Regarding how to award liquor licenses, today's Oshkosh Northwestern argues that "the council should adopt a scoring system with agreed upon criteria to objectively rank requests for liquor licenses to make sure its future decisions appear less arbitrary."
I agree that some kind of reform of the process is necessary. A scoring system is certainly a possibility, but perhaps we could do something much simpler. I have in mind a "first come, first serve" process in which available licenses get distributed to according to an applicant's place on the waiting list. Here's how it could work:
1. A license becomes available.
2. The City Council/Clerk goes to the waiting list.
3. If the first applicant on the list is up to date on tax payments, has been given the stamp of approval by the police to operate an alcohol serving establishment, and (if the applicant only has an idea or concept rather than an already existing business) can demonstrate a viable business plan, that applicant would get the license.
I think such a process would minimize the arbitrariness of the process, ensure that neighborhood taverns could compete fairly for a license with great-sounding concepts or proposals that (on the surface at least) might carry greater economic impact, and would virtually eliminate the kind of American-Idol lite show the council has now conducted twice in the last few years.
A first-come, first serve procedure would frustrate those who believe that projects with alleged great economic impacts, even if the project is merely conceptual, should be given priority. The problem with that position, it seems to me, is that it virtually eliminates small, neighborhood businesses from competition for a license (unless they are lucky enough to have a Common Council in place like the present one; not the greatest Council ever perhaps, but the majority at least seem willing to give the "little" guys and gals out there a shot--no pun intended.).
I'm not completely sold on a first come, first serve process. Just throwing it out here for contemplation and discussion. I will probably put it on the agenda at the next council meeting under council member discussion items.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Liquor Licenses: First Come, First Serve?
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Week In Review
I'll be on "Week in Review" with Joy Cardin on WPR Friday morning (8-9 a.m.) opposite Owen Robinson of Boots and Sabers fame. You can call in during the program at 1-800-642-1234 or email talk@wpr.org.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The Environment in the Age of Obama: Prospects for Reform
The July Media Rants column looks at what we can expect from Barack Obama's administration as regards the environment. Here it is:
On June 16th, the Obama Administration released a report announcing that the effects of global warming are real, occurring in the present, and require immediate action. The report assesses regional impacts of climate change, and concludes that the Midwest will experience increasing heat waves, reduced air quality, more periods of flooding and draught, difficulties in crop management, and other maladies. Jane Lubchenco, undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that “This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards.”
Did the report’s dire pronouncements dominate the media landscape, even for a few days? Nope. Corporate media coverage paled in comparison to the daily briefings on Jon and Kate’s “announcement.” No surprises there; it takes less journalistic resources to cover the dissolution of a TV marriage than the death of the Earth. If they’d lived in biblical times, today’s news producers would be more interested in Noah’s marital status than the impending flood.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, mainstream media portrayed Barack Obama and John McCain—inaccurately I argued in these pages—as environmental reformers. The mainstream environmental movement strongly supported Obama’s candidacy and continues to be enthusiastic. Indeed, the President’s announcement that environmental policies will be guided by scientific integrity, rule of law, and transparency provides a basis for optimism. Additionally, the Administration deserves kudos for its candor about the reality of climate change. But realistically, what can we expect from the Obama Administration?
Let’s start by looking at Obama’s cabinet appointments, dubbed an environmental “Green Dream Team” by Wisconsin State Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison). Energy Secretary Steven Chu is a brilliant, Nobel prize winning physicist. He also happens to be a major advocate of nuclear power, which he views as playing a “significant and growing role” in our energy future.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson is the first African-American to hold that post. She’s tough and competent, but critics of her performance as head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection claim she was much too close to industry. The Center For Public Integrity found that Jackson had allowed outsourcing of toxic cleanup in New Jersey, a practice that allows polluters to profit from their own pollution.
Carol Browner, former EPA chief under Clinton, heads the newly created “Energy Coordinator” position. With tons of experience and knowledge of how Washington works (she’s married to Thomas Downey, a former Congressman and now corporate lobbyist), Browner has the ability to move the administration’s environmental agenda forward.
But what is that agenda? On Earth Day, the President himself said that “as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. We also need to find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.” He’s serious: Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar refuses to rule out the possibility of expanded offshore drilling for oil and gas. And given the fact that the Obama campaign received hundreds of thousands of dollars from employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, we should be prepared to hear nukes touted as “green.”
The President does not support a moratorium on the building of coal fired plants, but does promote “clean coal” technology. He’s committed $145 billion for alternative energy over 10 years, which is about 0.1 percent of GDP. By way of comparison, the military budget for 2010 ALONE is $664 billion.
The Obama Administration recently announced a national standard for automobile fuel efficiency, which will go into effect in 2012. The fact that the automobile industry endorsed the standards should send up red flags. Why? Because the executives understand that national standards prevent even more strict action at the state level.
Perhaps the centerpiece of Obama’s environmental program is his proposal for a “cap and trade” program to control industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Critics claim that cap and trade hasn’t worked in Europe and represents a sellout to big industry polluters. Writing in Counterpunch, Jeff St. Clair and Joshua Frank argue that Obama “refuses to consider strict regulation let alone a carbon tax to address the country’s big CO2 emitters. Instead, after intense pressure from the pollution lobby, Obama’s approach to attacking with climate change has been whittled down to nothing more than weak market-driven economics that can too easily be manipulated politically. Polluters will be let off the hook as they can simply relocate or build new infrastructure in places where there are few or no carbon regulations.”
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) argues that cap and trade could lead to the same type of unregulated Wall Street money-making schemes that fueled the current recession: "I have serious concerns about how a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”
After years of disappointment from Clinton and hostility from Bush, the mainstream environmental movement appears happy just to have a “friend” in Washington. The wiser elements of that movement recognize that local grassroots activism, not charismatic politicians in Washington, is what’s needed to save the planet. Backyard problems need neighborhood action, no matter who occupies the White House.
On June 16th, the Obama Administration released a report announcing that the effects of global warming are real, occurring in the present, and require immediate action. The report assesses regional impacts of climate change, and concludes that the Midwest will experience increasing heat waves, reduced air quality, more periods of flooding and draught, difficulties in crop management, and other maladies. Jane Lubchenco, undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that “This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards.”
Did the report’s dire pronouncements dominate the media landscape, even for a few days? Nope. Corporate media coverage paled in comparison to the daily briefings on Jon and Kate’s “announcement.” No surprises there; it takes less journalistic resources to cover the dissolution of a TV marriage than the death of the Earth. If they’d lived in biblical times, today’s news producers would be more interested in Noah’s marital status than the impending flood.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, mainstream media portrayed Barack Obama and John McCain—inaccurately I argued in these pages—as environmental reformers. The mainstream environmental movement strongly supported Obama’s candidacy and continues to be enthusiastic. Indeed, the President’s announcement that environmental policies will be guided by scientific integrity, rule of law, and transparency provides a basis for optimism. Additionally, the Administration deserves kudos for its candor about the reality of climate change. But realistically, what can we expect from the Obama Administration?
Let’s start by looking at Obama’s cabinet appointments, dubbed an environmental “Green Dream Team” by Wisconsin State Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison). Energy Secretary Steven Chu is a brilliant, Nobel prize winning physicist. He also happens to be a major advocate of nuclear power, which he views as playing a “significant and growing role” in our energy future.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson is the first African-American to hold that post. She’s tough and competent, but critics of her performance as head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection claim she was much too close to industry. The Center For Public Integrity found that Jackson had allowed outsourcing of toxic cleanup in New Jersey, a practice that allows polluters to profit from their own pollution.
Carol Browner, former EPA chief under Clinton, heads the newly created “Energy Coordinator” position. With tons of experience and knowledge of how Washington works (she’s married to Thomas Downey, a former Congressman and now corporate lobbyist), Browner has the ability to move the administration’s environmental agenda forward.
But what is that agenda? On Earth Day, the President himself said that “as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. We also need to find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.” He’s serious: Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar refuses to rule out the possibility of expanded offshore drilling for oil and gas. And given the fact that the Obama campaign received hundreds of thousands of dollars from employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, we should be prepared to hear nukes touted as “green.”
The President does not support a moratorium on the building of coal fired plants, but does promote “clean coal” technology. He’s committed $145 billion for alternative energy over 10 years, which is about 0.1 percent of GDP. By way of comparison, the military budget for 2010 ALONE is $664 billion.
The Obama Administration recently announced a national standard for automobile fuel efficiency, which will go into effect in 2012. The fact that the automobile industry endorsed the standards should send up red flags. Why? Because the executives understand that national standards prevent even more strict action at the state level.
Perhaps the centerpiece of Obama’s environmental program is his proposal for a “cap and trade” program to control industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Critics claim that cap and trade hasn’t worked in Europe and represents a sellout to big industry polluters. Writing in Counterpunch, Jeff St. Clair and Joshua Frank argue that Obama “refuses to consider strict regulation let alone a carbon tax to address the country’s big CO2 emitters. Instead, after intense pressure from the pollution lobby, Obama’s approach to attacking with climate change has been whittled down to nothing more than weak market-driven economics that can too easily be manipulated politically. Polluters will be let off the hook as they can simply relocate or build new infrastructure in places where there are few or no carbon regulations.”
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) argues that cap and trade could lead to the same type of unregulated Wall Street money-making schemes that fueled the current recession: "I have serious concerns about how a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”
After years of disappointment from Clinton and hostility from Bush, the mainstream environmental movement appears happy just to have a “friend” in Washington. The wiser elements of that movement recognize that local grassroots activism, not charismatic politicians in Washington, is what’s needed to save the planet. Backyard problems need neighborhood action, no matter who occupies the White House.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Missed Opportunity
I've been on the city council long enough now to not be surprised by anything we do or don't do, but last night's 5-2 vote to renew the liquor license of a [to put it mildly] problematic tavern is still somewhat shocking. J. Krause says it well in his daily blog:
"Watching most of the three hour 'mini-trial' for the owner of O'Brian's bar in front of the Oshkosh Common Council last night has me thinking it might be time to reconsider the role alcohol plays in our lives around here. Hundreds of police calls last year, brawls, people found passed out lying on the floor, dozens of complaints from neighbors--and Chief Scott Greuel wouldn't even call it the 'worst of the worst' bars in town. And despite the owner's past refusal to work with police to mitigate the behavior problems at his establishment, the Common Council still voted to let him keep his liquor license."
Even better is an email I received from a citizen this morning. She says that the next time she gets a parking or speeding ticket in town, she's going to apply the council majority's reasoning and argue: "I'm not really sure if I knew the speed limit or saw the No Parking sign or not. I never signed anything that stated I fully understood the law. I deserve at least one more chance, it's actually your responsibility to inform me, it's not up to me to know what the penalties may be for breaking the law."
The council majority believe that last night's vote and discussion sent a message to all tavern owners in town that we take licensing seriously and will be watching them closely. Actually, the exact opposite message was sent. The message is that minimizing public safety issues, pleading ignorance, and accusing the police of not liking your clientele are all legitimate defenses against evidence of abusing the privilege of license ownership. After last night's vote, it's not clear to me why the police department would even bother to spend the time and resources necessary to make a case for revocation or nonrenewal.
As suggested by Councilor Tower, the Council had an opportunity last night to show that we recognize that license ownership is a privilege, not a right. We missed the opportunity. Too bad.
"Watching most of the three hour 'mini-trial' for the owner of O'Brian's bar in front of the Oshkosh Common Council last night has me thinking it might be time to reconsider the role alcohol plays in our lives around here. Hundreds of police calls last year, brawls, people found passed out lying on the floor, dozens of complaints from neighbors--and Chief Scott Greuel wouldn't even call it the 'worst of the worst' bars in town. And despite the owner's past refusal to work with police to mitigate the behavior problems at his establishment, the Common Council still voted to let him keep his liquor license."
Even better is an email I received from a citizen this morning. She says that the next time she gets a parking or speeding ticket in town, she's going to apply the council majority's reasoning and argue: "I'm not really sure if I knew the speed limit or saw the No Parking sign or not. I never signed anything that stated I fully understood the law. I deserve at least one more chance, it's actually your responsibility to inform me, it's not up to me to know what the penalties may be for breaking the law."
The council majority believe that last night's vote and discussion sent a message to all tavern owners in town that we take licensing seriously and will be watching them closely. Actually, the exact opposite message was sent. The message is that minimizing public safety issues, pleading ignorance, and accusing the police of not liking your clientele are all legitimate defenses against evidence of abusing the privilege of license ownership. After last night's vote, it's not clear to me why the police department would even bother to spend the time and resources necessary to make a case for revocation or nonrenewal.
As suggested by Councilor Tower, the Council had an opportunity last night to show that we recognize that license ownership is a privilege, not a right. We missed the opportunity. Too bad.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Healthy, Sustainable, Green
Earlier this evening I had the opportunity to listen to Tony Nelessen summarize the results of the visioning surveys taken in Oshkosh a few months back. Not surprisingly, the surveys reveal a preference for a city that is walkable, biker-friendly, makes maximum use of its 16 miles of waterfront, has a vibrant downtown and tree lined streets.
Nelessen said that in order for the vision to become a reality, the city's land use and zoning regulations need serious reform. For that to happen here, the City Council and City Manager must lead.
What I found most fascinating about Nelessen's presentation was his claim that the surveys suggested the possibility of developing a three-pronged Oshkosh brand: Healthy, Sustainable, Green. Certainly no other Fox Valley city is branded that way, and Nelessen claimed that Madison is probably the only city in the state that comes close. I think it's a great way to brand Oshkosh.
Moving toward a model of health, sustainability, and greenliness when almost all development since the 1950s has been the opposite will be no easy task. No doubt most elected and appointed officials--along with the Onionesque major media--will have no trouble espousing "health" as a value. The trouble is that almost every time a real opportunity comes to reject old school thinking (i.e. big boxes, TIF for retail development, etc.), council majorities, the administration, and the Onion(s) all seem to forget the health endorsement.
Nelessen said that a vision report will soon follow. He said that the city council should endorse it with a non-binding resolution. If the report is consistent with what I heard today, I would most likely support such a resolution.
Nelessen said that in order for the vision to become a reality, the city's land use and zoning regulations need serious reform. For that to happen here, the City Council and City Manager must lead.
What I found most fascinating about Nelessen's presentation was his claim that the surveys suggested the possibility of developing a three-pronged Oshkosh brand: Healthy, Sustainable, Green. Certainly no other Fox Valley city is branded that way, and Nelessen claimed that Madison is probably the only city in the state that comes close. I think it's a great way to brand Oshkosh.
Moving toward a model of health, sustainability, and greenliness when almost all development since the 1950s has been the opposite will be no easy task. No doubt most elected and appointed officials--along with the Onionesque major media--will have no trouble espousing "health" as a value. The trouble is that almost every time a real opportunity comes to reject old school thinking (i.e. big boxes, TIF for retail development, etc.), council majorities, the administration, and the Onion(s) all seem to forget the health endorsement.
Nelessen said that a vision report will soon follow. He said that the city council should endorse it with a non-binding resolution. If the report is consistent with what I heard today, I would most likely support such a resolution.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Last Night's Meeting
The morning after the May 26th Common Council meeting, Lori and I took off for a long road trip that took us to Indianapolis; Oklahoma City; Carlsbad, NM; El Paso, TX (where we spent the most time); Albuquerque, NM; Santa Rosa, NM (home of the famous Blue Hole); Tulsa, OK; Joplin, MO; and Cuba City, MO (home of the world's largest rocking chair). Much of our time was spent driving on historic Route 66, formerly "America's Main St." before the building of the bland interstates. I was pleasantly surprised by El Paso--from reading the mainstream American press you'd think the place is overrun by the undocumented and drug criminals coming in from Juarez. To the contrary, it is a remarkably diverse city with a magnificent landscape and fabulous weather. The main problem with El Paso (which is the same problem with about 99% of American cities) is that it is not very pedestrian friendly. They have a car-friendly culture featuring lots of ugly strip malls. Sound familiar?
We did not get back into town until very late on Saturday night, and I'm only now starting to get caught up on emails, news, etc. Thankfully I was able to find the time to get ready for last night's council meeting. Just a few reflections on it:
*In spite of the numerous attempts to discredit, malign, and mock the process used to fill the vacancy left by Paul Esslinger's election as mayor, I thought Harold Bucholtz proved last night that he was a great choice. He came prepared, asked good questions, and seemed completely citizen-centered. Most important, Harold's clearly not in any "camp" and shows signs of being a truly independent voice.
*We voted to take back the liquor licenses of The Granary and Howard Johnson's. As much as I sympathize with the owners of both places, I just don't feel we can allow inactive licenses while we have a waiting list of 27. Three councilors voted in favor of letting Howard Johnson's keep the license, but they offered no argument to support their vote so it's still a mystery.
*It took a long time, but we finally approved a set of citywide goals for city manager Rohloff. The process that got us to this point needs some refining, but I think everyone can agree that the process was more open and transparent than has ever been the case. Mr. Rohloff will be evaluated again in August, and as deputy mayor I'm responsible for facilitating that process. Suggestions are welcome.
*We voted unanimously to establish a one-time fee for recycling carts as opposed to keeping them in the Capital Improvements Budget. The consensus seems to be that the most important thing at this point is education. The Public Works Department should be moving on that soon.
*About a dozen members of the Oshkosh Cycling Club showed up to urge the city to move forward on a bike plan. Steve Barney established that the Parks Advisory Board was supposed to have a bike subcommittee, but has not had such a subcommittee in place for at least the last 13 years. I'm not sure but I get the feeling that the current council has on it a biker-friendly majority, so hopefully we can make some real progress on the issue this year.
*Burk Tower and I had somewhat of a dialogue on the issue of the powers of the mayor and when it is appropriate for a council to revisit items approved by a prior council. On the mayoral power issue, I cited this 2000 article from the Northwestern which established that while the mayor on paper is equal to the other 6 councilors, in fact s/he has traditionally taken a more activist role. Usually that role is taken for granted; Esslinger taking that role seems to result in an unusually high amount of hissy fitting from the establishment and establishment wannabees.
On the issue of revisiting issues, I took the position that that's what elections are about. Voters often choose candidates based on whether or not they will revisit a policy that they see as particularly noxious. In this case, the issue is the parking lot on Main St. I am leaning toward support for that project, but have no problem at all with it being revisited. (I am leaning toward support for it because, as many will recall, I tried to amend the 2009 budget to delay the parking lot for a year. When my amendment failed, I thought that meant that we would be going forward with the parking lot. To not go forward at this point is going to require more compelling argument than what I've heard so far.).
We did not get back into town until very late on Saturday night, and I'm only now starting to get caught up on emails, news, etc. Thankfully I was able to find the time to get ready for last night's council meeting. Just a few reflections on it:
*In spite of the numerous attempts to discredit, malign, and mock the process used to fill the vacancy left by Paul Esslinger's election as mayor, I thought Harold Bucholtz proved last night that he was a great choice. He came prepared, asked good questions, and seemed completely citizen-centered. Most important, Harold's clearly not in any "camp" and shows signs of being a truly independent voice.
*We voted to take back the liquor licenses of The Granary and Howard Johnson's. As much as I sympathize with the owners of both places, I just don't feel we can allow inactive licenses while we have a waiting list of 27. Three councilors voted in favor of letting Howard Johnson's keep the license, but they offered no argument to support their vote so it's still a mystery.
*It took a long time, but we finally approved a set of citywide goals for city manager Rohloff. The process that got us to this point needs some refining, but I think everyone can agree that the process was more open and transparent than has ever been the case. Mr. Rohloff will be evaluated again in August, and as deputy mayor I'm responsible for facilitating that process. Suggestions are welcome.
*We voted unanimously to establish a one-time fee for recycling carts as opposed to keeping them in the Capital Improvements Budget. The consensus seems to be that the most important thing at this point is education. The Public Works Department should be moving on that soon.
*About a dozen members of the Oshkosh Cycling Club showed up to urge the city to move forward on a bike plan. Steve Barney established that the Parks Advisory Board was supposed to have a bike subcommittee, but has not had such a subcommittee in place for at least the last 13 years. I'm not sure but I get the feeling that the current council has on it a biker-friendly majority, so hopefully we can make some real progress on the issue this year.
*Burk Tower and I had somewhat of a dialogue on the issue of the powers of the mayor and when it is appropriate for a council to revisit items approved by a prior council. On the mayoral power issue, I cited this 2000 article from the Northwestern which established that while the mayor on paper is equal to the other 6 councilors, in fact s/he has traditionally taken a more activist role. Usually that role is taken for granted; Esslinger taking that role seems to result in an unusually high amount of hissy fitting from the establishment and establishment wannabees.
On the issue of revisiting issues, I took the position that that's what elections are about. Voters often choose candidates based on whether or not they will revisit a policy that they see as particularly noxious. In this case, the issue is the parking lot on Main St. I am leaning toward support for that project, but have no problem at all with it being revisited. (I am leaning toward support for it because, as many will recall, I tried to amend the 2009 budget to delay the parking lot for a year. When my amendment failed, I thought that meant that we would be going forward with the parking lot. To not go forward at this point is going to require more compelling argument than what I've heard so far.).
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Whitewater: "Discover Your Center Of Opportunity"
According to this piece in the Journal Sentinel, the city of Whitewater is using a direct mail campaign to try to attract business to the area. Kevin Brunner, Whitewater's city manager quoted in the article, applied last year to be city manager of Oshkosh.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Big Brother's Greatest American Hits
Here's the Media Rant column that will appear in the June, 2009 edition of The Scene.
Big Brother’s Greatest American Hits
Media Rants
By Tony Palmeri
June 8th marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of 1984, George Orwell’s classic tale of life under brutal totalitarian rule. During the halcyon years of the old Soviet Union, American and Western European leaders praised the book because of the ease with which it could be interpreted as an indictment of the “Evil Empire.” Yet Orwell’s formulations of a “Ministry of Truth” indoctrinating the masses according to the principles of Big Brother’s “Party Line,” and doing it with “Newspeak” propaganda, were meant to be a warning about where the Western democracies were headed as much as a criticism of the Soviet state. Indeed, Orwell almost titled the book The Last Man in Europe.
Orwell’s fictional society found itself gripped in a permanent war economy that squandered resources in the interest of The Party’s evil elites. Via gentle persuasion or forceful coercion, citizens accepted the truth of three slogans: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Those not fully brainwashed and dumbed down were pursued and prosecuted by the “Thought Police,” and persecuted in the “Ministry of Love.”
Even given the excesses of the Bush Administration, mind control in the United States never quite reached the totalitarian extremes envisaged by Orwell. But since 1949 we’ve certainly been a permanent war economy, as articulated most astutely by the late Seymour Melman. The squandering of resources in the name of “national security” has contributed to the debasement of our political language. Below are the top ten Orwellisms of the last 60 years. Corporate mass media have been complicit in the promotion of every single one.
10. Changing the name of the War Department to the “Department of Defense”: The name change actually took place two years before the publication of 1984, but that only provides evidence for the view that Orwell was in fact talking about the western democracies. When a government entity says it stands for “defense,” chances are good it intends to engage in aggressive war. Therefore we have “defended” ourselves in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places since 1949. War is Peace.
9. Atoms For Peace: The title of President Eisenhower’s nuclear program. Author Catherine Collins describes it as a "nuclear Marshall Plan which would promote the safe and peaceful uses of atomic energy and at the same time monitor the use of it, so it couldn't be diverted to weapons programs." Collins and others have shown how the Atoms For Peace program was actually a public relations scheme designed to distract the world from hydrogen bomb testing in the Pacific. The Atoms For Peace program also increased nuclear proliferation, contributing to the development of weapons stockpiles in India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel
8. Pacification: A term not invented by US war planners, but used during Vietnam. Pacification is the violent displacement of a defenseless civilian population, by aerial bombardment or other aggressive means.
7. Vietnamization: Also known as the “Nixon Doctrine.” Nixon’s strategy for withdrawal from Vietnam was to equip and train pro-US forces in the country as replacements for US troops. President Bush and now Obama are essentially following an “Iraqization” policy in that country.
6. The Vietnam Syndrome: The Vietnam Syndrome refers to the government’s belief that Americans had become “soft” after Vietnam and would no longer tolerate aggressive wars fought for no reason. The first Gulf War became a key test of whether the Vietnam Syndrome had been overcome.
5. Star Wars: The Reagan Administration’s name for the “Strategic Defense Initiative,” a space-based missile defense system. Clinton changed the name to “Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.” We’ll probably never have a full accounting of the billions spent on such programs.
4. Smart Bombs: Contrasted with “dumb” bombs, “smart” ones are precision guided and presumably end up killing fewer innocent civilians. “Smart bomb” language is used to downplay the human cost of war; we can “shock and awe” a population without killing it in substantial numbers.
3. Collateral Damage: Generally, the accidental killing of civilians during military strikes. Sometimes caused by smart bombs.
2. Humanitarian Intervention: Almost all US military action in other countries is now “humanitarian intervention.” If a civilian population must be pacified in the process, it is for their own good.
1. The USA PATRIOT Act: The classic Orwellism of the Bush era. Stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. When the Congress passed it (without reading it and with only Russ Feingold objecting in the Senate) in 2001, I had a student in class ask the perfect question: “who thinks up this crap?”
Thousands of other terms and phrases could have been listed along with the greatest hits mentioned above. What the ten have in common, however, is their largely uncritical use in the mainstream media. Big media have always been steady accomplices to the military-industrial-complex assault on language.
In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote that “in our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” The same hold true today, probably and unfortunately much more so. For assistance in deciphering our Orwellian media, go to the Center for Media and Democracy’s Source Watch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
Big Brother’s Greatest American Hits
Media Rants
By Tony Palmeri
June 8th marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of 1984, George Orwell’s classic tale of life under brutal totalitarian rule. During the halcyon years of the old Soviet Union, American and Western European leaders praised the book because of the ease with which it could be interpreted as an indictment of the “Evil Empire.” Yet Orwell’s formulations of a “Ministry of Truth” indoctrinating the masses according to the principles of Big Brother’s “Party Line,” and doing it with “Newspeak” propaganda, were meant to be a warning about where the Western democracies were headed as much as a criticism of the Soviet state. Indeed, Orwell almost titled the book The Last Man in Europe.
Orwell’s fictional society found itself gripped in a permanent war economy that squandered resources in the interest of The Party’s evil elites. Via gentle persuasion or forceful coercion, citizens accepted the truth of three slogans: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Those not fully brainwashed and dumbed down were pursued and prosecuted by the “Thought Police,” and persecuted in the “Ministry of Love.”
Even given the excesses of the Bush Administration, mind control in the United States never quite reached the totalitarian extremes envisaged by Orwell. But since 1949 we’ve certainly been a permanent war economy, as articulated most astutely by the late Seymour Melman. The squandering of resources in the name of “national security” has contributed to the debasement of our political language. Below are the top ten Orwellisms of the last 60 years. Corporate mass media have been complicit in the promotion of every single one.
10. Changing the name of the War Department to the “Department of Defense”: The name change actually took place two years before the publication of 1984, but that only provides evidence for the view that Orwell was in fact talking about the western democracies. When a government entity says it stands for “defense,” chances are good it intends to engage in aggressive war. Therefore we have “defended” ourselves in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places since 1949. War is Peace.
9. Atoms For Peace: The title of President Eisenhower’s nuclear program. Author Catherine Collins describes it as a "nuclear Marshall Plan which would promote the safe and peaceful uses of atomic energy and at the same time monitor the use of it, so it couldn't be diverted to weapons programs." Collins and others have shown how the Atoms For Peace program was actually a public relations scheme designed to distract the world from hydrogen bomb testing in the Pacific. The Atoms For Peace program also increased nuclear proliferation, contributing to the development of weapons stockpiles in India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel
8. Pacification: A term not invented by US war planners, but used during Vietnam. Pacification is the violent displacement of a defenseless civilian population, by aerial bombardment or other aggressive means.
7. Vietnamization: Also known as the “Nixon Doctrine.” Nixon’s strategy for withdrawal from Vietnam was to equip and train pro-US forces in the country as replacements for US troops. President Bush and now Obama are essentially following an “Iraqization” policy in that country.
6. The Vietnam Syndrome: The Vietnam Syndrome refers to the government’s belief that Americans had become “soft” after Vietnam and would no longer tolerate aggressive wars fought for no reason. The first Gulf War became a key test of whether the Vietnam Syndrome had been overcome.
5. Star Wars: The Reagan Administration’s name for the “Strategic Defense Initiative,” a space-based missile defense system. Clinton changed the name to “Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.” We’ll probably never have a full accounting of the billions spent on such programs.
4. Smart Bombs: Contrasted with “dumb” bombs, “smart” ones are precision guided and presumably end up killing fewer innocent civilians. “Smart bomb” language is used to downplay the human cost of war; we can “shock and awe” a population without killing it in substantial numbers.
3. Collateral Damage: Generally, the accidental killing of civilians during military strikes. Sometimes caused by smart bombs.
2. Humanitarian Intervention: Almost all US military action in other countries is now “humanitarian intervention.” If a civilian population must be pacified in the process, it is for their own good.
1. The USA PATRIOT Act: The classic Orwellism of the Bush era. Stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. When the Congress passed it (without reading it and with only Russ Feingold objecting in the Senate) in 2001, I had a student in class ask the perfect question: “who thinks up this crap?”
Thousands of other terms and phrases could have been listed along with the greatest hits mentioned above. What the ten have in common, however, is their largely uncritical use in the mainstream media. Big media have always been steady accomplices to the military-industrial-complex assault on language.
In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote that “in our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” The same hold true today, probably and unfortunately much more so. For assistance in deciphering our Orwellian media, go to the Center for Media and Democracy’s Source Watch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Mayor Ousts Head Of Transit Panel Who Opposed Him
The mayor in question is not Paul Esslinger. Rather, it's Madison's Dave Cieslewicz. Story here. Apparently the Madison Common Council recently created a 12-year limit for service on committees. I have mixed feelings about that: if there are a shortage of applicants, it hardly makes sense to term-limit someone who does want to continue serving.
In Oshkosh, one of the duties of the mayor is "to appoint, subject to Council approval, members to the various Boards and Commissions within the city." Individual councilors who disapprove of a mayor's appointments should simply vote no.
I don't have the time to do the research, but it would be interesting to do a historical study of the applicants in Oshkosh who never made it to a Board or Commission while others were continually reappointed. One example is Dr. Michael Burayidi, a nationally recognized urban planning scholar who never made it on to the Plan Commission. Michael is leaving UW Oshkosh at end of this semester, so it's now an academic issue as regards his case.
All of Esslinger's suggested appointments can be found here.
In Oshkosh, one of the duties of the mayor is "to appoint, subject to Council approval, members to the various Boards and Commissions within the city." Individual councilors who disapprove of a mayor's appointments should simply vote no.
I don't have the time to do the research, but it would be interesting to do a historical study of the applicants in Oshkosh who never made it to a Board or Commission while others were continually reappointed. One example is Dr. Michael Burayidi, a nationally recognized urban planning scholar who never made it on to the Plan Commission. Michael is leaving UW Oshkosh at end of this semester, so it's now an academic issue as regards his case.
All of Esslinger's suggested appointments can be found here.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
E-Mail To School Board
I just emailed the following to the School Board:
Dear Board of Education:
I read in the paper today about the idea to suspend your salaries during these tough budget times. For what it's worth, I don't think that's a very good idea. All of you obviously work hard and take your responsibilities very seriously; as a voter and taxpayer I do not expect that elected officials work for free (though if someone wants to return their compensation to the District that is certainly fine.).
Last year I voted against raises for the Common Council and Mayor. I thought raising our compensation in a difficult budget year sent out the wrong message. However, I would NOT have supported a proposal to suspend compensation. Such a move would make for good theatre, but would probably deter possible candidates from running for office and would be perceived by some (correctly I think) as a substitute for making more difficult budget cuts.
Thank you for your service to the citizens of the District.
Sincerely,
Tony Palmeri
Oshkosh Common Council
Dear Board of Education:
I read in the paper today about the idea to suspend your salaries during these tough budget times. For what it's worth, I don't think that's a very good idea. All of you obviously work hard and take your responsibilities very seriously; as a voter and taxpayer I do not expect that elected officials work for free (though if someone wants to return their compensation to the District that is certainly fine.).
Last year I voted against raises for the Common Council and Mayor. I thought raising our compensation in a difficult budget year sent out the wrong message. However, I would NOT have supported a proposal to suspend compensation. Such a move would make for good theatre, but would probably deter possible candidates from running for office and would be perceived by some (correctly I think) as a substitute for making more difficult budget cuts.
Thank you for your service to the citizens of the District.
Sincerely,
Tony Palmeri
Oshkosh Common Council
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Single Payer Advocates Arrested
With the United States in dire need of a single-payer health care system, and with Democrats controlling both branches of Congress and the White House, you'd think the prospects for change would be great. But the Congress' and Obama Administration's unwillingness to stand up to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will result in, at best, sham reform. Obama and the Democratic majority need to get behind Rep. Conyers and Rep. Kucinich's HR 676, the only health care bill in Congress that will truly cover all and cut costs.
The video below shows how--as of now--the Democratic majority will not even allow single-payer advocates a seat at the table. Shameful.
The video below shows how--as of now--the Democratic majority will not even allow single-payer advocates a seat at the table. Shameful.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Eye on the Bailout
ProPublica has an outstanding archive of federal government bailout expenditures. It's quite shocking. (Though "obscene" might be a more accurate descriptor.).
Meanwhile, Wisconsin's in bad need of a bailout.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin's in bad need of a bailout.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
A Free Press Infrastructure Project
The May Media Rants column summarizes Bob McChesney and John Nichols' proposal to save American Journalism. Here it is:
A Free Press Infrastructure Project
Media Rants
By
Tony Palmeri
President Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” allocates over $80 billion to creating what he calls a “21st century infrastructure.” The money will be used mostly to repair crumbling roads and bridges, invest in rail and other transportation initiatives, increase support for public housing projects, and clean up our environment. With hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money already wasted on Wall St. bailouts, Obama deserves credit for channeling some support down to Main St.
But if the president truly wants a 21st century infrastructure, he’ll have to broaden his scope. The nation’s information infrastructure, especially newspapers, appears ready to go the route of Minneapolis’ late Mississippi River Bridge: Complete Collapse. Democracy’s cracked foundation, a critical footing of which is a free press, desperately needs rebuilding.
Obama and a bipartisan majority in Congress argue that federal government intervention is necessary and appropriate to rescue banks and build roads. Does it then follow that similar assistance ought to go toward saving American journalism?
Bob McChesney and John Nichols (MN) think so. Founders of the media reform outfit Free Press and authors of numerous works on media, MN will in the fall release a new book called Saving Journalism: The Soul of Democracy (New Press). MN summarize the book’s key concerns and proposals in the March 18, 2009 edition of The Nation Magazine (in an essay called “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers”).
The kind of government assistance for journalism advocated by MN does NOT include bailouts for corporate media giants akin to what Congress did for the banks. Nor do they support loosening regulatory rules to allow for easier consolidation. Indeed, corporate media’s addiction to the Wall St. model, more than any other single factor, created today’s journalism crisis.
MN instead argue for government intervention to save American journalism that would lead the way toward guaranteeing the survival of quality, independent, hard-hitting newspapers in every city, town, village, and hamlet in America. You know, the kind of publication vital for democracy, yet largely dismantled by a corporate press willing to sacrifice civic and citizenship values for the profit values of shock and schlock.
MN outline four major parts of a “journalism economic stimulus, to be revisited after three years,” and which they estimate would cost $60 billion. They are:
1. Eliminate postal rates for periodicals that garner less than 20 percent of their revenues from advertising. High postal rates deter small publications, yet MN argue correctly that “it is these publications that often do investigative, cutting-edge, politically provocative journalism.” In 2007 a coalition of small magazines from the political left to right banded together to fight postal rate increases. With all other costs associated with publishing on the rise, for small publications the elimination of postal rates is needed literally in order to survive. Such a policy might have the added benefit of allowing independent papers like The Scene to expand their reach.
2. Give all Americans an annual tax credit for the first $200 they spend on daily newspapers. This would help halt the trend of daily newspapers going to online only formats or ceasing publication altogether. In return for the tax credit policy, “The newspapers would have to publish at least five times per week and maintain a substantial ‘news hole,’ say at least twenty-four broad pages each day, with less than 50 percent advertising.” Legitimate concerns could be raised about the potential for such a policy to induce self-censorship if, for example, newsroom personnel felt that a tough editorial stance on a particular issue might jeopardize the continuation of the tax credit. On the other hand, after Rod Blagojevich it’s hard to imagine an elected official being stupid enough to threaten to take away a paper’s subsidy because of editorial criticism.
3. Have the government allocate funds so every middle school, high school and college has a well-funded student newspaper and a low-power FM radio station, all of them with substantial websites. Probably the most important of all the proposals. According to MN, “We need to get young people accustomed to producing journalism and to appreciating what differentiates good journalism from the other stuff.” It’s no exaggeration to say that producing critical young journalists is essential not only to media survival, but to the survival of democratic processes.
4. Expansion of funding for public and community broadcasting, with the requirement that most of the funds be used for journalism, especially at the local level, and that all programming be available for free online. Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States spends a pittance on public and community broadcasting. Consequently, those nations produce “dramatically more detailed and incisive international reporting, as well as programming to serve young people, women, linguistic and ethnic minorities and regions that might otherwise be neglected by for-profit media.” Continuing to ignore and underfund community broadcasting in an age of mainstream media sensationalism is misguided and irresponsible.
McChesney and Nichols argue that their plan should be thought of as a “free press ‘infrastructure project’ that is necessary to maintain an informed citizenry, and democracy itself.” What’s appealing about their plan is that it seeks to rescue journalism, not media corporations. For more information, visit http://www.freepress.net/.
A Free Press Infrastructure Project
Media Rants
By
Tony Palmeri
President Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” allocates over $80 billion to creating what he calls a “21st century infrastructure.” The money will be used mostly to repair crumbling roads and bridges, invest in rail and other transportation initiatives, increase support for public housing projects, and clean up our environment. With hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money already wasted on Wall St. bailouts, Obama deserves credit for channeling some support down to Main St.
But if the president truly wants a 21st century infrastructure, he’ll have to broaden his scope. The nation’s information infrastructure, especially newspapers, appears ready to go the route of Minneapolis’ late Mississippi River Bridge: Complete Collapse. Democracy’s cracked foundation, a critical footing of which is a free press, desperately needs rebuilding.
Obama and a bipartisan majority in Congress argue that federal government intervention is necessary and appropriate to rescue banks and build roads. Does it then follow that similar assistance ought to go toward saving American journalism?
Bob McChesney and John Nichols (MN) think so. Founders of the media reform outfit Free Press and authors of numerous works on media, MN will in the fall release a new book called Saving Journalism: The Soul of Democracy (New Press). MN summarize the book’s key concerns and proposals in the March 18, 2009 edition of The Nation Magazine (in an essay called “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers”).
The kind of government assistance for journalism advocated by MN does NOT include bailouts for corporate media giants akin to what Congress did for the banks. Nor do they support loosening regulatory rules to allow for easier consolidation. Indeed, corporate media’s addiction to the Wall St. model, more than any other single factor, created today’s journalism crisis.
MN instead argue for government intervention to save American journalism that would lead the way toward guaranteeing the survival of quality, independent, hard-hitting newspapers in every city, town, village, and hamlet in America. You know, the kind of publication vital for democracy, yet largely dismantled by a corporate press willing to sacrifice civic and citizenship values for the profit values of shock and schlock.
MN outline four major parts of a “journalism economic stimulus, to be revisited after three years,” and which they estimate would cost $60 billion. They are:
1. Eliminate postal rates for periodicals that garner less than 20 percent of their revenues from advertising. High postal rates deter small publications, yet MN argue correctly that “it is these publications that often do investigative, cutting-edge, politically provocative journalism.” In 2007 a coalition of small magazines from the political left to right banded together to fight postal rate increases. With all other costs associated with publishing on the rise, for small publications the elimination of postal rates is needed literally in order to survive. Such a policy might have the added benefit of allowing independent papers like The Scene to expand their reach.
2. Give all Americans an annual tax credit for the first $200 they spend on daily newspapers. This would help halt the trend of daily newspapers going to online only formats or ceasing publication altogether. In return for the tax credit policy, “The newspapers would have to publish at least five times per week and maintain a substantial ‘news hole,’ say at least twenty-four broad pages each day, with less than 50 percent advertising.” Legitimate concerns could be raised about the potential for such a policy to induce self-censorship if, for example, newsroom personnel felt that a tough editorial stance on a particular issue might jeopardize the continuation of the tax credit. On the other hand, after Rod Blagojevich it’s hard to imagine an elected official being stupid enough to threaten to take away a paper’s subsidy because of editorial criticism.
3. Have the government allocate funds so every middle school, high school and college has a well-funded student newspaper and a low-power FM radio station, all of them with substantial websites. Probably the most important of all the proposals. According to MN, “We need to get young people accustomed to producing journalism and to appreciating what differentiates good journalism from the other stuff.” It’s no exaggeration to say that producing critical young journalists is essential not only to media survival, but to the survival of democratic processes.
4. Expansion of funding for public and community broadcasting, with the requirement that most of the funds be used for journalism, especially at the local level, and that all programming be available for free online. Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States spends a pittance on public and community broadcasting. Consequently, those nations produce “dramatically more detailed and incisive international reporting, as well as programming to serve young people, women, linguistic and ethnic minorities and regions that might otherwise be neglected by for-profit media.” Continuing to ignore and underfund community broadcasting in an age of mainstream media sensationalism is misguided and irresponsible.
McChesney and Nichols argue that their plan should be thought of as a “free press ‘infrastructure project’ that is necessary to maintain an informed citizenry, and democracy itself.” What’s appealing about their plan is that it seeks to rescue journalism, not media corporations. For more information, visit http://www.freepress.net/.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Eau Claire Process For Filling Council Vacancy
A vacancy exists on the city of Eau Claire Common Council due to a situation very similar to Oshkosh. In April, at-large council member Kerry Kincaid was elected Council President (the equivalent of our Mayor). That left a vacancy in the at-large seat held by Kincaid. The election runner-up, Scott Gunem, will not be automatically appointed to the seat (see his response to a previous post on this blog). Instead, the city council will accept applications to fill the vacancy. Below is a copy of the resolution/process approved by the Eau Claire common council on April 28th. Ms. Kincaid told me that a similar process was used 4 years ago when a seat became vacant. The process is also similar to what Appleton, LaCrosse, and other cities in the state have used.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCESS TO FILL AN EXISTING VACANCY ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists in one of the at-large positions of the Eau Claire City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to appoint someone to fill this position in a timely manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eau Claire, that the City Council does hereby approve the process as outlined on the attached page to be followed to fill the position of at-large representative on the City Council.
Adopted
April 28, 2009
Suggested Process to Fill At-large vacancy on City Council
Term:
*From date of appointment to April 2010.
Requirements:
*18 years of age
*U.S. Citizen
*Resident of the City
*Qualified to register to vote
Process:
*Council approves process.
*Advertisement placed on city website.
*Advertisement placed in Leader Telegram on Saturday, May 2 & Sunday, May 3.
*Advertisement will be forwarded to Community Television to run on the government channel.
*A news release will be sent to the local media.
*Interested citizens submit letter of interest / application to City Clerk by 10:00 am on Friday, May 8.
Letters should include
*applicant’s name and address
*telephone number or method of contact
*brief statement, not exceeding one page, explaining why they wish to be appointed.
*Letters may be sent via the U. S. Postal Service OR e-mail:
USPS address:
Eau Claire City Clerk
203 S. Farwell St
Eau Claire WI 54701
E-mail address:
donna.austad@eauclairewi.gov
*Letters must be received by 10:00 am on Friday, May 8.
*Applicant information forwarded to City Council members with packets the afternoon of Friday, May 8
Consideration of appointment
*Applicants make brief presentation to Council on Monday, May 11.
*Selection procedure for Tuesday, May 12.
*Selection made by open – public ballot – show of hands. OR
*Council members will be given prepared ballot with applicants’ names. Council members will vote and sign their names to the ballots. Ballots will be collected and the votes read aloud and tallied.
*Successful applicant must receive a majority vote of ‘all members’ – six votes required.
*If there are more than two applicants, a first ballot will be taken. If no one receives a majority (six votes), all but the top two leading candidates are dropped and a second vote will be taken on the two remaining candidates.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A Specter Is Haunting The Democratic Party
One of the themes dominating media coverage of Senator Arlen Specter's decision to leave the Republican Party is that the GOP has become hostile to so-called "moderates." Apparently there's no room in the Republican Party for someone who is pro-choice on abortion, supports the Obama stimulus bill, and wants to see embryonic stem-cell research expanded.
More troubling than what there isn't room for in the Republican Party, from where I sit, is what there IS room for in the Democratic Party. Specter's relatively liberal voting record on social issues and Amtrak funding are all well and good, but this is a guy who recently referred to calls for an independent commission of inquiry to look into Bush-era abuses of civil liberties as "something they do in Latin America in banana republics." He was a strong supporter of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, along with the Iraq War authorization. He has not flat-out rejected the Employee Free Choice Act (legislation that will make it easier to unionize), but like other "independent" Democrats will probably only support a watered down version.
And while President Obama is supposedly all about ethics and transparency in government, he's not too concerned about the fact that Specter failed to recuse himself in the vote on the bank bailout even though his wife directs a company that benefited to the tune of over $45 million from the bill. (In addition, as reported by Politico, Specter secured $65 million in federal funding for an organization that hired his wife shortly after the funding came through.).
The late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who belonged to the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party, once told other Dems that "If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." If you're a PA Democrat, in 2010 the choice of a Conservative Republican vs. the Democrat Specter reprents a kind of lesser-evilism gone wild. Not only is Specter not a Wellstone, but he may not even be a Herb Kohl.
Specter wanted out of the Republican Party because polls showed that he couldn't win the PA Republican primary and he was concerned with the Party's shift to the Right. He should have added something else: he could feel comfortable caucusing with the Dems because they too have shifted to the Right.
More troubling than what there isn't room for in the Republican Party, from where I sit, is what there IS room for in the Democratic Party. Specter's relatively liberal voting record on social issues and Amtrak funding are all well and good, but this is a guy who recently referred to calls for an independent commission of inquiry to look into Bush-era abuses of civil liberties as "something they do in Latin America in banana republics." He was a strong supporter of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, along with the Iraq War authorization. He has not flat-out rejected the Employee Free Choice Act (legislation that will make it easier to unionize), but like other "independent" Democrats will probably only support a watered down version.
And while President Obama is supposedly all about ethics and transparency in government, he's not too concerned about the fact that Specter failed to recuse himself in the vote on the bank bailout even though his wife directs a company that benefited to the tune of over $45 million from the bill. (In addition, as reported by Politico, Specter secured $65 million in federal funding for an organization that hired his wife shortly after the funding came through.).
The late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who belonged to the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party, once told other Dems that "If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." If you're a PA Democrat, in 2010 the choice of a Conservative Republican vs. the Democrat Specter reprents a kind of lesser-evilism gone wild. Not only is Specter not a Wellstone, but he may not even be a Herb Kohl.
Specter wanted out of the Republican Party because polls showed that he couldn't win the PA Republican primary and he was concerned with the Party's shift to the Right. He should have added something else: he could feel comfortable caucusing with the Dems because they too have shifted to the Right.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
"Planned Shrinkage" in Flint
No, not that kind of shrinkage, but this story in yesterday's NYT does seem to have a Seinfeldian element. Seems like a domestic variation on the old "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" theme from the Vietnam era.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Palmeri on Week in Review Tomorrow
I will be the Left Guy opposite former Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow on the Right during tomorrow's WPR Week in Review with Joy Cardin. Farrow is now Chair of the Wisconsin Eye Broadcast Network. The program airs from 8-9 a.m. You can call in at 1-800-642-1234 or email talk@wpr.org.
I'm not sure if it will come up during the discussion, but President Obama this week announced some slight changes in US policy toward Cuba. I think he ought to listen to Republican Senator Dick Lugar, who make a hell of a lot of sense on the topic.
I'm not sure if it will come up during the discussion, but President Obama this week announced some slight changes in US policy toward Cuba. I think he ought to listen to Republican Senator Dick Lugar, who make a hell of a lot of sense on the topic.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Filling Vacant Council Seats and Precedent
UW Oshkosh Professor of Economics and former two-term Oshkosh Common Councilor Kevin McGee today writes that the Common Council should appoint Steve Cummings to fill the seat vacated by Paul Esslinger. Says Dr. McGee: "It's the right thing to set this precedent – that when an opening appears, you appoint the voters' next top choice to fill it."
As I see it, the strongest reason for appointing an election runner-up is that it's easy and quick. Even though Mr. Cummings finished almost 600 votes behind third place winner Bob Poeschl (and only 24 ahead of fifth-place finisher John Hinz), appointing him to the Council would mean much less work for the Council, and even allow us to avoid what will be an avalanche of condemnation from Steve's endorsers on the Oshkosh Northwestern editorial board.
But would it be right, as McGee says, to set this precedent? I'm not sure. Would we really want to establish the principle that when a vacancy exists it should be filled by the next runner-up? Runners-up are runners-up for a reason: the voters said "we do not want this person in this office at this time." Yes, Steve Cummings is a competent person. He raised more money than any other council candidate, and received the endorsements of the realtors association and the Oshkosh Northwestern. His 4,136 votes represents 36.7 percent of the 11,267 total votes cast (compared to 36.5 percent for John Hinz--who raised less than $1,000 and did not receive the same endorsements.).
But one can easily imagine a scenario in which a runner-up seems not at all competent. Every Oshkosh voter can imagine some of those candidates. Yet by the McGee principle, a council would have to appoint him or her anyway. I'm not sure that's a wise path to follow. The city council would easily open itself up to charges of discrimination and double standards if it did not automatically appoint the runner-up. Can you imagine the editorial gymnastics the Northwestern would have to engage in to justify why a runner-up they don't like shouldn't automatically fill a vacancy? It would be embarrassing.
How have other cities dealt with vacancies? I have not had enough time to do enough research on this, but here are some examples I've come across:
*In Appleton, councilor Walter Kalata's death in late 2007 created a vacacy. Jason Schmitz had run against Kalata twice (in 2005 and 2007), yet that by itself did not entitle him to fill the vacancy. Instead, 5 persons interested in filling the position (including Schmitz) submitted letters of interest. Here's the process that was used:
Mayor Hanna advised this meeting was called to appoint a successor to fill the vacancy in District 1.
Discussion was held on the candidate presentation and the voting process to be held:
1) Each candidate will be allowed a 3 minute presentation
2) Candidates picked numbers to determine the order of the presentations.
3) After the presentation, ballots will be passed out. Eight votes will be needed to confirm the appointment. If no candidate receives 8 votes, the candidate with the lowest votes will be eliminated and another ballot will be cast.
Using that process, Rebecca Baron (not runner-up Schmitz) filled the seat.
*In Wauwatosa, alderman Craig Maher recently resigned his seat. Acquanitta Harris-Patterson, the runner-up against Maher in the election, said she should be appointed to fill his seat for that reason. The Council told her she should submit an application. (Wauwatosa apparently fills vacancies by asking interested persons to apply to a selection committee, which then makes a recommendation to the Council. I believe they have talked about changing the process, but automatically appointing runners-up is not one of the options on the table.).
*In LaCrosse, a vacancy was created when Council President Joe Ledvina resigned. According to the city of LaCrosse website: "City Council will vote by majority to appoint a representative to fill the now vacant seat until the 2009 spring election. To arrive at this end, the Council President will direct the City Clerk to advertise the available position, take applications for it, and then submit to the current 16 members of the City Council."
*Green Bay has a written policy on filling council vacancies. Here's what it says:
1.06 VACANCIES. (1) ALDERMEN. (Amd. GO 40-03) Pursuant to the terms and conditions of Sec. 17.23, Wis. Stats., in the event of an aldermanic vacancy, the City Clerk shall, within 14 days of a vacancy, advertise for and solicit applications from individuals to fill the vacant position. In addition to the application, an applicant must submit the signatures of 20 qualified electors from within the vacant district supporting the candidacy of the applicant. Applicants must submit applications and signatures to the City Clerk within 30 days of the initial advertisement of vacancy. Thereafter, at the next regular meeting of the Common Council, all qualified applicants shall be allowed time to make a presentation regarding their qualifications to the Council. The Common Council shall then, by majority vote, decide who will fill the vacancy. (2) APPOINTED OFFICIALS. Vacancies in appointed offices shall be filled as provided in Sec. 17.23, Wis. Stats.
I suspect the process used in Appleton and Green Bay is probably typical around the state and nation. If the Oshkosh Common Council were to solicit letters of interest to fill Mr. Esslinger's vacant seat, it would hardly be unusual.
As I see it, the strongest reason for appointing an election runner-up is that it's easy and quick. Even though Mr. Cummings finished almost 600 votes behind third place winner Bob Poeschl (and only 24 ahead of fifth-place finisher John Hinz), appointing him to the Council would mean much less work for the Council, and even allow us to avoid what will be an avalanche of condemnation from Steve's endorsers on the Oshkosh Northwestern editorial board.
But would it be right, as McGee says, to set this precedent? I'm not sure. Would we really want to establish the principle that when a vacancy exists it should be filled by the next runner-up? Runners-up are runners-up for a reason: the voters said "we do not want this person in this office at this time." Yes, Steve Cummings is a competent person. He raised more money than any other council candidate, and received the endorsements of the realtors association and the Oshkosh Northwestern. His 4,136 votes represents 36.7 percent of the 11,267 total votes cast (compared to 36.5 percent for John Hinz--who raised less than $1,000 and did not receive the same endorsements.).
But one can easily imagine a scenario in which a runner-up seems not at all competent. Every Oshkosh voter can imagine some of those candidates. Yet by the McGee principle, a council would have to appoint him or her anyway. I'm not sure that's a wise path to follow. The city council would easily open itself up to charges of discrimination and double standards if it did not automatically appoint the runner-up. Can you imagine the editorial gymnastics the Northwestern would have to engage in to justify why a runner-up they don't like shouldn't automatically fill a vacancy? It would be embarrassing.
How have other cities dealt with vacancies? I have not had enough time to do enough research on this, but here are some examples I've come across:
*In Appleton, councilor Walter Kalata's death in late 2007 created a vacacy. Jason Schmitz had run against Kalata twice (in 2005 and 2007), yet that by itself did not entitle him to fill the vacancy. Instead, 5 persons interested in filling the position (including Schmitz) submitted letters of interest. Here's the process that was used:
Mayor Hanna advised this meeting was called to appoint a successor to fill the vacancy in District 1.
Discussion was held on the candidate presentation and the voting process to be held:
1) Each candidate will be allowed a 3 minute presentation
2) Candidates picked numbers to determine the order of the presentations.
3) After the presentation, ballots will be passed out. Eight votes will be needed to confirm the appointment. If no candidate receives 8 votes, the candidate with the lowest votes will be eliminated and another ballot will be cast.
Using that process, Rebecca Baron (not runner-up Schmitz) filled the seat.
*In Wauwatosa, alderman Craig Maher recently resigned his seat. Acquanitta Harris-Patterson, the runner-up against Maher in the election, said she should be appointed to fill his seat for that reason. The Council told her she should submit an application. (Wauwatosa apparently fills vacancies by asking interested persons to apply to a selection committee, which then makes a recommendation to the Council. I believe they have talked about changing the process, but automatically appointing runners-up is not one of the options on the table.).
*In LaCrosse, a vacancy was created when Council President Joe Ledvina resigned. According to the city of LaCrosse website: "City Council will vote by majority to appoint a representative to fill the now vacant seat until the 2009 spring election. To arrive at this end, the Council President will direct the City Clerk to advertise the available position, take applications for it, and then submit to the current 16 members of the City Council."
*Green Bay has a written policy on filling council vacancies. Here's what it says:
1.06 VACANCIES. (1) ALDERMEN. (Amd. GO 40-03) Pursuant to the terms and conditions of Sec. 17.23, Wis. Stats., in the event of an aldermanic vacancy, the City Clerk shall, within 14 days of a vacancy, advertise for and solicit applications from individuals to fill the vacant position. In addition to the application, an applicant must submit the signatures of 20 qualified electors from within the vacant district supporting the candidacy of the applicant. Applicants must submit applications and signatures to the City Clerk within 30 days of the initial advertisement of vacancy. Thereafter, at the next regular meeting of the Common Council, all qualified applicants shall be allowed time to make a presentation regarding their qualifications to the Council. The Common Council shall then, by majority vote, decide who will fill the vacancy. (2) APPOINTED OFFICIALS. Vacancies in appointed offices shall be filled as provided in Sec. 17.23, Wis. Stats.
I suspect the process used in Appleton and Green Bay is probably typical around the state and nation. If the Oshkosh Common Council were to solicit letters of interest to fill Mr. Esslinger's vacant seat, it would hardly be unusual.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Thank You
A sincere thank you to Oshkosh voters for reelecting me to the city council. With a struggling economy, growing unemployment, an aging infrastructure, and a tight budget, the new council certainly has its work cut out.
Thanks again!
You can find all local election results here.
Thanks again!
You can find all local election results here.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Friday, April 03, 2009
First Amendment Victory
Remember Ward Churchill? He's the former University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor fired in 2007 for alleged faulty scholarship. Churchill's work became the subject of investigation after an essay he'd written shortly after the 9/11 attacks came into the focus of right wing media and opportunistic politicians. In 2005 even the courageous (yeah, right) Wisconsin Assembly passed a resolution condemning Churchill.
A University of Colorado committee did find some errors in the thousands of pages of Churchill's writings, but the entire process was so clearly in retaliation for his 9/11 essay that in 2007 I referred to that process as "academia at its worst." Yesterday a Denver jury ruled unanimously that Churchill's termination from UC was in retaliation for the essay. Though the jury refused to award damages, the judge in a separate hearing will determine whether Churchill should be reinstated or paid a lump sum. UC will also have to pay his legal fees.
There is no disagreement that universities should have policies in place that assess scholarship rigorously and hold accountable those professors who fabricate, distort, or engage in other unethical practices. But attorneys for UC were not able to show to the satisfaction of the jury that the investigation of Churchill was fair or would have taken place at all were it not for his controversial 9/11 essay. If the errors in Churchill's scholarly writings were as egregious as the UC's attorney claimed, then he should never have received tenure in the first place.
Churchill's 9/11 essay, especially its analogy of World Trade Center employees with Adolph Eichmann, offended many. But offensive political speech is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment is designed to protect. If the First Amendment only protects speech that bothers no one, then we really don't need a First Amendment.
A University of Colorado committee did find some errors in the thousands of pages of Churchill's writings, but the entire process was so clearly in retaliation for his 9/11 essay that in 2007 I referred to that process as "academia at its worst." Yesterday a Denver jury ruled unanimously that Churchill's termination from UC was in retaliation for the essay. Though the jury refused to award damages, the judge in a separate hearing will determine whether Churchill should be reinstated or paid a lump sum. UC will also have to pay his legal fees.
There is no disagreement that universities should have policies in place that assess scholarship rigorously and hold accountable those professors who fabricate, distort, or engage in other unethical practices. But attorneys for UC were not able to show to the satisfaction of the jury that the investigation of Churchill was fair or would have taken place at all were it not for his controversial 9/11 essay. If the errors in Churchill's scholarly writings were as egregious as the UC's attorney claimed, then he should never have received tenure in the first place.
Churchill's 9/11 essay, especially its analogy of World Trade Center employees with Adolph Eichmann, offended many. But offensive political speech is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment is designed to protect. If the First Amendment only protects speech that bothers no one, then we really don't need a First Amendment.
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)