Speaker 1: The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
Speaker 1: quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Speaker 1: Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2: I'm back after taking a break of like two or
Speaker 2: three days. I am back for season two of the
Speaker 2: Marked Beelling Podcast, and I want to open by ruminating alone.
Speaker 2: For those of you who aren't that familiar with me
Speaker 2: and stumbled on me in podcast land, I was a
Speaker 2: radio talk show host in Milwaukee for thirty six years.
Speaker 2: I not only survived, I thrived. And one of the
Speaker 2: things that I noted over all of those years is
Speaker 2: that almost everybody I didn't see everybody, Almost everybody who
Speaker 2: was able to survive and as I said, thrive over
Speaker 2: the really long haul and talk radio had developed a
Speaker 2: bond with his or her audience, and that bond was
Speaker 2: based on credibility. Now I've talked to I've talked about
Speaker 2: that a lot over the years, that people will listen
Speaker 2: to all sorts of things for a while, but one
Speaker 2: of the things that keeps people coming back again and
Speaker 2: again and again is that sense of credibility that a
Speaker 2: the person is telling the truth or if expressing an opinion,
Speaker 2: an opinion at least based on facts, and secondly that
Speaker 2: you're stating what you actually believe. Again, there's exceptions to this,
Speaker 2: but not many. If you take a look at for
Speaker 2: the of you who don't live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin like
Speaker 2: many of my listeners do, whoever the dominant you know,
Speaker 2: radio talk show host, and whatever your area was. I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean, somebody that's been around ten, fifteen, twenty years,
Speaker 2: tops in the ratings and so on. I'm willing to
Speaker 2: bet that that person's audience sees the individual as a
Speaker 2: straight shooter without regard to what the political beliefs are.
Speaker 2: Starting last year, I transitioned from radio to podcasting, and
Speaker 2: my podcast is very similar to what I did on
Speaker 2: the radio show. There are obviously some differences. There are
Speaker 2: nowhere near as many commercials, the audience is more geographically
Speaker 2: diverse than the old radio program was. The radio show
Speaker 2: was broadcast live. The podcast can be listened to at
Speaker 2: any point. Their differences, but I did the radio show
Speaker 2: very similar. I did the podcast rather very similar to
Speaker 2: the way that I did the radio show. What I
Speaker 2: have noticed, particularly over the last several months is that
Speaker 2: thing that I mentioned about and every media is different.
Speaker 2: Radio is different from TV, TV is different than obviously,
Speaker 2: and podcasts in radio, I think are clearly different. And
Speaker 2: one of the things that I've noticed, at least over
Speaker 2: the short term, is that there are a lot of
Speaker 2: people that are very, very successful who don't feel the
Speaker 2: need that I just mentioned to be a straight shooter
Speaker 2: and honestly say what they believe. Now. I don't know
Speaker 2: about the long term because the whole landscape of I mean,
Speaker 2: the first podcast of any size showed up ten fifteen
Speaker 2: years ago. But I think the overwhelming majority of podcasts
Speaker 2: that are out there right now started in the last
Speaker 2: two years, and every week hundreds, maybe thousands more start,
Speaker 2: some with almost no listeners, some that aspire to be big,
Speaker 2: So we don't really know who's going to be dominant
Speaker 2: over the long long run. The best example that we
Speaker 2: have is Rogan. Joe Rogan had the first really huge podcast.
Speaker 2: It's still huge, But other than him, there isn't a
Speaker 2: long long track record of lots and lots of us
Speaker 2: over many many years or even decades to see whether
Speaker 2: or out it'll play out the same. But what I
Speaker 2: have certainly seen recently is that there are some very
Speaker 2: big and prominent people doing podcasts who are just saying
Speaker 2: stuff for short term clicks. Clicks. That's what it's all about.
Speaker 2: In my world, a click would be a download. You
Speaker 2: listen to the pod, you download the podcast. That's how
Speaker 2: we're measured. I have not wanted to be involved in
Speaker 2: all of this infighting that's going on in the conservative
Speaker 2: world and the bloggestphere of the podcast sphere and so on.
Speaker 1: But.
Speaker 2: I have to mention this at least a moment, because
Speaker 2: I think it's a good way to launch season two.
Speaker 2: I look at somebody like Tucker Tucker Carlson three weeks ago,
Speaker 2: he came right out and said he wondered if Trump
Speaker 2: was the Antichrist, the anti Christ. He was interviewed by
Speaker 2: somebody else two weeks a few days ago, and he said,
Speaker 2: I never said that. Well, see, one of the up
Speaker 2: sides and the downsides of doing a podcast is they're
Speaker 2: out there forever. I don't even know what can you
Speaker 2: I don't even know if you can delete them. Can
Speaker 2: you delete them? I mean, but I mean you can
Speaker 2: delete them. But they say it's like anything on social media.
Speaker 2: When the cops go in to look at somebody's phone,
Speaker 2: you're always able to find it. Once somebody downloads something,
Speaker 2: I think that they have it forever anyway, So everybody
Speaker 2: went back and played the inn their Tucker said, I
Speaker 2: watched him say it. I wonder if he's the anti Christ.
Speaker 2: The anti Christ. This is a guy who only a
Speaker 2: few months ago was a cheerleader for Trump. He stood
Speaker 2: by his side at the Republican convention in Milwaukee in
Speaker 2: twenty four, stood side by side with him for the
Speaker 2: first few months of his administration, defended him through most
Speaker 2: of the first term, and through this middle period in
Speaker 2: which he was under season, was running for reelection in
Speaker 2: twenty four, and all of a sudden it just dawns
Speaker 2: on him. Maybe he's the anti Christ. Now, as I've said,
Speaker 2: everybody has a right to change their mind on things,
Speaker 2: and only a moron refuses to change his or her
Speaker 2: mind when the facts indicate that the original position was wrong.
Speaker 2: I always cite as the example for this. I didn't
Speaker 2: think the Packers made a good decision when they plucked
Speaker 2: Ron Wolf out of football bureaucracy to be the GM
Speaker 2: of the Packers in the early nineties. Well just stick
Speaker 2: with that, of course, that the position was wrong. So
Speaker 2: say so do you have a right to change your
Speaker 2: mind on things? But were some of these people. We're
Speaker 2: not talking about changing your mind. You're talking about flip flap,
Speaker 2: flip flap, flip flap, flip flop, and it just strikes
Speaker 2: me as insincere. It's an old radio talk show host
Speaker 2: named Michael Savage. I always had the impression that he
Speaker 2: was making it up. Maybe that's wrong, but I had
Speaker 2: that impression. Again, maybe I'm wrong about that, but I
Speaker 2: had that impression about him. He was one of the
Speaker 2: few people that had and he was on in the
Speaker 2: middle of the night, so maybe that was a little
Speaker 2: bit different. But eventually I think he got into primetime
Speaker 2: and evenings, depending on when stations would carry him. I
Speaker 2: just since that there wasn't a sincerity about him. And
Speaker 2: again maybe I'm wrong about that. I didn't listen to
Speaker 2: him enough and I don't know him. In the case
Speaker 2: of Tucker, how could you have been as close to
Speaker 2: Trump as you were for all of those years and
Speaker 2: not picked up on maybe he's the anti Christ. He
Speaker 2: doesn't think Trump might be the anti Christ. He's just
Speaker 2: saying that because he broke ranks with Trump on what issue,
Speaker 2: the war in Iran and suddenly, rather than having the
Speaker 2: ability to break ranks on that that issue and say
Speaker 2: that he disagrees, he turns Trump into this terrible monster.
Speaker 2: He's a part of his real Maybe he's the anti Christ.
Speaker 2: Trump's behavior is no different than it's ever been. He's
Speaker 2: always been like this. He picks fights, he does all
Speaker 2: the thing. Whether you like Trump or not, just the
Speaker 2: same Trump. What you're not getting, though, is the same Tucker.
Speaker 2: Once he decided Trump's out of his side, and Trump
Speaker 2: made it clear that he's not on Tucker's side, you
Speaker 2: get this all out over the top rhetoric. And again
Speaker 2: I don't think he believes it. There have been others
Speaker 2: who have been doing the same thing. They'll say things
Speaker 2: because they think they can get a big following. Now again,
Speaker 2: in the short term, that works. Tucker's got right now
Speaker 2: a big following, a lot of the people that are
Speaker 2: opposed to the war listening to him. Same thing with
Speaker 2: candae Owans big following. I just wonder, though, and I
Speaker 2: don't know, because podcasting is different than radio. Radio is
Speaker 2: still a mass media and listening you know, conventional radio,
Speaker 2: there's a finite number of stations that are out there.
Speaker 2: You know, my show was ranked number one for years
Speaker 2: and years and years in the state of Wisconsin. But
Speaker 2: that was rated against just all the other radio I mean,
Speaker 2: what's in Milwaukee have right now? Eighteen twenty twenty two
Speaker 2: stations state of Wisconsin. Not that many. It's a finite world,
Speaker 2: and in order to get a big share, there are
Speaker 2: only so many options against radio. But I was doing radio.
Speaker 2: I wasn't measured against podcasts or anything on YouTube. It's
Speaker 2: just radio ratings, that's what it was. But in the
Speaker 2: podcast world, where there are zillions and zillions and zillions
Speaker 2: of them, all you're trying to do is get clicks,
Speaker 2: perhaps a smaller percentage of the overall market that you
Speaker 2: did when you were doing say cable television or radio
Speaker 2: and so on. So I don't know if Tucker does
Speaker 2: this flip flopping flip flopping, flip flopping, flip flopping, if
Speaker 2: he comes back into the good graces of Trump and
Speaker 2: then he goes out, will it work for him over
Speaker 2: the long term. I don't know. What I do know
Speaker 2: is that I'm too damn old to change the way
Speaker 2: I do it. And it's one of the things you know,
Speaker 2: I've over the years, I've had zillions of people ask me, first,
Speaker 2: how do you make it in radio? Know? How do
Speaker 2: you make it in podcasting? And I've never had a
Speaker 2: good answer to that other than well, first of all,
Speaker 2: you have to have natural ability, you kind of do
Speaker 2: or you don't, and then you have to come up
Speaker 2: with an approach. And my approach has been to not
Speaker 2: give three bleeps whether or not anybody in the audience
Speaker 2: agrees with me. I have to agree with me, and
Speaker 2: I have to back it up. And I've found that
Speaker 2: that may frost even some of my loyal listeners from
Speaker 2: time to time when I'm in a position that they
Speaker 2: don't agree with, But over the long haul, they come
Speaker 2: back because they realize, Okay, he was whacked on that thing,
Speaker 2: but at least he leaved it and he could make
Speaker 2: a case for it. I mean, this is a great job.
Speaker 2: We have a new producer in season two. Jason Gotchi's
Speaker 2: with us after I had Paul for all of these years.
Speaker 2: Jason is now a radio talk show host. He's bopped
Speaker 2: around doing a bunch of things in the business, but
Speaker 2: now he's established as a radio talk show host at
Speaker 2: my old radio station, WIS and Milwaukee. Also produces the show.
Speaker 2: He's gonna do his show the way he feels to
Speaker 2: do his show. It's a great gig. The whole world
Speaker 2: is looking for people to pay attention to them, and
Speaker 2: I get paid a lot of money to have people
Speaker 2: listen to me. Most people you couldn't pay them to
Speaker 2: listen to him. You just want to get away from there,
Speaker 2: So dull I get paid to have people if you
Speaker 2: have that privilege, if you have that platform. Seriously, what
Speaker 2: is the point in saying something you don't believe this? Candice,
Speaker 2: OAN's really believe Eric Kirk had her husband killed? I
Speaker 2: don't know, but I think there's a good chance he's
Speaker 2: making it up and knows it isn't true. Or maybe
Speaker 2: she does. I don't know, but I sense that she
Speaker 2: and Tucker and some of the others are just right
Speaker 2: now making it up. Well, if I get to have
Speaker 2: this large audience that's hanging, why would I say something
Speaker 2: I don't believe it. It's great to go in try
Speaker 2: to persuade people of your own beliefs, not some fake
Speaker 2: belief just saying something for the show. You you know
Speaker 2: who does that. Actors actively may play a villain in
Speaker 2: one movie and a hero in the next they're acting,
Speaker 2: it's not them. That is a lengthy introduction to the
Speaker 2: first program in season number two. You Line moves fast
Speaker 2: so your business doesn't miss a beat. From shipping and
Speaker 2: industrial supplies to office furniture, you Line offers a wide
Speaker 2: range of products that are in stock and ready to
Speaker 2: ship the same day if you ordered by six pm,
Speaker 2: and that includes the big stuff. You Line's expert customer
Speaker 2: service team is available twenty four to seven to answer
Speaker 2: your questions, help you quickly and easily place an order,
Speaker 2: or assist with any other business needs. Visit you line
Speaker 2: dot com hart actual topics. I mean, the story isn't funny,
Speaker 2: but just something about the concept of it that kind
Speaker 2: of makes you laugh. Every the whole existence of Spirit
Speaker 2: Airlines has been in a way, I won't say amusing,
Speaker 2: but you're bemused by it. Groundbreaking company. They just had
Speaker 2: a non sustainable business model. Their business model was to
Speaker 2: sell airline seats really really really cheap, and then up
Speaker 2: charge for every single thing that you do, up charge
Speaker 2: for the bags, up charge for the peanuts, up charge
Speaker 2: for this, up the charge for then ad. In the end,
Speaker 2: it was not a financially sustainable market. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of theories as to why Spirit didn't make it.
Speaker 2: They shut down over the weekend. One of the things
Speaker 2: that I've commented on, and I mean it's an exaggeration,
Speaker 2: but not that much of one. Just when I've been
Speaker 2: at an airport and I've never flown on Spirit, but
Speaker 2: when you're in an airport that has some big airports,
Speaker 2: there's only one airline and a concourse, like in Atlanta,
Speaker 2: Delta has certain concourses all to themselves. But when I've
Speaker 2: walked past Spirit counters, it just always seems like there's
Speaker 2: chaos there. And then you watch these videos on YouTube
Speaker 2: of people acting up on airlines. It isn't always Spirit,
Speaker 2: but boil boy, it's Spirit. A lot of the times
Speaker 2: people have theories about why this is. They're angry that
Speaker 2: they're getting bad customer service while they're paying peanuts for
Speaker 2: their tickets, or some of the people that are flying
Speaker 2: on Spirit are people who are used to traveling. You know,
Speaker 2: you miss your connection, you miss your connection. It's a
Speaker 2: pain in the ass. But again, it happens all the time,
Speaker 2: and it's Spirit. A parent of the customers can't stand it,
Speaker 2: or they cancel the flight. You know, the crew is
Speaker 2: over their hours, or there's a mechanical issue, You're screwed.
Speaker 2: It's just part of the overall hassle of fly and Spirit.
Speaker 2: Spirit customers just seem to have a harder time. I'm
Speaker 2: handling it the NOD. So anyway, they shut down late
Speaker 2: Friday night into Saturday morning. I can't even imagine the
Speaker 2: chaos at the airport's the next day, because you know,
Speaker 2: lots of people. Even though apparently that contacted people via texts,
Speaker 2: some people don't pay attention to them. There are people
Speaker 2: who showed up at the airport expected to get on
Speaker 2: their Spirit flight and none of there's Spirit not there.
Speaker 2: The customer service was down. It is gone. They say
Speaker 2: they'll refund, they're bankrupt. I hope they refund, but they're done. No,
Speaker 2: there's a reason in bringing this up, and a lot
Speaker 2: of commentators have made the same point over the last
Speaker 2: couple of days, so it's not original for me. But
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, Spirit and jet Blue proposed a merger.
Speaker 2: Jet Blue is a discounter, but not as much of
Speaker 2: a discounter as Spirit. Jet Blue's another airline I've never
Speaker 2: flown on. There are many flights out of Milwaukee on
Speaker 2: Jet Blue, it's a more limited route airline. It is
Speaker 2: a discounter, but it's apparently not as deeply discounted as
Speaker 2: Spirit and the level of service, et cetera is considering
Speaker 2: considered to be a bit higher than Spirit. But what
Speaker 2: they both saw was an opportunity to eliminate a competitor
Speaker 2: and expand the available routes and the gates that they
Speaker 2: have at airports. The Biden administration opposed the merger, and
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren, who Trump calls Pocahontas, the senator from Massachusetts
Speaker 2: who lied and claimed that she was a Native American
Speaker 2: when she wasn't. She led the charge railing against this
Speaker 2: because it would be anti competitive and offer fewer opportunities
Speaker 2: for the American consumer. Now, my position on anti trust
Speaker 2: and monopolies is different from many in the conservative world.
Speaker 2: I don't like monopolies and I think they should be
Speaker 2: busted up, and when mergers are truly anti competitive, I
Speaker 2: do think that the government should oppose them. But in
Speaker 2: this case, you saw two airlines trying to survive. Spirit's
Speaker 2: been in trouble for years, so might not letting them
Speaker 2: merge they go out of business Altogether. I think the
Speaker 2: biggest mistake Ronald Reagan made his president, was to had
Speaker 2: two breweries at a time in which the brewing industry
Speaker 2: bigger was better. High LeMans of Lacrosse, which had been
Speaker 2: a great brewery for many years, was really beginning to
Speaker 2: struggle because the giant breweries Miller Anheuser Busch were getting
Speaker 2: so big and controlling the distribution market. Woman's tried to
Speaker 2: merge with Might have this wrong? Did they try to
Speaker 2: merge with Stros or was it? I don't remember anymore.
Speaker 2: In any event, the Reagan Justice Department blocked the merger.
Speaker 2: Hilman shriveled up and essentially died. The brands are now
Speaker 2: controlled by somebody else, but the company died. First of all.
Speaker 2: I don't understand how that was anti competitive. There are
Speaker 2: a zillion beers still even if those two had merged. Likewise,
Speaker 2: in the airline business, there were one, five, six, seven,
Speaker 2: eight airlines that are pretty well known that travel across
Speaker 2: the United States. So once again lefties showed their complete
Speaker 2: lack of understanding of American economics. The type of merger
Speaker 2: that perhaps you should raise eyebrows about would be when
Speaker 2: two thriving, huge companies that control combined sixty percent of
Speaker 2: the market. Throw together, they're both already making money and
Speaker 2: they both have huge chunks of the overall market. Maybe
Speaker 2: that would be anti competitive, but two two smaller companies
Speaker 2: that are trying to compete against the big giant competitors
Speaker 2: trying to stay afloat. I don't know this, but my
Speaker 2: guess is that a higher percentage of people who fly
Speaker 2: Spirit vote for Democrats than vote for Republicans. So they
Speaker 2: did this to their own base on a transportation related topic.
Speaker 2: Over the years, I've talked a lot about how no terrible,
Speaker 2: stupid lefty idea is ever dead. They go into long
Speaker 2: term hibernation, but they're never dead. If we conservatives stop something,
Speaker 2: we never really kill it. We just put it on
Speaker 2: ice until the lefties bring it back again. Twenty ten.
Speaker 2: Amazing that it's that sixteen years ago, but it is
Speaker 2: sixteen years ago. The Democrats that controlled the governorship in
Speaker 2: Wisconsin for eight years, much like now, the state was
Speaker 2: on a bad path. Jim Doyle had been the governor
Speaker 2: for eight years, wasn't going to run for a third term,
Speaker 2: knew he was going to lose. A couple of Democrats
Speaker 2: eyeballed the thing. Tom Barrett became the nominee. One of
Speaker 2: the things that Doyle did in his final year as
Speaker 2: governor was he greenlighted a train that would run between
Speaker 2: Madison and Milwaukee. I said at the time that this
Speaker 2: is an absolute boon taggle and I went through all
Speaker 2: of the reasons why it wouldn't work, and so on.
Speaker 2: Scott Walker, the Republican candidate for governor, picked up on
Speaker 2: this and I'm killing it. For those of you who
Speaker 2: aren't from Wisconsin or don't recall, he ran an incredible
Speaker 2: number of ads saying he would kill that train. In
Speaker 2: the meantime, Doyle was trying to get as much work
Speaker 2: as he could get done on it in twenty ten
Speaker 2: before the election, figuring that so much money will already
Speaker 2: have been thrown in this that no governor, including a Republican,
Speaker 2: would ever walk away and essentially give up all the
Speaker 2: money that had ever been spent. Walker won the election.
Speaker 2: Barrett was trying to mumble away about why he thought
Speaker 2: the train was a good idea. In the rest of Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: people from anywhere but Madison and Waukee are the places
Speaker 2: in between who are already fed up with all the
Speaker 2: money that they send to Madison Milwaukee. We're furious that
Speaker 2: you were going to spend a fortune and say tax tile.
Speaker 2: Imagine if you're an anago, you say, what good would
Speaker 2: that train be to b I think it's possible Walker
Speaker 2: would not have won were it not for his opposition
Speaker 2: to that train. As I said, it just resonated and
Speaker 2: after Walker killed it, and indeed he killed it, walked
Speaker 2: away from the whole thing. There are a couple of
Speaker 2: lawsuits over contracts and so on, but the idea went away.
Speaker 2: That was sixteen years ago you had back. I almost
Speaker 2: called Scott up and said, hey, I know Tom Tiffany's
Speaker 2: in the race and all of that, but your issues back,
Speaker 2: Maybe you want to run again. Now this plan is
Speaker 2: different than the last one, but I kind of think
Speaker 2: maybe it's not as bad, but I've fear it's worse.
Speaker 2: Let me explain. This proposal would be to have the
Speaker 2: train be an Amtrak train. Amtrak has a nationwide route
Speaker 2: that runs through Milwaukee, but we also have a line
Speaker 2: that runs between Milwaukee and Chicago back and forth. It's
Speaker 2: called Hiawatha. That train's been around forever. This idea would
Speaker 2: be to put a spur of the Hiawatha line that
Speaker 2: would run back and forth between Milwaukee and Madison, so
Speaker 2: they call it part of Hiawatha, but it would just
Speaker 2: be a train that went back and forth between those
Speaker 2: two cities. There would not be a separate link connecting
Speaker 2: Madison in Chicago. Under this plan, the state of Wisconsin
Speaker 2: would subsidize it, but it would come mostly out of
Speaker 2: Amtrak's budget always they say initially, that would mean it's
Speaker 2: not as bad as the first plan back in twenty
Speaker 2: ten because the majority of the money would come from
Speaker 2: the federal government. It's too bad kind of Doge disappeared
Speaker 2: and Elon Musk went away at all of that. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying, all I would have needed to do is
Speaker 2: get him on this radar. He was killing off boondoggles
Speaker 2: we already had. Here's one to nip in the bud.
Speaker 2: Reading about this on js online, they use the train
Speaker 2: stations currently in Milwaukee. We have one at the airport,
Speaker 2: and then there's the so called intermodal station. It's the
Speaker 2: Greyhound and Amtrak station next to the downtown Milwaukee Post office,
Speaker 2: so that one's already in place. But there isn't a
Speaker 2: train station in Madison, so you'd have to build one there.
Speaker 2: And then there are proposal is to have it stopped
Speaker 2: twice along the way Pewaukee and Watertown. There are no
Speaker 2: amtractations in either of those places. First of all, I'm
Speaker 2: just telling you these costs are low balled. Do you
Speaker 2: know how much money it's going to cost to build
Speaker 2: a train station? And they said, well it wouldn't you know,
Speaker 2: the ones in Watertown and Pewaukee not that many people
Speaker 2: will get on or get off there. Then if that's
Speaker 2: the case, why do we need this. So on the
Speaker 2: one end, they're saying it wouldn't have to be that
Speaker 2: big of a station because not that many people would
Speaker 2: use it, But on the other hand, they're saying that
Speaker 2: there's this incredible need. By the way, their estimate is
Speaker 2: based on the projection about a thousand riders a day.
Speaker 2: In the history of humankind, there has never been a
Speaker 2: mass transit proposal projected in which the ridership didn't fall
Speaker 2: short of what the projections were. The Downtown Milwaukee Trolley
Speaker 2: will forever live as the most obvious example of that
Speaker 2: bea say, well, they wouldn't have to be that expensive
Speaker 2: of train stations, give me wait till they get started.
Speaker 2: This like makes the cost overruns in school referendums look
Speaker 2: like nothing. You're gonna build the thing, and now we
Speaker 2: need to acquire a lot of land for the parking
Speaker 2: lots because people are gonna take the train have to
Speaker 2: have somewhere to park their cars. Now we're building the thing,
Speaker 2: and eighty eight compliance and everything else, federal contracting rules,
Speaker 2: unionized labor, and once they start building the thing, everybody's
Speaker 2: gonna want to have their piece of the pie. There's
Speaker 2: gonna be you know, people are gonna want to lease
Speaker 2: space of the train station, all of that to have
Speaker 2: this train run back and forth. Now, under the proposal,
Speaker 2: their schedule would be to have one run a day,
Speaker 2: one in the morning rather than one in the evening.
Speaker 2: So the train would leave Madison at six fifteen in
Speaker 2: the morning and get to Milwaukee around eight, and then
Speaker 2: it would turn around and go back to Madison, and
Speaker 2: then they'd flip it around again. The Madison train would
Speaker 2: come back at five point thirty in the afternoon. So
Speaker 2: for all of the people who might initially say that
Speaker 2: this is a good idea, what about somebody who's in
Speaker 2: Milwaukee and wants to has to be in Madison. Say
Speaker 2: at noon, what they're going to leave four hours early,
Speaker 2: or they're done in Madison by two fifteen in the afternoon,
Speaker 2: they're going to wait until five point thirty to come back. Likewise,
Speaker 2: somebody who lives in Brookfield and doesn't want to drive
Speaker 2: to Madison, they're going to haul but all the way
Speaker 2: to Milwaukee at the exact time that the trail is
Speaker 2: going to be there, leave their car there all day,
Speaker 2: and then go to Medison. Now you get to Madison,
Speaker 2: I'm guessing they'll they would put the Madison train station
Speaker 2: somewhere downtown. You're the capitol. What if you're going to
Speaker 2: the university, that's probably a twenty dollars to twenty five
Speaker 2: depending on the time of day, uber right away, or
Speaker 2: you're going somewhere else. Imagine you're going to Epic and Varuna.
Speaker 2: What good is a tea for you there? I'm telling
Speaker 2: you who It would make sense for a Milwaukee lobbyist
Speaker 2: who works the day in Madison but lives in Milwaukee,
Speaker 2: and maybe a few members of the state legislature, but
Speaker 2: even they sometimes the legislature works beyond the end train time.
Speaker 2: The overwhelming majority of people will eventually say I just
Speaker 2: drive next time. An hour and forty five minutes from
Speaker 2: Milwaukee to Madison. You can get there faster riding a camel. Now,
Speaker 2: right now, I'm Milwaukee. We've got the I ninety four
Speaker 2: East West construction that slows things down during the rush hours.
Speaker 2: I came in this morning around eight thirty and only
Speaker 2: slowed me down about two minutes, but during the rush
Speaker 2: hour periods, and yet that the construction can really back
Speaker 2: things up. But otherwise I went to my sister's house
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks ago. This is about an hour
Speaker 2: and fifteen minutes. That was on a Sunday, and I
Speaker 2: wasn't driving that fast one forty five. This isn't a
Speaker 2: bullet train. So the only people to whom this is
Speaker 2: going to appeal are people at the specific who have
Speaker 2: to are willing to leave, specifically early in the morning
Speaker 2: and we'll need to come back late in the afternoon,
Speaker 2: who just don't want to drive for an hour and
Speaker 2: twenty five minutes. Now, I admit that drive from Milwaukee
Speaker 2: to Madison isn't doesn't take that long, but it is.
Speaker 2: I'll acknowledge it. It is an obnoxious drive. The freeway
Speaker 2: is goes from four lanes to three lanes to two
Speaker 2: lanes for a stretch. Then it gets up to three
Speaker 2: lanes near Madison, it can it's for whatever reason, it's
Speaker 2: just to me an annoying ride. Driving north toward the
Speaker 2: Fox Valley or south towards chi Kaga just is to
Speaker 2: me a more pleasant It's just an annoying drive. And
Speaker 2: it might be because when you get onto the two
Speaker 2: lane stretch it can really slow down. You have somebody
Speaker 2: slow going in the left lane, and so I acknowledge that,
Speaker 2: but in this you're physically unable to drive. For almost everybody,
Speaker 2: driving would be more convenient. Secondly, if they approve this thing,
Speaker 2: here's what's gonna happen. The ridership will be way lower
Speaker 2: than projections. And they're gonna say, well, it's because the
Speaker 2: trains are not running at the right time. We need
Speaker 2: to have an option in the morning, the late morning,
Speaker 2: the early afternoon. And the thing, you know, we got
Speaker 2: trains running back and forth forever and ever and ever.
Speaker 2: The Feds are gonna say, we aren't going to pay
Speaker 2: for this, and it'll come upon the state. JS Online
Speaker 2: Today has a story quoting just about all the candidate
Speaker 2: Democratic candidates for governor and Mendela Barnes honest, they actually say.
Speaker 2: They couldn't figure out what his response was. Joel Brennan
Speaker 2: was babbling too. Otherwise, All Mard favor of it, and
Speaker 2: Tom Tiffany, the Republican, he's against it. This may actually
Speaker 2: be a good thing that this is being proposed, because
Speaker 2: it might give Tiffany a campaign issue on the same
Speaker 2: way that Walker used it by asking the residents of
Speaker 2: all the rest of Wisconsin, and for that matter, even
Speaker 2: southeastern Wisconsin. We've seen Kenosha Sheboygan filic. Why do you
Speaker 2: want to pay for this for this train that is
Speaker 2: nowhere near you that you would never use. I've got
Speaker 2: another story here. For whatever reason, over the last few years,
Speaker 2: I've done an unusual a high number of fishing stories,
Speaker 2: which is weird because I don't go fishing. I just
Speaker 2: can't bring myself to do it. Jason's are no producer.
Speaker 2: Do you fish? Not at all? I believe I lacked
Speaker 2: the requisite patience to do it. It's probably one of
Speaker 2: those things that if I you know I as a kid,
Speaker 2: we grew up on the Fox River in which the
Speaker 2: only fish species floating around at all were carp Even
Speaker 2: the bullheads were dead just carp. I did we did
Speaker 2: go fishing for those carp a few times, just as
Speaker 2: something to do. But that was a You know, this
Speaker 2: is when I was a kid. There's no internet, there's
Speaker 2: no gaming, there's nothing. When you have nothing else, they
Speaker 2: don't go down to the river and fish. I never
Speaker 2: got it. Anyway, These stories just seem to come toward me. Now.
Speaker 2: A listener tipped me off to the story. It's actually
Speaker 2: reported today in the prededition of the Journal Sentinel. There's
Speaker 2: a controversy going on in northern Wisconsin on the tribal
Speaker 2: land controlled by the Lock de Flambeaud band of the
Speaker 2: Chipwa was The Lock de Flambeaud, for whatever reason, are
Speaker 2: always involved in controversy, and what they have done is
Speaker 2: closed off access to several lakes on their reservation to
Speaker 2: non tribal members. This is creating a very The tribes
Speaker 2: are claiming that these lakes are being overfished. I can't
Speaker 2: speak to whether they are or they are. We have
Speaker 2: a law on Wisconsin that all navigable. That means you
Speaker 2: can travel on it all navigable waterways. This would exclude
Speaker 2: say a little criek that doesn't go from here from
Speaker 2: point A to point B. You just gotta stop any
Speaker 2: navigable waterway is open to the public. It's a controversy
Speaker 2: in many of the communities in the lake country here
Speaker 2: in southeast and Wisconsin. People at these really really expensive
Speaker 2: homes in the lake, and here comes Joe Bubba backing
Speaker 2: up and taking his jet skis and his wave runners
Speaker 2: and all of this other stuff and putting it on
Speaker 2: the lake and yelling and screaming and hollowing and partying
Speaker 2: on the boat next to these people, the rich people
Speaker 2: on the lake shore. It's controversy, but the law on
Speaker 2: Wisconsin is everybody has access to the lake. Indian reservations,
Speaker 2: of course, are a special kind of thing. The tribes
Speaker 2: are sovereign nations and all of them cut contracts in
Speaker 2: the federal government back in the eighteen hundreds in which
Speaker 2: there was some level of sovereignty to the tribes. They
Speaker 2: are American citizens, but they're also members of their own tribe.
Speaker 2: They do have to follow American laws in some areas,
Speaker 2: but in many cases they are exempted. It's why the
Speaker 2: federal courts have ruled in in Wisconsin, the Native Americans
Speaker 2: are able to operate casinos, but nobody else's so can
Speaker 2: they close off the lakes? And claim that we own
Speaker 2: these lakes because they're on our reservation, which nobody would
Speaker 2: be able to do. For example, the people who live
Speaker 2: on Lake Nagaweka, who live alongside the lake, can't say
Speaker 2: that we own the lake. You don't you want right
Speaker 2: up to the shoreline. That's it. The tribes, and another
Speaker 2: thing I should mention about the tribes. Native American tribes
Speaker 2: do not consider one another to be like brothers. The
Speaker 2: Potawatabes do not consider themselves brothers. For example, of them nobbities.
Speaker 2: When they operate their tribal casinos. The members of that
Speaker 2: particular tribe get all the money. They don't share the wealth,
Speaker 2: and in fact, many of them don't get along. Potawatabe
Speaker 2: forever has tried to stop the Monomine from building a
Speaker 2: cas and Kenosha. So if people say these rich Indians
Speaker 2: are being greedy here, the lack de Flambeau aren't rich.
Speaker 2: They don't have an off reservation casino yet, I don't believe.
Speaker 2: And they treasure the land that they're on and they
Speaker 2: think that it's being overfished, or maybe they just don't
Speaker 2: want a bunch of white guys hauling up in their
Speaker 2: ford expeditions, putting their big boats in their legs. The
Speaker 2: state of Wisconsin is now suing the tribes, claiming that
Speaker 2: the tribes can't deny access to the lakes. You're listening
Speaker 2: to the Mark Belling podcast. This is the Mark Belling podcast.
Speaker 2: Let's discuss the intriguing case of one Kirk Bangstead. The
Speaker 2: story is being misunderstood by a lot of people, particularly
Speaker 2: I won't even just say around the country, even in Wisconsin.
Speaker 2: He's the loudmouth who owns this little brew pub in
Speaker 2: Monocola called Monocua Brewing Company, and a lot of people
Speaker 2: think that's all he is, that he has a brew pub.
Speaker 2: He's actually the guy who fronts a major American political
Speaker 2: super pac. He's just the front man. The money doesn't
Speaker 2: come from him, maybe a little pittance. He calls it
Speaker 2: Monocua Brewing Company super pac. I think the reason that
Speaker 2: big money American lefties donate to it is it makes
Speaker 2: it look like this is just a small Wisconsin business
Speaker 2: trying to influence public policy. What it is is money laundering.
Speaker 2: It's legal money laundering. I can give money, for example,
Speaker 2: to a political action committee. I have the right to
Speaker 2: do it, and I can give money to if I
Speaker 2: had lost my mind to the Monocua brewing company super Pac.
Speaker 2: But a super pack that's named after a local brewery
Speaker 2: might sound a little bit more friendly than one of
Speaker 2: these ninety seven zillion others that are just they've got
Speaker 2: shadowy names with shadowy figures. Bankstad commented after the assassination
Speaker 2: attend to President Trump at the Whitehouse Correspondence Association dinner
Speaker 2: that too bad they missed. Continue to offer free drinks
Speaker 2: at his brew pub up there on monoco if somebody
Speaker 2: actually does kill Trump. Now, a lot of people have
Speaker 2: said things like this on both sides, and usually they
Speaker 2: fall on their sword and apologize, in some cases actually remorseful.
Speaker 2: It's a stupid thing to say. Our own. Dan O'Donnell
Speaker 2: got into trouble for a post that he made about
Speaker 2: Tim Waltz apologized. I don't know any of the background,
Speaker 2: but Dan was off the ear for a little while.
Speaker 2: There are consequences for what, and he apologize. There are
Speaker 2: increasingly no consequences for people on the left. In bank
Speaker 2: says case, he's stumbling out at it, probably figuring nobody
Speaker 2: can fire me. I run the super pack myself, and
Speaker 2: this rinky dink little brewery in which I have my
Speaker 2: water down crappy beer up there, a bunch of lefties
Speaker 2: come into it, nobody can do anything to me. So
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna say it again, Yeah, you ought to
Speaker 2: be shot. So all the Democratic candidates are governor. They're
Speaker 2: running away from this because most Americans don't like this
Speaker 2: kind of rhetoric no matter where it comes from. The
Speaker 2: differenced on the left and on the right, there are
Speaker 2: actual consequences for somebody on the right who says something
Speaker 2: like this, and the left anymore is just completely unapologetic
Speaker 2: about it. So now Banks SAIDs running for governor, He's
Speaker 2: taking the publicity that he got from this and saying
Speaker 2: I'm not only doubling down, I'm tripling down. I'm not
Speaker 2: only not going to retract my wish for Trump to
Speaker 2: be killed. I'm going to say it to get it
Speaker 2: again and again, and I'm gonna make it a referendum
Speaker 2: of Democratic voters. I'm going to join the ninety seven
Speaker 2: other wing nuts that are running for governor on the
Speaker 2: Democratic side. And I'm sure he's figuring, Look, we got
Speaker 2: like seven eight nine candidates running. You don't need a
Speaker 2: great percentage in order to be the winning Democratic candidate.
Speaker 2: Maybe I can get eighteen to twenty percent of the
Speaker 2: people out here on the left unhinged enough will also
Speaker 2: want Trump to be killed to vote for me. It
Speaker 2: also gives him free publicity to spread his hate. I
Speaker 2: have another theory, though, As I said, he's the frontman
Speaker 2: for a super pack. It's er pm other people's money.
Speaker 2: He may have figured that, after he made these statements
Speaker 2: about wishing Trump was killed, that some of the lefty
Speaker 2: donors to the super pac might decide he's too hot
Speaker 2: to handle and they're gonna put their money into one
Speaker 2: of the other nine trillion lefty super PACs that are
Speaker 2: out there. So he figures, if my super pac gonna
Speaker 2: fizzle away because nobody's putting any money into it anymore,
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna raise money myself for my own campaign,
Speaker 2: raise it from unhinged fellow lefties like me, run around,
Speaker 2: repeat all of the stuff, and have a great grand
Speaker 2: old time, and maybe drop out a couple of weeks
Speaker 2: before the election rather than face the humiliation of getting killed.
Speaker 2: More Democratic politics, there's a character named Peter Pergellis. He's
Speaker 2: an alderman from the city of Milwaukee. No this is
Speaker 2: good stuff. To be a left is to be a hypocrite.
Speaker 2: It's impossible to not be a progressive or a liberal
Speaker 2: and a hypocrite because almost always one of the things
Speaker 2: that they say that they believe in comes into conflict
Speaker 2: with something else that they say that they believe it.
Speaker 2: In addition to that, they just think that the stuff
Speaker 2: that they carry out about never applies to them right.
Speaker 2: Bergellius is an alderman on the south side of the
Speaker 2: city of Milwaukee. One of the issues that he's been
Speaker 2: making his bones on is he's railing against the end
Speaker 2: of the residency rule for city employees. It's been gone
Speaker 2: for years and years and years. It used to be
Speaker 2: that if you work for the city of Milwaukee or
Speaker 2: you work for the Milwaukee Public Schools, you had to
Speaker 2: live in the city limits of Milwaukee. Hardly anybody else
Speaker 2: in the state of Wisconsin had that rule, but Milwaukee
Speaker 2: had it. Weirdly, even though the Democrats of the Pro
Speaker 2: Union Party, Pro Public Union Party, and the Republicans have
Speaker 2: been opposed to the Teachers' Union, these Republicans that were
Speaker 2: opposed to the residency rule. In particular, a lot of
Speaker 2: cops and firefighters were choosing not to work in Milwaukee
Speaker 2: because they didn't want to live in the high crime city.
Speaker 2: And you were ending up having had adminished job applicant
Speaker 2: pool because you were excluding all the people who didn't
Speaker 2: live in the city. But again, that was years ago
Speaker 2: that that happened. It's not even a new thing, but
Speaker 2: Brigellis is still railing about it. And one of the
Speaker 2: things that is indeed happened since the Residence zero was dropped.
Speaker 2: It's been part of the death of the middle class
Speaker 2: in the city of Milwaukee. Milwaukee is a city that
Speaker 2: has lots of affluent homes downtown, third ward, Upper east Side,
Speaker 2: a few middle class areas, but mostly the rest of
Speaker 2: it is rather impoverished. The middle class has gone and
Speaker 2: all these public employees leaving has accelerated that. And I
Speaker 2: grant you that that's been one of the ramifications of
Speaker 2: ending the Residence zero. Anyway, Brigellis is constantly railing against
Speaker 2: the loss of the Residen zero. All right, Burgellis has
Speaker 2: just decided that he's going to run for Congress. The
Speaker 2: congressional district in the southeastern corner of the state has
Speaker 2: been held for several years by Republican Bryan Style. It's
Speaker 2: a Republican leaning district, but not overwhelmingly so Style Hill
Speaker 2: has the seat, and before him, this was Paul Ryan's history,
Speaker 2: so the Republicans have had it for some time, but
Speaker 2: it's not as say, overwhelmingly Republican as a couple of
Speaker 2: the other districts in the state. It's one that in
Speaker 2: a big Democratic year, the Democrats think maybe they could flip.
Speaker 2: And some think that twenty six will be a big
Speaker 2: Democratic year. So Burgellis is running in this district. Now,
Speaker 2: roughly the district is the southern portion of Milwaukee County,
Speaker 2: all overre Seen and Kenosha Counties and then west to
Speaker 2: Walworth County. I think there's some southern Wakasho in it
Speaker 2: and maybe a little bit of going into Rock, but
Speaker 2: basically the southeastern corner of the state. Burgellis wants to
Speaker 2: run as a Democrat in that district. Here's a beautiful thing,
Speaker 2: as I said, to be a Democrat as a hypocrite.
Speaker 2: Burgellis doesn't live in the district, mister residency rule, it's
Speaker 2: running for Congress in a district that he doesn't reside in.
Speaker 2: So Bergelis thinks that in order to be say a
Speaker 2: teacher in Milwaukee have to live in Milwaukee, but he's
Speaker 2: running for Congress in a district he doesn't live in. Now,
Speaker 2: there's nothing illegal about it. The law does not require
Speaker 2: you to live in a congressional district that you're running in.
Speaker 2: What it does require is if you are elected, you
Speaker 2: move into that district. Now, this has been scammed also
Speaker 2: for years. There are some members of the Congress that
Speaker 2: don't even live in their home state. They just live
Speaker 2: year round in DC and they may come back every
Speaker 2: now and then without a permanent residence. Or Henry Royce
Speaker 2: the Lake Congress and from Milwaukee, he had a po
Speaker 2: boxes his address ferrate it never residents Milwaukee for the
Speaker 2: number of years. But you have to at least come
Speaker 2: up with an actual add So Burgella says, if I win,
Speaker 2: I'll move into the district. But he knows he's probably
Speaker 2: gonna lose. So it's not like he's going to buy
Speaker 2: a house and run a place somewhere. Other than that,
Speaker 2: he wants to stay where he is. And again a
Speaker 2: lot of others have done this, but how many have
Speaker 2: done it who have made their biggest political issue to
Speaker 2: rail in favor of a residence who over city employees.
Speaker 2: But now he's running in a congression. So you people
Speaker 2: have we sin and you got a ironic who does
Speaker 2: not live in your district but thinks that some poor
Speaker 2: schmoe who works for the city clerk in Milwaukee they
Speaker 2: should have to live in Milwaukee. Some people ask me
Speaker 2: what I did during the four months that the podcast
Speaker 2: is on hiatus. Mostly find out about stories like this
Speaker 2: and rant and raved to nobody. In particular. I'd post
Speaker 2: a few things on x but other than that, I'd
Speaker 2: have to just like, let this sit, let this out
Speaker 2: there sit, because I got nobody. I'm in Florida. I
Speaker 2: supposed to tell this to somebody at a bar in Florida. Hey,
Speaker 2: we've got this guy, but I'm back. Here's an ex one.
Speaker 2: I have referred to certain stories as the perfect story.
Speaker 2: The perfect story is one that is interesting in and
Speaker 2: of itself, sometimes really interesting. This one's not really interesting,
Speaker 2: just interesting. But more importantly, they raise larger issues beyond
Speaker 2: that issue. In other words, it's a teaching point for
Speaker 2: everything else. As you may know, the city of Milwaukee
Speaker 2: is having a significant problem with troublemakers and street takeovers
Speaker 2: at night. For several years, the problem was on Water Street.
Speaker 2: Now that they've tried to seal off Water Street and
Speaker 2: stop the chaos and mayhem and often violence there, the
Speaker 2: takeovers are moving to other parts of town. There was
Speaker 2: a big one in the Bayview area a few days ago.
Speaker 2: There are many people who believe that the lakefront of
Speaker 2: Milwaukee is on borrowed time, that there are going to
Speaker 2: be some there. What happens is young people go on
Speaker 2: to social media and say, let's just go down there
Speaker 2: and take over the street and aus mehim. And when
Speaker 2: hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them do that, the
Speaker 2: forty or fifty or sixty cops who show up seem
Speaker 2: to be powerless to do anything about it, or have
Speaker 2: been rendered powerless because their instructions are not to try
Speaker 2: to grab up as many people and arrest them because
Speaker 2: it will just make things worse. So Milwaukee's attempting to
Speaker 2: do something about this very similar to they're ripping up
Speaker 2: of all the streets in downtown Milwaukee on the east
Speaker 2: side and taking out traffic lanes and putting in concrete
Speaker 2: medians in the middle of the traffic lane to create
Speaker 2: a separate bike lane, and putting in all these cones
Speaker 2: and bumpers and tons of speed bumps and making all
Speaker 2: the streets and obstacle. Course, this is their way of
Speaker 2: stopping reckless driving. Their approach now to get rid of
Speaker 2: the street takeover says they're going to make the food
Speaker 2: trucks shut down at ten o'clock at Apparently I had
Speaker 2: an expert of this, because I have never gone to
Speaker 2: a food truck after ten o'clock a night in my life.
Speaker 2: In fact, I don't think I've ever gone to a
Speaker 2: food truck. Depend on what you describe them, and like,
Speaker 2: if you're at like a church festival or a fair
Speaker 2: and somebody's got like a thing that they drive in,
Speaker 2: I've gone to those so far as I can tell.
Speaker 2: The If you go to a food truck, you better
Speaker 2: like tacos, because I don't have you ever seen a
Speaker 2: food truck that sells anything else? Are they? Aren't they
Speaker 2: all tacos? Have you ever been to one of them?
Speaker 2: You've seen pizza? Do they make the pizza there and
Speaker 2: put it into the oven or they just make it
Speaker 2: in there and they warm it up a little bit
Speaker 2: in a microwave they make it? Oh, I would think
Speaker 2: that'd be a fire hazard. I mean, a good pizza
Speaker 2: of it is like seven hundred degrees. I don't want
Speaker 2: any say anyway. So the food truck operators, they're all
Speaker 2: hacked off. They say, we make most of our money
Speaker 2: after ten o'clock. Now I want to look down my
Speaker 2: nose at this. But I was once young, when I
Speaker 2: was like in my heyday, centuries ago, decades ago, it
Speaker 2: was not uncommon after bar time, which in Milwaukee on
Speaker 2: weekends was two thirty to go out to eat. I mean,
Speaker 2: my Fisher's was a twenty four hour place, and it
Speaker 2: was packed at two thirty in the morning. All the
Speaker 2: George Webbs there was on Van Buren Street where the
Speaker 2: Mentro Market is now. There was a Marx big Boy.
Speaker 2: That place would be mob with people who left victors
Speaker 2: two thirty three, three fifteen in the morning, and I'll
Speaker 2: admit I've done that. Another one people would go and
Speaker 2: get rib some seed quin. So I'm not going to
Speaker 2: say that I can't imagine eating that late at night,
Speaker 2: because I've eaten much later than that. But I can't
Speaker 2: fair of them anymore. I mean, I don't want to
Speaker 2: eat right before I go to bed, get you know,
Speaker 2: and sleep right anyway, they say they do most of
Speaker 2: their business, and apparently the city is of the opinion
Speaker 2: that these food trucks are attracting big, giant crowds to
Speaker 2: hang around them, often of people who are not old
Speaker 2: enough to go on the bars. Many of the street
Speaker 2: takers of our people not people that are going to
Speaker 2: a bar area. They're going to a barrier because that's
Speaker 2: what people are hanging around, but they're not actually going
Speaker 2: to the bars because many of them are way too young.
Speaker 2: But they're not too young to go to a street
Speaker 2: to a food truck. So the city is saying, let's
Speaker 2: get rid of the food trucks. Maybe that will solve
Speaker 2: the street takeover problem. Now, I actually don't care if
Speaker 2: they tell the food trucks they have to shut down
Speaker 2: at ten o'clock at night. Ideologically I would say no,
Speaker 2: they're a private businesses that can operate if they want
Speaker 2: to operate. But frankly, I don't really care every issue
Speaker 2: I've talked about. I care more about whether or not
Speaker 2: we should allow the food trucks to be open after
Speaker 2: ten o'clock or not. The reason I bring this up
Speaker 2: is it raises the larger point leftist leaders don't know
Speaker 2: how to deal with the actual problem, so they do
Speaker 2: something else. In the same way that you put all
Speaker 2: of these extra lanes on roads to make it impossible
Speaker 2: for somebody to drive eighty five, you can't drive twenty
Speaker 2: five on some of these streets. Let's get rid of
Speaker 2: anything that might actually draw people down to an area.
Speaker 2: Rather than do what needs to be done, have a
Speaker 2: major show of force, grab up as many people. They
Speaker 2: don't call them patty wagons anymore. Do you know that
Speaker 2: you've heard the term paddy wagon? Yeah, you know you're
Speaker 2: not supposed to say that's supposed to say that anymore.
Speaker 2: I just followed this out. Apparently Irish people think that
Speaker 2: that's some sort of ethnic slur. I did not. I
Speaker 2: Apparently that is the legacy of it. Drunken Irish people
Speaker 2: were thrown in, just thrown into the thing, and they
Speaker 2: haul thirty people. I never knew that that's where the
Speaker 2: term paddy wagon came from. What paddy wagon is What
Speaker 2: you do is you throw like zillions of people you're
Speaker 2: arrested in there and haul them all over to the jail.
Speaker 2: Rather than grab up these hooligans, throw them in jail
Speaker 2: and take your good and sweet time before they get
Speaker 2: to see a judge not release them. A little bit
Speaker 2: later on, Oh, actually, but the city of Milwaukee is
Speaker 2: not going to mass arrest hundreds of young people and
Speaker 2: run the risk that this is going to inflame and
Speaker 2: incite the crowd. So they're sitting back and trying to go, oh, please,
Speaker 2: don't do it. Let's get rid of the food trucks.
Speaker 2: The next thing you know, they're going to say the
Speaker 2: bars have to close at ten o'clock at night, all
Speaker 2: because they're unwilling to confront the actual problem. And now this,
Speaker 2: this story is really cool. I said, I've had four
Speaker 2: months in order to do the podcast, but everything that
Speaker 2: I've done here is actually recent. It's not like I'm
Speaker 2: going back to February seventh and pulling something out of
Speaker 2: Here's something not this. This story was broken by Wisconsin
Speaker 2: right now. This is really good. Municipal judges need to
Speaker 2: explain what they are. In the state of Wisconsin, we
Speaker 2: have circuit courts and they're divided by county. Every county
Speaker 2: has a circuit court, and every one of those counties
Speaker 2: as a district attorney. That's the person who prosecutes offenders
Speaker 2: in the circuit court. The circuit court handles almost all cases,
Speaker 2: not just criminal cases, divorces, lawsuits, child custody, corporate issues,
Speaker 2: zillions of stuff, challenges the state laws for the offenses
Speaker 2: that are below that. Essentially this is oversimplifying, but not much.
Speaker 2: Say traffic tickets and ordinance violations. If you have a
Speaker 2: violation of a municipal ordinance, that's not a violation of
Speaker 2: criminal law. A lot of speeding tickets, for example, go
Speaker 2: to municipal court. Other stuff is well. Each municipality has
Speaker 2: a municipal court, and several municipalities throw in together and
Speaker 2: have a joint municipal court, and they have municipal judges.
Speaker 2: Other than in the city of Milwaukee because of its size,
Speaker 2: maybe Madison, the municipal judges are not full time positions.
Speaker 2: There just isn't enough activity to do it to warrant it.
Speaker 2: So they tend to be lawyers who take on the
Speaker 2: municipal judgeship as a side gig. And as I say,
Speaker 2: there's just a lot of them all over the place.
Speaker 2: You've had a community somewhere, you've got a municipal judge.
Speaker 2: In the Lake Country, this is the area in Walker
Speaker 2: Shore County. We call it the Lake Country. For those
Speaker 2: of you are not from southeastern Wisconsin. We call it
Speaker 2: the Lake Country because a lot of lakes, a number
Speaker 2: of communities have thrown together, and they have a municipal
Speaker 2: court called the Lake Country Municipal Court. The judge who
Speaker 2: presides over that court is named Timothy k. He's apparently
Speaker 2: had the gig for some time. He's a lawyer. He's
Speaker 2: a lawyer in somewhere out there might be a econum walk.
Speaker 2: But he's also the municipal judge for the Lake Country.
Speaker 2: So he's got a guy who appears before him. His
Speaker 2: name is Matt Cole. He got a ticket for speeding. Now,
Speaker 2: I have no idea about this municipality, but there's kind
Speaker 2: of an there's an unwritten rule. Again, I don't know
Speaker 2: if it still applies everywhere, but usually in the past,
Speaker 2: if you got a ticket and you showed up in court,
Speaker 2: they'd reduce it. You would agree to plead guilty and
Speaker 2: they would reduce the charge. So a lot of people
Speaker 2: would show up in court just for that reason. This
Speaker 2: would be an issue, for example, for people who if
Speaker 2: you already have points points numbers that they put against
Speaker 2: your driver's license, if you go over a certain number,
Speaker 2: they can suspend a revocual license. You might want to
Speaker 2: try to plead down a violation that's a three point
Speaker 2: violation to getting a fine for the same dollar amount
Speaker 2: but no points. So it used to be just kind
Speaker 2: of like an unwritten rule that if you show up,
Speaker 2: the judge would reduce the punishment for you under the
Speaker 2: citation that you had. I don't know if that's the
Speaker 2: root of this case, but Matt Coleb appeared before the
Speaker 2: Lake Country municipal judge Timothy K. Corb didn't like the outcome. Now,
Speaker 2: municipal judges, I'm getting to know Jason the new producer here.
Speaker 2: Where are you from? Originally he grew up in Displains.
Speaker 2: I know where that exactly where that is. It's west
Speaker 2: of the city of Chicago. Municipal judges in Wisconsin. Like
Speaker 2: everything else, talk show hosts, podcasters, plumbers, there's really good,
Speaker 2: a lot of average, some that aren't very good, and
Speaker 2: some that stank. If I had five hours here, I
Speaker 2: tell you a story about an issue I had with
Speaker 2: a municipal judge in the city of Lacrosse when I
Speaker 2: went to college. But I don't have those five hours
Speaker 2: in any of it. They're very low prof oppositions. In
Speaker 2: some cases they're elected, in other cases they're appointed by
Speaker 2: the tom board of the village board, the city council
Speaker 2: and so on. Hardly ever is their opposition. But when
Speaker 2: they hire somebody for it, a lot of people want
Speaker 2: to get it because it pays pretty good for the
Speaker 2: lawyers that aren't overwhelmed with work. And in some of
Speaker 2: the communities they hold the court at night, maybe one
Speaker 2: night a week or two nights a week, and it's
Speaker 2: an additional spiff to your income. So remember, now, this
Speaker 2: judge k also has a private legal practice, which you
Speaker 2: see is majority of his work. So the sky cop
Speaker 2: appears before him for speeding. He's apparently fighting the charge,
Speaker 2: and the judge convicted him, and cop is not happy.
Speaker 2: I can imagine in Wisconsin in the last twenty years
Speaker 2: this has happened three hundred thousand times. Somebody went to
Speaker 2: municipal court and left unhappy. All you have to do
Speaker 2: is watch police videos on YouTube. I mean, actually, and
Speaker 2: I understand, the only ones they show the ones that
Speaker 2: the cops tip off the people who will do these
Speaker 2: things on YouTube, they tap them off when somebody's a
Speaker 2: dank Because what's the point of watching a video. They
Speaker 2: pull somebody over like me, ohkay, you have a ticket.
Speaker 2: I just steer, They give me the ticket and I
Speaker 2: drive off. That's boring. You only see the ones that
Speaker 2: are people are ballistic or the idiot sovereign citizens or
Speaker 2: people who go nuts and cannon and go out of
Speaker 2: their mind. So I don't know if there've been this
Speaker 2: number of people that have gone out of their mind forever,
Speaker 2: or if YouTube just makes it seem like that. But
Speaker 2: people fight these Some of people fight these tickets. They
Speaker 2: go to courtA they don't like it. Well, the judge
Speaker 2: didn't let them out of the ticket. So what do
Speaker 2: you think Cold does? By the way, Jason, if you
Speaker 2: heard of the story, you have again, I've been away.
Speaker 2: I don't know how many other people know of this
Speaker 2: same But anyway, Cold gets hacked off. So he goes
Speaker 2: to post an online review of the judge's private legal practice.
Speaker 2: I mean almost everything, there's a place Google. There's Google
Speaker 2: reviews and yell review I don't even know what they
Speaker 2: all are. They're really big in restaurants, so a lot
Speaker 2: of people are gonna go check their reviews on a restaurant.
Speaker 2: I find those reviews to be very unreliable if you
Speaker 2: ever read them. So the rest of reviews, they often
Speaker 2: have nothing to do with the quality of the food.
Speaker 2: It's like the waiter took five minutes too long to
Speaker 2: bring the check. They put that in there. Well, that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean they're gonna scow bringing the check up to me.
Speaker 2: Same thing with hotels. But like if you don't know,
Speaker 2: what's something to go on? Now, Remember, this guy called
Speaker 2: was not a law client of K, but he went
Speaker 2: to K's law firm's site and put a review up
Speaker 2: and gave him one star. That's the worst. He put
Speaker 2: up a one story review of this guy as a lawyer,
Speaker 2: even though, in fairness to the judge, he wasn't a client,
Speaker 2: so it's a BS review. He's not reviewing this thing
Speaker 2: as a judge because they don't have a review system
Speaker 2: for judges up there, but he trashed him as a lawyer. Again,
Speaker 2: my guess is that this now happens all the time,
Speaker 2: and one of the reasons that a lot of these
Speaker 2: reviews are unreliable is sometimes somebody just has it in
Speaker 2: for the person who owns the business or whatever. Anyway
Speaker 2: K sees this review, he's a judge, he hauls Cole
Speaker 2: back into his little two bit municipal court and finds
Speaker 2: him in contempt of court. He didn't do anything contemptuous. Actually,
Speaker 2: in court he found him in contempt of court and
Speaker 2: gave him a new fine for posting a one star review.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's yelp. It's in here somewhere
Speaker 2: in the Wisconsin Right Now story, which is extensively reported.
Speaker 2: It goes on eighteen thousand pages. Well, Cole reports this
Speaker 2: to the City of Oconawa Police department and they investigate,
Speaker 2: and the police made the determination that this is a
Speaker 2: misconduct in public office. You can't find someone guilty of
Speaker 2: something because they gave you a bad review on Google,
Speaker 2: and they referred the criminal case to Alkashakani Distinct Attorney
Speaker 2: Leslie Baisie. She declined prosecution. During the period of which
Speaker 2: she declined prosecution, Kay resigned his judicial position. I haven't
Speaker 2: asked Basie about this, but my guess is that this
Speaker 2: was a deal in which Basie said, if you resign,
Speaker 2: I won't charge you. I'm not going to take charge
Speaker 2: you with a crime if you agree to resign, And
Speaker 2: likely if he was convicted, they'd put him on probation
Speaker 2: and make one of the terms of probation the need
Speaker 2: to resign. So that's probably the way I would have
Speaker 2: been handled anyway. Is it a fair resolution or not?
Speaker 2: The guy have actually faced criminal charges for so grotesquely
Speaker 2: abusing his power. Maybe yes, maybe, But he's off the bench,
Speaker 2: and clearly he loved his gig as being the judge,
Speaker 2: given the fact that he was so thin skin that
Speaker 2: he couldn't handle the negative. Can you imagine if I
Speaker 2: latched out and everybody who ever said anything native about me,
Speaker 2: you'd think that being a judge, you'd have a pretty
Speaker 2: thick skin. But some of them, and again this is
Speaker 2: just a municipal judge, a little tin pot. There are
Speaker 2: more than one municipal judges in Waukesha County who stink.
Speaker 2: I won't name any names here, but I've had a
Speaker 2: couple of discussions of some of the others. And again
Speaker 2: I know that's skilled for my association and that many
Speaker 2: of the others do not. But some of these are
Speaker 2: lawyers who frankly disgrace themselves. Now, I don't know the
Speaker 2: history of Timothy ka If I've ever met him, I've
Speaker 2: forgotten it. Whether or not he's been a good job
Speaker 2: over the years or not. But in this case, he
Speaker 2: tried to find a guy in contempt of court because
Speaker 2: he responded to a conviction in his case by posting
Speaker 2: a bad I mean, what if the what if the
Speaker 2: lawyer are also own like a restaurant when you go
Speaker 2: on there and post a one star review saying that
Speaker 2: he didn't like the hand. You're listening to the Mark
Speaker 2: Belling podcast. All right, that's pretty much a wrap for
Speaker 2: the first podcast of season two. We drop new podcasts Mondays,
Speaker 2: which would be today, Wednesday and Thursday. And obviously you
Speaker 2: found it because you're listening to this particular podcast here
Speaker 2: d we urge you to subscribe to the podcast. There's
Speaker 2: different terms that are used depending on the platform that
Speaker 2: you're on, or put a check mark and click on it.
Speaker 2: That way you'll be aware of all of the podcasts
Speaker 2: that come up as we go out through the course
Speaker 2: of the year. I want to comment briefly on the
Speaker 2: Kentucky Derby for those of you're not aware. I have
Speaker 2: been a long term owner of race horses and a
Speaker 2: syndicate better than thirty years follow horse racing closely. I
Speaker 2: posted my picks on the Kentucky Derby on my website
Speaker 2: belling dot com. I did both good and bad. Of
Speaker 2: the four horses that I liked a lot, and I
Speaker 2: picked them in order. There are four that I suggested
Speaker 2: putting in an exact box. Three of the four hit
Speaker 2: the top five. Unfortunately I didn't have the winner at all.
Speaker 2: For those of you who watched the race, we call
Speaker 2: them racing a meltoun. It was a meltown. They went
Speaker 2: so fast so early that all of the horses that
Speaker 2: were anywhere near the front spit it out and were
Speaker 2: on fumes in the last eighth the sixteenth of a mile,
Speaker 2: and the top three horses all came from the rear.
Speaker 2: In fact, going into the final turn, of the four
Speaker 2: horses that were the fourth last horses, three of those
Speaker 2: four finished in the top three. In other words, the
Speaker 2: speed just stopped and the closers all came flying, and
Speaker 2: this horse named Golden Tempo came flying the best and
Speaker 2: got up in won. He was something of a log shot,
Speaker 2: and I didn't see the horse winning. In fact, I
Speaker 2: generally have a bias against these very very deep closures
Speaker 2: because often if you're coming from way back, you have
Speaker 2: to weave through so much traffic. In this case, these
Speaker 2: horses were so far back and the horses in front
Speaker 2: of them were all slowing down. In the case of
Speaker 2: Golden Temple, he had no traffic at all. He just
Speaker 2: went around all the other horses that were slowing down,
Speaker 2: and he didn't he a little bit of a bump
Speaker 2: in mid stretcher a horse was close to him in
Speaker 2: mid stretch, but otherwise he just flew all the way
Speaker 2: to the wind. And it was the first win ever
Speaker 2: by a female trainer in the Kentucky Derby. It's not
Speaker 2: the first Triple Crown win. Female trainer won the Belmont
Speaker 2: Stakes a couple of years ago. First time a female trainer.
Speaker 2: Sharitavo one has trained a Kentucky Derby winner. And two
Speaker 2: of the greatest jockeys and thoroughbit racing are brothers or
Speaker 2: Rod or Teas. Who's a little bit better at Jose
Speaker 2: or Teas And it's been sticking in Jose's craw forever
Speaker 2: that people said, well, Rod's a little bit better, But
Speaker 2: they're probably both in the top four or five jockeys
Speaker 2: in the United States. Some think a rat is the best.
Speaker 2: Jose won the race and a rad Red second. See
Speaker 2: had brothers that ran one two and it was just
Speaker 2: simply a function of the fact that they were both
Speaker 2: on closers. One of the favorites in the race was
Speaker 2: the one that a Rod was on and Jose was
Speaker 2: a little bit wider and therefore was able to close
Speaker 2: a little bit better. And an update on my own
Speaker 2: race horses. This is this for people who don't understand
Speaker 2: why you get so excited when you win a horse race.
Speaker 2: You have little You just have no idea how impossible
Speaker 2: it is. For everything that can go right, fifteen thousand
Speaker 2: things can go wrong. We had a horse yesterday in
Speaker 2: Canada making his career debut, first time started. He shows
Speaker 2: signs that he might be very good, and those signs
Speaker 2: are just you know, the trainer's evaluation of how the
Speaker 2: horse is working out and so on. The track in Canada,
Speaker 2: Woodbine is a mid tier track. It's not at the
Speaker 2: highest level of racing like say Churchill Downs or they're
Speaker 2: on the Derby. It'd be like on one level below that.
Speaker 2: The horse is a Canadian bread, which is what bread
Speaker 2: in Canada, which is why we's starting him out at Woodbine.
Speaker 2: It was his career debut and he had the inside.
Speaker 2: Poe was the rail That's often a problem for first
Speaker 2: time starters because they tend not to break well when
Speaker 2: they're inside. They see that starting gate right next to him,
Speaker 2: and they may shy away a bit, or if there's
Speaker 2: a gap between the starting gate and the inside rail,
Speaker 2: they may break inside. And indeed he broke a little slowly,
Speaker 2: not real slowly, but spot of the field like two
Speaker 2: lengths coming out of the gate. But he had the
Speaker 2: rail end. He has a lot of natural speed, so
Speaker 2: the riders just let him accelerate right up inside the rail,
Speaker 2: and it wasn't long before he was in first, just
Speaker 2: scooting up the rail, and he never turned back and
Speaker 2: won very comfortably. I won't say wired a wire because
Speaker 2: wire implies right when to get off the break, but
Speaker 2: virtually wired a wire. He got to the lead very
Speaker 2: very soon and was never passed and won the race.
Speaker 2: That's the good news. The bad news the erasing stewards
Speaker 2: determined that during this period in which he came up
Speaker 2: the gate and moved up inside, he impeded the two
Speaker 2: horse that was right next to him. These kinds of
Speaker 2: things in racing are always controversial. Racing as a sport
Speaker 2: is always at instant replay. There's always reviews after the race,
Speaker 2: and the Stewart's posted an inquiry and the jockey and
Speaker 2: the other horse raised an objection. I've seen a zillion
Speaker 2: of these, and everybody has an opinion, and I'm just
Speaker 2: telling you, obviously I'm biased. I own the horse that
Speaker 2: the foul claim was made against. I see worse than
Speaker 2: this every day, especially out of the starting gate. It's
Speaker 2: very hard, especially when you have horses that our young
Speaker 2: horses are running for the first time, to break out
Speaker 2: of the gate absolutely dead straight. They often break in
Speaker 2: a tangle and there's a little bit of bumping coming
Speaker 2: out of the gate. Watch the beginning of the Kentucky Derby.
Speaker 2: There's like four or five horses that are squeezed coming
Speaker 2: out of there. There's no inquirer or anything on this. Secondly,
Speaker 2: when our horse came through, he's the one horse he
Speaker 2: has the inside path. If he only broke a little
Speaker 2: bit slowly, it's hard to imagine how they can claim
Speaker 2: that he didn't have the right to the inside path
Speaker 2: when he's breaking from this. He did move a little
Speaker 2: bit to his right a bit. I thought it was nothing,
Speaker 2: and I've seen far worse. The horse that he allegedly impeded,
Speaker 2: finished all the way down at fifth place. I think
Speaker 2: there was. It was an eight horse field in my recollection.
Speaker 2: So we were disqualified and moved to six. No purse money,
Speaker 2: no nothing, even though he was clearly the best horse.
Speaker 2: Now my good news bad news thing. Would I have
Speaker 2: rather he finished, say second or third, running average, or
Speaker 2: would I rather we be decued all the way to six?
Speaker 2: But he ran spectacularly. It's the second because in the
Speaker 2: short term, while we didn't get the way to it
Speaker 2: to get that person, we know we have a very
Speaker 2: good horse. So in his next race, he's going to
Speaker 2: come right back at the same level, which is horses
Speaker 2: that have never won. He ole have run for the
Speaker 2: first time, and he'll face the same class of horse
Speaker 2: again and shouldn't have much trouble beating them. And he
Speaker 2: indicates that his future may be very very bright, that
Speaker 2: he may be really good. But for those of you
Speaker 2: that are into horse racing, it was the sixth race
Speaker 2: at would buy it on Sunday. His name is Wilful Warrior.
Speaker 2: If you want to see a preposterous disqualification, that was it.
Speaker 2: I know a guy that actually got a lot of
Speaker 2: money at our horse. He's the one that's hacked off
Speaker 2: because the ticket went on to be worthless. So in
Speaker 2: our case, we didn't win any money with the race
Speaker 2: that we may have a pretty good raceourse. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: it for this one, three per week Monday, Wednesday and
Speaker 2: Thursday for the whole remainder of the year. Talk To
Speaker 2: You Said.
Speaker 1: Podcast He's a production of iHeartRadio Podcasts, production and engineering
Speaker 1: by Jason Gotsch. The Markdelling podcast is presented by you
Speaker 1: Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has
Speaker 1: everything in stock. Visit you line dot com. Listen to
Speaker 1: all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.
Speaker 1: M