Diane Savino tells it like it is

The outcome of the same-sex marriage vote in New York state was majorly disappointing, but we got one good thing out of it: Sen. Diane Savino's off-the-cuff speech in support of the bill. Let's hope we hear more from her, and people like her, in the future. The tide is still on the side of equality, and history will look all the more kindly on folks like Savino who spoke out loud and clear well before the law caught up with what's right.

A great mess at state treasurer's office

So far, no one's coming out of this story looking particularly good.

Serious questions have been raised about goings on in the state treasurer's office since at least last year, when the Wisconsin State Journal reported on possible politically motivating hiring going on there. Positions in the office are supposed to be nonpartisan, civil service, merit-based jobs.

More recently, many have been calling into question State Treasurer Dawn Marie Sass's ability to properly run the office. The allegations involve improper staffing levels, grossly mismanaging unclaimed property requests, hiring her 20-year-old niece, and not bothering to detail travel expenses on her ethics reports.

Today, the WSJ again lays out yet more drama at the office, wherein Sass has fired her deputy because, as she now says, he did in fact politicize the hiring process at the office. This reverses the claims she'd made initially when the issue was raised. So why the change of heart? Why the sudden willingness to stand up for what's right and good and non-partisan in this world?

Well, something tells me the motives aren't entirely altruistic. I mean, Sass has been under serious pressure to whip her department into shape lest she be removed from office. Major problems have been outlined with how she's handled her job. Suddenly deciding to grow a conscience and throw a few people under the bus to save one's own skin isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

Why else would she wait until everyone who she claims was hired for political reasons had already left those jobs? And why defend the hires so rigorously in the first place, only to wait a year (until you yourself had come under fire) to speak up?

The whole thing smacks of self-serving politics, and not just on the part of Sass. After all, there's a good chance her claims of politicization and meddling on the part of governor's office have merit despite her potentially less-than-noble reasons for spilling the beans.

What it all comes down to is that we clearly need a serious investigation into Sass, her office, and the Doyle administration. If anyone has been trying to influence hires and/or hiring based on political affiliations, then they need to be reprimanded and held responsible. This kind of shit shouldn't fly at any level of government - federal, state, or otherwise.

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)

Doyle beats both Republican candidates in magazine poll

I'm not exactly a huge Doyle cheerleader (I cringe every time the man speaks in public, for instance), but I do recognize that, of the current field of candidates for governor, he's still the best choice.

So it's interesting to see that he came out ahead in a recent poll conducted by The Business Journal of Milwaukee, besting both Republican candidates (current Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and Mark Neumann).

It wasn't a huge win in terms of numbers (Doyle took 48% of the votes, Walker 41%, Neumann a blistering 4%), but considering the electorate for this tally was, presumably, made up of mostly business owners and related interested parties, it is a notable result.

According to a memo released by the DPW regarding the poll:

The Republican Party of Wisconsin was out in full force, beginning with a push via Twitter at 9:20 AM on Wednesday - http://twitter.com/wisgop/status/2653364739 - and then a statewide email action alert (attached) Wednesday afternoon when Gov. Doyle was the clear leader. Their statewide communication prompted a response from the DPW, independent groups and those in the business community wanting their voices heard.

I'm not going to read a whole lot into this lone poll, but neither do I think it should be written off entirely. One of the most frequent accusations leveled against Democrats in general and Doyle in particular by Republicans is that they are not business friendly. Time and time again, charges that Wisconsin has become a hellish pit of high taxes and no rewards for companies come flying fast and furious from some folks on the right.

And yet, survey after survey has shown that taxes almost never rank near the top of a list of concerns for business owners in the state. Companies move here on a regular basis. It isn't to say that everything's hunky dory and there's no room for improvement, but the doom and gloom scenario so often painted by partisans doesn't quite pan out, either.

And can you blame the voters here? Neumann's still pretty unknown, and Walker, where he is known, is most notable for accomplishments like getting the state to strip the county of its role in providing public assistance because of gross negligence and incompetence. That'd be the county he's supposed to be running, by the way.

My only concern here is that Walker showed as well as he did. I attribute some of that to the fact that Doyle has never made for the most exciting candidate, but still. At least he's on track with the high-speed rail project. And frankly, I'd rather Wisconsin be goverened by a herd of spitting llamas than Scott Walker. At least the llamas would get things done. Namely spitting.

Walker hates government, wants to be governor

Well I can't say that this comes as a surprise, but it sure doesn't make sense: Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker is definitely angling himself for a run at the governor's office come the 2010 elections.

Why doesn't that make sense? Because Walker has shown himself, time and time again, to be a person who doesn't believe government has any role to play, whatsoever, in much of anything at all. Dustin Beilke, writing at The Daily Page, has a good piece about this sort of moronic hypocrisy on the part of people like Walker. In the grand tradition of Grover Norquist's "drown it in the bathtub" attitude toward government, Walker has already succeeded in getting the county's public assistance role stripped by the state due to rampant incompetence. He's also come under recent (rightful) fire for his call for federal stimulus money to go toward a sales tax reduction, and Walker would like nothing more than to privatize just about everything you can think of.

Many others have done a great (and likely painful) job of keeping track of all the many and varied ways in which Scott Walker has worked so tirelessly to destroy everything he touches, so I won't go on just now. Click the links, and have a read. Try not to throw anything at your monitor while you do.

Suffice to say that I'm both humored and troubled by his apparent decision to run for the top office in the state. Humored because he's such an unflagging political idiot, and troubled because what if enough people actually support his run? I'm no great Doyle cheerleader, but compared to Walker the man's a savant.


(graphic courtesy the Brawler)

The circle won't be broken

If you've been paying any kind of attention to anything lately, you know that the US economy has been rather down in the dumps (understatement of the year!). I've been dutifully listening to and reading the news, waiting for Kai Ryssdal's velvety voice to tell me what's up every afternoon, and trying to sort through what all of it really means. Fun stuff, oh yes.

I was a liberal arts major, so not exactly an expert on the financial markets, but I'm also a huge history nut and can't help but get this eerie feeling of familiarity from our current crisis.

I'm sure economic bubbles and their inevitable bursts go back even further, but I know that, at least during my lifetime, those bubbles seem to be all we've had. In the Reagan-tastic 80's, we had the savings and loan thing. That carried over into the 90's, but that decade also saw the growth and popping of the dot-com bubble. Now, we've got ourselves a debacle of monumental proportions to do with everything from investment banks, mortgage brokers, loaning institutions, and just about anything else you can think of.

It's a cycle of greed and deregulation, far as I can tell, and one that could (somewhat easily) be avoided if we ever bothered to learn from past mistakes. Thing is, you put a big pile of money in front of people and all common sense seems to fly right out the window. Republicans--or, more specifically, unbridled free market loving Republicans--surely bear the most blame for our current situation, having aggressively lobbied for a won increasing deregulation of the markets and financial institutions over the last couple of decades. Democrats, however, are not free from that blame heaping. Hoping to score political points and maintain some shred of legitimacy in a government primarily dominated by the opposing party for so many years, Democrats have given in on crucial issues time and time again.

And now I'm left watching and waiting to see what they do with this patently ridiculous plan put forth by Henry Paulson wherein he gets free reign over $700 billion in taxpayer money to bail out massive failing companies that, quite frankly, should have known better. This is all very strange, of course, because the very same people who are crying about the need to save these firms from bankruptcy and such are those folks who, until very recently, were the most vehement critics of government intervention in private business.

And hey, maybe my memory of my high school economics class is a little fuzzy, but isn't our capitalistic system supposed to be built on merit? That is, your business succeeds or fails based on how well you do/how good your product is--and should it fail, that's that. Survival of the fittest. How does propping up a company with a crappy business plan do anyone any good in the long run? Doesn't it just encourage further waste and create a drain on the economy? That's what I was always led to believe, but the world has gone topsy on me over these last few weeks.

What will be especially interesting (see: maddeningly infuriating) to watch is how those people primarily or at least partly responsible for this crisis (deregulators and strident free-marketers in both private business and public office) spin the situation to make them look like the good guys. If Democrats allow Paulson's obscene plan to pass, for instance, it's not at all unlikely that Republicans will then skewer and run against them for doing so--even though they're just as culpable for the mess.

And regardless of who ends up in the White House come January '09, they'll have been left with a shitpile of epic proportions--trillions of dollars of debt, an economy in shambles, an unpopular war, etc. etc. I'd much, much rather it be Obama who gets the job, but I sure don't envy what he'll have to deal with.

Kos at the DailyKos had this astute observation to make about the potential scenario:

So as Obama looks to invest in health care, alternative energy, education, and other Democratic priorities, watch Republicans suddenly become born-again fiscal hawks, oh so concerned about the nation's finances and the unfortuante lack of funds to pursue such initiatives. All of a sudden, they'll become the nation's staunches [sic] defenders of your money, even though they watched Bush piss away trillions over the past eight years with nary a word of dissent.

Funny how that works. I'll be happy to eat my words if that doesn't end up being the case, but I won't hold my breath.

Thing is, much of this could have been avoided--and that's not just hindsight speaking. Greater minds than my own have long spoken out against unbridled deregulation of the markets. We've had good laws governing how businesses can operate, but most of them have been cut down in recent years by the Reaganomics Ghouls in government who are far more interested in lining their own pocketbooks than they are in creating a better country for all of their fellow citizens.

And now that their policies are crashing and burning in one great conflagration of capitalism run amok, they expect the American People to fork over upwards of one trillion dollars to bail their asses out.

I say, dump the bosses off your backs! Hold your elected officials accountable, for Pete's sake--Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever. Simply injecting provisions for the limiting of CEO pay will not make this proposal better or less insane. We must demand that any bail-out include re-regulation of businesses and the markets, checks and balances on those who we leave in charge of the implementation, and some sort of plan to make back the money we dole out.

In short, we have to do whatever we can to make sure this doesn't happen again.

This crisis has been looming for months (if not years), so don't let their calls of "Act now before DOOOOM!" fool you. Congress should take the appropriate amount of time to really examine this deal and make sure all angles are covered. This is far, far too important to just push through without debate or critique or revision. I'd argue that, in fact, it would be criminally negligent to do so.

This is the future of our country, our lives, that we're gambling with here. And frankly, I've never liked gambling. We need to get back to being a nation of sensible producers and innovators, reigning in the speculative, nebulous Wall Street shenanigans in favor of more solid, tangible endeavors.

This bubble's popped, and while we're still cleaning the shit out of our hair, I'd rather we didn't just shove another stick of gum into our mouths.

UPDATE TO ADD: I just read an article at Roll Call detailing the Bush/Paulson push for this bail-out plan to be passed as quickly as possible, and one paragraph especially stood out:

Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.

So despite the months of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" coming from the White House, Paulson and the like, they were aware enough of the situation to come up with this massive spending plan "just in case". That seems...I dunno, fishy? But then, this is the same tactic the Bush Administration has been using since day one: hatch crazy plan, implement plan, plan goes to shit but refuse to admit it, wait until last possible second and then call for a new crazy plan to solve the old plan's problems (and insist it must be passed right now or there will be dire fucking consequences), lather, rinse, repeat. The folks at Firedoglake have an interesting take on this, too.

The Assembly gets something (mostly) right

Even though the Republicans pulled a petty maneuver to keep it in the Assembly until the next calendar (probably January), I'm very glad to see that this passed:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Assembly has given preliminary approval to a bill that would require hospitals to supply emergency contraception to rape victims if they ask for it.

The bill would require emergency rooms give sexual assault victims information on the so-called morning-after pill and dispense it upon a victim's request.

Supporters contend the measure will help prevent pregnancies in rape victims. Critics have likened the drug to abortion.

The Assembly passed the measure 56-41 Tuesday night just before midnight, but majority Republicans used a parliamentary tactic to prevent it from leaving the Assembly.

I've written about my feelings on the subject before, but allow me to reiterate that 1) this is an important and necessary piece of legislation that will offer much-needed help to people in need and 2) THE MORNING-AFTER PILL IS NOT ABORTION. It prevents contraception from ever happening in the first place, thus avoiding the possibility of needing an abortion altogether. You'd think those crazy anti-abortion people would be happy as clams about this.

Freedom requires religion?

In a speech to the nation yesterday (in theory to address concerns over his Mormon faith), Mitt Romney made a very interesting, and rather troubling, statement. He said, "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."

It's a clever turn of phrase, but more than a little disingenuous. The ability to choose one's religious beliefs and practices without pressure from any outside source is heavily reliant upon the freedoms we're granted as US citizens. That much is true. But to suggest that "freedom requires religion" is to suggest that to be free, one must have religion. I think a legion of atheists might care to disagree with Mr. Romney.

The notion isn't entirely surprising, considering its source. Unfortunately, a great number of right-leaning, evangelical Christians, Mormons, Jews, etc., have fallen prey to the misguided notion that religion is essential to leading a good, meaningful life, and that this makes it an essential component of American government. But one thing does not equal the other, and the Framers included separation of church and state for this very reason. You are, and should be, free to choose your own faith or lack thereof. Belief in God alone does not make you a good or bad person.

The funny thing is, many of our most restrictive laws in this country are the result of religious fundamentalists who believe that it's their way or the high way for everyone else. Take, for instance, Wisconsin's extremely dubious ban on gay marriages and civil unions. The effort to get that passed was spearheaded by the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin (now the Wisconsin Family Council), an unabashedly religious/Christian group with far-right leanings. I don't think they're particularly interested in freedom for their fellow citizens.

Thankfully, the effort to overturn said amendment was recently given a boost by the courts. William McConkey, a "married, straight, Christian" political science teacher, filed a legal challenge against the amendment, claiming that it violated the constitutional right of Wisconsin voters not to vote on two or more issues at once. The Dane County circuit judge ruled in his favor, throwing out an objection from the state in the process.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Balistreri, who represents the state, filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that McConkey lacked legal standing to bring the action because he suffered no harm as a result of the amendment. Balistreri said even if McConkey could show his rights as a voter were violated because two questions were wrapped into one, "that's not enough for standing. You have to have harm as a result of the violation," he said.

McConkey, who described himself as a "Christian, straight, married" father of nine and grandfather of seven when he filed the lawsuit, is not directly affected by the ban on gay marriages or the ban on civil unions. But Pines argued that the proposed amendment violated the Wisconsin Constitution because voters had to endorse either both concepts in the question or neither, and therefore were deprived of their rights to oppose one or the other.

McConkey has standing to proceed in the lawsuit, Pines said, because his voting rights were violated.

Thank God for people like McConkey, who break stereotypes about what their religion means in terms of their political and social beliefs, and who step up to challenge injustices. He had the freedom to choose his religion, and understands that his religion does not get to choose anyone else's freedom.

Yes, please

Gov. Jim Doyle asked lawmakers Monday to pass a statewide smoking ban before they adjourn for the year at the end of next week.

Yes, please.

I frequent bars and clubs (on account of playing in a band) and have only increased my patronage since the Madison ban went into effect. It has been a huge boon to me personally and to a number of people I know. An example: I sometimes sing for this group, and before the ban, it wasn't uncommon for my throat to close up and cause me to have a coughing fit in the middle of a song. That's not at all what an audience wants to hear (regardless of what they think of our music in general), nor is it something I enjoy doing.

Another bonus courtesy of the ban comes in the form of the weekly Bennett's ad in the Onion. I always look forward to discovering what crazy new illogical rant will accompany the plug for smut n' eggs.

But these are just small anecdotes. There are quite a few very good reasons to ban smoking in "public buildings, workplaces, restaurants and taverns."

I do understand the concerns of bar/club owners, and those expressed by the always vocal Tavern League. If the state were trying to ban something like, say, playing darts, then I'd be right behind them in their calls to block it. But we're talking about a proven poison, something that doesn't just harm the smoker, but wafts out and harms everyone around them, too. Hell, if you need your tobacco fix, take up the always charming "smokeless tobacco" (see: chew) habit. Just don't spit it onto my shoes.

The Tavern League's website has a list of bars that closed in 2007, supposedly as a result of the ban. Thing is, how does this compare to years' past? Where's the hard data linking their closures to loss of revenue due to the ban? How many of those places were headed for closure regardless of/before the ban went into effect? The Green Room, for instance, was a cavernous place filled with pool tables. Maybe they just couldn't afford the large space? And Bru's Anchor Inn, as far as I was aware, was having trouble staying open before the ban went into effect.

Like all things, businesses must learn to adapt or perish. It's harsh, but isn't that how we, the capitalists pigs, encourage innovation and improvement? Plus there's that whole cigarettes fucking kill thing, but I hate to sound so negative. Wait, no I don't....


(image credit: tobaccofree.org)

Someone listened

Now here's an (not entirely novel) idea:

MADISON, Wis. -- A legislative proposal would suspend pay for state lawmakers if the next budget is late.The idea is a provision in a reform package being promoted in the state Assembly. If it passes, it would subject lawmakers to other penalties. The budget was 115 days late this year.Two northeastern Wisconsin lawmakers, Gordon Hintz and Tom Nelson, are offering the reforms.Nelson said that members of the Conference Committee should be required to meet for 40 hours a week during negotiations.The Kaukauna Democrat also wants a moratorium on fundraising during the budget-writing process. The proposal is expected to be introduced at the end of the month.

It's nice to know that at least a few of our state legislator's were paying attention to the general hew and cry that went up during the drawn out budget fiasco. All that remains is for the Assembly to actually pass the measure. Here's hoping.

Neo-Abolitionists

Someone explain to me why it wasn't already a felony to force a person into slavery. Because apparently, Wisconsin is working on passing legislation that would "officially make trafficking human beings for sex or cheap labor illegal," defining it as "recruiting, enticing, harboring or transporting an individual without consent for labor, services or commercial sex acts through harming the person, stealing their identification, extortion or debt bondage."

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but didn't we officially make slavery illegal in the United States back in 1863? How is it that it's now 2007 and no such law is yet on the books?

In any case, if anyone votes against this, I will lift my objections to the use of tarring and feathering just for them.

Compassion, but only sometimes

I'm very pleased to see that the Assembly moved two bills forward recently, both dealing with care for victims of sexual assault. The first bill apparently enjoys broad bipartisan support and will likely pass without much issue. That one deals with the forensic exams administered after an assault to collect DNA and other evidence against the assailant. It would take the burden of paying for them off of the victims and provide full state funding. I'm not sure how it was that we went so long without realizing that forcing the victim to pay for this essential service was a bad idea, but I'm extremely relieved to see it being rectified now, and with great support.

The second, more uncertain bill would "mandate that rape victims receive information about emergency contraception in all Wisconsin emergency rooms and have access to EC upon request."

Right on cue, however, social conservatives have their panties in a twist over that one, claiming that the bill would trample the rights of religious institutions (think St. Mary's).

AB 377 was referred to the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee after the Senate vote, where an amendment was added in Sept. that would allow hospitals to refuse to comply with the law if it violated their religious or moral beliefs.

Pocan said in a statement that the amendment “nullifies” the bill, though amendment supporters have stated that it protects hospitals’ religious freedoms. State Rep. Frederick Kessler, D-Milwaukee, who co-sponsored AB377, said he was still hopeful the bill would pass the Assembly.

Ultimately, if any amendment were going to be added to this bill, I would suggest something a little less broad, but also something that allows places that oppose the use of contraception (like St. Mary's) a way out. For example, word it like this: "Any health care institution with religious or moral objections to the use of emergency contraceptives shall be required to provide information to victims of sexual assault about alternative places where EC can be procured, and provide transportation to said alternative at the patient's request."

Ultimately, I wish everyone would just get over themselves about the contraception issue. It's not abortion. There is no new life involved. Contraception and things like Plan B stop conception before it ever happens. No harm, no foul.

But I also realize that this issue won't resolve itself like that for a long while yet. While that frustrates me and many other pro-choice advocates to no end, we also need to be willing to make strong compromises along the way. The bill is a good one, and if we need to add an amendment that gets religious hospitals off the hook to get it passed, then so be it. The wording, however, needs to be precise and clear in that the option for EC must still be available to those in need and that your responsibility as a health care provider is to make sure they have easy access, even if that means driving them to the next hospital down the road (say, Meriter).

Oh bondage, up yours (big telecoms)!

Nothing like a good X-Ray Spex reference to start the day right.

Anyway, there's much hullabaloo over a bill making its way through the Senate at the moment--specifically SB 107, the so-called "Video Competition Bill" currently being championed by newly crowned Majority Leader Russ Decker. The positive spin on this piece of legislation is that it will break Charter Communication's monopoly on providing cable services in the area, and generally increase competition. Increased competition is usually good for the consumer, as it results in lower rates and better service.

The negative spin on SB 107 is that it's the work of AT&T and will provide all sorts of fun loopholes in the law, allowing for the industry to regulate itself (instead of the state), to deny service to people in rural areas, the elderly and lower income people. It would also cause a loss in fees usually paid by the industry to the state that then go to fund local public access channels, shifting the costs to taxpayers and causing significant damage to those public stations.

John Nichols has an excellent op-ed over at TCT about the issue, and does a good job of summing up what's going on:

Backed by AT&T as part of a move to consolidate control over communications in Wisconsin, the legislation -- Senate Bill 107 -- was written in consultation with industry interests with the purpose of undermining consumer protections, threatening public access channels, eliminating the ability of communities to establish basic standards for cable service, and decreasing the likelihood that new communications technologies will be offered to communities throughout the state.

The supposed regulations in this bill are riddled with loopholes that are designed to allow communications conglomerates to deny quality service to low-income and rural areas of Wisconsin. For instance, instead of requiring that cable TV and other broadband providers guarantee everyone in Wisconsin has access to communications networks, the so-called "build-out requirements" are so weak that big firms would be able to avoid them by claiming that providing equal service to the poor, to the elderly and to people living in the countryside is not "commercially reasonable."

The comments section under this piece is already riddled with people arguing back and forth either about why this legislation is a god-send or why it's of the devil. Personally, my take is that it smacks of being a bad take on a valid problem. Current state law probably does need some revision to better meet modern communications issues more effectively, to make sure everyone has equal access, that no one company can have a monopoly on a region, and that public access stations continue to be well maintained and accessible.

This bill doesn't do any of that, but instead appears to create a veritable free-for-all for companies like AT&T, the biggest backers of the legislation.

I'm as disinterested in providing Charter with regional dominance as the next person, but this is not at all the way to go about it. No amount of bellyaching about the Big Ten or NFL Networks is going to change my mind, either. There are other ways of going about getting access to stations like that, ways that don't involve deregulating the entire industry in Wisconsin, and that don't favor any one company in particular.

For more information about the legislation and actions being taken to oppose it, visit saveaccesswisconsin.org and their great "Myths and Facts" section in specific.

P.S. Just found this very interesting article about the whole thing, including a breakdown of how an influential poll on the matter was conducted and worded. This part in particular is telling:

For example, the poll states: "Opponents of this law say that the state legislature should not pass the bill ... because community access stations would be required to spend up to $1 million dollars [sic] to upgrade their equipment." Cardona told PR Watch that this is not what AB 207 / SB 107 would require. Instead, she said, "this bill passes on AT&T costs to PEG stations. In the past, the cable operator has always provided all of the interconnections from our stations to their end. AT&T wants to pass off the price of conversion equipment, which they need to have our normal broadcast signal stream on their systems. ... They want us to do that, which is going to be very cost prohibitive, especially for our smaller stations." Cardona couldn't say how Mellman might have come up with the $1 million figure used in the poll.

It should be noted, too, that one of the organizations that conducted this poll, the Wisconsin Merchants Federation (WMF), has been highly active in promoting the bill for some time. Seems a bit fishy to me.

Just say no to puppy mills, dang it!

Good lord, I hadn't realized our fair state was the Wild West of puppy breeding (see: almost totally unregulated) until I read this article in today's State Journal. The good news, however, is that legislators, though still incapable of passing a decent state budget, are moving to make significant changes to the laws:

A bill to be introduced today by a bipartisan group of lawmakers would require all dog breeders who sell at least 60 dogs a year or have at least eight breeding females to register with the state, meet minimum breeding and sanitary standards and be subject to state inspections. It would require the state to establish those standards and impose penalties on breeders who violate them.

The bill would also let dog buyers seek financial or other penalties from breeders who sell unhealthy dogs.

I guess I'm just somewhat appalled that there wasn't already some type of regulation on the books in regards to breeding. Puppy mills are disgusting and the people who run them are deplorable. It seems well within reason and the jurisdiction of the state government to impose basic standards on the people who breed dogs. Especially since "designer" pups have become so popular in recent years.

My family had a similar experience years ago when we bought a "purebred" shih tsu puppy from a local pet store (that, it later turned out, used puppy mill breeders for its dogs). The poor thing was a complete runt and was so sick that she nearly died just months after we brought her home. Happily, our story has a good ending in that we were able to get her cared for by an amazing vet who basically saved her life. She ended up being the weirdest but most personable dog you could want, but lived a long and happy life (though we're fairly certain she wasn't at all a "purebred" shih tsu--there appeared to be some pekingese in her as well, at the very least).

Unfortunately, there are far too many stories that don't end so well for the dogs or their owners. You can learn more about puppy mills and those organizations working to stop them at the following links:

• stoppuppymills.org
• Human Society of the United States
• Wisconsin Puppy Mill Project

What I'll be really curious about is whether or not this proposed legislation will include regulations for breeders who sell directly to pet stores. It's a common loophole nationwide and, frankly, it's pretty heinous.

(photo credit: Dane County Humane Society - and you can adopt that very dog, or any of the other deserving animals through their adoption program)