. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
September 22, 2007, 4:20 p.m.; September 23, 2007, 4:30 p.m.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Iowa City is currently dealing with issues of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. It's a combination we come by honestly with solid historic precedent.
It was 1789, during the very first Congress, that the first federal legislation taxing alcohol was enacted -- in one sense the beginning of today's ATF. By 1863 three enforcement officers -- presumably armed -- were added to its ranks. (The agency had found that not all moonshiners were enthusiastic about paying taxes.) Once a part of the Treasury Department, in January 2003 the ATF was transferred to the Justice Department as a part of the creation of Homeland Security. Its full name is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Nor has there been a shortage of guns.
The ATF publishes an annual report of U.S. handgun manufacturing. The agency is either woefully shorthanded or overly pressured by secrecy advocates among gun lobbyists and White House personnel, because the last "annual" report is for 2004. (Its website expresses the hope that the 2005 report may be ready sometime this month -- "mid-September 2007.")
At the outset, let me repeat that my primary concern has been, not the ultimate decision regarding the arming (or not) of our campus police. It is the process by which we arrived at it. It was not, to borrow the line from Fox News, "fair and balanced." It was a presentation by advocates for arming, not an academic, analytical evaluation of the data. And such arguments as were made were not very persuasive, such as, "everybody else is doing it," and "but we're properly trained" -- neither of which address the central issue: Is there a genuine need for more weapons on the UI campus?
As Regent Rose Vasquez noted, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
Very little (if any) evidence and data have been offered to support the notion that even if campus police were armed that they would have many (if any) occasions to use guns, or otherwise put, that their being armed would actually prevent acts of violence that, but for their possessing guns, would otherwise have occurred. (Even less analysis was provided regarding exactly what it is campus police do; how student safety is allocated between them and City police; how the required numbers of both might be altered by exploring other options in the allocation of those responsibilities.)
But let's put that aside. Let's assume that they would have occasions to use them.
There seems to be at least some basis for concern that "guns beget guns;" that is to say, if someone is thinking about bringing a gun onto campus anyway they may well be more rather than less inclined to do so knowing that they may have occasion to deal with an armed campus police officer.
Here are three items that would seem to support that concern.
State29, who takes me to task for my position on the weapons issue, State29, "What Makes You So Special?" September 20, 2007, concludes, "Actually, I'm in favor of allowing students to conceal carry while on campus. That would freak out the ivory tower crowd even more, even though students having weapons available to them have saved lives."
How many other students are licensed to "conceal carry"? How many more will be as a result of the campus police being armed? How many will carry guns even if they are not licensed to do so?
This morning's Press-Citizen has a Letter to the Editor suggesting that they all should. It reads in its entirety,
In response to your Sept. 15 story, "I can't walk home alone," I say, "You could if there was just one gun law: Everybody carries one."
When Bob Patton had his editorial cartoon depicting President Sally Mason announcing "I think we should give armed campus police a shot -- perhaps I need to rephrase that" a reader named "airship" posted the comment, "Great idea, but I'm concerned that it might not go far enough. After all, what are the odds that a campus security officer will be right there when an incident occurs? Just to be extra safe and secure, I think we should arm all the students, too. With automatic weapons. And grenades." September 20, 2007, 1:52 p.m.
There's a certain superficial logic to these positions.
This is an age in which we do more and more for ourselves. We used to have to rely on a telephone employee to place our long distance calls. Now we can "dial" even internationally ourselves. Instead of elevator operators, we press the buttons. Grocery store employees used to get our groceries for us and then "ring them up." Now we get, bar-code-scan, and process our own credit card payments for them. The "service stations" of old are now but a pump and a credit card reader. Bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs -- a deprivation for which we pay, for the privilege of operating them ourselves. Not only have these changes shifted costs from businesses to their customers, radically increasing unemployment while employing us at something well under even slave wages, but they have imbued us with a do-it-yourself sense of responsibility and possibility.
The enthusiasm that university administrators across the nation bring to giving their campus police more deadly weapons teaches as lesson even more forcefully than if it were taught in a classroom: Safety and security in our society (or within other countries) can best be provided through the use of deadly weapons.
That being the case, why not -- as with the other aspects of our lives formerly provided by institutions -- carry the weapons ourselves, rather than rely on the institutional police? It appears the idea is catching on in some quarters, thus further increasing the weaponry on campus beyond the guns provided campus police.
This can be just one more way in which we can contribute to economic growth, with the increased gun sales, especially if the manufacturers see the potential in the academic gun market and ultimately offer us Microsoft-like "academic discounts" through the University Bookstore outlets and Iowa Book.
(Unfortunately, the cartoon is not yet posted. It depicts two guys at a bar. One says, "I can't wait for Iowa City bars to go 21-only! This will be such a boon to my business!" To which the other inquires, "What are you, a bar owner?" and the first responds, "No, I run a fake I.D. mill!")
This whole thing would be hilarious if it weren't so serious -- what it's doing to young peoples' lives, the quality of downtown, the reputation of the city, the demands on (and costs to taxpayers of) the police.
"21-only." For starters, to call the proposal "21-only" is like naming an act of Congress that gives major campaign contributors the right to increase pollution "The Clean Air Act." Everybody gets to stay in the bars until 10:00 p.m. I don't know when these bars open in the mornings, but for at least 12 hours every day they're wide open.
I'm not going to get into the sleeping habits of undergraduates, and I'm certainly not going to advocate laws and regulations imposing curfews (although universities -- including Iowa -- certainly had them for fraternity and dorm residents years ago). And see the Gazette story, Alison Gowans, "It's the Law; Whether It's a City or Parental Curfew, Teens Know Time to be Home," The Gazette, September 23, 2007, p. L1.
But it does seem to me that leaving bars before 10:00 p.m. might be a good idea for those few undergraduates who are actually attending college for purposes of getting an education (if, indeed, they would be wanting to binge drink more than once a week in bars at all). By the time you get your things together and leave the bar, stand outside for some last minute visiting with friends and saying goodbye, walk to your residence, wind down and relax, get ready for bed, and actually fall asleep, 10:00 is about as late as you ought to be staying in bars anyway -- especially if you know the relationship between good health and mental alertness on the one hand and going to bed at the same time every night and regularly getting an adequate night's sleep on the other.
And even that's meaningless. As Patton's cartoon suggests, young college students tell me, national studies and polls report, and this morning's story repeats, what with fake IDs, half-hearted enforcement by bar owners (who operate with the inherent conflict of interest that the more willing they are to ignore the law the richer they become), and the ease with which underage patrons can order alcohol for themselves or have someone order for them, there are simply no meaningful restraints on under-age drinking in Iowa City.
As Jim Clayton, vice chairman of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission, and executive committee chairman of the Stepping Up Coalition is quoted in the story as saying, "They make money on that drink whether you drink it yourself, you give it to a friend or you stumble and spill it."
Prohibition??!! That anyone could characterize this profit-maximizing "compromise" as something "similar to Prohibition" is simply stunning. And yet the story quotes a local business person as saying just that.
Then comes, of course, the old canard from him: "Prohibition doesn't work -- never has never will."
(a) In point of fact, from a public health perspective the epidemiological data documents that Prohibition very effectively did work (in reducing alcohol-related illness and disease).
(b) Gallegos' story immediately continues to report that "Iowa City has a 69 percent binge drinking rate compared with the 42 percent binge drinking rate in Ames -- where there is a 21-and-over ordinance." So if "prohibition" seems to be working at another of the Iowa Regents' universities won't you please explain to me once again just why it is it won't work at the UI?
(c) A recent Gallup poll reports that during the 1940s the percentage of Americans who were regular smokers was in the low to mid-40% range. As recently as the late 1980s the percentages ranged from 31-38%. The percentage in July of this year (2007) was 21% -- the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup organization. There are of course many variables affecting these numbers, but clearly the "prohibition" of smoking in UI buildings -- along with thousands of other restaurants and buildings around the country -- has had its impact.
Besides, the "prohibition," such as it is, is already in the Iowa law. There is a legal "prohibition" on bars selling alcohol to anyone under 21 -- raising some question as to why the local bar owners (and their advocates on the City Council) are fearful of less revenue, since presumably they would assert they're not selling to under-age patrons now anyway -- either before or after 10:00 p.m.
Iowa City's version of "21-only" doesn't even go so far as to enforce the laws already on the books in a rational way -- as is done in Ames! It leaves open the opportunity bar owners have to sell as much alcohol to under-age drinkers as they can possibly get away with up until 10:00 p.m.!
And you call that "prohibition"??!! Give me a break.
Our "vibrant downtown life." Another argument put forward by those advocating continuing the violations of the "spirit" and letter of Iowa's liquor laws is that to comply with the law, discourage binge drinking, and minimize the illness, violence and sexual abuse that accompanies it, would interfere with the "vibrant downtown life" of Iowa City.
My dictionary offers many definitions of "vibrant" but vomiting, fist fights, falling-down drunk, and sexual assaults aren't among them.
Sailing to riches on a sea of beer. What was that old drinking song?
"75 million gallons of beer on the wall 75 million gallons of beer . . .."
That's how much beer was consumed in Iowa last year -- a good bit of it in Iowa City.
At 8 16-ounce-pint glasses per gallon, that's 600 million glasses, and . . . Oh, you can do the math. We're talking billions, not millions, of dollars.
Bar owners are making more money sailing on this sea of beer than Columbus ever made sailing on "the ocean blue."
So we're back once again to "revenue is needed." ("Once 'revenue is needed' is the Polestar for a university's financial decisions its moral compass begins to spin as if it was located on the North Pole." Nicholas Johnson, "UI Loves Gambling" in "UI Held Hostage Day 410 - March 7," March 7, 2007.) Although, in this instance, the revenue that is needed is coming from sales that are expressly in violation of Iowa law.
Change the law. State29 has what he thinks is a better idea: Just change the law to permit 18-year-olds to drink. State29, "The Publican Campaign," September 22, 2007.
The least one can say for such a proposal is that it would contribute to greater respect for the legal system generally -- a goal I have as a result of my legal training. Any law that is routinely violated, whatever the subject, only further erodes respect for all legal standards.
I have always held out the possible advantages of an "over-18" standard being substituted for the "over-21" -- though I would like to see the data, others' "best practices," and make sure that in our time and place (when and where alcohol abuse is not only rampant but thought "cute" as a rite and right of passage) that it really would be a safe and wise choice. Lowering the drinking age would at least remove the current attraction of "getting away with something; beating the system" as a reason for binge drinking.
I've actually proposed that we at least explore the possible advantages of going further: encourage parents to introduce children to alcohol European style (in very small quantities, or watered down), as a responsible, family-oriented, thing to do at meals. My guess (though I'd obviously want to base such a proposal on much more than a guess) is that it would go a long way to removing the association of binge drinking with rebelliousness (and, ironically, "maturity") in the minds of young college students.
Until we're able to get to more of the root causes of the UI's binge drinking problem, however, I'm not confident that telling bar owners and those too young to drink (according to Iowa law) that they are only free to violate the law before 10:00 p.m. is going to solve very much.
I'm reminded of a story told about a corporate CEO years ago -- it may have been Alfred Sloan at General Motors. After a brief discussion with a group of his vice presidents regarding a major challenge confronting the company he said, "Well, gentlemen, I see we're all in agreement. That probably means we don't understand the problem. I suggest we think about it some more and meet again in a couple of weeks."
In this case, the Regents are going to meet again in a month.
It's the Mission of Higher Education -- Not the Naming of Buildings
The Regents seem to recognize that the "building naming" issue goes far beyond the mere matter of turning Regents' campus buildings into one of the best advertising buys available to for-profit businesses anywhere, the gift that goes on giving forever: billboards for corporations that will last as long as a building stands.
The Regents are face-to-face with an issue no less significant than the proper role of higher education today in general, and for the Regents' universities in Iowa in particular.
Once the province of religion, with a primary purpose of training ministers, these colleges were followed by land grant universities envisioned to (among other things) assist the agricultural industry.
Once institutions enabling the perpetuation of the socio-economic status of America's elite families, they were expanded to offer opportunity for all -- though still funded by the state, and as close to "free" as possible for students (a goal continued with the GI-Bill following World War II).
Today state funding provides only a small fraction of the cost of running "public universities" that are, in almost every way, the full equivalent of "private universities" -- including the student loan debt that further enriches banks, and impoverishes students, once they graduate (if they do). Once seen as a means to enrich the qualify of one's life over a lifetime other than in a monetary way -- with a greater appreciation of art, music, literature, languages, and a fuller understanding of nature and the products of science that fill our lives -- today a university education is increasingly pursued as (because, in part, it has been advertised as) a way to increase one's income over the course of a lifetime.
Increasingly, higher education is coming to be "corporatized."
Buildings that used to bear the names of ancient scholars now bear the names of donors -- as do faculty and auditorium "chairs," rooms, wings, and even entire colleges.
Facilities are provided for start-up corporations.
Faculty are expected to raise their own salaries from grants -- often, in effect, utilizing university resources and their own talents to increase the bottom line of for-profit corporations, doing research at bargain-basement rates that, but for the lack of state funding, they might not choose to be doing at all.
Universities contribute to the creation of an economy and society in which our very best artists (writers, musicians, graphic artists) are producing the advertising that manipulates consumer demand, and our very best scientists and engineers are paid from defense appropriations to create ever-more-efficient deadly weapons of war.
As I've pointed out in discussing these issues earlier, the primary problem (if such it be) comes from a university's solicitation and acceptance of the money in the first place. Putting the name on the building merely advertises to the world that we're for sale. But what we sold was sold when we took the money -- "with no strings attached."
So that's the issue confronting the Regents -- an issue in which the "naming controversy" is well buried within a substantial pile of more fundamental concerns.
I have my preferences, obviously, but my primary concern is the elimination of hypocrisy.
If our primary role in the 21st Century is to be an "economic engine," if we are simply recognizing our relationship as that of a "subsidiary corporation" in a world that is little more than the Fortune 500, so be it. Let's declare that's the case and do the best possible job we can of pursuing that path, and making those contributions.
Not incidentally, if that's what we decide we are, the controversy surrounding the naming of buildings for our corporate partners and masters thereby becomes a trivial issue to be quickly resolved.
But it's unseemly, in my view, to pretend and advertise that we're here for the students, that we're trying to enrich their lives, that we're committed to the pursuit of a "liberal arts and sciences education," when that's not the case. That's all.
I'd rather we first figure out, and then just declare, what we truly are -- and then start much more aggressively "haggling over price." It's Not About Guns
As for more academic armaments on campus, I'm reminded of the bumper sticker: "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer."
In our case, "whatever is the security issue, weapons are not the answer."
The Regents are also entitled to some praise for wanting to give this one a little more time and investigation as well.
The matter is highlighted by this morning's Press-Citizen.
Bob Patton's editorial cartoons always put the matter most suscinctly, but there is also an excellent column on the editorial page. David Morris, "Guns Aren't Safe Solution,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 20, 2007, p. A7.
What's the greatest security concern on the campus at the moment? The fact that the Iowa City police -- armed or unarmed -- have so far (despite their best efforts) been unable to bring a halt to what is now a string of 30 women assaulted on the streets of Iowa City at night.
There are a number of lessons here.
1. As someone commented in an earlier blog here, the primary risk to the security of students occurs on the streets of Iowa City, not the campus of the University.
2. This, in turn, opens a can of worms about the relationship between the campus police and the Iowa City police. One of the arguments offered by proponents of arming the campus police is that they are responsible for patrolling many areas of Iowa City besides the campus, and that they are sometimes called upon by the Iowa City police to help out. Who made those decisions and why?
3. Thankfully, if I've read all the newspaper reports correctly, every woman attacked was able to defend herself and send the attacker running. Thus, it would seem that (a) this is a matter for the Iowa City police, not the campus police, (b) they are armed, (c) but being armed would not seem to be necessary in this instance, and (d) in any event, armed or unarmed, they have been unable to find and arrest the attacker or protect the women.
4. Thus, as Bob Patton illustrates, and I've discussed at length in other blog entries here (see, e.g., "Politics and Psychology," linked below), arming the campus police is little more than an irrelevant "security blanket," a decision being made at the wrong time (a response to Virginia Tech) for the wrong reasons, that (like our invasion of Iraq) is as likely to decrease rather than increase our security.
As Regent Rose Vasquez observed, under any rational benefit-cost analysis one has to acknowledge that arming campus police has the usual equation backwards: there are virtually no benefits to arming campus police (in saved injury and death of students), while on the other hand there are risks of significant cost (in lost lives). So why are we doing this? My best analysis remains Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
[As Radio Iowa reports:
Rose Vasquez of Des Moines says the issue shouldn't be bundled into a larger plan. Vasquez says she's ready to vote on arming officers, saying she's opposed to arming the officers and it won't have anything to do with not beefing up security measures. Vasquez says even after hearing from the directors of the three public safety departments about the threats that face campus police, she did not favor arming the officers.
Vasquez says, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
This week the Regents seemed to be 7-to-1 in favor of more weapons on campus, but they were unanimous that "campus security" was a much bigger and more complex issue than merely supplying more guns.
Even as to the guns, as I noted earlier,
"the evidence [regarding weapon-toting campus police] was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous. The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus." Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
Finally, I put to the students once again . . .
Think, Students: Do you Really Want More Weapons on Campus?
Students can be a real source of trouble for university administrators.
Sometimes it can be because of what the students do. Other times because of what they say -- or think -- the signs they carry, or the sit-ins they organize.
So while I've never had any difficulty understanding why university administrators would want more, and better armed, police and national guard soldiers to protect their campuses from whatever the administrators may find threatening at any given moment, I'm really bewildered as to why students would want more fully armed "authority" with which to deal.
Here's why.
Witness this event from the evening of September 17, demonstrating how the campus police at Florida University, Gainesville, made students "safer" on that campus when one was in the process of merely exercising his First Amendment right in asking former John Kerry a question:
That student in the video, Andrew Meyer, can be grateful that his campus police chose to limit the pain they inflicted to physical violence and the threat (or actual use) of a taser. Based on his screams, however, it sounded like they were pushing tasers to their limits.
Not incidentally, why did this story -- which received widespread national distribution and has been all over the blogosphere, and is certainly related to the current campus BIG STORIES receive nary a mention in the Press-Citizen? (The Gazette at least carried the AP story, with a picture of Meyer. Associated Press, "University of Florida investigating police Tasering of student at forum,"The Gazette, September 19, 2007, p. A5.)
When guns are brought onto a campus to control students the results can be both painful and deadly. In the case of the Kent State Massacre, where armed national guard troops were used, the results were four dead students and nine injured from gunshot wounds.
For those students not old enough to have lived through the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, you might want to review the video below. Because it starts with President Nixon's speech, just substitute "President George W. Bush" for "President Richard Nixon," "Iraq" for "Vietnam," and "Iran" for "Cambodia" to bring it up to date and make it easier to relate to.
Here's another take on those events, from "Democracy Now."
You can't imagine how much safer I feel, knowing that soon the UI will also have access to the deadly weapons necessary to control unruly students.
September 18, 2007, 11:45 a.m., 7:30 p.m. -- Additions (bottom of page) of video of campus police Taser incident Sept. 17 and Kent State Massacre in 1970!!
TIFs, Tiffs, and Sullivan
Rod Sullivan for Supervisor
Every once in awhile a public official comes along who is so outstanding in every way that it is hard for citizen-taxpayers to even fully understand, let alone appreciate, what they have.
Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan is such an official.
Name a positive adjective and it fits: bright, courageous, hard working, creative, leadership, compassionate, friendly, articulate, thoughtful, giving . . . the list is endless.
And there are two reasons why I mention that today. One is that he's just announced his campaign for re-election to a second term on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Kathryn Fiegen, "Sullivan decides to seek another term,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007, p. A3.
The other is an item in his weekly "Sullivan's Salvos," Monday's edition. (It's available to you, as a free email if you're not already a subscriber: Just email rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.) Not incidentally, while we're raving about Sullivan, this is in my opinion the single most useful of all the e-zines and email services maintained by any public official.
Not only does it keep you up to date on what Johnson County (and other counties) are doing, it contains personal items, and other informational pieces as well.
Wellmark Joins Doctors, singing: "Taxpayers, can you spare a dime?"
For example, yesterday's edition of "Sullivan's Salvos" contained the following:
A GREAT book for anyone who might be interested is The Great American Jobs Scam by Greg LeRoy. Are you tired of hearing about governments giving our tax dollars to big corporations so they can "retain jobs"? Me, too.
LeRoy debunks several common myths, such as "Company X would have left the community but for these incentives." LeRoy writes at length about the myths of TIF, Enterprise Zones, and many other common economic development tools used by municipalities in the name of growth.
The book offers important suggestions to the tax code that State lawmakers can use to protect our interests, such as combined reporting. This book also notes the work of UI Professors Peter Fisher and Alan Peters.
I urge everyone to read this book, then ask your state and local elected officials to read it as well. It is available at local libraries.
And speaking of TIFs, the Press-Citizen offered a well-written and balanced assessment of the proposed $600,000 subsidy for doctors on this morning's editorial page: Editorial, "TIF is the Wrong Prescription for Surgery Center,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007, p. A11. (Why "balanced"? Because the paper sets forth the reasons for supporting the hand-out offered by the "Iowa City economic development staff . . . [because of the ] cumulative effect of a number of smaller reasons . . .." And the editorial repeats, "We've always asserted that [TIFs] can be a good tool when used effectively." My position has increasingly become that there is no worthwhile, benefit-cost-risk-justified basis for arguing their "effective" use in any circumstances.)
Want another example of outrageous corporate subsidies?
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield will build a new $175 million headquarters in downtown Des Moines . . ..
Des Moines will provide a number of incentives . . .. [Des Moines] City Manager Rick Clark . . . declined to put a dollar amount on the incentives . . . , but [Wellmark Group Vice President Cliff] Gold said the combination of state and local incentives is more than $10 million.
. . .
The city's incentives will be in four areas, Clark said.
- The city will shoulder the burden of straightening out High Street to provide a little more room for the project.
- Eventually, the city will help extend the downtown skywalk to the building. That may take some time because the nearest connection now is at Ninth Street and Grand Avenue.
- Some type of mass transit encouragement for Wellmark employees to take the bus will be included.
- Tax increment financing will be use to rebate some property tax money to Wellmark. Clark declined to say how much TIF money might be involved.
Among other things, he said, TIF money will be used to make the new building LEED certified, a designation for buildings that are energy-efficient and use environmentally friendly building technology.
The city could also use TIF money to pay some of the cost of removing chemicals from the property now occupied by a dry cleaner.
The city will work with businesses located in the area to find new locations within the city, Clark said. City officials also helped negotiate the sale of parcels of land on the building site not owned by Iowa Health Systems.
. . .
Wellmark has more modest growth plans - perhaps as many as 100 new employees in the next few years, according to Gold. . . .
Advantages to a downtown site include a central location, access to transportation and sticking to a 68-year history with the central business district, Gold said. . . .
Gold said that Wellmark has adequate resources to pay for constructing the building and equipping it.
"We don't think we'll need to borrow," he said.
Note the following:
(1) At best, these corporate subsidies accomplished no more than shifting a building from West Des Moines to downtown Des Moines -- a classic example of intra-Iowa (in this case intra-city!) competition producing no benefit whatsoever for Iowa's taxpayers.
(2) Claims of significant new job creation are often inflated or downright bogus. In this case they were virtually non-existent with a "modest growth" possibility of 100 low wage jobs -- "perhaps."
(3) The real reasons for this corporate decision, as is almost always the case, involved factors other than bribery with taxpayers' money -- as the company's executives revealed they wanted the downtown location because of "a central location, access to transportation and sticking to a 68-year history with the central business district."
(4) Moreover, they didn't need the money. In addition to the fact that they earlier had enough spare pocket change to invest in a 66-acre urban plot they ended up not using, as Wellmark's Executive Vice President Gold put it, "Wellmark has adequate resources to pay for constructing the building and equipping it" and "We don't think we'll need to borrow." Not only does it not sound like low income housing (one of TIFs' original purposes) it doesn't even sound like a gold-plated corporate tin cup in need of additional funds from the taxpayers.
And speaking of Wellmark buildings . . .
. . . UI President Sally Mason would prefer not to have a policy on building naming.
The Regents decided to postpone coming up with a naming policy, but Mason is quoted as saying, "I would prefer our hands not be tied and we look at it on a case-by-case basis."
Sounds like we may be in for weapons in the hands of campus police AND corporate names on UI's building -- "on a case-by-case basis," of course.
Erin Jordan, "Regents Seek New Naming Policy,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2007, 9:34 a.m. ("New U of I president Sally Mason said last week that the Regents and the universities should remain flexible on the issue. 'I would prefer our hands not be tied and we look at it on a case-by-case basis,' Mason told Des Moines Register editors and reporters Friday.")
Senator Joins Fruitless Call for Research and Balance on Campus Weapons Issue
Since the Regents are also looking at providing their campus police officers with deadly weapons I thought I might add today that four days ago I wrote, "the evidence [regarding weapon-toting campus police] was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous. The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus." Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
This morning we read that a much more authoritative -- but probably no more persuasive -- source is making similar suggestions: "In a Sept. 10 letter addressed to Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy and later sent to the nine members of the Iowa state Board of Regents, Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said the report lacked data-driven analysis, trends in campus crime, assessment of risks and an analysis of possible effects of such a change." Brian Morelli, "Senator questions security report; Quirmbach: Recommendations lack thoroughness, objectivity,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007.
Given Governor Chet Culver's last minute jump on the well-armed bandwagon (because of Virginia Tech), my "Politics and Psychology" analysis of this groundswell seems more and more correct with every passing day. Associated Press, "Culver Favors Arming Campus Police,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2007, 10:48 a.m. ("He [Governor Culver] says the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus in April highlights the need for serious consideration of security on college campuses.")
To no one's surprise, the Regents have now come down with a "firm, possible maybe" on the issue:
The Iowa Board of Regents delayed a final decision to arm campus police for at least a month. The board unanimously approved a motion to develop a comprehensive safety and security plan for Iowa's three public universities. That plan would be approved at a future meeting. The board then voted 7-1 to allow a provision as part of that policy allowing campus police officers to carry firearms in the regular course of duties. Before Regent Michael Gartner voted on the second motion, he clarified that the decision to arm police could still be reversed with a future vote on the comprehensive safety plan.
Regent Ruth Harkin of Cumming says there are many other issues that go into a secure campus, and it's difficult to single out arming campus police. "I just wouldn't want to give the impression that we think we have responded to the security call by voting on a firearms policy," Harkin says. The board asked its staff to develop a comprehensive security plan that would include arming campus officers.
The only Regent to voice opposition to the idea - Rose Vasquez of Des Moines - says the issue shouldn't be bundled into a larger plan. Vasquez says she's ready to vote on arming officers, saying she's opposed to arming the officers and it won't have anything to do with not beefing up security measures. Vasquez says even after hearing from the directors of the three public safety departments about the threats that face campus police, she did not favor arming the officers.
Vasquez says, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
Think, Students: Do you Really Want More Weapons on Campus?
Students can be a real source of trouble for university administrators.
Sometimes it can be because of what the students do. Other times because of what they say -- or think -- the signs they carry, or the sit-ins they organize.
So while I've never had any difficulty understanding why university administrators would want more, and better armed, police to protect whatever they may find threatening at any given moment, I'm really bewildered as to why students would want more fully armed "authority" with which to deal.
Here's why.
Witness this event from last evening (September 17), demonstrating how the campus police at Florida University, Gainesville, made students "safer" on that campus when one was in the process of asking former Senator John Kerry a question:
That student in the video, Andrew Meyer, can be grateful that his campus police chose to limit the pain they inflicted to a taser. Based on his screams, however, it sounded like they were pushing tasers to their limits.
When guns are brought onto a campus to control students the results are both painful and deadly. In the case of the Kent State Massacre, where armed national guard troops were used, the results were four dead students and nine injured from gunshot wounds.
For those students not old enough to have lived through the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, you might want to review the video below. Because it starts with President Nixon's speech, just substitute "President George W. Bush" for "President Richard Nixon," "Iraq" for "Vietnam," and "Iran" for "Cambodia" to bring it up to date and make it easier to relate to.
Here's another take on those events, from "Democracy Now."
You can't imagine how much safer I feel, knowing that soon the UI will also have access to the weapons necessary to control unruly students.
On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations
Today's blog entry may involve an effort to weave together more seemingly unrelated items than any one ought to be permitted to try to plug into a coherent theme. But if you're willing to stick with me through this one I'll let you be the judge of whether I succeed.
The impact of fear on attitudes and action. It began earlier this week, when listening to a discussion on Tom Ashcroft's "On Point" program, carried on WSUI-AM910 from WBUR-FM90.9, Boston. The segment was called "9/11, Fear, and Politics," September 10, 2007. (If you are now, or later, interested in listening you can hear it at that link.)
Bottom line: when we are thinking about, or reminded of, death -- or are stressed with fear -- it tends to affect our attitudes and actions on a whole range of unrelated matters. As Ashcroft's intro put it, "Research finds the mere mention of death changes minds. The image of the Twin Towers exploding is a psychological supernova." Guests included:
· Sheldon Solomon, professor of psychology at Skidmore College and co-author of "In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror" · Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former faculty member at Harvard Medical School, author of "The Paranoia Switch: How Terror Rewires Our Brains and Reshapes Our Behavior -- and How We Can Reclaim Our Courage" · Graham Allison, professor of government and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, author of "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe"
When negatives re-enforce the opposite.That program, in turn, reminded me of a segment from another radio program, "On the Media" -- a weekly "must listen" media mavens. (It comes from New York Public Radio, and is hosted by Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield.)
This segment ("The Truth of False," September 7, 2007) can also be listened to, if you wish. The promo reads:
Good myths die hard. Recent psychological studies suggest journalists' attempts to set the record straight may in fact be perpetuating falsehoods. Shankar Vedantam, columnist at the Washington Post, explains.
The neurobiology of politics. That reminded me of a story reporting on research that seems to indicate there's actually something different about the ways the brains of liberals and conservatives are wired. Denise Gellene, "Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain; Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show,"Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2007 ("Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.")
Bringing the people to their leaders' bidding; just "tell them they are being attacked." And once I got to thinking about those three stories together, that in turn brought me back to a quote I've always found insightful and provocative:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
It was Hermann Goering who provided us this insight some 60 years ago. (Here's a link to a source that confirms the accuracy of the quote and identifies the source.)
Is the White House public relations strategy science-based? When the White House schedules General David H. Petraeus, Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq, to testify on September 10 and 11 -- the anniversary of "9/11" -- is it in any, even small, part due to the awareness of President Bush (or more likely his advisers) of the material just discussed?
The research of those whom Tom Ashcroft interviewed suggests that when we are made to think about death -- or we're stressed with insecurity -- we are more likely to, among other things: (1) look for and follow authoritarian figures, (2) become less accepting of the "other" (e.g., races, religions, ethic groups, and nationalities), and (3) become harsher in the defensive means we're willing to use and penalties we're willing to impose on others.
One of the most startling revelations was what was found about the sentences handed down by judges. Needless to say, I don't know enough about this research to vouch for it, I haven't read it, and it's not my field. But what I got from it goes as follows.
A group of judges -- all of whom felt they were not swayed by external factors when sentencing -- were asked what sentence they would impose for prostitution (apparently a fairly common crime in Phoenix, where they were located). The average in such cases, in fact, is apparently $50. And that was, in fact, the average sentence imposed by those in the control group. Those in the group that was caused to think about death in one way or another were proposing fines that averaged more in the range of $450.
Could it be that the Bush Administration is actually building its public relations strategies on a foundation of their awareness of such research? Do they know they can jiggle the poll results, the President's popularity, the support for the War and for General Petraeus' report, by associating his testimony with the public's insecurities that are aroused by reminders of 9/11?
Can this research explain why we're arming our campus police? What does all this have to teach us about the arming of the campus police at Iowa's Regents' universities?
I don't wish to re-plow the arguments pro and con to try to persuade anyone on the merits.
But I have been struggling in my efforts to understand and articulate, "How did we get to this decision?"
As UI Professor Jeff Cox has pointed out, for 40 years the UI has operated without a gun-toting campus police. Moreover, there was no outcry to bring more guns onto the campus; not from students or their parents, not from staff or faculty, not from administrators, and not from Iowa City officials or other leaders.
The position of the CIA, and the National Intelligence Estimate, is that the War in Iraq is making us (as I joined many others in predicting) less safe, less secure, not more -- primarily by fomenting more terrorism, not less, and contributing substantially to the terrorists' recruitment efforts.
Similarly, the evidence was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous.
The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus.
The arguments were fairly weak.
(1) "But Johnny's mommy lets him do it." That is, "other campuses police get to carry guns, so we should be able to do so, too."
(2) "We're trained to use firearms." Yeah. (That's good; because they have firearms back at headquarters for an emergency (the likelihood of which is somewhere between "slim and none at all") and they better know how to use them.) And some campus police officers may be trained to fly private planes, too. But that doesn't mean we should have a single-engine plane constantly flying over the campus at low altitude.
(3) "If you won't let me be the pitcher I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home." What is this blackmail about, anyway? "'If it doesn't go through, I will lose 50 percent of my officers,' [the UI's] public safety director Chuck Green said." Brian Morelli, "Half of university officers to leave if regents answer is no,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2007. Who organized that walkout? The campus police have wanted guns for years. But if this was such a big deal, something that went beyond mere requests and protests, something that would actually cause half the force to resign, why weren't they resigning in 2006, 2005, and 2004? (There may well be an answer to that; but it's not immediately obvious what the 2007 Tsunami was that produced this rather dramatic threat.)
I could go on. But as I said earlier, the point is not to re-argue the merits. The point is that the reasons for this radical and abrupt U-turn in UI policy at this time, and the process leading up to that decision, are hard to explain without some theory.
And the research with which this blog entry begins may provide that theory.
The Virginia Tech shootings were our 9/11. They caused us to focus on death, and to imagine what it would be like on the UI campus if something like that were to occur. As a result, we were more willing to look to authoritarian figures for guidance, leadership, and advice -- and then follow their lead. In this instance, authority was in the guise, and uniform, of the police -- rather than the President of the United States and the military for which he is Commander-in-Chief. We were more willing to be suspicious of -- of what? -- of whatever is buried deep inside a sub-conscious of which we may not be proud, a sub-conscious that may hold fears of the "other" (whether race or ethnicity), a sub-conscious that is "sub" and often forgotten, but which rose to consciousness under these fearful conditions. And we were willing to take a more aggressive stance, a willingness to use guns, to protect ourselves, to provide us a greater sense of safety and security -- even though more guns would actually make us less safe and secure. Finally, the more opponents argued that "campus police don't need guns" the more the phrases "campus police" and "need guns" were linked in the minds of advocates -- rather than the reverse -- especially for those whose brains are less effectively wired to hold ambiguous and contradictory notions.
There's a public relations aspect to this as well, something that administrators must always be thinking about during their decision process.
There are two possible public relations disasters involving guns: (1) that campus police are armed and one of them accidentally or deliberately shoots and kills someone on campus, and (2) that the campus police are not armed and a member of the UI community, or an outsider -- persons other than campus police -- will shoot and kill a member of the UI community.
Both are bad for the administrator's public relations. But which is worse? The second -- even if the evidence is overwhelming that the failure to arm the campus police had absolutely no effect whatsoever on those events, and that had they been armed they could not possibly have prevented the deaths anyway.
Why?
Under the first scenario the administrators have done their job, they've "done all they could." A part of the price for providing Iraq with "security" is the unavoidable deaths of 100,000 or more innocent civilians. A part of the price for providing the campus with "security" may be the deaths of innocent students. Those deaths represent a price we're perfectly willing to pay for the greater good (or so it is presented and perceived by many) -- as we were when and Iowa City policeman shot an innocent Eric Shaw (and was never punished for his action).
The second (not arming the campus police, following which a student is shot) is much more serious for administrators -- however irrational, unfair and inaccurate the criticism of them may be -- because they will be portrayed as having failed to make a decision that would have made us safer and prevented the death (even though neither is true).
I don't know if these are sound analyses or not.
But it's my way of making sense of what the Regents' university presidents have just recommended the members of our Board of Regents are probably about to do.
This morning I'd like to add a serious comment or two.
One of the things we try to train our law students to do is referred to as "spotting the issue." It's a skill involving detailed analysis, a pulling on the threads of analytically different considerations out of a fabric that might otherwise produce an overall, and muddled, general impression.
That's what I'd like to do this morning in writing about the chaos of drunken pre-game crowds.
I'm speaking only for myself, not my neighbors or our neighborhood association.
But there is much about Hawkeye football -- including the crowds of "bumble bees" -- that provides for me something between real enjoyment and "no problem." It's colorful. It's exciting. We enjoy talking to the sober students and visitors from out of town walking by our house, or who we encounter as we stroll along Melrose Avenue in a sea of black and gold. If we don't go to the games, and they are televised, we are close enough to hear the roar of the crowd from Kinnick following a Hawkeye accomplishment on the field.
We don't park cars on our lawn (except on rare occasions, for free, for some out-of-town friend). We don't have students living in the house. We don't "tailgate," or have others doing it, on our property. The largest parking operation near our house involves what may even be an alcohol-free crowd. I don't know. There's tailgating there, but not that much noise and seemingly little or no litter afterwards.
Disaster waiting to happen. To start with my conclusion, the most serious aspect of out-of-control, unsupervised, drunken mobs is their potential to create significant, regrettable disasters. You name it, you imagine it, it could happen. Fights between fans of rival teams that involve increasing numbers of people, and the resulting serious injuries or death as guns or knives are ultimately involved. When a drunken student suffocates to death on his own vomit, or falls from a building to his death (it's usually a "his"), it may make the news. The hundreds of injuries from assaults and accidents do not. We've seen the extent of injury and death from drunken, out-of-control mobs of soccer fans around the world. It could happen here. Excessive alcohol can encourage deliberate vandalism and property damage, possibly even involving accidental or deliberate fire damage. Neighborhood homes that are unoccupied (perhaps because their residents are sitting in the stadium) are open targets for every property crime on the books.
That's the problem. In fact, any other issues, or problems, really fade in significance by comparison.
Trash and urination. The trash that's left lying about the neighborhoods and parking lots after a game is of greatest significance simply as evidence of the excessive alcohol consumption that fueled such behavior -- and the risks it creates that are alluded to above.
The most serious element of trash qua trash is the broken glass -- which I have witnessed being created by drunken students throwing bottles in the air just to watch them crash on the pavement. Broken glass can cause human and animal injury. It can puncture bicycle and automobile tires (as I have experienced). It is sometimes hard to see, and is always difficult to completely remove -- ironically even more so if someone, thinking they're being helpful, moves it off of a sidewalk and into the adjoining lawn.
Aside from that, what's the harm? Well, there is some. (a) It reflects badly on the students, the University (and athletic program) administrators, and the City. It's not consistent with our self-image -- or what we advertise to the world. It doesn't encourage parents to send their kids here (thereby risking our increased revenue from tuition.) (b) It's far more expensive to deal with than if folks picked up after themselves. (c) It shows disrespect to the private homeowners (by City, University and polluters alike) who have to clean their yards.
In my case, it just means I have to get down on my hands and knees to crawl under hedges to collect the trash that has been thrown under them, rather than just dropped where I could more easily pick it up. I can probably benefit from that exercise, and it doesn't take all that long.
Public urination is a little more gross and disrespectful than leaving trash. But until it gets to smelling really bad it probably doesn't do the lawn all that much harm -- it may even provide a fertilizing benefit -- and will be pretty well diluted after we get the next good rain.
With some exceptions, most of the trash has been picked up -- by someone -- within 24 hours after a game. (In fact, heavy street sweeper equipment was going up and down the street outside my house at 2:30 or 3:00 Sunday morning. Like the Cheerios commercial line used to have it: "That was very thoughtful. Very early, but very thoughtful.") So aside from the broken glass it's more of a University embarrassment, visual blight and irritant than a truly serious problem.
Noise. Some complain of noise from the crowds. I complain about shouting, loud music, firecrackers (or is it gun shots?), screeching car tires and roaring motorcycles at 3:00 in the morning. Aside from that, it doesn't bother me all that much -- especially when it's a roar from Kinnick following a Hawk's touchdown. It's all part of "game day."
So what's the answer? President Lyndon Johnson was sometimes a little hard on his staff. I finally stopped counting the number of times he fired Bill Moyers, only to hire him back again later in the day. Anyhow, a story is told -- it may be true, it may be only apocryphal -- about a disgruntled speech writer charged with writing one more set of "rose garden pap" notes on speech cards for the President to use for one of those rose garden gatherings just outside his office. The cards went something like this:
"Now I've been asked about 'guns and butter.' "Folks want to know how we can pay for the War in Vietnam and still pay for our 'Great Society' programs. "'Guns and butter.' "Well, we can pay for both. "And I'm going to tell you, today, exactly how we're going to do it, too."
When the President turned to the next card it read, simply:
"Now you're on your own, you old SOB. I quit."
All of which is by way of saying, I don't have any more of an answer than that young speech writer had.
And I don't have the time at the moment to sit and brainstorm by myself what some of the options might be.
I'm just "spotting the issue." And I think I've found it. I think we do have a problem. A very, very serious potential problem in the form of a disaster waiting to happen.
I just don't think it's that empty beer can almost out of my reach under my hedge.
I see that TIF a comin' Comin' down the track No one seems to care much And it ain't turnin' back
That engine looks so funny We used to feed 'em coal Now they burn our money With wealthy on the dole
Their golden rule's a changin' Our Council thinks we're fools: "Those that have the gold, boys, Are those who make our rules"
"So shut up and pay your taxes, And don't forget to vote. The rising tide's that's coming, Will lift our leaking boat"
Yes, folks, it's TIF time in Iowa City once again; a time to sing, dance, drink and celebrate.
TIFs, which our City Council candidates think are one of the best ways to divert what would otherwise be general property taxes for the benefit of all of us into grants to individual wealthy business persons, were originally designed to help the poor, build low income housing, and fix up blighted areas. They didn't make much sense then (if it's a worthy public project let the City own it, as long as the City's paying for it), and they make even less as a "rob the poor and give to the rich" scheme.
How much? $600,000. The doctors' executive director says, "We're excited about it." Yeah, I expect they are. Wouldn't you be excited if someone would agree to pick up $600,000 of your property, or income, tax bill?
Don't get me wrong. I'm alive because of doctors. I like doctors. "Some of my best friends are doctors." Doctors are brighter than the rest of us, well-traveled, good writers (with the exception of their handwriting on prescriptions), great story tellers, good musicians -- and many really are compassionate conservatives (especially pediatricians).
Moreover, I actually like their idea. It has merit. I just think that the risks associated with whether it has economic merit ought to be theirs rather than mine -- especially since they haven't proposed to share the profits with me if it succeeds.
What's next, a taxpayer-funded private dental clinic? The dentists have already trained us to believe that we should put our money where our mouth is. So why not our tax money as well?
You sure can't blame the doctors for trying to get the taxpayers to fund their for-profit company so long as the money is so freely being handed out to others. Shucks, I've even got my application in for a TIF for my backyard tool shed. It sure will cost the taxpayers a lot less than what these doctors want. I haven't heard anything back from the Council yet.
I know a couple guys living under the bridges where I bike who would actually like to use a TIF for its original purpose: building low income housing. They tell me they haven't had any better luck with the Council than I have; not a lot of enthusiasm among the City Council candidates. And the nights are already getting colder.
Oh, well. Now they won't have to walk all the way to Mercy Hospital when they get pneumonia.
At least I assume there will be a "free clinic" at our new, taxpayer-funded "outpatient surgical center." Won't there? Gee, I guess you're right. Hieu didn't really write anything about that. Maybe the editors just cut that part of her story.
# # #
P.S. Normally I don't respond to comments. I like to leave as much opportunity for readers' dialog as possible (within some bounds) -- thoughtful, and not so much, critical and agreement.
But since Irl Tubbs has suggested in his 12:14 p.m. comment that I am lying ("a TIF is not taking tax money from someone else . . . the author believes that if he tells a lie long enough...it will be the truth") I thought a brief reply might be in order.
Does this lighthearted blog entry overly simplify TIFs? Absolutely.
Is it a "lie"? I think that's both inaccurate and unnecessarily harsh.
1. If you save me an expense, that is the financial, the bottom line, equivalent of my (a) paying that expense, but then (b) getting that amount of cash from you. On the other hand, if you cause me an expense that, but for you, I would not have had and that does not benefit me, that is the equivalent of "taking money from" me.
2. Cities can't print money. They depend on tax revenue. That revenue changes from year to year with both tax rates and property values.
3. When a city's revenue declines -- for any reason -- it is presented with two options: (a) increase taxes ("taking tax money from someone else"), or (b) cutting City programs benefiting the entire community (the equivalent of "taking tax money from someone else").
4. Why does a business person want a TIF? Because there is a financial benefit associated with it. It may involve getting land for a price well below market -- up to and including for free. It may involve the City paying for features required by a given business project that, but for the TIF, would not otherwise have been paid for by the City. It may involve paying what the normal taxes would have been on the property and project and then getting an immediate rebate of that tax payment in whole or in part.
5. Whatever the details may be for a given TIFed project, the fact is that the City is, for a given year during the applicability of the TIF, ending up with less property tax income from the TIF-ed property/project for that year than it would have received had the project gone ahead (as a part of the free private enterprise, entrepreneurial, capitalist system) without the TIF (or other government subsidies) having been granted.
6. As in any group project (which a tax-funded community is) if one member of the group does not pull his or her weight, put in their time, do their share of the work, show up on time, has their hand in the till -- or fails to pay their fair share of the expense -- the net effect is that either someone else has to pick up the slack or all will end up getting less out of the project than they thought they would.
7. Given the nature of the above blog entry I didn't want to have to (and did not feel it necessary to) get into this level of detail. Having now done so, hopefully anyone who shares Mr. Tubbs' view can see why, with very little literary license, I don't think it's a "lie" to say that the TIF beneficiary is, in effect, "taking tax money from someone else." Frankly, I don't think I actually said that anyway. But if I had (or did) I think it's a perfectly legitimate simplistic way to communicate what's going on.
The Hawkeyes got their home football season off to a good start in Kinnick Stadium last night, beating Syracuse 35-0 in their opening home game.
The performance of their fans in the adjoining residential neighborhood was considerably less impressive.
Look for "Football's Externalities, Sept. 8, 2007," one of the first of the "public" albums available at my Picasa site.
It is not my intention to identify individual students, homes, landlords or tenants. It is simply to try to portray, through pictures, the impact that the football program has on one of Iowa City's most historic residential neighborhoods when the football machine is fueled on alcohol and left to run without supervision.
I wasn't going to write this morning. Other things to do. The "let's bring weapons to campus" discussion went about the way I predicted yesterday anyway.
But just came upon an entry from my brother in arms in the "War on TIFs," State29, that should be required reading for any TIF supporters in the Iowa City City Council race -- as well as for anyone who's paying property taxes under the illusion that the money is going for public purposes.
The headline tells the tale, but the blog entry text just gets even better and better. Check it out:
And don't tell me, "Oh, that's an exception. We wouldn't do anything like that in Iowa City."
Baloney! TIFs are fatally flawed. All of them. Any where, any time, for any purpose. For lots, and lots, and lots of reasons I don't have time to repeat here once again.
Just read State29's take on this one and come join the rational forces for sensible economic development. We call it the free private enterprise marketplace. A radical idea, I know, but it works -- and at a small fraction of the cost to citizen taxpayers of watching their property tax dollars drop to the bottom line of some for-profit corporation of the wealthy.
Republican presidential candidate, Governor Mike Huckabee, asked about his conservative credentials, once said "I'm a conservative all right; I'm just not angry about it."
That's kind of how I am about bringing guns onto the UI campus -- something that looks close to inevitable at this point. I think it's a terrible thing to do, but I'm not angry about it. Just disappointed and sad.
Since I'll be teaching this afternoon while the public meeting is going on, I thought I'd put some of my thoughts into the debate in this way.
We should not be surprised that, since this groundswell of support for weaponry has come out of the wrong governance model, using the wrong process, relying on the wrong reasons, the advocates have come up with the wrong proposal.
For satisfactory policies to emerge there must first be a clear and precisely articulated governance model, allocating responsibilities between policy boards and administrators. The Board of Regents (and Regents' universities administrators) have yet to spell out such a model.
Once responsibility for "ends policies" has been clearly established, the most productive way to create the wisest policies is an ongoing undertaking of the extremely difficult work of gathering data, analysis, and brainstorming, ultimately producing precisely articulated, measurable, shared goals -- unencumbered by the media's focus on the crisis of the day.
Constantly responding to crises, locking barn doors after the horses turn up missing, not only interrupts (if it does not actually prevent) a calm, ongoing policy formulation and review process, it also tends to cloud rational risk assessment and lead to unwise or inadequately-considered policies -- responding to yesterday's exceedingly rare specifics rather than tomorrow's probabilities.
So it was in this case.
Everyone concedes what the Regents are doing is a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy. That may or may not make sense from a public relations perspective -- but it makes absolutely no sense from a policy perspective.
"Aren't you going to do something to make sure it won't happen here?"
"OK, we'll do something, we'll provide our campus police deadly weapons."
"Oh, gee, that's good. Now I know my child will be safe on your campus."
So, even if arming campus police made sense, making such a decision because of the events at Virginia Tech is not a rational time or way to go about thinking about such a policy -- and is likely to result in our coming up with the wrong policy, which in fact has happened in this case.
The public relations advantage, if something does happen -- even though, as is almost always the case, armed campus police could not prevent it -- is that administrators can say, even if inaccurately, "Well, we did all we could."
Of course, they won't have. But they can say they did, and most people will be willing to accept that arming the police really is doing about all the public can expect of university administrators.
The fact is that the UI, and its sister universities, have been quite aware of campus security issues for decades. They have responded to those concerns with sensible policies not inconsistent with an academic institution. Most recently they have been putting in place uses of the new technologies enabling more rapid communication to the entire campus community -- something that would have made a difference at Virginia Tech.
In a rational consideration of weapons policy, uninfluenced by the media's understandably emotionally-laden coverage of Virginia Tech, to the extent that case study would be discussed at all, it would immediately be recognized as an instance in which the fact that the campus police were armed provided no additional campus safety and saved no lives.
1. "Everybody's doing it." I have never found the preferences of others determinative of my own decisions. I observe, I listen, and I sometimes come to the same conclusion as the crowd -- but if so, it is after my own analysis. And so it is in this case that I find revealingly weak the weapons advocates' argument that, "Well, look, we're the only school in the Big 10 without armed campus police." I am interested in the reasons they came to those decisions, their data, their anecdotal experiences. I don't find at all persuasive the mere fact that we stand alone.
Frankly, I think it a matter of some pride that we are different. There is something delightfully "Iowa" about our distinctions in terms of the quality of our K-12 schools, the education of our work force, the work ethic they bring to farm or factory, our friendly Iowa ways, the small towns with unlocked houses and pickup trucks with keys in the ignition -- and, yes, campuses without the presence of guns.
2. "The police would like to have guns." Most of the discussion and debate of armed campus police has been driven by the arguments of the weapons advocates. They have been given the opportunity to draft the documents and make the presentations.
Given the lack of any organized, academically respectable, data-driven, balanced presentation of the issues it is not surprising that they have won over some adherents.
Nor is there nothing to their case; they have some valid arguments; I just think they are more than outweighed by the contrary arguments. Of course, campus police would like to have more guns -- for some reasons that are understandable and other reasons that are far less compelling. Faculty researchers would like to have newer, larger and better-equipped labs -- also for equally mixed reasons, even if providing them would, usually, be far less hazardous than increasing the number of guns on campus.
3. "Guns make us safer." Guns did not make the tens of thousands of dead innocent civilians in Iraq any safer. The $1 billion worth of weapons Russia delivered to Indonesia yesterday won't make the Indonesians safer. The guns American urban gang members carry for "protection" don't make them safer.
Guns in the home don't make the family safer -- they are 16 times more likely to be used against friends and family members from misidentification, children getting them, accidents, deliberate intra-family homicide, and suicides, than used to protect family members from intruders.
Campus police with guns wouldn't have saved our physics department on November 1 any more than they were able to save lives at Virginia Tech. Iowa City's armed police didn't make Eric Shaw safer -- and accidental (and deliberate) deaths of the innocent from police firearms have occurred throughout the country with even greater regularity than locally.
There is no basis for the belief that guns on campus won't create the same risks as they do elsewhere -- including the risk that a campus police officer's gun will be stolen in a scuffle and then used on him or her, or someone else. As others have pointed out, with the number of misdemeanors campus police deal with, there's a real risk of conflict escalating.
At a minimum, campus police with guns will tend to encourage, rather than discourage, the additional possession of guns (both legal and illegal) by others on campus.
4. Where are the benefits? The costs of an always armed campus police are the additional deaths they may provoke. But where are the benefits in this benefit-cost analysis?
(a) There are few imaginable scenarios in which an always-armed campus police would be relevant to solutions. They don't help in tornadoes. They don't help in case of a chemical spill, natural gas pipeline explosion, or derailment of railroad cars carrying nuclear waste. They are not, now, making any safer those women assaulted on Iowa City's streets at night. (A few hundred more City police might, but arming campus police won't.)
(b) The fact is, our campus police are armed -- just not all the time. So the utility of arming them all the time becomes even smaller. In the rare instances in which having weapons on our campus police might make at least a little rational sense, they can be armed with the weapons they have at headquarters.
Thus, the only time when it might have been useful to have them armed, and they would not be, would be on those even rarer occasions (if any), and those very limited times on those occasions, between the time a campus policeman confronted a situation in which he or she wished for a gun and the backup police (who presumably would need to be called in any event) arrived from headquarters, armed and with an extra gun.
5. Our fragile, precious campus. If you've walked the streets of countries at war, or under military rule, as I have, you know that they have a different feel to them than do the streets of downtown Iowa City.
There are limits to how much security can be provided with locks, fences, surveillance cameras -- and armed guards. There's a risk to life, and you never know when your time may come.
But the data shows that among the safest places in the United States are our K-12 schools, college and university campuses.
I believe that safety begets safety -- not to mention an atmosphere conducive to academic study -- and that "security" begets insecurity.
It's sad and inconsistent enough to have to warn students that they'd better watch their backpacks. But to have to warn them to watch their backs as well is worse. And that's a part of the message we send when they're told there is a need to keep constantly armed police on the campus to protect them from violence.
It's a message I believe is inconsistent with learning, inconsistent with the state of Iowa, and inconsistent with the University of Iowa's proud tradition.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has a daily feature he calls "The worst person in the world."
The Iowa City Press-Citizen has a weekly feature each Saturday it calls "Our Quick Take on Last Week's News Stories" -- its version of what Keith Olbermann might call "The Most Important News Stories in the World!"
I have a feature called a "Wendy."
Newspapers and television, constitutionally protected as the citizen's watchdog on government and other major institutions, need a watchdog of their own. In many communities it takes the form of a "journalism review" -- such as the granddaddy of journalism reviews, the Columbia Journalism Review.
So far as I know, we don't have a journalism review in eastern Iowa -- or anywhere else in the state, for that matter. And I'm certainly not inclined to take on that more-than-full-time role myself.
But I do award the Wendy.
What's the Wendy?
Newspapers (and television) are for-profit enterprises funded, for the most part, by advertisers. I understand that.
But there has historically been a wall, as high and strong as the old Berlin wall, between the advertising department and the news department. Reporters were free to do investigative journalism, revealing faults of local corporations that were also major advertisers -- over the objection of the advertising department, and occasionally resulting in the loss of a major account. Promotion of products on television took the form of commercials, not "product placement." Not only was advertising kept out of newspapers' stories -- let alone editorials -- it was kept off the front page.
With the merger of media firms into five or six major owners of most of our major media outlets -- and corporate decisions being driven by stock prices and the Wall Street financial community more than the nostalgia of "the public interest" and a democracy's need for news -- the mice have been gnawing away at that wall, leaving it in less stable condition than many of our nation's bridges. [Although the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics still contains the admonition, "Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two," it was last revised in 1996 and needs to be brought up-to-date with the deletion of that long-forgotten standard.]
The original Wendy was awarded to The Gazette. (So it's only appropriate the Press-Citizen should get one, too.) The Gazette won for a full news story -- with pictures -- promoting the delights of a new imitation milk shake: Wendy's Vanilla Frosty. Nicholas Johnson, "Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006. (Not incidentally, the story was hyped by the paper on its front page.)
So how and why has the Press-Citizen achieved this distinction?
Because two of the three "most important news stories in the world" turned out to be Panchero's $1.00 burritos, and Dunkin' Donuts' new donut formula. (That issue of the paper also gave over news space to an ad on page one.)
The paper gets extra points toward its Wendy award for the fact that this information about Panchero's and Dunkin' Donuts was provided to readers, not as advertisements, not even on the news pages, but in an editorial!
Here are the excerpts from that editorial, as they appeared, followed by some suggestions for possible alternative stories that might have been selected instead as "The Most Important News Stories in the World!":
Standing in the heat for burritos
The local chain Panchero's Mexican Grill celebrated its 15th anniversary Tuesday by selling $1 burritos and handing out free T-shirts at its Iowa City downtown location at 32 S. Clinton St. ("Panchero's notes 15 years; Hundreds wait in long line for $1 burritos," Aug. 29). The line stretched almost an entire block as hundreds of students waited in 90-degree heat for their turn. In two hours, workers doled out 1,500 burritos and gave out 1,500 black-and-gold T-shirts.
Panchero's opened at the corner of Clinton and Washington streets in 1992. It quickly became a staple downtown, and in particular, for University of Iowa students. Since its opening, the eatery has expanded to more than 45 locations in 13 states. There are plans this year to open about 25 new locations.
We're glad that Panchero's remains firmly rooted in Iowa City as its branches keep extending outward.
None vs. zero
Dunkin' Donuts announced last week that it has developed an alternative cooking oil and reformulated more than 50 menu items -- doughnuts included -- so that its 5,400 U.S. restaurants will go "zero grams trans fat" by Oct. 15. In no way are company officials suggesting that they are making healthy donuts, but they are making their confections less unhealthy by phasing out the artery-clogging trans fat. Baskin-Robbins, another unit of Dunkin' Brands Inc., plans to be "zero grams trans fat" by Jan. 1.
Anyone concerned with his or her trans fat intake, however, needs to know the difference between "no" and "zero" trans fat. The first indicates that there is no trans fat at all in the food. The second indicates that there is less than a half-gram of trans fat per serving -- and those near half-grams can add up quickly.
What were some of the alternative choices for "Most Important News Stories in the World"?
International news, in addition to the GAO report on the failure of Iraq's government to meet the benchmarks, and the increased levels of violence in Pakistan, might have included significant political shifts -- of great relevance to Americans -- in Pakistan, Turkey and Iran.
Don't want to look abroad?
National news -- much of which occurred in, or affected, Iowa, and would have had local news pegs -- might have included the boost to Senator Dodd's campaign from the endorsement of Iowa City's fire fighters; the declaration of all the Democratic candidates that they will skip states that try to leapfrog Iowa's caucus date; the expected entrance of Fred Thompson; some shift in public reaction following the Republicans throwing Senator Larry Craig under the bus; Alberto Gonzales' resignation; new revelations regarding insurance companies' performance in New Orleans; the delays and decline in quality of airline service; the significance of the housing and mortgage markets stumble to the future of the American economy; and the record $87.1 billion in national net farm income.
Other Iowa, even Iowa City, stories would have included the unprecedented three UI campus bomb threats; the census report on median income and poverty (and Iowa's rank); the court case declaring Iowa's ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional; and the bacteria warnings at six state park beaches (some of which were found to be 30 times levels thought safe for swimming).
The Register and Gazette gave at least a little, back-page coverage to the UNI faculty's thoughtful, analytical rejection of an armed campus police. The Press-Citizen mentioned it not at all -- anywhere that I noticed, not just in its Saturday round-up. That omission may well have contributed -- at least in some small way -- to this morning's news that it looks like the UI faculty is going to support an armed campus.
[Not incidentally, if you're truly interested in understanding the armed campus issues -- given that the reports circulating in Iowa are primarily simply advocacy briefs for bringing guns on campus -- one of the most thoroughly researched, and balanced, reports I've seen is the recent SUNY Courtland, "Report of the University Police Arming Task Force."]
For ignoring these stories, for helping tear down the iron curtain between advertising and news (and in this case even editorials), and for exalting the news value of Panchero's burritos and Dunkin' Donuts' sweet and greasy dough -- we proudly award a coveted Wendy to the Iowa City Press-Citizen.
As befits one of the most anti-union, anti-labor states in the nation, none of the top four local papers -- Daily Iowan, Des Moines Register, Gazette and Press-Citizen -- have editorialized about (or even much recognized) that this is "Labor Day."
Because you wouldn't know from the papers today, I thought perhaps it worthwhile to report here that, yes, there is a Labor Day Picnic today in the City Park in Iowa City, upper level Shelter 2, 12 noon to 3:00 p.m. City Council candidate Mike Wright (and others) will speak. It's always a great event. I'll see you there.
The DI is mostly sports, celebrating the Hawkeyes' unimpressive win over some Illinois high school team last Saturday. (This fall's schedule has been rigged so we won't have to suffer the embarrassment of even playing teams like Ohio and Michigan. Of course, we do end the season with Western Michigan, which showed its football prowess last Saturday in holding West Virginia to only 62 points in Western Michigan's 62-24 loss.) The Register at least has another editorial in support of universal, single-payer health care. The Gazette has it's usual "Homers and Gomers." And the Press-Citizen has now caught up with what I was blogging about -- and The Gazette and Register were editorializing about -- last Saturday: the court decision finding Iowa's ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.
So it's once again been left up to Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan to remind us what today is all about.
Child labor laws, 40 hour weeks, health insurance, weekends, overtime, vacations, the minimum wage, sick leave, parental leave, OSHA, pensions, disability insurance, employment nondiscrimination, Social Security, health insurance, and so much more. We owe organized labor for all of this.
Here's the whole of his latest "Sullivan Salvos":
Monday marks Labor Day. Every year, I write essentially the same piece, noting the good that organized labor has done for this country.
I said I wouldn¹t do it this year. Sorry, but I can¹t resist. Labor Day is too important to me.
Child labor laws, 40 hour weeks, health insurance, weekends, overtime, vacations, the minimum wage, sick leave, parental leave, OSHA, pensions, disability insurance, employment nondiscrimination, Social Security, health insurance, and so much more. We owe organized labor for all of this.
But labor is not just a part of the past. If we are to have a successful future, labor will need to play a key role. Organizing for better wages and benefits is still the key to pulling folks out of poverty and into the middle class.
You will hear people complain about labor, and explain how labor makes the US ³less competitive². Americans must quit buying into this BS. Who were the real heroes of 9/11? Not Rudy Giuliani, but police, firefighters, and EMTs all union members. We need organized labor now more than ever. It is the great equalizer, and our best anti-poverty program.
I would like to see more Democrats point out how un-American it is for large multi-national corporations to exploit labor and the environment around the globe. I would like to see them stand with labor not just at election time, but all year round.
Similarly, just as corporations have gone global, so must unions. It does no good for anyone to have American workers compete with foreign workers who feel they must settle for so little. When workers of the world unite, workers of the world will improve their lot.
We are frequently urged to support the troops; that is as it should be. We should also show support for the working men and women of the world. It is un-American to let global profits trump the needs of our families.
Along similar lines, I encourage everyone to reread the final chapter of the Barbara Ehrenreich classic Nickel & Dimed.
You can certainly reread the whole book; it is fantastic. But the final chapter really sums up the difficulties faced by the working poor, including all the ways that organizing can & does help.
Of all the widely-distributed, free e-zines from public officials in this country, "Sullivan's Salvos" is the most constructive, compassionate, consumer-and-taxpayer-oriented, generally supportive and informative of which I am aware. If you're not on the list, but would like to be, just email rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
In fairness, both the Press-Citizen and Gazette did permit others to say something nice about labor this one day of the year.
In fact, it was Rod Sullivan again who had the op ed column in the P-C. It's a moving story of three generations of his family and the beneficial role of unions in their lives that he has personally witnessed (and benefited from). Read it: Rod Sullivan, "Honoring Our Labor Heroes,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 3, 2007, p. A11. Although, unfortunately, the paper chose to omit any link to his piece from its opening Web page listing of "Opinion" for the day, so without my link you'd have to know how to hunt for it.
The Gazette offers us Ross Eisenbrey, "Labor Day Marks Bad News for Laborers in America,"The Gazette, September 3, 2007, p. A4, at the very bottom of its editorial page. Eisenbrey is vice president and policy director of the Economic Policy Institute so, as you might suspect (and the headline hints) it is more in the nature of a news story than an opinion piece. Any passion is found in the numbers, the absolutely devastating numbers, regarding the destruction of America's middle class that followed the deliberate devastation of the union movement, and creation of an ever-increasing gap between the incomes and other benefits of the very rich and those of the working poor and working class.
Three editorials this morning offer a similar approach to Judge Hanson's 63-page ruling holding Iowa's prohibition on gay marriage ("only a marriage between a male and a female is valid") to be unconstitutional.
They are analogous in a way to the bumper sticker's advice: "Opposed to abortion? Don't have one." In this context I guess it would be, "Opposed to gays marrying? Don't marry one."
(It's not that simple, of course. With the exceptions of self-defense, insanity, and manslaughter, among others, there are both laws and widespread general agreement that frown on "murder." So we're left with "when, if ever, prior to the moment of birth, should the decision to abort a fetus be equated with the deliberate killing of a fully born human being for purposes of inclusion within the criminal law definition of 'murder'?" Obviously, this has been a matter of considerable disagreement.)
The similarity between the controversies surrounding abortion and gay marriage, however, is that both have utilized arguments that tend to conflate (1) one's personal, religious, moral, ethical, philosophical and public policy beliefs and practices, with (2) the desirability and propriety of the state, the government, imposing one's standards as a matter of criminal or civil law on everyone (or groups of citizens taking matters into their own hands).
I happen to think that urban transportation by bicycle makes a lot of sense. It strengthens your body, awakens your mind, improves your health, reduces disease -- with significant savings in our $2 trillion, profit-maximizing health insurance system. It is environmentally friendly, reduces greenhouse gases, reduces our disproportionate use of petroleum -- and need for the other (ultimately, with externalities) $2 trillion total cost: the Iraq war that was apparently necessary to get our oil out from under their sand. It requires less expense (or could if more did it) of road building and repair. It's cheaper, usually faster, and saves looking (and paying) for parking.
But I'd agree the bumper sticker (if there were room for it on a bike) ought to read: "Favor bicycle transportation? Get a bike and ride it."
In other words, I would not advocate criminal penalties for driving automobiles in urban areas; additional license fees maybe (as reduced London's congestion), but not compulsory bicycle riding.
The distinction between one's personal preferences and imposing them on everyone else is a distinction too often overlooked in everything from casual conversation to newspaper editorials.
That's why I was pleased to see this morning's editorial efforts in the Register and Gazette.
The Gazette draws the distinction between church and state from the start of the editorial:
A Polk County district judge’s ruling Thursday that Iowa’s law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional sets the stage for a resolution of this issue . . .. [T]his debate needs to be settled regardless of whether any consensus is ever reached in the moral and religious arenas.
It continues:
Whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong morally is a matter of faith or personal belief. However, civil marriage, whether between opposite- sex or same-sex partners, is not the legal business of religion.
That task belongs to governments that preserve both the freedom of religion and the rights of those who disagree with others’ beliefs.
Governments need to define legal unions between two people because tax issues, insurance and other benefits and many other public policies rely on definitions of various relationships.
. . .
Beyond legal circles, churches and their members and families continue to struggle with the samesex marriage issue and likely will do so for years to come.
In the meantime, Iowa can make sure its laws don’t place unfair restrictions on people’s civil freedoms, including same-sex marriage.
The paper couldn't have made the issue -- the distinction between church and state -- much clearer. Editorial, "Let Court Settle Marriage Debate,"The Gazette, September 1, 2007, p. A4. The Register gets to the Gazette's mountaintop by a different trail. Rather than have the government grant gays the rights to "marriage," have it grant all couples -- gay and straight -- equivalent "civil union" rights, and then leave the "marriage" business to churches:
To truly assure equal treatment, the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether and grant civil unions to everyone, gay or straight.
That would allow the law to focus on the legal benefits to which all couples are entitled in a democracy that espouses equality for all people - and allow religious institutions to set their own rules for marriage.
Individuals, religious organizations and their spokespersons and leaders should be free to offer such rejoinder as they're able to another bumper sticker -- "Hatred is not a family value" -- citing such teachings of Jesus (and others) as they find persuasive in their opposition to gay marriage.
Legislating their hatred is not an appropriate role for government. Protecting their First Amendment rights to talk about it is.
Just as is protecting gays' constitutional rights to equal protection of the law with straights when it comes to marriage -- or universal civil unions.
