Blaska, taking one for the useless team

I'd say it's almost comforting to see perpetual Madison gadfly, David Blaska, still alive and at his usual lame antics, but at this point it's just tiresome and wasteful.

What's he up to now, you ask in morbid curiosity? Why, suing the Madison school district and MTI, of course!

A conservative legal group sued Madison’s school district, school board and teachers union Wednesday over what it calls illegal labor contracts the district continues to honor. 

The lawsuit was filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of David Blaska, a well-known conservative blogger living in Madison, according to Dane County Circuit Court records. 

The suit alleges the district’s contracts with Madison Teachers Inc. for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years violate Act 10, Gov. Scott Walker’s signature 2011 legislation that all but eliminated collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Blaska requests a declaration that the contracts are illegal and void, and an injunction to prohibit the contracts from being enforced, according to a copy of the lawsuit provided by WILL. 

Thing is, the district and MTI negotiated their current contract before the state Supreme Court made its final ruling upholding Act 10 as constitutional (which is a whole other can of worms). So, it's pretty straightforward to say that the current contract is perfectly legal. Once it's up for renewal, then you'd have a legitimate fight on your hands.

But that would never stop political hacks like Blaska (and everyone's favorite conservative hack defender, Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of WILL) from staging wasteful theatrics like this.

It's almost like someone's paying him to take all the flak to make the big, bold conservative statements du jour so as to keep the more valuable politicos free from such public stain. It would be a familiar tactic, anyway (cough J.B. Van Hollen cough).

Working out the kinks in digital rights and expectations

All politics is local. All politics is global.

The former has always been true, while the latter has only really come into its own truth with the advent of the internet and our ever-evolving digital age. For instance, in the past week, comments made by former Madison alder Brenda Konkel on her blog were used, out of context and without attribution, by an online newspaper. Said alder then commented on the article via her Facebook and Twitter accounts, and those words were picked up by a blog/online magazine and posted as a screen shot (still following me?).

Charges of impropriety were leveled at pretty much everyone involved for a whole variety of issues, but as I said in my piece on Dane101 yesterday, I think the really interesting issue at hand here is that of our increasingly online lives. How much online exposure is too much? What rights do we maintain in the binary world? What's the reasonable expectation of privacy for individuals using the web? For public officials?

Happily, a fairly in-depth and civil discussion of these issues was the main result of the posts, and many valid critiques and theories have been posited.

I maintain that, while it was improper that the first version of the screen shot included a comment from an unrelated person (it has since been removed), the use of the quote was fair. Konkel made the comment both on Facebook--which admittedly has a few more privacy filters--and on Twitter, which is quite public. Konkel herself has offered some thoughtful responses to this storm in a bottle:

What was cross-posted on Facebook - the same content - was also not that big of a deal to be used publicly, especially because it was political content. I think what surprised me was seeing my subsequent comment posted. Again, probably splitting hairs, but I guess I'll be more judicious in my comments in the future. If I wanted my comments to be more public, I could have just twittered it. Like I said, my twitter has more public comments, on my facebook, you'll see that I painted my toenails purple. I use them differently. Perhaps it was a distinction in my own head, but I thought it was more widely understood. Otherwise, I'm surprised by what some public figures (members of the media included) post on facebook and I'd hate to see all of that fair game for the press.

As you can see, it's a multi-layered debate, but an important one for everyone to be having as more and more news is gotten and purveyed online, and more of us are making our lives open to total strangers through the internet. Because we all need to realize that, if we put it online, someone is going to see it. We need to decide what that means, and how it can or can't be legally used.

I don't pretend to have definitive answers to all of these questions, but I'm glad we're at least really starting to discuss them. I wish the major news organizations would do more of the same, frankly. It behooves us all to figure these things out before bigger, potentially more damaging instances of personal data mining occur in the press.

Meanwhile, there's still that pesky issue of racism brought up by the original posts and articles. Over on the far more inconsistent side of things, Dave Blaska accuses Konkel of resorting to McCarthy-like tactics in her comments about Alder Pham-Remmele that helped kick off this whole thing:

...Brenda Konkel has turned the racism card face up, as the Left is wont to do so promiscuously.

Yes, because "The Right" is so free from prejudice of any kind. The unfortunate thing is that, in the middle of Blaska's name calling, self-aggrandizing screed, there are actually a few decent points to be had--namely, that we all need to do a better job of figuring out when we're just asking people to be more responsible for themselves and their children, and when we're taking that to a classist, racist level by including stereotypes and derogatory sentiments.

Take the comments Pham-Remmele made that are at the center of this debate. Back in October of '07, the Common Council was discussing redevelopment in the Allied Drive neighborhood when, as the Capital Times then reported,

Jaws dropped...As a number of residents of the neighborhood looked on and city cable Channel 12's cameras rolled, Pham-Remmele said that, based on her 30 years' experience as a teacher in the Madison school district, some Allied Drive families made expensive hair braiding a higher priority than their children's lunches.

It's one of those cringe-worthy statements that may have a kernel of truth at its core, but is expressed in such a crass manner that any chance for reasoned, constructive dialogue thereafter goes understandably out the window.

I suspect that the issue with Pham-Remmele has more to do with her inability to express herself properly rather than serious racism. She is often accused of making rambling, incoherent statements at council meetings, and that, combined with her no-nonsense approach to public service, is a recipe for discord.

We owe it to ourselves to have serious discussions about neighborhood safety and quality of life, as well as finding a balance between personal responsibility and community assistance. And yes, racism still exists in this Obama era, whether the Dave Blaska's of the world would like to admit it or not. We've all got our little prejudices, our ignorance of certain people or cultures, our preconceived notions that need straightening out. And so it's good that there are forceful voices out there, like Konkel and like Pham-Remmele, to keep us on our toes. It's up to the rest of us, then, to make sure those forceful voices are countered, when necessary, by equally honest but perhaps more thoughtful and nuanced discussion.

Name calling or coddling aren't going to get any of us anywhere good.

Mistele, Blaska, wrong for Dane County

I've been busy with things other than blogging lately and feeling relatively uninspired to post anything--until good ol' Dave Blaska came along to save me. Thanks Dave! Your continued ignorance on matters of government and politics has cured my writer's block.

Blaska's newest screed over at The Daily Page has him playing a fairly tired tune: Kathleen Falk is history's greatest monster, Nancy Mistele will be our supervisorial savior, boo to funding for commuter rail and environmentally & economically friendly projects, etc. etc.

His fresh spin on this old refrain comes in the form of maligning the current move to provide state funding (mostly coming from its share of stimulus money) for two manure digesters. These machines help to remove phosphorous--that thing that so pollutes our lakes and makes them nearly impossible to swim in--from cow manure on area farms. In the process, they also use the bacteria on manure to create methane gas, which is then used to power generators and provide electricity.

Each digester also will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12,000 tons each year and generate $900,000 a year in renewable energy...

Still, this is somehow a terrible idea to Blaska, who claims that Falk and co. should be focusing their attention on more "urgent priorities" and that the digesters are a "project better left to the farm co-ops." Because farm co-ops have buckets of money to spare, and because apparently the quality of our local watersheds and renewable energy aren't urgent enough priorities for Blaska.

I, for one, rather miss being able to swim in lakes. I'm also rather keen on passing on a planet to my children that's in better shape than how I found it. Guess that's the old Girl Scout in me talking again.

Blaska goes on to point to the current pothole-a-riffic situation on University Ave. as further proof of Falk's incompetence. He completely fails to mention the fact that Falk recently announced a major reconstruction project on that very road. But! Both he and Mistele would much rather see the county go forward with a far more invasive project: The North Mendota Beltway. Can we say boondoggle?

Instead of adding more space for more cars and more emissions and increased traffic and higher pavement pollution run-off rates, how about we actually invest in mass transit? It cuts down on all of the aforementioned problems, and benefits people with lower incomes who might not otherwise have a way to get around town.

Falk is by no means perfect. In fact, I've been calling her on the failings surrounding the 911 center and other things for some time. But Mistele? Definitely worse. And quite a bit of a one-note wonder (OK, two if you count the NMB idea) with her incessent "noun-verb-911-center" prattle.

We should absolutely work to hold Falk and those associated more accountable for incidents like what happened with the Zimmermann case. We should foster better future leaders. We should be able to focus our attention on multiple priorities at once (unlike Blaska and Mistele's insistence on one thing at a time, but only if it has everything to do with "public safety" and nothing to do with conservation, etc.).

We should not vote Nancy Mistele into office.


(with apologies for the terrible Photoshop at top)

Blaska blows it on free speech

"Libel: An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."

Remember that word and its definition, as it will prove to be important in the following debate.

Dave Blaska, Isthmus' token blogger and reliably far-right guy, today takes on what he (and many other far right columnists) perceives to be an attack on free speech. He's mad about several things:

• On the Friday before the Tuesday, November 4, general election, at the behest of the Democrat(ic) Party, a circuit court judge in Jackson County yanked a political advertisement off the airwaves without holding a hearing because he didn't like the ad.
  
  
• Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board (the merged Ethics and Elections Boards) is about to manufacture rules governing third-party "issue ads," those being defined as advertisements not placed by the candidates themselves but by those who are interested in the results — aka: citizens.
  
  
• The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has taken it upon itself to determine whether it agrees with an advertisement aired by successful State Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman.
  
  
• A Democrat(ic) Congress appears poised to re-instate the Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine" in order to shut down conservative talk radio.

Ignoring his continued misuse of the title of the political party with which he most disagrees, there are several points of contention within this neat bullet list.

What Blaska seems to be most upset about is the push to ban third-party issue ads during campaigns, and the push to force these third-parties to publish their lists of contributors. He muddies the issue by throwing in the panicky accusations about an alleged move to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, even though no legislation has been introduced to that effect (even in the current, Democratically dominated Congress), and president-elect Barack Obama has stated that he does not support it. What Obama did say he supports, however, is more important:

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that...Obama "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Making sure one giant corporation doesn't own the majority of media outlets in a particular region seems more than reasonable to me, and would serve to make sure that multiple voices were able to find airspace without government intervention, simply by helping to insure diversity and accessibility. Net neutrality is something I'm also a big proponent of, and a subject well worth reading up on if you haven't already.

The Fairness Doctrine is a trickier beast, though, because it could easily be used for good or bad ends. It's difficult to debate the issue rationally, however, when both far sides tend to get a little hysterical over it. Folks like Blaska like to use it as a bogeyman to claim the squashing of their free speech rights, when all they really want is for conservative talk radio hacks to be able to go on spewing unsubstantiated claims and attacks (if this isn't true, then why do they only get up in arms when their ideological kin are singled out, and not folks on the other side?). Folks on the flip side may be inclined to let the government regulate what stations can and cannot air, which is also nonsense.

There is middle ground here.

First, we all need to come to terms with things like slander and libel, which are punishable offenses and not protected by the First Amendment. Mike Gableman's ad that heavily insinuated that Louis Butler had let a violent criminal out of jail who then went on to offend again is one such example. The ad was libelous. That's why the Wisconsin Judicial Commission has levied charges, and that's why Gableman has already been rebuked by several other organizations for the ad.

Banning such ads, or pulling them from the air, is not an attack on the free speech rights of anyone. It is done to uphold the law, and to keep it from being made a mockery of by those who seek to spread disinformation and lies. See "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" for a prime example.

Third party "issue ads" are notorious for this, and both the more liberal and conservative sides are guilty. Any regulation of these, as the Government Accountability Board is seeking to impose, should be limited to insuring that they are factually accurate, and don't make disparaging and, most importantly, unsubstantiated claims about a person's character. That's it.

(As for making public the list of donors to such ads and campaigns - I admit to being torn. One could make the argument that as voting is left anonymous so no one feels pressured to cast their ballot one way or another, one should be able to donate money to a cause/campaign without fear of retribution.)

Shouldn't we be arguing policies and plans, anyway? A candidate holds a position that you find abhorrent? Say so. A candidate voted for something you think was wrong? Say so! Explain why. Go ahead, just leave the vague, more-often-than-not baseless accusations out of it.

Free speech is one of most important rights we have as citizens. It should be guarded and exercised with vigor and persistence. But to claim that what is really nothing more than slander, libel, and other defamation, is and should be protected as "free speech" is to throw mud at the very concept.

Certainly we need to make sure that such regulations don't go too far in the other direction, but we can't do without them, either. Money should not equal unfettered access to public airwaves in order to make whatever claims you want about a given person or group. That would do the opposite of fostering a free and open democracy. Hey Dave, is that what you want?

What makes a woman

Criticizing Dave Blaska's logic is a lot like shooting fish in a barrel: it's easy to do, and more tempting than it ought to be.

I had to stop myself for a moment and decide whether or not it was really worth my time to tackle his latest blog opus, re: Sarah Palin, because I'm a little burned out by arguing the same points over and over again and never seeming to get anywhere because Blaska, and others making similar cases, seems to have his fingers shoved firmly into his ear holes.

Then it occurred to me, though, that there are an alarmingly large number of people out there who agree with Blaska's take on things, and have their own many and varied reasons for doing so. It would be incredibly naive (and a little condescending) of me to simply dismiss this reality outright. So here I am, criticizing another of Blaska's blogs. I beg your induldgence.

I disagree vehemently with most of what he argues in his post, but most offensive of his assertions is certainly this:

[Palin] made it clear that the Democrats are only the party of some women, the party for whom Down’s syndrome son Trig, whom she held onstage after her speech, would be a "choice."

As a staunchly pro-choice woman, I run into this harsh misperception (or blatant accusation) a lot. I can understand that the issue gets people hot under the collar--it certainly does for me. But take a step back for a minute and think about this: Blaska is trying to say that every pro-choice person regards a mentally handicapped baby as something to consider getting rid of, simply because it has said disability. That's appauling and so, so wrong that I hardly even know where to begin. I shouldn't even have to defend myself here, it's so ridiculous.

Let me put it plainly: being pro-choice does not equal being pro-abortion. It means, very simply, that you believe the decision as to whether or not a pregnancy should be seen to term should be left up to the mother first, informed doctors and family members second, and the federal government only in the most extreme cases of mental incompetence on the part of the involved parties.

I can think of very few (nay, none) of my pro-choice friends who are pro-abortion. Most of them, if faced with that unthinkable scenario and decision, would likely choose to see the pregnancy through. But thankfully, most of my friends have loving, supportive family and friends and lives of relative security. That is not the case with all, or even most, women who end up in this situation. Many end up in that terrible place as the result of poverty, lack of a good education, poor family life, abuse, etc. Palin's daughter is lucky to have a supportive family to help her through this big change in her life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

There is common ground between pro-choice and pro-life supporters, believe it or not. All of us, I would argue, want to see a decline in the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. For pro-choice advocates, that means better and more comprehensive sex education for our youth, better and more comprehensive maternal and child care programs in our cities and states, better work leave deals for new moms and fathers, and so forth. Because what most of us recognize is that people are always going to have sex. It's a human imparative. The best we can do is to arm our children with the self respect, decision making abilities, and thorough knowledge of how to take care of themselves so as to hopefully avoid these kinds of situations all-together.

The big problem, it would seem, is the deep anxiety and fear that many of us still feel about sex, especially outside of marriage. I suppose that's a whole other issue for a whole other post, though, so I'm going to attempt to get back onto my original tack here.

In addition to accusing pro-choice liberals of viewing disabled children as disposable, Blaska also seems to think that most of us Obama voters secretly hate strong women like Sarah Palin. I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but I feel confident in saying that the vast majority of folks on both sides of this political race don't give a rats ass about Palin's gender.

I don't. What I do care about are her policy ideas, her record, her experience. I disagree with Palin (and McCain) on almost every single issue they've brought up. That's why I won't be voting for that ticket come November, and that's what I'd hope most people would take into consideration when they walk into their voting booths.

One other not-so quick point I'd like to make about Blaska's post--and it's a theme that's come up throughout the right-leaning media coming to Palin's defense since she was picked--is this idea that, to be truly feminine, a woman must be raising a family. Frankly, if you're looking for something to shout "sexism!" about, that would be it.

I think family is incredibly important, but a husband and children are not required to define and strengthen a woman. This goes for men, too. Can we draw inferences about a person's character from their family life? Certainly, but it cuts both ways, and I really, really don't believe that it should be the make-or-break of whether or not someone is fit for public service. Take a look at our politicians in general, and you will find a diverse sea of divorces, infidelities, long-term committments, children, no children, gay and straight. Just like the rest of the country.

Sarah Palin could have been a no make-up wearing, single person and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to me. The sad truth, however, is that I strongly suspect it would have made a difference in how she was treated in the political sphere. Would that be true of a man? I don't know, but history suggests not.

So to Blaska and others who share his opinions, I honestly want to ask you this: do you really believe that those of us who don't support McCain/Palin are just a bunch of baby hating, woman subjugating, fearful little pansies? Because if so, we've all got a lot more work to do than I thought.

For what it's worth, just because someone is pro-life, conservative, etc., doesn't mean I immediately assume them to be a heartless, oppressive jerk. And they usually aren't. Frankly, we'd all do well to make that more clear when we debate the issues.

(edit to add: For further Palin reading, and just generally insightful and well-written blogging from an Alaskan perspective, I'd like to heartily recommend Mudflats.)

I call shenanigans!

Isthmus released their Annual Manual last Thursday, and with it the results of their "Madison Favorites" poll. I was pleasantly surprised to see dane101 take third place in the Best Website category, beating out long-standing channel3000.com and joining the ranks of madison.com and The Daily Page (all this for a volunteer, collaboratively run website!).

I was shocked, shocked! however, to see the finalists in the Local Blogger category. While the number 1 and 3 slots were all well and good (1 went to Paul Soglin, who, frankly, I could totally take in a slap fight, and 3 went to the good folks over at Eating in Madison A to Z), the second place finish about had me spitting out my applesauce--Dave Blaska? Really?

I can only imagine two scenarios that could have led to such a strange result: either Blaska rallied his mom and all her friends to his cause, or it's a pity vote. I guess "favorite local blogger" could be construed to mean "most entertaining by dint of ridiculousness" - but then what of the other two, generally quality bloggers on the list? It's not even Blaska's politics alone that lead me to object, it's simply that he's not a very good writer. There are other, far more well-written and interesting blogs from locals, including ones with whose politics I disagree.

Ultimately, however, I'm deeply disturbed by the lack of thecdp.net on that list. Ryan's blog is even nationally recognized for its quality and often hilarious commentary on life and pop culture. Quite the oversight of the voting population, if you ask me (which I recognize is obviously heavily skewed toward Isthmus readers, where Blaska's blog is housed, but let me have my moment of outrage, k?).

Now, back to my painkiller induced stupor, and to making plans for dominating the shit out of that poll next year. Hah!

No big deal until it's a big deal

This is becoming a tired pattern: newspaper runs a story mentioning a subject controversial to some, those some become enraged that the subject is mentioned, others tell them to settle down, they retaliate by claiming their anger has nothing to do with the subject itself, but rather with the newspaper's insistence on even mentioning it.

Case-and-point: The Cap Times runs a story about recently selected UW chancellor Biddy Martin that mentions her being the first openly gay chancellor at the university. This isn't the first or only story run on her selection, rather just one of many, and it happens to focus on this particular element and how it relates to the UW's current lack of domestic partnership benefits. Martin has expressed her intention to support efforts to change that. Simple enough.

But of course, certain folks take umbrage with the article and its focus, claiming that Martin's sexuality has no relevance and shouldn't be mentioned, ever, at all. Apparently it gets their undies in a bunch.

Dave Blaska, scourge of the Isthmus Daily Page, laments that:

But is that the essence of Biddy Martin, her sexual proclivities? Why would a major university hire someone for that reason? (Or, for that matter, not hire?) Would not a more enlightened policy — a John Patrick Hunter policy — be (cue "Anchors Away") "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Quality. Now that it's a generally accepted no-no to be a bigot, bigots have turned to round-about ways of expressing their disdain for all that is different: ignoring it. Plugging their ears and singing "la la la I can't heeeear yoooou" and claiming that it's "no big deal." That is, until someone has the gall to mention it, and then all bets are off as to civility and rationality.

Well, they're right on one count: a person's sexuality shouldn't be a big deal and it shouldn't have anything to do with how we judge their character, qualifications for a job, or anything else. They're as wrong as the military when it comes to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" though. Straight people mentioning their straightness doesn't seem to piss them off, so why should a gay person mentioning that they're gay?

We're also early enough in the game (sadly) that it remains noteworthy when the first of a traditionally marginalized and/or discriminated against group gains prominence or major achievement. The fact that, for instance, Barack Obama is the first major black candidate for the highest office in the land is noteworthy. We shouldn't elect him or not elect him based on that fact, but how on Earth are you going to ignore what is such a major milestone? Ignoring that fact, and the fact of the first openly gay UW chancellor, is akin to ignoring and/or denying the monumental hurdles they've had to overcome on their way to these positions. Hurdles that our society has, for far too long and even still to this day, placed merrily in their way.

And yet, and yet. The webmaster at TCT had to disable the comments section that accompanied the article about Martin and domestic partnership benefits because they became so vitriolic, so caustic that it did nothing to foster debate, only anger and hatred. That's a crying shame, but at least we're reminded that these types of attitudes still exist, and that there's still much to be done in the way of education and activism before we can call ourselves a truly enlightened and egalitarian society.

Arguing Progressive Dane

Forward Our Motto has an interesting debunking of "common myths about Progressive Dane" over at their blog. Like I've said, I don't know a ton about PD or the current state of local politics. I only know what I read from the people involved and various news sources, so until I get my butt in gear and go out to some meetings or something, I'm far from being anything more than a speculative observer. So it's nice when people with a bit more experience take the time to lay things out in a reasoned and clear fashion and with minimal (but not entirely absent, to be fair) snark.

Now if only Dave Blaska would hold himself to similar standards.

It's a trick, get an ax.

This has nothing to do with Madison or Wisconsin...or even the Midwest, for that matter. But damn if it isn't the coolest thing I've seen all day.

Clerk uses ax to fight off robber. Watch the video, it's worth it.

Was it crazy for her to do that? Absolutely. Was it also completely awesome? You betcha! Though I'm not sure if this whole thing would be an argument for or against the right to bear arms. Does it apply to axes?

In other news, apparently Paul Soglin has some similar thoughts on Dave Blaska. Crazy, man, crazy.

Dave Blaska: pot, meet kettle.

Lately I've been reading, and cringing at, a lot of Dave Blaska's "blogs" over at the Isthmus Daily Page. It's fine and dandy that the left-leaning publication, for whom I sometimes write on a freelance basis, has a few more right-leaning contributors (I'm making this assumption based upon Blaska's pro-gun, anti-tax, throw-em-all-in-jail stances espoused in previous columns). In fact, I wholeheartedly encourage the practice. But it does both sides and the moderates a disservice when the most visible opinions are so filled with empty rhetoric and name calling.

Today's Blaska Blog takes aim at the counter protesters, most notably state employees, who showed up to "shout down" the anti-tax activists who came to the capitol a little while ago to show support for the Republicans in the legislature who were stalling the budget process.

Let me be clear: I don't think drowning out the voices of people with whom you disagree is a constructive way to solve problems or get your point across. But I also don't think that opposing any and all taxation is a good way to run a society. I've rambled on about this before, so I don't think I need to entirely restate my opinion that some degree of reasonable taxation is necessary for the maintenance of a just and equitable society. The trick isn't in raising or lowering taxes to absurd levels, but in making sure that the taxes are collected and distributed fairly, instead of falling into already well-lined pockets through pork barrel spending and mismanagement.

Putting aside the real issues for a moment, though, my beef with Blaska and others of his ilk are their incessant stereotyping of the fictional notion of a unified "Left."

Let's take a look at a few examples:

The [sic] afternoon Progressive Dane newspaper tried to spin the anti-tax protest as a bunch of Hollywood extras bused in for the event.

Americans for Prosperity, the group that organized the rally opposing the enactment of the compromise state budget proposed by Gov. Jim Doyle, is not from Wisconsin. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Typical Progressive Dane disinformation: impugn motives, dispute the provenance rather than debate the issues.

I'm not a member of PD, and while I agree with many of their positions, I don't always agree with their methods. But this isn't to say that I believe all PD members are the same, nor do I believe that "Progressive Dane" is a dirty turn of phrase. Blaska, however, along with a whole slew of more right-leaning folks around these parts sure do seem to think of it as a slur. I'm sure they don't appreciate it when similar people on the left make blanket statements about Republicans or the "Right."

Then we have this:

But the bottom line is that the state employees union could not have hurt themselves more if Karl Rove was in charge of mixing the Kool Aid. Arrogant, thuggish and thickheaded. They could not counter the anti-tax citizens with facts, so they substitute brute noise in an attempt to intimidate. That is totalitarian in nature, the polar opposite of sifting and winnowing.

It's the Soviet Union jamming Radio Free America. It's Boss Jim Taylor shoving the Boy Rangers' newspaper wagons off the sidewalks in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

It's one of my favorite underhanded tactics of debate: conjure up the specter of Communism and the Big Boss' of yore (or similar bogeymen) so that any argument made by the other side comes off sounding like a defense of those things. Plus, it should be noted, Blaska has not, as far as I'm aware, made any sound arguments, supported by facts and statistics, to support his anti-tax position. What was that he was just saying about substituting "brute noise in an attempt to intimidate"?

Blaska says he's a state employee himself, so there's some ground to stand on when he attempts to make his points. Of course, the invocation of Vicki McKenna as some kind of voice of reason hurts him more than anything, but still he, and others like him, have a great platform to put forth real ideas and try to improve the public discourse. Instead, he seems content to call names, make broad generalizations and skirt around the real issues (like, y'know, that whole "no man is an island" and "we need a friggen state budget" and "health care should be a right not a privilege" stuff).

So here's an idea, My Fellow Bloggers: try to inject some real content into your online musings. Better yet, try to then transfer that real content, those original ideas, into actual, real-life action. I'm fully applying this to myself--I need to do more than write and I know it. The first step that many of us are missing, though, is in learning how to have civil discourse with people who don't agree with us and not to lump them all into one identical group.

With role models like the empty talking heads we currently have on most cable news networks and syndicated talk shows, it's easy to see why the more local voices might be tempted to fall into fiery, no-substance rhetoric. But we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to rise above that type of easy pandering. And we need to start holding public voices to higher standards: if all you can do with your payed platform is snipe, then you don't deserve the space. It should be back to the proving grounds with you!