Will Madison vote to stick Chief Koval with the bill?

Will the Madison Common Council continue its war on police or will it reimburse Police Chief Mike Koval for the $22,000 he expended out of his own pocket to defend himself against frivolous charges?

We’ll get a hint this coming Monday (03-27-17) from the council’s powerful Board of Estimates. A budget amendment co-sponsored by Ald. Paul Skidmore would recompense Chief Koval for defending himself before the Police and Fire Commission. Unfortunately, Ald. Skidmore is not a member of the Board of Estimates. Mayor Paul Soglin is the other co-sponsor and he very definitely IS a member. Unfortunately, he won’t be attending. Another commitment.

The remaining seven members are these: Maurice Cheeks, Barbara McKinney, Sara Eskrich, Zach Wood, Marsha Rummel, and Michael Verveer. Only one of those, Verveer, has been endorsed by the Madison police officers union. Rummel is virulently anti-cop. All voted for the $400,000 study of police. Progressive Dane is urging a No vote.

The white lab coats here at the Policy Werkes look for Cheeks and McKinney to cover themselves by voting Yes Monday night and No when it hits the council floor, which will be after the election April 4. They’re running against two challengers endorsed by the police union: David Handowski and Steve Fitzsimmons, respectively. So they’ve got to be good. At least until April 4.

Because it is a budget amendment, it will require a 3/4ths vote of the 20-member council. The betting line on the Stately Manor’s poll (at right) says the alders stick the chief with the bill. Only takes six to defeat.

Hounded and hectored by a shouting and stalking woman, Koval responded by stating that she was a “raving lunatic.” That was the essence of the complaint that consumed the PFC for months before it dismissed the complaint on March 14 with no discipline imposed.

The BOE convenes Monday at 4:30 in Room 354 of the City County Building. It is item #15 on the agenda.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Epic Fail: ObamaCare repeal DOA. GOOD!

The Squire uses his plenipotentiary powers to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences. (And reserves the right to amend and extend his remarks. For instance, just added “Epic Fail” to the headline, which it is.)

Repeal and Replace just scudded into the ground like the frozen contents of the chemical toilet on an overbooked Airbus. The promise that elected ever-more Republicans in four straight elections after ObamaCare’s passage eight years ago turned out to be a chimera. Lucy pulling the football.

What a joke!

Thank God.

Had Paul Ryan’s fractious house of squalling cats actually repealed and/or replaced, the Mainstream News Media would have broadcast/cablecast/printed hours of heart-rending images of poor working families on their rhetorical deathbeds. Replacing anything always dislocates. But Republicans would have been pilloried.

If ObamaCare really is failing, if a thousand counties really do have only one provider, if premium costs actually have spiked by 25% — the program will die of its own accord. Or it won’t. The other way around is to amend it to death over the next two years. Permit across-state health insurance, remove the penalties for the uninsured, et cetera.

Even so, the Republican brand took a direct hit. Typical is this Facebook acquaintance:

Did I just hear Trump tell a big fat lie? He said his first day in office he would repeal and replace!!

Maybe now some of us are learning that civics lesson we skipped in high school. Y’know, the thing about three branches of government: the President, Congress, the Courts. Plus, Republicans are an ornery bunch.  Continue reading

Posted in Republicans, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

It’s not black or white, Madison school board voters!

Congratulations to Chris Rickert for a real journalistic scoop!

The Wisconsin State Journal columnist reveals that a candidate for the Madison Metro School Board sends her child to a private school. This revelation comes after the candidate, Ali Muldrow, appeared to support school vouchers at a candidate forum. Afterward, she tried to walk back that support.

This is Madison, after all, where Your Humble Squire’s mere enunciation of the name “Betsy DeVos” elicited a Mormon Tabernacle Choir chorus of booing and jeering.

Ali Muldrow

Ali Muldrow

Oddly, Rickert does not identify Ms. Muldrow as an African-American, except by implication. But that implication is damning. He quotes the candidate to explain that she withdrew her older child from the public schools because of “experiences that were not only negative, but were particularly racialized.” In other words, the public school was hostile toward a student of color. Nice.

As if to expiate her liberal apostasy, Ms. Muldrow alleges that “private schools retain the ability to discriminate.” Tell that to the 26,000 school choice students in Milwaukee — overwhelmingly black. And all lower income. Ms. Muldrow, you have sufficient funds to pay for private schooling but what about all those low-income families? Do you mind if they take the state subsidy that accompanies every student to the school of their choice? (Public school teachers send their children to private schools at twice the rate of the general public, it says here.)

Ali Muldrow is, as Rickert writes, “Republican’s best advertisement for school vouchers in a part of the state that opposes them.” Roger that.

Do Madison liberals cast off their white privilege by voting for the black candidate? (She’s on Facebook.) Or do they stand in solidarity with the public school teachers union?  Kate Toews, you are a white woman running against a black candidate. Does that make you racist?

Ald. Dave Ahrens and former State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys played the race card against Steve Fitzsimmons and David Handowski, white guys running against black incumbents on the Madison Common Council. MTI, the teachers union, endorses Toews. Will the April 4 election be yet another instance where Madison’s liberal-progressive-socialist hegemony derails black aspirations? (Discuss amongst yourselves.)

The indentured servants here at the Manor have been issued protective smocks as liberal heads explode.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Madison police endorse 4 candidates, shun 17 sitting alders!

As Rod Serling would say, for your electoral consideration:

  • Consider that all 20 Madison aldermanic seats will be decided on April 4.
  • 19 of those are incumbents seeking re-election.
  • Only 5 incumbents are challenged (and one of the challengers is a write in).

It is remarkable, therefore, that the Madison police union is

  • Endorsing only 4 candidates.
  • Even more significantly, 2 of those endorsees are challengers. In other words, Madison police are supporting only 2 incumbents.
  • The police snubbed 17 incumbents (1 incumbent is not seeking re-election).
Fitz and Handy

Steve Fitzsimmons (l) and David Handowski

Did we tell you the Madison Common Council is anti-cop?  The police endorsed:

In District 1 (far southwest Madison): challenger David Handowski over incumbent Barbara McKinney.

In District 10 (Midvale Hights, Nakoma, Orchard Ridge, Summit Woods, and Allied Drive) challenger Steve Fitzsimmons over incumbent Maurice Cheeks.

The police union is also endorsing incumbents Paul Skidmore, District 9 (far northwest side), and Mike Verveer, District 4 (Downtown Madison).

The police union didn’t have to endorse Verveer or Skidmore, both unopposed, but they did. What’s more, they skipped three of the contested races.

The police union did not endorse Ledell Zellers, Amanda Hall, Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Steve King, Zach Wood, Maurice Cheeks, Barbara McKinney, Larry Palm, Sarah Eskrich, Sheri Carter, Dave Ahrens, Denise DeMarb, Samba Baldeh, Rebecca Kemble, Matt Phair, Mark Clear, and Marsha Rummel — 17 incumbents not endorsed! Only 2 incumbents endorsed. One seat (District 11, Tim Gruber is leaving) is open; no endorsement there, either.

Amazing! Here are the Madison police union endorsements.

Posted in Uncategorized, Madison city government | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Race trumps character in today’s public schools

At some point in the fermentation process, the bacteria that convert sugars into alcohol poison themselves and the process starts. Wine can only get so alcoholic without the addition of distilled alcohol (as is done with Port.)

That process is occurring in Madison, or so one hopes. The unionized teachers at Madison’s public schools have complained about the breakdown of order.

High school hallway and cafeteria fights seem much more prevalent these days. Many of them are girl on girl. Disciplining the brawlers creates a civil rights crisis if black students are involved. The camera- and microphone-loving Michael Johnson held a press conference (how eager our news media is for such exhibitions!) last week after a melee in the East High School cafeteria required eight uniformed police and various faculty to break up and a minority race female student  was arrested.

This is a little bit more than smoking in the boys’ room and it appears to be a nationwide problem. The Manhattan Institute traces the outbreak to — what else? — the Obama administration. Five years ago, his Department of Education decreed that too many black students were being suspended, thereby feeding the liberal narrative than educators turn the other way when white kids are wailing on each other but bust a black kid for chewing gum. The federal educrats followed up with the threat of federal lawsuits if school administrators kept expelling troublemakers. Madison’s public schools were among those who acceded to the pressure.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Gorsuch schools America on the judiciary

The indentured servants are neglecting their duties attending to the Squire here at the Stately Manor. They are splayed out on the floor of the Walter Winchell Memorial Media Room watching the Neil Gorsuch nomination hearing this week.

Should be required viewing on college campuses for the education it offers on the separation of powers.

old PhilcoI watched enough of Monday’s prologue, wherein each of the Senators got their kick at the piñata. One can only marvel at the nominee’s ability to hold that smile when praised or look intently but respectfully concerned as he is being pilloried. When Gorsuch (at long last, Senator, have you no sense of concision) got his chance to speak he nailed it. He started out with family, reaching back two generations, for the “humanizing” bit. Hey, it worked — even if the skunked dog in the family car came out a little Disney.

Then he got to the meat of an independent judiciary — it interprets the law, it does not make it. Which is the central contention of these hearings. As Chairman Grassley, R-Iowa, noted today (3-21-17), the Democrats want an independent justice who will hew to their agenda — or, as Sen. Feinstein, D-California, put it: “How do we know you won’t be for the Big Corporations?”

Judge Gorsuch, you have the floor:

… These days we sometimes hear judges cynically described as politicians in robes. Seeking to enforce their own politics rather than striving to apply the law impartially. But I just don’t think that’s what a life in the law is about.

… Putting on a robe reminds us that it’s time to lose our egos and open our minds. It serves, too, as a reminder of the modest station we judges are meant to occupy in a democracy. In other countries, judges wear scarlet, silk, and ermine. Here, we judges buy our own plain black robes. And I can report that the standard choir outfit at the local uniform supply store is a pretty good deal. Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester.

When I put on the robe, I am also reminded that under our Constitution, it is for this body, the people’s representatives, to make new laws. For the executive to ensure those laws are faithfully enforced. And for neutral and independent judges to apply the law in the people’s disputes. If judges were just secret legislators, declaring not what the law is but what they would like it to be, the very idea of a government by the people and for the people would be at risk. And those who came to court would live in fear, never sure exactly what governs them except the judge’s will. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “liberty can have nothing to fear from” judges who apply the law, but liberty “ha[s] every thing to fear” if judges try to legislate too.

… The truth is, a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is probably a pretty bad judge, stretching for the policy results he prefers rather than those the law compels.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments