Congratulations to Integrated Mail Industries for successfully strong arming land from Bee Bus Lines:

Land on Milwaukee's north side will become available for an adjacent company to expand under the pending settlement of a two-year-old eminent domain dispute.

The parcels are owned by Bee Bus Line Inc., which operates at 4330 N. 35th St., just north of the site.

The Redevelopment Authority in December 2007 began eminent domain proceedings to force a sale of the parcels. City officials said the land is needed for a 60,000-square-foot expansion of Integrated Mail Industries Ltd., 3450 W. Hopkins St.

Bee's properties are adjacent to Integrated Mail, a direct-marketing company, which says it might leave Milwaukee if it cannot expand its 167,000-square-foot facility. Integrated Mail, with 120 employees, expects to create 50 full-time jobs by expanding.

The Common Council authorized eminent domain proceedings after land sale negotiations between Integrated Mail and Bee broke down. The Redevelopment Authority would use eminent domain to buy the land and then resell it to Intergrated Mail.

Bee objected, saying the sale should be negotiated between the two companies without the city's intervention. Integrated wanted to buy the parcels for much less than what Bee paid, the bus company said. Bee also said Integrated Mail would not negotiate in good faith because of the eminent domain proceedings.

Of course, the way the article is written, it seems so wonderful.  After all... jobs will be created with this new land!  But let's look at what really happened here.  IMI went to Bee and asked to buy the property for a price.  Bee said it wanted moren (actually they just wanted at least what they paid for it), and IMI, instead of continuing to negotiate in good faith, went to the city and demand they use eminent domain to take the property at a lower price and resell it to them.  This is nothing but government sponsored theft.

If property rights meant anything, then a property owner (Bee Bus Lines) ought to be allowed to ask whatever they wanted for that property.  If their price is too high, than no sale will be made and they'll be stuck.  But just because IMI didn't want to pay a price doesn't mean that they ought be allowed to go the city to "force a sale".  That is like suggesting that if a woman declines a man at a bar, he ought to be able to go the police and have a cop hold her down while he rapes her... to force the completion of a "transaction" he demanded of her.  Having a right to something means nothing if it does not include the right to refuse sale of that item, for whatever reason.  This isn't the God Father... you have the right to refuse an offer.

The framers of our Constitution thought the same thing when they drafted the 5th Amendment:

... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When the Kelo decision was handed down, so many states objected to the poor decision that they passed laws strengthening property owner's rights against eminent domain.  One of the dangers of course is that someone who is politically well connected can use Eminent Domain against private property owners who are less well connected.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that this is probably happening in this case.

What was left out of the article above is that Integrated Mail Industries is owned by the AB Data Group.  Among many of the companies under the AB Data umbrella is the AB Data Consulting Group.  Their home page lists this as their mission (emphasis mine):

Our clients are working hard to change the world – and A.B. Data is helping them do it. For over 25 years, the AB Data Consulting Group has fostered dedicated partnerships with nonprofit charitable and progressive advocacy organizations, pushing the boundaries of direct response fundraising and securing the resources they need to fulfill their critical missions. AB Data's long record of integrated programs and cutting edge direct response fundraising solutions pave the way for success.

They were the major direct major consulting firm for the Obama campaign, and the owners of AB Data are major political movers in Milwaukee.  During the 2008 election cycle, between the three owners (Jerry Benjamin, Chuck Pruitt and Bruce Arbit) more than $10,000 was personally given to the Obama campaign alone according to a record search on OpenSecrets.org (along with various other Senate and Congressional campaigns).  A similar search on the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign showed smaller amounts given to dozens of state candidates over the years.  Unfortunately, Tom Barrett is not required to report on his campaign contributions for his gubernatorial run until the end of the month, but his mayoral contributions show Benjamin gave $1000 during the last mayoral campaign and the Arbit family donated less.  It's a bit hard to tell if that is all because the data is not combined anywhere in a single report.

Did any of this have to do with this recent decision? It's hard to tell.  However, the fear over these very questions was the reason why the prohibition against government taking property for private benefit was placed in the Constitution in the first place. And even if the reasons for the eminent domain proceedings had nothing to do with any contributions, Bee Bus Lines still had their lands stolen for IMI's profit.

Update 02/02/2010: It should also be noted that in the January Continuing 2010 report for Tom Barrett's Governor's campaign (searchable here) both Pruitt and Arbit gave $1,000. Jerry Benjamin did not donate as far as I can tell at this point.

JSOnline notes that there will be a ceremony welcoming Archbishop Jerome Listecki to Milwaukee:

Archbishop Jerome Listecki will be the guest of honor for an hourlong program that begins at 10:30 a.m. in the first floor rotunda.

Expected to attend are several state and local politicians, some of whom are seeking higher offices, including gubernatorial candidates Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and County Executive Scott Walker.

The Syrena Polish Folk Dance Ensemble of Milwaukee will perform in honor of the Milwaukee Archdiocese's first Polish prelate.

Listecki, 60, was installed as archbishop of the 10-county archdiocese on Monday. He succeeds the Most Rev. Timothy M. Dolan, now archbishop of New York, as the spiritual leader of southeastern Wisconsin's nearly 650,000 Roman Catholics.

Friday's event is being recorded by City Channel 25 and will be shown at 10 p.m. Friday and 9 p.m. Sunday in Milwaukee on Channel 25 on Time Warner Cable and on AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

My question is why?  The City of Milwaukee is already short on funds... so why is it spending money to have a lavish ceremony complete with Polish Dancers for a man who does not represent the entire population of Milwaukee?  After all, the Catholic churches in this area are doing a fine job at honoring their new archbishop, as they should.  There was a long ceremony at St. John's (which both Tom Barrett and Scott Walker attended), which was televised on local stations.  There will also be numerous other ceremonies at other churches as well.  The Catholic church should honor their new leader in the Catholic tradition.  The City of Milwaukee should continue in the business of running city business, which does not include Catholic worship.

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Milwaukee is not officially Catholic.  When choosing only to honor the leadership of one particular religion, they are choosing one over the other.  There are Jews, Protestants, Hindus and many other groups here.  You can't even argue that Listecki somehow represents all Christians in Milwaukee.  He does not represent all Christians... he only represents Catholics.  Either way, the city of Milwaukee has no business honoring or recognizing a new leader of a religious group.  When the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a new member in the Council of Presidents, is he invited to city hall to be honored?  Of course not.  And who knew that Congregation Churches everywhere were going to be left in the cold by the city because they don't have a royal hierarchy.

Catholics love their pomp and circumstance. Catholic leadership enjoys being looked upon as royalty. Our forefathers fought a war rejecting royalty in this nation, and there was a Protestant Reformation rejecting it in the church as well.  They city should consider these things when it chooses to only honor a single religion.  Keep Catholic ceremonies where they belong... in Catholic churches.

Being an uncommitted voter, I'm really going to take the time to investigate all the candidates' issues and policies as we come up to the election.  I'm going to make an effort (though I'll probably slip now and then) to only compare the candidates on different positions, instead of only talking about one candidate when they put out a press release.  Mark Neumann recently unveiled his "Strong Wisconsin Reform", so I thought I would take the time to compare that with what Scott Walker and Tom Barrett have proposed thus far.

Strong Wisconsin Reform

Mark's reform is summed up as part of a 5 Point plan.  Why 5 points?  Because 14 points is apparently too many to work, and 5 points fits on your hand. I really don't know.  The first thing I see as I read Mark's Five Point Plan is that it really boils down to "supporting someone else doing something".  He will "ask" the legislature to amend it's rules and require five days of public review before a vote on a bill.  He will personally promise to limit himself to two terms (I'll believe it when I see it) and support term limits if passed by the legislature.  He will support the concept of allowing ballot initiatives (more on that later).  Pretty much every point in his "reform plan" involves him saying "pretty please with cherries and sprinkles on top" to someone else.

I understand that this is a tough row to hoe.  As President Obama found out, you can promise the world as a candidate for an executive office, but you are often times hamstrung by what the legislature does.  After all, in our system of government, the legislature passes the laws and the executive (Governor in this case) is in charge of carrying them out.  With that said, there are certain things that an executive can do to reform government using the powers of his office.  Unfortunately, none of the things he mentions really fit that bill.  Moreover, none of these concepts are very new.  Not that they're all necessarily bad (a 5 day review period is generally good), but when you combine old ideas with a lack of a proactive plan, it leaves me pretty unimpressed.  Many of these ideas could be turned into a proactive plan.  For instance, a promise to veto any bill that has not had a 5 day review period would be a way for the governor to enforce certain ideas, instead of simply suggesting a rule change to the legislature.

Citizen referendums, though a popular idea among many, are simply a bad, bad idea.  Zach of Blogging Blue does a good job of covering the issue.  The primary problem with ballot initiatives can be seen in California.  In that state, people tend to create initiatives that require the legislature to do something (usually an expensive something), but don't include a way to pay for it.  The legislature is then bound to implement the ballot initiative, and also figure out a way to pay for it.  That is one of many reasons why California has a massive budget deficit.  Granted, California has one of the highest (if not the highest) percentage of public sector employees belonging to a union than any other state which probably causes more problems.  The salary and benefits of the unionized public sector vs. non-unionized public sector is insane.

Walker's Plan

Scott's reform doesn't have a fancy name, but it does have 5 points!  It must be good then.  Scott is a little more vague than Mark in how he'd carry out some of his reforms (which I didn't realize was possible), but all the things that Scott mentions are at least things a Governor can do.  Never once do I read "ask the legislature to".  That's a good thing, because it means that Scott can be directly held accountable for the things he says he'll do in office... and he can actually do them!

These things include using General Accepted Accounting Principles during budget creation, "stripping policy and pork" from the budget (I assume through judicious use of the line item veto, but I'd like to see that specifically mentioned), and the pledge to end raids on segregated funds.  I would simply like to see more details behind the concepts.  For instance:

Start the state budget at zero. Just because a government program has a vocal constituency and a high-priced lobbyist does not mean it should continue, let alone receive automatic funding increases. Every dollar spent should be scrutinized and justified, not simply given a blind percentage increase.

Well, how will it be scrutinized and how will it have to be justified?  I understand that websites and campaigns are bad platforms for delivering details, but come one... give me something.  It's way too easy to just say "we'll cut the pork" or "I'll go over the budget with a fine toothed comb".  Maybe the campaign could list a few examples from the current budget that Scott would have scrutinized and decided to veto, along with an explanation as to why.

Barrett's Plan

I'm not sure what Tom's plan is, or if he even has one. His website has nothing but his announcement to run for governor, and a place to send money.  He may not have a plan to reform government, or it could be that his plan will include a pledge to have cute kittens perform line item vetoes with ink stained paws.  We'll see, and I'll be sure to post about it when it appears.

I've blogged a lot about Guantanamo Bay.  Of course, since the Obama Administration has taken over, the fury over the false imprisonment of many men there has died down significantly, even though their reality has not.  Several months ago I blogged about the problems with Gitmo when Obama began seriously faltering on it's closure.  Among many other things I said:

... with all the controversy surrounding the base there, the government has a large incentive in making sure that nobody finds out that someone might be falsely imprisoned, which explains why so much evidence is not reviewable by a defense.  In fact, many good men who had issues with the tribunals because of this have resigned over it... for the very reason that the evidence in many cases is just that flimsy.

The issue here is that there are both completely innocent, and very guilty people at Guantanamo Bay.  The larger problem is that a strong majority of people have decided to assume that all people there are guilty, and because of that simple (and very wrong) assumption, they have decided to forgo the basic system we have put in place to decide guilt and innocence... a trial.  And because of that base assumption, and the fact that many people have based significant parts of their political careers on that assumption, they will do whatever it takes to keep any contrary evidence hidden.  One of the best cases was of Fouad al-Rabiah.

During his detention in Cuba, he was forced to undergo the entire spectrum of torture that is permitted there (or as some people euphemistically call it... enhanced interrogation methods).  As it turns out, he was completely innocent.  He was guilty, at most, of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Among many of the shocking revelations in the news story about this man (from late last year) was that his interrogators knew he was completely innocent!  Andrew Sullivan points to this quote from the released court record that detailed one of his interrogation sessions:

There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.

I have no words to describe the shame I felt when I read that.  I love my country, and to read about people who do something like this... unilaterally sentencing a man to life in prison merely for refusing to confess to a crime he never committed... making a man choose between his honor and good name or the ability to see his family and the light of day makes me ashamed.  This man was told he had to confess to something (which would more than likely lead to another person being put into the same terrible situation), merely so he could be released, and the political future of someone thousands of miles away could remain intact.

Comparing these actions to those of the Salem Witch Trials, or the Spanish Inquisition are not mere hyperbole... they are exactly comparable.  Confess and you shall be forgiven... resist and you shall be purified by a life in prison.  I suppose we can take a bit of solace in the fact that we don't burn people at the stake any more.

Whether these people are housed in a base in Cuba, or imprisoned somewhere in Illinois does not change their situation, only their zip code.  There are many innocent people there.  We have a system put in place to determine who is guilty and who is innocent.  Until these people are allowed their day in court, where they can challenge their detention... we should all be ashamed.  That people there knowingly imprisoned innocent people is beyond shameful.  It is criminal.

About three years ago now, I bought my first high quality camera as a Christmas present to myself... a Nikon D40.  And on the anniversary of that event, I like to post my favorite pictures that I've taken during the year.

You can see my previous favorites for 2008 and 2007 as well.  Happy New Year everyone!

Patrick McIheran seems to think we don't shame people enough.  Specifically, he's upset that Eliot Spitzer is writing for Slate, and that his call girl is writing an advice column for the New York Post.  In fact:

All we're ashamed of now is dealing out shame -- even to those who earned it. Yet if we don't set limits, what kind of society will we have?

He's not alone in thinking that.

But of course, shame is a rather blunt weapon, and it seems that a lot of people only want to point that weapon at people they disagree with.  Take Patrick, who directs his ire of shame at a former Democratic Governor of a state where he does not live.  Eliot resigned from office because of this scandal.  And his mistress?  Hell, she was just doing her job... a job she was paid very well to do.  But of the Governor... why shouldn't he have an opinion column?  After all, he has already been shamed from public office... what more punishment by society is required?  We no longer live in a world where people have to wear a red letter because of their activities.  Should Eliot be resigned to the poor house, because he should not be allowed to have any job due to his infidelity?  Where does shame end, and the allowance for one's ability to function in society begin?

And if someone like Eliot Spitzer not only should be forced to resign his office, but also shouldn't write a column in a major publication (nor apparently should his mistress), what of our own local cadre of adulterers?  We have a Chief of Police in Milwaukee who has had an admitted affair with a columnist for the Waukesha Freeman.  Where is their shame?  If Spitzer and his mistress should be shamed out of public office and public papers for what they did, shouldn't Flynn have resigned, and Jessica McBride be shamed from writing again for the Freeman? Of course, Edward Flynn is beloved by many conservatives, and Jessica McBride is supposedly conservative herself, so maybe that's why Patrick can't bring himself to aim the blunt instrument of shame towards them.  But a Democrat and a hooker?  No problem.

Though it does make me wonder why Edward Flynn ought to keep his job.  After all, Flynn seems to strongly believe in the benefits of the "broken window theory of policing".  And in fact, there is some support in studies that says that policing minor crimes helps prevent larger ones.  Doesn't a similar theory hold true regarding the public trust, which the Chief of Police is meant to uphold?  Is there no "broken window theory of morals"?  As I said when I wrote about Tiger Woods, if a man can't be trusted to keep a lifelong and sacred promise to his wife and children... one made before God; if a man can't be trusted to not hurt his wife and children, who he is closest in this world too, then how on Earth can he be trusted not to hurt complete strangers?  If he feels that he can break that trust with his wife, who's to say he won't be just as cavalier with the law.  And if he is allowed to get away with this violation in trust, would he be emboldened to violate the trust of others?  What would he do to the people in Milwaukee? After all, we're mere strangers to him compared to his family, which he did great harm to.

And what of other public figures on the right?  John McCain has been allowed to use his status as a war hero from Vietnam to his benefit for many years, and yet the adultery he committed after he came home from war has largely been left as a relic of history.  John McCain represented the party most associated with family values in a run for President.  Newt Gingrich is a conservative warrior over issues like the "sanctity of marriage", despite cheating on two former wives, and divorcing one while recovering from cancer surgery.  So much for "in sickness and in health".  No shame for Newt however, for he is a regular guest on Fox News.  At least Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was impeached because of his infidelity (yes... yes... his perjury... but we all know why people were really upset).  Ironically, Newt was cheating on his second wife while Congress investigated Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife.

My personal view is that those who are in government (especially police) are to be held to a higher standard than others.  They are granted extraordinary powers to be used against the people, and therefore must be watched very closely.  If a Governor should be made to resign over infidelity, then certainly the Chief of Police of a major metropolitan city should do the same.  Someone who can't be trusted to keep their family safe certainly can't be trusted to keep the people of a city safe.  Of course, when it comes to politicians, the voters have the ultimate say.  Then again, the Chief of Police is not an elected position.  But shame serves as an important tool in policing those in the public trust.

As for an adulterer's ability to write a column, ultimately that is in the hands of the paper who hires them, and the people who read them.  Should we shame people out of a job?  Absolutely not.  Despite what I wrote about Tiger Woods, I wouldn't suggest that adultery should keep him from playing golf.  That does not mean that we shouldn't use the information at hand when deciding how much to trust someone.  However, that is an individual responsibility.  For my part, I would trust what that person has to say less and I'd be much less likely to read a person's column knowing what they'd done to their family.  After all, I'm a mere stranger to them.  That is one of the reasons why I don't listen to Charlie Sykes.

But hey, everyone has to make a living, right?

The media is obsessed with Tiger Woods. Every day there is a new revelation regarding another affair he had, often times accompanied by the woman herself... take full advantage of her 15 minutes of fame, no matter how lurid it is.  She sits there talking about how wonderful Tiger was, and how caring he was. One woman I heard interviewed claimed to not know he was even married... and then shared text messages where he told her not to call him because "there were too many people around."  Tiger may have liked them busty, but apparently not very smart.

Most of what I'm reading from people regarding this entire episode just want it to be over.  They want it to be over because it's distracting from more important issues that affect our daily lives.  Frankly... I do as well... mostly.  There are also a good number of people who want it to be over because we're delving into a person matter of his, and after all... nobody is perfect.  James Wigderson makes the typical Catholic argument regarding Tiger's inherent sinfulness:

Not that it would shatter any illusions I have about Tiger. I don’t have any thoughts on him personally, but I know that man is inherently fallen in nature, prone to sin, and what is Tiger if not a man with more temptations than the rest of us?

This is not to excuse his behavior, whatever it was. It’s just that I have a hard time understanding how it affects me. At most I might wonder why he cracked up a Cadillac instead of the Buick he endorses, and which car would be better for my golf swing?

There seems to be a good contingent of people who want Tiger to be left alone to deal with his sins in his own privacy with his family.  I get that.  Really I do.  After all, just because he's a millionaire golfer doesn't mean he owes anything to the public, right?  Or does it?  It's important to remember that Tiger Woods made a great deal of his money (if not most of it) through endorsements for products... not winning golf tournaments.  Sure, winning a major tournament isn't chump change, but promoting a Buick is worth a lot more.  And realistically speaking, driving a Buick has nothing to do with driving a gold ball down the fairway. He was given an endorsement deal mostly because of his recognizable name, as well as his clean and wholesome image.

Many would say that it's only up to Buick (or any of the large number of companies he gave endorsements to) to kill their contracts with Tiger if he no longer represents the wholesome image they want to show to their customers.  But what of the customers who already bought their products on Tiger's word?  The entire idea behind these types of endorsements is that people put their trust (correctly or not) in that person because of his achievements.  If he's such a successful golfer and family man, then if he says a product is good, they trusted him, and bought that product.  I'm not saying this is smart, but it is certainly how many people think.  It has been this way since before the television was even invented.  Tiger took advantage of this trust people had in him, and cashed it in at the bank.

These sorts of scandals, though raunchy, and tabloidesque, do uncover important information for people.  It shows that Tiger Woods is a horrible family man who cares more about getting his rocks off than he cares for his wife, and children.  I look at what he has done, and see nothing but a disgusting excuse for a tiny boy who never became a man.  If he can't be trusted to keep one of the most important promises he has ever made in his life (to honor his spouse, and care for his children), then how the hell can we trust him to be honest regarding something as mundane as our choice in a car?  He made millions on people's trust, and now he wants to quietly slither away and lick his wounds?  Part of me says... I don't think so.  If you make millions on your good image, then when your good image turns out to be a sham, the people who trusted you have a right to take it right back out of you.  Now the papers will make millions off of him, and he deserves every little bit. 

So while part of me just wants this all to be over so we can get on to more important things, part of me also says let Tiger fall... let him fall hard... and I hope he never gets back up.