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