The Necropolitan Sentinel

chi per lungo silenzio parea fioco

New Details on Bradley-Prosser; Abrahamson, Bradley Sandbagged Majority

Oh, looky here:

According to sources familiar with the situation:

Four justices – Prosser, Michael Gableman, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler – were frustrated on June 13 that a decision putting in place Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to limit collective bargaining was not yet ready for release. The four made up the majority in the split decision, and they believed an agreement had been reached the Friday before to have the opinion ready to release on that day.

Walker’s fellow Republicans who run the Legislature had insisted they needed a decision from the court by June 14, when they were to take up the state budget.

About 6 p.m. on June 13, Prosser and the others walked together to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s office. She wasn’t there, so they went to Bradley’s office, where Abrahamson and Bradley were.

The encounter quickly grew heated and did not last long – perhaps 10 minutes in all.

Bradley’s chambers consist of three connected offices. Bradley and Abrahamson were in the office where Bradley herself works. The others were in a connecting room, with at least some of them positioned in the entryway into Bradley’s office.

They argued about when the decision would be released and their frustrations over what the majority considered delays.

Bradley asked Prosser to leave, but he did not and the justices continued to argue. Abrahamson said she did not know when her opinion would be ready, saying it might take a month.

Prosser then told Abrahamson – with whom he has often clashed publicly and privately – he’d lost faith in her leadership. Bradley got close to Prosser and again demanded that he leave, with some sources saying she charged at him with her fists raised.

It is here that accounts differ most significantly, with some saying Prosser put his hands around Bradley’s neck and others saying Prosser touched her after raising his hands in defense or to push her back.

Bradley yelled for Prosser to get his hands off her neck or that she was being choked, sources said. Roggensack pulled the two apart.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks was not there at the time, making him the only justice who was not in the vicinity. It is unclear how many judicial assistants and law clerks may have seen or heard the incident.

The decision on collective bargaining was ultimately released the next day, June 14, allowing Walker’s plan to go into place. It goes into effect Wednesday.

[Image stolen with only a momentary pang of regret from Fair and Unbalanced]

Michelle Malkin: Obama Pal and Scammer Kevin Johnson Gets More AmeriCorps Loot

Wait, wasn’t he barred from receiving federal funds?

A prominent Democratic politician who had been banned from receiving federal aid three years ago over fraud charges is once again raking in government funds from the very same program he abused. It pays to be a FOTO — Friend of the Obamas.

Our publicly-subsidized con artist is Sacramento mayor and former NBA star Kevin Johnson. He donated the maximum individual amount to Obama for America, campaigned across the country for Obama in 2008, and bragged to California media during his mayoral run about his friendship and access to both Barack and Michelle Obama. The Obama administration’s Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) recently bestowed Johnson’s city with an AmeriCorps grant worth more than $650,000.

Oh, it’s for the children:

The money will flow into Sacramento’s “Get Fit Now! Initiative,” which will hire 124 AmeriCorps members “to teach fitness and nutrition education to children and offer adult fitness classes for their parents. They will also set up school-based gardens where children will learn how to grow fresh vegetables.”

They’ll also learn how to do things like wash Kevin Johnson’s car. If you’re fuzzy about the details, Michelle remembers them for you.

Hey, Obama remembers what it was like to pump his own gas. It’s not as though he’s out of touch, or anything.

Making Book on a Larry Flynt Bachmann Movie

I was looking at the Reclusive Leftist’s site, doing research for this post, when I noticed something interesting, off topic. She notices Matt Taibbi being interviewed on his Bachmann hit piece in Rolling Stone, (which I’ve made it a point to ignore) and commenting that he can’t wait to see the Bachmann-inspired porn movies.

Violet took offense at this, saying:

If you can’t criticize a woman’s politics without mentally subjecting her to the porn-film/inflatable-doll/nutcracker treatment, then you’re a goddamn sexist twit.

Offensive or not, it is a fact of life that Larry Flynt made a bundle off of his “Palin” movies, and if Bachmann’s candidacy continues to advance I can guarantee that a similar film will be produced about her. In fact, I’m so sure of this that I propose a pool as to

1. When such a movie is made/released (I suspect it is already in the “creative” phase” and is to be released in say April or May).

2. If such a movie will contain a Bachmann/Palin scene (I say that’s a 100% possibility).

The fact such a movie will almost certainly be made says something about our culture. That it was discussed on a national television/radio program concerning news says something much worse.

Update: This quote from Michelle Bachmann today is rather ironic:

“They want to see two girls come together and have a mud wrestling fight. And I’m not going to give it to ‘em.”

Can Bad Teacher Succeed Where Waiting for Superman Did Not?

That’s the question that Sean Higgins poses at American Spectator in a piece that gets linked immediately because it uses the word “scabrous.”

Last year, education reformers had high hopes for a documentary film called Waiting for “Superman.” With impeccable liberal credentials — it was made by the same people behind Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth — the film mercilessly highlighted failures of the American public school system.

It also systematically demolished the argument that the problem was underfunding and instead pointed the finger at government bureaucracy and the control teachers’ unions have over the system.

Hopes that the film would do Fahrenheit 9/11 numbers, though, were in vain. It pulled in about $6 million at the box office. That’s good for a documentary, but far less than the average horror flick or rom-com.

Whereas:

. . . where thoughtful, sober-minded commentary failed, savage mockery might succeed. Another film has hit the theaters and this one may have a far more potent effect on the education debate.

Bad Teacher took in $32 million last weekend and is certain to become a one of the summer’s biggest hits. That’s very bad news for defenders of the educational status quo like American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. This black comedy is the most scabrous portrayal of public education ever put to celluloid.

Here’s the key point:

It is a tribute to the talents of [Cameron] Diaz and the filmmakers that they actually manage to get you rooting for this horrible person. But the fact that the public is ready to accept such a portrayal no doubt played a part as well.

In 2007, leading up to the 2008 election, Hollywood bombarded us with films about the killbot American soldier raping, pillaging and murdering civilians in far away lands where the US had no business being, and almost all of them fell flat. In order to drive the country toward socialized medicine, the MSM did a 180° turn-around from the Marcus Welby depiction of doctors. Movies and MSM narratives idolized investigative journalists and their sources as civic-minded people shocked, horrified and disgusted with the evil machinations of conservatives and free marketers that they uncovered, much to their imminent peril. The was a Bush assassination film that was a liberal wet dream.

But as FLOTUS recently acknowledged, the MSM journos and their editors played a central role in getting Obama elected, by reporting only what was helpful to him, unless, as in the case of the Jeremiah Wright debacle, the bloggers managed to call so much attention to a scandal that it could no longer be ignored. The New York Times deliberately buried the story of Obama’s felonious use of ACORN as a campaign arm. Chris Matthews openly asserted that it was his job to help Obama to achieve his agenda, and wasn’t rebuked by his network for saying so. The degree to which MSM news outlets permitted the Obama campaign to bury information that they went out of their way to dig up before is notorious.

They took a risk. In their arrogance, they believed that the transformational rhetoric Obama spewed would lead to the liberal sociopolitical paradise that they’d been pushing for for decades, and that by the time June 29, 2011 rolled around a grateful populace would strew petals before them for helping give them the government that they were too stupid to realize they wanted. Only it didn’t work out that way.

Obama’s favorables have been dropping like a stone. Bounces from events such as the killing of bin Laden can be measured in weeks. The percentage of Americans who believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction is higher than it was at the tail end of Bush’s second term, when the economy had already tanked. Public approval toward Congress has reached historic lows, but politicians and journalists rank neck-in-neck in many indices of public trust.

More and more papers and magazines have gone out of business, and in their rush to try to regain relevancy, AOL, once the proud purchasers of Time-Warner’s fabulous motherlode of “content,” went out and bought the HuffPo and its uncompensated workforce for over $300 million. They were crazy to pay that much, but one side of the equation they got right: journalism isn’t a profession, and it hasn’t been for awhile in the US.

Oh, I’m not saying that there aren’t some excellent journalists out there. There are. There are intelligent people who take their job seriously and are willing to work to get their scoops, who go where their evidence takes them, who put themselves in harm’s way to get the story, who stand up to their editors, who are willing to go to jail rather than surrender their sources. But there are also a significant number of them who are so lazy and misinformed, and so certain of their intellectual superiority, that they give journalism a bad name. If education were a profession, bad teachers would be brought before boards and stripped of their standing for malpractice; if journalism were a profession, pretentious and incompetent hacks like Time Chief Editor Richard Stengel would be typing up classified.

They don’t realize yet just how much their complicity in electing Obama has undermined their authority, and undoubtedly we will have to regurgitate all of their idiocies from the 2008 election cycle over the coming months, just to remind casual consumers of information, but they’re clearly up to their old tricks, as witnessed by their treatment to date of Bachmann. The time has come to put a fork in them, because, as Da Techguy says, they’ll just go on Weinering themselves.

Connecticut Governor Axing 5500 State Jobs

But Scott Walker is EEEEVIL:

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy announced Tuesday he will seek to fire 5,500 state employees and leave 1,000 vacancies unfilled after public employee unions rejected a $1.6 billion concession plan.

While a majority of state employees voted to accept a wage freeze in exchange for a guarantee of no layoffs, the vote failed last week when it did not have the majority support of 14 of 15 employee unions.

Over 1,000 of the job cuts will come from the state Department of Corrections, the Hartford Courant reported, with nearly a quarter of positions in the Department of Transportation eliminated.

The plan comes amid news that Moody’s lowered its outlook for the state’s bond rating — which dropped to Aa2 last year due to excessive borrowing and unfunded pension obligations.

Judicial Watch Sues DoJ for Withholding Documents Regarding Decision Not To Prosecute CAIR

Via Larwyn’s Links:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) for failing to respond to its request for public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 11-01121)). The documents relate to a decision by the DOJ not to prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its cofounder Omar Ahmad, who has been linked by federal investigators to the terrorist group Hamas. The decision not to prosecute reportedly was made over the objections of special agents of the FBI and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas.


Bill Wineke “Slimes” Ann Althouse: The Bradley v. Prosser Scandal

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, capital-V Victim.

The good Professor has a nice, long takedown of a sleazy Madison, WI “journalist” that you should read in full. But below you’ll find the appetizer portion.

Althouse’s analysis seems to rest to some degree on the notion that the lefty bloggers are operating on chivalry/reverse sexism, and somehow expected Prosser to block alleged blows from Justice Bradley (or, perhaps, not block them at all!) without touching the female Justice’s neck.

This, published at channel3000, is so lame I hate to send it any traffic, but I want you to see the kind of thing that passes for mainstream media commentary in this town:

In one narrative, Bradley rushed Prosser with her fists up and Prosser managed to touch her neck while defending himself. It is, my colleagues in the press now say, a classic “he said/she said” controversy. No, it’s not. It is a controversy only if Prosser’s hands were nowhere near Bradley’s neck. I mean, come on!

There follows a tirade about what we teach our sons about violence against women, as if, in a face to face physical encounter, the man is always wrong. So, as a woman in the work place, can I get right up in any man’s face, get as angry as I want, shake his fist right by his big old glasses, and the moment he flinches, if his hand touches me, I get to shout “violence against women” and he’s the one who’s screwed? As a feminist, I would just love to have power like that. That’s sarcasm, I hope you’re not too far gone to realize.

What I want, and what I think good feminists should want, is to be treated as an equal in a sane workplace, where nobody gets in anybody’s face, and nobody thinks they can taunt or threaten or hit — or choke! — anybody. Ironically, Wineke is spouting sexism. If men and women are really governed by such different standards, that would be sex discrimination. And on the whole, it would hurt the advancement of women in the workplace. We are not fragile flowers in need of old-school chivalry. If we were, it would justify discrimination.

You would tell your own son that if his hands touched the neck of a girl — no matter what the cause — he would be in big, big trouble. Big, big trouble.

He’s right that the boy would be in trouble, but that doesn’t make it obvious that the boy would always be wrong. In fact, most men are so familiar with that form of trouble that they resist responding physically to any physical aggression by a woman. It’s one thing to warn a man in advance that he’d better be aware of the trouble that may follow if he’s laid hands on a woman, quite another to enthuse over punishing any man who is accused. What matters is the truth.

And if your son’s defense was that he wasn’t trying to choke the woman but just defending himself by putting his hands around her neck? You know what you would say.

Of course, that’s not what everyone says.

For example, Professor Ann Althouse, of the University of Wisconsin Law School, a distinguished, tenured, named professor on the Madison campus, published a blog entry over the weekend suggesting the real culprit here is the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism for publishing the story in the first place and for not discovering the alternative narrative.

In fact, she says, it may be Bradley who should be investigated, perhaps arrested, perhaps thrown off the bench.

He doesn’t link to the post or quote it. Not surprising, considering how much he distorts it. (When did I say Bradley should be “perhaps arrested”?!) (Here‘s the post he didn’t bother to represent with any precision. Here‘s my follow-up post which he also might be referring to.)

Notice the sleazy sleight of hand in that question above. He’s got “your son’s… hands around her neck” — not merely making contact with the neck of a woman who thrust herself into the place where he’d flung his hands defensively. Wineke is assuming a set of facts — hands around her neck — and saying in that situation, you wouldn’t defend your son. Actually, there are some situations in which you clearly would defend your son, even if his hands were “around” her neck. Picture a woman larger than your son, pinning him down, choking him.

But of course, this isn’t all a gender-relations issue, because if Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin had charged someone with their fists raised, there would not be this notion that the blows must be blocked without making contact with the woman’s neck at all. (And the idea that one can defend oneself against strikes without touching the assailant’s neck is honestly bizarre anyway.)

Some of this, in short, has less to do with the male-female double standard than it has to do with the liberal-conservative double standard.

This is, by the way, the fullest account we have of what actually happened:

Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.

As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

Tim Pawlenty: The U.S. Should Have an Assertive Foreign Policy

Aaron Blake at WaPo:

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty attempted to separate himself from his fellow Republicans presidential hopefuls Tuesday in a speech that laid out an active and aggressive foreign policy vision with particular emphasis on the Middle East. Pawlenty, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, criticized some in his party who have tended toward a more isolationist stance, particularly when it comes to the war in Afghanistan.

“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal,” Pawlenty said, alluding, presumably, to Democrats. “It does not need a second one.” While Pawlenty named no names, the target of his comments were clear: former governors Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Jon Huntsman (Utah). Huntsman, in particular, has come out in favor of a more rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan than even the one that President Obama laid out last week.

Romney raised eyebrows in a presidential debate two weeks ago when he said that the war in Afghanistan shows the United States “cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.” His campaign has since rejected the idea that he has moved toward isolationism.

Pawlenty is wasting no time, however, in trying to cast himself as the leading hawk among the top tier presidential candidates. And, even putting aside his stance on Afghanistan, Pawlenty is going far further than many of his Republican rivals have been prepared to go..

In his speech Tuesday, Pawlenty struck an aggressive tone about the U.S. role in the international community. He suggested that the United States should push for regime change in several countries in the greater Middle East and North Africa, including Libya and Syria, and that it needs to push allies like Saudi Arabia to treat religious minorities and women better.

He criticized the Obama Administration for not doing enough to be on the right side of political change in Egypt and Iran; Egypt, like Saudi Arabia, has been a U.S. ally.

AllahP at Hot Air, however, is justifiably curious about T-Paw’s odd stance on Libya and the War Powers Act. In a way, it’s an academic discussion, since Pawlenty also says he would consult with Congress in a conflict of this magnitude. Yet unless this position is based on skepticism of the War Powers’ constitutionality in the first place, it’s a weird intellectual space Gov. Tim occupies.

He’ll consult with the legislature, just to be a stand-up guy, but he’s conspicuously silent about seeking their approval. In which case, is he saying that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and therefore no war requires congressional authorization, or is he saying that it is constitutional but this war doesn’t require authorization? I can understand if it’s the former insofar as he’s a would-be executive seeking to maximize his warmaking prerogative and a would-be nominee seeking to define himself as the true hawk in an increasingly dovish field. But in that case, someone really needs to press him on what he thinks Article I means when it grants Congress the power to declare war. If instead he means merely that the WPA doesn’t apply to Libya, then I’m anxious to hear why he thinks this war merits some special exemption.