The animosity of the comfortable

I really need to stop reading the comments section after articles in the Cap Times and WSJ. More often than not, they're filled with the most ridiculously awful crap--even regarding stories that most would consider unimpeachable.

For instance, the Cap Times currently has a piece up about an Allied neighborhood activist who's working to organize shuttle buses to take residents grocery shopping. This is in response to the looming loss of the Cub Foods that currently serves the area.

This guy, Mike Bodden, has taken the selfless initiative to see what can be done to help those people without access to a car or bus (for whatever reason) get to a grocery store. He's running this operation out of a local food pantry that's sponsored by a group of churches.

Bodden said he planned to charge a small fee to ride the grocery shuttle, but it would not cover the estimated $200 weekly cost of providing the transportation.

The service would operate out of the Boys and Girls Club, 4619 Jenewein Road, where the food pantry is located.

"Any good souls who would like to help support this, it would be appreciated," he said. "Maybe some business would like to take it on."

Seems straight forward enough, right? Not according to some of the generous souls in the comments section, from whom we get such gems as "Has anyone ever considered giving these leakers a ride to a 'job'? Naw, not the likes of The Capital Times, wouldn't want to hurt their feelimgs [sic]. What a bunch of nonsense," and "Yeah, this is a joke. I like how they're 'operating' out of the Boys and Girls Club. Does the B & G Club know that? Do they have insurance for something like that? What happens when someone gets hurt on the bus or in a car accident? And the 'maybe some businesses would like to take it on' comment?!? Really? Yeah, nobody wants that bus pulling up to their business, up to and including Woodman's."

Can you feel the love?

Someone else goes on to rail against the "use of taxpayer money" to fund projects like this, apparently completely missing the part where this is being paid for by donations and a small rider fee. Are people really so eager to shit on needed community service projects that their brains just shut down, overlooking the facts of the matter entirely and opting instead to just lash out?

These kinds of comments, I think, speak volumes about the misperceptions and misplaced animosity that exist in our community regarding the working class and impoverished among us. All of these cries to "pull yourself up by your own damn bootstraps" completely miss the part where many of these people simply don't have any bootstraps to begin with. It behooves us, as those fortunate enough to have been given better opportunities in life, to do what we can to see that everyone gets the same chance to do well for themselves.

And before anyone jumps down my throat, allow me to point out that there's a big (and incredibly important) difference between creating a situation where people can mooch off the system and your good graces without giving anything back or taking some responsibility for themselves, and creating a situation where everyone has the same opportunities but then must take it upon themselves to take advantage of them and work toward something better.

Currently, the latter and better situation is not the case. And making sure that people have access to food is the least we can do to right that. If you can't see that, it's high time you turned your brain back on and really started learning about your community--all of it.

Taking bike theft a bit more seriously

I recently wrote about how bike thieves go to the special hell, bemoaning the fact that anyone would up and steal someone's (non-polluting) mode of transportation and source of general good times. Another discussion that sprung up from that concerned how local police tend to deal (or don't) with bike thefts. In the comments section, Nataraj Hauser related one particularly troubling story:

It's not just bicycles, it's theft in general that MPD doesn't take seriously. When my motorcycle was stolen in September, the officer responding to my call flat out told me I'd probably never see my cycle again (a functional but absolutely unstunning Honda CB200, scarcely larger than a moped). The next spring I went to the police auction and lo and behold, there was my cycle, WITH MY CASE NUMBER WRITTEN ON THE SEAT. MPD had recovered the bike 24 hours after I reported it stolen, yet couldn't be bothered to TELL ME they had recovered it. Instead they were going to sell it at auction. If I were only slightly more cynical, I'd assume collusion. Lose a bike? Check the auction next spring.

The Capital Times today features an article detailing a new UW Police initiative that places "bait bikes" around campus, equipped with GPS devices, as a way of catching more thieves and, hopefully, deterring the crime all-together. Apparently, similar programs in other cities have produced positive results, so I will be interested to see how this one plays out.

Again, though, in the comments section someone asks if registering your bike with the city will improve your chances of getting it back. Another person responded, "I hear that if your bike is stolen and auctioned at a police auction, even though it was 'registered' and you recognize it as your bike, the police will still not give it back to you."

I certainly hope that's not true, but Hauser's story above seems to cast a serious shadow of doubt on that hope. The overall difficulty of recovering stolen bikes in the first place is understandable--there are a lot of bikes out there, and a lot of more pressing crimes to be sure--but if the police actually do find yours, especially if it's registered, shouldn't it follow that they make an at least passing attempt to get it back to you? Registration is actually legally required in Madison, including a fine for noncompliance. Are we actually getting anything for our dollars, though?

Another idea posited in the comments section of that article is that the fine associated with a bike theft conviction ought to be raised. It currently stands at $200, which, when compared to the price of most stolen bicycles, is hardly a drop in the bucket. If you stand to make $500 or more on the sale of a stolen bike, the threat of a $200 fine (if you get caught at all, which doesn't seem to happen much) must seem pretty paltry.

Clearly these are issues that require more follow-up, and I intend to track down some answers in the near future. But if you have any stories or information relating to this, please post them in the comments section. I'm deeply curious!

In the meantime, the article's advice on locking up your bikes is sound. I'm constantly amazed at how many bikes I see just left leaning against buildings around town, the owners presumably inside running a quick errand and apparently sure that the quick trip won't result in a stolen ride. Wrong. Bike thefts can happen in the blink of an eye, especially when you don't lock them up. So while we all work on better deterrents and punishments for the crime, be sure to at least do your part for prevention.

Private Parts

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're consensually gettin' down with your partner, in that they should then still have to ask for your permission to film or photograph you? That's the question being put to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, after a (now former) Waunakee High School chemistry teacher was convicted last year of filming his girlfriend, both alone and with him, in her own home but without her knowledge or consent.

His original trial brought a felony conviction, which in this case I suspect may be a bit too harsh, but certainly he deserved some form of punishment. To me, this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case: how on Earth are you going to argue, as this guy and his lawyers are, that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy against recording simply because they agreed to have sex with you? It seems ridiculous, and yet here we are:

...in the only previously published case testing the law, the Court of Appeals defined "reasonable expectation of privacy" as meaning a circumstance in which the person depicted nude had a reasonable assumption that he or she was "secluded from the presence of others."

Because his girlfriend was knowingly nude in his presence, she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as the court itself has defined it, Jahnke argued.

The law to which the article refers is the "Video Voyuer" law, passed in 2001 as a response to the state supreme court declaring an earlier version unconstitutional. Again, while I'm not entirely sure this guy's case should be classified as a felony, I do strongly believe that what he did was wrong, and that there should be strict penalties associated with it. Furthermore, I'm having a hard time believing that anyone would defend his appeal here (or that a lawyer would take the case in the first place--but I guess getting paid is getting paid). Leave it to the comments section after the CT article to prove me wrong:

"What did she expect? IF it had been published, that would be another story."

"Say he has a photographic memory and has perfect recall of what she looks like without clothing. Alternatively say he has taped her surreptitiously in the raw, and watches it, but does not publish it or share with anyone else. One is illegal one is not?"

Oh humanity, sometimes you fail so spectacularly. Thankfully, however, most of the comments seem to fall along the same lines as my own: this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Certainly, though, this whole thing brings up the larger issue of when and where we all have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In this day and age of ultra small and portable recording devices, the all-seeing internet, surveillance cameras, and the good ol' paparazzi, how far is legally too far? It's a question I think we'll be wrestling with, sometimes quite dramatically, for a long time to come. In the meantime, if you're not a fan of being filmed without consent, stay out of London.

No big deal until it's a big deal

This is becoming a tired pattern: newspaper runs a story mentioning a subject controversial to some, those some become enraged that the subject is mentioned, others tell them to settle down, they retaliate by claiming their anger has nothing to do with the subject itself, but rather with the newspaper's insistence on even mentioning it.

Case-and-point: The Cap Times runs a story about recently selected UW chancellor Biddy Martin that mentions her being the first openly gay chancellor at the university. This isn't the first or only story run on her selection, rather just one of many, and it happens to focus on this particular element and how it relates to the UW's current lack of domestic partnership benefits. Martin has expressed her intention to support efforts to change that. Simple enough.

But of course, certain folks take umbrage with the article and its focus, claiming that Martin's sexuality has no relevance and shouldn't be mentioned, ever, at all. Apparently it gets their undies in a bunch.

Dave Blaska, scourge of the Isthmus Daily Page, laments that:

But is that the essence of Biddy Martin, her sexual proclivities? Why would a major university hire someone for that reason? (Or, for that matter, not hire?) Would not a more enlightened policy — a John Patrick Hunter policy — be (cue "Anchors Away") "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Quality. Now that it's a generally accepted no-no to be a bigot, bigots have turned to round-about ways of expressing their disdain for all that is different: ignoring it. Plugging their ears and singing "la la la I can't heeeear yoooou" and claiming that it's "no big deal." That is, until someone has the gall to mention it, and then all bets are off as to civility and rationality.

Well, they're right on one count: a person's sexuality shouldn't be a big deal and it shouldn't have anything to do with how we judge their character, qualifications for a job, or anything else. They're as wrong as the military when it comes to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" though. Straight people mentioning their straightness doesn't seem to piss them off, so why should a gay person mentioning that they're gay?

We're also early enough in the game (sadly) that it remains noteworthy when the first of a traditionally marginalized and/or discriminated against group gains prominence or major achievement. The fact that, for instance, Barack Obama is the first major black candidate for the highest office in the land is noteworthy. We shouldn't elect him or not elect him based on that fact, but how on Earth are you going to ignore what is such a major milestone? Ignoring that fact, and the fact of the first openly gay UW chancellor, is akin to ignoring and/or denying the monumental hurdles they've had to overcome on their way to these positions. Hurdles that our society has, for far too long and even still to this day, placed merrily in their way.

And yet, and yet. The webmaster at TCT had to disable the comments section that accompanied the article about Martin and domestic partnership benefits because they became so vitriolic, so caustic that it did nothing to foster debate, only anger and hatred. That's a crying shame, but at least we're reminded that these types of attitudes still exist, and that there's still much to be done in the way of education and activism before we can call ourselves a truly enlightened and egalitarian society.

Improvements in 911 equipment, but what about cell phones?

The Capital Times is reporting that County Board Supervisor Brett Hulsey claims that the Dane County 911 Center "has added one communicator and one communications supervisor, so the center is now fully staffed with 12 people. More equipment is planned as part of a $30 million investment the county is making in the public safety communications system."

That's good news.

What Hulsey doesn't indicate is whether or not these additions and improvements yet meet the guidelines set forth in the '04 report of the center by an outside consultant. Perhaps even more importantly, the public still hasn't gotten a straight, honest answer when it comes to the center's ability to track cell phone calls.

Apparently, the federal mandate is that they should be able to "find a caller's location within an area 200 feet by 100 feet from the actual location." What we've heard from various Dane County officials, however, varies wildly enough that anyone paying attention would be disinclined to ever again use a cell phone for emergency purposes.

This is all made even more interesting by the recent attention being paid to privacy issues with regards to cell phones. Service providers are required to provide real-time tracking data to any Public Safety Answering Point (or PSAP) within 6 months of the request being made. This same information has often been sought by federal authorities wishing to get the real-time location of alleged drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminals, sometimes without demonstrating probable cause. That's a whole other issue, and one worthy of much scrutiny and skepticism, but it also brings up some issues relevant to the Zimmermann case. If such pinpointing technology exists and its use is federally mandated in the case of emergency services, why isn't it being used to guarantee follow-up calls and police dispatching to the origin of the call (as is currently the case with calls made from landlines)?

An entity called "Dane County Public Safety Communications" is officially registered with the federal government as one such PSAP. That would suggest their compliance with federal E911 regulations, and the ability to pinpoint the location of a cell phone (as was done in the Kelly Nolan case, with a cell phone that wasn't even making a call, which also has not yet been explained).

So what's the truth? Do we have the ability to locate cell phones in a reasonably accurate fashion, but just fucked up in this case? Or are we lying about our emergency service's capabilities, something that might well put us in violation of federal regulations? Neither option is particularly appealing, and I'd love for both to be wrong. But until we're given a straight answer, there's only speculation and a creeping feeling that we're not being as well-taken care of as we ought to be.

A farewell to paper and ink

Last Thursday, Madison-based newspaper the Capital Times announced that, after 90 years as an afternoon daily, it would be switching to a predominantly online presence, with a twice weekly tabloid sized paper going out with its sister publication, the Wisconsin State Journal.

Everyone and their uncle has since commented on the change, and I've been reluctant to add my voice to the cacophony both because I was never a subscriber to the paper and because the issue of news moving away from print and toward the internet is anything but black and white.

I have a few reasons, some superficial, for preferring to get my news online. I enjoy the wide variety of sources and perspectives that are so easily available via the internet. Also, though, in the past few years I've developed a mild allergy to newsprint that makes reading the paper a less-than pleasant process. I blame all the time I spent working as co-editor of my college paper and the huge quantities of ink I likely inhaled during that time, but whatever the real cause, it's hard to read when you're so busy sneezing.

Still, there's something fundamentally necessary about the local newspaper. In some cases, they're a community's only source for local news. And yes, even in this day and age, there are still many people who don't have or can't afford regular internet access. In their case, the local newspaper may be their only source of written news.

In their heyday, there were around 1,500 afternoon/evening papers in print. That number has since fallen dramatically, to just around 700. The average number of households that subscribe to one or more papers has also fallen, with readership numbers failing to keep pace with the growth in population (source).

Internet news is great for its sheer scope and variety, but when a publication switches from predominantly print to predominantly electronic, the move is typically coupled with a dramatic cut in staffing. That's the main worry I have when it comes to the Capital Times' changes.

First off, the support staff loses their jobs: the people who work and maintain the printing presses and those who deliver the papers. Lower level copy editors, often individuals trying to break into regular reporting, are likely to be cut as well. Even some seasoned vets will lose their jobs. All told, the cuts in staff lead to fewer eyes and ears on the ground, less thorough coverage of the various newsworthy events around town, and thus, less variety.

I can't be alone in the fact that I read local and regional news sources for local and regional news, and not so much for national or international items. It's the same reason why I try to keep my pontificating on this here blog away from too much national or international issues and stick with more local stories. There are plenty of better qualified people covering the world (and with the internet, we have far greater access to those sources, many of which are more local to the events). People turn to local news sources, and yes even bloggers, for local content, stuff that likely won't be covered anywhere else.

All this isn't to say that I suspect The Capital Times will stray away from covering local and regional content. But their ability to cover as much of it will certainly be hampered by the cuts in staffing that become necessary when your sole source of revenue are online ads. And that, I think, is what concerns me the most.

In the end, I will reserve judgment until their new incarnation has had time to prove itself one way or another. I sincerely hope that they're able to maintain high quality and diverse coverage. And I thank everyone at The Capital Times for 90 years of progressive news delivery.

How local your politics

"All politics is local." - Tip O'Neill

Just how local they should be when it comes to issues of national and foreign policy, though, is the question being taken up by our state government. The Republican dominated Assembly recently passed legislation that would allow cities and villages the option of refusing citizen's petitions if the issues they raise don't relate to local governance. This was spurred on by the many anti-war petitions that were brought (24 of 32 of which actually passed) by residents in various locations around Wisconsin last year. The measure is not expected to pass the Democrat held Senate.

Still, the bill does bring up an interesting issue: should individual citizens have the right to bring and vote on measures having to do with issues that effect more than just their towns?

Dave Zweifel at the Capital Times thinks that they should, and argues his case in an opinion column in today's issue. The comments section is almost entirely full of people arguing against him, and they bring up some fascinating points.

Zweifel:

Anyone who thinks that a war that has already cost this nation more than a half-trillion taxpayer dollars hasn't affected the treasuries and services of local governments deserves a medal for naivete.

True, there is no direct action a local government can take to get Congress or the president to change course. But if enough local citizens are able to express their views on ballots throughout the land, perhaps the message will finally get through.

Commenter OnWisconsin:

It prevents a highly organized but small group of local zealots from wasting a communities time and money grinding an axe about a national issue.

Keep in mind that this cuts both ways...today the Iraq war but maybe tomorrow anti-abortion votes or prayer in school, for example.

Commenter Judy:

Our country's citizens have the privilege of voting in our politican's [sic] to public office! It should end there, and we should then lead our private lives, and let them do the jobs we appointed them to do..If they don't, vote for someone else next term!

First, I'm amazed that anyone would see voting as a privilege and not a right. The right to vote is one of the most important tenets of our society. Many of our ancestors fought for, and sometimes died for, this very right: first in the American Revolution, then again in the Civil War, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and so on and so forth. We are still fighting to make sure everyone who is eligible is able to cast their vote, struggling against those who would still seek to disenfranchise and intimidate citizens, even now in the 21st century.

Second, while I can wrap my head around the argument that such a bill "prevents a highly organized but small group of local zealots from wasting a communities time and money grinding an axe about a national issue," what it seems to come down to, yet again, is the right of all citizens to have a voice and influence, even if just in a very small dose, on the direction of their country.

Comparing those who would bring a petition to officially make a position known to those who would bring a petition to actually change state and national laws is also erroneous. They aren't the same thing in the least. If an anti-abortion activist wanted to bring a petition to their local government stating an opposition to the practice, they have every right to do so. The petition wouldn't (and shouldn't) change the law, but it would put it to public record just how many people in that town were for or against such a statement. That sort of record can be a handy reference point for future policy makers, too.

We should be encouraging people to take a more active interest and role in local politics. And by local, I mean global. They are, after all, inseparable.

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.

Sex, lies and football

Well now this is just the sort of news item to catch a person's attention on a gray and dreary morning. From TCT:

While the Badgers were scoring frequently in the second quarter of their victory over Washington State on Sept. 1, a young couple was scoring on their own in a stall in the women's restroom in the upper deck, resulting in a court appearance today on charges of disorderly conduct.

...

The two were pulling up their pants when the officer arrived. "I asked them quite loudly to get out of the stall," Pehler says in his report of the incident. the woman still had her pants down and was struggling to pull them up, the officer said. "It should be noted that she was unsuccessful in the attempt because her pants were inside out," the officer said.

What I love is that the officer made a point of noting that the woman put her pants back on inside out (which is an important detail for the purposes of prosecuting them, but still hilarious).

It's worth scrolling down to read some of the comments left by keen readers, too. The replies range from bemoaning the "drug culture" associated with football games (apparently drunks are worse than acid heads), congratulating the couple for getting it on in a "kinky" location (personally I'd argue against a public restroom being all that "kinky," but maybe that's just me), and wondering why it's such a big deal.

While I must come out in favor of spicing up ones love life by taking it out of the bedroom from time to time, I must also come out against the use of public restrooms when doing so. As an adult, it would give me the creeping heebie jeebies to walk in on the sounds of two strangers rutting, but then I'd probably just laugh it off. But children are known to frequent public restrooms, too, and though I'm not one of those "we must protect the children from every damned thing in the world because they're too fragile to handle anything" people, I still don't think it'd be a particularly grand idea to have them walking in on the sexy time.

So that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we don't allow random Badger game hookups to transpire in public places. Even if they do result in hilarious news articles.

(photo credit: health.com)