DEVELOPING NOW: SEIU MAN TALKED POLITICS ON LABOR DAY!
Local 48 official also ate fish fries, fixed lawnmower on weekends
Yesterday a fake comment, falsely attributed to "capper" a.k.a. Chris Liebenthal, was published on Charlie Sykes's blog, which is hosted by Journal Broadcast Group, the AM squawk radio division of Journal Communications, Inc. over which top howler Charlie Sykes presides.
It was time-stamped 12:06 p.m. Naturally this led to another succession of baseless and histrionic speculation among Sykes's disciples as to what Chris was getting up to at work and elsewhere.
Sykes is currently alone among the "lamestream media" in helping publicize the hapless allegations of wrongdoing lodged against Chris.
At the moment the bogus comment is still on full display at the Charlie Sykes-Journal Broadcast Group's website, except now it's time-stamped 5:06 p.m.* We hereby demand an investigation.
Charlie Sykes had himself a grand old pants-wetting time Wednesday basking in glee at Chris's phony persecution. At the heart of a local nut-right outfit's attack against Chris are three or four of Chris's blog posts time-stamped while he was at home enjoying one of the many non-compensated days off he was treated to by Scott Walker (co-incidentally Charlie Sykes's fair-haired boy and Chris's nemesis).
This is evidence. Clearly, the DA ought to seize Sykes's computer.
Signed,
Guardians of First Amendment Journamalism
Chas. Sykes Pulitzer-nominating Committee
See also: Jay Bullock, Destroyer of "Evidences."**
* It's not the first time Charlie Sykes's slavish devotees have hijacked Chris's online ID and persona. And in an earlier instance, it was none other than ... Charlie Sykes who was right in the thick of it, falsely attributing to Chris statements that Chris had never made.
** And, on a couple of those other days, fierce blizzards blew into Milwaukee, Wisconsin. One was described as the equivalent of a Category 2 hurricane. What is all of this other than a sleazy witch hunt, with the reliable groundfish Charlie Sykes goading it along.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query charlie sykes. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query charlie sykes. Sort by date Show all posts
June 17, 2010
April 18, 2011
For it was I, Sykes, who won the Supreme Court
At least that's what the medium wave howler is claiming here.*
Sad, in a way.
What is sad, though, is Sykes's mincing triumphalism, because what he doesn't tell you is that if his special theory has validity, then the dissembling shouter managed to impede Justice Prosser's progress in almost every single one of the Wisconsin counties he mentions, by:
The only place which Charlie Sykes mentions that Justice Prosser didn't lose major ground during his springtime political campaign was Sheboygan County, where the politically conservative jurisprude held 'er to 63%. Journal Communications, Inc. counts ShebCo. as being within its "listening area," but maybe not so much after all.
And it's noteworthy that Sykes doesn't mention Kenosha County, equally within Sykes's 620 kHz calls-to-prayer, where Kloppenburg gained so many points (nine), she managed to wrest Prosser's victory in the primary clean from his learned hands (he went from 56% to 47%). Apparently that's a mite too inconvenient for Charlie Sykes's theory which, as noted above, is a "special" and not "general" theory.
"Special," as in, just like the theory's fabricator. Besides, ShebCo. has (mercifully) a pantload of alternatives to Sykes, as it's a wee bit closer to the considerable Green Bay market than it is to Milwaukee.
Sykes's ultimately self-defeating sense of false pride (Jeez, doesn't anybody around here read the Book of Proverbs anymore?) is part of the narrative that insists Scott Walker is super-beloved and Prosser's unimpressive 0.488603046756558% margin of victory is a resounding validation of all things conservative, Republican, and possibly even Ayn Randian (except for that bit about abortion. Oh, and Proverbs).
Charlie Sykes's right-hand wing-nut** media compadre and widely respected academic heavyweight Richard Esenberg has — naturally — taken to its weak peddling as well, albeit even less coherently. Prof. "Shark" dismisses a certain argument as "not being helpful" in spite of neither being able to bring himself to link to the argument's source nor even come close to explaining why exactly it is "not helpful."
I mean, obviously, it's not helpful to him. We knew that ages ago.
* Although the poor sod can't even manage to get his raw numbers correct. AAG JoAnne Kloppenburg won 8296 votes in Ozaukee County, not 8246 (and Charlie Sykes actually lives in Ozaukee County).
** Or is it right-wing hand-nut.
P.S. Charlie Sykes didn't win a Pulitzer Prize again today.
eta: Jay Bullock on Sykes's baseless self-aggrandizement habit.
Sad, in a way.
So you could argue that Kloppenburg lost the election not in Waukesha, but in Milwaukee County, which failed to deliver her the votes she needed. — JRN marquee talent Charlie SykesI guess you could, as that's what I've been saying since February 16.
What is sad, though, is Sykes's mincing triumphalism, because what he doesn't tell you is that if his special theory has validity, then the dissembling shouter managed to impede Justice Prosser's progress in almost every single one of the Wisconsin counties he mentions, by:
Milwaukee: 11 pointsThat's how much Prosser conceded, between the general election on April 5 and the primary election on February 15, which is when Sykes commenced his 50K-watt campaign of ludicrous propagandas.
Racine: 6 points
Waukesha: 8 points
Washington: 5 points
Ozaukee: 9 points
Dodge: 11 points
Fond Du Lac: 11 points
Jefferson: 10 points
Walworth: 4 points
The only place which Charlie Sykes mentions that Justice Prosser didn't lose major ground during his springtime political campaign was Sheboygan County, where the politically conservative jurisprude held 'er to 63%. Journal Communications, Inc. counts ShebCo. as being within its "listening area," but maybe not so much after all.
And it's noteworthy that Sykes doesn't mention Kenosha County, equally within Sykes's 620 kHz calls-to-prayer, where Kloppenburg gained so many points (nine), she managed to wrest Prosser's victory in the primary clean from his learned hands (he went from 56% to 47%). Apparently that's a mite too inconvenient for Charlie Sykes's theory which, as noted above, is a "special" and not "general" theory.
"Special," as in, just like the theory's fabricator. Besides, ShebCo. has (mercifully) a pantload of alternatives to Sykes, as it's a wee bit closer to the considerable Green Bay market than it is to Milwaukee.
Sykes's ultimately self-defeating sense of false pride (Jeez, doesn't anybody around here read the Book of Proverbs anymore?) is part of the narrative that insists Scott Walker is super-beloved and Prosser's unimpressive 0.488603046756558% margin of victory is a resounding validation of all things conservative, Republican, and possibly even Ayn Randian (except for that bit about abortion. Oh, and Proverbs).
Charlie Sykes's right-hand wing-nut** media compadre and widely respected academic heavyweight Richard Esenberg has — naturally — taken to its weak peddling as well, albeit even less coherently. Prof. "Shark" dismisses a certain argument as "not being helpful" in spite of neither being able to bring himself to link to the argument's source nor even come close to explaining why exactly it is "not helpful."
I mean, obviously, it's not helpful to him. We knew that ages ago.
* Although the poor sod can't even manage to get his raw numbers correct. AAG JoAnne Kloppenburg won 8296 votes in Ozaukee County, not 8246 (and Charlie Sykes actually lives in Ozaukee County).
** Or is it right-wing hand-nut.
P.S. Charlie Sykes didn't win a Pulitzer Prize again today.
eta: Jay Bullock on Sykes's baseless self-aggrandizement habit.
January 26, 2009
Sykes's pandering hypocrisy, again
So local medium wave radio squawker Charlie Sykes is now storming his troopers into yet another dither against District I Court of Appeals Judge Joan F. Kessler over a ruling she and her colleagues made in 2007 that was reversed by the State Supreme Court last June.
The case concerned the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained through a surreptitious recording, the purely legal question being whether the recording constituted "oral communication" for the purposes of Wisconsin's Electronic Surveillance Control Law, which embodies a number of principles related to the right to privacy.
What Charlie Sykes doesn't tell you is that the defendant's initial motion to suppress the evidence so obtained was granted by the trial court judge, who subsequently reversed his own self after prosecutors refined their arguments in further motions.
The latter reversal by the trial court judge of his own original disposition was overturned by the District I Court of Appeals. It in turn was reversed by the Supreme Court, all of which might give even the casual observer some remote inkling of the highly technical, contentious nature of the fundamental legal questions at issue.
But I'd wager that Sykes & Co. would likely prefer not to draw any attention to the following illuminating tidbit from Judge Kessler's opinion, which appears toward the end of its fairly exhaustive 32-page analysis:
Could it be because the trial court judge was Michael B. Brennan, a prominent member of the Federalist Society and who, along with Sykes himself, has been a harsh critic** of "activist liberal judges"?
(The June '08 incarnation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court included both Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and perennial Sykes target-of-absurdist-fallacies Justice Louis B. Butler, by the way.)
Unfortunately, the underlying facts of this case revolve around the unquestionably reprehensible behavior of a public school bus driver toward a special-needs child. And the bus driver eventually pleaded guilty to felony (i.e., prison-eligible) child abuse, so the admissibility of the contested evidence at trial became a moot question anyway.
Judge Brennan (since returned to private practice) pronounced on the defendant all of six months in the Milwaukee County House of Correction and a few years of probation. A prison sentence was imposed but stayed, pending the defendant's satisfactory performance on extended supervision in the community.
As Charlie Sykes and his fellow travelers among the politically conservative intelligentsia [sic] will eagerly tell you, the particular personal circumstances of the parties should never be an issue, only the "plain language of the law," right? Uh huh. Sure thing.
Except, of course, when those circumstances conveniently lend themselves to fomenting cheap manufactured outrage among one's hysterically emotive fan base — that is, the ones who elect appellate judges without having the slightest clue as to what the job entails.
And why is there no commensurate antidote to Charlie Sykes's 50,000-watt opéra bouffe in this fine city? It certainly deserves one.
* Motion hearing, 09-03-2003, Branch 15.
** Compare Judge Brennan's considerably more thoughtful evaluations with Charlie Sykes & followers' invective-laden hyperventilating.
eta: More from Super Id.
The case concerned the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained through a surreptitious recording, the purely legal question being whether the recording constituted "oral communication" for the purposes of Wisconsin's Electronic Surveillance Control Law, which embodies a number of principles related to the right to privacy.
What Charlie Sykes doesn't tell you is that the defendant's initial motion to suppress the evidence so obtained was granted by the trial court judge, who subsequently reversed his own self after prosecutors refined their arguments in further motions.
The latter reversal by the trial court judge of his own original disposition was overturned by the District I Court of Appeals. It in turn was reversed by the Supreme Court, all of which might give even the casual observer some remote inkling of the highly technical, contentious nature of the fundamental legal questions at issue.
But I'd wager that Sykes & Co. would likely prefer not to draw any attention to the following illuminating tidbit from Judge Kessler's opinion, which appears toward the end of its fairly exhaustive 32-page analysis:
Consequently, we agree with the trial court's original conclusion* that [the defendant] had an objectively reasonable expectation that his communication with [the victim] would not be intercepted.I wonder why that is.
Could it be because the trial court judge was Michael B. Brennan, a prominent member of the Federalist Society and who, along with Sykes himself, has been a harsh critic** of "activist liberal judges"?
(The June '08 incarnation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court included both Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and perennial Sykes target-of-absurdist-fallacies Justice Louis B. Butler, by the way.)
Unfortunately, the underlying facts of this case revolve around the unquestionably reprehensible behavior of a public school bus driver toward a special-needs child. And the bus driver eventually pleaded guilty to felony (i.e., prison-eligible) child abuse, so the admissibility of the contested evidence at trial became a moot question anyway.
Judge Brennan (since returned to private practice) pronounced on the defendant all of six months in the Milwaukee County House of Correction and a few years of probation. A prison sentence was imposed but stayed, pending the defendant's satisfactory performance on extended supervision in the community.
As Charlie Sykes and his fellow travelers among the politically conservative intelligentsia [sic] will eagerly tell you, the particular personal circumstances of the parties should never be an issue, only the "plain language of the law," right? Uh huh. Sure thing.
Except, of course, when those circumstances conveniently lend themselves to fomenting cheap manufactured outrage among one's hysterically emotive fan base — that is, the ones who elect appellate judges without having the slightest clue as to what the job entails.
And why is there no commensurate antidote to Charlie Sykes's 50,000-watt opéra bouffe in this fine city? It certainly deserves one.
* Motion hearing, 09-03-2003, Branch 15.
** Compare Judge Brennan's considerably more thoughtful evaluations with Charlie Sykes & followers' invective-laden hyperventilating.
eta: More from Super Id.
May 6, 2008
Open letter to Mr. Wyn Becker
May 6, 2008
American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances
2404 W. Beltline Hwy.
Madison, WI 53713
Attn: Mr. Wyn Becker
Vice President-Advertising
Dear Mr. Becker,
I couldn't help but notice your e-mail of May 5 to Milwaukee radio "personality" Charlie Sykes announcing your intention to disassociate American's corporate self from the July 24 appearance of humorist Bill Maher in our fair city. I'm writing to express my disappointment that your firm so quickly buckled under to the claimed offense taken by so few politically motivated and highly disingenuous individuals.
Several months ago, Mr. Sykes embroiled himself in a controversy over the "Coexist" bumper stickers. Perhaps you've seen them around town. The word "Coexist" is spelled out in a pictogram, using a variety of religious symbols. An area man devised a "parody" of the bumper sticker which, among other things, replaced the Jewish Star of David with a Nazi Swastika and the Crescent of Islam with the Soviet Hammer and Sickle.
Mr. Sykes published the "parody" bumper sticker on his website, which is maintained by Journal Communications, Inc. A number of individuals and groups, most notably the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee, took issue with the said "parody." Mr. Sykes, however, expended a considerable amount of resources in defending the "parody," going so far as to label it a work of "genius" and to cry righteously in favor of the parodist's — and his own — right to unfettered expression, regardless of the offense caused.
You may know by now that the entire Bill Maher "controversy" was manufactured by a Marquette University professor by the name of John McAdams. Prof. McAdams writes an internet journal, where he affords us the opportunity to gain insight into his fevered thought processes.
It's fair to say that Prof. McAdams is extremely intolerant of his political opponents, and especially against those who he only imagines to be his nemeses. He's actually something of an unintentional joke to many of us who follow the Wisconsin "blogosphere." To be sure, nowhere near as funny and incisive as
Bill Maher, but moderately entertaining on occasion.
In short, Prof. McAdams is a notorious local crank.
After Prof. McAdams learned of Mr. Maher's engagement at Milwaukee's historic Riverside Theatre, he became quite personally disconsolate, and published a series of scurrilous and unsupportable accusations against Mr. Maher. Some of us were puzzled by Prof. McAdams's initial reaction.
Among the reasons we were puzzled is that only days prior to becoming upset by Mr. Maher's Riverside Theatre engagement, Prof. McAdams had adamantly defended the Milwaukee appearance of another somewhat controversial figure, David Horowitz, a harsh critic of both U.S. academia (as is Prof. McAdams) and certain aspects of the Islamic religion (as is Prof. McAdams).
David Horowitz spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. When some Muslim students at UWM criticized Mr. Horowitz for offending their religious beliefs, Prof. McAdams, on his weblog, arbitrarily and capriciously brushed aside the students' concerns, suggesting that their offense was merely feigned.
Prof. McAdams also took issue with some vocal demonstrators who attended Mr. Horowitz's speech, and has since erratically and irresponsibly (and, of course, ironically) accused "leftists" of being "authoritarians who want to shut up speech they disagree with."
But then Prof. McAdams found two or three far-right websites containing a number of statements made by Mr. Maher on the subject of religion (Mr. Maher, like millions of other Americans, is not a fan), but removed from their original context in either comic monologues or conversations with his guests on his HBO program, Real Time with Bill Maher.
Prof. McAdams then claimed to be personally offended by those statements. Interestingly, since the statements referenced Prof. McAdams's own chosen religion, he was not so quick to dismiss his own reaction in the same manner he had dismissed those of the aforementioned Muslim students in reaction to David Horowitz.
Indeed, Prof. McAdams vigorously defended Mr. Horowitz's right to offend, just as Charlie Sykes had vigorously defended the offensive potential of the Nazi Swastika and the Soviet Hammer and Sickle (and in particular the substitution of the Nazi Swastika for the Jewish Star of David).
And it was from Prof. McAdams that Charlie Sykes learned of Prof. McAdams's baseless tirades against Bill Maher, whereupon Mr. Sykes reproduced Prof. McAdams's intemperate ravings at his own website, where they presumably found a marginally wider audience.
It's also worth noting that Prof. McAdams considered voicing his personal objections to the other sponsors of Mr. Maher's engagement, but ultimately determined that they would be unresponsive to his pleas. So he targeted his personal ire at American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances instead.
Prof. McAdams has taken it upon himself to decide what is and what is not appropriate speech, and even wrote that your company "ought to be more careful" about avoiding "embarrassment" if your company "wants to sell stuff to Christians." Perhaps I missed it, but I could find no evidence on your company's website that it specifically "wants to sell stuff to Christians."
I think you might also be interested in Prof. McAdams's characterization of your company and its employees — who, to my mind, are doubtless good and hard working people — that he expressed while determining his personal course of action, and just prior to receiving his personal satisfaction as expressed in your e-mail to Charlie Sykes.
Prof. McAdams compared your firm's sponsorship of Mr. Maher's engagement to its supporting "a Klan rally" and claimed that American was "either stupid or bigoted against Christians." So he quite obviously could not have thought very highly of your company to begin with. I seriously doubt whether you or your employees are "either stupid or bigoted against Christians."
As for myself, I had thought highly of your company. In fact I have made a number of substantial household purchases there, as have many of my friends and acquaintances. We have always been very satisfied with our purchases, and the kind service we received.
But if American is in the business of kowtowing to shamelessly hypocritical actors like Charlie Sykes and John McAdams, then we won't be shopping at American anymore.
Sincerely,
American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances
2404 W. Beltline Hwy.
Madison, WI 53713
Attn: Mr. Wyn Becker
Vice President-Advertising
Dear Mr. Becker,
I couldn't help but notice your e-mail of May 5 to Milwaukee radio "personality" Charlie Sykes announcing your intention to disassociate American's corporate self from the July 24 appearance of humorist Bill Maher in our fair city. I'm writing to express my disappointment that your firm so quickly buckled under to the claimed offense taken by so few politically motivated and highly disingenuous individuals.
Several months ago, Mr. Sykes embroiled himself in a controversy over the "Coexist" bumper stickers. Perhaps you've seen them around town. The word "Coexist" is spelled out in a pictogram, using a variety of religious symbols. An area man devised a "parody" of the bumper sticker which, among other things, replaced the Jewish Star of David with a Nazi Swastika and the Crescent of Islam with the Soviet Hammer and Sickle.
Mr. Sykes published the "parody" bumper sticker on his website, which is maintained by Journal Communications, Inc. A number of individuals and groups, most notably the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee, took issue with the said "parody." Mr. Sykes, however, expended a considerable amount of resources in defending the "parody," going so far as to label it a work of "genius" and to cry righteously in favor of the parodist's — and his own — right to unfettered expression, regardless of the offense caused.
You may know by now that the entire Bill Maher "controversy" was manufactured by a Marquette University professor by the name of John McAdams. Prof. McAdams writes an internet journal, where he affords us the opportunity to gain insight into his fevered thought processes.
It's fair to say that Prof. McAdams is extremely intolerant of his political opponents, and especially against those who he only imagines to be his nemeses. He's actually something of an unintentional joke to many of us who follow the Wisconsin "blogosphere." To be sure, nowhere near as funny and incisive as
Bill Maher, but moderately entertaining on occasion.
In short, Prof. McAdams is a notorious local crank.
After Prof. McAdams learned of Mr. Maher's engagement at Milwaukee's historic Riverside Theatre, he became quite personally disconsolate, and published a series of scurrilous and unsupportable accusations against Mr. Maher. Some of us were puzzled by Prof. McAdams's initial reaction.
Among the reasons we were puzzled is that only days prior to becoming upset by Mr. Maher's Riverside Theatre engagement, Prof. McAdams had adamantly defended the Milwaukee appearance of another somewhat controversial figure, David Horowitz, a harsh critic of both U.S. academia (as is Prof. McAdams) and certain aspects of the Islamic religion (as is Prof. McAdams).
David Horowitz spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. When some Muslim students at UWM criticized Mr. Horowitz for offending their religious beliefs, Prof. McAdams, on his weblog, arbitrarily and capriciously brushed aside the students' concerns, suggesting that their offense was merely feigned.
Prof. McAdams also took issue with some vocal demonstrators who attended Mr. Horowitz's speech, and has since erratically and irresponsibly (and, of course, ironically) accused "leftists" of being "authoritarians who want to shut up speech they disagree with."
But then Prof. McAdams found two or three far-right websites containing a number of statements made by Mr. Maher on the subject of religion (Mr. Maher, like millions of other Americans, is not a fan), but removed from their original context in either comic monologues or conversations with his guests on his HBO program, Real Time with Bill Maher.
Prof. McAdams then claimed to be personally offended by those statements. Interestingly, since the statements referenced Prof. McAdams's own chosen religion, he was not so quick to dismiss his own reaction in the same manner he had dismissed those of the aforementioned Muslim students in reaction to David Horowitz.
Indeed, Prof. McAdams vigorously defended Mr. Horowitz's right to offend, just as Charlie Sykes had vigorously defended the offensive potential of the Nazi Swastika and the Soviet Hammer and Sickle (and in particular the substitution of the Nazi Swastika for the Jewish Star of David).
And it was from Prof. McAdams that Charlie Sykes learned of Prof. McAdams's baseless tirades against Bill Maher, whereupon Mr. Sykes reproduced Prof. McAdams's intemperate ravings at his own website, where they presumably found a marginally wider audience.
It's also worth noting that Prof. McAdams considered voicing his personal objections to the other sponsors of Mr. Maher's engagement, but ultimately determined that they would be unresponsive to his pleas. So he targeted his personal ire at American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances instead.
Prof. McAdams has taken it upon himself to decide what is and what is not appropriate speech, and even wrote that your company "ought to be more careful" about avoiding "embarrassment" if your company "wants to sell stuff to Christians." Perhaps I missed it, but I could find no evidence on your company's website that it specifically "wants to sell stuff to Christians."
I think you might also be interested in Prof. McAdams's characterization of your company and its employees — who, to my mind, are doubtless good and hard working people — that he expressed while determining his personal course of action, and just prior to receiving his personal satisfaction as expressed in your e-mail to Charlie Sykes.
Prof. McAdams compared your firm's sponsorship of Mr. Maher's engagement to its supporting "a Klan rally" and claimed that American was "either stupid or bigoted against Christians." So he quite obviously could not have thought very highly of your company to begin with. I seriously doubt whether you or your employees are "either stupid or bigoted against Christians."
As for myself, I had thought highly of your company. In fact I have made a number of substantial household purchases there, as have many of my friends and acquaintances. We have always been very satisfied with our purchases, and the kind service we received.
But if American is in the business of kowtowing to shamelessly hypocritical actors like Charlie Sykes and John McAdams, then we won't be shopping at American anymore.
Sincerely,
June 14, 2011
Shh! Charlie Sykes and the grown-ups are speaking
Actual "conversation" from Charlie Sykes's Sunday Insight, the weekend morning teevee show that Journal Communications, Inc. foists on unsuspecting Milwaukeeans as allegedly informed political commentary:
These people have a television show.*
Then Charlie Sykes turns to WPRI "senior fellow" Christian Schneider.
And obviously none of them can explain why the court will do what.
The end.
* Then again, so does this guy.
Charlie Sykes: What will they [the Wisconsin Supreme Court] do and when will they do it?The vehemence and alacrity with which Brian "Critical Thinking" Fraley speaks of "slapping down" a State judge almost makes you want to petition the DA for an investigation into conspiracy to commit battery. You really have to see it and hear it to believe it. Or not, so stupid is it.
Brian Fraley: Because it is imperative, that Judge Sumi gets slapped down. Because she acted without legal precedent, she doesn't have jurisdiction, and it's important that it's determined throughout the State that Dane County judges can't subvert the will of the Wisconsin legislature to follow its own rules and to follow the law. [smug face]
Sykes: What will happen and when will it happen?
Fraley: Uh, it will happen soon and I think that she will be slapped down and I think the law will be enforced.
These people have a television show.*
Then Charlie Sykes turns to WPRI "senior fellow" Christian Schneider.
Sykes: What is going to happen?Then Sykes says the Supreme Court will vacate the circuit court first thing Monday morning, which was yesterday, and which it didn't, and which chances now are nil, thanks to Sykes's dear friends the WISGOP.
Schneider: The Supreme Court's gonna vacate her, uh, her, uh, Judge Sumi's ruling and, uh, the law's gonna stand.
And obviously none of them can explain why the court will do what.
The end.
* Then again, so does this guy.
March 31, 2008
Help prevent a tragedy — I
I'm doing my part. And I'm not talking about this here blog, which has been pretty much devoted since December to debunking as many misrepresentations and falsehoods emanating from Burnett County conservative Republican Mike Gableman's election campaign and its supporters and professional apologists as was humanly possible.
Of course, some people are beyond all hope. An otherwise respectable local conservative blogger announced this morning he was voting for Gableman based on Gableman's "honesty." File that one under 'lost cause.'
Another said, 'I don't care if Louis Butler is a cross between Antonin Scalia and Solomon and Mike Gableman rode the short bus to Hamline Law School, I hate Jim Doyle so I'm voting Republican.' Parse that.
But I caught one yesterday, and in person. I have been teaching piano in Milwaukee two days a week for more than four years. A gentleman named James was my very first student here, and he's with me to this day. He's both highly motivated and dedicated, the perfect student. I can't recall him missing more than two or three appointments. I don't know all that much about James but I know he's a great guy, and he's becoming a pretty good pianist.
James, who I'm guessing is in his early 50s or so, had never played an instrument in his life before we met. He's long since taken to selecting his own music to read and learn on his own, often hymns that he plays at his church. (I had to encourage the hell out of him to do that, because he was nervous about performing in public, but I understand he's been a great success there.)
Lately we've been working at learning how to play out of what we call "fake books," which notate only the one-line melody of each tune, accompanied by chord symbols. They're a very basic representation of each song, and you need some theoretical and analytical skillz to realize each tune's performance. To my unending delight, James has taken a keen interest in music theory and jazz composition, two topics about which I could ramble on forever.
Whenever he starts learning a new piece from his fake book, he reads through the chord changes and marks each one with the Roman numerals musicians use to analyze the harmony. It's outstanding that he does this. James is one of my favorite piano students of all time, and I'm extremely, extremely proud of his achievements.
At the end of our weekly session yesterday, I told James to make sure he votes on Tuesday. He turned to me and said, "Oh, don't worry, I can't wait to vote against Louis Butler."
"Wait a minute, James," I said, "What?" And I am not exaggerating much when I say that James told me that Justice Butler was dedicated to shutting down all business activity in the State of Wisconsin and releasing every child molester onto the streets.
"James," I asked, knowing full well the answer, "Where in the world are you hearing this stuff?" "Charlie Sykes," came the depressingly predictable reply. "Hang on James," I said, and went to see my next waiting student to refund his money, because I was going to be a few minutes. Fortunately that young fellow travels with James, a really cool kid who I think some friends at James's church have adopted.
"Okay, James," I said, returning to my studio and closing the soundproof door, because I anticipated doing some yelling. "Tell me exactly what you've heard Charlie Sykes saying about Louis Butler. Everything."
I must say James had learned quite a bit from Charlie Sykes, and described some of the details of several of the cases Justice Butler has participated in fairly accurately. James was also disturbed by Sykes's incessant and idiotic harping at Justice Butler's ancient and complimentary nickname, earned more than two decades ago in a completely different context and capacity.
For the next 25 minutes I carefully debunked each and every one of Charlie Sykes's falsehoods. I talked about State v. Knapp. I talked about Butler's lone dissent in State v. Jensen and the likelihood of Butler's complete vindication by the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.
I talked about products liability, and how Americans at least deserve to have access to the courts to try and make their cases when manufacturers market consumer goods that cause people to be injured or killed. Those same businesses shouldn't be allowed to buy the courts, and voters like James can easily stop them.
Most importantly, however, I talked about the genius of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and specifically the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and how they afford protections to all Americans and not just to those under investigation and prosecution for crimes by the government.
I told him about Mike Gableman's campaign and, using a number of very specific examples, described to James that Gableman has been waging the most blatantly partisan and underhanded and despicable election campaign quite possibly in the history of Wisconsin.
It must have been a decent speech, because James left my studio promising to vote for Justice Butler and, almost equally importantly, against Mike Gableman. James trusts me, and he knows that I would never steer him wrong about the American system of constitutional democracy, and the role of the courts, and yes, even the role of public defenders in the adversarial legal scheme.
Because James knows I would never steer him wrong about music theory and harmony, so I certainly wouldn't bullshit him when it comes to the foundations of this ingenious and successful experiment in democracy and freedom.
Unlike Charlie Sykes, who would, and will, and does.
So, many thanks James, my man, and I'll see you next Sunday. Far from regretting the vote you cast tomorrow, you can be as justly proud of it as your touching version of Richard Rodgers' My Funny Valentine that you learned to play for your daughter when she was visiting from out of town that one time. Trust me on this, brother.
And a word for Charlie Sykes. I understand you're given to bellyaching about the state of education in this country. If you really do care for that, then you'd best stop poisoning the minds of my own most valued and decent students with your insidious, vicious lies.
Continued ...
Of course, some people are beyond all hope. An otherwise respectable local conservative blogger announced this morning he was voting for Gableman based on Gableman's "honesty." File that one under 'lost cause.'
Another said, 'I don't care if Louis Butler is a cross between Antonin Scalia and Solomon and Mike Gableman rode the short bus to Hamline Law School, I hate Jim Doyle so I'm voting Republican.' Parse that.
But I caught one yesterday, and in person. I have been teaching piano in Milwaukee two days a week for more than four years. A gentleman named James was my very first student here, and he's with me to this day. He's both highly motivated and dedicated, the perfect student. I can't recall him missing more than two or three appointments. I don't know all that much about James but I know he's a great guy, and he's becoming a pretty good pianist.
James, who I'm guessing is in his early 50s or so, had never played an instrument in his life before we met. He's long since taken to selecting his own music to read and learn on his own, often hymns that he plays at his church. (I had to encourage the hell out of him to do that, because he was nervous about performing in public, but I understand he's been a great success there.)
Lately we've been working at learning how to play out of what we call "fake books," which notate only the one-line melody of each tune, accompanied by chord symbols. They're a very basic representation of each song, and you need some theoretical and analytical skillz to realize each tune's performance. To my unending delight, James has taken a keen interest in music theory and jazz composition, two topics about which I could ramble on forever.
Whenever he starts learning a new piece from his fake book, he reads through the chord changes and marks each one with the Roman numerals musicians use to analyze the harmony. It's outstanding that he does this. James is one of my favorite piano students of all time, and I'm extremely, extremely proud of his achievements.
At the end of our weekly session yesterday, I told James to make sure he votes on Tuesday. He turned to me and said, "Oh, don't worry, I can't wait to vote against Louis Butler."
"Wait a minute, James," I said, "What?" And I am not exaggerating much when I say that James told me that Justice Butler was dedicated to shutting down all business activity in the State of Wisconsin and releasing every child molester onto the streets.
"James," I asked, knowing full well the answer, "Where in the world are you hearing this stuff?" "Charlie Sykes," came the depressingly predictable reply. "Hang on James," I said, and went to see my next waiting student to refund his money, because I was going to be a few minutes. Fortunately that young fellow travels with James, a really cool kid who I think some friends at James's church have adopted.
"Okay, James," I said, returning to my studio and closing the soundproof door, because I anticipated doing some yelling. "Tell me exactly what you've heard Charlie Sykes saying about Louis Butler. Everything."
I must say James had learned quite a bit from Charlie Sykes, and described some of the details of several of the cases Justice Butler has participated in fairly accurately. James was also disturbed by Sykes's incessant and idiotic harping at Justice Butler's ancient and complimentary nickname, earned more than two decades ago in a completely different context and capacity.
For the next 25 minutes I carefully debunked each and every one of Charlie Sykes's falsehoods. I talked about State v. Knapp. I talked about Butler's lone dissent in State v. Jensen and the likelihood of Butler's complete vindication by the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.
I talked about products liability, and how Americans at least deserve to have access to the courts to try and make their cases when manufacturers market consumer goods that cause people to be injured or killed. Those same businesses shouldn't be allowed to buy the courts, and voters like James can easily stop them.
Most importantly, however, I talked about the genius of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and specifically the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and how they afford protections to all Americans and not just to those under investigation and prosecution for crimes by the government.
I told him about Mike Gableman's campaign and, using a number of very specific examples, described to James that Gableman has been waging the most blatantly partisan and underhanded and despicable election campaign quite possibly in the history of Wisconsin.
It must have been a decent speech, because James left my studio promising to vote for Justice Butler and, almost equally importantly, against Mike Gableman. James trusts me, and he knows that I would never steer him wrong about the American system of constitutional democracy, and the role of the courts, and yes, even the role of public defenders in the adversarial legal scheme.
Because James knows I would never steer him wrong about music theory and harmony, so I certainly wouldn't bullshit him when it comes to the foundations of this ingenious and successful experiment in democracy and freedom.
Unlike Charlie Sykes, who would, and will, and does.
So, many thanks James, my man, and I'll see you next Sunday. Far from regretting the vote you cast tomorrow, you can be as justly proud of it as your touching version of Richard Rodgers' My Funny Valentine that you learned to play for your daughter when she was visiting from out of town that one time. Trust me on this, brother.
And a word for Charlie Sykes. I understand you're given to bellyaching about the state of education in this country. If you really do care for that, then you'd best stop poisoning the minds of my own most valued and decent students with your insidious, vicious lies.
Continued ...
March 24, 2008
Themes from The Blogfather
Sung to the tune of Speak Softly, Love:
As I mentioned yesterday, Marquette Law Professor Rick Esenberg invited us all to view his appearance on Milwaukee squawker Charlie Sykes's teevee program, Sunday INCITE! It's with great regret I now announce that I couldn't stand more than nine minutes of the show and switched back to the eminently more edifying Bret Michaels: Rock of Love.
Not because of Esenberg, mind you, although his efforts to equate the campaign of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler with that of Burnett County Judge Mike Gableman nearly made me spit my juice all over the copy of The Anarchist Cookbook* on my coffee table. More on that in another post.
Charles J. Sykes, in short, is a buffoon, a performing ape. During the mercifully brief discussion of the Supreme Court election, Sykes managed to refer to Gableman as "Michael Gableman" or "Mike Gableman." But Butler may only be "Loophole Louie." Charming.
First of all, Louis is pronounced like "Lewis." Justice Butler earned the nickname during his days as a State public defender. It's a lawyers' joke, an affectionate moniker containing a playfully needling element. More importantly, it's a compliment to Butler's skills as an attorney, which further contributes to Sykes's inadvertent clownishness that he insists on using it.
Years ago, when scientists, notably the astronomer Edwin Hubble, first observed that the universe is expanding, the resultant set of inferences earned the derision of Fred Hoyle, a British physicist who scornfully dubbed them the "Big Bang" theory. Bemused astronomers, knowing full well that Hoyle's characterization was meant as a put-down, adopted the term and now, of course, Hoyle has been decidedly proven wrong.
A similar principle inheres in Butler's ancient nickname which he earned, incidentally, 25 years ago. Sykes simply needs to get over it. Either that or put up some evidence that Butler has adjudicated like a public defender during his 16 years as a judge (longer than Gableman has been a lawyer), which is quite obviously why Sykes continues to use the nickname. Needless to say, Sykes, nor anyone else, is going to come up with that evidence.
However, since getting over it requires the condition precedent of Sykes getting over himself, it's not going to happen. In the meantime, everybody should just point and laugh at him, because obviously that's what he wants. What other explanation can there be?
Of course there are many other reasons to point and laugh at Sykes. He provided yet another yesterday, responding to an item by Daniel Bice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. It seems that a lawyer called John O'Connor, who is involved in a case currently before the State Supreme Court, recently donated to Butler's campaign.
Bice thinks this is "a funny thing," partly because Justice Butler recently took the extraordinary step of disclosing the information where campaign contributions came from parties with business before the court. It's funny, alright, but not for the reason Bice is implying. It's funny because of why O'Connor was moved to make the contributions:
Incidentally, Gableman's campaign website, under "Endorsements," still looks like this, as of this morning, despite DA Bauer's letter having appeared in print five days ago:
Sykes's response to Bice's item is also funny: "Justice for sale?" is the headline at Sykes's "blog," without the slightest hint of evidence as to whether the question is even called for, let alone the clear suggestion of impropriety on the part of Justice Butler. That headline, by the way, is Sykes's sole contribution to the discussion. Despite this, Sykes has earned his own nickname, "the blogfather," from some of his fawning acolytes on the right.
Why this is is a bit of a mystery, since Sykes's blog contains almost entirely copy-and-paste jobs from other blogs and the occasional YouTube clip of scantily-clad, booty-shaking females. (If Sykes does provide any meaningful public service at all, it's those.)
If you aren't pointing and laughing yet, I'll leave you with an example of Sykes's legal acumen, the substance of which practically precludes him from commenting on this Supreme Court race at all, except that would deprive us of grist for the comedy mill, and that's not such a good thing.
Some time ago at this blog, I discussed in some detail the case of State v. Knapp, which at one point was a centerpiece of the Gableman campaign. It appears to have been long since abandoned, perhaps because portrayals of the case by Gableman and his supporters were so embarrassingly misbegotten and just plain wrong.
In any event, Justice Butler himself discusses State v. Knapp during his interview with the Journal-Sentinel editorial board, which can be viewed by following this link. (It's excellent, by the way.)
I can't say whether J-S editorial board member Patrick McIlheran nodded off during that discussion too but if he did, he missed some good stuff. I say that because Butler's emphasis on the pertinent constitutional questions raised in Knapp was an almost direct reading of my original blog post. I flatter myself unwarrantedly to suggest that Justice Butler reads this blog — which I doubt — because, obviously, he wrote the opinion in Knapp.
Anyway, here's what Sykes had to say about Knapp (he does write his own stuff occasionally, in between shouting on the radio, just not at his blog):
Charlie Sykes, I'm told, is actually taken seriously among a certain local demographic, which is as much a mystery to me as was initially the red-shift of galaxies to Edwin Hubble. Hubble eventually figured it out, but I remain at a loss to explain Sykes's apparent popularity, aside from as, of course, an occasionally entertaining performing primate.
* Note to the DHS: That's a joke; living as I do a short skip from Taco Bell, I have no need for any cookbooks at all.
Squawk loudly, Sykes, I hold my sides before you speak— with sincere apologies to Larry Kusic and Nino Rota
We hear your words, the violent shakes reaching their peak
You're in your world
We rest assured
Sharing hip musings and the cant of Esenberg
As I mentioned yesterday, Marquette Law Professor Rick Esenberg invited us all to view his appearance on Milwaukee squawker Charlie Sykes's teevee program, Sunday INCITE! It's with great regret I now announce that I couldn't stand more than nine minutes of the show and switched back to the eminently more edifying Bret Michaels: Rock of Love.
Not because of Esenberg, mind you, although his efforts to equate the campaign of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler with that of Burnett County Judge Mike Gableman nearly made me spit my juice all over the copy of The Anarchist Cookbook* on my coffee table. More on that in another post.
Charles J. Sykes, in short, is a buffoon, a performing ape. During the mercifully brief discussion of the Supreme Court election, Sykes managed to refer to Gableman as "Michael Gableman" or "Mike Gableman." But Butler may only be "Loophole Louie." Charming.
First of all, Louis is pronounced like "Lewis." Justice Butler earned the nickname during his days as a State public defender. It's a lawyers' joke, an affectionate moniker containing a playfully needling element. More importantly, it's a compliment to Butler's skills as an attorney, which further contributes to Sykes's inadvertent clownishness that he insists on using it.
Years ago, when scientists, notably the astronomer Edwin Hubble, first observed that the universe is expanding, the resultant set of inferences earned the derision of Fred Hoyle, a British physicist who scornfully dubbed them the "Big Bang" theory. Bemused astronomers, knowing full well that Hoyle's characterization was meant as a put-down, adopted the term and now, of course, Hoyle has been decidedly proven wrong.
A similar principle inheres in Butler's ancient nickname which he earned, incidentally, 25 years ago. Sykes simply needs to get over it. Either that or put up some evidence that Butler has adjudicated like a public defender during his 16 years as a judge (longer than Gableman has been a lawyer), which is quite obviously why Sykes continues to use the nickname. Needless to say, Sykes, nor anyone else, is going to come up with that evidence.
However, since getting over it requires the condition precedent of Sykes getting over himself, it's not going to happen. In the meantime, everybody should just point and laugh at him, because obviously that's what he wants. What other explanation can there be?
Of course there are many other reasons to point and laugh at Sykes. He provided yet another yesterday, responding to an item by Daniel Bice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. It seems that a lawyer called John O'Connor, who is involved in a case currently before the State Supreme Court, recently donated to Butler's campaign.
Bice thinks this is "a funny thing," partly because Justice Butler recently took the extraordinary step of disclosing the information where campaign contributions came from parties with business before the court. It's funny, alright, but not for the reason Bice is implying. It's funny because of why O'Connor was moved to make the contributions:
O'Connor said the donations had nothing to do with his case. He said he gave after pro-Gableman ads "pissed me off beyond description."Who can blame him for that? It seems like an appropriate response to me, especially in light of our good friend, Dodge County District Attorney Steven G. Bauer's manifestly well considered decision to withdraw his endorsement for Mike Gableman who, as far as I'm concerned, can continue pissing lawyers off to his heart's content, if these are the effects.
Incidentally, Gableman's campaign website, under "Endorsements," still looks like this, as of this morning, despite DA Bauer's letter having appeared in print five days ago:
Sykes's response to Bice's item is also funny: "Justice for sale?" is the headline at Sykes's "blog," without the slightest hint of evidence as to whether the question is even called for, let alone the clear suggestion of impropriety on the part of Justice Butler. That headline, by the way, is Sykes's sole contribution to the discussion. Despite this, Sykes has earned his own nickname, "the blogfather," from some of his fawning acolytes on the right.
Why this is is a bit of a mystery, since Sykes's blog contains almost entirely copy-and-paste jobs from other blogs and the occasional YouTube clip of scantily-clad, booty-shaking females. (If Sykes does provide any meaningful public service at all, it's those.)
If you aren't pointing and laughing yet, I'll leave you with an example of Sykes's legal acumen, the substance of which practically precludes him from commenting on this Supreme Court race at all, except that would deprive us of grist for the comedy mill, and that's not such a good thing.
Some time ago at this blog, I discussed in some detail the case of State v. Knapp, which at one point was a centerpiece of the Gableman campaign. It appears to have been long since abandoned, perhaps because portrayals of the case by Gableman and his supporters were so embarrassingly misbegotten and just plain wrong.
In any event, Justice Butler himself discusses State v. Knapp during his interview with the Journal-Sentinel editorial board, which can be viewed by following this link. (It's excellent, by the way.)
I can't say whether J-S editorial board member Patrick McIlheran nodded off during that discussion too but if he did, he missed some good stuff. I say that because Butler's emphasis on the pertinent constitutional questions raised in Knapp was an almost direct reading of my original blog post. I flatter myself unwarrantedly to suggest that Justice Butler reads this blog — which I doubt — because, obviously, he wrote the opinion in Knapp.
Anyway, here's what Sykes had to say about Knapp (he does write his own stuff occasionally, in between shouting on the radio, just not at his blog):
What stunned the dissenters and many court watchers, however, was the court’s decision to ignore the specific decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case before it.Now this is beyond merely comical, it's demonstrably idiotic, and if you want to know why, go and read my original post. Or, obviously, watch the Butler interview (which you should do anyway).
Charlie Sykes, I'm told, is actually taken seriously among a certain local demographic, which is as much a mystery to me as was initially the red-shift of galaxies to Edwin Hubble. Hubble eventually figured it out, but I remain at a loss to explain Sykes's apparent popularity, aside from as, of course, an occasionally entertaining performing primate.
* Note to the DHS: That's a joke; living as I do a short skip from Taco Bell, I have no need for any cookbooks at all.
February 10, 2011
Charlie Sykes: Justice Prosser is a political phony
"Follow the logic."— Ancient WISGOP saying
Hypocrisy, Count I:
Plus two former executive branch officials — one is the ridiculously partisan operative Margaret Farrow — both of whom are Republicans.
Verdict: Prosser FTW.
Hypocrisy, Count II:
Verdict: Prosser FTW.
Hypocrisy, Count III:
Yet only days later, Justice Prosser told the same interviewer:
What he meant was he was not only a member of the Republican Party, he was a Republican legislator in the Wisconsin State Assembly for 18 years, including six as minority leader and two as speaker.
Moreover, exactly as fits Charlie Sykes & Co.'s groundless allegations of "political phoniness" and hypocrisy against Atty. Stephens, Justice Prosser went on to disassociate himself from those former political affiliations for the purposes of fair and impartial judging.
And rightly so, to the equal credit of both candidates.
Therefore those affirmations of impartiality made by both Justice Prosser and Atty. Stephens are identical, the only difference being Prosser having raised the issue without being urged to do so.
"Gone out of his way," to coin a phrase.
Verdict: Prosser FTW.
Finally:
It's abundantly clear who's pushing the dishonesty around here.
* a.k.a. the Fairness Doctrine.
** He also gave $500 to Shirley Abrahamson, which anybody who witnessed his fingerpointing mini-tirade toward the Chief Justice at last week's open administrative hearing might imagine he regrets.
Three more contributions totaling $650 were dispensed throughout 1997 and 1998 to former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson. Thompson appointed Prosser to the Supreme Court in late 1998.
The source for these figures is the same one as Sykes's "good catch."
Stephens has gone out of her way to define herself as the "open-minded" candidate . . . Her self-proclaimed "open mind" and "unbiased" approach ring hollow when viewed in the larger context of her actions. — Thus sayeth "a new group in town"Here's our medium wave squawker calling Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Marla Stephens "a political phony" because "a new group in town" has brought some really serious charges of hypocrisy! "Good catch," enthuses the local wing-nut "blogfather." Let's examine the record, before the EPA adds Sykes to its schedule of air pollutants.*
Hypocrisy, Count I:
Stephens released the names of thirteen former and current state legislators who have endorsed her campaign. All are Democrats including Joe Wineke, former Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.It's a pity neither Charlie Sykes nor his "new group in town" checked Justice David Prosser's own website, which lists endorsements from dozens (75 to be exact) of elected officials. Every single one of them is a Republican (including some real dandies, like Glenn Grothman).
Plus two former executive branch officials — one is the ridiculously partisan operative Margaret Farrow — both of whom are Republicans.
Verdict: Prosser FTW.
Hypocrisy, Count II:
Since 1999, Stephens has contributed $2,875 to Wisconsin political campaigns. All of Stephens' contributions have been to Democratic and liberal candidates.In fact only $1,725 of that, in increments no larger than $100, was to candidates running for partisan offices. Meanwhile Justice Prosser was donating $3,150 to "Republican and conservative candidates."**
Verdict: Prosser FTW.
Hypocrisy, Count III:
She describes herself as "a member of the Democratic party, on and off, throughout [her] life."She did say that, but she wasn't "describing herself" as such, she was responding to Frederica Freyberg's direct question, "What is your [political affiliation]." That phony hypocrite! — answering truthfully.
Yet only days later, Justice Prosser told the same interviewer:
Well, let me say this. I have the most partisan background of any member of the court.And indeed Justice Prosser was positively advancing this self-description of his own volition, as his averment was in response to Ms. Freyberg's inquiry, "What is your judicial philosophy."
What he meant was he was not only a member of the Republican Party, he was a Republican legislator in the Wisconsin State Assembly for 18 years, including six as minority leader and two as speaker.
Moreover, exactly as fits Charlie Sykes & Co.'s groundless allegations of "political phoniness" and hypocrisy against Atty. Stephens, Justice Prosser went on to disassociate himself from those former political affiliations for the purposes of fair and impartial judging.
And rightly so, to the equal credit of both candidates.
Therefore those affirmations of impartiality made by both Justice Prosser and Atty. Stephens are identical, the only difference being Prosser having raised the issue without being urged to do so.
"Gone out of his way," to coin a phrase.
Verdict: Prosser FTW.
Finally:
Media Trackers is a Wisconsin-based organization dedicated to media accountability, government transparency, and quality fact-based journalism.Not quite. Rather, this "new group in town" is dedicated to laughable, painfully amateurish drek. Which is right up Charlie Sykes's alley.
It's abundantly clear who's pushing the dishonesty around here.
* a.k.a. the Fairness Doctrine.
** He also gave $500 to Shirley Abrahamson, which anybody who witnessed his fingerpointing mini-tirade toward the Chief Justice at last week's open administrative hearing might imagine he regrets.
Three more contributions totaling $650 were dispensed throughout 1997 and 1998 to former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson. Thompson appointed Prosser to the Supreme Court in late 1998.
The source for these figures is the same one as Sykes's "good catch."
September 16, 2008
Why does Charlie Sykes hate free speech?
Milwaukee medium wave buffoon Charlie Sykes is beside himself that supporters of Barack Obama would dare to call in to a Chicago call-in radio show and challenge a notorious right-wing dissembler, David Freddoso.OBAMA'S SPEECH THUGS STRIKE AGAIN, bellows Sykes. What's that all about? Apparently advance news of David Freddoso's appearance elicited this outrageous "Obama Action Wire":
Call into the "Extension 720" show with Milt Rosenberg tonight, September 15th, between 9:00 and 11:00 p.m. at (312) 591-7200.So what? In America, it's called "free speech." When people lie, you counter them. And 720 kHz is on a public portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, not incidentally.
Be honest, but be civil.
Be persistent. It may take a few attempts to get through to the show. Just keep trying. Your call is important.
Use the talking points below to help you speak confidently and concisely.
But Charlie Sykes would obviously prefer the lies and the smears to stand unchallenged. Besides, Rosenberg could always do what Sykes does with callers who dissent from his nonsense — hang up on them.
Freddoso's embarrassing excuse for a critique has received virtually no critical attention, thanks to the right-wing press promoting it and the compliant mainstream outlets. A fawning story in the Politico called Freddoso's book "serious" and "a fact-based critique." According to the Politico, it occupies "a small island in the often-shrill sea of criticism of Obama." In reality, Freddoso's book is one more example of that polluted sea of criticism, filled with numerous factual errors, unproven innuendo, guilt by association attacks, and lunatic conspiracy theories that would be laughable if not for the seriousness of these false accusations.David Freddoso's Hatchet Job.
"Leave David Freddoso alone!" wept Charlie Sykes.
May 3, 2008
The J-S's farcical featury tour
Of the Quesosphere (thanks to whomever I stole that from).
While it somehow managed a score with its citation to Mike Mathias's excellent, well-focused piece here, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's weekend Crossroads feature "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" continues in its ill-considered proclivity.
Semi-coherent local radio shouting meathead Charlie Sykes "wins" Best of the Blogs with a five-sentence contribution (that's Sykes's entire blog entry — and the first of the five sentences is a cliché so grotesque even pro wrestling's abandoned it: "It's on.") containing the most uninformative, unenlightening, and downright pedestrian observation of the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright "controversy" that couldn't be imagined.
Meanwhile, to grab just one example, Mike Plaisted throws down this feisty and typically well-written number, inspiring a lengthy comment thread featuring some of the higher quality back-and-forth to be found 'round these parts yet Charlie Sykes, whose own blog consists of 99% other people's work (except reproduced in all-italics — it's even typographically annoying), gets the accolade: "Best of."
And not Jim Bouman's digital slide show/reportage tour of Pabst Farms (the photo captions alone are "Best of" material).
At least if the J-S selection committee had an intentional sense of humor, it would have honored Charlie Sykes for this April 28 howler:
Presumably the J-S picks two blogs from the "left" and two from the "right" for its "Best of" edition and on reflection it isn't so surprising that its potential field of nominees in the latter category is slim.
But why on Earth Charlie Sykes would even qualify as a Wisconsin blogger at all is a mystery and, more importantly, with so many thoughtful and talented writers out here, that the J-S would favor a blatantly self-referential corporate plug rather than acknowledge the existence of dedicated, independent local writers is very telling.
Next thing you know, a member of the Journal-Sentinel's editorial board will be making regular appearances on Sunday INCITE!
The best blogs are far too piquant for JRN HQ anyway. It's in the business of journalism, where journalism never lists the ship.
While it somehow managed a score with its citation to Mike Mathias's excellent, well-focused piece here, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's weekend Crossroads feature "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" continues in its ill-considered proclivity.
Semi-coherent local radio shouting meathead Charlie Sykes "wins" Best of the Blogs with a five-sentence contribution (that's Sykes's entire blog entry — and the first of the five sentences is a cliché so grotesque even pro wrestling's abandoned it: "It's on.") containing the most uninformative, unenlightening, and downright pedestrian observation of the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright "controversy" that couldn't be imagined.
Meanwhile, to grab just one example, Mike Plaisted throws down this feisty and typically well-written number, inspiring a lengthy comment thread featuring some of the higher quality back-and-forth to be found 'round these parts yet Charlie Sykes, whose own blog consists of 99% other people's work (except reproduced in all-italics — it's even typographically annoying), gets the accolade: "Best of."
And not Jim Bouman's digital slide show/reportage tour of Pabst Farms (the photo captions alone are "Best of" material).
At least if the J-S selection committee had an intentional sense of humor, it would have honored Charlie Sykes for this April 28 howler:
Went to see Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled," yesterday. Powerful, provocative, and definitely worth a view.Oh definitely, if you're into bullshit and lies and the embarrassing spectacle of Ben Stein blaming Charles Darwin for the Nazi Holocaust.
Presumably the J-S picks two blogs from the "left" and two from the "right" for its "Best of" edition and on reflection it isn't so surprising that its potential field of nominees in the latter category is slim.
But why on Earth Charlie Sykes would even qualify as a Wisconsin blogger at all is a mystery and, more importantly, with so many thoughtful and talented writers out here, that the J-S would favor a blatantly self-referential corporate plug rather than acknowledge the existence of dedicated, independent local writers is very telling.
Next thing you know, a member of the Journal-Sentinel's editorial board will be making regular appearances on Sunday INCITE!
The best blogs are far too piquant for JRN HQ anyway. It's in the business of journalism, where journalism never lists the ship.
November 17, 2011
Charlie Sykes wants WRTL charged also
Charlie Sykes petitions the Milwaukee County district attorney:
(The medium wave dissembler lives in Ozaukee County so apparently Scott Walker's* "tort reforms" included for wing-nut forum shopping.)
* Download a recall petition at the link. Do it for Charlie Sykes.
eta: Speaking of Charlie Sykes:
Will you be as zealous in commenting on promises to pay cash and/or other free inducements in return for signatures?See, this is what I'm sayin'!
(The medium wave dissembler lives in Ozaukee County so apparently Scott Walker's* "tort reforms" included for wing-nut forum shopping.)
* Download a recall petition at the link. Do it for Charlie Sykes.
eta: Speaking of Charlie Sykes:
MKE alderman Bob Bauman said the number of streetcar opponents speaking Wednesday was "pretty pathetic," considering the volume of talk radio commentary against the project.Poor Sykes is slipping since he singlehandedly elected David Prosser.
June 8, 2011
JRN's Charlie Sykes, Father of Twits
"MikeTateWatch" is the Twitter account of some kook up north who's obsessed with stalking the Democratic Party of Wisconsin chair and devoted to posting his own deranged fantasies on the internets. There is exactly as much truth to the above claim as there was to Charlie Sykes's repeated insistence that the WI Dems were behind JoAnne Kloppenburg's demand for a Statewide recount of the April general election ballots.That is, none whatsoever. But look to the far-right of the retweeters and see who was the first to spread this falsehood among his wing-nut discipleship: None other than the so-called "blogfather," Charlie Sykes.
Not that it wouldn't be a fine idea, mind you.
And that Mike Gableman gave anybody a lesson in the law, harsh or otherwise, is as ridiculous as law professor to the wing-nuts Rick Esenberg alleging this space's legal knowledge is limited to "horn books."
I happen to be aware of several readers prominent in the Wisconsin legal community who would say and indeed have very kindly said otherwise.
Incidentally, Charlie Sykes has your humble correspondent "blocked" on Twitter, despite my not even "following" him, the poor paranoid sod.
As if I would, although Sykes is probably why they named it "Twit-ter."
Glossary: JRN = Journal Communications, Inc.
May 5, 2008
A proud moment for dissembling hypocrites
Noted staunch defender of free speech John McAdams (so long as the speech at issue is personally acceptable to John McAdams, that is) now claims he's convinced an American TV executive to pull the firm's logo from Bill Maher flyers. Still boorishly and ignorantly asserting that Bill Maher "openly hates Christians," McAdams once again proves that if you lie enough about something, enough people will believe you, a dictum most recently reinforced with particularly alarming effect during the Wisconsin Supreme Court election campaign.
Now for a heartwarming little love letter.
Unbelievable. Even less so than God.
Now for a heartwarming little love letter.
Dear Charlie [and Johnny (supposedly)],Hey, Plaisted, buy your couch somewhere else.
We regret if our advertising co-sponsorship participation of the upcoming Bill Maher concert has [supposedly] offended [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes].
It is obvious, now, to us that Mr. Maher is a very opinionated political and social humorist who can easily ruffle the feathers [supposedly] of [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes] much more so than we expected.
Because this particular show has become much more [supposedly] controversial to [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes] than ever anticipated, we have chosen to drop our sponsorship of this particular event, if it is indeed [supposedly] offending [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes].
[Yours (supposedly) offendedly,]
Wyn Becker
Vice President-Advertising
American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances
[David] Horowitz is a highly controversial speaker, since he says things that are considered "offensive" (supposedly) to Muslim students. — John McAdams ("quotes" his, bold mine)Mark that: considered "offensive" (supposedly) to Muslims.
Unbelievable. Even less so than God.
July 5, 2011
JRN class act Charlie Sykes mocks a disabled man
A commenter notes:
There are several reasons why Jeremy has not paid any of the citations yet: the first is that several were dismissed, and the second is that he has yet to go to court on the other citations.That's true, and not hard to confirm, even for a knucklehead like Sykes.
And everybody knows the constitutional authority to administer their calendars proceeds from the courts' supervisory/original jurisdiction.
Channel 3000 — Segway Transporter Donated To Disabled Man
"Jeremy Ryan, better known as 'Segway Boy,'" scrawled the Madison wing-nut* David Blaska. Better known by a-holes as Segway Boy, that is.
Also, if you care to follow the links, you'll find Charlie Sykes praising the ludicrous meanderings of William Jacobson, professor of law. Obviously that's not surprising but a Jacobson devotee turns up in Charlie Sykes's comments to chastise the Journal Communications, Inc. shouter for "putting an innuendo on someone who has actually taken the time to study the law" and claiming Jacobson never said what Sykes has him saying, which is that "Justice Ann Walsh Bradley needs to be held accountable for her 'chokehold' accusation." But of course that's exactly what Jacobson is saying. However, to be fair, Jacobson must have been busy that day because he only took time to study two-thirds of the law. Trouble is, the missing third is a mighty important third, as it turns out.
* A rare breed, so apparently you have to try harder.
Pictured: WTMJ harlequin Sykes in psychedelic hippie freak-out garb.
December 1, 2009
Charlie Sykes is really not very bright, is he
Or else he is very bright and cynically panders to the collection of dim bulbs that comprise his discipleship. Local AM radio buffoon Charlie Sykes is troubled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that "the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."
Except to the extent that health care has an effect on and is affected by commerce among the several States (which is a very large extent indeed), Pelosi's statement is right on the money, and she can claim several decades worth of U.S. Supreme Court decisions for support.
Try as Charlie Sykes might, he won't find any "limit" on that regulatory power mentioned in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
And guess who helped author one of the most recent of those decisions reaffirming the reach of the federal legislative branch's constitutionally enumerated power over interstate commerce? You are correct: Conservative hero and avatar Justice Antonin Scalia.
He said even if you were just growing a couple of weeds in your living room for personal, medicinal purposes, the feds could still come and throw your sorry keister in prison, on an interstate commerce theory.
So, yeah, essentially unlimited.
Incidentally, the otherwise highly commendable link aggregator WisOpinion.com counts Charlie Sykes's one- and two-sentence gibberishes among its "Featured Blogs." Nobody really knows why.
This ridiculous clown but not, for example, the fabulous Jill Sixpack.
Fortunately we can (and do) know better.
Except to the extent that health care has an effect on and is affected by commerce among the several States (which is a very large extent indeed), Pelosi's statement is right on the money, and she can claim several decades worth of U.S. Supreme Court decisions for support.
Try as Charlie Sykes might, he won't find any "limit" on that regulatory power mentioned in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
And guess who helped author one of the most recent of those decisions reaffirming the reach of the federal legislative branch's constitutionally enumerated power over interstate commerce? You are correct: Conservative hero and avatar Justice Antonin Scalia.
He said even if you were just growing a couple of weeds in your living room for personal, medicinal purposes, the feds could still come and throw your sorry keister in prison, on an interstate commerce theory.
So, yeah, essentially unlimited.
Incidentally, the otherwise highly commendable link aggregator WisOpinion.com counts Charlie Sykes's one- and two-sentence gibberishes among its "Featured Blogs." Nobody really knows why.
This ridiculous clown but not, for example, the fabulous Jill Sixpack.
Fortunately we can (and do) know better.
February 16, 2011
Charlie Sykes, he's Milwaukee's creddible source
Tweets the medium wave wing-nut and self-styled education expert:
In fact Charlie Sykes's "professor" is a UWM student teaching assistant who moved a Monday session from the classroom to a rally — on campus beside the library* — protesting against the governor's plan to repeal the collective bargaining rights of State employees.
The TA also tendered a full disclosure to the class as to why and how his own personal situation would be affected by the governor's action.
Rumor has it there are people who take Charlie Sykes seriously. At Sykes's Journal Communications, Inc. website, Sykes disciples mocked the TA for mixing up "effect" and "affect," but nary a mention of the so-called blogfather's frequent spelling challenges.
* Spaights Plaza is at most a three-minute walk from anywhere.
In fact Charlie Sykes's "professor" is a UWM student teaching assistant who moved a Monday session from the classroom to a rally — on campus beside the library* — protesting against the governor's plan to repeal the collective bargaining rights of State employees.
In relation to our course's examination of questions of class, economics, and the university, and our reading about alternative research strategies and writing forms, we will use the rally as a learning experience for our course.Scandalous. And the pressure: unbearable.
The TA also tendered a full disclosure to the class as to why and how his own personal situation would be affected by the governor's action.
Rumor has it there are people who take Charlie Sykes seriously. At Sykes's Journal Communications, Inc. website, Sykes disciples mocked the TA for mixing up "effect" and "affect," but nary a mention of the so-called blogfather's frequent spelling challenges.
* Spaights Plaza is at most a three-minute walk from anywhere.
December 14, 2009
Rick's nature trick: Hide the denial
So Professor Esenberg doesn't care for certain descriptive English words, as he indicates in his latest missive on what he's christened "Climatequiddick," which is apparently a light-hearted and cute allusion to the tragic drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969.
The careful reader will note that what has got Prof. Esenberg's dander up was this post, highlighting his false claim that compilers of a chart on the cover of a 1999 report of the World Meteorological Organization "combin[ed] two different measurements and pretend[ed] they are the same thing and mischaracteriz[ed] what data show."
This is the claim of Prof. Esenberg's with which I took issue. Except he avoids this and instead inventories a collection of vocabulary employed from time to time at this blog (which is part of the internets and tends occasionally to adopt its vernacular, although I don't believe I have ever used Ms. Kopechne as a figure of fun):
For example, "teabag," the verb, was coined by a Fox News reporter.
"Morons," as Prof. Esenberg conveniently overlooks, is what his friend Charlie Sykes called some Milwaukeeans who held a vigil at North Ave. and Oakland on Friday night to commemorate the conference on climate change currently underway in Copenhagen.
It's my understanding that Charlie Sykes is not exactly a shrinking violet himself when it comes to colorful language describing his perceived political adversaries (in this case, the youthful idealists that Sykes so abhors and mocks at every available opportunity).
So how come Prof. Esenberg doesn't similarly take Sykes to the woodshed, if it's so terribly not nice to call people morons? Evidently it's acceptable as long as you're Charlie Sykes, whose obsequious consideration of Prof. Esenberg is as a "renaissance man."
(Perhaps he'd settle for just "medieval warming period man.")
"Calumnist" is a term coined by yours truly (I think [eta: not]) to characterize the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's self-described "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran, because that's exactly what he is.
"Calumny," in fact, is a relatively mild description for McIlheran's fatuous rhetorical efforts, e.g., to falsely tie one of Obama's advisers in the Department of Education to the notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association, which is what McIlheran did.
As a matter of fact, it was McIlheran's series of gross distortions, risible misunderstandings, and deployment of so-called "experts" like the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley that inspired a number of posts here on the topic of "Climategate."
I personally find it more than a little appalling that the biggest daily newspaper in the State of Wisconsin would see fit to publish such pure nonsense, but that's just me. It's a crazy expectation, I know.
Call me a youthful idealist (and see you at Pizza Man).
As for frauds, "dangerous frauds" is how McIlheran described scientists whose private correspondence was unlawfully uploaded to a computer server in Russia last month.
And "dangerous frauds" is how McIlheran has described those scientists despite being comically unaware* that the much-celebrated "decline" referenced in one of those e-mails was not a decline in measured temperatures but rather a decline in sensitivity to changes in temperature observed within a particular collection of a particular species of tree in a particular location in the Northern Hemisphere.
Except I have never seen Prof. Esenberg condemning Mr. McIlheran for his hysterically reactionary "opinions," which are themselves in turn grounded on his not even knowing what the hell he's talking about. No, instead Prof. Esenberg rambles away about Al Gore, who has nothing to do with any of this, as far as I'm concerned.
Ironically, it was none other than Prof. Esenberg who wrote:
While I never said there is nothing to see here, I did predict very early on that the political right would attempt to construct fallacious bales of straw from what seemed to me little more than scientists "sharing around some catty messages with each other."
Which is precisely what has happened. And, despite Prof. Esenberg's continuing use of his own coined expression "Climatequiddick," he's yet to address the question I'd put to him more than once: "So I'll ask again: Is this really all you guys have? 'Hide the decline'?"
Still waiting.
* For two weeks, after which he dismissed as a "subtlety" the somewhat fundamental question of whether temperatures were rising or declining. I'm not kidding. "Renaissance man" notwithstanding, it hardly comes as a surprise that Mr. McIlheran looks up to Prof. Esenberg as he "whom I want to be as smart as someday."
To be sure, Prof. Esenberg is in fact very smart indeed, which makes some of the positions he stakes out that much more questionable.
Like this one, for example:
The careful reader will note that what has got Prof. Esenberg's dander up was this post, highlighting his false claim that compilers of a chart on the cover of a 1999 report of the World Meteorological Organization "combin[ed] two different measurements and pretend[ed] they are the same thing and mischaracteriz[ed] what data show."
This is the claim of Prof. Esenberg's with which I took issue. Except he avoids this and instead inventories a collection of vocabulary employed from time to time at this blog (which is part of the internets and tends occasionally to adopt its vernacular, although I don't believe I have ever used Ms. Kopechne as a figure of fun):
"Teabagger", "wingnut", "not very smart", "moron", "calumnist" "ignorant," "fraud," "dishonest," "lying," etc. You'd think that arrogance, if it must be expressed, should be earned, but I guess that "denializer" is not so bad.This is supposed to be an argument, I guess, so please feel free to use the search function at the upper left corner to determine whatever context they were used in and if it was even me that was using them and not as part of a quotation from somebody else.
For example, "teabag," the verb, was coined by a Fox News reporter.
"Morons," as Prof. Esenberg conveniently overlooks, is what his friend Charlie Sykes called some Milwaukeeans who held a vigil at North Ave. and Oakland on Friday night to commemorate the conference on climate change currently underway in Copenhagen.
It's my understanding that Charlie Sykes is not exactly a shrinking violet himself when it comes to colorful language describing his perceived political adversaries (in this case, the youthful idealists that Sykes so abhors and mocks at every available opportunity).
So how come Prof. Esenberg doesn't similarly take Sykes to the woodshed, if it's so terribly not nice to call people morons? Evidently it's acceptable as long as you're Charlie Sykes, whose obsequious consideration of Prof. Esenberg is as a "renaissance man."
(Perhaps he'd settle for just "medieval warming period man.")
"Calumnist" is a term coined by yours truly (I think [eta: not]) to characterize the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's self-described "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran, because that's exactly what he is.
"Calumny," in fact, is a relatively mild description for McIlheran's fatuous rhetorical efforts, e.g., to falsely tie one of Obama's advisers in the Department of Education to the notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association, which is what McIlheran did.
As a matter of fact, it was McIlheran's series of gross distortions, risible misunderstandings, and deployment of so-called "experts" like the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley that inspired a number of posts here on the topic of "Climategate."
I personally find it more than a little appalling that the biggest daily newspaper in the State of Wisconsin would see fit to publish such pure nonsense, but that's just me. It's a crazy expectation, I know.
Call me a youthful idealist (and see you at Pizza Man).
As for frauds, "dangerous frauds" is how McIlheran described scientists whose private correspondence was unlawfully uploaded to a computer server in Russia last month.
And "dangerous frauds" is how McIlheran has described those scientists despite being comically unaware* that the much-celebrated "decline" referenced in one of those e-mails was not a decline in measured temperatures but rather a decline in sensitivity to changes in temperature observed within a particular collection of a particular species of tree in a particular location in the Northern Hemisphere.
Except I have never seen Prof. Esenberg condemning Mr. McIlheran for his hysterically reactionary "opinions," which are themselves in turn grounded on his not even knowing what the hell he's talking about. No, instead Prof. Esenberg rambles away about Al Gore, who has nothing to do with any of this, as far as I'm concerned.
Ironically, it was none other than Prof. Esenberg who wrote:
On the left, bloggers like Illusory Tenant are redefining the term "denialist." There is, they say, nothing to see here and "wing nuts" who say other things are so stupid — not at all like us smart people.Now suddenly he affects to be troubled because I placed him in the denialist camp (for good, empirical reason, as opposed to faux-trage at choice of the same nouns and adjectives his local right-wing colleagues use), an awfully slippery double standard on his part.
While I never said there is nothing to see here, I did predict very early on that the political right would attempt to construct fallacious bales of straw from what seemed to me little more than scientists "sharing around some catty messages with each other."
Which is precisely what has happened. And, despite Prof. Esenberg's continuing use of his own coined expression "Climatequiddick," he's yet to address the question I'd put to him more than once: "So I'll ask again: Is this really all you guys have? 'Hide the decline'?"
Still waiting.
* For two weeks, after which he dismissed as a "subtlety" the somewhat fundamental question of whether temperatures were rising or declining. I'm not kidding. "Renaissance man" notwithstanding, it hardly comes as a surprise that Mr. McIlheran looks up to Prof. Esenberg as he "whom I want to be as smart as someday."
To be sure, Prof. Esenberg is in fact very smart indeed, which makes some of the positions he stakes out that much more questionable.
Like this one, for example:
The rationale behind the recusal motions filed against Michael Gableman are [sic] primarily (although not quite entirely) based on the now infamous Reuben Mitchell ad and certain statements made by Gableman’s lawyer, Jim Bopp, in the course of defending Justice Gableman on ethics charges stemming from the ad.While Attorney Rob Henak is a talented advocate, I don't believe he's quite mastered time travel, as his original motions were filed in April, and Jim Bopp didn't deliver his statements until September.
August 23, 2008
Right-wing busts open the latest conspiracy
Yesterday an anonymous commenter here left behind a strange deposit alleging that criticism of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce is part of an "orchestrated campaign."
Just coincidentally, I'm sure, an earlier post at Milwaukee medium-wave harlequin Charlie Sykes's so-called blog claimed as Maestro of the said "orchestration" the governor of Wisconsin:
And sure enough, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's dependable "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran is all over it:
"The nerve of those tradesmen," McIlheran snorts. I don't know about McIlheran, but I detect the presence of no tradesmen among WMC's Board of Directors. I see corporate CEOs, managing partners at the State's biggest law firms, bankers, and financial consultants.
No manufacturers of tinfoil hats, however, which Sykes and McIlheran and their dedicated followers must be purchasing from out-of-State.
I doubt McIlheran would find any tradesmen among the partisan hacks who orchestrate WMC political campaigns either. Unless he has in mind steamfitters and plumbers in the Nixonian sense.
And non-union ones at that, naturally.
But he would definitely find lots of tradesmen on Epic Systems's construction site near Madison working for David Cullen, who withdrew from WMC in the wake of WMC's multi-million-dollar campaign of sleazy personal attacks against Justice Louis Butler.
As far as I can tell, everybody who opposes WMC's political techniques does so for their own individual reasons and indeed, one of WMC's most energetic critics, Paul Soglin, actually supports many of its goals. In most cases, it's the means and not the ends that are at issue in this ongoing debate.
If both Sykes and McIlheran seriously believe Governor Jim Doyle is acting as the puppetmaster to the WMC critics, you'd think they could come up with some better evidence than an unsigned e-mail from one of Sykes's own devoted and clownishly "savvy" acolytes.
Then again, probably not. Because the only conspiracy in evidence here is the one between fellow Journal Communications, Inc. employees Charlie Sykes and Patrick McIlheran. Forward, meme.
More from the cappermeister.
Just coincidentally, I'm sure, an earlier post at Milwaukee medium-wave harlequin Charlie Sykes's so-called blog claimed as Maestro of the said "orchestration" the governor of Wisconsin:
Sore Loser Lefty of the Day — John Wiley. First: none of these attacks on WMC is coincidence. This attack, Louis Butler's, and all the other "WMC is the problem" voices out there are being orchestrated by Jim Doyle, who is still wanting to make WMC pay for not supporting him last election.Sykes actually considers this baseless conspiratorial observation a "savvy" one. Seriously.
And sure enough, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's dependable "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran is all over it:
Why would Wiley do this? Sykes' blog quotes a listener who contends by email that this is all orchestrated by Jim Doyle, ticked off at WMC.How's that for an intuitive handspring. So, what — Jim Doyle is running One Wisconsin Now, now? Sound plausible?
Sounds plausible. The left-wing pressure group One Wisconsin Now has been trying to get its followers to flood WMC members' inboxes with emails saying they'd better stop being so Republican.
"The nerve of those tradesmen," McIlheran snorts. I don't know about McIlheran, but I detect the presence of no tradesmen among WMC's Board of Directors. I see corporate CEOs, managing partners at the State's biggest law firms, bankers, and financial consultants.
No manufacturers of tinfoil hats, however, which Sykes and McIlheran and their dedicated followers must be purchasing from out-of-State.
I doubt McIlheran would find any tradesmen among the partisan hacks who orchestrate WMC political campaigns either. Unless he has in mind steamfitters and plumbers in the Nixonian sense.
And non-union ones at that, naturally.
But he would definitely find lots of tradesmen on Epic Systems's construction site near Madison working for David Cullen, who withdrew from WMC in the wake of WMC's multi-million-dollar campaign of sleazy personal attacks against Justice Louis Butler.
As far as I can tell, everybody who opposes WMC's political techniques does so for their own individual reasons and indeed, one of WMC's most energetic critics, Paul Soglin, actually supports many of its goals. In most cases, it's the means and not the ends that are at issue in this ongoing debate.
If both Sykes and McIlheran seriously believe Governor Jim Doyle is acting as the puppetmaster to the WMC critics, you'd think they could come up with some better evidence than an unsigned e-mail from one of Sykes's own devoted and clownishly "savvy" acolytes.
Then again, probably not. Because the only conspiracy in evidence here is the one between fellow Journal Communications, Inc. employees Charlie Sykes and Patrick McIlheran. Forward, meme.
More from the cappermeister.
March 5, 2011
Not even WPRI can spin this
And they collected the data:
Even more remarkable:
eta: On his teevee show this morning, Charlie Sykes took pains to point out that WPRI's pollster Ken Goldstein is a public employee. Doubtless Prof. Goldstein would appreciate this snide ad hominem swipe at his academic and professional objectivity.
Yet despite Sykes's heroic efforts to downplay the significance of the WPRI poll — its sample of respondents skews disproportionately toward union and Democratic households, he claimed — left completely unsaid throughout was the poll's greatest significance: that it comported substantially with a number of recent Statewide and national polls conducted by both Democratic and Republican outfits, all of which substantially comport with one another.
To wit, both Scott Walker and his policies are highly unpopular.
"Really diverse group we've got here today," said Sykes of his panel, which contained two WPRI "senior fellows" and Patrick McIlheran.
McIlheran nominated Scott Walker his "Winner of the Week" while Sykes said of the 14 Democratic Senators that the "adults" among them were being "held hostage by extremists like Chris Larson and Lena Taylor." Sykes also predicted that either the Senate stand-off will end early this week or else it will go on for "months," adding false dichotomy to his ever-expanding repertoire of logical fallacies.
Mercifully, no panelist attempted an analysis of the merits of Republican Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald's ersatz "arrest warrants."
OTOH it might have made Sykes's one-note tedium entertaining.
Since mid-November the percentage of people who strongly oppose Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker — who view him "very unfavorably" — has more than doubled from 19% to 41%.TMJ-4's makeup department better order a few extra kilos of talcum for Charlie Sykes tomorrow morning. Those lights are warm enough.
Even more remarkable:
Half the people in the survey were asked how they felt about "stripping most public employees of their right to collectively bargain over benefits and working conditions as part of a ploy to eliminate public employee unions altogether." With the issue framed that way, 58% opposed it and 32% supported it.Thirty-two percent support a cunningly dishonest government-run project to take advantage of its own citizens. Isn't that lovely.
eta: On his teevee show this morning, Charlie Sykes took pains to point out that WPRI's pollster Ken Goldstein is a public employee. Doubtless Prof. Goldstein would appreciate this snide ad hominem swipe at his academic and professional objectivity.
Yet despite Sykes's heroic efforts to downplay the significance of the WPRI poll — its sample of respondents skews disproportionately toward union and Democratic households, he claimed — left completely unsaid throughout was the poll's greatest significance: that it comported substantially with a number of recent Statewide and national polls conducted by both Democratic and Republican outfits, all of which substantially comport with one another.
To wit, both Scott Walker and his policies are highly unpopular.
"Really diverse group we've got here today," said Sykes of his panel, which contained two WPRI "senior fellows" and Patrick McIlheran.
McIlheran nominated Scott Walker his "Winner of the Week" while Sykes said of the 14 Democratic Senators that the "adults" among them were being "held hostage by extremists like Chris Larson and Lena Taylor." Sykes also predicted that either the Senate stand-off will end early this week or else it will go on for "months," adding false dichotomy to his ever-expanding repertoire of logical fallacies.
Mercifully, no panelist attempted an analysis of the merits of Republican Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald's ersatz "arrest warrants."
OTOH it might have made Sykes's one-note tedium entertaining.
April 13, 2011
Charlie Sykes's Rules for Wisconsin Radicals
Such a sad little man, as Ricky Gervais would say.
The medium wave howler's howling irony is pervasive:
* "Rules" is being overly generous. It's the law.
The medium wave howler's howling irony is pervasive:
Litigate everything.Like, file a frivolous lawsuit in Oconto County.
Bully, intimidate, and threaten ...Like, issue an arrest warrant for a six-months-pregnant woman (pursuant to the failed obiter dictum of the Oconto County court).
[Use] the open meetings law to tie up the union bill.To hell with the Wisconsin constitution, eh Charlie?
Break laws, ignore rules ...Sykes's BFF Scott Walker broke the law when he shut the people out of the Capitol. Walker's BFF Scott Fitzgerald ignored the rules* when he gave one hour and fifty-seven minutes notice for a legislative meeting. Sykes gives no examples, but he couldn't top those anyway.
Remember: there is no voter fraud, except when the charge works for our benefit.Remember: This is Sykes talking about liberals and Democrats.
Citing no credible evidence, Charlie Sykes, in the aftermath of last Tuesday’s squeaker of a Supreme Court election, alluded to the likelihood of "voter fraud" in Milwaukee. It was the explanation that the conservative WTMJ AM 620 talker proffered for why challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg appeared to have just narrowly edged out incumbent Justice David Prosser in the balloting.Erik Gunn's Inside Track. Do read Gunn's entire piece because you probably haven't heard the last of what went on in Waukesha County.
Accuse conservatives of hypocrisy a lot.'Fraid that can't be helped Charlie. Y'all beg for it.
Never, ever stop.Well he got that one right at least.
* "Rules" is being overly generous. It's the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
