Today in 1953, Victor Borge’s “Comedy in Music” opened on Broadway, closing 849 performances later. (Pop.)
Today in 1960, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs released “Stay,” which would become the shortest number one single of all time:
The number one single today in 1965:
Today in 1971, Rod Stewart had the number one album, “Every Picture Tells a Story,” and single:
Today in 1983, the number one British single was a song whose original title, “Pass the Kutchie,” was changed to avoid its being banned due to drug references. So, of course, the new song title came to mean the original title:
Today in 2008, Pink had Britain’s number one album, “Funhouse.” The album’s title was changed from its original name for some strange reason:
Birthdays begin with Mike Rutherford of Genesis:
Gordon Sumner is better known as Sting:
Greg Jennings, not of the Packers, but of Restless Heart:
Robbie Nevil:
Today’s final birthday: Back in my first journalism job, I got a news release package from a record company announcing a shopping mall tour for a new female artist. My part-time colleague and I decided this was a stupid idea going nowhere and threw it into the vertical file. Who was the new artist? Tiffany:
Some enterprising individual designed a logo for this weekend and possibly longer:
It seems like Wisconsinites are being blessed by big sports weekends more and more these days.
Our sports cornucopia begins with the Brewers’ second appearance in the National League Division Series in four years, after their first division title since their American League East title in 1982. That season, of course, went farther than 2008, when the Brewers lost their first playoff series:
The 2008 Brewers’ postseason was disappointing as are all that don’t end in a World Series win. But the 2008 Brewers seemed on the cusp of big things, even though they didn’t play like that in September and had to win their playoff berth on the last day of the season.
This postseason seems as if it’s the Brewers’ last, best hope for a title. The round mound of pound, Prince Fielder, seems to be on his way out to an American League team where he can be their designated hitter, with no obvious replacement on the roster. The Brewers traded away most of their minor-league prospects to dramatically improve their pitching. And they did improve their pitching, so it’s ironic that their best starter (Yovani Gallardo, who starts game 1 against Arizona Saturday afternoon) and closer (John Axford) are homegrown products. (Sort of, in Axford’s case; he was in the Reds’ and Yankees’ minor leagues, but never pitched in the majors before signing with the Brewers in 2008 and arriving in Milwaukee barely a year later.)
One thing the Brewers haven’t improved is their defense, which statistically isn’t very good. Baseball experts scowled earlier this year that the Brewers were trying to win with poor defense. And the Brewers finished 24th out of 30 in fielding percentage, though their Defense Efficiency Package was 16th. One could wonder how important defense is, however, given that there are as many teams in the playoffs that finished in the top eight in fielding (Philadelphia, Tampa Bay and Arizona) as in the bottom eight (St. Louis, Milwaukee and Texas).
This team compares mostly favorably to the 1982 Brewers in terms of team color. The ’82 Brewers had Robin Yount; the ’11 Brewers have Ryan Braun. The ’82 Brewers had Rollie Fingers and his handlebar mustache until his late-season injury; the ’11 Brewers have John Axford and his Zappa mustache. (Read here for facial hair definitions.) The out-there personality of Nyjer Morgan (loved by his teammates, close to hated by their opposition) lacks a match in ’82, but the ’11 Brewers have no one as, well, ugly as Gorman Thomas and Pete Vuckovich. (A book about the ’82 Brewers chronicled an insult contest between Thomas and Vuckovich with one claiming the other’s face looked as if it had lost an acid fight.)
The ’82 Brewers’ power (216 home runs) was better distributed than the ’11 Brewers (185 home runs), whose biggest sticks (not to mention providers of the most majestic home runs you’ll ever see, homers where drinks should be served after the Fasten Seat Belt lights go out) are Braun and Fielder. Then again, few teams today have a 6-foot-6 leadoff hitter with some power (26 home runs) and a second baseman who hit his share of home runs before his ankle injury (20). Yuniesky Betancourt appeared to be the worst shortstop in baseball to begin the season, but he became at least serviceable by the end.
The ’82 Brewers were a veteran team, and the ’11 Brewers are still relatively young. This year’s team is slightly more home-grown: 1982 starters: 3B Paul Molitor (Brewers), SS Robin Yount (Brewers), 1B Cecil Cooper (traded from the Red Sox), C Ted Simmons (traded from the Cardinals), LF Ben Oglivie (formerly with the Tigers), CF Gorman Thomas (traded from and to the Brewers), DHs Don Money (Brewers) and Roy Howell (formerly with the Blue Jays), RF Charlie Moore (Brewers) and 2B Jim Gantner (Brewers). 1982 pitchers: Starters Mike Caldwell (formerly with the Reds), Don Sutton (formerly with the Astros and Dodgers), Pete Vuckovich (traded from the Cardinals) and Moose Haas (Brewers); reliever/starter Jim Slaton (traded to and from the Tigers), closer Rollie Fingers (free agent formerly with the Athletics and Padres). 2011 starters: RF Corey Hart (Brewers), CFs Nyjer Morgan (traded from the Nationals) and Carlos Gomez (traded from the Twins), LF Ryan Braun (Brewers), 1B Prince Fielder (Brewers), 2B Rickie Weeks (Brewers), SS Yuniesky Betancourt (traded from the Royals) and C Jonathan Lucroy (Brewers). 2011 pitchers: Starters Yovani Gallardo (Brewers), Zack Greinke (traded from the Royals), Randy Wolf (in order, Phillies, Dodgers, Padres, Astros and Dodgers again) and Shawn Marcum (Blue Jays); eighth-inning pitcher Francisco Rodriguez (started with the Angels, traded from the Mets), and closer John Axford (Brewers after getting cut by the Reds and Yankees).
The 1982 approach was the brainchild of general manager Harry Dalton, who traded for or signed as free agents Cooper, Simmons, Oglivie, Thomas, Caldwell, Sutton, Vuckovich and Fingers. The 1977 Brewers weren’t very good, but after Dalton arrived, the ’78 through ’83 Brewers were suddenly contenders every season. In an era when salaries weren’t so insane, Dalton found the small core of his team and augmented it with trades that nearly always benefited the Brewers more. (Only Brewers fans probably remember that they gave up outfielder Sixto Lezcano, pitcher Lary Sorenson, a pitcher and a prospect to get Simmons, Vuckovich and Fingers, or that they traded first baseman George Scott to get Cooper.)
The 2011 approach was the brainchild of general manager Doug Melvin, who developed more position players than Dalton, but who put together a pitching staff largely by acquisition.
The NLDS starts Saturday at 1 p.m. Six hours later on the other end of Interstate 94, the undefeated Badgers host Nebraska in the Cornhuskers’ first game in the 12-team Big Ten Conference.
The last time the Badgers played the Cornhuskers was in 1974, when a late touchdown pass from Eau Claire native Gregg Bohlig to wide receiver Jeff Mack (whose son later played for the Badgers) beat the mighty Cornhuskers 21–20, a win sealed by a late interception by safety Steve Wagner of Green Bay. My grandfather, a longtime Badgers season-ticket-holder, invited his sister, an ardent Cornhuskers fan from Lincoln. Great Aunt Mildred was, I’m told, mortified at the postgame conduct of the uncouth Badger fans.
And of those still-uncouth Badger fans, one commentor at HuskerExtra says:
Madtown is a great place for a game…festive atmosphere. However, if you’re going, be prepared for some interesting fan traditions. Besides the “Jump Around”, there is the cheer when an opposing player gets hurt, “Shoot him like a horse!” That is one of the nicer cheers. There are others that wouldn’t make it through the LITR profanity filter. Having sat in the student section at Memorial Stadium in recent years, it makes me realize how true it is, “There’s no place like Nebraska.” Stay classy Husker fans.
Another has a traditional view of the Badgers that omits their scintillating new quarterback:
The nature of our offense is ‘the big play’. We run 65 plays, and 58 of them are ‘duds’. No big deal. We still score 4 touchdowns and 3 field goals.
The Badgers are boring, like Nebraska used to be back when they won consistently.
New age technology offense vs. old school.
Nebraska: 37
Badgers: 21
This game will look like an intersquad game (the “scarlet” and “cream” Cornhuskers and the “cardinal” and white Badgers), and not just because of their uniforms and white helmets, reports the Lincoln Journal Star:
Barry Alvarez can’t wait to show off to his Nebraska football friends what he’s helped build at Wisconsin.
They’ll certainly notice similarities to what they’ve become accustomed to in Lincoln. Not just the fan support and electric gameday atmosphere, but also the big, burly linemen in red jerseys, some of whom joined the program as walk-ons.
That’s how they did it at Nebraska, where Alvarez played linebacker from 1965 to 1967, and it’s the model Alvarez followed to pull Badger football out of the doldrums. …
“We were able to build a program and sustain it,” Alvarez said.
Much like Bob Devaney did at Nebraska. Alvarez played for Devaney, who also took a lethargic program and turned it into a consistent winner.
Would Alvarez consider himself the Bob Devaney of Wisconsin football?
“I would be flattered if anybody would consider that,” Alvarez said. “We did some very similar things here that Bob did.
“I felt fortunate to play for a great coach in Bob Devaney. He had a tremendous staff. As far as fundamentals, physical play, sound play, all those things are things I took with me and took to this program.”
Alvarez, who began his career as an assistant coach at Lincoln Northeast and head coach at Lexington, said he “stole” the walk-on program from Nebraska.
Wisconsin, like Nebraska, is the only NCAA Division I football school in the state.
“I really felt there were a lot of players that were borderline — guys that you’re not quite ready to pull the trigger on that we would actively recruit,” Alvarez said.
“Quite frankly, they’ve been our savior. I call them our erasers. They make up for any mistakes you make in recruiting.”
The least important game in the scheme of things is the Packers’ game against Denver Sunday during NLDS Game 2 (or vice versa). That’s because it’s an interconference game, which, as we learned last year, counts less in getting a playoff berth than, in order, overall record, divisional record and record in your conference.
Nevertheless, the Packers and Broncos have an interesting history, independent of the abomination that is Super Bowl XXXII. One of the Packers’ most impressive wins in their Super Bowl XXXI season was their 41–3 win over Denver, a game that looked like a Super Bowl preview given that the Packers and Broncos ended up as their conference’s number one seeds. (The Broncos’ path to Super Bowl XXXI was rudely interrupted by a home playoff loss to Jacksonville. We won’t mention what happened the next season.)
In the 2003 season, the Packers needed to beat Denver and, more unlikely, to have the Vikings lose to the Cardinals to clinch the NFC North title; had either of those not happened, the Packers would have missed the playoffs. The Packers handled Denver easily, and then during Lambeau Field’s two-minute warning:
And then in 2007 in Denver:
This weekend once again is why TV remote controls were invented.
Paul Fanlund, editor of the former daily newspaper The Capital Times, deigns to give advice to Republicans, which is like asking the Communist Party how capitalists could be better people, or asking the Chicago Bears how the Green Bay Packers could improve:
I was reminded of Jerry Brown last week.
Brown was elected governor of California again in November by arguing that his experience would help revive a state where, as much as anyplace, anti-government fervor had shredded public schools and other services and ignored infrastructural needs. …
Today, though, California associates describe Brown as stunned and bewildered. His proven techniques for partnering with Republicans have failed so utterly he is “aghast,” according to one friend in a front-page New York Times story on Brown’s political re-education.
Join the crowd, Jerry.
Many of those I speak with regularly describe themselves as more deeply disconsolate about Wisconsin’s and America’s prospects than at any time in memory. And most would not call themselves liberals.
For me, the central disconnect is between the Republicanism that spews from talk radio and what I have always understood and observed to be the true character of the party during my lifetime: a strong devotion to personal responsibility and limited government. …
In Wisconsin, this type of Republican, upon winning the governor’s office and narrow control of both houses of the Legislature, would have passed a bipartisan budget requiring public employees to pay more for pensions and health insurance. There was general agreement that costs were out-of-step with the private sector and what taxpayers could afford. That approach would have preserved collective bargaining rights and allowed the focus to be on bipartisan approaches to fixing a Wisconsin economy so desperately in need of transition from our never-to-return reliance on manufacturing jobs.
That kind of GOP would not have rammed through absurd political maps in an unprecedented assault on fair play, nor pushed through voter identification changes in a transparent gambit to suppress Democratic votes.
But these traditional Republicans, exemplified by governors like Warren Knowles, Lee Drefyus and Tommy Thompson, actually liked Democrats and considered it their job to represent them as well as their base constituency, maybe even winning some to their side. …
So, I’ve a question for you smart folks who preferred the big-tent GOP characterized by compassionate conservatism …
Is what you have now what you want? Really?
Whenever you decide to change things — and we hope it’s within our lifetimes — many Democrats and independents are eager to work with you. It’s what real patriots would do.
First, it demonstrates the bizarre world the left lives in when California — a state with even worse finances than Wisconsin, and a state that has one of the highest rates of outmigration in the country — is a positive example.
David Blaska, a former Capital Times staffer (and out of respect to Dave I will not call his former employer what I usually call it: The Crapital Times), replies pithily:
Once again The Capital Times is asking “When will genuine Republicans strike back?” My old alma mater has sung the same song before. Whenever Republicans take the majority in government, someone from Dane County’s Progressive voice asks plaintively why can’t more Republicans be like Democrats?
The news source that hero-worships the likes of Ben Manski, Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Lena Taylor, 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett, Amy Goodman, fake native-American Ward Churchill, and whatever socialist is speaking tonight at Pres House is in no position to determine what constitute a “genuine Republican.”
My introduction to the Crapital Times’ pervasive bias came during the 1980s, when John Patrick Hunter, who started his Capital Times career with a bang, wrote, in a news story, about, directly quoting, “the so-called Moral Majority.” The Capital Times can be as stupid as it wants on its opinion pages, but allowing its left-wing bias to leak onto its news pages is simply unprofessional, and Hunter, who had been at the Capital Times for more than 30 years at the time, should have known better.
Fanlund’s anti-Republican screed might have more credibility had it even the pretense of objectivity during the years of the aforementioned governors Dreyfus and Thompson. (I can’t comment on what the Capital Times wrote about Knowles, since my parents subscribed to an actual newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal.)
Toward the end of Dreyfus’ one term in office, the Capital Times published a front-page editorial calling on Dreyfus to resign for daring to find a job before his term as governor was up. (Dreyfus, who didn’t run for a second term, became the president of Sentry Insurance, which then was led by a favorite antagonist of Democrats, John Joanis. The same Milwaukee Sentinel story that notes Dreyfus’ hiring also noted that Dreyfus’ predecessor, Martin Schreiber, who after Dreyfus defeated him became a Sentry vice president, was taking a leave of absence to run for governor.)
In the 14 years Thompson was governor, the Crapital Times regularly blasted Thompson for those things that, Blaska also points out, made him a national pioneer — welfare reform and school choice — as well as for his cutting income taxes. According to the Capital Times, every government budget cut is like sticking a knife into the guts of the poor.
As it turns out, Capital Times readers have more insight into the GOP than Fanlund. Comments include:
Perhaps the “real” Republicans tired of seeing the inaction of their party on the very items the writer notes as “core” issues, particularly limiting the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the government.
Tommy was a big spender. Not thinking that is what people want right now. To be a true Republican you need to be fiscally conservative.
Actually a pretty amusing looonnng whining piece written by someone who longs for the “good old days”. Of course if he truly examined his writings or opinions from those days he would likely find that he was desperately disappointed then as well because those with similar political persuasions are never satisfied or happy. Back in the glory days of Jim Doyle the dems pulled all sorts of the same tricks but of course that was ok even though you wanted more.
>> There was general agreement that costs were out-of-step with the private sector and what taxpayers could afford.
That wasn’t what voters heard from the Democratic side leading up to the 2010 election, nor is it the message that Democrats put out now. If it was, you’d see more Democrats in charge of the state right now.
>> approach would have preserved collective bargaining rights and allowed the focus to be on bipartisan approaches to fixing a Wisconsin economy
Again, I didn’t hear calls for “bipartisanship” from the CapTimes in 2010 when Democrats were in charge of our executive and legislative branches. (Instead, people saw more taxes and an attempt to sneak a budget in during a lame duck session after voters had their say.)
Like many independents, I’m happy to wait and see where Walker’s reforms take us. Hope and change we can believe in – at the state level, at least!
“Whenever you decide to change things — and we hope it’s within our lifetimes — many Democrats and independents are eager to work with you. It’s what real patriots would do.”
Except when an ideological disagreement exists, dissenters get the following reaction, which is found a few short paragraphs earlier in this same piece:
“They recoil from a smart and centrist president, one with the brains for pragmatic collaboration, and decide they apparently would rather witness economic calamity than risk anything that might give the guy with the funny name and dark skin an enhanced shot at a second term.”
Sorry if folks aren’t eager to walk over, shake your hand, and ask “what other fine thoughts do you have, sir?”
More CT political spin. The author just doesn’t get it. How about this – the quite majority has been pushed too far. The failure of democrat policies and programs, along with their extreme rhetoric, lying and loony demonstrations are what contributed to their demise.
… This claim that Walker should have just worked with the unions is ridiculous. They never offered the cuts, until after it was clear that Walker was going to curtail their collective bargaining privileges. Those cuts were never offered in any real negotiations. Illinois public employee unions are suing the state over not getting a raise. That’s the kind of cooperation that you get with unions. So to claim that they would somehow have been willing to sit down with Walker and negotiate cuts is lunacy. To be fair, they would have told Doyle or Walker to f-off if either would have proposed the cuts.
I always enjoy how a “progressive” yearns for the days of old. The days that put this Country $15 trillion in debt. The days that put CA in the $20 Billion+/yr in debt. (using brown as your shining star…now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are) and then to top it all off, why not criticize the folks who would like some more accountability when it comes to our elected officials. Our elected officials overseeing the Solyndra loan, our elected officials who paid out $600 million in benefits….to DEAD PEOPLE!!! and now fanlund and the cap times have the audacity to tell us we’re supposed to shut up and take it or get called really bad names. and then he mentions “talk radio”. are you kidding me??? aren’t you the party who supports views from all sides yet you’re so threatened by less than 10% of the stations?? it makes you wonder what it is you stand for when such a small majority is threatening. And finally, you had to reach down for the “dark skin/funny name card” one last time didn’t you fanlund? in case you didn’t notice, others with “dark skin and funny names” are turning on your centrist smart president as well. any time you would like to continue with adult conversations, the real patriots will be ready.
>> California…a state where…anti-government fervor had shredded public schools and other services and ignored infrastructural needs.
Illegal immigrants swamping public services, ridiculous wages/benefits for public servants, failed attempts to even out social strata and general corruption are probably more to blame in that failed state.
>> Brown…exuded a competence and JFK-style charisma
…but lacked actual competence or his own charisma, then? Please, go on.
>> Many of those I speak with regularly describe themselves as more deeply disconsolate about Wisconsin’s and America’s prospects than at any time in memory. And most would not call themselves liberals.
That’s because the “most” in this country are sick of funding every idea dreamed up by liberals. (Actually, this isn’t a refutation, just connecting the dots for you.)
>> central disconnect is between the Republicanism that spews from talk radio and what I have always understood and observed to be the true character of the party during my lifetime: a strong devotion to personal responsibility and limited government.
Right-wing talk radio hits those topics almost ad nauseum. What have you been listening to?
(The voices in his head, apparently.)
What Fanlund doesn’t bother to tell you is that the Republicans he prefers are Republicans on the losing side. Before becoming governor, Thompson was the Assembly minority leader, a position without much power given the Assembly’s dictatorship of the majority. Dreyfus ran for governor because he believed the Republicans were in danger of becoming a permanent minority party in this state. Republicans controlled both houses of the Legislature for 18 months out of the 14 years Thompson was governor. Care to guess how often the Capital Times endorsed Thompson in his four races for governor?
I wonder how “many” Fanlund speaks to who pronounce themselves “disconsolate” about the state’s and country’s prospects notice that the Wisconsin Republican near-sweep Nov. 2 was in response to two disastrous years of complete Democratic control of state government, during which the state amassed $2.9 billion in red ink. Or that Democrats still control the White House and the U.S. Senate. Or that the growth in government at every level has occurred in lockstep with the ratcheting nastiness of political discourse and political campaigns, something for which both parties can be faulted.
I don’t consider myself a social conservative, but I do believe social conservatives have as much right to be heard in the political marketplace as liberals do. Fanlund disagrees. And as for Fanlund’s comment about older Republicans who “actually liked Democrats,” you try finding something positive about such spittle-flinging snarling Dumocrat dogs as Sens. Mark Miller (D–Monona) and Jon Erpenbach (D–Verona) and Reps. Lena Taylor (D–Milwaukee), Peter Barca (D–Kenosha) and Bob Jauch (D–Poplar). They’re the political children of former Senate Majority Leader Chuck “It’s been the rich vs. the rest of us” Chvala, and that’s not intended as a compliment.
I will be on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Joy Cardin program Friday at 8 a.m.
Wisconsin Public Radio’s Ideas Network can be heard on WHA (970 AM) in Madison, WLBL (930 AM) in Auburndale, WHID (88.1 FM) in Green Bay, WHWC (88.3 FM) in Menomonie, WRFW (88.7 FM) in River Falls, WEPS (88.9 FM) in Elgin, Ill., WHAA (89.1 FM) in Adams, WHBM (90.3 FM) in Park Falls, WHLA (90.3 FM) in La Crosse, WRST (90.3 FM) in Oshkosh, WHAD (90.7 FM) in Delafield, W215AQ (90.9 FM) in Middleton, KUWS (91.3 FM) in Superior, WHHI (91.3 FM) in Highland, WSHS (91.7 FM) in Sheboygan, WHDI (91.9 FM) in Sister Bay, WLBL (91.9 FM) in Wausau, W275AF (102.9 FM) in Ashland, W300BM (107.9 FM) in Madison, and of course online at www.wpr.org.
Today in 1967, the Beatles mixed “I Am the Walrus,” which combined three songs John Lennon had been writing. The song includes the sounds of a radio going up and down the dial, ending at a BBC presentation of William Shakespeare’s “King Lear.” Lennon had read that a teacher at his primary school was having his students analyze Beatles lyrics, Lennon reportedly added one nonsensical verse, although arguably none of the verses make much sense:
The number 33 single today in 1973 …
… 32 slots behind number one:
Today in 1977, James Brown’s band walked out before a concert in Florida, claiming that the hardest working man in show business was working them too hard and not paying them enough:
From today in 1979, singles number 16, 15 and 14:
From today in 1984, singles number 17, nine and three:
The number one single today in 1990:
Birthdays start with Jerry Lee Lewis, who celebrated his 41st birthday today in 1976 by shooting his bass player in the chest while shooting at his own office door; the bass player survived but sued:
Manuel Fernandez of Los Bravos:
TV theme composer Mike Post:
Mike Pinnear of Iron Butterfly and Blues Image …
… was born the same day as Mark Farner of number one from today in 1973, Grand Funk Railroad:
This item is ironic because conservatives, and I imagine particularly British conservatives, are often accused of, to quote Jethro Tull, living in the past. Something called BoingBoing.net summarizes:
The UK Labour party’s conference is underway in Liverpool, and party bigwigs are presenting their proposals for reinvigorating Labour after its crushing defeat in the last election. The stupidest of these proposals to date will be presented today, when Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, will propose a licensing scheme for journalists through a professional body that will have the power to forbid people who breach its code of conduct from doing journalism in the future.
Given that “journalism” presently encompasses “publishing accounts of things you’ve seen using the Internet” and “taking pictures of stuff and tweeting them” and “blogging” and “commenting on news stories,” this proposal is even more insane than the tradition “journalist licenses” practiced in totalitarian nations. …
For a party eager to shed its reputation as sinister, spying authoritarians, Labour’s really got its head up its arse.
The Labour Party’s licensing scheme is supposed to be a reaction to the cellphone hacking scandal involving Rupert Murdoch’s London newspapers, most of which do not practice a form of journalism Americans would recognize as being credible. (Whatever you think about the New York Times, it seems unlikely the Times would get involved in hacking cellphones for stories.) The Labour Party’s licensing scheme is more about exerting control over British traditional media, which brings to mind the story of Pandora’s Box.
(As you know, I watch a lot of cop TV, including British cop TV, including the current “Inspector Lewis” series on PBS’ “Masterpiece Mystery.” The heroes of many contemporary British cop TV series get much of their evidence from closed-circuit TV cameras in public places. CCTV is a great plot device, and yet I have yet to hear a contrary comment about the British government’s ability to spy on its citizens. Which makes one wonder how eager Labour really is about shedding “its reputation as sinister, spying authoritarians,” given that Tony Blair’s government installed the CCTV cameras.)
This story drips irony like ink off a newspaper press. A free-market economist would point out the effects of licenses, certifications, registrations and other imprimaturs of official approval. On the one hand, consumers are supposed to look at licenses and certifications as signs of advanced training and skill and professional conduct. On the other hand, licenses and certifications also serve as barriers to entry for those who don’t meet the licensing standard, whether or not the licensing standard is based on legitimate or pertinent criteria.
Britain has a national broadcaster, the BBC, funded by an annual license on televisions. Government financial support of the media is inappropriate, which means that, yes, government should not be funding public broadcasting. (Why shouldn’t government fund media? Because of the favorite definition of the Golden Rule by Lee Sherman Dreyfus, a communications professor before he became chancellor of UW–Stevens Point and governor: He who has the gold makes the rules.) But at least PBS, NPR and Wisconsin Public Radio are funded by general tax dollars, which seems less prone to inappropriate attempts at political influence. (That, however, is an arguable assertion.)
There is additional irony in that British media is more regulated than American media, and yet most American media is less overtly partisan and more responsible than British media. (Truth be told, most of what the traditional media reports is nonpartisan and nonideological, unless you believe there is an ideological agenda behind reporting on car crashes, school news, the weather and the Packers.) In Britain, libel is a crime, whereas libel and slander are civil actions in this country. (And the American standard for proving libel is closer to the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard than the civil preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.) We have the First Amendment, which leads off the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Britain has neither a First Amendment nor a Bill of Rights nor a Constitution. As flawed as our own form of democracy is, we do not have a tyranny of the majority, as is found in parliamentary democracies, and we have regularly scheduled elections, unlike what is found in parliamentary democracies. Notice what changed in this state and in the nation between Nov. 1 and Jan. 1.
And for those who disagree with my assertions in the last paragraph, thanks to not just the First Amendment but technology, the barriers to entry to the media are at about the same comparative level as they were in the days of Ben Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanack.” And the appropriate people who decide whether a media outlet is legitimate or not is media consumers, not anyone else, and certainly not government and its not very well hidden agenda(s).
I’d like to suggest that we Americans are smarter than our overseas cousins, but that’s not necessarily the case. Until 1987, broadcasters were required by the Fairness Doctrine to (theoretically) broadcast opposing views when covering controversial topics, which more often than not meant broadcasters avoided covering controversial topics. This past month, something called the 2011 Wisconsin Media Reform Tour has been crossing the state warning about the evils of, you guessed it, media ownership by those evil corporations, or those evil right-wingers (but they repeat themselves), and getting the airwaves back to “the people,” which always seems to mean the people on the left side of the political spectrum.
Both the British Party and the aforementioned anti-corporate-media types (who seem to forget that every broadcast outlet that is not owned by a nonprofit is most likely a corporation) are fighting a previous war anyway. The Internet is in the process of absorbing the traditional media. In the same way that a free press cannot be regulated, the Internet cannot and should not be regulated either. The reader, listener or viewer — that is, the media consumer — decides what he or she wants to read, and that is how it should be.
I’d suggest that they read the Areopagitica, but they are undoubtedly both ignorant of, and contemptuous of, the English-speaking world’s long opposition to press licensing. But the fact that press censorship is part of their strategy after being defeated crushingly tells you a lot about both their connection to reality, and their core instincts.
I’d suggest the British read their expatriate, Thomas Jefferson: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
This is how you write a compelling lead paragraph:
Younger generations are generally filled with hope and optimism about their future. The newly released iOMe Measure of Millennials finds that 18- to 29-year-olds are not looking at their economic future through rose colored glasses.
The iOMe Challenge was created by a group of “concerned citizens, business leaders and academicians” to survey Millennials, this year on this question: “How do young people in particular feel about all the economic uncertainty in the world today?”
Definitely not optimistic. When asked “How concerned are you about the U.S. financial situation?”, 46 percent said “very” and 33 percent said “moderately.” Which demonstrates that the generation that supposedly is killing newspapers and traditional TV news by their lack of attention to same are nonetheless noticing what’s going on in this country.
When asked how concerned they were about their own personal financial situation, the 46 percent answering “very” was joined by another 27 percent who are “moderately” concerned. Those are good answers as well if they compel those in their 20s to be more financially responsible than those who assumed credit cards were free money.
If you’re an elected official, you’re not likely to like the next part:
Millennials are not at all confident that political leaders can solve the financial issues affecting the country today. Nearly half (46%) say they are Not At All Confident, 27% are Somewhat Confident, 14% are Moderately Confident and only 6% say they are Very Confident that leaders can solve these issues. The remaining 7% are Not Sure. Low levels of confidence in political leaders is a theme that rings loud and clear among many groups in the U.S., especially after the highly intense conflict over the debt ceiling debate last month.
The amusing part that follows is the report that Millennials did not actually pay much attention to the debt ceiling debate. They evidently drew a conclusion from previous experience that Congress and President Obama would play political games and then reach a debt ceiling deal that didn’t solve the debt ceiling problem in the least. And they were, of course, correct.
Not only is confidence in political leaders’ ability to solve economic problems low among Millennials, they also have very low levels of overall political trust in political leaders and demonstrate low levels of political efficacy. These low levels of trust and efficacy, however, are not dramatically out of line with how the public as a whole feels.
The Millennials who are at least 23 got to vote for, depending on where they live, the Dumb and Nastier Eighth Congressional District races between U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen and former Assembly Speaker John Gard. They also have watched Guy Zima, the Green Bay alderman and Brown County supervisor who has spent his entire career believing he’s a Chicago alderman. Most of them voted for Barack Obama for president and Democrats to support him because of what Obama was supposed to represent and despite Obama’s lack of qualifications to be president. “Very low levels” of trust are too high.
So who’s going to fix this mess?
There is not a clear consensus among Millennials on who they trust most to handle economic problems in the U.S. Less than a quarter (22%) say they trust President Obama the most, 14% say Republicans in Congress, 12% say Democrats in Congress, 6% say Tea Party supporters in Congress, 37% say they are Not Sure who they trust and 9% gave other responses from Jesus to Ron Paul, to Santa Claus.
That 6-percent number is a bit interesting given that the tea party is the organization that brought to everyone’s attention the appalling state of federal finances when Obama and Democrats in Congress were perfectly fine with the ballooning deficit. The question does say “Tea Party supporters in Congress,” which could be either a comment about the tea party or about those in Congress who claim to support it.
David Wegge, executive director of the college’s research institute, said the survey results indicate that young adults believe solutions are better found in getting directly involved in community needs rather than relying on state or federal officials to make a difference.
That may be the best news of all in the survey. We voters have been fed a line from both parties saying that you vote for them and they’ll solve all of our problems ranging from the $14 trillion federal debt to bad breath. The result has been ever growing government in every possible way (cost-wise, power-wise and otherwise), while our problems only get worse. And instead of my high school classmates on Facebook who seem to have a childlike faith in government (something that must be in the People’s Republic of Madison’s water), if the survey is accurate, Millennials appear to have paid attention in church when Psalm 146:3 was read: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”
Based on this survey, which is of course just one measure, instead of, as with my generation, whining about their awful lives, Millennials seem to realize that (1) those in government are increasingly not competent enough to deal with today’s problems, but (2) they themselves have to power to address problems they themselves can solve, which is at the closest level to themselves. Or, to use another generation’s phrase, act locally.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 
