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.

Carolyn "Biddy" Martin, next chancellor of UW-M

It's all but official at this point: now-former provost of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, Carolyn "Biddy" Martin has been selected as the new chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. From all accounts, she seems well-qualified for the role, and I am optimistic about her tenure.

Martin, 57, is familiar with UW-Madison. She was a lecturer at the university in the early 1980s and earned her doctorate in German literature from the school in 1985.

...

Martin has spent more than 20 years at Cornell and has been at her current post of provost -- the university's chief academic officer and chief operating officer -- since 2000. As provost, Martin helped raise $110 million for a life science building, developed a program to make financial aid available to students and put together a retention plan for faculty -- something which currently is an issue at UW-Madison due to its relatively low pay scale for professors, at least when compared to peer institutions.

In relation to that last point, Martin, too, will be dealing with that low pay scale. While she'll be making more than former chancellor Wiley--he made $327,000 a year and her pay range has been set at $370,000 to $452,000--this will actually be a pay cut from what she made at Cornell. Not to read too much into it, but this strikes me as a good sign that Martin took the job because she wanted it and thinks she can make a positive difference, rather than because of money.

I'm also encouraged by her history of fundraising and scholarship programs at Cornell. She has stated a desire to "build a strong relationship[s] with members of the legislature, and to sell to leaders how important UW-Madison is to the state's economic, political, social and cultural well being." With the current legislature, this will surely be an uphill battle, but one well forth the fight. Proper funding of the university system, and making sure it's accessible to all students who are interested and qualified, is crucial not just for saving face but too because it helps lead to better lives, a better workforce, and a better environment overall state-wide. Education is and should remain a top priority for any community or society.

In addition, Martin also plans to advocate for and support efforts to secure domestic partnership benefits for UW faculty. Sadly, the UW is the only Big Ten school that doesn't currently offer them, and that's both bad for retention and recruitment, and just poor policy for a school and city that prides itself on being forward-thinking and egalitarian.

Martin's hire won't be official until the Board of Regents meets in early June. After that, only time will tell what her tenure at the school will mean for students, faculty and alumni.

Let them eat eggs!

Madison alderman Marsha Rummel wants more people to be able to keep backyard chickens within city limits. Currently, the law states that only those people living in single-unit homes can raise them--and no more than 4 hens, no roosters, and no on-sight slaughtering. The other caveat? Enclosures where the chickens live may be no closer than 25 feet from the nearest residence.

It's that last bit that makes Rummel's expansion wishes seem strange. How would it be possible for a multi-unit building to keep enclosures at least 25 feet from the next closest residence?

Let me be clear: I support the ordinance as it currently stands. There are a lot of misperceptions circulating about what it means to have chickens kept within the city. People fear an overwhelming stench of bird poo in the summer, loud clucking noises, and disease outbreaks, among other things. While the latter has some justification (though chances are currently slim), the other two are pretty well unfounded.

As with any pet or animal kept by humans, the smell factor is almost entirely dependent on how well the owner takes care of them. Reasonable efforts at cleaning out the bedding and other general upkeep mean very little smell. A good friend of mine lives directly next door to a house where chickens are kept. We often sit in his backyard, just a fence between us and the bird enclosure, and never once have I noticed any sort of smell. The only sounds I've ever heard coming from over there are occasional contented clucks. It's actually quite nice.

Plus, keeping your own chickens means easy access to fresh eggs, a way to bypass the often unsanitary and cruel conditions found at most industrial production facilities.

You can read more about the keeping of backyard chickens here.

So in this case, I say leave those people currently raising chickens and the ordinance alone. I'm sure Alderman Rummel could find other good uses for her time, anyway.

A tragic end to a great life

I didn't really know Felicia Melton-Smyth, but a number of the people in my life did. I met her only a few times, mostly during the time I was training for and then riding in last year's Wisconsin AIDS Ride. She was extremely friendly, funny and encouraging, and all of that seemed to rub off on everyone around her.

I've been told and read a lot about her: dedicated AIDS activist, caretaker, wry wit, charity fundraiser, good friend. One of those people that any community would be blessed to call their own.

So it was with a great deal of shock that I read of her death in today's news. Stabbed while on vacation in Mexico, probably as the result of a robbery attempt, Felicia and her friends and loved ones can at least rest easy that her murderer is now in custody with local police and will hopefully face appropriate punishment for his terrible crime. Still, this kind of death never makes much in the way of sense. It's just awful. My heart goes out to her and everyone who was close to her.

Please visit the website feliciamelton-smyth.com and be sure to keep an eye out for the Felicia Foundation, a charity being set up in her honor. Help make sure that this bright life is not forgotten, and support the causes she held so dear.

Breske hits the rails

I have no idea whether or not this was a purely political move on Doyle's part, but apparently he's appointed good ol' Sen. Roger Breske, perpetual thorn in the pro-smoking ban movement's side, to be the new commissioner of railroads.

Which, frankly, sounds like too sweet a job for that guy. I could totally be the commissioner of railroads. I'd push for expanded commuter service to and from Milwaukee/Madison/Chicago, lobby for better state funding, and insist on riding in at least one caboose a week. I used to love waving to the caboose guys as a kid.

Anyway, Breske's move over to ye olde commissioner job means he's pretty much out of the way now in terms of getting a statewide smoking ban in place sometime before the next Ice Age. I'm not going to give him so much credit that I think this means smooth sailing from here on out, but it's certainly helpful.

Plus, while Breske was hardcore anti-ban, full of mis-information about smoking, and the former Wisconsin Tavern League president, the two candidates currently vying for his seat seem far more open to the idea of a ban.

Tom Tiffany, a Rhinelander businessman who lost to Breske in the 2004 election, says it's unfair to ban smoking in taverns while exempting casinos within close proximity.

Former state Department of Tourism Secretary Jim Holperin, the second candidate, said he would support a statewide ban, but emphasized the issue is not a priority among more pressing matters in the upcoming race. Still, he thinks a statewide smoking ban is inevitable.

So, we'll have to wait a see what all effects Breske's departure from the Senate has. More importantly, we'll have to continue our efforts at education and action to get a statewide ban in place. Small victories like this are always welcome, though.

Alive and well

I only shoot padded arrows, I swear.

Just in from a nice, week-long vacation to California, specifically the Bay area, and contrary to popular belief the state didn't force me to get gay married upon entry. Happily, however, it is true that gay couples now have that right, and I can only hope that the trend toward actual equal rights under the law continues nationwide.

Expect a short trip report tomorrow, including recommendations for awesome places to see and hike should you ever find yourself in that part of the country.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this short and extremely San Francisco story: on the final night of our stay, we got together with some friends to see the recent Indiana Jones film (which thankfully did not suck) at a spectacular old movie palace called the Castro on, predictably, Castro St. When we got out, it was late at night, the air was cool, and many people were out and about. Strolling rather nonchalantly toward us down the sidewalk came three gentlemen, all naked as the day they were born, seemingly without a care (or a cop) in the world. I couldn't think of a more perfectly Castro/SF way to end our vacation, really, and we all went home with a bemused smile and a good tale to tell.

Hope you all had a lovely and relaxing Memorial Day. In addition to the always welcome three-day weekend, it's good to have a day now and then specifically set aside to remember and honor those people who've served their neighbors by serving, whether militarily or as a civilian, in the name of continually striving to make our country and our world a better place for all to live in.

Show me the money: tobacco suit funds and the mollycoddle myth

Gov. Doyle today announced several vetoes and re-workings of the recently passed state budget repair bill. In it, he changed how the bill would be financed (instead of issuing a veto) in order to scale back the amount of money that could be found by securitizing bonds from tobacco company payments. Specifically, Doyle and his aids said they would "seek to borrow $150 million instead of the $209 million outlined in the bill."

In case you hadn't heard much about it lately, Wisconsin, like every other state, received a large sum of money ($5.9 billion) from the major tobacco companies as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement, the "largest civil settlement in US history." The agreement freed the companies from tort liability with the state governments (several of which had pending lawsuits against them) in exchange for these payments and additional restrictions on advertising.

Currently, the state collects just over $600 million a year in revenue from what is leftover of this tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes. It spends a paltry 2.5% of that on tobacco prevention programs It spends a paltry 2.5% of that on tobacco prevention programs. This is in stark contrast to the recommended amount as laid out by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which suggests states spend between $31.2 and $82.4 million a year.

To add insult to injury, these funds have been raided for other purposes several times now. In 2002, the Legislature and Gov. Scott McCallum securitized (sold to investors, for a smaller, up-front payment) the $5.9 billion into a $1.6 billion lump sum - most of which was used to address the state's one-time budget deficit. In this new budget repair bill, the original language called for securitizing another $209 million of that.

Doyle cutting that back to just $150 is progress, but still not great. In the end, this money should be going toward funding tobacco prevention services, and probably health care costs associated with tobacco use, too. Instead, our state legislators (and governors) seem content to raid that cookie jar for other purposes, as opposed to responsible budget balancing, and transferring the costs over to the taxpayers. I call shenanigans.

And speaking of shenanigans! Our good friends over at Ban the Ban Wisconsin have decided to change course and attack the people of the state instead of the "pro-ban activists." In a little something they cleverly call Operation Mollycoddle, the authors are calling on anti-ban types to convince regular folks that groups like Smoke Free Wisconsin think they're all "idiots" and "can't think for themselves." Here are a few choice tidbits from the site:

The underlying goal of Smoke Free Wisconsin is to convince the people of this state that they are nothing more than helpless idiots who cannot think for themselves or make their own choices.

...

Sometimes the best way to weaken an enemy is to avoid their strong points and attack a seemingly benign target. To accomplish this goal, we need to filter away the politically correct garbage and public health crap and expose the insulting and offensive nature of Smoke Free WI; namely that the people can't take care of themselves. Operation Mollycoddle is to be a tactical strike directed at the people of Wisconsin; not Smoke Free Wisconsin. Our goal is to piss off the common citizens so badly that they will turn against the ban advocates.

...

Just remember, people are easy to offend and bring to anger. A few simple insults is usually all it takes, especially if you're insulting their intelligence or their ability to think for themselves. A precision strike at people's "anger buttons" is a much more effective method than chasing the anti-tobacco zealots around.

So in order to bolster their cause, Ban the Ban seems to be advocating the use of mollycoddling to tell the people they're being mollycoddled by Smoke Free Wisconsin. Interesting. Instead of speaking plainly and sticking to the facts, both methods that seem to have failed them totally (understandably), they're now going to "avoid [the opposite sides'] strong points" and "filter away the politically correct garbage and public health crap."

That "public health crap" they're talking about are the inconvenient facts about second-and-first-hand smoking:

• EPA has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in adults who do not smoke. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers.
• Exposure to secondhand smoke has also been shown in a number of studies to increase the risk of heart disease.
• ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.
• There are conclusive published studies that indicate increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmoking women living with smoking husbands or working with smoking co-workers.

It goes on and on. But still, some anti-ban activists don't seem to give a shit about their own health, let alone that of the people around them. This isn't a matter of Smoke Free Wisconsin (or any other pro-ban group) accusing the people of not being able to think for themselves. It's a matter of keeping those who have thought for themselves and still decided that they don't care about public health from hurting others. Y'know, like laws against assault.

Regardless, Ban the Ban seem hell-bent on mollycoddling the state, apparently thinking so little of their fellow citizens as to believe they can be duped into believing the crap that BtB is putting out there, in the air, for all to breathe.

(cross-posted from dane101.com)