Just Giving the People What They Want

President Trump can drop his "War on Amazon" anytime now.  He's decided to go another round with Jeff Bezos and the on-line retailer this week claiming that Amazon steals tax revenue from local and state governments by allowing people to avoid having to buy pretty much anything at local brick and mortar stores.  Perhaps the President was upset that Toys R Us is shutting down--as Amazon made every toy sold there available for purchase on-line without having to put up with other people's screaming children and long lines at the registers.

The taxes to which the President must be referring are property taxes and payroll taxes--because Amazon does collect sales taxes--although that took lawsuits and changes to laws by a number of states to happen.  And Amazon is literally the only thing keeping the United States Postal Service afloat--as package delivery far exceeds regular mail volume now--although that did not prevent the USPS from losing 200-million dollars last year.

I would think that President Trump would be a "give the people what they want" kind of guy--being a "populist" and all.  And Amazon is what people want.  They don't want to get off the couch or away from their screens to do anything anymore.  That's why every major retailer is pouring more resources into their on-line selling platforms than they are into stores and displays.  That's why there are hundreds of grocery delivery services now--including those like Blue Apron that not only deliver food, but have it pre-packaged for quick preparation in your home.

Amazon and its myriad of copy-cat sites aren't "destroying retail".  The people that order from Amazon and any other on-line site are doing it.  Internet companies are just the vehicles they are using to do it.  Americans are voting with their pocketbooks--and they want to shop from home now.  And if President Trump wants to bash them via Twitter he will end up looking like those crackpots of old that got mad at Henry Ford for putting horse-carriage makers and blacksmiths out of business.  If Henry Ford owned a newspaper that detailed the daily disasters taking place inside the White House.  Can't forget about that angle to the story.

TWIB Notes

It's Opening Day in Major League Baseball today--and I have a few thoughts on the upcoming season:

--First off, why is Opening Day on a Thursday?  I have become accustomed to this being part of the best week of the sports year.  You could count on the Final Four on Saturday night, Opening Day games Monday afternoon, the NCAA National Championship game Monday night and then Masters Week takes over from there.  Once again, tradition takes a back seat to money.

--I predict that time-saving efforts by Major League Baseball to shorten game times will be a miserable failure.  The growth of Advance Analytics has led to more pitching changes, selective pitching patterns, more foul balls and batters working the count in every at-bat.  It has been that, and not pitchers having to walk in from the bullpen or too much time between pitchers getting the ball from the catcher and getting ready to throw again.  Of course, the game would speed up immediately if umpires called more strikes--and hitters came up to the plate ready to swing.

--While Ryan Braun is still promoted as the "face of the franchise", this year the Milwaukee Brewers will be Travis Shaw's team.  The hard-nosed third baseman is younger, healthier and more productive than Braun has been for the last five years.  And he's that kind of "old school" that you want your team to play like every day.  I expect him to have an even bigger year than he did last season.

--So how will the Brewers end up doing this year?  A number of experts pick them to be one of the National League Wild Cards--with the Cubs expected to win the National League Central.  Teams that "come out of nowhere" one season--like the Brewers did last year--tend to slip back a little bit the next.  That may be the result of young guys struggling to meet higher expectations, or older guys not having career years that they had the season before.  And I think that may befall the Crew this year.  Their bullpen is great--but I think the starting pitching is a bit fragile.  Getting Jimmy Nelson back at the level he was pitching before hurting himself running the bases late last year will help immensely--but we still aren't sure what the timeline is for his return.  The Brewers outfield might be the best in the National League--and they lead MLB in guys that play first base--but I still don't see where they improved their situational hitting or their baserunning--which was the worst in baseball last year.  I'll give the Brewers a winning record again this year, but I think they will miss the playoffs by a game again in October.

--Until late last week, this Two Cents was going to be about the San Francisco Giants return to baseball supremacy--but then Madison Bumgarner broke his pitching hand after being hit by a line drive in a meaningless spring training game--so this will be another lost season for them.  May as well hand the Yankees the World Series Trophy right now.

No Need To Know

If you saw an ant in your house this morning, would you think you had an "ant problem"?  You would probably think that perhaps it got into the house when you had a door open or maybe it was on your work boots when you came in from the yard.  Now if you found ten ants, you might think it's time to call a pest control specialist to check out the situation.

But what if that exterminator came to your house, asked you how many ants you thought you saw and when you guessed "about ten" he told you "That's no problem, I'm sure its not many more than that" and tried to leave.  Wouldn't you ask him to check out the whole house--to try to get a real grasp on the problem--rather than just work off your best estimate of how bad you think it is?  The same would be true if he immediately told you to evacuate the house, started setting up one of those huge fogging tents, and started pumping chemicals into your house after you told him you saw a couple of ants.

So why then wouldn't we want to know exactly how many illegal immigrants are living in the United States?  Why would we continue to operate on the "estimated" number of undocumented workers or childhood arrivals we actually have here?  I'm not comparing those in the country illegally to pests that need to be "exterminated"--but we certainly should have an expectation as a country to know the extent of their presence.

And yet, states are already lining up to sue the Federal Government if a citizenship question is asked on the 2020 Census.  Their claim is that illegals will be "too afraid" to fill out the form--even though it is required by law--and that their states will be "undercounted".  That's a big deal, as the Census determines Congressional representation along with Federal funding levels.  But you could certainly argue that non-citizens aren't allowed to vote for those representatives--and are not eligible for many Federal benefits, so what difference would that make?

The point is that we really have no idea how many people are in the country illegally.  Private groups have put estimates at anywhere between seven and eleven million.  While running for President, Donald Trump claimed the number was 30-million.  How do you address an issue if those trying to make the ultimate decision don't know what the facts are?  If it's only "a couple million" will we just shrug and think "that's not so bad" and not do anything?  If it turns out there are 30-million illegal immigrants in the country, will that lead to knee-jerk reactions demanding deportations?

Given that those states opposed to the citizenship question will find friendly judges throughout the Federal Court system, this issue will be tied up for years and the issue will likely not be on the Census form.  So all of us can just lie awake at night wondering "how many ants are there in the house?"

The New Information Era

I know there aren't many of them around anymore, but I wonder what the old school journalists that covered the White House and national politics think about how the goings-on in Washington are covered today.  I ask this in the wake of the breathless anticipation with which current reporters previewed the "Stormy Daniels" interview on 60 Minutes and the two days of "analysis" that has gone on since then.

I just have a hard time imagining Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow sitting down with a porn actress of the 1950's or '60's and asking her to describe having sex with a private citizen who would later become the President.  Presidential affairs--while in office--were open secrets back then.  Lucy Mercer was with Franklin Roosevelt when he died in Georgia.  Yet there is not a single mention of that in reports of the time. 

President Kennedy had affairs with female reporters assigned to the White House.  Another mistress was the sister-in-law of Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee.  And then there was Marilyn Monroe.  Imagine what the coverage would be like today if the most powerful man in the world and the sexiest movie star in Hollywood were getting it on? (And the starlette believed that she could force out the current First Lady and take her place in the White House?)  We would have to start new news channels and hire hundreds of anchors and reporters just to cover that one story.

Of course, this "code of silence" ended when President Bill Clinton decided to lie about his affair with a White House intern while under oath in a deposition.  Then it became a political "affair" and almost a constitutional crisis.  And with it came huge ratings for the TV news networks that dedicated 24-hour coverage and salacious details of blue dresses and cigars.  The groundwork had been laid for Anderson Cooper to spend the better part of an hour talking with a woman paid to have sex with men in front of a camera talking in front of a camera about how she didn't want to be paid to not talk about having sex with a man.

We may know more about our politicians today--but I'm not sure we are really better informed.

Oh Canada

While many of you were watching a porn actress talking about having sex with the guy that ended up becoming President of the United States last night, my wife and I were watching a live stream of the Canadian version of the Grammys--The Junos.  It's not that we wanted to see who won Artist of the Year or best Indigenous People's Album.  The Barenaked Ladies were inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame--and they performed with former singer Steven Page for the first time in nearly a decade.  Unfortunately, that magic moment came at the end of the awards broadcast--but having to sit through two hours of honoring the "best" of Canadian music did provide some insight into our neighbors to the north.

Canada is one of those countries that liberals like to say the US "should be more like".  They have health insurance for all, their kids are better-educated than ours, they openly accept refugees from predominantly Muslim countries, their Prime Minister is young, handsome and cries about past injustices upon people of color, they have high taxes and the rich "pay their fair share".  But based upon what we heard from their celebrities last night, that still isn't good enough.

I can tell you based upon speeches given on the stage last night that women working in entertainment in Canada also face sexual harassment and assault.  They also apparently don't hold enough technical positions in the music field.  They aren't high-ranking officials at Canadian record companies either.  And they don't feel "safe" in the workplace.  Indigenous peoples--known up there as "The First Nations"--still deserve reparations for their unfair treatment for centuries.  Blacks (nobody referred to themselves as African-Canadians) don't receive enough support in the entertainment industry and commercial radio doesn't play enough of their songs.

A number of performers mentioned that public school music programs at their old schools had been cut due to tight budgets.  And they asked the Government to do more to promote the arts (even though the Best New Artist Award and Breakthrough Artist of the Year Award were both sponsored "by the Government of Canada").

The most touching moment of the night was a tribute to the lead singer of the Tragically Hip--Gord Downie--who died from cancer earlier this year.  Nobody got on stage to blame "greedy health insurance companies" or to declare that "health care is a right" because they've got Government health care in Canada--and Gord got sick and died anyway.

Last night's attempts at "celebrity activism" were tempered by typical Canadian politeness.  Not a single politician was called out by name.  No political party was blamed for the "ills of society" and nobody encouraged voters to head to the ballot boxes to "bring change to Ottawa".  Instead, to a person, they all said "we as Canadians need to work to together".  In that way, I guess maybe we should try to be more like Canada.

The Perfect Job

The perfect job just opened up for those of you who might be interested.  It's a salaried position, comes with full benefits, and requires absolutely no work for the rest of the year.  It's being the State Senator in District 1.

A Dane County Judge ruled on Thursday that Governor Scott Walker is violating the Constitution by not holding a special election to replace former Senator Frank Lasee--who resigned at the end of last year.  A group led by former US Attorney General Eric Holder filed that lawsuit--finding a couple of people living in that district who claimed to be "disenfranchised" by not having the seat filled.  So that means if there is no appeal, taxpayers in Door, Brown, Kewaunee and Calumet counties will have to pay for a special election for a seat that comes up for election again in November.

And the winner of that special election will be asked to attend ZERO sessions of the State Senate for the rest of this term--as the Legislature has adjourned for the year so incumbents can spend the summer and fall campaigning for re-election.  But, just because you aren't meeting doesn't mean you don't continue to get your taxpayer-funded paycheck and insurance coverages.  Maybe there will be a couple of committee meetings at the Capitol you can attend--just so you can collect a per diem too.

Since you can't just hold an election tomorrow, there will have to be a collection and filing period for nomination petition signatures.  And if there is more than one candidate per party that files their papers, there will have to be a primary--followed by another campaign period before a general election.  That means the earliest this seat could be filled is early June.  That would be followed by the certification process for the election--and then the Senate President would have to schedule a swearing-in ceremony.  I would recommend that whomever wins that special election just keep their campaign signs in everyone's yards--because the primary for the fall election is in August--and they could be out collecting signatures for that race just a couple of days after first being elected.

The idiocy may not stop there.  State Representative Andre Jacque was already planning to run for Lasee's seat in the fall--so it would be easy for him to mount a special election campaign.  And if he were to win, that means another vacant seat in the Assembly--and since the legal precedent has been set--Governor Walker would have to call another special election to fill a seat that also goes up for election in November--creating even more taxpayer expense.

Now we know why Holder's group filed this lawsuit--and it has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement".  There has been plenty of media coverage of special elections this year--with Democrats flipping a few seats in Congress and state houses (including a Senate seat in Western Wisconsin).  Forcing a couple more special elections here keeps that narrative going and allows everyone on the Left to keep the dream of a "Blue Wave" in November alive.  And the power of incumbency in any election is great--so even to have a "figurehead" win the special election gives them an advantage in the real election in November.

Oh, and don't worry about not actually living in the 1st District before running for that meaningless position.  Frank Lasee didn't live in De Pere for years--and Oshkosh is much closer to that district than Kenosha.

The Gentle Man

I recently saw a trailer for a new documentary coming out next month on the life of Fred Rogers.  Won't You Be My Neighbor will chronicle how the Presbyterian minister developed the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood TV show and the cultural impact it had on generations of Americans.

There is no doubt that Rogers will be portrayed as a "social justice warrior" who championed the causes of the "under-represented, the repressed and the dis-enfranchised".  Make no mistake, Fred Rogers believed in equality and respect for everyone--but he got his message across in a much different--and much more effective way.

Mr. Rogers did not peddle guilt, assign blame or make veiled threats to get across his message to kids.  In the trailer, Francois Clemmons--who is an African-American and who played a police officer that patrolled "the neighborhood"--talks about a scene where he and Mr Rogers share a pool (a kiddie pool actually, with the two cooling their feet from walking so much).  The episode aired during a time when whites were not allowing their kids to share a public pool with black kids (and the trailer shows a white man dumping huge bottles of chlorine in a pool where blacks are swimming).  But in that scene, Mr Rogers never says a thing about race.  He doesn't talk about how whites don't want to swim with blacks.  He doesn't talk about blacks being the victim of racism for 200-years.  He portrays Officer Clemons as his equal and shows kids that nothing bad happens if people of different colors simply share a pool.

The trailer also notes that Rogers wanted to present difficult topics like the assassinations of the late 1960's, Vietnam and divorce as part of his show.  That's because Fred Rogers believed that children had an amazing capacity to handle adversity and would experience less fear if they were exposed to bad things--but were given guidance and explanations for what is happening.  Mr Rogers Neighborhood was a "safe space"--but not because the kids there were never exposed to things that might make them uncomfortable.

I fear that the endless litany of talking heads taking part in the documentary will try to "modernize" Mr Rogers--claiming that he would be "fighting" for transgender people, the #metoo movement and gun control efforts if he were still alive and on TV today.  Those topics would most certainly make their way into a current version of Mr Rogers--but there wouldn't be an attitude of "us versus them" presented--where kids need to pick a side and be villainized by those in the other camp.

In a way, I wish Fred Rogers would be here for the "social media age".  I can guarantee that his posts would be supportive of all people, and that there would never be snarky replies to politicians, other celebrities or members of the media.  Of course, he would probably have to turn off notifications and hire a full time staff to delete all of the replies to his own posts.

I hope that the public won't be turned off by the term "documentary" to categorize Won't You Be My Neighbor--since that all but assures it will be a box office flop.  Because I think Fred Rogers still has plenty to teach all of us.

Your New Friend: Big Brother

As if losing hundreds of millions of dollars of your net worth wasn't bad enough, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg may find himself the subject of a hostile takeover.  For those that use Facebook but aren't aware of what's going on, a company called Cambridge Analytica developed an app that ostensibly would help its users finds compatible people on social media platforms.  What it was actually doing was taking that person's on-line information and that of their friends, and of their friends' friends, and of their friends' friends's friends--until it got profile information on an estimated 50-million people.  Cambridge then used that information to target potential voters with pro-Donald Trump (or anti-Hillary Clinton) ads leading up to the 2016 election.

People working for President Obama's re-election campaign admit they used the same information to micro-target their potential voters in 2012.  The only difference is they had permission from Facebook to use the data--as Mark Zuckerberg was a big Obama supporter.  Facebook is allowed to share that info because you clicked the "accept" button on the terms of use agreement that nobody has ever actually read.  Where Cambridge violated the agreement is that they didn't ask permission from Facebook to go data mining.

Kim Komando (heard 9 to noon every Saturday here on WOSH) revealed something this past weekend that should really concern us.  Re-reading that potential post and deciding against hitting the blue button does not mean Facebook doesn't know what your wrote.  Basically, every keystroke from your computer is saved by the website--even if delete everything or discard the "draft" and it never appears on your page.  Those "rejected" thoughts are added to the huge database that Facebook has collected on you--which it is willing to sell to advertizers--and which can be stolen by hackers.

Because this data mining was used for the "nefarious" purpose of electing Donald Trump (as opposed to its use "for good" in election President Obama four years earlier) the Federal Government now wants to get its meaty hooks into Facebook.  Zuckerberg will likely be called before Congressional committees to detail how your personal data is collected, how it is sold, and what flimsy protections are in place to prevent another Cambridge Analytica "breach".  Bucks co-owner Marc Lasry--a big-time Hillary Clinton supporter and a hedge fund manager that does not invest in Facebook--is calling for regulation of the site (and other social media outlets).

Once Uncle Sam becomes a "partner" in Facebook, you can pretty much stick a fork in it.  First, the tin-foil hat crowd will dump the site because "the Government will have all your information, man".  And if the Feds place new limits on what info Facebook can share with its potential advertisers, companies will see less value in the social media platform, causing revenues to whither and die.  Data thieves will be forced to move on too--likely to Alexa and Siri--who hear everything you say in the privacy of your own home.

Committed For a Reason

Last week I mentioned a number of factors that went into why I as a teenager never had to fear dying in a school shooting--despite access to guns being easier in the 1980's.  Discipline, actual parental oversight, less glorification of violence and actual human interaction were among the points I touched on.  One that I did not mention--but will now--is that people that threatened to harm us were usually locked up.

I was reminded of that this week as reports surfaced that the Parkland, Florida shooter had been recommended for involuntary commitment due to mental health issues.  Such a commitment would have taken the shooter off the streets and receiving the in-patient mental care he obviously needed.  It also would have put him on a list of people who would not be allowed to purchase firearms--meaning gun laws already on the books would then have likely prevented the school shooting.

Some of you older listeners may remember "sanitariums".  Originally used for those with highly-infectious diseases, they eventually became repositories for the insane.  People that talked to themselves in public, whose behaviors could not be controlled by their parents or police, and those that made threats to harm others were secreted away to these facilities.  The CNN series on the Kennedy family this month reminded me that Joe Kennedy had his daughter lobotomized and then committed to a facility in Jefferson County here in Wisconsin to live out the rest of her life.

Institutionalization was seen as the best way to protect the rest of society from those who could not--or would not--control their behavior.  But somewhere in the 1960's and 70's--involuntary committal came to be seen as "inhumane"--and courts became less likely to do it.  Doctors convinced judges and advocates that modern medicines could control those deemed to be a threat to themselves and others.  Laws were passed that forced the mainstreaming of those with profound mental illnesses into society, schools and the workplace.  Committal was no longer a proactive step--but a "last resort"--usually taken only after a serious criminal act.

Now those that had for decades been locked away for both their own and society's protection are out on the streets.  Often left to fend for themselves, or to disrupt classrooms and workplaces, and in extreme cases to act out in ways that take dozens of lives with them.  So among the "discussions" we should be having in the wake of another school shooting is if we should continue to put faith in voluntary administration of drugs to control the criminally insane--or if we are going to use involuntary commitment to protect not just ourselves but those who seek to do us harm.

All Three'd Out

I'm sure there was plenty of excitement in Sunday's NCAA Tournament games, but I just could not bring myself to watch much of it yesterday.  This is a first for me, because I love college sports--and especially March Madness, with the upsets, buzzer beaters and everyone living and dying on every shot.  But I can't handle seeing anymore three point attempts.

Basketball below the NBA level has devolved into a two-shot game, the 3-pointer and the blow-by layup.  There is little effort made to feed the ball into the low post for big men to take high-percentage shots.  Their only hope of scoring now is grabbing a rebound for a put-back or stepping out to shoot threes of their own.  And the next time I see a kid shoot a pull up ten foot jumper from the baseline will be the first time I see a kid shoot a pull up ten foot jumper from the baseline in this entire tournament.

You don't realize how boring the game has become (from a strategy standpoint) until you watch a lot of it in a condensed amount of time and recognize how limited offense has become.  It started with the high school championship games as Roncalli, Valders and their opponents just kept jacking it up from the outside.  Kaukauna's Jordan McCabe was forcing up 24-footers early in their game against Milwaukee Washington--and nobody questioned his shot selection.  We had the 3-point line when I was in high school and if anyone took shots like that (and didn't make them) they would earn themselves a seat on the bench immediately.  Now coaches just clap their hands and tell their kids to keep jacking it from the cheap seats.

The NCAA Tournament games were just as bad.  Michigan State has no one that can make a three--yet that was more than half their shots against the Syracuse 2-3 zone--which can effectively be attacked from the baseline using passes from the high-post.  Instead, State's post players just kept kicking it out to stationary shooters standing around the three-point line to put up brick after brick.

The game that I think really sent me over the edge in frustration was the D-III title game between UW-Oshkosh and Nebraska Wesleyan--where the two teams combined to shoot 62 THREE POINTERS!!  The Titans alone attempted 40 of them. Wesleyan probably would have shot that many too, if they weren't having such success driving past Titan defenders at the 3-point line so often for layups.  If that had been the first basketball game you had ever watched, you would think that players are not allowed to attempt shots inside the three-point arc and outside of the free throw lane because there were ZERO shots taken from that area the entire contest. 

Just like the pass-happy offenses of football at all levels has decreased the quality of that game, the three-ball focus of modern basketball threatens to turn off fans tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over again.  Hopefully, the Golden State Warriors dynasty will be replaced with something more like the 80's Celtics and Lakers--and kids will think mid-range jumpers and feeding the post players for high-percentage shots is cool again.  Although, having reffed youth basketball tournaments and watching 4th graders never set foot inside the arc--I doubt that is happening anytime soon.

Really Fouling Out

As the WIAA Boys Basketball State Championships continue today, one player will be garnering a lot more attention than many of the others.  It won't be the high-flying Tyrese Halliburton of Oshkosh North or the high-scoring Jordan McCabe of Kaukauna.  Instead, all eyes will be on Milwaukee Washington star Deontay Long--and for reasons that nobody wants to talk about.

Back in January, Long was convicted on a charge of Armed Robbery.  In exchange for a guilty plea, prosecutors dismissed charges of Carjacking and Reckless Endangerment.  According to the criminal complaint, Long and his friends pulled a gun on a Jimmy Johns delivery driver and another person--stealing money from them last summer.  They then held a gun to the head of an 80-year old woman and stole her car--crashing it into a building before being arrested. 

A lot of people are surprised to find out that being a convicted felon--or even being arrested for a crime--does not disqualify you from playing high school sports in Wisconsin.  The WIAA has a code of conduct that covers drinking, smoking and drug use--but it leaves it up to individual schools to handle far more serious things like committing violent crimes.  In a story done by WISN-TV in Milwaukee last week, WIAA Director Dave Anderson told the reporter that there had been "no arguments" from member schools to address eligibility of criminals--and when asked if he personally felt it needed to be addressed, Anderson (in typical WIAA official fashion) told her "Good luck with your story".

It should be noted that Milwaukee Washington did take punitive action against Long following his arrest.  He was suspended for the entire Cross Country season last fall--leaving him eligible to play his primary sport--basketball.  It is not known if Long had run Cross Country any years before this one.

This is not the first time that a student-athlete that ran afoul of the law is taking the floor at the Kohl Center.  In 2014, Dominic Cizauskus of Mukwonago played while police were investigating his sexual assault of a classmate--for which he was later convicted.  And in 2016, Blake Dodd of Lake Geneva played at State after he was charged with Sexual Exploitation of a Child.  Dodd would later be convicted on reduced charges.  But those cases are different from Long's in that due process had not yet run its course when they played--whereas Long is a convicted felon awaiting sentencing.

Those that advocate for Long's continued participation will tell you that allowing him to play at State is an example of "restorative justice".  That if he were kicked off the team, he would likely drop out of school and commit more violent crimes--as if basketball was the only thing keeping a kid from breaking the law.  I'm sure that makes the Jimmy Johns driver and the 80-year old woman that stared down the barrel of Long's gun feel a lot better about themselves, knowing that "their community" will benefit from their assailant continuing to play hoops.

Hopefully Long enjoys his time at the Kohl Center, because it will likely be the last time he plays for awhile.  Prosecutors will recommend a four year prison term when he is sentenced next month.  Although, the judge could sentence him up to forty years. 

From the Mouths of Babes

Sometimes you have to give kids credit, they can come up with really insightful things--despite their age.  That was the case with Nate Tinbite of Maryland yesterday as he took part in the National Walk Out Day event in Washington, DC.  Tinbite told the audience on site and on national television that "My parents never had to worry about someone barging into their classroom with an assault rifle and slaughtering everyone in their class".

As a 45-year old and someone that would certainly be old enough to be Tinbite's father I can unequivocally tell you that Nate is 100-percent correct, I never once thought about being shot in school with an assault rifle.

That sense of security came despite the fact that AR-15 rifles were already available for sale in the United States when I was in school.  Heck, you could even purchase a full-automatic AK-47 (or a reasonable facsimile) when I was a kid.  Those weren't banned in the US until 1994.  That sense of security came despite that fact that there were guns in my house--and likely the houses of most of my classmates.  But growing up, I knew that even touching those guns would result in the worst spanking of my life--and being grounded for what would be left of my life.  (And by grounded, I mean sent to my room after school and dinner every night where there was no TV, phone, internet, video game system, webcam, or other forms of entertainment.  You just sat there and thought about what you had done to deserve this.)

And when I was a kid, even threatening violence against classmates brought swift retribution.  School officials would call the police and you would be taken away in a squad car for everyone to witness.  Then you would be expelled from school--not sent to the "alternative high school", not put into a "diversion program"--expelled, with few options for continuing your education.  Kids that 'acted up" weren't diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and put on behavior-modification drugs to be dispensed at the School Office.  You were told to sit in your seat, shut up and pay attention to the teacher--or detention awaited you at the end of the day.

Had there even been school shootings when I was a kid, we would not have heard much about them.  There would have been a two minute story on one of the three over-the-air network news broadcasts--and probably a second or third page story in the local newspaper.  We would not have seen live footage shot from a helicopter of kids running from the building in terror while reporters tried to guess what was going on.  The next 24-hours of television would not have endlessly replayed the video while talking heads argued about it.  And security camera footage from inside the school showing the shooter in action would not be posted on the internet for viewing anytime--over and over and over again.

Unfortunately, Nate Tinbite followed his wonderful bit of insight with blame for Congress and the NRA for a lack of gun control measures as the reason his generation has to deal with school shootings.  But I'm going to forgive him.  He's young and the society of today is the only one that he has ever known.  He doesn't know what it was like to have parents that actually supervised their children and it wasn't everyone else's "fault" when someone would do something bad.

The People's Champion

I know that many Packers fans are hurting today.  You are likely wearing your Jordy Nelson jersey to work one final time as a tribute to one of your "all-time favorites".  There was something about Jordy that just appealed to you from the day he joined the team.  You can't quite put your finger on it, but it's the same reason you love Clay Matthews and why you always chanted "KOOOOOOON!" when John Kuhn carried the ball.

You would always smile proudly when one of the TV color guys would say Jordy was "surprisingly fast" or that he was "more athletic than he looks".  You would nod your head in agreement when Coach McCarthy would say that Nelson is "one of the hardest workers on the team".  He's a Kansas farm boy--he "knows the meaning of hard work" you would tell your friends.

Deep down in your heart, you know that if Aaron Rodgers didn't get hurt last year, he would have been looking for "his favorite target" more often--and Jordy's numbers would have been better.  There would have been the long pass interference penalties on sideline fly patterns.  There would have passes over the heads of defenders looking into the backfield at Aaron rolled out right and Jordy ran the deep crossing route left that for some reason DB's could not recognize--even thought the Packers ran it every game.  It's really Brett Hundley's fault that Jordy never got the ball despite a total lack of separation from coverage.

Now you hope that Jeff Janis might get his chance to fill that role as the Packers "star receiver".  Sure, they are using the money saved from cutting Nelson to resign Randall Cobb and Davante Adams--but there's just "something" about those guys that doesn't make them seem that special to you. 

I thought it was a nice touch that in his initial statement Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst wrote that he "looks forward to Jordy's certain induction into the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame".  There Nelson will join a plethora of other players whose popularity far exceeded their production on the field like Mark Tauscher, Mark Chmura, Brian Noble and Chuck Cecil.

So proudly wear that Jordy Nelson jersey one final time Packers fans.  Then get it framed and hang it on the wall next to the Bill Schroeder and Don Beebe jerseys that were worn by your "favorites" before him.

Playing Favorites

As any parent will tell you, even though they are supposed to love and treat all of their children the same, they do have favorites.  There's one child that isn't as exasperating, behaves better, excels at everything and isn't likely to cause the family great embarrassment.  And there is that other kid whom they love, but secretly fear will be featured on an episode of Cops or Live PD someday and that they will have to disavow.

And as any child will tell you, parents tend to treat their favorite differently from the others.  Punishments are less harsh, gifts are a little more extravagant and they are given a longer leash.  Parents like to brag about their favorites too, extolling their virtues and letting everyone know how great that one kid is--often using the phrase "why can't you be more like your brother/sister?"

The Oshkosh Common Council is a lot like a group of parents when it comes to Special Event Permits.  Tonight, they will again try to come up with a way to cut some kind of deal for the Downtown Farmers Market to avoid the ever-growing list of fees the City is imposing for "services" provided to special events.  You can tell the Farmers Market is the Council's favorite event.  It allows them to use phrases like "commitment to sustainable, farm-to-table production" and they can extoll its "benefit to the Downtown area".

Juxtapose that with another Downtown event--Pub Crawl--which most of the Council members detest more than their worst enemies.  The same downtown businesses benefit from a large number of people taking part--but every effort, including legal challenges, has been made to shut down Pub Crawl because some folks at City Hall "don't like it".  It should also be noted that the Special Event Permit fee structure was adopted to put another event--Sawdust Days--out of business because, again, some people in high places aren't fans.

When parents play favorites, kids just have to learn to live with it.  But when governments try to play favorites, that's when things tend to get ugly.  We expect our statutes and laws to be applied fairly to all people and groups--not just those that meet the fancy of the select few elected to a majority of the Council.   If the Council decides to cut the Farmers Market a break tonight, it should also develop the list of "Favorites", "Events That Will Be Tolerated (But Not Given A Discount On Fees)" and "Events We Want To Drive Out Of Town With Even More Additional Fees"--just so everyone knows where they stand in the pecking order.

It Just Doesn't Feel Like Justice

Yesterday's sentencing hearing for Dennis Brantner--the man found guilty of abducting and killing Berit Beck in Fond du Lac almost 28-years ago--leaves me feeling that justice was not done.  Brantner got ten years in prison for a crime that went unsolved for 25-years.  Beck's family said yesterday's hearing provided them with closure, but Brantner will spend less than half behind bars than Berit's friends and family had to spend wondering if her killer would ever get caught.

I guess that we should be satisfied that there was at least a conviction in the case.  Brantner would likely have gone free the rest of his life had he not been busted on an unrelated felony in southern
Wisconsin--requiring his DNA to be collected and added to the state database.  The value of that DNA requirement and comparing those samples to those from unsolved crimes is borne out in this case.

Despite no logical explanation for how his DNA got in Beck's van in the Forest Mall parking lot in 1990, one juror refused to convict Brantner on a more serious charge of First Degree Intentional Homicide last year--causing a mistrial.  Rather than risk another hung jury--or even an acquittal--in another trial, Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney offered Brantner a plea deal to a reduced charge.  Since Brantner entered what is known as an "Alford Plea"--admitting there is enough evidence to convict him, but not admitting any guilt--there will likely never be an explanation of how he managed to kidnap Beck, what happened before and while he killed her, and how he dumped her body in that ditch near Waupun to be found a few weeks later.  Maybe the Beck family didn't want to know that, but as a person who tells stories for a living, I feel like we should know. 

Brantner is in his late sixties, and it's entirely possible that a ten year prison term will end up being the life sentence that he would have automatically faced had the jury convicted him on the First Degree Intentional Homicide charge.  I'm guessing the Beck family would like the assurance that they would never have to see Dennis Brantner out and about again--after cheating the system for 25-years of freedom he did not deserve.

Hopefully the Beck family won't be put through the hell that Teresa Halbach's friends and relatives have been going through.  I doubt that Dennis Brantner's case is going to draw the attention of wacko conspiracy theorists, one-sided "documentarians" looking to cash in on the story, and media-hungry appeals attorneys who like to try their cases on social media like we now have with Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey.  It's come to the point in that case where it's hard to remember who the victim of the real crime was.

It's just too bad that the it doesn't always feel like the justice system delivers justice.

It Makes No Difference

Based on social media reaction yesterday, the CEO of Dick's Sporting Goods should be preparing his Nobel Peace Prize after announcing the stores would no longer sell AR-15s.  What I found most interesting to that public reaction is that the same people that celebrating Dick's decision to not sell a legal product are the same people that attack healthcare providers that don't perform abortions, pharmacists that won't sell birth control and churches that won't hold same-sex weddings.

I'm not even sure how many AR-15s Dick's actually sold every year.  The few times I've gone past their hunting section, their selection seemed to be more hunting rifles and shotguns and not that many sport shooting rifles.  The decision not to sell AR-15s will likely cost them as much business as a decision not to sell Pink Lady golf balls anymore.

It should also be noted that the Florida school shooter did not buy his gun at Dick's.  Nor did he buy it at a gun show or from a private seller--the two "background check loopholes" that Democrats are demanding be "closed" in the wake of every shooting.  And the Las Vegas, San Bernadino, Orlando nightclub and Sandy Hook shooters didn't get their guns there either--so it's not like a "major pipeline" is being shut down.

Gun control advocates may actually want Dick's to continue to sell sport shooting rifles.  They would be considered a "reputable firearms dealer".  You know that every person trying to buy a gun at Dick's is subjected to a required background check--because they have a national reputation to uphold.  What's more, you never hear about people breaking into Dick's to steal dozens of guns--because their stores feature advanced security systems--keeping more illegal weapons off the streets.

The only thing that Dick's and other retailers deciding to stop AR-15's or to raise the age for buying a gun to 21 will do is drive buyers to different outlets--all of whom will be more than happy to get the additional business.  As we have seen for decades now, any talk of increased gun control or outright bans on weapons produces a buying frenzy--as shooters want to stock up before no stores can carry a weapon anymore.  There are tens of thousands of small gun stores around the country that feature many hard-core gun-rights owners who will sell you any legal weapon you want--in any quantity they can get in. 

As retail gun-purchase options tighten, that will also drive more buyers into the less-regulated secondary market.  When Dick's stops selling AR-15's, those who want one can go to the myriad gun shows across the country and pick up a used one--in some cases not having to pass a background check.  Or they will find someone a couple of counties over selling one on the internet no questions asked.

So everyone can laud Dick's and Walmart and any other retailers looking to jump on the "we won't sell these guns" public relations bandwagon all you want--but they aren't "making America safer" by one iota.