Of Trump, Locker Rooms, and Woulds vs Haves

In the wake of Trump's Access Hollywood video, I've been trying to figure out which of Trump's defenders are more ridiculous: those who say Trump's comments are indefensible but still support him, or those who maintain his comments are no big deal.

The Giuliani vs the Walsh:
Which is worse?

 This idiot
- [Sexual assault] is what he's talking about... and ...men at times talk like that:

 ...or this idiot:

A man who talks dirty about women or a woman who tries to destroy the life of rape victims to protect her abusing husband?

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) October 9, 2016

If women are so outraged by Trump's dirty talk, then who the hell bought the 80 million copies of "Fifty Shades Of Grey?"

Grow up.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) October 8, 2016

Both of these fools are leaning on two flavors of misdirection: dirty talk (Hey, stop being such a prude!) and the locker room argument (Hey, when a bunch of guys get together, they sometimes sexually objectify women).

Both of these are complete and utter bullshit. First off, as has been pointed out by wiser folks than myself, Trump could have used purely medical terms to describe the anatomies he was violating and it would change nothing about the central offenses he is admitting. Namely, he has - repeatedly - made sexual contact with women without their consent. Moreover, he asserts that his fame allows him to do this without suffering consequences.

And, lest there be any confusion about his mental state over this conduct, "and when you're a star, they let you do it" tells you he knows this conduct is wrong, but he can get away with it.

You can do anything.

It's the locker room/guy talk argument that is truly offensive, though. And this isn't the "not all men" outrage of Chuck Todd or other self serving hogwash. Engaging with this argument on that level is accepting the misdirection that is its central goal.

The takedown it deserves (at least) is to point out the two key differences between the kind of locker room banter Trump wants to hide behind, and what he was actually doing.

Let's take an example of locker room banter and compare it with Trump, shall we? Say a group of guys who know each other are using crass language to talk about women they know/have heard of. Man, did you see Alycia in homeroom today? She is fine... I would so want to get into that. 

The first key difference is one of familiarity - and this is clearly the lesser point to be made, but I think it matters. It is one thing to bring up sexual topics with a group of men you know and hang out with on a regular basis - and the fact that they are friends doesn't absolve them of bad behavior. But in Trump's case he is not meeting up with some of his buddies from the club and talking smack - he is not tight with Billy Bush - the guy's a freaking talk show host, and most of the people on the bus are going to be strangers to him. Trump is not wandering into lewd topics with a group of friends, he is introducing himself to a group of people he does not know as - "This is what you should know about me."

He is boasting in front of an audience, because he believes what he's saying will impress them. I've been in many social situations where guys new to a group feel like they need to advertise their heterosexuality by launching into crass talk - FYI, I'm straight, just so you know - but Trump is way past that. Most insecure hetero guys will fly the flag once and move on. No, Trump wants to earn the admiration of his new social circle, and he's convinced that lengthy discussions of sexual conquest and his impunity is the way to do it.

But the capstone to the awful is the item central to all the outrage - and rightly so. Trump is voluntarily describing things he claims to have actually done. I've assaulted women - and I get away with it. That is horrid beyond description and a universe apart from the "I would..." or "If I could.." locker room bullsh!t of your garden variety male. Trump is saying "I have done this..." and no amount of pretend is going to make that the same as some jackoff at the club rhapsodizing about how the waitress had a nice butt.

This admission - this boast - about actual behavior is what separates Trump's transgression from anything else in the news cycle.  He did this, he's freaking proud of it, and he wants these guys to know it, so they are impressed by how he can do bad things and get away with it.

That is who the GOP is running for president - in his unvarnished glory.

And no, Donald, you cannot apologize "if people were offended," you f*cking monster.  YOU CANNOT APOLOGIZE FOR OUR REACTIONS TO HOW HORRIBLE YOU ARE. You can only apologize for what you've done and said. If you had any humanity, you've have conceded the race already - but we know that's never going to happen.

The die hards in Trumpworld are trying mightily to minimize and distract - but there is just no way to avoid the cold truth: in 2005, Donald Trump told us exactly who he was.

This election cannot punish him or his defenders enough.

Reindeer Games

Above a certain level, everything is politics.

I've been a worker bee all of my professional life. Never thought of climbing sunshine mountain and going for a management job. I have a certain "grab the reins" mentality in a number of areas, but true management is (in my opinion) a very specific skill set. One I don't feel I have.

Mostly because I've worked for some truly terrible managers. My last job, the Boss was supremely competent at all kinds of technical things - but they were truly terrible at the people part. The part where they were supposed to, well, manage.

Communication: My old Boss was impossible to reach. When you did get their time, you would pile on every pending thing you had, because God knows when you would see them again. This would take up their full attention and invariably make them late for one of their seemingly endless meetings.

Delegation: When you are a manager, you have staff that does things. You verify that they have done those things, maybe help them when they are stuck - but you don't do your staff's work for them. My old Boss would do this all the time. A problem would arise, the staff would begin handling it - only to discover that the Boss had already started a different approach without telling them.

Doing the Managerial Crap: My last Boss had a problem employee - Moorlock - and this one employee had such a toxic personality that the rest of the department refused to speak to them. Moorlock would routinely fly into a tantrum when tasked with work - announce their intention to find another job, and storm out. As a manager, you just can't let that go. It's probably the worst part of the job, but you have to lean into those things and deal with them. Untold damage was done to the IS department morale and productivity - and my former Boss did nothing.

It's easy to identify bad management, but that in no way convinces me that I would be able to do these things. I think too many times a good employee is rewarded with a management role without an understanding that they will be giving up their former role. It's not "your old job with more pay" it's a totally different job.

Today was UXDir's last day. While I absolutely loved working for them - if I were to be honest, UXDir is a pretty poor manager of staff. They hate the admin stuff with a passion (and I can't blame them) - so they pretty much don't do it. Their communication style is much like my old Boss: if you can get in a room with them, your every question will be answered. But you won't be in the room with them often, so make the most of it when you can.

They also were pretty sub-par on Doing the Managerial Crap. Noddy was exhibits A, B, & C. When I'd first dared to broach the subject of Noddy's lack of productivity - UXDir offered to move Noddy off our project.

This was good for a start, but my expectation had always been that UXDir would circle back and have the necessary conversation with Noddy. To wit: "You need to get off your @ss, pronto." That conversation has clearly never happened - and with UXDir leaving today, it never will.

The lack of follow up has created some very high-school like moments over the past few months. Runner, Sprint and I - freed from the obligation to invite Noddy to our project meetings, have pointedly not invited them. For a short time, this could be justified as Noddy had their project (whatever it was) and we had ours. But Noddy is no fool, and started asking us "is there a meeting? Can I come?" which creates a truly awkward situation.  Yes, we're meeting, but...

My inviting Noddy to our client interviews nearly had Runner throttling me, but was a direct result of this awkwardness. I couldn't look Noddy in the eye and say they shouldn't be in our interviews - because they should be. Any UXer in the company should be welcome to sit and listen in. Learning directly from our clients. The entire team can benefit from a common understanding of what our clients want. Right?  Except Noddy ignores decorum, common sense, and basic decency to the point where their fellow team members want to hurl them bodily out of the room.

So we begin scheduling even client interviews without Noddy. It's a professional shunning, tacitly encouraged by management. And it is juvenile.

If Runner and I have a meeting with Sprint, we will say nothing in our team room - then slip out of the room one at a time.  We book meetings in the far end of the building. Partially because the far rooms have natural light - but in no small measure because we are less likely to have Noddy walk in on us. Are we meeting? Can I come...?

UXDir has let this go on without any visible involvement. They may have admonished Noddy to stay out of our interviews, but that is not solving anything. Avoiding direct conflict has merely caused low level conflict on a daily basis. No, I won't invite Noddy - because the boss said I don't have to.

I can only imagine what Noddy is thinking. They must know that there are project meetings they are not involved in. They can see their team mates regularly going off to work on things without them. Noddy absolutely frustrates me to work with, but I genuinely have sympathy for them. This situation should be sorted out in broad daylight.

I would imagine a manager would schedule a meeting with Noddy and spell it out for them. "Look, your productivity is less than half that of any of your co-workers. You need to produce actual work product. You are letting your teammates down."

Noddy's lack of social graces could be forgiven if they would only do their job. If they were laying down quality work on a regular basis - a lot of my frustrations with them would go away.

But nothing was done.

And not that a manager should ignore Noddy's lack of professionalism - sleeping in meetings, playing with their phone during meetings, and generally showing a lack of interest in things that are absolutely their concern.

And nothing was done.

Which sounds like I'm just slagging on the UXDir - and that's not fair. UXDir is one of the most inspiring people I've worked for. I've never worked for someone who encouraged us to try things, even if we fail. "Failing means you learned something, right?"

And UXDir is a master of slashing through the BS in a discussion. "Why are we discussing this problem? This is the wrong problem to solve!"

I truly suck at that - I go down rabbit holes all the time, utterly missing the fact that the real problem is right in front of me. I wish I was even half as good as UXDir at identifying the root problem.

UXDir is excited about making good software. "This'll be awesome!" and off they go into another charge. I don't know how many scraps they go into trying to improve our product, but I know they didn't shy away from them. Not until the end, at least.

UXDir said they were pretty burned out at the end. Fighting against the ubiquitous faction of more-of-the-same. Give us more of what we already have! Never mind the obvious problems that our clients are always complaining about. 

Change is hard, asking for investment in the unknown is even harder. Part of UXDir's job is to press for these things - and endure all the pushback.

UXDir has done that - and they are worn out. Long years at NerdHaven have earned them a lot of respect - but they've made more than a few professional adversaries. I'd slowly started to appreciate this - the stray comment here and there - and I could see that all was not sweetness and light at that altitude.

Which is probably the very worst part of a management job. Office politics. Butting heads against your co-workers turns into not getting invited to meetings with them. Decisions get made without you and soon you wonder what you have to do to get "in the room."

What the UX team has been doing to Noddy - NerdHaven's management team has been doing to UXDir. Awhile ago, UXDir basically volunteered to leave on the eve of a minor re-org. "Look, if you're looking to make changes - you can write me out of the equation at the same time. I just need a severance package." NerdHaven didn't want to do the severance, so UXDir stayed on - but started looking for work.

A little over a month ago, they found it - on the West Coast, not far from NerdHaven's other office, where Sprint works.

So now they are going.

I got called into Portal's office the other day, to catch up on things. Really, Portal is checking in with me on how things are going on my team. I suspect that Portal is working an angle, but not in a malicious way. Portal wants another source of information on things, I'm happy to be that.

I'm flattered by the attention: Portal wants to see me! And Portal is a great source of information about the wider world of NerdHaven. Our discussions so far have involved Portal saying they've heard good things about my work (score!) and me telling Portal how utterly useless Noddy is.

I get to vent, Portal gets the inside skinny on how things are going. Win-win.

This time, Portal is re-assuring me that UXDir's departure does not mean NerdHaven is shifting its focus away from UX. They then detail a number of items that UXDir could have done better. They are professional about it - and say things I'd agree with - and they point out that whatever could have been done about Noddy in the past, it clearly has not been done. Which means the new UXDir will start from zero with Noddy. The good news is, the new UXDir will be part of a managerial food chain that now involves people who will do something about poor performers.

They ask me if I think anyone on the team will want to apply for UXDir's job. I know of no one who wants to, but I mention Sprint as a possibility. They are the most senior UXer, a rockstar on the team and everyone respects them.

I also mention my anxiety that Noddy will apply for the job. Portal all but assures me that will not happen. So long as the decision is made by folks within NerdHaven, Noddy would be a fool to try. Noddy is neither liked, nor respected by anyone at NerdHaven.

Shortly after talking with Portal - I get an email on my phone. It's from Suit, a NerdHaven manager I joke around with in the breakroom from time to time. I'd heard from them a lot in the past few weeks - asking about some of the Arwafn features - or how we track things in our project - and I'd tried my best to be helpful.

Suit was pleased by the info and I was glad to know something I did in our tracking software was actually useful to someone.

But an email from them on my phone meant they were emailing me personally.

I opened the email - it's from Suit's LinkedIn account:

You may have heard that UXDir is ending a 14 year career with NerdHaven. As they start a new career on the West Coast, many of us find it a sad moment indeed. 

But for those who remain with NerdHaven, we must press on. The search for a new Director of User Experience will soon be underway. I will be applying for the position, as I see a clear and natural fit with my skill set, an incredible desire to translate client needs into reality, and vast experience in user-centric design over the years.  

But I need your help! I'd like to show Atlas a long list of people who took the time to recommend me. I know not everyone will be willing - and I certainly do not want any reluctant recommendations! But - If you feel strongly about our positive interactions or have stories to share, I would greatly appreciate your support in this.  

If you do decide to recommend me and would like additional information, please let me know. My LinkedIn profile is up to date but I can also provide a more detailed resume, examples of project work, etc.

I'm meeting with Sprint via teleconference and they point out Data got the exact same message from Suit.

As soon as I got the message, I knew I couldn't recommend Suit to anyone for the UXDir job. Not because I think they are unqualified, but because I literally know nothing about them professionally. I know they are a manager of some sort, but I have no idea if they are good at it. And I have no idea if they've ever done UX work.

Sprint knows more than I do: Suit is a manager who doesn't manage people. They used to, but don't anymore - but they are still a manager. Also in a company where the highest ranking person comes to work in ratty Tee shirts, Suit is the only person in the office to dress formally.

According to Sprint, the day after Suit became a manager, they started dressing formally.

Suit is a climber. And they are blanketing their chosen allies in the company with requests for endorsements. On LinkedIn, no less. Where bullsh!t goes to strut.

After my meeting, I head directly to Suit's office and close the door. I make it clear that I believe recommendations should come from firsthand experience. As I have none with Suit, I cannot recommend them. I make it clear, I'm not trying to offend them, I just want them to hear from me why they won't be seeing a recommendation appear on their profile. I just don't know them.

Although now I know a bit more about them.

Suit is unfazed. They suggest writing a "nice to work with" type of recommendation and they will put it "after all the other recommendations that address their skill sets."

I make my exit.

I'm IM-ing Runner about possible fallout from a new UXDir, Runner IM's back:

There's another internal candidate.

Apparently, UXDir let it slip that there are two internal candidates for the job.

Runner and I go through a list of suspects, but aside from the laughable suggestion of Noddy, we have no clear suspects. There are a lot of people we don't know, so it could be anybody.

Today's UXDir's last day, and there will be a happy hour. Runner and I plot to get UXDir hammered and ply them for more details.

I know, but this is kind of a big deal - we want the info and we want it yesterday.

Two hours to happy hour - Runner and I go into our estimation meeting. This is kind of an all hands thing - but Noddy's not coming. Which makes sense, since none of the work they are doing is part of this project. Which never stopped them from coming before - but now they are spending a lot of time slogging into a side project. Something that is below the 12 priority on our work list, yet commands Noddy's full attention these days.

I asked Noddy to give me the run down of where they were at yesterday and it took all of 30 minutes for me to realize that their current project is an utter waste of time.

Between sessions of turd-polishing I've seen them reading manuals on Agile and viewing webinars on "Making change happen."

Ugh, so useless.

Post estimation I get pulled into a room with Portal.

Portal's delivery is as rapid-fire as ever:

"Noddy's expressed an interest in the UXDir job and we've decided to give it to them."

*     *     *     *

Two things you need to know about Portal:

1) They are the person who is usually tapped by management to deliver the bad news;
2) They are, often as not, a firehose of bullsh!t

Portal laughs at my expression of total horror and says, "Just kidding, I'm garbage. But I'm not kidding about Noddy expressing interest. Never gonna happen, though."

I make it plain that Noddy's ascension to management would push me out the door.

Portal shifts gears and starts talking about getting me a visit to our West Coast office.

And boom, back in the team room.

And then happy hour.

Noddy shows up, same time as me. I can barely believe they want to be UXDir. It's the smart play - and Noddy is all about tactical. The UXDir position will be situated in our office, which means Sprint and Data are out. Heater doesn't want it - they want the future UXDir to be a "servant leader" - but they are no way going to try. Runner and I are both Noobs - and while...

Yes, I have thought about it, but only because I was afraid Noddy would have a greater chance than an external candidate. I would try for it - only as a counter to Noddy being on the inside track.

But really, I've never seriously considered it.
Because I'm on record as saying the new UXDIR should have proven management chops.
I don't have them, so if I think they are necessary, I rather have to exclude myself.
Also, because Sprint is senior to me - and is a wonderful take-charge kind of person. If anyone on our team should move up, it should be them.
It would hurt the dynamics of our team as well. I get along great with Runner and Sprint - but if I was the person who graded their performance each year?  That would suck.

Above all, though- I really enjoy doing the work I do now. Shifting to the management track would mean I wouldn't get to do that anymore. And that would epically suck.

Noddy is their usual insufferable self. Runner's chatting it up with Rollout - deep into topics that would have HR in cardiac arrest. UXDir's there, seemingly at ease. We cut up with them and threaten them if they try to recruit Sprint to work for them in their new job.

Atlas is there, paying for the tab and being the great person they usually are. They've worked with UXDir for well over a decade. They've been on the road every day this month - and are literally in town just long enough to say goodbye - before climbing back on the plane to disappear for almost the rest of the month. I think they will be back in town for two days in all of September. Atlas has children. They run NerdHaven. And they are the interim boss of UX until we hire a replacement.

They look tired. I'm usually intimidated by upper management. But Atlas is always approachable. Atlas will be making the call on the new UXDir.

They will protect us from ineptitude and corporate climbers. Bank on it.

UXDir makes their exit and I just feel ill. Despite their shortcomings in some areas, I cannot imagine this job without them. I barely knew them, but I will miss them terribly. UXDir was hands off and still supportive. They were inspiring.

*     *     *     *

After Noddy departs, I share the news that Noddy is trying for UXDir. BigDog is immediately dismissive of any chance of that happening. Runner nearly spits out their drink.

"Noddy's been reading all those Agile books, stuff on project management!"

We all agree, there is no chance Noddy will get the job. It just cannot happen in a just world.

I'm halfway home when I get a text from Runner:

This is terrible but look at Suit's linked in profile. You will not believe it.

I do.

And I don't.

Suit has changed their position title to include the same job title Runner and I have. They've added Project Manager, as well.

Again, I don't know Suit's UX chops, but I know their current role does not include UX.

They've also stocked their profile with the words "Servant leader."

Christ, Heater... why would you back this guy?

We've got probably three months before we fill the position - if we're lucky. The two internal candidates are biblically awful - which means the UX team will be Atlas's problem for months.

Atlas won't have much time for us - which means Noddy will run wild. We will continue the status quo - leaving Noddy to their (non) work and beating our own projects into shape.

I will continue to hope that Noddy will snap out of it, or that management will do it for them.

But for the rest of 2014, UX is on their own.

Its a rather hollow feeling.

The Standard That Works Best For Us

(via illusory tenant)

In July of 2008, a convicted sex offender named Dinkins was due to be released from prison. State law required him to register his future address with the state's sex offender registry ten days before his release. He did not do this and was charged with a class H felony as a result.

His argument at trial was that he did not know where he would be living. No relative agreed to take him in and he had no solid prospects. He had no address to register.

Nonsense, cried the state:

...Dinkins, like everyone, knows that he must sleep somewhere, and Wis. Stat. § 301.45(2)(a)5. and (e)4. merely requires incarcerated sex offenders to identify and report the address or nearest address of the place where they plan to sleep at least ten days prior to their release—even if the place is a park bench or similar on-the-street location. The State asserts that such a location is an “address” within the meaning of § 301.45(2)(a)5., citing several dictionary definitions of “address.”

That's the WI Appeals Court summarizing the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice's position in their published opinion.

So, according to the Wisconsin DOJ, a convicted sex offender can fulfil their address registration requirement by stating they live under a park bench.

Understand they are saying this because they want Dinkins to go to jail - but consider:

Dinkins fulfills this requirement by scrawling "I think I'll sleep under a bench on the 100 block of East Main St. Not sure which one, but there are quite a few on that block" on his form and he's good to go.

Let's set aside the fact that makes the sex offender registry a whole lot less effective and zero in on the point illusory tenant makes so well.

According to the state of Wisconsin, registering as a sex offender requires filling out the address form as best you can. There is no requirement that you show a utility bill for that address, a rental agreement for that address. There isn't even a requirement that it actually BE an address. Quoting the WI Chief Justice, "...park bench okay?" State says, "You betcha!"

But if any Wisconsin resident tries to vote in an election, they will be asked for a photo ID with an address that will be checked against valid addresses for their polling place.

Priorities, people.

It's all about priorities.

Syria Circling the Drain

With things such a mess, it's hard to know much for certain.

But it's beginning to sound like Syria could go the way of Lybia.

The people of Syria no doubt remember Hafez al-Assad slaughtering thousands of them back in Hama, yet they are gearing up for more confrontation.

For their sakes, I hope Bashar al-Assad is nothing like his father.

Stewart vs. Trump's Pizza

Doubtless most anyone who reads this has already seen this, but if I can be the safety net for the odd case that hasn't - this simply must be seen.



I laughed until it hurt, then rewound and did it again.

Dear God, I think something burst.

In Italy, the Age of Consent is 14

This and other appalling facts about Italy can be found in The New Yorker's very thorough rundown of the Burliosconi affair(s)

Yikes.

(H/t The Awl)

Citizen's United Paradox

Love this:

If human beings can make direct campaign contributions... and if, in Citizens United’s interpretation... corporations and human beings are entitled to equal political speech rights, then corporations must also be able to contribute within (the federal) limits.

So... If I go the other direction on this and say either individuals are allowed to make unlimited political donations - or corporations are limited to the individual limits.  Which is it?

Blarrrgh.

Ensign's Other Shoe Drops

(Via TPM)

BREAKING: Senate Ethics committee actually does something. Gives its report on frm. Sen. Ensign to the Dept. of Justice for criminal investigation.

It's still too early to cheer, but most times you wouldn't even get this much out of the Senate.

And seriously, read the report. Here's a sample:

Mr. Hampton found out about the affair on December 23, 2007, while he and his wife were on the way to the airport to pick up their son for the holidays. Senator Ensign was in a separate car on the way to the airport to greet the Hamptons son as well. While waiting in his car as Ms. Hampton went to pick up their son s girlfriend from her home on the way to the airport, Mr. Hampton saw that his wife left her cell phone in the car and he viewed a text message from Senator Ensign to Ms. Hampton that made clear an affair was occurring. Press reports indicate the text message stated “How wonderful it is ... Scared, but excited.”

When Ms. Hampton came back to the car, Mr. Hampton stated “I know what you and John are doing.” Mr. Hampton then called Senator Ensign and said that he knew what was happening. Senator Ensign did not inform Darlene Ensign at the time. When the cars were parked in the airport parking lot, Mr. Hampton jumped out of his car and chased Senator Ensign in the airport parking lot. Ms. Hampton went into the airport and sat there for “hours.” Ms. Hampton later took a taxi back to her home. Once she was home, Mr. Hampton sought to get the couples together to talk about what occurred.

On December 24, 2007, the Hamptons went to the Ensigns’ home, and the four adults met in Senator Ensign s home office. Both Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton stated that the affair would stop, and Senator Ensign wept and apologized. The Ensigns and Hamptons then had a meeting with their children. The families then celebrated Christmas together. According to Ms. Hampton, had Senator Ensign stopped pursuing her at that time, as he had committed to do before both families, the affair would have ended at that time.

In January 2008, Senator Ensign began texting Ms. Hampton again, and the affair resumed. Ms. Hampton was very despondent during this time frame. Senator Ensign gave Ms. Hampton $3,000 in cash to purchase items for herself and to use for hotel rooms in Las Vegas that Ms. Hampton reserved in her name at his request for their clandestine meetings, because “it always had to be under my name, it could never be under his name.” 

Owch.

Sen Ensign = Gutless

(Via the NYT)

Senator John Ensign’s resignation letter allows him to leave office just one day before he was to have to answer questions under oath about whether a $96,000 payment to the family of his former lover was illegal, designed to keep the affair from becoming public, according to people familiar with an investigation of Mr. Ensign’s activities.

That formal testimony scheduled for May 4 was the final step as Senate investigators prepared for what were almost certain to be Senate ethics charges against Mr. Ensign, Republican of Nevada. Mr. Ensign’s resignation is effective May 3.

Nice.

Now how about prosecuting this guy once he leaves office, eh?

This sort of "Oh, well if you're serious - Well, then I quit" crap has got to stop.

So... Which is it Ramona?

When it comes to Democratic Canvassers discussing the discovery of the Waukesha County error that swung the WI Supreme Court race back to Prosser - what a difference 4 days makes...

Ramona Kitzinger on April 7:

Everything that we went over yesterday afternoon and today, it jibed up, and we're satisfied that it's correct. And I'm with the Democratic Party, vice-chair of Waukesha County, so i'm not gonna stand here and tell you something that's incorrect.

Ramona Kitzinger on April 11:

On Thursday, I then showed up as per normal procedure at 9am and the canvass again went normally and concluded sometime between 4pm and 5pm. During the course of the day, the issue of minor vote corrections in New Berlin and Lisbon came up, but again nothing of a historic nature or reflecting glaring irregularities. In fact, the matter of vote totals in Brookfield City came up specifically during the course of Thursday s canvass. In retrospect, it seems both shocking and somewhat appalling there was no mention of discovery of this 15,000 vote human error that ultimately had the potential to tip the balance of an entire statewide election. How is this possible?

Once the canvass had been completed and the results were finalized, I was called into Kathy s office along with Pat (the Republican observer) and told of an impending 5:30pm press conference. It was at that point that I was first made aware of an error Kathy had made in Brookfield City. Kathy told us she thought she had saved the Brookfield voter information Tuesday night, but then on Wednesday she said she noticed she had not hit save. Kathy didn t offer an explanation about why she didn t mention anything prior to Thursday afternoon s canvass completion, but showed us different tapes where numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one. I was then instructed that I would not say anything at the press conference, and was actually surprised when I was asked questions by reporters.

The reason I offer this explanation is that, with the enormous amount of attention this has received over the weekend, many people are offering my statements at the press conference that the numbers jibed as validation they are correct and I can vouch for their accuracy. As I told Kathy when I was called into the room I am 80 years old and I don t understand anything about computers. I don t know where the numbers Kathy was showing me ultimately came from, but they seemed to add up. I am still very, very confused about why the canvass was finalized before I was informed of the Brookfield error and it wasn t even until the press conference was happening that I learned it was this enormous mistake that could swing the whole election. I was never shown anything that would verify Kathy s statement about the missing vote, and with how events unfolded and people citing me as an authority on this now, I feel like I must speak up.

W.T.F?

She Got Him

All votes are in - Kloppenburg declares victory in WI Supreme Court Race 

Judge Sumi Loses Her Patience - Declares WI Act 10 as Unpublished

Pressed by an Administration that insisted on squeezing through every potential loophole, Dane County Circuit Judge Sumi released a third restraining order declaring WI Act 10 as unpublished. She repeats her earlier TRO language and adds:

FURTHER, based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received at the March 29, 2011 evidentiary hearing, it is hereby DECLARED that the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of March 2011, at 8:15 am.

For my own tastes, I would think she would have been better served using language specifying that this TRO was to preserve the status quo pending the completion of testimony on tomorrow's hearing.

There was a bit of urgency in stopping what could be a runaway train - but more restraint in the language would serve this judge well.

I fully expect, despite their assurances that they'll fall in line, the administration is going to press hard on the WI Supreme Court to intervene at the earliest possible opportunity.

Honest to Pete... what next?

Seriously.

Late Edit: Also, for people interested in the legal wrangling over the publishing statutes, illusory tenant offers a great summary of the relevant bits.

And people interested in the relevant caselaw being bandied about concerting whether or not a judge can meddle in these affairs - I'd go no further than the WI Court of Appeals referral of the case to the WI Supreme Court. They list four cases that are pertinent and nicely summarize each of them.


(H/t The Wheeler Report, obviously)

WI Act 10 Litigation Recap

Because it helps me to spell these things out.

Ismael R Ozanne vs. Jeff Fitzgerald et al 2011CV1244

March 18, 2011 - Issues a Temporary Restraining Order

Appealed to WI Court of Appeals

March 24, 2011 - WI Court of Appeals refers case to the WI Supreme Court

No word from the WI Supreme Court

March 25, 2011 - WI Sen. Majority Leader meets with LRB chief to ask/insist that WI Act 10 be published.
WI Legislative Reference Bureau publishes WI Act 10 with a disclaimer

Dane County DA Ozanne asks for a court order to have WI Act 10 taken down. The duty judge, Judge Sarah O'Brien, reviews the situation and decides a judicial order would be irrelevant and denies it. Essentially, the status quo will be unaffected by the LRB's "display" of WI Act 10 on their website.


March 29, 2011 - The Wisconsin Dept of Justice asks the WI Court of Appeals to withdraw the case that has been referred to the WI Supreme Court because WI Act 10 is now "published" (in the WI DOJ's eyes, the case is moot). The WI Court of Appeals denies this motion.

also on March 29, 2011 - Judge Sumi holds a day long hearing and issues an amended Temporary Restraining Order and threatens government officials who violate it with judical sanctions.

But what about the other, neglected child? The case that the unions have brought directly against the state?

Dane County et al vs. State of Wisconsin et al - 2011AP613LV

The got a hearing about consolidating two cases into one, but not a lot of ink...

Tone and Undertone

Following WI Judge Sumi's reiteration of her restraining order, you would think a certain amount of conservative face-saving would be in order.

"You're wrong" shouts the WI Dane County GOP:

For those people that don’t know, the state of Wisconsin has an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The executive branch has the job of carrying out the laws and setting the agenda for his administration. The legislative branch has the job of passing laws. And the judicial branch has the job of interpreting and applying the laws and ensuring their constitutionality.

By Judge Sumi’s action today, it is apparent that she has forgotten those roles and she thinks that her job is to be a member of all three branches. The Republican Party of Dane County believes it is time for the judicial branch to stop being judicial activists. If they want to legislate the laws, they need to run for political office not judicial office.

But those are words of political hacks. You expect them to be snide and petty.

But the outright defiance by those serving in government is pretty surprising:

But minutes [after Judge Sumi re-issued her restraining order], outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect.

Last night on Maddow, WI Sec. of State suggested that the GOP might not have the votes if Act 10 is voided for the open meetings violation. Whether or not that's true - that would be perhaps the strongest possible motivator for brass knuckles tactics to get Act 10 over the finish line now.

The WI Dept of Administration is publishing new access rules for the Wisconsin capitol building again.

And the hairs are going up on the back of my neck. Judge Sumi has a hearing on the union lawsuits today, and the follow up to the open meetings lawsuit this Friday.

What are these guys up to?

WI Gov. Walker Asks For Federal Funds For More Trains

No, you are not reading that wrong. See?

Several months after rejecting federal funds to build high-speed rail across Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker is now asking for at least $150 million to add trains for an existing Milwaukee-to-Chicago line.
Walker said Tuesday the federal funds would be used to buy two train sets and eight locomotives as well as build a maintenance facility in Milwaukee.

It's like... Scott Walker's on a quest to make everyone hate him or something. All those people who went to bat for him on the high speed rail thing... how ya feeling now?

(H/t WSJ)

Maneuver and Chase

The battle over the anti-union law (2011 Wisconsin Act 10) continues...

Via the Milwaukee Journal:

Three cases are continuing over the new law, leaving the courts as the final arbiter of whether the law is in effect, whether it was adopted properly and whether aspects of it are constitutional. Huebsch said he would abide by court rulings if he is ordered to stop implementation of the law.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint this month to block the law. He contended that a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when it approved the measure, which was a key step to advancing it to the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate.

Republicans argue they did not violate the meetings law.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on March 18 said Ozanne's case was likely to succeed and blocked Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.

But on Friday, the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not under the court order - published the law.

The director of the reference bureau, Stephen Miller, said Friday that statutes required him to take that step, but that he does not believe the law takes effect until the secretary of state acts.

Last week, the Department of Justice appealed Sumi's temporary restraining order. The appeals court panel said the state Supreme Court should take the case, but the high court hasn't ruled on whether it will take it.

On Monday, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw its appeal, saying the law had now been published. It also asked Sumi to vacate the temporary restraining order, withdraw Tuesday's hearing and dismiss La Follette from the case.

Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order. He further asked the judge to order the reference bureau to remove the act from the Legislature's website.

The WI DoJ's attempt to withdraw its appeal (because it belives the law is in effect and the appeal is moot) was denied (pdf) with the court saying, in effect, "we don't have the right to yank a case away from the WI Supreme Court." As in, sorry, fellas. You asked us to give it to them so we did, we're not taking it away from them because you've changed your mind.

Ozanne's request that the LRB be ordered to "unpublish" Act 10 was denied - with Judge Sumi's proxy saying that the LRB's publication did not change the status quo.

Assuming I'm reading this right, this leaves two pending cases:

• Ozanne's public meetings violation case before Judge Sumi; and
• the appeal of Judge Sumi's restraining order sitting on the desk of the WI Supreme Court.

With Judge Sumi's hearing going on right now, it'll be interesting to know if the WI Supreme Court will let this play out before they decide whether or not to step in (it would seem to make sense, but if they believe the restraining order is in error - they might jump in now).

All in all, quite the mess.

(H/t The Wheeler Report)

Late Edit: Today's testimony ended, sounds like there will be an amended restraining order, and testimony will continue on Friday. via @madisoninfo/dcc

Wisconsin's First Honest Budget

Hardly

A report released Monday by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau showed the state would spend a proposed $64.1 billion in state and federal dollars over two years after including amounts that are being transferred to quasi-public authorities like the University of Wisconsin-Madison. That would amount to $609.5 million more over the 2011-'13 budget.

When Walker unveiled his budget proposal on March 1, he said it would cut spending of all dollars by more than $4 billion, or 6%. But those amounts didn't include spending cuts that simply amounted to transferring entities like UW-Madison and a new agency to replace the state Department of Commerce off the state's books.

Plus ca change...

If You Strike, We Won't Help You Eat

Are you F*&%#-ing kidding me?

Buried Provision in House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps to Entire Families if One Member Strikes

H.R. 1135 contains this provision:

That's a family wide ban, for the actions of a single working member.


GOP to American Workers: "You'll take what we give and like it...and what we're giving - is taking."

(H/t Naked Capitalism)

Late Edit: Joke's on us, I guess... The law has read this way since 1981. Which raises the obvious question - if this is current law - why is this in the House bill?

Wisconsin GOP Goes Fishing

On March 15, University of Wisconsin Professor William Cronon writes a blog post analysing the origins of the current wave of anti-union legislation at the state level. He later follows this up with an Op Ed in the NYT.

But two days after the blog post the Wisconsin GOP contacts the UW with a Freedom of Information Act request for all of Prof. Cronon's emails that mention any of these terms:

Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell.

Zero points for subtlety here - this is a naked attempt to make the professor squirm. We're going to read your email...Do you have anything to hide?

Think about how you'd respond to that. The political organization behind the current governor and majorities in both state houses wants copies of your email that include these terms.

Tactically, there are a number of clever aspects to this.

First, there's the chilling effect. You get a message like that, you might decide that your current line of research isn't worth the hassle of a legal struggle or a public war of words over your reputation. A win for the GOP without a lot of investment.

Second, there's the narrative win: You get any hit on these terms that results in an unflatteringly partisan message - you post them and announce that you've discovered this person is partisan, so any research they produce is bogus, and there is confirmation that university professors are liberal partisans infecting the youth of America.

Fun experiment: search your own email for these terms and see what comes up. Would those emails be justified to establish the truth of a hypothetical GOP claim that you were using email for improper purposes? Would you be comfortable handing those messages over to your political opposites? Discuss.

Third, you get to watch the professor and their university go into public contortions as they attempt to resist the FOIA request. See!! They don't want to answer questions!!.

And finally, the news cycle is occupied with something other than Why the hell is the GOP suddenly pushing anti-union legislation as a top priority?

Read Prof. Cronon's response - it's a marvelous summary of what is at stake.

He also includes an devastatingly appropriate visual aid:

Seems to me I've seen that plaque before...

(H/t TPM)

4-3 vs 3-4, Nothing More

The Awl's Abe Sauer has another great post on the Wisconsin situation: Wisconsin's Nasty Spring Election: Impartiality with Its Sleeves Rolled

After pointing out that that current Wisconsin supreme court judge David Prosser was oh-so-happy to be identified with incoming Governor Scott Walker before the whole flap over collective bargaining - now he seems to have second thoughts. He's his own man. We need impartiality in all things.


Witness the WI GOP asking Wisconsin's Chief Justice to Recuse herself from ruling on the union busting law because she's received political donations from unions. Cos' y'know the GOP is all about appearing above board in all things.


Sauer goes on to shine a harsh light on judge Prosser's impartiality (as well as his contempt for his opponent):

In February he was the keynote speaker "on behalf of" the Outagamie County Republican Party at its annual Lincoln Day dinner. A video posted on the Rock County Republican Party Facebook Page shows Prosser at its dinner mocking his challenger about how, as a prosecutor for the Dept. of Natural Resources, she has wasted her time… charging those violating environmental regulations. Prosser said: "She's very concerned about individuals who violate the rules on docks." The crowd laughs. "And she wants some people not to have any docks at all!" The crowd laughs more.


...


Prosser's scorn for what is essentially a prosecutor doing her job is stunning, considering Prosser's own history as a prosecutor. In 2008, Prosser was forced to recuse himself from a case involving sexually abused minors and the Catholic Church because, while serving as district attorney of Outagamie County in 1979, Prosser had refused to prosecute a Green Bay priest accused of sexually molesting two brothers. His reasoning? It would have been too hard on the boys. (In 2004 the priest, then 81, was imprisoned after abusing an unknown further number of children.) In 2008, the victim told the Journal Sentinel, "[Prosser] said it would be too embarrassing for a kid my age and said what jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest? Then he said, what really makes it bad is that [the priest's] brother, Joe, sang on the Lawrence Welk show and everybody watched that back then."

So which former district attorney would you rather have on the high court bench: the anal retentive prosecutor charging people with extending their lake docks two feet longer than allowed by the law or the guy who doesn't prosecute a child molester because the priest's brother was once on the Lawrence Welk Show?

Nicely put.

Read the full post.