tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76812313286258232992024-03-08T01:23:08.678-08:00People and PoliticsWARNING: Political Participation may cause the following side effects: high blood pressure, hair loss, insomnia, alcohol dependency, nicotine dependency, paranoia, sensitivity, and restless leg syndrome.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-52486176619411796192012-12-21T12:12:00.000-08:002012-12-21T12:12:09.127-08:00From Newtown Forward...Just getting some thoughts out there.<br /><br /><b>1) Establish better monitoring systems and sensible limitations on ownership:</b><br />
A) Require mandatory background checks - using a constantly-updated database for all gun purchases, including those at gun shows and in other private transactions. Thanks to the miracle of the internet, this is not a very time-consuming task. Failure to do so will result in prosecution for both the seller and buyer.<br /><br />
B) Require the registration of all firearms, if not nationally, then at the state level or locally. This registration must be transferred when a gun changes hands, just like for cars and houses (vehicle registration and deeds). Failure to do so results in prosecution. If we have a general idea of where all legally-registered firearms are at any given moment, I think that would help us all.<br /><br />
C) Require permits for both open and concealed carry in all states. Permits must be renewed periodically (every five years seems fair). In order to obtain a permit, applicants must pass a background check, a written exam detailing important gun laws and gun safety, and a demonstrative exam showing that the applicant is familiar with the upkeep, usage, and securing of their firearm.<br />
<br />
D) Stricter enforcement of the Brady Act. The federal government currently only prosecutes a small percentage of violators of the Brady Act. Bottom line - if you own a gun and you're not supposed to have it, you're going to jail. Period.<br /><br />
E) Ban the sale and civilian ownership of full-automatic weapons. Currently, states can override the federal law restricting the sale and ownership of full-automatic firearms - that should end. No civilian needs a full-automatic gun, under any circumstances.<br /><br />
F) Ban the sale and civilian ownership of magazines larger than ten rounds. No one needs 30-round magazines for home defense or hunting, and certainly not 100-round drums. Even the average police officer's magazine is 13 rounds.<br /><br /><b>2) Comprehensive mental health care reform:</b><br />
A) Make early mental health problem detection and care part of "preventive health care." Thanks to the ACA, the cost of preventive care is fully covered by all insurance policies, and detecting mental health problems early should benefit.<br /><br />
B) Increase assistance at the federal and/or state level for the care of individuals with mental health problems. Both the federal and state governments have slashed mental health care in the past few years, and the results are clear. Caring for these individuals, especially if they lack the means to care for themselves or lack others to care for them, should be the duty of the state. It's certainly more humane than locking them away, and we should consider that an option for only the most dangerous circumstances.<br /><br />
C) Strengthen the public awareness campaign to de-stigmatize mental health problems. Maybe if people took the time to understand these problems and not simply think those who suffer from mental health problems are "weird" or "strange," they wouldn't become so isolated, which seems to be a key step in the path towards the sort of violence we've seen lately.<br /><br />
D) Make programs available to help integrate these individuals into society and into our communities. They are our friends, and our family, and if we cut them off, we only have ourselves to blame if they become a danger to themselves and others.<br /><br />
This is only part of the solution. But I think it's a start. I welcome sensible, rational recommendations.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-81951105979999470802012-08-01T21:36:00.001-07:002012-08-01T21:36:34.373-07:00The NBCFail of 2012 - How do we fix it?Wow, I haven't posted in a long time. Nice to be back. <br />
<br />
As you've no doubt heard, a lot of people have been complaining about NBC's coverage of the 2012 London Olympic Games. I won't go into the details - scour the interwebs if you want - but I've got a few ideas on what is good, and a lot more ideas on what could be improved. Here we go...<br />
<br />
<u><b>Good Things About NBC's Coverage:</b></u><br />
Generally, I've liked the play-by-play on the sports. The announcers are fairly competent. I especially like the use of Pat Foley for water polo; it emphasizes similarities between that sport and hockey, and as a Blackhawks and hockey fan, it's just generally nice to hear that voice again. Color analysis leaves something to be desired, but doesn't it always in every sport?<br />
<br />
The use of all five NBC channels is very good - if you decided to spend the money on cable. If you did, you can probably find coverage of every sport at least twice during the Games. The streaming web coverage is also good, but it has its own problems. One of them is the need to have purchased cable beforehand, and the other is that there is so much "stuff" on the website like scrolling news and medal alerts that it makes video viewing difficult at best and punch-my-screen aggravating at worst.<br />
<br />
Coverage of more sports has improved in the past few Games. Remember curling in 2010? When did you see that during Olympics coverage in past years?<br />
<br />
Generally, if you have cable, live coverage has been pretty good, especially with basketball, soccer, water polo, volleyball, and even my personal favorite, fencing.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Bad Things About NBC's Coverage</b></u><br />
<i>Commercials</i>: I think they're rotating the same ten commercials throughout the entire Games. It's the Olympics -- who wouldn't want to run ads during them? Increase the diversity, perhaps by lowering the price and attracting more buyers.<br />
<u><b> </b></u><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<i>Opening Ceremonies</i>: Air the entire thing, unedited. If you have limited commercial interruption during soccer and basketball, you can limit it during the Ceremonies - show more during the Parade of Nations, if you must. During the actual artistic performances, keep the commentary to a minimum; if you have to explain something, either explain it in one or two sentences, or STFU (Tim Berners-Lee is perhaps the most important inventor of the past fifty years or more, don't just tell me to "Google him," Matt Lauer). On that note, drop one or both of the Daytime TV talking heads in favor of one or two news journalists. No offense, but Brian Williams and Richard Engle are less likely to mispronounce the names of countries or mis-locate them, make stupid comments relating those countries to meaningless pop culture, or generally blather on idiotically. The Parade of Nations is a good opportunity to <u>educate</u>
viewers about other countries, or major happenings (did you know
that the 2012 Games is the first time every country sent women
athletes).</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Live Coverage</i>: Generally, more of it. I don't anticipate this to be as much of a problem in 2016, when the Games are in Rio, which is only one hour ahead of the U.S. East Coast). If there is a final/medal round, show it live, regardless of the sport or U.S. participation. There are between one and five finals every day of the Games, and NBC-Universal has five channels to choose from. Surely MSNBC does not need to show another episode of Lockup instead of the Men's 58-68kg Taekwondo Final - instead of watching convicts kick the crap out of each other, let's watch the best athletes do that! Just showing all of the finals live would solve a lot of problems.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<i>Primetime</i>: Have less coverage of heats and quarter/semifinals. If something surprising happened, like a broken world record or someone important choked, show it. Otherwise, stick to the finals. This could easily shave half an hour off the primetime coverage (when your show goes until 12am, you aren't primetime anymore), and this would allow younger viewers to see some of the sports they love. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Keeping in mind the live coverage recommendations, feel free to show recorded finals, as long as you showed the live versions before. Also, front load. Gymnastics, basketball, and swimming in front. I know you're
trying to maintain viewer numbers, but when the big event shows at
10:30 at night, you've probably lost viewer interest to Keeping Up
With The Kardashians. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Take part of the time to show a less popular sport, like kayaking,
or fencing, or sailing, especially if something
interesting/surprising happens. Build some knowledge among viewers and do those members of Team USA a solid (we can't all be gymnasts or basketball players).</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<i>Editing</i>: Generally, <b>don't do it</b>. In women's gymnastics, NBC edited
out and made no mention of a Russian gymnast's error on floor
routine (in spite of the fact that she was the world champion in that event) and didn't
show scores in order to make it “more dramatic.” These are the
best athletes in the world competing against each other for the
highest stakes short of their lives – it's dramatic enough. Would you hide the score
for Game 7 of the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl?</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<i>Interviews and Human Interest Stories</i>: Keep human interest stories to a minimum. Agreed, some athletes'
backgrounds are fascinating and inspiring (Lolo Jones, anyone?),
but I don't need to know what they eat or what they do on a normal
day. I just assume, as Olympic athletes, they're not scarfing down cheeseburgers and Coke (despite what advertisements tell me) and
playing video games. That's me.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Let the athletes shower/change before you interview them in
primetime. I was slightly amused with Bob Costas' interview of the
women's gymnastics team after they won gold. It had to be at least
two hours after the event took place, and they were all in their
leotards and warm-ups. I just saw them compete, I'm pretty sure I
know who they are and what sport they're in. They can wear
civvies. Besides, you're probably recording the interview for
later showing – what's your rush?</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Drop the insipid questions before and after events. Are you really
going to ask Michael Phelps if he thinks he'll either be a champ or
a choker at the end of the upcoming race? First, do you really
think he's going to say, “Oh, I think I'm going to choke on this
one?” Second, is he psychic? And be less blunt. Swimmer Kathleen Hersey noted
that it had been a rough year in an interview, and Andrea Kremer
interjected, “You're talking about the death of your mother.”
Way to be tactful. Also...Ryan Seacrest...out. Just get rid of him.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<i>Spoilers</i>: Obviously, you can avoid these if you show more live events. In promos, don't ever show the athletes with medals – even ones
they already won. Show them doing what they do (Missy Franklin
swimming, Gabby Douglas on the bars). If you're going to mention results on the news before you show the
event, give a clear verbal warning, and then just show the final
results on the screen without talking (that way, viewers can close
their eyes if they want, or quickly flip stations).</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Is this a preachy post. Hell yes! But I love the Olympics and I want to see better coverage. Sadly, I doubt NBC will make any changes like this for 2014 or 2016 - they're making too much money to give a damn.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Do you have any ideas to make coverage better? Post 'em in the comments. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-43001915340537252832011-08-13T15:25:00.001-07:002011-08-13T15:26:40.478-07:00The Ames Chili Cook-Off!I just came back from a trip to an alternate universe, where in Ames, Iowa, the state fair is home to one of the major media events for the Republican Party. I speak, of course, of the nationally-recognized Ames Chili Cook-Off. I prefer the Chili Cook-Off to my home universe's Straw Poll, because the Cook-Off is just as accurate and relevant to national politics, but far more entertaining. I was able to get a taste of all the candidates' chili (including Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who chose to enter in this alternate universe), and I've shared my tasting notes below.
<br />
<br /><strong>Mitt Romney:</strong> No chiles, spices, or salt...just bland...I remember his chili as once having these and some kick, Gov. Romney denied this. Basically a poor tomato soup.
<br />
<br /><strong>Tim Pawlenty:</strong> Looked promising...Gov. Pawlenty told me he took chiles out, didn't want to offend taste buds. Said it was better than Michele Bachmann's. Disappointing.
<br />
<br /><strong>Ron Paul:</strong> Minimal ingredients – no extras here! Grew everything himself, no gov't inspection...worried me with the meat. Expensive, and preferred payment in gold, but took credit card. Inexplicably, recipe is popular on the internet.
<br />
<br /><strong>Newt Gingrich:</strong> Gladly, no newt in chili. Looked appetizing and quite familiar...Too familiar, in fact – ingredients expired in late '90s! Declined to taste, wife was understanding...at least, might have been wife?
<br />
<br /><strong>Herman Cain:</strong> Lots of publicity – radio and YouTube...unfortunately, just a bowl of tomato sauce from Godfather's Pizza. Would have rather preferred a slice of pizza.
<br />
<br /><strong>Michele Bachmann:</strong> Very fiery, but strange...why are there nuts in this? Why are there communion wafers?? Why is she staring at me like that???
<br />
<br /><strong>Jon Huntsman:</strong> Similar to Romney, except with Chinese spices...more exciting – served off the back of his ATV. Huntsman wearing a flannel shirt.
<br />
<br /><strong>Thaddeus McCotter:</strong> Has flying squirrel meat – odd. Acting like a snake oil salesman, and dressed the part...claims the chili cures dysentery...I get it! His name is real old-timey! Not funny.
<br />
<br /><strong>Rick Perry:</strong> Tastes familiar...recipe close to the winner from 1999, but better looking. Served in communion bowl – nice touch...very dry. Asked for some water, he said pray for it.
<br />
<br /><strong>Rick Santorum:</strong> Very straight chili...almost too straight, though detected slightly fruity notes. Tastes slightly past its prime, like left in the closet too long. Wait a minute...
<br />
<br /><strong>Sarah Palin:</strong> Showed up, no actual chili...just her waving and screaming, “look at me!” Sad.
<br />
<br />Overall, I ended up getting sick that night. I blame all the chilis. So, in conclusion, this alternate universe's Ames Chili Cook-Off can tell you a lot about the candidates, but if you go, make sure you bring some Pepto Bismol.
<br />Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-76620398346907551972011-03-23T15:07:00.001-07:002011-03-23T15:12:17.337-07:00The Zangief Kid: A Lesson in BullyingIn recent years, parents and the media have paid more attention to the occurrence of bullying at schools, mostly because those groups and individuals have finally realized that bullying has major ramifications (what can we say? Some people are just slow...). There may be some who do not agree with the importance of the issue, compared to bombing in Libya, earthquakes in Japan, and everything else on the world's plate. But this issue is important. We expect our schools to be a place of safety, without the fear of emotional or physical trauma. It happens though, and it happens more often than you think.<br /><br />Our story today comes out of Australia. Casey Heynes is a 15 year-old boy. He's a little chubby, and a little awkward as most young teens are, but altogether seems like a sweet kid. He's been bullied for a while, because of his weight. Upon starting high school, the few friends he made abandoned him once the teasing started, and since then he's been called names, slapped upside the head, tripped, and generally abused. He was even duct-taped to a pole. According to an interview, he even contemplated suicide because of the bullying. Among his tormentors is a kid younger than him by three years, named Richard. One day, this younger bully and his friends thought it would be a fun idea to video Richard beating up on Casey, and then post it online.<br /><br />The video starts with Richard shoving Casey against a wall, then punching him in the face. Read that again. Punching him in the face. Casey takes the hit like a champ. He takes second and third hit to the face like a champ. Casey blocks a fourth shot, but the bully gets more punches in.<br /><br />That's the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.<br /><br />Casey shoves Richard back. The bully tries for another hit, but Casey grabs him. Using his size and weight advantage, he lifts Richard up and throws him down in what could best be described as a suplex. The other tormentors, stunned, do nothing as Casey walks away. Both boys were suspended for fighting (rumor is that Casey got 2 days, Richard got 20). But Casey became a hero – immortalized in internet lore as the Zangief Kid (Zangief being a wrestling character from the video game Street Fighter), or Casey the Punisher.<br /><br />This was self-defense. There was no further kicking or stomping or attacking of any kind by Casey. Richard started it, Casey stopped it, and walked away – that was all.<br /><br />Did he go too far with the suplex? Perhaps. It was the best use of his advantages in the situation – height and weight, and altogether is probably the result of heat-of-the-moment and fight-or-flight. He might be too slow to throw a punch, and a missed punch would result in a far worse beat-down from the bully. Did Casey have the right to defend himself? Absolutely. At essence, is Casey in the right? You bet your ass he is. Even the bully's mom, in an interview, said her son got what he deserved. You read that right.<br /><br />What else is Casey going to do? He can't just stand there and take the punches, or try to run away. He's surrounded, and the resulting video would go up online and make his life worse. There's no faculty to get to, and based on the history of bullying Casey's received, it seems that they really don't give a damn what happens to the kids, until someone either gets seriously injured/killed, or it makes the school look bad on YouTube. Negotiate or plead with the bully? When? In between face-punches 2 and 3?<br /><br />Sometimes, you have to fight back. That's what Casey did. In an interview, Casey does realize the danger posed to Richard from the suplex, but he is not in the wrong. Kids have to learn that violence – in all its forms – has its consequences; punch somebody enough times, don't be surprised if your nose gets broken – or you're suddenly lifted off the ground and thrown. Maybe if bullies realize that they are as at risk as the victim, we'll see less bullying.<br /><br />For now: Casey Heynes, a hero to the millions of the bullied around the world. I salute you!<br /><br /><a href="http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/fe/Casey-walks-into-mordor.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 403px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 272px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/fe/Casey-walks-into-mordor.jpg" /></a>Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-63494914903180229402011-02-11T20:12:00.000-08:002011-02-11T20:44:06.635-08:00Fall of a Pharaoh - What Now?"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And then we fucked up the endgame." -- Charlie Wilson<br /><br /><br /><br />What we have seen in Egypt is utterly incredible. It'll be talked about for decades, and the results of this revolution (which I think should be called the Friday Revolution, since most of its major gatherings occurred on Friday) will have major ramifications on the Middle East and the world for the next thirty years.<br /><br /><br /><br />The Obama administration's handling of the event was very good. It was careful, balanced, rational, and well-timed. I cannot help but think that Mubarak's resignation today had something to do with the strong words from President Obama yesterday announcing support for the protestors. The questions remains: how should the United States proceed from here?<br /><br /><br /><br />The army is in control of the government at this moment. Fortunately, the relationship between the American military and the Egyptian military is quite good, and has been for some time, particularly because we provide ample funding. We must maintain our good relationship, and at the same time convince the military that allowing for democratic elections and a revised constitution. Keep in mind, most of the senior government officials were military men, so the fact that the military now runs Egypt is not too different than what it has been for the past 60 years. The U.S. should work to make sure the police state comes to an end.<br /><br />The United States should also work with opposition leaders (including the Muslim Brotherhood? Perhaps. We do need to clear up once and for all whether they are the radicals people claim they are). Provide funding, provide advice if they desire it. Perhaps most importantly, help them get back the money Mubarak stole from the people. First of all, a lot of it is money that we gave to Egypt to help the populace - it's OUR money that was stolen. Second, it is a sign of good faith that we are willing to back the Egyptians now to form a democratic government.<br /><br />This is too important to fuck up the endgame. What else should the U.S. do in Egypt?Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-90730398254271005252011-01-12T14:47:00.000-08:002011-01-12T14:50:27.484-08:00Plug for a Friend!My dear friend Scott Resnick is campaigning for Alderman in Madison. He has just released his first policy paper on alcohol policy, available here: <a href="http://www.resnickfordistrict8.com/">http://www.resnickfordistrict8.com/</a><br /><br />Check it out!Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-65890936209705520472011-01-11T13:29:00.001-08:002011-01-11T15:59:08.862-08:00The Tuscon Tragedy: FalloutFirst, let me start off by expressing my deepest condolences for those affected by the shooting in Tucson. My deepest sorrow is reserved Christina Taylor Green, the nine-year-old cut down before she reached her true potential. That she was born on September 11th and died in this horrible event is saddening; a life bookended by terror. It is indicative, I think, of how we live in an age of fear.<br /><br />I won't be discussing the events directly, or the shooter, or the debate over the causes. We've heard them all, repeatedly. I am interested in solutions; finding means to insure tragedies like this become rarer, and eventually non-existant. What follows is a list of ideas.<br /><br /><strong>Immediate Solutions</strong><br />1. <em>Outlaw the sale of high-capacity magazines.</em> Why does the civilian population need a magazine that holds twenty or thirty rounds? Hunters shouldn't need more than two, maybe three bullets to take down game. If you need more than two rounds to defend yourself, you need the police more than you need your gun. Bottom line, I cannot think of a rational justification for civilians to own high-capacity magazines.<br /><br />2. <em>Improve the background check system.</em> Currently the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) works like this: a prospective purchaser fills out a form. This form asks relatively simple questions, such "have you been convicted of a crime," or "do you currently suffer from mental illness." Notice the first problem. While it is relatively simple to ascertain the truth regarding criminal record, mental illness can go undetected and there may be no record. If the dealer is in a Point-of-Contact (POC) state, the dealer will then contact the POC, an automated system that accesses the NICS, which is linked to a number of federal information systems (criminal records, basic identifications). These records are federal only. They do not contain records held by the state, and some states do not run background checks on their own records. I would recommend that all states run additional background checks on the state level in addition to the federal background check.<br /><br /><strong>Intermediate and Long-Term Solutions</strong><br />3. <em>Increase funding, at all levels, for mental health care. </em>As a particular few of my friends will tell you, the brain is perhaps among the least-understood organs. From what I gather, care for mental illness barely reaches parity with physical illness. I am hoping that some of my more medically-inclined friends can expand on this point, but I don't think I am far off in recommending better funding for, access to, and education about mental illness and mental health care.<br /><br />4. <em>Better parenting</em>. This is probably going to sound really soft. The origin of the Tucson tragedy, as with many tragedies, is hate. Loughner shot Giffords because, among other things, he hated the government. Shelley Shannon killed George Tiller because Shannon hated abortion, Sirhan shot RFK because Sirhan hated Israel (and Kennedy's support for that state), James Earl Ray killed King because Ray hated black people. Like it or not, hate is the primary motivator for people to take a gun to other people. We need to do a better job teaching that it's not ok to hate. Look at the bullying incidents of the past few years; those kids were not taught that it is not ok to hate. In some cases, they were taught it was OK to hate. Until people are able to know the difference between disagreement, dislike, and hate, then there will be more killings.<br /><br />What else can we do to avoid future Tucsons?Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-21784420205081207352011-01-05T10:48:00.001-08:002011-01-05T11:47:32.995-08:00Prof. Feingold: Class is In SessionFormer U.S. Senator and all-around good guy Russ Feingold has been appointed as a visiting professor of law at Marquette University. In addition to writing a book (something all of us in academia must do at some point), Professor Feingold will be teaching a course entitled <em>Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate</em>. This upper-level elective will be offered this coming semester.<br /><br />It goes without saying that, with few exceptions, Russ Feingold is uniquely suited to teach this course. (Interestingly, Arlen Spector is also entering academia at UPenn's law school). Many professors are able to teach about American legislature, how bills are made into law, and the nuances of Congress. Few have actually been in office long enough to tell you how everything <strong>really</strong> works. I have a feeling that Professor Feingold's class will be invaluable to any law student with political aspirations, whether that student agrees with the professor's politics or not.<br /><br />Now, to proceed to a question I am sure all Badgers are asking: why is Russ Feingold teaching at Marquette, and not at UW? He's a Badger alum (B.A. '75), he lives in nearby Middleton, and the University of Wisconsin is the flagship of the public university system of the state. Well, allow me to hazard a couple guesses. <br /><br />First, as a state school, UW is under scrutiny by a deeply partisan legislature; you cannot deny this. If the university were to hire a former Democratic senator who was just ousted in the last election, I would venture to say there would be bickering going on in the Capitol. The university doesn't need that right now, especially with a new governor and legislature. Marquette, on the other hand, is a private university that doesn't have to answer to the state with regards to who it hires. Besides, if I were a Dem who lost in 2010, I just wouldn't want to hang around Madison just now.<br /><br />Second guess, and far more mercenary: Marquette offered a better financial package. Or, Russ, in addition to teaching and writing, will be back practicing law, and he wanted to work somewhere besides Madison.<br /><br />Overall, I'm glad Marquette hired Russ, and I'm insanely jealous of the students who will attend his class. Obviously, there are some blowhards out there that think it's wrong for Russ to be in the classroom, influencing the opinions of the youth and all that crap. Well, 1st: the youngest law student is 22, plenty old enough to think for himself. Russ isn't teaching kindergarten here. 2nd: what else should he do? This way he continues to give back to the community in the form of teaching, and he imparts his particular experiences and knowledge to the next generation.<br /><br />Well, what else should he do?Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-70200145256238157092010-12-09T13:22:00.000-08:002010-12-09T13:37:24.818-08:00I Hear the Train A Comi--Wait, Never MindHey everyone, just a quick comment on the recent news that Wisconsin has turned down the federal money for the rail system. That money now goes to other states. Basically, my opinion is this: Scott Walker, YAAFM (Google it if you don't know what it means).<br /><br />That money would have gone towards jobs, no doubt about it. Not just jobs associated with the railroad itself (staffing, maintenance, management), but the other jobs surrounding the rail system - work in the stations, manufacturing parts, to name a couple. Even if you didn't agree with the kinds of jobs that would have been created, I'm sure there are at least a few Wisconsinites who wouldn't mind working on the rails, or working at all for that matter.<br /><br />Walker wanted to spend that money on road repair instead. Well first, that's not how federal earmarks work, Scott. Second, that's such a stopgap measure I don't know where to begin. Sure, you could have repaired all the roads and bridges in the state, and probably expanded a few of the highways. And that money might have lasted five years. But after five years of winters and heavy driving and summer traffic, and the money's all gone, what then? I mean, Wisconsin doesn't have a toll system (and I'm probably among the few that believes it'd be better if the state did), so money to keep up the transportation system won't come from there. Wanting to take money for rails to spend on fixing roads is short-sighted.<br /><br />Bottom line: You missed out on jobs and you missed out on money and you certainly missed out on road repair. Scott Walker, YAAFM.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-48763547850888810302010-11-01T12:12:00.000-07:002010-11-01T13:58:11.010-07:00A Modest ProposalI am going to ignore the fact that I haven't posted in months, and continue on as if nothing has happened.<br /><br />As this election cycle comes to a close, we reflect on some of the issues/non-issues that have been raised. The Tea Party, jobs, head-stomping supporters, other people being me, three-ways in Alaska and Florida, taxes, jobs, the economy, health care, rent being too damn high, tan Congressmen, running from reporters, jobs, limp Democrats, batshit Republicans, and a million moderates marching (with music from Yusuf Islam and Kid Rock), and jobs. But one issue keeps coming up for everyone, left, right, and middle: campaign spending. The Supreme Court's <em>Citizens United</em> decision now allows private groups/corporations to make unlimited donations to 527s and 501(c)s (<strong>not campaigns</strong>). We have seen an explosion in advocacy advertising by groups with names like Citizens for Justice, or Rednecks for a Better America (this is an actual name of a group from 2004).<br /><br />To date, $3.9 billion have been spent by candidates, parties and issue groups to get a single message out: Vote for me (or, don't vote for him/her/it). Ads have flooded the airwaves and generally annoyed the American populace. Some feel the enormous expenditures made to buy ad time for the election could have been spent on better things, like hiring people, or buying up the entire world's supply of black market firearms four times over, or 80 days worth of video games. Therefore, I submit this proposal to the American people: we legally prohibit how much money a candidate/issue group/party may <strong>spend</strong> on television expenditures.<br /><br />I'm not talking about public financing of campaigns. History has shown that, while popular with the people, nobody's really inclined to actually take the restrictions public financing entails. Let private financing continue. Let individuals (or corporations, same thing now) donate as much as they want to the cause of their choice. But each group that airs advertisements is limited, in total, to one half-hour of local airtime, and ten minutes national airtime. Airtime costs are determined from market to market, so the actual flat dollar amount will change depending on location, but the effect remains the same. A half-hour of airtime is a lot, really. If each ad runs for thirty seconds, that's 60 ad spots. For each market, there is a total local airtime cap for all political ads of eight hours.<br /><br />Why is this inherently more fair? Well, for one, we no longer deal with the pesky issue of more money = more say. If some corporation donates 3 million to a particular 501(c), fine. But if 30 minutes of airtime only costs $500,000, then that 501(c) better find a different way to spend the rest of the money. Corporations want to be treated the same as individuals, ok. They can have as much say as the individuals who spend $500,000 on an opposing advertisement. What if someone decided to start up a whole bunch of issue groups to eat up airtime? Fine, but those half-hour and 8 hour limits are still in place.<br /><br />And I can bet you that when air time becomes valuable, the ads will be of a higher quality, and perhaps might actually contain more valuable information instead of wild-eyed threats and insults.<br /><br />So what would those groups do with all that extra money? Put it to good use: buy yard signs, t-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, key chains, hats, scarfs, window clings, a blimp with your name on it. I'm pretty sure that all of those items would be made in the USA (it's really bad publicity for American campaign groups to hand out stuff made in China), and that means jobs. So, not only will this plan limit the flow of political ads, but it will create industry jobs for people who desperately need them; and since we seem to live in an age of constant campaigning, that means those jobs will be constant. Yes we can - make cheap political tchotchkes!<br /><br />To summarize: rather than limit how much can be donated to issue groups, limit how much can be spent on the thing that annoys us most, the campaign advertisement. Use the spare money to employ people in the making of campaign gewgaws (or pay your staffers more). Save the American sanity and its economy at the same time.<br /><br />Have a happy Election Day. Go vote.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-32345493833968650702010-06-10T11:22:00.000-07:002010-06-10T11:25:14.397-07:00The Big Ten Gets Bigger Returns!For those readers with long memories, you'll remember that in December of last year, I <a href="http://peoplepolitics.blogspot.com/2009/12/big-ten-gets-bigger.html">discussed the possibility of Big Ten expansion</a>, and the following schools were on my short list:<br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska.</span><br /></em><br />So, since then, it's come to my attention that the rule regarding bordering a Big Ten state doesn't really exist. That means all bets are off, and if you've been paying attention recently, Nebraska has unofficially announced its intentions to become the 12th member of the Big Ten Conference. Today, Colorado announced its intentions to join the Pac-10 Conference, and Oklahoma has confirmed that the SEC has shown interest in their university. While I don't want to come out and say that the Big 12 is going to dissolve, it will be difficult for them to find replacements of the same caliber as those three schools. We are most likely living in the end of days for the Big 12 Conference either as a power conference or as a conference period. That's fine by me. The Big 12 is the Frankenstein monster created from the corpses of the Big 8 and Southwest Conference, and no one has really been very happy with the arrangement. It made the least amount of money for the schools involved out of any conference.<br /><br />The man really keeping an eye on the whole expansion business is <a href="http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/">Frank the Tank</a>, an Illini alumnus whose observations are very astute and easy to understand. According to the news on his end, the Big Ten might be looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, and Missouri. However, Notre Dame will only get an offer if Texas or Missouri says yes. Why?<br /><br />Well, first, if Missouri signs on, that makes an awkward 13 teams, and that's a terrible conference name: The Awkward 13. Adding one more will make for 14 teams, enough for two divisions and a conference championship, which athletically was the ultimate goal for Big Ten expansion. If the Big Ten scores the big enchilada of Texas, we have to take the ugly stepsister of Texas A&M, because their state legislature is a bunch of dickless wonders that requires the two to remain tied to each other in whatever conference they belong to. That way, their rivalry remains a conference game, and much more important. Adding one gets you the other, which makes 15 teams, equally awkward to 13. Add the Irish, you get 16 teams, a superconference, capable of destroying entire planets in a single blast. In those circumstances, the allure of a large conference with a championship game and a lot of money may be too much for Notre Dame to ignore, at long last.<br /><br />Now, for my thoughts on the Nebraska addition:<br /><br />I'm “meh” about it, overall. Athletically, it's a great football school, it's one of the great teams of college football history with 46 conference championships and 5 national championships, the last one in 1997. In basketball, it sucks. Thematically, it fits well into the Big Ten, because it's a public, state flagship university, which is the general theme of the Big Ten (not counting Northwestern [not public or state flagship] or Michigan State [not state flagship]). Academically, it's not a great, or even good addition. On the often-overused and misleading U.S. News rankings, Nebraska ranks 96, which is over twenty spots below even the lowest-ranked Big Ten schools (Indiana and Michigan State). It's just not academically equal to the Big Ten, so my sincere hope is that over time, closer association with the conference will improve Nebraska academically as it shares in research and other educational benefits. In summary, I'm not exactly sure why the Big Ten courted Nebraska, unless it knew that taking it would trigger massive conference shifts which could lead to nabbing Texas or Missouri or Notre Dame.<br /><br />Either way, the next two weeks are going to be very interesting, and we'll see how they play out. What are your thoughts?Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-38593327537790049032010-05-16T16:21:00.000-07:002010-06-10T11:24:21.909-07:00We Never Say Good-Bye...I am spending this afternoon reflecting on the events of this morning, where I walked across a stage, was handed an empty diploma holder, and told that I was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin. Yes, I realize that is a very empty description of what is supposed to be a momentous occasion, the “rest of your life” and such. But as a historian I guess I tend to take a long view of things.<br /><br />My education is not yet over. For the few who read this blog, I will remain in Madison over the summer. In August, I will move out to the Boston area as I enter the doctoral program in History at Brandeis University, located in Waltham, Massachusetts. Four years down, five (hopefully) more to go. What effect will these events have on this blog?<br /><br />This contents of this blog will begin to shift towards a view on events in Boston and the surrounding area, but I will definitely still share my opinion on events in Wisconsin and affecting the University of Wisconsin. When possible, I will try to share how what happens in Boston affects the university, and vice versa.<br /><br />As I close out this undergraduate career, I want to thank you for sharing some of it with me. My time at this university has been the best of my life. I want to share a few short lines that any good student or alum of this university should take to heart:<br /><br />“Praise to Alma Mater, ever let us bring”<br />“'Forward' is our driving spirit”<br />"If you want to be a Badger, just come along with me"<br />“Your name forever glorious will hearken us to do or dare”<br />“When you say Wisconsin, you've said it all”<br />“Eat a rock!”<br />“Once a Badger, always a Badger”<br />“Praise to thee, our Alma Mater”<br /><br />And of course...<br /><br />“We never really say good-bye...We'll see you real soon, and <span style="color:#ff0000;">On, Wisconsin!</span>”<br /><br />Thank you.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-16618717272996641922010-03-22T14:31:00.000-07:002010-03-22T14:36:49.548-07:00The Choices We Make: A Follow-Up<em>On my last post, I said "If Mr. Johnson ever wishes to explain his comments, or apologize for them, or make any sort of statement regarding this post, he is more than welcome to do so on this blog." I recieved this communique from Michael Johnson not ten minutes ago. As I promised, I am posting it in its entirety. Only the contact information (email address, phone number) has been withheld.</em><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />To the Madison and Campus community,<br /><br />Recently, insensitive comments that I made two years concerning Jewish students have been discussed by both the Daily Cardinal and Badger Herald in relation to my current campaign.<br /><br />I know that words don't have to have malicious intent to have malicious effects upon people. Sadly, those comments are mine and I own them. They don't reflect on anyone or anything except my own poor judgment in using those words. I made them and I apologize in no uncertain terms because they were deplorable, offensive, and hurtful to the personal histories and struggles of many of my fellow students.<br /><br />As someone who has worked to defend and protect the histories and struggles of this diverse community of ours, I failed to take the things I had learned in my experiences and apply them to those of others, whom I had considerably less experience working with.<br /><br />However, let me be clear; I am in no way anti-Semitic. It saddens me greatly what my fellow students who are Jewish and their families have been through, and have always stood in solidarity against the threats that they face from those who wish to erase their history of struggle.<br /><br />No matter our differences, we share a common bond; that we call this small world of Madison home, and that it should always be a safe space where everyone can live and learn. Together.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Michael JohnsonPaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-60926572239304583272010-03-17T11:24:00.000-07:002010-03-17T11:46:25.677-07:00The Choices We MakeWhat if someone said the following:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“I have this feeling that blacks would rather be treated as this oppressed group to justify constantly reaching back to slavery”</span><br /><br />Or:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“Is this not like the fifth or sixth time this year a Latino student has criticized the BH for something printed in their paper??? It’s starting to get out of hand…”<br /></span><br />Or:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“The funny things is the Muslims seem to be so anxious to be treated poorly, they reach and make comments about 'infidels' and women...”<br /></span><br /><br />How would you feel if you were a member of either community? Would you feel offended? Marginalized?<br /><br />Ok. Now imagine the person saying those comments was a candidate for public office. If that were the case, these quotes might make it into a major newspaper. Would you vote for that candidate? Would you tell other people to vote for them?<br /><br />I bring up this issue because comments extraordinarily similar to these were made in 2008 by a current candidate for County Board, Michael Johnson, and listed on the now-defunct Fearless Sifting blog in a post that brought up Mr. Johnson's comments during his run for alderman. In reality, these comments were made against Jews. They read as follows:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“I have this feeling that Jews would rather be treated as this oppressed group to justify constantly reaching back to the holocaust”<br /><br />“Is this not like the fifth or sixth time this year a Jewish student has criticized the BH for something printed in their paper??? It’s starting to get out of hand…”<br /><br />“The funny things is the Jews seem to be so anxious to be treated poorly, they reach and make comments about blacks or brown people...”<br /></span><br />These comments were made regarding the publication of a shout-out in the Badger Herald making light of the Holocaust. There are more. For example:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“Well, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said 'Jews must get over this victimization complex, and stop acting like they have a monopoly on suffering'..”</span><br /><br />I can't find any record of Archbishop Tutu ever making that statement, but if someone can find me evidence of such a statement being made, I'll post the whole quote right here. Desmond Tutu has made repeated comments about the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government, and he has likened it to the apartheid policies of South Africa. That is a fair and legitimate political statement, and Tutu has the right to make it. But, again, I have never found a quote of Archbishop Tutu saying, “Jews must get over this victimization complex, and stop acting like they have a monopoly on suffering.” So either Mr. Johnson knows where I can find the quote, or he put words in someone else's mouth. If the situation is the latter, then it means “Desmond Tutu's” words were really Michael Johnson's words, and he must explain them.<br /><br />Why do I bring these two-year-old quotes up? I bring them up because as a candidate for County Board and a potential public figure, Michael Johnson should know better than to make comments like these. In an era where nearly everything we do or say is recorded for posterity, he should have been more careful. Mr. Johnson did not have to make those comments, and he certainly did not have to make them public. I want to know why he chose to do so, given that they would almost certainly attract attention and upset more than a few people.<br /><br />Am I accusing Michael Johnson of being anti-Semitic? No. Believe me, if I were to accuse someone of that, I'd be blunt about it. Am I making this post in an attempt to take Mr. Johnson down and ruin his shot at being County Board Supervisor? Au contraire, I believe that if Mr. Johnson addressed these comments and explained himself, it would make him a stronger candidate. I respect Mr. Johnson tremendously for choosing to run for public office, as I respect (most) people who do. The path is not easy, the demands are crushing, and it is often a thankless endeavor. But I must question his decision-making skills, because he has issued questionable comments more than once. Someone who runs for office should know better, not just because it'll get picked up by third parties, but because that office-holder is a representative of the people, and our representatives should exhibit the best traits, the qualities that we all aspire to hold. Sometimes chief among these qualities is knowing when to bite your tongue. As a final example:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“As fair as the comparison of the two, the herald is better is because it's actually a newspaper, and not a church bake sale newsletter posing as one. I've only read the cardinal once, and that was even asking too much, as it came off as pot luck notification that a publication”</span><br /><br />Generally, if I were a candidate, I would not insult one of the two major papers on campus, especially one that makes endorsements. Again, I would cite this as an example of a candidate not knowing when to bite his tongue and making a poor decision.<br /><br />I bring this matter up in light of the recent controversy on the Badger Herald regarding the Bradley Smith advertisement that, in essence, denied the occurrence of the Holocaust and the death of six million Jews. The events of the past few weeks show that comments similar to the ones Mr. Johnson made a couple years ago are still being made by other individuals, and that these comments generate backlash and rebuke from people who will not tolerate those sorts of statements, (admittedly) including myself. I urge Mr. Johnson to take great care in the future with what he says publicly, but I also ask him to stand up and declare that he neither condones nor would tolerate comments like those made on the Badger Herald website, or in any other forum. I believe that it will make him a stronger candidate, and certainly close the book on the comments made in 2008.<br /><br />If Mr. Johnson ever wishes to explain his comments, or apologize for them, or make any sort of statement regarding this post, he is more than welcome to do so on this blog.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-84370118339587094652010-02-11T14:48:00.001-08:002010-02-11T15:03:55.197-08:00BREAKING: GMCC Endorses EicherThe Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce has endorsed Analiese Eicher for County Board Supervisor, District 5. The GMCC selected Analiese because they generally have a good sense about a campaign and how it is being run. The GMCC also previously endorsed Bryon Eagon and Eli Judge for Alderperson, so this may be a way to maintain relations with that group. In essence, GMCC found Eicher more friendly to business than her opponent, Michael Johnson (who also sought endorsement).Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-91330409796221081332010-02-10T17:02:00.000-08:002010-02-10T17:03:22.978-08:00Something That Needs Talking AboutRecently, an event occurred concerning Alpha Epsilon Pi, a predominantly (but not entirely) Jewish fraternity on campus. The event itself is not a concern of this post, nor the investigation or rulings that will result or have resulted. As a disclaimer: I am not a member of any Greek community on campus. I have never been a member of any Greek community on campus. I do not find the lifestyle appealing to me, but I understand that others do for a wide variety of reasons.<br /><br />The event and allegations surrounding it have become the focus of a newspaper article in the Badger Herald. From that article, a disturbing number of comments of an anti-Semitic nature were made by a number of anonymous individuals. These comments ranged from disparaging remarks about the stereotypical wealth of Jews, to open attempts at jokes recalling the Holocaust. The Dean of Students wrote a letter to the editor the following day in which she stated that the offending comments are not representative of the University of Wisconsin.<br /><br />In a way, this is completely true. The University of Wisconsin is not only notable for being among the first universities in America to do away with its “Jewish quotas,” but also for having one of the oldest Hillel branches in the United States. Many of its notable faculty, past and present, are Jewish, and many of its famous alumni are Jewish, including both of Wisconsin's current U.S. senators. It is this long history of being Jewish-friendly that attracts so many of today's Jews to the University of Wisconsin.<br /><br />But clearly, the offending comments are representative of a portion of this university. There are clearly some that attend this school that harbor some resent against Jews, either for real or imagined reasons, a belief in age-old (or more recent) stereotypes, or from something in their upbringing. I am opening this post up as a place to discuss why this problem of anti-Semitism persists, to some small degree, at this most enlightened of universities. Keep in mind these caveats:<br /><br />1. I am monitoring the discussion. Comments that do not contribute to the matter at hand, or are so senselessly stupid and offensive, I will remove. This is my blog, I make the rules.<br />2. This is not the place to defend or attack AEPi, it's actions, or the Greek system in general.<br />3. Try to use correct spelling and grammar. Other people do actually read this stuff, you know.<br /><br />I look forward to the ensuing discussion, and I will of course participate.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-36669543535326881892010-01-22T11:53:00.000-08:002010-01-22T12:05:57.529-08:00An Interview with Analiese Eicher<em>Analiese Eicher is a 21-year-old senior at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. She has a long history of political involvement, particularly within Representative Tammy Baldwin's campaigns, and she served as the Campus Coordinator for Students For Tammy Baldwin in 2008. During the presidential primary, she organized Students for Hillary, and then worked with Students for Barack Obama in her Coordinator capacity during the general election. She is currently Chair of the College Democrats of Wisconsin and the Membership Director for College Democrats of America. She previously served as the Women's Caucus Chair for CDA. Miss Eicher is now running for the Dane County Board of Supervisors for the 5th District. I sat down with her at the Starbucks on State Street and asked her a few questions.</em><br /><br /><strong>Why did you initially decide to run for county board, or who convinced you?</strong><br /><br />Well, I guess I really hadn't been considering because there was an open seat, and it never really crossed my mind that it was something I wanted to do right away. I was definitely on the track for law school, taking the LSAT. Someone brought it more to my attention and asked me to consider it, and I began to consider it...just to think about it. And I was, like, “Well, OK.” So I started talking to a lot of students that I work with on campus, asking their opinion about it. I started to think about what the position means to the students on campus. So after many conversations with many students, it was clear a lot of people thought it was a good idea. I convinced myself that there were a lot of things that I wanted to work on that could be accomplished on the county board. I felt students needed strong represented to represent their voice on the board. I felt that students needed to know what was going on. They don't realize just how relevant the board is to their everyday lives. So it was a lot of students that convinced me to run.<br /><br /><strong>What is the single most important issue for you? What is your “niche”?</strong><br /><br />It's a hard question, because I'm very much a comprehensive thinker. But I think the one thing that's really important is kinda twofold. It's important that students know thy have rep on the board and how those decisions affect them. What it comes down to...God, that's so hard! There's so many different things. Our safety on campus is really important to me and I know from the conversations with students that it's important for them, and the Dane County Sheriff's Department works very closely with Madison city police and UW police to make sure that we're safe in our campus community. That's one thing that's important to me, but another is our campus environment. Having an environment that's safe for us in terms of 'can we go out and jump in the lake?' There's a lot more we can do to improve the quality and safety of the water. Students use the Terrace every single day as soon as the snow melts and we have amazing resources. Protecting those resources and having the ability to use them is an important thing to me and it should be important to students. It goes along with making sure that we live in a green community and doing things in our lives to live in a healthy environment.<br /><br /><strong>We know you've mentioned how important you believe Health and Human Services to be. What do you feel needs to be done to maintain or improve HHS' level of effectiveness with regard to the student population, and how will that work given the current economic situation?</strong><br /><br />Well, the human services department in Dane County is one of the best in the state and actually in the nation, in my opinion. It got national attention for its programs. It's got the lowest infant mortality rate among African-Americans in the nation. I think a lot of that attests to making Health and Human Services a priority in Dane County, and regardless of the economic situation I think making sure the health of our community and making sure those services are available are key, especially because when you enter times like this, we see people needing these services more than ever. So they're important. I think in terms of keeping those a priority...budgets are difficult, we saw that last year with the county budget and next year's will probably be difficult too. It comes down to finding a balance on what we're working with and what we need and there's a lot we can do with shared revenue, making sure we have funding for programs. If it means asking the state for shared revenue, we shouldn't hesitate to do so. We need to evaluate what programs work best, and from what I know, most of them work well and efficiently, but I think monetarily we need to make sure we're using the right services.<br /><br /><strong>There's been talk for a few years now about purchasing biodigesters to help clean the lakes. However, talk about them tends to disappear after election day. Do you feel there be progress to purchase this equipment in the next two years, and if so, what role can you play in that?</strong><br /><br />Well it's funny you mention, because at the county board meeting last night there was talk specifically about manure digesters. From what I understand, they are actually taking the steps to move forward to purchase one of these and I don't know the timeline but if I get elected, absolutely I'll be involved. They're extremely beneficial to making sure we have clean water. I would definitely advocate for it, vote for funding for it, no question.<br /><br /><strong>Between September 2008 and 2009, Dane County's unemployment rate went from 3.3% to 5.4%. The rate is the same in the City of Madison. Compared to the rest of the state, the county unemployment rate is the lowest, and compared to the U.S. unemployment rate of 9.5% at the time, Dane County has not been hit as hard. Why is that? What can be done to further lower the unemployment rate?</strong><br /><br />Well, first let me say that looking at the unemployment rates for the rest of the state and surrounding counties and the rest of the nation, I think Dane County is comparatively very fortunate. The reason I think it's lower than the rest of the state and nation is because Dane County's main priority is that people have jobs. Jobs are important and the board has made that a priority...that has something to do with it. It might have something to do with the types of jobs we have in Dane County. If you look at it, there's just higher unemployment nationwide. Will that change anytime soon? It seems so. We need to protect the jobs we have and create opportunities for more and newer jobs. In terms of protecting jobs we already have, I think it's recognizing where those jobs are and if it comes down to everyone taking a cut instead of losing your job, personally I would take the pay cut. But I also think that there's potentially other solutions. In terms of new jobs, looking to new businesses, investing in green jobs and “greenifying” existing businesses. I think it's areas like that that can provide for jobs. Making sure that Dane County residents have jobs and maintain them is central.<br /><br /><strong>Dane County currently has the lowest per-capita number of domestic abuse shelter beds: 1 bed per every 19,000 residents. The state average is 1 bed per 7,300 residents. Last year, there was an over 100 percent increase in the number of women seeking help. It's believed that the economy may play some role in this increase. How does the county address the problems of the low number of beds and the increasing occurrence of domestic abuse?</strong><br /><br />I think in order to address it, we have to talk about it and it is very much a sensitive subject. But the reality is that it happens and that it is happening, and that the women and men who seek shelter because of domestic abuse situations need somewhere to go and have resources. I do not think that has necessarily been a priority. The domestic abuse services are consistently underfunded while the people need these services. We need to make sure we are providing for Dane County residents, and if that means some funding then I will advocate for it and I am advocating for it. People need them.<br /><br /><strong>The 5th district's current board member is Wyndham Manning, who has come under criticism from a number of sources for being almost nonexistent in the student public. How would you improve communication between yourself as a board member and the student constituent?</strong><br /><br />It's one of the reasons I'm running, to increase student presence on the board and so students know the decisions the board makes. I think it's about opening the lines of communication. I will have a blog on my website, which is still under construction. If elected, the site will transition to an informational website: what's coming up in the meetings, what I think about it. I want to hear from students. There's 10,000 of them in the 5th district. Its about opening communication with student papers. We have two with a lot of readership. In the past, we didn't see a lot reported. I want to change that. If that means working with the editorial boards in some way, or writing a guest column. Face to face contact is important, and so I'll hold office hours before every meeting- there are two a month. We need to have an open dialogue between constituents and their representatives. It comes down to making yourself available. It's not fair if your constituents elect you and you ignore them- it's not right!<br /><br /><strong>What do you feel will be the major three developments in the next two years for Dane County? How should the county board respond to those developments?</strong><br /><br />The biggest one is the RTA, which the board created, but they need to put together a task force to look into everything, and it comes down to the voters and what changes will be made. It's incredibly important. I was supportive of the RTA when the board discussed it and I will continue to support and advocate for it. As of right now, cities outside Madison “rent” the ability for buses to head out there. By taking it to the county level, we can address the disparities between cities, streamline everything, provide more routes and allow people without cars to get to work, get to the store. With more people riding buses, there's less cars on the road, which can lead to improved air quality, which is pretty important. Biodigesters will come to fruition in the next two years. I already said I support funding for that and making sure that's something we have in Dane County to improve our quality of living. I'm not anticipating anything, but things happen and I'm prepared to deal with them as they arise. So two for three ain't bad.<br /><br /><br /><em>Analiese has a Facebook group located </em><a href="http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?v=info&gid=207875353504"><em>here</em></a><em>. Her website, which is still under construction, is at </em><a href="http://www.studentsforanaliese.com/"><em>http://www.studentsforanaliese.com/</em></a><em>.</em>Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-54940339839107090102010-01-19T19:35:00.000-08:002010-01-19T19:37:08.903-08:00The Kennedy Seat Goes Red, or: What the Fuck Do We Do Now?While the loss of the Kennedy seat upsets me, I can't say I'm surprised. Coakley ran perhaps the worst campaign of the last ten years. If you don't know that Curt Schilling pitched for the Red Sox, you have no business running in the state of Massachusetts.<br /><br />How to prepare for 2010? Pass some sort of health care reform. On the one hand, it's absolutely vital that health care reform be passed before the midterms. On the other hand, the conference committee needs to carefully create a bill that will be acceptable to a majority of legislators.<br /><br />The nuclear option might actually be viable in this situation. If health care reform passes, the Republicans would not attempt a repeal, even if they retake the Congress and White House. History shows that when large-scale domestic programs are established, the opposing party is actually loathe to repeal it (though they have no compunctions against modifying it). See: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps. I predict it will be the same with health care reform. The program will be too far along to risk repeal without backlash of some sort.<br /><br />In the meantime, focus on two things: financial reform (something akin to Glass-Steagall), and perhaps implementing a federal microcredit system. There are already two major groups giving out microloans in the United States. These are Grameen Bank out of New York, and ACCION USA. Programs like this are immensely useful at this point in time, since it is nigh impossible for many people to get a loan from banks. Unfortunately, people in the US think it's too hard to escape poverty through private enterprise (according to NYU economist Jonathan Morduch). If Republicans are always bitching about how Democrats are overtaxing hard-working middle class Americans, a program that takes tax money to establish independent businesspeople might be a coup.<br /><br />In all seriousness, consider finding new leadership. Harry Reid is in a steep power decline. Senate Democrats require a leader who will instill a fear of God into wayward party members, someone akin to Lyndon Johnson. Johnson got stuff done because he scared the shit out of people in his way. Republicans have done a great job gumming up the works in Washington, and that resulted in a nationwide disappointment over a lack of change. Reid clearly is not the powerhouse he or other people thought he was, else the Republicans would not be so much of a problem. Maybe pick Durbin to ascend, or Jim Webb.<br /><br />Americans have a notoriously short political memory. I don't think today's election will have that damaging an effect in the midterms. People think Congressmen are a bunch of money-grubbing do-nothings, but <strong>their</strong> Congressmen and senators are great! In all honesty, it's really too early to know how this will alter the elections later this year; a lot can happen. Obama's first SOTU is later this month, I guarantee that will affect how we see the midterms. Something is always changing in the realm of politics.<br /><br />If you were a Democratic leader, how would you prepare your party for the 2010 midterms and beyond? What would you do as a Republican?Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-66444697789602261152009-12-30T14:01:00.001-08:002009-12-30T14:38:09.306-08:00Champs Sports Bowl: My ObservationsA Happy New Year to all. I returned from Orlando this morning after what was definitely a great close to four years of marching in the Hardest Working Band in America. Great show, but also a win. Doesn't get better. But I'm not here to write about that. I'm here to make some observations on the game.<br /><br />Wisconsin won because of two things. First: there was excellent control of both the ball and the clock. Wisconsin had the ball for almost 40 of the 60 minutes and knew what it wanted to do with it. On the rare occassions when Wisconsin wasn't exactly sure, they remained calm and collected, made the fix, and proceeded. For example, at one point in the game, Wisconsin looked like that it was going to try for the FG. A called timeout allowed them to calmly reassess and opt for a well-placed punt instead. Many's the time when Wisconsin would have sent out it's FG team, had second thoughts, but proceeded anyway, and missed. In summary, Wisconsin executed a fantastic game. There are countless debates about "speed" vs. "size", but I'm pretty sure that the winner of the game executes better than their opponent.<br /><br />Second: Miami is a team that doesn't seem to take its games seriously. It was talking all about taking the National Championship <strong>next year</strong>. Why on earth would a team think about the end of next season, when this season's not over? Miami also embraces this concept of "swagger". If you check out college football boards now and again, you may have heard of it. Apparently, at Miami, swagger is a verb, a noun, and probably serves the same purpose that the word "smurf" does for those little blue toadstool-dwellers. Essentially, it is bravado. When a Miami player makes a regular tackle and gets in the opponent's face, that is swagger. Late hits and blatant personal fouls (that aren't called by crappy SEC officials) are swagger. Swagger is a failure to look ahead, to consider the single act in the scheme of the bigger picture. As long as Miami has a mindset that places more importance on celebrating and bringing attention to themselves than making the play and moving on and repeating, it'll remain a mid-conference player.<br /><br />Also: the turf was ridiculously soft, and it was basically sod that had been laid down perhaps that morning, or even that afternoon. It was noticibly hard to manuver on, and it definitely affected bounces and rolls, in addition to runs.<br /><br />Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the game.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-18139656043641960972009-12-13T14:18:00.000-08:002009-12-13T15:30:06.469-08:00The Big Ten Gets BiggerAlright, so everyone here knows that the "Big Ten" is a misnomer (hence the hidden "11" in the logo - cool, huh?). And, in fact, there are <strong>twelve</strong> schools in the academic Big Ten; charter member University of Chicago is the George Harrison of the Big Ten. Well, according to a recent interview with Barry Alvarez, the Big Ten will be redoubling its efforts to add school number twelve to its happy yet dysfunctional family. Coach Paterno also supports expansion, as well as a number of athletic faculty concerned over the six-week hiatus that occurs annually between the end of the Big Ten conference football season and the start of bowl season.<br /><br />So, what would happen if the Big Ten got twelve teams? First of all, it would <strong>really</strong> have to change its name, and Big 12 is taken. We could become the Big North, the Midwestern Conference, or the Great Lakes Conference. I like the latter, myself. We could stay the Big Ten...but how long can that go on?<br /><br />Second, it's very realistic that the conference might be split into two divisions, and a conference championship game. I'll say this now: East vs. West will not work. That will almost certainly put Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State into the East Division. No good. North vs. South may be the fate of the Big...Whatever. That will almost certainly keep most major rivalries in the same divisions (Illinois/Northwestern, Wisconsin/Minnesota), except for the special exception that will be made for Ohio State/Michigan.<br /><br />Of course, this all depends on who becomes the mythical twelfth team. There are a few rules that must be adhered to (at least, at this moment): Teams may only come from states that already have a Big Ten member, or are in a state that borders a state with a Big Ten member. This gives us a list of possible locations:<br /><br /><strong>Big Ten States:</strong> Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania<br /><strong>Big Ten Borders:</strong> North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York<br /><br />Now, let us assume for the moment that the Big Ten could lure away schools from other conferences (by the way, if this happens, expect to see a major shift in all conferences), as well as look at independents. The new team would have to be not only a fair competitor athletically, but academically as well. Not to mention conerns about marketability and fan base. Schools must also belong to the Association of American Universities, which is an organization of top doctoral universities in North America. Below is the list of all potential schools:<br /><br /><em>ACC</em>: Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland<br /><em>Big East</em>: Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse<br /><em>Big 12</em>: Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska<br /><em>C-USA</em>: Marshall<br /><em>Independents</em>: Notre Dame, Army, Navy<br /><em>MAC</em>: Akron, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan<br /><br />Wide selection. But we can scratch off Notre Dame (who won't really join a conference for a while yet, and even if they did, they'd join the Big East), Army, and Navy. Most, if not all of the directional schools lack the fan base and academic power of the Big Ten schools. I'm not arguing that they are bad schools; I'm saying that in terms of research dollars and funding, they don't come close. So good-bye, Central/Eastern/Western Michigan. Northern Illinois, I contend, is becoming an increasingly competent football contender, but it doesn't meet the research/funding requirements, and having three conference schools in one state might be too much. The rest of the MAC teams lack the fan base even remotely necessary for Big Ten interest. Same problem for Marshall. Thus, we have a short list:<br /><br />Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska.<br /><br />The good news: most of these schools are competitive in either football or basketball. Most meet the minimum academic standards of the Big Ten in terms of both research and education. The inclusion of any of them would provide a potential for expansion of the Big Ten Network into new media markets.<br /><br />The bad news: all of them already belong to a conference.<br /><br />So. Which of these teams would be interested in switching conferences? Who could become the twelfth member of the Big Ten?Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-57537562181327753052009-11-05T11:28:00.000-08:002009-11-05T12:16:21.797-08:00Moldy Old StuffFor those of you unaware, yesterday President Obama spoke at Wright Middle School in Madison, Wisconsin. It was a half-hour speech to a crowd of a little more than 600, definitely fewer than the crowd that last saw him when he spoke in Madison. But then, that was a public event held in the Kohl Center during the election; circumstances change. Obama said that over $4 billion in federal incentives would be offered to successful schools - essentially, he would be actually funding "No Child Left Behind."<br /><br />That's great. Except NCLB relies heavily on test scores, which as everyone knows, are excellent indicators of test-taking ability, but piss-poor when it comes to actually getting knowledge through the thick skulls of students. You may notice I'm a little biased on this point.<br /><br />American students simply do not learn as much as students from other countries. This can be seen in Common Core's report, <a href="http://www.commoncore.org/_docs/CCreport_whybehind.pdf">"Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students But We Don't."</a> (Warning: PDF file).<br /><br />Twelve hundred 17-year olds were questioned on basic knowledge that should be common to any curriculum. Here are some results that, as a history major, really make me want to beat some small animals to death with a bat:<br /><br />*The respondents answered 73% of the history questions correctly. That's a low C.<br /><br />*Almost 1/3 could not identify "ask not what your country can do for you" as a quote from JFK.<br /><br />*A third did not know that the Bill of Rights ensures freedoms of speech or religion.<br /><br />*Only two in five students knew that the Civil War occurred sometime between 1850 and 1900.<br /><br />*Only three in five students knew that the First World War occurred sometime between 1900 and 1950.<br /><br />In fact, the question that students did the best on in history concerned the "I Have a Dream" speech, where 97% of students could correctly identify the speaker (MLK).<br /><br />Students who have parents that went to college finished one to two letter grades better than those without college-educated parents. I don't find this an excuse. Parents need to get involved in the education of their children, at an early age! Parents should take their kids to museums, or national parks and monuments, or read books about our history. Maybe the reason our current political situation is so fucked up is because our citizens have such a skewed, inaccurate, and simply spotty understanding about the key events and concepts that shape our nation.<br /><br />Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sometimes they may not even get that chance.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-34647498560069641662009-10-23T07:19:00.000-07:002009-10-23T10:43:08.313-07:00Boycotting the NittyVery interesting development today. Both the <a href="http://www.dailycardinal.com/opinion/boycott-nitty-gritty-1.797904#2">Daily Cardinal</a> and the <a href="http://badgerherald.com/oped/2009/10/23/boycott_the_nitty.php">Badger Herald</a> are calling for a boycott of the Nitty Gritty, after owner Marsh Shapiro made comments deriding the role of students on the Alcohol License Reviewing Committee. Recently District 8 Alderman <a href="http://bryoneagon.wordpress.com/">Bryon Eagon</a> proposed the addition of a permanent voting member of the ALRC that is 25 years of age or younger - essentially, a student.<br /><br />Shapiro has made comments that indicate, in one way or another, that students are an interest group, and not a consituency, and therefore should not have a voting position.<br /><br />Anyone that reads blogs like <a href="http://thesconz.wordpress.com/">The Sconz</a> or the Badger Herald when it was running might have seen my comments regarding the Nitty Gritty and Shapiro. To be succinct, I'm not a big fan. Here's something I said yesterday:<br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">"I can understand Shapiro’s resistance to a student voting member. He probably thinks that a student would always vote in favor of awarding licenses, thus increasing the number of bars and alcohol venues in the city. More bars, less revenue for Shapiro since his Nitty Gritty suffers from competition. Since he’s looking to sell the Nitty, decreased revenue means decreased value of his property, and less money for him overall."</span></em><br /><br />Clearly, Shapiro thinks that a student would be a rubber stamp for alcohol licenses. The Herald, Cardinal, and myself believe that someone appointed to a voting position would be responsible enough to examine each application carefully and on a case-by-case basis.<br /><br />Students <strong>are</strong> residents of the city of Madison- one-fourth of its population, as a matter of fact. Yes, many students move from place to place each year. But they remain residents of the city for at least four years (sometimes much, much longer). In four years, they can elect alders, county board members, and the mayor. They can drastically shape the politics of this city. If that's not a resident, I don't know what is.<br /><br />I support the idea of a boycott in general. Economic coercion should be an appropriate and effective method of protest and politics in this situation. However, as many have stated on the newspaper's comments, most of the employees of the Nitty are students, who make their money off of tips. This poses a problem. How to effectively protest Shapiro's comments regarding the ALRC, but prevent student employees from destitution?<br /><br />I recommend an alcohol boycott of the Nitty. Rather than avoiding the Nitty altogether, people should simply not go to the Nitty as a bar. It is still a restaurant during the day. If you really feel the need to go there for lunch, or a pre-basketball/hockey dinner, or a birthday, then go if you must (there are much better places to eat, however). But if you go, don't buy alcohol. Don't go to the Nitty when only the bar is open, or if you do go, don't buy alcohol. Buy soda instead. And tip generously! Shapiro gets no income from tips. He'll make less money off the non-alcoholic drinks and the food, and student workers will still make tips (bigger tips, if people decide to do so).<br /><br />Overall, the Nitty should be disregarded as a normal spot for a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday-night bar crawl. Go to the Vintage, or Wando's, or the Plaza. The Church Key, the Red Shed, or Brother's. Hell, go to the Karaoke Kid or across town to the Big 10! But avoid the Nitty as a regular stop. Speak with your wallets. Reduce Shapiro's profit, but help your fellow students where you can.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-83053449921931284662009-10-09T07:21:00.000-07:002009-10-09T08:06:05.293-07:00International (B)OnusVery fascinating news coming out of Oslo today. President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee citing that "[h]is diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
<br />
<br />Awarding the Prize to a sitting head of government is not unprecedented. Mikhail Gorbachev won the Prize in 1990 for his work to open up the Soviet Union. It seems that the Committee again is attempting to promote a leader and their work, and using the awarding of the Prize to increase that leader's international and moral authority.
<br />
<br />Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to receive the Prize. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the Prize in 1919, and Theodore Roosevelt received his Prize in 1906. And now a major onus lies on the shoulders of Barack Obama.
<br />
<br />The Nobel Peace Prize is ostensibly the <strong>world's </strong>highest honor. Wilson received his Prize for his Fourteen Points, a framework for peace negotiations in the post-World War I world. Although those Points might be seen as a failure due to World War II, many of its expectations and ideas still hold major relevance today. Roosevelt's Prize was given for his role in the Treaty of Portsmouth, bringing an end to the Russo-Japanese War.
<br />
<br />Many will say/have said that the President has not earned the Prize, because he has not <strong>done</strong> anything. I have a tendency to partially agree with them. We are still in Afghanistan and Iraq, although our forces in that country are slowly winding down (but there are 14 bases under construction there for our use). Iran still has attention on it for its nuclear program issues, and of course there's the perennial problem of Israel and Palestine. Not to mention the continued existance of al-Qaida and other radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
<br />
<br />The Committee also believed that President Obama's work on non-proliferation was a key cause for their decision. It is on this issue that Obama has his greatest opportunity to really earn his Nobel. Nuclear weapons are a terribly destabilizing weapon, and non-proliferation has long been seen as a key strategy to preventing a global catastrophe. When France got the bomb, China accelerated its development program. When China got the bomb, India worked harded to get theirs. Then Pakistan did. Generally, nations that feel threatened by nearby nuclear weapons will seek to obtain weapons of their own.
<br />
<br />If Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons, I predict that it will only be a matter of time before the Iraqi government desires their own program. Turkey will continue to amass its stockpile from NATO (if not develop their own weapons), and Israel most certainly will increase their own nuclear resources, if not conduct an outright pre-emptive strike against Iranian facilities. If North Korea continues to develop its weapons program, then soon South Korea will want nuclear weapons, and perhaps even Japan will turn towards a weapon that had wreaked so much death and destruction on them almost 65 years ago. With more nuclear weapons about, the possiblity of war dramatically increases, not to mention the risk of terrorists obtaining a stray warhead. That's a real nightmare scenario.
<br />
<br />Iraq and Afghanistan are important, no doubt. But President Obama, if he is to really earn the world's greatest honor, must make non-proliferation his primary foreign policy objective in this term. We know how to handle Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorists; that is a military job, and really does not demand a whole lot from Obama (that's why there's the DOD and the Chiefs of Staff, and the SecDef). But the president should follow through on his campaign statement and talk face-to-face with leaders attempting to develop nuclear weapons. I hope that the Prize will help him in this task. If he is successful, then we might be able to say that Obama more than met the expectations of Wilson and Roosevelt.
<br />
<br />Oh, and the $1.4 million prize? Either donate it to charity, or use it in the efforts for health care reform.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-63796014369200889142009-10-08T06:35:00.000-07:002009-10-08T06:58:02.083-07:00Getting LBJ on YouSo it seems that the Democratic power structure is starting to put together a plan to assure passage of a health care reform bill. According to recent reports, political pressure will be applied to the six key senators necessary for blocking a filibuster in the Senate. These senators are Lincoln and Pryor of Arkansas, Landrieu of Lousiana, Baucus of Montana, Nelson of Nebraska, and Reid of Nevada. On the outside, free health clinics will be taking place in the capitol cities of those states. These clinics will be organized by the <a href="http://www.freeclinics.us/">National Association of Free Clinics</a>. The NAFC held a free clinic in Houston recently. 1500 people showed up. Will these senators notice the free clinics? Only if many thousands of people show up. It remains to be seen.<br /><br />Senate Democratic leadership, however, has said that if any Democratic senator sides with the Republicans on a filibuster, action will be taken to strip chairmanship and leadership positions from those senators. That's a big deal, and theoretically should whip any recalcintrant senators into line. If that doesn't work, then the health care reform bill will be voted on through the reconciliation rule. That means only 51 votes are required to pass the bill. This is the same method that the Bush tax cuts passed by, and I say turnabout is fair play.<br /><br />I recommend a further step for any senators that continue to get out of line. Clearly this issue is the biggest of our time. I recommend party action be taken if necessary. If any Democratic senator votes against the health care bill, the Democratic Party will simply do whatever it can to make sure that that senator will lose its reelection chances by supporting a primary contender with its connections and funds.<br /><br />Now, this is a very risky move, and might hurt the Democratic majority in the Senate. But, damnit, health care reform is a key plank in the Democratic platform. If a Democratic senator is not going to follow a key plank, then they're not worth the party's time, and they can run as an independent like Lieberman did. That's the essence of a political party. If you use the party advantages to get elected, then you had better fall in line when the chips are on the table, especially on something as central as health care. That's how a party works.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7681231328625823299.post-58859438033230674072009-09-17T11:20:00.000-07:002009-09-17T12:49:16.597-07:00Grading the Baucus BillSenator Max Baucus' much-maligned bill has been debuted, and there's no shortage of criticism on it. I'll be grading his bill, comparing it to the details set out by Obama in his health care speech.<br /><br /><em>*Do not scrap the current health care system. Examine and revise.</em><br />This is done easy enough. Baucus does not propose a major dismantling of the current health care system. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Those already covered must not be forced to switch coverage or change doctors</em><br />It seems like Baucus' bill leaves those satisfied with their insurance or doctors well enough alone. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br />*Denying coverage due to preexisting conditions must be prohibited by law<br />The bill expressly prohibits the denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions. Simple enough. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Coverage may not be dropped or diluted if the policy holder becomes ill</em><br />Not sure if there are prohibitions against this in the bill. I wager it is in there somewhere. <strong>Grade: Incomplete</strong><br /><br /><em>*Arbitrary coverage caps for a year or lifetime will not be allowed</em><br />It appears that these are prohibited in the bill. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Out-of-pocket expenses must be limited</em><br />It seems like there are limits in place, but they are higher than other plans we see. <strong>Grade: C-</strong><br /><br /><em>*Routine checkups and preventive care must be covered with no additional cost</em><br />This seems to be one of the major strengths of the Baucus bill. It makes it far cheaper to receive preventive care and check-ups, and also works to reward healthy lifestyle choices, particularly for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. But it doesn't do much for those outside those programs. <strong>Grade: B+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Individuals and small businesses may purchase insurance through a market</em><br />Yes, there is a market created in the Baucus bill for this purpose. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Those who cannot afford insurance will be provided with tax credits based upon need</em><br />There are subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance, but they are smaller than everything else proposed. While this does keep the overall cost down, it does little good if people still can't buy insurance even with tax credits. <strong>Grade: C</strong><br /><br /><em>*Insurance companies desiring to participate in the aforementioned market have four years to adhere to the outlined regulations above</em><br />Yes, the deadline is in 2013. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Those currently uninsured due to preexisting conditions will be offered low-cost coverage immediately in case of catastrophic illness</em><br />There is a catastrophic-only option offered, but only available for the "young invincible" (yes, that is a phrase in the bill). I'm not sure if the plan makes immediate coverage available to those currently uninsured. <strong>Grade: C/Incomplete</strong><br /><br /><em>*Health insurance will be mandatory</em><br />Yes, it is mandatory. But the costs for not getting insurance are very high. Combine this with low tax credits, and you may end up with a lot of poor people who still can't buy insurance or afford the four-figure fines associated with that. <strong>Grade: C-</strong><br /><br /><em>*Businesses must offer health care or chip in to cover the costs of health care</em><br />This is included in the bill, but there are no regulations of the quality of the care provided. Larger companies could offer expensive programs with low benefits at their leisure, and most workers would be forced to take it. Regulations are necessary. <strong>Grade: C+</strong><br /><br /><em>*There will be a hardship waiver, applicable to 95% of all small businesses</em><br />The bill makes it very easy for most small businesses to be waived from their requirements. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*A public option will be made available, running as a not-for profit</em><br />There is no public option, instead going for the co-op method. The government will provide start up and solvency funds. Co-ops will be not-for-profit, and any leftover funds they do have will be used to lower premiums or improve benefits. Co-ops will be state-by-state. This is difficult, especially if a state elects not to establish a co-op. It would be far simpler to create a national public option. <strong>Grade: B</strong><br /><br /><em>*This public option will only be available to those who currently do not have insurance</em><br />Co-ops are a different beast, but they only seem to be available to those without insurance. <strong>Grade: C</strong><br /><br /><em>*The public option must be self-sufficient</em><br />The co-ops will have start-up funds provided, but they are otherwise self-sufficient. <strong>Grade: A+</strong><br /><br /><em>*The overall plan must be deficit neutral</em><br />This plan attempts to be deficit neutral, but the way its finances are organized, it's highly doubtful. <strong>Grade: C-</strong><br /><br /><em>*Establish some method of malpractice reform</em><br />Since malpractice is mostly covered at the state levels, the bill does not explicitly implement reform. It does, however, call for states to examine their system to seek alternatives to the current litigation system. Whether states do so or not is not mandated. <strong>Grade: C+</strong><br /><br /><em>*The cost must be limited to $900 billion over 10 years</em><br />Definitely passes. At $856 billion, it's the lowest figure seen among any of the health care proposals. <strong>Grade: A-</strong><br /><br /><em>*Slow the growth of health care costs by 1/10 of 1% per year</em><br />It's hard to see this plan control costs without a public option, and the bill has no regulations to even attempt to control the costs of care. This bill will likely not control costs in any way. <strong>Grade: F</strong><br /><br /><em>*If savings are not up to expectations, create spending cuts</em><br />Not sure if this is included. Baucus seems to be trying to put the cart before the horse by keeping the initial cost of his bill low. It would be wiser to start at a higher cost, then reduce it year by year as we know the costs decrease, rather than start low and have to keep increasing because we find that the first year costs are more than expected. <strong>Grade: C+</strong><br /><br /><em>*Meet the following goals:<br />*Provide security and stability for those with insurance<br />*Provide insurance for those who currently have none<br />*Slow the growth of costs</em><br />The big grade. Baucus clearly is reaching for compromise in his bill, but the fact that no Republicans have voiced favor for the bill tells me that something isn't quite right. Overall, the bill doesn't really achieve goals 2 or 3 very well, which are the two goals that are the most important. It's very easy to accomplish goal 1; simply create regulations that prohibit the dropping of coverage or care. But Baucus' bill could do more to make insurance available for those without it, and it certainly doesn't slow the growth of costs. Instead, it tries to keep its own costs down, perhaps at the cost of effectiveness. <strong>OVERALL GRADE: B/B-</strong>Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12996237602714805625noreply@blogger.com0