The Zangief Kid: A Lesson in Bullying

In recent years, parents and the media have paid more attention to the occurrence of bullying at schools, mostly because those groups and individuals have finally realized that bullying has major ramifications (what can we say? Some people are just slow...). There may be some who do not agree with the importance of the issue, compared to bombing in Libya, earthquakes in Japan, and everything else on the world's plate. But this issue is important. We expect our schools to be a place of safety, without the fear of emotional or physical trauma. It happens though, and it happens more often than you think.

Our story today comes out of Australia. Casey Heynes is a 15 year-old boy. He's a little chubby, and a little awkward as most young teens are, but altogether seems like a sweet kid. He's been bullied for a while, because of his weight. Upon starting high school, the few friends he made abandoned him once the teasing started, and since then he's been called names, slapped upside the head, tripped, and generally abused. He was even duct-taped to a pole. According to an interview, he even contemplated suicide because of the bullying. Among his tormentors is a kid younger than him by three years, named Richard. One day, this younger bully and his friends thought it would be a fun idea to video Richard beating up on Casey, and then post it online.

The video starts with Richard shoving Casey against a wall, then punching him in the face. Read that again. Punching him in the face. Casey takes the hit like a champ. He takes second and third hit to the face like a champ. Casey blocks a fourth shot, but the bully gets more punches in.

That's the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.

Casey shoves Richard back. The bully tries for another hit, but Casey grabs him. Using his size and weight advantage, he lifts Richard up and throws him down in what could best be described as a suplex. The other tormentors, stunned, do nothing as Casey walks away. Both boys were suspended for fighting (rumor is that Casey got 2 days, Richard got 20). But Casey became a hero – immortalized in internet lore as the Zangief Kid (Zangief being a wrestling character from the video game Street Fighter), or Casey the Punisher.

This was self-defense. There was no further kicking or stomping or attacking of any kind by Casey. Richard started it, Casey stopped it, and walked away – that was all.

Did he go too far with the suplex? Perhaps. It was the best use of his advantages in the situation – height and weight, and altogether is probably the result of heat-of-the-moment and fight-or-flight. He might be too slow to throw a punch, and a missed punch would result in a far worse beat-down from the bully. Did Casey have the right to defend himself? Absolutely. At essence, is Casey in the right? You bet your ass he is. Even the bully's mom, in an interview, said her son got what he deserved. You read that right.

What else is Casey going to do? He can't just stand there and take the punches, or try to run away. He's surrounded, and the resulting video would go up online and make his life worse. There's no faculty to get to, and based on the history of bullying Casey's received, it seems that they really don't give a damn what happens to the kids, until someone either gets seriously injured/killed, or it makes the school look bad on YouTube. Negotiate or plead with the bully? When? In between face-punches 2 and 3?

Sometimes, you have to fight back. That's what Casey did. In an interview, Casey does realize the danger posed to Richard from the suplex, but he is not in the wrong. Kids have to learn that violence – in all its forms – has its consequences; punch somebody enough times, don't be surprised if your nose gets broken – or you're suddenly lifted off the ground and thrown. Maybe if bullies realize that they are as at risk as the victim, we'll see less bullying.

For now: Casey Heynes, a hero to the millions of the bullied around the world. I salute you!

Fall of a Pharaoh - What Now?

"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And then we fucked up the endgame." -- Charlie Wilson



What we have seen in Egypt is utterly incredible. It'll be talked about for decades, and the results of this revolution (which I think should be called the Friday Revolution, since most of its major gatherings occurred on Friday) will have major ramifications on the Middle East and the world for the next thirty years.



The Obama administration's handling of the event was very good. It was careful, balanced, rational, and well-timed. I cannot help but think that Mubarak's resignation today had something to do with the strong words from President Obama yesterday announcing support for the protestors. The questions remains: how should the United States proceed from here?



The army is in control of the government at this moment. Fortunately, the relationship between the American military and the Egyptian military is quite good, and has been for some time, particularly because we provide ample funding. We must maintain our good relationship, and at the same time convince the military that allowing for democratic elections and a revised constitution. Keep in mind, most of the senior government officials were military men, so the fact that the military now runs Egypt is not too different than what it has been for the past 60 years. The U.S. should work to make sure the police state comes to an end.

The United States should also work with opposition leaders (including the Muslim Brotherhood? Perhaps. We do need to clear up once and for all whether they are the radicals people claim they are). Provide funding, provide advice if they desire it. Perhaps most importantly, help them get back the money Mubarak stole from the people. First of all, a lot of it is money that we gave to Egypt to help the populace - it's OUR money that was stolen. Second, it is a sign of good faith that we are willing to back the Egyptians now to form a democratic government.

This is too important to fuck up the endgame. What else should the U.S. do in Egypt?

Plug for a Friend!

My dear friend Scott Resnick is campaigning for Alderman in Madison. He has just released his first policy paper on alcohol policy, available here: http://www.resnickfordistrict8.com/

Check it out!

The Tuscon Tragedy: Fallout

First, let me start off by expressing my deepest condolences for those affected by the shooting in Tucson. My deepest sorrow is reserved Christina Taylor Green, the nine-year-old cut down before she reached her true potential. That she was born on September 11th and died in this horrible event is saddening; a life bookended by terror. It is indicative, I think, of how we live in an age of fear.

I won't be discussing the events directly, or the shooter, or the debate over the causes. We've heard them all, repeatedly. I am interested in solutions; finding means to insure tragedies like this become rarer, and eventually non-existant. What follows is a list of ideas.

Immediate Solutions
1. Outlaw the sale of high-capacity magazines. Why does the civilian population need a magazine that holds twenty or thirty rounds? Hunters shouldn't need more than two, maybe three bullets to take down game. If you need more than two rounds to defend yourself, you need the police more than you need your gun. Bottom line, I cannot think of a rational justification for civilians to own high-capacity magazines.

2. Improve the background check system. Currently the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) works like this: a prospective purchaser fills out a form. This form asks relatively simple questions, such "have you been convicted of a crime," or "do you currently suffer from mental illness." Notice the first problem. While it is relatively simple to ascertain the truth regarding criminal record, mental illness can go undetected and there may be no record. If the dealer is in a Point-of-Contact (POC) state, the dealer will then contact the POC, an automated system that accesses the NICS, which is linked to a number of federal information systems (criminal records, basic identifications). These records are federal only. They do not contain records held by the state, and some states do not run background checks on their own records. I would recommend that all states run additional background checks on the state level in addition to the federal background check.

Intermediate and Long-Term Solutions
3. Increase funding, at all levels, for mental health care. As a particular few of my friends will tell you, the brain is perhaps among the least-understood organs. From what I gather, care for mental illness barely reaches parity with physical illness. I am hoping that some of my more medically-inclined friends can expand on this point, but I don't think I am far off in recommending better funding for, access to, and education about mental illness and mental health care.

4. Better parenting. This is probably going to sound really soft. The origin of the Tucson tragedy, as with many tragedies, is hate. Loughner shot Giffords because, among other things, he hated the government. Shelley Shannon killed George Tiller because Shannon hated abortion, Sirhan shot RFK because Sirhan hated Israel (and Kennedy's support for that state), James Earl Ray killed King because Ray hated black people. Like it or not, hate is the primary motivator for people to take a gun to other people. We need to do a better job teaching that it's not ok to hate. Look at the bullying incidents of the past few years; those kids were not taught that it is not ok to hate. In some cases, they were taught it was OK to hate. Until people are able to know the difference between disagreement, dislike, and hate, then there will be more killings.

What else can we do to avoid future Tucsons?

Prof. Feingold: Class is In Session

Former U.S. Senator and all-around good guy Russ Feingold has been appointed as a visiting professor of law at Marquette University. In addition to writing a book (something all of us in academia must do at some point), Professor Feingold will be teaching a course entitled Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate. This upper-level elective will be offered this coming semester.

It goes without saying that, with few exceptions, Russ Feingold is uniquely suited to teach this course. (Interestingly, Arlen Spector is also entering academia at UPenn's law school). Many professors are able to teach about American legislature, how bills are made into law, and the nuances of Congress. Few have actually been in office long enough to tell you how everything really works. I have a feeling that Professor Feingold's class will be invaluable to any law student with political aspirations, whether that student agrees with the professor's politics or not.

Now, to proceed to a question I am sure all Badgers are asking: why is Russ Feingold teaching at Marquette, and not at UW? He's a Badger alum (B.A. '75), he lives in nearby Middleton, and the University of Wisconsin is the flagship of the public university system of the state. Well, allow me to hazard a couple guesses.

First, as a state school, UW is under scrutiny by a deeply partisan legislature; you cannot deny this. If the university were to hire a former Democratic senator who was just ousted in the last election, I would venture to say there would be bickering going on in the Capitol. The university doesn't need that right now, especially with a new governor and legislature. Marquette, on the other hand, is a private university that doesn't have to answer to the state with regards to who it hires. Besides, if I were a Dem who lost in 2010, I just wouldn't want to hang around Madison just now.

Second guess, and far more mercenary: Marquette offered a better financial package. Or, Russ, in addition to teaching and writing, will be back practicing law, and he wanted to work somewhere besides Madison.

Overall, I'm glad Marquette hired Russ, and I'm insanely jealous of the students who will attend his class. Obviously, there are some blowhards out there that think it's wrong for Russ to be in the classroom, influencing the opinions of the youth and all that crap. Well, 1st: the youngest law student is 22, plenty old enough to think for himself. Russ isn't teaching kindergarten here. 2nd: what else should he do? This way he continues to give back to the community in the form of teaching, and he imparts his particular experiences and knowledge to the next generation.

Well, what else should he do?

I Hear the Train A Comi--Wait, Never Mind

Hey everyone, just a quick comment on the recent news that Wisconsin has turned down the federal money for the rail system. That money now goes to other states. Basically, my opinion is this: Scott Walker, YAAFM (Google it if you don't know what it means).

That money would have gone towards jobs, no doubt about it. Not just jobs associated with the railroad itself (staffing, maintenance, management), but the other jobs surrounding the rail system - work in the stations, manufacturing parts, to name a couple. Even if you didn't agree with the kinds of jobs that would have been created, I'm sure there are at least a few Wisconsinites who wouldn't mind working on the rails, or working at all for that matter.

Walker wanted to spend that money on road repair instead. Well first, that's not how federal earmarks work, Scott. Second, that's such a stopgap measure I don't know where to begin. Sure, you could have repaired all the roads and bridges in the state, and probably expanded a few of the highways. And that money might have lasted five years. But after five years of winters and heavy driving and summer traffic, and the money's all gone, what then? I mean, Wisconsin doesn't have a toll system (and I'm probably among the few that believes it'd be better if the state did), so money to keep up the transportation system won't come from there. Wanting to take money for rails to spend on fixing roads is short-sighted.

Bottom line: You missed out on jobs and you missed out on money and you certainly missed out on road repair. Scott Walker, YAAFM.

A Modest Proposal

I am going to ignore the fact that I haven't posted in months, and continue on as if nothing has happened.

As this election cycle comes to a close, we reflect on some of the issues/non-issues that have been raised. The Tea Party, jobs, head-stomping supporters, other people being me, three-ways in Alaska and Florida, taxes, jobs, the economy, health care, rent being too damn high, tan Congressmen, running from reporters, jobs, limp Democrats, batshit Republicans, and a million moderates marching (with music from Yusuf Islam and Kid Rock), and jobs. But one issue keeps coming up for everyone, left, right, and middle: campaign spending. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision now allows private groups/corporations to make unlimited donations to 527s and 501(c)s (not campaigns). We have seen an explosion in advocacy advertising by groups with names like Citizens for Justice, or Rednecks for a Better America (this is an actual name of a group from 2004).

To date, $3.9 billion have been spent by candidates, parties and issue groups to get a single message out: Vote for me (or, don't vote for him/her/it). Ads have flooded the airwaves and generally annoyed the American populace. Some feel the enormous expenditures made to buy ad time for the election could have been spent on better things, like hiring people, or buying up the entire world's supply of black market firearms four times over, or 80 days worth of video games. Therefore, I submit this proposal to the American people: we legally prohibit how much money a candidate/issue group/party may spend on television expenditures.

I'm not talking about public financing of campaigns. History has shown that, while popular with the people, nobody's really inclined to actually take the restrictions public financing entails. Let private financing continue. Let individuals (or corporations, same thing now) donate as much as they want to the cause of their choice. But each group that airs advertisements is limited, in total, to one half-hour of local airtime, and ten minutes national airtime. Airtime costs are determined from market to market, so the actual flat dollar amount will change depending on location, but the effect remains the same. A half-hour of airtime is a lot, really. If each ad runs for thirty seconds, that's 60 ad spots. For each market, there is a total local airtime cap for all political ads of eight hours.

Why is this inherently more fair? Well, for one, we no longer deal with the pesky issue of more money = more say. If some corporation donates 3 million to a particular 501(c), fine. But if 30 minutes of airtime only costs $500,000, then that 501(c) better find a different way to spend the rest of the money. Corporations want to be treated the same as individuals, ok. They can have as much say as the individuals who spend $500,000 on an opposing advertisement. What if someone decided to start up a whole bunch of issue groups to eat up airtime? Fine, but those half-hour and 8 hour limits are still in place.

And I can bet you that when air time becomes valuable, the ads will be of a higher quality, and perhaps might actually contain more valuable information instead of wild-eyed threats and insults.

So what would those groups do with all that extra money? Put it to good use: buy yard signs, t-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, key chains, hats, scarfs, window clings, a blimp with your name on it. I'm pretty sure that all of those items would be made in the USA (it's really bad publicity for American campaign groups to hand out stuff made in China), and that means jobs. So, not only will this plan limit the flow of political ads, but it will create industry jobs for people who desperately need them; and since we seem to live in an age of constant campaigning, that means those jobs will be constant. Yes we can - make cheap political tchotchkes!

To summarize: rather than limit how much can be donated to issue groups, limit how much can be spent on the thing that annoys us most, the campaign advertisement. Use the spare money to employ people in the making of campaign gewgaws (or pay your staffers more). Save the American sanity and its economy at the same time.

Have a happy Election Day. Go vote.