Amid the discordant political backdrop, recriminations abound about whether the murder of a 21-year-old UW-Madison woman could have been prevented.

Aside from proposed audits and spirited defenses of the Dane County 911 Communications Center and other Dane County officials, it's worth noting the priorities and policies of local law enforcement agencies here. [I hope not to read the word 'leadership' again; it doesn't exist on this matter.]

As the routine break-up of house parties and the pursuit by police of other frequent illegal college recreational pastimes continues apace here, one wonders if police officers foot-patrolling neighborhoods at night with the objective of protecting property and persons might be a better use of limited police resources vis-a-vis busting a 19-year-old for having a beer or smoking a joint on campus.

And one less parking meter boy (like that pathetic guy who wears the floppy safari hat), and one more officer walking on the street looking out for a female student walking home at night from the library would certainly do.

A Wisconsin State Journal online op-ed gets it right in noting that secrecy threatens safety.

Here's another secret that demands explanation:

The dispatcher claims she heard nothing on the line.

Madison Police Chief Noble Wray has said "there's evidence in the call that should've prompted the dispatch of a police officer ... County and city officials refuse to describe the content ..."

There's content in the call, or there's nothing. Which is it?

via MAL Contends - Update: Cap Times back on it: See - Falk apologizes to Zimmermann's family, fiance (Capital Times, May 6) and County Board chair wants answers on 911 problems (Cap Times, May 6). 

Expert calls Dane County 911 staffing inadequate (WSJ, May 6) 

I was sorry to see the Capital Times hard copy newspaper go, but I told a friend its online iteration was an innovation that would see it stay on the bleeding edge of technology in bringing Dane County residents the news.

via MAL Contends

The campaign reactions tell the story.

You can see the difference in the integrity of the two campaigns by their reactions to this inane, imbecilic forum last night by two manifestly unqualified debate moderators.

There was a serious debate last night and Hillary won, says Hillary's campaign.

Obama’s site offers Americans the opportunity to comment on this travesty, "Post Debate: Any thoughts? If you're tired of a slash and burn politics that trades distraction for real debate, you don't have to sit idly and watch anymore."

Clinton’s site pretends that this was a real, substantive debate, "Hillary's Reviews Are In: 'The Winner,' 'Strong Presence,' 'In Her Element'" [Just like Hillary is pretending there was a primary in Michigan and Fla.]

Hillary is still the same, old, lying politician to which more and more Americans are taking a dislike.

In Jonathan Weisman's page one, well-disguised hit piece on Barack Obama in today's Washington Post (GOP Doubts, Fears 'Post-Partisan' Obama), Weisman makes numerous references to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Writes Weisman: " ... In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked (Obama) at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals. (italics mine)"

Why the suggestion that Feingold (and Boxer) have something for which they need be apologetic?

Was it Feingold's vote against the Iraq War? The discredited Patriot Act? The Bush tax cuts for the super-rich? Feingold's authorship of ethics reform? Feingold's fight for the Fourth Amendment?

Update: Excerpt from a nice e-mail from a reader regarding the rabid pro-invade-everywhere advocate, Shane Hensinger.