The Undefeated is Now Just Another John Wayne Movie

Well, the Packers are no longer undefeated, but are still a lock to beat my predicted 12 - 4 season record.  Still, there were some troubling signs on Sunday other than the mere fact of a loss. 

1.  The press focused on the absence of Greg Jennings as the reason for the Packer's offensive malaise yesterday, but I do not.  Aaron Rodgers is no longer playing "lights out" football.  I am NOT saying he is the reason for the loss, but his play yesterday was not good enough to overcome the problems leading to the loss (as it has sometimes been in the past).  In fact, based on my view of recent games, Rodgers is on a 3 game slump from the unbelievable standard he set for himself early in the year.  Many of his passes yesterday were off the mark.  Not off the mark like Donavon McNabb, but not where his receivers are used to them being either.  He looked nervous in the pocket even before Bulaga and Sherrod were injured and his performance suffered because of it.

2.  Although Rodgers WAS off, the Packer offense MIGHT have been able to avoid the defeat if Jermichael Finley had not ALSO picked yesterday to have a terrible game.  Early in the game, it became apparent the Packer offensive game plan with Jennings missing emphasized two factors.  First, to increase the run opportunities, and second, to increase the involvement of Jermichael Finley.  Ryan Grant's carries were more frequent, particularly early in the game.  The run game was not an overwhelming success, but it was not a disaster either.  Finley was targeted on 10 pass plays during the game, most of them in the first half.   Problem was, Finley's early performance was a disaster.  He had 4 passes that will probably be classified as "drops' (passes off the hands of a receiver that subjectively should have been caught) and another that while not officially a "drop" could have been caught.  If Finley had been catching the ball as his oversized ego and reputation would suggest he should, the Packer offense might not have been misfiring as bad as it was.  Jordy Nelson had a bad day, James Jones was almost invisible, and Donald Driver just doesn't seem athletic enough to get good separation regularly anymore.  The only bright spot - but not bright enough - was the play of Randall Cobb.

3.  But, the entire blame cannot rest with the Packer offense.  The offense is just an easier target because its mishaps have been so uncommon otherwise this year.  Unfortunately, the Packer defense is incapable of bailing out the offense.  While I don't have the stats, I suspect the Chiefs had a remarkably high conversion rate on 3rd down.  I can't count the number of times the defense played pretty well on 1st and 2nd down, only to allow Chief drives to continue with lapses on 3rd down.  [Actually, the Chiefs were only 4 of 14 on 3rd down conversions while the Pack was 6 of 14, but it didn't seem that way to me.]  To emphasize how poorly the Packer defense played overall, consider the Chiefs have only gained 400+ yards on offense one other time this season - against the (until Sunday) winless Indianapolis Colts. 

It has frequently been the case this year, and again on Sunday, that the Packer defense appears disinterested or to not care about playing hard consistently until the other team is within the "red zone."  Against the Chiefs, you could narrow it down further to being lackadaisical until the Chiefs got within the 10 yard line.  The defense has to start playing with the same intensity and urgency as soon as the opponent gets the ball.  Perhaps the most obvious difference with the defense on Sunday was the 0 in the line describing total turnovers by the Chiefs.  On numerous occasions this year the Pack has been able to shrug off poor defensive play by focusing in on game changing turnovers (usually interceptions) by the defense.  The problem is it is unrealistic to be able to expect to generate turnovers consistently.  Sooner or later, you will come up dry.  That later became sooner yesterday.  I think it is naive to believe it is a coincidence the Packers experienced their first loss of the season on the same day the defense was unable to get even one turnover.
 

While the Pack started out looking strong against the run, as the game wore on, it was clear the Pack had a REAL problem with runs to the right side of its defense.  Time after time, Chief running backs would bounce out to their left (against the Packer defensive right) and take a run out wide for big yardage.  Several big screen pass plays were also successful to the same side.  Defensive end Erik Walden was the patsy for this problem most of the game.  However, after Walden got pulled from the game late in the 2nd half due to continued poor performance, Frank Zombo was playing the same end with the same results on the Chief's final drive when the Pack was trying to get the ball back late in the game after the onside kick.

Random Thoughts

Offensive line -  Might Thompson give a call to Mark Tauscher to add depth to a depleted tackle corps?  He is rested and certainly knows the system and blocking assignments.  Who else is available who could fill in as seamlessly if necessary?  Will Bulaga be ready to play Sunday night?  Given how he looked on the sidelines, maybe.  How far away from returning is Chad Clifton?  If neither of them is able to play, I fear for Aaron Rodgers.  In that event, look for the Pack to go to quicker pass plays with less deep drops and less deep routes from the receivers. If they get a significant lead over the now toothless Bears, look for Matt Flynn to play earlier than would otherwise be the case to minimize the chances of an injury to Rodgers.

Defensive line - Jarius Wynn played many more snaps on Sunday than did Mike Neal.  I found that to be curious and somewhat ominous.  I expected Neal to provide a pick up to the defensive line play when he finally got healthy.  If the coaching staff thinks Wynn is better, that does not bode well.  I certainly hope Ryan Pickett will be back in the line up from his concussion next Sunday.  The Pack had absolutely NO pass rush on Sunday (no sacks and precious few hits or hurries) since the Chiefs were so free to double team the outside linebackers because the Packers interior linemen were toothless. 

Idle speculation -  Any day now we are supposed to get a report on whether Nick Collins will be medically cleared to return to play next season, or whether his injury is such he will be forced to retire.  If he can return, great.  But, let's suppose for a moment he can't (which I fear is more likely).  If that happens, look for the long rumored move of Charles Woodson from cornerback to safety to be implemented next season.  I think Woodson does not have the same recover speed and "shut down" cover skills he had before.  Nevertheless, he remains one of the better tacklers and his ball instincts would make him a formidable threat to ball hawk from the safety position.  As a safety, he could still blitz off the corner to good effect.

Finally, while I haven't checked out what the odds makers say, I would not be surprised if the odds of the New Orleans Saints getting to the Super Bowl were slightly better than the odds of the Packers returning at this point.  When pondering that heresy, consider the Packers have only beat 4 teams this year that currently have a winning record (New Orleans, Detroit, Atlanta & Denver), that the Pack is ranked 31st (that is second to last) in defense, and that Drew Brees is on a pace to beat Dan Marino's record for passing yards in a season. 

Favre v. Rodgers

The emergence of Aaron Rodgers as a premier NFL quarterback has resulted in there being frequent questions raised about whether he - or Brett Favre - is/was the better quarterback.  In my opinion, it isn't a close call.  Rodgers is clearly superior.  While Favre may actually end up with greater CAREER numbers for many records, that will be due to his longevity and his durability rather than his quarterbacking prowess.  As a relatively well informed fan observer (which I use to descibe myself to separate me from the more experienced professional prognositcators) Rodgers gives a team ALL of the upside Brett Favre brought to the table as a quarterback, but NONE of the downside.

What is the downside?  The refusal to accept what you see when you see someone covered and try to force the ball in anyway.  The annoyingly predictable practice of throwing a ball "up for grabs" where it is almost certain to be intercepted at LEAST once every game.  The significant number of fumbles when hit in the pocket.  To sum up, Brett Favre hold the NFL record for most interceptions thrown by a quarterback.  How about Aaron Rodgers?

Fewest Interceptions at Time of 100th Career Pass TD, NFL History

Quarterback	Int	Date of 100th TD
Aaron Rodgers	34	Sunday
Philip Rivers	43	Dec. 13, 2009
Dan Marino	44	Sept. 7, 1986
Source: Elias Sports Bureau

Badger First Impressions

Interesting season opener between the Wisconsin Badgers and the University of Las Vegas Running Rebels. 
 

The Badger offense looked great.  Of course, given how terrible UNLV's defense was supposed to be, it remains to be seen how that will translate to other games.  The offensive line again looks to be the strength of the team. 

Running back James White looked as good as he did last year and (to my eye) Montee Ball looked significantly BETTER.  I think his decision to drop 25 lbs gave him that extra boost of speed that will make all the difference.  Last year I thought he looked like a plodder.  This year, he seemed to have an extra gear. 

Quarterback Russell Wilson looked to be exactly what he was advertised to be.  His ability to avoid the rush and turn broken plays into huge gains by running the ball will add a very difficult to defend dimension to the Badger offense.  On the other hand, I felt his accuracy in passing when passing on the run left a bit to be desired.  He missed several wide open receivers.  The wide receivers and tight ends had a good night too (when they got a chance), although I am not sure about depth at the wide receiver position.  If either Toon or Abredaris goes down with an injury, it could hurt.  Depth at quarterback is a SIGNIFICANT issue.  If they lose Wilson, they are in BIG trouble.

Defense was another story.  I found the defensive performance VERY troubling.  A competent offense would have scored significantly more points than UNLV.  The defensive front got very little push and applied not nearly enough pressure.  I thought the linebackers lined up too close together and did not make good quick decisions on where to go or what to do.  The defensive ends did not hold the corners well on runs, and tackling was poor by everyone. 

On the other hand, the announcers claimed the Badgers used very simple defensive schemes and did little if any blitzing.  They seemed to think that was an intentional decision to stay bland because they did not need to do anything fancy to beat UNLV and they wanted to avoid showing their defensive hand to future opponents.  If so, fine.  I HOPE that is the case.  I also heard some of the defensive players talking after the game that they did not know UNLV was going to use the "pistol" offense and that they were unprepared for it. 

If Wisconsin WAS unprepared for it (as the players claimed after the game) that might help explain the poor showing of the defense.  On the other hand, it makes me VERY wary of - and disappointed in - our new defensive coordinator.  Here is an article from the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper from March 5, 2011.

By any name, pistol figures in Rebels' plans

Because rival UNR invented the pistol offense, UNLV football coach Bobby Hauck would rather call the formation by a different name -- if only he could think of something else. Until then, Hauck might simply refer to it as "that offense."  The Rebels have incorporated the Chris Ault Special -- OK, that name might not work -- into their offense during this spring session.  "We'll have to see after spring ball how we like it," Hauck said. "It doesn't change the run game a whole bunch, but it changes some of the angles and some of the tempo. The people that are doing it are having great success in the run games."  That's something a coach like Hauck, who believes strongly in a powerful run game, would love to have. UNLV averaged just 3 yards per carry and 103.3 per game last season.

In the pistol, the quarterback lines up between the center and running back rather than the typical 5- to 7-yard drop next to the ball carrier in a shotgun formation.  "When it first came out, I didn't know what to think of taking the shotgun snap at that depth," Hauck said. "I thought that would be a problem, and it hasn't been."

Given that publicity, why WASN'T the Badger defense prepared for the "pistol?" 


Generally speaking, special teams looked good.  Our placement will get better once Welch returns from his injury.  The returners ran well.  Once they started playing back-ups there were too many penalties, but I suspect that will get cleaned up. 

Cruel & Unusual Punishment?

As a criminal defense attorney, I occasionally read court decisions on what are called "condition of confinement" cases involving whether or not conditions in a jail are so deplorable they violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."  At least one United States Supreme Court decision from 1981 (Rhodes v. Chapman) considered whether a district court was correct in deciding inmates were being subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" by being subjected to being doubled up in cells that provided each inmate with less than the 50 to 55 sq. ft. recommended by prison designers (NOTE - the court found they were not). 

With that background in mind, consider Clark Tyler.  Mr. Tyler is an architect living in the Hells Kitchen area of Manhattan in New York City.  Mr. Tyler (voluntarily) lives in what he euphemistically calls "an apartment" that totals 78 square feet in size.  He shows off his $800 per month rental in video here. 

The "apartment" is a single room (with 78 sq. ft. you expected more than one room?).  Although the dimensions of the rental are not given, it appears to be about 6 1/2 ft. wide by 12 ft. long.   There is no kitchen and there isn't even a bathroom.  He shares a bath that is down the hall with three other such "apartments."  If that isn't enough to convince you Mr. Tyler is the model of efficiency, it turns out his "apartment" is also his "office" since he works from home.

Concealed Carry Comes to Wisconsin

Last week, Governor Walker signed a law causing Wisconsin to join 48 other states in allowing people in Wisconsin (residents and non-residents) to legally carry firearms that are concealed.  While this practice is common in other states, Wisconsin's new law leaves Illinois as the only state not allowing some form of legal concealed carry. 

Between now and November 1, 2011 - when the law takes effect - people desiring to exercise their new right to concealed carry, not to mention businesses and other places open to the public where such persons might frequent, need to understand what the law allows and does not.  Unfortunately, the details are too complicated for this post. 

While I encourage you to contact one of the attorneys at Moen Ehrsam & Kroner for advice particular to your specific situation, general information about the law from the State Bar of Wisconsin can be reviewed here.  The National Rifle Association also provided a bit more detailed summary of the law here

A MODEST PROPOSAL

Jim Tressel's downfall at Ohio State provides the background for this musing into the frequent debate about whether college athletes, whose talents permit the schools at which they matriculate and many others (television and radio networks, restaurants, taverns, motels, etc.) to earn millions of dollars, should be paid for their services. 

While those who advance such a proposal have cogent arguments supporting their views, my conclusion is that paying them is a step too far and not necessary to address the perceived imbalance between benefits accruing to others in comparison to those flowing to the athletes.  Most people who support paying college athletes ignore the reality.  They are already paid, and fairly well at that.

Let us compare how college athletes are paid by their school in comparison with high school athletes who do NOT go on to college.  Let's use Ohio State as an example. 

According to the website for THE Ohio State University, a non-state resident attending the campus at Columbus will incur costs for tuition, fees, and room and board of $33,768 during the 2010 - 2011 calendar school year.  For residents, the cost is $19,584.

Most high school graduates entering the workforce at an entry level full time job would earn about $19,000 (or less) per year.  Certainly, it would be the rare high school grad who would step into a job paying them nearly $34,000 per year.  Not only that, what the University is giving them will provide them with the expectation of SUBSTANTIALLY higher lifetime earnings even if they are NOT one of the fortunate few to go on to the NFL. 

Over a work life, earnings for a worker with a bachelor's degree compared with one who had just a high school diploma increase by about $1 million for non-Hispanic Whites and about $700,000 for African Americans; Asians and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics.

So, all in all, I don't feel too sorry for these poor kids who are getting taken advantage of.  The REAL problem is NOT that they are not getting paid.  The problem is they aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they are being given.
 

If I had a voice for change, the change I would endorse would be simple.  When a college offered a full time athletic scholarship to a potential student that scholarship would NOT be for the 4 or 5 years the athlete was eligible to compete in athletics for the University.  The scholarship would be good for as long as the student can maintain him or her self in "good standing" academically with the University.
 

If the student was not in a position to graduate when his or her eligibility to compete expired because of the reduced load the athlete took due to the rigors of competing at the scholarship level - so be it.  He or she could continue on at the University with all tuition, fees, and room and board paid so long as he or she maintained a "full time" student load, and kept him or her self academically eligible.  Oh, by the way, they get the same resources they did when they were competing (i.e.. tutoring, if necessary).

That serves many goals.  First, it avoids the perception the colleges just use these kids up and spit them out when their usefulness to the college has expired.  Second, it will have an up front effect.  Will colleges still be willing to offer scholarships to the same kids knowing how long their obligation to the kids might extend?  I don't know, maybe or maybe not.  Third, it allows kids to reassess their priorities once they see the goal they were striving for throughout their college eligibility was a mirage.  In other words, now that the player knows he is NOT going to be an NFL star, maybe going to school and actually getting a college education and a degree will be something they will be more motivated to actually invest the time and effort necessary to succeed with. 

Finally, my plan is superior than one sometimes touted by others - tieing eligibility for bowl games to graduation rates.  That proposal will go nowhere because it will affect the quality of the product being put on the playing field.  My proposal will not.  It merely allows athletes to continue to work toward a degree after they are not distracted by their sport.  Furthermore, it has the added advantage that it can be adopted with minimal increased expense for the colleges. 

To the extent that the low graduation rate for scholarship athletes can be solved, my plan will solve it.  If it can't be solved, the inability to solve it will rest SOLELY on the athlete who is unwilling or unable to do what it takes to graduate, not on the University. 

DELICIOUS IRONY

I must admit I have a hard time understanding exactly what to make of a news story making the rounds today (of all days) about voter fraud in Wisconsin.  On the one hand, it seems to demonstrate the real possibility another Republican political operative is either an idiot or a criminal, or both.  On the other hand, it seems to demonstrate the lengths Republicans will go to prove one of their controversial policies is really necessary.  What am I talking about?

As most Wisconsinites know, the Wisconsin state legislature just yesterday passed a bill which, among other restrictions on the right to vote, makes it necessary for potential voters to provide a photo ID at the poll.  Since Governor Walker supported the bill and promised to sign it into law, it seems destined to become law – unless the law is blocked by a legal challenge which establishes one or more provision in the bill unconstitutionally restricts the right to vote (a prospect that is not all that far fetched given news reports which characterize the law as one of, if not the most, restrictive in the nation).

Republican backers of the bill say it is necessary to stem what they claim is widespread voter fraud.  Democrats allege Republicans passed the law to suppress voting from groups that have traditionally voted more Democrat than Republican (for example, the poor, students, and the elderly) rather than out of a desire to fix any real problem with voter fraud.  The story published today in the La Crosse Tribune provides fodder for both groups.

Marcie Malszycki, 30, an aide to state Rep. Warren Petryk, R-Eleva (one of the legislative sponsors of the voter ID bill), is center stage in this controversy.  She is under investigation for fraudulently voting (for Republican candidates according to her Facebook page) in Onalaska, WI (the locality from which the blog West Coast Wisconsin originates) in the 2008 and 2010 November elections.  While it is understandable a Republican state representative’s staffer would be proud about voting, and especially proud of voting Republican, it becomes a bit less a source of pride when one hears about the possibility that on both occasions, she was living in Madison while working for her boss (the aforesaid Republican legislator) at the state Capitol – which is also in Madison.

Tim Gruenke, the La Crosse County District Attorney, has referred an investigation into whether these actions by Ms. Malszycki constitute the crime of voter fraud Republicans (like Malzzycki's boss) are so concerned about to Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne to determine whether criminal charges should be filed.  So, it seems Republicans may be correct that voter fraud is (at least occasionally) a real problem.  Unfortunately, it looks like the problem may not be who the Republicans thought it would be.

You Think Drinking and Driving Is Bad?

Consider driving while shaving.  No, not shaving that, shaving THAT.  Yeah, that is what Megan Barnes was doing.  Catch the hilarious, and disturbing, story as retold by columnist Celia Rivenback at the following link.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100327/COLUMNIST/100329716?p=1&tc=pg

Here is a photo of the offending driver.

Musings on the Death of Osama bin Ladin

According to a just released NBC poll, 80% of the American Public believe "it was the right decision to kill the al Qaeda leader" rather than capture him.  11% felt it was the wrong decision and 9% were unsure.  While my own opinion would be among the 80% (based on the information available to the public), it really isn't a matter to be decided by public opinion polls. 

As a matter of international law, there is little doubt the United States had the right to kill bin Ladin absent action on his part to unambiguously surrender when faced with the armed force of our military.  By his own words, bin Ladid declared war (jihad) on America.  This was not just words.  He also acknowledged being the person directly responsible for the al Qaeda terrorists who followed his orders to commit the murder of people in the Trade Center buildings in New York on 9/11 and other terrorist actions as ACTS of that war.

By doing so, he became an "enemy combatant," a term much abused by the Bush Administration, but one that certainly applies to Osama bin Ladin.  As an enemy combatant actively involved in the process of warring against the United States, bin Ladin was a fair target for American armed forces the same as he would have been if he was himself actively participating in an armed terrorist attack.

Now, if he HAD voluntarily (and unambiguously) surrendered when confronted by Navy SEAL team 6, they would have been obligated to accept his surrender and not kill him the same as they would have been obligated to accept the surrender of any armed combatant who surrendered on the field of battle.  But (at least so far as the public can ascertain) that did not happen.  He did NOT surrender, making it proper to kill him in battle.

I also agree with President Obama's decision not to release "death photos" of bin Ladin.  Most of the public did not need such visual confirmation to accept the reality of bin Ladin's death.  After all, within days al Qaeda itself confirmed bin Ladin's death which helped satisfy most of the arab world.  Those inclined to believe the American government would lie about the matter were not likely to be persuaded by a photograph (which they would argue had been faked).  One only needs to consider those who remain unswayed by the release of the President's long form birth certificate as an example of my point. 

Although the killing of bin Ladin apparently DID involve something like the mythic "black helicopters" of conspiracy theory lore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter), those who see conspiracies behind every tree are destined to continue to wear their "tin foil" hats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat) regardless of whether the United States publishes a photo or two.  Publishing a photo would just have inflamed the islamic extremist enemies of the United States and helped to preserve images of their martyr.  We are better off without them.

Badgers to the NFL

The Wisconsin Badgers fared well in the NFL draft.  Two picked in the first round (J J Watt and Gabe Carimi) and five overall.  The others were tight end Lance Kendricks (Round 2), guard John Moffit (Round 3) and Center/Guard Bill Nagy (Round 7).  I can't recall a season when as many Badgers were drafted.  Certainly not with as many in the early rounds. 

 

As I expected might happen, John Clay did not get drafted.  Not a surprise for someone who was often injured, ran glacially slow at his pro day, ballooned up to 270 lbs during his last playing season (although he cut down to about 230 lbs. for his pro day event) and showed no pass receiving ability.  While Clay put up big numbers running the ball, the fact that 4 seniors who played on the offensive line (I am including Kendricks here) got drafted might have as much if not more to do with that than Clay did.

 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a headline on the website today saying "Clay heads list of UW's undrafted players."  I beg to differ.  Quarterback Scott Tolzein is also on the list of undrafted senior Badgers who are likely to sign free agent contracts.  There is no doubt in my mind Tolzein will have a better and longer NFL career than John Clay.  In fact, I will be mildly surprised to see John Clay on an NFL roster when the season starts - whenever it starts.

 

Some people commenting on the Journal Sentinel blog criticized Clay, and in doing so also criticized former Badger running back PJ Hill, for leaving school and entering the NFL draft with a year of college eligibility remaining.  I do not.  Clay (and Hill) left school to enter the draft because it was their best shot at the NFL.  If Clay returned next year, I doubt he would be the starting tailback even if healthy.  He might not even be the first backup.  If he tried to enter the NFL after a season as a little used back up for a Badger team that is not likely to be competing for a Big 10 title do you think he would have ANY chance of being drafted - or even signed as a free agent?  I don't.  Hill made the same choice for the same reasons.  Taking a long shot is better than not getting a shot at all.  Both made the right call. 

Thoughts on the 2011 Packer Draft

I don't have any pithy comments about whether Thompson did right or wrong by drafting who he drafted (although I must say I have no quarrel with any of his picks or the positions he decided to draft people for).  However, I DO have some comments about things overall.

The Pack went into the draft with 9 choices and came out with 10 players selected.  Common wisdom was the Packers had so many quality veterans already signed and/or with experience on the team (what with all of the people who played last year PLUS those returning from injured reserve) that there was little chance for 9 rookies to make the team.  This led to speculation Thompson would likely use his 9 picks by bundling some of the picks together to move up to get fewer but better rookies who would have a better chance of making the team.  Thompson (as usual) defied conventional wisdom and used his picks to obtain more bodies even though they were lower in the draft than if he had stood pat.  What do we take from this?  Well, I take three things from it. 

First, Thompson marches to the beat of his own drummer.  I give up trying to figure out what he is going to do.  That is not exasperation or annoyance talking, just a concession that he operates on a different plane when evaluating what should be done than me.  One would have to assume that is a good thing for any NFL general manager and the Packers are lucky to have him. 

Second, I have reached the conclusion that one of the principles by which Thompson operates is recognition of the fact NO ONE, not even a genius as he is cracked up to be, will hit on all of his picks with regularity.  For that reason, I think Thompson has decided having MORE picks results in better draft results even at the expense of having those picks come lower in the draft.  In other words, he recognizes that an unacceptably high % of draft picks will be busts, or if not busts, that the person picked will not be what they were "trumped up" to be (a rather apt phrase to use given recent events).  Having more selections allows you to compensate for the failures you have to expect will occur and offset them with other choices who will perform beyond common expectations.  If you have more darts to throw at the target it is likely you will end up with more bullseyes. 

Third, I think the current draft ought to make a number of veterans nervous.  Going into the draft, Green Bay looked pretty set across the board with relatively few question marks.  Would Chad Clifton retire or come back for the final year of his contract?  Mark Tauscher was expected to retire.  Would he?  Would Donald Driver retire?  Would James Jones leave in free agency?  Would the Pack cut or trade Nick Barnett?  He has a disturbingly high cap number this year for a guy who (given the extensions signed by AJ Hawk and Desmond Bishop) seems destined to not start.  Cullen Jenkins was expected to be gone to free agency.  Would Brandon Jackson be resigned as a third down back?

If all 10 draft picks made the opening day roster that would represent a turn over of approximately 20% of what is commonly believed to be the deepest and most talented roster (perhaps excluding, but perhaps not, the New England Patriots) in football.  I don't think ALL 10 of the draft choices WILL make the team, but this tells me a number of people including those already mentioned PLUS Pat Lee (cornerback) and Donald Lee (tight end)  are on the hot seat and Ted Thompson is ready to make do without most if not all of them.  My gut tells me Clifton and Driver stay for 1 more year.  The rest of those named are gone. 

Oh, by the way (if memory serves) at least one undrafted free agent made the team each year Thompson has been general manager.  Because of the lockout, no teams were able to follow up on the draft by signing any undrafted free agents. 

Election Turnout

Since Valentine's Day, Wisconsin has been in political turmoil over new Republican Governor Scott Walker's plans to reshape Wisconsin.  There have been numerous demonstrations at the Capitol and throughout the state protesting Walker's plan to ban unions for pubic employees.  There has been praise (and outrage) heaped on 14 Democrat state senators who left the state to slow down the Republican tide of change.  There have been very active recall campaigns initiated for Republican (and Democrat) state senators.  These political developments have dominated the news in Wisconsin not to mention political news nationwide.

All of this happened in the weeks leading up to the annual Spring non-partisan elections which coincided in some places with partisan primary elections.  As noted in an earlier post, I was curious how all this political fervor would translate into voter turnout at the polls. 

While the final results are not yet complete for the hotly contested statewide election for Supreme Court Justice (which at last count had challenger Joanne Kloppenburg leading incumbent David Prosser by 311 votes), we do have a pretty good picture of voter turnout overall.

To see what the picture tells us, let us use the only statewide race on the ballot yesterday.  Since 2000, there have been six contested races for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice on the April ballots (including the one yesterday).  Until yesterday, the highest voter turnout in those races had been just over 20% in 2000.  In the four races since then (until yesterday) the total votes cast in each election actually declined slightly on each occasion with the lowest voter turnout being in the race between incumbent Shirley Abrahamson and challenger Randy Koshnick in 2009 where the turnout was approximately 18%. 

In an abrupt and dramatic shift in this pattern, the turnout statewide yesterday appears to have been approximately 33.5%.  In other words, approximately 70% more voters voted for a Supreme Court Justice candidate yesterday than voted in the same race in 2009 when the last contested race for that office was held.  So, the good news is voter interest, voter participation, and voter commitment seems to be substantially increased.

The bad news is that despite the most visible and hotly debated political climate in Wisconsin that I can recall, barely one out of three people who were eligible to vote bothered to.  That, my friends, is embarassing and disgusting. 

People in countries around the world are fighting and dying to have the opportunity to vote in elections, or are dying because their leaders are desperately attempting to prevent them from gaining that right.  This country was founded when of our forefathers demanded the right to vote for how they wanted to be governed and went to war with their King to obtain it.  The apathy is hard for me to stomach.

Eagle Eye

On the east coast of Iowa, just south of that part of the West Coast of Wisconsin where I live, an extremely popular webcam is aimed at the nest of a pair of American Bald Eagles.  How popular is the webcam?  Well, when I took my first look at it, during the first quarter of the NCAA basketball championship game, over 104,000 people were watching (or also watching - as the case may be) the nest.

Those watching the nest longer than me would have had the opportunity to see the first of three eggs laid on February 23rd and the first eaglet hatched on April 1st.  The webcam is visible 24 hours a day.  During hours of darkness, everything is almost as clear as during the day due to an infrared light (which is not visible to the eagles) illuminating the scene for the camera at night.  Viewing the webcam has been so popular the amount of traffic actually crashed the system for about two hours on Saturday when the first eaglet hatched.

The camera is operated by the Raptor Resource Project.  To view the cam and see a live episode of Wild Kingdom along West Coast Wisconsin, follow this link:  http://raptorresource.org/falcon_cams/index.html

Who Gets to Complain?

In recent years, the political landscape has become increasingly polarized.  People on the right demonize elected officials who are Democrats and those on the left do the same for Republicans who hold office.  Since Valentine's Day, events in Wisconsin have put us on the center stage of these political wars.  Mass demonstrations, campaigns to recall public officials, and another bitter and partisan campaign for a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court all provide prime examples.

While I have strong thoughts on who is right and who is wrong in many of these battles, what is significant about my opinion (as opposed to those of many others) is that my opinion counts.  The initial reaction when reading this might be - how arrogant.  But my opinion is not more important because I publicize my opinions on a blog.  Nor is it more important because I claim to pay attention to the issues and may be better informed.  No, my opinion counts BECAUSE I VOTE.

The most important message to take from the current political unrest in Wisconsin is that elections have consequences.  We are where we are because elections were decided by those who cared enough to participate.  That is true whether one is talking about electing Scott Walker instead of Tom Barrett, or the individuals elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly and the Wisconsin State Senate instead of candidates from the opposing parties, or the election of Justice Michael Gableman instead of Lous Butler.

If you have an opinion about the political fights taking place all around you, get out and do something about it by VOTING.  If you don't care enough about the issues to vote, don't be surprised if the people who get elected are those whose positions you may disagree with.  If you are not willing to vote, you might as well shut up.  Because unless you vote, your opinion is worth nothing.

While I will be happy to see people I support win elections on April 5th, I will be watching to see how the percent of people eligible to vote who actually cast ballots compares with past elections.  Historically, the turn out for an April election is abysmal.  If it creeps above 50% this time around (and the percent of people who continue to vote in future elections also increases substantially) because people have learned a lesson about sitting out elections, perhaps the pain we have endured will have been worth it in the long run.  We'll see.  Given past experience, my expectations are low.

Judicial Elections - Non-Partisan in Wisconsin?

Like the country as a whole, Wisconsin is a house divided by partisan politics.  It seems that Republicans and Democrats can't find any common ground on anything short of a joint resolution honoring Mother's Day (and if President Obama came out in favor of such a resolution, Newt Gingrich might oppose it even though he originally proposed it in the first place).  However, this post is not intended - exactly - to wade into that swamp. 

Wisconsin is one of those states that allows voters to select judges who run for office, and if elected, run for reelection at the end of their terms.  However, judicial elections in Wisconsin are expected to be different than most other elections held here in that judicial elections are to be non-partisan elections.  Perhaps it was because it was felt the concept of justice - the job of a judge - should be administered equally and impartially without regard to politics.  Perhaps it was felt such elections should be non-partisan because there was not a Republican way of being a judge as opposed to the Democrat way.  How naive.

In fact, the Code of Judicial Ethics in Wisconsin (See; SCR 60.06(2)) provides:

"Wisconsin adheres to the concept of a nonpartisan judiciary.  A candidate for judicial office shall not appeal to partisanship and shall avoid partisan activity in the spirit of a non-partisan judiciary.  No judge . . . may do any of the following: . . . participate in the affairs . . . promotions . . . endorsements . . . or activites of a political party . . . "

In other words, as I interpret it, while there may be "gray areas," at least political parties do not nominate a candidate for judicial office of that party and candidates for judicial office are not to identify themselves as Republican, or Democrat, or with any other party affiliation when they run.  While judges and candidates for judge in Wisconsin in recent years have certainly walked as close to the "non-partisan" line as they can by identifying themself as the "conservative" candidate (wink, wink) or referring to the person who may have a record of involvement in Democrat politics as a "liberal" or "left wing radical" or "activist," until now, candidates have at least attempted to literally - if not figurately - stay on the right side of the line between being a non-partisan candidate and openly partisan politics.

Until Justice Prosser.  Prosser is a sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice who was a former Republican legislator for more than a decade.  On Copeland Avenue in the City of La Crosse sits La Crosse County Republican Headquarters.  As is ordinary, and expected, the headquarters is plastered with signs for various Republican candidates for public office.  As is neither ordinary, nor expected, and to my knowledge unprecedented, is the fact Republican headquarters is also plastered with at least 4 yard signs seeking to re-elect Justice Prosser.

To the ordinary observer, and to me, that looks like an endorsement of Justice Prosser by the Republican party.  Is it a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics?  I don't know.  But it appears to cross a new line.

UPDATE - There are actually two updates.  As of Monday, April 4th, all the Prosser yard signs were gone from the yard and windows of La Crosse County Republican Headquarters.  When this update was being written (7:26 am on April 6th, the morning after the election) the election was still rated "too close to call" with Prosser leading Kloppenburg by approximately 500 votes statewide with 99% of the precincts having reported their vote totals).

Homegrown Criminal Of the Day

Not to be outdone, the West Coast of Wisconsin has come up with its own entry in the list of unbelieveable criminal acts.  Although, it is probably unfair to call this one stupid since the individual has a long history of mental problems (which should be apparent as you read what occurred).

In 2009, Alejo Santana, 49 robbed the People's Food Coop in downtown La Crosse.  When convicted, he was placed on probation.  On Monday, March 21, 2011, very shortly after that probation expired, Santana was back at the the same business - the People's Food Coop.  He went through the check out line and encountered the same clerk. 

As before, he told this same clerk he had a gun and threatened to kill her.  His statements were almost identical to what he said in his robbery from 2009.  This time, the clerk did not turn over any money.  She told him to leave.  But Santana didn't get far.  Why? An off duty part-time sheriff's deputy was behind him in the checkout line and saw and heard his exchange with the clerk.  He called the incident in and kept Santana in sight until police arrived to arrest him. 

This would be hilarious if it was not so tragic.  After the 2009 incident, Santana was initially found incompetent to stand trial his mental issues were so severe.  When being treated at the mental hospital, he said he had committed the robbery in hopes of being sent to prison.  He reportedly said "I feel more happy in prison."  While mental health care is what he needs, he may get his wish this time. 

UPDATE - 4/15/11 At his sentencing hearing today, Mr. Santana asked the Judge to give him the maximum penalty.  The Judge declined saying the circumstances of the case did not warrant the maximum.  Instead, Mr. Santana got a sentence of 10 years in prison, prompting him to thank the court, the prosecutor and his attorney. 

A Competitor for the "Gruber" Prize

In the latest edition of my compendium of stupid criminals we find Daniel Rahynes.  Mr. Rahynes' stupidity may exceed that of Kieth Gruber (see the post immediately below).



This story comes from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Rahynes, 35, walked into a bank in central Pennsylvania and tried to open an account.  The bank employee waiting on him informed Rahynes he would need to produce two forms of identification to open the account which Rahynes provided.  After giving the employee the two forms of identification (one of them being an account card issued by that very bank), Rahynes changed his mind and declared he was really there to rob the bank. 

Police say Rahynes drove off with a small amount of cash, striking another vehicle in the process.  Meanwhile, the bank contacted police and provided police with the detailed information Rahynes provided to the bank identifying him.  Police immediately issued an alert to arrest Rayynes.  Police in a neighboring county took Rahynes into custody at the scene of a second auto accident Rahynes became involved in when they learned of the all points bulletin issued for Rahynes earlier.

As you might guess, Rahynes was intoxicated.

A Couple of Beers Short of a Six Pack

Pundits sometimes describe people who do something stupid as being "a few sandwiches short of a picnic" or that "their elevator does not go to the top floor."  A similar description - that being "a couple of beers short of a six pack" would seem to apply with vigor to Keith Gruber. 



Gruber, 49, was to appear in Sullivan County Court in Monticello, NY this week for a 10:30 am pre-trial hearing on his felony drunk driving offense.  When the case was called at 10:30, Gruber was not there.  However, he did show up about 1 and 1/2 hours later, visibly intoxicated.  He was arrested as he attempted to walk through the courthouse metal detector carrying a paper bag with 4 unopened cans of Busch beer, while holding an open can he was drinking from at the time. 

After being arrested, Gruber appeared in court before Judge Frank LaBuda who, when told of the circumstances of Gruber's arrest asked Gruber if he had enjoyed his "liquid lunch."  Gruber responded that he had, and then said he was sorry.  Gruber's bond was revoked and he was taken to jail. 

So, despite his ill conceived behavior, the facts confirm that while Gruber was only ONE beer short of a six pack (rather than a couple) he is nonetheless, an idiot.

Web Listings Inc.

As I am only moderately knowledgeable about the web and computers in general, I did not know exactly what to make of an invoice my firm received from Web Listings Inc.  However, since I have a legal background, and because the name of the company was not familiar, I was skeptical.

The invoice was for $65.  It purported to be a billing for an "Annual Listing (Apr 15, 2011 to Apr 15, 2012).  The invoice also touted that the "listing" included "domain name submission with up to 8 keywords / phrases to 20 established search engines, initial search engine position and ranking report sent to you via e-mail, and quarterly search engine position and ranking reports sent to you via e-mail."

In a business setting, a once a year bill for $65 seems pretty modest and might get easily approved in the shuffle without significant scrutiny.  But I decided to do a bit of checking.  First, I checked with our website design firm.  I also checked with our local IT company.  Both confirmed Web Listings Inc. was nothing they had listed us with.

I then did a quick "Google" search of the company name.  You know Google.  It is one of those "20 established search engines" touted in the invoice.  Really?  20?  Can anyone name more than 5 or 6?  Anyway, that quick search came up with plenty of information confirming that Web Listings Inc. was just a new example of the "fake invoice" scam.  I have seen it before involving telephone yellow page advertising, but this was my first encounter in the internet setting.  So, be careful out there.

Brett Favre - The Spoof

The following video came to me in an e-mail forwarded from another Green Bay Packer fan.  It is a fantastic collage of the varying ways "Brent" has come to be the poster child for how not to manage the end of your professional football career.  Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POyFvDgV2cU