Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Oil Barons Buy Wisconsin


If one paragraph can explain the situation, this might be it:

Wisconsin is the nation’s No. 1 producer of frac sand, with an estimated output of about 26 million tons annually, more than double what it was in 2012. The sand mined in Wisconsin is injected into oil and natural gas wells in the process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

If one quote can explain the situation, this might be it:

“We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more."

The quote above is by billionaire David Koch, speaking to the Palm Beach Post, and what is the source of Koch’s wealth? Wikipedia to the rescue:

The Koch family (/ˈkoʊk/ koke) of industrialists and businesspeople is most notable for its control of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States (with 2013 revenues of $115 billion).[1] The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline.

You probably know—the Koch brothers are as conservative as they are rich: their father was a founding member of the John Birch Society. OK—being conservative is no crime, but are the Koch playing by the rules? Well, I’m happy to tell you—yes! And that’s because…

…they’re making the rules.

Consider this quote from the John Muir Society (I know, the name is as damning as anything with “heritage” or “prosperity” is….):

AB 426 demolished environmental safeguards related to mining, eliminated public input, reduced revenues to local communities, and rushed the permit review process.

In fact, ABN426 never passed, but a later and virtually identical bill passed by one vote, with no Democrats voting for the measure.

Nor is it just at the gubernatorial or legislative level that the Kochs are willing to spend their money: they also are meddling in local elections. Remember that open-pit iron mine that—if approved—may be the world’s largest? It’s in Iron County, where the County Board gets elected on the strength of about 200 votes each, and where no one could remember anyone challenging an incumbent. Oh, and the average amount spent on the race is usually under $1500. But all that changed when the mining issue came up:

The Madison-based group (of the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity) sent a field organizer to Iron County after a strongly pro-mine candidate for the board was defeated in a three-way primary in February.

AFP mailed full-color flyers on March 19 accusing seven opponents of pro-mine board members of being radical environmentalists. AFP also made plans to telephone potential voters and talk to them door-to-door, and the group sent a second mailing that lauded eight board members and one challenger.


In fact, it was an almost even draw for the AFP, since five of their candidates won, and four lost.

There are several galling things about what’s happened in my home state of Wisconsin. There is the trashing of our legislative process, which has traditionally been open and clean. There is the betrayal of our history of conservation of natural resources. There is the tawdriness of duping basically good, honest conservative people with disinformation and lies.

I never thought my state could be bought.

And it breaks my heart that it has….




Friday, October 24, 2014

The Regal Tweet

Let’s see—should I be responsible and get down to the serious business straightening things out, or should I take the Friday off, and go—figuratively, but hey, I could do it literally!—to the beach? Does the world really need me, today? Are my services so essential?

And what am I supposed to do about the 150 to 160 teachers in the public school who, according to El Nuevo Día, resign each month, thus creating una situación alarmante? Should I start strolling down school halls, sticking my head the classes, giving the thumbs up and shouting, “¡excelente trabajo!?” (Good job!)

Alternatively, I could run over to the Department of Education and ask questions like, “why is there no toilet paper in the bathrooms?” This is, of course, not the most urgent necessity, since Elizabeth—the manager of the sister shop—has just shown me her children’s grades. And very well they’re both doing in Spanish, Science Social Studies, and Math. But English? Well, it turns out that there’s still no English teacher—though one has just been hired—so what did the school do? Did they leave it blank, perhaps with a note of apology / explanation? Of course not—they left off English altogether!

Right, so that means that the last English class these kids have had was mid-May, which, counting on my fingers, was almost six months ago. So unless something happens, these kids are going to have promising careers in the food service industry, AKA flipping burgers….

Of course, while at the Departamento de Educación I could check out whether it’s true, as Mr. Fernández avers—OK, swears—that the DE has the greatest number of non-docent versus docent personnel in the United States. Who knows? But absolutely nobody would deny it.

Of course, couldn’t I drop in electronically? Why, after all, on a now-Friday-afternoon do I have to hop a bus to observe the sluggish behavior of our civil servants? So it was a quick trip via Internet up to Elizabeth’s children’s school, and here is the report card:



Ouch—only a 34% in English? Hmm, so how are the kids doing across the bay, in Cataño? Well, take a look!



OK—so alert readers of this blog, raise your hands if you’ve noticed a certain familiarity / similarity in these numbers. I certainly did, until I realized that that word metas meant “goals.” So the Department of Education has a goal of 34% in English? And 34% of what? Kids passing the test, which has been specially designed for Puerto Rican kids, since in theory kids can’t take the national test?

OK—so how are they kids up the street doing? Well, here it is:


So only 8% of sixth graders were proficient or advanced at Abraham Lincoln School? Not surprising, given that for half of the year, the kids are without any formal instruction. And each grade, the numbers drop: from 73% in 3d grade to 8% in 6th grade.

So what’s going on? Well, the Department of Education, in its pdf file on the Pruebas de Aprovechamientos Académico y Alternativas Educativas has this to say:

El profesor José Hernández del Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras de la Universidad de Puerto Rico señala lo siguiente: “Cambiar el sistema de enseñanza del inglés sería una aceptación implícita de que este idioma es foráneo, por ende, no sería constitutivo de nuestra cultura, lo que no conviene a quienes dicen que el inglés es una lengua oficial”.

Here’s the story: the University of Puerto Rico has a great program to teach foreign languages, and the students are speaking in a year or so. So why not adapt their system? Because it would imply that English is a foreign language, not part of our culture, and that doesn’t suit the beliefs of those who say that English is an official language.
Guys? You’re going to put a whole generation at risk—as well as an entire island—for some political beliefs? You guys would do that?!?

Yes, because guess what—probably not one child of the people running the Department of Education is attending a public school. Nor is the purpose of the department to educate: its purpose is to collect federal funds, create programs, and most important, provide low-paying jobs to as many of the political pals of the party in power.
The mind boggles. I am happy to report, however, that the queen of England, not content to coast along on 60 years of successful queening, has decided to plunge—well, as much as her title allows—smack into 21st century and issue—perhaps a more royal word would be emit or even dispense—her first tweet! And her hashtag? What else, Elizabeth R!

Don’t know why this cheers me so much!

  

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Dismissed…Very Much with Prejudice

It wasn’t an easy day, yesterday—but it ended well and I got through it, and there are days where that’s…well, not more than enough, but at least all you’re going to get.

It started even before I had gotten out of bed, or even before I had gotten fully conscious: a federal judge here in Puerto Rico had the previous day dismissed with prejudice a case brought by Ada Conde, a local gay activist, asking the court to order the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to honor her marriage to her spouse. The two were married ten years ago in Massachusetts.

Normally, news in other, stodgier, locations is read by a broadcaster, but here? True, they did read the news, but then turned to an irascible discussion of it: before I was vertical, I had been told—OK, shouted—that marriage was defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, and that we couldn’t change that definition. One of the shouters, then, adduced the case of champagne—the sparkling wine from the French district of the same name—since the vintners in Champagne had taken everyone producing a sparkling wine and calling it “champagne” to court and forced them to use another name. See? Champagne is from Champagne, and marriage is between a man and a woman! Case closed!

Well, I was pondering all this over coffee, and wondering whether caffeine-resistance was a medical / biological possibility, when I read the judge’s opinion—OK, I read the choice bits of it presented in the paper. And here I have to report: the reasoning of the “champagne / marriage” analogy was a lot tighter than the judge’s.

We’re told that the “traditional” family consisting of a man and a woman whose one aim is procreation is the fundamental building block of society. Then the judge warns us that venturing on a redefinition of matrimony will push us down that slick and slippery slope smack into the pits of incest and polygamy.

Legally, Pérez Giménez—finally to give the judge his name—seems to have done something rather strange: he cites a 1972 summary affirmation of the U.S. Supreme Court, Baker v Nelson, which upheld Minnesota’s gay marriage ban. What doesn’t he do? Cite the case of Windsor, in which the majority of judges determined that the defense of marriage act—well, it’s been thrown out, so why capitals?—“violates basic due process and equal protection principles.”

Wait—who said that “duh???” out there?

Well, the article I was reading—one of them—called the judge’s ruling “comically inane,” and Pérez Giménez does appear to think he’s doing something wonderfully daring and retro: stating that only the legislature can redefine marriage, and that all those district courts north of us have overstepped their bounds. But is little Puerto Rico going to put up with that? NO!

I then came upon a picture of the judge, and it was unilateral loathing at first sight. Here he is, and 24 hours later, I still want to smack him:



So I stormed into the Poet’s Passage and sat at a table, and then Lady strolled in, and sat with me.

“Where’d you get married,” I asked her, and she told me: a basement in Hato Rey, the business district of San Juan.

“There was a rapist in the room next to us and a drug lord on the other side,” she reported.

Right—a courthouse wedding, just like Raf’s and mine—though not, since Lady and her husband had hopped in the car a driven a mile or two to get married. Me? I left an ailing mother in Wisconsin one day during a furious snowstorm, missed a flight in Miami, traveled to San Juan, and took a flight 3000 miles to Boston, only to endure Act II of the same storm. So we got the license and waited the three days and traversed the river to the city hall of acceptable age and architecture.

Right—so then I was espousing a favorite theory of Mr. Fernández: marriage is a legal, not a religious, concept. What does that mean? Obviously, instead of talking about “civil unions,” we should be talking about “religious unions.” You know—those things that take place in a church, where the woman wears a ridiculous dress that she’ll never wear again, and the guy is wearing a suit that at least is rented—not bought—and everybody cries and takes pictures. So Lady and I are both married—we just blew off the religious union!

Well, in the state of mind that had descended—the emotional climate had deteriorated from stormy to hurricanely—I then proposed what should be obvious: barring the clergy from signing marriage licenses! What gives them the right to sign a legal document? And that meant that the only people who could sign the damn things were judges and magistrates, who had the legal training….

Right—then the atmospheric pressure plummeted, the shear winds decreased, and the system became more organized (or so it felt to me). I then suggested that we take off our gloves—we liberals who have been so politically correct and “respectful” of everybody’s insane religious beliefs. Where had it gotten us?

Things got so bad, in fact, that I ended the post…well, here it is:

            …and God?
           
            My enemy for life!

All that was bad enough, and then the Ottawa shootings began—so of course I had to follow that, and ruminate on how fragile a tissue our civilization is: a lone gunman brings the capitol of Canada to its knees, for an afternoon, at least.

There are days when the only thing I can do is to leave the poor world spinning forlornly in space, turn off the lights in the sala poética, the performance area next to the café, and play Bach Suites. So I did, and if the world didn’t listen to me, well, I had stopped listening to it—so that was all right.

Then a class, then the opera Macbeth, where young Montalvo—at age 21 decades younger than the mean age of the audience—diagnosed the central problem of the opera / play, after both Raf and I suggested that Lady Macbeth might be the central character of the whole thing. This made no sense to Montalvo, who cited Otello—the only other Shakespearean play / opera that Montalvo has seen. Would we argue that Iago—who is the architect of so much evil—was the main character? So we were tackling this, when Montalvo, with very much the energy and the voice of a 21-year old, summed it all up…

“…the problem was just that bitch!”

So he sailed off into the night on his motorcycle, and we went home. Today, of course, I’m over it.

The days will pass, the case will be appealed, the First Circuit Court will rule, and at some point, on some day, the Supreme Court is going to have to look at the 32 states who have marriage equality and the 18 states that don’t and decide: does that make sense? And in the meantime?

Well, we’ll be going to the opera, or taking a kid to the opera, and sneaking peeks at him to see if he’s engaged, and discussing that old question of the tragic flaw and whether it exists and if so, what is it—in Otello or Macbeth, and by the way, why isn’t the opera called Macbeto?

And also in the meantime?


…I may have a nodding acquaintance with God….            

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Two Diseases, Two Presidents

I wrote yesterday that my husband and my mother-in-law and I all went to the opera—and the biggest issue we faced was the bizarre idea that two operas could be “updated” to the 1930’s. Well, that was last Saturday’s problem. But 25 years ago? The problem was that there was a chasm between my in-laws (well, some of them—OK, the parents…) and me, and it didn’t look like it would ever be bridged.

“No, it’s not all right for your mother to send me a message that I can come to…” whatever family event it was, “…she has to call me and invite me herself!”

Was I being a jerk? If she was trying to open a door—however indirectly—was it wise to slam it shut? I had been told: I wasn’t welcome in the house. On those (very few) occasions when we met in public, we greeted each other cordially, and I understood: Nothing personal, Marc, but we don’t agree with your and Raf’s lifestyle.

Because people “chose” lifestyles, in those days, which meant that we could hypothetically wake up one day and say, “gee, why not be straight?” And so, since people could choose a lifestyle, other people—guess whom I’m talking about?—could choose to approve, or disapprove.

It’s something nobody wants to talk about, but both sides have flipped on the issue. Because in the 1950’s, the “homosexual” was sick, deeply and almost certainly incurably sick: only the most determined patient with unlimited funds for the best psychiatrist could—maybe—hope to paddle upstream and take the other fork in the river of sexuality.

I tried telling this to Montalvo, a month ago, on the same day that he showed me a picture of himself at the Gay Pride March, with his mother. And his mother was impeccably dressed, but Montalvo? He was wearing nothing but an imitation leopard skin G-string.

At 21 (Montalvo’s age), I was afraid to go into a gay bar, because what if someone saw me? What if the bar got raided? When we said, “it would kill my parents if they found out I was gay,” we weren’t speaking entirely metaphorically. In those days, it would have lanced, no, gored my father’s heart; who knows how much stress he could have borne before his health suffered?

And so I try to tell Montalvo how it was. I tell him about “Boys Beware,” which featured a sinister man in sunglasses wearing a Peter Lorre mustache, driving around town, looking for young men…all right, I’ll give you what the narrator says: He paid for the ride with his life!

Montalvo, of course, completely doesn’t get this, so I tell him about the Men’s Room of the fourth floor of Memorial Library. Yes, it was where guys went to cruise, and yes, I went there too. Why? Because beyond the X-rated bookstores, and the bars, there wasn’t anywhere else to go. And so guys would write notes on toilet paper, or matchbooks. People would tap their feet. The whole elaborate ritual of cruising would go on, and if you ended up taking someone home, it was clear: no last names.

And at this time, we rebelled at the idea of intrinsic homosexuality, and we were instead choosing to express our sexuality, and what we had chosen was…well, being gay. This, in fact, is what a female relation of Montalvo’s had done: been in a relationship with a woman before marrying a man. And throughout history, many a man who was predominantly gay married a woman, and was able to get on well enough. So when we said we were choosing our sexuality, that’s what we meant: we were not going to suppress, repress, pretend.

What happened?

I think…AIDS.

AIDS is to Montalvo like the common cold—all right, that’s an exaggeration, but by the mid-90’s, the disease had gone from a death sentence to a chronic condition. But that had happened only because gay men, seeing all too clearly that the Reagan administration and the CDC and FDA would do nothing, started fighting to get attention, to get funding, and to get the process of approving new treatments sped up. Here’s what we were up against:

My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.

And who is the “I?” Ronald Reagan, speaking in 1980 in a campaign.

Well, we had chosen, right? And had we made the right choice, we who had been cruising in bars and bathrooms, who had had thousands, tens of thousands, HUNDREDS of thousands of illicit sex partners? And now the chickens had come home to roost, so don’t come crying to me…..so went the thinking.

True enough, we had spent a decade of living on the edge: it was a rare gay guy who had said “no” to the sexual revolution, and the ideology of the times was that having the most sex of the most extreme sort was a political act—what wasn’t, in those times—that was challenging the patriarchal, puritanical, sexist forces that were oppressing us. So—let’s fuck!

So now everybody had a problem, since the circumstances dictated that the conservatives had to say that we were choosing our sexuality instead of being intrinsically gay (read, sick). And gay people had to clarify: what we had chosen was to acknowledge our sexuality, which was innate.

Nobody worried too much about all this, because we were too busy: all too many of us busy dying, the rest busy taking care of the sick or the dead, the others doing the protests and throwing the blood and the ashes on the White House lawn.

So where am I going, here?

Don’t tell me, anyone, that Ronald Reagan was a great president. Don’t tell me he doesn’t have blood on his hands. Here’s Wikipedia again:

Even with the death from AIDS of his friend Rock Hudson, Reagan was widely criticized[citation needed] for not supporting more active measures to contain the spread of AIDS. Until celebrity Elizabeth Taylor spoke out publicly about the monumental amount of people quickly dying from this new disease, most public officials and celebrities were too afraid of dealing with this subject.

Right—it took an aging, mega-rich celebrity, who had nothing to lose but did have a good heart, speaking out publically before anybody else could. And what would have happened if Taylor hadn’t spoken out? How many more deaths would there have been. Because, according to Peter Staley of Huffington Post, the press waited 17 months from the first report of AIDS and almost 600 deaths before anyone got around to asking if the White House was following the situation. Here’s a transcript of the exchange in the press conference:

Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement -- the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have (sic) over 600 cases?

MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?

Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?

MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)

Q: No, I don't.

MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.

Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President --

MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)

Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?

MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?

MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any --

Q: Nobody knows?

MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.

Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping --

MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no -- (laughter) -- no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.

Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?

MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.

Q: Didn't say that?

MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)

Q: Because I love you, Larry, that's why. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)

Q: Oh, I retract that.

MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.

Q: It's too late.

Well, there was quite a lot of laughter as Larry Speakes fended off—or tried to—the question of whether anyone in the White House was on top of the situation. It was a joke, it could be laughed off—those six hundred people who had died, the thousands more to come. Yes, funding eventually for AIDS ended up being 1000% greater at the end of Reagan’s two terms than at the beginning, but the amount was paltry from the start, and the real increases came too late. A common observation in the gay world?

Twenty-nine members of the American Legion died in 1976 at a convention in Philadelphia. The National Institute of Health spent $34,841 per death of Legionnaire's Disease. In contrast, the NIH spent $3,225 in 1981 and about $8,991 in 1982 for each person who died of AIDS.

Now then, how do I—a gay man who lived through AIDS in its worst days—see Ebola? And how do I view what Barack Obama is doing about it?

Well, I’m also a former nurse, so I can imagine the scene in the Texas hospital, when Thomas Duncan presented himself in the ER—only to be sent away. Because yes, I’d like to think that, had I been the nurse attending Duncan, I would have been screaming my lungs off for this patient to be put in isolation immediately, for the CDC to be woken up, for the White House situation room to be alerted. But guess what? Nothing happens in a vacuum, so there would have been a couple of gunshot wounds, a heart attack victim, various street people hallucinating, plus a guy going through the DTs and screaming at the green monster crawling up the wall. And the doctor—who sent Duncan on his way while I was compressing the gunshot wound to stanch the bleeding? Hadn’t seen him in hours….

The case for the CDC? Right—harder to make by a good country mile.

But to say this, as Frank Bruni (with whom I usually agree) did in a New York Times op-ed of 18 Oct 14?

It (Ebola) is ravaging Americans’ already tenuous faith in the competence of our government and its bureaucracies.

Before President Obama’s election, we had Iraq, Katrina and the meltdown of banks supposedly under Washington’s watch. Since he came along to tidy things up, we’ve had the staggeringly messy rollout of Obamacare, the damnable negligence of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the baffling somnambulism of the Secret Service.  

Well, the VA has been a mess for decades, and now has veterans from two wars spanning a decade to cope with. The rollout of Obamacare? Horrible, but there is an Obamacare, and it seems to be working. The Secret Service? Who knows, but why do I suspect a sort of clandestine sabotage?

What do I know? Obama canceled a fund-raising trip and is reportedly furious and barking orders at people. Here’s the New York Times from three days ago:

“It’s not tight,” a visibly angry Mr. Obama said of the response, according to people briefed on the meeting. He told aides they needed to get ahead of events and demanded a more hands-on approach, particularly from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “He was not satisfied with the response,” a senior official said.

And here’s the headline:


The worst thing about the AIDS crisis? The uncertainty about what caused it—could you get it from mosquitos? Was going to the beach safe? And what about amyl nitrate—alias poppers? And that dentist in—where was it, Atlanta? How the hell did he get it?

The second worst thing? Knowing that our government was coolly letting us die: it was business as usual, as Randy Shilts described in his book, And the Band Played On.

So we have a disease about which much is known—especially about transmission—and we have a government which is—news flash here—screwing up. And heads are rolling—or will be—in Washington.

What don’t we have? A president clenching a handful of jellybeans, as he snoozes his way through cabinet meetings….