New York versus Madison.

In New York, we've got this glorious sunset skyline:



But in Madison, I've got my own hawk on a telephone pole:

When will they arrest you in Wisconsin for commenting on a blog?

Here's the news from West Bend:

An Oak Creek High School teacher who allegedly praised the actions of the Columbine School shooters and threatened local teachers on a Web site blog was arrested Thursday. The 46-year-old Cudahy man was arrested with the assistance of Oak Creek and Cudahy police departments after West Bend police were notified of a threatening post on Nov. 16.

The actual blog [sic, blog comment], posted at 6:50 p.m. and provided in a release by the West Bend Police Department, states: “Looking at those teacher salary numbers in West Bend made me sick. $60,000 for a part time job were you ‘work’ maybe 5 hours per day and sit in the teachers lounge and smoke the rest of the time. Thanks God we won on the referendum. But whining here doesn't stop the problem. We've got to get in back of the kids who have had enough of lazy, no good teachers and are fighting back. Kids like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold members of the Young Republicans club at Columbine. They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time! Too bad the liberals rip them; they were heroes and should be remembered that way.”

The man, who admitted to posting the message, was arrested and a search warrant was served at his home. He is in custody at the Washington County Jail and charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communication systems will be referred to the Washington County District Attorney’s office. The Cudahy man has no previous arrest record that the police department is aware of, according to a statement.

Unlawful use of computerized communication systems? Are you wondering about the scope of that crime (in case you might want to rein in your comments around here)? It's part of the law against stalking, here. (Wisconsin statute, § 947.0125 — scroll down to "Unlawful use of computerized communication systems"). It's not limited to threats of violence. It even covers a person who "[w]ith intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act." That's a tad overbroad. It's a Class B forfeiture if someone "[w]ith intent solely to harass another person, sends repeated messages to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system." Apparently, repeating yourself is a crime around these parts.

The man who was arrested did not even direct his message at a target. He merely posted an overheated political statement saying that a certain sort of person — not even named individuals — ought to be shot.

Now, another angle here is that the blogger — Owen of Boots & Sabers — provided the police with the IP address of the commenter. The police contacted him after someone saw the comment and filed a complaint, and Owen "assumed that [the police] would find him, chew him out a bit for being an idiot, and leave it alone."

At first blush, I think [the arrest is] a gross overreaction for a comment left on a blog. Yes, the comment was idiotic and over the top, but it hardly constitutes a direct threat to anyone. It was explained to me that it was not believed that the commenter had any intent to harm anyone, but that the mere presence of a comment appearing to condone such violence had to be punished because it might encourage someone else to engage in violence against schools....

It appears to me that the commenter is attempting to do one of two things. Option 1: the commenter is a right wing whack job that isn’t violent, but likes to engage in outlandish rhetoric. Option 2: the commenter is a liberal who is trying to discredit conservatives by acting like option 1.

As you can see from the story, the commenter is actually a union teacher from Oak Creek, but it gets more interesting than that. The commenter was also once the president of his local teachers’ union. This leads me to believe that Option 2 is the truth. This commenter is just a liberal union teacher who was trying to make conservatives look bad by pretending to be one and acting like an imbecile.

Oh, no! It would be funny, except that it's not at all funny. The guy doesn't deserve to be arrested.

In a later post, Owen considers whether he should have voluntarily turned over the IP address and decides that he feels "no obligation whatsoever to protect commenters’ information from law enforcement," and he, understandably, is averse to having some stupid comment on his blog draw him into a problem with the police. But do you think, considering how much this law burdens free speech, that we ought to say no when we think there is no credible threat or serious harassment aimed at a particular individual? I'm not knocking Owen for what he did, because he was caught off guard and, it seems, somewhat intimidated by the police himself.

Can you read an on-line magazine formatted like this?

The NYT's new "TMagazine" drove me up the wall. I just can't see it. I feel like it's constantly flying away from me with all that animation. I can tell that they tried to make something beautiful and innovative, but it's profoundly irritating.

AND: Why would you want an innovative fashion magazine that is not visible on an iPhone? What is better fashion than an iPhone? Why would you tolerate that disconnect?

"Don’t worry, O blessed ladies, no woman is ugly to her own husband; she was pleasing enough when she was chosen."

So wrote Tertullian in “Women, Wear a Veil," quoted in Umberto Eco's new book "On Ugliness." There is logic to the veil scheme: Men will be satisfied with their wives as long as they have no other women to compare them to, and women should accept the suppression so that each one can maintain her grip on her husband. It requires everyone to live a life of visual deprivation, so that no one sees anything that might make him want what he does not have. You are never challenged to resist temptations, and to make it easy to avoid sexual pleasures, you have to give up all the visual pleasures that could easily be yours.

"Pat Robertson can say anything he wants about anybody. He has advocated the assassination of Hugo Chavez..."

"... and called for the city of Orlando to be destroyed by meteors and tornadoes. But when Adam Key makes a comment, he gets kicked out of school."

Key is a law student who had a Facebook page with a picture of Robertson looking like he was giving the finger. Robertson is the president of Key's law school, Regent University, and Key got a 2 year suspension. He's now suing in federal court:

Key’s suit also alleges the school defamed him and violated his right to free expression, required under requirements of the Higher Education Act for schools that receive federal funds. It also claims he was “fraudulently induced” to enroll at the school on the basis of Regent’s assurances that it allowed religious liberty and free speech.

Did yesterday's hostage crisis teach us anything about Hillary Clinton?

You might think we got a chance to see how she deals with a crisis, but that's not really so. She had no executive authority in the matter. The local police had to handle the situation. We did get to see how she looks upon a crisis from a distance — or, at least, how she allows us to look upon her looking upon a crisis from a distance:

When the hostages had been released and their alleged captor arrested, a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis.

Well, once the hostages were released, it wasn't even a crisis anymore, but what does it mean that she looks held-together when she strolls out for a photo-op?

The image, broadcast just as the network news began, conveyed the message a thousand town hall meetings and campaign commercials strive for - namely, that the Democratic presidential contender can face disorder in a most orderly manner.

Oh, good lord, she was not facing disorder. The hostage-taking was over, and even when it was going on, she was not facing it. She was waiting for law enforcement authorities to deal with a troubled man, which they did, without anyone suffering a physical injury. 

Did she do anything? Other than canceling her appearances — which she had to do to show decent sensitivity — she made a lot of ineffectual phone calls. For 5 hours, we're told, she "continued to call up and down the law enforcement food chain, from local to county to state to federal officials." She says, "I knew I was bugging a lot of these people."

Afterwards, she used the occasion to make a show of her emotions (or did you think she was cold and mechanical?). She said:

"It affected me not only because they were my staff members and volunteers, but as a mother, it was just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time."

Is that what you want in a President? Someone who feels extra confusion because she's a mother? 

But I don't believe that for one minute. I think that was just what was considered a good script. I don't happen to think it is a good script, because I don't want a President to roil into a mommyesque ball of emotion when a few people are in danger. Yet that's not Hillary. The only question is why she thought a statement like that was a good one. She probably wanted to make sure not to confirm the widely held belief that she's unemotional, and, while she was at it, delight all the ladies out there who lap up emotional drivel.

It was a vintage example of a candidate taking a negative and turning it into a positive. And coming just six weeks before the presidential voting begins, the timing could hardly have been more beneficial to someone hoping to stave off a loss in the Iowa caucuses and secure a win in the New Hampshire primary.

Oh, great. Let's just hope there aren't copycats out there ready to turn their despondent drinking binges into a day of fame that helps their favorite political candidate.

The attack on the Wisconsin gay marriage amendment moves forward.

A Wisconsin state court has held that UW polsci prof William McConkey has standing to challenge the ban on gay marriage and civil unions that was added to the state constitution. McConkey argues that the referendum that approved the constitutional amendment violated the state constitutional provision because it contained two questions merged into one. But does McConkey have standing to bring this issue to the court?

McConkey, who described himself as a "Christian, straight, married" father of nine and grandfather of seven when he filed the lawsuit, is not directly affected by the ban on gay marriages or the ban on civil unions. But [his lawyer Lester] Pines argued that the proposed amendment violated the Wisconsin Constitution because voters had to endorse either both concepts in the question or neither, and therefore were deprived of their rights to oppose one or the other.

ADDED: Simon of Stubborn Facts looks at the complaint and makes a strong argument that the McConkey is wrong on the merits of the case.