Victor, if you look above you'll see it's listed under News > Government, Opinion. I don't know how much more clearly marked it needs to be to satisfy your concerns that everyone who reads it doesn't mistake it for news, but I'd say that's pretty clear. Similar pieces by Scott Walker and Herb Kohl have been placed under the same heading

On the other hand, there was a recent opinion piece here by Sandy Pasch listed under the classification of News > Government - which by rights should be clearly labeled as opinion as well.

Given your concerns about the placement of opinion pieces authored by government officials, I'll just assume you missed that particular article.

News and Opinion should never be mixed. In this case, its categorized as both govt. and opinion, not "govt. opinion. Quite a difference.

In a truly balanced news "paper", no active politician should ever be able to self-publish in a news section. That's what OpEd is for.

See "Get In Touch > Contact Us" below for a way of expressing your concerns directly to the folks who run this place. Maybe they'll agree with you and make changes accordingly.

Yup, already wrote the editor directly.

It says "OPINION" at the top of the page.

Don't feel bad, none of us can get a straight answer from him or any answer at all. If everyone of us packed every townhall meeting and assailed him with straight forward questions with the media there, it would be interestiing to see how many more town hall meetings he would hold. I guarantee the place would be crawling with security. Mr. smoke and mirrors.

I've mentioned the "Lunch Pail Republican" movement starting in Indiana here-traditional Republicans who are not happy with what is going on in their party. I remember reading about the old Federalist Party-it migrated so far from its originating core values that it marginalized itself. There is precedent here. Most of us are in favor of law and order and following the rules; not so much in finding ways to circumvent or change the rules just to get rich.

As long as globalization is profit-based, wages will continue to be depressed where they are high and marginally raised where they are low to create the illusion of growing prosperity. Eventually global wages will all be low and Lord knows what will happen to the people who don't have jobs.

For any one interested, here is a web site that collects daily data on layoffs and closures, with a link to the reporting article(s): http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/
Take a look-the Lodi, Wisconsin School district may have to lay off 18 teachers.

Nick, it's true--Ronald Reagan cut taxes for the rich, created a recession and had to backpedal. Since when are Republicans averse to raising taxes when necessary to help the country? There are earlier precedents.

My father is a Republican and is concerned about cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Now retired, he was a private union member since coming home from Korea. He's into land preservation. Hard work and real "conservation," -- land, resources, fiscal responsibility. Now the Republican-created EPA is a right-wing target!

And what the "right" currently calls "fiscal conservatism" is a joke. Borrow, cut taxes, and spend on wars, then turn around and scream about the resulting mess as if they weren't the ones who created it in the first place. And then instead of working together to come up with a measured, balanced approach to fix the problem they created, they obstruct. Why do they obstruct? Because of the seditious effort to destabilize our economy in the name of profit-based globalization. It has to stop.

I was wondering when you two guys would get together here.

In that case, I might as well make it a trio.

Of course trickle-down doesn't work. Eight years of supply-side economics on steroids between 2001 and 2009 should have taught us that. But no, the GOP wanted to give us more of the same, because they were so certain it would work THIS time.

The only ones it works for are the tricklers.

But I mean that in a good way, Randy.

Bob, would Ron Paul write this type of letter?

I think you'd have to ask Ron that himself, Victor. Or find someone sporting a "WWRPD" elastic wrist band and ask them.

Nick, I believe you are describing humanitarian-based globalization, which I laud but fear is a concept too sophisticated for our time. Profit-based globalization is here to stay, and capitalism of and by itself is a good thing--it inspires innovation. The issue is that the line has been crossed from the time you describe of taking care of workers, to a new mindset where people don't matter. And as Randy1949 points out, we had almost 8 years of unfettered, hyper supply-side economics. It's been working well for the Wall Street jackals, and they won't back off their prey so easily.

Battling the special interests/corporatists and their pocket politicians can only be won with people power and strategic voting. Here is a link to the Lunch Pail Republicans, perhaps there is opportunity to start a Wisconsin chapter?!?

http://www.lunchpailrepublicans.com/

@Bren -- About globalization and how it's a good thing because it brings us lower priced goods, people might want to stop and re-think that. I just retired a 22 year old RCA television. It still works but was showing signs of losing the sound. I replaced it with a reasonably priced LCD that probably cost the same as the RCA new but is expected to last a quarter of the time.

My 1985 refrigerator, an Amana, USA made, is still running (on borrowed time as well but it's still running). How long will its replacement last me? Are these foreign made appliances really that good a bargain?

The shorter lifespans of products are not necessarily because of the place of manufacture. Many items these days are intended to have shorter life spans. The idea is that since technology keeps changing so rapidly, most people aren't wanting to keep the same TV for 20 years anymore--they are already obsolete a year after they are purchased (if not sooner).

Randy1949, I agree with globalization because it has the potential to improve quality of life for everyone. Unfortunately we are wresting with profit-based globalization which exploits Third World economies and workers, depresses U.S. wages, and often results in poor quality products.

I have a c. 1985 Oster blender that works excellently well, and a late 70s vintage electric can opener that is used almost every day and shows no sign of wearing out.

Compare that to the Chinese-made food processor I just received as a gift--the motor burned out on its first run. And no, I wasn't mixing cement!

Cowdung, I'd agree that there are products that are intended to have a shorter shelf life based on upgrades, etc. However. Perhaps we consumers have to re-think our priorities and base our purchasing decisions accordingly.

A few years ago I purchased an HDTV. Am I now to replace it because it's not 3-D? As my world crashed around me at Best Buy at the knowledge that I could never watch Avatar at home in 3D, I realized two things: 1) Each time I have seen a 3D movie at the theatre I have left with an apocalyptic headache; 2) I didn't really like Avatar all that much.

So until the cat finally succeeds in knocking the TV over (a favorite game) I'm keeping that poor obsolete 1080p Samsung.

Randy, I do believe that if you dug around a little bit you could find a TV manufactured in the US (I think there are a few boutique companies still operating - I know for sure that's the case with audio equipment). The price wouldn't be quite as reasonable - in fact, it would considerably more expensive. Somewhere between the reasonable price you paid for what you got, and what a limited run set costs here today would be the price you'd have to pay if we had standard mass production of TV sets still going on here. From what I understand, part of the lifespan of a flat screen TV has to do with the lifespan of the LCD screen itself, so the fact that it was built here probably wouldn't effect its serviceable lifespan.

How much more would you be willing to pay for TV manufactured (or at the very least, assembled) in the US?

Actually he went in rich as well. To the extent that he's done "nada", they've all done and pretty much continue to do "nada". That's the way the system was set up in the first place. So that no one person can go in and make a complete mess of things. It's not a perfect system and it moves very slowly, but there aren't a lot of better alternatives out there if you're looking for a system whereby you don't have someone just sitting there calling the shots based on what they want to do. Things get done, and they get done quickly in countries like North Korea and China, for instance.

If you don't like Jimbo, find someone who can beat him. He hasn't hung in there as long as he has based on his good looks and winning personality.

@Bob McBride -- Sensenbrenner replaced Glenn Davis, another conservative do-nothing in Wisconsin's old Ninth (now the Fifth) Congressional District, which runs from Whitefolks Bay through Elm Grove and out to Chenequa. A Dem challenger has a snowflake's chance in hell, and Sensenbrenner will undoubtedly be replaced by someone even worse.

He's in Congress to protect money and promote a Conservative agenda.

@Mike -- Bren is right. Sensenbrenner came in rich, and he has no idea how the rest of us live. I mean, get a job and you will be able to afford health insurance and a trust fund and everything! That's how he did it, so why can't we?

I wouldn't say Jim Sensenbrenner has done nothing. You can thank him for the 2005 Real ID Act that means you need a special form of picture ID to get on a plane (and maybe vote). You can thank him for 'Terri's Law' which was the worst example of the government interfering in a person's private family life I have ever seen. He's worse than a do-nothing.

But that's what this district elects.

Randy, if the folks in the area he represents want him in office, he stays in office. That's the way it works. Nothing new there, really, is there?

I realize you guys are all wrapped up in this "recall every Republican in sight" thing right now, but that doesn't change the system we've had in place for years. God know there plenty of Democratic dinosaurs who've hung onto their spots for years and years. Ted Kennedy's supposed contributions to our country are mostly folklore and, frankly, if there ever was a poster boy for over-indulged, protected, moneyed, sloppy-drunk slovenly behavior it was that guy - and yet he kept getting re-elected by his constituents. So be it.

I don't like many of the clowns we keep re-electing in my neck of the woods over here but I get that the majority voted them into office because that's what they wanted and constantly complaining that they're "do nothings" (because they don't do what I'd like them to do) would just be stupid.

@Bob McBride -- I never said he didn't represent them and their interests. It doesn't speak very highly of them, but those are the breaks.

So your point was....???

@Randy: overlay a map of the average household income with the republican dominated districts in the area. I think you will find that the high income areas match up nicely with the republican districts. It usually takes some intelligence and motivation to make a good living. I don't think jives well with your implication that Sensenbrenner's district is full of idiots. I guess in your world they must be idiots because they don't think like you do.

Bren I wasn't referring to factories. I was referring the form of government.

I wasn't aware that Target and Walmart are "notorious" for ripping off designer fashions. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Target is pretty well known for their licensing agreements with designers. Walmart does some of that as well. If you've got a link to back that up, I'd like to see it.

Bob, here you go (it's old news, especially w/ re to handbags and wallets):

Walmart: http://forum.purseblog.com/handbags-and-purses/wal-mart-sued-fendi-selling-knockoff-bags-sams-23600.html

Target: http://www.styleite.com/retail/proenza-schouler-ps1-target/

Thanks, patch.

I'm not sure the term "notorious" would apply, given the number of products both retailers sell. Otherwise one could say that George Harrison was "notorious" for ripping off the music of others or Kia is "notorious" for ripping off the designs of Mercedes-Benz.

I don't know how one decides that a $35 dollar bag at Target is eating into the market share of a $1500 designer bag. The person buying the $35 bag at Target wasn't a potential customer of the designer and, best I can tell, folks who buy designer bags buy them for the purpose of having that designer's bag - they're not going to attempt to fool anyone with a Target bag. Particularly in the case of that bag, you can readily tell they're not identical. Then again, what do I know from style?

I still think "notorious" is an overblown description when you consider the 100's of thousands of different items both retailers have handled over time. If it could be demonstrated that they regularly solicit copies of popular designer label products with the intent to market something so close as to be indistinguishable and to sell them to the same market those designers are attempting to reach, maybe I'd be a little more prone to bite.

As regards Walmart and the Fendi thing, I'd say their "notorious" business practices in general likely had more to do with that situation than attempting to purposely sell knock-off Fendi products. Target can be a tough cookie, but given Walmart's penchant for "suggesting" how and where you source your product in order to get their business, I could see how they'd set themselves up for falling into a situation like that.

Bob, yes, links from 2 years ago on the subject seem to be gone. Target is better than Walmart in this regard; however note the experience of my acquaintance. Agents would attend runway shows and sketch, then have copycat clothes made in China. Target was also, if memory serves, one of the chains that was selling parkas trimmed with domestic dog fur from China (that's another subject not to discuss before lunch). I may have hard copy on that issue if your stomach can handle it.

Your story about your friend doesn't seem to indicate that Target and Walgreens took his idea and had it sourced in China. Is that what you're suggesting?

As regard the dog fur, as I'm sure most folks have heard you can actually help yourself to some dog meat, buffet style, in certain parts of China. They don't consider dogs or cats much differently than we do livestock animals. That's a cultural thing.

If you're going to do business in China, you do have to mind your "p"s and "q"s. I recently had a problem with a Toro snowblower that started to leak gas while just sitting around and found out it was because they started sourcing engines out of China when Tecumseh shut down. The Chinese don't use ethanol in their gas so some of the parts in the carb were not designed to stand up under the presence of fuel that contains it.

You and I can probably sit her and cite similar stories all day long as regards outsourcing, but keep in mind that back in 1995 they couldn't produce enough reliable lightbulbs in a shift to warrant GE (one of the first and largest US companies to aggressively outsource from China, btw) keeping their initial plant open over there. Now look at them. Anyone would be foolish to think that incidents like the ones you and I mentioned will reverse the trend. The savings are just too great not to take advantage of them and absorb the hits when they come. I don't like it anymore than you do. It hurts my industry as well.

@ nick
Must of hit a sensitive nerve OR Nerd. Notice you ever answer the debt crisis issue too. oh well. It is ok and what I expect from a Lib . Alot of spending ideas but no solutions .And alot of noise but substance.

When backed into a corner, notice how the old liberal personally attacks the challenger's intelligence. This is a tactic he has learned from his herd as they roam the barren socialist desert. When the challenger comes forth with economic numbers, the elite liberal hasn't yet been told how to counter this revaluation and instinct kicks in. He will retreat back to his tribe defeated to manufacture talking point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

He is right, we have reached that point where our debt is on par with our GDP. Whether this is a tipping point is open for debate. The trend is obviously disturbing. Someone will have to pay down that debt at some point. We all know who that someone is: it's the people with money or your children or your grandchildren. This is why the conservative voter base is so focused on reducing spending and the deficit(notice I said the voter base, not necessarily our politicians). They know they will be the ones left holding the bag. This is what the recall is about in Wisconsin: it's the responsible parties that know they have pay for what the government spends vs. those that want their entitlements and gravy train to keep running. In the private sector it's the guy that pays the bills that gets to make the decisions. That would be a novel concept in the public sector.

235301, I think most of us balance our checkbooks better than most politicians, because we're spending our own money and they're spending our money. There's just not the same level of caution exercised when someone else is footing the bill.

Unfortunately, the problems have been made, and I am not alone in believing that the folks who created the problems should help pay to fix them.