There are a couple of court cases making their way through the system this year that you may want to keep an eye on. They both involve criminal charges filed against elderly drivers accused of causing crashes that involved deaths and serious injuries. In a Marquette County case 90-year old Albert Sieg is charged in connection with a crash that saw him run over a married couple that were riding their bikes along the side of the road and then continuing to drive on. The other is in Oconto County and involves 84-year old Dolly Yashinksy--who ran a stop sign and was broadsided by a car that had the right of way--killing her husband and two elderly friends.
The filing of criminal charges in each of these cases mark a departure from the attitude of the legal system to serious crashes involving older drivers. For the most part, seniors who run stop signs, drive the wrong way on one-ways or divided highways or hit things and drive off not knowing anything had happened have been treated with kid gloves. Families agree to take keys away. Prosecutors say the offending drivers "have suffered enough". And we all act like there is nothing wrong with having dangerous people behind the wheel just out there driving around.
The attorney for Yashinsky calls the filing of charges against his elderly client "cruel"--given her age and how much she has suffered. But to his credit, Oconto County District Attorney Edward Burke is defending his decision by pointing out the simple truth: "You can't just arbitrarily draw a line based upon somebody's age". If Yashinsky had been a 44-year old woman playing with the radio or talking on a cellphone and she ran that stop sign and charges were filed--nobody would bat an eye. But because she is 84 and probably shouldn't have been behind the wheel we are to just excuse the same actions?
And what happens with these cases becomes more important every day, as Baby Boomers continue to age. These are people who have been driving since they were 16. They sang songs about their cars. They had "special moments" in the back seats of their cars. They have gone everywhere in their cars--and they will be the last people willing to give up their cars--even when it endangers the rest of society. But maybe, if we get enough "driving while old" criminal cases--we might be able to talk some sense into them.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
If You Build It, Use It
Now that the worst-kept secret in Oshkosh history is out--and that we will be the home of the Milwaukee Bucks D-League team--let's get to work on using that new arena as much as possible. The primary tenants will obviously be the pro team--but that's just a couple of hours a day from November through March. So how to maximize the value of the development beyond that?
I would hope that the new arena will revive the former practice of holding the Oshkosh North-Oshkosh West girl-boys basketball doubleheader that used to be held at the Kolf Sports Center. Oshkosh should also be the permanent home of the sectional finals for the boys WIAA basketball playoffs as well. Talks should begin immediately with the D-League to make sure those March dates are blocked off for those games.
A long-range plan should be put into place to install an ice-making system as well. There is no reason this new arena couldn't host something like a pre-season Milwaukee Admirals game--or a college hockey showcase tournament in November and December. We could also host ice skating competitions or maybe WIAA sectional finals for boys hockey as well.
A promotions company should be lined up immediately to start booking concerts. I know there are a bunch of artists that Joe Ferlo would love to book into the Grand Opera House--but it just wouldn't be a money maker because of the limited capacity at the theater. There are plenty of acts that could draw three to four-thousand people a night that are still out there touring. And let's sign a contract right now that allows Waterfest to move its shows to the arena in the event of inclement weather. It shouldn't be that hard for attendees to figure out they need to head a little farther down Main Street for the show.
The best news today is that the D-League team will be owned by the Bucks franchise itself. That means much greater financial stability. NBA owners have shown they are willing to commit cash to keep their side interests afloat--look at how much money they have lost on the Women's NBA over the last 20-years. That means we don't have to worry about the new team being here for a couple of years--not making enough of a profit and heading somewhere else for greener pastures--leaving us with an empty arena.
I know it doesn't sound great to promote yourself as a "Minor League City"--but it's sure better than being a "no league city".
I would hope that the new arena will revive the former practice of holding the Oshkosh North-Oshkosh West girl-boys basketball doubleheader that used to be held at the Kolf Sports Center. Oshkosh should also be the permanent home of the sectional finals for the boys WIAA basketball playoffs as well. Talks should begin immediately with the D-League to make sure those March dates are blocked off for those games.
A long-range plan should be put into place to install an ice-making system as well. There is no reason this new arena couldn't host something like a pre-season Milwaukee Admirals game--or a college hockey showcase tournament in November and December. We could also host ice skating competitions or maybe WIAA sectional finals for boys hockey as well.
A promotions company should be lined up immediately to start booking concerts. I know there are a bunch of artists that Joe Ferlo would love to book into the Grand Opera House--but it just wouldn't be a money maker because of the limited capacity at the theater. There are plenty of acts that could draw three to four-thousand people a night that are still out there touring. And let's sign a contract right now that allows Waterfest to move its shows to the arena in the event of inclement weather. It shouldn't be that hard for attendees to figure out they need to head a little farther down Main Street for the show.
The best news today is that the D-League team will be owned by the Bucks franchise itself. That means much greater financial stability. NBA owners have shown they are willing to commit cash to keep their side interests afloat--look at how much money they have lost on the Women's NBA over the last 20-years. That means we don't have to worry about the new team being here for a couple of years--not making enough of a profit and heading somewhere else for greener pastures--leaving us with an empty arena.
I know it doesn't sound great to promote yourself as a "Minor League City"--but it's sure better than being a "no league city".
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Would You Like Some Inclusiveness With Your Beer?
Super Bowl LI advertisers are being criticized for being "too political" this year. Some think that too many companies were trying to "make a statement" with ads that didn't really sell their product--but instead were trying to "push an agenda". Because the game was so good, I honestly don't remember the content of many of the ads--which should be a profound statement for those that spent $5-MILLION per 30-seconds with the promise of getting my attention.
On several of our programs here on WOSH Monday, there were calls to boycott companies that went political and not commercial on Sunday--but let's be honest, there is really no need. For instance, we don't have an 84 Lumber anywhere near us--so how am I going to "stop shopping there"? You couldn't pay me enough to drink the swill that Anheuser-Busch produces--especially Budweiser and Bud Light--so you could say I was already "boycotting" them in the name of good taste. I'm a Jeep guy, so the underperforming Kia wannabe four-wheel drives already have no appeal to me. And I doubt that I will ever be able to afford an Alfa-Romeo with cash--Dave Ramsey style.
There would one tough one to give up. Could I live without Coca-Cola? I probably could. But Pepsi is not good--so I'm not giving them my business--and the alternatives like RC or store brands are even worse--so I guess I'm stuck with a Coke and a smile even if they support illegal immigration. I haven't ever used AirBNB--but I have checked out their site and considered it for vacation travel. And there is really no "business" to boycott--as those using the site are independent contractors--who reserve the right to refuse to rent to whomever they wish--so who is to say the guy with the apartment in the Bahamas doesn't agree with me on everything else political?
While we are on the topic of the ads--it is clear that the enormous price tag just to get on the air Super Sunday has hurt the creativity of the commercials themselves. What could be funnier with a bit more time is rushed through because a firm can only afford 30-seconds of ad time. And when it costs you $5-MILL just to get in the door, not much is left for the creative or production elements. Maybe that is why those companies decided to go with an "inclusive" theme instead of comedy. It's a lot easier to be political that it is to be humorous.
On several of our programs here on WOSH Monday, there were calls to boycott companies that went political and not commercial on Sunday--but let's be honest, there is really no need. For instance, we don't have an 84 Lumber anywhere near us--so how am I going to "stop shopping there"? You couldn't pay me enough to drink the swill that Anheuser-Busch produces--especially Budweiser and Bud Light--so you could say I was already "boycotting" them in the name of good taste. I'm a Jeep guy, so the underperforming Kia wannabe four-wheel drives already have no appeal to me. And I doubt that I will ever be able to afford an Alfa-Romeo with cash--Dave Ramsey style.
There would one tough one to give up. Could I live without Coca-Cola? I probably could. But Pepsi is not good--so I'm not giving them my business--and the alternatives like RC or store brands are even worse--so I guess I'm stuck with a Coke and a smile even if they support illegal immigration. I haven't ever used AirBNB--but I have checked out their site and considered it for vacation travel. And there is really no "business" to boycott--as those using the site are independent contractors--who reserve the right to refuse to rent to whomever they wish--so who is to say the guy with the apartment in the Bahamas doesn't agree with me on everything else political?
While we are on the topic of the ads--it is clear that the enormous price tag just to get on the air Super Sunday has hurt the creativity of the commercials themselves. What could be funnier with a bit more time is rushed through because a firm can only afford 30-seconds of ad time. And when it costs you $5-MILL just to get in the door, not much is left for the creative or production elements. Maybe that is why those companies decided to go with an "inclusive" theme instead of comedy. It's a lot easier to be political that it is to be humorous.
Monday, February 6, 2017
A Change at the Top
For the last 30-years or so, I have maintained that Johnny Unitas is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. Unitas was revolutionary in the way the position was played. He retired with nearly every NFL passing record--many of which stood into the 1990's and the 2000's--despite playing in a run-heavy era where defensive backs could hit receivers as far downfield as they wanted and when offensive linemen couldn't use their hands to block rushers. Unitas pioneered the seven-step drop for passes in the pocket and invented the two-minute offense. He also called his own plays--which set him apart from today's quarterbacks who need to call a timeout and head to the sidelines when the speakers in their helmets go on the fritz and they can't get the play from the offensive coordinator--who double checked with the offense quality control coach and the head coach after consulting a play sheet that looks like a 24-hour truck stop menu.
But after last night's unbelievable performance, I am ready to acknowledge that Tom Brady has replaced Johnny U as the greatest of all time. Even when it was 28-3 early in the 3rd quarter, I stayed with the game only because it was Brady at QB for the Patriots. You just expected that he would at least will the Pats back to a one-score game late--maybe with possession of the ball and needing to go the length of the field to win or tie. And that is exactly what happened.
At any point in the furious rally did you think "This is where Brady throws the killer interception to seal New England's fate"? I think most of America was in shock that he threw a Pick 6 near the red zone in the first half. And when the Patriots won the toss to receive the ball to start overtime, you have to admit you knew Brady was going to march them right down the field again and end it with a touchdown--and not a weak field goal to give Atlanta a final chance.
Brady will not retire with any NFL passing records. He won't catch Peyton Manning's yardage or touchdown marks--and he certainly won't eclipse Brett Favre's interception record. But he easily outdistances their three combined Super Bowl titles with FIVE of his own. And Brady has done all of this with no top-line offensive talent around him. Johnny Unitas played with Hall of Famers like Raymond Berry, John Mackey and Lenny Moore. I would be hard pressed to name any Patriots receivers or running backs that are on their way to Canton from the "Brady Era" (you could count Randy Moss--but he was in New England for just a couple of seasons at the end of his career and didn't exactly light it up).
Consider that Tom Brady is miracle catches by David Tyree and Mario Manningham away from being 7-0 in the Super Bowl. Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw can always point to their 4-0 records in the big game--but I don't think anyone can hang the two Patriots losses on Tom Brady's performances in those contest. So the time has finally come for one of the staunchest supporters of "The game was better back then" to admit the current superstar really is the greatest of all time.
But after last night's unbelievable performance, I am ready to acknowledge that Tom Brady has replaced Johnny U as the greatest of all time. Even when it was 28-3 early in the 3rd quarter, I stayed with the game only because it was Brady at QB for the Patriots. You just expected that he would at least will the Pats back to a one-score game late--maybe with possession of the ball and needing to go the length of the field to win or tie. And that is exactly what happened.
At any point in the furious rally did you think "This is where Brady throws the killer interception to seal New England's fate"? I think most of America was in shock that he threw a Pick 6 near the red zone in the first half. And when the Patriots won the toss to receive the ball to start overtime, you have to admit you knew Brady was going to march them right down the field again and end it with a touchdown--and not a weak field goal to give Atlanta a final chance.
Brady will not retire with any NFL passing records. He won't catch Peyton Manning's yardage or touchdown marks--and he certainly won't eclipse Brett Favre's interception record. But he easily outdistances their three combined Super Bowl titles with FIVE of his own. And Brady has done all of this with no top-line offensive talent around him. Johnny Unitas played with Hall of Famers like Raymond Berry, John Mackey and Lenny Moore. I would be hard pressed to name any Patriots receivers or running backs that are on their way to Canton from the "Brady Era" (you could count Randy Moss--but he was in New England for just a couple of seasons at the end of his career and didn't exactly light it up).
Consider that Tom Brady is miracle catches by David Tyree and Mario Manningham away from being 7-0 in the Super Bowl. Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw can always point to their 4-0 records in the big game--but I don't think anyone can hang the two Patriots losses on Tom Brady's performances in those contest. So the time has finally come for one of the staunchest supporters of "The game was better back then" to admit the current superstar really is the greatest of all time.
Friday, February 3, 2017
The Logical Next Step
A popular "protest position" making the rounds today is the "When they came for the Muslims, I said nothing. When they came for the gays I said nothing. Yada, yada, yada. When they came for me there was no one left to speak against it" The meaning behind it is that you have to speak out against anything that could some day be used against you when it first starts--not when it is finally going to affect you--because by then, it will be too late.
That's why Oshkosh homeowners may want to consider jumping onto the opposition bandwagon against the Rental Registry Program--or at least the requirement for inspection of all units every five years. The arguments made by city officials in defending the inspection reqirements are "Everyone deserves to live in a safe and healthy environment" or "Not everyone realizes what their rights are when it comes to living conditions". And the inspections are being applied to all rentals in the city because "we aren't allowed to just target the bad parts of town".
Keep in mind that it wouldn't be that hard to apply the very same arguments to all of the private homes in Oshkosh as well. Not every house in a dumpy neighborhood is a rental. There are plenty of homes that may be unfit for human habitation that the person living there owns. It could easily be argued that they too "deserve" to live in a health environment. How many homes have wiring that is over 100-years old and could fail or catch fire at any time? How many have heating systems that are faulty and could produce carbon monoxide? You could definitely argue that a house in disrepair is just as "dangerous" as a rental unit with all of the same problems--so wouldn't it be a matter of "public safety" that city inspectors get a look at those too on a regular basis? Yes, homes can be inspected already on a complaint basis--but that is true for rental units as well.
Plus, think of the added revenue the city could garner (not that inspection fees are IN ANY WAY the driving force behind the Rental Registry) as inspectors find little "do it yourself" projects that homeowners never bothered to get construction permits for. Add to that "re-inspection fees" after minor changes are made to the wiring job you did yourself in the basement--or the gas line you ran out to the patio grill and fire pit. And don't forget that inspectors wouldn't even have to get into your house to conduct their "inspection"--or at least bill you for it.
So don't brush off concerns about the Rental Registry Program as "not my problem"--or defend it by saying "It's for the good of the city"--because it's just a matter of time before they come for your inspection fees--I mean "preservation of your safety".
That's why Oshkosh homeowners may want to consider jumping onto the opposition bandwagon against the Rental Registry Program--or at least the requirement for inspection of all units every five years. The arguments made by city officials in defending the inspection reqirements are "Everyone deserves to live in a safe and healthy environment" or "Not everyone realizes what their rights are when it comes to living conditions". And the inspections are being applied to all rentals in the city because "we aren't allowed to just target the bad parts of town".
Keep in mind that it wouldn't be that hard to apply the very same arguments to all of the private homes in Oshkosh as well. Not every house in a dumpy neighborhood is a rental. There are plenty of homes that may be unfit for human habitation that the person living there owns. It could easily be argued that they too "deserve" to live in a health environment. How many homes have wiring that is over 100-years old and could fail or catch fire at any time? How many have heating systems that are faulty and could produce carbon monoxide? You could definitely argue that a house in disrepair is just as "dangerous" as a rental unit with all of the same problems--so wouldn't it be a matter of "public safety" that city inspectors get a look at those too on a regular basis? Yes, homes can be inspected already on a complaint basis--but that is true for rental units as well.
Plus, think of the added revenue the city could garner (not that inspection fees are IN ANY WAY the driving force behind the Rental Registry) as inspectors find little "do it yourself" projects that homeowners never bothered to get construction permits for. Add to that "re-inspection fees" after minor changes are made to the wiring job you did yourself in the basement--or the gas line you ran out to the patio grill and fire pit. And don't forget that inspectors wouldn't even have to get into your house to conduct their "inspection"--or at least bill you for it.
So don't brush off concerns about the Rental Registry Program as "not my problem"--or defend it by saying "It's for the good of the city"--because it's just a matter of time before they come for your inspection fees--I mean "preservation of your safety".
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Sicking it to Goodell
I shall be rooting for the New England Patriots on Sunday to win Super Bowl LI. It's not because they beat my Pittsburgh Steelers and "I want the team that beat my team to win it all so I can mistakenly think that my team would have won too if they had made it". It's not because I'm an "AFC guy". It's not because the Atlanta Falcons beat the Green Bay Packers and that somehow makes them bad guys. It's not because I think a Patriots win will somehow "solidify" Tom Brady's status as "the greatest quarterback ever" or Bill Belichick as "the greatest coach in football history". And it's certainly not because I want the Pats to draw within one win of the Steelers record of six Super Bowl championships.
I shall be rooting for the Patriots for just one reason: I want to see NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have to hand the Vince Lombardi Trophy to owner Robert Kraft, Belichick and Brady in what promises to be the most awkward moment in NFL history. Since handing down his ridiculous punishment on the Patriots for "Deflate-gate"--and then having to take Tom Brady to Federal Court (and almost all the way to the Supreme Court), Goodell has been ducking the franchise. "Scheduling conflicts" have prevented the Commish from attending any games in Foxboro since the scandal. He decided that the NFC Championship Game in Atlanta was a more important place to be two weeks ago. He even refused to answer questions this week about "Deflate-gate", the punishments handed down and the legal battles involving Brady. So a Patriots win on Sunday would force Goodell to stand there and at least acknowledge the franchise still exists.
I shall also be rooting for Tom Brady to win the Super Bowl MVP award. On the Monday after the Super Bowl, the Commissioner does a press conference and photo shoot with the MVP--and I want to see the look on Goodell's face as he poses with the QB that he took to court to suspend for the first four games of the year. I'd also like to see if Brady decides to rub Goodell's face in it while taking questions from the media.
I don't know if its a prop bet available in Las Vegas, but I'm putting the over/under on split screen shots showing Goodell and Patriots personnel during the Super Bowl broadcast at 9 and a half--especially if it appears that New England is going to win. Of course, if things go against Brady and Company, I fully expect to see a shot of Goodell cracking open the champagne and toasting with everyone in his luxury box. Although, I'd much rather have to see him squirm like the worm that he is.
I shall be rooting for the Patriots for just one reason: I want to see NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have to hand the Vince Lombardi Trophy to owner Robert Kraft, Belichick and Brady in what promises to be the most awkward moment in NFL history. Since handing down his ridiculous punishment on the Patriots for "Deflate-gate"--and then having to take Tom Brady to Federal Court (and almost all the way to the Supreme Court), Goodell has been ducking the franchise. "Scheduling conflicts" have prevented the Commish from attending any games in Foxboro since the scandal. He decided that the NFC Championship Game in Atlanta was a more important place to be two weeks ago. He even refused to answer questions this week about "Deflate-gate", the punishments handed down and the legal battles involving Brady. So a Patriots win on Sunday would force Goodell to stand there and at least acknowledge the franchise still exists.
I shall also be rooting for Tom Brady to win the Super Bowl MVP award. On the Monday after the Super Bowl, the Commissioner does a press conference and photo shoot with the MVP--and I want to see the look on Goodell's face as he poses with the QB that he took to court to suspend for the first four games of the year. I'd also like to see if Brady decides to rub Goodell's face in it while taking questions from the media.
I don't know if its a prop bet available in Las Vegas, but I'm putting the over/under on split screen shots showing Goodell and Patriots personnel during the Super Bowl broadcast at 9 and a half--especially if it appears that New England is going to win. Of course, if things go against Brady and Company, I fully expect to see a shot of Goodell cracking open the champagne and toasting with everyone in his luxury box. Although, I'd much rather have to see him squirm like the worm that he is.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
No Sure Thing
President Donald Trump has fulfilled the one hope that actual conservatives had when some of them voted for him--he has appointed what appears to be a Constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. Those on the Right are finding little not to like about Judge Neil Gorsuch--and his original nomination to the Federal bench was unanimous in the Senate--with Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein all voting in favor of him. It would appear that the narrow Conservative majority on the high court is being preserved in the wake of Antonin Scalia's death nearly a year ago.
But those of us who believe in limited government and strict interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't be celebrating just yet. You see, recent Supreme Court nominees put forth by Republican Presidents tend to be far more unpredictable than those put on the court by Democratic Presidents. There is never any doubt as to how Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor are going to rule on cases that split the court. Inevitably, they will side with whatever party provides greater control to the central government. But some "conservative" justices aren't nearly as predictable.
Remember, it was George W Bush appointee John Roberts that not only cast the deciding vote to find the Affordable Care Act constitutional--but he went out of his way to find a legal principle backing up that position which the Obama Administration never actually made before the court (that it is a "tax"--not a "requirement to buy something in the private market"). George HW Bush appointee David Souter actually became a reliable liberal vote on the high court--even after John Sununu guaranteed that he would be a "slam dunk conservative". And Sandra Day O'Connor would swing her vote after Ronald Reagan put her on the court in the 1980's.
Obviously, these "mis-reads" are due more to Constitutionalists coming to the court with fewer hard-line biases--and a willingness to consider each case on the merits and arguments presented--and not with the notion that the power of the government to control our lives is paramount. But conservatives shouldn't be counting their "5-4 decisions" before they hatch--if Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch's nomination for the entire four years of the Trump presidency.
But those of us who believe in limited government and strict interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't be celebrating just yet. You see, recent Supreme Court nominees put forth by Republican Presidents tend to be far more unpredictable than those put on the court by Democratic Presidents. There is never any doubt as to how Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor are going to rule on cases that split the court. Inevitably, they will side with whatever party provides greater control to the central government. But some "conservative" justices aren't nearly as predictable.
Remember, it was George W Bush appointee John Roberts that not only cast the deciding vote to find the Affordable Care Act constitutional--but he went out of his way to find a legal principle backing up that position which the Obama Administration never actually made before the court (that it is a "tax"--not a "requirement to buy something in the private market"). George HW Bush appointee David Souter actually became a reliable liberal vote on the high court--even after John Sununu guaranteed that he would be a "slam dunk conservative". And Sandra Day O'Connor would swing her vote after Ronald Reagan put her on the court in the 1980's.
Obviously, these "mis-reads" are due more to Constitutionalists coming to the court with fewer hard-line biases--and a willingness to consider each case on the merits and arguments presented--and not with the notion that the power of the government to control our lives is paramount. But conservatives shouldn't be counting their "5-4 decisions" before they hatch--if Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch's nomination for the entire four years of the Trump presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)