The Beatles were never known for having wild concerts. (Other than their fans, that is.)
Today in 1960, the Beatles played their first of 48 appearances at the Indra Club in Hamburg, West Germany. The Indra Club’s owner asked the Beatles to put on a “mach shau.” The Beatles responded by reportedly screaming, shouting, leaping around the stage, and playing lying on the floor of the club. John Lennon reportedly made a stage appearance wearing only his underwear, and also wore a toilet seat around his neck on stage. As they say, Sei vorsichtig mit deinen Wünschen.
Four years later, the council of Glasgow, Scotland, required that men who had Beatles haircuts would have to wear swimming caps in city pools, because men’s hair was clogging the pool filters.
Today in 1968, the Doors had their only number one album, “Waiting for the Sun”:
Today in 1962, the Beatles replaced drummer Pete Best with Ringo Starr. Despite those who claim Starr is the worst Beatle musically, the change worked out reasonably well for the group.
Today in 1975, Peter Gabriel announced he was leaving Genesis. Despite those who claim Genesis was better with Gabriel in the group, the post-Gabriel Genesis outsold the Gabriel Genesis by an order of magnitude:
What’s been happening in Ferguson, Mo., made the Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg think of, of all places, Mayberry, N.C.:
Even when it began, executives acknowledged that “The Andy Griffith Show” was a nostalgic portrait of small-town life. But it expressed an ideal that has leached out of American pop culture and public policy, to dangerous effect: that the police were part of the communities that they served and shared their fellow citizens’ interests. They were of their towns and cities, not at war with them.
Much of the crime-related tension in “The Andy Griffith Show” comes from the contrast between what people think real police work is and what the Sheriff knows it to be. In the pilot episode of the sitcom, the only crime is a case of jaywalking by an elderly woman, brought in by Taylor’s overzealous deputy, Barney Fife (Don Knotts).
In another episode, a manhunt for an escaped criminal brings higher authorities to town. Barney frets: “What are the state police going to think when they come here and find we got an empty jail? They’re gonna we’re just a hick town where nothing ever happens!” For Barney, the welfare of the community is an abstraction compared with his idealized sense of what it means to be a cop.
Sheriff Taylor ultimately outsmarts the overreaching state cops to catch the fugitive. He knows his town well enough to guess which back road the fugitive might use, to read the concern in an elderly woman’s voice and to direct the wanted man to a leaky row boat as an escape vessel, enabling the state police to pick him up without firing a shot.
Not only is this sort of work absent from contemporary pop culture about policing, the idea that such service to the community is not quite real police work lingers under two of the funnier and more thoughtful recent movies to engage with the idea of the idea of an escalated war on crime.
Both “Hot Fuzz,” a 2007 comedy from British director Edgar Wright, and “21 Jump Street,” the 2012 reimagining by Christopher Miller and Phil Lord of the 1987-1991 television series, feature bumbling officers who dream of action-movie heroics rather than their mundane duties. Instead of disabusing their notions, both films indulge these characters by providing threats that demand a military-style response.
In “Hot Fuzz,” rural cop Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) is bitterly disappointed when Sgt. Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg), a newcomer to the small town where Butterman grew up, fails to confirm the idea of urban police work that Butterman has gleaned from American movies like “Point Break” and “Bad Boys II.”
The joke of “Hot Fuzz” is that the over-the-top tactics and weapons Danny dreams of employing turn out to be necessary. A sinister cabal is murdering anyone who mars the small-town charm. Butterman, Angel and their fellow cops dust off their moldering riot gear, take a weapons cache out of evidence and lay waste to the criminals.
In “21 Jump Street,” rookie cops Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are bitterly disappointed when they are assigned to patrol a local park. When action arrives, they lack the basic competence to respond. After they arrest a drug dealer, he has to be released because Schmidt and Jenko forget to read the man his Miranda rights. But their dream of action heroism redeems them. The drug dealers reappear, and Schmidt and Jenko are the only people who are strapped up with enough weaponry to defeat them.
These are the movies that are actually engaging with the idea of police escalation rather than simply adopting such tactics in the name of exciting action sequences.
“The Fast and the Furious” franchise started out with cops investigating street-racing teams who stole electronic equipment. Six movies later, the cops and robbers are using tanks and planes to fight each other over a super-weapon. As Vox culture editor Todd VanDerWerff pointed out, Fox’s recent drama “Gang Related” is premised on the idea that police departments are only responding to criminals’ acquisition of sophisticated technology. “The Heat,” a Paul Feig comedy starring Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock, suggests that all Bullock’s uptight FBI agent needs to do to get better at her job is spend a night out drinking and learn Boston-style police aggression. McCarthy’s character is grounded in her Southie neighborhood, but mayhem takes the day.
In “The Dark Knight Rises,” the conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, the Gotham cops get extraordinary and coercive powers, but even those do not prove to be enough for the police to defend themselves against uber-criminal and terrorist Bane. That is actually rather generous: most superhero movies involve threats so large that the police are irrelevant in the response, showing up mostly in crowd sequences to promise their support on the ground to costumed avengers who are fighting in the air.
The legacy of Mayberry stays alive in the world of television showrunner Michael Schur, the co-creator of “Brooklyn Nine-Nine.” In that show, like ABC’s short-lived drama “The Unusuals,” the police deal with a range of misdemeanors and violent crimes rather than going to war with high-tech criminal syndicates or fiendishly clever serial killers.
The cops are defined by their relationship to their neighborhood and the department. One officer, Jake Peralta (Andy Samberg) grew up in Brooklyn, as did the precinct secretary (Chelsea Peretti), while their colleague Charles is a relative newcomer to the neighborhood and a devotee of the borough’s foodie culture. Their captain, Ray Holt (Andre Braugher) was one of the first New York City cops to come out on the job, but he is ambivalent about the department where he has had to fight to succeed.
But even in “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” cops train to raid buildings. And the first season ended with Jake getting his dream assignment: a chance to go up against some real criminals as part of a task force targeting the mafia.
“We need more TV shows and movies that reflect the world we’re seeing in news reports from Ferguson, and we need ones that do so directly,” Vox’s VanDerWerff wrote. “Fiction helps us process and make sense of the world, and there’s room in the images out of Ferguson (and so many other cities) for an earnest and nuanced consideration of what happens when police officers are given military-grade weaponry.”
It would be nice if culture were honest about the consequences of scenarios that make for high-stakes police chases and artfully choreographed action sequences. But that is still only a partial solution to a culture that is deeply invested in the idea that being a cop means going to war against criminals rather than being a part of a community. I don’t know that we can go back to Mayberry, if it ever existed. But American fiction and American towns could use more cops like Sheriff Andy Taylor and fewer warriors like the ones in Ferguson.
It would be nice if a reporter/columnist/blogger were able to come up with a better comparison than fiction of 50 years ago to real life of today. A more apt comparison for starters can be found as close as Rosenberg’s own newspaper’s archives — coverage of the mid- to late-’60s inner-city riots in such places as Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit, or the upward spiral of crime throughout the country in the ’60s and 1970s.
That’s only the first problem with this analysis. Perhaps I give too much credit to the intelligence or sense of the average person, but I think it is unlikely that many people believe “Hot Fuzz,” “21 Jump Street” (either version), or even “Miami Vice” (original or unwanted ripoff movie) or any other cop drama where an entire National Guard armory’s worth of weaponry is used actually reflects reality. That’s why they call it “fiction.” (And I say that as a fan of many of those shows, including “Hot Fuzz,” which was hilarious.) The existence of the acting career of Vin Diesel (assuming you can call what he does “acting”) proves that the entertainment industry’s first 10 priorities are all about making money. Shoot-em-ups with cartoonish levels of violence and other action make money; slow-paced nostalgia usually doesn’t.
You know what opinions are like, but hers might be more informed if she had actually covered police and courts at any point in her career instead of “culture.” Has she ever sat in a courtroom — not to cover a trial, but for, say, intake court? Has she ever done a ridealong with a police officer? Has she ever covered a police officer’s funeral?
Had Rosenberg ever covered the police beat, she would find out that, while God may not make junk, a lot of people turn themselves into junk. (That may or may not include the Ferguson victim, Michael Brown, who, it turns out, had no adult criminal record, but was a suspect in a strongarm robbery. Brown reportedly was 6-foot-4 and weighed upwards of 300 pounds. There is also a photo, and I don’t know if it’s him, of someone who looks like Brown with bottles of Hawaiian Punch and some sort of liquor, and a gun.)
There are people who literally cannot stay out of trouble, and it’s not trouble of the harmless boys-will-be-boys variety. (Unless you think someone’s making methamphetamine across the street from you is fine by you.) Victims of crime are usually not sympathetic to the excuses of the liberal commentariat for crime. There are bad people, and some of them live closer to you than you’d prefer. Nor are people who end up being indirect victims of crime — people who don’t feel safe outside their homes because of what could be called the pre-arrested.
A police officer’s job can be impossible. There are few lines of work where you can go to work with the chance you won’t ever return home. Police officers get to be street-based lawyers and social workers. Officers get blamed for enforcing laws they had no role in creating. Police work is one of those public lines of work where you’re always questioned and no one’s ever satisfied with the answers. (That can apply to working in the media too.)
Officers often aren’t helped by the people who are supposed to lead them, either. Sheriffs are elected officials, which means they are politicians. Police chiefs are politicians too, because they are appointed by mayors or city councils, which means they have to convince them they’re the right person for the job. Milwaukee is stuck with Ed Flynn, who, apparently acting on the orders of his mayor, Tom Barrett, spends time ripping Republicans and gun owners instead of improving public safety through more effective use of the resources he has.
None of this excuses the actions of bad cops, or the bad actions of cops. Police officers are not above the law because police officers are entrusted with enforcing the law. They have, or should have, sworn an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. and state constitutions, from which come the basis of our laws. For that matter, they’re upholding society’s norms, which date back to the Ten Commandments — you know, don’t kill and don’t steal.
One wonders in cases of police overreaction if that is not a sign of the risk-averse times we live in. Police work has always been potentially dangerous, even in small towns and rural areas. I’m old enough to remember when police officers didn’t wear bulletproof vests. All the uniformed cops do now. There is a phrase attributed to police officers — “better to be judged by 12 than carried by six” — that refers to, respectively, a trial for an illegitimate police shooting, or a funeral. It’s grim and cynical, but it’s reality in our lesser civilized urban areas.
Police concern about being outgunned isn’t without validity. The most famous example may be the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout:
The behavior of the Ferguson and St. Louis County police in this matter is illuminating. They are ridiculously militarized suburban police dressed up like characters from Starship Troopers and pointing rifles at people from atop armored vehicles, i.e. the worst sort of mall ninjas. They are arresting people for making videos of them at work in public places, which people are legally entitled to do, a habit they share with many other police departments. Protecting life, liberty, and property — which is the job of the police — does not require scooping people up for making phone videos; in fact, it requires not scooping people up for making phone videos.
These confrontations are a reminder of the eternal question: Who? Whom? Who is to protect and serve whom here? Is government our servant or our master?
A police department habitually conducting its business in secrecy and arresting people for documenting its public actions is more of a threat to liberty and property than those nine looters are.
… and adds:
Many conservatives realize now that perhaps arming police forces to the teeth wasn’t such a good idea after all. Too bad they didn’t listen to their libertarian brethren back at the dawn of the Homeland Security era. Hopefully it’s not too late to do something about the armies of supercops.
Conservatives and libertarians that are expressing similar concerns may be doing so because they don’t trust the Obama administration (and for obvious good reason), but distrust of government goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers. There are a lot of police officers who went into law enforcement from the military, and not necessarily from stateside service. The North Hollywood shootout may have been the first instance, but you can certainly put a date on when the police got sucked into the military/homeland security apparatus: Sept. 11, 2001.
Want to know, though, how to meet cops who are part of a community? Live in one. That is, a small town, where the police are your neighbors and go to your church. Small towns are not perfect (nothing where humans can be found is), small towns are not without crime (even horrific crimes), and small towns lack the economic opportunity of big cities and the cultural sophistication of, say, Washington, D.C. But there remain places in this country (usually places some distance from metropolitan areas) where people don’t always lock their houses and cars, people go for a walk on a nice night instead of holing up in their house, and people know the police because their church held an Easter dinner and invited the officers who had to work that day.
The National Football League season starts in four weeks.
That may not be as noticeable in the NFL’s lesser markets, as determined by success, or lack thereof, of their teams. The NFL has a rule that blacks out TV broadcasts if the game isn’t sold out within 72 hours of kickoff (or 48 hours if the NFL grants an extension, which it usually does when asked).
This is almost never an issue in Wisconsin, though it almost was last year when the Packers’ playoff game against San Francisco went deep into the week before it was sold out. Home NFL games — even playoff games such as the Ice Bowl — were always blacked out in home markets (in the Packers’ case, Green Bay and Milwaukee) until the early 1970s.
Federal Communications Commission commissioner Ajit Pai believes the blackout rule should be wiped out, and took the opportunity of an appearance in Buffalo to say so:
There’s no better place to discuss that topic than the City of No Illusions. This city has a rich sports tradition—the Bills, as you know, remain the only team ever to win four consecutive conference championships—and Buffalo is legendary for its loyal sports fans.
In some places, fair-weather fans find it easy to cheer for the home team. But Buffalonians don’t have that luxury. They’ve suffered their share of disappointments. As one local writer put it earlier this year, “If you are a sports fan in Buffalo, you know the words let-down, heartbreak and emptiness.” Brett Hull’s triple-overtime goal against the Sabres in Game 6 of the 1999 Stanley Cup. The Braves of the NBA leaving town in 1978 to become the Clippers. And, perhaps most painfully—wide right.
Unfortunately, the heartbreak isn’t even limited to the playing field. Over the last four seasons, nine Buffalo Bills home games have been blacked out in Western New York. And that’s where the FCC comes in.
Late last year, the FCC announced that it would consider eliminating its sports blackout rule. League blackout policies can prohibit local television broadcast stations from airing games. And if the local stations can’t broadcast it, the FCC’s blackout rule prohibits cable and satellite companies (within a local blackout zone) from carrying it. This hurts fans who can’t go to the game. …
In the wake of the FCC’s announcement last year, hundreds of people around the country have given us their opinions on whether the sports blackout rule is necessary today. … And one of the most persuasive proponents for getting rid of this rule has been Buffalo’s own Congressman Brian Higgins. …
To be sure, Congressman Higgins and I don’t agree on everything. He backs the Bills. I cheer for the Chiefs. He’s a Democrat. I’m a Republican. But there are at least three things that can unite Buffalo and Kansas City partisans and folks of all political stripes. First, there’s admiration for Marv Levy, who coached both of our teams with distinction. Second, it has been, is, and always should be the Buffalo Bills. And there’s also this: The time has come for the FCC to repeal its sports blackout rule.
Why do I say that? After carefully reviewing all of the arguments, I don’t believe the government should intervene in the marketplace and help sports leagues enforce their blackout policies. Our job is to serve the public interest, not the private interests of team owners.
During my time at the FCC, I have consistently stressed the need to get rid of unnecessary regulations—of rules that have outlived whatever usefulness they once might have had, of rules that keep hard-working American consumers out of the end zone. The sports blackout rule is just such a rule. …
Right now, the FCC is officially on the side of blackouts. We should be on the side of sports fans like Jon Neubauer, who told WIVB News 4 “I can’t make it to every single [Bills] game, [but] I’m still a huge fan.” I want the FCC to help fans like him watch the stars of tomorrow: the next Andre Reed, who was just inducted into the Hall of Fame (and who has stood up for Buffalo of late); the next Thurman Thomas, who made it to five straight Pro Bowls; and the next Jim Kelly, whose brave battle against cancer inspires us even more than all of his on-field heroics.
Admittedly, if the FCC’s job is not to stand up for the private interest of NFL team owners, it will be standing up for the private interest of Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN, which broadcast the games.
The NFL, meanwhile, isn’t taking this sitting down, reports The Hill:
Just in time for kickoff, the National Football League is pushing federal regulators to keep a rule on the books that forces cable and satellite companies to black out some games. …
The league argues the rule helps teams sell tickets and creates a compelling stadium atmosphere, allowing the NFL to keep games on free television.
League lobbyist Ken Edmonds and other officials met with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s legal adviser last Thursday “to emphasize that the FCC’s sports blackout rule remains necessary and in the public interest,” according to a filing made public this week.
NFL officials told the FCC that the league is working with teams “to make blackouts exceedingly rare” by letting them lower the bar of what counts as a sold-out game, and noted that attendance has increased and the number of blackouts “has dropped dramatically.”
Last year, for instance, just two of the NFL’s 256 regular season games were blacked out.
“Although the League has taken a variety of steps to accomplish that goal, the blackout rule has been a critical contributing factor to that success,” league lawyers wrote.
In recent weeks, the NFL has also sent thousands of letters to the FCC from football fans who want to keep the blackout rule alive. The league also set up a website this summer calling for fans to “protect football on free TV,” offering links to contact Congress and the FCC.
The battle is being waged over the airwaves, too.
[Lynn] Swann, the Hall of Fame wide receiver and former Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate, said in an interview with the NFL Network over the weekend that the rule “helps grow the game and helps maintain it.”
“We need to make sure to protect the game so the widest number of people possible can view it and keep it on free TV for those people who don’t buy cable packages,” said Swann. He has been taking his pitch to local sports reporters and editors across the country.
When the rules were first adopted in 1975, teams said they were necessary to ensure that fans kept attending games in person instead of just watching them on TV. The potential for games to be blacked out encouraged people to buy tickets, they say, and maintain the revenue stream.
But critics of the rules argue that times have changed. The blackout rule allows NFL teams to be immune from the normal pressures of a free market and disproportionally hurts teams in smaller cities, they say.
For now, it looks like the reformers may be winning out.
Last December, the FCC unanimously voted to move forward with a plan to end the decades-old rules.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) pushed strongly for the commission to finalize that process this summer.
So far, the FCC is still reviewing the arguments and has yet to place the item on its agenda.
In the meantime, officials at the commission have held several meetings with the Sports Fan Coalition, a group pushing to kill the blackout rule.
Even if the FCC did get rid of the rule, leagues like the NFL would still be able to negotiate individually with broadcasters, cable providers and satellite companies to black out some games.
One therefore wonders why the FCC is getting involved if the blackout rule could be negotiated between the NFL and its broadcasters anyway.
There is a big issue Pai could have brought up that is an even better rationale for eliminating the blackout rule. With exactly one exception (for instance, MetLife Stadium, home of the Giants and Jets), every stadium built since 1997 used at least some taxpayer funds, and most used a majority of taxpayer funds. (That includes Lambeau Field, the early 2000s renovations for which were paid for by a 0.5-percent Brown County sales tax.) Even the stadiums that didn’t use a majority of public funding for building construction certainly used public funds for infrastructure, including new roads to get to the stadium.
That doesn’t mean that taxpayers should get into NFL games for free. That does mean that taxpayers should at least be able to see what’s going on in the stadiums their tax money built, in this case by having home games on TV.
We begin with an interesting non-musical anniversary: Today in 1945, Major League Baseball sold the advertising rights for the World Series to Gillette for $150,000. Gillette for years afterward got to decide who the announcers for the World Series (typically one per World Series team in the days before color commentators) would be on first radio and then TV.
Regular readers know that this feature follows Wisconsin elections. It’s based on the tradition of the late Wisconsin Public Television show “WeekEnd,” which ran an “Election Hangover Show” to which it invited all its pundits, including me, the Friday after a November election.
The last Election Hangover Show, I believe, was in November 2000. The show technically violated its own premise because, as we all know, the 2000 presidential election took one month to finish. One of my fellow pundits announced he was leaving the show after the 2000 election, but showed up at the show and said he couldn’t leave the show if the election wasn’t over. (The show was canceled shortly after I left due to my new non-media job, but we certainly went out with a bang.)
This primary election appears to be not quite over either, given that there are likely recounts in the Sixth Congressional District, where at last report state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R–West Bend) led Sen. Joe Leibham (R–Sheboygan) by 214 votes, and in the 17th Senate District, where at last report Ernie Wittwer defeated Pat Bomhack by two votes. Yes, two.
Those two races, as well as the 15th Senate District Democratic primary (margin 300 votes) and the 87th Assembly District GOP primary (margin 17 votes) might not be decided for a few weeks. The vote totals aren’t official until absentee votes are counted, and as long as they’re postmarked by election day, they have to be counted by no later than Friday at 4 p.m. Then come the city, village and town canvasses Monday, followed by county canvasses, which have to be completed by Aug. 22. After all that, according to the Government Accountability Board, losing candidates can request recounts, and your best guess is there will be at least three of those. (Yes, this is testable material.)
Older readers may remember the days when the fall primary was in September and not August, and it may be September before we know for sure who is running against whom in those areas. That, of course, puts the eventual primary winner at a theoretical disadvantage, unless candidates start campaigning for November before knowing if they’ll be on the ballot Nov. 4.
Assuming Grothman holds onto his lead, I foresee major problems for Republicans keeping the Sixth in GOP hands. Grothman has said enough things that are Democratic fodder over the years. That wasn’t a problem in his safe Senate district; it is a problem in a less-conservative Congressional district. His Democratic opponent, Winnebago County executive Mark Harris, hasn’t been attracting those kinds of headlines.
The Republican strategy needs to be to attach that Democrat label to Harris, as in every dumb thing Barack Obama and his (mis)administration has done, and telling voters that if you vote for Harris, you’re voting for that, regardless of what Harris says.
On the other hand, Republicans might have a pickup opportunity in the Third Congressional District. GOP primary winner Tony Kurtz uses Ronald Reagan as inspiration, and Reagan of course created the GOP’s 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” And indeed Kurtz spent the campaign taking on U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D–La Crosse), not his two GOP opponents, correctly attaching every bad thing Obama has done to Kind, along with longer-term trends since Kind has been in Congress, such as the metastasizing federal debt.
The additional point to be made about the Third and the Sixth is that only the most optimistic Democrat believes the Republicans are going to lose the House. That will put Kurtz and either Grothman or Leibham in a bigger position of power immediately, in the dictatorship of the majority that is the House, than Kind now has or Harris would have.
The state media fell all over themselves proclaiming the great history that occurred, approximately 12 seconds after the polls closed Tuesday, of a woman candidate for governor winning her party’s nomination. Well, we’ve had the nation’s first mixed-race president the past six years, and how has that worked out for us? (“Он работал чудесно,” says Vladimir Putin.)
Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ possibly surprisingly won the Democratic nomination for attorney general, perhaps because she was located between the two poles of the Democratic Axis of Evil. (That’s Madison and Milwaukee, for new readers.) That prompted the occasionally ditzy Jessica McBride to proclaim that Republican strategists were tearing up their game plans about predicted winner Jon Richards having not prosecuted one single criminal case.
Or not. The campaign of Republican Brad Schimel sent out a news release Wednesday morning claiming…
While I’ll bring nearly 25 years as a frontline prosecutor and 150 jury trials to the Wisconsin Department of Justice, at the time she announced, my opponent had served as a prosecutor on just seven jury trials.
You read right – at the time Susan Happ announced her candidacy for Attorney General, she had prosecuted just seven jury trials.
Moreover …
Throughout the primary my Democrat opponents have been clear about their vision for the Department of Justice. They intend to use the power of the attorney general to advance a partisan activist agenda including blocking a proposed mine in Northern Wisconsin, restricting our 2nd Amendment rights, and reinstating the failed Office of the Public Intervenor.
Independent of how well that Second Amendment thing will go over outside Madison and Milwaukee, Schimel says he’s going to act like an actual attorney general (as opposed to the previous Democratic attorneys general, James Doyle and Peg Lautenschlager) and enforce the law, regardless of which party controls the Legislature and which party’s candidate for governor wins in November.
The Republican race for state treasurer served as a referendum on whether the office should continue. The candidate who takes the position the current treasurer used to have before he went native, Matt Adamczyk, won. That wasn’t the case for secretary of state since both candidates wanted their $70,000 paychecks, but I will continue asking why state taxpayers should spend $5.5 million every year so that Fighting Doug La Follette can continue to collect a state paycheck and, like Democratic candidates for attorney general, follow only the laws he wants to follow.
Who was the biggest winner of the night? Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. That’s because Clarke defeated Milwaukee police Lt. Chris Moews in the Democratic primary despite what the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:
Outside groups led by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s political action committee, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to oust Clarke.
Another political action committee, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, poured more than $400,000 into the campaign. The committee is believed to have been backed by [Milwaukee County executive Chris] Abele. …
In all, outside groups spent more than $550,000 to try to defeat Clarke in what became a political battle of gun control forces vs. Clarke, who received support from the National Rifle Association and other groups.
Clarke received the backing from the National Rifle Association which sent out a solicitation to members to contribute to Clarke’s campaign.
Then earlier this month, the ad war began when a Madison group called the Greater Wisconsin Committee purchased more than $400,000 worth of broadcast ads to oppose Clarke and support Moews. Although it’s not clear who contributed to the committee, some speculate it could be Abele, a multimillionaire who has clashed with Clarke.
And last week Bloomberg’s political action committee, Independence USA, bought more than $150,000 in television ads and took aim at Clarke and his pro-gun stance that encourages residents to arm themselves for their own protection.
The local conservative Citizens for Responsible Government entered the race by buying more than $55,000 in TV time to support Clarke.
A local grass-roots group — Citizens for Urban Justice — bought more than $15,000 in radio ads targeted to African-American voters, to criticize Moews and support Clarke and thank him “for supporting our urban community.” And the NRA said it spent $30,000 in support of Clarke.
Clarke was overwhelmingly outspent, and yet won. This brings to mind Obi-Wan Kenobi’s line from the first Star Wars movie:
Matt Kittle sees an additional winner in Clarke’s race — our constitutional rights:
“Sheriff Clarke deserves the credit for his victory. He worked hard and he stood on his principles and the voters responded,” Cox told Watchdog Wednesday. “The truth is Michael Bloomberg came in in the 11th hour trying to buy a sheriff’s seat and headlines, but there was just one problem: Voters weren’t buying his agenda.
“What this shows is one individual with billions of dollars can’t purchase freedom in this country,” Cox said. “I applaud NRA supporters in Milwaukee County for sending that message to Michael Bloomberg that freedom is not for sale.”
That idea — that people vote, not money — also is strong counter argument to the left’s obviously hypocritical narrative that big, outside “dark” money is thwarting representative democracy. Left-bending organizations like the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy have long pitched their “dark money” conspiracy about conservative big spenders such as David and Charles Koch, even as the Center for Responsive Politics reports that liberal organizations have accounted for 40 percent of spending by groups that do not disclose their donors in this election cycle. …
The NRA’s Cox said the left spent a lot of time and money criticizing the outspoken sheriff for being honest.
“Self-defense is a basic human right,” he said, asserting that message resonated in a county where violence in Milwaukee’s inner city has become all too common. “Elected officials put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don’t get to pick and choose, or at least they shouldn’t.”
Cox said Clarke’s victory will resonate nationally in the battle to uphold Second Amendment rights.
“It shows that the hearts and minds of the American people can’t be bought by a billionaire with a radical agenda,” he said. “Average American don’t want to be told what they can eat and drink and whether they can own a gun by some elitist billionaire.”
If Clarke won, then his opponents, including Abele, lost. Abele had a particularly bad night, having endorsed, and contributed to, two state Assembly Democratic candidates only to see them both lose. Indeed, the Milwaukee County Democrats wanted Clarke to lose, as did Mayor Tom Barrett, because having a sheriff unwilling to knuckle under to the thugs makes both Barrett and his police chief look weak. And in this instance appearances are not deceiving.
After Nixon resigned 40 years ago this weekend, Washington Post Watergate coverage became exemplar for entire next generation reporters.
Political press became obsessed with unearthing scandal, which metastasized throughout print journalism. Gunning for Pulitzer bait.
Particularly when applied indiscriminately across news landscape, and particularly when extrinsic press motivations are so clear.
Irony is we now know Woodward&Bernstein less reported Watergate than had story fed to them by Mark Felt, partisan in internal FBI battle.
I think the 40 year echo effects of Watergate have more to do with the existential crisis of newspapers than anyone would ever admit.
As news consumers, endless barrage of scandal, tragedy, and conflict has real psychological effects. Makes world seem worse than it is.
Of course, the media has basically always made the “world seem worse than it is,” except during wars, when the media has made, for instance, American military efforts from World War II to Vietnam seem better than they actually were, because of military censorship.
The contrary views in the comments are as much name-calling as counteranalysis (with capitalization errors to boot):
there is good reason why none of mr. andreessen’s friends believe as he does. and that is because his conclusion about woodward/bernstein is narrowly simplistic at beast. yes, starting in at least the 1960s, the media became more aggressive, as far as we remember. a lot of bad news was reported: jfk’s assassination and troubling questions about whether the official version was totally true; govt lies about Vietnam; the chaos of the civil rights era and the startling revelation that the united states fell far short of the pronouncements of the declaration of independence; various assassinations etc. all the while the media was becoming more ubiquitous in our lives, evolving into multiple institutions that report every event — from the momentous to the trivial — more thoroughly and more quickly, until now when the reporting of everything seems to be an unending, instantaneous avalanche of information, much of it bad. no longer is there any breathing room between the reporting of cataclysmic events. of course, it is disheartening to be reminded repeatedly of the dark side of human nature.
A tangential point at best. It wasn’t Watergate coverage perse — after all, Woodward and Bernstein were right about Nixon and his gang — but the ensuing scandal-driven coverage of many topics. Andreessen recognizes that, yet he still somehow lays it all at Watergate’s feet. … I would place the slide in trust further back, to the mid-1960s, when Marshall McLuhen advised us to scrutinize how coverage was done, not just at the object of the coverage. I would also add “The View from Sunset Boulevard” by Ben Stein in 1979 and the “Media Elites” study from 1980. Those publications focused and crystalized public distrust of mainstream media.
Marshall McLuhan? How many Americans today even know who he was?
Andreessen’s point that the media engages more in scandalmongering than actual reporting has validity, however. Good journalism doesn’t take place when reporters are chasing awards instead of, you know, doing their jobs. For that matter, good journalism doesn’t take place when reporters are chasing the next, bigger-market, job instead of doing the job they’re supposed to be doing where they are.
Of course, Andreessen ignores the REAL reason Watergate happened. (Click here and be prepared to suspend your disbelief if you dare.)
Cindy Kilkenny notices the reporting of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Dan Bice:
I suspect the reason Daniel Bice from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is fanning the flames of Burke’s wealth again is that desire to sell papers, I.e., feign relevance in a seriously slow election. Incredibly slow. One certainly wouldn’t guess there’s a gubernatorial election in Wisconsin in less than three months.
Records show Burke, her mother and three siblings living in Wisconsin paid a total of $1.77 million in personal income taxes in 2012. That would mean the five Burke family members reported a total adjusted gross income of at least $22.8 million during that year.
Once again, no wonder we have such trouble enticing good candidates to run in Wisconsin. Burke’s wealth a target; now her mother and siblings get a thorough examination, too.
However, Bice does provide credence to the argument that not only is Burke rich, but that wealth isn’t exactly new money. Nor is she self made. Though Democrats in the state are pushing back that Burke wasn’t born with a silver spoon – her father started the company when she was a teenager – it’s rather difficult to argue that daddy’s money didn’t pay for her snowing sabbatical when he guaranteed every child a job with Trek.
“Far too often in the political realm, we demonize success, we demagogue against it,” Johnson added. “What we should be doing is incentivizing success.”
Ya think? No seriously, Johnson is playing this just right, after all he is by implication defending his own right to be rich. If he happens to score a quick political Bazinga! in Governor Scott Walker’s direction, well, those are called bonus points.
Kilkenny’s tweet makes a point few seem to catch:
@Burke4WI ‘s filthy-rich tag by opponents is only useful because @WisDems have demonized wealth.
Kilkenny makes a point Wisconsin Republicans should pick up on:
That’s not news, of course. But it’s where the core of Walker’s campaign should focus. Democrats in Wisconsin have brutalized the wealthy here. That did not stop them from proffering what is likely the wealthiest gubernatorial candidate the state has ever met.
That is the hypocrisy the campaign should take to the voting polls. Not Burke, per se, but the WisDem policy of saying one thing to garner votes, but doing another when it comes to political survival.
Kilkenny’s contention is interesting because there are probably more really wealthy Democrats in the U.S. — to name three, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and George Soros, and before them Franklin Roosevelt and all the Kennedys — than really wealthy Republicans. But to Democrats, wealth is OK if you support the correct political things, and if you don’t, you are the scum of the earth. (That’s why Democrats think Burke is OK and Johnson is not.) There are very, very, very few Wisconsinites that have enough family money to go off on a year-long sabbatical to find themselves, or whatever Burke was able to do with her family’s money.
I maintain, as you know, that the state GOP is wrongheaded with its attacks on Trek Bicycle, a company Republicans would be lauding from Superior to Kenosha were it not for Mary Burke’s political views. The GOP should be pointing out that the policies Mary Burke espouses would be, in fact, bad for Wisconsin businesses, because they would increase costs (by opposing tax cuts and espousing minimum-wage increases) without making Wisconsin businesses more profitable.