ObamaCare: Bad Press, Bad Policy, Bad Politics

The September Media Rant for the Scene takes a look at ObamaCare. Here it is.:

ObamaCare: Bad Press, Bad Policy, Bad Politics

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

Make no mistake: corporate media coverage of healthcare reform ranges from shallow to shameful. Need examples? How about the treatment of the proudly witless Sarah Palin as a serious critic of reform proposals? Or reporting on town hall chaos with a journalistic curiosity that has more in common with World Wrestling Entertainment than the late Mr. Cronkite? Or the sickening way in which mainstream media minimize or flat out ignore the fact that health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies have literally bought the key congressional committees charged with enacting reform legislation?

Let’s x-ray that lobbying point for a moment. Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), chair of the all powerful Senate Finance Committee, according to the Center For Responsive Politics raised $3 million from the insurance and health sectors from 2003-2008. The National Journal reported that protesters outside Baucus 10th annual “Camp Baucus” three day dude ranch fundraiser held up signs saying “Buy Back Baucus.” Most heavy Congressional hitters in the healthcare debate could and should face similar protests. Why is that not a repeated front page story or editorial topic?

And why do mainstream talking heads refuse to provide clear explanations of health reform proposals under Congressional consideration? As I write in mid-August, five different proposals circulate in the House and Senate, yet if you relied exclusively on corporate media for news, you’d know little to nothing about each. What you would know about are the bogus “death panels,” a product of Palinesque wingnut distortion and demagoguery. Maybe you’d know that the “blue dog” (i.e. corporate) Democrats, who never met an insurance or pharmaceutical company they couldn’t play lapdog for, somehow represent “moderation” on healthcare. You’d certainly know that congresspersons accustomed to spewing unfettered propaganda at town hall meetings are now getting shouted down by opponents from right to left. But would you know about the content of any plans, especially HR 676 (the single-payer option)? Methinks not.

But as bad as the media (non)coverage of health care reform has been, President Obama’s major problem isn’t bad press. Rather, he’s chosen to get behind a very bad policy prescription for healthcare reform. Similar to President Clinton’s failed approach to reform in 1993, Obama starts with the presumption that a single-payer, truly national health insurance plan just isn’t possible in the United States. No, we just can’t have Medicare For All. Instead we need a “uniquely American” solution to healthcare; code for “reform legislation written by and for the private insurance lobby.”

The President doesn’t even talk about healthcare reform anymore. Rather, he argues for health “insurance” reform, a linguistic shift that’s part and parcel of what progressive journalist Norman Solomon calls “the incredible shrinking healthcare reform.” Instead of guaranteed access to healthcare for all Americans, Obama appears to be leaning toward a national model of Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts nightmare: force everyone to purchase health insurance, with subsidies in place to help the poor buy into an inferior “public option.”

Some believe Obama’s a pragmatic politician who understands that even a weak public option would establish some competition for the private insurance companies and lead to their eventual demise. But as of mid-August, it’s become clear that Obama won’t even fight for the meager public option. Somewhat disgustingly, he’s begun to employ a Clintonesque “triangulation” to justify abandoning the public option. Triangulation is a rhetorical strategy of framing the Left and Right as loonies so as to make policies hostile to Main St. but friendly to Wall St. sound “centrist” or “moderate.” Here’s what the president told a Colorado audience: "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else."

I suppose it’s not surprising that Obama won’t fight for real healthcare reform. In our corrupt political establishment, by the time a Democrat or Republican gets to be a serious presidential contender, he or she has sold out so many times that when they assume office we are left having to pray for the best but always be ready for the worst. Obama still strikes huge numbers of Americans as something different; as a person who actually experiences pangs of conscience that might make him stand up and struggle for socially just policies in the letter and spirit of his heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr.

I’ve got to believe that somewhere in his being Barack Obama knows that HR 676 (the Medicare For All bill) is the most moral, most workable, and the most cost effective proposal on the table. His handlers probably think it’s just bad politics. But is it? Listening to public radio today, I heard an Obama voter named Paul talk about his disenchantment with the president’s healthcare plan. Said Paul, “I need something to fight for. Mr. Obama, God bless his soul, he needs to give us something that’s solid.”

Paul’s touching on the right prescription: we need a solid presidential proposal, an engaged populace, and a responsible media. Go to www.hr676.org/ to help support the movement for real reform.

Grand Efforts

The outcome of last night's vote to use tax dollars to repair the Grand Opera House was never in any serious doubt. The difficulty was in trying to forge a true public-private partnership to fix the facility in the face of a self-interested corporate media bent on preventing any meaningful discussion from taking place. Councilors Tower and Esslinger deserve much credit for challenging the private sector to come forward at a time when the city is in a budget bind that's only going to get more difficult in the coming years. Tower and Esslinger's leadership provoked me to issue the "walk the walk" call and investigate how the ownership/operation model in place might actually be hurting the Grand. The project will still be largely funded by city of Oshkosh taxpayers, but we did manage to get some meaningful participation from others:

*A $250,000 pledge from the Grand Opera House Foundation.
*The "Raise A Grand For The Grand" campaign launched by Jon Doemel of Glass Nickel Pizza.
*A donation will be forthcoming from the Business Improvement District (BID).
*Winnebago County might donate $30,000 (not close to the millions for the UW Fox Communication Arts Center, but given that the county is as strapped financially as the city, at least it's something.).

Additionally, we have a commitment from Grand Executive Director Joe Ferlo and Opera House Foundation Chair Jim Macy to participate in discussions of alternative ownership models of the Grand. That's a long overdue discussion that is now unavoidable because of a budget situation that will become more and more challenging in the next few years.

Finally, Joe Ferlo is committed to providing as much low cost/free entertainment options as possible when the facility reopens. He understands that the owners of the building (i.e. taxpayers) ought not be priced out of quality entertainment.

In my remarks at the meeting I tried to argue that our votes to expend money do not occur in a vacuum; the city has real, unmet needs (e.g. poverty, unemployment, etc.) that NEVER achieve the level of urgency from local government (and the local press) that the Grand has. After the meeting I received the following email from a local fire fighter. I think it represents the true Grand Effort:

Mr. Palmeri,

I am one of the Firefighters that cover the south side of the city, from the Airport firehouse. We always watch the council meetings and I wanted to comment on your statements about your vote on the Grand. I thought your comments were very powerful, correct and the timing was ironic, as I will explain.

During the meeting we watched as many lined up and spoke, which was great to see. As we were watching the meeting, we received a call for service in the 400 block of 18th Ave. It was for a woman in her 70’s who had lost her husband last year, living with her disabled son and just trying to make ends meet. She was having an emotional break down, as she held a rummage sale today and did not sell enough to make her mortgage payment. Today as well, her car broke down and she didn’t have any money to fix it and that was all she could take. We held her hand as she cried and she started to feel better knowing that someone cared to listen about her problems.

Obviously we couldn’t make her problems go away. But I can tell you that I took great pride in knowing that during these very difficult economic times, when she called the City of Oshkosh for help, within four minutes we were walking in her front door. I also took great pride in knowing that it was not just me and my crew, but it was the City of Oshkosh and her tax dollars at work, holding her hand as she cried and carried her to the ambulance to get some help for her. I also noticed that she did not have the council meeting on in her living room and she even commented that she couldn’t afford cable, which makes your comments hit home even more. It broke my heart to see this.

Unfortunately, we are seeing this more often and our calls for service are climbing and yes there are people actually living on our streets without homes.

Keep up your good work and I do think you are doing the best that you can in these tough times.

You would also be proud to know, that one of our guys went to where her car was broke down and helped get it going.

Thank you for your time.

Taxpayer Support For The Grand

Quite a few people have contacted me in the last few weeks to tell me (in some cases yell) that "the Grand only gets about $65,000 a year in taxpayer dollars." For anyone still interested in looking at this issue seriously, here are the facts:

*Since 1983, the city's Capital Improvement Budget has allocated $1,515,820 to the Grand. That includes $1,045,000 during the restoration years (1983-1986).

*In 1997 the city began levying for the Grand as a separate line item in the Operations Budget for facilities and maintenance. Since that time, the Grand has received $742,178 in Operations Budget funds.

*In 1986 the Grand started to receive funds from the Hotel/Motel Room Tax. In fact the Grand Opera House Foundation and the Oshkosh Convention and Visitors Bureau are the only two non-city entities expressly designated in the city's municipal codes as tax recipients (see section 8-1.1(1)(B)(1)(c)). The Grand Opera House Foundation has received $2,014,329 in hotel/motel tax revenue.

So the grand total of taxpayer contribution to the Grand since 1983 has been $4,272,327. That's an average of about $158,000 per year.

None of this is an argument for or against taxpayer support for the truss repairs. On the other hand, the suggestion in some corners that taxpayer assistance to the facility has been insignificant compared to private sponsors is simply not accurate. Taxpayer support has been significant, annual (since 1985), and more than generous given the realities of the city budget and unmet needs of many of our neighborhoods.

Private donors were able to build the 20th ave. YMCA ($14 million raised), the Pollock Water Park (over $6 million raised), the teen center at the Boys and Girls Club ($2 million raised), and the Oshkosh Community Foundation loaned us a million bucks for the Convention Center. I understand that private sources are feeling "tapped out" when it comes to the Grand, but guess what: taxpayers are feeling pretty tapped out too. Again, that's NOT an argument for voting no tonight (I'm leaning toward Yes for reasons I'll explain tonight), but just a plea to put this issue in perspective.

Arguing With Dining Room Tables

Kudos to Barney Frank for his workshop for elected officials on how to effectively confront dining room tables masquerading as town hall participants.

Gannett: Don't Gut Our Advertising Client

I found out on Monday that in 2008-2009, the Grand Opera House management has expended approximately $6,000 in local media advertising. One can only imagine how many dollars have gone to local corporate media since 1990 (the Northwestern's former advertising manager lists "Grand Opera House Playbill" as one of her accomplishments), when the Grand Opera House Foundation assumed responsibility for managing and promoting the facility.

With Craig's List and other Internet sources pretty much dismantling the corporate press' (especially print media) monopoly on classified advertising, things are getting desperate for the corporatistas. Locally, Gannett argued strenuously for private management of the Leach Amphitheatre--without ever bothering to communicate to readers that PMI was an ad client.

The same nonsense is now at work in the debate regarding how to fund repairs to the Grand Opera House. On Sunday, the editorial writers tell us that the City Council (especially Mr. Esslinger and I) face a "defining" vote at our next meeting. Here's the intro:

Make no mistake. The Oshkosh Common Council under the leadership of Mayor Paul Esslinger and Deputy Mayor Tony Palmeri will be defined by the outcome of the vote on repairs for the historic Grand Opera House. The question the pair face is this: "Do you want to be known as the council that gutted the Grand?"

Hmm . . . let's cut through the Gannett speak, shall we?:

Make no mistake. The Oshkosh Common Council under the leadership of Mayor Paul Esslinger and Deputy Mayor Tony Palmeri will be defined by the outcome of the vote on repairs for the historic Grand Opera House. The question the pair face is this: "Do you want to be known as the council that gutted Gannett's commercial relationship with an advertising client?"

The now defunct water tower was every bit the historic treasure that the Grand Opera House was/is, and based on communications I received from citizens that structure seemed to have as many fans. Yet the vote failing to preserve it was not "defining." Why? Because the Tower and its supporters didn't do enough corporate media advertising?

What do Gannett's ethical principles say about all of this? They claim that "We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers, and advertisers."

What's really sad is that Gannett has effectively removed itself from having any constructive role in the debate about how best to save the Grand Opera House. Instead of reporting and editorializing intelligently about models for managing historic structures, pros and cons of city vs. private ownership of historic structures, etc., the paper chooses to engage in crass and self-serving bloviation that seems designed to intimidate and shame Councilors into supporting their business agenda.

I don't expect that this Council will be intimidated, and I also KNOW that the private sector is taking the Council's challenge to step up the fundraising for the facility very seriously. I'm confident that a compromise can be worked out that will satisfy taxpayers, Grand supporters and Grand management. Too bad it has to be done with the corporate media serving an obstructionist and self-serving role.

Doemel Walkin' The Walk On The Grand

Oshkosh Common Councilors just received this email from Jon Doemel of Glass Nickel Pizza:

Hello,

I am writing in response to your call to show interest in the Grand Opera House. I am rallying around other businesses to "Raise a grand for the Grand." We hope to not only tell you that we highly value the Grand's presence, but are willing to walk the walk as well. So far, I have about 100 businesses on board to raise money for the roof. I agree that there are more pressing matters for the funds to be allocated, but there are too many memories with the Grand to let it go to waste. Let us respond to your challenge by raising our own funds through a truly grass roots campaign. Maybe we can raise enough to change your mind about the importance of this historic and useful building. Thank you for lighting my fire! -

Jon Doemel Glass Nickel Pizza Company "No Gimmicks...Just the Goods"

I have emailed Jon privately to tell him that I appreciate his efforts. For me the issue on the Grand renovation is whether "public-private partnership" is simply idle chatter rambled on about during political campaigns and cocktail parties, or is it a driving force behind downtown redevelopment. The LDR downtown revitalization report of a few years ago, along with the more recent visioning report produced by Nellessen and Associates clearly take the latter view.

Yes, I understand that the private sector does contribute to the Grand's programming mission. But clearly we are going to have to see an expanded private role for the building to be sustainable well into the future.

We received an email from a couple that had recently come from Iowa City, where the Englert Theater is a venue very similar to our Grand Opera House. From the website, it appears that Iowa City purchased the building in 1999, then held it in trust until such time that a private group could raise enough funds for renovation:

For the next 5 years, this group of citizens mobilized to purchase the theater from the City of Iowa City and rebuild the Englert as a community cultural center. They began the “Save the Englert” campaign to raise the funds necessary to renovate the theater to its former grandeur.

Literally hundreds of local businesses and individuals contributed countless hours and millions of dollars to bring the theater back to life. Their contributions are forever recognized on the large Capital Campaign plaque in our lobby, on the nameplates on our seats, and on numerous signs around the building.

A member of the Iowa City Common Council today told me that about $75,000 in local taxpayer money was directed toward the facility during the renovation campaign, and that local taxpayers will contribute about $50,000 to the facility over the next 3 years or so. Iowa City's population is roughly the same as Oshkosh.

I'm not saying that the Iowa City/Englert Theater model is necessarily the best one for Oshkosh. But what I am saying is that it is neither fair nor realistic to think that big-ticket renovations of historic buildings can be financed strictly by taxpayers. Indeed, a majority on the city council last year were willing to raze the historic water tower rather than even allow time to see if a private capital campaign could get started. With the Grand, I sense that there is at least a willingness to see what the private sector will commit to the project.

To be clear: I am a fan of the Grand and want to see it survive and thrive well into the future. But that cannot happen unless and until we clarify what is the appropriate balance of public/private expenditures at a time when we are seeing drastic cuts in state aids, more demands for essential city services, school closures, and scores of additional unmet needs.

My hope is that there are many others out there like Mr. Doemel willing to walk the walk.

P.S. Anyone willing to walk the walk with Jon can email him at gnpcoshkosh@hotmail.com

Sheboygan Council Rejects Plan To Shoot Urban Deer

Hat Tip: foxpolitics.net

By a 12-1 vote, the Sheboygan Common Council voted against shooting deer identified by some residents of the city as a "neighborhood and traffic nuisance." Alderman Mark Hanna told the Sheboygan Press that "the issue is dead." Other items of note:

*The Common Council and the Public Protection and Safety Committee "spent more than six months discussing the deer issue, including several meetings with neighbors."

*The city sent out 240 surveys, with half of the 79 responses in favor of killing the deer and half for leaving them alone.

*On November 12, 2008 the Public Protection and Safety Committee had a discussion of the methods available for handling deer perceived by some as a nuisance (Emphasis added):

Com. No. 46-08-09 (14-18) from Susan Smies regarding problems with deer in her neighborhood destroying landscaping, running onto porches and running in and out of the road. Several solutions to this matter were discussed. This included hired sharpshooters, trapping, or possibly lifting of the firearms ordinance in the City and allow hunters to hunt these deer. Issues of potential danger, costs, and if this issue is actually a private nuisance versus a public nuisance. Also, possibly this deer issue should be addressed in all areas of city, not just this area. Deterrents don’t seem to work. It costs about $400 per deer to dispatch. DNR personnel explained this problem is not unique to Sheboygan. The DNR has issued 57 deer removal permits in WI. If this matter is addressed, it should be addressed on a large scale, with a possible management plan for whole city. Over half these communities use sharpshooters. The sharpshooters can come from anywhere. There is no certification is required. There are several companies that do this.

Numerous factors should be looked at, including safety, nuisance complaints, habitat destruction, and budget. As long as it’s safe, any area of city should be open for hunting deer. Perhaps sharpshooters could be used for pockets of problem deer, versus open season all over City. Winter is best time for sharpshooters. They hunt over bait.

Motion made by Alderman Rindfleisch, seconded by Alderman Heidemann to open hunting season for city and allow discharge of firearms. Motion failed to pass, 3 no, 2 yes, Aldermen Heidemann and Rindfleisch voting yes. Motion made to hold by Alderman Ryan, seconded by Alderperson Kittelson. All ayes.

*It appears as if members of the Sheboygan Common Council actually researched the issue and invited ALL points of view to be heard before taking action. From the Public Protection and Safety Committee minutes of June 10th (Emphasis added):

Discuss deer issue referral from Committee of the Whole. Chairman Hanna provided some background and history of this issue. Alderpersons Surek, Wangemann, and Bowers spoke about their individual research. Chairman Hanna opened the discussion to the public, and the following individuals voiced opinions: Alice Schmitt, in favor of lethal means, Susan Theys of Wildlife of Wisconsin in favor of non-lethal means, Sharon Weiss in favor of non-lethal means, Sue Clark of Cedar Ridge Wildlife, Glenn Pilling in favor of lethal means, Pam Markelz in favor of non-lethal means, Lawrence Freitag in favor of non-lethal means. Chairman Hanna closed the discussion and advised that the committee will meet on this topic two weeks from tonight.

Would the Oshkosh Common Council have reached a different decision on deer culling if it had actively invited all points of view to the table? Maybe yes, maybe no. But we almost certainly would not have had the high level of anger, distrust, and divisiveness that still exists. If nothing else, the creation of an Urban Wildlife Management Committee might bring the issue back to a civil playing field.

Woodstock At 40

The legednary Woodstock concert is now 40(!) years old. The August Media Rants column celebrates the anniversary with a hypothetical conversation between two fictional attendees. Here 'tis:

Woodstock at 40

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

The legendary Woodstock concert, billed as “three days of peace and music,” attracted a half million people to Max Yasgur’s Bethel, NY farm during the weekend of August 15, 1969. Michael Wadleigh’s Academy Award winning 1970 documentary film remains the best source for those curious about what it must have been like to trip on acid at 3 a.m., in a muddy field surrounded by fellow travelers, listening to The Who jam tunes from “Tommy.”

A favorite scene in Wadleigh’s flick features long lines of hippies waiting for pay phones to become available so they can call mom. The absence of cell phones, laptops, iPods and other toys makes the setting seem prehistoric. On the other hand, the baby boom generation that attended Woodstock have become smitten with technology; I’ll bet that quite a few people who were at the “Aquarian music and art fair” have found kindred spirits on Facebook.

Imagine one of those Facebook conversations. Merecedes “Mercy” Metoxen and Jerry McCann were both 19 years in 1969. She came to Woodstock all the way from Green Bay with a half-dozen friends on a colorful hippie bus decked out with peace and love symbols. He was a New York City boy, a student at Queens College in part to avoid the draft. Jerry and a few buddies hitchhiked to Woodstock and back. We pick up their Facebook dialogue as they reminisce about the concert and its meaning for today.

Mercy: Jerry, did you know that the same guy who directed “Brokeback Mountain” is coming out with a film about Woodstock this month?

Jerry: Yeah, I think it’s called “Taking Woodstock.” To tell you the truth, I gave up listening to anything Woodstock related about 20 years ago. Just can’t handle the way the media gets all nostalgic about it.

Mercy: Or trivializes it.

Jerry: Right. After Woodstock I went and earned two Master’s Degrees and have been teaching in K-12 and community colleges for almost 30 years. You’re an attorney and been in the nonprofit sector for a long time. I didn’t plan my career during that weekend in August of ’69, but I know that the event transformed me in ways that I probably still don’t understand.

Mercy: Look at my situation. Here I was, half Spanish and half native-American. In Green Bay I didn’t feel genuine bonds with anyone, even most of my friends on the bus that weekend. Then we get to Woodstock, and the atmosphere of love and acceptance overwhelmed me. We smoked joints and there was lots of LSD and mescaline around, but the real high was in the relationships and camaraderie.

Jerry: Same with me, an Irish kid from Queens. But ethnicity did not matter very much that weekend. We were all rolling around as equals in the same mud. The whole “identity politics” thing hadn’t developed yet.

Mercy: “Woodstock Nation” was supposed to be our new identity: black and white, man and woman, gay and straight. Everyone united against “The Man” or bullying in general. Some of the musicians there that weekend never sold out on those ideals, especially Richie Havens, Joan Baez, and Country Joe McDonald.

Jerry: You and I met while Richie sang “Handsome Johnny.” Remember that? It’s funny now because the studio version of that song has a line that says something like “what’s the use of singing this song, some of you are not even listening.”

Mercy: The media tend to make it sound like the kids were mesmerized by the musicians. Janis Joplin blew me away in a female power kind of way, but it was difficult to see and hear any of the artists.

Jerry: They assume we were mesmerized by the artists and all became Democrats or Republican sellouts. I regret it now, but I actually voted for Reagan in 1980 after convincing myself that Woodstock values stood a better chance with him.

Mercy: How did you possibly reach that conclusion, especially since Reagan was one of the real bad guys for youth in the 1960s?

Jerry: Artie Kornfeld and Mike Lang, the two major Woodstock promoters, are to this day hard core capitalists and entrepreneurs. I thought Reagan’s “small government” program would be good for capitalism with a human face such as that represented by Woodstock. By 1984 I came to understand that Reagan was a moron who didn’t even grasp the policies coming out of his own administration.

Mercy: Did you know that Kornfeld and Lang both have books coming out to coincide with the 40th anniversary? I think Kornfeld is releasing his memoirs by the title The Pied Piper. Lang’s is called The Road to Woodstock. Every now and then I listen to Kornfeld’s “Spirit of the Woodstock Nation” radio show. But you talk about Reagan; I wonder if Obama is the liberal version of him?

Jerry: Maybe, especially in how good he is on television. He’s got some great lines about change, but it won’t happen unless he’s pushed.

Mercy: Absolutely. What we need to do is get off Facebook and start organizing people the old fashioned way; knock on their doors and get in their faces.

Jerry: We can do it. We are stardust and golden after all.

Liquor Licenses: First Come, First Serve?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.