While it has been open for two months already, the Menominee Nation Arena celebrates its "grand opening" today. The rushed nature of its construction and initial missed deadline for completion prevented any sort of celebration before this--so they will have the local dignitaries on-hand today to cut the ribbon and give folks a tour of the place.
I have to say that I'm still struggling to figure out where the arena is going to fit into the regional entertainment landscape. The Bucks are committed to the arena with the placement of the Wisconsin Herd here--but that represents only a couple dozen paid events a year. So what is going to fill the facility the rest of the time?
Again because of the last-minute nature of its construction, it wouldn't be fair to judge the entertainment scheduled booked for the arena so far. We haven't even reached the one-year mark of the Oshkosh Common Council approving its construction--so what the folks at The Grand have been able to book in there is likely what was leftover from other tours passing through the Upper Midwest. Obviously, large-scale acts won't play a facility with less than 5,000 in capacity--so the Resch Center, the still-as-yet-not-corporately-sponsored-Milwaukee arena, and the Kohl Center have dibs on those acts. That means the Oshkosh arena will have to compete against the Fox Cities Performing Arts Center, the Meyer Theater in Green Bay and the region's casinos for second or third tier acts. Which isn't always the easiest when it comes to selling tickets.
Add to that Oshkosh being "Wisconsin's (Too Many) Events City". Country USA, Rock USA, EAA Airventure and Lifest block out entire weeks of the precious summer season. Or do you think you can "counter program" and attract a completely different crowd for a show during those weeks? Do you book concerts or shows the same nights as Waterfest? Or do you become the "rain venue" for that series?
Small scale convention-type events could be another avenue--but we already have a Convention Center that the City stuck plenty of money into a few years ago that is practically the same size. Appleton just opened their brand new Exhibition Center with more space and a connected hotel. And Green Bay is working on plans to replace Shopko Hall with another new expo space--even though they have the KI Convention Center downtown already.
I just have this nagging feeling that Menominee Nation Arena is going to be the odd-facility-out in the effort to book events. And because it is a privately-held facility, it needs to make money throughout the year or it won't stay in business. And if that happens, don't be surprised to see the City ask taxpayers to take it over and "save the arena".
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
No, You Man Up
The UW-Oshkosh Foundation remains bound and determined to make sure that Wisconsin taxpayers get stuck with the bill for their financial irresponsibility. After a Federal Bankruptcy Judge in Milwaukee ruled last week that the UW System could not be dropped as a defendant in the lawsuit filed against it by the Foundation, the Foundation's attorney--Paul Swanson--was quoted as saying "The Legislature should just man up and settle this thing". Swanson was referring to lawmakers' refusal to approve a bailout plan that would have seen the state pay the $16-million the Foundation owes on such projects as the Alumni Welcome and Conference Center, along with two biodigesters.
But what Attorney Swanson should have said is that he thinks taxpayers "man up and settle this thing"--because its not "the Legislature" that is putting up the money. It's very easy to cast lawmakers as the Boogeymen in this scenario--like they are the bad guys who are sitting on their own pile of cash and the poor charitable Foundation is made to suffer.
The real bad guys were the Foundation President that sat with a former Chancellor and Vice Chancellor and hatched a plan to not only improperly suggest that the school (again with taxpayer dollars) would pay for any loans on which the Foundation defaulted. And the bad guys were the Foundation executives and bookkeepers that devised a way to cover up inappropriate payments made from the school to the Foundation to pay for those loans. Not a single legislator or taxpayer was involved in any of those meetings or authorized the cover up of any of those payments.
And yet Attorney Swanson--and for that matter the entire Foundation Board of Directors--still believes that you and me are responsible for paying for their mistakes. You know what would really represent "manning up"? Admitting that the Foundation is the one at fault in this situation--not the taxpayers of Wisconsin--and repaying their debts. The real legal battle in this bankruptcy proceeding is the Foundation seeking to preserve the $30-million in assets it holds--versus the 19-million it has in debts. Oh, and the interest on those defaulted loans continues to compound--just digging a deeper hole for the Foundation.
And if that means kids lose scholarships and professors lose grant monies for research projects, don't complain about how "legislators" or "the taxpayers are to blame. You made this bed--and now you can lie in it.
But what Attorney Swanson should have said is that he thinks taxpayers "man up and settle this thing"--because its not "the Legislature" that is putting up the money. It's very easy to cast lawmakers as the Boogeymen in this scenario--like they are the bad guys who are sitting on their own pile of cash and the poor charitable Foundation is made to suffer.
The real bad guys were the Foundation President that sat with a former Chancellor and Vice Chancellor and hatched a plan to not only improperly suggest that the school (again with taxpayer dollars) would pay for any loans on which the Foundation defaulted. And the bad guys were the Foundation executives and bookkeepers that devised a way to cover up inappropriate payments made from the school to the Foundation to pay for those loans. Not a single legislator or taxpayer was involved in any of those meetings or authorized the cover up of any of those payments.
And yet Attorney Swanson--and for that matter the entire Foundation Board of Directors--still believes that you and me are responsible for paying for their mistakes. You know what would really represent "manning up"? Admitting that the Foundation is the one at fault in this situation--not the taxpayers of Wisconsin--and repaying their debts. The real legal battle in this bankruptcy proceeding is the Foundation seeking to preserve the $30-million in assets it holds--versus the 19-million it has in debts. Oh, and the interest on those defaulted loans continues to compound--just digging a deeper hole for the Foundation.
And if that means kids lose scholarships and professors lose grant monies for research projects, don't complain about how "legislators" or "the taxpayers are to blame. You made this bed--and now you can lie in it.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Team Snowflake
I've often mentioned here that the main problem with youth sports today is adults. And that was borne out again this weekend as the "real story" surfaced as to why Appleton East Boys Basketball Coach John Mielke suddenly announced his resignation mid-season on Saturday. As Appleton Post Crescent reporter Ricardo Aguello hears it Mielke quit after being accosted at a bar by a group of angry parents.
Per sources quoted in the story, the "concerned parents" confronted Mielke about his team's performance--calling it "embarrassing"--and complaining that "he yelled at their kids too much". The parents also claimed that many of the players wanted to quit. I'm guessing that Coach Mielke wasn't alone in the bar when this confrontation took place, so it probably caused quite the spectacle--as the sources sound like people that just happened to be in the same establishment at the time.
Parents confronting coaches is nothing new. There probably hasn't been a sports coach yet that hasn't had to field questions about why someone's son or daughter isn't playing more or getting more touches or being allowed to wow college scouts (that have absolutely no idea who their son or daughter is because they obviously don't have "next level talent".) Most of those confrontations take place in offices or over the telephone. It's not often that groups of disgruntled parents choose to embarrass a coach in public--and that is likely why Coach Mielke decided he'd had enough.
Our friend at the EAA, Dick Knapinski--who has covered high school sports in the Fox Valley for decades--took to Twitter last night demanding that the parents who forced Mielke out go on the record. Let their sons know who "got coach to quit" and be detailed and specific with their accusations of "being too hard on the kids". If any Appleton East parent that confronted the coach wants to join us here on WOSH, the phone lines are open at 1-800-236-9674.
Since a number of other East coaches have joined Mielke in resigning--so they can avoid the same confrontational parents--I would like to suggest that one of those "basketball experts" themselves take over the bench. See how effective you are clapping and calling out "good job guys, way to try!" after turnovers, foolish fools and allowing easy shots by the opponents. Spend a few hours working on substitution patterns that get all 15-kids on the roster equal playing time--or devise a system that gets every player the same number of starts for the rest of the year so they can all "feel good about themselves". Your first game as Patriots coach will be against top-ranked Oshkosh North--whom I hope hangs about 125-points on your team and wins by almost triple-digits--just to teach you what "embarrassing" really is.
Oh and get ready for a lifetime of having to yell at your son's boss on the workplace floor because he or she is "pushing too hard". And keep that old bedroom ready for every time he quits a job because it was "too tough".
Per sources quoted in the story, the "concerned parents" confronted Mielke about his team's performance--calling it "embarrassing"--and complaining that "he yelled at their kids too much". The parents also claimed that many of the players wanted to quit. I'm guessing that Coach Mielke wasn't alone in the bar when this confrontation took place, so it probably caused quite the spectacle--as the sources sound like people that just happened to be in the same establishment at the time.
Parents confronting coaches is nothing new. There probably hasn't been a sports coach yet that hasn't had to field questions about why someone's son or daughter isn't playing more or getting more touches or being allowed to wow college scouts (that have absolutely no idea who their son or daughter is because they obviously don't have "next level talent".) Most of those confrontations take place in offices or over the telephone. It's not often that groups of disgruntled parents choose to embarrass a coach in public--and that is likely why Coach Mielke decided he'd had enough.
Our friend at the EAA, Dick Knapinski--who has covered high school sports in the Fox Valley for decades--took to Twitter last night demanding that the parents who forced Mielke out go on the record. Let their sons know who "got coach to quit" and be detailed and specific with their accusations of "being too hard on the kids". If any Appleton East parent that confronted the coach wants to join us here on WOSH, the phone lines are open at 1-800-236-9674.
Since a number of other East coaches have joined Mielke in resigning--so they can avoid the same confrontational parents--I would like to suggest that one of those "basketball experts" themselves take over the bench. See how effective you are clapping and calling out "good job guys, way to try!" after turnovers, foolish fools and allowing easy shots by the opponents. Spend a few hours working on substitution patterns that get all 15-kids on the roster equal playing time--or devise a system that gets every player the same number of starts for the rest of the year so they can all "feel good about themselves". Your first game as Patriots coach will be against top-ranked Oshkosh North--whom I hope hangs about 125-points on your team and wins by almost triple-digits--just to teach you what "embarrassing" really is.
Oh and get ready for a lifetime of having to yell at your son's boss on the workplace floor because he or she is "pushing too hard". And keep that old bedroom ready for every time he quits a job because it was "too tough".
Friday, January 26, 2018
How 'Bout a Little Credit Over Here?
To make it seem less like an election year gimmick, Governor Scott Walker is out trying to sell his proposed $100 child tax credit as a "rebate" because the state is projected to run a surplus in the current budget. That leads me to ask, why can't childless adults get in on that rebate action too?
How about a little credit for putting less strain on public resources than those with children? Wisconsin schools spend just over $11,000 per student every year. By not having kids, we just saved everyone else at least 143-thousand bucks over 13-years. That's also less food that needs to be prepared in the school kitchens. Plus, you won't have to subsidize a college education at a UW-System school either. We won't require day care subsidies or transportation aids either.
How about a little credit for not adding to the health care crisis with more patients needing shots, annual checkups, dental exams and eyeglasses? We won't be needing expensive emergency room care because of a late-night fever. There won't be any need for ear infection medications or setting broken bones caused by falls out of trees or skateboarding accidents. Not to mention lower insurance rates for our co-workers--or not adding to the number of CHIPS or BadgerCare Plus enrollees.
How about a little credit for not sending tens of thousands of disposable diapers to local landfills? Or not sending "flushable" baby wipes to the water treatment plant? Or putting old cribs, high chairs, car seats and hundreds of toys that were used for a couple of days and then discarded on the curb?
How about a little credit for not creating more future drivers? For remaining just a two-vehicle household and not putting more strain on our already-stressed transportation infrastructure? For keeping everyone else's insurance rates lower by having fewer bad, young drivers on the road? Or for not requiring additional police stops for speeding, texting while driving, fender benders and cars in the ditch on snowy days?
If anything, Governor Walker's "rebate" should be going only to those without children, because we are the ones footing the bill for a lot of services that we don't even "need".
How about a little credit for putting less strain on public resources than those with children? Wisconsin schools spend just over $11,000 per student every year. By not having kids, we just saved everyone else at least 143-thousand bucks over 13-years. That's also less food that needs to be prepared in the school kitchens. Plus, you won't have to subsidize a college education at a UW-System school either. We won't require day care subsidies or transportation aids either.
How about a little credit for not adding to the health care crisis with more patients needing shots, annual checkups, dental exams and eyeglasses? We won't be needing expensive emergency room care because of a late-night fever. There won't be any need for ear infection medications or setting broken bones caused by falls out of trees or skateboarding accidents. Not to mention lower insurance rates for our co-workers--or not adding to the number of CHIPS or BadgerCare Plus enrollees.
How about a little credit for not sending tens of thousands of disposable diapers to local landfills? Or not sending "flushable" baby wipes to the water treatment plant? Or putting old cribs, high chairs, car seats and hundreds of toys that were used for a couple of days and then discarded on the curb?
How about a little credit for not creating more future drivers? For remaining just a two-vehicle household and not putting more strain on our already-stressed transportation infrastructure? For keeping everyone else's insurance rates lower by having fewer bad, young drivers on the road? Or for not requiring additional police stops for speeding, texting while driving, fender benders and cars in the ditch on snowy days?
If anything, Governor Walker's "rebate" should be going only to those without children, because we are the ones footing the bill for a lot of services that we don't even "need".
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Water, Water Everywhere and Nary a Drop to Drink
If The Graduate was to be remade today (and I'm surprised it hasn't been since Hollywood ran out of original ideas for movies about two decades ago) Mr Bailey would be telling Benjamin "I've got one word for you son, desalination".
As more people choose to live in areas where freshwater can be scarce, the process of turning seawater into potable water will become the hot industry of the 21st century. Cape Town, South Africa--located on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean--is somehow going to run out of water in April. Officials will be shutting off service to hundreds of thousands of homes and forcing residents to come to filling stations to get their daily quota of water. Cape Town is suffering from a severe drought and its reservoirs--usually filled by winter rains--are at just 24% of capacity. It should be noted that residents were warned this might happen--but they ignored requests to not water their lawns or wash their cars.
Several other countries are being much more aggressive in adopting desalination as their water source of the future. Saudi Arabia will be building five such plants on the Red Sea. Israel is almost completely dependent upon desalination for its water supplies. San Diego is building it's own plant and Santa Barabara already has one it hasn't used since the 1980's--because the Southern California droughts have subsided.
If you can't get in on the ground floor of desalination-related companies, you may want to look at nuclear power plants instead. Desalination works by forcing seawater through thin membranes that separate the salt and minerals from the water. Unfortunately, this process requires a lot of energy. Far more reliable and constant energy than wind or solar could ever hope to provide. Now the Saudis have natural gas and oil to burn, so that will be their power source--but most other water-starved countries will have to opt for pairing their desalination plants with nuclear facilities.
James Casey penned the famous phrase "Water, water everywhere--but nary a drop to drink" in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. But with potential improvements in the process of desalination and efficiencies that could drop the price, the vast oceans could become an almost inexhaustible source of water for our over-populated planet--and reduce the pressure to divert riches of fresh water we enjoy here in the Great Lakes region.
As more people choose to live in areas where freshwater can be scarce, the process of turning seawater into potable water will become the hot industry of the 21st century. Cape Town, South Africa--located on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean--is somehow going to run out of water in April. Officials will be shutting off service to hundreds of thousands of homes and forcing residents to come to filling stations to get their daily quota of water. Cape Town is suffering from a severe drought and its reservoirs--usually filled by winter rains--are at just 24% of capacity. It should be noted that residents were warned this might happen--but they ignored requests to not water their lawns or wash their cars.
Several other countries are being much more aggressive in adopting desalination as their water source of the future. Saudi Arabia will be building five such plants on the Red Sea. Israel is almost completely dependent upon desalination for its water supplies. San Diego is building it's own plant and Santa Barabara already has one it hasn't used since the 1980's--because the Southern California droughts have subsided.
If you can't get in on the ground floor of desalination-related companies, you may want to look at nuclear power plants instead. Desalination works by forcing seawater through thin membranes that separate the salt and minerals from the water. Unfortunately, this process requires a lot of energy. Far more reliable and constant energy than wind or solar could ever hope to provide. Now the Saudis have natural gas and oil to burn, so that will be their power source--but most other water-starved countries will have to opt for pairing their desalination plants with nuclear facilities.
James Casey penned the famous phrase "Water, water everywhere--but nary a drop to drink" in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. But with potential improvements in the process of desalination and efficiencies that could drop the price, the vast oceans could become an almost inexhaustible source of water for our over-populated planet--and reduce the pressure to divert riches of fresh water we enjoy here in the Great Lakes region.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Now They Might Own the Future
There seems to be a lot of concern about the firing of Jason Kidd as Milwaukee Bucks head coach this week. Personally, I've felt that Kidd is a below-average coach, who is inconsistent in his player rotations and makes few effective in-game adjustments. But there are those who fear that firing Kidd--especially in the awkward way that it was done--will somehow alienate the Bucks' best player, Giannis Antentekoumpo.
ESPN reported that the Bucks brass told the players that Kidd was out before they informed the coach. The lag time between meetings allowed Giannis to call Kidd and offer to lobby on his behalf to keep him in that position. Needless to say, this makes the organization look bush league and that there will now be discontent from Antentekoumpo. But I saw the best analogy for this situation retweeted yesterday by one of the sports media types I follow on Twitter. Giannis is like the kid who has been drinking Busch Light since he was 18 because that was the only beer someone with a legal ID would buy for him--so it becomes his "favorite" beer. But once he turns 21 and can go to bars and try real beers Busch Light will never be his favorite again.
And that is the way it will be with the Bucks--if they do find someone who is an upgrade from Jason Kidd. That would be someone that actually communicates well with all of his players. Who values ball possession, who can teach effective NBA defense and who can adjust to what the other team is doing in-game.
For those wondering about the timing of the Kidd firing, keep in mind, this move is all about next year. Yes, the Bucks are sleepwalking through this season, but nobody in the Eastern Conference can take this year seriously--since LeBron James is still on the Cleveland Cavaliers. And as long as LeBron is in the East, nobody else has a legitimate chance to make the Finals. But there is widespread belief that King James is taking his talents to a team in the Western Conference next year--maybe the LA Lakers or a team ready-made for a title run like the Houston Rockets. And when LeBron is gone, the Eastern Conference becomes wide open for the first time in a decade. By dumping Jason Kidd now, Milwaukee gets a head start on bringing in the type of coach that can make the franchise's first Finals appearance since 1974 a reality.
The Bucks have been using the marketing phrase "Own the Future" for a couple of seasons now. Perhaps the future will become "now" in 2019.
ESPN reported that the Bucks brass told the players that Kidd was out before they informed the coach. The lag time between meetings allowed Giannis to call Kidd and offer to lobby on his behalf to keep him in that position. Needless to say, this makes the organization look bush league and that there will now be discontent from Antentekoumpo. But I saw the best analogy for this situation retweeted yesterday by one of the sports media types I follow on Twitter. Giannis is like the kid who has been drinking Busch Light since he was 18 because that was the only beer someone with a legal ID would buy for him--so it becomes his "favorite" beer. But once he turns 21 and can go to bars and try real beers Busch Light will never be his favorite again.
And that is the way it will be with the Bucks--if they do find someone who is an upgrade from Jason Kidd. That would be someone that actually communicates well with all of his players. Who values ball possession, who can teach effective NBA defense and who can adjust to what the other team is doing in-game.
For those wondering about the timing of the Kidd firing, keep in mind, this move is all about next year. Yes, the Bucks are sleepwalking through this season, but nobody in the Eastern Conference can take this year seriously--since LeBron James is still on the Cleveland Cavaliers. And as long as LeBron is in the East, nobody else has a legitimate chance to make the Finals. But there is widespread belief that King James is taking his talents to a team in the Western Conference next year--maybe the LA Lakers or a team ready-made for a title run like the Houston Rockets. And when LeBron is gone, the Eastern Conference becomes wide open for the first time in a decade. By dumping Jason Kidd now, Milwaukee gets a head start on bringing in the type of coach that can make the franchise's first Finals appearance since 1974 a reality.
The Bucks have been using the marketing phrase "Own the Future" for a couple of seasons now. Perhaps the future will become "now" in 2019.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Yes, It Is Your Money--And You Gave It To Them
Expect the drums of American Socialism to beat loudly for another couple of days. A British report finds that the three richest men in the US--Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett--have as much wealth as the lower one-half of the American population. Those three alone are worth about 250-billion dollars--the same as the poorest 160-million in the US.
The authors of the study try to claim that this concentration of wealth is due to suppression of wages for workers and tax evasion through the use of shelters and off-shore investment. But what they choose to ignore--especially in the case of the two richest guys--is that these men have provided us with stuff that we really want--and we willingly hand over our hard-earned wages to them.
If you think Microsoft founder Bill Gates makes too much money, do all of your reports at work by hand on paper. Figure out spreadsheets with a calculator. Go to the library and use the card catalog to find out information on politics, celebrities and science in books that were outdated by the time they went to print.
If you think Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has too much wealth, buy only what the local mom and pop stores carry in your hometown. And if you need something else, drive from town to town and from store to store to see if they carry it. Mail a request to stores across the country to have them send you catalogs from which you can place orders and wait weeks for delivery through the US Postal Service. And if you have a unique product to sell, travel around to the headquarters of major retailers and convince them to carry it on their shelves--or just peddle it at flea markets and rummage sales.
My favorite of the three richest is Warren Buffet. This is a guy that never had an original thought of his own for a business--or that ever tried to sell anything himself. He simply recognized all of the stuff that the rest of us would want to buy and invested in those companies early. If you want to reduce Buffett total's wealth I would suggest that you not buy any cutting-edge electronics, dine out at popular chain restaurants or try to use the international banking system in any way shape or form.
The mega-rich here in the US didn't "take" their wealth from us. They created something of value that the vast majority of Americans--and people worldwide wanted--and we willingly handed over our money because we wanted to. Nobody held a gun to our heads. The Government didn't tax us and give it just those guys. In fact, Gates, Bezos and Buffett undoubtedly paid the highest income tax bills of any three Americans last year--which ostensibly is supposed to go "back to us".
Ask yourself why you don't surf the internet on a Danish-invented internet explorer or why you don't buy diapers on a Swedish-developed shopping site or why you don't drive a Norwegian-built car. It might re-kindle your appreciation for Capitalism again.
The authors of the study try to claim that this concentration of wealth is due to suppression of wages for workers and tax evasion through the use of shelters and off-shore investment. But what they choose to ignore--especially in the case of the two richest guys--is that these men have provided us with stuff that we really want--and we willingly hand over our hard-earned wages to them.
If you think Microsoft founder Bill Gates makes too much money, do all of your reports at work by hand on paper. Figure out spreadsheets with a calculator. Go to the library and use the card catalog to find out information on politics, celebrities and science in books that were outdated by the time they went to print.
If you think Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has too much wealth, buy only what the local mom and pop stores carry in your hometown. And if you need something else, drive from town to town and from store to store to see if they carry it. Mail a request to stores across the country to have them send you catalogs from which you can place orders and wait weeks for delivery through the US Postal Service. And if you have a unique product to sell, travel around to the headquarters of major retailers and convince them to carry it on their shelves--or just peddle it at flea markets and rummage sales.
My favorite of the three richest is Warren Buffet. This is a guy that never had an original thought of his own for a business--or that ever tried to sell anything himself. He simply recognized all of the stuff that the rest of us would want to buy and invested in those companies early. If you want to reduce Buffett total's wealth I would suggest that you not buy any cutting-edge electronics, dine out at popular chain restaurants or try to use the international banking system in any way shape or form.
The mega-rich here in the US didn't "take" their wealth from us. They created something of value that the vast majority of Americans--and people worldwide wanted--and we willingly handed over our money because we wanted to. Nobody held a gun to our heads. The Government didn't tax us and give it just those guys. In fact, Gates, Bezos and Buffett undoubtedly paid the highest income tax bills of any three Americans last year--which ostensibly is supposed to go "back to us".
Ask yourself why you don't surf the internet on a Danish-invented internet explorer or why you don't buy diapers on a Swedish-developed shopping site or why you don't drive a Norwegian-built car. It might re-kindle your appreciation for Capitalism again.
Monday, January 22, 2018
What a Difference a Year Makes--or Does It?
Saturday marked one year since President Donald Trump's inauguration. My first thought was "are you sure it hasn't been three years?" The second thought was "How would this year have been any different had Hillary Clinton won in 2016?"
Certainly, our political discourse would have been very different. No late night Twitter rants, fewer fumbling statements about national and world issues and certainly a lot fewer golf trips would have made news the past 12-months. But when you look at the major events the last year, I can't really see how anything would have happened differently.
If Hillary had won, would there have been no hurricanes last fall? Would there have been just one or two storms instead of three? Would they have somehow missed Houston, Florida and Puerto Rico? And under a Clinton presidency, would there have somehow been more electrical restoration equipment just sitting around waiting to be transported to the island on cargo ships that we don't have right now?
Had Clinton won, would North Korea have fired off fewer missiles and set off fewer nuclear tests? Yes, we would have had far less rhetoric between the two countries, but there was no sign from Kim Jong Il that they would have put a halt to their nuclear program just because Donald Trump didn't win the election.
Would there have been no California wildfires and mudslides if Hillary was President? Did the Hawaiian Emergency Management worker set off the false missle alarm only because Trump was President? Would all of the NFL players stood with their hands over their hearts and sing along to the National Anthem if there was a Democrat in the White House? Would Aaron Rodgers not have broken his collarbone?
One thing that would not have happened if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 is the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements. Let's not forget that Harvey Weinstein was a major fundraiser for the Clinton political machine. He would have been needed for a Hillary 2020 re-election campaign had she won. But with her loss, he became expendable--and the decades of abuse that had been tolerated under the excuse of "Well, he's helping the Democratic cause" was made public. Just think, If Hillary had won, Al Franken would still be in the Senate--and Alabama's special election would never have happened.
But most importantly, the average American's life would be in no way any different. You'd likely be working at the same job and making about the same rate of pay. Maybe you would be a little less annoyed by political coverage in the media and a little less entertained by the late night comedy shows. If this year has proven anything, it's that no matter who sits in the White House, their control over your life is minimal--despite what all the talking heads and the other politicians might have you believe.
Certainly, our political discourse would have been very different. No late night Twitter rants, fewer fumbling statements about national and world issues and certainly a lot fewer golf trips would have made news the past 12-months. But when you look at the major events the last year, I can't really see how anything would have happened differently.
If Hillary had won, would there have been no hurricanes last fall? Would there have been just one or two storms instead of three? Would they have somehow missed Houston, Florida and Puerto Rico? And under a Clinton presidency, would there have somehow been more electrical restoration equipment just sitting around waiting to be transported to the island on cargo ships that we don't have right now?
Had Clinton won, would North Korea have fired off fewer missiles and set off fewer nuclear tests? Yes, we would have had far less rhetoric between the two countries, but there was no sign from Kim Jong Il that they would have put a halt to their nuclear program just because Donald Trump didn't win the election.
Would there have been no California wildfires and mudslides if Hillary was President? Did the Hawaiian Emergency Management worker set off the false missle alarm only because Trump was President? Would all of the NFL players stood with their hands over their hearts and sing along to the National Anthem if there was a Democrat in the White House? Would Aaron Rodgers not have broken his collarbone?
One thing that would not have happened if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 is the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements. Let's not forget that Harvey Weinstein was a major fundraiser for the Clinton political machine. He would have been needed for a Hillary 2020 re-election campaign had she won. But with her loss, he became expendable--and the decades of abuse that had been tolerated under the excuse of "Well, he's helping the Democratic cause" was made public. Just think, If Hillary had won, Al Franken would still be in the Senate--and Alabama's special election would never have happened.
But most importantly, the average American's life would be in no way any different. You'd likely be working at the same job and making about the same rate of pay. Maybe you would be a little less annoyed by political coverage in the media and a little less entertained by the late night comedy shows. If this year has proven anything, it's that no matter who sits in the White House, their control over your life is minimal--despite what all the talking heads and the other politicians might have you believe.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
The Other "Stupid Tax"
While they don't make me as upset as Christmas shopping ads before Halloween (or Thanksgiving) the pre-tax season ads by tax preparers like H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt do make me sad. It's not because it reminds me that I need to grind over my own returns in a few weeks, but rather because so many people are throwing away money the likely really need.
These tax preparers have transformed over the years. They started out touting themselves as "experts in the complexities of tax forms and laws" and that they could do all the work--while you make better use of your time. Then as the first tax software programs hit the market, they shifted their position to "we will get you the maximum rebate". Then as the internet allowed people to file on-line, they started offering "instant refunds"--providing you with what was basically an advance on your actual refund--which would cost you not just their prep fee but also an interest charge in the double-digit APR.
But now that governments make payments via direct deposit in just a couple of weeks, the new marketing tactic is "get your refund now--before you even file!". I'm guessing they look at your last tax return, figure that you are going to make about the same this year, and provide you with a high-interest loan based on a projected refund. And because there are so many people desperate to have that money in their hands immediately, they are more than willing to take less than they deserve.
What's also sad is that these preparers should really be helping people set up their withholdings so that they get a much smaller--or not even any--refund. We have become so trained to think that getting back thousands of dollars in February or March is this great economic windfall--when it would be very easy to have that money in your pocket all year long. How big a difference would it make for that family to have an extra 200 or 300-bucks a month every month--instead of waiting a year to collect it.
But what is most depressing seeing those ads this year is that we had a chance to pretty much put those companies out of business with the original tax reform measure from House Speaker Paul Ryan. I never bought into the "you can do your taxes on a postcard" promise--but there was a real chance to greatly simplify the filing process--and give nearly everyone additional tax relief. But then Democrats hijacked the narrative by making a big deal out of every individual deduction that was being eliminated--even though the doubled standard deduction would have covered student loan interest, mortgage interest and teachers buying their own school supplies write-offs and then some.
So instead we are stuck with a system that still takes more than it has too--and third parties that take even more from people that don't know any better.
These tax preparers have transformed over the years. They started out touting themselves as "experts in the complexities of tax forms and laws" and that they could do all the work--while you make better use of your time. Then as the first tax software programs hit the market, they shifted their position to "we will get you the maximum rebate". Then as the internet allowed people to file on-line, they started offering "instant refunds"--providing you with what was basically an advance on your actual refund--which would cost you not just their prep fee but also an interest charge in the double-digit APR.
But now that governments make payments via direct deposit in just a couple of weeks, the new marketing tactic is "get your refund now--before you even file!". I'm guessing they look at your last tax return, figure that you are going to make about the same this year, and provide you with a high-interest loan based on a projected refund. And because there are so many people desperate to have that money in their hands immediately, they are more than willing to take less than they deserve.
What's also sad is that these preparers should really be helping people set up their withholdings so that they get a much smaller--or not even any--refund. We have become so trained to think that getting back thousands of dollars in February or March is this great economic windfall--when it would be very easy to have that money in your pocket all year long. How big a difference would it make for that family to have an extra 200 or 300-bucks a month every month--instead of waiting a year to collect it.
But what is most depressing seeing those ads this year is that we had a chance to pretty much put those companies out of business with the original tax reform measure from House Speaker Paul Ryan. I never bought into the "you can do your taxes on a postcard" promise--but there was a real chance to greatly simplify the filing process--and give nearly everyone additional tax relief. But then Democrats hijacked the narrative by making a big deal out of every individual deduction that was being eliminated--even though the doubled standard deduction would have covered student loan interest, mortgage interest and teachers buying their own school supplies write-offs and then some.
So instead we are stuck with a system that still takes more than it has too--and third parties that take even more from people that don't know any better.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
He'll Be Your President Then
With special election wins in several states since the last Presidential election, Democrats are becoming more confident in a "blue wave" sweeping across the country in the mid-term elections later this year. They are feverishly working computer models that show the possibilities of winning back a majority of not just the Senate but even the House. You can bet that every one of those Democratic candidates will be running on a platform of "we have to stop Donald Trump". But what happens if Democrats do win back majorities, and President Trump works with them to pass their legislation?
Hard-core liberals might laugh off the idea, thinking that Trump is some ideologue that will never support Democratic measures. But the President is nothing more than an opportunist. Let's not forget, until he ran for President in a fractured Republican party, Donald Trump supported plenty of Democrats--not just in public comments but in cold, hard campaign cash. He backed Hillary Clinton--until it became politically advantageous to attack her. And when push comes to shove, do you really think he is going to stand on principle when it comes to anything political?
And when that happens, what will Democrats do? For six years under President Obama, Republicans could pass whatever bills and resolutions they wanted, knowing full well that nearly all of them would be vetoed. It allowed them to go back to the voters and say "President Obama blocked this that and the other thing--and that is why we need a Republican President to get stuff done". If Democrats passed a comprehensive immigration bill in 2019 and President Trump signed it, how many incumbents would go back to the voters in 2020 and say "I worked with President Trump to pass comprehensive immigration reform"? How would they react when the President came to their district or state for his own campaign and said "I was glad to work with Congresswoman Whatshername--she's great, really great, a great woman".
The ultimate would be if Trump--sensing it was his only hope for winning re-election--announced sometime in 2019 that he would seek another term, but this time running as a Democrat. He is already skilled at attacking Republicans. His supporters don't really consider themselves members of the "establishment GOP"--so voting in the other column this time around would mean nothing to them. So Trump switching parties wouldn't really be that difficult. Plus, he's already shown the ability to win a nomination with zero support from party power brokers.
Maybe Republicans should be rooting for that "Democratic tsunami" in November. Then they can get to work on their 2020 campaign slogan: "He's Your President Now".
Hard-core liberals might laugh off the idea, thinking that Trump is some ideologue that will never support Democratic measures. But the President is nothing more than an opportunist. Let's not forget, until he ran for President in a fractured Republican party, Donald Trump supported plenty of Democrats--not just in public comments but in cold, hard campaign cash. He backed Hillary Clinton--until it became politically advantageous to attack her. And when push comes to shove, do you really think he is going to stand on principle when it comes to anything political?
And when that happens, what will Democrats do? For six years under President Obama, Republicans could pass whatever bills and resolutions they wanted, knowing full well that nearly all of them would be vetoed. It allowed them to go back to the voters and say "President Obama blocked this that and the other thing--and that is why we need a Republican President to get stuff done". If Democrats passed a comprehensive immigration bill in 2019 and President Trump signed it, how many incumbents would go back to the voters in 2020 and say "I worked with President Trump to pass comprehensive immigration reform"? How would they react when the President came to their district or state for his own campaign and said "I was glad to work with Congresswoman Whatshername--she's great, really great, a great woman".
The ultimate would be if Trump--sensing it was his only hope for winning re-election--announced sometime in 2019 that he would seek another term, but this time running as a Democrat. He is already skilled at attacking Republicans. His supporters don't really consider themselves members of the "establishment GOP"--so voting in the other column this time around would mean nothing to them. So Trump switching parties wouldn't really be that difficult. Plus, he's already shown the ability to win a nomination with zero support from party power brokers.
Maybe Republicans should be rooting for that "Democratic tsunami" in November. Then they can get to work on their 2020 campaign slogan: "He's Your President Now".
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
A Myopic Vision
Beware local politicians that say they have a "vision for the city". Those visions tend to be very narrow and myopic.
The latest example of that is a battle brewing between the new owners of the former Kmart/Sears building on Koeller Street here in Oshkosh and the City Plan Commission. U-Haul is looking to convert the former store into a business storage facility and truck rental center. This is something the company is doing on a national scale--buying old Sears buildings and converting them to a new use. As a person that lives not far from the site and who drives by it often, I look forward to it being redeveloped and not falling into further disrepair.
Unfortunately, several members of the Plan Commission are threatening to derail the project because U-Haul is going to paint the building its trademark orange. Mayor Steve Cummings told the developers this month that he doesn't want the building to be a "giant billboard"--while fellow Commission member Kathleen Propp called the color "garish". Mrs Propp has apparently never been to San Francisco, where the most beautiful and beloved architectural feature--the Golden Gate Bridge--is painted orange. We should also keep in mind the Mayor Cummings is the one that demanded the railroad lift bridge at the mouth of the Fox River be painted because he thought it was "ugly"--not understanding that painting the distressed steel would actual defeat its rust-inhibiting properties and shorten the life of the bridge. The Plan Commission should also consider which is "uglier"--an orange building that houses an actual business or a blighted former big box store that everyone can see from Interstate 41?
U-Haul Wisconsin's President Justin Kaminski had a great comeback for the Commission--if they don't agree to painting the building the company's trademark orange, he will instead have it painted pink. Of course, the color of the building may not matter at all, as the U-Haul is not a retail development and therefore does not fall under the outrageous parking lot requirements the city has for the number of stalls and curbs and bump-outs. That means the oversized, crumbling blacktop lot could be sub-divided for further development right along Koeller itself. Maybe a couple of out-buildings could "protect the eyes" of Mayor Cummings and Mrs Propp from the "garish billboards" of the U-Haul building. Perhaps those out-buildings could be the rumored Dunkin' Donuts and Kentucky Fried Chicken that nobody at City Hall seems to think meet the "better use" of property along Oshkosh Avenue in the newly created "Corporate Business Park" zoning designation (which, given the "vision" of those on the Plan Commission, will likely result in vacant lots for years to come).
Oh, and back to the Golden Gate Bridge again for a moment. The Government originally demanded that it be painted with black and yellow stripes. Fortunately, those that were actually building the bridge stuck with International Orange.
The latest example of that is a battle brewing between the new owners of the former Kmart/Sears building on Koeller Street here in Oshkosh and the City Plan Commission. U-Haul is looking to convert the former store into a business storage facility and truck rental center. This is something the company is doing on a national scale--buying old Sears buildings and converting them to a new use. As a person that lives not far from the site and who drives by it often, I look forward to it being redeveloped and not falling into further disrepair.
Unfortunately, several members of the Plan Commission are threatening to derail the project because U-Haul is going to paint the building its trademark orange. Mayor Steve Cummings told the developers this month that he doesn't want the building to be a "giant billboard"--while fellow Commission member Kathleen Propp called the color "garish". Mrs Propp has apparently never been to San Francisco, where the most beautiful and beloved architectural feature--the Golden Gate Bridge--is painted orange. We should also keep in mind the Mayor Cummings is the one that demanded the railroad lift bridge at the mouth of the Fox River be painted because he thought it was "ugly"--not understanding that painting the distressed steel would actual defeat its rust-inhibiting properties and shorten the life of the bridge. The Plan Commission should also consider which is "uglier"--an orange building that houses an actual business or a blighted former big box store that everyone can see from Interstate 41?
U-Haul Wisconsin's President Justin Kaminski had a great comeback for the Commission--if they don't agree to painting the building the company's trademark orange, he will instead have it painted pink. Of course, the color of the building may not matter at all, as the U-Haul is not a retail development and therefore does not fall under the outrageous parking lot requirements the city has for the number of stalls and curbs and bump-outs. That means the oversized, crumbling blacktop lot could be sub-divided for further development right along Koeller itself. Maybe a couple of out-buildings could "protect the eyes" of Mayor Cummings and Mrs Propp from the "garish billboards" of the U-Haul building. Perhaps those out-buildings could be the rumored Dunkin' Donuts and Kentucky Fried Chicken that nobody at City Hall seems to think meet the "better use" of property along Oshkosh Avenue in the newly created "Corporate Business Park" zoning designation (which, given the "vision" of those on the Plan Commission, will likely result in vacant lots for years to come).
Oh, and back to the Golden Gate Bridge again for a moment. The Government originally demanded that it be painted with black and yellow stripes. Fortunately, those that were actually building the bridge stuck with International Orange.
Monday, January 15, 2018
Why They Aren't Coming From Norway
Not everyone chose to focus on the profanity in Congressman Dick Durbin's description of President Trump's comments on immigrants last week. The internet was also full of memes attacking the President's wish to have more immigrants from Norway. Most of the posts pointed to Norway's standing as the "happiest country on earth". Others listed the multitude of social programs provided by the "nanny state". But the real reason no one is pining to leave Norway is because in Norway, nearly everyone is just like you.
The family that lives next door looks just like yours. Because of the country's 13-hundred year history and slow population growth during that time, 86% of everyone that lives in Norway is "Norwegian" by heritage. Given that the population is only about 5.6-million, that family next door is likely related to you if you go far enough back in the family tree. Your "history" is the same as nearly everyone that shares your country. They also speak the same language as you--like 95% of everyone in Norway. Your neighbors likely all attend the same church--72% belong to the Church of Norway, which is the official state religion. You and your friends probably all attended the same college--as there are just 37 in the entire country.
There is a good chance most of the folks in your town work in the same industry. Norway's high-earning economy is based on being the largest exporter of oil and natural gas outside of the Middle East. And the government is the sole owner of the oil and natural gas industry. The government also controls the large lumber industry as well. And all of the retirees enjoy benevolent pension plans because the government invests its income in private stock markets throughout Europe--allowing for substantial growth beyond the rate of taxation.
So why would a Norwegian want to leave that and come to a country where everything and everyone is "different"? Why would they want to "press one for Norwegian"? Why would they want to be sub-categorized ten ways based on gender, skin color, income, heritage, political leanings and age? Why would you risk having less in life--while having the opportunities to have much more--when you can have the "security" of the government making sure you have pretty much the same as the next guy?
Norwegians like Norway because Norway is good for Norwegians. And that is why they just elected a coalition of political parties that are promising to place stricter limits on immigration--especially from "Muslim countries"--and to reduce social benefits to those new to the country. You could almost say that it's a "privilege" to be Norwegian--and few are willing to give that up either by moving out--or letting "certain others" move in.
The family that lives next door looks just like yours. Because of the country's 13-hundred year history and slow population growth during that time, 86% of everyone that lives in Norway is "Norwegian" by heritage. Given that the population is only about 5.6-million, that family next door is likely related to you if you go far enough back in the family tree. Your "history" is the same as nearly everyone that shares your country. They also speak the same language as you--like 95% of everyone in Norway. Your neighbors likely all attend the same church--72% belong to the Church of Norway, which is the official state religion. You and your friends probably all attended the same college--as there are just 37 in the entire country.
There is a good chance most of the folks in your town work in the same industry. Norway's high-earning economy is based on being the largest exporter of oil and natural gas outside of the Middle East. And the government is the sole owner of the oil and natural gas industry. The government also controls the large lumber industry as well. And all of the retirees enjoy benevolent pension plans because the government invests its income in private stock markets throughout Europe--allowing for substantial growth beyond the rate of taxation.
So why would a Norwegian want to leave that and come to a country where everything and everyone is "different"? Why would they want to "press one for Norwegian"? Why would they want to be sub-categorized ten ways based on gender, skin color, income, heritage, political leanings and age? Why would you risk having less in life--while having the opportunities to have much more--when you can have the "security" of the government making sure you have pretty much the same as the next guy?
Norwegians like Norway because Norway is good for Norwegians. And that is why they just elected a coalition of political parties that are promising to place stricter limits on immigration--especially from "Muslim countries"--and to reduce social benefits to those new to the country. You could almost say that it's a "privilege" to be Norwegian--and few are willing to give that up either by moving out--or letting "certain others" move in.
Friday, January 12, 2018
The Quarterback Gap
Analysts like to say that the NFL is a "quarterback driven league"--meaning that offenses are geared so heavily toward the passing game nowadays that not having a QB who can fling it all around the yard handicaps your chances of winning. One need look no further than the stadium north of here to see what happens when one of the few quarterbacks capable of carrying a team by himself got hurt and the next thing you know the most extensive house-cleaning in 30-years follows.
But if the NFL is really all about quarterbacks, we will find that out this weekend in the Divisional Round of the playoffs. I can never remember a set of post-season games where the gap between the good quarterbacks and their opponents have been so great, in every single game.
Over in the AFC, you have Marcus Mariotta of the Tennessee Titans--whose first career playoff touchdown pass was to himself on a batted ball (that should have been intercepted)--and who only won last week in the Wild Card game because terrible officiating went against the Kansas City Chiefs is taking on New England's future Hall of Famer Tom Brady--who just had one of his best years of his career, at the age of 40. In the other AFC matchup, Blake Bortles of the Jacksonville Jaguars--who ran for more yards than he threw for last week--and only won the Wild Card game because Buffalo's quarterback--Tyrod Taylor--was even worse before he got hurt late and the "Human Interception Machine" Nathan Peterman threw a pick on the final drive of the game faces the Pittsburgh Steelers' future Hall of Famer Ben Roethlisberger.
In the NFC, career backup Nick Foles--in his first playoff start--will lead Philadelphia against last year's NFL MVP Matt Ryan and the Falcons only because starter Carson Wentz suffered a season-ending knee injury a month ago--and Philly stumbled home to finish out the regular season. Oddsmakers have made the Eagles the first number one seed in a conference to be an underdog in the division round in NFL history. The other NFC tilt features career journeyman Case Keenum of Minnesota--in his first playoff start--facing New Orleans' future Hall of Famer Drew Brees.
It's entirely possible that the defenses of Tennessee, Jacksonville, Philadelphia and Minnesota could rise up and pitch shutouts, giving their below-average quarterback led offenses a chance to eke out low-scoring wins. But I get the feeling that the far superior quarterbacks are going to decide every single one of this weekend's games.
But if the NFL is really all about quarterbacks, we will find that out this weekend in the Divisional Round of the playoffs. I can never remember a set of post-season games where the gap between the good quarterbacks and their opponents have been so great, in every single game.
Over in the AFC, you have Marcus Mariotta of the Tennessee Titans--whose first career playoff touchdown pass was to himself on a batted ball (that should have been intercepted)--and who only won last week in the Wild Card game because terrible officiating went against the Kansas City Chiefs is taking on New England's future Hall of Famer Tom Brady--who just had one of his best years of his career, at the age of 40. In the other AFC matchup, Blake Bortles of the Jacksonville Jaguars--who ran for more yards than he threw for last week--and only won the Wild Card game because Buffalo's quarterback--Tyrod Taylor--was even worse before he got hurt late and the "Human Interception Machine" Nathan Peterman threw a pick on the final drive of the game faces the Pittsburgh Steelers' future Hall of Famer Ben Roethlisberger.
In the NFC, career backup Nick Foles--in his first playoff start--will lead Philadelphia against last year's NFL MVP Matt Ryan and the Falcons only because starter Carson Wentz suffered a season-ending knee injury a month ago--and Philly stumbled home to finish out the regular season. Oddsmakers have made the Eagles the first number one seed in a conference to be an underdog in the division round in NFL history. The other NFC tilt features career journeyman Case Keenum of Minnesota--in his first playoff start--facing New Orleans' future Hall of Famer Drew Brees.
It's entirely possible that the defenses of Tennessee, Jacksonville, Philadelphia and Minnesota could rise up and pitch shutouts, giving their below-average quarterback led offenses a chance to eke out low-scoring wins. But I get the feeling that the far superior quarterbacks are going to decide every single one of this weekend's games.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Turning Pot Against Itself
I'm hoping the Oshkosh Common Council keeps its marijuana possession fine debate going for another two months--as the people who come before them in support of the drug are far more entertaining than those that come to complain about special assessments on their property. Last night, Mayor Steve Cummings warned those signed up to speak to the Council that discussion could only focus on amending the fine for possession--not for full-on legalization of marijuana in Oshkosh. So how does the very first person to step up the podium start their comments? "I'm here to encourage the city to legalize the possession of marijuana".
Anyway, I think I have a way to flip the demand for legalized marijuana 180-degrees and get its most-ardent supporters to turn against it: put the power of Corporate America to work. If you want to nip legalized pot in the bud (pun intended) allow big businesses to get involved and start making huge profits. Let Archer-Daniels-Midland plant millions of acres of weed. Grant Monsanto patents on dozens of strains of the plants that are drought and pest-resistant. Have Bristol-Meyers-Squibb corner the market on medicinal marijuana products. Approve herbicides developed by Dow Chemical to treat pot fields. Sell low-cost marijuana products produced by RJ Reynolds over the counter at places like WalMart and Walgreens. We could even allow the giant marketing firms to create cute advertising campaigns that make you think smoking dope is the coolest thing that any human can do. And then make sure to publicize the BILLIONS of dollars of profit those corporations are making from the newly-legalized "industry".
I can guarantee that as soon as marijuana becomes "big business" the people who circulate the petitions and attend the council meetings and organize the rallies on college campuses will immediately become the most vocal opponents of pot. Suddenly, all of the "medical studies" will show that medicinal marijuana really doesn't do anything for you--and that the drug companies are lying about its effectiveness just to get people to buy it. The effects of using commercial pot products will be questioned as "corporate greed" will take priority over "public safety". Eventually, states will be encouraged to sue marijuana producers for "marketing a product they knew was addictive to an unsuspecting public".
So long as marijuana is grown on boutique, organic farms and sold in cool little dispensaries by "independent distributors" it can be supported by liberals. But as soon as it becomes a cash crop and the "wrong people" are profiting off of it--pot will become a "danger to society" and should be highly-regulated by the Government again. In the meantime, those of us not blowing our budget on buds can reap the profits by investing in "Big Pot" companies.
Anyway, I think I have a way to flip the demand for legalized marijuana 180-degrees and get its most-ardent supporters to turn against it: put the power of Corporate America to work. If you want to nip legalized pot in the bud (pun intended) allow big businesses to get involved and start making huge profits. Let Archer-Daniels-Midland plant millions of acres of weed. Grant Monsanto patents on dozens of strains of the plants that are drought and pest-resistant. Have Bristol-Meyers-Squibb corner the market on medicinal marijuana products. Approve herbicides developed by Dow Chemical to treat pot fields. Sell low-cost marijuana products produced by RJ Reynolds over the counter at places like WalMart and Walgreens. We could even allow the giant marketing firms to create cute advertising campaigns that make you think smoking dope is the coolest thing that any human can do. And then make sure to publicize the BILLIONS of dollars of profit those corporations are making from the newly-legalized "industry".
I can guarantee that as soon as marijuana becomes "big business" the people who circulate the petitions and attend the council meetings and organize the rallies on college campuses will immediately become the most vocal opponents of pot. Suddenly, all of the "medical studies" will show that medicinal marijuana really doesn't do anything for you--and that the drug companies are lying about its effectiveness just to get people to buy it. The effects of using commercial pot products will be questioned as "corporate greed" will take priority over "public safety". Eventually, states will be encouraged to sue marijuana producers for "marketing a product they knew was addictive to an unsuspecting public".
So long as marijuana is grown on boutique, organic farms and sold in cool little dispensaries by "independent distributors" it can be supported by liberals. But as soon as it becomes a cash crop and the "wrong people" are profiting off of it--pot will become a "danger to society" and should be highly-regulated by the Government again. In the meantime, those of us not blowing our budget on buds can reap the profits by investing in "Big Pot" companies.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Enough With "The Process"
I know its early in the year, but I'd like Lake State University to already select its word to be banished from the English language for 2018. My nomination is "the process".
If you listened to all of the news conference announcing Brian Gutekunst as the new General Manager of the Green Bay Packers yesterday, you would have heard team President Mark Murphy use the term "the process" nine times in about a six minute speech--and Gutekunst use it 23 times-and that was before he started taking questions from the media.
"The process" became a hot buzzword a couple of years ago (especially in sports) thanks to the Philadelphia 76ers "rebuilding effort". The team was intentionally losing games to better its odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery. But you can't just tell fans paying big bucks to attend games that you are not going to even try to win them. So their braintrust came up with the strategy of "Trust the Process"--as if there was a grand scheme in place that would guarantee championships if you are willing to sit through absolute dreck for the next couple of seasons.
Instead of becoming a national joke, Philly fans actually jumped onto the "Trust the Process" bandwagon--even buying t-shirts with the stupid saying on it, like their gullibility was somehow going to make the team better. Yet here they are--several years into "the process"--and the Sixers are still terrible--even with all of their high draft picks.
Obsiously, other sports executives have decided to mimic Philadelphia--so now everything involved in sports strategy is "the process". Mike McCarthy used it often to explain Brett Hundley's clueless performances while filling in for Aaron Rodgers this past season. And now it is creeping into the world of business and politics--with leaders in both making "Well, we are going through the process of determining....." a common phrase.
Maybe it does make you sound like you have a master plan for everything you do--when you usually don't. Maybe it makes you sound like you are putting in a lot of work on something--when you likely aren't. But let's start the process of determining the process to get "the process" out of the lexicon.
If you listened to all of the news conference announcing Brian Gutekunst as the new General Manager of the Green Bay Packers yesterday, you would have heard team President Mark Murphy use the term "the process" nine times in about a six minute speech--and Gutekunst use it 23 times-and that was before he started taking questions from the media.
"The process" became a hot buzzword a couple of years ago (especially in sports) thanks to the Philadelphia 76ers "rebuilding effort". The team was intentionally losing games to better its odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery. But you can't just tell fans paying big bucks to attend games that you are not going to even try to win them. So their braintrust came up with the strategy of "Trust the Process"--as if there was a grand scheme in place that would guarantee championships if you are willing to sit through absolute dreck for the next couple of seasons.
Instead of becoming a national joke, Philly fans actually jumped onto the "Trust the Process" bandwagon--even buying t-shirts with the stupid saying on it, like their gullibility was somehow going to make the team better. Yet here they are--several years into "the process"--and the Sixers are still terrible--even with all of their high draft picks.
Obsiously, other sports executives have decided to mimic Philadelphia--so now everything involved in sports strategy is "the process". Mike McCarthy used it often to explain Brett Hundley's clueless performances while filling in for Aaron Rodgers this past season. And now it is creeping into the world of business and politics--with leaders in both making "Well, we are going through the process of determining....." a common phrase.
Maybe it does make you sound like you have a master plan for everything you do--when you usually don't. Maybe it makes you sound like you are putting in a lot of work on something--when you likely aren't. But let's start the process of determining the process to get "the process" out of the lexicon.
Monday, January 8, 2018
Oprah Ain't Running
Based on my social media feeds this morning, the field of Democratic candidates for President has been cleared--Oprah Winfrey is clearly the people's choice for 2020. I have to admit, I have not seen Oprah's "stirring" speech at the Golden Globes last night. One of the issues with coming to work at 3:00 am every day is that you don't watch a lot of TV at night. And what's more, I could not care less about Hollywood awards shows or celebrity gossip.
But without even seeing or hearing what Oprah had to say I'm 100-percent sure it was about oppressed people rising up, fighting for the truth to be heard, and believe in yourself. I know that because that is what every Oprah public speech is about. And in these "dark times", many liberals want that to be the message of their candidate in three years. So that is why #Oprah2020 was trending on Twitter last night.
Well, I can flat out guarantee that Oprah Winfrey is NOT going to run for President--no matter how much the coastal elites and her celebrity pals tweet about it. For starters, Oprah likes making money. This is a woman that has created a multi-media empire--with her own TV network, magazine, movie and TV production companies. She owns Weight Watchers now and has her own line of "healthy meals"--starring in the commercials for them. (Her claims that mashed cauliflower is "just as delicious" as real mashed potatoes shows that she could certainly lie like a real politician). So why would she want to divest herself of all that? One need only look at the difficulty the current Celebrity President is having in separating his businesses from what is now the country's business.
Plus, Oprah has total control and power over everything in her life. Here is my favorite Oprah story. On the island of Maui, residents for decades have wanted a road connecting the Piilani Highway (known at the "Back Road to Hana") with the resort area of Kihei on the southwest part of the island. The current drive takes over an hour because the highway heads into the center of Maui before doubling back to the coast. As you can imagine, that wastes a lot of time and gas for the locals. Oprah owns a ranch and a very swanky bed and breakfast in Upcountry Maui and likely enjoys shopping at Kihei or spending some time on the beach down there--but she doesn't have time to do all of that driving (or being driven more likely) so Oprah paid to build the highway that the locals have wanted for so long--cutting the driving time down to just a couple of minutes.
The only thing is, the highway is open only to Oprah. There are signs at both ends of the road (which I have seen in person) stating that anyone caught using Oprah's road will be prosecuted. From what I have read, some locals (and brave tourists) have snuck onto Oprah's private highway--and I'm not sure if they have been caught or fined. But I'm guessing that someone that can build her own highway wherever she wants it--and then can limit public access to it--would not take too kindly to a Republican Congress blocking any of her initiatives in the White House.
Besides, we don't want future political scientists and historians to include in their textbooks "Appalled by the Republican's electing an unqualified, celebrity President, Democrats countered in the next election cycle with their own unqualified, celebrity for President.
But without even seeing or hearing what Oprah had to say I'm 100-percent sure it was about oppressed people rising up, fighting for the truth to be heard, and believe in yourself. I know that because that is what every Oprah public speech is about. And in these "dark times", many liberals want that to be the message of their candidate in three years. So that is why #Oprah2020 was trending on Twitter last night.
Well, I can flat out guarantee that Oprah Winfrey is NOT going to run for President--no matter how much the coastal elites and her celebrity pals tweet about it. For starters, Oprah likes making money. This is a woman that has created a multi-media empire--with her own TV network, magazine, movie and TV production companies. She owns Weight Watchers now and has her own line of "healthy meals"--starring in the commercials for them. (Her claims that mashed cauliflower is "just as delicious" as real mashed potatoes shows that she could certainly lie like a real politician). So why would she want to divest herself of all that? One need only look at the difficulty the current Celebrity President is having in separating his businesses from what is now the country's business.
Plus, Oprah has total control and power over everything in her life. Here is my favorite Oprah story. On the island of Maui, residents for decades have wanted a road connecting the Piilani Highway (known at the "Back Road to Hana") with the resort area of Kihei on the southwest part of the island. The current drive takes over an hour because the highway heads into the center of Maui before doubling back to the coast. As you can imagine, that wastes a lot of time and gas for the locals. Oprah owns a ranch and a very swanky bed and breakfast in Upcountry Maui and likely enjoys shopping at Kihei or spending some time on the beach down there--but she doesn't have time to do all of that driving (or being driven more likely) so Oprah paid to build the highway that the locals have wanted for so long--cutting the driving time down to just a couple of minutes.
The only thing is, the highway is open only to Oprah. There are signs at both ends of the road (which I have seen in person) stating that anyone caught using Oprah's road will be prosecuted. From what I have read, some locals (and brave tourists) have snuck onto Oprah's private highway--and I'm not sure if they have been caught or fined. But I'm guessing that someone that can build her own highway wherever she wants it--and then can limit public access to it--would not take too kindly to a Republican Congress blocking any of her initiatives in the White House.
Besides, we don't want future political scientists and historians to include in their textbooks "Appalled by the Republican's electing an unqualified, celebrity President, Democrats countered in the next election cycle with their own unqualified, celebrity for President.
Friday, January 5, 2018
The Self-Identification Champions
Let's take a minute this morning to congratulate the University of Central Florida Golden Knights on their National Championship in College Football.
Now, if you are thinking "Aren't Georgia and Alabama playing in the 'College Football Playoff Championship Game' on Monday night?" don't worry--you aren't losing your mind. UCF is actually becoming the first team to "self-identify" as a national champion.
The Golden Knights argue that because they are the only undefeated team left in college football--and because they beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl and Auburn is the only team to defeat both Alabama and Georgia this year--they deserve to call themselves "champions"--even if no one else in the world is going to recognize that. UCF is even going so far as to hold a parade at Disney World on Sunday and a banner-raising ceremony at their stadium Monday night during the "illegitimate" National Championship Game in Atlanta.
When you think about it, the Central Florida "title" is the perfect confluence of two cultural fads: self-identification and everyone needs to be made to feel special. If gender, race and heritage are no longer based upon DNA and anatomy, why should championship status be based on playoff results, strength of schedule and power rankings? If UCF "feels like" they should be national champions based upon their own standards, then who are we to criticize or even question them?
And speaking of feelings, we wouldn't want the Golden Knights to feel like their effort wasn't the best that anyone has ever seen. They tried hard. They were told from day one that they are very good players. And to see someone else given the ultimate credit and glory is inherently "unfair". It shouldn't matter that Alabama or Georgia beat much better teams throughout the season, or that they would pound Central Florida into the turf if the two met in a game with more on the line than the Peach Bowl trophy. "We played so we deserve a championship too!"
Now in UCF's defense, the winner of the Georgia-Alabama game won't be NCAA Champions either. That is because the NCAA does not recognize a national champion in "College Bowl Subdivision Football". In fact, it is the only sport in which the NCAA does not have its own championship playoffs. The College Football Playoff that is currently employed is a creation of ESPN, its corporate sponsors and the five main conferences that share in the huge advertising revenues created by the three games. Unfortunately for Central Florida, they are not a member of one of those five conferences--so they can (and were) shut out of the "playoff".
So I guess if we are giving a "mythical" national championship to one school on Monday night, it should be okay for another school give itself a fake title too. I wonder if Rachel Dolezal and Senator Elizabeth Warren are available as Grand Marshalls for that parade?
Now, if you are thinking "Aren't Georgia and Alabama playing in the 'College Football Playoff Championship Game' on Monday night?" don't worry--you aren't losing your mind. UCF is actually becoming the first team to "self-identify" as a national champion.
The Golden Knights argue that because they are the only undefeated team left in college football--and because they beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl and Auburn is the only team to defeat both Alabama and Georgia this year--they deserve to call themselves "champions"--even if no one else in the world is going to recognize that. UCF is even going so far as to hold a parade at Disney World on Sunday and a banner-raising ceremony at their stadium Monday night during the "illegitimate" National Championship Game in Atlanta.
When you think about it, the Central Florida "title" is the perfect confluence of two cultural fads: self-identification and everyone needs to be made to feel special. If gender, race and heritage are no longer based upon DNA and anatomy, why should championship status be based on playoff results, strength of schedule and power rankings? If UCF "feels like" they should be national champions based upon their own standards, then who are we to criticize or even question them?
And speaking of feelings, we wouldn't want the Golden Knights to feel like their effort wasn't the best that anyone has ever seen. They tried hard. They were told from day one that they are very good players. And to see someone else given the ultimate credit and glory is inherently "unfair". It shouldn't matter that Alabama or Georgia beat much better teams throughout the season, or that they would pound Central Florida into the turf if the two met in a game with more on the line than the Peach Bowl trophy. "We played so we deserve a championship too!"
Now in UCF's defense, the winner of the Georgia-Alabama game won't be NCAA Champions either. That is because the NCAA does not recognize a national champion in "College Bowl Subdivision Football". In fact, it is the only sport in which the NCAA does not have its own championship playoffs. The College Football Playoff that is currently employed is a creation of ESPN, its corporate sponsors and the five main conferences that share in the huge advertising revenues created by the three games. Unfortunately for Central Florida, they are not a member of one of those five conferences--so they can (and were) shut out of the "playoff".
So I guess if we are giving a "mythical" national championship to one school on Monday night, it should be okay for another school give itself a fake title too. I wonder if Rachel Dolezal and Senator Elizabeth Warren are available as Grand Marshalls for that parade?
Thursday, January 4, 2018
When Godwin's Law Actually Applies
I don't usually engage in comparing modern politics to those of Nazi Germany. There is a principal called "Godwin's Law" that hold that any on-line discussion about politics--if allowed to go on long enough--will lead to a reference or comparison to Naziism. One need only refer to the comment section below any article about the Trump Presidency on news sites or the Twitter responses to any post by Donald Trump to see "Godwin's Law" in full effect.
But sometimes something happens that actually does deserve comparison to what happened in Nazi Germany--and one of those took place yesterday as the President called his former Chief Advisor Steve Bannon "insane" for comments he made about Trump in a book about to be published. My mind immediately flashed to the infamous Rudolph Hess incident during World War II.
For those unfamiliar, Hess was one of Hitler's earliest supporters--helping him to write Mein Kampf while both were imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the government in the 1920's. Hess was key in the formation of the Nazi Party, helped Hitler to manipulate the German political process to gain a foothold in Government, to increase Nazi influence and eventually to seize complete control over the country. For his loyalty, Hess was eventually named Deputy Fuhrer--making him the second-most-powerful man in the party.
But early in World War II, Hess had a falling out with Hitler and was left out of battle planning. Believing that Germany was on the path to defeat and destruction--especially if it invaded the Soviet Union--Hess flew his own Luftwaffe plane to Scotland hoping to meet with an obscure member of the Royal Family to negotiate peace with Britain. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war for several years--much to embarrassment of Hitler.
In fact, the Fuhrer wanted to discredit Hess by releasing a statement that the man was insane and should have been committed to a mental institution. However, Hitler was talked out of that by his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels--who pointed out that the German people would wonder why a crazy man would have been allowed to hold the second-most-powerful position in the Nazi party in the first place.
Obviously, Steve Bannon telling tales out of school about his former political puppet isn't as bizarre as the second in command crash landing in a foreign country while on a clandestine, unauthorized peace mission--but sometimes history does repeat itself in slightly different ways. Oh, and in both cases--the guys were likely insane.
But sometimes something happens that actually does deserve comparison to what happened in Nazi Germany--and one of those took place yesterday as the President called his former Chief Advisor Steve Bannon "insane" for comments he made about Trump in a book about to be published. My mind immediately flashed to the infamous Rudolph Hess incident during World War II.
For those unfamiliar, Hess was one of Hitler's earliest supporters--helping him to write Mein Kampf while both were imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the government in the 1920's. Hess was key in the formation of the Nazi Party, helped Hitler to manipulate the German political process to gain a foothold in Government, to increase Nazi influence and eventually to seize complete control over the country. For his loyalty, Hess was eventually named Deputy Fuhrer--making him the second-most-powerful man in the party.
But early in World War II, Hess had a falling out with Hitler and was left out of battle planning. Believing that Germany was on the path to defeat and destruction--especially if it invaded the Soviet Union--Hess flew his own Luftwaffe plane to Scotland hoping to meet with an obscure member of the Royal Family to negotiate peace with Britain. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war for several years--much to embarrassment of Hitler.
In fact, the Fuhrer wanted to discredit Hess by releasing a statement that the man was insane and should have been committed to a mental institution. However, Hitler was talked out of that by his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels--who pointed out that the German people would wonder why a crazy man would have been allowed to hold the second-most-powerful position in the Nazi party in the first place.
Obviously, Steve Bannon telling tales out of school about his former political puppet isn't as bizarre as the second in command crash landing in a foreign country while on a clandestine, unauthorized peace mission--but sometimes history does repeat itself in slightly different ways. Oh, and in both cases--the guys were likely insane.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
So Where is All of the Outrage Today?
I think I'm going to start referring to January 3rd as "Disappointment Day". Here in Wisconsin, January 2nd--unless it falls upon a weekend day--is the date by which candidates in the non-partisan spring elections must file their nomination petitions to get on the ballot. And barring a few instances in the 17-years that I've been doing news here in Oshkosh, there are few truly contested races.
Last year, fed by the opposition to the rental inspection program, the Oshkosh Common Council saw enough candidates file papers to warrant a rare February primary to whittle down the field. But other than that, the number of people seeking local office continues to fall. In both the Council and School Board races there is just one challenger to the three incumbents. The apathy is even worse when it comes to the Winnebago County Board--where this year there are just TWO contested races out of 36 seats. And three districts won't have a single candidate on the ballot in April--meaning the Board itself will appoint a Supervisor (if they can find anyone to apply for the position).
Whenever I see a protester in the street saying "This is what democracy looks like!"--I think of election time--which is what democracy actually is (not protest). And January 3rd is where we inevitably find out those people aren't interested in "real democracy". Where are the four-thousand people that signed the petition to reduce the fine for marijuana possession to just 25-bucks in Oshkosh? You don't need a petition and a referendum to make that happen. You just need four seats on the Common Council--and this year you could have picked up two more of those (along with pot afcianado Caroline Panske who is seeking re-election despite her arrest and conviction last year). You win another seat or two in 2019--and maybe even the Mayor's position--and you've got yourself the majority needed to completely decriminalize possession and not have any fine at all.
And where are all of the "thousands of stock car fans" that were supposed to be outraged by the decision to shut down the Speedzone Racetrack so Lifest could have a permanent stage? There were three seats on the Board that you could have had just by simply collecting enough nomination signatures to be the only person on the ballot. Meanwhile 31 other seats--some with incumbents that voted in favor of shutting down the track--won't even be contested this spring.
Those incumbents that face little or no opposition will tell you that their constituents are "very happy with them". But the sad truth of the matter is that they may literally be the one person in their entire district that is willing to put in the small amount of effort that it takes to be a part of our democracy.
Last year, fed by the opposition to the rental inspection program, the Oshkosh Common Council saw enough candidates file papers to warrant a rare February primary to whittle down the field. But other than that, the number of people seeking local office continues to fall. In both the Council and School Board races there is just one challenger to the three incumbents. The apathy is even worse when it comes to the Winnebago County Board--where this year there are just TWO contested races out of 36 seats. And three districts won't have a single candidate on the ballot in April--meaning the Board itself will appoint a Supervisor (if they can find anyone to apply for the position).
Whenever I see a protester in the street saying "This is what democracy looks like!"--I think of election time--which is what democracy actually is (not protest). And January 3rd is where we inevitably find out those people aren't interested in "real democracy". Where are the four-thousand people that signed the petition to reduce the fine for marijuana possession to just 25-bucks in Oshkosh? You don't need a petition and a referendum to make that happen. You just need four seats on the Common Council--and this year you could have picked up two more of those (along with pot afcianado Caroline Panske who is seeking re-election despite her arrest and conviction last year). You win another seat or two in 2019--and maybe even the Mayor's position--and you've got yourself the majority needed to completely decriminalize possession and not have any fine at all.
And where are all of the "thousands of stock car fans" that were supposed to be outraged by the decision to shut down the Speedzone Racetrack so Lifest could have a permanent stage? There were three seats on the Board that you could have had just by simply collecting enough nomination signatures to be the only person on the ballot. Meanwhile 31 other seats--some with incumbents that voted in favor of shutting down the track--won't even be contested this spring.
Those incumbents that face little or no opposition will tell you that their constituents are "very happy with them". But the sad truth of the matter is that they may literally be the one person in their entire district that is willing to put in the small amount of effort that it takes to be a part of our democracy.
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
Predictions....Sure to Go Wrong
Last week I told you I would look into the crystal ball to form some predictions for 2018. Instead, I spent most of the weekend sick and having to run back and forth from home to the Radio Ranch to let people into the building because the locks on the main door have frozen and don't work when it is super cold--which is quite the hassle because it appears that "super cold" is pretty much the long-range forecast for this entire winter. But here are four predictions--that are sure to go wrong.
1--The remnants of Lakeshore Golf Course here in Oshkosh will not become a nine-hole course. I've got some friends trying to push this idea, saying creative designs can preserve some of the holes and add a couple of others to keep golf going at the site. But the simple truth of the matter is that the City does not want to be in the golf course business. It's a break-even proposition at best in terms of operating revenue--and you are looking at additional expense to create new holes, a new clubhouse and perhaps new practice facilities--since the Oshkosh Corp building and parking lots are going where those current features are located. Plus, if the remainder of the Lakeshore site is kept as "green space" as the City is pushing for, it's much easier to justify selling that off if another corporation comes along with a desire for a lakefront property to call home.
2--FoxConn will be the biggest drama queens in the history of the state. Whether it's a lawsuit that threatens the legality of the straight cash payments that the Village of Fox Crossing is providing to the project, delays in upgrading the roads leading to the proposed plant site, struggles to hire enough contractors and sub-contractors to handle the construction, or bad-mouthing of the deal by Democratic candidates for all state and legislative offices, FoxConn will spend all of 2018 being "on the verge of pulling out of their deal". I think the company knows they have the state over a barrel now and may try to squeeze every last incentive and concession out of us in a desperate attempt to "save the deal".
3--Governor Scott Walker will win re-election with around 52% of the vote. Let's face it, the Governor is employing the strategy made famous by former George W Bush advisor Carl Rove--find the minimum number of voters necessary to win every time and continually play to that base to keep them in the fold. And what has he done to alienate any of the people that have voted for him the previous three times? Add to that a Democratic field of challengers that will only provide "at least I'm not Scott Walker" as their main campaign theme--and it's a recipe for a close--but still comfortable--win in November.
4--The Green Bay Packers aren't going to get much better. It might seem like new hope is about to be born at Lambeau Field this week with the firing of Dom Capers and Ted Thompson stepping aside as General Manager. But as the Aaron Rodgers injury proved this season, there are far too many deficiencies to address in just one off-season in terms of talent and depth. A 9-7 wild card playoff entry may seem like an "improvement" over this year--but it will be just another year closer to the closing of the window of opportunity in Rodgers' career. And then, the talk-show call-in "experts" will be calling for Mike McCarthy's head.
So that is what we have to look forward to in 2018. Not really that much more exciting that what we lived through two days ago.
1--The remnants of Lakeshore Golf Course here in Oshkosh will not become a nine-hole course. I've got some friends trying to push this idea, saying creative designs can preserve some of the holes and add a couple of others to keep golf going at the site. But the simple truth of the matter is that the City does not want to be in the golf course business. It's a break-even proposition at best in terms of operating revenue--and you are looking at additional expense to create new holes, a new clubhouse and perhaps new practice facilities--since the Oshkosh Corp building and parking lots are going where those current features are located. Plus, if the remainder of the Lakeshore site is kept as "green space" as the City is pushing for, it's much easier to justify selling that off if another corporation comes along with a desire for a lakefront property to call home.
2--FoxConn will be the biggest drama queens in the history of the state. Whether it's a lawsuit that threatens the legality of the straight cash payments that the Village of Fox Crossing is providing to the project, delays in upgrading the roads leading to the proposed plant site, struggles to hire enough contractors and sub-contractors to handle the construction, or bad-mouthing of the deal by Democratic candidates for all state and legislative offices, FoxConn will spend all of 2018 being "on the verge of pulling out of their deal". I think the company knows they have the state over a barrel now and may try to squeeze every last incentive and concession out of us in a desperate attempt to "save the deal".
3--Governor Scott Walker will win re-election with around 52% of the vote. Let's face it, the Governor is employing the strategy made famous by former George W Bush advisor Carl Rove--find the minimum number of voters necessary to win every time and continually play to that base to keep them in the fold. And what has he done to alienate any of the people that have voted for him the previous three times? Add to that a Democratic field of challengers that will only provide "at least I'm not Scott Walker" as their main campaign theme--and it's a recipe for a close--but still comfortable--win in November.
4--The Green Bay Packers aren't going to get much better. It might seem like new hope is about to be born at Lambeau Field this week with the firing of Dom Capers and Ted Thompson stepping aside as General Manager. But as the Aaron Rodgers injury proved this season, there are far too many deficiencies to address in just one off-season in terms of talent and depth. A 9-7 wild card playoff entry may seem like an "improvement" over this year--but it will be just another year closer to the closing of the window of opportunity in Rodgers' career. And then, the talk-show call-in "experts" will be calling for Mike McCarthy's head.
So that is what we have to look forward to in 2018. Not really that much more exciting that what we lived through two days ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)