Shaking it up at the 911 center

Lots of news about the Dane County 911 center this week, both as reported by the WSJ.

First, Kathleen Falk and Joe Norwick's budget priorities are shot down by the center's own board:

Falk has proposed borrowing $163,000 next year to buy police dispatch software that would allow 911 operators to get more information from callers, send the optimal police resources and improve quality control checks on police calls.

But the 911 board, which advises the 911 director on budget matters, voted 8-1 to remove the software from next year's budget proposal and spend the money instead on replacing the center's outdated computer dispatch system.

Second, Norwick resigns, this coming months after his resignation was originally called for over his less-than stellar handling of the Brittany Zimmermann case.

From my outsider's perspective, it's obviously difficult to figure out exactly what's going on. I can only hope that, whatever comes of all this shakin' up, it does something to improve the way in which our 911 center handles calls, and to improve the working conditions for those dispatchers.

Judging by these two articles, though, it would appear that there are some serious differences of opinion and priority between the center's board and the county leadership, namely Falk and Norwick. To be fair, after Falk first proposed borrowing money to upgrade the dispatch system, she agreed to add a plan to borrow money for upgrading the actual computers used in the center once concerns were raised by the board about the aging infrastructure.

So why not do both?

Norwick said the center is already taking on other major projects next year including a new $30 million countywide radio system, a redesign of the 911 center that will increase the number of consoles from 13 to 18 and the addition of nine more staff.

"To complete a (computer system assessment) is going to be tough enough," Norwick said.

Maybe his resignation, and the subsequent hiring of a (hopefully) more qualified director, will lead to a different response to this issue, something like "It's going to be tough, but we'll do it because it's important."

UPDATE TO ADD: I almost completely missed this story from Isthmus and dogged reporter Jason Shepard regarding the center oversight board's failure to do performance evaluations on Norwick. D'oh.

What's the word again?

I don't think I could have made this point any better:


If you haven't caught any of the Daily Show's coverage of the DNC and RNC, you owe it to yourself to hit the backlog. Despite, or perhaps because of, being a "fake news" show, I have to say that it continues to present some of the most biting, on-point, and informative commentary on the state of modern politics and culture that can be found anywhere in this country. There's a reason so many of my generation turn to it.

This isn't to say that if you don't watch it there's something wrong with you. I'm just saying that I think its popularity, at very least, is a thing worth paying attention to in and of itself.

What makes a woman

Criticizing Dave Blaska's logic is a lot like shooting fish in a barrel: it's easy to do, and more tempting than it ought to be.

I had to stop myself for a moment and decide whether or not it was really worth my time to tackle his latest blog opus, re: Sarah Palin, because I'm a little burned out by arguing the same points over and over again and never seeming to get anywhere because Blaska, and others making similar cases, seems to have his fingers shoved firmly into his ear holes.

Then it occurred to me, though, that there are an alarmingly large number of people out there who agree with Blaska's take on things, and have their own many and varied reasons for doing so. It would be incredibly naive (and a little condescending) of me to simply dismiss this reality outright. So here I am, criticizing another of Blaska's blogs. I beg your induldgence.

I disagree vehemently with most of what he argues in his post, but most offensive of his assertions is certainly this:

[Palin] made it clear that the Democrats are only the party of some women, the party for whom Down’s syndrome son Trig, whom she held onstage after her speech, would be a "choice."

As a staunchly pro-choice woman, I run into this harsh misperception (or blatant accusation) a lot. I can understand that the issue gets people hot under the collar--it certainly does for me. But take a step back for a minute and think about this: Blaska is trying to say that every pro-choice person regards a mentally handicapped baby as something to consider getting rid of, simply because it has said disability. That's appauling and so, so wrong that I hardly even know where to begin. I shouldn't even have to defend myself here, it's so ridiculous.

Let me put it plainly: being pro-choice does not equal being pro-abortion. It means, very simply, that you believe the decision as to whether or not a pregnancy should be seen to term should be left up to the mother first, informed doctors and family members second, and the federal government only in the most extreme cases of mental incompetence on the part of the involved parties.

I can think of very few (nay, none) of my pro-choice friends who are pro-abortion. Most of them, if faced with that unthinkable scenario and decision, would likely choose to see the pregnancy through. But thankfully, most of my friends have loving, supportive family and friends and lives of relative security. That is not the case with all, or even most, women who end up in this situation. Many end up in that terrible place as the result of poverty, lack of a good education, poor family life, abuse, etc. Palin's daughter is lucky to have a supportive family to help her through this big change in her life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

There is common ground between pro-choice and pro-life supporters, believe it or not. All of us, I would argue, want to see a decline in the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. For pro-choice advocates, that means better and more comprehensive sex education for our youth, better and more comprehensive maternal and child care programs in our cities and states, better work leave deals for new moms and fathers, and so forth. Because what most of us recognize is that people are always going to have sex. It's a human imparative. The best we can do is to arm our children with the self respect, decision making abilities, and thorough knowledge of how to take care of themselves so as to hopefully avoid these kinds of situations all-together.

The big problem, it would seem, is the deep anxiety and fear that many of us still feel about sex, especially outside of marriage. I suppose that's a whole other issue for a whole other post, though, so I'm going to attempt to get back onto my original tack here.

In addition to accusing pro-choice liberals of viewing disabled children as disposable, Blaska also seems to think that most of us Obama voters secretly hate strong women like Sarah Palin. I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but I feel confident in saying that the vast majority of folks on both sides of this political race don't give a rats ass about Palin's gender.

I don't. What I do care about are her policy ideas, her record, her experience. I disagree with Palin (and McCain) on almost every single issue they've brought up. That's why I won't be voting for that ticket come November, and that's what I'd hope most people would take into consideration when they walk into their voting booths.

One other not-so quick point I'd like to make about Blaska's post--and it's a theme that's come up throughout the right-leaning media coming to Palin's defense since she was picked--is this idea that, to be truly feminine, a woman must be raising a family. Frankly, if you're looking for something to shout "sexism!" about, that would be it.

I think family is incredibly important, but a husband and children are not required to define and strengthen a woman. This goes for men, too. Can we draw inferences about a person's character from their family life? Certainly, but it cuts both ways, and I really, really don't believe that it should be the make-or-break of whether or not someone is fit for public service. Take a look at our politicians in general, and you will find a diverse sea of divorces, infidelities, long-term committments, children, no children, gay and straight. Just like the rest of the country.

Sarah Palin could have been a no make-up wearing, single person and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to me. The sad truth, however, is that I strongly suspect it would have made a difference in how she was treated in the political sphere. Would that be true of a man? I don't know, but history suggests not.

So to Blaska and others who share his opinions, I honestly want to ask you this: do you really believe that those of us who don't support McCain/Palin are just a bunch of baby hating, woman subjugating, fearful little pansies? Because if so, we've all got a lot more work to do than I thought.

For what it's worth, just because someone is pro-life, conservative, etc., doesn't mean I immediately assume them to be a heartless, oppressive jerk. And they usually aren't. Frankly, we'd all do well to make that more clear when we debate the issues.

(edit to add: For further Palin reading, and just generally insightful and well-written blogging from an Alaskan perspective, I'd like to heartily recommend Mudflats.)

Juggling the homeless

Last night, the Madison City Council voted overwhelmingly to recommend that an offer of free land from the federal government, to be used as a homeless services site, be turned down in favor of buying it for other uses:

The Truman Olson Army Reserve Center, 1402 S. Park St., which is scheduled to close within the next four years, was earmarked for homeless services under federal government guidelines.

But after prioritizing a plan from Porchlight Inc. to create 38 spaces for permanent and temporary housing for the homeless, south side council members Julia Kerr and Tim Bruer sought an alternate site for the plan, citing concerns about the south side carrying more than its fair share of housing for low-income residents as well as the transitional housing detracting from economic development plans in the area.

One of the suggested alternatives was a site on the far east side on Water Utility land at 4002 Nakoosa Trail, which would involve a paper transaction between the utility and city as well as the city's purchase of the Truman Olson site.

Ald. Brenda Konkel has been writing about this issue over at her blog, and I've been scouring the available documents (which don't seem to be loading anymore?) trying to figure out exactly what the reasoning behind all of this is. It hasn't been easy, though. Heck, if the alders can't get answers to their various questions about this, how am I, a regular ol' resident, going to do it?

At first blush, it would seem that an offer of free land for the development of a homeless services site would be a pretty cherry deal. Porchlight, Inc. and Goodwill Industries both submitted proposals for just such projects, and Porchlight was given priority with their plan of building both permanent and temporary housing for the homeless. The Truman Olson site, located at 1402 S. Park St. on Madison's near south side, seems like a good place for that kind of development: it's right on a bus line, nearby to grocery stores and both residential and commercial areas. If the people being served by such a facility are to be successfully integrated back into society, then they need reasonably easy access to cheap transportation, food, and other such amenities.

However, members of the City Council, the mayor, and developers decided that the Truman Olson site would be better used for more commercial development--part of an effort to bring economic progress to the area. Apparently, a homeless shelter wasn't part of the plans drawn up by the Wingra Creek BUILD Project, an effort to "conduct market and trade area study, identify business retention and attraction strategies, and develop alternative redevelopment scenarios for the area bounded by South Park Street on the east, Fish Hatchery Road on the west, and West Wingra Drive on the south."

So it was proposed that the city just buy the Truman Olson land (for an estimated $2.2 million in initial purchase and demolition), and find a different spot for the Porchlight plan. That site? Way over on the far east side of town, on Nakoosa Trail, nestled between the loving arms of a Wal-Mart, Cub Foods, a smattering of houses, and a bunch of industrial sites like a junk yard. And also pretty well off any sort of convenient bus line, which was supposed to be one of the requirements of any site chosen for the project.

The big argument on the pro side of this is that the Truman Olson site likely won't be ready for development until 2012, whereas a different site might be ready within a year or so. I'm all for timeliness in getting Porchlight's needed services up and running, but not at the cost of a) losing accessibility for the people who'll live and work out there, and b) millions of taxpayer's dollars.

Still, I can't entirely make an informed decision about this because all the facts have yet to be presented. That's what really makes all of this seem so weird. Instead of presenting a detailed argument for the land swap, alders and everyone else have essentially been asked to sign off on a pretty hefty check without knowledge of just what they're paying for. Somehow, that smells like a really bad idea.

Groceries a-go-go

I've been out of the loop again, but this time I blame it on the fact that I don't live in the effected neighborhood. Last I'd heard, Whole Foods was slated to move out of its old 3313 University Ave. location and into a shiny new space just a few blocks up, where a new development is slowly being built. That seemed a bit odd to me, especially seeing as how there's already a Sentry right across the parking lot, and a Copps just down the street. What neighborhood needs, let alone can support, three full-service grocery stores?

Apparently, however, the downturn in ye ol' marketplace and other such factors have nixed Whole Foods' plans to move and open a new store. Poor babies*. Y'know, I'd like to see a mixed used, preferably sustainable development go in where there is now only a big, gaping hole, but I think they could (and will likely now have to) find better use for it than yet another grocery store. And, too, there are other neighborhoods in this city that are decidedly lacking in easy-to-access groceries. If we're going to encourage new stores to open, why not point them in the direction of an area that actual wants/needs them?

It's important for neighborhoods to have various essentials within reasonable walking distance. We've done a great job of building totally isolated communities where you're pretty much forced to hop in the car to do any errands, and that's a damn shame. Not only is it ecologically smart to build mixed-used, it's also financially smart for the people who live there: less gas money (and car payments, insurance, etc.) to get where you need to go, more exercise, more community connectedness.

So I'm not at all bummed to hear that Whole Foods is likely having to pull out of its weird plans to move a few blocks just to be in the same 'hood as two other big stores. I'm not surprised, either, to hear that these large, ambitious developments are having financial trouble. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but I think there were plenty of sound voices in the wilderness warning us about unchecked building even before the current downturn. If nothing else, we now need to take the opportunity to really rethink how we go about improving our neighborhoods and cities. It's becoming more and more crucial every day.

*Whole Foods as a store is nice enough and all, but I've never been a big fan of their overall business plan and bizarre CEO.

Overflowing abundance

This year was my first as a member of a local CSA, and I have not been disappointed. Since late spring, me and my two (now former) roommates have been receiving the bounty of Ridgeland Harvest--everything from early season greens to the now seemingly endless supply of zucchini and squash. It is, simply put, awesome. Of course, being that the three of us no longer live together, working to cook meals from this supply has gotten a bit trickier and has left each of us with a bit more food than we individually know what to do with.

Specifically, I suddenly find myself with more green beans than you could shake a stick at--if you're the shaking-sticks-at-beans sort, that is. This is not an entirely unpleasant dilemma to have, as I happen to adore green beans, but I also don't want them to go to waste. One person simply cannot eat multiple pounds of fresh anything before it goes bad. And so it is that I am now on a personal quest to learn how to properly store fresh produce for longer periods of time.

Turns out blanching and freezing the suckers may be my best option, but this is a skill I have yet to acquire, so the process may be both entertaining and potentially disastrous. We'll see. In the meantime, I wanted to share some of the great resources I've found for learning how to preserve your food. And might I also add that, should you find yourself with more zucchini than you can use, don't simply ditch it on a neighbor's front porch and run away: donate it to a local food pantry!

• Check out the National Center for Home Food Preservation
• Freezing fruits and vegetables
• PreserveFood.com
  

A quick point about Palin

There has been much talk and gossip about McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for his VP running mate. The radio and the blogs are all a'twitter over it, and I suppose rightly so. Joe Biden got a good going over in the press once Obama called on him as a running mate. The furor over Palin, however, has been another sight to behold entirely.

I'm really not interested in any of the more salacious rumors that have been circulating about her and her family, and honestly, I'm a little annoyed that this stuff seems to be dominating the national conversation about her as a politician.

Obama has the right idea here:

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."

And that's really all that needs to be said about it. Certainly, I will admit to feeling a sense of irony that such a staunch, abstinence-only crusader now has to deal with the consequences of that policy in such a personal way, but that's about it.

For me, the important issues about Palin are her actual politics: she stands for just about everything I stand against, and that's more than enough to keep my vote away from her (and her running mate). Isn't that what it ought to come down to, anyway? If you're pro-choice, against drilling in ANWR, pro-reasonable gun control, for comprehensive sex ed, socially liberal, etc., then there's no reason to support the McCain/Palin ticket. If you're all for abstinence-only education, rabidly anti-abortion, pro drilling, socially conservative, then hey--then knock yourself out!

I don't care about her gender, either. Believe me, I'd be tickled to finally get a woman in the White House, but not at any cost. For me, it would be more sexist to blindly support someone simply because they were a woman, instead of actually finding someone qualified and inspirational to get behind for the spot. And the fact that so many folks are all, "Look! McCain chose a woman! How progressive!" is offensive to me as well. Does he think all women (and men, for that matter) are so stupid? I should hope we all pay more attention to a person's individual merits and stated goals/beliefs than to their gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc.

Clearly that's not entirely the case, though, as our current media hubub indicates. And that, frankly, bums me out. Maybe if we the people showed a united front of indifference to this kind of crap, the media and politicians who make a habit of schlepping these wares would finally get the hint and move on to more important matters. It might be worth a shot.