A chapter closes

This past weekend saw the publication of my final opinion column with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

It's a bittersweet ending, to be sure. I'm ready to move on to new and different kinds of writing (having an Opinion on a weekly schedule can get to be a little exhausting), but I also recognize that their decision to end the section entirely is sadly indicative of larger problems and challenges facing newsrooms across the country.

The MJS was locally owned for decades before Gannett (which owns USA Today and 14 other papers in Wisconsin) bought it out in 2016. There have been several rounds of layoffs and budget cuts over time, as old school attitudes toward the news business have become increasingly obsolete - but the people with power over them continue to make poor and/or desperate decisions that see deep cuts being made to substantive local reporting and dedicated, knowledgeable reporting staffs.

Fewer people are being made to do more with less. More wire stories run, creating duplication between newspapers and gutting any real local connection (or reason for people to subscribe to/read something that's ostensibly locally printed because all they see in it are national wire stories and, too often, forcibly syndicated op-eds and editorials that reflect the corporate and political interests of the owners, not the actual staff).

I've had the privilege and pleasure of working with truly supportive and hardworking editors during my time with the MJS. They never once tried to influence my choice of topic or opinion, only offering light copy editing and fact-checking as needed. They and many other reporters at the MJS do truly great work with very little support. I honestly hope the pivot toward "solutions-based journalism" reaps rewards both in terms of community engagement and financial sustainability - but I also recognize that it's an increasingly uphill battle for the latter in particular.

I don't have the answer yet for how to make quality news reporting a sustainable endeavor again. I've been part of a start-up non-profit media outlet that attempted a grassroots approach to the problem, and we managed for about 8 years before throwing in the towel. It was an eye-opening experience. Lots of well-meaning liberal/progressive people and organizations assured us that by becoming a non-profit we would reap financial support from sympathetic sources, but we quickly learned that 1) most of the money is on the other side, and 2) the money that is ostensibly on the side of progressive causes is tightly held and often narrowly applied to groups/people working on issues near and dear to the already well-off. Surprise!

Anyway, before this becomes an even more unwieldy post, I mostly just wanted to say that, despite all of the examples of really nasty feedback I received during my time writing for the MJS, I got at least as much in the way of positive and supportive emails and personal comments from folks all across Wisconsin.

I learned about folks living in far-flung rural communities and other medium and large cities about their experiences and frustrations trying to do the right thing for the greater good in the midst of such a divided and often vitriolic public discourse.

We remain a very purple state, in point of fact.

As far as I could tell, however, the vast majority of the feedback I got came from folks in their middle age and up. I think that's telling about the struggle news outlets like the MJS have to remain relevant to younger people - who, despite what some pearl-clutching pundits might have you believe, are by and large incredibly engaged in their communities and driven to do good work to build a better world. They are, in my experience, light years ahead of us in several key areas. I have hope.

Part of that hope includes eventually figuring out newer and better ways of sharing information and ideas, and collaborating on work that lifts us all. That will mean some things many of us have always known or grown used to will have to come to an end, and that can be scary/painful. But we have to learn how to let go of certain things in order to make space for new life to grow and flourish. Let Millenials kill Hooters and diamonds and even consumerism. Let new generations cast off old institutions that reinforce gatekeeping by one narrow demographic, and embrace a messier, more diverse, more inclusive public sphere. Let's use our big ol' brains to figure out new and different ways to support one another.

Some things must burn, so that greener shoots may grow in their place. We just have to make sure the outgoing regime doesn't fully poison the ground behind it.

Mail Call #15: Wrong, and Racist!

Hello hello! A whole bunch of kids and teachers were murdered in their school recently, and the national conversation has once again turned to What Can We Do? I wrote about it. I fully expected to get some...interesting...responses, and boy did I.

Today, I'd like to focus on one in particular that feels fairly representative of a particular genre of political and social thought that is still all-too prevalent in America. It's based in false premises, racism, sexism, and a sort of peculiar fatalism inherent in so much of the unwillingness to really face the core issues that lead to things like mass shootings.

Anyway, here's the email, annotated!

It struck me that the terrified students prayed when in danger. Remember praying isn't allowed in public schools.

OK I'mma stop you right there: This is a lie. Anyone can still pray in public schools. It simply cannot be an organized/school-sanctioned event, because, you know, for now we still live in a country with separation of church and state, and there are kids from all different religious and non-religious backgrounds in these schools, so prioritizing one flavor of religion over another would be pretty shitty and exclusionary. Also, you don't know how those kids reacted. Some probably prayed, sure. But you don't get to make a blanket statement like that.

And there you have insight into the core cause of our social problems. The Democrats/politicians always want to solve every thing with legislation. That's fine do it. Hasn't stopped the drugs. Burn the NRA down. Fine wont stop the guns.

This is that fatalism I was talking about. Strange, coming from the folks who are usually so hardcore law-and-order, this "why do we bother passing laws at all they don't work" POV. Why anything, indeed?

Our problems are behavioral. Our society is now subject to mass shootings, massive drug usage, road rage, hit and runs, adultery, perversion, abortion, hate speech, scammers, homeless, rapists, bullying, weak soft kids (USA Olympic kids showed that) and more, at unprecedented levels we have ever seen and it's growing and will get worse.

OK now you're gonna shit on the young Olympic athletes? What the hell, man? Many of them kicked ass in their competitions, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that they've worked harder at this one thing than dear letter writer has at much of anything in his life. What a weird thing to harp on. The rest of his list is pretty standard, alas.

As we have tried to remove God from our culture, broken up the family, have kids who have grown up without even knowing who their father is, minimized responsibility, ignored marriage, shunned religion, and mongralized our cities, what are you going end up with. A society and culture of the above paragraph.

"Mongralized." Gee, what on Earth could he be dog whistling here, I wonder?

This has been a slow progression over many years. I am no sociologist

NO REALLY?! GET OUT. No, really, get out.

but take away the cornerstones of the family and everything that goes with it and the void will be filled by people who have lost their way. We have a very sick country right now, particularity high school kids who are under a lot of social pressure to be liked and fit in. I remember. We wanted progress, we wanted liberalization, at the expense of our core foundations, were getting it. Legislate away. Behavior is in the mind.

Ah, the old "when you're young, you're liberal - when you're older, you're conservative!" line my own aunt tried to use on me a few times. Dude, I'm sorry, but this just means you're getting more bitter and closed off in your old age. Doesn't happen to everyone, thank goodness.

Mail Call #12: Actually no, it's not my job

In lieu of responding to this email sender directly, I figured I'd put this out to the world in an effort to educate folks about how opinion writing can sometimes work.

Email:

Mills-
I wrote you a week ago and am still waiting for an answer. Isn't it part of your job to answer reader email or only those that pander to the liberal viewpoint?

Paul from Menomonee Falls

Thanks for asking, Paul! To answer: No, it is not part of my job to answer any or all reader emails. I am a freelance writer, therefor not employed by the Journal Sentinel. I get paid a fixed amount to write a weekly column and that's it. The time I spend responding to reader emails is all pro bono/off the clock. I don't get paid for it. I still do it, though, when people send me thoughtful questions or stories or responses - yes, even those people who disagree with me, so long as it's in a coherent way that doesn't just spend a lot of time insulting my person.

Paul's first email, it should be noted, did not fall into that category.

So there you have it, friends: Not all opinion/column writers are employed by the papers that run their work. Actually, I'd venture to guess we're freelance more often than not, these days. And we don't get paid to spend time responding to all of the vitriol that finds it's way into our inboxes. You wanna throw me a few bucks to do it, though? Feel free.

Mail Call #9: Michelle Litjens says hello

I am thrilled to report that none other than former state rep Michelle Litjens wrote a letter to the editor in response to my recent column making the case for why we need more women in politics, tying it to legislation over women's health and reproductive rights. Litjens, if you don't remember, was part of the Republican controlled Legislature that passed Act 10 (the extreme, anti-union measure that prompted months of protest in the state), as well as being a hardcore anti-choice, pro-gun advocate. So the ideological bent of her letter should make a bit more sense, in that context. I appreciate that she took time to respond, so I've done the same (in bold, below):

In response to Emily Mills’ article on Oct. 23, “Needed: More women in politics,” while she is absolutely correct about that statement she is completely wrong about others (Crossroads).

We do need more women in politics. When I served in the Legislature, women were less than a quarter of the representatives. But I am unaware of any “institutional and systemic barriers” to women running for office. In fact, the common saying is true: “When women run, women win.” That's just...not a factual statement. Lots of women lose their races. I'm not even say they always lose because of sexism, but to claim that women always win when they run just doesn't make any damn sense. Also, just because you, a single human being, are "not aware" of certain things does not mean those don't exist. This is a fairly straight-forward concept for most.

Women are less likely to run for office because of lifestyle choices candidates are forced to make every day. Will a candidate attend a pancake breakfast, church picnic, fall festival or his or her kid’s basketball game? This choice is easier for a man to make than a woman. Not because society says so, but because women say so. She lost me here. This makes no actual sense. Is she arguing that men have an easier time putting work before their family? I'm honestly not even sure, this statement is so convoluted. Regardless of the details, though, those "choices candidates are forced to make every day" and how men vs. women respond to them is very much tied up in those aforementioned institutional and systemic barriers--a culture that demands completely different levels of accountability from for mothers vs fathers, pays women less for their work, etc.

My exception to Mills’ article is her comments about third-term abortions. It isn’t true that “hardcore anti-abortion activists continue to spout harmful lies” about third-term abortions. Maybe Mills was unaware that abortionist Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia was sentenced to life in prison for murder. Aaaand PIVOT.

In the grand jury’s report, Gosnell didn’t call it murder, he called it “ensuring fetal demise.” And how did he accomplish this demise? The jury wrote, “The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ‘snipping.’ ” Kermit Gosnell's case is an aberration, and does not reflect anything remotely close to medical best practices in terms of abortion procedure and women's health. He was (rightfully) punished for gross malpractice. What he was doing is already illegal even with the protections provided by Roe v. Wade. And it was a single case. Litjens has long been an advocate for doing away with abortion rights, and during her time in the Legislature sponsored bills that significantly chipped away at (especially rural) women's right to access comprehensive and scientifically-based reproductive care.

Please, Ms. Mills, don’t patronize me by saying we need more women in politics because we need more abortion proponents (it was men who upheld Roe vs. Wade). We need more women in office because women bring a different thought process to the room. We contribute ideas during bill draftings that men just don’t think about because of our differing life experiences. She makes my argument for me. Though I do believe the debate over reproductive rights and women's health would be very, very different had women been at the table all along, I also don't for a moment believe all women think exactly alike on that, or any, issue. But Litjens and I are in agreement that we need more women in office because women bring a different thought process and set of experiences to the room.

Elected women are valued for far more than just their reproductive rights. And, I might also remind Mills, that many of us women would end that reproductive right at birth control.

Michelle Litjens
Former state representative
56th District, 2011-’12
Oshkosh

Again, my biggest takeaway here is that Michelle is willfully ignorant of the fact that even she is the product of systemic sexism. It's a little easier when you're a right-leaning white woman, of course, but even then I'm not keen to drive wedges between people who should be fighting to lift each other up over an oppressive system that hurts us all. The first step is learning that we all have different experiences and outlooks, and that just because you personally have not experienced something doesn't invalidate that experience for someone else. And that just because you, personally, would not make a certain decision--doesn't give you the right to dictate whether or not it might be the right thing for someone else.

Mail Call #8: Men would like me to think about Bill Clinton

Catching up with emails in response to my recent article about Trump and rape culture. SO MANY men, all saying the exact same damn thing, like broken, paternalistic mandroids:

Emily not once did you mention Bill Clinton in your article? Something to think about.

...

I was reading your column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel regarding the treatment of woman at the hands of rich and powerful men and I notice something that was conspicuously absent. There wasn’t any mention of former president Bill Clinton.

...

Didn't see Bill Clintons name even once in your column. It's really sad that liberal journalists can bring themselves to cover an issue from both sides.

...there are a lot of people who can't tell the difference between reporters and opinion columnists, y'all.

These entries go on, and on.

Let me put this simply:

1. Bill Clinton is not currently running for president. Trump is.
2. Trump is on tape bragging about committing sexual assault.
3. Hillary Clinton is not personally responsible for any crimes her husband may have committed.

I will end on this incredibly on-point post made by a friend of a friend, because it should be the most important take away from all of this:

WE DON'T GET TO PICK WHICH VICTIMS WE BELIEVE BY WHICH CANDIDATE THEY SUPPORT

Liberal friends: you know what's not cool? Posting a link to allegations of rape against Trump and then trying to demonize Juanita Broaddrick et al for allegations against Bill Clinton. You're not forensic investigators. You're not gonna blow holes in decades-old rape cases, and you damn well shouldn't be trying.

Conservative friends: you know what's not cool? Defending Trump's harassment and rape and misogyny by pointing out someone else did those things, too. That doesn't make it ok! Two people doing rape just means both people are horrible! Also unfair: making Hillary culpable for all of her husband's sins. She certainly has things to answer for, but she didn't rape anybody. Keep that in mind, please.

Oh, are there inconsistencies in someone's story? Yeah, I bet if you ask me about my rape you'll find inconsistencies in mine; it was years ago and, you know, traumatic. Do these accusers have something to gain? Maybe, but I can tell you as a fact that they probably suffer a lot more than they gain by making up stories like this; look at the way all these women have been dragged through the mud for decades. Rape has a false reporting rate of about 4%, just like most other crimes. While it's possible these stories are made up, it's very very very likely that they are not, especially when so many women have come forward.

Listen up, y'all: WE DON'T GET TO PICK WHICH VICTIMS WE BELIEVE BY WHICH CANDIDATE THEY SUPPORT. If you want justice for rape victims (and you damn well better) then you need to accept that even someone you support might be a horrible person, even if this fact makes your decision making suddenly very morally fraught and messy.

So if you are outraged about Trump or Bill Clinton, that's good! It's good to be outraged about people who molest, demean, assault, and otherwise abuse others. But don't act like your opponent's accusers are all telling the truth while the ones accusing your team are all liars. Every victim deserves justice.

Mail Call #2: "Your small problem"

This one is just plain difficult to parse, but came in response to one of my articles in support of equal/safe/fair access to bathroom facilities for transgender folks.

I swear, some people's children:

I was only a young boy when I realized I wanted to get the ole snip snip. Not until recent times have I been able to muster enough mental and physical strength to cut through my 14 inch fire hose. After all is said and done I love being a born again woman, but have to say I disagree with your article on transgender bathroom rights. If I'm a boy I should use the boys bathroom and if I'm a girl I should use the girls bathroom. I don't want any degenerates or sickos in my bathroom while I'm trying to peacefully do my business. All in all I think you're plain wrong so please quit your job because it's not that big of a deal and I'm sorry you look like a man but don't take it out on the anti transgender people because your problem can be easily solved.

Please stop lashing out about your small problem and find something else to do, thank you.

Really hitting a lot of the finer points here:

• Weirdly disjointed commentary on his own gender identity, alleged penis size (natch) 
• Transphobia! Transmisogyny!
• Nice little attempted jab about me "looking like a man" (I look like me, no apologies needed)
• Urging me to "quit my job" (this column writing business is freelance but you'd be amazed how many people seem to think I'm employed full time by MJS) because his opinion differs
• Belittling of what is a very real, very serious issue for a lot of folks by calling it a "small problem"

Sadly, this email is pretty representative of the super hateful, misguided, fearful, gross commentary I've received every time I write about transgender rights. I've hesitated to post any of it, frankly, because lord knows my trans friends don't need more of this disgusting vitriol in their lives, but I also want to show everyone else exactly the kind of hurtful shit trans people have to deal with all the time. It shouldn't be up to them to shut it down, either - that's the role of us, the allies.

So speak the fuck up whenever and wherever you hear anything remotely like this being spewed. Point out why it's wrong, why it's hurtful, why it matters - how much easier it is just to be decent to one another. Dollars to donuts the email writer above could have used a lot more of said decency in their life, too, to have steered them away from the clearly confused, ignorant, and fearful place they're in now.

Take care of each other.

Mail Call #1

So I've had the honor of contributing an opinion column to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for the past couple of years. They let me wax philosophic about any topic that tickles my fancy, and it's been a great opportunity to both expand my own knowledge and understanding of a wide variety of issues, but also to receive feedback from all across the state.

I have a separate email account set up specifically to take that reader feedback, in fact, because sometimes it's important for mental sanity to have things sectioned off a little. I've been more than pleasantly surprised to find that a good 50% of the responses I get are actually positive/supportive, and come from a wide range of people from all across Wisconsin. Of the negative/opposing feedback, too, I'm very grateful that some folks take the time to offer it constructively and seem to genuinely want to have a discussion.

There's about 20-30% of the feedback, though, that occupies its own, let's say "special" place. I've been sharing some of the greatest (see: weirdest, most out there) hits on my Facebook page for awhile, and more than a few people have no urged me to turn it into a regular archive. That brings us here. I consider this somewhat cathartic for me, honestly, because sometimes I just don't know what drives people to take time out of their days to send such ridiculous and hateful (and often wildly misplaced) bile. I have to believe that, if we met in person, we could probably find at least one thing in common and get past all this (if not ultimately agree on everything) divisiveness. But I also know that some folks are just hell bent on being nasty and feeling righteous.

These are their stories. No names/identifying information included. Enjoy?

Feb. 28, 2016 - in re: my column "Partisan Politics and the Courts"

What in God's name makes you think you know so damn much? And that only liberal thinking is hones,fair and just thinking? And that any one even slightly left of you and Madison is wrong, selfish, uncaring,self-serving -etc. well you get the point? Was is your public schooling? Your college profs? your parents? your friends-assuming you had any? Jesus woman -you haven't even been around long enuf to put you bra and undies on right -where did you get the fucking idea that you can tell educated, charity giving, job creating, church going people the kind of shit you spill every week? Was it some poor fuck at the newspaper? Well we know ho well that is going don't we? That's why so many people quit buying it. Have fun now with this bilge because I would predict it won't last long for you.
You a a fucking little twit with a large opinionated ,not quite mature, narrow minded mouth. Here's an idea-try gay parade and party planning. [sic]

(note to that final suggestion: done and done!)

Government and media responsibility in the digital age

Once in a while, even in the age of print media decline, a piece of cold, hard reporting can still jump out and grab your attention.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been running investigative pieces since January about a woman in Wisconsin who has allegedly been scamming the state out of millions of dollars in child care subsidies for the past several years. The work has been so comprehensive, and so damning of how the state has handled the case, that once the paper said it was about to publish this comprehensive article, the woman in question appeared to confess her crimes and the state finally took serious action against her.

It's a frustrating read, but not because of the reporting. Happily, that's proved to be a pretty rock solid example of what good journalism can and should be: in-depth, hard-hitting, dogged, and informative. It's much raking at its finest.

What's frustrating is twofold. First, you have the state appearing to massively bungle what should have been a pretty easy-to-spot and punish case of serious fraud. We're talking about millions of dollars in funding meant to go toward supporting low-income families trying to support their children. Instead, it appears to have ended up funding a 6-bedroom mansion with an indoor swimming pool and basketball court.

Secondly, there's the bad name this woman--Latasha Jackson--is giving to honest child care providers and those in real need of public assistance in Wisconsin. It's this type of case that only lends fuel to the fires of those people who adamantly oppose any kinds of aid programs for the less well heeled among us. They scowl and point and say "See! Welfare Queens sponging off the system!" But there are plenty--too many, frankly--of people who actually need assistance in getting back on their feet.

I want to give great big kudos to the MJS and the reporters who've been working on this story so diligently. They should get much of the credit for finally kicking the state in the pants and getting them to follow up on the matter, hopefully retrieving the money that's been defrauded of tax payers and making sure this woman never gets another dime from the state.

Now we need to make sure the people funding our media realize what a great resource they have in experienced, on-the-ground local reporters, and start finding other ways to save money that don't involve sacking them all.

(h/t The Sconz)

What's black and white and red all over?

I don't normally address the vapid, pointless things MJS columnist Patrick McIlheran spews onto his blog, but today's little screed bears some tweaking.

Taking umbrage with a piece written by Leonard Pitts Jr. that deals with the problem of black scapegoating in this country, McIlheran goes into full-on sarcasm mode and answers with this gem:

...why did you – yes, you again – deny Pitts a job and then call him a thief? Read to the bottom of his column. That’s what he says you did. And you blew up his school and then called him ignorant. Why did you do that, huh? Why did you kill his father and then complain he was filled with rage?

What, you say you didn’t? You were born after Jim Crow died, after MLK was already regarded a martyr? You grew up thinking black people were just as good as anyone else because “Sesame Street” and every adult you’ve ever known has told you precisely that?

Not only did he miss the entire point of the original article, but apparently the only reason anyone, including himself, might think "black people were just as good as anyone" is because "Sesame Street and every adult you've ever known has told you" to think that. Nice.

I guess McIlheran hasn't made the acquaintance of many African Americans in his day. How else would you explain such a dreadfully ignorant statement?

But it's not entirely uncommon for people to get up in arms when the issue of racism comes up. It's an incredibly complex and highly personal subject. But I don't think Pitts was blaming all racist attacks, past and present, on every white person now living. There's a little something called artistic license going on in his column, wherein stronger language choices are made to get a point across. And the fact remains that we all--black, white, and red-faced McIlheran--still have our own demons to face. Whether that's blatant racism, or the insidious sort that leads us to lock our doors when we see a person of a certain ethnicity walking nearby, the spectre still looms.

Ultimately, this just seems to be a case of McIlheran making knee jerk assumptions based on his own discomfort with the subject. We elected a black man president! This is a post-racial society! We have no more difficult discussions to have or self-examination to do!

Only, clearly, we do.

Fools rush in

Skyrocketing fuel prices? Dig up the oil sands in Canada! Skyrocketing food prices? Tear out the Amazon rainforest for agricultural use!

Seemingly easy solutions like these are awful tempting when we're faced with ever increasingly daunting challenges in the world. A global food crisis is at hand (or already in progress, depending on how you look at it), and we're all feeling the pinch at the gas pumps. But is more really the answer? And more important, is easy really better?

An argument can be made for the former question--increased efficiency, better technology and new sources may help us increase food and fuel production without overwhelmingly negative consequences--but as for the latter, it's not likely.

Dan Gunderson, in an editorial for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, argues that we need to up production in places like Alberta, Canada where vast oil sand reserves live:

While "renewability" is an important factor in our future energy choices, reliability is also essential. Contrary to popular perception, world oil and gas reserves remain abundant. But the lack of access to these reserves is a primary limiting factor in our domestic energy supply.

More than 20 years of ill-considered public policy that restricted access to government lands or prohibited exploration activities has led to higher prices and a significant tightening in current global energy supplies.

...

Not everyone understands that the oil sands and other petroleum resources found in places like Canada increase U.S. energy reliability and security. Some people even suggest that we can simply eliminate petroleum from the American way of life and the economy will continue to grow and create jobs and the promise of a better quality of life for future generations. These folks, it seems, would simply turn 300 million automobiles into so many lawn ornaments, eliminate millions of jobs, do without valuable products, and use the bicycles that the Chinese and Indian people are so eager to abandon.

While I agree that we can't afford to simply and immediately eliminate all petroleum from our lives, to reach the important long-term goal of at least mostly phasing out its use we must think long-term.

Oil sands production and refining is extremely energy intensive, requiring a great deal of natural gas and water. Natural gas production in Alberta has apparently already peaked, and any increase in oil sands production is likely to accompany a reduction in natural gas imports to the United States. Not a great outcome. Plus, oil sands extraction is "generally held to be more environmentally damaging than conventional crude oil - carbon dioxide emissions, for example, are roughly three to five times greater with tar sands extraction." Plus, digging up huge swaths of land, in this case Boreal Forest, is very likely to cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

What's important is that we increase the efficiency and safety standards for current production sites while also working hard to create and improve more sustainable, renewable sources of energy. These new sources, like any new market, will help to create a great number of new jobs, many of which aren't likely to require a great deal of retraining for workers already skilled at jobs in existing energy fields. The trick in all of this, of course, is doing our best to make the transition as smooth as possible. Kinks will be inevitable, but certainly human ingenuity can help to minimize their impact and maximize the positive results.

Plowing ahead with the same old methods without thinking through their long-term effects and consequences is what got us into our current mess. Why repeat the same old mistakes?

Under the guise of growing a more en vogue crop, that's exactly what Blairo Maggi, the governor of Brazil's chief soy-producing state, would have us do. Now, I'm a huge fan of soy--as a vegetarian, it's probably my largest food group. But we don't need to plow under the Amazon rainforest to grow it. Maggi, however, seems to think otherwise:

"With the worsening of the global food crisis, the time is coming when it will be inevitable to discuss whether we preserve the environment or produce more food. There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and taking down more trees," Maggi told Folha de Sao Paulo. "In this moment of crisis, the world needs to understand that the country has space to raise its production."

He's right on the last count, but the country has space outside of the rainforest to raise its production. This according to their own government officials:

Still, Brazilian government officials maintain that agricultural expansion need not come at the expense of the Amazon rainforest. In January Brazilian Agriculture Minister Reinhold Stephanes told Reuters that outside the Amazon, Brazil has 100 million hectares of land available for cultivation, including 50 million hectares of degraded pasture land and 50 million hectares of cerrado, a grassland ecosystem bordering the Amazon rainforest.

So why on Earth would you choose to destroy one of the world's most valuable and fragile resources instead? The soil in the rainforest is extremely bad for agricultural uses. "The soil in the rainforest is very fertile but only the top few inches and only while the rainforest itself is left in place. If you take away the rainforest, the soil itself is not very good at all. The soil's fertility derives from the intense biological activity in the rainforest. This activity is so rapid that biomass from dead plants is recycled and the nutrients made again available in a matter of weeks." Once you clear all of the flora that sustains this cycle, the land begins to erode and degrade at a rapid pace.

Plus, undisturbed rainforests (of which there are few, if any, left) help maintain a worldwide balance between oxygen output and carbon dioxide intake. Greater rates of tree felling and organic decomposition lead to far greater amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the air, as does burning large swaths of the forest. And the repercussions wouldn't end there.

Fact is, we need to apply our vast cerebral and monetary resources to developing and improving more sustainable, more long-term productive methods of fuel and food production. This is possible. It already exists. All that seems to be lacking is education and willpower.


(photo credits here and here, h/t John A. for the subject)

McIlheran loves people, DDT, but misses the point

I read with some interest and confusion Patrick McIlheran's recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, "Consider the humans on Earth, too" - his reaction to the Earth Day holiday. In it, he says that "Greens have long argued that energy is too cheap..." and that environmentalism has blinded some people in malaria-struck regions enough to refuse the use of DDT in fighting the disease. Among other things.

McIlheran seems to be making the argument that preserving the environment is incongruous with producing cheap energy and making sure people, especially those in developing countries, have enough to eat.

He's right to call out those people who claim to be environmentalists and make demands without consideration for how they will immediately effect communities around the world. We need to be careful about the measures taken to protect our world--there is a balance to be struck between being green and being affordable. This is a balance that is emminently doable, too, but where McIlheran goes wrong is in his assertion that "activists" think we need to cut back to "Haitian levels" of energy consumption, and that "Environmental policy is, instead, a set of trade-offs, and what is traded for cleanliness is someone's portion of economic prosperity."

I disagree, and strongly.

We all want cheap, abundant energy. It should not come at the cost of the health of our people and our planet, though. Poorly planned and executed environmental policy may indeed limit someone's portion of economic prosperity, but it needn't be that way. There are projects currently underway in all corners of the globe that aim to (and often succeed at) helping the poorest of the poor to get things like clean water, electricity, education, and agriculture, all with a greener, more sustainable bent. If done right, being more environmentally sound can lead to greater economic sustainability, too. If the source of your livelihood--the land--isn't degraded, you can live off of it indefinitely.

As for DDT, McIlheran is wrong when he claims that the pesticide is both safe and banned. While DDT has long been banned outright in most developed countries (with good reason), its use for "vector control" is still approved in many areas afflicted by malaria. When used carefully and in smaller amounts, it can be just as effective, but without the many environmental and health problems that result from widespread usage.

I'm also uncomfortable with his implication that "activists whose main concern is the environment have appropriated the moral high ground once used by those demanding racial equality." If someone were to actually do this, I'd be inclined to give 'em a good smack, but I've yet to meet someone dedicated to a greener way of life who also thought that one was more important than the other.

One should not overshadow the other. They're both extremely important, and frankly, I think they're also somewhat tied together. If we're talking about the rights of working class and poor communities, then the discussion must include the effects of pollution on their lives. Pollution often caused by large, poorly regulated corporations that feel they can get away with dumping on less wealthy, less empowered people. We can combat these situations with better regulation of industry, greener business practices, and by empowering these communities with ways to help themselves through sustainable means.

So yes, we need to care for our fellow human beings. But a major part of that is wrapped up in how we treat our environment. We should be thoughtful and careful about how we do this, but you cannot separate the two. After all, we can't survive without the Earth, but the Earth can survive without us. I'd rather it not come to that.

Do you bite your hypocritical thumb at me sir?

Bouncing around ye olde blogosphere today, as I'm wont to do, I stumbled across a post by Milwaukee's own folkbum, who noted an article written by MJS editorialist Patrick McIlheran about the recently passed access to emergency contraception bill. Folkbum rightfully points out both the hypocrisy and plain old disgusting nature of the article, homing in on one passage in particular.

Jones-Nosacek points out that Plan B amounts to an extra-large dose of contraceptive drugs. If people worry about trace amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in water, Plan B ought to be at least a little worrying, given that endocrine disruption is what it's all about, she says. Yet the law doesn't let doctors apply any medical judgment to the patient before giving the drug: It must be given on request to any woman of any age.

A man who has consistently railed against environmentalists who speak out against pollutants trying to use their own arguments against something he opposes? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Beyond that, the article argues that religious hospitals shouldn't have to make emergency contraception available to rape victims because it violates their right to refuse to do something that goes against their beliefs. It's a common argument, and one with some merit: after all, I'm a huge proponent of the separation of church and state, so just as I believe that no one should dictate what religion I should or should not follow, I also believe that no one should force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs (unless, of course, we're talking about life-and-death situations and cases involving abuse).

But here's the thing: those Catholic (and other religious) hospitals? They're getting something like half of their operating expenses from public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Very little of their funding comes from churches or other religious sources. Here's the breakdown:

• Combined Medicare and Medicaid payments accounted for half the revenues of religiously-sponsored hospitals in 1998.
• In 1998, religious hospitals nationwide received more than $45.2 billion in public funds: $35.7 billion in Medicare payments, an estimated $8.8 billion in Medicaid payments and nearly $700 million in other types of government appropriations. In 1999, Medicare alone provided $41.3 billion of sectarian hospitals’ patient revenues.
• The other half of religious hospitals’ operating revenues came almost entirely from insurance companies and other third party payers, not from churches or other religious sources.
• By 1999, of all community hospitals, religiously-sponsored facilities were the most reliant on Medicare payments, with Medicare alone accounting for 36 percent of gross patient revenue (compared to 34 percent for all hospitals). Religious hospitals, like nonsectarian facilities, used federal funds from the 1946 Hospital Survey and Construction Act (better known as Hill-Burton) to rapidly expand in the 1950s and 60s. Many of those same hospitals now utilize tax-exempt government bond issues to obtain low-cost financing of reconstruction and further expansion, the study found In two large states, New York and California, religious hospitals received at least $650 million from such government bond issues in 1998. Like other non-profit entities, religious hospitals enjoy the benefits of tax-exempt status, including exemption from property taxes and eligibility for charitable donations.

If an organization is getting most of its funding from public, governmental sources, then it ought to be beholden to the rules and mores codified in state and federal law. Otherwise all the arguments for "separation of church and state" being thrown around by opponents to the Plan B laws are rendered the hideously hypocritical bleats we've long suspected they were.

A hospital wishing to turn their noses up at the law should cease accepting public funding, period. Otherwise, there is simply no excuse for forcing a rape victim to jump through a series of hoops to get EC. It's about as uncharitable and uncaring as you can get.


(image credit: ec.princeton.edu)

Organ donors = awesome

If a story like this doesn't move you to become an organ donor, I don't know what will.

From the MJS:

Thankful for organs, couple honors slain teen

By JIM STINGL

It's an amazing thing, these organ transplants.

The heart beating in the chest of Bud Brauer, a German-Irish 68-year-old church worker from Glendale, came from Gabriel O. Ramirez-Lyons, a Native American-Mexican 21-year-old man murdered on Milwaukee's near south side.

"He was a perfect match," said Bud, who also received a kidney from Gabriel.

In Gabriel's honor, the Brauer family donated the 40-foot spruce that is Milwaukee County's Christmas tree this year. It had outgrown their yard.

And when the lights are switched on during a ceremony at 5:30 p.m. today in the courthouse rotunda, the Brauer family and the Ramirez-Lyons family will meet for the very first time. It's an emotional moment that many donor and recipient families never experience.

"I'm going to lose it big time, I tell you that," said Bud's wife, Mary.

In 2005, Bud began noticing he was short of breath. Eventually he was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy, a hardening of the walls of the heart that limited its pumping ability. He would die without a transplant, doctors told him.

His kidneys failed, and he went on dialysis three times a week.

Bud's name was put on the waiting list for an organ donor, and on Oct. 15 of last year, the call came that a donor had been found. Bud immediately went to Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center.

What he wouldn't learn until months later was that the donor had been killed in a violent crime.

Gabriel was born in 1984, but because of instability in the life of his mother and father, he was raised by his grandmother, Refugia Ramirez, who was 58 when she took in Gabriel as a baby, said Cyndi Ramirez, Refugia's daughter.

She said Gabriel spoke excellent English and some Spanish, and his grandmother does just the opposite, so they helped each other out. In recent years, Gabriel assisted with his grandmother's health care needs.

With dozens of cousins to love, "he was just the center of attention at every party we had," Cyndi said. Gabriel struggled in school and went to work with his father, Alfredo, at a paint factory in Oak Creek.

Cyndi, who works at Froedtert Hospital and is studying to be a nurse, had spoken with Gabriel about becoming an organ donor. Not knowing he would die so young, he told her: "I certainly wouldn't need them. They can take whatever they need if it's going to help someone else."

In the early hours of Oct. 15, 2006, Gabriel and his cousin and a friend got into a fight with three other young males near 15th and Arthur Ave. Gabriel became separated from his companions and was severely beaten and kicked. He made it home but was unresponsive in the morning. He was pronounced dead at the hospital that day.

One of those arrested was later freed, and two took plea deals. A 15-year-old prosecuted in adult court got 15 years in prison. His 17-year-old accomplice has been free on bail and his sentencing keeps getting adjourned, but he can't get more than 15 years, either. Gabriel's family is unhappy that his killers will see freedom so soon.

Cyndi said she looks forward to meeting Bud.

"Having been disappointed by the justice system, it's good to know Gabriel didn't die in vain, that something good came out of this," she said. A woman received his lungs, and a man got the other kidney.

Shortly after the transplant surgery, Mary Brauer wrote a letter of thanks to the family of the donor, then unknown to her. It was forwarded by the transplant clinic to Gabriel's mother, Nelda Lyons. A few months went by and the Brauers received a note from Nelda.

"Of course, nothing can replace the physical presence of my dear son, Gabriel, in my life. But the knowledge that our donation has brought so much relief to you and your family has given us a great sense of spiritual uplifting at a time when I and our family needed it the most," she wrote.

Mary corresponded further with the family and eventually asked them to please join in at the tree lighting. The Brauers' six grown children and most of their 21 grandchildren also plan to attend.

Both families eagerly await the meeting, but they don't know what to expect. Mary said she fully understands that "our joy is their sorrow." Standing before the Ramirez-Lyons family will be Bud, but he'll be running on Gabriel power.

To take their gratitude a step further, the Brauers have started a scholarship in Gabriel's honor at Dominican High School, where some of their kids and grandkids attended. Change of Heart is the fitting name for the fund.

Bud knows this much for sure: No day of living should ever be taken for granted.

"I'll be standing there shaving and I'll say to myself, 'This is absolutely amazing.' "

Can't say much more about that. Just wanted to share.