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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
International (B)Onus
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.
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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Getting LBJ on You
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)