A Libertarian Evaluates Trump

From the libertarian Reason Magazine:

Well, for starters, allowing liberals to determine my level of anxiety — which would be full-blown, round-the-clock histrionics — over what’s nothing more than another election would be foolish. Until it’s not. The era of Trump hasn’t even started yet, and the entire establishment keeps using the term “era of Trump” as if things have actually changed.

They haven’t. If you’re genuinely interesting in being an effective critic of the next president, acting like Adolf Hitler is pounding at your doorstep every time Trump tweets something might not be the most effective plan in the long run.

Not to mention, the left has been such an astonishing hypocrite on so many issues related to Trump that it’s a bit difficult to move forward without pointing it out. Joining activists who’ve spent years attacking the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments— and now the Electoral College — in a newfound veneration of the Emoluments Clause is a bit much. Of course, Trump should be held accountable for his potential conflicts of interest, and one hopes conservatives who value good government will stand up when tangible evidence emerges that they exist. But the critics on the left aren’t serious about the Constitution. They’re serious about the Democratic Party.

Who can take journalists seriously — who’ve never once uttered a word of concern over the Democratic Party’s crusade to empower government to ban political speech by overturning Citizens United — when they lose it over a tweet about flag-burning? If it were up to them over the past eight years, Trump would now be imbued with far more power to achieve the things they fear — unilaterally. There was more angst over the president-elect ditching a reporting pool to have a steak than there was over any of President Obama’s numerous executive abuses. So when you hear people say democracy needs journalism “now more than ever,” remember that they’re admitting they weren’t doing their job yesterday. We also needed journalism more than ever back then.

Those who kept telling us that Hillary Clinton’s corrupt foundation and blatant favor-trading with the world’s most illiberal regimes were merely a conspiracy theory now act as if the republic will crumble if Trump’s hotel hosts the same Bahraini princes that were buying access in the Obama administration. The same people who told us Clinton’s emails were “bullshit” and a silly distraction are now horrified that former Gen. David Petraeus — who, like Clinton, shouldn’t be in any Cabinet, but who, unlike Clinton, actually paid a price for his mishandling of classified information — is under consideration for a position in the new administration.

Moreover, Trump hasn’t really done anything out of the ordinary — not yet.

What’s really upset Democrats, it seems to me, is that traditional conservative policy proposals — the sorts of thing Republicans have campaigned on for years, and the policies that have helped them win over 1,000 local seats and governorships and two wave elections — will probably be moving forward. The overwrought rhetoric used to describe the overturning of Obamacare or the reforming of entitlements — “gutting,” “privatizing” etc. — would be precisely the same if we had President-elect John Kasich.

Trump’s Cabinet nominees are the kind of run-of-the-mill selections any Republican would pick. You’ll remember that last week America was supposed to freak out about the chaos and sluggishness of the transition process. Then it was supposed to freak out about the potential white-maleness of the Cabinet. Well, his Cabinet members Nikki Haley, Elaine Chao, Seema Verma and Betsy DeVos are going to be just as extreme to the left as an actual extremist.

Trump, in other words, has been a much better President Elect than he was a candidate — a few crazy tweets to the contrary.

Harsanyi (the author of the piece) goes on to criticize Trump on sound libertarian grounds: his crony bailout of Carrier Corporation and his massive infrastructure proposal. But Harsanyi adds that these don’t signal a new era of American politics. They are a very traditional, if deplorable, way of doing things.

Trumps actions vindicate those, like local talk show host Mark Belling, who decided to suck it up and support Trump as the least bad of two bad choices. As for the never Trump people, like talk show host Charlie Sykes, they are slightly embarrassing — but only slightly, since Trump was a truly terrible candidate.

American democracy will survive, and its prospects are a lot better than they seemed a mere month ago.

Wisconsin Citizen Action: Shut up Conservative Talk Radio

Just found this in our e-mail:

“Can someone win without talk radio? Yes, theoretically. Except no one has.” - Milwaukee talk radio host Charlie Sykes, NY Times, 4/4/16

John -- I’m not going to sugarcoat it: Right-wing talk radio distorted our political process once again on Tuesday.

Using our public airwaves for what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising, Charlie Sykes, Jerry Bader and the rest of the reactionary talk radio circus delivered another election - this time for one of the most unqualified and bigoted Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin history.

This is why we’re starting the Radio-Active campaign, because it’s more urgent than ever we fight back against the right-wing radio machine. Make a generous donation today to help raise the final $5,000 needed to launch the Radio-Active campaign and begin to break the conservative radio monopoly in Wisconsin.

Each day, conservative radio hosts in Milwaukee, Green Bay, and other Wisconsin cities use unfettered access to the public airwaves to blanket our state with racist, hateful content designed to divide and conquer our state.

The conservative radio monopoly is responsible for splitting cities and suburbs, tilting public opinion to the far-right, and setting an extreme agenda at the Capitol.

Worse still, their programs use our airwaves as a get-out-the-vote machine for far-right candidates. Without the right-wing radio monopoly, there would be no Scott Walker or Rebecca Bradley!

We've remained silent for too long. Now we must fight back.

Our Radio-Active campaign will stop at nothing less than breaking the grip of the right-wing media monopoly in Wisconsin.

Radio-Active will (1) monitor talk radio, hold media corporations accountable for supporting an extreme political agenda, and force them to provide balance; and (2) explore the possibility of purchasing radio stations that will air progressive talk radio programming.

We can’t afford to avoid the elephant in the room in our elections any longer.

Are you ready to take back our airwaves and hold the right-wing extremists on talk radio accountable? Become radio-active with a donation today and help raise the final $5,000.

Thanks for joining the fight,

Robert Kraig
Executive Director
Citizen Action of Wisconsin

Interesting question here: Are the people at Citizen Action such yahoos that they actually believe their rhetoric about “right wing” and “reactionary” and “racist, hateful content” and “bigoted,” or are they cynical, assuming that their potential donors are yahoos?

How terrible that conservative talkers have “unfettered” access to an audience that voluntarily tunes in.  The last thing we would want is for speech to be unfettered!

Some of their proposed actions are reasonable enough.  If leftists can buy a radio station and compete in the free market of ideas, good for them.  Counter speech you don’t like with more speech.

Except that Air America tried left-leaning talk radio, and it didn’t work.

The idea of  “holding media corporations accountable” to “force” them to “provide balance” implies an ugly authoritarianism.  Are they planning to challenge the licenses of radio stations they think are not “balanced?”  Are they going to try and revive the Fairness Doctrine to force stations to have a liberal talker to match every conservative one?

Should  “community advisory boards” be required, and given the power to dictate what kind of programming serves “community interests?”

Liberals are always coming up with ways to silence the ideas they don’t like.

But attempts to use government power to silence unwanted ideas shows a nasty authoritarian streak among contemporary liberals.  They prefer to call themselves “progressives,” which may be appropriate, since they now have parted company with classical liberalism, which favored individual freedom, including especially freedom of expression.

And if “progress” can be achieved by an imposed orthodoxy, they are the folks to do it.

Campus Free Speech Discussed at CPAC

An interesting panel, hosted by Milwukee’s Charlie Sykes, about free speech on campus, at the meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

And yes, we make a very brief cameo appearance.

Marquette Jihad Against Warrior Blogger: Sources

Just three miscellaneous sources about about the attempt of Marquette to fire this blogger for outing a philosophy instructor who told a student that he was not allowed to discuss gay marriage in class since any arguments he made against gay marriage would be seen as “homophobic” and would “offend” any gay students in class.

First, an article in Wisconsin Watchdog about the case. It’s now about two months old, but since nothing has really happened in the last two months, all the information is current.

Next, an interview by Charlie Sykes with our lawyer, Rick Esenberg. The interview is from February 5.

Finally, an interview we did with Vicki McKenna on April 1.

Warrior Blogger on Marquette’s Cop Killer Mural

Two radio interviews on the huge fiasco surrounding Marquette’s mural honoring cop killer Assata Shakur.

First, an interview with Charlie Sykes, from May 18:

Next, an interview with Vicki McKenna, from May 20:

Academic “Safe Space:” Shutting up Ideas the Left Does Not Like

From Charlie Sykes’ show this morning: a discussion of “trigger warnings” and the supposed need for “safe space” on university campuses.

So what is a “safe space?” A place where politically correct leftists need not be exposed to ideas they don’t like.

But then, the campus leftists want to prevent other students from hearing ideas that the leftists don’t like. In other words, it’s another tactic of campus authoritarians wanting to shut up ideas. Add it to “harassment” and “micro-aggressions” and “incivility” and “offensiveness” and “hate speech.”

The campus left has many, many excuses for their censorship.  Some of the examples Sykes cites are bizarre, “beyond parody” as he puts it.

And of course, it ties the whole phenomenon to Marquette’s attack on this blogger.

Sources Syles cites:

• The deranged campus left reacts to campus speeches by Christina Hoff Sommers.
• Marquette English Professor Tom Jeffers on Marquette’s attack on this blogger.
• An article in the New Criterion, which notes that “The treatment of John McAdams at Marquette University reveals the newest level of intolerance in the world of higher education.”

Leftist Blogger Laments that Milwaukee Conservative Voices are “Unfettered”

Via Dad29:

It seems local leftist blogger Michael J. Mathias laments the fact that local conservative pundits are allowed -- and this is an outrage -- free speech. He begins by calling Bill Kristol “bloodthirsty,” and then turns to local people:

Locally, we have our own bellicose nutcases, and they are allowed to work, pretty much, unfettered.

That’s right. He thinks it’s an outrage that local conservatives get to freely express themselves.

Just what sort of “fetters” would he impose on them? He doesn’t say, but the history of the leftist blogophere in Wisconsin makes it clear.

If people like Mathias could, they would get them fired, and indeed they were proud in having a role in getting Jessica McBride fired from WTMJ.

They tried to get Charlie Sykes’ blog censored over a parody of the smug “Coexist” bumper sticker.

They will try to use campaign finance laws to shut up conservatives.

Failing that, they want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to force conservatives off the air.

If none of this works, in a classic instance of the frustration/aggression syndrome they will attack conservative bloggers and talk radio people. And they will especially attack women conservatives in the most misogynist terms.

We are old enough to remember what liberals were like before “progressive” politics took a huge turn in the 60s. Before the late 60s, liberals prided themselves in being tolerant. In their hearts of hearts, they were no more tolerant than other people, but the preached tolerance, and they -- quite fortunately -- felt bound by their own rhetoric.

Since then, liberals and leftists have more and more come to embrace a series of rationales for shutting people up. They more and more have felt free to express raw hatred of those who disagree with them. Again, it’s the frustration/aggression syndrome. As young people in the 60s or early 70s, they felt that history was moving their way. But it hasn’t, leaving them bitter and frustrated.

Letter to the Editor: Interfaith Conference

A letter to the editor, from Paula Simon, Executive Director of the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations.

Simon takes exception to some of our comments about the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee.

As the secretary of the Interfaith Conference and a member of both the Executive Committee and the Cabinet, I would like to clarify a few of the incorrect assumptions that you made in your blog about the positions and activities of the organization based on the content on its website.

You asserted that that the Interfaith Conference “strongly supported Healthy Wisconsin in the state budget.” This is factually incorrect. The Conference co-sponsored a series of health care reform education sessions at diverse congregations across the metropolitan area during 2007. These forums included proponents of a range of health care proposals, including market-driven proposals. At the forum that I attended at Congregation Emanu-El B’ne Jeshurun, the panel included a speaker from Americans for Prosperity. A Senate Republican and member of Joint Finance Committee presented the Republican sponsored initiative at two other forums. All of the forums were educational and no endorsements were made of any particular plan. Based on conversations at multiple governance levels of the Interfaith Conference, it was evident that there was no consensus on Healthy Wisconsin, and therefore no vote nor action to support it in the state budget cycle.

I also take issue with your assertion that the Interfaith Conference can be categorized as “a bunch of liberal bureaucrat/activists.” The Interfaith Conference is comprised of thirteen religious judicatories, and each appoints three representatives to the Cabinet that governs the decisions of the organization. I believe that many of them would be shocked to be labeled as such. There are many issues on which we disagree based on our respective theologies. We are, however, all guided by our shared vision to uphold the dignity of every person and the solidarity of the human community.

While a website might be a window, it is never the full view.

As Simon implies in the final paragraph, we based our assertions about the group on their web site, including the policy statements there, and also the links they included -- which were sharply skewed to the political left. “Strong support” for a government healthcare monopoly was what we saw.

We are delighted to learn that Interfaith Conference panels on health care included Republicans and people supporting a market-oriented health care policy. But wouldn’t it be nice to include these alternative views on the organization’s web site?

Simon doesn’t seem to understand the irony of denying that the Interfaith Conference is “a bunch of liberal bureaucrat/activists” and then pointing out that the organization is composed of “thirteen religious judicatories.” These “judicatories” are virtually all “mainstream Protestant” denominations of the sort that take the standard liberal or left position on any issue. Added to those are three Jewish organizations (which also take the standard liberal or left position on any issue other than Israel), the Milwaukee Archdiocese of the Catholic Church and the Islamic Society.

But the web site really does tell the story.

Simon doubtless sees the activists in the Interfaith Conference as a bunch of moderates with differing views. We all think that we and those we identify with politically are reasonable moderates.

But somehow, these folks invariably take the liberal side of every issue. If anybody wants to challenge that statement, they need to point to a conservative position they have taken.

WTMJ Supports Sykes on Parody “Coexist” Bumper Sticker

That’s the word from Tim Cuprisin, after a conservation with Jon Schweitzer, the general manager of WTMJ.

Leftist “Interfaith” Group Tries to Censor Charlie Sykes

It all started with a parody from Tom McMahon, who was aggravated by the extremely smug and intellectually slovenly bumper sticker in which a variety of religious symbols spell out “COEXIST.”



McMahon produced a parody bumper sticker with Nazi and Communist symbols substituted.



His point, of course, was that some religious views are simply impossible to coexist with, and must (like Nazism and Communism) be fought.

Charlie Sykes picked this up and ran it on his blog, and then the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee jumped in, demanding of Sykes and Sykes’ boss that the symbols be removed.

Interfaith Conference

Is the Interfaith Conference a protector of religious tolerance, attentive to slights against diverse faiths?

No, they are a bunch of liberal bureaucrat/activists who dislike Sykes simply because Sykes is a conservative.

Their leftist politics is not some sort of secret. They advertise it all over their web site.

They are, for example, supporters of socialized medicine. Not only did they sponsor a showing of the Michael Moore film “Sicko,” they strongly supported the “Healthy Wisconsin” proposal in the recent state budget battle.

They are also strong supporters of a Housing Trust Fund supposedly for low-income housing. While this may sound good, in reality it is merely a pork-barrel subsidy for local social activist organizations.

They are supporters of something called “Project Working Communities.” The web site of that project lays out its objectives.

• When available, all jobs will be with locally owned, union-represented businesses paying living wages and offering full-time work.
• All construction-phase jobs will pay at least prevailing wage.
• During construction, at least 25% of jobs will be in Disadvantaged Business Enterprises/Minority Business Enterprises and 5% in Women’s Business Enterprises
• During construction, at least 25% of employees will be minorities and 5% women.
• After construction, at least 75% of jobs will pay at least a living wage or market wage (whichever is higher), plus health insurance. The living wage is 110% of the federal poverty line for a family of four (in 2003, $9.73 per hour). Jobs without health insurance will pay at least $2 per hour more.
• Preferred jobs will be full-time, with sick leave, vacation time, and flexibility for family needs.

In short, unionization and rigid affirmative action quotas will be imposed, and economic reality will be ignored.

The Conferences sponsors a meeting called Common Ground, “A One Day Conference on Racism and White Privilege” where, from all appearances, the race card will be played incessantly. The program from the 2007 conference makes this clear, and the 2006 program features panels on subjects like “Globalization and New Urbanism are metaphors of white privilege,” and “White bonding, hurricane Katrina & other unnatural disasters.” Add to that the enchantingly titled “Old glory, mom, apple pie and racism: A dialogue on race beyond black and white.”

Anybody familiar with the mindset of leftist clerical bureaucrats won’t be surprised to learn that they oppose the death penalty.

Nor to learn that they favor a very liberal approach to immigration, and buy into the standard environmentalist agenda.

Who is Anti-Semitic?

Perhaps the most bizarre thing about the Interfaith Conference statement is the claim that the parody bumper sticker is somehow anti-Semitic. Yet the actions of the Conference raise serious questions. For example:

When the Toledo charity KindHearts was shut down this past February, for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, the group’s leaders got off scott free. One of those leaders was KindHearts’ President, Khaled Smaili. Another was KindHearts’ South Asia Director, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Unlike Smaili, who has remained virtually silent since the closure, Shah has continued to bask in the spotlight. He now sits in his new digs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Religious Director of a large Islamic institution and the toast of the media. Today, the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee will be sponsoring a Shah talk, taking place at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church.

And further:

. . . Shah’s love for his fellow man was not manifest, when, just a few years prior, in June of 2001, he spoke of a wild conspiracy regarding Jews retaking the Saudi city of Medina. He said, “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (The Prophet’s city of Medina), where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad. That’s the pinnacle of their motives.”

You can find further information on Shah here. Local Milwaukee columnists Cary Spivak & Dan Bice raised a variety of questions about Shah in a 2006 article.

But Shah’s group, the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, is a member of the Interfaith Conference!

The simple fact is that the Interfaith Conference lacks any credibility in attacking Sykes, or making any assertions about religious tolerance.

They are simply a bunch of liberals and leftists who dislike Sykes because they don’t like conservatives.

Live Blogging: Charlie Sykes at the Marquette Law School

Mike Gousha does the introduction, mentioning that Sykes has written six books.

Gousha mentions that Sykes also has a talk radio show, and writes a newspaper column. Sykes replies that it all fits together -- when you start thinking about things, you can talk about it, and write about it too. Particularly, talking about it requires conciseness.

Gousha is questioning Sykes about the book. Sykes notes that some of his “rules” have been around for years, first published in a Sykes column, and passed around the Internet (often attributed to Bill Gates.)

(One of his rules is “be good to nerds, since you may end up working for one.” Sykes says that since Gates is the most famous nerd in the world, it seems natural to attribute them to him.)

Sykes discusses the concept of “bubble wrapping.” Eventually, people have to face the real world, and they are not prepared for it.

Gousha mentions Michael Barone’s concept of a “soft America” and a “hard America.” Sykes embraces the concept.

Gousha: how do you perceive your role as a talk radio host, mentioning several things.

Sykes: “all of the above.” Sykes admits to wanting to be entertaining. “What is the alternative” he asks, “being boring?”

Gousha: Now much “clout” do you think you carry? Gousha quotes Bill Kraus. Kraus says Sykes not only defines Republicans but “runs the admissions department.”

Sykes says that Krauss overlooks the fact that people actually listen to him, and agree with him.
Sykes says he’s a conservative, not a Republican. “We have an allegiance to certain ideas.” But some Republicans think Sykes should be “on the team.” Sykes says he holds Republicans to their expressed ideas.

Polarization

Sykes says there is increased polarization in American society. There are few conservative Democrats.

Gousha asks Sykes if talk radio is part of the reason for polarization.

Sykes points out that there are many more voices now than before.

Gousha asks about Michael Savage, who calls members of the Supreme Court “vermin.” Sykes sees Savage as out of bounds.

The Mainstream Media

Gousha, playing the devil’s advocate, asks whether Sykes, when he was on the staff of Milwaukee Journal, was pressured to bias stories.

Sykes replies that reporters are not conscious of bias. They swim in a liberal sea, and don’t see their own bias.

Leftist View of Media

Gousha repeats the leftist claim that the media are run by rich capitalists, and thus have a conservative bias. Sykes replies that the culture in the newsroom is what drives bias.

The people who see the media as conservative, says Sykes, are Ed Garvey leftists, and people like Kevin Barrett (9/11 conspiracy theorist).

Sykes then wonders why the media don’t reflect the attitudes of the audience. In southeast Wisconsin, it’s about equally “red” and “blue.” Talk radio only succeeded because there was an “opening” because of the lack of conservative views.

Is Sykes “Burned Out” Talking About Politics?

Gousha says that he detects that Sykes, on the radio, sometimes just doesn’t want to talk about politics. Sykes admits this is true. Says that sometimes he would rather talk about his root canal than about politics.

How Did Sykes Become a Conservative?

Sykes dad was a liberal, and campaigned for 1968 anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy. But the anti-war movement turned anti-American. Sykes ran into politically correct intolerance, and noticed that the Civil Rights movement, which had opposed racial discrimination, started to favor it.

Sykes also, as a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal, noticed that the liberal social programs that were supposed to solve social problems didn’t work.

Sykes and Education

Gousha mentions Sykes’ books on academia: The Hollow Men and Profscam. These were based on an article written by his father, which was a sort of confession about academia, and the nonsense that sometimes passes for research.

Where education is concerned, these things run in cycles, Sykes says. Sputnick, for example, caused people to put stress on math and science.

“Barbelling”

Sykes mentions “barbelling,” the fact that there are many very bright and capable students, but at the other end are students who are struggling and failing.

Questions

Liberal asks: how do we improve the schools if we are not willing to spend on them? Sykes notes that we have pumped millions into the Milwaukee schools, and gotten nothing.

Sykes also notes we have great schools in Milwaukee, both public and private. But he asks, what are the barriers to spreading this success? Giving the teacher’s union more money so they can pad their benefits doesn’t help.

Another question: What about the parents? Sykes says that the problem is “huge.” Talks about how parents pamper their kids. When Sykes was a kid, if the teacher called home, he knew he was in trouble. Now, teachers can’t count on parents to support the school.

Madison student asks taking sugar out of school, including a ban on bringing cakes in to a party or event.

Sykes says it is related the the “bubble wrapping” concept. Points out that some North Carolina schools are raising money to put a canopy over the playground so that kids don’t have to play in the sun. What did people do when Charlie was a kid and they didn’t want to be in the sun? They went and stood in the shade of a tree.

Fairness Doctrine

Sykes is asked about it, and says he has an article coming out in The Wisconsin Interest on the subject. Democrats want to bring it back, but even if they could succeed, it would not really silence diverse voices.

How did it used to work: the FCC were the speech police, and the effect was that broadcasting became “brain dead.”

But the law has evolved over the years. Sykes thinks the courts would not now accept a new Fairness Doctrine.

Sykes fully expects Democrats to continue pushing it, and it would be “one of the most naked plays by people in political office to harass and suppress free expression.”

Gousha asks, why not more liberal talk radio?

Sykes says that, in the market place, this would be like a station alternating country and rap music. It just doesn’t work in the market place.

Sykes says that talk radio succeeded because of the overwhelmingly liberal bias in the media. There was a “huge market that was hungry” to hear conservative idea expressed. Likewise, Air America failed because there really is no shortage of liberal/left ideas.

Different Varieties of Conservative

A questioner asks Sykes where there are not tensions within conservative thought, particularly about the issue of community. Is it all complete individualism for conservatives?

Sykes cheerfully acknowledges that there are different flavors of conservative, from the Ayn Rand “care only about yourself” kind to the much more community-oriented faith community.

Call Screening

Question (and accusation): do conservative talk shows have call screeners who filter out liberal views. To the contrary, says Sykes. Liberals get preference. Disagreeing callers are “gold.”

An audience member says that Sykes TV show is best when it has opposing views. Sykes responds that the TV show is inherently balanced.

Sykes also says that the ratings pressure is much less on Sunday morning.

How Do You Avoid Burnout?

Sympathetic questioner asks how Sykes avoids burnout.

Sykes has said he will be on the air through the 2008 election, but he makes it clear he has not committed to retiring in 2008.

More on Bubble Wrapping

In response to a question, Sykes says it’s the Baby Boomer parents. “We are the first generation to obsess on whether our kids think we are cool or not.” He says his dad would never have cared about that.

A questioner suggests that bubble wrapping is good. Invokes the need to protect children. Sykes: “it would be kind of nice if we could delay the loss of innocence.”

But he goes on: in the U.K. a lot of kids were being killed as pedestrians. The reason: kids had had no experience in actually walking across the street by themselves.

Sykes just carried his kid to college, and noticed parents doing things like negotiating with RAs.

Final Question

How about the “standing up for what’s right” slogan. Goes back to the Ament pension scandal. Belling had the slogan “standing up for Milwaukee.” Sykes viewed Belling as “soft” on the issue, and adopted the slogan to express that he was standing up for the right thing. But of course it also means “standing up for the political right,” which Sykes also happily embraces.

Assessment

Much of the talk was vintage Sykes, with Charlie saying again things he was said dozens of times before. But we had not heard Sykes admit that he is close to “burnout” where discussing politics is concerned. He deals with it, he says, by taking long weekends.

His account of his conversion from conservatism to liberalism was also interesting. Sykes came across as congenial, self-effacing and not at all defensive on any issue. It was, if not intellectually groundbreaking, a very pleasant way to spend the lunch hour.

Kudos to the Law School and Mike Gousha for scheduling it as part of a genuinely diverse and interesting series.

[Update]

With amazing rapidity, the Law School has the audio of the entire talk online.

Condolences to the Sykes Family

Tragic news.

Mequon - Firefighters responding to a neighbor’s 911 call of a condominium fire Tuesday afternoon found the body of Katherine B. Sykes, the 87-year-old mother of Milwaukee radio talk show host Charlie Sykes, inside the residence.

Charlie Sykes confirmed in a statement Tuesday that his mother died in a fire at her condominium.

Mequon police and firefighters were dispatched at 3:17 p.m. Tuesday on a report of a fire with the resident possibly still inside the condo in the 12000 block of N. Woodland Drive.

The first firefighters to arrive reported smoke and flames inside the residence. Katherine Sykes’ body was discovered shortly after firefighters entered the building.

Ozaukee County Coroner John Holicek said he would not know until an autopsy is done today whether Katherine Sykes died as a result of the fire or had died earlier.

Our prayers are with the entire family.