The Further Adventures Of Liberal Man!!

The hottest thing in pop culture today is superheroes.  Comic books are almost cool, every other movie features installments of old and new superheroes and people dressed up like them are no longer treated like the biggest losers on the planet.  Never one to pass up on an opportunity to cash in on a trend, I'm thinking about creating my own superhero: Liberal Man!!

Liberal Man's origin story is that of Todd Thompson--a white man born to an upper middle-class family.  Todd seems to have the perfect life, until he enters the public education system--where he learns that people of his gender and race are exclusively responsible for all of the social ills in the world today.  Then, while attending State University, he asks an Asian-American student where her family is from--and the co-ed goes to the Dean of Students to complain about being made to feel unwelcome in this country.  Todd is kicked out of school for that egregious micro-aggression and creating a hostile environment on campus.  Disgusted by the monster he has become, Todd vows to never hold an actual job--and instead dedicates himself to wiping out social inequality wherever it can be found (or created)--and Liberal Man is born!

In the first edition, Liberal Man heads to North Carolina where a handful of transgender people are not allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.  WHAP!! BOOM!! and Liberal Man punches out the evil Republican Governor and Legislators--and the trans people have bathroom equality!

In the next edition, Liberal Man jets over to Edinburgh, Scotland where women are not allowed to be members of the Muirfield Golf Club.  ZOCK!! PUNCH!! and Liberal Man takes down the stodgy old Scottish men--and just like that, Muirfield has a women's locker room and lounge!!

Then it's back to the US where fast food workers are making just $8 an hour.  SLASH!! CHOP!! Ronald McDonald is brought to his knees and those who mop the floor and take out the garbage are suddenly making $15 an hour!

I notice the biggest movies now feature superheroes fighting each other for no real good reason--so for our big screen blockbuster Liberal Man will battle Conservative Man--taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and blocking Conservative Man's efforts to get guns out of the hands of criminals by calling those efforts "racial targeting".  In the climactic scene, Liberal Man overcomes Conservative Man and his ally Military Man by preventing them from effectively fighting Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East.

The Liberal Man franchise may be limitless, as everyone--except for those like Todd Thompson--are the victims of some sort of injustice in the world today.  And if they aren't, Liberal Man can just make some stuff up--like telling overweight people to diet and exercise is "hate speech".

I would have to end each issue of Liberal Man with a few panels dedicated to the unintended consequences brought on by Liberal Man's heroic actions--like the women of North Carolina being disgusted by the toilet seat being left up and drops of tinkle all over the rim of the bowl.  Or ladies being bored out of their minds as members of the Golfers Society of Edinburgh sit around eating their soup in the cold, lifeless clubhouse of Muirfield.  And the moving crews wheeling in the self-serve, touch-screen ordering kiosks into the fast food restaurants as the teenage employees fawn all over Liberal Man.  You have to have some sort of reality in these stories--just to keep them grounded.

A Real Dose of Reality

For those of you old enough to remember, I want you to think back to the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1990's.  Remember how political leaders held press conferences every few days saying the government had to do something to help the people who were addicted to the drug kick the habit and get their lives back together?  Can you recall how state funded treatment programs were set up--and how first responders and even just plain old people on the street were trained to administered anti-overdose drugs?  Remember counties establishing "drug courts" so offenders who were high on crack wouldn't be sent to prison or jail--but instead would receive the counseling they needed while only on probation?

It's okay if you don't remember any of that happening--because none of it did.  The response to the crack epidemic was to make more arrests of those who were not only dealing the drugs--but the users as well.  And the violent and property crimes that increased greatly because of addicts trying to get their next fix and gangs fighting over sales territory were met with longer and longer mandatory prison sentences.  So why are we treating the current heroin and opioid abuse epidemic with kid gloves and so much "concern" for the users?  You need look no further than who is involved in this latest drug wave.

Crack cocaine was the scourge of urban inner cities and the minorities that lived there.  The gangs that ruled the streets and controlled the supplies were everything that scared suburban America.  There were no daughters of state lawmakers committing multiple crimes to pay for her addiction.  It wasn't son of the local business owner who died from an overdose in his home.  It was "those people" who were dying and stealing and seeing their communities decay--and the only proper response was to crack down (no pun intended) hard--and to teach them a lesson.  But now that it's "all of us" who are seeing the effects of opioid abuse, well now it's time for "us" to do something to help these people.

Once again I was disappointed by Attorney General Brad Schimel's "Dose of Reality" program announcement on Tuesday.  Nowhere did the AG say that the time has come to end the "legal" practice of over-prescribing opiate-based painkillers--the leading source of eventual heroin addiction.  There was no suggestion to doctors to stop prescribing those pills to people who are not suffering from debilitating pain.  There wasn't even a recommendation to tell patients "I'm going to give you this prescription for your sore foot--but you will probably end up becoming a heroin addict--so you may want to think about just how much that actually hurts before you fill it".  That would be a real "dose of reality".

The Carpetbaggers

In the days after the Civil War, a number of opportunistic Northerners moved into the defeated states of the Confederacy seeking election to public office--and drawing the support of the newly-freed slaves to win.  Some had lived in their new homes less than a few months before winning positions in statehouses and even Congress.  Some came with the honest intention of helping Reconstruction take place--but many just saw an easy path to political influence.  Those who had lived in the South before then developed a term for their newly-elected officials: Carpetbaggers.  The term came from the cheap luggage the new arrivals used to carry their belongings as they got off the carriages or the trains.

Wisconsin seems to have a new influx of Carpetbaggers in its political ranks.  Much is being made right now of State Senator and Congressional candidate Frank Lasee's actual residency.  Lasee claims an apartment in De Pere is his home.  But his wife lists her residence as being in Racine--and Lasee has claimed that house as both an asset and a residence in legal procedings.  In an expose piece over the weekend, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found Lasee's De Pere "home" listed on the temporary housing website AirBNB as being available for rental any day this year.  Lasee initially claimed that he and his wife only listed the apartment to rent out on Packers home game weekends.  And after the reporter pressed the issue further, the listing came down altogether.

Lasee is not alone in questionable residency.  Congressman Glenn Grothman had to buy or rent a new place when he ran for the 6th Congressional seat in 2014 because he didn't live in the district.  Neither did his Republican primary challenger Duey Strobel.  You may recall that Congressman Reid Ribble had to move a couple of miles because he didn't live in the 8th District the first time he ran for that office.  And there are questions about the residency of State Senate Candidate Mark Elliott here in Oshkosh--as his announcement that he was getting into the race for the 18th District came from Florida--and his Facebook timeline was filled with pictures from the Sunshine State for several previous months.

It should be pointed out that under current state law, a person is not required to live in a district at the time they first run for an office--but they are required to move in before they can begin to serve.  But it seems to me that those already living in an area should make up the pool of candidates to serve that area--even if the Carpetbagger might have a better chance to win.

It's Entirely My Fault

Allow me to apologize for the horrible weather we have had to endure this spring.  It's entirely my fault that we have had to put up with blizzards in April, snow in May and freeze and frost warnings both months--not to mention use of "wind chills" after Mothers' Day.  It's my fault because I have planned a lot more outdoor activities this year than I usually do.

I've umpired more girls high school softball games than normal this spring.  In past seasons, a day they I've had to ump has meant a day filled with clouds, light rain, wind and far below average temperatures.  I've even worked some games played with flurries coming down.  Multiply that by over twenty assignments this year and you can see why we've had such a prolonged spell of unseasonably lousy weather.  And then that gets compounded by postponed games being rescheduled a few weeks later--pushing bad weather forward another few days.

I'm also responsible for bad weekend weather by playing in a few more spring golf events.  On Saturday my usual group froze our buns off for the umpteenth year in a row in a scramble event that was held a weekend later than usual and still had horrible weather.  At least we didn't have to come off the course this time because of sleet.  My other tournament so far this year featured no sun, 45-degrees and 20-mile an hour winds.  You're welcome.

Now, you may recall a few seasonably nice days so far this spring--like that week with temps in the 60's back in March.  That was when my wife and I were in Florida--and they had slightly below average temperatures down there.  And then there was that Friday before Mothers' Day that featured a high of 80.  I spent three hours of that day trapped in the Neenah City Hall for press conferences on the Eagle National Cycles shooting--followed by a couple of hours in a restaurant with my parents enjoying the Early Bird Special.

If I had just planned on doing nothing all spring--no softball umpiring, no golf tournaments, no plans for bike rides, just watching TV in the basement or staying at work for 80-hours a week--we would have had the most beautiful spring in the history of Wisconsin.  (Although, that would have contributed to alarm over "global climate change".)  So next year, I'll make an effort to spend as much time as possible during the spring inside being a couch potato so the rest of you can enjoy some decent weather for a change.

 

Spoiling Them "Sick"

First off, let me commend the Oshkosh high school students who put together the petition drive to demand additional mental health services from the School District.  You have identified what you believe is a need in your school and you are bringing it to the attention of the people you believe are the ones who should be responsible for fixing it.  Unfortunately, this is not something that the schools themselves should be "fixing".

Let me remind you (and everyone else) that the Affordable Care Act requires all Americans to have health insurance--health insurance that covers mental health counseling and treatment and that cannot deny anyone coverage for a "pre-existing condition".  So your parents should have health insurance to help cover the cost of mental health treatments for you and all of your classmates.  If your parents are low-income, we have a program called BadgerCare intended to cover families with children.  In addition, there are mental health services provided by dozens of private sector providers--some in health networks, some in independent practices.  Just Google it, you should be able to find plenty of options that are not funded by taxpayers.

Coincidentally, the students' demands for more mental health services in schools came the same week that District officials went before the Oshkosh School Board to discuss adding more mental health counselors to the elementary schools.  Merrill Elementary Principal Sara Poquette used an example of the "mental health problems" that teachers face in the classroom as a child throwing a fit because he or she didn't get the color marker they wanted.

Acting up because you got the green marker instead of the blue marker is not a mental health issue--it's being a spoiled brat.  Poquette admitted that most of their behavioral problems in the classroom today are caused by children who expect to get their way all the time.  And who is to blame for that?  PARENTS WHO CANNOT SAY "NO" TO THEIR CHILDREN.  PARENTS WHO REFUSE TO DISCIPLINE THEIR CHILDREN WHEN THEY DISOBEY THE RULES OR ACT OUT IN AN INAPPROPRIATE WAY.

You know what this parenting approach leads to?  Kids like the "Affluenza Teen" in Texas whose drug and alcohol infused crime spree was explained away by never learning the consequences of doing something wrong--because his parents never punished him or denied him any of his wants.  And after getting a slap on the wrist with probation, the kid violates his parole and his Mother helps him escape to Mexico to avoid punishment again.

These children don't need taxpayer-funded "mental health services".  They need actual parenting and discipline in the home.  And to provide this "service" in the schools is just another way to allow those parents to abdicate their duties.  You ever wonder why so many kids are on behavior modification medications nowadays?  It's so much easier to drug your child than to actually discipline them--and "modify their behavior" through punishment or simply not buying them everything they want the second they want it. 

And to expect the rest of us to foot the bill for that?  It sounds like a few adults could use some "behavior modification" as well.

Smoke or Drive?

You know who seems to have all of the answers?  Proponents of legalized marijuana.  They are able to explain away all of the negative effects of both the drug's use and distribution.

Since states like Colorado, Oregon and Washington approved the recreational use and sale of pot, neighboring states--and even some farther away, like Wisconsin--have seen increased trafficking of marijuana.  "Mules" drive out to Colorado--stock up on "legal pot"--and then drive back home to repackage and illegally distribute their purchase to their own network of buyers.  Nebraska could probably drop their income and sales taxes and just get by on drug bust fines and cash seizures if they put enough cops on the interstates leading into and out of Colorado.

And what is the solution to this problem from the legalized pot crowd?  "Well it wouldn't be a problem if you would just legalize marijuana in your state too."

This week, the state of Washington reported that the rate of fatal crashes involving drivers with THC--the active ingredient in marijuana--in their systems has more than doubled since pot was legalized in that state.  Marijuana use was a factor in just eight percent of fatal crashes there in 2013.  But that jumped to 17-percent the next year--right after pot became legal.

And the answer from the dopers?  "That's just because more people are smoking pot now--you can't prove being high caused all of those fatal crashes."

The potheads do have a point--you can't "prove" that being high caused those crashes because there is no legal definition of "being high".  Every state has a "legal limit" for intoxication--usually .08% blood alcohol content.  But there is no "legal limit" for THC in your bloodstream (or any other drug for that matter) because--until recently--having any amount of pot in your system was illegal. 

As we have found with same-sex marriage and family law statutes--if you are going to make something that was formerly not legal, legal--you need to do the work of changing every other statute that may be impacted by that legalization.  But when voters approved recreational marijuana referenda in Colorado, Washington and Oregon, they didn't consider the legal ramifications.

Of course, the stoners have an answer for this legal quandary as well: "You can't have a 'legal limit' 'cuz not everyone gets high at the same level."  Again they have a point, long-time pot smokers build up a tolerance--so more weed needs to be smoked to achieve the same level of effect.  But this same argument was made after blood alcohol limits went into effect--some people can "hold their liquor" better than others--but courts eventually found that a legal standard was constitutional--and no one was going to be able to prove that .08% for them was "not drunk".

Hopefully, the stoner states of Washington, Oregon and Colorado will finally get around to establishing legal limits for marijuana use and driving.  Let's hope they go with 0.0%

Can I Get Another For You and the Little One?

On Monday, I posted on my personal social media accounts a link to a story in the New York Times on a ruling by the city's (non-elected) Commission on Human Rights that bars cannot refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women.  I was surprised by some of the responses--especially from people I know are die-hard pro-abortion and yet expressed opposition to this order over concerns about the effects on the baby.

What anyone who is made uncomfortable by the thought of a pregnant woman going to a bar and downing a few is forgetting is that under the law, that is not a baby with a developing brain in there--that is just a "mass of cells"--or as the Affordable Care Act refers to pregnancy, a "pre-existing condition".  "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the accompanying developmental issues that come along with it are none of your business, Mr Bartender--now mix me another margarita."

As the ruling from the (non-elected) Commission on Human Rights states: “While covered entities may attempt to justify certain categorical exclusions based on maternal or fetal safety, using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful,”  So that is what this is really about!  It's a "man's opinion" that expecting women shouldn't be drinking alcohol.  You, Mr Bartender, are trying to keep women "in their place" by not setting up another round of shots!

The (non-elected) Commission on Human Rights is quick to add that their ruling does not apply to anyone that has already had "too much" to drink and should be cut off by the bar (wouldn't want our pregnant women trying to drive themselves home--they might hit someone and leave them brain-damaged). 

As far as New York City is concerned, bartenders and bar owners uncomfortable with serving booze to pregnant women should find another line of work--just like pharmacists who refuse to dispense the "morning after pill".  To replace them, might I suggest hiring the store clerks that sell cigarettes to the 16% of pregnant women in Winnebago County that continue to smoke?  They don't seem to have any concerns about the health of "masses of cells".