Editorial: Sometimes spending is good

With the headline writer providing this weeks 'duh' moment, the unnamed Courier editor argues in favor of investment for the public good, picking as examples certain investments that may benefit a few of us in the public.

The editor allows for the possibility that municipal spending on the swimming pool in PV or Prescott's pie-in-the-sky baseball park or former golf-course clubhouse. Notice a theme? The editor likes sports. Apparently serving the minority of the population that gets involved in these sports is enough a public good to justify general-revenue expenditures.

If the City were proposing an investment in solar energy generation or broadband infrastructure, which would benefit everyone pretty uniformly, would the editor be so enthusiastic? If we proposed using the general fund to extend the sewer system and eliminate the risks of urban septic tanks, which directly involve a small number of homes but build value for all, would the editor approve? Let's say I have my doubts.

The editor believes that Prescott sinks or floats on tourism. I think that's a mug's game. But even if more tourists were to show up based on these investments, how -- specifically, how -- would that benefit the majority, those of us who don't depend on retail sales of tickets, trinkets, bed and board? He might cite the sales-tax revenues as a minor percentage, but does he ever count the costs that the rest of us pay for them?

I've inspected that old clubhouse as a potential commercial property very carefully as part of a team with broad and pertinent experience. The City designed and built it badly, in a hurry and on the cheap, as an addition to the kitschy old log pro shop (since removed for cause) at our small-town nine-hole municipal course. It's a box with an outdated kitchen and a couple of bathrooms. The City's been trying and failing to find a use for it for years. Creative management and substantial investment might do more with it, but not anything like enough to justify the expense. If it had been in the right spot for the new clubhouse, course management would have torn it down without hesitation. The only investment that makes any sense for that location is the teardown cost.

(Aside: City staff talk enthusiastically about how attractive it is for wedding receptions. It's true that the view on one side is the golf course, and that's kind of nice. They never talk about the other side, which is a busy and noisy airport runway.)

I don't have a stake in what the PV school district spends, but I know that if Prescott High was asking to add a pool to its campus, I'd be quick to argue that swimming doesn't make anyone smarter or better suited for a job other than as a lifeguard. And like, PV, we already have a pool. I don't mind investing in kids, but I object firmly to diverting that investment to frivolous (but profitable, for a few) projects that do not serve the education mission.

The baseball park is the sparkliest boondoggle of the bunch, of course, made more so by our large and ongoing public investment in the baseball complex at Pioneer Park.

Need examples of success? How well has PV done with its flyblown fairgrounds and track? How about that bankrupt hockey arena? I'll concede the editor's idea that lots of people like sports, but he's missing that the vast majority like them best from their loungers, with a beer and chips.

Why does the editor feel exercised to stretch his credibility this way? Does he really lack the imaginative tools to see better ways to spend money that benefit us all? Or does he really just like his sports and believe that our taxes are the best way for him to get them?

Casserly: Arabs are All Liars

Chopping my way through JJ's prose jungle this morning, I was genuinely hopeful that he might have something interesting to say. He claims to have spent some serious time in the Middle East. Sure, it was a long time ago, but still, most people who live for any length of time outside the wire gain some useful perspective of the real world. I looked forward to finding a nugget or two of that among his usual maudlin incoherency.

Sadly, it was not to be. JJ is among that minor group of Americans who can't see beyond their self-imposed blinders no matter how closely they face reality, like tourists following rented GPS systems down closed roads to bad ends in Death Valley.

He wanders through pedestrian highlights of the region's history, recalls his days as a student in Beirut, then disgorges this: "The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish strict Sharia, Islamic law, throughout the world. Arabs, in general, are split with their traditional past contending with a noncompromising, violent future." Leaving aside the syntax and sense problems, this is as clear a window on the neocon Bizarro world as any I've seen in a year. To spout something so blithely ignorant of the broad spectrum of Arab life is amazing enough. To get paid for it is breathtaking.

But wait, as they say, there's more. JJ goes on to wave the bloody shirt over the Muslim Brotherhood, a minor and moderate political force grown into a bogeyman for the right, and then hammer out three grafs stating pretty baldly that he thinks all Arabs are liars. (JJ, a hint: If you won't trust Mubarak when he says he won't run again, why are you trusting his word about the Muslim Brotherhood?)

How can even the Courier editors take this guy seriously? He's a stain on the profession.

Editorial: Gosar's 'house call' a good start

So the news is that Rep Gosar appeared in Prescott Council chambers. What he said (and didn't say) are apparently of rather less interest.

If and when Mr Gosar does anything significant in Washington, I want to hope that the Courier editors will be more exercised about covering and analyzing it than this gushing editorial predicts. If the Courier's coverage of Rick Renzi (R-20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress) is any guide, I'm not holding my breath.

Cantlon: Cuts to health care will cost us in long run

Tom gets his reanimated column back up to speed quickly by talking some basic sense about health-care economics. I've written on this as well in Pop Rocket, and it'll be no surprise to readers here that Tom and I are on the same page in this.

As a column it's perfectly sensible, but given the polarization of the public dialogue, I think we need to tighten up how we on the side of sense construct our arguments. In particular I'd like to see more authoritative references. The simple assertion of opinion is not enough to convince, and unconvincing arguments tend to confirm opposed opinions. I'd also recommend greater care in the editing process -- the column's final thought is handicapped by entrapment in a sentence fragment.

Welcome back, Tom!

Local Christians experience modern-day 'exodus' from Egypt

Hoping to generate something newsy from the factually ho-hum, Ken jumps the shark by comparing a minor delay in leaving Egypt by a Xtian tour group with a biblical story about the racial oppression and banishment of the Jews and their death march across the Arabian Peninsula. I expect the people in the story, who are likely a fair bit more conversant in the book than Ken, will be a little embarrassed by this. It's clear the Courier editors don't have a clue.

Editorial: All eyes on U.S. in Egypt debate

Oh my, aren't we self-important today.

To the unnamed Courier editor, the most important question about what's happening in Egypt is: "what is America's role in this?"

It couldn't be, "What's best for the people of Egypt?" of course. Or even the more-our-viewpoint but less self-absorbed "What will the Egyptian people want the US to do?"

The editor's narrow, all-about-US perspective, as often expressed in our foreign policy, is exactly why the Middle East has been in constant turmoil since the end of the Ottoman Empire. That mindset has us pursue policies promoting our short-term economic and strategic interests at the ultimate expense of the people of the entire region, leading inevitably to backlash, both against the despots we prop up with our bribes and subsidies and against us directly along the spectrum from popular suspicion to violent terrorism.

We have to hope that we will eventually learn our lesson and realize that supporting popular aspirations for self-determination and quality of life is the only way to build positive, long-term relationships internationally. We simply have to stop using people and start doing what we can to help. In many situations the best way to do that is just back off and quit trying to manipulate them.

Please, editors, focus your attention on your readers and what's happening here in your circulation territory. You haven't anything like the experience or knowledge to speak with the slightest authority about foreign policy or world events, and writing on them just makes you look foolish.

Editorial: Gun freedoms cannot overshadow trends

The shootings in Tucson and the subsequent renewal of the periodic public dialog about gun control has penetrated to the the Courier editorial suite, once an impervious bastion of NRA propaganda. But the unnamed editor is still too hung up on the old lies to build a cogent argument, and fails utterly to make any sense. In the comments, the piranhas shred his ankles.

He starts right off making the case for the other side: "The argument that deadly weapons will end up in the hands of the wrong people no matter what laws are on the books is valid," so, the argument goes, trying to control guns is futile. Of course, if that line of reasoning ever made sense, we'd have long ago given up enforcing laws against any kind of sociopathic behavior, since some will be sociopaths no matter what.

He spends another two grafs trying to armor up for the backlash, explaining that he's completely bought into the legally very shaky idea that personal-use weapons are every American's gad-given right. This of course undermines his ultimate point, leading him to absurdly advocate "correcting flaws in an inherent right."

Let's be generous and supply what the editor is groping for here: that no legal right is absolute. All are granted on the condition that we use them responsibly.

Since the Industrial Revolution began bringing us ever more efficient, cheap and lethal machines for tearing one another to pieces, a minor but significant proportion of Americans have been irresponsible with guns. But it's only been since the 1970s that political pressure groups have been working to redefine gun ownership as a sacrosanct, inalienable and legally uncontrollable right. That hardline view would be as weird and unworkable to Sheriff Buckey O'Neill as it is to thinking people today.

That the editor is willing to crack open the door on this ridiculous debate -- ridiculous because where adults are in charge, talking like the NRA causes only doubt about one's ability to reason -- would be commendable if he weren't so damn timid about it. Go ahead editor, come out into the light. The NRA goons may slip a bag over your head and and use you for target practice, but only metaphorically, I promise.

I would, however, suggest some serious research to start unlearning all that wacky stuff you've been parroting from the NRA over the years. It'll help develop a take on the issue that's a little better grounded in reality.

King Day

The Courier's extra focus on King Day over the past few editions has been welcome. King's message of peace and brotherhood has been a natural in the context of the Tucson shootings, and the King Foundation focus on community service is something we all need to hear more about. But for those of us who remember Dr King as a living force in this country, an important element is missing.

He was murdered not for his commitment to peace, but rather for his insistence on speaking truth to power and requiring of us that we walk the talk about our ideals of social justice and fair dealing. When his vision of peace extended to the war in Vietnam, he became the target of more hateful rhetoric than ever, encouraging another "lone gunman" to stalk and murder. Let's remember that lesson as well, and honor Dr King's memory by living up to his robust example.

Editorial: A show of unity way overdue

The unnamed Courier editor thinks mixed company in the joint session for the State of the Union would be very nice. My problem with this is that even if our fractious houses of Congress can be persuaded to go along -- I expect they won't -- it really would be just a show, a stunt to try to mask the political gamesmanship that will almost certainly monkeywrench our national government for the coming two years and make a stagnant economy the new normal.

Sorry, editor, I have no use for political theatre. If there's a core point to the recent calls for more adult political rhetoric, it's to make our political process work better on the ground. We should be demanding a little more than a nice photo op.

Amster: Constructive dialogue our only recourse

Randall regularly writes once a month and the most recent was last Tuesday, so today's column is an extra, I expect solicited by Tim as part of his unusually heavy King Day coverage. It could be Randall's best-written piece ever, inspiring but not too flashy, his big picture fairly drawn from personal reflection. Well done, Randall.

Weekend insults

Weekends are busy for me so I generally let off on the bloggerator during the days of rest for working stiffs. The Courier marshals on, of course, and a few details caught in my mental craw nonetheless.

Saturday's story on Gov Brewer's budget ideas included a pic of herself from the Tucson memorial service. I get that it was the most recent photo on file, but it's still really bad practice to run a photo of anyone other than the President behind the Presidential Seal on a story from a separate context.

Sunday's Business section headline, on local effects on gun sales following Tucson, just pissed me off. As I wrote in the comments:

After the tragic events of last weekend and the continuing public focus on incendiary rhetoric, the editor's use of "Reloading" as the headline strikes a particularly dark note. In an editorial suite grown inured to the equation of politics with violence and safely on the right side of the gunsights, it may have seemed clever to reference Sarah Palin's famous tweet. But to those of us who are on the other side, this is another "what could they be thinking?" moment.

And last night when I previewed the Monday edition, I hoped that someone in a hurry just bobbled an online headline and it'd be quickly corrected, but this morning I find that no, it got into the print edition too: "Sharlott Hall Museum library to close for a couple days." C'mon, guys, this is just inexcusable. (Update, 1:45pm: I see someone corrected one of the headline's typos, while adding some garble at the end of the story.)

Intentional smear, nontheless irresistable

Separated at birth? I know, cheap shot. But ...

Are they really so different? Isn't it just a matter of which weapon one chooses?

On Debating Our Debate

From Paul Waldman at The American Prospect:

As we debate what kind of rhetoric is and isn't objectionable, it would help if we could make some specific distinctions and keep some important things in mind. To that end:

Every gun metaphor is not created equal. Military metaphors infuse our talk about politics; the only thing that comes close is sports. The word "campaign" only relatively recently began to be used to refer to politics; its original use referred to military endeavors. But there is a difference between using metaphors that invoke violence ("We're going to fight this battle to the end!") and using rhetoric that invokes violence specifically directed at your opponents (like this), or even speaks literally of people arming to take on your opponents or the government (like Sharron Angle's infamous discussion of "Second Amendment remedies" to not getting the result you want at the ballot box). One is perfectly ordinary; the other ought to be condemned.

The fact that someone criticizes your rhetoric doesn't mean they're "blaming" you for the Arizona shooting. Right now, Sarah Palin's defenders are angrily denouncing people for "blaming" her for the shooting, because people have pointed to her now famous crosshair map of candidates she was targeting for defeat in 2010, including Gabrielle Giffords. But no one is saying this guy committed his massacre because he looked at this map. What people are saying is that this kind of thing goes too far. Certain things contribute to an atmosphere in which violence becomes more likely; criticizing those things doesn't mean you've said that in the absence of one particular statement or Web posting this event wouldn't have occurred.

If you think your rhetoric is above reproach, you have an obligation to defend it on its merits. Naturally, many on the right are going to attempt to turn the criticism of them around on the left: See how they're playing politics! But if you think it's perfectly fine for you to say what you've been saying, explain why. Attacking the motives of those criticizing you doesn't qualify.

Asking you to tone it down is not censorship. Over at Slate, Jack Shafer defends inflammatory political speech by saying, in part, that "any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech." As someone who has spent many years tangling with conservatives over their rhetoric, I've heard this argument a million times. When you criticize some talk-show host for something he said, he inevitably responds, "You can't censor me!" The First Amendment guarantees your freedom to say whatever idiotic thing you want, but it doesn't keep me from calling you out for it. No one is talking about throwing anyone in jail for extreme rhetoric, but we are talking about whether people should be condemned for certain kinds of rhetoric.

The rhetoric of violence is not the only kind of rhetoric that encourages violence. The apocalyptic rhetoric we've seen from some on the right, most notably Glenn Beck, should be part of this discussion too. When Beck portrays Barack Obama as the head of a socialist/communist/Nazi conspiracy whose goal is the literal destruction of America, he is implicitly encouraging violence. If that really were the nature of the administration, and our liberty really were on the verge of being snuffed out, violence would be justified.

If you're going to say "Liberals do it too" then you ought to provide some evidence. No one disputes that there has been a tide of extreme and violent rhetoric from some quarters of the right in the last couple of years. But any journalist who characterizes this as a bipartisan problem ought to be able to show examples, from people equal in prominence to those on the right (i.e. members of Congress, incredibly popular radio hosts, etc.) who have said equally violent and incendiary things. "Harry Reid once called George W. Bush a liar" doesn't qualify, nor does a nasty comment some anonymous person once left on a blog.

The Geography of Gun Deaths

The Atlantic is carrying a fascinating study breaking down where people are shot to death and correlating that geographic distribution with other factors.

Wiederaenders: Sparring over bills is not the norm

In dashing off his Friday column, Tim writes a confusing bit:

Something I really liked in Tobin's comments was that the bill was "expedited, but mostly was a part of business as usual at the Legislature, where most bills are bipartisan."

See, when legislative debates appear to be problematic or contentious, they "are the most difficult issues and are not nearly as popular, as it likely should be."

This is difficult to parse, but what I get from it is that Rep Tobin told Tim that "most bills are bipartisan," and that a quick and efficient legislative process is "business as usual at the Legislature." And Tim thinks this is great.

This is either willful misunderstanding or obfuscation. A large number of votes in the Leg are minor housekeeping and ceremonial matters that no one cares about and get done pretty quickly -- unless a Speaker or President decides to hold up all bills for some arbitrary reason, as happened last year. This may be what Mr Tobin refers to, in a statistical sense. Many bills don't get through the first stage of the committee process. The remainder are generally contentious and usually partisan, and those are what we hear about in the news. That's where the long knives come out. Any legislator worth her salt will line up cosponsors on the other side of the aisle, that's given. Does that make the bill "bipartisan"? It's a semantic choice.

What we do know, in any case, is that the road is never smooth for legislation that matters. Either Tim heard Mr Tobin wrong, or Mr Tobin was again shoveling the sort of odious dark matter for which he's become famous.

Incidentally, one good reason legislation does not normally pass through this quickly is that there's no time for legal vetting and really thinking the thing through. From what I've read about the funeral-protest bill, it seems unlikely to survive legal challenge. Is that efficient use of legislative time?

Casserly: Foul language degrades humanity

JJ's diatribe reminds me of a broken-headed bum shouting at rush-hour traffic. Best response comes from Andrew Johnson-Schmit:

Mr. Casserly, you are right to be concerned about the use of language in our society. But I would suggest you play very loose and fast with language yourself. You manage to transform former Illinois Governor Former Rod Blagojevich into a former mayor of Chicago (and if the crux of his infamy is plotting to sell the appointment of an Illinois Senator - what in the world has that got to do with a mayor?) You see a clear unifying line between public use of profanity by entertainers with what you consider lies by members of a political party you don't agree with. What is that close connection? Because you feel they are evil in their own ways and Dante would have wanted to torture them in his writing. This is not precise or even informed writing. Mr. Casserly, your byline states you are a "longtime newsman." Act like one.

Hear, hear.

Panic at the comments desk

From the many references to missing comments, it appears that something has changed in a big way over the past few days, and whoever is editing the comments has no clue what they're doing. Perhaps the senior editors don't know what this person is doing either. In any case it's pissing a lot of people off unnecessarily. Someone needs to reread the rules, straighten up and fly right.

Editorial: Redistricting commission needs greater (Republican) voice

The unnamed Courier editor supports Pearce and Adams in rigging the redistricting commission. The question is whether he's being fooled by the rhetoric or he's trying to fool his readers. Here's most of the real story.

I'm hopeful that it's essentially a non-issue because we can trust that the courts won't stand for this naked power play. The editor should know all this stuff, including the personalities of the players.

Amster: Moving our state sideways, not forward

Randall is justifiably frustrated with the state's prospects for educational and budgetary sanity, and it comes through in his writing bigtime, bordering on despondency. Who can blame him? It's gonna be ugly.

TUSD deserves applause for putting up a fight for its kids, but the Ethnic Studies program is going down. New EdSupe John Huppenthal has been as clear about that as his predecessor, and despite the oft-heard Republican love for local control, local control that in any way serves the needs of brown students is off the table for this and the next few years. Times are tough for the scapegoats. There will be worse.

One quibble, Randall: Since the US didn't exist until the founders invented it, by definition none of their parents could have been citizens before that point. They defined citizenship on the basis of maleness, European heritage and owned property, of course. I get the feeling our Legislature would like to return to those halcyon days.

Arizona Legislature prepares for drastic budget cuts

Joanna quotes our local legislators on their views about the budget, and they are united in the narrow and unimaginative. Rep Tobin dismisses the Brookings/Morrison report as "biased," which evokes the image of a ninth-grader challenging Einstein on physics.

The contrasting opinions are missing of course, as I predicted in my current column in Pop Rocket. You can go there to find out what the Dems would do if they weren't chained up in the basement.

Have we had enough yet?

Regular readers know that I've been writing for many years on the danger of reckless, over-the-top rhetoric and the online anonymity that helps foster it. The sudden mainstream-media focus on it in the wake of the politically motivated shootings in Tucson will naturally divide itself into the usual tedious arguments, with the extreme right protesting defensively (with some justification) that the gunman was individually responsible, and the rest of us recognizing that the climate of hateful rhetoric has an intuitive connection with the weather of the broken mind with a gun.

Where we all bear responsibility is in allowing our communities to become so reflexively divided along arbitrary political lines dictated by emotionally charged micro-issues.

It was bad enough when things were going well for us. With the economic downturn we see exposed the American tradition of finding someone else to blame for our troubles. The rhetoric grows yet more heated, the nutbars more empowered by it, and the violent few move closer to action on their twisted fantasies. Denying the reality of this mechanism is nothing but attempted self-deception. In an environment of pervasive propaganda, no one can claim to be unaffected by it, and the more emotional it is, the greater the effect.

No one wants official censorship, least of all any of us who work in media. But we have to do something as a society to turn this tide and ramp down the rhetoric into the adult range. The founders of our nation knew it would be a bold and risky experiment to rely on the people to self-govern, but that's what we most need now. Have we had enough of this nonsense yet, or will we need another civil war to shake us into requiring civility of one another?

'Selectivity' about comments on Giffords assault

Earlier today I added a couple of comments on the AP story about the assault on Rep Giffords and the crowd. Two of them apparently didn't make the Courier's mysterious cut.They went like this:

"Perhaps we would better spend our energy asking why it took so long for sheriff's deputies and medical help to arrive."

"I notice that AP has altered the passage I mentioned previously."

Gosar Officially Joins Nutbar Faction

Joanna does a good job with the first-day antics of our new CD1 Rep Paul Gosar, contrasting his empty Bizarro-World posturings with real-world facts. I know a lot of readers won't get it, but would that our media were always so circumspect. Here's a cookie.

Editorial: Quit complaining! This is just how Republicans govern! Deal!

In today's defense of the City's bungling of the New Year storm, the unnamed Courier editor glosses over some salient points that commenters and others are making. Sure, lots of people are making ignorant complaints. But there's wheat among the chaff.

"Road crews worked hard to cinder and plow the ice and snow," says the editor, but residents all over town agree that the plows came much later than usual if at all, and the cinders rarely appeared before Sunday. Timely and sufficient application of cinders alone would have vastly improved safety on the streets and promoted ice melt even under sub-freezing conditions during the day. Today, a week after the snow fell, there still aren't enough cinders on most streets to make a difference. This is in clear contrast to previous practice in similar weather events. People reasonably want to know why.

We've heard all kinds of big talk about focusing on public-safety "needs" over silly "wants" from Mr Lamerson and other Council members and staff. Here we had a clear public-safety need that was poorly addressed, and nothing but lame excuses and promises from official sources.

Someone at City Hall is failing to answer the pertinent questions. With this piece the editor is abetting that failure. If the Council were dominated by Democrats, you can bet that the editor would be far more demanding.

New report says Arizona needs tax reform, not cuts

Given the Courier's history of head-in-the-sand responses to budget challenges, I'm a little surprised to see this piece by AP's Paul Davenport on the new Brookings/ASU Morrison report on how we got where we are. A commenter kindly provided a link to the original report, which it seems to me puts a lot more blame on reckless tax-cutting than untoward spending than DAvenport would have us believe. From the introduction (emphasis mine):

Arizona is now struggling with two related but distinct fiscal disasters. Recognized is the portion of the state’s budget crisis that has resulted from the sudden collapse of annual revenues after the real estate crash and economic downturn. This crisis has hit hard but will ease as the economy recovers.

Less understood is the depth of the state’s massive structural imbalance, which has arisen thanks in large part to policy choices made during the go-go years of the state’s recent past but which will not soon relent. During the growth years, legislative and executive leaders acted as if the state could maintain a basic level of service provision even as it implemented tax cuts that permanently reduced the state’s revenue base.

Now, the illusion has been shattered and the state’s yearly labors to close its fiscal year budget gaps are about to get harder. With one-time fixes, gimmicks, and fund sweeps exhausted, budget cuts from this point forward could—if handled crudely—prove devastating and difficult to recover from. Serious discussions among state leaders have included opting out of Medicaid, cutting a K-12 system often cited before the recession for receiving the lowest per-pupil funding in the nation, and significantly reducing funding for the state’s university system. At the same time, if managed well (that is, with a balanced approach and a sense of strategy and rigor) the crisis might actually prompt innovation instead of just pain.

But what is certain, at any rate, is that the current fiscal crisis will continue to have lasting and damaging ramifications unless the state takes prompt, sober steps to address it. To this end, this short introduction to the state’s cyclical and structural deficit problems provides two groups of suggestions to the state as it prepares to attack its problems.

First, the state needs to improve the quality of its fiscal policymaking by moving to broaden, balance, and diversify its revenue bases while looking to the long-haul balance of taxing and spending. Implicit in this push must be a recognition that action has to occur on both the revenue and reduction side of the equation. Spending cuts alone are not going to put Arizona on a stable fiscal path.

And second, the state needs to improve the information sharing and budgeting processes through which fiscal problems are identified, analyzed, and addressed. As part of this, the state needs to put in place the sort of strategic plan that furnishes a long-term vision of state success against which budgetary and other sorts of performance can be measured against clear goals and mileposts.

In sum, the choices that need to be made by Arizonans are difficult and will require of leaders substantial self-discipline. Success at this work is imperative as the first order of business for Arizona as the state prepares to embark on its second century.

Tax policy reform first. What have I been saying?

Editorial: Walking the talk involves learning to walk first

The unnamed Courier editor warns the new Legislature that " Arizonans will be watching very closely," but he's not clear about what he'll be watching for, exactly. Even the most clever measures to spur job growth won't see results within the next two years. It's hard to parse out what he means in the non-sentence "Private prisons," but I'll be charitable and take it to mean no more of them. Allowing the sales-tax extension to sunset on schedule will save the editor a few pennies, but without comprehensive revenue reform it will only increase the pain. Playing nice in Washington after the tantrums of the past few years is worth a try, but to what end, editor? Tell us what you support.

He asserts, "the challenges are largely the same as they were last year and the year before that." Really? Sure, we still have a no-growth economy, a collapsed housing market, record unemployment and a dunderheaded tax structure. But this term adds the complications of Republican supermajorities in both state houses composed mostly of complete newbies who feel empowered to pursue every silly idea that springs from Sarah Palin's mouth. No, editor, this year we can expect it'll be much worse.

The results will be a confused and ineffectual budget process, grandstanding galore, endless lawsuits to fix the many mistakes, and two more years of Arizona being the butt of every third political joke.

City on clean-up: Crickets

Joanna interviewed the hapless manager who'll be taking the fall for the City's poor response to the snow, but where are the quotes from Council and the city manager? The line employees can tell us what they're doing, but only the elected officials can tell us whether they're satisfied with the results. Why isn't the Courier stepping up to demand answers to the hard questions?

More opinion disguised as news

On today's page 7, under a prominent "News" slug, we find a piece by AP's Larry Margasak about how the Rs in Congress plan to waste the coming two years grandstanding to beat the President, and how great that will be.

This is obviously political opinion, not news. I also notice that the editor placed a pointer to it on page one, boosting its prominence.

Cheerleading for obstructionism and political gamesmanship is no way to start off the new year, editors. Nor is misleading your readers. Could we please have a resolution in the editorial offices to try harder to act like journalism professionals?

Editorial: Questions left in wake of city's thaw

Questions, indeed, and the editor gets around to them right at the end, after a tedious "Days Past" digression. Apparently he was researching the weather in 1967 rather than putting those questions to our city officials.

An event like the weekend's winter storm brings the whole town together and requires official response. So far there's nothing in the Courier. I for one would much prefer reading the answers than wasting time on the editor's idle wonderings.

Last I heard there was still a working newsroom at the Courier -- would it be asking too much to gather some news?

Editorial: No good reason for Pearce to reinterpret Constitution

The unnamed Courier editor gets it right on Sen Pearce's idiotic war on mythical anchor babies. I'd only have encouraged him to be a little more pointed about it, and it's "tenet," editor, not "tenant." Look it up.

What the editor doesn't get to is the developing pattern in Pearce's actions. With 1070, the birther bill, the anchor-baby foolishness, assigning himself as chair of the Senate Rules committee and the attempt to rig the redistricting commission, Pearce is constantly asserting that he knows better than anyone, including decades of judges and our country's best legal minds, what our laws "really mean." There's a whiff of megalomania in everything he's doing, and the national-media attention on him is making it worse.

So far I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, in a way, imagining that he's been simply pumping up these never-win issues to gain notoriety and power, not really believing that his arguments carry any legal weight. But lately I'm less sure. He may really be as nutz as he appears.

Waiting for the thaw: Rather than doing something about the snow

I can imagine it's not easy to get official comment over the holiday weekend, but Doug doesn't even indicate that he tried in his story today. My experience has been similar to that of many commenters on Paula's we're-totally-prepared story from Thursday -- thickly iced streets suited only to six-wheel offroad vehicles, rare sightings of response equipment, and I've yet to see a single cinder anywhere. Courier reporters ought to be asking pointed questions of City staff and elected officials.

Tomorrow everyone goes back to work. If the streets aren't in better shape by morning, it'll be a nightmare.

New publisher represents big opportunity for change

We learn today that the rumors have been true, Kit Atwell is retiring, and Kelly Soldwedel is replacing her at the top of the masthead. It will be fascinating to see whether this makes any difference in the paper.

On a newspaper, the publisher is the cheese. She makes the big business decisions on behalf of the financial interests who pocket the dividends. She's the strategist for the future and crisis manager for the present. The editors create the product, but the publisher tells them what sort of product it has to be.

From the announcement in the paper it's clear Ms Soldwedel didn't reach this position by climbing the experience ladder. She's all of seven and a half years out of college, and made general manager in four. The paper seems proud that she's only running the company because her progenitors did. I hope she's got enough pride in herself to overcome her elevation-as-inheritance. The paper needs it.

Any attentive reader can see pretty quickly that the Courier desperately needs new blood and real-world experience to blow the cobwebs out of its congested, incestuous culture and make the changes necessary to survive and thrive in a radically changing media environment. Our community needs a vibrant, engaged and muscular Courier.

I challenge Ms Soldwedel to seek out and learn from her more worldly peers, eschew flabby tradition, embrace community service first, kick out the dead wood and push the paper bodily into the 21st century. There is no other hope for its future.

Stupidest headline ever?

Or maybe today's chuckle: Officials tackle underage drinking issue with pizza box fliers

Editorial: Fergadsake, don't look back!

In which the unnamed Courier editor encourages the sort of gnatlike attention span that's killing the newspaper business and driving our jolly old American empire ever deeper into ruin.

He tells us to forget the Gulf oil spill, as sensible remembering could only lead to recrimination and perhaps better regulation of the industry most responsible for global pollution and climate change.

Forget Afghanistan -- it's clear he already has -- for it's just too difficult to understand, and sensible remembering could only lead to the conclusion that the insane revenge-seeking that led us there was a huge mistake we must correct as quickly as possible. (As long as we require our military to be there, editor, forgetting is morally repugnant.)

Forget our ravaged economy, for closer scrutiny might reveal the moral bankruptcy of the financial corporations that own and operate the editor's favored political party. While you're at it, forget the legislative gridlock and fascist rhetoric his party has forced on us ever more avidly for thirty years.

Instead, dear reader, cling to the myths of empire -- our great strength as a people (belied by the fear and denial we collectively express at the slightest difficulty), our international generosity with our wealth (as much smaller and less rich countries show us up every time and we scream at each other over pennies in foreign assistance), our "grit"* (though we can't find a way clear to even start transitioning our economy off dirty, dwindling, foreign-controlled and evermore expensive energy sources).

Be glad that nothing worse happened, like the exposure of official fraud and neglect of infrastructure that was the result of Hurricane Katrina (as our infrastructure falls further into neglect), or the egregious failures of foreign policy and intelligence that led to the killing or injury of over 10,000 innocents nine-odd years ago (as we tread farther down that same stupid path every day. Oh yeah, and how many innocent Afghans and Iraqis have we murdered in that time?).

It's delightfully easy to stay positive when you refuse to face your problems. Don't worry, be happy.

Me, I think I'd rather try to learn from history and avoid repeating it. Call me a cockeyed optimist.

*: Clearly the editor, in the grand tradition of Courier editorialists, has been keeping up on his cowboy movies.

NYE party tonight at Murphy's

If you're looking for a rocking party to ring in the new year, Big Daddy D and the Dynamites will be at Murphy's tonight, 8:30-12:30. It'll be a ton 'o fun if you're there!

Snow day

Nothing notable in the Courier, and we're staying in today. If you have to go into work, stay safe!

Noon: Great comment on the racism retrospective today and Councilman Blair's radio remarks in response. "Really Sad":

Until this AM, I was willing to give Blair a pass under the theory that any right wing politician appearing on a right wing station runs a higher risk of a mishap than most. His temporary removal from KYCA was arguably wrong, and the way people went after his family bread business was not right either.

After listening to his show this AM on KYCA however, the conclusion one sadly must reach is the good Councilman still does not get it. Like Nixon on Watergate and Clinton on Lewinsky, Mr. Blair has yet to accept that perhaps his remarks last Spring were the cause of his problems, not the few liberals in town or his political adversaries. Instead of feeling chastened by the damage his unchecked remarks brought to the image of Prescott across the planet, his attitude echos that of Nixon in his day with the same peculiar mixture of maudlin victimhood mixed with an arrogant mocking of those who disagree with his unfortunate comments.

The thing that both fascinates and repels about listening to Blair uncut, is the man's utter authenticity. He is truly the face of Prescott and truly represents eloquently the electorate that voted for him.

Quibble: It wasn't "people" who took away his bread-delivery franchise, it was his employer, in response to a complaint from the Olive Garden and other customers, who were concerned about blowback from Blair's unrepentant, continuing attacks on the mural, the Miller Valley School kids depicted in it, and the value on diversity. He had complete freedom to speak, and he did. Freedom of speech does not imply a right to freedom from consequences.

No-news Wednesday

When the Courier's top front-page story is a retread of its own coverage and the most prominent local hard-news story is about a dog adoption, things must be pretty good in Everybody's Hometown. This is not to say there's nothing to report, of course.

The story most likely to affect the lives of everyone in Prescott for the next ten years is slipping by without Courier coverage. It seems our power-mad legislative leaders are trying to cheat the law by screwing around with the redistricting commission.

It'll be up to our state courts to make sure this doesn't succeed. Who's taking bets?

Update, 11pm: It seems the commission wouldn't be bullied after all and called Sen Pearce's bluff. Let's see if he and Speaker Adams follow through on their threat to sue.

Update, Friday: It didn't take long -- Russell Pearce Sues in Bid to Rig Redistricting

Officers arrest fewer people for DUI during statewide enforcement

It seems our lawnforcement professionals arrested half as many people for drunk driving in this year's holiday push. Lisa's story -- and, I expect, the press release that appears to be her only source -- implies that there were half as many people to arrest, therefore fewer people driving drunk. Amazing!

Readers are encouraged to imagine that the same number of officers were working the same places with the same enthusiasm and methods as last year. None of this is detailed, and it seems unlikely given the deep budget cuts across the state in the past year.

A more critical (and likely) spin would be that our lawnforcement professionals were only able to do half the job they did last year.

Even though this story compares numbers from last year with this year's, the careful reader can't conclude anything solid from it about the trend in drunk driving. The news is obscured by incurious stenography passing as reportage, a regular feature of the Courier news pages.

ToMA: Ignorance runs rampant in online comments

City bureaucrat Linda Hartmann steps up to defend her co-workers from the "hateful diatribes" in the online comments, and calls on the editors to quit publishing them.

The twist in her undies is clearly caused by the Elks Theatre intrigue, but she won't talk about that directly. She thinks Steve Norwood is the best city manager in recent memory (she's wrong -- Mark Stevens was a fair bit smarter -- but they've all been mediocre at best), that Prescott PD is above reproach (wrong again, of course), and our Council is "doing what they think is right," which to Ms Hartmann apparently equates with "doing the right thing." She dogs on former employees who criticize current ones. She goes on for 800 words or so refuting the "uninformed" commenters, but ends by claiming she doesn't care what they think.

I can understand how a white, salaried, mid-level City desk worker could sincerely believe all these things. What she lacks is experience dealing with City Hall as an outsider. Courier employees often express the same sort of institutional defensiveness. It's to be expected. But it demonstrates how hard it can be to communicate with City employees about the problems they create and participate in. A far better response would be to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to see how you can be part of the solution.

This is the second major public display of official sensitivity about Courier comments, following the Mayor's attempt to strongarm Deb Thurston a few months ago. It demonstrates that many City employees and elected officials pay close attention to the comments on an ongoing basis, therefore the comments are a strong tool for communicating with City Hall. I would hope that might make commenters a little more serious about what they're writing.

Ms Hartmann is correct, of course, that a lot of comments are idiotic, emotionally driven BS and gratuitous and often unwarranted personal attacks. (She misses that her own opinions here are emotional and poorly informed.) She's also right that anonymity increases incivility. The commenters who defend anonymity don't realize how many reasonable, informed and civil people are so put off by the uncivil environment that they refrain from getting involved. This has all been true since online communities began in the '80s and it will always be true. With more personal skin in the game, there's a lot less venting and lying. Registration and real names would be a good and responsible thing for the Courier to institute.

Regular readers know that I'm very skeptical about the claim that using one's own name on a comment commonly leads to harassment by employers or ideological opponents. I've been a high-profile commenter taking unpopular positions for years without any untoward social consequences other than the odd hairy eyeball from a certain Courier employee. If you're afraid of consequences, what makes it so important to comment on the paper? Like as not you're really just afraid of shadows. Try taking a few months off from TV and see how you feel about it then.

Bonus track, Wednesday: A comment appears today titled "The Susan Thomas Story," in which the commmenter pulls some interesting research from the Courier archive. Excellent!

Air Force recruiter tries to help people better their lives

There are a couple of ways to look at this little puff piece for military life, and neither recommends it.

From the standpoint of the kid who's considering joining up, there's no mention of the purpose and sole mission of the organization: to kill people and blow stuff up at the behest of people who never have to deal with the consequences directly. If I'd read this without knowing what the Air Force is, I might've concluded that it was some sort of job-training program. There ought to be at least a nod to the gravity of the decision this boy is considering, for the benefit of other boys and girls coming out of our starved education system without the skills to work in the real world.

From the taxpayer's perspective, I always resent that we are encouraged to think of the military option as a career step for young people, even as therapy to give them maturity or a sense of responsibility. I'm not interested in hiring people into that sort of job who are chasing public benefits. It's serious business and should never be undertaken lightly.

This piece is light on both counts, mere stenography for the PR department of the military-industrial complex.

It hits close to home for me because my nephew, always unstable and irresponsible as well as brain-damaged in a car accident when he was 16, got the Army to take him on the fourth try and did three tours in Iraq as a grunt. Well, almost three -- before he finished the last one he was completely out of his mind and accused of murdering a civilian. Two years later they're still trying to figure out whether he's competent to stand trial. Had the adults around him taken the decision more seriously, we might have prevented this tragedy.

Followup: Catch-22

The results are in from our annual holiday perp walk of most-wanted evildoers. Of the 22 listees, five are new to the list. The rest are old familiar faces. Six are wanted for nonviolent offenses, and all are white. Of the 16 violent offenders, all but one are Hispanic.

My analysis is unchanged from May, and you can read that here. My bottom line is that this list and the practice of running it twice a year is either pointedly or negligently racist, and it ought to stop, both for its offense to the public discourse and its lack of news value. The particulars:

(murder)
Miguel Franco: murder, 2006 4x
Claudio Lopez: murder, 2006 4x
Domingo Valdez-Anguiano: murder, 2004 4x
Joel Medina-Ortiz: murder, 2006 3x
Manuel Dera: homicide, 1998 3x

(mayhem)
Valentine Hernandez: vehicular assault, 2003 4x
Luis Florez: vehicular assault, 2000 4x
Joel Vidrio: assault with a deadly weapon, 2004 4x
Carlos Pimentel: home invasion, 2007 4x
Eleazar Valdez, DUI hit and run, 2009, new
Juan Dominguez: assault, 2010, new
Lanny Kearns: arson, assault, 2010, new

(domestic)
Enrique Soto, child abuse, 2009, new
Ruth Cardoso-Gomez: negligent homicide, child abuse 4x
(Note that Nancy Collins, wanted in the Sylar Newton case, didn't make the list. Update: Flagstaff police found her on Dec 26.)

(sexual assault)
Jose Herrera-Martinez: child molestation 4x
Ernesto Romero-Salcedo: sexual conduct with a minor 3x

(drugs)
Kory France: drug mule, jumped bail 2x
Kristen Martin: meth possession and auto theft, 2005 2x
Olivia Sobelman: pot mule, jumped bail, 2010, new
Patrick Waibel: pot mule, jumped bail, 2010, new

(administrative)
David Dehart: failure to register 4x
Herschell Scott: failure to register 2x

I didn't see the stories detailing the apprehension of former most-wanteds Pablo Arredondo-Herrera (attempted murder, aggravated assault and kidnapping 3x), Travis Brewer (assault 2x) or Adam Stevenson (sexual assault on a minor 3x), but two out-of-state drug mules made the new list. How odd.

Time off

I had to take a couple of weeks off from the blog during our annual paroxysm of naked consumption disguised under quaint religiosity and pretended tradition. The continuous barrage of non-stories purportedly about the season but ultimately about buying more stuff was just too much to bear this year, sorry.

Media flashback

We saw Bob Roberts again over the weekend, still one of the funniest/scariest satires on the rise of radical corporatism. With its 1992 release the Robbins brothers predicted with alarming accuracy what was coming for this country. I have to wonder whether even they imagined it would go as far as it has today.

Editorial: Maintain your fear, but don't be scared

With today's editorial I get the feeling that the unnamed Courier editor has been taking some writing lessons from JJ Casserly. He dumps out his terrorism file in more or less random, unexamined statements, and in the end leaves the reader with a contradictory non sequitur.

"We need to be vigilant, of course," he says, supporting the ridiculous notion that amateurs keeping a close eye out for terrorists at Wal-Mart could somehow be useful, "and secure our country the best ways we know how. At the same time," contradicting himself, "we cannot live in constant fear. If [the terrorists] smell that, they win." Did anyone else laugh out loud at this?

Having our former governor on the Wal-Mart PA exhorting us to be suspicious of our neighbors is just the sort of absurdist nightmare that lends cheer to the hearts of fundamentalist manipulators of all stripes, including (especially) our home-grown ones. Making distrust fashionable and looking for the worst in each other erodes our social fabric, dividing us, isolating us and making us easy to stampede in whatever direction they like.

Editor, having you think it's reasonable and prudent to write confused, alarmist crap like this is exactly the sort of win "the terrorists" are looking for.

What you're not seeing is who the truly scary terrorists are -- the religious fanatics, the social oppressors, the authoritarians and would-be fascist dictators who wrap themselves in our nation's flag and do everything they can to undermine our values and government from within. You soak up their propaganda from your teevee every night, editor, and here you're doing their work for them.

Surprise! Supposed radical doing practical job

On today's op-ed page, Michelle Singletary's column (reprinted from WaPo) focuses on what Elizabeth Warren is doing with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans screamed bloody murder that she would be a firebrand radical writing rules guaranteed to take down our entire financial industry. Instead we find that she's doing steady, practical work to make consumers smarter about credit.

Will voters notice that once again the Republicans, through character assassination and lies, tried to sell us a bill of goods to protect the privileges of the industry that recently tanked our whole economy? Some of us will.

Letter: Bipartisan squabbles undermine progress

Just go read this great letter from David Hackathorn.

Friday catchall: "I don't see color"

In his personal column today, Tim protests that the Catch-22 features are misunderstood. "People assume that it's all about race," but "I don't see the color, folks. To me, it does not matter."

Perhaps if Tim cared about the strong undercurrent of racism in Prescott, he'd understand how he's facilitating it. Is it that you don't see it, Tim, or are you refusing to see it?

To sum up my previous analysis on this, the perps featured by Yavapai Silent Witness fall into two clear categories: offenders who are white and nonviolent, and long-gone old cases who are Hispanic and violent. No violent whites, no non-violent Hispanics.

YSW selects the offenders for this "most wanted" treatment, which implies a set of selection criteria. So far this round the only new "most-wanted" cases on the list are two white kids passing through the state on the highway who happened to get caught with pot and jumped bail. For pretty much any thinking person reading this, these offenses do not rise above the who-cares level. So we can reasonably infer that YSW does not have enough live cases to fill any of the 22 slots they set up for themselves.

With only who-cares and dead cases to choose from, what do they choose? Should we imagine that there are no dead cases of violence by white people? I think not.

As a professional newsman, Tim should have the skills to see this farce for what it is: a biannual funds promotion for the Silent Witness program with racist undertones and, most important, without news value. It's a failed experiment, and the Courier should take the lead in sending it back to the bush leagues.

Update, Friday night: The Saturday edition includes the first Hispanic perp wanted on a recent beef, assault on a cop.

Front page: Ousted mayor enjoys mountain biking, retirement lifestyle

Um, what in the world is this bit of attic-rummaging doing on the front page? What is it doing in the paper at all? Rick Killingsworth was out in PV six years ago, Ken. Is the Courier a personal scrapbook for its employees and their old friends? You could play up the biking angle and put it in the Vitality section, maybe, but it's not news despite the opportunity for Tom Steele to replay his glory days.

Just by the by, I was no fan of Killingsworth as mayor, but I was in on some of the awful stuff that Tony Mortillaro was doing at PV Town Hall, and his firing was well deserved and a long time coming.

Editorial: Feds butting in on Arizona law again

I have to say I'm getting awfully tired of the unnamed Courier editor's narcissistic childishness around immigration policy, exemplified in today's editorial.

The question of whether federal law trumps state law was decisively settled 145 years ago. But the kindergarten states'-rights argument in the headline is no more than clumsy agitprop.

If the Supreme Court were hearing a suit challenging the constitutional standing of state sanction of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the editor would be first to write in support of it. This happens to be a challenge to legislation he likes, and so out come the swords.

We have to accept that pretty much whenever the states try anything new, court challenge to establish that the new law works with older and higher law is an inevitable and necessary part of the process. Voters and legislators in the states can't just willy-nilly write any law they happen to like. In this way the courts test new laws to make sure they work in context, with the effect of giving them greater credibility when they pass the test.

Given the progress of the suit so far I expect the Supreme Court will uphold Arizona, but that's not nearly as interesting as watching the editor get his briefs in a bunch over nothing. It exposes an acute lack of understanding of the legal process and an emotional attachment to Arizona's anti-immigrant campaign that only confirms what he derides as "the assumption that Arizona is a racist and discriminatory state."

Arizona is people, editor, and a large number of us are indeed racist, including a majority of your legislature and your governor. That's just obvious fact. The courts are there to prevent the reflexive zeal that you exhibit here from running roughshod over our legal system. Where we fairly don't have the final say on a decision, adults deal with it. Children whine. Which are you?

Oh, great. Another big party.

So for the centennial celebration of our great state, we hear in Cindy's story today about what -- driving the first spikes on a new passenger rail corridor connecting north and south? A statewide push on science and technology education to train engineers and technicians for the switch to 80% renewable energy by 2025? A sustained statewide program to better preserve our parks, wilderness and historical heritage? Nope. We get another traveling trinket fair.

Can our tourism experts really think of nothing better to add value to the occasion than funnel cakes and tee-shirts? Are we really so lacking in imagination and guts that we can't go forward with something that will be remembered in another hundred years?

The street fair is fine as far as it goes, who cares? But fergadsake let's not pass up this opportunity to do something useful and important for the future, show the world and the rest of the state that we're not just a bunch of passive lumps.

The Courier's annual Xmas perp-walk

Again we have the biannual "Catch-22" feature, and again we have mostly the same old faces from years past. I wrote on this last year and investigated it more extensively in May, and it'll be fun (if you're really hung up for something to do) to watch to see how many of this year's are moldy oldies. Out of the seven mugshots so far, six are repeats from May, and four of those are violent offenders, all of Mexican heritage. Again the Courier reinforces the perception that this qualifies for endlessly repeated coverage.

The only new face is a drug mule passing through on the interstate. Guess we live in a pretty safe place, huh?

Irony alert

Today's edition of Pop Rocket includes the first in what is to be a regular column by yours truly on politics, media and whatever else comes up. It's not widely known that Pop Rocket was recently acquired by Prescott Newspapers Inc., parent of the Daily Courier.

Tena Overacker is still editing, though for some reason they won't allow her the title, and there's no concern about the Courier editors interfering with content. Hope you like it!

Prosecuting Julian

I gotta quick question: How can the Justice Department justify prosecuting Julian Assange, who was handed some classified information and published some of it, with no mention of prosecuting The New York Times editors, who were handed the same classified information and published some of it?

Editorial: China's waffling is enabling North Korea

I gather our unnamed Courier editor is growing bored with our little town. Maybe the annual battle over the holiday sentiment expressed atop City Hall is no longer enough to float his boat.

Back when he was kept busier scooping up Ben Hansen's road apples, Tim had his Staples button reprogrammed to buzz "Local, local, local," at every opportunity. In today's editorial it appears he's promoted himself to editor of The Washington Post. It's great to have ambition, but best to bear in mind that success requires doing your homework.

Honestly, who in the world cares what The Prescott Daily Courier thinks China should do about North Korea? Maybe Tim heard that China's been hacking the Internet, and imagines some Charlie Chan-like bureaucrat poring over his editorials, searching for foreign-policy direction. Here's a hint, editor: When you're rewriting Krauthammer, anyone interested in the subject is either gonna go read Krauthammer instead or, for those more familiar with Krauthammer's analytical skills, write you off as a right-wing wacko and move on.

Here's the homework you missed. The idea that China still values the North Korean "buffer zone" against the west is a laughable antique. International conflict is no longer prosecuted with infantry and tanks, it's done with economics and information. China would love to have an industrial consumer state like South Korea on an accessible border offering easy profits, and even confirmed that in one of the recently leaked State Department cables.

China has almost as little leverage as the rest of the world does in Pyongyang. Diplomatic and even military principles rely on people pursuing their own best interests. But in a chess game where your opponent is not trying to win, it's impossible to make sense of the board. North Korea has essentially strapped on a suicide vest, and its goals are irrational, self-referencing and sociopathic. China and everyone else in the region are doing all they can to just keep the worst from happening for another day in hopes that the regime will eventually collapse from within without too much collateral damage. No one in the region imagines that this will end as tidily as it did in East Germany, or even Yugoslavia.

The editor warns, "unless something changes dramatically with North Korea, Beijing and Pyongyang can expect a nuclear-armed South Korea and Japan in the near future," as if the Kim regime could be rationally deterred from anything or Beijing would give a rat's butt about a Japanese bomb. This is nonsense. Kim maintains his power based on perceived and invented outside threats, so pointing more missiles at him only exacerbates the situation. South Korea is already armed with American "tactical" nukes. Japan knows better, and is constitutionally prevented from getting involved in nuclear weapons beyond the nudge and wink that allows it to resupply US Navy nuke carriers.

Please, editors, I beg you, get your heads out of the teevee and focus on your community. You can imagine yourselves in Yankee Stadium all you like, but you're still playing sandlot ball, and there's no shame in that.

No, we're not better than that

Today's letter from Philip Gates referring to W's enthusiasm for torture and stating that we should never do it has drawn some predictably bloodthirsty responses in the comments. "Sheesh Deluxe" responds, "Yes our enemies torture, but we are better than they are, and we do not." I think the tone of the comments shows that this is an ideal, not a fact.

A former President not just admits to it, but brags about prosecuting war crimes, and his partisans, all of whom I'm sure believe that they are morally superior beings, defend both the man and the practice with every infantile argument they can muster. Starla Ryer (aka Ryder) asks, "Shall we just sit idle and allow the current atrocities to continue or shall we retaliate and fight fire with their sort of fire?," apparently blind to the inevitability of this sort of behavior not only extending the atrocities, but escalating them.

There is of course no real intellectual debate about this. Military, intelligence and lawnforcement professionals agree categorically that torture does not produce useful intelligence, it impedes investigations and prosecutions, and it aggravates conflicts, creating more enemies than it eliminates. It's both morally and tactically indefensible. We know it's not just wrong, it's stupid. Yet a large body of us, including a recent President and Vice-President, continue to encourage the use of torture, evidently (from the comments) because it satisfies their lust for revenge.

Every religion and philosopher warns against this sort of passion. It is utterly destructive, and leads inevitably to terrible results. To the extent that we give in to it, regardless of the power of our cities, we are uncivilized.

This sort of thinking is a growing cancer in America, and we have to resist it everywhere. The tinpot Teapublican "patriots" who wrap themselves in flags even as they trample American values in the dirt would enthusiastically turn this country into a fascist, imperialist dictatorship on a scale that even Mussolini could not have imagined. Wherever reasonable, moral people fail to respond and maintain control, they win a little ground.

No, we're not better than this, and that's why we have to work harder to control our animal passions and defend our better values. Maybe one day we will be better, and this debate will be an antique curiosity. For now, it's an active threat to all Americans, and the world.

Comments jump the shark

Wednesday's awfully headlined "Man who used his cashier girlfriend to steal from store sentenced to probation" has attracted a bunch of comments from the girlfriend and the boy's father debating the relative goodness of people who "made a mistake" with the hang-'em-high crowd. It's a laff riot, and I think it bodes where our media may be headed.

Just around the corner, we may start to see perps, witnesses, neighbors and friends on teevee and in the papers, not responding to reporters' questions, but volunteering their points of view unedited and having their conflicts out in public, using their computers, cellphones, whatever.

This would be a new iteration of a phenomenon that's lately been out of style, the "open letter," in which people would use local papers to express themselves. I have copies of open-letter correspondence written by my great-grandfather and great-grandmother as they hashed out the grounds and defense for their impending divorce on the news page of the Kankakee Daily Gazette in 1920. It was ugly.

Like "reality teevee," I'm not sure that direct access to media like this will do much to edify society. But it will be "entertaining," so it will sell advertising.

Attention to detail

A couple of things caught my eye in today's edition that lead me to think someone left the controls on autopilot over the holiday weekend.

In the editorial highlighting local charities, the unnamed editor writes, "Two women are renovating, room by room, an old hotel for displaced veterans, which they have named the Downtown Prescott Inn." He's referring of course to what oldtimers remember as the AJ Head Hotel on North Cortez, renamed Downtown Prescott Inn years ago by some new owners who hoped to gentrify it. It resisted. The new people are just reusing the old name and signage. So the sentence is wrong in fact, and anyone who's been in town as long as the editor ought to know that backward and would not refer to the Head, the last historic, working residence hotel in town, as "an old hotel."

Over on the news side, "Elk's raffle under way" glares with an excess apostrophe, as if no one writing or editing the piece knows what the Elks Theatre is or understands basic punctuation. There's another one in the body of the piece ("Elk's building") right among better-punctuated references, so it's not just the hapless headline writer.

Roll your eyes at my pedantry if you like, but editors are supposed above all to be careful readers. These slips aren't small. So did the Courier staff farm out the weekend paper to a pasteup house in India, or what?

Holiday paper

There's gonna be a lot of dumb fluff in Thursday's paper. You have my permission to skip it.

The State of Hate

Stephen Lemons has a piece in Phoenix New Times on rising hate crime rates in AZ where everywhere else they're going down. Read "Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer's Arizona: Hate Crime Stats Climb."

Column: The quiet side of Mexicans and their heritage

This op-ed conveys a bittersweet story of the death of Dora Borjon while on a sister-city delegation to Caborca in Sonora, and the town's support in returning her remains to Prescott Valley. I don't normally read the obits, and I missed hers when it was published on Oct 23.

For a media-watcher like me, there's a striking angle to this story. Ms Borjon was part of what cannot be described as anything less than a diplomatic delegation from our city. She died unexpectedly, and there was further news value in the aftermath of her death. This ought to have been a front-page story, not just an obit. Where was the Courier? Where was, at the very least, the followup on the obit? What makes this story unworthy of news coverage?

Brewer picks Brutinel for Arizona Supreme Court seat

Congrats to Judge Bob Brutinel, whom I know to be a pretty right guy, for making the Supreme Court cut at last.

Update/correction, Monday: I confirmed over the weekend that, contrary to the previous version of this post, there is no Senate confirmation process for AZ Supreme Court justices.  I got wrong information from a trusted source, sorry about that.

Editorial: Trust ideology over sense

After wasting half his column on the 1070-boycott non-story, the unnamed Courier editor turns to the heroic efforts of our state legislators to address our historic lack of government revenue by reducing revenues further.

Building on Saturday's report on the ATRA presentation at the capitol, the editor touts the fabulous new ideas of our two newbie legislators, which, oddly, sound a lot like their old ideas: cut taxes on business.

That supply-side argument has been utterly demolished by facts on the ground since the Reagan debacle, but they can't let it go. After all, isn't it just common sense that less taxation of business will create more jobs? Isn't it just common sense that a mystical supreme being made all the rocks and bushes by hand? Faith springs eternal.

The JLBC, our state accountants, gave a presentation to legislators last week stating unequivocally that recent proposals to further cut taxes on business will be completely counterproductive and should not go forward. Our legislators, thrust into leadership positions without the experience to back them up, are simply discarding the advice of staff experts who've been working on our budgets in many cases for decades.

They admit that these tax-cut proposals are not even supposed to have any effect on the current downturn, phasing them in over years. It's purely an ideological move. Further, the JLBC reports that "Between FY 2007 and FY 2010,
Corporate tax receipts declined from $986 million to $413 million," indicating not only that businesses are paying half the taxes they were three years ago, but their total contribution to an 8.5-billion-clam budget is already very low.

And while it's true that personal-property taxes are much lower relative to business property taxes, shifting the burden from profitable businesses to strapped and fixed-income homeowners is just not gonna fly, so we can count on seeing that piece negotiated away in the legislative process, leaving us with more looming revenue losses.

These guys are fiddling with ideology while the state burns out. The editor ought to be able to see that and call it for what it is.

It's only unethical when it's called 'news'

On today's op-ed page, Tina Dupuy laments that the left doesn't have a strong, coordinated messaging operation, and makes the case for a sensible parallel to Fox News, leaving out the 'news' canard. Maybe she's missed it, but the left does indeed have the core of such a messaging operation, though we haven't had the wit to capitalize and build on it. It's called Comedy Central.

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Mahr are doing their best to counter the right's agitprop in a more ethical and positive way, with common sense, facts and above all good humor. They treat voters with respect for their intelligence and encourage greater connection to the political world, in ways that no news organization can. This is exactly what Dupuy is asking for.

Because of the pervasive loss of journalistic integrity in our media across the board, younger voters especially are turned off by news and straight punditry. They build personalized information menus for themselves out of everything from Foreign Policy to Facebook, and teevee news is at best a minor player in the mix.

Progressives would do well to take the comics more seriously as a model for communication. Note that while they are not journalists in the traditional sense, they are very long on the integrity of their information. This is the key, engaging people, building trust over time and maintaining it.

Editorial: An example needs to be made of Rangel (updated)

Here's an example of how squandering your journalistic credibility makes you look idiotic later.

The unnamed Courier editor sits in ponderous judgment of Charlie Rangel, a legislator who's done more good for the country than the Courier could ever do in its entire history. And Rangel did indeed do some dumb things and bring some tarnish on the House, and a clean ethics process is good for government, so I have to say that the editor and I agree on the bones of the issue.

But for the decade and a half that I've been watching this newspaper, the editor has uniformly failed to support a clean ethics process when Republicans were in the dock for much more egregious abuse of their offices, or when they should have been, but Republican majorities turned a blind eye. That makes the editor's position now clearly partisan, undermining the values that he hopes to uphold. This is confirmed in that he avoids mention that Rangel has been brought to account entirely by Democratic leadership. We haven't seen Republicans cleaning their own house in this manner.

Further, the paper's record of racist leanings regarding the browner members of our community forces the reader to consider the idea that the editor's upbraiding of Rangel, who is black and represents an important black constituency, may have darker motivations.

The paper would do well to look harder at itself before casting stones.

Addendum, 1pm: I just happen to be reading a little on the history of the Yavapai people, and I noticed a reference to an editorial in the Arizona Miner, one of the Courier's progenitors, calling for their extermination. That racist history goes back to the beginning.

Update,  Nov 24: With today's conviction of the amazingly shameless fixer and Dancing With the Stars contestant Tom Delay, threatening a sentence of up to life in prison, I'll look forward to the Courier editorial urging the court to throw the book at him. Any minute now.

Simple crime story gives editor stinkfoot

In "Man arrested on charges of fraudulent use of a city credit card" we hear about a former City employee getting busted for unauthorized use of a City credit card, either retained in his possession for over a year after he left City employ, or lifted while he was working there. No big deal, perfectly legitimate story. But then the editor stepped in it.

Unable to resist the rhythms of City credit-card causing trouble for two people sharing a common Mexican surname, the reporter asked Prescott PD whether the alleged perp in this story is related to Dawn Castaneda of Elks Theatre fame, and the cop confirmed that he's her brother-in-law.

Smelling news-value blood, the editor overcame good sense and journalistic practice and allowed the impertinent connection into the story. That's bad to start, as it's prejudicial to both cases and there's no connection between them. But then the comments came rolling in, and it seems that the brother-in-law thing is just wrong.

Yes, Arthur Castaneda and Dawn's husband Gabriel are from the same large Prescott family, but, say apparently authoritative commenters, related as cousins rather than siblings. It's a stupid goof-up that the reporter or the editor could have averted with one phone call.

But the lesson the editor (Steve?) should take away is this: work harder to separate the pertinent factors from the prurient ones, and blue-pencil the latter. They have no place in responsible journalism.

And rather than waste ink this way, I'd have had that reporter asking sharp and persistent questions of Mr Castaneda's former supervisors about how that card got away from them. That's where the public interest truly lies.

Answer the question, Tim!

The latest entry in the Ask the Editors web feature starts, "I'd like to know who owns the Elks building on Gurley Street, and the business." Tim responds "The City of Prescott owns the building and runs the business side. (To clarify, the city owns the Opera House portion and a law firm owns the office space above the Opera House.) The Elks Opera House Foundation is a fund-raising organization that hopes one day to buy the theater from the city."

This is wrong in several ways. The questioner clearly knows more about the situation than Tim does. The Elks Building is the office structure on Gurley St with Bill the Elk on top. The Elks Theatre* is on the alley behind the Elks Building, with a condominium wall and an easement through the first floor of the Elks Building for the lobby. The building is not "above" the theatre in any way.

The direct answer to the question is this: The Elks Building has been owned for many years by the partners in the law firm Murphy, Schmitt, Hathaway and Wilson via the shell corporation Prescott Elks Building LLC.

The Elks Opera House Foundation has nothing to do with owning the building or the theatre.

This is all perfectly public information. One has to wonder why Tim would feel the need to obfuscate so completely in his answer.

*: Is not, never has been and never could be an opera house.

Keep your commie mitts off my freedom fries!

Today's edition includes two bits about local authorities trying to do the tiniest little thing about childhood obesity and getting only black eyes for it.

In "Flagstaff schools send home warnings about overweight students," school officials decided to try a gentle notice to parents that half their elementary kids are headed for long-term psychological and physical problems, along with tips for healthier habits. The commenters go crazy, of course, foaming about this horrifying intrusion into the personal lives of children. (If the kid is overheard talking about sex or a joint, however, they're all for massive official intervention.)

Meanwhile over on the op-ed page the unnamed Courier editor is railing about taking toys out of Happy Meals and crackdowns on fast-food joints, crying, "We don't need government protecting Americans against themselves," except, presumably, if those Americans want to adjust their consciousness in some way, enjoy themselves sexually or experience art that involves naughty words.

You can't have it both ways, editor: either you believe in the libertarian ideal of no government intervention in any private choice, or you believe that government has a legitimate role to play in informing people about what they can do to protect and improve their own health and well-being.

If government doesn't do it, who will? McDonald's? It seems to me that government entities are best situated to provide that sort of information. Notice, carefully, that neither the Flag schools nor the California cities are requiring people to make any kind of choice. Rather, they are working within their mandates, the well-being of their people. And if you find yourself miffed about the idea that government cares whether you're overweight, maybe it's time to finally get that gym membership, bubba.

The insane obesity of Americans in general should be a matter of strong concern for all of us, as we're all going to be paying for it through our health-care systems and loss of economic productivity for generations. Get over it, and get healthier.

Update, Tuesday: And like the bad joke everyone can see coming, the editor steps right up today to blithely contradict his position yesterday.

This illustrates how many people form opinions based neither on facts nor philosophy, but rather on whether they trust the person espousing the opinion. It's good lesson for political action.