Urinal-Sentinel endorses Prosser

[TheMightyFavog]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/119092344.html

:puke:

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. They call that an endorsement?

We in my household have just decided that pressure was put on the J-S to endorse Prosser, and this is the best they could do.

[sybylla]

2. Pressure from whom?

Either way, if they caved in the least, it tells me their non-apology apology for endorsing Walker and the rest of the kochsuckers was all bullshit.

I'll never buy another of their newspapers again. And I'll do my best never to link to another of their stories. They can go blow Koch.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. pressure from

any of the conservative organizations/corporations that are behind the curtains these days. Google ALEC. I'm not in the Milwaukee area, so I don't normally see that paper, but aren't they known for toeing the conservative line?

Corporate Money Bags, "We need you to write a Prosser endorsement."

Milwaukee J-S, "But Prosser sucks."

CMB, "Of course he does, that's why we love him so much. If you don't write an endorsement, we pull all of our conservative dollars from you, and we tell all of your advertisers to abandon you."

M J-S, "Ummm, ok, we'll write the most endorsiest column we can, but it's going to be difficult!"

and, by the way, they're already blowing Koch.

on a serious note (not that the above enactment wasn't perfectly serious), who does own the J-S?

[mojowork_n]

4. From what I know

JS Communications remained a privately-held company when the two papers merged in the early 90's.

Employees held a lot of the stock, though, so when the inevitable fallout of the merger included 'redundancies',
employees who held their stock but had just been laid off, were strictly prohibited from selling their holdings, except
back to the company, with convoluted limitations on when, and for how much.

So a number of the recently laid-off (not too many, maybe a dozen or so, including Joel McNally, I'm pretty sure) got together
and filed a lawsuit, claiming the limitations violated their rights.

I'm not at all clear on the details, but I think the end result was that the ex-employees WON (and pocketed a small bundle), but all
of the other employees ended up kind of on the losing end, the ones who were still employed and still had company stock.

They were bought off for a lot less, per share?

The end result was the company went public, issued an IPO, with majority ownership concentrated in a (relatively few?) hands, without the limitation of having to "look out" for employee-owners, which they had had formerly.

This recent announcement:

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?storyId=39680604&topic=JRN&symbology=null&cp=off&webmasterId=101175

says something about privately held trusts -- four -- that I have to admit I don't fully understand.

<snip>

Journal Communications Director Enters into Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plans

Mar. 18, 2011 (Business Wire) -- Journal Communications, Inc. (NYSE:JRN) today announced that director David Meissner has established stock trading plans on behalf of four family trusts in accordance with guidelines specified by Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and in accordance with the Company’s policies with respect to insider trading. Mr. Meissner established the plans during the trading window following the Company’s release of its fourth quarter and full year 2010 earnings on February 15, 2011.

The trading plans cover a total of just under 200,000 shares and were entered into for diversification purposes. Sales under the plans are subject to certain minimum price levels, with sales under the plans to take place between April 18, 2011 and July 22, 2011.

Rule 10b5-1 allows officers, directors and other designated insiders to adopt written plans to purchase or sell shares under pre-arranged terms when they do not have material non-public information. The rule allows officers, directors and other designated insiders adopting such plans to purchase or sell shares over time even if subsequent material and non-public information becomes available to them. Using these plans, officers, directors and other designated insiders can increase their holdings, diversify their investment portfolios, spread stock trades out over a period of time to reduce market impact, and avoid concerns about whether they had material non-public information when they purchased or sold stock.

More:

http://www.answers.com/topic/journal-communications-inc

[sybylla]

6. Thanks.

So basically the owners, who don't care if they run their paper into the ground and toss all their credibility into a dumpster, demanded a Prosser endorsement.

I wasn't sure if it was outside pressure or inside. Total tools either way.

[sybylla]

5. ALEC isn't a Wisconsin organization. But WMC is.

ALEC is just a think-tank that writes legislation for idiot pukes who can't come up with their own vile ideas.

[Lefta Dissenter]

7. Absolutely right on WMC,

and they have more power in this state than most of us imagined - because we don't think big or corrupt enough. However they pale in comparison to ALEC, which has laid out the roadmap for what Walker, et al, have been doing to our state. I don't know if you've seen the ALEC "toolkit," which is just the little 44-page introductory brochure for ALEC members. Much more than the legislation, they lay out entire strategies.

State Senator Robin Vos from the Burlington area, is the Wisconsin president of ALEC.

A somewhat random selection from the "Toolkit,"
While there are literally dozens of state services and government activities for which privatization could be applied, some of the most often-privatized at the state level include:• Highway design and maintenance.• Building repair and maintenance.• Vehicle fleet operations, maintenance, and ownership.• Information technology.• Administrative support services (e.g., HR, payroll,accounting, mail, printing, etc.).• Risk management (e.g., claims processing, loss prevention services).• Facilities financing, operations, and maintenance.• Park operations and maintenance.• Corrections and mental health (facility operations and management; health care, medical and food services).• Core infrastructure (roads/transit, water, etc.).• Engineering services.• Welfare-to-work programs.• Child care, child welfare, and adoption programs.• Juvenile rehabilitation.• Environmental lab analysis.

Recommendations for privatization are not self-implementing. Privatization is a disruptive process in that it requires transformational change—a change in thinking among career civil servants and among appointees who are mastering new responsibilities, and people by nature resist change. Change does not occur overnight, and it often happens in fits and starts. States can reasonably
expect to see a mix of successes and challenges, and it will take a sustained commitment by policymakers and administrators to ensure that the full benefits will be realized.
snip

Recommendation: Increase the use of privatization and competitive contracting to execute tasks to lower costs and improve the quality of service provided.

Unfortunately, I can't copy the entire thing here, but people need to realize that this ONE ORGANIZATION has enormous impact in MANY states, including Wisconsin. I read yesterday that there are 17 states that are working on implementing the ALEC formula. I don't know if that's accurate or not - it's not exactly something the legislators broadcast.

This is a little off track of the "endorsement" letter discussion, but this is all to say that I think ALEC is behind MUCH of the destruction of our state, as well as that of Ohio, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, Idaho and many others.

[dragonlady]

8. And they endorse Abele, the Democrat, for Milwaukee Co.

Of course they manage to bring up his personal embarrassments that the opposition and radio talkers have been harping on. And they have nothing bad to say about Stone except that he's Republican and boring (no mention of any kind about his approval for all of Walker's positions). But hey, now they've showed they're even-handed. (Or should that be "fair and balanced"?)