Back in August, the City Council passed Resolution 09-315, the purpose of which was to "amend ordinance to allow dogs at Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park." During the deliberation about the resolution, it was revealed that dogs had been in Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park for a long time because most people considered the area to be a trail. But because Rusch/Sawyer Creek is legally defined as a park, in order to continue with the accepted behavior (i.e. allowing dogs to walk on the trail), we had to change the municipal code. The language of Res 09-315 said the following:
"Persons will be allowed to have domesticated animals at Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park provided that such domesticated animals shall be on a leash no longer than six feet (6') and shall be under full control of their owners."
Also during that evening's deliberations, it became clear that there is a segment of the citizenry that would like to see dogs allowed in all city parks. I suggested that evening that we should have an advisory referendum to find out how large that sentiment is. In late September I met with City Attorney Lynn Lorenson and Acting Parks Director Bill Sturm to work on referendum language. My view was that the language of a referendum should be similar to what we passed in Res 09-315. Thus, here is what the Council will be voting on tomorrow:
WHEREAS the issue of whether domesticated animals should be allowed in Oshkosh city parks is one of great interest to citizens at-large; and
WHEREAS the Common Council desires to receive advice from City voters about whether or not to adopt an ordinance that would allow domesticated animals in City parks.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the following advisory referendum question be placed on the April 6, 2010 ballot:
Should persons be allowed to have domesticated animals at city parks--except in areas such as zoos, playgrounds, golf courses, the water park, cemeteries, and athletic fields--provided that such domesticated animals shall be on a leash no longer than six feet (6') and shall be under full control of their owners?
Yes_______________ No______________________
My gut feeling is that a majority of people in Oshkosh would like to allow dogs in parks. That is based on the commentary about it I've seen over the years. However, I do not know if those comments represent a vocal minority or the majority of citizens. I personally lean toward allowing dogs in city parks, but if a clear majority of citizens in a referendum said that they did not want them there, then I would not support it. This strikes me as a classic case of an issue where an advisory referendum is appropriate and useful. Perhaps it might even increase voter turnout in April.
If you'd like to contact the City Council and provide input on whether we should place the referendum question on the ballot, click here.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Referendum on Domesticated Animals in City Parks
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, October 30, 2009
Media Rants: A Socratic Dialogue
The November Media Rant for the The Scene reveals that the great philosopher Socrates anticipated the schlock that today we call corporate media. --TP
MAD Media: A Socratic Dialogue
Media Rants
By Tony Palmeri
Classical Greek scholars were shocked recently when an Athenian farmer tilling soil in his olive grove accidently stumbled across a manuscript dating back to the 4th century BCE. Believed to be a lost dialogue of Plato, the manuscript features the great philosopher Socrates in conversation with a dimwitted character called Hannityus. The best scholarly guess is that Hannityus was a disciple of Euthydemus, a popular public speaker in 380 BCE known to practice what Socrates called the “eristic” mode of communication. For Socrates, eristic wasn’t a form of argument designed to educate, but rather a method of humiliating opponents by showering them with verbal abuse. In the newly discovered manuscript, Socrates warns of a future world featuring eristic as the dominant mode of public discourse, with partisan verbal bullies presented to the masses as patriots. In what might be the earliest critique of media corporations, Socrates says that that “in a distant future, those organizations making profit by polluting the public discourse will be guided by the values of Mediocrity, Anti-intellectualism, and Disrespect. They will be truly MAD.” Media Rants is pleased to present an excerpt of the lost dialogue.
Hannityus: Good day Socrates. I noticed you in attendance at my debate with Democritus. You were impressed by my performance, yes?
Socrates: Good day Hannityus. Well, I heard Democritus arguing that the State ought to guarantee equality for all. To great applause, you mocked him, questioned his integrity and loyalty to Athens, and continually interrupted his attempts to substantiate his claim. Your performance . . .
Hannityus (interrupts): Certainly one as wise you does not sympathize with Democritus’ nonsense?
Socrates: As I was saying, your performance entertained the crowd with much ridicule and vivid condemnation of your opponent.
Hannityus: Much deserved ridicule and condemnation, good sir.
Socrates: And I must say that I was quite impressed by how you turned the tables and made into an enemy of the people a man who from his perspective was arguing in support of expanded rights and benefits for the people. You are quite clever Hannityus.
Hannityus: Euthydemus says that turning the tables is the height of communicative excellence.
Socrates: No, it is one of the many forms of communicative mediocrity. Like your calling Democritus an “idiot.”
Hannityus: A tactic I learned from Glennbeckus.
Socrates: Whatever. The point is that communicative excellence requires an honest attempt to discover the truth. I heard none of that in your so-called debate with Democritus.
Hannityus: Surely you are not saying that there could be any truth in Democritus’ claim that the State should guarantee equality for all?
Socrates: I do not know, as he was never allowed to elaborate. Does he mean the State should guarantee equal opportunity for all? Or does he mean the State should guarantee equality under the law? Does he mean the State should guarantee equal compensation for all regardless of effort? Or does he mean equal pay for equal work? These questions are all worth asking and thinking about, yet with all due respect your eristic approach to debate urges participants not to think. Or at least not to think very critically.
Hannityus: Euthydemus warned me that you are nothing but an elitist intellectual snob, Socrates. I must say that your comments validate his judgment of your character.
Socrates: As you wish. I am sorry to have sparked your antagonism, but the problem is not that you, Euthydemus, and Glennbeckus are anti-Socrates or anti-Democritus or anti-anyone else.
Hannityus: Pray tell oh wise one, what is the problem?
Socrates: The problem is anti-intellectualism. The refusal to take anything other than a black and white, good and evil, us and them approach to serious issues. Positions are taken not on the basis of principle or rigorous analysis, but on the basis of whether or not such positions support whatever particular team you happen to be on. It’s quite pathetic.
Hannityus: Are the so-called intellectuals any better? I’ve seen them in debates. Your student Plato, for example, and others in his Academy succeed only in putting people to sleep or leaving them in utter confusion.
Socrates: I would hardly hold up the academic intellectuals as role-models of how to debate in public. They too can be boorish, disrespectful, and willing to serve the team instead of search for the truth. In fact I can imagine a future in which intellectuals become a professional class that uses its brain power to aid and abet extremely abusive governments, businesses, and other institutions. They’ll create lies instead of expose them. Such “intellectuals” will be worthy of contempt.
Hannityus: You enjoy forecasting the future. Tell me, what will be the future of my brand of public debate? Surely it will someday rule the world?
Socrates: Those who can profit by polluting the water and air will do so. They can be stopped only when people acting collectively decide they no longer will tolerate drinking dirty water and breathing toxic air.
In a distant future, those organizations making profit by polluting the public discourse will be guided by the values of Mediocrity, Anti-intellectualism, and Disrespect. They will be truly MAD. They will be stopped only when people acting collectively decide they no longer will tolerate madness.
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, October 04, 2009
Mercury Marine and Media: The Low Road
Media Rants
By Tony Palmeri
The nonpartisan think tank Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) distinguishes between “low road” and “high road” business strategies. The low road “is associated with downward pressure on wages, increasing job insecurity, more outsourcing of work to low-wage regions, greater environmental damage, underinvestment in productive public goods, and resistance to public standards on private firm behavior.” The [unfortunately] less common high road “is associated with higher and more equal wages, better labor relations, more environmentally sustainable practice, greater investment in productive public goods, and affirmative support for public standards on the private economy.”
Sadly, low road management conduct has become a badger state occurrence every bit as common as beer and brats at a Packer tailgate bash. In just the recent past, corporate cunning ended GM’s 100 year history in Janesville, Chrysler moved its engine work from Kenosha to Saltillo, Mexico, and we all know about private equity firm Cerberus’ contemptible closing of Kimberly Papers’ profitable mill.
In terms of sheer guile and gross bullying, it would be hard to find an example of low road posturing more outrageous than Mercury Marine’s recent extraction of huge concessions from International Association of Machinists (IAM) workers at the company’s Fond du Lac plant.
Let’s review the facts: in July, management of the boat engine maker Mercury Marine announced that unless union workers agreed to reopen a recently negotiated contract and accept concessions, the company would close operations and move manufacturing jobs and the corporate offices to Stillwater, Oklahoma. The proposed concessions, which union officials claim were non-negotiable, included 170 changes to the contract, most notably a seven year wage freeze, 30% pay cuts for new hires, and equal cuts for laid off workers brought back. The IAM, for its part, offered to accept pay cuts until the easing of the recession, on the condition that the company provide a written commitment to keep the jobs in Fond du Lac. Mercury rejected the offer without giving it any serious consideration.
On August 23, IAM workers voted to reject Mercury’s demands. Mercury immediately announced an intention to move to Stillwater, but left open the door for the union to vote again for the same package of concessions. On August 29, after intense pressure from the general public and media, the union voted again but failed to get the results in by Mercury’s deadline. A third vote finally yielded acceptance of the concessions. Mercury subsequently received $53 million in incentives from the city and county of Fond du Lac to keep jobs in the area. The county’s incentive package will be financed by a half-cent increase in the sales tax. The company also received an “aggressive” aid package from the state, part of which is designed to assist Mercury in moving jobs from Stillwater to Fond du Lac.
The most charitable thing that could be said of corporate media coverage of the Mercury affair is that it was worthless. Print and broadcast media enabled Mercury’s low road strategy by minimizing or flat out ignoring the very blatant labor violations taking place.
Indeed, sane commentary and reporting on the Mercury situation could only be found in the blogosphere. Writing in his Fighting Bob blog, Ed Garvey wrote that, “It used to be illegal for a company to threaten to close or move jobs as a bargaining tactic . . . They (Mercury) were not negotiating. They were the third grade bullies threatening to take their ball and bat and go home. ‘My way or the highway.’”
By far the best reporting on Mercury was done by freelance Wisconsin writer Roger Bybee in the “Workers’ Rights” blog on the progressive magazine In These Times website. In the Mercury situation Bybee finds a typical and disturbing pattern:
Mercury officials are congratulating themselves for carrying out what has become a standard corporate game plan when shutting down a major plant. The two key elements of this plan typically include: (1) Inciting the public against the union by continually asserting that it is the workers, not the corporation, that are making the decision to close the plant. The workers' refusal of utterly unacceptable concessions is equated with stubbornness and a selfish unwillingness to consider the overall impact on the community--as if the workers themselves will have a bright future after the shutdown . . . (2) Portraying the workers' wages as astronomically high by comparing them with the regional average, conveniently limiting the frame to exclude the standards of skill and pay in the particular industry.
The Fox Valley Gannett papers were, as to be expected, uniformly awful in reporting and editorializing about Mercury. Gannett’s Fond du Lac Reporter, to its credit, did allow UW Oshkosh Human Resource Management Professor Barbara Rau to state the obvious: "Unions are being blamed for the economy, but how is that possible, when only 7.6 percent of the workers are unionized?"
Corporate media enabled Mercury’s low road strategy via shoddy and incomplete reporting and cowardly editorializing. Are more Merc-like messes on the way? Roger Bybee says it well: “Until we put an end to this race to the bottom, we will see many more bottom-feeders like Mercury Marine manipulating states and even nations against each other.”
Media Rants
By Tony Palmeri
The nonpartisan think tank Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) distinguishes between “low road” and “high road” business strategies. The low road “is associated with downward pressure on wages, increasing job insecurity, more outsourcing of work to low-wage regions, greater environmental damage, underinvestment in productive public goods, and resistance to public standards on private firm behavior.” The [unfortunately] less common high road “is associated with higher and more equal wages, better labor relations, more environmentally sustainable practice, greater investment in productive public goods, and affirmative support for public standards on the private economy.”
Sadly, low road management conduct has become a badger state occurrence every bit as common as beer and brats at a Packer tailgate bash. In just the recent past, corporate cunning ended GM’s 100 year history in Janesville, Chrysler moved its engine work from Kenosha to Saltillo, Mexico, and we all know about private equity firm Cerberus’ contemptible closing of Kimberly Papers’ profitable mill.
In terms of sheer guile and gross bullying, it would be hard to find an example of low road posturing more outrageous than Mercury Marine’s recent extraction of huge concessions from International Association of Machinists (IAM) workers at the company’s Fond du Lac plant.
Let’s review the facts: in July, management of the boat engine maker Mercury Marine announced that unless union workers agreed to reopen a recently negotiated contract and accept concessions, the company would close operations and move manufacturing jobs and the corporate offices to Stillwater, Oklahoma. The proposed concessions, which union officials claim were non-negotiable, included 170 changes to the contract, most notably a seven year wage freeze, 30% pay cuts for new hires, and equal cuts for laid off workers brought back. The IAM, for its part, offered to accept pay cuts until the easing of the recession, on the condition that the company provide a written commitment to keep the jobs in Fond du Lac. Mercury rejected the offer without giving it any serious consideration.
On August 23, IAM workers voted to reject Mercury’s demands. Mercury immediately announced an intention to move to Stillwater, but left open the door for the union to vote again for the same package of concessions. On August 29, after intense pressure from the general public and media, the union voted again but failed to get the results in by Mercury’s deadline. A third vote finally yielded acceptance of the concessions. Mercury subsequently received $53 million in incentives from the city and county of Fond du Lac to keep jobs in the area. The county’s incentive package will be financed by a half-cent increase in the sales tax. The company also received an “aggressive” aid package from the state, part of which is designed to assist Mercury in moving jobs from Stillwater to Fond du Lac.
The most charitable thing that could be said of corporate media coverage of the Mercury affair is that it was worthless. Print and broadcast media enabled Mercury’s low road strategy by minimizing or flat out ignoring the very blatant labor violations taking place.
Indeed, sane commentary and reporting on the Mercury situation could only be found in the blogosphere. Writing in his Fighting Bob blog, Ed Garvey wrote that, “It used to be illegal for a company to threaten to close or move jobs as a bargaining tactic . . . They (Mercury) were not negotiating. They were the third grade bullies threatening to take their ball and bat and go home. ‘My way or the highway.’”
By far the best reporting on Mercury was done by freelance Wisconsin writer Roger Bybee in the “Workers’ Rights” blog on the progressive magazine In These Times website. In the Mercury situation Bybee finds a typical and disturbing pattern:
Mercury officials are congratulating themselves for carrying out what has become a standard corporate game plan when shutting down a major plant. The two key elements of this plan typically include: (1) Inciting the public against the union by continually asserting that it is the workers, not the corporation, that are making the decision to close the plant. The workers' refusal of utterly unacceptable concessions is equated with stubbornness and a selfish unwillingness to consider the overall impact on the community--as if the workers themselves will have a bright future after the shutdown . . . (2) Portraying the workers' wages as astronomically high by comparing them with the regional average, conveniently limiting the frame to exclude the standards of skill and pay in the particular industry.
The Fox Valley Gannett papers were, as to be expected, uniformly awful in reporting and editorializing about Mercury. Gannett’s Fond du Lac Reporter, to its credit, did allow UW Oshkosh Human Resource Management Professor Barbara Rau to state the obvious: "Unions are being blamed for the economy, but how is that possible, when only 7.6 percent of the workers are unionized?"
Corporate media enabled Mercury’s low road strategy via shoddy and incomplete reporting and cowardly editorializing. Are more Merc-like messes on the way? Roger Bybee says it well: “Until we put an end to this race to the bottom, we will see many more bottom-feeders like Mercury Marine manipulating states and even nations against each other.”
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, October 01, 2009
Week in Review on Friday
I'll be on WPR's Week in Review on Friday (8-9 a.m.) opposite Ann Althouse. You can join the conversation live by calling in at 1-800-642-1234. You can also 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.
Friday, September 18, 2009
C.R.O.C PSA
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, September 08, 2009
The State of Working Wisconsin
From a recent report released by the nonpartisan Center on Wisconsin Strategy:
From the conclusion:
On this Labor Day, working Wisconsinites have little to celebrate about the economy. Despite a few “green shoots” and a slowdown in the rate of job loss, the state of their state’s economy — and the region’s — is grim.
What Wisconsin’s workers need is a real strategy for economic development. This strategy needs to follow from a sober and disinterested assessment of our current challenges, resources, weaknesses, strengths, needs, and viable opportunities. To actually raise living standards, it needs to be “high road” — competing on value rather than price, taking sustainability seriously, sharing created wealth more equally, friendly to any business that will do the same. This strategy needs to be clear in its policy priorities, implied investments, and funding sources. It needs to gain support from a critical mass of key actors — business, labor, state and local government, education, our Congressional delegation, the general public — whose cooperation and contribution are critical to its success. And it needs to be articulated forcefully and clearly by diverse champions — not just elected leaders — and widely and generally understood. This is a considerable organizing challenge.
Wisconsin can meet this challenge. We have more than enough intellectual resources, leading firms, progressive labor leadership, dedicated public servants, and good citizens to build a high road economy in our state. But will we?
- Wisconsin has lost over 137,000 jobs, almost 5 percent of its pre-recession job level
- Nearly half of those jobs, 66,100, were in manufacturing.
- Manufacturing employment is down 13 percent from pre-recession levels and down 25 percent since 2000
- Wisconsin's 9.0 percent unemployment rate is twice its pre-recession level
- Wisconsin's real (inflation corrected) median wage is now $15.48, below the $15.74 national median and only 32 cents above its 1979 level, despite a near doubling in worker productivity
- While improving, the gender gap in Wisconsin wages persists. Women's median wage is 82 percent of men's. If men's wages hadn't fallen over the past 30 years, the gap would be 72 percent.
From the conclusion:
On this Labor Day, working Wisconsinites have little to celebrate about the economy. Despite a few “green shoots” and a slowdown in the rate of job loss, the state of their state’s economy — and the region’s — is grim.
What Wisconsin’s workers need is a real strategy for economic development. This strategy needs to follow from a sober and disinterested assessment of our current challenges, resources, weaknesses, strengths, needs, and viable opportunities. To actually raise living standards, it needs to be “high road” — competing on value rather than price, taking sustainability seriously, sharing created wealth more equally, friendly to any business that will do the same. This strategy needs to be clear in its policy priorities, implied investments, and funding sources. It needs to gain support from a critical mass of key actors — business, labor, state and local government, education, our Congressional delegation, the general public — whose cooperation and contribution are critical to its success. And it needs to be articulated forcefully and clearly by diverse champions — not just elected leaders — and widely and generally understood. This is a considerable organizing challenge.
Wisconsin can meet this challenge. We have more than enough intellectual resources, leading firms, progressive labor leadership, dedicated public servants, and good citizens to build a high road economy in our state. But will we?
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, September 02, 2009
Friday: Amina Figarova Sextet Live At The Time
In Oshkosh, the Grand Opera House is not the only historic theater in need of restoration. Just a few blocks from the Grand, at 445 N. Main St. community activists are trying to raise the funds necessary to restore the historic Time Community Theater. According to the Community Theater Group website: "We began our meetings in March 2007. The concept of the Time Community Theater was crafted by people interested in developing a place for community activity and creating a platform for local talent to perform. In order for this opportunity to take shape, a lot of reconstruction work needs to happen. Funds are needed to make the space performance-ready."
This Friday (September 4th) the Time features the Amina Figarova Sextet, an internationally acclaimed modern jazz troupe. They play in Minneapolis on Thursday and Chicago on Saturday;Time organizers are thrilled that the band to make a stop in Oshkosh on Friday.
The show starts at 7:00 p.m. Tickets are $15 and can be purchased at the door.
This Friday (September 4th) the Time features the Amina Figarova Sextet, an internationally acclaimed modern jazz troupe. They play in Minneapolis on Thursday and Chicago on Saturday;Time organizers are thrilled that the band to make a stop in Oshkosh on Friday.
The show starts at 7:00 p.m. Tickets are $15 and can be purchased at the door.
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, August 28, 2009
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.
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.
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, August 26, 2009
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.
*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.
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, August 24, 2009
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.
*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.
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, August 20, 2009
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.
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, August 17, 2009
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.
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.
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, August 14, 2009
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
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
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, August 04, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
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.
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.
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 30, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)