A recent favorite of mine, UP NORTH NEWS is smack on top of all things Wisconsin. You may have read my email exchange with State Rep. Romaine Quinn a few weeks ago. As I predicted, the Republicans don’t care about the spread of COVID among the general population. But it also appears their duplicitous behavior is oh-so-much-more.

This building where Scott Walker, having never campaigned in 2010 on a promise to slash workers’ collective bargaining rights, announced he and legislative Republicans were going to slash workers’ collective bargaining rights. This building where Walker, having spent his 2014 re-election campaign never fully embracing the perversely named “Right to Work” laws, cheered when legislative Republicans rushed the union busting bill to him once the campaign was over.

This building where Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos –having hurriedly passed lame duck legislation curtailing the powers of the incoming Gov. Tony Evers– said they were shocked, SHOCKED that the governor had no contact person for them as legislative leaders, only to be reminded that they had been told repeatedly to work with Evers’ chief of staff, just as they had with Walker’s. 

So when Republican legislators claimed on Wednesday to be apoplectic at learning a recent telephone conversation with the governor had been recorded, it only begged one question: what had Fitzgerald and Vos said after previous meetings that made someone on Evers’ staff determined to ensure there was an accurate record of what was actually discussed?

To be fair, nobody on Evers’ team is publicly claiming as much. The official response was that for such an important meeting –negotiating a new potential set of coronavirus safeguards after Republicans successfully got the state Supreme Court to kill the existing rules– recording was necessary to ensure accurate note-taking so that any new rule drafts would reflect the conversation.

But as it turned out, notes were not necessary. The Republicans, whose argument to the Supreme Court was that they wanted “a seat at the table” in crafting a new set of rules, told Evers there would be no seats needed, no table, no new rules; they would veto anything Evers offered.

And yet they now claim to be shocked that there was a lack of trust to the point where someone felt a recording was necessary?

What is a proportionate amount?

If you know, please let me know.

I am not disputing a pronouncement like this but I wish to know what is the proportionate amount:

“Crafted by leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the Justice in Policing Act aims to rein in the use of excessive force by law enforcers, particularly the violence targeting blacks and other minorities, who die disproportionately at the hands of police.”

(Note: I think THEY messed up the use of commas in this sentence. It makes no sense to think the “…leaders of the CBC die disproportionately at the hands of the police”. It also makes little sense to read this as “…law enforcers who die disproportionately at the hands of the police.” I suspect the comma after “minorities” should be removed but it is our little secret, yes?)

We already know that crime is not proportional across neighborhoods in a city. And we know that types of crimes (rape, murder, assault, etc) are not committed proportionately. Plus we already know that gender and religion do not have proportional amounts of crime either.

And let’s not forget the age demographic. Does anyone think that senior citizens commit a proportional or disproportional amount of crime?

So when someone says that blacks and other minorities die disproportionately by law enforcement, does that mean age, gender, religion, and neighborhood are factored in to race OR does it mean we are only talking the color of the skin?

Let me know if the methodology employed is fair or not. Might we qualify the statement by saying …”if all other factors are equal, there is a disproportional amount of black men killed by the police” but “when the other factors are not equal, then we really don’t know.”

Equal Opportunity vs Equal Outcome

Now that the races, the sexes, the genders, the aged, and the religious have equal opportunity in America. We are being told that equal opportunity is simply not enough. We must have equal outcome.

Regardless of your DNA, your parental upbringing, your geography, your DISC assessment, your whatever, it is racism if you do not have an equal outcome in life as other people. You should be compensated in some way for the “disparity” in your life versus the life you perceive others have.

Maybe we should call it Outcome Envy. Outcome Envy is the “need” you have to be like all the others not of your kind. You already know your kind, of course, but this is about you being equal to those who are not like you.

( Speaking of “needs”, does it bother you that nobody asks respectfully for anything? Instead of “May I have a light?” It’s “I need a light.” Instead of “Could you please do this for me?”, it is now ” I need you to do this for me.” I hate that.)

Equal outcome. Why in the world should people with more talent than others have more success? Why should people with more ability have more benefits?

We are all the same aren’t we?

Now, really, doesn’t that phrase conflict with “you are unique”? Or “you are special”? Of course it does.

The socialists in the world still wish to dominate who you are inside. The real you, the eternal you, the you with a soul. They try to convince you that you are not unique and do not have special talents. If everyone is the same, then you should have what everyone else has.

Equal opportunity means you are not burdened by laws and access to fulfill your dreams. You can make your life a success with the natural elements around you. Equal Opportunity is the opportunity to compete ; it is not a guarantee of success.

Equal outcome is like a Participation Award. Regardless of your effort, your DNA, or your abilities, you fit some generic idea of a human being who lived and you should be awarded a prize for being alive. Equal outcome is a horse race in which every horse wins regardless of which is first, second, or last. Like an adoring mother and father, the STATE will reward you with kisses and love for participating. It is the way parents treat children and it is demeaning to treat an adult that way. At least, it ought to be.