Vote compassion, WI: Vote for Baldwin and Evers

With the midterms coming this Tuesday, I have one of the easiest posts I've written in a long time.
Wisconsinites should cast their votes for U.S. Senate incumbent Tammy Baldwin and Governor candidate State Supt. of Education Tony Evers.

The Baldwin choice is a no-brainer.

Baldwin for Senate is the much better choice

Her opponent, WI State State Senator Leah Vukmir, is cut wholly from the cloth of her ALEC overlords, a group she chaired, which pushes private business interests--everything from moving public dollars to private schools, to promoting restrictive voter ID laws, to protecting private insurance interests from having to cover things such as pre-existing conditions--above all else.

In short, ALEC opposes everything that works toward a more compassionate and grander society.

And she isn't even honest about her well-chronicled intentions (Politifact includes only one lone Vukmir statement that tops "Half-True").

A constantly-run Vukmir ad touts her desire that she would rather "fall in front of a truck" instead of touching pre-existing conditions, despite supporting plans that would likely put many of those with pre-existing conditions at high risk of losing their coverage.

Vukmir says the elderly will

actually be thrown off a cliff.

Side note (which I think is incredible fearmongering, but also kind of hilarious, as well): Vukmir's ad also says that Baldwin's plan of "Medicare-for-all" would remove protections for seniors (actually, it would replace current Medicare coverage with more such protections) and "literally throws Granny off the cliff!" Literally? Somehow I don't really think that if Medicare-for-all ever passes, that squads will be dispatched to round up senior citizens and hurl them off cliffs. But we'll just have to wait and see, I guess...

And Vukmir is a big supporter of Donald Trump. She overlooks his numerous personal and political flaws as long as the agenda is passed. On the day the pipe bomber targeted Trump's named enemies including Hillary Clinton--the day Trump "pleaded" for civility--she smiled and laughed at the Mosinee, WI, Trump rally when the minions were chanting  about Clinton, "Lock her up."

And those will spell Vukmir's epitaph: ALEC, lies, and cozying-up to Trump.

We have enough representatives like that already.

Speaking of which, the WI Governor's race is more the same. I've not been an ardent Evers supporter (although I do think he's done a good job as state education supt.), but I simply can't abide Walker. To be honest, I think Act 10 was a short-sighted mistake (and has affected the teaching profession and my personal life tremendously). Walker, in a desperate mode, has now touted education increases (despite his defunding of public education for many years), his new plan to improve juvenile detention facility horrors (despite the fact it was his plan to consolidate and, consequently, increase such atrocities), and his support for continuing coverage of pre-existing conditions (contrary to his direction to his Attorney General to sue the federal government to help eliminate them)--not to mention his gutting environmental regulations, etc., to appease his corporate friends.

Tony Evers

Walker's new-found (and incredibly transparent) humanitarian streak should only be believed until he is elected, when he will turn again into the person he truly is, and cater to the people he truly represents.

Oh, yeah, and Walker is also one of the national GOP figures to not decry any of Trump's severe political and moral shortcomings because Walker's agenda, too, is getting passed.

Trump and his mini-me

So, Baldwin and Evers.

It's time to make sure honesty and civility--and compassion and caring--are back in this wonderful state's political offices.

Imagine How to Ruin an Organization

Imagine pouring all your energy and effort into your job. You leave exhausted everyday, still having work you take with you to finish at home. And it's agreed by superiors and stakeholders alike that you do an "amazing" job.

Now imagine never getting a raise for that performance. Ever. The system doesn't allow for it. Instead, you're required to take some of your effort and energy away from your primary job to do extra work to even be considered for a raise. Year after year. If you accumulate evidence as to the amount of extra work you perform, a group decides, then, exactly how much, if any, you should get for the extra work you do. All the while, health care costs eat up more of your wages every year, and annual inflation further erodes your salary.

Would you imagine that sounds like a profession you'd want to be in? Actually, could you even imagine a job that would do that to its employees?

Doing an "amazing" job is no longer enough (photo from teach.com)

That's exactly the scenario playing out in some of our state's school districts since Scott Walker stripped education funding, and further stripped the possibility of districts working as a team with their employees and their representative unions, when he and the Wisconsin GOP legislature enacted Act 10 in 2011.

And, quite frankly, it's going to catch up with Wisconsin's education system.

Young teachers will burn out more quickly, veteran teachers (like me) will continue to work with the insult and indignation knowing the "amazing" job they do will never bring any more money into their households.

To me, that doesn't seem like a terrifically sustainable model for success.

Some readers here, I'm sure, will say to veteran teachers in this situation, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." But we still love teaching. And we're still good at it. We understand the system has changed from the equitable system in which we started our teaching, but the loss of that experience, and continuity, and the comfort of someone doing an "amazing" job, is incalculable.

And the next generation of dynamic teachers won't have the energy or the will, I'm guessing, to continue to fill those tremendous voids. I see it already in the stress levels of my seriously amazing colleagues.

The state is already providing alternative paths into teaching, providing people without the education or studied pedagogy the opportunity to be entrusted with educating our youth.

I mean, as much as some people might think it is, it isn't babysitting.

And, then what?

Let's just say, it doesn't seem like a great thing to imagine.

Trump, Vile and Evil?

I am sitting here waiting to hear the official US take of the bombs sent to people Trump has basically called enemies.

What will Trump say about the vile and evil terroristic efforts against former presidents and American citizens and news operations?

So far, all he had said officially was a retweet of his VP's, adding his own very heart-felt and inspiring message: I agree wholeheartedly.

Image from CNN

Wait--nothing yet...

Oh, here's MELANIA, instead. She praises her husband. She talks about her "Be Best" program (which ironically supposedly calls out bullies--unless she's married to them).

Then comes her husband.

He makes a joke about his wife that English is just one of her many languages.

He does not mention ANY of the persons targeted--including former presidents, for goodness sake. He does NOT take any responsibility for the violence he's condoned before in his comments or at his rallies. . He does not mention his proclamations that the media (including one of the targets, CNN) are enemies of the people.  He DOES NOT mention the word terrorism (that I heard).

Instead he says political violence has no place in the US. He says he is (and this is a DIRECT quote), that he is "angry, upset, unhappy" at the events that transpired and it will be investigated.

Um, then he's done. About three minutes of comfort and direction for a confused and terrorized nation.

Then it's on to opioids.

Trump does NOT say to his followers, "DON'T DO THIS!" He does NOT say that his media/enemies of the people comments are hyperbole. He does NOT say it abhors him.

Instead, it's just another dog whistle, more red meat for his crazed followers (many of whom already claim Dems did it to make the GOP look bad--like the immigrant caravan, or the Puerto Rico hurricane death tolls).

It's another call to those vile and evil Charlottesville faithful--the ones that marched to promote white supremacy (good people on both sides).

It's a call to the vile and  evil racism inherent in Trump's comments decrying African-Americans peacefully protesting in the NFL.

It's Trump's self-proclamation that he's a "nationalist," when he seems to know, but then thoroughly denies he's aware of that word's vile and evil connotations (despite EVERYONE in the country knowing those vile and evil connotations).

That's because he's a vile and evil man.

I mean, I'd really like to know, what other explanation is there?


NOTE: From the earlier post, I removed the descriptor of Trump's followers as "vile and evil." That would be unfair to many. I merely used it to highlight those that really are crazed (such as those that subscribe to the divisiveness of certain internet sites and beliefs).

Enemy of the People

Trump calls the media the enemy of the people.
Amazingly--and terrifyingly so--his minions believe him.

They believe his lies about "fake news," and they chuckle at his "jokes" about GOPers body-slamming reporters, or nod in affirmation about his dismissiveness with members of the press during a press conference (i.e., calling on "Mr. Kurd"). They silently cheer when certain news outlets are denied access to Presidential forums, they laugh when he mocks a journalist with disabilities, they jeer--actually jeer--at the journalists present when Trump spews his vile lies about the media at his rallies.
And now Trump says the explanation of the brutal murder of a journalist, likely at the hand of Saudi government forces, is credible-credible--despite logic, decency, and even now-ardent-Trump-backer Lindsay Graham saying it's not.
The country should be aghast (and many of us are).
The media (and the free speech that protects even the misguided-or-worse websites that also peddle Trump's disgusting trash) are something we need in this country. They allow us to gain access to facts instead of just taking someone's word for it (such as, "I am not a crook" or "No collusion!!"), they allow us to make informed decisions, and they are vital to keep those in power accountable.
But Trump still peddles his divisiveness and hatred.
And so sadly, for many, it's working.
But is it the media that's the enemy of the people?
Or is it Trump?

Kavanaugh--who he is

Kavanaugh is a danger to this country. His confirmation is a travesty.

Yes, Kavanaugh's views and decisions are ultra-conservative. They will play a major role in changing the course of our country for decades to come.

But that's not the reason he should have been denied.

It's not what he believes that should disqualify him, but rather who he is.

When first nominated, Kavanaugh downplayed his leanings and highlighted his "collegiality with left-leaning judges" (WaPo, 7/10/18).

He repeatedly espouses his supposed belief that the Supreme Court should be non-partisan ("The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution," Kavanaugh hearing transcript).  And he's right, cases should be decided based on the fluidity and interpretation of Constitutional law. Yet during his recent hearing, Kavanaugh's true belief reared its partisan head when he, actually, ranted that the assault allegations against him were a political hit, that included "revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

And that's who he is. Someone who can't be trusted.

And his numerous misleading statements regarding his drinking and activities ("boofing" is flatulence, there's no way he ever could have forgotten anything while drunk, in Maryland the drinking age was 18 so seniors could drink--despite the FACT he was only 17 when Maryland changed the age to 21), also show who he is.

A quote from the Bible of Kavanaugh's religion (Luke 16:10) says, "he who is false in small things, is false in great."

Yes, that's who he is.

And the defensiveness and outright belligerence towards those asking him questions--asking Senators what they drank or, unbelievably, if they had ever blacked out from drinking--has nothing to do with what he believes.

It shows who he is.

Terrifyingly so.

And now who he is is someone soon to sit on the highest court in the land, a court that should light the way of truth and fairness for our citizenry.

Soon to include Brett Kavanaugh.

And who he is should scare everyone.

The Job Interview

This is a job interview based on somewhat condensed questions, but with very real responses from the hypothetical job candidate. Even without any hint of sexual assault allegations, is this a guy you'd hire?

Interviewer (I): Good afternoon, Mr. O'Kavanaugh (O'K). We're here to see if you'd be a good fit for our organization. We're looking for a person of even temperament, a person of outstanding moral character.

I: First question, did you drink beer in high school?

Hypothetical job applicant during his interview

O'K: Yes, we drank beer.My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers…. We drank beer. We liked beer.

I: Um, okay. In your high school yearbook, it mentions "ralphing." Does that pertain to alcohol?

O'K: I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.

I: Maybe you didn't understand the question, Mr. O'Kavanaugh. Does "the ralphing" reference pertain to alcohol?

O'K: I like beer.  I like beer. I don’t know if you do…. Do you like beer, (interviewer), or not? What do you like to drink? (Interviewer), what do you like to drink?

I: Um, let's kind of keep on this topic just a bit longer since you've mentioned, at times, that you had too many beers. Have you ever drunk so much that you've not remembered what happened?

O'K: No, I remember what happened. I think you've probably had beers, (interviewer). You're asking about blackouts,...have you? 

I: Um, what?

O'K: I'm curious if you have.

I: Let's move on. Is there anything else you'd like to say?

O'K: This whole (interview process) has been a calculated and orchestrated hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about (the current organization CEO)  and (his ascension to the position), fear that has been unfairly stoked about my (job performance record), revenge on behalf of the (guy who ran this organization 17 years ago and his wife) and millions of dollars in money from (competing organizations)!

I: Thanks for coming in. We'll let you know.

The Cry of the Desperate

The title sounds as though this is about Trump and his minions, throwing one conspiracy theory after another to detract from corruption found within Trump's administration.

But it's not.

Today, I'm going back to my roots to talk about the man who made this whole blog possible all those years ago: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

Walker is desperate. I can tell because he's lashing out.

Similar to Trump's team (to which Walker has sidled up), Walker's squad has taken to slinging mud. He continues to repeat debunked and salacious claims that his Dem opponent, State Superintendent Tony Evers, let accused teachers keep their teaching licenses (despite investigations and numerous fact checks showing Evers simply could not have legally revoked them). Walker even had his team scrape up yet another possible case to promote against Evers (which, of course, again, was debunked). Even Walker's Lt. Gov. Kleefish pulled out the racism dog whistle to claim (she heard) her Dem opponent took a knee for the national anthem at a public event (which was attended--and the inflammatory accusation easily debunked--by numerous other government officials in attendance that day).

If that's not desperate, I'm not sure what is.

Before Trump's Tweets and the nationwide GOP meltdown, I never thought Scott Walker might lose his reelection campaign. He's upheld some promises (i.e, to endanger the environment to cater to corporations),and has taken credit for state unemployment numbers in a recovering economy (although his "floor" to create 250,000 jobs in his first term fell woefully short). Walker has even taken on some humanitarian/compassionate ideas from Dems (which he will undoubtedly abandon if re-elected).

And, still, Dem challenger Tony Evers maintains a lead in the polls.

Maybe it's because of Walker's disdain for urban areas, or public schools, or university professors fostering free thought, or his incredible dropping-the-ball in regards to our state's crumbling infrastructure. Or maybe it's because Walker and his folks have provided massive funding to foreign corporations to build here (of which conditions of the agreement have already been altered by the corporation). Possibly, Wisconsin is fed up with Walker's promises to make better the juvenile detention facilities, instead opening them to massive abuse and neglect of their charges. Maybe people facing losing their health care are nervous. Or maybe Evers's lead is due to Walker's claims of massive education funding, which don't yet match the massive cuts he made (not to mention the funding siphoned from public to private schools).

Who knows?

I originally didn't think Evers could win because of his ties to public education (which Walker and company have spent years marginalizing and even demonizing). But now that I see it in a new light--that of Walker's "accomplishments" and the substance of that which he highlights in his campaign and commercials--I'm thinking Evers can win and be an effective and unifying leader.

But let's just sit back and see what other kind of mud our desperate Governor starts slinging.

I have a feeling it might make even Donald Trump proud.