Brew City Brawler

Godwin's Law land speed record

At Boots and Sabers.

Godwin's law.

What's the matter with rich Obama supporters (and Owen Robinson)?

In his latest masterpiece for the West Bend Daily News, Owen Robinson decries the "centuries-old push" to socialism. The latest shove? Po folks voting for Obama in order to get money from their betters.

This is why Obama’s promise of an “income tax cut” to 95 percent of Americans resonated so well during the campaign. Even though 40 percent of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes, Obama promised them cash. From where will that cash come? The other 60 percent, of course, and their kids. Those who voted for Obama on the basis of getting a handout acted completely within their own self-interest.

    Herein lies one of the little ironies of human nature. Conservatives who want to see the government downsized can only do so by actually voting against their own personal interests. Liberals who want to grow government can do so by voting to line their own pockets with their neighbor’s money.

    For example, a family of five that earns $45,000 per year does not likely pay any federal income taxes. When Obama comes to them and offers them a $1,500 “refund” on taxes they never paid, they’d be foolish not to take it. That $1,500 could help pay some bills and they will not see their tax burden increase at all. In essence, they are voting to have the government take $1,500 from someone else and give it to them. ...

    As it turns out, the liberals who decry greediness in corporate America are engaging in an act of greed every time they vote to expand our government. And the conservatives who vote against growing government do so despite the fact that most of them are voting against their own interests.

Unfortunately for Owen, his assessment fails to account for millions of affluent folks -- and a majority of those making $200,000 or more -- who voted for Obama. So were they voting against their own self-interest? Or did they think that Obama's proposals offered a superior vision for the way ahead than the wrinkly old white dude and the governor from Alaska, whatsername, the one whose son's daughter's mother in law is a suspected drug dealer...

Or are they just dupes who are buying the silk ropes with which they'll be hanged by the socialist rabble?

Speaking of "socialism," Owen's description of our  "centuries-old push"  toward socialism -- something that can't be stopped because "Human nature is kicking the rock down the path" -- makes this political progression sound like natural, organic, experience-based, and gradual piecemeal reform ... and wouldn't that make it an almost Burkean progression?

 

Will Milwaukee companies flee to Washington County?

No.

Nevertheless, Ol Lady Owen Robinson, in a spirit of good-neighborliness, uses his West Bend Daily News column to "exhort" Washington County to try to raid Milwaukee for businesses. The sales tax referendum and the sick day mandate can be used as wedges to pry them out, he says.

The core argument:

During the same election, the residents of the city of Milwaukee passed a referendum to require most businesses to provide nine paid sick days. They passed this binding referendum nearly two to one. To put this in perspective, a business that employs 100 people in Milwaukee must now provide 900 days, or nearly 2.5 years, of paid time off every single year. ...

    
    Washington County and the municipalities therein should put together a concerted marketing campaign to recruit consumers and businesses to Washington County.

    The retail consumer should be easily enticed into Washington County. For example, if a consumer purchases a living room furniture set, they could easily spend $3,500. In Milwaukee County, that purchase would cost $3,731 after the sales tax increase. In Washington County, the same purchase would only be $3,696. The $35 in savings is clearly worth a 10-minute drive north.

    The government entities in Washington County should also aggressively recruit businesses to move out of Milwaukee County. There are countless lawyers, accountants, insurance agents and other businesses that can service Milwaukee city residents without having to be subject to Milwaukee’s burdensome regulations and mandates. There’s no reason why they can’t operate out of Washington County, service the same customer base, and protect their right to run their businesses as they see fit and protect their revenues. That would bring good jobs and higher wages to Washington County.

Let's take the sick day issue first. As the Brawler's noted before, most employees who take sick days -- and a goodly number don't --take an average of 1.8 a year (i.e., a third the amount of time WTMJ talker Gene Mueller took off over a two week period). Businesses who look at what happened in San Francisco after a similar mandate went through will find the sky didn't fall, payrolls grew and few business owners complained. The specter of a company having to dole out 2.5 years of paid time off every single year is, on its face, laughable.

Moreover, the Brawler has a hard time seeing the sick-day mandate chasing out the kind of service businesses cited by Owen -- law firms, accounting firms and insurance agencies -- because those employers typically already offer a sick day benefit to their employees, including secretaries, office managers, etc. And no law firm is going to worry about a lawyer abusing his sick days -- a lawyer like that isn't going to stick around for long.

The Brawler finds the sales tax argument equally unpersuasive. Is saving $35 on a $3,500 furniture set really worth a 10-minute drive north?

A "10-minute drive north"? Getting to West Bend from the east side/downtown can be a 90 minute round-trip odyssey. Getting there from Tosa can take an hour round trip. And what if you don't find what you want? You're screwed!

Now, the $35 in savings is greater than what you've spent on gas ... but is it worth the time you've lost on a busy weekend sitting in traffic?

The Brawler would suggest for a great many people -- particularly people who have $3,500 to spend -- the answer is: No. If you're already willing to drop $3,500 are you really going to sweat $35 if it means sitting in the car for an hour or longer?

 If people were as sensitive to sales tax as Owen Robinson suggests, Crate and Barrel would have opened its store in Waukesha County and not Mayfair Mall (remember when Jeff Wagner described Mayfair as Baghdad? That was awesome.)

Might some businesses leave Milwaukee and blame one or both of these examples of overreach by big gummint? They might. Then again, Menard's said DNR regs prevented them from opening a distribution center in Wisconsin so they opened one in Iowa and Ohio instead. That was bullshit, too.

Parenthetically, how much government money is free-marketeer Owen willing to throw business' way to come to Washington County?

The Brawler's prediction: Washington County will follow Milwaukee County's lead and raise its sales tax in the foreseeable future.

    

Ol Lady Owen "Boots and Sabers" Robinson says: Traffic laws optional in black neighborhoods

Linking to a story about a carjacking, Owen Robinson says:

There’s a reason why I roll through stop signs when I drive through the north side of Milwaukee.

It's weird. The Brawler has driven in (not necessarily "through") the north side of Milwaukee many, many more times than has the Bard of Washington County. Sometimes even at night! Yet not once has he violated traffic laws! Or been carjacked!

A commenter at Owen's site says:

Being afraid of black people is not a defense I would use in front of the judge, Owen.

Owen, trying to be clever, replies:

I’m not afraid of black people.  I’m afraid of gang-bangers and hooligans.  But it’s interesting how you equate crime with black folks.  Is there a little projection afoot?

The Brawler would be intrigued to know: does Owen have a supernatural ability to tell whether the people he zips past on the north side are gang-bangers or hooligans? Or does he automatically assume anyone he sees is a gang banger or hooligan? Or does he just roll regardless of whether there's anyone on the street?

The Brawler suggests that Owen Robinson is an ideal target for MPD profiling. He may be even packing a concealed firearm!

Perhaps conservative bloggers should stay away from jokes about the mentally disabled*

Give it up for Owen Robinson:

I did a bit more wandering today.  I tried to get up to the press level with my “special” press pass, but they wouldn’t let me.  Usually “special” means “better,” but in the case of the press pass, “special” means that we ride the little bus. 

*Headline changed from the unnecessarily corrosive original, following the level-headed suggestion of Mr. Casper.

 

Best of Boots and Sabers comments

(I believe "Best of Boots and Sabers comments" was an internet tradition invented by Pundit Nation.)

In response to a post at Boots and Sabers about Joe Biden saying that Israel may have to resign itself to living with a nuclear-armed Iran, one John Galt observes at 1634 hours on September 1:

I have no doubt that Biden said this. I also have no doubt that he didn’t mean it the way it came out.

I love Jews and admire many but shoring up the Jewish vote is as easy as putting a (D) after your name. Jews are the most brainwashed voters in the world. Jessie Jackson could have said or done much worse and still have had the Jewish vote.

This should be a big story that could change the election, but it won’t impact anything.

He offered this considered follow-up at 1727 hours:

Also, there is no way O’Biden is not going to pander to the Jewish vote even though it is in their pocket. They need it too much.

You know, when Republicans stop doing the right thing by supporting Israel, and push them under the bus because they never support us at the pols… That would be a story. I am loosing my support for Israel or having any of our men and women shed blood for them when the continue to elect buffoons in this country.

Boots and Sabers or Boots and Kittens?

Perhaps John Foust and the Boots and Sabers crew have patched things up. Because it appears Owen is doing John a big favor by writing  this post, which John could plant unchanged into Boots and Kittens.

In which the Brawler gives Boots and Sabers a lesson in composition

The other day the Brawler suggested that Boots and Sabers blogger Owen Robinson didn't know much about history.

Apparently, based on Owen's protests, he knows history. He just doesn't know how to write a coherent paragraph.

Here's an original Owen Robinson paragraph from a Waukesha Freeman column:

Since elections are so crucial to the very fabric of our nation, there have always been people who seek to manipulate elections for their benefit. For decades, the crooks of Tammany Hall in New York City routinely stuffed ballot boxes, twisted arms, and invented vote tallies to make sure that their fellow crooks were elected into office. During the LaGuardia administration and for several years afterwards, Tammany was so corrupt that it was none other than the "Prime Minister" of the mob, Frank Costello, who pulled the strings of New York politics.

The Brawler said Owen was linking LaGuardia and Tammany -- a stone-ignorant connection.  (LaGuardia, actually, was a Republican and ran, with FDR's support in 1932, as a reformist against the Tammany Machine.)  (Note: the Brawler includes the first sentence of the paragraph, which he did not in the original go-around.)

Owen says, No I wasn't! When he dropped LaGuardia's name, he was just making reference to the time period! He could have said it was the 1930s or during FDR's administration or Hitler's rein. So, Owen charges, the Brawler was misreading the paragraph and the Brawler should update his post.

The problem, of course, is unlike the 1930's, Hitler or FDR, LaGuardia was a person who was elected as a city politician in New York. And the paragraph as it is written -- regardless of Owen's intent -- suggests that LaGuardia was a product of Tammany Hall. How else could somebody be elected except with the backing of that arm-twisting machine?

Here's a handy definition of a paragraph from Wikipedia (which, yes, Michael J. Cheaney, can be a handy resource if you're familiar with the terms defined and can glean whether the wiki is accurate):

Typically, a paragraph starts with a main point which is followed by supporting details. The non-fiction paragraph usually begins with the general and moves towards the more specific so as to advance an argument or point of view. Each paragraph builds on what came before and lays the ground for what comes next.

Let's review Owen's paragraph. The first sentence is quite general:

Since elections are so crucial to the very fabric of our nation, there have always been people who seek to manipulate elections for their benefit.

Fine (although the "always" is wildly unsubstantiated).

He goes on:

For decades, the crooks of Tammany Hall in New York City routinely stuffed ballot boxes, twisted arms, and invented vote tallies to make sure that their fellow crooks were elected into office.

Wow! That Tammany Hall is clearly an example of "people" who seek to manipulate elections. The sentence  builds on what came before.

He goes on:

During the LaGuardia administration and for several years afterwards, Tammany was so corrupt that it was none other than the "Prime Minister" of the mob, Frank Costello, who pulled the strings of New York politics.

Now, if you assume that each sentence in a paragraph builds on what preceded it -- and lays the groundwork for what follows -- this sentence clearly suggests LaGuardia was a product of Tammany Hall. After all, Tammany Hall made "sure their fellow thugs were elected to office." So how could LaGuardia have been elected if he wasn't a "fellow thug."  Then, after mention of Fiorella's name, we're told that a mobster "pulled the strings of New York politics." (Even though Fiorella worked over time to attack said mobster.) If everything was so corrupt, how could Fiorella have been elected?

Owen can say he knows that LaGuardia was an enemy of Tammany. But the way he writes suggests otherwise. And that's not a misreading. That's looking at the cold print. (One could say he was assuming that Waukesha Freeman readers knew the ins and outs of NYC city politics in the 1930s, but that would be a deeply flawed assumption.) Moreover, Owen completely elides that a strong contingent of progressive Democrats -- including FDR -- were opposed to Tammany.

The Brawer, frankly, is confused as to why Owen didn't allude to Tammany in its19th century heyday. But perhaps that didn't have the hot mobster link he was looking for.

But The Brawler suggests that in the future Owen consult with an English teacher -- Folkbum's a nice guy -- before launching an attack!

UPDATE: Apropos of Michael Horne's comment, the Brawler has corrected repeated misspellings of LaGuardia throughout the piece. The Brawler apparently had an Esenberg moment, what can he say. And yes, the irony -- the damnable irony -- of the misspellings is not lost on the Brawler.

UPDATE II: With admirable brevity and a lack of spelling errors, Kay carries on the fight for good composition in the comments section at Owen's original post. Wendy, meanwhile, demonstrates she doesn't know how to compose a paragraph. None of this will deter the Robinsons from making their voices heard on education policy, however.

Boots and Sabers' Ol Lady Owen REALLY don't know much about history

Here's a whopper among whoppers from Ol Lady Owen Robinson's Waukesha Freeman column on why we need voter ID:

For decades, the crooks of Tammany Hall in New York City routinely stuffed ballot boxes, twisted arms, and invented vote tallies to make sure that their fellow crooks were elected into office. During the LaGuardia administration and for several years afterwards, Tammany was so corrupt that it was none other than the "Prime Minister" of the mob, Frank Costello, who pulled the strings of New York politics.

Owen likes to say he's a history buff, but linking LaGuardia and Tammany is just stone-ignorant, as revealed by a simple glance at wikipedia:

In 1932, the machine suffered a dual setback when Mayor James Walker was forced from office and reform-minded Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president. Roosevelt stripped Tammany of federal patronage, which had been expanded under the New Deal—and passed it instead to Ed Flynn, boss of the Bronx. Roosevelt helped Republican Fiorello LaGuardia become mayor on a Fusion ticket, thus removing even more patronage from Tammany's control.

The Brawler is stunned at Robinson's slander of the little flower, all the more so because over at B&S he suggests that LaGuardia was a Democrat...

Moreover, LaGuardia was not known for his love of the mob:

Being of Italian descent and growing up in a time when crime and criminals were prevalent in New York, LaGuardia loathed the gangsters who brought a negative stereotype and shame to the Italian community. When he was elected to his first term in 1933, the first thing he did after being sworn in was to pick up the phone and order the chief of police to arrest mob boss Lucky Luciano on whatever charges could be found. LaGuardia then went after the gangsters with a vengeance, stating in a radio address to the people of New York in his high-pitched, squeaky voice, "Let's drive the bums out of town." In 1934, LaGuardia's went on a search-and-destroy mission on mob boss Frank Costello's slot machines, which LaGuardia executed with a gusto, rounding up thousands of the "one armed bandits," swinging a sledgehammer and dumping them off a barge into the water for the newspapers and media. In 1936, LaGuardia had special prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey, a future Republican presidential candidate, single out Lucky Luciano for prosecution. Dewey led a successful investigation into Luciano's lucrative prostitution operation, eventually sending Luciano to jail on a 30-50 year sentence.

Does Owen wonder why people laugh at the "When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" line in "Animal House"?

And in any event,  don't Republicans feel the case for Voter ID is a bit ... weak ... when none of their examples of widespread voter fraud are more current than the Richard J. Daley machine (they never mention Nixon shenanigans in 1960 btw)? And they can never demonstrate that voter fraud has been an issue in Milwaukee or Wisconsin? Or that there's a machine that can actually sponsor and direct fraud, as was the case in Tammany, Daley's Chicago or the Jim Crow south?

An extra bonus in the column: Owen citing Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as experts on voter fraud!

Boots and Sabers' Ol Lady Owen don't know much about Iraq

Boots and Sabers' proprietor Ol Lady Owen Robinson says "I agree with this" in response to news that a new law in Iraq will allow Baathists to return to public life.

Shoot, George W. Bush says it's a good thing -- and a breakthrough -- so it must be good news, right?

The Brawler, who recently finished reading the fabulous Imperial Life in the Emerald City about the botched occupation of Iraq, first thought "Too little, too late. Right move about four years ago. Tough to undo years of bloodshed."

The New York Times story makes that point:

However, it was unclear on Saturday how far the legislation would go toward soothing Sunni Arabs, because serious disagreements emerged in the hours after the vote about how much the law would actually do.

While the measure would reinstate many former Baathists, some political leaders said it would also force thousands of other former party members out of current government jobs and into retirement — especially in the security forces, where American military officials have worked hard to increase the role of Sunnis. One member of Iraq’s current de-Baathification committee said the law could even push 7,000 active Interior Ministry employees into retirement.

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias has his doubts:

Basically, it's totally unclear how this is going to work in practice and different Iraqi political leaders are making wildly different claims according to their own priorities. Under the circumstances, things could work out for the best, but little has really been achieved here. More to the point, the conflict over what the law says indicates that there isn't any underlying consensus about what ought to be happening, which tends to cast the prospects for reconciliation into doubt.

It's more nuanced than Ol Lady Owen's sterling "I agree with this" analysis -- but possibly a bit more realistic.