Senator Chuck Grassley, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has found the real cause of high taxes, a case of "waste and abuse" worthy of his attention.
What do you suppose it is? The billions in corporate welfare? The trillion dollars worth of weapons the Defense Department can't find or account for? The earmarks never debated on the floor of the Senate?
No. Guess again.
It's the meal allowances for the lawyers working at well below corporate law firm rates for the Legal Services Corporation. The Legal Services Corporation provides lawyers for the poor -- poor often being beaten down by the lawyers for the rich. It's a program that was established back in the days when someone could be found in Washington who cared about the poor. And it has been on the Republicans' chopping block ever since.
(See, e.g., Associated Press, "Legal Aid Program for Poor Has Expensive Taste; Documents: Execs Give Themselves Luxuries," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 15, 2006, p. 6A.)
Now I'm in favor of lean budgets, whether governmental, corporate or personal. Lots of cuts can be made that don't harm programs; sometimes cuts represented by alternative approaches can actually improve the number and quality of outputs per dollar of inputs. And if the poverty lawyers have been abusing expense accounts they should be made to stop.
But if the Senator is suddenly interested in the taxpayer waste associated with lunch, he might first take a look at the Senate's own, taxpayer-subsidized lunch room, and then take a look at the tax deductions taken by corporate executives for drinks, meals, wine and deserts that would make the Legal Services lawyers' meals look, by comparison, like the thin gruel consumed by the characters in a Dickens novel. Senator, we taxpayers are paying multiples more for those corporate luncheons, whether in executive dining rooms or expensive restaurants, than we've ever paid to feed either the poor or their lawyers.
Finally, I trust you catch the irony in Senator Grassley talking about "waste and abuse." This is the same senator whose $50 million grant of taxpayers' money for an indoor rain forest in Iowa earned him, and the state of Iowa, ridicule from everyone from Dave Berry, to "West Wing," to the Speaker of the House of his own party, to editorial cartoonists, citizens' taxpayer groups and bloggers all across the country.
Senator, think about how many poverty lawyers we could feed for $50 million, and then, "Senator, heal thyself."
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
State 29 Wants Lock Box
Playing on Culver's size, State 29 brings to bear his usual common sense and all too uncommon economic analysis in "Chet Culver Wants to Raid the Iowa Pension Fridge," August 14.
Whether it's TIFs, the "Iowa Values Fund," or dipping into pension funds, there is something terribly sad, ironic and tragic about the Republicans and Democrats alike who think the preferred path to economic growth and prosperity for all is the corporate state -- this blend of public money and private profit.
Coupled with the excessive campaign contributions and lobbying that gives these wealthy beneficiaries disproportionate influence in government, it creates the very blend of corporate and governmental power that, under Benito Mussolini in World War II Italy, was the economic system we called fascism.
Why can't they just leave it to the entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and other investors, banks and other potential creditors? What makes them think that government officials -- with no financial or professional stake whatsoever in the venture -- will be able to make wiser investment decisions with public money than those whose business it is to do so (literally and figuratively) can do with their own money?
Whether it's TIFs, the "Iowa Values Fund," or dipping into pension funds, there is something terribly sad, ironic and tragic about the Republicans and Democrats alike who think the preferred path to economic growth and prosperity for all is the corporate state -- this blend of public money and private profit.
Coupled with the excessive campaign contributions and lobbying that gives these wealthy beneficiaries disproportionate influence in government, it creates the very blend of corporate and governmental power that, under Benito Mussolini in World War II Italy, was the economic system we called fascism.
Why can't they just leave it to the entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and other investors, banks and other potential creditors? What makes them think that government officials -- with no financial or professional stake whatsoever in the venture -- will be able to make wiser investment decisions with public money than those whose business it is to do so (literally and figuratively) can do with their own money?
Rain Forest Attendance: Trends Are Down
USA Today reports that museums are having a tough time. Judy Keen, "Museums Pinched by Higher Costs, Fewer Visitors," USA Today, August 10, 2006 (updated August 11, 2006).
There are many types of attractions. But one useful distinction -- even though there is, of course, some overlap -- is between those that are almost exclusively entertainment, such as Disney amusements, or waterslides, and those that have some component with an educational or other higher purpose, such as museums, art galleries, botanical gardens -- and indoor rain forests.
When any examples from within one of those two categories suffers, the likelihood is that all within that category will also suffer, at least to some degree.
USA Today quotes Iowa's own Timothy Walch, Director, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library & Museum, as saying, "The overall trend is moving down." Recall that this facility (1) is a U.S. presidential library that (2) celebrates Iowa's only U.S. president, and (3) is located adjacent to Interstate 80. And yet its attendance is never much over 50,000 a year, and USA Today reports "had 16% fewer visitors last year than in 2004."
Museums that have closed within the last year include one honoring James Dean near Fairmount, Indiana, that had operated for 16 years, the Children's Discovery Museum in San Diego (a somewhat larger community than Riverside, Iowa), the African American Museum in Tacoma, Washington, and the Palm Beach, Florida, Institute of Contemporary Art.
The internationally popular Colonial Williamsburg, with Rockefeller money substantially in excess of Ted Townsend's $10 million pledge to the rain forest, the east coast population centers to draw upon, and attendance well over one million a year in the 1980s, is now seeing only 700,000 visitors a year.
Although the story doesn't mention Cedar Rapids, it might have, given the number of quasi-educational attractions there having difficulties with budgets and attendance.
There's lots of speculation as to the reasons for the decline. But the fact is there's a decline; the numbers are down. The best news is that at some such facilities the numbers have been flat since 2000.
Given that many economists thought the rain forest's predictions of 1.3 million visitors a year were wildly optimistic during the best of times, and with the best of locations (along Interstate 80), this recent report of downward trends just gives us more reason to doubt that an indoor rain forest in Iowa would be able to sustain its operating budget on the basis of tourist income.
There are many types of attractions. But one useful distinction -- even though there is, of course, some overlap -- is between those that are almost exclusively entertainment, such as Disney amusements, or waterslides, and those that have some component with an educational or other higher purpose, such as museums, art galleries, botanical gardens -- and indoor rain forests.
When any examples from within one of those two categories suffers, the likelihood is that all within that category will also suffer, at least to some degree.
USA Today quotes Iowa's own Timothy Walch, Director, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library & Museum, as saying, "The overall trend is moving down." Recall that this facility (1) is a U.S. presidential library that (2) celebrates Iowa's only U.S. president, and (3) is located adjacent to Interstate 80. And yet its attendance is never much over 50,000 a year, and USA Today reports "had 16% fewer visitors last year than in 2004."
Museums that have closed within the last year include one honoring James Dean near Fairmount, Indiana, that had operated for 16 years, the Children's Discovery Museum in San Diego (a somewhat larger community than Riverside, Iowa), the African American Museum in Tacoma, Washington, and the Palm Beach, Florida, Institute of Contemporary Art.
The internationally popular Colonial Williamsburg, with Rockefeller money substantially in excess of Ted Townsend's $10 million pledge to the rain forest, the east coast population centers to draw upon, and attendance well over one million a year in the 1980s, is now seeing only 700,000 visitors a year.
Although the story doesn't mention Cedar Rapids, it might have, given the number of quasi-educational attractions there having difficulties with budgets and attendance.
There's lots of speculation as to the reasons for the decline. But the fact is there's a decline; the numbers are down. The best news is that at some such facilities the numbers have been flat since 2000.
Given that many economists thought the rain forest's predictions of 1.3 million visitors a year were wildly optimistic during the best of times, and with the best of locations (along Interstate 80), this recent report of downward trends just gives us more reason to doubt that an indoor rain forest in Iowa would be able to sustain its operating budget on the basis of tourist income.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Hat's Off to Lee Rood and Donnelle Eller
Apparently "Hat's Off" is going to become a feature of this blog. There's criticism enough of the mainstream media, much of it even deserved, that a pat on the back from time to time doesn't seem out of place.
So this "Hat's Off" goes to Lee Rood and Donnelle Eller -- along with the Des Moines Register's editors and owners who make their work possible -- for a very impressive series about TIFs in yesterday's (August 13) Sunday Register. The opening piece of the seven total was headlined "Diverted Millions Bring Progress -- And Big Debt" (available from http://www.dmregister.com, and also available from here).
Conclusions? Read the series and decide for yourself. It seems the best that one can say for TIFs is that they're not for every community, and that "there's no such thing as a free tax waiver." TIFs are costing other community programs millions of dollars.
So this "Hat's Off" goes to Lee Rood and Donnelle Eller -- along with the Des Moines Register's editors and owners who make their work possible -- for a very impressive series about TIFs in yesterday's (August 13) Sunday Register. The opening piece of the seven total was headlined "Diverted Millions Bring Progress -- And Big Debt" (available from http://www.dmregister.com, and also available from here).
Conclusions? Read the series and decide for yourself. It seems the best that one can say for TIFs is that they're not for every community, and that "there's no such thing as a free tax waiver." TIFs are costing other community programs millions of dollars.
Hat's Off to Turner's "The Ron Clark Story"
Last evening (August 13), Turner Network Television (known to your cable listings as "TNT") presented an original two-hour film, "The Ron Clark Story." (See David Martindale, "A Ron Clark of His Own," on the TNT Web site, describing the movie and Matthew Perry (who played Ron Clark) and his tie to the theme of the film.)
The movie is modeled on a true story of an energetic, inspiring, caring teacher who seeks -- and finds -- one of the most challenging classrooms in America, sticks it out, turns it around, builds self esteem in his students and ultimately their test scores as well.
There are many things wrong with President Bush's "no child left behind." But the movie underscores one way in which it's absolutely right on.
Face it, there are a lot of K-12 students who are a real pain. Whether they can learn or not they don't want to. They can be disruptive, disrespectful, bad role models for the others, and sometimes a real physical threat to students and teacher alike. Other students come from poor homes that provide little intellectual stimulation or support.
The most natural thing in the world is for teachers to tend to favor the students who show talent, ambition, and some genuine interest in learning -- as well as respect for the teacher. Even those who act up, if they come from the homes of the prestigeous and powerful in the community, are likely to get more, and more sympathetic, attention than those whose parents will seldom if ever show up at school, and would be relatively ineffective were they to do so.
I'm sure there were teachers who watched that movie last night and thought, "That's fine if that Ron Clark wanted to do that, but it's not for me. Nobody's paying me to visit parents, track down kids, and put in that kind of extra time. Besides, I value my life too much to put myself in that kind of danger." It's not a totally irrational response.
But I still think that it would be useful, when school districts are planning workshops and inspirational speakers for their teachers, to consider setting aside an hour and a half (the movie without commercials) for teachers to watch this movie. If even one or two percent of them got the insight, got the inspiration, came to understand from this dramatic portrayal of the message, that all kids are valuable, all kids can learn, that some children are being "left behind" -- even within their own school system -- and that it lies within the teachers' power to do something about it.
And that, when they succeed, nothing can be more rewarding.
The movie is modeled on a true story of an energetic, inspiring, caring teacher who seeks -- and finds -- one of the most challenging classrooms in America, sticks it out, turns it around, builds self esteem in his students and ultimately their test scores as well.
There are many things wrong with President Bush's "no child left behind." But the movie underscores one way in which it's absolutely right on.
Face it, there are a lot of K-12 students who are a real pain. Whether they can learn or not they don't want to. They can be disruptive, disrespectful, bad role models for the others, and sometimes a real physical threat to students and teacher alike. Other students come from poor homes that provide little intellectual stimulation or support.
The most natural thing in the world is for teachers to tend to favor the students who show talent, ambition, and some genuine interest in learning -- as well as respect for the teacher. Even those who act up, if they come from the homes of the prestigeous and powerful in the community, are likely to get more, and more sympathetic, attention than those whose parents will seldom if ever show up at school, and would be relatively ineffective were they to do so.
I'm sure there were teachers who watched that movie last night and thought, "That's fine if that Ron Clark wanted to do that, but it's not for me. Nobody's paying me to visit parents, track down kids, and put in that kind of extra time. Besides, I value my life too much to put myself in that kind of danger." It's not a totally irrational response.
But I still think that it would be useful, when school districts are planning workshops and inspirational speakers for their teachers, to consider setting aside an hour and a half (the movie without commercials) for teachers to watch this movie. If even one or two percent of them got the insight, got the inspiration, came to understand from this dramatic portrayal of the message, that all kids are valuable, all kids can learn, that some children are being "left behind" -- even within their own school system -- and that it lies within the teachers' power to do something about it.
And that, when they succeed, nothing can be more rewarding.
Rain Forest: Monday August 14 Update
The Monday, August 14, update to the Web site with commentary about the Iowa indoor rain forest was uploaded and available as of 8:40 CT this morning (August 14).
The promised link to my "book review" of Earthpark Business Plan (Des Moines: March 2006) is there, along with, among a great many other things, other developments involving the rain forest, the Riverside Casino and Washington County Riverboat Foundation, and the Des Moines Register's impressive collection of articles about TIFs.
The promised link to my "book review" of Earthpark Business Plan (Des Moines: March 2006) is there, along with, among a great many other things, other developments involving the rain forest, the Riverside Casino and Washington County Riverboat Foundation, and the Des Moines Register's impressive collection of articles about TIFs.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Rain Forest: What's Coming Monday, August 14
Since the last Monday's rain forest weekly update, a document has come to light that you'll want to know about if you've been following the saga of Iowa's rain forest.
It's thick. It's impenetrable. It's filled with numbers.
And it purports to be a "business plan" for the rain forest project -- something I've been asking for during the past six years.
So, what do I think of it? Well, I've written a "book review" of sorts about it, and it's going to be included in next Monday's rain forest update.
Don't miss it.
It's thick. It's impenetrable. It's filled with numbers.
And it purports to be a "business plan" for the rain forest project -- something I've been asking for during the past six years.
So, what do I think of it? Well, I've written a "book review" of sorts about it, and it's going to be included in next Monday's rain forest update.
Don't miss it.
Best Rain Forest Summary Contest
The other day (August 9) Ameswire reported, in an entry headed "Small World," coming across a rain forest column I wrote a couple of years ago, back when it was a Coralville project. It was the one pointing up the factors that have tended to make the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo a community and financial success, factors that I found missing in the proposals and progress of the Iowa rain forest project. Nicholas Johnson, "Coralville Project Can't Match Up to Omaha's Zoo," Des Moines Register, July 17, 2004.
When public officials, or others, ask me to recommend a short read about the rain forest project I never know what to recommend. I guess that comparison with Omaha would be one. What I'd welcome from anyone would be nominations, like that from Ameswire, of single, short pieces I've written that you think would serve the purpose.
Clearly my rain forest Web site (http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild), which currently would print out to well over 100 single-spaced pages -- plus the full text of the hundreds of news stories and reports to which it links -- is more than all but the most dedicated are going to pour over. It's a good encyclopedic reference source (I believe the most thorough available on the Internet), but it's far from a quick read.
Over the past six years that I've been tracking and writing about the project, and nearly three years I've been maintaining the Web site (this year providing weekly, Monday updates), I've written about 30 individual pieces. Roughly a half of those have been published as op ed columns. The rest represent speech texts or other material that went directly to the Web.
The other day I came upon a piece I'd forgotten I'd written, Nicholas Johnson, "The Coralville Rain Forest: A Brief Overview of Remaining Issues," April 24, 2004. While there may be some debate as to its brevity, depending on your definition, it is probably one of the most thorough listings in a relatively short piece of the 14 categories of issues of which I'm aware. Much of the discussion of the project relates to financing -- as it should. This document goes well beyond that to a great many other aspects of the project that need to be thought about and resolved.
Another effort to be a little more positive and upbeat about all of this -- by concentrating on attractions that have been financially and otherwise successful -- is Nicholas Johnson, "Time to Learn from What Works," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2006.
And then last Wednesday (August 9) I wrote a very summary (about 400 words) piece for the Press-Citizen, "Nicholas Johnson, "Caution: Rain Forest Ahead," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 9, 2006 (also available here). It was primarily focused on the Riverside, Iowa, audience as the Riverside City Council, and the Washington County Riverboat Foundation, weigh the merits of investing local money in the rain forest.
So I guess those are the four short pieces to which I most often refer folks.
But, as I began, if you have suggestions of favorites of yours that I've forgotten (as I did with the "Brief Overview of Remaining Issues" piece) please send them along.
If we get over 5 or 10 entries I'll take the winner to a free lunch -- or give them the option to avoid watching me eat, whichever they believe to be the most valuable prize.
When public officials, or others, ask me to recommend a short read about the rain forest project I never know what to recommend. I guess that comparison with Omaha would be one. What I'd welcome from anyone would be nominations, like that from Ameswire, of single, short pieces I've written that you think would serve the purpose.
Clearly my rain forest Web site (http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild), which currently would print out to well over 100 single-spaced pages -- plus the full text of the hundreds of news stories and reports to which it links -- is more than all but the most dedicated are going to pour over. It's a good encyclopedic reference source (I believe the most thorough available on the Internet), but it's far from a quick read.
Over the past six years that I've been tracking and writing about the project, and nearly three years I've been maintaining the Web site (this year providing weekly, Monday updates), I've written about 30 individual pieces. Roughly a half of those have been published as op ed columns. The rest represent speech texts or other material that went directly to the Web.
The other day I came upon a piece I'd forgotten I'd written, Nicholas Johnson, "The Coralville Rain Forest: A Brief Overview of Remaining Issues," April 24, 2004. While there may be some debate as to its brevity, depending on your definition, it is probably one of the most thorough listings in a relatively short piece of the 14 categories of issues of which I'm aware. Much of the discussion of the project relates to financing -- as it should. This document goes well beyond that to a great many other aspects of the project that need to be thought about and resolved.
Another effort to be a little more positive and upbeat about all of this -- by concentrating on attractions that have been financially and otherwise successful -- is Nicholas Johnson, "Time to Learn from What Works," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 20, 2006.
And then last Wednesday (August 9) I wrote a very summary (about 400 words) piece for the Press-Citizen, "Nicholas Johnson, "Caution: Rain Forest Ahead," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 9, 2006 (also available here). It was primarily focused on the Riverside, Iowa, audience as the Riverside City Council, and the Washington County Riverboat Foundation, weigh the merits of investing local money in the rain forest.
So I guess those are the four short pieces to which I most often refer folks.
But, as I began, if you have suggestions of favorites of yours that I've forgotten (as I did with the "Brief Overview of Remaining Issues" piece) please send them along.
If we get over 5 or 10 entries I'll take the winner to a free lunch -- or give them the option to avoid watching me eat, whichever they believe to be the most valuable prize.
Hat's Off to Hennigan
Gregg Hennigan rightfully dominates the front page of the Sunday Gazette (August 13) with his investigatve piece, "Money Matters; Questions Loom Over Riverside Casino Foundation," The Gazette, August 13 (requires subscription; also available here).
I often complain about the extent to which the mainstream media substitutes "repeating" for "reporting" -- often when major advertisers' or other powerful local individuals or institutions are involoved -- functioning essentially as a conduit for whatever public relations (or even marketing) message the organization wishes to have spread throughout the community (without having to pay for advertising space). (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006.)
The story is not only significant as (a) journalism, (b) important insight into the issues surrounding the Riverside casino and the rain forest, but it's also (c) an interesting bit of sociological insight regarding how "the good old boys -- and girls" work their will in a small county, and town, in Iowa (and presumably elsewhere as well).
Hennigan is not reporting a news conference. He's been digging around in Riverside, exploring conflicts of interest between the "independent," non-profit Washington County Riverboat Foundation that holds the license to the gambling casino, and the casino's for-profit owner, Dan Kehl.
Kehl, who's never before expressed much interest in rain forests, whether real or fake, has become a fan of this project in search of a site. He's even pledged $2 million of his parents' money to the project. Perhaps he thinks that the parents who bring their kids to see the rain forest will take their kids, and whatever remaining money they may have, and leave one or both at the casino. Anyhow, he's on board.
The rain forest's David Oman, and Kehl, represent that Riverside "has met or exceeded" Oman's demand that $25 million be raised locally and given to him for the project. Their numbers don't add up to $25 million -- even if they got everything they're claiming (including debt, and money that may or may not come to the project 10 years from now). But the problem Gregg Hennigan set out to explore is how Kehl, who is supposed to keep his hands off the Foundation, can include in that $25 million an $8 million contribution (albeit over 10 years) from the Foundation.
It turns out the Foundation's chair, Timothy Putney, who stands to become the favored banker for both the casino and the Foundation, is also a member of "the Riverside Environmental Group, which the casino formed to woo the rain forest project." He concedes that "relatives of other board members [i.e., in addition to Patty Koller, see below], including his own, also are casino investors" (emphasis supplied).
And Robert Koller, the husband of the Foundation's vice-chair, Patty Koller, is one of 800 local investors in the casino, a member of its board, and serves as secretary of the board.
Confronted with the suggestion that when the wind's from the south you can smell these conflicts of interest all the way to Iowa City, the defense says, "What conflict of interest? That's not my investment. Besides, 'What's good for General Motors' . . . I mean, what's good for the casino is good for the Foundation."
Hennigan quotes Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission administrator Jack Ketterer as saying "I'm not seeing a conflict." And in a sidebar story, Gregg Hennigan, "How Other Casino Foundations Operate," The Gazette, August 13, 2006, Hennigan refers to Jerry Mathiasen, with the Iowa West Racing Association in Council Bluffs, and writes, "The association's conflict-of-interest policy, like most other gaming non-profits, comes into play most often when a member has a relationship with a grant applicant."
Frankly, if the purpose of the Iowa law is to keep gambling in the hands of non-profits as licensees, separate and apart from those operating casinos, I think it would be a lot cleaner if the non-profit's board members -- along with their family members, business partners, and so forth -- had no financial interest, whether investments or business relationships, with their casino.
But put that aside, and re-read Jerry Mathiasen's analysis, above. Even if you adopt that loose interpretation of the law -- that a potential conflict could only arise when a Foundation board member "has a relationship with a grant applicant" -- it seems to me that, in the unique case of the Riverside casino, that standard has been violated.
How? If the rain forest were not in the picture, the Mathiasen standard would not prohibit even the Foundation board member, let alone their spouse, from holding stock in the casino. It would only prohibit their having an interest, say, sitting on the board, of a non-profit applicant for a Foundation grant.
In this case, however, the rain forest, as an applicant for a grant, is not an independent organization. Just because a Foundation board member has no financial interest in the rain forest in the conventional sense (and, as a non-profit, it simply has no stock to sell) doesn't mean they have no conflict of interest.
The ties between Dan Kehl, David Oman, and Timothy Putney are such, the relationship between the rain forest's financial success in Riverside and the interest in Kehl's personal profits (as well as that of all other casino stockholders), the assertions of Kehl and Oman that they are counting $8 million from the Foundation as part of the $25 million (before even filing an application, let alone a meeting of the Foundation ), that the rain forest is not "just another grant applicant."
I don't think we've heard the end of this story, but meanwhile "Hat's off to Hennigan" for a great job of investigative journalism and digging out the details.
I often complain about the extent to which the mainstream media substitutes "repeating" for "reporting" -- often when major advertisers' or other powerful local individuals or institutions are involoved -- functioning essentially as a conduit for whatever public relations (or even marketing) message the organization wishes to have spread throughout the community (without having to pay for advertising space). (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006.)
The story is not only significant as (a) journalism, (b) important insight into the issues surrounding the Riverside casino and the rain forest, but it's also (c) an interesting bit of sociological insight regarding how "the good old boys -- and girls" work their will in a small county, and town, in Iowa (and presumably elsewhere as well).
Hennigan is not reporting a news conference. He's been digging around in Riverside, exploring conflicts of interest between the "independent," non-profit Washington County Riverboat Foundation that holds the license to the gambling casino, and the casino's for-profit owner, Dan Kehl.
Kehl, who's never before expressed much interest in rain forests, whether real or fake, has become a fan of this project in search of a site. He's even pledged $2 million of his parents' money to the project. Perhaps he thinks that the parents who bring their kids to see the rain forest will take their kids, and whatever remaining money they may have, and leave one or both at the casino. Anyhow, he's on board.
The rain forest's David Oman, and Kehl, represent that Riverside "has met or exceeded" Oman's demand that $25 million be raised locally and given to him for the project. Their numbers don't add up to $25 million -- even if they got everything they're claiming (including debt, and money that may or may not come to the project 10 years from now). But the problem Gregg Hennigan set out to explore is how Kehl, who is supposed to keep his hands off the Foundation, can include in that $25 million an $8 million contribution (albeit over 10 years) from the Foundation.
It turns out the Foundation's chair, Timothy Putney, who stands to become the favored banker for both the casino and the Foundation, is also a member of "the Riverside Environmental Group, which the casino formed to woo the rain forest project." He concedes that "relatives of other board members [i.e., in addition to Patty Koller, see below], including his own, also are casino investors" (emphasis supplied).
And Robert Koller, the husband of the Foundation's vice-chair, Patty Koller, is one of 800 local investors in the casino, a member of its board, and serves as secretary of the board.
Confronted with the suggestion that when the wind's from the south you can smell these conflicts of interest all the way to Iowa City, the defense says, "What conflict of interest? That's not my investment. Besides, 'What's good for General Motors' . . . I mean, what's good for the casino is good for the Foundation."
Hennigan quotes Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission administrator Jack Ketterer as saying "I'm not seeing a conflict." And in a sidebar story, Gregg Hennigan, "How Other Casino Foundations Operate," The Gazette, August 13, 2006, Hennigan refers to Jerry Mathiasen, with the Iowa West Racing Association in Council Bluffs, and writes, "The association's conflict-of-interest policy, like most other gaming non-profits, comes into play most often when a member has a relationship with a grant applicant."
Frankly, if the purpose of the Iowa law is to keep gambling in the hands of non-profits as licensees, separate and apart from those operating casinos, I think it would be a lot cleaner if the non-profit's board members -- along with their family members, business partners, and so forth -- had no financial interest, whether investments or business relationships, with their casino.
But put that aside, and re-read Jerry Mathiasen's analysis, above. Even if you adopt that loose interpretation of the law -- that a potential conflict could only arise when a Foundation board member "has a relationship with a grant applicant" -- it seems to me that, in the unique case of the Riverside casino, that standard has been violated.
How? If the rain forest were not in the picture, the Mathiasen standard would not prohibit even the Foundation board member, let alone their spouse, from holding stock in the casino. It would only prohibit their having an interest, say, sitting on the board, of a non-profit applicant for a Foundation grant.
In this case, however, the rain forest, as an applicant for a grant, is not an independent organization. Just because a Foundation board member has no financial interest in the rain forest in the conventional sense (and, as a non-profit, it simply has no stock to sell) doesn't mean they have no conflict of interest.
The ties between Dan Kehl, David Oman, and Timothy Putney are such, the relationship between the rain forest's financial success in Riverside and the interest in Kehl's personal profits (as well as that of all other casino stockholders), the assertions of Kehl and Oman that they are counting $8 million from the Foundation as part of the $25 million (before even filing an application, let alone a meeting of the Foundation ), that the rain forest is not "just another grant applicant."
I don't think we've heard the end of this story, but meanwhile "Hat's off to Hennigan" for a great job of investigative journalism and digging out the details.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Epaminondas and the TSA
I'm as interested in our protecting ourselves from possible terrorist attacks on (or with) our commercial airplanes as anybody. But are we really going about this "war on terror" in the most effective way?
The recent chaos as the TSA focused on any liquid in a bottle a passenger wanted to carry on an airplane caused me to try and remember when and where I'd written something about this. Finally I found it: Nicholas Johnson, "Epaminondas and the Effectiveness of Domestic Security Efforts," International Leadership Forum, December 25, 2001.
Here are some quotes from that piece:
"Epaminondas you'll recall (or discover) is always one item behind in its proper treatment: how to carry cake, butter, puppy, bread. He learns each lesson well, but only after the fact. He then applies the lesson to the next task -- for which it is wholly inappropriate.
"[T]he children's story of Epaminondas (Sara Cone Bryant, "Epaminondas and his Auntie"). If you didn't hear it as a child, it's available on the Internet at http://www.sterlingtimes.org/epaminondas.htm. Politically incorrect by today's standards, change the dialect and it seems applicable to our topic.
"'Locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.'" Our security measures always seem to be addressing the last threat, rather than the next. Maybe that's inevitable.
"(a) We focus on the hyjacking of planes by those who want to live and use the planes for transportation. This leaves us unprepared for those who want to die and use planes as weapons of destruction.
"(b) We screen passengers, and their carry-on luggage, and then discover that we'd better screen the checked luggage as well.
"(c) We screen passengers through metal detectors to find guns and knives, and then discover that cardboard box openers are weapons.
"(d) Now we confiscate nail clippers and tweezers, and are next confronted with human teeth as a weapon (the choice of the guy with bombs in his shoes to attack the flight attendant). How do you screen for people likely to bite their opponents? Do we forbid Mike Tyson to fly?
"(e) We screen for metal bombs, and let a guy on a plane with plastic bombs in both shoes."
We were lucky the liquid bomb guys were caught. We may not be so lucky the next time.
Isn't it long past time that we started being as imaginative as the terrorists? That we started to think "outside the box (cutters)"? That we focus on what the next threat might be rather than always overdoing it with regard to the last?
Yeah, it gives the illusion that we're "doing something." But is the thing we're doing just making us feel better -- at the cost of failing to anticipate the next, much more likely, real threat?
For example, take air cargo (as distinguished from passengers' checked baggage). The impression I have is that it is subject to something between very little and no examination whatsoever -- while, meanwhile, millions of air passengers are taking off their shoes and relinquishing their bottled water.
There's a smarter way to do this, folks.
The recent chaos as the TSA focused on any liquid in a bottle a passenger wanted to carry on an airplane caused me to try and remember when and where I'd written something about this. Finally I found it: Nicholas Johnson, "Epaminondas and the Effectiveness of Domestic Security Efforts," International Leadership Forum, December 25, 2001.
Here are some quotes from that piece:
"Epaminondas you'll recall (or discover) is always one item behind in its proper treatment: how to carry cake, butter, puppy, bread. He learns each lesson well, but only after the fact. He then applies the lesson to the next task -- for which it is wholly inappropriate.
"[T]he children's story of Epaminondas (Sara Cone Bryant, "Epaminondas and his Auntie"). If you didn't hear it as a child, it's available on the Internet at http://www.sterlingtimes.org/epaminondas.htm. Politically incorrect by today's standards, change the dialect and it seems applicable to our topic.
"'Locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.'" Our security measures always seem to be addressing the last threat, rather than the next. Maybe that's inevitable.
"(a) We focus on the hyjacking of planes by those who want to live and use the planes for transportation. This leaves us unprepared for those who want to die and use planes as weapons of destruction.
"(b) We screen passengers, and their carry-on luggage, and then discover that we'd better screen the checked luggage as well.
"(c) We screen passengers through metal detectors to find guns and knives, and then discover that cardboard box openers are weapons.
"(d) Now we confiscate nail clippers and tweezers, and are next confronted with human teeth as a weapon (the choice of the guy with bombs in his shoes to attack the flight attendant). How do you screen for people likely to bite their opponents? Do we forbid Mike Tyson to fly?
"(e) We screen for metal bombs, and let a guy on a plane with plastic bombs in both shoes."
_______________
That was 2001; this is 2006. The point is, we still haven't learned. There was little to no anticipation that liquid explosives might be a problem. Apparently we were so caught up in the process of taking our shoes off and putting them back on again that neither we, nor the Department Homeland Security and Transportation Safety Agency, were thinking about the next threat.We were lucky the liquid bomb guys were caught. We may not be so lucky the next time.
Isn't it long past time that we started being as imaginative as the terrorists? That we started to think "outside the box (cutters)"? That we focus on what the next threat might be rather than always overdoing it with regard to the last?
Yeah, it gives the illusion that we're "doing something." But is the thing we're doing just making us feel better -- at the cost of failing to anticipate the next, much more likely, real threat?
For example, take air cargo (as distinguished from passengers' checked baggage). The impression I have is that it is subject to something between very little and no examination whatsoever -- while, meanwhile, millions of air passengers are taking off their shoes and relinquishing their bottled water.
There's a smarter way to do this, folks.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
"Et tu NPR?"
Take a look -- or listen -- to NPR's "Morning Edition" story this morning (August 10) regarding the phone companies' lobbying of Congress to permit their entry into cable television. It's about the last story in the first hour of the two-hour program. (The list of morning stories is represented to be available about 7:30 a.m. CT, with audio of those stories about 9:00 CT. The Web site is http://www.npr.org. Look for "Morning Edition," and then the story.) [Added 8:00 CT: See "Telephone Companies Fight Cable Franchise Law," http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5632648.]
You tell me, but to my ear it sounded like a very one-sided presentation ("repeating not reporting") of the phone companies' propaganda. Yes, there were brief clips from a Consumer Reports' spokesperson, and someone from the Montgomery County, Maryland, cable regulatory body. But the preponderant emphasis throughout was on a Verizon spokesperson's complaints about how difficult it would be for them to get franchises from each community.
There is no opposition from business to either federal or local regulation that is grounded in ideology. The opposition is to whichever is most effective.
In the early days of cable, the industry found it relatively easy to bamboozle and bribe local city council members into grantiing long-term franchises with very few requirements or protections for local customers. The locals didn't know much about cable -- either its potential for local communties (such as local cable access channels) or its potential for overreaching and abuses. At that point in time the cable industry thought local regulation a dandy idea. Just keep the FCC out of it.
As the local communties got more savvy, and started a bidding process to exact ever more from those seeking the very lucrative local franchises, the idea of FCC regulation looked more and more attractive to the industry. They asked for and got it -- but weren't able to negotiate a total elimination of local control.
That's the game the phone companies are attempting today with Congress and the FCC. It's understandable. If you have to be regulated, who wouldn't opt for "regulation" by today's do-nothing FCC?
But the big story here is not the inconvenience to the telephone companies of local franchising, or the joys felt by the interviewed home owners over their HDTV reception -- as if HDTV is only available to those with telephone-company-provided television!
The big story is, once again, the role of campaign contributions and heavy lobbying, the willingness of members of Congress to roll over, not only the interests of their constituents but the very city governments that make up their districts.
And, once again, we're the ones who will be paying the bills -- the 1000-to-1 to 2000-to-1 return that campaign contributors get for their money* -- just like we are now paying for pharmaceuticals and gas.
Nor is the money all that we'll lose. With the loss of local franchises goes the local franchise fees paid by the companies to support city employees who hear our complaints and negotiate with company representatives, and who oversee, monitor and audit company performance. Gone are the local access channels for, in Iowa City, the University, Kirkwood, School District, Local Government, Public Library, and the general public. Gone are the requirements that the entire community be wired -- rather than companies favoring the wealthiest sections of town.
How about telling us that story NPR, you who were established to provide a "non-commercial" alternative to commercial media and a political process controlled by big money?
_______________
* For the documentation on the "1000-to-1" assertion, see Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.
You tell me, but to my ear it sounded like a very one-sided presentation ("repeating not reporting") of the phone companies' propaganda. Yes, there were brief clips from a Consumer Reports' spokesperson, and someone from the Montgomery County, Maryland, cable regulatory body. But the preponderant emphasis throughout was on a Verizon spokesperson's complaints about how difficult it would be for them to get franchises from each community.
There is no opposition from business to either federal or local regulation that is grounded in ideology. The opposition is to whichever is most effective.
In the early days of cable, the industry found it relatively easy to bamboozle and bribe local city council members into grantiing long-term franchises with very few requirements or protections for local customers. The locals didn't know much about cable -- either its potential for local communties (such as local cable access channels) or its potential for overreaching and abuses. At that point in time the cable industry thought local regulation a dandy idea. Just keep the FCC out of it.
As the local communties got more savvy, and started a bidding process to exact ever more from those seeking the very lucrative local franchises, the idea of FCC regulation looked more and more attractive to the industry. They asked for and got it -- but weren't able to negotiate a total elimination of local control.
That's the game the phone companies are attempting today with Congress and the FCC. It's understandable. If you have to be regulated, who wouldn't opt for "regulation" by today's do-nothing FCC?
But the big story here is not the inconvenience to the telephone companies of local franchising, or the joys felt by the interviewed home owners over their HDTV reception -- as if HDTV is only available to those with telephone-company-provided television!
The big story is, once again, the role of campaign contributions and heavy lobbying, the willingness of members of Congress to roll over, not only the interests of their constituents but the very city governments that make up their districts.
And, once again, we're the ones who will be paying the bills -- the 1000-to-1 to 2000-to-1 return that campaign contributors get for their money* -- just like we are now paying for pharmaceuticals and gas.
Nor is the money all that we'll lose. With the loss of local franchises goes the local franchise fees paid by the companies to support city employees who hear our complaints and negotiate with company representatives, and who oversee, monitor and audit company performance. Gone are the local access channels for, in Iowa City, the University, Kirkwood, School District, Local Government, Public Library, and the general public. Gone are the requirements that the entire community be wired -- rather than companies favoring the wealthiest sections of town.
How about telling us that story NPR, you who were established to provide a "non-commercial" alternative to commercial media and a political process controlled by big money?
_______________
* For the documentation on the "1000-to-1" assertion, see Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
What is "the press"?
In this morning's (August 9) entry, "To Riverside, With Love," I note that an earlier entry, "Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead," August 7, "has now been expanded into a newspaper op ed column."
A trivial matter by most standards, from another perspective it represents an illustration of one of those historic turning points.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that, and the way by which, a blog entry became a mainstream media column.
It turns out that some opinion page editors read blogs. One of them decided that "Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead" might make a good column for his paper. He emailed me, and two days later there it was in print.
This, folks, is new. The bloggers have long played the role of "the people's journalism review," reading and commenting upon the mainstream media. But increasingly the flow, the interweaving of media and blogs, is going the other direction as well.
(a) The blogosphere has become a kind of mass media of its own -- at least the blogs with the multi-hundred-thousand hits a day, or State 29 with 20,000 unique visitors a month (and goodness knows how many individual hits). If you consider all of our nation's 2000 conventional newspapers, there are blogs with more readers ("greater circulation") than many of those papers. At least some of the time newspaper subscribers used to spend reading papers is now spent reading blogs.
(b) The mainstream media can no longer ignore the investigative journalism of journalism done by the bloggers as, for example, Dan Rather and CBS discovered when bloggers revealed that the "records" of President George W. Bush's military service, which CBS relied upon and reported, were fake.
(c) Mainstream media gets leads and story ideas from blog entries.
(d) Blogs as such aside, the Internet has now become the primary location for the mainstream media -- as it has for every other institution, from agencies of the federal government, to colleges, to the Fortune 500 to small local businesses. Listen to NPR, or watch the ABC Evening News, and you're regularly referred to their Web sites where they can expand the stories, and provide the background that is necessary to understanding but impossible to fit, like square pegs, into broadcasting's round holes. (Similarly, advertising from billboards to newspapers to television, often as not, mentions the advertiser's Web site -- a Web site that is, in effect, the company's online store, complete with a full catalog of items and a means for ordering and paying for them.)
(e) But the mainsteam media have gone beyond merely using the Internet as a filing cabinet, or closet, to contain "all the news that doesn't fit." They have moved into the two-way communication of the blogosphere as well and are now creating their own blogs, such as the Des Moines Register's blogs.
(f) And this morning (if not many times before) we have had the experience of a commercial newspaper's opinion editor selecting a column from the blogosphere to put in print.
As I prepare to teach another fall semester's "Law of Electronic Media" (at the UI College of Law) I cannot help but reflect on what it is we mean by "media" in 2006 as distinguished from what it meant 50 years ago -- or even five years ago. No one fully comprehends the extent, or the implications for the future, of the convergence and changes we're living through -- in terms of technologies, industries, individual and social behaviors, media formats, economics, business models, and so forth. Not the bloggers, the mainstream journalists and editors, the academics who study it -- not even the multi-million-dollar-a-year corporate CEOs whose job it is to understand this stuff -- no one can tell you with certainty what's happening.
When I wrote How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (Boston: Little, Brown, and New York: Bantam, 1970), the title captured reviewers' and readers' attention because it was so ludicrous. The mass media, television included (indeed, perhaps TV most of all) was one-way media; from one to many, with no return path. (Letters to the editor and the occasional full op ed column, or audience members' calls to talk shows, were (a) a tiny sampling of the public dialogue, (b) edited and presented by the media, not by the author, up to and including, (c) the media's legal right to refuse to publish at all.)
I'm reading a couple of books at the moment that take a stab at telling us readers what's happening: David Kline and Dan Burstein, blog! (CDS Books, 2005), and Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006). They're both helpful, but neither is dispositive.
What does seem clear is that, whatever else they may have done, the Internet, Web and blogosphere have turned a from-one-to-many media environment into a from-many-to-many media environment -- whatever the implications and future evolution of these changes may be.
Which brings me to the title I've put on this entry, "What's 'the press'?"
It's a reference to an exchange, of sorts, between U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and Chief Justice Warren Burger in the mid-1970s. Justice Stewart's salvo came in "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings Law Journal 631 (1975), a reprint of a speech he gave at the Yale Law School. The Chief Justice's response came in a separate concurring opinion in National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).
I won't try to summarize the whole of the exchange here, only what I believe relevant to this blog entry. [It's referenced briefly in the Law of Electronic Media casebook, Carter, Franklin and Wright, The First Amendment and the Fifth Estate (New York: Foundation Press, 6th ed., 2003), p. 34.]
That requires a reminder of the language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It provides, in part, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." (emphasis supplied).
The question is, what does "or of the press" mean? Is it redundant? Did a hurried editor merely overlook the need to delete it? Did it contemplate rights regarding expression by individuals only -- sometimes taking spoken form and sometimes written? Or are there two separate rights here -- a "freedom of speech" for individuals and an additional set of rights, a "freedom of the press," for the institutional, corporate, mainstream media? Justice Stewart thought the latter; the Chief Justice the former.
The Chief Justice's argument was, in part, that if "the press" only refers to the institutional mainstream media -- large media corporations such as the publishers of the New York Times and Washington Post -- the definition excludes the only kind of "newspapers" that existed at the time the First Amendment was adopted. "The press" at that time was not that different from the "underground newspapers," or the machine copied broadsides and brochures being produced on machine copiers in the 1970s. On the other hand, if such "publications" are included as a part of "the press" there is little or no difference between "the press" and the "free speech" of individuals.
The justices' "debate" was conducted before the Defense Department's network came to be called "the Internet," and long before "the Web," with its individuals' Web pages, Facebook, and blogs. Their existence only further complicates the debate.
This blog, even if read by no more than a tiny franction of the number of persons visiting the New York Times' Web site, or the Des Moines Register's blogs, is no less instantaneously accessible. It uses no less a proportion of a computer screen once loaded. It and the 40 million-plus other blogs have become a source of ideas, and even columns, for the mainstream media. Meanwhile, the blogs look to the mainstream media as a source of material to comment about.
Might it not be useful for us, right about now, to take a crack at reconceptualizing what we think is and is not "the media"? Have we created a truly new institution that is in the process of replacing what we used to think of, constitutionally, as "the press"? Or are the differences really only marginal and insignificant?
Indeed, today, "What is 'the press'"?
A trivial matter by most standards, from another perspective it represents an illustration of one of those historic turning points.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that, and the way by which, a blog entry became a mainstream media column.
It turns out that some opinion page editors read blogs. One of them decided that "Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead" might make a good column for his paper. He emailed me, and two days later there it was in print.
This, folks, is new. The bloggers have long played the role of "the people's journalism review," reading and commenting upon the mainstream media. But increasingly the flow, the interweaving of media and blogs, is going the other direction as well.
(a) The blogosphere has become a kind of mass media of its own -- at least the blogs with the multi-hundred-thousand hits a day, or State 29 with 20,000 unique visitors a month (and goodness knows how many individual hits). If you consider all of our nation's 2000 conventional newspapers, there are blogs with more readers ("greater circulation") than many of those papers. At least some of the time newspaper subscribers used to spend reading papers is now spent reading blogs.
(b) The mainstream media can no longer ignore the investigative journalism of journalism done by the bloggers as, for example, Dan Rather and CBS discovered when bloggers revealed that the "records" of President George W. Bush's military service, which CBS relied upon and reported, were fake.
(c) Mainstream media gets leads and story ideas from blog entries.
(d) Blogs as such aside, the Internet has now become the primary location for the mainstream media -- as it has for every other institution, from agencies of the federal government, to colleges, to the Fortune 500 to small local businesses. Listen to NPR, or watch the ABC Evening News, and you're regularly referred to their Web sites where they can expand the stories, and provide the background that is necessary to understanding but impossible to fit, like square pegs, into broadcasting's round holes. (Similarly, advertising from billboards to newspapers to television, often as not, mentions the advertiser's Web site -- a Web site that is, in effect, the company's online store, complete with a full catalog of items and a means for ordering and paying for them.)
(e) But the mainsteam media have gone beyond merely using the Internet as a filing cabinet, or closet, to contain "all the news that doesn't fit." They have moved into the two-way communication of the blogosphere as well and are now creating their own blogs, such as the Des Moines Register's blogs.
(f) And this morning (if not many times before) we have had the experience of a commercial newspaper's opinion editor selecting a column from the blogosphere to put in print.
As I prepare to teach another fall semester's "Law of Electronic Media" (at the UI College of Law) I cannot help but reflect on what it is we mean by "media" in 2006 as distinguished from what it meant 50 years ago -- or even five years ago. No one fully comprehends the extent, or the implications for the future, of the convergence and changes we're living through -- in terms of technologies, industries, individual and social behaviors, media formats, economics, business models, and so forth. Not the bloggers, the mainstream journalists and editors, the academics who study it -- not even the multi-million-dollar-a-year corporate CEOs whose job it is to understand this stuff -- no one can tell you with certainty what's happening.
When I wrote How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (Boston: Little, Brown, and New York: Bantam, 1970), the title captured reviewers' and readers' attention because it was so ludicrous. The mass media, television included (indeed, perhaps TV most of all) was one-way media; from one to many, with no return path. (Letters to the editor and the occasional full op ed column, or audience members' calls to talk shows, were (a) a tiny sampling of the public dialogue, (b) edited and presented by the media, not by the author, up to and including, (c) the media's legal right to refuse to publish at all.)
I'm reading a couple of books at the moment that take a stab at telling us readers what's happening: David Kline and Dan Burstein, blog! (CDS Books, 2005), and Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006). They're both helpful, but neither is dispositive.
What does seem clear is that, whatever else they may have done, the Internet, Web and blogosphere have turned a from-one-to-many media environment into a from-many-to-many media environment -- whatever the implications and future evolution of these changes may be.
Which brings me to the title I've put on this entry, "What's 'the press'?"
It's a reference to an exchange, of sorts, between U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and Chief Justice Warren Burger in the mid-1970s. Justice Stewart's salvo came in "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings Law Journal 631 (1975), a reprint of a speech he gave at the Yale Law School. The Chief Justice's response came in a separate concurring opinion in National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).
I won't try to summarize the whole of the exchange here, only what I believe relevant to this blog entry. [It's referenced briefly in the Law of Electronic Media casebook, Carter, Franklin and Wright, The First Amendment and the Fifth Estate (New York: Foundation Press, 6th ed., 2003), p. 34.]
That requires a reminder of the language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It provides, in part, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." (emphasis supplied).
The question is, what does "or of the press" mean? Is it redundant? Did a hurried editor merely overlook the need to delete it? Did it contemplate rights regarding expression by individuals only -- sometimes taking spoken form and sometimes written? Or are there two separate rights here -- a "freedom of speech" for individuals and an additional set of rights, a "freedom of the press," for the institutional, corporate, mainstream media? Justice Stewart thought the latter; the Chief Justice the former.
The Chief Justice's argument was, in part, that if "the press" only refers to the institutional mainstream media -- large media corporations such as the publishers of the New York Times and Washington Post -- the definition excludes the only kind of "newspapers" that existed at the time the First Amendment was adopted. "The press" at that time was not that different from the "underground newspapers," or the machine copied broadsides and brochures being produced on machine copiers in the 1970s. On the other hand, if such "publications" are included as a part of "the press" there is little or no difference between "the press" and the "free speech" of individuals.
The justices' "debate" was conducted before the Defense Department's network came to be called "the Internet," and long before "the Web," with its individuals' Web pages, Facebook, and blogs. Their existence only further complicates the debate.
This blog, even if read by no more than a tiny franction of the number of persons visiting the New York Times' Web site, or the Des Moines Register's blogs, is no less instantaneously accessible. It uses no less a proportion of a computer screen once loaded. It and the 40 million-plus other blogs have become a source of ideas, and even columns, for the mainstream media. Meanwhile, the blogs look to the mainstream media as a source of material to comment about.
Might it not be useful for us, right about now, to take a crack at reconceptualizing what we think is and is not "the media"? Have we created a truly new institution that is in the process of replacing what we used to think of, constitutionally, as "the press"? Or are the differences really only marginal and insignificant?
Indeed, today, "What is 'the press'"?
To Riverside, With Love
"Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead," August 7, mentioned by State 29 in "Earthpark Questions," August 8, has now (this morning, August 9) been expanded into an op ed column.
The citizens of Riverside, Iowa, acting through their duly elected and empowered City Council, have every democratic right to do whatever they think is in their best interest with regard to the rain forest project and its demands for this community of 928 souls to come up with $25 million.
I would not presume to tell them what they should do -- nor, were I to do so, would it make the slightest bit of difference in their decision.
But, having followed this project for the last six years, published 14 columns and an equal number of additional analyses about it, and maintained a rather thorough rain forest Web site for the past three years, I felt a bit of an obligation to offer some cautionary observations to my neighbors to the south.
This column is for them, to read or not, to think about or ignore, my gift to Riverside, with love.
The citizens of Riverside, Iowa, acting through their duly elected and empowered City Council, have every democratic right to do whatever they think is in their best interest with regard to the rain forest project and its demands for this community of 928 souls to come up with $25 million.
I would not presume to tell them what they should do -- nor, were I to do so, would it make the slightest bit of difference in their decision.
But, having followed this project for the last six years, published 14 columns and an equal number of additional analyses about it, and maintained a rather thorough rain forest Web site for the past three years, I felt a bit of an obligation to offer some cautionary observations to my neighbors to the south.
This column is for them, to read or not, to think about or ignore, my gift to Riverside, with love.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
State 29 Sites Rare Chupacabra
As a caption to a photo of Dave Oman, accompanying State 29's "Earthpark Questions," August 8, Oman is identified as, "David Oman, King Chupacabra of the taxpayers."
Given that the chupacabra has rarely been sited in Iowa, it's understandable that locals might not be familiar with it.
Therefore, State 29 has kindly provided the link, above, to an explanatory description -- as well as a link to my "Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead," August 7.
Given that the chupacabra has rarely been sited in Iowa, it's understandable that locals might not be familiar with it.
Therefore, State 29 has kindly provided the link, above, to an explanatory description -- as well as a link to my "Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead," August 7.
"Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!"
The date was June 12, 1987. The place: the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin. The speaker, U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
And the line we all remember from that, one of the most famous of "the great communicator's" speeches, is: "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Indeed, it is often referred to as the "Tear Down This Wall" speech.
The line came to me this morning (August 8) while reading The Gazette.
Because there's another wall that's been under attack for years and is being torn down one piece at a time -- and The Gazette succeeded in loosening, and removing, one more brick this morning.
The wall is what once was an "Iron Curtain" in its own right, the wall between the editorial and advertising, or business, sides of a journalistic enterprise, whether print or electronic.
Indeed, though it appears quaint by today's standards, the principle is still embodied in the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. It provides, among other things, that
"A journalist should . . . Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two."
It is, admitedly, a tough standard in the context of corporate, advertiser-supported media. The most natural thing in the world for a media's CEO with little training in journalism, and a constant focus on the bottom line, would be to try to please advertisers; for an advertiser to insist that it not support financially a media outlet that runs stories attacking that very advertiser; and for a station's salesperson to want to discourage the news department from becoming such an outlet -- advocating that investigative stories be killed if necessary to avoid losing accounts.
One of the most candid -- and far reaching -- expressions of the advertiser's perspective is contained in a memorandum from Procter & Gamble on its broadcast policies, reported by broadcasting's preeminent historian Erik Barnouw: "There will be no material that may give offense, either directly or by inference, to any commercial organization of any sort" (emphasis supplied). Erik Barnouw, The Sponsor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 112. [Barnouw notes, "The Proctor & Gamble policy statement is quoted in Green, Timothy, The Universal Eye: The World of Television (New York: Stein & Day, 1972), pp. 28-29." Ibid, p. 197, n. 12.]
As the media have come to be viewed by the financial community as "just another business" -- like pharmaceuticals or autos -- the pressure for ever-increasing profits has resulted in layoffs of journalists, and efforts to enlist the self-interest of editors by compensating them in part like corporate executives, with bonuses and other pay based on corporate profits.
Fortunately for eastern Iowans, The Gazette is one of America's few remaining media outlets that is still locally owned, and therefore able to apply, when it wishes, the journalistic standards of days gone by. But even The Gazette lives in an ever-increasingly commercialized world, as this morning's paper revealed.
At the bottom of page one -- page one! -- along side a promotional tease for a story headlined "Ultrasounds Can Affect Young Brain Development" (admittedly a story worthy of bringing to readers' attention) was another promo. This one was for a story headlined "Will New Vanilla Frosty Challenge Chocolate?" -- with a prominent photo of one of those fast food drink containers clearly identified as from "Wendy's."
(Normally, page one of America's newspapers has been free of ads, and reserved for the most important news of the day. Ads only appeared inside the paper. Increasingly this is changing, even by prestigeous papers, up to and including the removable advertising stickers on page one with which our morning papers now arrive.)
But it is the story itself which is most disturbing. Dubbed a "Food Review," this Associated Press story bylined by Casey Laughman is headlined, "Vanilla, you saucy tramp; New Frosty steals chocolate's thunder." The two columns of text bookends an even larger container with the Wendy's name, logo, and "Old Fashioned Hamburgers" clearly legible. Casey Laughman, "Vanilla, You Saucy Tramp; New Frosty Steals Chocolate's Thunder," The Gazette (Associated Press), August 8, 2006 (Accent Section, p. 5D).
As if the placement of this advertisement as a news story, let alone its promotion, wasn't bad enough, puffing a product that is already full of air -- and goodness knows what else -- the writing is really over the top. The Associated Press thinks it's important we know that Wendy's vanilla Frosties are more than "awesome," they're "uberawesome." The first taste made the journalist feel like "a chorus should be singing," from this "explosion of flavor," this "boldness . . . almost a swagger," as a result of which they are "Hooked. Bad."
But this isn't the worst of it. For some reason the author of this ad felt a need to come up with an analogy of sorts for the distinction between chocolate and vanilla. Like the ad agency that promoted "Virginia Slims" with the line, "Cigarettes are like women, the best ones are thin and rich," the analogy chosen was with women. "Vanilla would be the one to bring home to mama -- safe, sweet. Works in a library. . . . Chocolate, on the other hand, is the girl in the back of the bar . . .. You know, the one with the pierced eyebrow and the tattoo on her lower back."
"Mr. Editor, tear down that wall."
"Wall? What wall?"
And the line we all remember from that, one of the most famous of "the great communicator's" speeches, is: "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Indeed, it is often referred to as the "Tear Down This Wall" speech.
The line came to me this morning (August 8) while reading The Gazette.
Because there's another wall that's been under attack for years and is being torn down one piece at a time -- and The Gazette succeeded in loosening, and removing, one more brick this morning.
The wall is what once was an "Iron Curtain" in its own right, the wall between the editorial and advertising, or business, sides of a journalistic enterprise, whether print or electronic.
Indeed, though it appears quaint by today's standards, the principle is still embodied in the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. It provides, among other things, that
"A journalist should . . . Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two."
It is, admitedly, a tough standard in the context of corporate, advertiser-supported media. The most natural thing in the world for a media's CEO with little training in journalism, and a constant focus on the bottom line, would be to try to please advertisers; for an advertiser to insist that it not support financially a media outlet that runs stories attacking that very advertiser; and for a station's salesperson to want to discourage the news department from becoming such an outlet -- advocating that investigative stories be killed if necessary to avoid losing accounts.
One of the most candid -- and far reaching -- expressions of the advertiser's perspective is contained in a memorandum from Procter & Gamble on its broadcast policies, reported by broadcasting's preeminent historian Erik Barnouw: "There will be no material that may give offense, either directly or by inference, to any commercial organization of any sort" (emphasis supplied). Erik Barnouw, The Sponsor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 112. [Barnouw notes, "The Proctor & Gamble policy statement is quoted in Green, Timothy, The Universal Eye: The World of Television (New York: Stein & Day, 1972), pp. 28-29." Ibid, p. 197, n. 12.]
As the media have come to be viewed by the financial community as "just another business" -- like pharmaceuticals or autos -- the pressure for ever-increasing profits has resulted in layoffs of journalists, and efforts to enlist the self-interest of editors by compensating them in part like corporate executives, with bonuses and other pay based on corporate profits.
Fortunately for eastern Iowans, The Gazette is one of America's few remaining media outlets that is still locally owned, and therefore able to apply, when it wishes, the journalistic standards of days gone by. But even The Gazette lives in an ever-increasingly commercialized world, as this morning's paper revealed.
At the bottom of page one -- page one! -- along side a promotional tease for a story headlined "Ultrasounds Can Affect Young Brain Development" (admittedly a story worthy of bringing to readers' attention) was another promo. This one was for a story headlined "Will New Vanilla Frosty Challenge Chocolate?" -- with a prominent photo of one of those fast food drink containers clearly identified as from "Wendy's."
(Normally, page one of America's newspapers has been free of ads, and reserved for the most important news of the day. Ads only appeared inside the paper. Increasingly this is changing, even by prestigeous papers, up to and including the removable advertising stickers on page one with which our morning papers now arrive.)
But it is the story itself which is most disturbing. Dubbed a "Food Review," this Associated Press story bylined by Casey Laughman is headlined, "Vanilla, you saucy tramp; New Frosty steals chocolate's thunder." The two columns of text bookends an even larger container with the Wendy's name, logo, and "Old Fashioned Hamburgers" clearly legible. Casey Laughman, "Vanilla, You Saucy Tramp; New Frosty Steals Chocolate's Thunder," The Gazette (Associated Press), August 8, 2006 (Accent Section, p. 5D).
As if the placement of this advertisement as a news story, let alone its promotion, wasn't bad enough, puffing a product that is already full of air -- and goodness knows what else -- the writing is really over the top. The Associated Press thinks it's important we know that Wendy's vanilla Frosties are more than "awesome," they're "uberawesome." The first taste made the journalist feel like "a chorus should be singing," from this "explosion of flavor," this "boldness . . . almost a swagger," as a result of which they are "Hooked. Bad."
But this isn't the worst of it. For some reason the author of this ad felt a need to come up with an analogy of sorts for the distinction between chocolate and vanilla. Like the ad agency that promoted "Virginia Slims" with the line, "Cigarettes are like women, the best ones are thin and rich," the analogy chosen was with women. "Vanilla would be the one to bring home to mama -- safe, sweet. Works in a library. . . . Chocolate, on the other hand, is the girl in the back of the bar . . .. You know, the one with the pierced eyebrow and the tattoo on her lower back."
"Mr. Editor, tear down that wall."
"Wall? What wall?"
Boondoggle Has Life Everlasting
Joe Sharpnack has an especially perceptive and penetrating eye and cartoonist's pen when it comes to the Iowa rain forest project. This morning (August 8) he has done it again. (For three other examples of his take on the rain forest search http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.)
Under the caption, "The Boondoggle That Wouldn't Die!" he pictures a Godzilla dinosaur repelling oncoming missiles with the labels, "Enough!" "No!" and "Get Lost!" Godzilla bears the identification, "Earth-Park-Rain-Forest-Education Center, etc., whatever." And Godzilla is saying, "No, really, if I could just get $25,000,000 from you guys, we could . . ."
The cartoon is copyright by The Gazette and Joe Sharpnack, and reproduced here for educational, non-commercial, fair use only. Any other use requires the permission of The Gazette and Joe Sharpnack, whose Web site, www.sharptoons.com, provides contact information and a portfolio of his work, which not only appears regularly in The Gazette, but has also appeared in USA TODAY, the Washington Post, Newsweek Interactive, and the Financial Times of London. The Gazette, August 8, 2006, p. 6A.
Under the caption, "The Boondoggle That Wouldn't Die!" he pictures a Godzilla dinosaur repelling oncoming missiles with the labels, "Enough!" "No!" and "Get Lost!" Godzilla bears the identification, "Earth-Park-Rain-Forest-Education Center, etc., whatever." And Godzilla is saying, "No, really, if I could just get $25,000,000 from you guys, we could . . ."
The cartoon is copyright by The Gazette and Joe Sharpnack, and reproduced here for educational, non-commercial, fair use only. Any other use requires the permission of The Gazette and Joe Sharpnack, whose Web site, www.sharptoons.com, provides contact information and a portfolio of his work, which not only appears regularly in The Gazette, but has also appeared in USA TODAY, the Washington Post, Newsweek Interactive, and the Financial Times of London. The Gazette, August 8, 2006, p. 6A.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Caution: Wide Load, Rain Forest Ahead
The Press-Citizen had an editorial warning for Riverside this morning (August 7):
"Riverside . . . faces some major questions . . .. Those questions include whether to ante up public money for Earthpark's proposed rain forest -- a bet that we would caution any municipality against making."
Editorial, "Riverside's 15 Minutes of Fame Continues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 7, 2006 (and also available here).
Gregg Hennigan reported, following the August 3 meeting between David Oman and Riverside's City Council, "Earthpark officials said the city carried little risk because city money would not be used." Gregg Hennigan, "Rain Forest Plan Raises Questions in Riverside," The Gazette, August 4, 2006.
This representation by Oman can most charitabily be characterized as "misleading."
(a) He, and the casino, have represented -- without involving the City -- that a hotel/motel tax will be enacted, the money from which will go to the rain forest. (b) They've also suggested that the casino's Foundation, which is supposed to provide a share of casino profits to local projects, such as schools, libraries or swimming pools, will, instead, divert those moneys to the rain forest. (c) There will, presumably, be additional infrastructure costs required by the rain forest (such as roads, water and sewer lines) borne by the City. (d) Speaking of water, has anyone in Riverside explored the potential impact on Riverside's water table, or other sources of water, required by a rain forest (that must be kept humid) and aquarium (that uses 600,000 to 1 million gallons of water)? (e) It's possible that if the rain forest is operated as a Section 501(c)(3) corporation that will remove the land it uses from local property tax rolls. (f) The City is going to be asked to put its reputation for common sense on the line when it is asked by rain forest promoters to support the project's Iowa Values Fund application. (g) And realism requires that at least some thought be given to the alternative scenarios if -- as many economists predict -- the rain forest is unable to attract enough visitor income to maintain a first class attraction:
1. It may remain vacant, a rotting rain forest and drained aquarium with dead fish, as a monument to enthusiasm's triumph over caution.
2. It may be torn down -- very likely at the City's expense.
3. It may continue to be run with a scaled down budget and closed exhibits -- likely producing an ever escalating downward spiral of quality, attendance, and income. Or,
4. Given these alternatives, the City may decide to provide a perpetual subsidy to the rain forest to keep it open.
Given this state of affairs, to say that "city money would not be used" is quite a stretch.
Hopefully, the City of Riverside will take the Press-Citizen's advice.
"Riverside . . . faces some major questions . . .. Those questions include whether to ante up public money for Earthpark's proposed rain forest -- a bet that we would caution any municipality against making."
Editorial, "Riverside's 15 Minutes of Fame Continues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 7, 2006 (and also available here).
Gregg Hennigan reported, following the August 3 meeting between David Oman and Riverside's City Council, "Earthpark officials said the city carried little risk because city money would not be used." Gregg Hennigan, "Rain Forest Plan Raises Questions in Riverside," The Gazette, August 4, 2006.
This representation by Oman can most charitabily be characterized as "misleading."
(a) He, and the casino, have represented -- without involving the City -- that a hotel/motel tax will be enacted, the money from which will go to the rain forest. (b) They've also suggested that the casino's Foundation, which is supposed to provide a share of casino profits to local projects, such as schools, libraries or swimming pools, will, instead, divert those moneys to the rain forest. (c) There will, presumably, be additional infrastructure costs required by the rain forest (such as roads, water and sewer lines) borne by the City. (d) Speaking of water, has anyone in Riverside explored the potential impact on Riverside's water table, or other sources of water, required by a rain forest (that must be kept humid) and aquarium (that uses 600,000 to 1 million gallons of water)? (e) It's possible that if the rain forest is operated as a Section 501(c)(3) corporation that will remove the land it uses from local property tax rolls. (f) The City is going to be asked to put its reputation for common sense on the line when it is asked by rain forest promoters to support the project's Iowa Values Fund application. (g) And realism requires that at least some thought be given to the alternative scenarios if -- as many economists predict -- the rain forest is unable to attract enough visitor income to maintain a first class attraction:
1. It may remain vacant, a rotting rain forest and drained aquarium with dead fish, as a monument to enthusiasm's triumph over caution.
2. It may be torn down -- very likely at the City's expense.
3. It may continue to be run with a scaled down budget and closed exhibits -- likely producing an ever escalating downward spiral of quality, attendance, and income. Or,
4. Given these alternatives, the City may decide to provide a perpetual subsidy to the rain forest to keep it open.
Given this state of affairs, to say that "city money would not be used" is quite a stretch.
Hopefully, the City of Riverside will take the Press-Citizen's advice.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Rain Forest: Monday August 7 Update
The Monday, August 7 update to the Iowa Rain Forest Web site, with links to the full text of the leading news stores, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/poltics/IaChild, is now available.
Highlights from the prior week focus on the August 3 meeting between rain forest promoters and the City Council and citizens of Riverside, Iowa, home of one of Iowa's newest casinos (opening the end of this month), and the earlier announcement by the casino that it has lined up Tom Arnold and Jay Leno for opening shows.
[Every Monday since December 2005 there has been a weekly upload to the pre-existing Iowa rain forest Web site I maintain. In all, printed out it would run over 100 single spaced pages; there are, in addition, links to the full text of hundreds of newspaper stories and reports. It is very probably the most complete resource on the topic anywhere on the Web.
It is found at: http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.
Over the past few months the scope of the Web site has expanded from the rain forest project to include material related to the broader range of attractions and economic development generally in which the proposed rain forest exists and by which it must be evaluated.]
Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella
Highlights from the prior week focus on the August 3 meeting between rain forest promoters and the City Council and citizens of Riverside, Iowa, home of one of Iowa's newest casinos (opening the end of this month), and the earlier announcement by the casino that it has lined up Tom Arnold and Jay Leno for opening shows.
_______________
[Every Monday since December 2005 there has been a weekly upload to the pre-existing Iowa rain forest Web site I maintain. In all, printed out it would run over 100 single spaced pages; there are, in addition, links to the full text of hundreds of newspaper stories and reports. It is very probably the most complete resource on the topic anywhere on the Web.
It is found at: http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.
Over the past few months the scope of the Web site has expanded from the rain forest project to include material related to the broader range of attractions and economic development generally in which the proposed rain forest exists and by which it must be evaluated.]
Technorati tags: Iowa Rain Forest, economic development, attractions, tourism, rain forest, pork, Earthpark, Earth Park, Iowa, casino, gambling, Riverside, Pella
Using "Information Architecture" to Design Learning Communities
As often happens in life, a number of events have come together to get me thinking -- in this case about the role of history in a "learning community."
Friday (August 4) I suggested to my wife that our bicycle ride take us to the new bridge across the Coralville dam. I had visited it before, but it's worth a return trip. It's not just the biking, and the delightful design of the bridge with overlooks that enable one to watch the local heron hunting fish. On the Coralville side there are plaques with pictures and text regarding the early leading settlers of Coralville and uses of the Iowa River and dam at this location 150 or more years ago. (This was, at least in part, a project of the Johnson County Historical Society.)
What Mason Williams ("Classical Gas," "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour") has called "hysterical markers" are not a new idea, of course. And when driving it's all too easy to pass them by. But walking or biking are another matter.
Over 30 years ago I spoke at, and was otherwise involved -- may even have been on the board -- of something called the "Aspen Design Conference." At the time, I thought of design as graphic design (indeed, the successor organization is the Aspen Institute of Graphic Arts, which sponsors the "Aspen Design Summit"). At its most inclusive, I thought, perhaps "design" might include architecture and urban planning. But why me, I asked -- since I was none of the above -- anticipating Howard Beale's line from the 1976 movie, "Network." The organizers answered with the assertion that one could design anything, not just graphics, and that my efforts to redesign the whole of our society (with emphasis on media reform while an FCC Commissioner) was my qualification.
There was usually one person with overall responsibility for picking the theme for these annual conferences, and one year in the early '70s the organizer was an architect named Richard Saul Wurman. The theme he picked was "making the city visible" -- "International Design Conference in Aspen The Invisible City 1972." Now internationally heralded, he subsequently went on to design some very creative city guide books, and invent -- and become -- what he dubbed "an information architect."
What I remember from his presentation in 1972, in addition to suggestions of historical plaques and posters of bus schedules at bus stops, were things like encouraging newspaper companies to use a wall of glass (rather than brick) between the street and sidewalk and the printing press. The point was that, with a slight change in attitude and focus, the entire community could become a learning environment, that "information content" can be found outside of libraries and the pages of local newspapers.
With this in mind I once urged that the University of Iowa consider some kind of identifying plaques outside of its buildings. The academic tradition used to be to name them for professors, scholars and scientists. However, most were dead and unknown to the current crop even of faculty -- not to mention students. A few months ago I noticed that the University has now done at least a little toward identifying some of these early academics.(Today, of course, with the corporatization of the academy the buildings -- even colleges -- are named for wealthy donors.)
Growing up (1941-1952) as a neighbor of Iowa City's beloved volunteer historian, Irving Weber, I could not help but pick up from him while a boy at least a fraction of his curiosity about Iowa City's history; its origin, early settlers, businesses, and buildings. And in that connection I've often wondered why Iowa City's downtown merchants would not buy into the notion of plaques on their buildings identifying their predecessors. So far as I know no one has yet made a move in that direction.
Then last evening, while having dinner with family at the Atlas restaurant in Iowa City (Dubuque and Iowa Avenue), some classmates of my sister's at another table (who were also in town for their forthcoming reunion) were trying to remember what businesses had been located at that spot during the 1940s and 1950s. Unsuccessful, one of them finally came over to our table to inquire. No, we didn't know either. Not a big deal, of course, but it would have been nice to have been able to say, "Just a minute, I'll go outside and see what the plaque says."
Finally, in yesterday morning's (August 5) Iowa City Press-Citizen, I read Kay Thistlethwaite's column, "That Was Then, This is Now: How Are We Keeping Up?" She notes "plaques in the handsome entry plaza" of the 350 million-year-old "Devonian Fossil Gorge" at the neighboring Coralville Reservoir, the refurbished "Old Capitol" building in downtown Iowa City (from the days when Iowa City was the State's territorial capitol), the "Plum Grove" home of Iowa's first territorial governor, Robert Lucas (on the east side of town), and the Mormon handcart site (off Mormon Trek, on the west side), where Mormons who had arrived at the end of the railroad line in Iowa City paused to make the carts they would pull to Utah during 1856-1857.
So we've made some progress.
Iowa City is home to a great university, the University of Iowa, the state's largest employer and one of the reasons the population of Johnson County has one of the highest average educational levels in the nation. The community is rightfully proud of its K-12 school district.
But all of these recent thoughts and experiences with local history have me wondering what more we could do by way of "information architecture," "making our city visible," and providing a community that is, throughout, a learning environment.
Friday (August 4) I suggested to my wife that our bicycle ride take us to the new bridge across the Coralville dam. I had visited it before, but it's worth a return trip. It's not just the biking, and the delightful design of the bridge with overlooks that enable one to watch the local heron hunting fish. On the Coralville side there are plaques with pictures and text regarding the early leading settlers of Coralville and uses of the Iowa River and dam at this location 150 or more years ago. (This was, at least in part, a project of the Johnson County Historical Society.)
What Mason Williams ("Classical Gas," "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour") has called "hysterical markers" are not a new idea, of course. And when driving it's all too easy to pass them by. But walking or biking are another matter.
Over 30 years ago I spoke at, and was otherwise involved -- may even have been on the board -- of something called the "Aspen Design Conference." At the time, I thought of design as graphic design (indeed, the successor organization is the Aspen Institute of Graphic Arts, which sponsors the "Aspen Design Summit"). At its most inclusive, I thought, perhaps "design" might include architecture and urban planning. But why me, I asked -- since I was none of the above -- anticipating Howard Beale's line from the 1976 movie, "Network." The organizers answered with the assertion that one could design anything, not just graphics, and that my efforts to redesign the whole of our society (with emphasis on media reform while an FCC Commissioner) was my qualification.
There was usually one person with overall responsibility for picking the theme for these annual conferences, and one year in the early '70s the organizer was an architect named Richard Saul Wurman. The theme he picked was "making the city visible" -- "International Design Conference in Aspen The Invisible City 1972." Now internationally heralded, he subsequently went on to design some very creative city guide books, and invent -- and become -- what he dubbed "an information architect."
What I remember from his presentation in 1972, in addition to suggestions of historical plaques and posters of bus schedules at bus stops, were things like encouraging newspaper companies to use a wall of glass (rather than brick) between the street and sidewalk and the printing press. The point was that, with a slight change in attitude and focus, the entire community could become a learning environment, that "information content" can be found outside of libraries and the pages of local newspapers.
With this in mind I once urged that the University of Iowa consider some kind of identifying plaques outside of its buildings. The academic tradition used to be to name them for professors, scholars and scientists. However, most were dead and unknown to the current crop even of faculty -- not to mention students. A few months ago I noticed that the University has now done at least a little toward identifying some of these early academics.(Today, of course, with the corporatization of the academy the buildings -- even colleges -- are named for wealthy donors.)
Growing up (1941-1952) as a neighbor of Iowa City's beloved volunteer historian, Irving Weber, I could not help but pick up from him while a boy at least a fraction of his curiosity about Iowa City's history; its origin, early settlers, businesses, and buildings. And in that connection I've often wondered why Iowa City's downtown merchants would not buy into the notion of plaques on their buildings identifying their predecessors. So far as I know no one has yet made a move in that direction.
Then last evening, while having dinner with family at the Atlas restaurant in Iowa City (Dubuque and Iowa Avenue), some classmates of my sister's at another table (who were also in town for their forthcoming reunion) were trying to remember what businesses had been located at that spot during the 1940s and 1950s. Unsuccessful, one of them finally came over to our table to inquire. No, we didn't know either. Not a big deal, of course, but it would have been nice to have been able to say, "Just a minute, I'll go outside and see what the plaque says."
Finally, in yesterday morning's (August 5) Iowa City Press-Citizen, I read Kay Thistlethwaite's column, "That Was Then, This is Now: How Are We Keeping Up?" She notes "plaques in the handsome entry plaza" of the 350 million-year-old "Devonian Fossil Gorge" at the neighboring Coralville Reservoir, the refurbished "Old Capitol" building in downtown Iowa City (from the days when Iowa City was the State's territorial capitol), the "Plum Grove" home of Iowa's first territorial governor, Robert Lucas (on the east side of town), and the Mormon handcart site (off Mormon Trek, on the west side), where Mormons who had arrived at the end of the railroad line in Iowa City paused to make the carts they would pull to Utah during 1856-1857.
So we've made some progress.
Iowa City is home to a great university, the University of Iowa, the state's largest employer and one of the reasons the population of Johnson County has one of the highest average educational levels in the nation. The community is rightfully proud of its K-12 school district.
But all of these recent thoughts and experiences with local history have me wondering what more we could do by way of "information architecture," "making our city visible," and providing a community that is, throughout, a learning environment.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Zielinski Captures Meeting
After having raised some issues about the journalistic coverage of the August 3 Riverside meeting with the rain forest promoters ("Riverside Weighs Rain Forest," August 4), what a pleasure it is to read Mary Zielinski's coverage of the event: Mary Zielinski, "Riverside Wants 'Hard Copy' Answers for Earthpark Questions," Washington Evening Journal, August 4, 2006 (also available here).
It's like she attended a different meeting. Actually, she may have, as The Gazette's Gregg Hennigan reported that the meeting had not ended by the time he needed to file his story.
Over the years, others in the media and public have told me stories that mirrored my own experience in trying to get answers to questions from the rain forest organization. Questioners have sometimes been ignored, or promised answers in a future that never arrives, or given generalities and platitudes.
Zielinski reports: "'We will get a packet of questions together,' said Mayor Bill Poch, 'and we would like you to write down the answers. We want hard copy.' He also asked if the answers could be done within a week after receiving the questions. Earthpark CEO David Oman said, 'It will not be a problem.'"
Hopefully Oman will seize this opportunity to demonstrate his good will and ability to meet a deadline.
It's like she attended a different meeting. Actually, she may have, as The Gazette's Gregg Hennigan reported that the meeting had not ended by the time he needed to file his story.
Over the years, others in the media and public have told me stories that mirrored my own experience in trying to get answers to questions from the rain forest organization. Questioners have sometimes been ignored, or promised answers in a future that never arrives, or given generalities and platitudes.
Zielinski reports: "'We will get a packet of questions together,' said Mayor Bill Poch, 'and we would like you to write down the answers. We want hard copy.' He also asked if the answers could be done within a week after receiving the questions. Earthpark CEO David Oman said, 'It will not be a problem.'"
Hopefully Oman will seize this opportunity to demonstrate his good will and ability to meet a deadline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
