People and Politics

The Ames Chili Cook-Off!

2011-08-13T15:25:00.001-07:00

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.

Mitt Romney: 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.

Tim Pawlenty: 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.

Ron Paul: 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.

Newt Gingrich: 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?

Herman Cain: 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.

Michele Bachmann: Very fiery, but strange...why are there nuts in this? Why are there communion wafers?? Why is she staring at me like that???

Jon Huntsman: Similar to Romney, except with Chinese spices...more exciting – served off the back of his ATV. Huntsman wearing a flannel shirt.

Thaddeus McCotter: 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.

Rick Perry: 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.

Rick Santorum: 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...

Sarah Palin: Showed up, no actual chili...just her waving and screaming, “look at me!” Sad.

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.

The Zangief Kid: A Lesson in Bullying

2011-03-23T15:07:00.001-07:00

In 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.

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.

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.

That's the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

For now: Casey Heynes, a hero to the millions of the bullied around the world. I salute you!

Fall of a Pharaoh - What Now?

2011-02-11T20:12:00.000-08:00

"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And then we fucked up the endgame." -- Charlie Wilson

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.

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?

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.

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.

This is too important to fuck up the endgame. What else should the U.S. do in Egypt?

Plug for a Friend!

2011-01-12T14:47:00.000-08:00

My dear friend Scott Resnick is campaigning for Alderman in Madison. He has just released his first policy paper on alcohol policy, available here: http://www.resnickfordistrict8.com/

Check it out!

The Tuscon Tragedy: Fallout

2011-01-11T13:29:00.001-08:00

First, 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.

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.

Immediate Solutions
1. Outlaw the sale of high-capacity magazines. 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.

2. Improve the background check system. 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.

Intermediate and Long-Term Solutions
3. Increase funding, at all levels, for mental health care. 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.

4. Better parenting. 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.

What else can we do to avoid future Tucsons?

Prof. Feingold: Class is In Session

2011-01-05T10:48:00.001-08:00

Former 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 Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate. This upper-level elective will be offered this coming semester.

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 really 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, what else should he do?

I Hear the Train A Comi--Wait, Never Mind

2010-12-09T13:22:00.000-08:00

Hey 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).

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.

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.

Bottom line: You missed out on jobs and you missed out on money and you certainly missed out on road repair. Scott Walker, YAAFM.

A Modest Proposal

2010-11-01T12:12:00.000-07:00

I am going to ignore the fact that I haven't posted in months, and continue on as if nothing has happened.

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 Citizens United decision now allows private groups/corporations to make unlimited donations to 527s and 501(c)s (not campaigns). 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).

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 spend on television expenditures.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Have a happy Election Day. Go vote.

The Big Ten Gets Bigger Returns!

2010-06-10T11:22:00.000-07:00

For those readers with long memories, you'll remember that in December of last year, I discussed the possibility of Big Ten expansion, and the following schools were on my short list:

Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska.

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.

The man really keeping an eye on the whole expansion business is Frank the Tank, 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?

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.

Now, for my thoughts on the Nebraska addition:

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.

Either way, the next two weeks are going to be very interesting, and we'll see how they play out. What are your thoughts?

We Never Say Good-Bye...

2010-05-16T16:21:00.000-07:00

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.

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?

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.

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:

“Praise to Alma Mater, ever let us bring”
“'Forward' is our driving spirit”
"If you want to be a Badger, just come along with me"
“Your name forever glorious will hearken us to do or dare”
“When you say Wisconsin, you've said it all”
“Eat a rock!”
“Once a Badger, always a Badger”
“Praise to thee, our Alma Mater”

And of course...

“We never really say good-bye...We'll see you real soon, and On, Wisconsin!”

Thank you.

The Choices We Make: A Follow-Up

2010-03-22T14:31:00.000-07:00

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Madison and Campus community,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,
Michael Johnson

The Choices We Make

2010-03-17T11:24:00.000-07:00

What if someone said the following:

“I have this feeling that blacks would rather be treated as this oppressed group to justify constantly reaching back to slavery”

Or:

“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…”

Or:

“The funny things is the Muslims seem to be so anxious to be treated poorly, they reach and make comments about 'infidels' and women...”

How would you feel if you were a member of either community? Would you feel offended? Marginalized?

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?

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:

“I have this feeling that Jews would rather be treated as this oppressed group to justify constantly reaching back to the holocaust”

“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…”

“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...”

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:

“Well, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said 'Jews must get over this victimization complex, and stop acting like they have a monopoly on suffering'..”

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.

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.

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:

“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”

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.

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.

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.

BREAKING: GMCC Endorses Eicher

2010-02-11T14:48:00.001-08:00

The 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).

Something That Needs Talking About

2010-02-10T17:02:00.000-08:00

Recently, 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.
2. This is not the place to defend or attack AEPi, it's actions, or the Greek system in general.
3. Try to use correct spelling and grammar. Other people do actually read this stuff, you know.

I look forward to the ensuing discussion, and I will of course participate.

An Interview with Analiese Eicher

2010-01-22T11:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Why did you initially decide to run for county board, or who convinced you?

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.

What is the single most important issue for you? What is your “niche”?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

Analiese has a Facebook group located here. Her website, which is still under construction, is at http://www.studentsforanaliese.com/.

The Kennedy Seat Goes Red, or: What the Fuck Do We Do Now?

2010-01-19T19:35:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 their 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.

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?

Champs Sports Bowl: My Observations

2009-12-30T14:01:00.001-08:00

A 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.

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.

Second: Miami is a team that doesn't seem to take its games seriously. It was talking all about taking the National Championship next year. 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.

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.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the game.

The Big Ten Gets Bigger

2009-12-13T14:18:00.000-08:00

Alright, 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 twelve 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.

So, what would happen if the Big Ten got twelve teams? First of all, it would really 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?

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.

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:

Big Ten States: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania
Big Ten Borders: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York

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:

ACC: Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland
Big East: Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Big 12: Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
C-USA: Marshall
Independents: Notre Dame, Army, Navy
MAC: Akron, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan

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:

Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska.

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.

The bad news: all of them already belong to a conference.

So. Which of these teams would be interested in switching conferences? Who could become the twelfth member of the Big Ten?

Moldy Old Stuff

2009-11-05T11:28:00.000-08:00

For 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."

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.

American students simply do not learn as much as students from other countries. This can be seen in Common Core's report, "Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students But We Don't." (Warning: PDF file).

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:

*The respondents answered 73% of the history questions correctly. That's a low C.

*Almost 1/3 could not identify "ask not what your country can do for you" as a quote from JFK.

*A third did not know that the Bill of Rights ensures freedoms of speech or religion.

*Only two in five students knew that the Civil War occurred sometime between 1850 and 1900.

*Only three in five students knew that the First World War occurred sometime between 1900 and 1950.

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).

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.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sometimes they may not even get that chance.

Boycotting the Nitty

2009-10-23T07:19:00.000-07:00

Very interesting development today. Both the Daily Cardinal and the Badger Herald 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 Bryon Eagon proposed the addition of a permanent voting member of the ALRC that is 25 years of age or younger - essentially, a student.

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.

Anyone that reads blogs like The Sconz 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:

"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."

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.

Students are 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.

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?

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).

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.

International (B)Onus

2009-10-09T07:21:00.000-07:00

Very 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."

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.

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.

The Nobel Peace Prize is ostensibly the world's 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.

Many will say/have said that the President has not earned the Prize, because he has not done 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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, and the $1.4 million prize? Either donate it to charity, or use it in the efforts for health care reform.

Getting LBJ on You

2009-10-08T06:35:00.000-07:00

So 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 National Association of Free Clinics. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Grading the Baucus Bill

2009-09-17T11:20:00.000-07:00

Senator 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.

*Do not scrap the current health care system. Examine and revise.
This is done easy enough. Baucus does not propose a major dismantling of the current health care system. Grade: A+

*Those already covered must not be forced to switch coverage or change doctors
It seems like Baucus' bill leaves those satisfied with their insurance or doctors well enough alone. Grade: A+

*Denying coverage due to preexisting conditions must be prohibited by law
The bill expressly prohibits the denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions. Simple enough. Grade: A+

*Coverage may not be dropped or diluted if the policy holder becomes ill
Not sure if there are prohibitions against this in the bill. I wager it is in there somewhere. Grade: Incomplete

*Arbitrary coverage caps for a year or lifetime will not be allowed
It appears that these are prohibited in the bill. Grade: A+

*Out-of-pocket expenses must be limited
It seems like there are limits in place, but they are higher than other plans we see. Grade: C-

*Routine checkups and preventive care must be covered with no additional cost
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. Grade: B+

*Individuals and small businesses may purchase insurance through a market
Yes, there is a market created in the Baucus bill for this purpose. Grade: A+

*Those who cannot afford insurance will be provided with tax credits based upon need
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. Grade: C

*Insurance companies desiring to participate in the aforementioned market have four years to adhere to the outlined regulations above
Yes, the deadline is in 2013. Grade: A+

*Those currently uninsured due to preexisting conditions will be offered low-cost coverage immediately in case of catastrophic illness
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. Grade: C/Incomplete

*Health insurance will be mandatory
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. Grade: C-

*Businesses must offer health care or chip in to cover the costs of health care
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. Grade: C+

*There will be a hardship waiver, applicable to 95% of all small businesses
The bill makes it very easy for most small businesses to be waived from their requirements. Grade: A+

*A public option will be made available, running as a not-for profit
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. Grade: B

*This public option will only be available to those who currently do not have insurance
Co-ops are a different beast, but they only seem to be available to those without insurance. Grade: C

*The public option must be self-sufficient
The co-ops will have start-up funds provided, but they are otherwise self-sufficient. Grade: A+

*The overall plan must be deficit neutral
This plan attempts to be deficit neutral, but the way its finances are organized, it's highly doubtful. Grade: C-

*Establish some method of malpractice reform
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. Grade: C+

*The cost must be limited to $900 billion over 10 years
Definitely passes. At $856 billion, it's the lowest figure seen among any of the health care proposals. Grade: A-

*Slow the growth of health care costs by 1/10 of 1% per year
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. Grade: F

*If savings are not up to expectations, create spending cuts
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. Grade: C+

*Meet the following goals:
*Provide security and stability for those with insurance
*Provide insurance for those who currently have none
*Slow the growth of costs
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. OVERALL GRADE: B/B-

The Health Care Speech

2009-09-10T07:48:00.001-07:00

Continued posting of the bill is on hiatus. First, a lack of time. Second, the very real possibility that everything may begin to change after last night's speech.

Regarding last night's speech:

In baseball parlance, I'd give it a triple with bases loaded. Not exactly a grand slam home run, but a very effective play. Included some details, but you have to remember: Obama is clearly a president who believes that Congress should legislate. He'll lay down some ground rules, but will defer to the legislature when the precise terms are written. This is a clear difference from the Bush administration, which had a habit of legislating from the executive's office. So here's the ground rules of health care reform:

*Do not scrap the current health care system. Examine and revise.
*Meet the following goals:
*Provide security and stability for those with insurance
*Provide insurance for those who currently have none
*Slow the growth of costs
*Those already covered must not be forced to switch coverage or change doctors
*Denying coverage due to preexisting conditions must be prohibited by law
*Coverage may not be dropped or diluted if the policy holder becomes ill
*Arbitrary coverage caps for a year or lifetime will not be allowed
*Out-of-pocket expenses must be limited
*Routine checkups and preventive care must be covered with no additional cost
*Individuals and small businesses may purchase insurance through a market
*Those who cannot afford insurance will be provided with tax credits based upon need
*Insurance companies desiring to participate in the aforementioned market have four years to adhere to the outlined regulations above
*Those currently uninsured due to preexisting conditions will be offered low-cost coverage immediately in case of catastrophic illness
*Health insurance will be mandatory
*Businesses must offer health care or chip in to cover the costs of health care
*There will be a hardship waiver, applicable to 95% of all small businesses
*A public option will be made available, running as a not-for profit
*This public option will only be available to those who currently do not have insurance
*The public option must be self-sufficient
*The overall plan must be deficit neutral
*Establish some method of malpractice reform
*The cost must be limited to $900 billion over 10 years
*Slow the growth of health care costs by 1/10 of 1% per year
*If savings are not up to expectations, create spending cuts

Overall, I see a lot of stuff from HR 3200 in here. That may form a foundation for a unified health care bill. Given these parameters, how would you establish a reformed health care system?

To A Lion

2009-08-28T17:30:00.001-07:00

Just a quick break from HR 3200 for a Kennedy memorial. I will not make some long-winded statement, simply because people better suited to the task already have done so. Below, find a timeline of how his work has touched all of us.

1965: Strongly supported and helped pass the Hart-Celler Act, abolishing immigration and ending a ban on immigration from Asia.

1971: Helped establish the Federal Cancer Research Program, and quadrupled funds for cancer research.

1972: Negotiated the creation of Title IX, which requires colleges and universities to equally fund men's and women's athletics.

1974: Passed reform on campaign ethics and election finance, which resulted in the establishment of the FEC.

1983: Pushed Congress to establish Martin Luther King Day as a federal holiday.

1986: Led the override of Reagan's veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

1990: Sponsored the Family and Medical Leave Act, mandating unpaid leave for the birth of a child or medical emergencies.

1996: Let employees keep their health insurance for a set period of time after they leave their jobs and prohibited denial of renewal of care due to preexisting medical conditions through the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, also called COBRA.

1996: Helped raise the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

And that's only a small part of the work he did.

Last, I'm going to include a film that's going around the internet. In 1968, Ted gave a speech on behalf of his brother Bobby in Sitka, Alaska at the Alaska Democratic Convention. It summarizes the philosophy of liberalism, and will perhaps be regarded as one of the best political speeches in American history.

Thanks, Teddy.

H.R. 3200, Part III

2009-08-23T08:12:00.000-07:00

Subtitle E - Governance

Sec. 141: Health Choices Administration; Health Choices Commissioner
There will be an independent executive agency called the Health Choices Administration. The head of the agency is the Commissioner, and will be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of Congress. The Health Choices Administration and Commissioner will be compensated in a similar way to Social Security and its administrator.

Sec. 142: Duties and Authority of Commissioner
The Commissioner will enforce the qualified health benefit standards, establish and operate the health insurance exchange, administrate individual affordability credits and determine eligibility for credits, promote accountability from qualified health care providers, perform compliance examinations and audits, and compensate for the costs of those examinations and audits. The Commissioner will also collect data, and remedy violations made by qualified health care providers. These remedies include civil money penalties, suspension of enrollment, suspension of payment of premiums to the offender, and work to prevent further violation.

The Commissioner will also provide definitions for terms used in health insurance coverage, and work to maintain efficiency in the exchange market and affordability credits.

Sec. 143: Consultation and Coordination
The Commissioner will consult with, when necessary, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, state attorney generals, and state insurance providers over the standards of qualified health care and enforcement of those standards. The Commissioner will also consult with state agencies concerned with affordability credits, other appropriate Federal agencies, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the NAIC to form guidelines concerning the enforcement of Subtitles B and D.

The Commissioner will cooperate with federal and state agencies to ensure maximum operation and prevent conflicts of interest and achieve uniform standards to protect consumers and still prevent unreasonable effects on employers and providers.

Sec. 144: Health Insurance Ombudsman
The Commissioner will appoint an ombudsman for qualified health care providers. This ombudsman will have expertise and experience in health care fields and education of individuals. The ombudsman will recieve complaints, grievances, and requests for information, and provide assistance to solve those problems or provide that information. The ombudsman will submit an annual report to the Commissioner and Congress describing their annual activities and making recommendations to improve the administration of the Health Choices Administration. The ombudsman can identify issues and problems in payment and coverage.

Subtitle F - Relation to Other Requirements; Miscellaneous

Sec. 151: Relation to Other Requirements
Health insurance plans not offered through the exchange market or employer-provided plans must at least adhere to the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and state law, except when those acts interfere with the explicit requirements mentioned in earlier subtitles, as determined by the Commissioner.

Coverage offered through the exchange market must adhere to title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act or state law, except when those titles and laws interfere with the explicit requirements mentioned in earlier subtitles, as determined by the Commissioner

Sec. 152: Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care
All health care and related services covered by this act will be provided regardless of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of quality health care, except for those explicitly permitted in this act or by subesquent regulations as a result of this act. Regulations to prohibit this discrimination will be established no later than 18 months after the enactment of this bill.

Sec. 153: Whistleblower Protection
Employers may not dismiss or discriminate against employees because the employee provided or is about to provide information to the employer, state or federal agencies about a violation of the act or any order or rule established as a result of the act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding dealing with a violation, or objected to or refused to participate in a task that violates the act.

An employer who alleges discrimination or was dismissed for these reasons may bring an action goverened by the rules set forth by the Consumer Product Safety Act and section 20109(h) of title 49 of the United States Code.

Sec. 154: Construction Regarding Collective Bargaining
Statutory or other obligations to engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment related to health care will not be superseded by this subtitle.

Sec. 155: Severability
If any provision of this act or application of provisions to persons or circumstances is found to be unconsititutional, the remainder of the provisions and application of those provisions will not be affected.

Section G tomorrow.

H.R. 3200, Part II

2009-08-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

Subtitle C - Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits

Sec. 121: Coverage of Essential Benefits Package
A qualified health plan must meet benefit standards with a certain benefits package for the plan year. If a qualified health plan is not part of the exchange market, it can offer additional benefits beyond the standard benefit package. If a plan is part of the exchange market, it must offer specific levels of benefits, or more if it is a premium-plus plan. These standards do not apply to excepted benefits as long as those are offered as a separate policy. Qualified health benefits may not have restrictions, other than cost-sharing, unrelated to clinical appropriateness regarding health care items and services.

Sec. 122: Essential Benefits Package Defined
Essential benefits means coverage that pays for items and services that meet accepted standards of medical, clinical, or professional practice, limits cost-sharing for such items and services appropriately, offers before-mentioned standards of provider network adequacy, and is equivalent to the average employer-sponsored coverage.

The minimum services must be covered; this includes hospitalization, outpatient services, professional services, services, equipment, and supplies necessary for delivery of care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative/habilitative services, mental health/substance abuse disorder services, preventive services, maternity care, and baby/child medical care up to 21 years old.

Cost-sharing is prohibited regarding preventive services. Cost-sharing may not exceed $5,000 per individual per year and $10,000 per family per year. These limits will increase every year by the annual percentage increase determined by the Consumer Price Index. To determine cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans, co-payments will be used as much as possible. Cost-sharing will provide a level of benefits equal to 70% of the full actuarial value of the essential benefits packaged descibed above.

Sec. 123: Health Benefits Advisory Committee
This will be a private/public committee to recommend covered benefits, and what makes a plan essential, enhanced, or premium. The Surgeon General will chair this committee. Nine members will be non-Federal employees appointed by the President. Nine will be non-Federal employees appointed by the Comptroller General in a method similar to the appointment of members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Two, four, six, or eight members may be Federal employees and officers appointed by the President.

Each member will serve a three-year term. These terms will be staggered. Membership will reflect providers, consumers, employers, labor, health insurance companies, health care finance and delivery experts, racial/ethnic disparity experts, disabled care experts, relevant government agencies, and at least one practicing physician or health professional and an expert on children's health.

The committee is tasked with recommending and updating benefits standards, the first of which must come before one year after enactment of this bill. The committee will allow for public input as part of making recommendations. An essential plan will have benefits equal to 70% of the actuarial value of the benefits described above. An enhanced plan will have benefits actuarially equal to 85% of the value, and a premium plan will have benefits actuarially equal to 95%.

The committee will recieve coverage for travel expenses and a per diem. They will otherwise not be paid. They will not be considered Federal employees. The committee will adhere to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and issue an online publication of all its recommendations.

Sec. 124: Process for Adoption of Recommendations; Adoption of Benefit Standards
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will review the committee's recommendations and decide whether or not to adopt those standards within 45 days of receipt. If not accepted, the Secretary must notify the committee of their reasons in writing and provide opportunity for the committee to make changes and resubmit. Standards will be adopted if the Secretary cannot come to a decision within 45 days. Standards will be published in the Federal Register.

The initial set of standards will be adopted no later than 18 months after the enactment of this bill. Adopted standards may not be inconsistent with the guidelines already mentioned in sections 122 and 123.

Section D - Additional Consumer Protections

Sec. 131: Requiring Fair Marketing Practices by Health Insurers
Uniform standards will be established that all entities offering qualified health benefit plans must meet.

Sec. 132: Requiring Fair Grievance and Appeals Mechanisms
Timely grievance and appeals mechanisms will be established. All entities offering qualified health benefit plans must provide an internal claims and appeals process that incorporates the procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulation, as well as any the standards determined by the commission. An external review board will establish a process for expedited review of urgent claims and for a review denied claims. Determinations made by this review board will be binding. All decisions of both internal and external boards are subject to the possibility of judicial review under state law regarding adverse decisions.

Sec. 133: Requiring Information Transparancy and Plan Disclosure
Qualified health benefits providers will disclose plan documents, terms, conditions, claims payment policies and practices, and periodic financial disclosure in an accurate and timely manner. Providers will also disclose data on enrollment and disenrollment, number of claims denials, rating practices, information on cost-sharing and payments regarding out-of-network coverage, and any other information deemed appropriate by the commission. This information will be provided in plain language that even individuals with limited English proficiency can readily understand. It will be clean, concise, and well-organized.

Standards will be established to ensure transparancy regarding reimbursement between a health care plan and provider.

Changes in qualified plans will not be made without reasonable and timely advance notice to enrollees.

Sec. 134: Application to Qualified Health Benefits Plans Not Offered Through the Health Insurance Exchange
Qualified health benefits plans not offered through the exchange will be subject to the same standards previously mentioned to an extent determined by the commission.

Sec. 135: Timely Payment of Claims
Qualified providers will be subject to the same payment rules that Medicare Advantage organizations are required to comply with regarding Medicare Part C, as determined by the Social Security Act.

Sec. 136: Standardized Rules for Coordination and Subrogation of Benefits
The commission will establish standards for coordination and subrogation of benefits and reimbursement of payments in cases involving individuals and multiple plan coverages.

Sec. 137: Application of Administrative Simplification
Qualified providers are subject to electronic financial and administrative transaction standards as defined in the Social Security Act.

Subtitles E and F tomorrow.

H.R. 3200, Part I

2009-08-21T10:25:00.001-07:00

There's a lot of bitching these days about health care. Most of it is the idiotic rambling of morons who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. Some of it actually addresses concerns over cost, feasibility, and how such a program would operate. While the Senate continues to write their bill, the House already has one on hand, H.R. 3200. Many people are complaining that their Representatives haven't read the bill (ignore anyone claiming their Senator hasn't read H.R. 3200, they are a member of the group of above-mentioned morons), but many laypeople have not read the bill either. Well, for your convenience and education, I will be summarizing the ~1,040 page bill, in parts.

A BILL To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans, and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

DIVISION A: Affordable Health Care Choices, Title I - Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefits Plans

Subtitle A - General Standards

Sec. 101: Requirement Reforming Health Insurance Marketplace
Upon the enforcment of the bill, in order for a plan to be a qualified it must meet requirements relating to affordability, essential benefits, and consumer protection. A person is enrolled in an employment-based plan if that person benefits or participates in a plan as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Individual health insurance coverage and group health insurance coverage is defined by the Public Heath Service Act.

Sec. 102: Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage
Insurance will be grandfathered in if the first day of coverage is not after this bill is enforced. Dependents may enroll into the grandfathered insurance plan after enforcement. The provider must not change any terms or conditions, and may not alter premiums unless such a change is made for all policy-holders in the same risk group at the same rate.

Employment-based plans in effect before enforcement have a five-year grace period to meet the requirements relating to affordability, essential benefits, and consumer protection. During the grace period, those plans will be considered acceptable. Exceptions to this include plans that adhere to section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, excepted benefits in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and other limited benefits as determined by a commission. However, any coverage that extends only to those exceptions will be regarded as unacceptable.

Individual coverage offered after enforcement may only be offered through the exchange-market program. Excepted benefits are not included in the definition of health care coverage, and need only be available in the exchange and offered at a separate price from insurance coverage.

Subtitle B - Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage

Sec. 111: Prohibiting Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions
Qualified plans may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion. Limitation of coverage based on health-related factors is prohibited.

Sec. 112: Guaranteed Issue and Renewal for Insured Plans
Employers and individuals will be guaranteed availability and renewal of their plans unless payment of premiums have not been received. In that case, the issuer must notify the holder of lapsed payment and provide a grace period for the holder to make such payments. Coverage may not be cut off except in cases of fraud.

Sec. 113: Insurance Rating Rules
Premium rates for a qualified plan may not vary except in consideration of age, area, and family enrollment.

Health and Human Services and Labor will conduct a study of large-group insurance and self-insured employer markets. This study will examine what types of employers self-insure or use group insurance, the similarities and differences between those plans, how solvent those self-insured employers are, the risk of self-insured employers not being able to pay obligations, and the effect of rating rules in determining choice of insurance plan. This report will make recommendations to prevent adverse selection in insurance plans to the detriment of employees.

Sec. 114: Nondiscrimination in Benefits; Parity in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder Benefits
Qualified plans may not discriminate in health benefit or benefit structures. Benefits dealing with mental illness or substance abuse disorders shall not be discriminated against either in the individual or large group market.

Sec. 115: Ensuring Adequacy of Provider Networks
Qualified plans using a provider network will meet standards to provide access to items and services and provide transparancy in the cost difference between in-network and out-of-network coverage.

Sec. 116: Ensuring Value and Lower Premiums
Qualified plans must meet a medical loss ratio as determined by the commission. Plans that do not meet set ratio in a year must offer rebates to their enrollees to meet that ratio. This ratio will be based on definitions and methodologies determined by HHS.

More later.

Cost of Convicts

2009-08-20T11:45:00.000-07:00

Excellent op-ed in the NYT today regarding the high costs of our incarceration system.

Essentially, prisons are very expensive, and our high national incarceration rate is a major money hole. Reformation of our prison system can drastically reduce costs, which can be spent on better things, like..say, education or health care. Costs are tremendous. California spends $49,000 per inmate annually, $216,000 on each juvenile inmate. Compare this to $8,000 on each student in the Oakland school system.

According to a 2001 DOJ report (because it was the only one I could find...why is it so hard to get these numbers?), Wisconsin spent $709,202,000 on its prison system. That's a cost of roughly $132 per Wisconsin resident, and that $28,622 per inmate.

The causes of these high costs are documented in the article. Harsh sentences for drug-related offenses, programs like the "three-strike rule", and incarceration for many non-violent crimes (82% of all inmates are in prison for non-violent crimes). Kristof offers some possible solutions to reducing costs, which got me thinking.

One solution is to expand the use of the death penalty. But statistics show that harsher penalties have little effect on offenders, and the appeals system will actually keep prisoners incarcerated longer, not to mention the trial costs. But here's a better idea: If a prisoner can pay for their own stay, they should. Drug dealers, white-collar criminals, anyone who makes money illegally should pay for their stay. Would anyone have a problem if we said that Bernie Madoff would have to spend his own money to cover the costs of keeping him in prison? I, in fact, would find it more fitting. The government, in this situation, actually makes money off the offender rather than losing it.

Just an idea. Prison reform merits examination.

Health Care Reform is Not Health Care Reform

2009-07-30T18:47:00.000-07:00

Allow me to clarify the statement above. The legislation currently being hashed out by Congress, and the one discussed in the media and among the general populace is all about coverage reform. Health care reform, if we want to get into specifics, is the process of making changes to how hospitals and doctors treat and manage illness, how to preserve health through those appropriate professions (medical, dental, pharma, etc), and in the WHO's words, “preventive, curative, and palliative interventions, whether directed to individuals or populations.” Insurance certainly has to do with health care, but reforming coverage will not reform health care. The legislation in Congress will attempt to make health care accessible to everyone, but the issue that needs to be addressed is why it costs so much to provide care.

We live in a society where everyone expects the best health care because we have the technological ability to deliver the best health care. But the best is often the most expensive, and somebody has to pay for the cost. Enter the insurance company. Keep in mind that insurance companies, like all successful companies, are in the business of turning a profit. As more services, such as lab work, physical therapy, and surgery, are sought, expected, and provided, the costs of those services need to be covered.

High costs cannot be attributed to health insurance alone. Malpractice insurance is also a cause. There are currently no caps on the rewards from malpractice lawsuits, and so the insurance costs can be tremendous, though it differs from doctor to doctor depending on their practice. The cost of malpractice insurance is incorporated into fees charged by health professionals. Like health insurance companies, malpractice insurance providers need to cover their anticipated claims, plus a profit, by increasing premiums. The cost is passed from the professional to the patient.

So, the question at heart is how to reduce the cost of health care, but maintain the high standard of care. We have to realize that there are fixed costs that we can't do much about. These include equipment and staffing costs. Overall, the costs that we can reduce don't seem to fall much on the “delivery” side of health care. I say “overall” because in many cases there is an excess of supply, as far as hospitals are concerned. Often, in a town of 50,000 you can find two hospitals. Both hospitals are operating at 50 to 60% of their capacity. Generally, a ratio of 1.75 to 2 beds per 1000 people in a given population is optimal. So in a city like Madison, you want somewhere between 350 to 400 beds. There are over 1000, perhaps 1500, if you expand out just a bit beyond Meriter, St. Mary's, and the UW Hospital- and UW is expanding their hospital! This means that there are unnecessary building, equipment, and staffing costs. Of course, the question becomes, “which hospital do you close?”

Now, the advantages of universal coverage have been addressed and debated. Everyone pays in, the premiums go down, etc. etc. (Best-case scenario). So, how do we decrease the cost, if we don't want to close half-filled hospitals? Here's a couple of ideas.

1.Strong focus on preventive care. This isn't just check-ups and immunizations. Ad campaigns that seek to prevent or delay the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs are a form of prevention. So are public smoking bans and worker drug testing. Pest control is prevention. Above all, public health codes should be carefully examined and followed, especially concerning areas like public pools, food preparation, and industrial hygiene inspections. Remember, the three leading causes of preventable death in the U.S. for 2008 were smoking, overweight/obesity, and alcohol consumption. We don't have to outlaw fatty foods, and we shouldn't. We just have to increase the education and awareness of the costs of overindulging in those delicious, delicious treats.

2.Following the doctor's orders. If an outpatient disobeys an order to rest after injury, and ends up requiring physical therapy, the costs go up. If a patient forgoes physical therapy, which would have provided relief, and as a result requires surgery, the costs goes up. This extends to prescriptions as well. I have heard stories where medicine has been prescribed, and the patient stops taking the drugs because the symptoms have subsided. Then the illness comes back worse than before, and drug-resistant, requiring something a little more potent, and a lot more expensive. Basically, your doctor knows medicine better than you. Do what he says.

Of course, there are plenty of other solutions to reducing overall costs out there, and I'd love to hear your ideas.

Alcohol Downtown

2009-07-22T09:29:00.000-07:00

Alderman Eagon has already said everything that needs to be said, as far as I'm concerned. Give it a read.

Quick Pitch

2009-07-22T09:21:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post right now.

Dan Seals is running again in the Illinois 10th Congressional District. I support him, and you should too. He's a good, intelligent man and would be an excellent addition to the House of Representatives.

In Memoriam

2009-07-17T19:05:00.000-07:00

This evening, 7:42PM Eastern Time, Walter Cronkite passed away at the age of 92 after a long battle with cerebral vascular disease. Often regarded as the most trusted man in America, Cronkite delivered the news from 1937 to 1980, covering everything from World War II to the Iran hostage crisis.

In this era where to break news first is more important than to break news accurately, we forget how Cronkite waited until all the reports were gathered before giving the news to America straightforward, accurately, and concisely. Imagine how today's CNN or MSNBC would have covered the JFK assassination, and compare it how Cronkite presented it. It is that sort of journalism that creates an intelligent and informed democracy. For journalistic integrity, Walter Cronkite remains the gold standard. If we desire to have that back, then our newsmedia should remember Walter's words; that their "job is only to hold up the mirror - to tell and show the public what has happened."

We owe it to Walter Cronkite to strive for truth and accuracy above all, in all things. And though this blog primarily contains opinion, I will always try to be as accurate as I can, and as truthful as I can be. It's the least I can do for Uncle Walter.

And that's the way it is, July 17, 2009. Good night, Walter. You will be missed.

Yes Virginia, I Am Alive.

2009-07-11T21:30:00.000-07:00

Hello reader(s?). After a long period of absence, I have indeed returned to spread the gospel. Honestly, I've been fairly busy as of late, or I haven't really had the urge to write about something; you can believe whichever one you want.

In the Wisconsin State Journal on Friday there was an article about the possibility of increasing rent assistance payments for those who rely on Section 8 vouchers, with the major focus on how to do so. Even though I usually don't read the comments sections (and no one really should, it's so bad for your blood pressure), I came across this one statement:

"There is the answer,deplete all funds for these &%$*^ so we can raise city,county,state and federal taxes to enable these &^*%$ to continue to live off the hardworking citizenry,Good Choice councilmen."

I'd like to address something that bothers me, something that some of you may think about once in a while, but likely never realize. It's somewhat related to the comment above.

People who bitch about paying taxes to "enable these &^*%$ to continue to live off the hardworking citizenry" are often the same people that will turn around and bitch about the homeless and panhandlers (by the way, Alderman Bryon Eagon puts forward an interesting idea about panhandling here. With the right awareness campaign, it could work). Somoe people fail to realize that without these Section 8 payments, the number of homeless and panhandlers increases. I am bothered by people who bitch about both outcomes of a political choice; in this case, either providing rent assistance for people, or letting them go homeless. People who complain about when the government does something and when the government doesn't do something are idiots. You cannot have it both ways! Take, for example, the stimulus. If you're against it, fine. But I better not hear you gripe when the next economic catastrophe comes around and the government takes no action. Or here's one of my favorites (particularly in Wisconsin). A lot of people I know bitch about Illinois tolls, and boast about the lack of tolls in Wisconsin. Some of these people also gripe about road conditions in Wisconsin a few sentences later. Well, if you just had a few toll roads, the state might actually have some funds to spend on road repair, among other things.

People, you have to make a choice. You can either pay the tax to keep the poor off the stree, or you can deal with the poor on the street. For those that ask why the government has to get involved...it's the government. It's often the single entity capable of handling a widespread issue in a uniform and coherent fashion (even if you don't get their methods, the people running the programs do, and that's what counts). Not to mention, the government has an obligation to each and every one of its citizens, not just the well-off ones, or the ones who fortune has smiled upon. Personally, I would rather pay the tax to keep people off the street.

I am thankful that I have been born to a well-off family. My dad works very hard at what he does, and he's good at it. He and I disagree about taxation, mostly because he's the one that earns a lot of money, and I'm the one that doesn't. However, he's consistent about his views, particularly on welfare, and I respect him for it (I even change his mind once in a while). I don't think I will ever change my views on welfare, because I know that welfare primarily seeks to help those who have had a run of bad luck or fallen to circumstances beyond their control. Sure, bad apples get into the pool, but the system tries as much as it can to seek those out and remove them. If problems become serious, then reform is needed to weed out the bad apples, but allow those who need welfare to access it. Additionally, I know that if, God forbid, something should happen and I need to rely on the assistance of the state, that it will be there for me because I paid into it and the American people paid into it. Welfare is just a public insurance program. It is analogous to the money pool an extended family creates to support each other on hard times. Just because you never get sick doesn't mean you shouldn't have health insurance. When you pay for someone's unemployment insurance, you should take comfort in the fact that should you find yourself out of a job, someone else will pay for your unemployment checks.

In the end, we all must choose if we are to watch out for one another, or if we are all truly in it only for ourselves.

End of rant.

Post-Mifflin 2009 Thoughts

2009-05-03T07:42:00.000-07:00

According to today's Wisconsin State Journal, it seems that this year's Mifflin Street Block Party was a great success. While the headline says "fewer problems," I'd say that's an understatement. As reported, there were only 140 arrests, with 2 of those taken to jail. Think about that for a moment. Last year, there were 440 arrests and 63 of those went to the hoosgow. That's a 68 percent decrease (if my math is right...which it may very well not be).

So, from my time there, here's what I think helped keep everything mellow this year: good weather, nearby port-a-johns, good music that everyone can dance to, a smaller crowd (maybe?), lots of food and even a few vendors like Pipefitters.

I wanna know your Mifflin experience. Did you think it was calmer? What made it so?

Get Miffed!

2009-04-22T17:24:00.001-07:00

A few thoughts today regarding Mifflin. If you haven't read, Mifflin Block Party is now without an official sponsor.

My first real Mifflin was last year, and my best memory of that day (how many of you can remember your Mifflin?) was chilling on a second-story porch with a few friends, the sun just starting to set, and the music from a band drifting in from across the street and two doors down. The band was playing classic rock, which is far and away my music preference over rap or newer things. We were mostly people watching, and something struck me (not literally).

Nearly every confrontation between an individual and a police officer ended in handcuffs and a nice sit in the Metro Prison Bus. While a great source of entertainment to me, I'm now wondering "why?"

Without sponsorship this year, I'm guessing police presence will be pretty high. High enough where you could probably commit a crime anywhere in Dane County outside of those two blocks on Mifflin, because that's where every cop will be.

Since we don't really want to see the high arrest levels we've seen before, but we don't want to compromise safety, here's an idea: don't end everything with an arrest.

Since 2004, MPD policy has been to arrest first, then either cite the offender or take them to jail or detox, or both. The problem is, that many of these people sit handcuffed in either the Prison Bus or the local precinct while the police file paperwork. It takes forever, because there's not enough manpower to go through all the work. So, a new approach is probably necessary.

I say, cite first. Open intoxicant? You get the booze taken away, and issued a maximum-fine citation right then and there (that's about $500, I think). Since you need to carry that slip on you so you can pay it later, if you get caught again, then you get arrested. Obviously, those who are a danger to themselves or others need to be cuffed immediately.

I think a plan along these lines, a "catch-and-release" so to speak, will work and provide a number of benefits.

1) Students are a little more wary of a major fine, because they often can't afford to pay.
2) Student resentment of police will be lower if fewer arrests are made.
3) Fewer people will be sitting for five or six hours in handcuffs, and those in handcuffs can be processed faster.

Hopefully, something along these lines can create a more peaceful Mifflin Block Party. But I'm not an expert on this topic, so take it for what it's worth.

What Matters?

2009-04-21T18:46:00.000-07:00

So, apparently people read this blog other than myself. That's quite a surprise.

Question: What issues matter to you, as a student, or as a resident of the state of Wisconsin?

A Thought on Recent Sigma Chi Developments

2009-04-13T18:20:00.000-07:00

As reported in the Badger Herald this evening, Sigma Chi has been suspended pending investigation of an "alleged alcohol related incident."

It's not my place to comment on the investigation, but a lot of commentary on the Herald has actually moved me to establish a comment account on their website (so, no longer will I be 'Anonymous'). I'd like to address some of the general themes of those comments here. It's similar to what I wrote on the Herald site, so pardon me for repeating myself a bit.

"I bet UW was just waiting around for them to fuck up and now they'll punish them very, very harshly."

This is pretty likely. When a fraternity has already gained considerable attention from the the press for alleged law-breaking, the University is going to keep a very close eye on that organization in the hopes that the occurence was a one-and-done. Sigma Chi should not be surpised that they were under the microscope, whether they believed it was just or not.

"How can a group not officially charged with any misconduct get suspended from campus?"

Suspension is not removal. Please recognize the difference. Sigma Chi can't hold events on campus or reserve space on campus property (their house on Langdon is not on campus). So they can't hold ultimate frisbee tournements near the Natatorium, and it would be very unwise for them to hold any social event at their house (even though that power is, I believe, delegated to the Interfraternity Council). Removal is when the University and IFC says, "Game Over." They close the house and disband the chapter. ZBT, in the '80s, was suspended during the investigation into their mock slave auction before it was removed. So, we know that this practice is common when the University is investigating; it's not just because the fraternity in question is Sigma Chi. This is really for their own sake than the University, to protect them from public reactions that may go wrong. Unfortunately for Sigma Chi, it seems like removal may come in due time.

"i think every big frat is in trouble for drinking/partying violations right now."

I'm in no position to say who is and who is not in trouble for violations. But if that allegation (there's that word again) is true, then it may belie a larger problem. Why are Greeks getting in more trouble than other house parties? Is there something different going on at their parties that makes these more attractive to attention? More people? Heavier drinking? Illegal acts? Perhaps an independent investigation, by a third party, is warranted.

"When are these reporters going to learn about some responsible journalism? And when is the deans office going to learn that punishing an organization based on an anonymous accusation isn't just, fair or appropriate?"

I have not seen anything irresponsible in the article in question. It was a pretty clear-cut article of what happened, what the suspension is, a quote from an official involved, and a copy of the UW Communication. Opinions not included. As for anonymous accusations, in a community that is as tight-knit as the Greeks, such anonymous tipsters are necessary when retribution and ostracization from the community are very real possibilities. Anyone reporting a wrongdoing should be protected from reprisal. If they turned out to be flat-out lying, then the University should deal with that person (Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor, no?) I think in this instance anonymity is completely fair and appropriate. As for just, well, we'll have to see what the investigation brings.

"Sigma Chi just raised THOUSANDS of dollars for charity last week. Why is that not news?"

I made reference to this in my comment on the article's webposting. Greeks constantly talk about their charity work. The public expects their fraternities and sororities to raise charity and participate in philanthropic activities because it is a long-standing tradition of those organizations, and frequently used as an enticement to join. Essentially, why would a group doing what we expect them to do be considered news? It'd be like reporting that a power company supplied power to all of their customers today. That's not newsworthy. Now, charity work only becomes newsworthy when a) a HUGE amount is raised, or b) no money is raised. If they raised THOUSANDS of dollars, I ask "exactly how many thousands?" Sigma Chi is a large fraternity on campus, and it would be relatively easy to raise two or three thousand dollars. Raise ten thousand dollars in one day by yourselves, now we're talking news. Like I said, announce that your fraternity is not doing any charity events this year, and watch the reporters flock to your door.

Also, remember, "if it bleeds, it leads." Newspapers get more readers when their stories are about murders and rapes and crimes, not adopting puppies. Sad fact, but the truth.

"Why is it that the BH is rushing to throw this 'article' as front page breaking news when the Cardinal isn't doing so?"

Today's Wisconsin State Journal headline is about a historic building at Mendota Mental Health. The Capital Times headline is not (existant, because they're almost wholly online). Different papers operate on different schedules and in different ways. The Badger Herald clearly puts a lot of weight into making their website very up-to-the-minute and accessible. The Daily Cardinal seems content on duplicating the articles of the day onto their website and only that. It doesn't mean one paper thinks this event is newsworthy more than the other, it merely means that the two papers have different ways of going about things and different priorities. I wager that we'll see the Sigma Chi story on the Cardinal site tomorrow, but it doesn't mean that they care any less or took any more time to actually research the story than the Herald did.

"Since when does a fraternity's alcohol violation deserve to be a top headline?"

Since it's only been a little more than a month that this same fraternity was in the papers facing rape allegations. See my previous points for why it became news.

In summary, I'm hoping that one or both of the papers will cover this investigation closely and keep the readers up to speed on developments. Both papers really dropped the ball regarding the alleged rape, and have provided no new news since that initial week. If people are to understand the entire story, it must be covered from beginning to end. We'll see what happens, but hopefully my thoughts here have covered most of the commentary that we'll probably see on this story.

Paul's Guide to Being an Effective Politician, Part I

2009-03-25T19:09:00.000-07:00

Hello, readers, and welcome to the first entry into Paul's Guide to Being an Effective Politician. In these writings, I take what I've learned in my experiences in political campaigns and display it for all to see, like a flasher of intelligence. Except I have a weblog, and not a trenchcoat. So, here we go.

Part I: Debating
The art of debate is millenia old, and the career of many a politician has been made on the answering of questions posed by the electorate. Of course, over the years, it has degraded into a series of softballs responded to by using soundbytes. So, here is a list of recommendations for any wannabe candidate entering a debate. Following these should help establish you as a no-nonsense, effective, and intelligent official.

*Stop thanking the debate locale - We get it, you're glad to be there. You don't have to tell us for a minute how wonderful some campus is, or how lovely some town is, or even that it's great that the audience is there. You're wasting valuble answer time. The campus sucks, the jerkwater town is just that, and the audience is there either because they get class credit, or it's a Tuesday night and nothing is on TV (or they hope they'll get on TV/some are actually interested). Save your thanks for the end.

*Use clear-cut facts as much as possible - Not enough politicians use these. If you're talking about gun control, you should mention that x% of all deaths in Y city are caused by guns. Then, you should cite where that data comes from. As a side note, that data should come from a reputable source, like the FBI or that city's police department, and if the data is printed, where someone can find it (when other people can read the same thing, they tend to believe you). Also, keep the facts as simple as possible. Your opponent can't argue with a percentage, and if he tries, then ask him if he's calling the Police Department a bunch of liars. Which leads to the next point...

*Don't be afraid to call out your opponent - Know as many facts as possible about whatever might be covered in your debate. Politicians will sometimes say really stupid things, things that can't possibly be true. When that happens, call shenanigans (when it's your turn to speak). Rebut their error by using point 2. Make your opponent look like an idiot! And be blunt about it. Don't say "I respectfully disagree..." or "I believe..." Just come out and say it: "You're wrong, Bill. Here's the fact..." or if your opponent flat-out lied, say "That's a lie, Bill." Again, refer to point 2. Real-life example (names changed to protect the innocent/not-so-innocent):

During a television interview between two candidates for a city office (let's call them Bill and Ted), the question of partisanship was raised. Bill claimed his party identification and the endorsements he sought. Ted claimed he was running a nonpartisan campaign and had not sought any endorsement. This, in fact, was a lie. Ted actively sought, and did not receive, the endorsement of a certain political party. Bill should have jumped on this "error" at the earliest possible opportunity.

*Stop being scared of the constituent - Constituents sometimes ask stupid questions. Whatever you do, don't dismiss the question. Answer the question as bluntly as you can. If the constituent attacks you for a decision you made or a policy you stand for, defend yourself and do not apologize. Often, the constituent doesn't have a remote clue about what they're talking about. Remind the constituent of their own obligations to society, how government can't do everything. Parents have to parent, teachers have to teach. Don't hesitate to correct the constituent if they're wrong. Even if they don't agree with you, they'll be glad you answered them truthfully.

If you follow these simple points, I guarantee that you will win a debate, and probably gain the respect of many voters. Stay tuned for more of Paul's Guide to Being an Effective Politician!

In Adhevo Veritas: Originally Published March 7, 2009

2009-03-11T08:27:00.000-07:00

There's an old saying, "in vino veritas" - in wine, there is truth. I believe in the saying, "in adhevo veritas." In comedy, there is truth. This past Friday, Bill Maher issued a new rule entitled "Boy Blunder," discussing the ridiculousness of Republicans attacking "big government." I've copied the routine below for all to enjoy and think about.

Republicans must stop pitting the American people against the government. Now last week we heard a speech from future Republican leader and present awkward douchebag Bobby Jindal. Now, Bobby said that government is lame, but Americans can do anything. And he kept repeating it. Americans can do anything. Americans can do anything. And then he clicked his heels and poof- there was just a cobra! I kid, Bobby, oh please! He's actually quite charming in a Revenge-of-the-Nerds sort of way. And he began his speech last week with a story every immigrant tells about going to an American grocery store for the first time and being overwhelmed with the endless variety on the shelves. And this was just a 7-11, wait 'til he sees a Safeway! (You're wounded, I know. I'll make it up to you after the show).

The thing is that endless variety only exists because Americans pay taxes to a government, which maintains roads, irrigates fields, maintains the electric grid, and everything else that enables the modern American supermarket to carry forty-seven varieties of frozen breakfast pastry. Of course it's easy to tear government down. Ronald Reagan used to say the nine most terrifying words in the English language were, "I am from the government and I'm here to help." But that was before, "I am Sarah Palin, now show me the launch codes."

You know the stimulus package was attacked as typical "tax-and-spend." You know, like repairing bridges is typical left-wing stuff. "Ooh, there the liberals go again, always wanting to get across the river!" Folks, the People are the government. The first responders to a fire, that's the government. The ranger who shoos pedophiles out of the park restroom, that's the government. The postman who delivers your porn. I mean, how stupid is it when people say, "Oh yeah, that's all we need- the federal government telling Detroit how to make cars and Wells Fargo how to run a bank. You want them to look like the post office?"

Yeah, actually. I mean...You mean the place that takes the note in my hand in L.A. on Monday and gives it to my sister in New Jersey on Wednesday for forty-two cents? Well let me be the first to say I would be thrilled if America's healthcare system was anywhere near as functional as the post office. Truth is, recent years have made me much more wary of government doing the opposite, of stepping aside and letting unregulated private enterprise run things it is plainly too greedy to trust with, like Wall Street, like rebuilding Iraq. Like the way Republicans always frame the healthcare debate by saying, "healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats," leaving out the fact that health decisions aren't made by doctors, patients, or bureaucrats. They're made by insurance companies. Insurance companies, which are a lot like hospital gowns- chances are, your ass isn't covered.

All right, thank you folks.

Stimulus plan benefits collegiate ambitions: Originally Published February 26, 2009

2009-03-11T08:25:00.000-07:00

College Democrats highly encourage college students to take advantage of the extra funds the stimulus plan provides for College programs.

The recent passage and signature into law of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signifies a movement in the right direction for our nation. Our country is taking the first step to rebuild our economy, revitalize our financial system and restore faith in the American promise. Although the ARRA’s passing took place with much struggle between Democrats and Republicans, with the law now in effect, it is our responsibility as American citizens, and as the next generation of political leaders, to make the most of the stimulus act.

As students, we have a special place in ARRA. Although national politics does not always directly effect students on the UW-Madison campus, the ARRA will have a direct and positive impact on UW students, especially those from lower-income families. ARRA will provide monetary resources for students pursuing any field of study by increasing the maximum Pell Grant by $500. Furthermore, it will provide an additional $100 million to higher education.

Agriculture students will benefit from over $200 million for infrastructure, grants and programs. Ecology majors will be pleased to learn over $1.6 billion will be spent on a range of ecological programs, including the Forest Service, the National Park System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife program. The National Science Foundation will receive $2.5 billion for research and related activities, $200 million of which goes directly to modernize academic facilities and an additional $500 million for research equipment and educational resources. History majors like me should be giddy over the $15 million going toward the National Park Service historic preservation fund and $25 million toward Smithsonian facilities.

Perhaps the real winners are engineering students, who will see hundreds of billions of dollars going toward construction in all departments, including energy research, geological surveys, health-care updates and research funding. Civil, electrical, biomedical, mechanical and other engineers will find an almost inconceivable bevy of projects and opportunities in the coming years, as America works to revamp its infrastructure and revitalize the economy.

Despite the grave situation and difficult economic times in which we find ourselves, we students must adopt a proactive approach if we are to take full advantage of the stimulus package. We need to talk to our professors, our employers and our state representatives and tell them our ideas. If the past presidential election has taught us anything, it is that young people and students must become involved on more than simply a cursory level and that real engagement begins—not ends—in the voting booth.

The stimulus package is not so much a tool to stimulate the economy, but a catalyst, a means of inspiration, for propelling the American people into taking action and making our country better. The time for waiting for someone else to do it is over. We have to be the change we seek. Come check out the College Democrats’ Facebook group or attend a meeting and learn how to become more involved in your local community.

(Post-Fact: For the record, I hate the second to last sentence. I find it really overused and incredibly corny.)

Congress must set aside differences, solve crisis: Originally Published October 2, 2008

2009-03-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

Congress must pass solution to economic crisis before it hits Main Street

On Monday, the Dow Jones experienced its worst drop in history, plummeting 777 points. This freefall was the result of the failure of the “Bailout Bill” in the House of Representatives. Although there were various problems with this bill, there was an understanding between Democrats and Republicans that inaction was far more disastrous for the stock market and the economy at large. Especially disappointing were the spiteful partisan attacks that came from both sides and the representatives who voted based on their re-election odds.

Let me be clear, I am a strong Democrat, but I believe both sides are at fault for the economic crisis. Congress has become increasingly divisive since 1994. While that might make for exciting elections, it is horrible for the American people. Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to come together and find a true compromise that assists financial institutions, but also provides strong oversight and protection for the average citizen. The era of deregulation and the golden parachute must end, and our representatives need to understand that concept.

Deregulation, which began in the 1990s and continued through the second Bush administration, allowed corporations to take irresponsible actions in the name of profit, which ultimately harmed both the businesses and the public. Deregulation is short sighted and is ultimately bad for the economy and the country.

We must also limit the golden parachute, which is an agreement between a company and executives specifying benefits the executive will get if fired. While there are positives to the contract, mostly dealing with job retention and company takeover, the parachute can be exploited. For example, Carly Fiorina was CEO and chairperson of Hewlett-Packard. During her tenure, HP’s performance plummeted and thousands of employees lost their jobs. As a reward, Fiorina was given a $21-million severance deal. Executives who send companies into ruin should never receive these ridiculously lucrative deals while other employees lose their jobs.

If these large banks and financial institutions fail, there will be enormous ramifications for Main Street. People with a pension, a 401(k), or stocks will suffer. Local banks will go under and be bought by larger companies. Even the holiday season may be in danger as consumer confidence continues to drop and many stores may suffer as a result.

What’s worse, now the majority of banking transactions are overseen by three companies: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. Should anything happen to one of these companies, it could be disastrous for the millions of people with savings accounts, checking accounts, loans or college funds.

If these economic woes continue without Congressional intervention, it will be Main Street, not Wall Street that will pay the price. We need to tell our elected officials that we are sick and tired of waiting for a solution. Congress needed to act yesterday to solve the economic crisis, but if they don’t act today, we can’t expect much of a tomorrow.

Some students, low-income residents may be stripped of their rights: Originally Published May 1, 2008

2009-03-11T08:16:00.000-07:00

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is not much of a surprise. The decision upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to have photo IDs “issued by the United States or the state of Indiana” in order to vote. The Indiana state Legislature passed the law along strict partisan lines, and it was upheld by lower court judges with a recognized politically conservative leaning. The Supreme Court’s decision also fell along political lines — the six judges in the majority were nominated by Republican presidents, the three dissenters by Bill Clinton (except for Justice Souter). However, it is not proper to accuse the justices of partisanship. Instead, I will focus on the ramifications of the Indiana law. The law, as it stands, makes it difficult for particular members of society to cast their vote, including the elderly, those living below the poverty level and college students.

In order to obtain a state-issued photo ID, applicants must provide a birth certificate and another form of identification, such as a lease or utility bill. This is a difficult task for the elderly, who may not have birth certificates or a way to access them, especially if they were born in another state. The homeless, who may have their birth certificate, will not have an address to put on the ID, let alone a lease or bill to prove their residence. In the case of the indigent, it may be economically impossible to obtain their certificate — Indiana requires a $3 to $12 processing fee. In rare cases, those who are religiously forbidden from having their photograph taken are barred from having a photo ID. The Supreme Court may find it acceptable for certain people to fall through the cracks and lose their right to vote, but I find it abhorrent and un-American. There is also one group of people whose situation was not addressed by the Supreme Court — the out-of-state student vote.

Indiana universities have one of the highest numbers of out-of-state students in the country, and the highest in Midwest. Out-of-state students spend more than half the year living in Indiana, and they meet all the requirements of residency in order to vote in the state. Unfortunately, thanks to the new voter ID law, the vast majority of the students will be unable to vote because most out-of-state students, strangely enough, do not hold Indiana ID cards or drivers’ licenses. Also, many students who are not from Indiana have little reason to change their state of origin on their ID. Students can lose scholarship awards from their home state or have problems with their health insurance if they are covered under their parents’ policies.

Even fewer students own federal forms of identification, such as passports, and may elect to keep them at home. Even if an out-of-state student wanted to get an Indiana ID, the fact that a student’s residence often changes from year to year, (from the dorms to an apartment, for example), makes acquiring an Indiana ID impractical.

Never mind that the student vote can change the results of an election, as it did here in Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004. Never mind that the people most affected by the Supreme Court’s decision tend to vote Democratic, and the bill was written and passed solely by Republicans. Never mind that getting a state ID is time-consuming for students and often impossible for the elderly, poor or homeless. Indiana is protecting voters and the integrity of elections, and if a few thousand Democratic-leaning voters suddenly can’t cast a ballot on Election Day 2008, so be it. I understand and respect Indiana’s obligation to prevent voter fraud. I simply disagree with the overtly partisan tactics the state now employs to do so. Such schemes make me appreciate that I go to school in Wisconsin, where I can easily vote as an out-of-state student.

Wisconsin must respect the rights of its young voters who, through enrollment in schools across the state, consider Wisconsin their home and choose to exercise their right to vote here. The Indiana voter ID law is not an example to be followed.

(Post-Fact: In the end, I was proved correct, as a group of Indiana nuns were barred from voting because they had no identification that met the law's standards.)

Obama-Biden: Originally Published August 23, 2008

2009-03-11T08:15:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are living under a rock, Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden to be his VP candidate. I, for one, believe this to be an excellent choice. Many may not know this, but I decided early on in the primary season that if Obama didn't run, I would work for Biden's campaign (true story!) I'm very excited for this pick for a variety of reasons, including his experience, his respect among the voters, and his excellent speaking skills (if it does sometimes get him in a little trouble, but hey- it's Joe!)

I won't go too long into this, but I've posted his biographical timeline below, courtesy of http://biden.senate.gov/senator/timeline/, just so people can get a good sense of who this man is and where he comes from. After all, he's going to be the next vice president. I also wouldn't mind hearing everyone else's thoughts on this selection, so comment away.

•November 20, 1942: Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the first of Joe and Jean Biden's four children.
•Summer 1953: Biden family moves from Scranton to Brookview neighborhood in Claymont, Delaware.
•September 1957: Joe enrolls at Archmere Academy.
•June 1965: Joe graduates from the University of Delaware with a double major in History and Political Science and enrolls in Syracuse University Law School.
•August 27, 1966: Joe marries the former Neilia Hunter.
•June 1968: After graduating from law school, Joe begins work as a trial attorney at a law firm in Wilmington, Delaware and serves as a public defender.
•February 3, 1969: Birth of Joe and Neilia's first child, Joseph R. "Beau" Biden, III
•February 4, 1970: Birth of Joe and Neilia's second child, Hunter.
•November, 1970: Elected to New Castle County Council.
•November 8, 1971: Birth of third child, Naomi Christina.
•November, 1972: Joe elected as Delaware's U.S. Senator, beating an incumbent Republican. At age 29, Joe was the 5th-youngest U.S. Senator ever.
•December 18, 1972: Joe's wife and three children are in an automobile accident while Christmas shopping. Neilia and Naomi suffer fatal injuries, while Beau and Hunter are critically injured but make full recoveries.
•January 5, 1973: After consistent lobbying by Hubert Humphrey and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield urging him not to resign, Joe is sworn in to the United States Senate at Beau and Hunter's bedside in Wilmington, Delaware.
•January, 1975: Joe becomes a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he later chairs.
•June 17, 1977: Joe marries Jill Tracy Jacobs, a school teacher.
•January, 1977: Joe becomes a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he later chairs from 1987 to 1994.
•November, 1978: Wins reelection to U.S. Senate.
•June 8, 1981: Birth of Joe and Jill's daughter, Ashley.
•November, 1984: Re-elected to U.S. Senate.
•June 9, 1987: Announces candidacy for the 1988 Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.
•February 11, 1988: Two aneurysms are diagnosed in Joe's brain and he undergoes successful emergency surgery.
•November, 1990: Wins re-election to U.S. Senate.
•September, 1991: Joe begins teaching constitutional law as an adjunct professor at Widener University Law School.
•November, 1996: Re-elected to U.S. Senate.
•May 11, 1999: Joe casts 10,000th vote on the Senate floor.
•November, 2002: Wins reelection to U.S. Senate.
•January 31, 2007: Joe announces his bid for the 2008 Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.
•August 1, 2007: Joe releases his memoir, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics."

In Memorium: Originally Published June 14, 2008

2009-03-11T08:14:00.000-07:00

I’d like to take this moment to write a little something about Tim Russert. As many of you know, Tim passed away yesterday afternoon at the age of 58, after collapsing at the NBC offices from a heart attack. Russert was the D.C. Bureau Chief for NBC, as well as the host and moderator of Meet the Press, television’s longest-running show, and he himself was its longest-serving host. Many of us really got to see him at his peak during this recent primary election cycle. After working in politics with Daniel Moynihan and Mario Cuomo for some years, Tim joined NBC and became its best political correspondent. His experiences, as well as his natural talent and innate intelligence led to sharp, accurate predictions and analyses, making the complicated world of politics accessible and understandable.

In this day where infotainment is the norm, where the news is often fraught with useless drivel about celebrity arrests and water-skiing squirrels, Tim was a voice of clear, objective journalism. He was never there to elicit a gaffe from politicians or pundits, but to make those people accountable for their words and what they meant. We sometimes forget that this is the purpose of the media; to uncover the truth and story behind an event, not to make the event itself. Tim Russert was the epitome of what political reporting could be, and should be.

To replace him is impossible; I do not believe that we will see a reporter of Russert’s ability, drive, intellect, or personality, or one who loves what they do so much, within the majority of my lifetime. However, we would do a great disservice to his memory if we did not carry on his lessons. It is now up to us to ask the tough questions and hold people accountable for their words, our Republican opponents and our Democratic allies both. If this country is to be the best it can be, we must always ask the difficult questions, we must always get the facts. Tim Russert would expect no less.

On behalf of the College Democrats of Wisconsin, I express my deepest sympathies to the Russert family, and his friends and associates at NBC and in the general media.

Money Well Spent?: Originally Published June 1, 2008

2009-03-11T08:13:00.000-07:00

Just to share a quick factoid, courtesy of the National Priorities Project. For the 2007 fiscal year, the good taxpayers of the 2nd Congressional District (WI, of course) will provide $290 million for the war in Iraq. Had we not gotten into this fine mess, that money could have gone to pay for these (the following are ORs, not ANDs):

•Health care for 186,977 people for one year

•6,491 police/firefighters/EMT for one year

•4,785 arts and music teachers for one year

•College scholarships worth just over $6,700 for 43,117 students for one year

•2,419 affordable housing units

•Health care for 223,186 children for one year

•A place in the Head Start Program for 43,675 children

•5,059 elementary school students
So, think about it. What do we gain from the war in Iraq? What is the real cost?

"Well we got no choice, all the girls and boys...": Originally Published May 15, 2008

2009-03-11T08:12:00.001-07:00

Hey everyone--

No major political issue here. I just wanted to take the time to wish everyone an excellent and carefree summer. Enjoy it, because when you all come back in the fall, we're going to have a load of work to do to elect a Democrat to the White House in November!

There will still be blog posts here throughout the summer, and I might even write one or two myself, so keep checking!

I'd also like to say congratulations to our seniors, and on behalf of the College Dems, we wish you all the very best of luck in all your endeavors.

Have a fantastic summer, and to steal a line from my other major affiliation:

We never really say goodbye. We'll see you real soon, and ON WISCONSIN!!

PCF-HRC2008: Originally Published February 20, 2008

2009-03-11T08:09:00.000-07:00

So, I'm perusing DailyKos today (yeah, I know, call me out on that), when a post catches my eye. Entitled "The Clinton 527". It cites this ABC blog entry for its source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/new-pro-clinton.html

Essentially, the American Leadership Project (ALP) is established to attack Senator Obama, with a concentration of ads in Ohio. While not attacking the senator by name, the ads mention "if speeches could solve problems", which is a constant line of thought seen in many of Hillary's stumpings, especially recently.

ALP has a goal to raise $10 million by the end of next week, which is pretty much a $10 million donation of sorts to the Clinton campaign.

Barack and John Edwards had 527s formed in their favor earlier in this primary race, and both asked that those 527s disband, remembering the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" that helped sink Kerry's campaign run. The question to be asked is if Hillary will do the same. Will Hillary Clinton ask ALP to disband?

Now, most people who read this blog are pretty sure of who I support for Democratic candidate. I don't see Senator Clinton asking to disband this 527. She needs a March 4th victory to keep her campaign afloat, and I sense that she may be just desperate enough to use whatever resource she can get, even if that resource is one as disdainful and suspicious as a 527.

My questions to you, the reader, are these:

Will Hillary ask ALP to disband, and why or why not?
What are the ramifications for the Democratic Party if this 527 is allowed to exist?

Spot of Texas Tea, Guv'nor?: Originially Published November 21, 2007

2009-03-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

As I was driving home with my dad for this short break, I brought up the news item that oil prices today started at $99 per barrel, and gas is going to be more expensive (yes...more than now). My dad replied how it's amazing that none of the Democratic candidates have brought up this issue so far. When I said that all the candidates have said something about alternative energy, my father told me he meant the fact that for the past eight years, oil companies have been experiencing record profits, while the cost of living is growing in this oil-dependent society.

Once I got home, I began to explore this idea a little more. Sure enough, there are thousands of news stories about Exxon and BP and all the other oil corporations pulling record profits, and Democratic response has been minimal, at best. Now, I'm not one to directly accuse the Bush administration of playing a major role in this, but Dubya was a Texas oilman before entering politics, and people typically make friends in the workplace...

But I digress. Democrats need to bring up this point more often: during the Bush Administration, oil companies have experienced record profits, and the American people are paying more and more at the pump. The Democratic Party should make it a point to discuss this discrepancy, and present solutions. I hate to be crude, but people vote with their wallets. While there are those who vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues, or even through party loyalty, most voters want to make sure that the candidate they put into office will do what it takes to allow the average American to live comfortably.

Now, an oil company is a private entity. It exists to make profit, and I respect that. But is their such a thing as making too much profit? If gas prices reach a point where the majority of consumers are unable to pay, does that not defeat the purpose of a profit-making organization? Are private companies answerable to the public? Since the public is the consumer, I think so. We, the people, and our candidates have to take a stand, and say we won't tolerate this quasi-gouging (real gouging?) anymore, and if the oil companies can't/won't find a solution, then we will, and the candidate that rises up and presents the best solution will almost certainly be our next President.

Anyway, that's enough of my ranting. I wish everyone a safe, happy, and gluttonous Thanksgiving.

The State Budget: Originally Published 10/25/07

2009-03-11T08:06:00.000-07:00

By tomorrow morning, Wisconsin will have a budget. After over 100 days of being overdue, Democrats and Republicans finally settled on a compromise budget, voted on it, passed it, and sent it off to Governor Doyle for signing.

Neither side is particularly happy with the budget. Democrats got expansion for health care, but not the universal health care plan they had hoped for. Republicans got an overall decrease in spending percentage-wise, but not as much as they had hoped. Everybody wins, but everybody feels like they lost at the same time.

That's the nature of compromise - no body gets exactly what they want, but everyone agrees to it. In this era of partisan politics, we often forget that the very reason democratic government exists is to allow lawmakers with opposing viewpoints to come together and create law that everyone can live with, if not agree on. As we can clearly see from this recent battle for the budget, when no one is willing to compromise, the government, and society, comes to a screeching halt.

Government agencies were shutting down, unsure of how much money they had on hand to spend. Public schools were |---this close---| to starting to consider cutting programs due to lack of funding. People were growing restless, and the Legislature became the laughingstock of not only the state, but I'm pretty sure that much of the nation was shaking their head. This is not representative government. This is schoolyard bickering.

I'm glad the budget passed. I'm also glad nobody is completely satisfied with the results. Perhaps it will send a lesson to our state representatives that they need to come to the table and negotiate before trying to pass budgets. But, since I read news that legislators will be trying to amend the budget with legislation soon, maybe I'm just naive.

Democrats and Republicans are both at fault here. Neither side is willing to listen, and both are so wrapped up in their own agendas that sometimes they fail to understand that by negotiating, compromising, and making deals, legislators are actually doing the job that we elected them for - establishing laws to help guide the people of Wisconsin, and to provide for their needs.

On a related note, I look forward to seeing many people at the Union tomorrow morning to watch Governor Doyle sign the new budget. May we all quickly celebrate, and get on with our lives past this utterly ridiculous ordeal.