« April What? An Open Thread | Main | the new rentiers »

April 03, 2011

Comments

So after Prof. Cronan's email files have been purged of all the "non-relevant" message as per the Chancellor's memo, what exactly is going to be left for the Wisconsin GOP to examine?

Pitches for dating services?

Opportunities to purchase cheap pharmaceuticals?

Respectfully-worded appeals for "assistance" from the widows of various former African Finance Ministers?

Good luck, guys....

Jay, be assured that, if you assume the worst you will find evidence of it. if you assume base motives for every action by those who disagree with you, everything is either evidence in support of that assumption, or evidence of conspiracy or action to hide such evidence.

Obviously the possibility that there might be no evil intentions or actions to be discovered is unthinkable. Pity, that.

"What do you think?"

I think from here
:

Unless FOIA is just for liberals. Despite earlier guffawing, if he didn't misuse public resources then there is little to no reason to be intimidated. I don't suspect from reading his bio or his blog he is very intimidated, nor is the university.

and the Chancellor seems to agree with me:

The implications of this case go beyond Bill Cronon. When Mr. Thompson made his request, he was exercising his right under Wisconsin's public records law both to make such a request and to make it without stating his motive. Neither the request nor the absence of a stated motive seemed particularly unusual. We frequently receive public records requests with apparently political motives, from both the left and the right, and every position in between. I announced that the university would comply with the law and, as we do in all cases, apply the kind of balancing test that the law allows, taking such things as the rights to privacy and free expression into account. We have done that analysis and will release the records later today that we believe are in compliance with state law.

The rest is political theater, as much by the left as the right.

The rest is political theater, as much by the left as the right.
What "rest" do you have in mind, specifically?

Also, could you quote "the left" and "the right" on this, please? Do they blog anywhere particular? What is it you're saying, CCDG? Your statement is so vague that I don't know what it is you're trying to say.

I get that you're explaining that You Were Right. About something.

Sorry Gary, quick and way too general. I was, as I do occasionally, trying to get in a quick and imprecise jab pointing out that your follow on post supported a point I was earlier roundly pilloried for making. (Although I am sure there is something in that sentence that warrants correction.)

The folk on the left, let's narrow it down to Gary, seemed, IMO, to think this was an unusual and especially bad tactic by the right, lets narrow it down to the Wi Rep Party. The left (see above)felt it might be used as a means to intimidate university professors and universities on a broader scale. This seems to have overstated its impact as much as the the right (see above)seem to have overestimated its possible impact.

Together they have created political theater.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

I was, as I do occasionally, trying to get in a quick and imprecise jab

Yes, we are aware that this is your preferred shtick, particularly the part where you give a "both sides are just as bad" statement while avoiding moral responsibility for the avalanche of malice on the side of re republican party that you support.

I just want to praise CCDG for pulling back a little. It would have been easy to keep it up or pretend he didn't understand, and I really appreciate the step back. Obviously would have liked it to be more, but I do think it's a Good Thing. Thanks.

I just want to praise CCDG for pulling back a little.

Yes. Damning with faint praise. Always gets me to reach for my hanky.

"Obviously would have liked it to be more....."

Really? Like what? Seriously. Other than the generality of left and right, (which the Chancellor used in his statement and I specifically passed on pointing out in response to Gary out of respect for his even-handedness in eschewing those labels), what more is it that I needed to "back away from"? Having an opinion?

CCDG: I'm still waiting for you to send me a zip file of your past year's email. Why not? What do you have to hide?

Really. I'm serious. Perhaps you missed my earlier request.

But I'm looking forward to seeing all your emails. Having access to them, anyway, so I can run a google search on them.

You wrote:

More important, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO TO HIM? Take away his birthday? Turn him into a liberal martyr?

I couldn't figure out from your post how they were going to create any harm to him.

So: what am I going to do you? How could I create any harm to you?

Looking forward to getting that zip file soon!

Assuming you're willing to stand by your repeated point.

I'd be very interested in seeing you follow through with action to support your assertions. Why not?

Gary, I saw your request and ignored it. As I will this time.

Cute but doesn't move the conversation forward.

Perhaps you should reference hsh's questions and my answers in the last thread on this before you hector me about this again.

"I'm still waiting for you to send me a zip file of your past year's email."

Also. of course, this is not what he was asked to do.

Gary, I saw your request and ignored it. As I will this time.

Cute but doesn't move the conversation forward.

I won't press the point unduly, but I invite you to simply answer the question: how would your forwarding all of your past year's mail to me how they were going to create any harm to you?

And why would you be reluctant to do it, but assert that Professor Cronon, or any and every academic, should have no reluctance to have all their email made public?

This is a very simple point. You wrote:

Well, I guess the answer from me was: So what are they really doing to him? They asked for his emails, does he have something to hide?

His emails are public record, liberals go fishing in open records requests all the time, so what.

More important, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO TO HIM? Take away his birthday? Turn him into a liberal martyr?

I couldn't figure out from your post how they were going to create any harm to him.

And you differ how?
Perhaps you should reference hsh's questions and my answers in the last thread on this before you hector me about this again.
Sure. Your answer:
Its all silly. I just don't see the likelihood of any actual harm. It is all political theater.
Your answer is repetition. That is not, in fact, an answer.

I'd really like to understand why you think your own words don't apply to yourself. Help me out here, please: how would making all your emails publically available be different from making all of Professor Cronon's emails publically available? Why are you saying that he shouldn't be reluctant, and yet you are also expressing reluctance?

What do you have to hide?

Are there are remarks of yours that you'd like to withdraw or modify? If so, that's fine. We all write hastily at times, but I also don't want to put any words in your mouth. I'd simply like you to try to offer a consistent position here. Is that unreasonable of me?

how would your forwarding all of your past year's mail to me how they were going to create any harm to you?

My answer to that request would be no, until I was compelled to say yes. And if that happened, my reply would be to get it yourowndamnself, which of course would already have happened, because of course if you had any right at all to my emails, you'd be going directly to my employer. But I'd ask for a copy of whatever archives you received, because my email keeps going end-over-end into the bitbucket, and there's stuff I'd really like to have back.

That's how much I worry.

While we're all pondering that response, we might consider what possible interest Scott Brown's healthcare records might be to Democrats. Paramount? Noneayergoddamned? Or somewhere in between?

Since others are going to read this I am going to point out what you keep downplaying.

1) He wasn't asked to send ALL his emails, he was asked to send emails about specific topics.

2) I didn't ever say I thought it was a good things they did ask for them or that they should ask for his emails.

3) As you point out above, I stated his emails ARE a matter of public record, and he knows that before he writes them

4) Given all that I find it unlikely there is much that will cause harm to him in the emails that will be produced

I find that very consistent. I find the Chancellors statement bears out my sense that this is not unique and that the university is aware that this can, and likely will, happen.

Slarti, I'd say that healthcare records isn't an accurate term for correspondence between a man and his insurance company. Especially since the MA open records law precludes access to information covered by HIPPA. In any event, the Herald is run by lying sacks of sh*t who deserve to be shot, so I'm not inclined to take their reporting seriously.

bobbyp,
sorry, I should have done it in all caps :^)

In any event, the Herald is run by lying sacks of sh*t who deserve to be shot, so I'm not inclined to take their reporting seriously.

Is that statement meant to be taken seriously?

1) He wasn't asked to send ALL his emails, he was asked to send emails about specific topics.
Irrelevant. That's not what you asserted or wrote. You're citing the FOIA and wrote:
So what are they really doing to him? They asked for his emails, does he have something to hide?

His emails are public record, liberals go fishing in open records requests all the time, so what.

You didn't defend a narrower, tailored range of questions. Would you like to revise your defense to saying something different from whatyou wrote?

I could make suggestions, but don't want to put words in your mouth.

But I'll risk making suggestions. You wrote and defedn: "he was asked to send emails about specific topics."

Okay, so:
1) Which specific topics should I ask you to send me all your emails from within the last twelve months, then? Which specific topics should the FOIA be revised to include or exclude, in your view?

2) Or are you withdrawing your previous defenses of the Republican Party and Stephan Thompson's filings under the FOIA as legitimate, and now saying that Biddy Martin's exclusions are in fact correct, and that, in fact, Dr. Cronan's points as to what are and aren't legitimate to ask for are correct?

Could you pick one of these answers, or could you give a clarifying other answer?

3) As you point out above, I stated his emails ARE a matter of public record, and he knows that before he writes them
But, no, you're wrong. His emails are not a matter of public record, as he explained, and as Chancellor Biddy explained, as I linked to, and quoted, and as the lawyer I linked to explained. Which of them is wrong? All three of you can't be right, and your statements appear to be inconsistent with each other.

Pick an answer, please, and try to stand behind it. Were the requests you defended legitimate to ask for as matters of public record, or not?

Was the Chancellor correct, as you say, or was Thompson correct, as you have also said, and again say? You can't PICK BOTH ANSWERS and say two contradictory things are both correct, and that you're consistent.

I find the Chancellors statement bears out my sense that this is not unique
I don't know what this means.

What's not unique? Why are you citing your "sense," rather than the facts?

[...] that the university is aware that this can, and likely will, happen.
What can happen? And lots of things can happen: what acts are you defending as legitimate acts that people have taken? Thompson's? Or Cronon's and Biddy's? Please pick one?

Thanks. Possibly it's just me who can't make sense of what it is you're trying to say. Maybe someone else can explain to me what your position is, and how you're being consistent with it.

Failing that, by all means, revise what you've said, and perhaps turn it into something consistent now. It doesn't have to be consistent with what you said before if you acknowledge that you were previously unclear. We all get to be unclear! :-)

Slart, from your link:

A DSCC spokesman insisted the request was only for public information and never sought private medical information about the Brown family.

“Obviously, the commission has made a mistake.

I don't know who is telling the truth.

But I'd say that an elected official's family's health records are private and no one else's business. And that's the position the DSCC is taking. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But do we disagree that the health records of an executive officer who can mobilize the National Guard, has the power to sign death warrants or pardon people, and otherwise holds power of life and death and similarly crucial responsibilities, are legitimately of public interest?

Certainly they've been considered so by both parties.

It's easier to talk about Presidents, but then let's talk about Woodrow Wilson's stroke, and who ran the country, and how much the country was entitled to know. How about FDR's polio? How about JFK's meds? How about Nixon's? How about Thomas Eagleton? How about... there are legitimate questions to debate here, on both sides, but I'd agree that this shouldn't be a matter of partisanship, and I don't see it as one.

I suspect we agree on that point.

Gary, I have been very consistent. You have also been very consistent, and predictable. In a world where you are the chief lecturer on playing nice you are also the very best at polite hectoring (love that concept).

I am sure there is nothing I have written that confuses you. So, barring a response that shows some harm that would come to Cronon or the University, I will stand by my point that the records request was not unique in any way and unlikely to cause harm to tHe professor or the university. And move on.

But do we disagree that the health records of an executive officer who can mobilize the National Guard, has the power to sign death warrants or pardon people, and otherwise holds power of life and death and similarly crucial responsibilities, are legitimately of public interest?

Scott Brown can mobilize the National Guard? I had no idea.

To address the question, though, I'd want to know more. Is he behaving erratically, or unusually erratically?

Naturally, Presidents as well as Presidential candidates are of interest. Which is not to say, necessarily, that absolutely everyone is entitled to every small detail of (for instance) Barack Obama's life.

I agree that there are problems with intimidation in the case of Cronon, but I don't see that (and if you didn't mean to imply this meaning, you should say so) it's a matter of convenience for Cronon. I could be wrong about that, though.

In any event, the Herald is run by lying sacks of sh*t who deserve to be shot, so I'm not inclined to take their reporting seriously.

"deserve to be shot" is a subjective assessment, not a fact. "lying sacks of sh*t" is a subjective assessment, not a fact. So, like DaveC, I'm wondering why you bothered to comment. There's nothing in there that I can use.

"lying sacks of sh*t" is a subjective assessment, not a fact. So, like DaveC, I'm wondering why you bothered to comment. There's nothing in there that I can use.

You're right. I got emotional about this, so let me explain:

I live in the Boston metro area. The Herald is a local paper. I know a family that suffered a terrible tragedy: their healthy ten year old son contracted the flu virus and died. Now, due to a paperwork snafu, he hadn't gotten the free flu vaccine his school was giving out a few weeks earlier. It turns out that wouldn't have mattered because what killed him was an extremely virulent form of the virus that would not have been covered by the vaccine, but you can imagine how his parents feel I'm sure.

So, the Herald looks at this grief stricken family and decides to publish lies about them. They publish articles about how the parents were luny anti-vaccination cranks who refused to get their kid vaccinated. This is a lie. In every detail: all their kids had all the scheduled vaccines, right on time. They harass the grieving parents and even show up at the funeral despite being told that they're not welcome. Obviously, there was never any retraction let alone apology for the lies they published. But they sold a bunch of papers lying about people who were enduring horrific suffering.

Now, I can understand lying for a living. I can understand doing all sorts of horrific things for a few extra dollars. But I can't understand what I saw the Herald do.

The Cronon situation and the Scott Brwon situations are apples and oranges.

Scott Brown is being subjected to oppo research. He will certaily subject whow ever he runs against to oppos research too, as will every candidate from any party running for federal office. They will all do oppo research on each other.

i don't like this. I don't like fishing expeditions to find out what ever can be found. However, oppo research is established as normative behavior. Brwon only squawking about it as a way of confusing the issue to cover up Republican inimidation in Wisconsin.

Cronon is not going to do oppo resaerch on anyone. He is a expert on labor history who was hired to express his expertise in an opinion piece, the kind of behavior which our democracy should reward since it contributes to our public discourse. We are supposed to be a society where people can disagree civily through the expchang of ideas, after all. The Republican party of Widonsin responded not by exchanging ideas with Cronoo--they can't win that way!--so they decided to abuse FOIA by launchinhg a fsihing expedition against him in the hopes that they can find something to discredit him.

There apologists on this thread that would like that sort of behavior to become normative just as oppo research is normative. The rationbal seems to be that they have nothing to hide themselves so it is OK to ignore the ideas and policies under discussion in curret political life and instead turn political debates into fishing expeditions into the backgreounds of private citizens that express their expertise publically.

Not a good idea.

But I can't understand what I saw the Herald do.

Thanks for the detailed reply, Turbulence. That does sound highly irresponsible & immoral.

Gary, I have been very consistent.
In the sense that you are often inconsistent, almost consistently inconsistent, you might say that. In the senses I have repeatedly described, you are being repeatedly consistent.
I am sure there is nothing I have written that confuses you.
Then you're completely wrong. Being sure about something that you're completely wrong about usually isn't a good sign.
So, barring a response that shows some harm that would come to Cronon or the University, I will stand by my point that the records request was not unique in any way and unlikely to cause harm to tHe professor or the university.
He's been forced to write all this material, been bombarded with thousands of emails, made a national spectacle, been subject to national debate, had to have the university lawyers and Chancellor make an investigation and public pronouncement, brought the attention of the state legislature upon him, and you consider all the hundreds of hours this has taken out of his life, and the emotional harm, no harm?

Then you would have no complaint about being subjected to this same experience?

If I did a front page post attacking you personally, and demanding that you explain why you aren't sending me your emails, as an analogy, and attempted to bring down on you, personally, by publishing your email address, and get as many people and media outlets as possible, to send you demands, made your phone number public, as his is, and so on, you'd regard that as no harm?

I suggest that you haven't remotely thought through the consequences of what has been done to Professor Cronon, and you are blitheless dismissing it, and yet you continue to refuse to see any analogy to your own reluctance to even make your own email publically available, and you continue to insist without explanation as to why you should be regarded as not following your own words that there's nothing for anyone to worry about by having their emails regarded as subject to public investigation, and you continue to claim that no harm could come to anyone by being subject to such pressures and practice, and you continue to be inconsistent in refusing to allow yourself to be so subject.

This is inconsistent. You can either be consistent by turning over all your emails, as you say Professor Cronon should be subject to without complaint, or you can modify your claims that he has no ground for complaint and that you see no ground for him to complain, and that it's all harmless "political theater."

If it's harmless political theater for him, then it should be harmless political theater for you, too. You are making public statements of your political views.

So what's the harm if I subject you to some harmless political theater? What's the harm? Why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I believe your statements that it's harmless?

If you want to "move on," fine, then feel free to stop claiming that Professor Cronon has suffered no harm.

Slart: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Readies National Guard Against Unions:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said Friday that he was willing to mobilize the state's National Guard force in order to address the potential repercussions of his stated proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state employees.

The Associated Press reports:

Gov. Scott Walker says the Wisconsin National Guard is prepared to respond wherever is necessary in the wake of his announcement that he wants to take away nearly all collective bargaining rights from state employees.

Walker said Friday that he hasn't called the Guard into action, but he has briefed them and other state agencies in preparation of any problems that could result in a disruption of state services, like staffing at prisons. [...]

Some history:
The Wisconsin National Guard has been mobilized for strikebreaking duty in the past, notably in the bitter 1934 strike at the Kohler Company, one of the state’s largest industrial firms. 400 gunthugs were hired to break an AFL strike for union recognition and when their initial attacks killed two workers and injured scores more, they were met by militant and sometimes armed self-defense. As a former governor of Wisconsin, company president Walter J. Kohler, Sr. had no trouble getting a National Guard company deployed to “restore order”–resulting in the strike’s defeat.

But, as a retired postal worker, let me counter that bit of history with a more recent clash that Walker should contemplate before he makes good on his threat.

In 1970, employees of the United States Post Office Department were among the country’s poorer workers, paid so little that in large cities postal workers with families often applied for, and got, welfare to survive. Their unions were little more than fraternal organizations, with no right to bargain collectively or sign contracts.

At 12:01 on March 19 of that year, members of the Letter Carriers, following a vote in their local which rolled over objections from the longtime leadership, set up picket lines at facilities in the Bronx and Manhattan. Within a couple of days the strike had spread to other crafts, notably the clerks and mailhandlers, and to other major hubs, especially in the Northeast. The nation’s postal system started to grind to a halt.

In those pre-Internet, pre-direct deposit days, this had a massive impact on the economy. President Nixon got on teevee and ordered the strikers back to work. Some obeyed. Others walked out for the first time.

On March 25, Nixon took to the airwaves again to announce that he was mobilizing 25,000 National Guard (and even some elements of the Army and Marine Corps) in Operation Graphic Hand to get the mail flowing again. This turned out to be a massive failure.

In NYC, the epicenter of the strike, young troops–many deeply opposed to the war and part of the ‘60s “youthquake” (as Fortune Magazine termed it)–did show up at the designated postal facilities. Some of those mobilized were postal workers themselves, and they told the strikers what was going on inside–almost nothing. Better yet, when some officer came around to try and squeeze some work out of the Guardsmen, a sack of mail destined for, say, Huntsville, Alabama, would get a Juneau, Alaska destination tag slipped in its metal clip and be sent on its merry way.

Within days, things were even more fucked up than before. The government caved, and the US Postal Service was set up under the Postal Reorganization Act which recognized postal unions and permitted collective bargaining about wages, benefits, working conditions, health and safety and so on.

These are different times than 1970, to be sure, but Governor Walker might do well to reflect on the old saying: Be careful what you wish for–you just might get it!

State National Guard ready but not mobilized, general says:
The Wisconsin National Guard has not been called up by Gov. Scott Walker for active duty in the state, but the state commander says it has contingency plans if it is.

Brigadier General Don Dunbar, the adjutant general of Wisconsin and commander of the Wisconsin National Guard, said in a news release that the guard "remains in our normal state of readiness."

Lt. Col. Jackie Guthrie, spokeswoman for the Wisconsin National Guard, told madison.com that as of Wednesday morning "there are no movements to do anything, but we have plans for everything."

Guthrie wouldn't say what the National Guard's plans are if it is called in by the governor to help with security at state facilities.

"There is a contingency plan for every state emergency," Guthrie said.

According to the news release, 800 soldiers and airmen out of 10,000 members are on active duty, ready to support civil authorities when the president or governor declares an emergency.

"We are always ready to provide citizen soldiers and airmen anywhere, at any time, to support community, state and federal missions," Dunbar said in a statement. "This is the mission of the National Guard."

The National Guard was activated two weeks ago to help local law enforcement and emergency crews during the Groundhog Blizzard of 2011.

During the height of the blizzard on Feb. 1-2, the National Guard deployed "force packages" of six soldiers and three vehicles to each of nine armories in southern and eastern Wisconsin.

The National Guard also assisted dozens of motorists stranded on highways, according to a situation report from Wisconsin Emergency Management.

Copyright 2011 madison.com. All rights reserved.

How the National Guard works.
The state National Guard is divided into units stationed in each of the 50 states and US territories, and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.[5] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[5]
History:
[...] Strike breaking and union busting, 1890s-1935

Hiring agencies specializing in anti-union practices has been an option available to employers from the bloody strikes of the last quarter of the nineteenth century, until today.[2]

Creative methods of union busting have been around for a long time. In 1907, Morris Friedman reported that a Pinkerton agent who had infiltrated the Western Federation of Miners managed to gain control of a strike relief fund, and attempted to exhaust that union's treasury by awarding lavish benefits to strikers.[3] However, many attacks against unions have used brute force of one sort or another.
[edit] Brute force attacks against unions

Unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were devastated by the Palmer Raids, carried out as part of the First Red Scare. The Everett Massacre (also known as Bloody Sunday) was an armed confrontation between local authorities and IWW members which took place in Everett, Washington on Sunday, November 5, 1916. Later, communist-led unions were isolated or destroyed, and their activists purged with the assistance of other union organizations, during the Second Red Scare.
[edit] Union busting with military force

For approximately 150 years, union organizing efforts and strikes have been periodically opposed by police, security forces, National Guard units, special police forces such as the Coal and Iron Police, and/or use of the United States Army. Significant incidents have included the Haymarket Riot and the Ludlow massacre. The Homestead struggle of 1892, the Pullman walkout of 1894, and the Colorado Labor Wars of 1903 are examples of unions destroyed or significantly damaged by the deployment of military force. In all three examples, a strike became the triggering event.

* Pinkertons and militia at Homestead, 1892 - One of the first union busting agencies was the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which came to public attention as the result of a shooting war between strikers and three hundred Pinkerton agents during the Homestead Strike of 1892. When the Pinkerton agents were withdrawn, militia forces were deployed. The decisive defeat of a powerful strike resulted in the destruction of the local union.

* Federal troops crush the American Railway Union, 1894 - During the Pullman Strike, the American Railway Union (ARU) committed one of the first great acts of union solidarity by calling out its members according to the principle of industrial unionism. The action was very successful until twenty thousand federal troops were called out to crush the strike, and the national ARU was destroyed.

* National Guard in the Colorado Labor Wars, 1903 - The Colorado National Guard, an employers' organization called the Citizens' Alliance, and the Mine Owners' Association teamed together to eject the Western Federation of Miners from mining camps throughout Colorado during the Colorado Labor Wars. [...] Union busting with military force

For approximately 150 years, union organizing efforts and strikes have been periodically opposed by police, security forces, National Guard units, special police forces such as the Coal and Iron Police, and/or use of the United States Army. Significant incidents have included the Haymarket Riot and the Ludlow massacre. The Homestead struggle of 1892, the Pullman walkout of 1894, and the Colorado Labor Wars of 1903 are examples of unions destroyed or significantly damaged by the deployment of military force. In all three examples, a strike became the triggering event.

* Pinkertons and militia at Homestead, 1892 - One of the first union busting agencies was the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which came to public attention as the result of a shooting war between strikers and three hundred Pinkerton agents during the Homestead Strike of 1892. When the Pinkerton agents were withdrawn, militia forces were deployed. The decisive defeat of a powerful strike resulted in the destruction of the local union.

* Federal troops crush the American Railway Union, 1894 - During the Pullman Strike, the American Railway Union (ARU) committed one of the first great acts of union solidarity by calling out its members according to the principle of industrial unionism. The action was very successful until twenty thousand federal troops were called out to crush the strike, and the national ARU was destroyed.

* National Guard in the Colorado Labor Wars, 1903 - The Colorado National Guard, an employers' organization called the Citizens' Alliance, and the Mine Owners' Association teamed together to eject the Western Federation of Miners from mining camps throughout Colorado during the Colorado Labor Wars.

Now you have some idea. Reading the fuller entries, and more on union history and massacres by federal troops and private agencies, such as the Pinkertons, would be educational, perhaps. There have been many mass killings and massacres.

I'd recommend starting by reading all of this.

I'd recommend reading about the battle of Matewan. I digress slightly, but not unrelatedly from the history of union massacres, which relates to why unions are important, which relates to Scott Walker, and Wisconsin, which relates to why governors are important, and their health and mental stability are as much issues for public concern as are those of Presidents, and anyone who controls military force, as are the issues at hand in Wisconsin and the history of union/management relations, and why these are not trivial issues.

I also immensely recommend John Sayles's movie Matewan. It's a terrific drama, just for moving entertainment. Go rent it, I suggest. Really. The whole family can watch. It's a great movie.

Wonkie:

Cronon is not going to do oppo resaerch on anyone. He is a expert on labor history who was hired to express his expertise in an opinion piece,
You're deeply confused. This is entirely wrong.

Let me repeat myself:

WILLIAM CRONON studies American environmental history and the history of the American West.

Cronon's research seeks to understand the history of human interactions with the natural world: how we depend on the ecosystems around us to sustain our material lives, how we modify the landscapes in which we live and work, and how our ideas of nature shape our relationships with the world around us. His first book, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (1983), was a study of how the New England landscape changed as control of the region shifted from Indians to European colonists. In 1984, the work was awarded the Francis Parkman Prize of the Society of American Historians.

In 1991, Cronon completed a book entitled Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, which examines Chicago 's relationship to its rural hinterland during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1991, it was awarded the Chicago Tribune 's Heartland Prize for the best literary work of non-fiction published during the preceding year; in 1992, it won the Bancroft Prize for the best work of American history published during the previous year, and was also one of three nominees for the Pulitzer Prize in History; and in 1993, it received the George Perkins Marsh Prize from the American Society for Environmental History and the Charles A. Weyerhaeuser Award from the Forest History Society for the best book of environmental and conservation history published during the preceding two years.

In 1992, he co-edited Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America's Western Past, a collection of essays on the prospects of western and frontier history in American historiography. He then edited an influential collection of essays entitled Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, examining the implication of different cultural ideas of nature for modern environmental problems, published by Norton in the fall of 1995.

Cronon is currently at work on a history of Portage, Wisconsin, from the end of the last Ice Age down to the present. It will explore how people's sense of place is shaped by the stories they tell about their homes, their lives, and the landscapes they inhabit. He is also completing a book entitled Saving Nature in Time: The Environmental Past and the Human Future (based on the Wiles Lectures which he delivered at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland , in May 2001) on the evolving relationship between environmental history and environmentalism, and what the two might learn from each other.

In July 1992, Cronon became the Frederick Jackson Turner Professor of History, Geography, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin­Madison after having served for more than a decade as a member of the Yale History Department. In 2003, he was also named Vilas [pronounced "Vy-lus"] Research Professor at UW-Madison, the university’s most distinguished chaired professorship.

Cronon has been President of the American Society for Environmental History, and serves as general editor of the Weyerhaeuser Environmental Books Series for the University of Washington Press. During the spring of 1994, he organized and chaired a faculty research seminar on "Reinventing Nature" at the University of California's Humanities Research Institute in Irvine, California. In January, 1996, he became Director of the Honors Program for the College of Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a post he held until 1998, and from 1997-2000 he served as the founding Faculty Director of the new Chadbourne Residential College at UW-Madison. Cronon chaired UW-Madison’s Lakeshore Nature Preserve Committee from 2004-2007, leading its first-ever strategic planning process and leading the team that created its prize-winning website. He is a founding faculty fellow and current Director of UW-Madison’s Center for Culture, History, and Environment (CHE), created in 2006. He has served on the Governing Council of The Wilderness Society since 1995, and on the National Board of the Trust for Public Land since 2003. He has been elected President of the American Historical Association for 2011-12.

Born September 11, 1954, in New Haven , Connecticut, Cronon received his B.A. (1976) from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He holds an M.A. (1979), M.Phil. (1980), and Ph.D. (1990) from Yale, and a D.Phil. (1981) from Oxford University. Cronon has been a Rhodes Scholar, Danforth Fellow, Guggenheim Fellow, and MacArthur Fellow; has won prizes for his teaching at both Yale and Wisconsin; in 1999 was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society' and in 2006 was elected a Fellow of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He has nothing to do with labor history and isn't and never has been an academic specialist on it.

He's a smart guy, like lots of people are. Neither was he "hired" to write about it. I have no idea where you're getting any of this info from. Cite?

First, my understanding is that Professor Cronon wrote the front page post announcing the open records request himself. You have taken his post and, along with others, taken up his flag, not the other way around.

I have thought this through and to quote the Chancellor once again:

The implications of this case go beyond Bill Cronon. When Mr. Thompson made his request, he was exercising his right under Wisconsin's public records law both to make such a request and to make it without stating his motive. Neither the request nor the absence of a stated motive seemed particularly unusual. We frequently receive public records requests with apparently political motives, from both the left and the right, and every position in between.

The only thing unusual about this is that it was picked up by the blogosphere and turned into a cause.

This:

If I did a front page post attacking you personally, and demanding that you explain why you aren't sending me your emails, as an analogy, and attempted to bring down on you, personally, by publishing your email address, and get as many people and media outlets as possible, to send you demands, made your phone number public, as his is, and so on, you'd regard that as no harm?

wouldn't be anywhere close to equivalent.

Not to mention that I don't have the universities lawyers at my disposal to review and defend my position.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Readies National Guard Against Unions:

What do Scott Brown and Scott Walker have in common, aside from having an R next to their name? And the Scott thing?

You didn't cross your Scotts, did you? Bad things can happen, I hear.

Excuse me Egon, you said crossing the streams was "bad."

Of course, heaven forfend that we ever find out who attended Cheney's secret energy meeting.

Gary:

This is inconsistent. You can either be consistent by turning over all your emails, as you say Professor Cronon should be subject to without complaint, or you can modify your claims that he has no ground for complaint and that you see no ground for him to complain, and that it's all harmless "political theater."

Is CCDG in public employment? That's one distinction you are not making, Gary. I don't disagree that a FOIA request is a pain and that constitutes "harm" and distraction from one's job. But we're talking about his public email account, right? So there presumably should not be any personal harm. Shoot, the university is withholding all the juicy leftist Che talk between students and fellow professors, so what's left is probably pretty dry. ;)

And why the 1-year requirement? The request was only since January 1, 2011. A bit over three months' worth of emails.

I did find it interesting that Cronon himself was allowed to do the initial determination of what was responsive and the University only reviewed those emails. That's not right. I don't think a review by someone other than the person/dept/organization is too much of an imposition. Should, frex, a governor be able to determine initially what emails are responsive and thus define the pool of emails potentially subject to disclosure?

And I'm not sure academic freedom is or should be as broad as the University suggests. How in the world do you determine the boundary? It would have been nice to have at least stated that none of the academic conversations involved a discussion of the topics requested. It's one thing to say the emails were reviewed for "partisan political activities" and quite another to say that the emails were reviewed and the academic discussions had nothing whatsoever to do with the "Wisconsin" issues.

OTOH, I don't think such requests are benign. I don't like requesting such docs without a really good reason. I would want some other info before taking such action. Maybe the R's had such info, maybe not.

And Gary, your discussion with CCDG might be helped with a rewording of your question:

"I won't press the point unduly, but I invite you to simply answer the question: how would your forwarding all of your past year's mail to me how they were going to create any harm to you?[sic]"

;)

First, my understanding is that Professor Cronon wrote the front page post announcing the open records request himself.
Abusing Open Records to Attack Academic Freedom March 24, 2011:
[...] From: Stephan Thompson [mailto:SThompson@wisgop.org] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:37 PM To: Dowling, John Subject: Open Records Request

Dear Mr. Dowling,

Under Wisconsin open records law, we are requesting copies of the following items:

Copies of all emails into and out of Prof. William Cronon’s state email account from January 1, 2011 to present which reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell.

We are making this request under Chapter 19.32 of the Wisconsin state statutes, through the Open Records law. Specifically, we would like to cite the following section of Wis. Stat. 19.32 (2) that defines a public record as “anything recorded or preserved that has been created or is being kept by the agency. This includes tapes, films, charts, photographs, computer printouts, etc.”

Thank you for your prompt attention, and please make us aware of any costs in advance of preparation of this request.

Sincerely,

Stephan Thompson

Republican Party of Wisconsin

608-257-4765

That was itself a document available under the FOIA. It obviously was not a secret. Would you like to see the press release they issued?
The only thing unusual about this is that it was picked up by the blogosphere and turned into a cause.
Horse pucky. The only thing unusual here is that this is the first time in the history of the United States, so far as I'm aware, that a political party has demanded to see the emails of a university professor.

Period.

Let alone that it is the first time a political party of the United States has demanded, for purposes of political attack and retaliation, to make use of the Freedom of Information Act to harass someone for making writing an academic piece in public or for publically stating a set of facts that have political opinions.

Which is to say, that the Republican Party of Wisconsin demanded the private and irrelevant emails, -- as stated by the Chancellor and the university's lawyer, as I've linked to and quoted in my post -- for purposes of political harassment.

You've publically stated your political opinions. You are therefore, according to the behavior you are defending, subject to being harassed by demands that your emails also be made public.

But you claim you see no harm in this.

But you refuse to turn over your emails.

Not to mention that I don't have the universities lawyers at my disposal to review and defend my position.
Which is being paid for by the taxpayers and citizens of Wisconsin.

How is that a conservative principle of saving government money?

And why are you refusing to turn over your emails while maintaining that there's no harm in such demands, and that Professor Cronon should comply with the demands of the Republican Party which are that the FOIA gives them the right to ask for ALL EMAILS of ANY PROFESSOR employed by ANY PUBLIC UNIVERSITY on ANY SUBJECT THEY WISH TO ASK FOR, which then costs THE UNIVERSITY TO HAVE TO SPEND TIME AND MONEY RESPONDING TO THIS HARASSMENT via taking the time of everyone involved, all of whom are public employees, paid for by the citizens, to confer, take time away from their actual jobs of teaching and administration and dealing with other issues, to respond?

What if both political parties routinely filed such demands of EVERY PROFESSOR THEY TOOK A DISLIKE TO for LL THEIR EMAILS and not just that, but EVERY FILE ON THEIR COMPUTERS, and EVERY FILE IN THEIR OFFICES, which theoretically the FOIA would act least demand a response to, legal consultation, administrative consultation, to, and so on.

THIS is what you say is legitimate and defensible behavior and "no harm" is involved.

But if you were subject to i, well, you say you don't have the resources to comply.

But you see no harm.

But you won't comply.

But you see no inconsistency in your responses.

What do Scott Brown and Scott Walker have in common, aside from having an R next to their name
You're correct that I confused a Republican Governor named "Scott" with a Republican Senator named "Scott," and that a Senator, of course, doesn't have the ability to call out the national guard (absent the cabinet being killed, and all the senators senior to the senator, and the senator becoming president according to law of succession. :-))

My apologies for my confusion!

See Kevin Drum today for the strategy all of those within and without public life and under suspicion for questioning the murderous Republican program for America should follow -- the Huckabee Plan.

Destroy all hard copies of all correspondence and erase and crush and destroy all computer hard drives (publicly owned), as Huckabee did after his full twelve years as Governor of Arkansas.

I also see that the Death Palin and assorted gun-toting, violence-threatening Republican filth (chicken-sh*t CPAC gun-lovers, for example) are disallowing any firearms or other weaponry at their gatherings, after encouraging armed Tea Party thugs to show up at Democratic candidate public meetings all of last year.

Fine. Liberals and Democrats should begin showing up at Republican functions en masse armed to the teeth, and when denied entry, assert their Second Amendment rights with all means necessary.

If only all of our misunderstandings were so easily resolved, Gary.

And what a bonus it would be if I always got to be right! I'm going to wish that on the first star I see tonight, but I'm keeping my expectations low.

Second Pepperpot: Oh. Perhaps it's from the zoo.

First Pepperpot: Which zoo?

Second Pepperpot: How should I know which zoo? I'm not Doctor bloody Bronowski.

First Pepperpot: How would Doctor Bronowski know which zoo it came from?

Second Pepperpot: He knows everything.

First Pepperpot: Oooh, I wouldn't like that, that'd take all the mystery out of life.

Slart, I think "always being right" has a similar hazard.

Yeah, I was going to amend my request for being right a lot more, or even occasionally. But I'm not sure if I could take the sheer volume of agreement such a request might elicit.

SEAGOON: Are you the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

ECCLES: No. Oh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer! Oh well, I can understand because I've often been mistaken.

SEAGOON: For the Chancellor?

ECCLES: No, I've just often been mistaken, that's all.

If someone asks to see all of my personal e-mails, even jsut my personal e-mails on a particular subject, that's unacceptable. On the other hand, if my employer asks to see all of my e-mails on my work account, that's entirely fine.

The question in Cronon's case would seem to be the extent to which the Wisconsin Republican Party represents his employers. Given the Wisconsin FOIA, the answer would appear to be "sufficiently."

Of course, one might ask why the request was made in the first place. I suppose that it is at least thinkable that they wanted to get an overview of an expert's take on the particular topics that they asked about. (OK, probably d*mn unlikely. But still....) It would be intersting to know what the folks asking thought they could usefully do with the information . . . but I doubt that they would respond to a question on that point.

I apologize for misrepresetig Prof Cronon's area of expertise. I don't kown where I got the idea he had a backgroud in labor history. I thought he was paid for his oped but apparelty not. However I do not see that he did any oppo research on anyone or why he would.

Not versed in live linking yet (sorry), but pop over to Balloon Juice for John Cole's 3:07 pm post today entitled "From People's Republic to Banana Republic" regarding Walker's hiring of a mid-twenties son-of-a-right-wing-lobbyist parasite with little or no management experience and two drunk driving convictions as an agency head -- Commerce, I believe, having control over gutting environmental law among among other duties.

$80,000 grand a year not counting teacher-sized bennys.

Seems like a FOIA request for all Walker and other official emails (including lobbyist emails) and correspondence is in order here to suss the nature of the corruption and the fleecing of the oh-so--beleagered, rights-be-draped Wisconsin taxpayer, if CCDG can handle it and doesn't think its too big of a deal and might upset the delicate balance of "everyone does it".

I don't think CCDG is in on this corruption, or at least I don't believe his pointing out that we should move on here at Obsidian Wings will be rewarded with a gummint job in Wisconsin.

Nothing to see there.

I forget how to do a smiley face, too.

Countme--In,
Here you go.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/04/04/from-the-peoples-republic-to-a-banana-republic/

Who loves ya, baby?

"Seems like a FOIA request for all Walker and other official emails (including lobbyist emails) and correspondence is in order here to suss the nature of the corruption and the fleecing of the oh-so--beleagered, rights-be-draped Wisconsin taxpayer, if CCDG can handle it and doesn't think its too big of a deal and might upset the delicate balance of "everyone does it"."

Fine with me. I think it mught do the right people some harm. I happen to be very anti-"give the lobbyist kid a job".


This is going around

True or not?

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.

My condolences about your friends, Turb.

I'm calling this one as a knockout for Gary.

CCDG, this is the best spin I can come up with for you. What you may believe is that Prof. Cronon, as a public employee, is required to be harmed in a way that you, as not a public employee, are not required to be harmed.

But to say that there is no harm at all in what has been done to Prof. Cronon is just ludicrous. And as Gary is (correctly) pointing out, you know that it is ludicrous, because you (rightly!) prefer not to subject yourself to a parallel harm.

Hey Dave, Americans, given any power of any kind, will just f*ck each other.

It's what we do. It's bipartisan.

It's our character.

We're not neighbors. We're not citizens.

We're Dagny Taggert, our founding mother looking out ofter our own interests, blowing Rand Paul and Paul Ryan and then expressing our contempt for them for not murdering even more sh*thead Americans, who voted for Dagny Taggert, because Paul and Ryan seemed too "intelligent".

We're a bankrupt FOX reality show hosted by Donald Trump and Michelle Bachman and the Death Palin, who is a d*ck not a c*nt, for the beleagered politically correct among us, and which is masturbated to by a tall guy in robes on dialysis hiding in a cave in Pakistan, or maybe in punk Moe Lane's wife's walk-in closet, because Osama is enamored by how many Americans can be murdered by Republican policies without knocking down mediocre architecture.

He's thinking, Bin laden is, why didnt I think of that, as he whacks off to Newt Gingrich's, or Mike Huckabee's, or the other 734 murderous Republican clown's running in the primaries prescriptions for killing Americans -- just gut Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security and save on jet fuel.

By the way, Dave, nothing personal, as you know.

On the other hand, if my employer asks to see all of my e-mails on my work account, that's entirely fine.

My employer doesn't have to ask. If anyone manages to FOIA my emails, I wouldn't be inconvenienced in the slightest, because I would not have to do anything at all.

Not that this maps over to Cronon well, but I would THINK that in general, FOIA requests of that nature would not require the participation of the target. Because the target does not, in general, run the email server, or the archives.

Again, that's how things ought to work, as far as I'm concerned. They may not actually work that way.

I thought he was paid for his oped but apparelty not.
On the contrary, anyone who writes an op-ed for a major newspaper will be paid a fee. That's how professional writing works.

"Hired" and "paid" are not the same thing at all.

An op-ed page can have a piece solicited, or you can send it over the transom, or it can be something in between. But in neither case are you an employee, in neither case are you "hired," if your piece, either way, is rejected, you'll not be paid, unless you were solicited and there's a kill fee, which would depend on a newspaper's policy (unlikely, but not impossible), but if your piece is published, you'll be paid, if it's a major newspaper, and certainly if it's The New York Times.

Not versed in live linking yet (sorry)
I'll just keep on reposting: This is a "dead link; it's the URL most folks know how to cut and paste. It's not clickble:

http://werbach.com/barebones/barebones.html

See? Dead link. It's just pasted HTML. You can't click on it. Few people will cut it and drop it into the right place in their browser.

Heck, I know people who have used their computer to read online for many years who still haven't figured out what "cut" and "paste" are.

Lots of people don't know what a "browser" is. Let alone which one they use, let alone what the terminology is from Firefox to IE to Chrome to Opera to Safari, etc.

This is the active link version of that URL:

Barebones Guide To HTML and Tags.

How To Link:

http://werbach.com/barebones/barebones.html#links

Link tags.

TEXT

< >

<A HREF="URL">TEXT</a>

< A HREF="URL" > TEXT < /A >

OR:

left angle bracket A HREF ="URL"right angle bracket
left angle bracket TEXT /A right angle bracket

[A HREF="URL"]TEXT[/A]

Substitute pointy bracket for rectangular bracket to have the right form to make a live link.

From the People’s Republic to a Banana Republic.

John Cole doesn't provide this kind of personal service, does he? Hmpf!

Or you could just go to the actual news story by Daniel Bice: No degree, little experience pay off big.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad