FightingBob.com readers talk back
We want to hear from you. If you would like to comment on a specific article, click on the "comments?" link on the article page. If you'd like to send us a general comment, question, compliment or criticism, just send us an e-mail.
July 7, 2008
June 2008
Response to GuestBlog “Sticking to Obama”
June 28, 2008
On June 27th, Bill Krause wrote:
What he did not do was sit down with John McCain as promised to see if there was a way they could both be freed to take on the 3rd parties without embarrassing themselves by breaking faith with each other.
From what I've read and heard, the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign attorneys met to discuss this but could reach no agreement. Would you check that out? --KKT
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “100 years of what?”
June 17, 2008
Some questions that were raised by your column today:
1. Do you object to war under any circumstances?
2. I would anticipate that you would support a war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and pursue Bin Laden. In such a war, mistakes would be made, futile attacks would be launched, and soldiers would die and their families would be forced to cope. Is there anything that such families could be told to make their sacrifice worthwhile? Or is no soldier's death worth it for the advancement of the war?
3. Are there any circumstances under which you would have declared the "surge" to be successful?
Thanks, --Howard Bregman, Madison, WI
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “100 years of what?”
June 17, 2008
As usual you've summed it up perfectly. I too remember the first war death of a friend. I was 19, just out of high school and Bernie was killed in Viet Nam. The first of a number I knew personally. Without people like you reminding us that these deaths are still "personal" to some people, and should be to us, we are tempted to go on with our lives. Instead we should all mourn that these three, and so many others, cannot. Thanks for the reminder. --Betty Custer
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Dems meet and confer”
June 15, 2008
I recognize that Ed is not particularly attached to his old homestead in the Democratic Party [nor is he very popular with some of its inhabitants] but his remarks about the Democrat's state convention call for some comment.
First of all, Ed, there were very close to 600 people in attendance, not "between 400 and 600" and there would have been many more had it not been that much of southern Wisconsin was flooded, and registered delegates had other concerns. This was still nearly twice the attendance of the GOP convention, held in the same location a couple of weeks ago.
The Democrat's convention was a very positive one. It looks like it will be a good year for Democrats!
I don't understand Ed's complaints about when Senators Kohl and Feingold endorsed Barack Obama. What difference does it make? Senator Feingold explained it well enough by saying that he has great regard for Senator Clinton and wanted her supporters to have their opportunity to vote for her in the primaries. I suspect that Senator Kohl's reasons would be similar, as were those of many other members of congress. So?
And I am getting weary of folks who make silly remarks about the so-called super delegates [a term invented by the news media pundits, by the way]. They seem to think that these folks are robots created in smoke-filled rooms by party hacks, whereas they are publicly elected officials like governors and members of congress, plus members of the DNC, who are elected by the membership of the Democratic Party. In fact, we just elected four members of the DNC at our convention. Ed calls them "self-styled" but that is just not so. We chose them.
It's important to remember that the candidates are representing the political parties, not the general electorate - the Democrats, the Republicans, the Greens, the Libertarians, the Prohibitionists [yes, they are still around!] and the rest. The voters get their general election turn after the candidates are selected by the parties. It's up to those parties to decide how they choose their candidates. Yes, Fighting Bob's primaries did take that decision out of the hands of those smoke-filled-room guys, but not out of the hands of the political parties.
I know that Ed is aware of these things, but I thought I'd just point them out for FightingBob.com's readers. --John Smart, Park Falls, WI
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “Water Trap”
June 14, 2008
I missed this article. I agree that if the south and southwest U.S. really go dry, there is no way that the great lakes compact will stop them from taking the Great Lakes water. But before they do they need to stop watering their golf courses and lawns and put into affect land use planning that will stop growth in water impoverished areas. Building a city in the desert makes no sense. In another community in CA that I am familiar with they are planning a desalination plant. Desalination plants are high energy users, very expensive and damaging to an estuary where it will be located. They should be discussing conservation measures, reusing water, and no growth land use planning. Instead they are planning 3 major developments in the county which will end up consuming more water. Am I crazy to think this is stupid? You don't need to answer that. Thanks --Hiroshi Kanno
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “A Progressive (birthday) party”
June 10, 2008
Where do I send some money? "Those that do not know their history are bound to relive it" What a tax write off and you can help spread the news! --Joe Gruber
--------------------
June 9, 2008
I was thinking -- after President Obama is sworn in he's going to be making several key political appointments. No doubt he will be looking for talented folks to fill many roles. In a grand gesture which would no doubt please many Republicans, Obama should appoint George W. Bush to be US Ambassador to Iraq. Who could be better qualified? Given Dubya's belief that the war is going so well and that Iraq is so much more stable these days, it only seems fitting that Dubya be rewarded with such a plum job. I can't think of anyone I better suited (other than perhaps Dick Cheney....).
I can well imagine Ambassador Bush and Senator McCain strolling through an open-air Iraqi market and being greeted by throngs of Iraqi supporters and well-wishers...
Me thinks this may be the basis for a ground-swell Fighting Bob petition to promote just such an appointment? --Tom Sykes, Appleton, WI
---------------------
Response to WPR interview
June 6, 2008
We have interviewed together and had some good discussions, but you let us all down on WPR this morning.
You accepted the Republican frame on UW pay increases. You didn't disagree with your conservative guest. You encouraged an election year talking point Rep. Nass would have been proud of.
The new UW hires salaries were competitive with other universities. It's called competition. It's call capitalism, whether public or private. It isn't an "us or them" frame Republicans like to make it when it comes to administrators v students. You allowed that frame to stand unchallenged.
The salary increase is so insignificant considering the fact that part of the money is coming from private donations. But the main issue was a massive missed opportunity for Democrats:
Unfunded veteran tuition's. Instead of a mere $100,000 or so spending increase for chancellor, were talking about a $20 million unfunded mandate from a Republican Party used to show their empty support for our returning troops. The increase in tuition is related to this shortfall. Did you say anything, no. You agreed with the conservative position.
I'm sorry Ed, this acquiescence to their "frame" reverses any progress Fighting Bob might have made fighting for addition UW funding.
Everything Republicans say has something to do with positioning, framing. They live and breathe it because it's a matter of their ideological survival. Their positions are in constant conflict. That's why they don't have a platform to stand on, they contradicted every position they advocated over the last 28 years while controlling Congress and the presidency.
These people need to have their positions exposed. Better luck next time. --John Peterson
-----------------
Response to GarveyBlog “At Last”
June 6, 2008
I suppose my letter will fall on deaf ears, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume, setting your comments today on Cardin's show and your blogs aside, that perhaps you care about democracy with a small "d." Why is it that you write on your blog that Clinton needs to hand over her delegates? Why is it that you don't seem to care that, taking only the democratic vote into consideration, Barack and Hillary tied? Why is now a backroom deal, made by super delegates, what matters? Your focus, for example, on Kohl and Feingold as not supportive enough suggests a belief system on your part that you as a progressive should loathe. That is, that we should all get behind a single candidate even when that candidate could not get the requisite amount of votes to win the nomination outright. All this talk now that Hillary lacks grace and that Barack will look weak smells of a retrograde gender politics that I would hope you would reject. The smug laughter between you and the Republican on Cardin's show, a laughter directed at Hillary and Bill, was disturbing because, yes, it was so sexist. No one would be asking Hillary to drop out of the race, to give her delegates to Barack, and to help sustain the grand illusion we now want to insist on that Barack is the "winner." This smacks more to me of a big man, good ol' boy politics than it does of democracy.
We, who do not want to vote for Barack, are not doing so because we are hysterical or want our candidate to win: we are doing so because we have seen that he operates by a big man (sexist) philosophy, in which the man is entitled to win and the woman must give way, and we are doing so because we are disgusted that the Democratic Party is operating by backroom deals to assert the illusion that he has won. We believe that democracy would require in this historic election that both candidates be put on the ballot, and we are astonished at the insistence that Hillary must not just go away, but campaign vigorously for Obama without any recognition of the votes she earned through the kind of retail politics which, Obama seems incapable of. This has forever changed my view of the Democratic Party, and frankly of progressives since they seem more interested in making the big man win than they do in following democratic principles. --Elena Levy-Navarro
--------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article "Not as I do."
June 5, 2008
So, if I understand the 'argument' Mr./Ms. Prudence is making, (s)he believes Mr. Jensen should be denied the right to avail himself full access to our justice system. The process applies only to those (s)he and his/her ilk deem worthy.
While I'm no fan of Jensen/Chvala and their antics in public office - and I believe our justice system is in need of an overhaul - the fact is that there is a formal process for appeals. It seems that process has been followed and Jensen and his legal team are within their right to request this appeal. I see no reason to prevent Jensen - or anyone - the ability to file an appeal when it is deemed appropriate by those elected to make such determinations – whether I voted for them or not. In fact, the statute cited by ‘Prudence’ seems ripe for review and clarification. And review and clarification is precisely what the appeal process is for.
To be fair, I supported Chvala's right to appeal on similar grounds of venue. To further show my deference to the appeals process, while I am disgusted by the endless appeals of convicted murderers that keep them tapping the system and tying up our courts for decades, there’s something about “equal access …” I read somewhere that, despite my personal opinion, overrides my bias...but apparently not so for ‘Prudence’. No, (s)he rambles on about non-germane issues and unrelated details of the case to confuse readers about the facts of this appeal. (S)He obviously has strong opinions in this matter (not impartial at all, I would say) but I urge him/her to please stay on topic. Political views should not trump one’s judgment on matters of law –as I believe they have in the case of ‘Prudence’.
I sincerely hope that any individual holding the AG post would look for the validity of any appeals filing before them based on the law and questions of law. Isn’t this how our admittedly imperfect system is designed to work?
Apparently ‘Prudence’ believes they are a better judge of what constitutes a legitimate question of law than is Mr. Van Hollen. Perhaps then ‘Prudence’ should abandon his/her anonymity and run to replace him as Wisconsin’s next Attorney General.
Sorry, Mr./Ms. Prudence, you are wrong. What’s worse, you would confuse the issue at-hand and use the justice system for political retribution, thereby denying an individual their right to equal access under the law. --Simpleton
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Enjoy the Moment!”
June 4, 2008
We should nail Congressman Paul Ryan with everything we got, including the announced closing of the GM plant in Janesville, his hometown. I have long been more passionately incensed by Ryan sitting in our 1st CD Congressional seat then even the continuing reign of Bush. I feel it more personally. It has felt for a long time like a personal insult. Ryan is a perfect puppet player in the Bushco (re: Bush/McCain) scenario. We need to get him out of office. It seems to me that the big organizational players had decided long ago to give Ryan a "cakewalk" in the 2008 congressional elections, while shifting their attention and resources to other areas and regions they deem "more worthy". SE Wisconsin SHOULD realistically be a Democratic Party stronghold. What the hell is the matter with us that we have allowed the Ryan/Bushes to become and continue to be our overlords here in our district into the 21st century? We need to be screaming, need to be heard, to change and disrupt the game plan of the Republicraps, and their many Dempublican enablers (read DLC and their ilk). INSIST that the national and money players in this election cycle pay some attention to our needs here in SE Wisconsin. CONTACT every key person and organization with which you are associated; don't beg, but INSIST, that they put some muscle, money, manpower and soul into the effort to help rid us of our Ryan affliction. Feel free to foreword this e mail if'n ya want. It may not be the best, but every shovelful added to the top of the dungheap makes it a little higher and heavier. --Phil Haney
--------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “Enjoy the Moment!”
June 4, 2008
I'm not so sure Janesville and GM are a NAFTA issue. I think it is one more example of a community and a workforce which has placed too much importance on a single heavyweight employer.
Any wise broker will advise a client to diversify a portfolio not only for steady growth but as a cushion if a particular stock or group of stocks fails to perform. Janesville should have done the same. Gone are the days of single large employers bringing prosperity to a community. Here to stay is the need to continually adapt with the times and needs of the nation.
The US auto industry failed decades ago on cheap oil. It told us consumers what we wanted. We fell for the spin and now we scramble for easy an easy fix.
We are in panic mode right now. Had we only had the foresight years ago and the inventiveness to move into the future, the loss of GM in Janesville would not be such a big deal.
The blame for Janesville is on all those who became complacent: workers, commumnity leaders, state government. Now we all must pay the price. The best part is the future is still ours, so bring on that spirit of adventure and let's get going. --Charles McEniry, Stoughton, WI
-----------------------
Response to FightingBob.com article “Our RFK”
June 3, 2008
Thank You for writing "Our RFK" in remembrance of Bobby Kennedy this week.
We remember Bobby Kennedy like it was yesterday. We were young, we had our three week old baby with us, Jim was in graduate school at South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota when Bobby came to the school campaigning during the primary. It was April, 1968. Oh how exciting it was. I can see his face yet, we shook his hand! He went into the gym and gave a speech. We were thrilled to be there. We had our movie camera with us. I remember the morning I heard the sad news of the loss of Bobby Kennedy. Oh, how sad, it still feels the same.
Thank You again for the article. --Jim and Cheryl Congdon, Horicon, Wisconsin
-------------------
Response to GarveyBlog “And if that doesn’t work?”
June 2, 2008
According to a variety of web sites I have visited lately, Russ has endorsed Barack Obama. I never read anything about it in our local paper, but that shouldn't surprise me. Check out some of the delegate lists. --Peggy Anderson
[permalink]
May 31, 2008
Response to GarveyBlog "Buckle Your Seatbelt!"
"Scabs" are a scapegoat for a systemic problem that pits the poor against the poor, she should have apologised. There are no winners here.
Yes, I'm sure the "Company" had ringers, just for press opportunities, but by and large strike breakers are more desperate for a job and money then the workers they temporarily replace.
Good for Barbara. She said what any Democrat would say to those on the picket line trying to save their jobs and fighting for economic justice--shame on the scabs hired to break the union.
In your blog you say ”Ah, but the story doesn't end there. Some scabs, probably sent out by the company to talk to the media, complained that they were called scabs and, (say it ain't so) the "Lieutenant Governor "is apologizing for using the word "scabs." She called it "An absolutely inexcusable mistake." She should have called them "replacement workers." Whoa Nelly!”
As described in “Illegal Immigrants = Scabs”, "Scab workers, like illegal aliens, quite often are in desperate need of money - so desperate that they are willing to cross picket lines, facing extreme consternation, and even bodily harm. Yet despite their often desperate situations, scabs receive little sympathy. Why? Because, in seeking financial betterment for themselves, they are causing untold damage to the careers of others, undermining the balance of power between labor and management, and ultimately worsening conditions for all workers, themselves included. " --Karen Rybold-Chin
[permalink]
current
--------
July 2008
May 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
August 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
April 2005
February 2005
January 2005
October 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003