The State Journal hearts military recruitment

Surprise, surprise: The Wisconsin State Journal thinks the school board should ignore protesters and allow military ads in gyms and stadiums.

They add this caveat: "Access should include the ability to buy ads in school sports stadiums and gymnasiums, as long as the ads comply with school district standards." But here's the thing, those ads don't comply with district standards, which state that all military recruiting materials must be placed in guidance offices. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that the ads aren't "recruiting materials," but the fact remains that, by dint of offering a phone number to a recruiting office, they violate school policy.

I suppose I should have seen the opinion coming, but I can't help but be optimistic that people will more thoughtful and intelligent than that. It'll probably be my undoing.

Draft 'em all and let the Neo-Cons sort 'em out

Yikes kites! Don't read the comments section under today's WSJ article about people speaking out against military ads at public high schools if you're not prepared to be nauseated. Just to get you up-to-date, the issue at hand is whether or not it's right (and indeed, whether it goes against school policy) to have US Army ads posted next to the scoreboards in public high school gyms and stadiums.

I already explained how I feel about the matter, but I think it bears further study and thought.

I'll start with the more inflammatory side of the pro-ad party. Here are a few gems from the comments section:

"Wow - how progressive of these people to protest the very organization that gives them the freedom to protest." (isn't that one of the essential ingredients of a healthy democracy?)

"If the protesters truly belived[sic] in doing right by children, they would focus their efforts on raising awareness for adoption and reducing abortion in the US instead of protesting to thwart the efforts of people braver then they are who fight to give them the right to spew idiotic rhetoric."

"If it weren't for the military, we would corresponding in German or Japanese right now, if we had the right to express our opinion at all. I really wonder how 'Peace Activists' hope to achieve peace, without strength."

"As a military-member, it scares me to think that one of those bleeding-heart liberals might end up in the foxhole next to me...we don't need any cowards or pansies to be drafted into our ranks."

All that vitriol loaded with fallacy makes my brain and my heart hurt. Is it even worth it to dignify these sorts of empty rhetoric-filled arguments with a response? Heck, I guess I'm a glutton for punishment, so I'll give it a go.

First off, stop comparing the current war with World War II. They are in no way analogous, and to bring up the whole "we'd be speaking German or Japanese right now" argument is pure ridiculousness. WWII was what it was--a necessary horror (because the best a war can ever be is a necessary horror) to rid the world of some of the greatest evil it had ever known. How on Earth are you going to compare it to the Iraq War? We knew Hitler and the Emperor were up to no good and we had solid proof: millions killed or displaced, invasions of sovereign countries, genocidal policies, etc. etc. We worked hand-in-hand with a serious and dedicated bunch of countries and the Allies were, in fact, greeted as liberators pretty much everywhere they went.

Iraq? We had a vague notion that Saddam might be in possession of WMDs (completely debunked by an official government report, no less), a notion based on extremely faulty intelligence that experts in the intelligence community even knew was bogus, and we had a president with some cowboy grudge against the man who tried to kill his daddy. We had a population that was grateful for the initial ouster of a terrible dictator, but that we then thoroughly screwed over by handing the rebuilding process over to corrupt contractors and greedy politicians. And yes, by underestimating the military size and strength that would be needed to properly contain the threat. It was a poorly planned, poorly executed debacle that has cost us the lives of thousands of good American men and women, not to mention countless numbers of Iraqi civilians.

THEY JUST DON'T COMPARE. So cut it out, already, because your argument does nothing to further your point and only serves to muddy the already murky waters surrounding the issue. The same goes for throwing abortion into the debate. What the hell does abortion have to do with military ads at public high schools? Cripes almighty people, stay focused!

And then we have the final comment, the "Liberals are all cowards and pansies and I don't want one of 'em next to me in a foxhole, damnit" thing. There's so much wrong with that statement that I'm not even sure where to begin. There's the blatant homophobia implicit in the use of the word "pansies," and the idea that anyone who identifies as a liberal is automatically a coward and anti-military. Someone skipped out on the their Logic 101 classes back in school.

Look, school district guidelines state that "all military information be posted in school guidance offices." A gym or stadium scoreboard is not a guidance office. Of course, the argument goes that these ads are not recruitment materials, but what do you call a slogan and a phone number for the local recruiting office? Let me spell that out again: r-e-c-r-u-i-t-i-n-g office.

Again, I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea to place advertisements of any kind in our public schools, let alone ones for the military. Keep recruitment materials in the guidance office, where students can learn all the details about a potential military career with the help of a qualified counselor. Keep all of the insidious advertisements, military or otherwise, off school grounds.

Our public schools need better funding, and this is just one (very clear) example of why we need to do better by them. They shouldn't be tempted to accept advertising dollars so they can meet their budgetary needs, the state should be covering them. The right to a good, public education is one of the things that makes our country great, and we're failing ourselves and our fellow citizens by allowing things to deteriorate as they have. And judging by the comments from the WSJ article, I'd say we're in desperate need of better education all around.

We want YOU to put down that book and pick up this rifle

Yeah, OK, so that's an inflammatory title, but I can't help myself, I'm a blogger.

According to channel3000.com, a "group opposing military recruiting in schools plans a protest at the Madison Metropolitan School District's Board of Education meeting on Monday night." They're angry about ads for the US Army that have been placed on scoreboards in stadiums and gyms. (see a more in-depth article about it here)

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, our schools are strapped for cash and, in order to raise funds, have begun to allow limited advertising at sporting events. Policies have been developed by the school board to "govern" the ads, and they say these meet with those standards.

In a perfect world, our public schools would be well-funded enough that they'd never even have to consider bringing in outside advertisements. I don't believe advertising of any kind has a place in public schools. Students have enough to think about during school and enough ads to deal with in the outside world without having to be bombarded with more while they're supposedly trying to learn. Sadly, that's too often the case, and sadly, our schools are underfunded.

I don't believe the military should have any special priveledges when it comes to being able to advertise or recruit on campus. If the school holds a job fair, then they should have access to a booth just like anyone. But it always bugged me that the local recruiter was free to glad hand with students during lunch at my high school (this was in Oklahoma, though I suspect lots of places have similar arrangements). We need to offer our students full disclosure, make sure they know all of their options and the full story behind each one. A recruiter is going to paint a rosy picture about military life that isn't necessarily the whole truth. Kids, especially those in tougher social and economic straits, should be aware of alternative options (making sure those options are available to them in the first place is a whole other can o' worms).

Back to those ads, though. Again it comes down to whether or not you believe grade schoolers should be exposed to advertisements on school grounds. I think it's a breach of our commitment to educate them in a safe, open environment.

I'm not anti-military. It is absolutely the right choice for some people to make and they provide an invaluable service to our country. Still, I think public schools are the wrong venue for spreading their message.

And a happy Guy Fawkes Night to you

Every year, on the evening of 5 November, the good citizens of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador celebrate what is known as Guy Fawkes Night (also Bonfire Night).

Celebrated to commemorate the failure of a plot by English Catholics to assassinate King James I, the tradition is to light bonfires and burn effigies of Guy Fawkes, one of the plots central conspirators. If you've seen or read "V for Vendetta," you may already be somewhat familiar with this little slice of history. It may be of interest to note that the use of the word "guy" to mean any ol' bloke comes from this tradition, having first been the name of the person, then the name of the oddly dressed effigies, and finally a way of referring to any man.

I'm somewhat amused that this continues to be a celebrated holiday, seeing as the thing happened back in 1605 and, I'd like to think, relations between Protestants and Catholics in the UK have improved somewhat since then. Still, I'm all for any excuse to light (safe, contained) bonfires and celebrate.

On an unrelated note, I made a point to head down to the square this last Saturday to partake of the final outdoor farmer's market of the year. The fall colors were in full bloom, the sky was a beautiful shade of hard blue, and the smell of late autumn was in the air. I snapped a few pictures to commemorate the occasion, bought some of the delicious fried cheese ("juusto") from Brunkow's and did my best to enjoy what was likely one of the final fair-weather days of the year.


This weekend sees the return of the Madison Pop Festival, which Pitchfork was kind enough to write up on their website:

Andrew W.K. kicks off the festival on November 8 at UW's Great Hall. Then, November 9 brings showings of Daft Punk's Electroma and The Hip Hop Project as well as performances by Baby Teeth, Pale Young Gentlemen, Billy Harvey, La Bruja, Vid Libert, and Kazi. And finally, the November 10 events include a showing of Sigur Rós' Heima and performances by Bon Iver, Malajube, Murder by Death, the Selfish Gene, Common Loon, and Them, Roaringtwenties.

The festival is free, but even if it weren't it would still be worth checking out. I'll be there with bells on for some of it at least.

Keep your balls to yourself

OK, this just isn't cool. Drive-by paintballings? Seriously? Oh yeah, hilarious. Especially since, as anyone who's ever been paintballing will tell you, those things fucking hurt! And, when hit in a sensitive spot, they can be downright dangerous. Like the incident report mentions, a few inches lower on that girl's face and she could have literally lost an eye. Yeesh.

To the drive-by paintball guys: keep 'em to yourself. I know you think you're hot shit and all, but there is a time and a place for that, and it ain't in the wee hours of the morning from the backseat of your friend's fly ride. I hope all your toys are confiscated. It's just silly. We have enough real crime to deal with these days anyway. Now go, find a paintball facility and get your wannabe machismo rocks off there by getting owned by a bunch of kids out for their friends bar-mitzvah.

Griping aside, don't forget that tomorrow is the last outdoor market of the year! It makes me a little misty eyed. I can't believe it's already November. It seems like just yesterday I was peddling my butt off, up and down hills, through long hot stretches of cornfields and sleeping on gym floors. But here we are, Halloween passed and staring down the barrel of winter. Gotta enjoy the milder weather while it lasts! I'll see you tomorrow morning on the square....

(photo credit: toxicpaintball.com)

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).

Plot thickens as Joint Finance Committee passes "Video Competition Act"

Between the Joint Finance Committee's passing of SB 107 (the so-called "Video Competition Bill") and Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker's fanboy support, things aren't looking particularly good for blocking or amending the deeply flawed piece of legislation.

The Capital Times has another excellent, in-depth and lengthy look at both sides of the debate. In the article, all of the touted pros are listed, then one-by-one taken down a few pegs by facts, history and the testimony of people in the know. It's a fascinating read, but the jist is this:

• AT&T (once known as Ameritech) has made grand promises of job growth and high-speed access for all before, in 1993, when they successfully helped to push through a phone deregulation bill. Many of the promises made by Ameritech and written into their contracts with the state were not fulfilled or only half-assedly so.
• AT&T has significantly reduced the amount of jobs since that bill passed, not increased them.
• Profits for the company skyrocketed after deregulation, as have prices for consumers.

Particularly interesting was this bit about the supposed job creation that would result from passage of the bill, and the communication union's position on the whole thing:

The Communications Workers of America, which represents AT&T employees in the field and in the office, does not appear eager to discuss its support, however.

When contacted by a reporter, Ann McNeary, chair of the Wisconsin Political Council of the Communications Workers of America, said she could not comment on anything and then hung up the phone.

Phil Neuenfeldt, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, the parent union for CWA, did not return two phone calls seeking comment on the proposed bill, even though Wisconsin State AFL-CIO president David Newby had identified him and McNeary as the people in the know.

An internal July 25 memo to union members obtained by The Capital Times, however, reveals that while the CWA publicly supports the video franchise bill, some members, at least, are skeptical about AT&T's claims about future job growth.

In the memo, Rich Pearson, chair of the CWA Local 4603's Mobilization committee, blasts AT&T's decision over the summer to close a customer service center in Milwaukee.

"While we are all aware that AT&T has been whittling away at the workforce for years, this decision comes even as they tout the fact they are adding jobs in Wisconsin," he wrote.

"It is important that the public and our legislators realize that these new jobs are term jobs, with limited benefits, and, in the case of Prem Techs in particular, jobs that have wages which are dramatically out of line with other positions in the company."

And the kick in the pants at the very end of the article is especially funny (but not "funny ha-ha"):

Meanwhile, video franchise bill authors Plale and Montgomery have also teamed up on another telecommunications bill. Introduced in October, this one would deregulate basic local phone service in two years. Under the legislation, local phone companies would no longer have to submit rate increases to the Public Service Commission for basic local phone service. Critics say senior citizens and rural residents would be most adversely affected because these populations still rely in large part on traditional land line service.

The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau says a telecommunications company would also not be subject to any "infrastructure investment requirements."

This provision, says Tom Allibone, an independent auditor based in New Jersey who conducts audits for TeleTruth, "would wipe the slate clean of all prior commitments." AT&T, in other words, would be legally absolved of all its former promises "to build out the infrastructure to support broadband," he argues.

Says Laitman: "This brings it full cycle."

So basically AT&T is trying to deregulate everything so they can more fully control their profit margin, the standards they're held to, and who they choose to serve. Plus they appear to be attempting to nullify all the promises they made back in the 90's with the first deregulation bill. I can't help but admire their moxy and cunning, but forgive me if I kind of despise them a bit, too.

The really pesky part is that their PR campaign seems to have successfully pulled the wool over most Wisconsinite's eyes. The general consensus is that people want more competition and choice in their telecommunications and cable companies. I'm all for that. In fact, I think it's necessary. But, despite how they're selling it, that's not really what this bill does.

Plus, history already provides an example of what really happens when legislation of this kind gets passed. We've only to look at the results of the deregulation bill from '93, or the various deregulation actions that have happened all across the country in the last decade. They don't end well. Instead, it seems to lead to higher consumer costs, job cuts, ugly boxes, poorer service and an even less hospitable climate for public access stations. Frankly, they can't afford for things to get much worse.

In the end, there really ought to be some kind of compromise bill. Increasing competition and service areas is a great idea. We could look to the legislation passed in Illinois for an example of what to do. But this current bill is so radically flawed as to be unusable, and we should urge our lawmakers to head back to the drawing board, free of lobbyist dollars (from either side), and hammer out something that works for everyone. It is possible.

There's still time to urge your Senators to block passage of the bill, and to give ol' Russ the what-for.

SaveAccessWisconsin.org has petitions to sign and letters to send.
Or contact your Senators and/or Governor Doyle directly:
Governor via email, governor via phone and snail mail.
Find your Senator and contact them, too.