Wiederaenders: Schools should already be 'real creative'

Tim takes the PUSD Facilities Manager to task for his expression, "Short of a bond, we are going to have to get real creative," inferring from the comment that the school district is talking about borrowing money before "creative" options are explored. And I thought I was Prescott's most annoying pedant.

This my be a class-related idiom, but when a working man says to me, "we're gonna have to get real creative," I take it to mean that the next step is cutting corners and skirting good practice. In certain situations it can mean going around the law. It's sarcasm, Tim, and it bodes an ugly result. The college-guy translation would be, "Without bonding, our services and facilities will suffer unacceptably." Make a note.

I'll bet if you dusted off your old reporter's hat, showed up at the PUSD Facilities Department and asked a few questions, you'd be surprised at how creative our public employees are and have been in dealing with their diminishing budget. You may also notice that though you deserve it, they don't take a poke at you for insulting them so ignorantly and publicly.

Tim was a bit less clear with his anecdote about fundie Xtian Dave McNabb (an old radio colleague of mine) asking the school board to stop teaching evolution as fact. If I take the section at face value, Tim seems to be smiling smugly about his advanced knowledge that evolution is (just) theory. I've long known that Tim believes in the Big Guy In the Sky, but I shudder to think that our local print monopoly might be run by someone no smarter or better informed than your average Afghan Taliban.

Note to Dave: What do you care? You're lifting off tomorrow.

We also learn that until the recent school-bus crash, Tim didn't know that our local districts go out and pick up kids in adjacent districts if their parents want them to attend a different school, they do it at no cost to the parents and they've been doing it for years. This is just one of many silly results of kowtowing to the god of competition in public services.

I happened to be talking about this at dinner the other night with one of our local school bus drivers, who offered one fascinating story after another about the ridiculous contradictions drivers deal with on a daily basis, starting with the lack of seat belts and other basic safety measures for the kids. Again, Tim, consider asking a question of a working stiff once in a while.

Casserly again

Today JJ turns in a column that might be marginally useful in the Vitality section, but is of course completely out of place on the Op-Ed page.

It's always a slog to get through JJ's turgid and often incoherent style, and what he's saying was already well covered thirty years ago, but I'll try to say something positive about this one: other than it's placement in the layout, it's mostly harmless.

Amster: Shall we wall in the entire nation?

Great column by Randall today -- erudite, well reasoned, well written, passionate and persuasive. Just go read.

Editorial: Teachers can't seem to get a break today

The unnamed Courier editor gets it right today in calling the HUSD Board on its egregious disrespect for the retiring teachers it put on the agenda to honor. It's fine as far as it goes.

What bugs me is that he can get exercised over whether the board got the ceremonial pins right, but he can't get interested in improving teacher compensation and working conditions, what we most need to attract and keep those great teachers he claims to appreciate. That's the kind of "break" our teachers -- and our kids -- really need.

Good point: "Tri-City Educator" comments --

If the Courier is so concerned about the recognition, then why haven't they honored these tremendous individuals in the newspaper?

Rooting for Rapture

They tell us that devout and carefully vetted Xtians will float off the planet on Saturday, and I'm all for it. It'll wipe out our unemployment problem, taxpaying businesses will be able to move into the abandoned church real estate, and we'll be able to replace half our Legislature with representatives who are better grounded, so to speak. It may also relieve us from letters like Holly Schrader's today.

PS: The word "rapture" derives from the same Latin root as "rape," originally meaning to be carried away. Need I say more?

Update, Saturday: Drat. It appears that either the math was off again, or perhaps the Big Guy in the Sky looked down and decided that we're all gonna have to go through the Tribulation together. (What if you gave a Rapture and nobody qualified?)

Your tax dollars at work

I'm moving the post below slightly because of consistent hack attacks on it.

Editorial: Community garden helps in tough times

Community garden in Alpharetta, GA

I love the community-garden concept. It brings people together to build community and improve the environment while providing better food and teaching self-sufficiency skills to young and old. Had the editor focused on those values, he'd be munching a nice cookie right now. Instead heruns down a rabbit trail that has to be amusing for every home gardener, and shows pretty clearly that the editor understands neither gardening nor its economics or larger values.

The editor comes at it from the angle of high food prices, implying that gardens like this provide cheap food, and apparently concluding that a third of an acre of vegetables can have a significant economic effect.

I imagine home gardeners all over Prescott having a deep chuckle over this. The editor seems to imagine that growing your own food is free.

I sincerely doubt that anyone growing less than an acre of single crop in this area is producing anything for significantly less on average than they could get it in a store, even if they don't account their hours of labor. The water, the seeds and seedlings, the compost and other soil amendments, the critter barriers and repellents, the support structures, the weather barriers, it adds up fast if you want a nice tomato.

Ask a family farmer. Those folks aren't exactly rolling in dough lately.

No, editor, if it was about cost we'd all be picking over the trash bins at Wal-Mart. Growing your own is about knowing where it comes from, exactly what's in it, and the satisfaction of making something beautiful and tasty. These are values you can't buy, so there's no way to compare the pricing.

When you fold in the amount of time it takes, a garden absolutely cannot compete with agribusiness on a dollar basis. The idea is ludicrous.

A community garden is a great place to learn and share, and I have no doubt that for the 70 or so households able to participate in this one, it'll be fun and rewarding. For the rest of us the project can serve as an example and inspiration to spur similar projects elsewhere in the community. We have underused plots of land all over town that could be in production right now, cultivated by neighborhood groups, churches, schools and businesses.

Many of our neighbors actively participated in the wartime Liberty Garden effort not so long ago, designed to help reduce retail demand and therefore transportation and labor costs in response to labor* and fuel shortages. Need I point out that current conditions are economically parallel?

Gardening is a great idea in many ways. It's too bad the editor fails to see them.

[Addendum] Note *:  Referring to the shortage of agricultural workers as we scare off Mexicans, of course.

State pulls funding for 9th grade technical classes

Paula gets into the weeds on the budget numbers, but the most important information in this story is missing: a clear explanation of the effects of the cuts.

She references "technical classes" for 9th-graders. What is that? Woodshop? Beautician training? Basic physics? No idea. How does this alter a kid's career path or employment opportunities? No comment. What are the follow-on effects for the community. Eh?

A core reason why many people are so blithe about cutting public spending is that they just don't realize how it will affect them, their neighbors or their families. Here was an opportunity missed.

City manager: What makes "the best" candidate?

In today's "Council direction on city manager search expected at Tuesday meeting," Cindy quotes Laurie Hadley saying that locals "thought it was important to go out there and really search (for the best candidate)" for city manager, and that spending money on a headhunter would accomplish that. To me this clearly illustrates the aridity of the terms of this debate and a generalized lack of both vision and logic at City Hall.

Nowhere in the discussion have I seen any reference to our criteria for hiring the most powerful person in our local government. What exactly makes a good city manager, and how will we find the right fit for Prescott?

In the past these searches have apparently been based entirely on whether the person has previously managed another city of comparable size, and whether he (always he so far) has done an adequate job. In my experience this has led to a succession of generally competent but dully conservative occupants for the office, and unremitting mediocrity in the results.

In my 17 years as a resident, Prescott has failed to progress in any positive way, and has clearly lost some quality of life. We have more big-box shopping at the cost of smaller retailers, more mall space with fewer people shopping in it, fewer middle-income jobs relative to population, more official attention on traffic and less on scenic or neighborhood beauty, and still no sustainable water plan. Our infrastructure spending is at best barely keeping up with maintenance needs. Our economic development department is now focused on tourism. Quality-of-life improvements like the trails network or the YMCA have been exclusively private and nonprofit initiatives. We seriously have to ask ourselves whether this is how we want to continue going about things.

In our form of city government, the Council is equivalent to a board of directors, and the manager to a corporate president. S/he not only carries out the policy requirements set by Council, but s/he also generates many initiatives from staff experience and input. S/he remains in the job as Council members move in and out, and holds the keys to institutional memory and vision. S/he must be both politician and technician, a leader to staff and a servant-leader to Council. Having been involved in City process and observed closely for many years, I'm convinced that the manager has far greater influence on policy and how it's exercised than any elected official can.

So if we're to get off the dime, join the 21st century and have a shot at having Prescott live up to its potential as a great place to live, beyond ordinary managerial skills, the person we pick for that chair must have visionary goals and a chess-player's mind for achieving them. That person is not likely to be out of a job and showing up on every headhunter's list. I think we have to be the headhunter.

Rather than look for the best person available, we should be looking closely at the most successful towns our size across the country and discover what they're doing and how. Then we look for who's making those efforts happen, and when we find a fit, make an offer to attract someone who's already happy in the job.

Will it take a search firm to do that? Probably, but success demands clear direction from us about how to look. I tend to doubt we can find the qualities we need for 20,000 clams. Look what it's got us up to now.

Cantlon: The right is wrong on boosting economy

Great column by Tom today, exposing what the extremists would have us do in their own words. Just go read it. Big cookie.

Editorial: Fear leadership, not shutdown

The unnamed Courier editor posits that a federal government shutdown won't hurt anyone, so there's no reason not to do it. What he fails to offer is why it would be a good thing beyond its entertainment value.

This is another case of arguing from thin air.  The piece assumes that the reader already understands the situation as the editor understands it, and only needs reassurance that the action both the editor and this imaginary reader want will be painless.

It's possible the editor is doing this innocently, naive in the assumption that most everyone is like him. More often writers use this tactic willfully and underhandedly, to lull the reader into the idea that everyone thinks this way and so the reader should too.

The reader should be suspicious of this position, and not just because of the obvious propaganda techniques employed to sell it. A government shutdown does not mean that the government stops working. It means government workers and contractors just don't get paid.

With three wars in the field, this has some pretty serious implications for our military personnel and families. While there is a bill working through to maintain the flow of active military pay, the services that support those personnel aren't in it.

The shutdown will certainly disrupt most federal public services -- courts, parks, highways, health care, food and product safety, supply contracts, patents, housing, reservations, you name it. To say this will carry no pain is, again, naive at best. 

But the gaping hole in the argument is that there really is no reason for the Republicans to withhold their cooperation from the majority in fulfilling the most important responsibility of Congress, other than to make a political point that can only be sensibly translated as "do what I want or I'll take my ball and go home!" The editor seems to be saying that he'd prefer a non-functioning government to one run by Democrats. That's just asinine, as I know a lot of Republicans would agree.

I have no doubt whatever that there will be pain from a shutdown, not least for the Republicans who are engineering it. So if there were no pain for ordinary people, I'd say bring it on, the result will be politically positive. But it's just not like that. Playing brinksmanship for a couple of days won't matter much, but going beyond a week will guarantee real hurt for a lot of Americans.

"Fear leadership"? Does the editor really think that's a sensible idea? Yikes.

'Folk Summit' brings genre's heavy hitters

I just need to point out that Bruce's piece implies that Tom Agostino created "The Folk Sessions" on his own. I'm sure that Tom would not slight the contribution of Alexa MacDonald, who co-hosted the show for years and co-organized the weekly live mini-concerts that evolved into the current series.

Also: KJZA's primary frequency for the Prescott area is 90.1FM. Use 89.5 north of Prescott Heights and in PV. KJZA is not affiliated with NPR.

Wiederaenders: More wasted space

Would someone please point out to Tim that his Friday columns are a whole lot more like Jerry's chatty back-page filler than anything pertinent to an op-ed page?

Like a magpie, he seems drawn to bits of shiny trash, like the annual how-dumb-Americans-are story. I mentioned this the other day, and Tim falls into the same old hackneyed response, picking up the results as if they're entirely new and implying that people are way dumber now than they were in the day.

The thing is, this survey has been done since the late '40s and the results have been more or less consistent. Every experienced newsman knows this -- or should -- because it comes in on the wires every year. It's non-news, and how most editors handle it is anti-news, because it disinforms the reader and passes up the important opportunity for discussion of public policy relative to education that the study was designed to provoke.

Editorial: Freedom for me, not for thee

The unnamed Courier editor commiserates with Councilman Blair on how proper enforcement of fair-housing law will allow icky group homes near respectable people and their precious property values.

It's not really about real-estate value at all, of course. It's about prejudice, class chauvinism, and reality-avoidance. Blair is already and justifiably world-famous for these. Everyone sharing these systems should be encouraged to move into gated HOA conclaves, where they can exercise their pathologies in private under the watchful eyes of tinplate Nazis in golf carts. Kind of a reverse-Soweto approach. Putting them outside the city limits would keep them off our Council and out of our voting mix as well. I'm liking this ....

Gad, editors, grow up, would you? This is infantile.

Failed State

The Boston Review is carrying an excellent think piece by Tom Barry bringing together the various threads contributing to Arizona's sudden pain. It's a great digest for voters who need catching up on the big picture, as well as a crystal-clear example of how businesspeople outside are evaluating Arizona as a prospect, and why marginal tax cuts won't attract sensible industry.

Mission creep

Today we see yet another fail for Tim's "local, local, local" mantra on 8A, a 3/4-page celebrity obit with no local connection. It makes a pretty stark contrast with 10A, wherein a dozen profiles of Prescott Area Leadership award nominees are crammed together with tiny photos. These are supposedly some great role models for our community doing interesting and underpublicized things. Smells like news to me.

Do the Courier editors imagine that Liz Taylor won't get blanket coverage across all media and supermarket tabloid displays? Or did they just have a loose page to fill? If the latter, they can call me, I'll be happy to offer some better ideas. Or ask any bum hanging out on the square, it just isn't hard.

Cantlon: Missing parts keep economy stalled out

Today Tom gets going on a metaphor and it takes him a few stops past where he wanted to get off.

He started out on the right route, outlining some of the systemic weaknesses of laissez-faire capitalism and why public policy is necessary to ensure that it works in service to society rather than the other way around.

I can't endorse Tom's definition of a healthy economy, bristling as it is with unquestioned self-references to the distorted 'norms' we generally accept. His core thesis is good, that we need to find a way back to sensible regulation, but it's buried in waffly verbiage that makes it hard to spot. I think he's fooling himself with the idea that our labor surplus will eventually go away and we'll naturally return to labor shortage. The global economy has done away with that dynamic for good.

Great pension plan, too.

But his automotive metaphor won't run. He writes, "Policies that aim at that healthy economy are the drive shaft of the system. Right now we have an engine that's humming along great, but it's not getting to the wheels. We're not getting the intended end result of moving us forward."

It seems to me, a lowly news editor for an international business paper, that the capitalistic limo is moving along just fine. The problem is that it's left American workers behind. The people driving that sleek machine feel no responsibility to carry anyone but themselves. If you want to ride, their response is "build your own vehicle, sucker." For them, workers aren't partners or passengers -- they're fuel.

Lacking a sense of responsibility to the community that might mitigate their greed, the world's tycoons would happily drive the rest of us into destitution, turn the planet into a dry rock, and call us all ungrateful for complaining. Rather than worship capitalism and pretend that it will take care of us, like some sort of ancient, fickle god, we have to consciously employ capitalist principles in the greater interest of society. Rather than hope in vain that it might give us enough work to live on, we must harness it and make it a tool for the greater good.

It's going in the wrong direction. We need to take the wheel.

Psst, Tom: Just as a temperature can't be hot or cold, a price cannot be cheap or expensive. "Cheap price" is nonsensical. You might like to check in with Eric Partridge. Your editor should have caught that.

Update, Thursday: Tom's a stand-up guy and friend, and puts a challenging question that inspired another tedious rant from me:

Okay, I'll bite. What would you change about the definition of a healthy economy?

For me economic health can be measured on three criteria: robustness, in terms of exchange and added value, sustainability (renewable production and freedom from destabilizing excess fluctuation in value), and freedom from exploitation of people or the environment.

What I infer you were trying to describe are indicators of relative health given the 'system' that Americans generally take for granted. But if we focus on robustness, we forget that this system is both exploitative and unsustainable. Should we really be satisfied with having workers simply cross the threshold from societal burden to subsistence? Is that the criterion for health? What about human
potential and freedom? Talking to a single mom pitching burgers at Mac's about the pursuit of happiness is not unlike spinning her a yarn about winning the lottery and living in a candy palace. Should we be satisfied that a skilled worker must expect to scrimp and labor until he's old so he can be rich enough to buy his freedom from wage slavery (retirement)? This is health?

I'll give you that things aren't working as well now as they did in the postwar boom, but those salad days were based largely on economic distortions left by the war, and they were really only a slight upgrade from the degrading exploitation of the robber-baron days. The depredations of the postmodern baronial acolytes have certainly made things worse again, but rather than hope in vain for a return to the old system and halcyon days, we have to adapt to a quite different
world and a smarter, more humane set of core values. Cosmetic improvements to the old system is nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

Our old empire is creaking into its dissolution precisely because most Americans are clinging to an unsustainable, illusory standard of wealth based on exploitation that is killing our planet. The longer we dick around with this, the worse it'll be for your grandkids. Sayin'.

Editorial: Editor hears all, understands nothing

In today's "United States is not the world's police," the unnamed Courier editor tells us that while he has no heartburn about having our military burn up metric tons of money in a feeble attempt to sort of limit Gaddafi's military strikes on his own people, he's ticked that various people in the government are expressing reservations about it, giving him the impression that US policy is unclear in the matter.

Against those reservations he contrasts the President's statement, "It is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go," and concludes that there is no consensus in our government about this.

The editor forgets -- or never learned -- that the President is also the CinC, and what he says goes in this area. Lower-ranking officials have the right to speak their minds as well, but that's opinion, not policy. Further, the policy that Mr Obama articulated has been standing since Reagan or longer. What's unclear about that? Does he imagine that DefSec Gates will go rogue and undermine the mission because he's not wild about it? That Mike Mullen will "forget" to arm some of the cruise missiles? Gimme a break.

The editor finishes off with, "It's time for the U.S. to back off and allow the United Nations to take the lead," apparently oblivious that this is exactly what the Mr Obama is doing. You see, US policy regarding Gaddafi is not relevant to the UN action in Libya. Two different things.

I guess the editor thought it was a documentary.

This is not difficult to parse out unless you're really hung up on the idea that wherever the US goes, the US must be in charge.

Editorial: Let us make it simple for you

"At times the editorials that appear in this space have received criticism for being too simplistic. We call them logical," says the unnamed Courier editor today, simultaneously expressing cocky smugness and deep insecurity about his ideas in this new world of instant and often relentless online backtalk. It's a pity he won't work harder to base his opinions in defensible reality.

(Note to Ed.: it's not that the commenters hate you, man, it's that you just aren't doing enough homework or thinking these things through.)

He professes a value on logic, then falls into the easiest logical fallacy, the false premise. Build your argument on sand and, no matter how carefully you follow the rules of engineering, it falls apart. This is freshman stuff.

Here it is: "States across this nation are struggling with deficits that are either the result of overspending in good years or revenue shortfalls because of the recession, or both." He states this as fact, but it is unadulterated, fact-free political spin.

State budget deficits themselves are pretty simple: revenues do not rise to meet projections, so you can't afford what you planned to buy. The why is much more complex. In Arizona's case, our Legislatures (and, to a lesser extent, we voters) have made it increasingly difficult to maintain a stable financial base for government services.

This has come about over decades of misrule based on a short-sighted ideology that despises taxes and pays only lip-service to good governance, selling us on simple ideas that sound sensible on the surface but prove to be stupid and counterproductive. Need examples?

The balanced-budget requirement. Requiring that expenditures match revenues in a given fiscal year means that the state cannot rationally undertake any long-term capital project, cannot put money aside in the fat times for use in the thin ones, and cannot borrow to cover unforeseen shortfalls. In other words, it cannot use any of the standard fiscal tools any normal business or household uses to moderate the effects of transient change or invest for the future.

Tax-cut fever. Persons suffering from this highly contagious malady see any surplus government revenue as a refund check for themselves. They make it far easier to reduce taxes than raise them, building in a structural spiral to the bottom. For them, taxes are always too high, no matter how low they fall in real terms.

Competing for industry on tax rates. Our legislators are widely bought into the idea that reducing tax obligations on the new businesses that they happen to like will cause them to flock here and set up shop. There are a dozen things wrong with this notion, but the bottom line is that it's just not true -- ask a manager of a large business about the criteria for locating a new operation, and state tax rates won't be in the top five -- and it doesn't work. It only reduces the state revenue stream, irrevocably.

Scrimping on education. Just as the most important factor for a successful society is smart citizens, the most important factor for successful business is skilled human resources. Our education spending, by far the largest component of the state budget, is essentially direct investment for our current and future prosperity. There's no substitute for good education, and there's no second chance to be seven years old. Our education spending is meager and ineffective by any standard you care to choose. Cutting it further when times are hard is tantamount to me cutting off my leg because I'm feeling hungry.

Resisting the inevitable. Like most people, our legislators are suspicious of the new and like what they're used to. In the wild it's a survival trait, but in a rapidly changing, complex world, it's anti-survival. The inability to see beyond the status quo prevents us from moving with the world rather than against it. This is as true for energy policy as it is for education or immigration policy. Our Legislature is right now doing its best to turn the clock back a hundred years. It will not work.

Warmongering. Armed conflict is expensive, and should never be undertaken lightly, whether it's in a foreign land or along our southern border. We Americans seem to have made a habit of picking pointless fights and wasting obscene amounts of money only to make ever more enemies. This, above all, is something we cannot afford.

Every dollar that our Legislature has collected as revenue or allocated to programs over the years was considered necessary by a majority of lawmakers. Broad-brushing this as "overspending" is thoughtless and unfair, and it undermines our political system. Was it all smart? Of course not, nor have the outcomes always lived up to the theory. But most legislators and governors have believed it to be the best they could do at the time, and most of them have been Republicans. Don't accept the editor's cheap shot at a certain former governor from the other party.

The editor's five-point plan for fiscal solvency lists some eminently sensible ways for an individual to act, but as public policy it's laughable, as idealistic and wrong as any sophomore's libertarian rant. Simple, sure. Useful? Worse than useless. Logical? Hardly.

If we're to have stable prosperity at any point in the future, we have to dig in and do the hard, crappy foundation work. We have to act like adults, invest heavy and long in education and health, and quit spending money and energy on frivolities like racism, gay-bashing, trying to control women's bodies, and flouting our obligations as members of this federal republic. By all means expect high value for your tax dollars,  but don't shortchange a kindergartner's ability to read just so you can have another double mocha latte.

Imperiled by Ignorance

Newsweek is carrying a think piece on the continuing failure of Americans to have much of a clue about what's going on, but it refreshingly goes beyond the how-dumb-we-are headline to fill in why ordinary ignorance is no longer something we can afford to tolerate.

Enumerating how many Americans can't answer simple questions just pisses off those among us who consider 'simplicity' a virtue. More discussion of why it isn't will be fundamental to moving forward on public policy to help build a happier, more competent society.

Added thought: It's vitally important that we somehow make ignorance unfashionable again. 

Editorial: Fawning over rock-star rich guy

The unnamed Courier editor embarrasses himself with today's drooling sycophancy over a stock boilerplate speech by megarich gambler Warren Buffett, battering the reader with a barrage of cliche non-thoughts.

There was a time in this country when we admired people for what the produce. Buffett's clearly not the worst of his ilk, but his riches are won entirely by betting on the production of others. His comments were directed exclusively at others in his non-industry, they're not of any use to those of us who actually work for a living.

Casserly: Prescott's a long way from Big Apple

What a steaming pile of pointless self-indulgence! I am completely mystified as to why this drivel gets space in the paper at all, leave alone on the op-ed page.

Food for Thought

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-- President Dwight D Eisenhower

Expanding the ag exemption

In Joanna's Sunday news story and today's editorial we learn about HB2552 and SB1183, legislation moving through both chambers that will extend the agricultural designation to land used for commercial breeding, boarding and training horses and other equine animals. Joanna's piece provides some detailed research pointing up the chain of custody for this idea, apparently starting with an additional 800 bucks in taxes for a Republican-connected rancher in Skull Valley. It seems our county assessor has been applying the letter of the law a little more assiduously than her predecessors have. Good for her, and good for the state.

The editorial expresses a surprising amount of heartburn over this pretty obvious favoritism and its sponsorship by our own Sen Steve Pierce and co-sponsorship by Rep Karen Fann.

From my reading of the bills, I don't think it's fair to imagine that this tax break will go to most of the horsey set in Williamson Valley, etc. The legislation clearly states that this is for commercial uses, and I think our assessors can figure out what's commercial and what's not.

What puzzles me is that it's moving through both houses with almost no dissent. Why are the Dems going along? Then I notice that the House bill includes as a non-commercial exception "equine rescue facilities," and I suspect there may have been a deal done. It looks like the Senate version meant to include this as well, but someone left the word 'rescue' out, maybe by mistake. From the rest of the bill it's clear Mr Pierce doesn't put much stock in proofreading. In any case I firmly doubt that our Dem legislators, almost all of whom represent urban districts, know much about this as an issue. I hope to get some firsthand info this week.

I support the purpose of the ag exemption, which is to encourage the local growing of food, something that benefits us all in many ways. I don't get how boarding riding horses (or, say, dogs) fits that mandate. The bill could have specified land supporting horse operations directly associated with a clearly related purpose, like cattle. It doesn't.
 
The abuse of the ag exemption by developers (like Mr Pierce) is irritating and costs us dearly. This appears to offer those developers a new way to abuse it. Closing that loophole would do a lot to raise the credibility of rural Republicans. (By the way, everyone, horses and cattle are not agriculture, they're husbandry. Sheesh.)

At any rate, kudos to Joanna for the research and to the unnamed editor for calling a spade a spade. Here's a cookie!

Class, trip aim for social change through the bicycle

This really-oughtn't-be-on-Page-1 piece highlights a Prescott College program in which students work on bikes and learn about the economic and social effects along with the mechanicals. The comments seethe with bike-hate and PC-hate. It's entertaining if you enjoy that sort of thing.

What everyone seems to have missed is that there's a need for a college course on bike repair -- because most kids are growing up now with very little experience with tools and machines, and most of our secondary schools are no longer teaching mechanical skills.

So this course is not an indictment of the students, rather it's an indictment of our atrophying public-school system and American parents who never teach their kids (or don't know themselves) the business end of a wrench.

I'll tell ya, if a new Axis were to try taking over the world next year, we would have zero chance of building the sort of industrial machine that ultimately won that war. We no longer value the skills.

Editorial: Leaders Must Support Laws I Like, Never Mind the Constitution

Lacking any useful legal knowledge has never stopped the unnamed Courier editor from spewing frothy opinions on how the rule of law ought to work, and he spews mightily in Sunday's editorial about the administration altering policy on suits against the comically titled Defense of Marriage Act. It's sort of pitiful to watch him try to spin his purely emotional issue on a legalistic argument. It would be the ol' peashooter-in-a-gunfight problem, but he hasn't even got any peas.

Here's what happened. A little old widow lady got a bill for over 300,000 clams in taxes for which she'd be exempt if she'd been married to a man. She sued. I would too. The Attorney General marched into the Oval Office and reported, "Mr President, if we go to court against this little old lady, we'll waste a whole lot of money, we're guaranteed to lose, and when the Supreme Court strikes the law down the whole country will come unhinged. Maybe we should drop it." The President, being the pragmatic moderate technocrat that he is, said, "Sounds like we don't have much choice about that," and started drafting a pragmatic, technocratic speech about it. No change in the law, no fireworks. Someone else will have to spend the money to get that same Supreme Court judgment, like all those churchgoers who imagine being gay or not is important, including the Family Research Council.

Despite the reams of precedent for this kind of determination, the editor thinks it's the first time it's ever happened, and only because those Democrats are all secretly gay and want the editor and his wife to be gay, too. And his dog. Here, Fido ....

A clue for the editor to chew on: Equal Protection -- It's Not Just for Straight White Men Anymore.

Editorial: Nothing's More Important to Americans Than the Cost of Gasoline

In Saturday's editorial the unnamed Courier editor complains that "we Americans know that we are being jerked around by factors we can't begin to grasp or unravel" economically, and knits his brow over "escalating gas prices for reasons that are convoluted beyond understanding."

As I wrote in a comment that didn't make it onto the story, I'm not clear on what's so difficult to understand. Conflict in an oil-producing state makes the teevee news, and oil speculators ramp up prices, despite any evidence of disruption of the supply chain. Oil companies add to their record profits, and prices stay high long after the conflict fades from public view. What could be simpler? That's yer "free market" talking.

The editor warns that "Pretty soon, all of this will make the gas wars of the '70s pale in comparison," when the situation has been well beyond that for decades. Incidentally, editor, perhaps you're too young to remember, but the only "gas wars" were between senselessly panicked Americans fighting for places at the pumps. What was going on was a series of simple, predictable cartel actions to wring more profit from an essentially captive market, in other words the "free market" showing its true nature.

I'd like to point out here that Europeans and Japanese would fall over themselves for the bargain prices on gasoline that Americans complain about so tediously, kept artificially low by generous, entrenched government subsidies and protection for the oil industry (that's right, you actually pay a lot more for that gas through your taxes). It's no coincidence that the rest of the developed world suffers higher (read: closer to market) prices and is miles ahead of us in the race to develop and install sustainable alternatives. Damned socialists.

Rather than express thanks for his good fortune -- in the short term, of course -- the editor wants to save his ten cents at the pump by any means necessary: "we could empower stability in that region to some extent, at least," which would presumably mean military intervention that would somehow cost nothing. Look how well that turned out in Iraq and Somalia.

This infantile whining over a paper cut to his wallet while hope for freedom and self-determination spreads across one of the most corrupt and oppressed regions of the planet makes the editor look more than a little oafish. But it's all the more annoying when he draws on the kooky Moonie Times for analysis critical of the administration. Either he really doesn't know that this is a partisan rag on a par with Fox News, or he does and he's using it exactly that way against us.

Again, Courier readers deserve better. The editor reconfirms that he's stunningly uninformed about economics and foreign affairs, and should stay away from them. Get back to your knitting, editor, I'm sure there's a local flower show you can opine upon with authority.

Further reading: Rs love them some Big Oil some more

I'm not on Facebook

Or Twitter, or whatever's hot this week. So could someone let me know when the revolt against the insanity is starting? I wouldn't want to miss it.

Editorial: Health care starts with us, not reform

An unusually smug unnamed Courier editor opines, "If we all paid better attention to what we eat, health care reforms would be a formality and those who get cancer could be the exception." I think this only shows that most Americans, in particular the editor, really don't understand the breadth of what we mean by "health care," nor what it's like to live in a country where health care is secure.

Conservatives love to mouth the mantra, "America has the greatest health-care system in the world." If you accept that as true, it's got to be very hard to understand why we get below-average health-care results on pretty much every useful measure. So it's tempting to divert the blame for that from the system to the individual. You eat crap, whatever happens is your fault, right?

That said, I hardly know where to begin. Even leaving aside simple stuff like accidents and babies, one might conclude from this that the editor thinks a higher-quality diet prevents mental illness, viral and bacterial infections, parasites, genetic predispositions, drug reactions, allergies, and any number of other maladies.

I don't think the editor means what he seems to say. He's trying to talk about a complex issue in a very small space and just not managing to keep the result from sounding idiotically facile. That might take another ten minutes of editing, and deadline looms.

Yes, a better average diet will reduce health problems on average, but a forward-thinking, nonprofit, prevention-oriented health-care system, as well as a sustained public-policy priority on a healthy populace, would furnish a lot more support for eating right.

This isn't the tired old dichotomy of either I do for me or the government does for me. This is about working together to build systems that help us all to help ourselves.

Amster: Politician the loneliest job in the world

I fear Randall has been taking writing lessons from JJ Casserly. While it clearly demonstrates better understanding of the language, this ramble is more JJ's style in its confusing tediousness and ultimate banality.

Randall seems to want to encourage "empathy for politicians," but to get there he detours through the stylishly cynical rhetoric of Mencken, cutting himself off at the ankles.

Fergadsake, Randall, you've got a regular column, you might put it to good use. Rather than farble on with high-sounding generalities, why not do the homework and feature some examples of the political people and actions that you think deserve that empathy and respect?

Editorial: State's birthday countdown is on

It evades me why the unnamed Courier editor thinks this a worthy topic for an editorial. He doesn't seem to offer an opinion of anything other than that having a centennial is cool. But that's not to say that he doesn't inadvertently editorialize here.

Selecting from the copious writing of Marshall Trimble, he chooses to make fun of the accent of a Minnesota senator of Norwegian descent and recount how Arizona immediately stuck its thumb in the eye of President Taft, as if this indicated something noble about Arizonans.

Despite his gloss on our state historian's work, the editor had to have missed some of the history behind these anecdotes. Arizona came by its image honestly as "a wild and woolly place populated by nothing but Apaches, outlaws, rattlesnakes, cactus and Democrats," and it leaned into that image in 1912 by choosing February 14 for its elevation to statehood.

Arizona's original flag as a CSA territory

This had nothing to do with the Catholic feast of St Valentine, of course. Rather, it was the 50th anniversary of its recognition as a Confederate Territory by proclamation of Jefferson Davis. (At the time the Democrats were the reactionaries and slavers, of course. The party didn't turn progressive until the 1930s.)

In that context, the quote from the Minnesota senator takes on a little more nuance. Arizona began by saying that it didn't want to be American, and it had an established history of unreasoned, adolescent rebelliousness that it pridefully maintained with that 1912 election.

In 2011 we're not doing much to prove that we've grown up. The ghost of John Calhoun stalks the halls of our Legislature as the heirs to the party of Lincoln do all they can to subvert his legacy. In that context, our celebration of the state's centennial is following a proud, if stupid, tradition.

I won't be surprised if someone introduces legislation to update the AZ flag to acknowledge its history:


PS to editors: It's not really that hard to find an accurate rendering of the state flag. Your graphic on dcourier is pretty sloppy. Some people might read that as disrespect.

What 'conservatives' think government is good for

It's a clear symptom of our collective focus on material consumption that the big news of the week revolved around a possible retail grocery opening and what we're willing to do to get it. The Courier covered this in three news stories (here, here and here), an editorial and Tim's Friday column.

Both opinion pieces were fully supportive of having the City empty its capital improvement fund -- the account from which we normally expect to pay for roads, water infrastructure, public building additions and remodeling, like that -- to buy a piece of land that it will then lease to a developer who will in turn lease it to the funky/trendy Trader Joe's grocery chain.

Many of the city folk who've moved here over the past fifteen years have clamored for TJ's, and periodic rumors of it placing a store here have raised anticipation levels eclipsing the Second Coming.

Council and the editors seem to agree that attracting the chain will only add to the City's tax base, and using the capital fund indicates they think it's necessary infrastructure. Let's say I'm skeptical of both ideas.

They also assert that this is a perfectly ordinary use of public funds, that cities do it all the time. As evidence Tim cites spending for infrastructure improvements and sales-tax relief offered in several large retail deals.

For starters, those deals did not in any way bet the expended funds on the success of the retailer. This one does, and it's a key difference. If TJ's doesn't make its targets it will pull up stakes with little warning and move to greener pastures, as we saw as recently as three years ago in the Phoenix environs, where it closed three stores and left empty mall pads -- during boom times for retail, I might add. In that event the developer is left holding the bag on the lease, likely to lead to a bankruptcy of its no doubt carefully firewalled operation, dumping the improved but empty property on the City to remarket.

Other commenters have brought up the obvious question: if this is such a good deal, there ought to be several banks happy to step up to lend the necessary dosh. It's called a mortgage. Nowhere in the coverage have I seen any justification for usurping the customary role of capitalism in this, or, worse, for taking on that role where private capital won't.

In the not-unlikely event of a default, the City moves from the banker's role into that of the developer and landlord. And I'm fairly sure most readers are familiar with just how easy it is to rent out retail space in Prescott right now.

Council members seem enamored of the idea of "making money" on public investment, promising a big return over something up to thirteen years or so. I guess this is unintended fallout from spouting the idea of "running government like a business," and it has to require a certain amount of mental contortion for people who complained bitterly about the automaker bailout to support this.

I'm not against seeing cash return on investment per se, but that should never be the core purpose of applying public funds. Profit derives from risk, and that's the opposite of what we should be doing with public resources.

Another important aspect is our already crowded retail-food market, which has been shedding players in the recession. How is it fair to use public money to give advantage to a new competitor for businesses that have had to find their own capital and paid their taxes (including into that capital fund) in many cases for decades? Does Council imagine that it will have no effect on existing business, that you and I will all keep buying just as much from everyone else and simply eat more? No, there will be fewer sales elsewhere, and likely slim-to-no net increase in jobs, which is the key driver of economic health.

People who identify across the political spectrum get this, it's not a left-right issue. In the sparkling eyes of its boosters we see the the real force driving 'conservative' politics in this country, and that's greed. If a certain core group of Republicans can find a way to apply your tax dollars to help a corporation make money, they're all over it. That is their idea of the best function of government.

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.