I recently received an e-mail asking me to support Isaiah 58 Summer, an effort that is under way to protest Arizona’s SB 1070 bill. What a sham. Their web site twists the verbage of the bill in a way to serve their own purpose.

First, right at the beginning of their home page, they say, “SB 1070, the anti-immigration bill that recently became law in Arizona has galvanized the faith community…” That statement is flat out wrong. SB 1070 is not an anti-immigration bill. It’s an anti-illegal immigration bill. There’s a big difference. But this is quite typical of people in the faith community. They just refuse to recognize the “illegal” part of illegal immigration.

On another page of their web site they say, “The Isaiah 58 Summer is a project of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, which represents diverse people of faith across the country who believe just, humane comprehensive immigration reform is the only solution to our broken immigration system.” Boy that sounds great doesn’t it. I actually have no problem with it, as long as they recognize that while they are hoping for reform, we still have to enforce existing laws.

Consider this analogy. If the speed limit on your local highway is 65, and you think it should be 75, that’s fine. Round up a bunch of people in your community, talk to your local lawmakers, and get it changed. But while you’re doing all that, you still have to obey the current 65 mph speed limit.

It’s a shame that our faith community leaders feel a need to exploit their positions in order to promote their agenda. I’m a Christian man and I’m certainly in favor of showing compassion where needed. But if the person in need of compassion is a criminal, then we should be touching their lives through a prison ministry instead of helping them get away with criminal activity.

I attended the 8th Congressional District Republican candidate forum last night at New London High School. It was sponsored by the Waupaca County Republican Party, and my overall impression is that the event was awkward and clumsy. The candidates and their remarks were fine (and I’ll write about them in another post), but other factors made for a strange event.

There were four candidates, four questioners and one moderator. The moderator explained that each questioner would ask a question of one candidate, who would then have 3 minutes to respond. Then the other three candidates would have the option of one one-minute rebuttal. His poor explanation led Reid Ribble to later ask for clarification about whether they get one rebuttal for the whole evening, or one per question. Other candidates were also confused about the rules.

The forum began with the moderator saying that the candidates will each get a 3 minute introduction. Then he introduced each of them. Then he turned it over to Terri McCormick, who was confused about what to do. The moderator told her that it’s time for the introductions, to which Terri responded, “but you just introduced us.” The problem was that the moderator didn’t know the difference between an introduction (which is his responsibility) and an opening statement (which is given by the candidates). He should have said that he’d introduce them, after which each candidate would make an opening statement.

Then, after the second question was complete, the moderator said, “sorry, I had a Democrat moment, I forgot to ask if there were any rebuttals to the first question.” After which he then asked for rebuttals to the second question.

Later, the moderator said he’d do one more round of questions, after which the audience could ask questions. He then allowed three more rounds before allowing the audience to ask their questions.

The panel of four questioners seemed confused and unorganized as well. Their questions did not focus on the critical issues of concern to Wisconsin residents. One asked a question about trade with China, a worthy issue, but certainly not any more important than health care, an issue that no one asked about. One questioner even asked again about China, 40 minutes after they had already talked about it.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that there was no power. Sorry, this was important. The forum was scheduled to begin at 7:00, however, at 6:55 the power went out. No lights. No microphones. Emergency generators at the school kicked in and we had emergency lighting along the aisles of the auditorium until 8:40pm. While the organizers were figuring out what to do, some guy got up on stage and led us in the “Star Spangled Banner”. Then he and some woman stalled a few more minutes, then led us in “God Bless America”, which would have been nice had they known the words.

The forum got going at 7:20pm, after they decided to move the candidate and questioner tables toward the edge of the stage so that we could see them better. When the lights finally came on, an hour and 20 minutes later, the candidates were now in front of the lights, so it was difficult to see their faces.

I certainly don’t mean to nitpick about minor issues that don’t matter; they don’t in the grand scheme of things. And I certainly appreciate the effort to get these candidates in front of voters so we can be informed. But each of these issues is magnified by the fact that there were so many (and there are more that I haven’t told you about). What’s worse is that the candidates needed to talk about important issues and engage the audience under such conditions.

I’ll be writing about the 8th congressional district candidates soon. But for this particular forum, the uncontrollable power problems notwithstanding, I give the event organizers a D-.

If a child tells the police, “my dad just kidnapped someone,” the police need to investigate. If a child meets the mayor of her city, and tells the mayor, “my mother grows marijuana in our backyard,” city authorities need to investigate. If a child is discussing immigration with the First Lady of the United States, and the child tells her, “my mother doesn’t have papers,” authorities need to investigate.

This is what happened last Wednesday. Michelle Obama was visiting New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, MD, not far from Washington, DC. While talking to students there, a second grader told Mrs. Obama, “my Mom says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.”

Mrs. Obama replied, “yeah, well that’s something that we have to work on right? To make sure people can be here with the right kind of papers, right?”

To which the second-grader replied, “but my Mom doesn’t have papers.”

It was a sweet little conversation, and if you have any heart at all, you can’t help but feel bad for the little girl. But this is serious stuff.

Most press outlets have reported that U.S. Immigration officials have said that no action will be taken on the matter. This is just ridiculous. A child has just told the First Lady of the United States that her parent has committed a crime. And we’re not looking into it? I’m not saying that we go in with helicopters and scoop away the mom in some dramatic fashion. But like any crime, we should at least investigate. And if the Mom really is in the U.S. illegally, then she must be deported to her home country, where ever that is.

We’ve got a conflict here that needs fixing. Most Americans agree that we need to fix our immigration problems. And if we all can truly agree on this, then we must also agree that being in this country illegally is a crime. Come on, why can’t we at least agree on that? Why can’t we agree on the definition of the first word in “illegal immigration?”

This is the sticking point of all of our immigration problems. Illegal immigration is a crime. Period. And it must be treated as such. We can’t expect our government to fix our illegal immigration problem if we citizens can’t even agree that it’s a crime.

Some people are protesting Arizona’s new immigration law, saying that illegal immigration issues should be handled at the federal level. That’s fine, but can we first agree that it’s a crime? And that all such crimes should be investigated and prosecuted?

In the case of the second grader, some have said that if we deport the Mom, then we split up the family. That’s just not true. The mother is the one who is splitting up the family, not the authorities. If your dad robs a bank and goes to prison as a result, you can’t blame the country for splitting up your family. The simple fact is that many people commit crimes in this country. And many of those criminals are parents. And families are torn apart every day because of the actions of the parents. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.

But let’s think about this for a second. In an immigration case, the offender does not go to prison, they’re sent home. So the family doesn’t have to be split up after all. When the Mom goes back to her home country, her family can go with her.

Things just aren’t right. We scream because the federal government is not fixing our immigration problem, but then we don’t want immigration officials to investigate a possible immigration crime. If we keep doing what we’re doing, we’re gonna keep getting what we’re getting.

As citizens of the United States, we must all agree that illegal immigration is a crime. And then we must enforce the law. This problem really is that simple.

I don’t get it. Politicians seem to think that we voters just aren’t smart enough. I’ve written about negative campaigning before, so I’ll spare you all the repetitive rant (just read that post if you’re interested). Scott Walker, a Republican, is the Milwaukee County Executive. Tom Barrett, a Democrat, is the Mayor of Milwaukee. Both are candidates for Governor of Wisconsin.

I’m a life-long Republican. My extended family is generally Republican. I’m an advisor to college republicans. So, it probably won’t surprise you to know that in any political race, the Republican candidate is where I’m at. That said, I never vote straight ticket. I do my own homework and make an informed vote. That homework includes reading articles, blogs, web sites and any information I can get my hands on about the various candidates. This also means I read a lot of crap, especially negative crap. While the negative campaigning I wrote about a couple of years ago was on TV, I suppose it was inevitable that it would spill over into Twitter.

When Scott Walker bashes Tom Barrett on Twitter (yeah, I know, it’s not “bashing”, it’s exposing the truth, blah blah), all that does is tell me why I should not vote for Tom Barrett. It does not tell me why I should vote for Scott Walker. And it also leads me to believe that Scott Walker is arrogant enough to think that if I don’t vote for Tom Barrett, then of course I must vote for Scott Walker. Not buying it.

For the Governor’s race, there are two Republican candidates right now, Scott Walker and Mark Neumann. So we’ll need to select one in the primary who will then go on to run against the chosen Democratic candidate. Hence, I’m spending my time now-a-days trying to find out as much as I can about each. I’m reading web sites, watching RSS feeds, and following twitter users. Recently, Scott Walker started tweeting about Tom Barrett. The problem is that I didn’t follow him on Twitter to read about Barrett. So I figured I’d wait it out and see where he goes with it. But it didn’t get better. As I write this, 7 of Walker’s last 20 tweets are about Barrett. That’s just not why I followed him. Typical negative campaigning though.  So I unfollowed him. One strike against Scott Walker.

Unfortunately, as is the case in most political campaigns, it won’t be long before the other guy starts bashing, and we’ll all be even again. What a crappy way for voters to be informed and make smart choices.

Fragmented internet presence

And while I’m talking about Scott Walker, someone’s giving him bad advice. His internet presence is becoming more and more fragmented. I’m a professional web site developer, and the way Walker is going about it is all wrong. First of all, he’s got two twitter accounts (that I know of): @ScottKWalker and @ScottWalkerHQ. Unnecessary and confusing. Second, he has at least five campaign web sites:

1. www.250000jobs.org
2. www.barrettbypass.com
3. www.brownbagmovement.com
4. www.myscottspot.org
5. www.scottwalker.org

There is no need for all these web sites. I talk with friends and acquaintances about politics. I give out web site addresses so others can get info for themselves. When I was recently giving out Walker’s address, I didn’t know what to say. Really. There’s just no need for all this. Why have content on one site that does not exist on another? Why duplicate content among multiple sites? And why own a domain name with your opponent’s name in it? That’s about as basic as negative campaigning gets. I suspect someone thinks they’re getting some kind of cool search engine presence or something like that by having all these web sites. That’s not going to work. The confusion and fragmentation will trump any perceived benefit.

There should be one web site with a single, unified message. In the web site business, we have a three-word mantra that we live by: content is king. No trickery, no stunts. No fancy search engine finagling. Just one web site with content that is true. In Scott Walker’s case, the site should obviously address all the critical issues facing Wisconsin voters today; but we should all go be going to the same place to find out who he is.

Scott, please just cut the crap. Refocus your negative resources back to yourself. Show Wisconsinites that if we send you to Madison, we’re putting a positive thinker in office. There’s still time.

I was just watching President Obama’s press briefing from yesterday, announcing a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, quite an important event. The stage looks very majestic, patriotic and American. The President spoke with confidence and certainty, flanked by his top aides in this matter, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

At only 40 seconds into the video, I noticed Sec. Clinton making goo goo eyes at someone sitting in the front row. Seriously? It’s YouTube, so I went back and looked again. Sure enough. While Sec. Gates stands at attention, showing respect for the fact that the President is speaking, Sec. Clinton is goofing around with people in the front row.

While it was only for a few seconds, it not only showed a lack of respect for the significance of the treaty, it showed her lack of respect for the Office of the President of the United States.

What a shame.

It’s that time of year, March in northeast Wisconsin, when the annual tradition of ice fishing starts to taper off. As temperatures gradually get warmer, the ice gets thinner and simply melts away for the summer.

So local authorities are issuing their warnings to fishermen. Now, I’ve never been an ice fisherman, but I know people who are, and I know that you have to be real good at gauging ice and knowing whether or not it’s safe. Simply put, you have to be smart about it.

What gets me is the rules of thumb that you hear from authorities. They go way overboard with their suggestions, so much so that it causes people to just not pay attention.

In a recent interview, Lt. Nick Craig with the Green Bay Fire Department suggested, “There’s no such thing as safe ice.”  In another interview, Chris Kratcha, Wisconsin DNR conservation warden, suggested, “assume that there is no safe ice.”

Why do these authorities feel a need to make such ridiculous statements? Can’t they just provide some appropriate tips to help fishermen determine how safe the ice is? What do they expect? That no one will go out on the ice at all?

As a hunter, we have a rule of thumb that says, “treat every gun as if it were loaded.” This is great advice. To be clear, we don’t treat every gun as if it’s not safe, we treat it as if it’s loaded. This rule then leads to some practical tips like where you place your trigger finger, what direction you point the muzzle, etc. This is useful stuff.

So, let’s just be realistic. If these experts want people to listen, they need to provide realistic tips that make practical sense. Making statements like they have does not help keep ice fishermen safe.

I was at the De Pere City Council meeting tonight where the council members discussed the issue of restricting the residency of registered sex offenders. De Pere does not currently have such an ordinance. Instead we have a loitering ordinance that kicks in under certain related situations.

Green Bay, our neighbor to the north, has such an ordinance. And the Green Bay City Council has changed it and refined it and modified it so much, that there are now very small portions of the city remaining where registered sex offenders can live. So communities all around De Pere have such ordinances, which presents an interesting situation for us. There is concern, raised mostly by Alderperson Carl Castelic, that when the state is trying to find homes for sex offenders, they’ll just look to De Pere first, since we don’t have an ordinance and therefore it’s easier. And in doing so, De Pere becomes somewhat of a dumping ground for registered sex offenders.

Castelic’s concern is justified. But while we expend all this energy and discuss possible rules at length, we’re overlooking one major issue. And that is the simple question, “why?”

Why do we need a sex offender residence ordinance in the first place? What is the purpose? What exactly are we trying to accomplish?

The concern of most residents is simple, we don’t want our children in danger, and we don’t want these criminals to repeat their offenses in our community. So, how should we best handle this concern? Certainly not by asking the Green Bay City Council what to do. Why not ask someone who knows what they’re talking about?

The local expert, who appears at many city council meetings in this area, is Tom Smith, the Sex Offender Registry Specialist with the Wisconsin Dept of Corrections. I’ve been to a community notification meeting where he spoke and explained how the registry works. It’s very interesting to hear his perspective on how things work, who these offenders are, and what we can do to protect our communities.

Smith also spoke at tonight’s meeting, saying point blank that residency ordinances don’t work. The main thing we can do to help these offenders and prevent them from repeating, is to keep track of them, know where they are, and make sure they get the help they need. And not only does a residency ordinance not work, it makes the problem worse, it has the opposite effect. Since it makes it more difficult for offenders to find a home, it causes them to lie about where they are. This results in us losing touch with them and they don’t get the help they need.

Did you get that? A sex offender residency ordinance increases the chances of recidivism. So, why then? Why did Green Bay and other communities enact an ordinance? I don’t know. I do know that historically, the Green Bay City Council deems themselves experts on many issues; they do things without supporting research and facts.

Smith told us that he recently examined his records and found that there were 42 registered sex offenders in De Pere. Further review of each case revealed that 5 of those actually did not live here. They live somewhere else and simply provided a De Pere address to satisfy the registry requirements. This is the perfect example of 5 individuals who have gone “underground” so to speak. So we actually have 37 living here.

Tom Smith also spoke at the Green Bay Sex Offender Residence Board meeting on April 1, 2009. Here is an excerpt of the minutes of that meeting:

“…for those offenders under supervision, the recidivism rate is 1%.  The Department of Corrections study found that with regard to the recidivism rate for a sex offender convicted of an initial sexual assault and then convicted again of a sexual assault is:  for those offenders who have been off supervision for 3 years the rate is 3.8%; for those offenders who have been off supervision for 5 years the rate is 8.4%; for those offenders who have been off supervision for 11 years the rate is 11%. Tom Smith indicated that is actually very low compared to other states.  Tom also indicated a Department of Justice study indicated that in 93% of cases, the victim knew the sex offender.  Out of that 93%, in 34.8% of the cases, the perpetrator was a family member, the other 58% are acquaintances, i.e. friends, people they knew, people they trusted, coaches, clergy, etc.  To prevent that, education of the public is the key.”

“Tom reiterated that the studies have been done and the fact is that these types of ordinances do not work.  If there is data in existence that proves these types of ordinances work, Tom would strongly support them, but there is no such data.”

So, all I ask is why. To date, we don’t have such an ordinance in De Pere. I hope the residents of Green Bay are asking their expert city council members how effective their ordinance has been. Is it accomplishing what they set out to accomplish?

And here in De Pere, if an alderperson wants such an ordinance, all I ask is why. Like Alderperson Dan Robinson, I’ll be against it, but if you want it, just explain exactly what you expect to accomplish. You owe us at least that. Explain in detail the research and data that you’re using to form your opinion. Provide some measurable statistics. Then in a year or two we can look back and see if it worked.

As I’m reading through the January 2010 monthly newsletter of the Knights of Columbus Abbot Pennings Council #3955, an overwhelming feeling hits me, and that’s the feeling of pride.

I’ve been a knight for six years. I remember back when a friend of mine recruited me to become a member of this group. Though he explained quite well all the good that these Catholic men were doing, my initial feeling was simple, no time. I’ve always been involved in many activities, and I just couldn’t see squeezing in one more. But my friend explained that this is a large council with many active men. There are a lot of activities, and all I have to do is pick the ones that interest me and that I have time for.

So, I’ve now been a 3rd Degree Knight since my birthday in 2004 and I’m so proud to be a member of this council. My involvement is small. I’ll participate in a few fundraisers from time to time, maybe hand out Tootsie Rolls at the local grocery store. Since I’m a professional web site developer, I developed a web-based program that allows a couple of guys to maintain our membership database. In short, I’ve simply given what I can, as I can. Ten years from now, who knows? But for now, this is what I do.

And this brings me to today. The January newsletter I’m reading includes this list of donations that our council approved at our December meeting:

Just look at those numbers! Individually, my brother Knights and I could not do this. But together, we are greater than the sum of our parts. Together, we can touch the lives of people we couldn’t otherwise reach. I can’t attend regular meetings, but I’ve been to a few where these donation decisions are made. No red tape. Just honest discussion among guys with big hearts. And just like that, a few thousand more dollars are put into the pockets of folks who need it.

If you’re not from the De Pere area, perhaps you’re not familiar with some of the organizations listed above. These groups help the most vulnerable in our society. These groups help young adults finding their way, homeless folks, pregnant teens, unemployed parents, and even individuals who have given their lives to religious vocations. These are groups for which there is little support in municipal budgets.

Look around you. Times are tough. It’s hard to make ends meet at home, much less help out others these days. But if you feel a need to be there for your community, find your local Knights of Columbus council or any group like us, and ask them what they’re doing. You don’t have to contribute big, but you can indeed be a small part of something big.

On January 22, 2010, the Green Bay Packers announced that they would raise ticket prices for the 2010 season. My tickets increased $9 each. I’ve got the highest price sideline tickets, at $72 last year. Now they’re $81. I’m not happy about the whole thing, but I want to explain.

The Packers have the lowest ticket price in the NFC North (yes, cheaper than the Lions). They haven’t raised ticket prices since 2007, which has helped me greatly through tough times. So I can’t complain much about the actual price. I want low ticket prices as much as the next guy, but I understand how things work.

What bothers me more than the actual ticket price are these three things:

First, the invoice came much sooner this year, and the payment for the entire season is due on March 31, six weeks earlier than normal. This came as a surprise. Looking back at the Packers official press release today, I see that this change was indeed mentioned. But I missed it. I don’t check the Packers web site regularly for press releases, so I missed it. And I don’t recall hearing about it from the TV and newspaper outlets who covered the increase when it was announced. Therefore I’m a bit unprepared this year. My fault.

Second, the letter from president Mark Murphy that accompanied the invoice makes no mention of the earlier due date. Murphy explained that the price increase was needed to remain competitive, etc. Fine. I want the Packers to be competitive. But there was no explanation for the earlier due date.

Third, according to an article in today’s Green Bay Press Gazette, ticket director Mark Wagner commented on the earlier due date, saying, “We had to do it. We had 192 names come off the waiting list last year and we ran really late (processing those changes). We knew we’d be raising the ticket prices, the economy’s not humming yet and we thought we might be getting more cancellations and we better be ready.”

I don’t know about that last one. I don’t work in a ticket office. All Packer games are sold out so I know the Packers ticket office probably doesn’t operate exactly like most other major sports team ticket offices. But with a stadium that seats 72,000, it’s hard to believe that they’d have trouble processing less than 200 season ticket ownership changes in a timely manner.

So I’m not happy about it. But here’s the real question. Am I buying it? Heck yeah. I’m still buying the tickets. I’ll buy my Packers season tickets every year, no matter what they cost. There, I said it. My cards are on the table. The Packers can increase the ticket prices as much as they want, as often as they want, and I’ll keep buying. Sound dumb? Well, it makes total sense to a guy who bleeds green and gold. You can’t price the Packers out of my life.

While most other season ticket holders probably won’t state their feelings this way, tens of thousands are acting this way. It’s just the way things work.

Only problem now is that it’s 7 months until kickoff. I can’t wait. Go Pack!

So, Brett Favre’s season is over. As for his career, who knows? I’ve done my share of critizing Favre for his decisions over the past two years. I’ve even slammed him a bit via twitter. So, here are my final thoughts on Favre after this season.

First and foremost, let’s agree that Favre had a good year. Put all the crap aside for a minute and just look what he did for the Vikings. Head Coach Brad Childress saw an opportunity last summer. He called Favre and the two agreed that he’d play in Minnesota this year. And I suppose you could say it was a good decision. As a Packer fan, it’s hard to admit, but come on. The Vikings made it to the NFC Championship game. Fine. Favre thought he could still play, and Childress agreed. Good for them.

But I do want to make three points.

First, I still have a beef with Brett Favre, a beef that goes back to the summer of 2008 and the interview he gave with Greta Van Susteren. He specifically spelled out three reasons why he doesn’t trust Packers GM Ted Thompson. I won’t rehash those reasons here, you can read my blog post from August 3, 2008. But he spoke with such arrogance. He spoke like, “I’m Brett Favre and the GM should do as I say.” Since the GM didn’t agree with him on three issues, he didn’t trust him. Seriously? Who really gives a crap that a QB doesn’t trust the GM? After all that has happened with Favre and the Jets and the Vikings, this interview stands out as Favre being an idiot.

Second, we’re now two years removed from Favre’s first retirement and Ted Thompson’s decision to go with Aaron Rodgers. That was a pretty simple situation. Favre retired, Thompson and Head Coach Mike McCarthy named Rodgers the starting QB, Favre changed his mind, Thompson said “sorry, we already have a QB”. This was the issue that divided Packer nation for a long time. For some reason, we all split. Either you were a Packer fan or a Favre fan. Either you thought that no one player is bigger than the Packers, or you felt that Favre is god and what he says goes.

The difference now is that we have two seasons to look back on to see if Thompson made a good decision. In Rodgers first two seasons as the Packers’ starting quarterback, he passed for over 4,000 yards. Each! That’s never been done before in the history of the NFL. Rodgers is the first. We could look at many other numbers and stats, but if you ask any NFL expert, they’ll agree with me, that it was a good decision.

The only question that remains unanswered is,  what ever happened to the Green Bay Favre fans who vowed to camp out every night at Lambeau Field until the Packers took Favre back?

Third, and this is probably the most important issue for me as a Packers stockholder, season ticket holder and lifelong fan. Brett Favre will be inducted into the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame. The Green Bay Packers will retire Favre’s #4 jersey. Brett Favre will be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, as a Packer. These are all facts. They will happen. And I can’t wait. There will indeed come a time when Brett Favre will walk on the hallowed ground of Lambeau Field as an NFL alumnus, and we fans will go nuts. We’ll stand up and cheer for him like we’ve never done before. And I’ll be the loudest one.

I still don’t like what he said about Ted Thompson, but he can redeem himself, and if he does, I’ll feel differently about Brett Favre, the man. In the mean time, Brett Favre the player is the best thing to happen to the Packers in a generation. We had zero quarterback controversy for 16 seasons. How many quarterbacks did your team have between 1992 and 2007?

Brett Favre was exciting to watch, and I can’t wait for the day when I’m once again proud to wear my Packers #4 jersey, to honor the greatest NFL quarterback that I’ve ever seen at Lambeau Field.

I was at the Green Bay Holiday Dance Classic today at the Brown County Veterans Memorial Arena in Green Bay. I was there to watch the West De Pere Pom & Dance team, where my youngest daughter dances and my oldest daughter coaches.

The event began with the national anthem. The announcer had intended to play it over the P.A. system, but had some kind of problem. So he simply said, “why don’t we all sing the national anthem?” So we did.

Now, first, I don’t understand why this was so much of a shock. Everyone in attendance should have expected to sing the national anthem anyway. So the announcer got us started, and the crowd continued singing. What happened next was absolutely disgraceful.

Dancers all over the arena started singing in goofy voices, laughing and giggling throughout the entire song. The dancers sitting right behind us even sang the wrong words! Really. It was like it was one big joke. There was one dance team, wearing red and black pom uniforms with a diagonal white stripe across the front, who were the most disrespectful. They all sat together as a team, across the arena from us, and they were having fun, jumping around, laughing and singing in a mocking manner. I don’t know what school they were from, but they don’t deserve their freedom to dance. (I’ll be at more competitions this year, and when I see that uniform, I’ll know who they were and I’ll add a comment to this post.)

Everyone heard it. Everyone saw it. It was horrible. What’s worse is that not many other people there seemed to be as surprised or disgusted as I was. I tweeted about it, and another dad there did the same. But the event went on as if nothing happened.

I fully expect that the officials of this dance competition will be in contact with the dance team coaches about the incident. Someone needs to teach these young women a small lesson about respect and sacrifice. And if the officials of the Green Bay Holiday Dance Classic don’t care, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

All the media outlets in northeast Wisconsin are saying that the deadline to sign up for the Wisconsin No Call List is today. This is not true. TV stations are reporting it. Newspapers are reporting it. But it’s just not true.

Here is a quote from the Wisconsin No Call List web site: Consumers can sign up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. There is no deadline.

The only caveat is that the actual list is updated 4 times per year, on the first of January, April, July and October, and you have to sign up at least a month ahead of time. But the media is not making any decent attempt to clarify this. They’re simply saying “today’s the last day.”

So, if you didn’t sign up before some fictitious deadline, don’t worry, sign up right now, and your number will be added to the list at the next 3-month interval. Don’t forget to also sign up for the National Do Not Call Registry (something the media is not telling you about).

Note: the Wisconsin list is valid for 2 years, the national list is permanent.