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.