A Modest Proposal

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!

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...

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

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

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

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

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.