What Walker Really Wants

Nowhere in his campaign did Scott Walker reveal exactly how he was going to balance the state budget, nor did he say anything about eliminating collective bargaining for public employees.  In fact, he often refused to say exactly what he was going to do, at least publicly.

In the film documentary, "So Goes Janesville," however, he revealed his plan to billionaire campaign contributor Diane Hendricks.  She gave Walker 500 grand, and he told her that his plan for Wisconsin was to "start with the public unions and divide and conquer."

Sadly, that is the only part of Walker's plan that is working.  He has indeed divided the state.  Facebook and comment sections in almost any Wisconsin media abound with sniping from both opponents and supporters of Walker.  Friends and relatives are arguing, sometimes vehemently.  This is the division of which Walker talked. 

When it became clear what Walker's true intentions were, civil discussion became a thing of the past.  When he proposed cutting a billion dollars from education, no one wanted to consider at all what this would do to public schools around the state.  When his legislation forced teachers and public employees to pay for part of their insurance and pension benefits, this removed nearly one billion dollars from their take home pay.  That meant one billion dollars that would no longer be spent in the economy.  No one discussed what effect that that would have.

Instead of discussion of any sort, what happened was the demonizing of all public employees, mainly teachers.  This was exactly what Walker wanted.  By dividing ordinary citizens and pitting them against each other, he easily diverted any attention from the real effects of his legislation.

It is ironic that he, and many like him think that unions are damaging the economy in any way.  The mantra of the right wing is that each person is responsible for his or her own success, that it is up to the individual to work hard and get ahead.  Yet when individuals form a union to do just that, get ahead, it is wrong.   Their belief simply is that we should all be happy to have a job regardless of low pay, lack of benefits or security.

Over the past two or three decades, we have seen the disparity of income widen in the nation.  I do not begrudge people making more money than others, nor companies making a profit.  That is always been the nature of things.  But to see the income, benefits, and pensions of workers diminish while the bosses increase their income cannot be justified, nor should it be countenanced.

The great rise in middle class income occurred when unions bargained for, nay fought for, better wages, better benefits, and better pensions.  When unions achieved those, non-union businesses were forced to follow suit so that they could recruit the good employees as well.  And business still made profits, and the owners still made more money.  In short, as the middle class succeeded, so did everyone do better, and in part this was due to unions.

Walker's plan to divide Wisconsinites is not based on religion, race, or ethnicity.  It is based on what has always really divided people - money.  His plan is doing just that.  The poor are being made poorer and the rich are indeed getting richer, and the rest of us in the middle have just become pawns in the game. 

The real truth of the economy is that the middle class will never become part of the top 10% and will continue to struggle just not to become part of the poor class.  It's not for lack of trying.  Everyone wants to succeed.  We want job security, a roof, clothing, and food on the table.  That's success to most people.  What Walker wants is for us to continue fighting for our share of the pie.  What he doesn't want us to know is that the share we're fighting over is smaller while his rich cronies have more pie.

Tom Barrett in a way is right.  We are in a civil war in this state.  Walker started the war.  He has us divided.  The recall election will determine if he has conquered.

The Wars Young Men Have to Fight

Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen were two British soldiers during World War 1. They met each other at Craiglockhart War Hospital where they were both being treated for shell shock, what today we call post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Sassoon greatly influenced Owen's poetry and helped bring it to the world's attention. Both men became disillusioned with war and those who wage war.

Sassoon was sent to Craiglockhart because he wrote this letter to his commanding officer which eventually was read to Parliament published in the London Times.

The letter reads as follows:

Lt. Siegfried Sassoon.
3rd Batt: Royal Welsh Fusiliers.
July, 1917.

I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that the war upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation has now become a war of agression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them and that had this been done the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.

I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops and I can no longer be a party to prolonging these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.

On behalf of those who are suffering now, I make this protest against the deception which is being practised upon them; also I believe it may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share and which they have not enough imagination to realise.

***

After being treated, Owen was shipped back to the trenches where he was killed in battle. His lasting legacy is a poem that captures the brutality of war and the irony of Horace's Latin (It is sweet and proper to die for one's country)

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

***

How true is it still today that old men wage wars that young men have to fight?

Businessmen as President?

Mitt Romney is hoping to become President and is touting his business experience as the best reason why he should receive our votes. 

Of the men who have sat in the big chair in the Oval Office, only six of them have had any business experience at all.  They have all been elected within the past 100 years.  Those six are:

Warren G. Harding owned and operated a newspaper.           

Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer and investment banker.

Harry Truman owned a haberdashery.

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer.

George H.W. Bush, oilman, founded of Zapata Petroleum

George W. Bush, oilman, owned the Texas Rangers

The historical rankings of these men as President are as follows:

Warren Harding 43           

Herbert Hoover 29           

Harry Truman 7

Jimmy Carter 27

George H.W. Bush 22

George W. Bush 34

I am surprised that Carter ranks as high as he does.  I have always thought that he was the best person to hold the office, but that he was also the most ineffective.  That's why they have these historical rankings, and why they ask the political science and history experts to judge not me.

Let me examine each briefly. 

Warren G. Harding arguably ended up with the most corrupt administration in history.  After he appointed several of his donors and friends to positions, several scandals ensued, most notably the Teapot Dome Scandal.  Although his policies help the post World War I country recover, the nation still suffered three recessions during his term.

Herbert Hoover's ineptness in the handling of the stock market crash of 1929 led to his losing reelection to Franklin Roosevelt.

Harry Truman took over after Roosevelt's death, dropped the boom on Japan, and had to endure, in part, the goofy Joe McCarthy era.  His haberdashery was a failed business.

Jimmy Carter left the military to take over the family peanut farm.  He served a term of recession and high unemployment.  After he left office the business failed for a variety of reasons. 

The first Bush was a successful businessman, but he could not help the nation out of a recession and served only one term.

The second Bush was not as successful as his father in the oil business, but did make a profit on his sale of the Texas Rangers.  His Presidency saw a cut in the tax rates and an increase in the wealth gap in this nation.  Despite entering office with a surplus, he and his GOP controlled Congress quickly eliminated that surplus and ramped up national spending over his eight years in office.  The growth of federal spending increased by 7.3 percent and 8.1 percent in his two terms. 

For comparison the growth of spending under Obama so far has been a mere 1.4, the lowest in thirty years. (Click here for Wall Street Journal numbers) 

Four of the six men with business experience were Republicans.  Five were successful.  Only the highest ranked, Truman, was not a successful businessman. 

Why do we keep hearing that only a businessman can lead this nation?  The evidence shows that it doesn't make a difference.  Well maybe it shows that if you can't run a business you can still be a damn good President like Truman.  But, if you are successful in business, odds are that your Presidency will be less than stellar.

Some Things in Sport Are Just Plain Difficult

After Bobby Jones won the four major golf championships of his day in 1930.  They were the U.S. Open, the U.S Amateur and the two counterparts in Britain, their Open and Amateur Championships.  Some sports writer called in the Grand Slam.  That name has stuck even though the tournaments have changed to make up the Grand Slam.  Now it comprises the Masters, U.S. Open, the Open Championship in Britain, and the PGA Championship. 

No one has won the Grand Slam in golf since Jones.  The closest anyone came was in 1953 when Ben Hogan won the first three majors.  Many experts say that Hogan was playing so well that he probably would have won the PGA.  He didn't play in it because the dates overlapped with the Open Championship.  Tiger Woods also came close with his "Tiger Slam” when he won the four majors in a row, but over two years. 

Baseball has the Triple Crown in batting when a player leads his league in batting average, home runs, and runs batted in.  In the long history of baseball, it has only been done sixteen times.  Only two of the players are not in the Hall of Fame.  Rogers Hornsby and Ted Williams are the only two players to have done it twice.  In remains inexplicable to me why Williams did not win the MVP either of the years he accomplished the feat.  Even more inexplicable is how Mickey Cochrane beat out Lou Gehrig's Triple Crown in 1934. 

Many players have won two of the three parts of the Triple Crown.  Many of those players are in the Hall of Fame or will go into the Hall of Fame along with the 12 men who added a Triple Crown to their resume.  After a fast start, Matt Kemp of the Dodgers has hit a slump.  Josh Hamilton of the Rangers went on a tear recently and currently is leading in all three categories.  They play 162 games to figure out the leaders.  The last player to win the Triple Crown in baseball was Carl Yastrzemski.  He did it in 1967. 

In thoroughbred racing, several countries have their own versions of a Triple Crown.  They are all equally difficult to accomplish.  In the 150 years of racing in Britain, only 15 horses have won their version, the last being Nijinsky in 1970.  Here in our country only one filly has one the National Triple Tiara.  Only eleven horses have won the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont Stakes in the same year.  As in baseball, several horses have come close, winning the first two races only to fall short.  The last was Affirmed in 1978.

I've been lucky enough to see Ben Hogan play golf and Tiger Woods to come close to winning the Grand Slam.  I've seen winners of the baseball Triple Crown play.  Ted Williams at the end of his career and Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, and Yastremski in their primes.  Anybody my age remembers the flat out speed of Secretariat, the heart of Seattle Slew, and the grace of Affirmed as each of them won the Triple Crown.

Only one golfer has a chance at the Grand Slam this year.  Bubba Watson's next test in that will be the U.S. Open.  Josh Hamilton has a shot at baseball's Triple Crown if he continues at the same pace.  Watson has to go up against some of the best players in the world.  And 600 other players stand ready to take any one of the categories in baseball stats away from Hamilton.

I'll Have Another won the Kentucky Derby coming from behind to beat 19 other horses.  Although the field was smaller, he came from behind again to win the Preakness today.  In both races he ran down Bodemeister.  Now the long grueling mile and a half Belmont remains.  Traditionally the field in the Derby is the largest.  The Preakness is smaller, and the Belmont even smaller.  Regardless, this colt faces a tough challenge.

Watson might win the Grand Slam, but we won't know until The U.S Open if he has a chance.  We won't know about Hamilton until the end of this season in September. Come June 9, at the Belmont, we just might see I'll Have Another in the Winner's Circle.  


The reason some things are so difficult in sport is because when we see someone accomplish the rare and difficult, we get to witness greatness.  If we do, relish the moment.  We might not see it again for a long time.

Dear Mr. President

Dear Mr. President,

I have received numerous emails soliciting donations to the Democratic Party so that it may help reelect you and various members of Congress. The avowed hope is also to regain control of the House. This is indeed laudable. I suspect that the call for donations will continue through the November elections and probably expand to include postal mailings and phone calls. This, too, is laudable.

These solicitations come under the name of a variety of leaders in the party: the head of the DNC, numerous officers of the DNC, and other well-known Democrats including John Kerry, and you and the First Lady. I am not so naive, however, to think that you or they actually wrote these solicitations. 

Although I appreciate these efforts and know they are necessary, I cannot make any such donations at this time. Any political donations I make this year, as minimal as I can afford, must go to recalling Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Sadly, you and the Democratic Party have almost totally ignored this most important election in the country. The DNC has not given any money, run any ads or done any fund raising to support the recall effort. None of the big names in the party have lent their support or presence in the state. I ask where are the luminaries of the party? Where is the Vice-President? Where are you Mr. President? What I sincerely and honestly expect is your full support and the party's full support of Tom Barrett. Raise funds, run ads, send people. NOW!

The Wisconsin recall effort is truly a grassroots one. Volunteers gathered at least three-quarters of a million signatures to force the recall. Now that that election is closing in upon us, we realize that a Walker victory would only serve to embolden the GOP around the nation to take similar draconian measures of destroying collective bargaining and gutting funding to education and health care. In Wisconsin the GOP legislature and governor enacted legislation that effectively repealed equal pay for women. They continue their efforts to disenfranchise minorities and senior citizens through Voter ID legislation. The citizens of Wisconsin have done their part, but the Walker campaign and its millions of dollars from out of state donors is outspending the Barrett campaign 25-1.

If Scott Walker is successful in fending off the recall effort, he will have done so with almost unlimited financial support, much of which comes from Super Pacs and larger money donations. One Wisconsin billionaire donated $500,000 to his campaign. The supporters of Tom Barrett are still waiting while in DC people are sitting on their hands and pocketbooks. So again I ask, where is the Democratic Party support? Where are you, Mr. President?

I do want to support your campaign. I do want to see the Democrats regain control of the House. I simply think this recall election is more important. It seems to be increasingly apparent that you and the Democrats will continue to ignore Wisconsin. Thus, the real question, I suppose, is not whether I should send money to your campaign. Rather, the real question for me has become why should I?

Sincerely, Tim Mocarski, Retired High School Teacher

cc: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair

On his own terms

I doubt that Kerry Wood will ever be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. His career numbers do not approach those of the other great hurlers in Cooperstown. But that one game ...

In his rookie year in just his fifth start Kerry Wood pitched what is one of the most dominating performances in baseball. He struck out 20 batters and gave up a lone infield single. According to the Bill James Game Score method, it was the greatest game ever pitched. On the scale, Sandy Koufax scored a 101 for his perfect game. Wood's score was 105. Today, after one last performance at Wrigley, Wood hung up the cleats. This is how all careers should end:

Wood left the Cubs and came back as a free agent. He wanted to end his career in Chicago. He went out on his own terms, on three pitches, all strikes. Two fast balls and one giant, unhittable curve.