Do you stand behind his LIES also?

200,000 NOT 7 MILLION that Republicans LIED about to clean up the Capitol!

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20120406/WDH0101/204060463/State-Capitol-cleanup-costs-less-than-initial-estimate?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|WDH-News|s
State Capitol cleanup costs less than initial estimate
Price of putting Madison in order after protests about $200,000
10:51 PM, Apr. 5, 2012
The state says it will cost about $200,000 to clean up the state Capitol from damage caused by the massive protests in Madison last year. Part of the cost comes from repairing the stonework on the inside of the building, which had been covered in signs and posters.
The state says it will cost about $200,000 to clean up the state Capitol from damage caused by the massive protests in Madison last year. Part of the cost comes from repairing the stonework on the inside of the building, which had been covered in signs and posters. / Gannett Wisconsin Media file photo
Written by Mary Spicuzza

MADISON -- Cleaning and restoring the state Capitol after last year's massive protests will cost about $200,000, according to the state Department of Administration, a total millions of dollars less than a state official's controversial initial estimate of $7.5 million.

I say the loser of the recall pays for the cleanup. So we'll be seeing Barrett's signature on the check.

Don't forget the re-seeding of the capital lawn, replacing of shrubs, etc. This was all damaged by the whiners, er, crybabies last year as well. Typical that you don't give all the facts if the story. If that is the only 'lie' you can site, (which in essence isn't even a lie- just a severe under estimate), you're grasping at straws.

morninmist, are you still stuck on the capitol cleanup numbers? Time to move on!

The 7 million was not a lie, it was an ESTIMATE! Mike Huebsch was basing that on the repair cost to the capitol ten years earlier. And as I said earlier, the damage done by the tape was minimal since it was not on for a very long time.

Time to get passed the made up lies.

I don't support Moammar Walker on anything; further, I can't wait for the recall election so we can get a REAL Governor...

Yes, Pls. GO!

@Jaime
Right, lets not stress abstinence, since it happens to be the safest sex. Nor should we stress personal responsibility to our kids. Maybe if parents actually did some parenting rather then leaving it to the schools, this would be a non-issue. Instead, lets blame Walker for more pregnancies, so you liberal parents don't have to have any meaningful contact with your children.

@ J. B. Schmidt

No one said you can't do both in the same program. Leave your "partisan" parenting out of my education. Tell me why parents, who are not qualified (in most cases) as doctors or teachers, have more say in my health education than my teachers? Walker's bill is stupid but I'm not blaming him here, I'm blaming ignorant parents who don't want their children to learn the facts. It's the kids without the education that end up getting pregnant or getting an STI.

@J.B. Schmidt....I think teaching abstinence is something that parents should be responsible for since it requires teaching family morality. Sex education does not teach children to have sex, but if they do, it gives them the information of how to do it safely. Parents that object to sex education can always have their children opt out.

@James Kroner
Your average teacher is no more qualified to teach a class sex ed class then I. Most sex ed classes are taught by nurses and not doctors. For years public education has included sex ed. However, kids in high school and middle school continue to get pregnant and get STD's. Shouldn't their education be preventing that?

What are the facts ignorant parents (I guess myself) are not teaching our kids?

@Lyle
Then were is the safe heroin class? Or the safe alcohol class? Or safe firearms class? Or safe pot class? Or safe driving at an excessive rate of speed class? Or safe (insert reckless teen activity) class?

Each of those if used incorrectly can cause a burden on society. Yet, students are not taught how to use them safely. In fact, all the above subjects are taught from an abstinence only position. Why? What makes sex different? Whether or not sex is a part of being human is irrelevant; unless you wish also to include the emotional impact of sex.

James, it would be interesting to find out if the teachers who teach sex ed actually have much in the way of training. My gym teacher taught our "health" class. It consisted us reading from a book, answering multiple choice questions, and then spending the rest of the class listening to her read the answers for the multiple choice questions. I spent most of my classes watching the girl sitting behind me cut herself with a broken mirror. (Trained educational professional never noticed.)

I'm all for teaching sex ed, however, I think it's very important that the parents know exactly what's in the curriculum beforehand so they can opt out. By the time they hit high school (sophomore year?) they should have a class entitled Things That Can Kill You and Ruin Your Lives. It can explain all about how to use clean needles and condoms. It can also give very graphic and real explanations about how having a baby at 15 will change the course of your life forever, the loss a woman who has an abortion has to live with the rest of her life, the lives ruined by drug and alcohol addition, how women who become prostitutes and men who become gang members have extremely shorted life spans with terrible quality of living, what lungs look like after smoking... etc. Heck, they could even have guest speakers.

@J.B. Schmidt. You pose a "red herring" talking about abstinence concerning other anti-social behaviors. The behaviors you talk about, except for possibly alcohol use, firearms and tobacco are not legal to any class of citizen. Illegal behaviors always carry a prohibition and abstinence only approach.

You and other conservatives obsession with sexuality goes beyond reasonable limits resulting in Christian religious fanaticism. What I don't understand is the double standard for sexual behavior; where as female chastity is an absolute and the primary responsibility for birth control is on the shoulders of women, while males are treated with a wink and a nod. Therefore, if a woman succumbs to sexual behaviors outside of wedlock, she is someone who is to be derided and scorned. Without meaningful sex education, the likelihood that she will experience negative consequences of sexual activity is increased exponentially. The denial of a woman's sexual needs and desires, puts women in a state of dissonance. On the other hand there is acceptance that those same desires in males is quite normal. Again if a women succumbs she is showing weak will and is less as a human being.

@James Kroner -- Kudos to you for your post. No one ever suffered from having too many facts. It really doesn't hurt for young people to be aware of all forms of birth control and STD protection with their various failure rates and other drawbacks.

My generation wasn't taught this in school, and plenty of girls still went away on extended visits to relatives.

@J.B. Schmidt -- Abstinence is indeed the safest form of sex, but it has a failure rate, as Bristol Palin has demonstrated. The sex drive is probably the most powerful human instinct, next to the need to breathe and the need to eat. Unless we're going to counsel our young people never to be alone together and never to touch, we had better make sure they are aware of all the options.

@mau -- 'Abstinence only' is as incomplete as outlawing the mention of abstinence completely in favor of artificial methods. Youngsters need to have the full picture so that they have knowledge to round out the sexual morality that should be taught to them by their parents.

I would resent it greatly if, living in a district of Conservative fossil-types who could vote to force a curricuylum, my child received an education with only a small percentage of the facts. Fortunately for me, I have the smarts to teach my child about contraceptive methods and sexuality on my own, but some parents might not have that resource.

As an analogy, it is up to the school to teach the science behind the expanding gas in a close chamber that propels a bullet from the barrel of a gun and the ballistics which govern its flight. It's my job as the parent to teach the morality of sending a bullet into another living body.

@J. B. Schmidt

You can't honestly expect a high school education to completely eradicate fundamental social problems that have plagued society for decades? Sex education isn't designed to eliminate this, it is accepting that teens will have sex and do drugs and teaching them how to make proper decisions whether they partake or not. Schools are (and should be) a place of unbiased education, NOT social change or construction. THAT is where you should step in as a parent.

If "conservatives" were truly taking a solution-based approached to the issues of teen/unwanted pregnancy/abortion/contraception, one of the easy solutions would be mandatory reversible vasectomies.

As this is not on the table it is difficult to see this entire situation as a public display of misogyny and preoccupation with female sex/reproduction by the radical right wing. I find it distasteful, inappropriate.

@Lyle
If I am not mistaken, in Wisconsin, sex under the age of 18 and not married is illegal. Therefore you dodged my questions on how it makes it different then other acts that are not legal.

You again bring gender into this. Not I, the conservative. I am speaking on the ground of mutual responsibility. You are the one assuming teen boys are led around by their (insert word for male genitalia) and that teen girls are unable to turn down any sexual advances made by that (insert word for male genitalia). I am saying they are equally responsible. Who conceives the child is irrelevant if parents were doing their jobs.

@James Kroner
How is your statement of "it is accepting that teens will have sex and do drugs" not your imposition of morality on to kids? I refuse to accept that my children will engage in this activity. They have a choice to do what is right (my way) or what is wrong (have sex). That is the right I have as a parent to establish morals. You and the schools have taken that away with the implication that teens are uncontrollable and hence not responsible.

@Randy
Your gun analogy is incomplete. If sex ed were in the biology class you would be correct. Instead, sex ed discusses how the gun fires, how it could impact flesh and the consequences. Then they make the assumption that all kids will shoot guns at each other, provide every student with the education on wearing of a bullet proof vest and leave the kids with the understanding that it is now OK to shoot at each other.

Case in point. My son, 7th grader, had his first real sex ed class. The day before sex ed was to start he health teacher told the class not to miss the next three days, it was very important. If they missed any part of sex ed, they might need to have an awkward conversation with their parents. WTF! The teacher should be telling them to talk to their parents. Instead, the teachers want to be the parents and establish a morality that involves the false assumption of sex without consequences. Sex without consequences does not exist except in a committed consensual adult relationship.

Teen sex is not a case of kids not understanding facts. It is a case of kids being let loose with only hormones and no morality guiding the use of those hormones. As you apparently believe that teen sex cannot be controlled because they will die without sex as it is as important as food and air.

@J.B. Schmidt....Of course Wisconsin has made sexual contact prior to age 18 illegal. Other states set it as low as 14 and everything in between. Just making a social behavior illegal doesn't stop it.

We have to arm our children with factual information. I don't see a problem with teaching children the facts about sexual mechanics, pregnancy protection and STD prevention and detection. Since that information can be taught at a school level in connection with health, it's a proper venue. You have to remember that many adolescents are very uncomfortable with talking to their parents about these issues. Both parents and children avoid acknowledgement of the child or parent's sexuality.

It is the role of the parents to place sexual information in the context of the family values and moral framework. Schools cannot nor should not teach morality. However, both schools and families have vested interest in reducing unwanted pregnancy and disease prevention as well as society at large.

As far as mutual responsibility is concerned, I don't disagree. But, you can't assume that everyone will make good decisions and will be responsible. Females bear the greatest risk since they suffer the most consequences to their futures and reputations.

In sex education to teach abstinence only is analogous to auto accident prevention to teach never driving a car.

J.B., very good analogy completion with gun education! :) My father used to have gun class at his elementary school in Kenosha. The children could bring their guns (my dad brought his dad's rifle), give them to the principal in the morning, and then learn how to use them during class later in the day. There were a few kids whom the teachers and principal did not trust with firearms - they weren't allowed to take the class. They were taught how to use their weapons responsibly and with restraint. These children should be taught how to use their bodies responsibly and with restraint. I have no problem with explanations (no banana needed, though) on what birth control products are available as long as the class is not taught with the assumption that these kids HAVE to have sex to survive. Give them ALL the facts and encourage good behavior. What ever happened to Just Say No?

Sex education SHOULD be stressing abstinence. We have laws against adults having sex with teenagers. Why? BECAUSE TEENS HAVING SEX IS WRONG!

No, I am not so blind to think that teenagers do not have sex. And I am not so dumb to think that stressing abstinence will stop all teens from having sex. So here is where I borrow a page from the Liberal play book: If we can stop just one teen from having sex until they are adult, then the program is worth it.

And Lyle, teens having sex is illegal, so J.B.'s point is not only valid, it's a good one.

@J.B. -- I actually agree with you about 'Sex Ed' classes, mostly because i don't want uptight conservatives like yourself poisoning sexuality for my offspring. The scientific/medical details of contraception (which even married adult people need to have a grasp of) could use a little help from the professionals. Telling young people about the various permutations of sexual activity and conveying a 'moral' attitude toward them is simply not within the purview of a school. Neither is any other form of morality. My son and I had the talk (actually a series of talks) so young that neither of us can recall when he learned the facts.

As for making underage sex illegal -- yeah, that's REALLY going to work. It didn't work for my generation (I have a feeling it didn't work for my grandparents' generation) and it won't work for this one. All it does is foster a disrespect for the law.

An 18-year-old impregnated a relative's friend's 15 year old daughter several years ago. Although paternity testing proved he was the father he was never arrested and never spent a day in jail. Today he's happily working a job with a complicit employer paying a big portion of his wage under the table, and owes tens of thousands of dollars in back child support.

The daughter has dealt with nothing but abuse from former schoolmates and friends, and the adult responsible is as popular as ever.

It is in the best interest of ALL young males to assume the worst about women and protect themselves. This means Fathers and friends must encourage condom use and alternative sexual practices with women that do not result in pregnancy.

I have successfully used this philosophy all my life - it has NEVER failed me. ALSO- men MUST demand genetic testing to determine paternity - too many men are being forced to pay for children they did not Father.

@enicar333 -- Wow, what a healthy view of sexuality and romantic life you must have! Women are out to get you. This reads like the opening section of The 1001 Arabian Nights.

Don't you find it ODD that the kids have been getting information about contraception since about the "Stone Age", or 1976, as you say it, and yet many refuse to use it?

Girls aren't getting pregnant because of a lack of information - it's due to irresponsible parents - and it doesn't surprise me that single mothers are the worst - they simply pass the irresponsibility on.

Women CLEARLY aren't being effective/responsible parents to their daughters - and perhaps this reflects a failure of their mothers. When will the females step up to the plate and stop making excuses for their irresponsible behavior?

Cindy, I agree that older children need to have all the information in order to help make their decisions. I think the problem many people are having is that they feel the content is inappropriate to the age. Yes, some children become sexually active at 12 and should know how to put a condom on. However, when the intent is just to educate on how to use birth control and how to recognize STD's, it appears to be a license to have sex. We all know kids from 13-20 feel invincible. Along with instructional courses, I think they need to have the crap scared out of them. THAT might make a slight difference in the teen pregnancy rate. Not much, but slight.

I recently was reminded how effective the stop smoking ads where that showed black lungs and people on respirators. Shortly after they aired, the number of people in smoking secession groups dramatically increased. I say, give those 15 year olds all the information they need - show them blackened lungs, a baby aborted, a drug addict pleading for another hit, the family of a gang member who was shot, someone dying of AIDS, etc. Don't glorify it like Hollywood does - give it to them straight. Field trips to the prison would be good, too.

"Women CLEARLY aren't being effective/responsible parents to their daughters"

If this is true than CLEARLY men are also not being effective/responsible parents to their daughters AND sons.

I agree.

Men definetely need to warn their sons about women and teach them about condoms and contraception - A man should NEVER trust a woman or rely on her word that she is on B.C. That knowledge has served me well. Always carry condoms.

Cindy, absolutely kids should have all of the information possible. But in the teen years especially, the words of parents carry much less weight than that of peers or other external information sources. The idea of reinforcing concepts in school arose from this understanding, and it was effective.

As I have posted elsewhere, teen pregnancies caused by teenage males have declined. The continuing issue is men age 18 and over having sex with underage females. Factors for this among underage females can vary but the fact remains that it is illegal to have sex with a minor. Unfortunately there is little in the way of accountability for adult males. This places all of the responsibility and repercussions on underage females in this category. Removing educational reinforcement from the public high school curriculum would only seem to serve the adult males who have interest in having sex with underage females.

I find this inappropriate, distasteful.

This story is outrageous! Whoever the jerk was should have been prosecuted! What a shame there was no responsible adult for this young woman to turn to.

Morningmist - you keep posting things that are off topic of the article. If you keep telling yourself that Walker will lose this recall, you will be setting yourself up for a HUGE letdown. Just because a judge lost in a liberal county as Milwaukee that really doesn't mean jack!

John Nichols is NOT a credible source. I watched as both he and Ed Schultz perpetrated the LIE that the protest candidates running in the primary, were to fool Democrats into voting for them. (1 minute 45 seconds was all I could stomach)
The real reason is to make sure the primary and the general elections, for all, are on the same dates. Nichols and Schultz are liars, plain and simple

Gee, judges appointed by a Conservative in Liberal counties were voted out. What a shock. Almost as much of a shock when Diamond Jim Doyle's appointees were voted out in Waukesha county.

@Clark
My article is certainly not off topic.

Clark

.................
8:06 am on Monday, April 9, 2012

Morningmist - you keep posting things that are off topic of the article.

This problem will never end. Period. The problem has always been there, always will be. Young people have sex. The best we can hope for is that we have easy access to birth control for both males and females. It's up to parents to teach morality and just because a young woman/girl gets pregnant doesn't mean she is immoral. I really doubt that there are many girls who go out and get pregnant because they know they will get "entitlements".

@FL Born -- You mean free 'entitlements' like public education? As for keeping the knees locked and the barn door shut, there's one Presidential candidate who cost his home state a pretty penny enrolling his numerous offspring in a cyber-school at taxpayer expense. This issue cuts both ways.

@Renee -- Like it or not, Mother Nature says we are sexually mature at puberty and sends those hormones coursing through our blood-streams to ensure more little babies to carry on the human race. It's our fault that social maturity comes so much later in life. We might want to consider an intelligent approach to the problem rather than just wagging a finger and talking about locked knees and zipped barn doors.

Randy, you must be referring to Rick Santorum. He moved his family to Virginia but kept his home-schooled progeny enrolled in the Pennsylvania cyber-school program. These 2 issues (moving out of the state he represented and the expensive education program) helped contribute to his 17-point Senate seat loss in 2006.

By his actions RS seems to be an individual who doesn't say "no" to himself very often.

@Bren -- You called it. Rick Santorum is an example of the sort of person who doesn't 'get it' about personal responsibility. Plenty of other people are paying for his personal choices, which he seems to think he's completely entitled to.

Rick's been living off of speakers fees, etc. since getting trounced in 2006. Now he has a billionaire backer to fund his campaign. It seems if one says the right things to the right people a comfy living can be had. Nothing against making a good living, but it's not too hard to scratch the surface of his "everyman" rhetoric and find the real facts.

@Bren -- I wish I could make $900K per year to have people listening to me talk. And i wouldn't even spout hateful nonsense. pardon me while I go Google a certain name . . .

John T., you are absolutely correct. More cuts are coming in July. It's a bit soon to tell the story about the Walker budget.

We could not continue down the road this state was headed. Collective Bargaining for public employees had to go. YES it is working. To see how go to:
www.itsworkingwisconsin.com
www.reforms.wi.gov

Keith Best, the new round of financial concessions wrung from public employees by Scott Walker (R-ALEC) was used to provide a funding base for the unfunded tax cuts.

John T. Pokrandt is correct. 2012-2013 will be year that tells the tale if the Walker administration is allowed to continue. Any who claim "it's working" now are premature in their congratulations.

Well FL Born that's a great idea but we know it just ain't gonna happen. So let's focus on educating our kids about the ramifications and responsibilities of unwanted pregnancies and provide easy and affordable access to birth control. This isn't the reason we are in so much debt.

Bren-- I can't believe what you wrote. That you can't remember Sarah Palin ever being called any names. That statement has to be the most naive I have ever read on these posts. It was determined by the liberal media, to attack her the night she become the VP nominee at the convention. The movie about her rise titled "The Undefeated" now showing on Time Warner Cable pay per view movies starts out with the massive onslaught against Palin. And it was massive. And it was unrelentless. And it was well documented.

"How about 18 years of Huber law? If a man earns $50,000/year half goes to pay his "room and board" and half goes for child support." LMFAO...you are truly naive if you think any more than about 1% of the deadbeat fathers in these cases have any income much less something approaching $50k/yr. In most cases these pregnancies are the result of two people with the collective IQ of a bag of doorknobs. Guess what the IQ is likely to be of this newborn ward of the state? 80 would be a stretch. Now, I am on board with you on the following: if you are receiving entitlements for your financial support you ought to be on birth control, specifically something you can't "forget to take"(remember, a doorknob has a higher IQ than the person we're talking about here). So Norplant for the women and ??? for the men. Would solve a ton of problems for our society.

Clark, the Scott Walker (R-ALEC) administration has taken an axe to the state budget without consideration. It wasn't a practical, logical process. And worst of all it didn't work. We still have a projected $3.6billion GAAP shortfall and a $143 million cash shortfall. But Walker's still talking about how he balanced the budget. Obviously Walker's focus was on promoting the ALEC agenda-public union stripping, corporate tax breaks, Stand Your Ground/conceal carry, etc.

And the TEA/Koch radical ideological stuff-female reproduction, sex education.

How did this affect our economy or create jobs? How did it even violate the state constitution? Domestic partnerships do not equal marriage. That was one of the arguments for defending 'marriage' -- that same sex couples could get almost every legal right that married people had without calling it marriage. Hospital visitation? Who in their right mind would be against that?

You're right, this was beyond cruel.

@ Randy

The smart folks in WI know that Walker's cruel move to cut visits for same-sex partners will only give them one more reason to vote AGAINST Walker!

Worst Governor Ever Stripped Same Sex Couples of Right to Visit Each Other in the Hospital
....

Just last week, on the eve of a holiday weekend, the jerk of the north signed into laws limiting abortion, repealing the state's equal pay law, and weakening sex education all cowardly-like, with nary a peep to the public. But he's been leading the gubernatorial Race to Act Like A Huge Jerk for awhile with this cruel, hateful move to limit family hospital visits.
.....

Now that there's a limited government Tea Party conservative in the governor's office, he went on right ahead and limited government right into the hospital room of committed same sex couples and filed a motion to stop defending the case.

And Bucky Badger wept.

http://jezebel.com/5900470/worst-governor-ever-stripped-same-sex-couples-of-right-to-visit-each-other-in-the-hospital#

This is very sad. Many gay people, including older individuals, do not have as much family support--even today--because of bigotry. This bill could cause isolation for the patient, and depression/isolation are factors known to inhibit healing.

Who benefits from this law?

I would venture to guess that any individual who works for a living is intensely interested in the amount of pay they receive, otherwise they would volunteer.

As a fiscal conservative, I support equal pay for equal work because many current financial heads of household are female. This includes single and widowed mothers; working wives of unemployed or retired men, etc. The more income people earn the less reliant they become on government services.

Repealing the Fair Pay act does not move our state forward socially or financially. Recall Scott Walker.

Morninmist, it seems Sen. Grothman and Gov. Walker (R-ALEC) have forgotten that women still retain the right to vote...

@Bren
They (the TeaGOP) are too arrogant to remember those details--but women will remember--as will their families and friends.

And look here!

cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012/04/those-classy-walker-backers.html

Monday, April 9, 2012

Those Classy Walker Backers (NOT)

There is no limit to what they'll do to interfere with an election:

A man wearing a gun in a holster and a T-shirt that said "Scott Walker for President" caused a stir after he voted in a small western Wisconsin village.

Village of Merrillan Clerk Debra Green said Tuesday the man is a firm believer in the right to openly carry firearms. She says he came to the village hall to vote with a pistol in a holster, tied to his leg.

She says that made some poll workers "very uneasy." After voting he went across the street and was handing out yard signs supporting Walker. Green says the man left after he saw poll workers observing him....

The original article:

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/146023345.html

Gov. Walker supporter carrying gun causes stir

The real "war on women" started in 2008 when the liberal media decided to up its attacks on conservative women starting with Sarah Palin. Where was the outrage when she and other women were called way more nasty names then Sarah Fluke?

Keith Best, I honestly don't recall Sarah Palin being called any names at all, please refresh. As memory serves, her GOP-funded Neiman Marcus "everygal" wardrobe, voice-coached accent, and well crafted "soccer mom" persona made this once-moderate millionaire governor of Alaska very popular with certain segments of the population.

Have you been living in a hole for the past month Bren? You really have not heard anything about Bill Maher, Sarah Palin and the 'c-word' in the news last month?

morninmist, ALEC's concealed weapon/Stand Your Ground/castle legislation has been mentioned in connection with the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Bo Morrison (Wisconsin, March 26).

Did anyone really believe that ALEC's pandering to the NRA with this legislation was going to make people safer?

Cow, I have not. But I don't watch Bill Maher. The worst I have heard said of Sarah Palin is the epithet "quitter," which though unkind, is not without some justification given that she resigned halfway through her term as AK governor. Same with "phony," of which the same may also be said, given the GOP-funded makeover she received before entering the national stage.

Bren:

You don't have to watch Bill Maher, just turn on the actual news once in a while. The Maher thing was widely reported around the middle of last month after the Dems tried taking Limbaugh down for his comments about Fluke.

Renee--Hillary is not conservative. A small sample of conservative women would be Michelle Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, our Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch as well as much, much more. All have sufferered tremendous vitriol, way worse than Sarah Fluke.

I wouldn't categorize any of the women you mention in your post as conservative, Keith; they are "conservative," which I interpret as a remanufactured term meaning "right wing ideologue." Conservative women would be Olympia Snowe, the late Margaret Thatcher, etc.

Renee, it is certainly true that Hillary Clinton was one of the most verbally-abused First Ladies in U.S. history. The vast majority of name calling did not come from independents or Democrats.

Renee-- Nancy Pelosi made Fluke a public figure. No one wants to revert to the dark ages. That is over the top and far from true. All the "buggers" are doing is sticking to their conservative principles of which many, many women agree with.

Keith Best, can you share some information about the "many, many women" who support this regressive legislation? I haven't discussed this with the entirety of my female acquaintance (yet) but all I have discussed it with so far are deeply offended.

The way I see this one could believe it is a slap in the face, not just to women but to anyone who feels discriminated against. I also see the reasoning behind it as this pertains to cost savings and if this is about discrimination the laws are already set, no one can discriminate in any workplace, if it is about wages and the unfairness of the ratios why should the smaller courts have to spend their resources hearing these cases. Not much anyone court can do about that.

Bren- The many, many women who support this legislation are conservative women. I don't think you would know too many. For example, I was with about 400 of them at the just past Republican Party of Waukesha County Lincoln/ Reagan Dinner. (Over 850 total attendees)They agree with this legislation, and they support Gov. Walker, who was greeted with numerous standing ovations as he spoke.

@Bren....I would suggest that you don't get into this kind of discussion with Keith Best. With his relationship with the Republican Party, all you're going to get is Party talking points. They have a vested interest in keeping the "conservative woman" in the dark and ignorant. Young conservative women have no idea the danger their rights are in from those they claim to support. Somehow they think that if we return to 1960 that life will be a paradise and all the problems will just disappear.

Wisconsin’s Fair Employment Act (WFEA), passed under Doyle in 2009 (Bren called it Fair Wage Law) is/was a mirror of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, other than the compensatory and punitive damages up to $300,000.
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=109534&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

Lyle, I agree with you 100% and will follow your recommendation. Keith Best errs in his assumptions about my acquaintance, which spans the socio-economic-political spectrum. All I have spoken to are incredulous, alienated, offended.

Keith Best, I'm glad Scott Walker (R-ALEC) has 850 people in Wisconsin who will still give him a standing ovation! ; )

@Bren -- It doesn't really make it legal to pay women less than men in Wisconsin. It just means there's less of a disincentive to do it, because it rescinded the punitive damages a business might owe, and it means a plaintiff will have to take her case to federal court rather than a state one. Obviously this is meant to be 'business-friendly' at the expense of workers.

Randy1949, I understood this legislation to be a response to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009?

Another thing we must consider and that is who is on the hook for all these "unwanted' pregnancies that all the education in the world will not help prevent, taxpayers. I do not believe sex education will help in fewer teen pregnancies but if it deters a few then that is less assistance paid to teens who will never get anywhere but a house full of children if this is cut. Which is cheaper? Not to sound cruel.

@Bren -- I have no idea what inspired it, but you might be right. It was an attempt to make it easier for women and other minorities who discover they have been shortchanged in pay to obtain redress by filing in a less expensive state court. And that's assuming they discover they've been underpaid at all. With the end to punitive damages, it just makes sense for employers to do this and hope they don't get caught. If they do, it's whoops, sorry Ma'am, here's your back pay. We're cool now.

Archie, you are not cruel but practical. Family planning is prudent and education should be introduced and reinforced. The area of the brain that processes action/reaction is not fully matured in the teen years and this is recognized by the education community. This is the age of self-awareness/assertion, which can result in questioning/defying authority. Spontaneous behaviors without understanding outcome take place; fighting, binge-drinking and driving, drugs, sex, crime, pranks, dare-taking, etc. Some of these behaviors may be gotten away with; others have far-reaching and/or deadly consequences. It is up to parents and organizations in loco parentis to be watchful of risky behaviors. Society tends to focus on the teens who fall through the nets but many more have been successfully protected. This legislation takes important tools away.

The Jay Sykes link explains it pretty good.

Bren while it is a shame some conservatives have a more moralistic view of what society should be than what society is this still confounds me. I believe reversing this bill should have been thought through more from a realistic view and perhaps as they say only tweaked. If sex ed is a valuable tool what good is it with only half the tools needed to make it work. What was the one thing most of us wanted when we were teens other than driving it was to have sex, I did have sex ed and was aware of the use of condoms. Did having sex at a young age make me a bad kid? No, but sex ed made me aware to use a condom. You are right about the young brain and it`s inability to process and I would much rather this tool be kept in but who are we to say...

Lyle, I'm sure conservative women are unable to comprehend what is in their best interest, what is in their family's best interest, and what is in the best interest of the economy and society. It's a good thing there are folks out there to help them understand. Just like it's a good thing the public schools administration is there to help black parents make decisions for their children, too. :)

@Heather in Caledonia -- I'm curious as to how you think that the repeal of the Wisconsin Fair Wage act is in the best interest of you and your family. Do you expect never to encounter wage discrimination in employment or have a daughter who might? Or, for that matter, to have a son who depends partly on the employment of a working wife?

Randy, I don't know the details of this repeal, so I can't give my informed opinion. Haven't had a chance to read up on this yet. I can tell you, however, that I have read many articles on the topic of women's pay in the workplace. It appears that much of the reason women are paid less is because of the types of jobs they choose, the high rates of part-time work (usually taken voluntarily so they have time to run the household and care for children as well) and the low seniority they have due to taking time off of work for a few years to have children. I certainly don't believe women should be paid less for the same type of work, however, I don't think they should be paid more than a man of the same experience just because they're women and the business is afraid if being accused of sexism.

I don't go into situations looking to be discriminated against. I know, I know - many people do because they live for things like that. You mean to tell me that this repeal makes it absolutely legal to pay women less for the same amount and quality of work? Wow. Surprised the courts would allow for that. Maybe I'll get some time to look into this further so I'm more informed. Or, I could stay in the dark and be ignorant and keep praying for 1960. :)

@Heather -- No, it doesn't make it 'legal' to knowingly pay a woman less than her male counterparts (as what happened to Lily Ledbetter). What it does is to make it harder and more expensive to take an employer to court if such a thing is discovered, and it does away with the punitive and compensatory damages. All that could be recovered in the event of a victorious judgement would be back wages. That leaves a lot less incentive for employers not to try to get away with it.

At one point, I found a link to the actual bill that repeals the act. I'll see if I can find that again.

@Heather in Caledonia....It is quite simple what was repealed. Now any woman who is being paid less than a male counterpart for the same work will have to take it to federal court instead of taking it to state courts. It puts a tremendous financial burden to take a case to federal court, therefore fewer suits are filed. With greater access to the state courts there is a higher probability a woman will pursue those who are cheating her.

Concerning conservative women being kept in the dark and voting against their own self interest; I don't really know what would motivate a woman to do such a thing, especially in the light of how hard women have had to fight for suffrage and equal rights. The way I view it, a conservative woman is the equivalent to women as an "Uncle Tom" is to African-Americans.

Randy, may I ask exactly why an employer would want to do this? Why would they want to try to pay a woman less than a man for equal work? Are we really back in 1960? I'm assuming "compensatory damages" is to reimburse the complainant for their legal fees, am I right? I suppose I would be in favor of retaining those damages, but I'm not sure that punitive is necessary. I would bet that if someone did this on purpose and the company was taken to court, that person would be fired for making such a stupid decision and, thus, punishment would be exacted on the perpetrator. It would be interesting to see how many of these cases have been brought and won in Wisconsin. Anyone know where to find that?

@Lyle
That is a statement complete lacking any basis reality.

@J.B. Schmidt....What doesn't have a basis in reality?

@Lyle
Conservative women are Uncle Toms. Seriously. You are either assuming 50% of the women in the country have been smooth talked by angry white men such as myself or you are attempting to bully Heather into your position because she doesn't agree with yours. Neither one has any footing in reality.

@Heather in Caledonia -- "Randy, may I ask exactly why an employer would want to do this? Why would they want to try to pay a woman less than a man for equal work?"

I think it is the aim of any employer to get as much work for as little pay as possible, and women are easier to do this to. Why would it have happened to Lily Ledbetter, who found out from an anonymous tip that she was being paid less then male workers she supervised and whom she had trained? If caught, the employer can always argue that the female employee is worth less to the company because she doesn't fit in with the male clients, or because she took three months of maternity leave ten years ago, or her college wasn't as prestigious -- take your pick. It also works because employee compensation is secret in most places.

As for someone getting fired if the company is caught and taken to court -- what if the 'someone' who set the pay is the owner/boss?

@J.B. Schmidt....Sorry, but 50% of all women are not conservative, not even close. Somewhere between 25-35% at most. I would guess that those that are conservative are closely aligned to fundamental Christianity.

@Lyle
1/3 of women identify themselves as conservative, just as about 1/3 identify with liberal and about 1/3 independent. Over the course of our election process and the political make up of our state and country, the averages show a much closer 50/50 split.

I am glad you were able to defend your position by insulting the ability of Christian women to make informed decisions. Yet, it is the conservatives attacking women.

@J.B. Schmidt....You're wrong about national politics being 50/50 for women. Fewer women vote Republican or conservative; and, those that do are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christians.

That makes total sense to me since fundamentalist Christians are very oriented to a patriarchy.

Randy, I'm still not convinced that this is a large and common problem. More women are graduating college than men. Women are much more confident and aggressive than ever before. Of course, there are always going to be cases like the lady you refer to - there are stupid people making stupid decisions all of the time. It just seems to me that, for the most part, the days when a business thinks this is a viable policy are gone. I'm certainly not saying there aren't men who believe women to be inferior in mental ability (I've run into plenty of those in my life! Hmmm... maybe a few who believe all Conservative Women are of inferior mental ability... ;) ), but as for a company policy to include this obvious discrimination and believe it to be legal is probably quite rare. I would agree that a woman who believes this to be the case at her job should have the opportunity to file a grievance and, if found to be correct, should have her legal fees paid.

@Heather in Caledonia -- if it's such a non-existent problem, as you say, where was the harm in leaving the 2009 law on the books? State Senators Grothman, Galloway, Darling and Zipperer seemed to feel a need to repeal it, and surely they had better things to do with their time than repeal a law that would never be used to bring a suit in state court in the first place.

@J.B. Schmidt, those who have chosen not to follow the teachings of the left have been automatically placed by Liberal Lyle and his friends into three distinct categories: Morons, Evil Bastards and Uncle Toms. (Read the whole thing at:)

http://downeastblog.blogspot.com/2004/05/morons-evil-bastards-and-uncle-toms-as.html

The protest Democrats would not be necessary if you could trust all the Democrats to run in the primary and not pull out since it is all about keeping the dates for the general as is.

If it is indeed a 'felony crime' for Huber to file as a democrat, why hasn't she been arrested and convicted for her 'crime' yet?

Mr. Howell, the hijinks are no surprise, unfortunately. Ohio, a key state, has pulled the teeth of their ALEC governor through their legislative petition process. The GOP in Michigan is being sued for passing legislation for immediate enactment that may not have been approved by the 2/3 majority required by state law.

Wisconsin is a key state for ALEC/Koch. I get the sense (perhaps because of David Koch's recent statement that "we're going to spend more" in Wisconsin) that they don't want Scott Walker to lose the recall election.

@Thurston ... Felony? You better get yourself moving and report this to the State's Attorney right away!

ALEC's website states that they are nonpartisan as well...

http://www.alec.org/

@Bren... The declarative of 'non-partisan' relates to the US tax code, specifically 501(c)(3) status. To maintain 'non-profit' status, it is prohibited from supporting or opposing political candidates or parties, but does not mean that the organization cannot take positions on political issues.

@Bren, do you think wealth can only be created by stealing from the poor? Willie Sutton and I have never been able to do the math on that one.

In 2006 (the only year data is available) George Soros Fund Management donated $65,000 to Wisconsin political candidates. That same year Koch Industries contributed $22,500, in 2008 $62,150 and in 2010 $82,150 ($43,000 to Scott Walkers gubernatorial campaign.)

There is no public information for Soros PAC contributions in Wisconsin for 2008 or 2010. But of course Soros funds foundations that fund other foundations in turn which then make their own contributions. There are so many Soros funded operations it would be difficult to account for all of them even if they wanted to be transparent.

According to Open Secrets 11 of the top 20 biggest donors to political campaigns in this country are unions and the top 18 either favor democrats or were neutral:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

The left has no problem buying political influence in America which explains the billions in wasted taxpayer money that went to Obama's political friends for green energy farces over the last two years.

So now you are citing a convicted felon and coverup artist. That's real convincing.

Yes, and an analysis by the MacGiver Institute is sure to be impartial.

@Randy1949

Ummmm....Read again.....The analysis is by the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA). MacGiver Indsitute is merely repeating what they said. You can find the same thing mentioned on CNN, if you like.

Ohhhhhhh snap!

Luke
Look at the NYTimes Business section for the job numbers.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/job-growth-isnt-just-a-womens-issue/

....The net number of jobs held by women has fallen by 683,000 since Mr. Obama’s inauguration, while those held by men have fallen by 57,000. But the statistic is misleading for several reasons.

First, women have lost a lot of jobs in the last three years, but men lost far more jobs during the recession. For this reason, the great recession has also been nicknamed the “mancession.”

Technically, the recession ended in June 2009, but let’s give Mr. Romney the benefit of the doubt and use his chosen benchmark of the start of the Obama presidency. From December 2007, when the recession began, to the Obama inauguration, men lost 3,264,000 jobs, while women lost “only” 1,157,000 jobs.

The chart below shows the monthly change in jobs held by men and women over the last five years. You can see the magnitude of losses by gender from 2007 to 2011 — and also that job losses have actually turned into job gains in each of the last 10 months for both men and women....

Thanks Peter

http://paper.li/NewsworthyNews/1298697344

Statement from Rep. Barca on federal court's latest rejection of Republican redistricting plan

MADISON – Federal judges from the U.S. Eastern District Court once again took Republicans to task, rejecting their "unpersuasive" arguments and "plainly insufficient" redistricting maps. Instead, the court chose to use the maps submitted by the plaintiffs. Following the release of this decision this afternoon, Assembly Democratic Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) released this statement:

"Republicans once again refused to work with others, instead submitting their own maps, which were rejected by the court. They should have involved the public and all parties instead of taking secrecy oaths and abusing their power by engaging in partisan gerrymandering to serve their own political interests. If Republicans had simply done the right thing from the start it would have saved the people of Wisconsin a lot of time, effort and money."

morninmist is promoting the use of Saul Alinsky tactics, now against ALEC. (Before it was the Koch Bros.)
Alinsky's Rule 12: Destroy the Individual Target
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.
Well we read the book too morninmist, and your tactics are NOT gonna work.

Ah, the smell of Propaganda in the morning

Prove something