing inbound migration from Illinois. One improvement would be to reduce the state income tax burden as is currently being proposed and which is the one measure out of the 14 discussed above that gives Illinois a competitive advantage. And Wisconsin should keep its labor costs for low-skilled workers at a competitive level and resist the political pressure to follow Illinois’ lead with a 100% hike in the minimum wage to a job-killing level of $15 per hour.

    Of course, this all depends on whether Republicans maintain control of the Legislature after next year’s elections and, before and after that, whether they act like real Republicans and not Democrats Lite.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on The shrinking state of Illinois
  • How to reelect Trump, from a Trump opponent

    June 27, 2019
    US politics

    Charlie Sykes addresses the 13,356 Democratic candidates for president:

    With 20 of you clamoring for attention over two nights, the opportunities are abundant for you to kick off the primary season with an easy win for the president.

    This might seem impossible. Donald Trump remains historically unpopular because the past three years have cemented the public’s image of the president as a deeply dishonest, erratic, narcissistic, Twitter-addicted bully. As a result, a stunning 57 percent of voters say they will definitely not vote to reelect him next year and he trails Democratic challengers in key states. Trump himself seems to have given up on swing voters, instead focusing on ginning up turnout among his hard-core base. But, as columnist Henry Olsen points out, this is unlikely to be successful because millions of “reluctant Trump voters” from 2016 have already shown a willingness to bail on him by voting for Democrats in last November’s midterms.

    Even so, Trump could still win reelection, because he has one essential dynamic working in his favor: You.

    Trump’s numbers are unmovable, but yours are not. He doesn’t need to win this thing; he needs for you to lose it. There are millions of swing voters who regard Trump as an abomination but might vote for him again if they think you are scarier, more extreme, dangerous, or just annoyingly out of touch.

    And, you have some experience at this, don’t you?

    Despite the favorable poll numbers and the triumphalism in your blue bubble, you’ve already made a solid start at guaranteeing another four years of Trumpism. Last week’s pile-on of Joe Biden was a good example of how you might eat your own over the next 16 months.

    On Tuesday, Trump refused to apologize for calling for the death penalty for the Central Park 5, a group of black and Latino men who were later exonerated of charges that they had beaten and raped a woman in the 1980s. But rather than focusing on the latest Trumpian racial outrage, many of you spent the next few days hammering your front-runner for saying that civility required working with people like the late segregationist senators John Eastland and Herman Talmadge.

    This week’s debates give you two more chances to form circular firing squads, turn winning issues into losers, and alienate swing voters.

    Here are 11 pointers on how to guarantee that the most unpopular president in modern polling history wins reelection next year.

    1. Hold firmly to the idea that Twitter is the beating heart of the real Democratic Party.

    Woke Twitter is convinced that anger over Trump means that voters want to move hard left. You should ignore polls showing that most Democrats, not to mention swing voters, are much more likely to be centrist.

    2. Embrace the weird.

    George Will carries around a small card listing all the things that you have said “that cause the American public to say: ‘These people are weird, they are not talking about things that I care about.’” A short list:

    Terrorists in prison should be allowed to vote. End private health insurance. Pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, ‘Green New Deal,’ … reparations for slavery.

    “The country hears these individually,” says Will, “and they say I’m not for that.”

    He’s going to need a bigger card.

    3. Keep promising lots of free stuff and don’t sweat paying for it.

    Trump and his fellow Republicans have run up massive deficits, but you can make them look like fiscal hawks by outbidding one another. People like free stuff, but they are less keen on having to pay for free stuff for other people, so talk as much as possible about having taxpayers pick up the tab for free college, day care and health care.

    By one estimate, Elizabeth Warren’s various plans would cost about $3.6 trillion a year—or $36.5 trillion over 10 years. She insists she can pay for much of this with a vast new wealth tax that is politically impossible and constitutionally dubious, but, hey, at least she’s not Bernie.
    4. Go ahead and abolish private health insurance.

    Health care should be a huge winner for Democrats in 2020, as it was in 2018. But you can turn that around by embracing a Bernie Sanders-like ‘Medicare for All’ plan.
    Sure, the idea polls well and is wildly popular in MSNBC green rooms. But, unfortunately, when voters find out that it would double payroll taxes, cost trillions of dollars and lead to the abolition of private health insurance, support plummets—even among Democratic primary voters. In fact, when Democratic primary voters are told that Medicare for All would cost $3.2 trillion a year, support drops to just 38 percent. And that is among Democrats.

    The numbers are even worse with the wider electorate. The Kaiser Tracking Poll found that Medicare for All’s net favorability drops to minus 44 percent “when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments.” Voters also turn sharply against the idea when they are told that it would threaten the current Medicare program, require big tax increases and eliminate private health insurance. Count on the GOP to spend hundreds of millions of dollars making those arguments.

    5. Spend time talking about reparations.

    There may be no magic bullet to guarantee Trump’s reelection, but support for reparations for slavery may be awfully close. Even before Charlottesville, Trump’s record on race was horrific, and his winking appeasement of the white nationalist alt-right has been a running theme of Trumpism. But Democrats can neutralize Trump’s most glaring weaknesses by redoubling their support for reparations.

    You have already made the hyperdivisive issue a big theme of the campaign and the Democratic House seems poised to pass legislation calling for a study of the issue. As POLITICO reported: “Support for considering reparations has also quickly gained support in the 2020 Democratic primary, with contenders like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris expressing their interest in Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s plan. It’s a stark shift from previous presidential campaigns in which Barack Obama opposed reparations.“

    The problems here are obvious. No one really knows how reparations would work. The historic wrongs committed against African Americans are undoubtedly unique, but as the debate heats up, the questions will be: Who pays? Who is owed? How do we pick the winners and losers? And then there are other inevitable questions: Who else? The Irish? Jews? Native Americans? Asian Americans? Gays and lesbians?

    What is clear, however, is that reparations are opposed by somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of white voters, so your support is a huge gift to Trump’s reelection campaign, which would like nothing more than to drive a deeper wedge between black and white Americans.

    6. Trump thinks that immigration and the crisis at the border are winning issues for him. They aren’t. But you can turn that around.

    Trump is actually underwater on the immigration issue. In a recent Fox News poll, 50 percent of Americans said Trump has gone too far, more than double the number of voters who think he hasn’t been aggressive enough. Family separations continue to shock the conscience of the nation and his threats to round up millions of illegals could backfire badly on him. Moreover, huge majorities favor giving legal status to the so-called Dreamers.

    But you can flip the script: instead of talking about Dreamers, talk as much as possible about your support for sanctuary cities, double down on proposals to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and be as vague as possible about whether or not you really do support open borders.

    7. Lots more focus on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    By no means allow voters to hear more about centrists who actually swung the House like Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey or Dean Phillips in Minnesota. Trump wants nothing more than to make AOC the face of the Democratic Party. You can make it happen.

    8. Socialism.

    Trump will accuse Democrats of being socialists who want to turn the United States into Venezuela. This is a tired, implausible trope. But you can make it work for him by actually calling yourself socialists and loudly booing your fellow Democrats who suggest that “socialism is not the answer.”

    9. Turn the abortion issue from a winner into a loser.

    Polls suggest that there is wide opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade and Republicans have drastically overreached in states like Alabama where they have outlawed abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

    But here again, Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by moving to a hard-line maximalist position. While the public leans pro-choice, its views are quite nuanced. So, instead of talking about abortion as “safe, legal, and rare,” you should demand the legalization of late-term abortions, focus on taxpayer funding and express as much contempt as possible for people with different views.

    A model for this is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who compares being anti-abortion to being racist. When she was asked whether her pro-choice litmus test for judges threatened their independence, she said:

    “I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Telling or asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America, I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”

    You might recall how Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment played in 2016; this time around, Democrats can convey their contempt for much larger groups of people, which will be immensely helpful to Trump’s efforts to convince his base and swing voters that Democrats look down on them.

    10. You can also turn a winner into a loser on the issue of guns.

    There is a growing bipartisan constituency for reasonable restrictions on guns, including overwhelming support for expanded background checks. Trump’s GOP is especially vulnerable here because it remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, which is stumbling under the weight of its own extremism and grift these days.

    But you can easily turn this into a firewall for Trump by joining Senator Cory Booker’s call for vast expansions of the licensing of guns and banning certain kinds of weapons. Under Booker’s plan, “a person seeking to buy a gun would need to apply for a license in much the same way one applies for a passport.”

    Let’s see how that plays in Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan.

    11. As you try to get Americans more alarmed about Trump’s attacks on democratic norms, make sure you talk as much as possible about your support for court-packing.

    Tinkering with the makeup and independence of the Supreme Court hasn’t been a winning issue since 1937, but, waving the bloody shirt of Merrick Garland as often as possible still feels satisfying, doesn’t it?

    Given Trump’s deep unpopularity, losing to him won’t be easy. But don’t despair; remember, you managed to pull it off in 2016.

    The problem with Democrats and these 11 points in order to get primary votes is that then whoever wins the nomination is stuck with these stupid positions in the general election.

    For instance, James Hohmann reports:

    To pay for eliminating all $1.6 trillion of outstanding student loan debt, Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed on Monday a stiff tax on Wall Street investments that he estimates would raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years. It would impose a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds. This is in addition to previous calls by the democratic socialist for expanding the estate tax to cover the holdings left at death by the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans. The Vermonter has separately floated an annual 1 percent wealth tax on anyone with assets exceeding $21 million.

    Beto O’Rourke called for a “war tax” yesterday to fund a health care trust fund for veterans. Each time the U.S. goes into a new war, taxpayers would be required to pony up. It would be progressive: Those earning less than $30,000 per year would pay $25. Anyone making over $200,000 would be taxed at $1,000. Households with someone currently in the military, or a veteran, would be exempted. “This new tax would serve as a reminder of the incredible sacrifice made by those who serve and their families,” said the former congressman from Texas.

    If it’s a day that ends in Y, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are advocating aggressively for higher taxes on affluent Americans. Egged on by polls that show majority support for taxing the richest among us and eager to impress the hardcore activist base of the party in a crowded field, several of the leading Democratic contenders sound almost gleeful at times as they call for soaking the rich. The first debates, tomorrow night and Thursday, are poised to highlight this tonal shift but could perhaps also offer a taste of resistance to the party’s leftward lurch on tax policy. President Trump has promised recently to tout the 2017 tax cuts on the campaign trail and warn that Democrats will roll them back if they retake the White House.

    Elizabeth Warren gets some of her biggest cheers at rallies by advocating for a 2 percent annual tax on all household wealth in excess of $50 million. She would take 3 percent on every dollar above $1 billion. Warren’s applause line is that the federal government can tax “the diamonds, the yachts and the Rembrandts” to pay for free college, child care and pre-K. Depending on the region of the country she’s in, the senator from Massachusetts will tag on the opioid epidemic. “I’m tired of freeloading billionaires,” she always concludes.

    Separately, Warren calls for increasing corporate taxes by $1 trillion. She would do this by taxing publicly traded companies based onwhatever profits they report to shareholders on earnings calls, not the IRS. Every dollar of profit above $100 million would get taxed at 7 percent.

    Joe Biden, who is leading in the polls, has said repeatedly that one of the first things he’d do if elected is try to “repeal those Trump tax cuts,” which the former vice president argues unfairly benefit the richest 1 percent and the biggest corporations.

    Pete Buttigieg has said he favors a “fairer, which means higher” marginal income tax, a “reasonable” wealth tax “or something like that,” a financial transactions tax and closing “corporate tax loopholes.” He has not specified which ones. “You don’t blow a hole in the budget with an unnecessary and unaffordable tax cut for the very wealthiest,” the mayor of South Bend, Ind., said during a Fox News town hall last month, referring to the Trump tax cuts. The issues page on Buttigieg’s web site suggests he would pursue a carbon tax to implement a Green New Deal. …

    While polls show people are generally supportive of higher taxes on the rich, enacting such tax increases has always proven more difficult. To understand the risks that national Democrats are taking, look to the states. In the midterm elections, for example, voters rejected ballot referendums that would have raised taxes on six-figure wage earners to pay for public education in Colorado and universal home health care in Maine.

    Tim Craig reported last week from the well-to-do suburbs outside Chicago on the blowback to Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s plan to raise taxes on the richest 3 percent of Illinois residents: “Kim Flores, a retired accountant showing off his restored horizon-blue 1949 Cadillac, said he has supported Democrats for years, but the tax plan is causing him to reconsider. ‘Increasing taxes on the rich is just nonsense,’ said Flores, 72. ‘I completely agree that middle-income people are hurting versus the higher-income people, and that is just wrong. But what are you going to do?’

    “Plans to raise taxes on the rich also have been considered in New Mexico, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey this year. So far, however, the tax plans have met stiff resistance, even among some fellow Democratic leaders, who worry that they will alienate the wealthy suburban voters who were critical to the party’s success last year. … Many of these new officeholders campaigned explicitly on a pledge to raise taxes on the rich to address rising income inequality, as well as to meet a backlog of needs left by their tax-cutting Republican predecessors.

    “Last month, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) successfully fought off a major push by Democratic lawmakers in that state to impose a 2 percent surcharge on capital gains for couples earning more than $1 million a year and individuals earning more than $500,000. Lamont said that Connecticut residents had ‘tax fatigue.’ But state Rep. Anne Hughes (D), co-chair of the Democratic Progressive Caucus, vowed to keep pushing for the proposal.

    “In New Mexico, where Democrats gained complete control of the Santa Fe statehouse in 2018, the state Senate dialed back a House proposal to raise the top tax rate to 5.9 percent from 4.9 percent on individuals earning at least $210,000 a year, or $315,000 for a married couple. The compromise calls for the higher tax rate to take effect in 2021 — but only if the state’s oil-based revenue stream registers less than 5 percent growth.

    That last part typifies the Democrats’ freebie election strategy — promise anything paid for by someone else.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on How to reelect Trump, from a Trump opponent
  • Presty the DJ for June 27

    June 27, 2019
    Music

    For some reason,  the Beatles’ “Sie Liebt Dich” got only to number 97 on the German charts:

    The English translation did much better, yeah, yeah, yeah:

    Today in 1968, Elvis Presley started taping his comeback special:

    Today in 1989, The Who performed its rock opera “Tommy” at Radio City Music Hall in New York, their first complete performance of “Tommy” since 1972:

    This would have never happened in the People’s Republic of Madison, but … in Milwaukee today in 1993, Don Henley dedicated “It’s Not Easy Being Green” to President Bill Clinton … and got booed.

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for June 27
  • Tony Evers and the Supremes

    June 26, 2019
    Wisconsin politics

    Even for mere political reasons the 4–3 decision in favor of the so-called “lame duck” laws passed by the state Legislature should have been obvious.

    It should have been obvious because the Legislature has passed so-called “lame duck” laws numerous previous times with no court challenges, as George Mitchell points out:

    Credit Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson for knowing how to keep a secret.

    We learned Friday that Abrahamson has watched quietly throughout her decades-long tenure as Wisconsin legislators acted, time and again in her opinion, outside the limits of the state’s constitution.

    How else to understand her agreement with Justice Rebecca Dallet that:

    The Legislature unconstitutionally met in an “extraordinary session” in December 2018 and…[i]n order to uphold the constitutionality of the December 2018 extraordinary session, the majority opinion subverts the plain text…of the Wisconsin Constitution.

    By signing Dallet’s dissenting opinion, but adding no comment of her own, Abrahamson was spared the task of explaining the apparent illegitimacy — in her view — of extraordinary sessions held on many occasions during the last four decades.  (Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, first elected to the court in 1995, joined Abrahamson in concurring — without comment — in Dallet’s dissent.)

    Former Democratic Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus recently wrote an op-ed in The Capital Times on the history and constitutional basis for extraordinary sessions.  He said, in part:

    [T]he legislature is always in session. The reality of one continuous two- year session was formally acknowledged by a constitutional amendment ratified in April 1968: “Shall Article IV, Section 11 of the Constitution be amended to permit the Legislature to meet in regular session oftener than once in two years?” The amendment was ratified in a 670,757 to 267,997 vote.

    The Legislature, under the Constitution, governs itself — setting its own rules of organization, procedures and calendar. So an extraordinary session is simply a floor period added to the dates adopted at the beginning of the two-year session, but, like a special session, it is restricted in subject matter.

    Extraordinary sessions came to be part of the Legislature’s way of doing business when I was Assembly speaker and Tommy Thompson was minority leader. The leaders call the session dates and the subject.

    The legal staff of the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau has addressed this issue on at least two occasions, once in the late 1990s and again earlier this year. Abrahamson and Bradley must have shuddered when reading the 1998 LRB report, but they kept their concerns to themselves all these years — until last Friday.

    There is, of course, an alternative explanation. Both Abrahamson and Bradley never saw a problem with extraordinary sessions until one directly pitted a Republican legislature against a newly elected Democratic governor.  Their concurrence with Dallet’s dissent is a reminder of how Wisconsin’s high court has become, for the left, a venue for undoing lawful legislative action with which it disagrees.

    As Justice Daniel Kelly seeks election to a full term next year, the long-term implications of Dallet’s outcome-driven dissent are clear. Had Justice-elect Brian Hagedorn not prevailed in the April 1 election, the left would be a single vote away from a Supreme Court willing to do its bidding.

    Matt Kittle picks winners and losers, beginning with, well, the losers:

    “The circuit court invaded the province of the Legislature in declaring the extraordinary session unconstitutional, enjoining enforcement of the three Acts, and vacating the 82 appointments. We vacate the circuit court’s order and remand the matter to the circuit court with directions to dismiss the League’s complaint,” asserts the majority opinion in the 4-3 decision, written by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley.

    Surprising to some court watchers was the split decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting. In the deeply divided Badger State, such jurisprudence division has become par for the course on Wisconsin’s high court.

    The majority opinion, however, is crisp and clean, and quickly dispatches a liberal legal argument that is tenuous at best.

    “We hold that extraordinary sessions do not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the text of our constitution directs the Legislature to meet at times as ‘provided by law,’” Bradley wrote. She pointed to statute that “provides the law giving the Legislature the discretion to construct its work schedule, including preserving times for it to meet in an extraordinary session.”

    Democrats and their liberal allies were livid in early December when the Republican-led Legislature passed three bill packages, many of them measures limiting the power of then-incoming Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats. The Legislature also signed off on scores of appointments to state boards and commissions. Outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed the bills into law. 

    Democrats called it all a “power grab.” Republicans said they were merely trying to protect the government reforms they had put in place over the past eight years.

    Evers clearly encouraged his left-wing partners to sue the Legislature. The League of Women Voters, Disability Rights Wisconsin, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, and union leaders quickly complied.

    The plaintiffs argued that extraordinary sessions are unconstitutional. Consequently, all legislation passed during the session is void and that the Senate’s confirmation of 82 gubernatorial appointees during the session was invalid.

    Liberal Dane County Judge Richard Niess agreed. He sided with the League and temporarily blocked the laws from implementation. Niess also vacated all 82 appointments. The Evers administration hastily forced out some of the appointees, including Public Service Commission Chairwoman Ellen Nowak. Nowak, attempting to show up for work, was turned away on orders of the governor’s Department of Administration.

    Niess’ ruling created confusion in its wake, principally begging the question: If the December extraordinary session was unconstitutional, aren’t all of the laws that came out of similar sessions over the past four decades or so unconstitutional? That would include the law that effectively built Milwaukee Fiserv Forum, where the Milwaukee Bucks play.

    Even some critics of the laws from the session saw the plaintiffs’ legal argument as absurd.

    The Legislature argued that extraordinary sessions conform with the Wisconsin Constitution and state statute. The First Branch can set up its calendar as it sees fit, in accordance with the constitution.

    On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with that legal argument.

    “We are pleased by the Supreme Court’s common sense decision. The Court upheld a previously non-controversial legislative practice used by both parties for decades to enact some of the most important laws in the state,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said in a joint statement.

    “This lawsuit, pursued by special interests and Governor Evers, has led to an unnecessary waste of taxpayer resources. We urge the governor to work with the Legislature instead of pursuing his political agenda through the courts,” the lawmakers concluded.

    Here are the Winners and Losers of Friday’s Supreme Court Ruling.

    WINNERS

    • The Republican-Controlled Legislature — The majority opinion is a clear victory for the Legislature’s majority. It upholds the scores of laws passed in the weeks before liberal candidate Tony Evers became Gov. Tony Evers, and before liberal attorney Josh Kaul became Attorney General Josh Kaul. It also fully restores to their posts good public servants, many of whom were used by Evers as political pawns in the legal battle.
    • The Wisconsin Constitution — Whether or not you like the legislation that came out of the extraordinary session, the Supreme Court ruling shows the Republican majority was well within its constitutional rights to meet and pass legislation. How did the court’s conservative majority arrive at that decision? The state constitution and laws clearly say so. More so, the court’s decision is an affirmation that the constitution is not to be trifled with, and that the founding document designates the Legislature as the First Branch for a reason. The Legislature makes the laws, and it does so on the schedule it sets.
    • The Taxpayer — While the left is apoplectic over the so-called “power grab” laws, several measures approved during the session do protect taxpayers. Many of the reform laws will limit bureaucratic power grabs and bring more oversight to executive branch policies that could be costly for business and average taxpayers alike.

    LOSERS

    • The Lawsuit Happy Left — Will liberals ever learn? Doesn’t appear so. They sued over Act 10. They sued over redistricting. They sued over right-to-work. Their default position over the past eight-plus years it seems has been to file a lawsuit against any bill passed and signed by Republicans. Former Attorney General Brad Schimel used to joke that the way a bill became a law in Wisconsin during the Walker era was that the Republican-controlled Legislature passed it, Democrats quickly challenged it in a liberal Madison court where it was struck down, ultimately to be ruled constitutional by higher courts. Democrats and their liberal, grow-government allies have cost state taxpayers untold millions of dollars over the past eight years hoping to use activist courts to further their political agenda.
    •  Gov. Tony Evers — The Democrat lamented Friday’s ruling, calling it “all too predictable.” In a press release the governor said the decision is “based on a desired political outcome, not the plain meaning and text of the constitution.” As noted, the Wisconsin Constitution is crystal clear on the authority of the legislative branch. Evers and fellow liberals hoped to block legislation they didn’t like through a faulty interpretation of the law that didn’t hold water upon sober review. Sour grapes aside, Evers, his grow-government administration, and liberal policy defender Attorney General Josh Kaul do lose a great deal in this ruling. There is now a greater legislative check on potential abuses of the executive branch.
    • Supreme Court Minority – Again, the liberal justices on the state Supreme Court never cease to amaze. Long-time justices Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley have been particularly consistent in their defense of the political left at the expense of the constitution. Friday’s ruling is just the latest example. Written by the court’s newest liberal addition, Justice Rebecca Dallet, the dissenting opinion does some amazing jurisprudence gymnastics to arrive at its core belief — that the extraordinary session “subverts the plain text of Article IV, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.” Spoiler Alert: As the majority opinion notes, the session did no such thing.

    Wait! There’s more, from Wisconsin Public Radio:

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a conservative advocacy group in a case that will shift oversight of some school policies from the state schools superintendent to the governor.

    The court ruled 4-2 in the case that began when Gov. Tony Evers was state schools superintendent and former Gov. Scott Walker was in office.

    In the case, then-superintendent Evers argued he did not need to get executive approval for rules he wrote for the state Department of Public Instruction, despite a state law called the REINS Act, which requires state agencies to get approval from the governor’s office and state Department of Administration, which is controlled by the governor.

    The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit in 2017, arguing Evers, as superintendent, wasn’t following the law adopted that same year.

    Evers argued the state schools superintendent is a publicly elected, rather than appointed, state officeholder with executive power, thereby allowing him to circumvent the REINS requirement.

    The court rejected that argument.

    The decision split along the court’s ideological lines, with conservatives writing the majority opinion.

    “Article X, Section 1 vests supervision of public instruction, an executive function, in the (superintendent),” the opinion reads. “In contrast, when the (superintendent), through the (Department of Public Instruction), promulgates rules, the (superintendent) is exercising legislative power that comes not from the constitution but the legislature.”

    Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote a consenting opinion with the majority, but noted an area of disagreement.

    “I join the opinion except for those portions espousing the ostensible importance and necessity of the legislature’s delegation of power to the administrative state,” Bradley wrote. “The concentration of power within an administrative leviathan clashes with the constitutional allocation of power among the elected and accountable branches of government at the expense of individual liberty.”

    Justice Shirley Abrahamson withdrew from the case. Liberal Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet dissented, with Bradley writing the minority opinion. …

    The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty lauded the ruling Tuesday morning. The organization brought the case on behalf of a public school teacher, Kristi Koschkee, who said she was “thrilled” by the decision.

    “As a public school teacher and taxpayer, I am thrilled that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has recognized that the Superintendent of Public Instruction must follow the law and allowed for greater oversight on the Department of Public Instruction, an agency that is notoriously hostile to K-12 education reform,” Koschkee said in a prepared statement.

    Certainly partisans tend to favor whichever branch(es) of government they’re in charge of.  Fortunately Evers’ party is not in charge of the Legislature or the Supreme Court.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Tony Evers and the Supremes
Previous Page
1 … 361 362 363 364 365 … 1,034
Next Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog

The thoughts of a journalist/libertarian–conservative/Christian husband, father, Eagle Scout and aficionado of obscure rock music. Thoughts herein are only the author’s and not necessarily the opinions of his family, friends, neighbors, church members or past, present or future employers.

  • Steve
    • About, or, Who is this man?
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Adventures in ruralu0026nbsp;inkBack in June 2009, I was driving somewhere through a rural area. And for some reason, I had a flashback to two experiences in my career about that time of year many years ago. In 1988, eight days after graduating from the University of Wisconsin, I started work at the Grant County Herald Independent in Lancaster as a — well, the — reporter. Four years after that, on my 27th birthday, I purchased, with a business partner, the Tri-County Press in Cuba City, my first business venture. Both were experiences about which Wisconsin author Michael Perry might write. I thought about all this after reading a novel, The Deadline, written by a former newspaper editor and publisher. (Now who would write a novel about a weekly newspaper?) As a former newspaper owner, I picked at some of it — why finance a newspaper purchase through the bank if the seller is willing to finance it? Because the mean bank lender is a plot point! — and it is much more interesting than reality, but it is very well written, with a nicely twisting plot, and quite entertaining, again more so than reality. There is something about that first job out of college that makes you remember it perhaps more…
    • Adventures in radioI’ve been in the full-time work world half my life. For that same amount of time I’ve been broadcasting sports as a side interest, something I had wanted to since I started listening to games on radio and watching on TV, and then actually attending games. If you ask someone who’s worked in radio for some time about the late ’70s TV series “WKRP in Cincinnati,” most of them will tell you that, if anything, the series understated how wacky working in radio can be. Perhaps the funniest episode in the history of TV is the “WKRP” episode, based on a true story, about the fictional radio station’s Thanksgiving promotion — throwing live turkeys out of a helicopter under the mistaken belief that, in the words of WKRP owner Arthur Carlson, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0] I’ve never been involved in anything like that. I have announced games from the roofs of press boxes (once on a nice day, and once in 50-mph winds), from a Mississippi River bluff (more on that later), and from the front row of the second balcony of the University of Wisconsin Fieldhouse (great view, but not a place to go if…
    • “Good morning/afternoon/evening, ________ fans …”
    • My biggest storyEarlier this week, while looking for something else, I came upon some of my own work. (I’m going to write a blog someday called “Things I Found While Looking for Something Else.” This is not that blog.) The Grant County Sheriff’s Department, in the county where I used to live, has a tribute page to the two officers in county history who died in the line of duty. One is William Loud, a deputy marshal in Cassville, shot to death by two bank robbers in 1912. The other is Tom Reuter, a Grant County deputy sheriff who was shot to death at the end of his 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift March 18, 1990. Gregory Coulthard, then a 19-year-old farmhand, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and is serving a life sentence, with his first eligibility for parole on March 18, 2015, just 3½ years from now. I’ve written a lot over the years. I think this, from my first two years in the full-time journalism world, will go down as the story I remember the most. For journalists, big stories contain a paradox, which was pointed out in CBS-TV’s interview of Andy Rooney on his last “60 Minutes” Sunday. Morley Safer said something along the line…
  • Food and drink
    • The Roesch/Prestegard familyu0026nbsp;cookbookFrom the family cookbook(s) All the families I’m associated with love to eat, so it’s a good thing we enjoy cooking. The first out-of-my-house food memory I have is of my grandmother’s cooking for Christmas or other family occasions. According to my mother, my grandmother had a baked beans recipe that she would make for my mother. Unfortunately, the recipe seems to have  disappeared. Also unfortunately, my early days as a picky, though voluminous, eater meant I missed a lot of those recipes made from such wholesome ingredients as lard and meat fat. I particularly remember a couple of meals that involve my family. The day of Super Bowl XXXI, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and a group of their friends got together to share lots of food and cheer on the Packers to their first NFL title in 29 years. (After which Jannan and I drove to Lambeau Field in the snow,  but that’s another story.) Then, on Dec. 31, 1999, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and Jannan and I (along with Michael in utero) had a one-course-per-hour meal to appropriately end years beginning with the number 1. Unfortunately I can’t remember what we…
    • SkålI was the editor of Marketplace Magazine for 10 years. If I had to point to one thing that demonstrates improved quality of life since I came to Northeast Wisconsin in 1994, it would be … … the growth of breweries and  wineries in Northeast Wisconsin. The former of those two facts makes sense, given our heritage as a brewing state. The latter is less self-evident, since no one thinks of Wisconsin as having a good grape-growing climate. Some snobs claim that apple or cherry wines aren’t really wines at all. But one of the great facets of free enterprise is the opportunity to make your own choice of what food and drink to drink. (At least for now, though some wish to restrict our food and drink choices.) Wisconsin’s historically predominant ethnic group (and our family’s) is German. Our German ancestors did unfortunately bring large government and high taxes with them, but they also brought beer. Europeans brought wine with them, since they came from countries with poor-quality drinking water. Within 50 years of a wave of mid-19th-century German immigration, brewing had become the fifth largest industry in the U.S., according to Maureen Ogle, author of Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer. Beer and wine have…
  • Wheels
    • America’s sports carMy birthday in June dawned without a Chevrolet Corvette in front of my house. (The Corvette at the top of the page was featured at the 2007 Greater Milwaukee Auto Show. The copilot is my oldest son, Michael.) Which isn’t surprising. I have three young children, and I have a house with a one-car garage. (Then again, this would be more practical, though a blatant pluck-your-eyes-out violation of the Corvette ethos. Of course, so was this.) The reality is that I’m likely to be able to own a Corvette only if I get a visit from the Corvette Fairy, whose office is next door to the Easter Bunny. (I hope this isn’t foreshadowing: When I interviewed Dave Richter of Valley Corvette for a car enthusiast story in the late great Marketplace Magazine, he said that the most popular Corvette in most fans’ minds was a Corvette built during their days in high school. This would be a problem for me in that I graduated from high school in 1983, when no Corvette was built.) The Corvette is one of those cars whose existence may be difficult to understand within General Motors Corp. The Corvette is what is known as a “halo car,” a car that drives people into showrooms, even if…
    • Barges on fouru0026nbsp;wheelsI originally wrote this in September 2008.  At the Fox Cities Business Expo Tuesday, a Smart car was displayed at the United Way Fox Cities booth. I reported that I once owned a car into which trunk, I believe, the Smart could be placed, with the trunk lid shut. This is said car — a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice coupe (ours was dark red), whose doors are, I believe, longer than the entire Smart. The Caprice, built down Interstate 90 from us Madisonians in Janesville (a neighbor of ours who worked at the plant probably helped put it together) was the flagship of Chevy’s full-size fleet (which included the stripper Bel Air and middle-of-the-road Impala), featuring popular-for-the-time vinyl roofs, better sound insulation, an upgraded cloth interior, rear fender skirts and fancy Caprice badges. The Caprice was 18 feet 1 inch long and weighed 4,300 pounds. For comparison: The midsize Chevrolet of the ear was the Malibu, which was the same approximate size as the Caprice after its 1977 downsizing. The compact Chevrolet of the era was the Nova, which was 200 inches long — four inches longer than a current Cadillac STS. Wikipedia’s entry on the Caprice has this amusing sentence: “As fuel economy became a bigger priority among Americans…
    • Behind the wheel
    • Collecting only dust or rust
    • Coooooooooooupe!
    • Corvettes on the screen
    • The garage of misfit cars
    • 100 years (and one day) of our Chevrolets
    • They built Excitement, sort of, once in a while
    • A wagon by any otheru0026nbsp;nameFirst written in 2008. You will see more don’t-call-them-station-wagons as you drive today. Readers around my age have probably had some experience with a vehicle increasingly rare on the road — the station wagon. If you were a Boy Scout or Girl Scout, or were a member of some kind of youth athletic team, or had a large dog, or had relatives approximately your age, or had friends who needed to be transported somewhere, or had parents who occasionally had to haul (either in the back or in a trailer) more than what could be fit inside a car trunk, you (or, actually, your parents) were the target demographic for the station wagon. “Station wagons came to be like covered wagons — so much family activity happened in those cars,” said Tim Cleary, president of the American Station Wagon Owners Association, in Country Living magazine. Wagons “were used for everything from daily runs to the grocery store to long summer driving trips, and while many men and women might have wanted a fancier or sportier car, a station wagon was something they knew they needed for the family.” The “station wagon” originally was a vehicle with a covered seating area to take people between train stations…
    • Wheels on theu0026nbsp;screenBetween my former and current blogs, I wrote a lot about automobiles and TV and movies. Think of this post as killing two birds (Thunderbirds? Firebirds? Skylarks?) with one stone. Most movies and TV series view cars the same way most people view cars — as A-to-B transportation. (That’s not counting the movies or series where the car is the plot, like the haunted “Christine” or “Knight Rider” or the “Back to the Future” movies.) The philosophy here, of course, is that cars are not merely A-to-B transportation. Which disqualifies most police shows from what you’re about to read, even though I’ve watched more police video than anything else, because police cars are plain Jane vehicles. The highlight in a sense is in the beginning: The car chase in my favorite movie, “Bullitt,” featuring Steve McQueen’s 1968 Ford Mustang against the bad guys’ 1968 Dodge Charger: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc2RdFuOxIu0026amp;fmt=18] One year before that (but I didn’t see this until we got Telemundo on cable a couple of years ago) was a movie called “Operación 67,” featuring (I kid you not) a masked professional wrestler, his unmasked sidekick, and some sort of secret agent plot. (Since I don’t know Spanish and it’s not…
    • While riding in my Cadillac …
  • Entertainments
    • Brass rocksThose who read my former blog last year at this time, or have read this blog over the past months, know that I am a big fan of the rock group Chicago. (Back when they were a rock group and not a singer of sappy ballads, that is.) Since rock music began from elements of country music, jazz and the blues, brass rock would seem a natural subgenre of rock music. A lot of ’50s musical acts had saxophone players, and some played with full orchestras … [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPS-WuUKUE] … but it wasn’t until the more-or-less simultaneous appearances of Chicago and Blood Sweat u0026amp; Tears on the musical scene (both groups formed in 1967, both had their first charting singles in 1969, and they had the same producer) that the usual guitar/bass/keyboard/drum grouping was augmented by one or more trumpets, a sax player and a trombone player. While Chicago is my favorite group (but you knew that already), the first brass rock song I remember hearing was BSu0026amp;T’s “Spinning Wheel” — not in its original form, but on “Sesame Street,” accompanied by, yes, a giant spinning wheel. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi9sLkyhhlE] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWSOuNsN20] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9U34uPjz-g] I remember liking Chicago’s “Just You ‘n Me” when it was released as a single, and…
    • Drive and Eat au0026nbsp;RockThe first UW home football game of each season also is the opener for the University of Wisconsin Marching Band, the world’s finest college marching band. (How the UW Band has not gotten the Sudler Trophy, which is to honor the country’s premier college marching bands, is beyond my comprehension.) I know this because I am an alumnus of the UW Band. I played five years (in the last rank of the band, Rank 25, motto: “Where Men Are Tall and Run-On Is Short”), marching in 39 football games at Camp Randall Stadium, the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Memorial Stadium at the University of Illinois (worst artificial turf I had ever seen), the University of Nevada–Las Vegas’ Sam Boyd Silver Bowl, the former Dyche Stadium at Northwestern University, five high school fields and, in my one bowl game, Legion Field in Birmingham, Ala., site of the 1984 Hall of Fame Bowl. The UW Band was, without question, the most memorable experience of my college days, and one of the most meaningful experiences of my lifetime. It was the most physical experience of my lifetime, to be sure. Fifteen minutes into my first Registration…
    • Keep on rockin’ in the freeu0026nbsp;worldOne of my first ambitions in communications was to be a radio disc jockey, and to possibly reach the level of the greats I used to listen to from WLS radio in Chicago, which used to be one of the great 50,000-watt AM rock stations of the country, back when they still existed. (Those who are aficionados of that time in music and radio history enjoyed a trip to that wayback machine when WLS a Memorial Day Big 89 Rewind, excerpts of which can be found on their Web site.) My vision was to be WLS’ afternoon DJ, playing the best in rock music between 2 and 6, which meant I wouldn’t have to get up before the crack of dawn to do the morning show, yet have my nights free to do whatever glamorous things big-city DJs did. Then I learned about the realities of radio — low pay, long hours, zero job security — and though I have dabbled in radio sports, I’ve pretty much cured myself of the idea of working in radio, even if, to quote WAPL’s Len Nelson, “You come to work every day just like everybody else does, but we’re playing rock ’n’ roll songs, we’re cuttin’ up.…
    • Monday on the flight line, not Saturday in the park
    • Music to drive by
    • The rock ofu0026nbsp;WisconsinWikipedia begins its item “Music of Wisconsin” thusly: Wisconsin was settled largely by European immigrants in the late 19th century. This immigration led to the popularization of galops, schottisches, waltzes, and, especially, polkas. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl7wCczgNUc] So when I first sought to write a blog piece about rock musicians from Wisconsin, that seemed like a forlorn venture. Turned out it wasn’t, because when I first wrote about rock musicians from Wisconsin, so many of them that I hadn’t mentioned came up in the first few days that I had to write a second blog entry fixing the omissions of the first. This list is about rock music, so it will not include, for instance, Milwaukee native and Ripon College graduate Al Jarreau, who in addition to having recorded a boatload of music for the jazz and adult contemporary/easy listening fan, also recorded the theme music for the ’80s TV series “Moonlighting.” Nor will it include Milwaukee native Eric Benet, who was for a while known more for his former wife, Halle Berry, than for his music, which includes four number one singles on the Ru0026amp;B charts, “Spend My Life with You” with Tamia, “Hurricane,” “Pretty Baby” and “You’re the Only One.” Nor will it include Wisconsin’s sizable contributions to big…
    • Steve TV: All Steve, All the Time
    • “Super Steve, Man of Action!”
    • Too much TV
    • The worst music of allu0026nbsp;timeThe rock group Jefferson Airplane titled its first greatest-hits compilation “The Worst of Jefferson Airplane.” Rolling Stone magazine was not being ironic when it polled its readers to decide the 10 worst songs of the 1990s. I’m not sure I agree with all of Rolling Stone’s list, but that shouldn’t be surprising; such lists are meant for debate, after all. To determine the “worst,” songs appropriate for the “Vinyl from Hell” segment that used to be on a Madison FM rock station, requires some criteria, which does not include mere overexposure (for instance, “Macarena,” the video of which I find amusing since it looks like two bankers are singing it). Before we go on: Blog posts like this one require multimedia, so if you find a song you hate on this blog, I apologize. These are also songs that I almost never listen to because my sound system has a zero-tolerance policy — if I’m listening to the radio or a CD and I hear a song I don’t like, it’s, to quote Bad Company, gone gone gone. My blonde wife won’t be happy to read that one of her favorite ’90s songs, 4 Non Blondes’ “What’s Up,” starts the list. (However,…
    • “You have the right to remain silent …”
  • Madison
    • Blasts from the Madison media past
    • Blasts from my Madison past
    • Blasts from our Madison past
    • What’s the matter with Madison?
    • Wisconsin – Madison = ?
  • Sports
    • Athletic aesthetics, or “cardinal” vs. “Big Red”
    • Choose your own announcer
    • La Follette state 1982 (u0022It was 30 years ago todayu0022)
    • The North Dakota–Wisconsin Hockey Fight of 1982
    • Packers vs. Brewers
  • Hall of Fame
    • The case(s) against teacher unions
    • The Class of 1983
    • A hairy subject, or face the face
    • It’s worse than you think
    • It’s worse than you think, 2010–11 edition
    • My favorite interview subject of all time
    • Oh look! Rural people!
    • Prestegard for president!
    • Unions vs. the facts, or Hiding in plain sight
    • When rhetoric goes too far
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
 

Loading Comments...
 

    • Subscribe Subscribed
      • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
      • Join 198 other subscribers
      • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
      • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
      • Subscribe Subscribed
      • Sign up
      • Log in
      • Report this content
      • View site in Reader
      • Manage subscriptions
      • Collapse this bar
    %d