Monday, May 31, 2010

Change of the guard

Proving my hunch in February, the paper announced the retirement of Executive Editor Ben Hansen on Friday, and the weekend masthead shows Tim Wiederaenders as Editor (rather than Managing Editor) and Karen Despain as Managing Editor.

The quality of copy editing and proofing rose substantially when Karen started "filling in" during Ben's recovery from surgery in the spring, and drifted back down a bit since. Karen goes back a long way with the paper, and I hope her influence helps bring its 'local, local, local' mission back into focus and its use of English back up to snuff.

With Tim's elevation to the helm I expect that the editorials will be a little better thought-through and researched. Tim has less extreme reflexes politically, but I rather doubt that editorial positions will change much. I do hope that he will do more to reduce evidence of those political biases on the news pages.

I'm encouraged slightly to find the announcement of the new team in the business section rather than on page one. The big pics and double headline above the fold are still immodest, but it could be worse.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Phoenix-area hospitals fight toxic 'supergerm'

MSM coverage of this sort of thing frequently leaves out important facts that the public really should be more conversant with in understanding the problem. Taking this story at face value, the reader might reasonably infer that the bug is invading hospitals from somewhere else and it's just a wild, unpredictable mutation out of control. An accident. Act of gad.

What the AP story doesn't tell us is that this bug has been manufactured in hospitals from our normal gut flora due to the overuse of antibiotics. The story implies that treatment with antibiotics is the best course, when it appears that the normally effective course is withdrawing antibiotics and replacing depleted gut flora to rebalance the system.

Hospital administrators and public health authorities have understood these mechanisms for decades, yet there has been almost no effort to curb the use of antibiotics, let alone public policy in that direction -- probably because the drug companies would instantly gin up TV campaigns accusing public advocates for such policy of working to kill off grandma to reduce the deficit.

An important part of the responsibilities of journalism is to ask the questions that the press release raises, and look beyond the curtain to the deeper issues. This story takes a nasty tumble on that score.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Editorial: Obama simply doesn't get it

The unnamed Courier editor has two complaints about the President, which he rolls into a conclusion that he is "not leading" and "can't govern." One is that he isn't going to Arlington to lay a wreath this weekend, and the other that he "hasn't done much" to fix the oil leak in the Gulf.

On the first, a couple of commenters are already ahead of me on the fact-checking, pointing out that the editor is plain wrong in calling the wreath-laying "a task every American president has performed every year since 1868." I'm still looking for the editorial calling for the President to respect the troops and keep them out of unnecessary and illegal wars. I'll let you know if I find it. I also wonder what the editor would write if the President were to come to Prescott to speak at the vet's cemetery -- as he is doing in Chicago.

On the second, I've heard a lot of this criticism in the media from the President's political opponents, and I've heard essentially nothing about what he was supposed to do better or faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the bureaucracy has been slow -- that's a weakness of every large organization, and I notice that the MMS director was fired this week -- but I haven't heard that the orders from the administration have been slow or confused. I'd love to hear specifics. Gad knows this is a disaster of epic proportions. But there are also practical limits on what can be done, particularly given that the regulatory structure has been thoroughly gutted by previous oil-loving administrations. Perhaps the editor is holding back something he knows. On the other hand, it seems a little more likely that the authoritarian mindset simply imagines that elected officials are kings or superheroes, who can simply order a thing done and it is done. But I'll take another slice with Occam's Razor and bet that the editor hasn't thought any more about this than what his Fox News heroes are ranting.

As for the President's ability to govern, I have to point out that neither disaster-management nor wreath-laying have anything at all to do with governance. I admit this might be a bit too subtle a point for the editor.

National news is not your beat, editor, it's not your forte and it's clearly not even of particular interest to you. Stick to your knitting.

Followup: WSJ, today

Update, Saturday: This comment really stands out for me, from "Phoenix Journalist": You are a small community publication, and while that may be cause for lower distribution and salaries, it doesn't equate to lower standards. If you don't understand a subject, and you don't have staff with the skills set needed to research it, either don't write about it or hire staff with well-established experience. Your audience may have certain biases and perhaps you are simply playing to those, but you do it a greater disservice by creating or encouraging false reports and distortions of the facts. Truth in journalism is paramount to a free society.

Update, Sunday: Could it be that the editor is calling on the administration to nationalize BP America?

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Editorial: Needs, not wants should rule plans

Once again we find the unnamed Courier editor arguing against something he doesn't like by asserting that he is the best judge of what the city "needs." Yet he does not bother to build an argument for why this particular expenditure would be a luxury, other than an utterly spurious dichotomy comparing it to manhole covers.

I happen to agree that spending a quarter million clams to remodel the old clubhouse for event rentals is dumb on several fronts, not least because the City should not be in the event-rental business (any more than it should be in the golf-course or restaurant business, but that's a rant for another day). I know something about that building from when the City tried to trick my struggling nonprofit into paying for the asbestos abatement a decade ago. The location is awful, the neighbors will adamantly oppose any new traffic, and the market for rentals is already oversupplied and will be for another dozen years. The City needs to give up on that albatross -- which it made redundant by building the new clubhouse ages ago -- pull it down, clean up the site and move on. (What the City Manager and golf-course manager really want is more office space, but they have to keep that ambition sub rosa.)

The Courier isn't arguing from practicality or economic sense, instead the editor offers only sloppy thinking, propaganda techniques and uninformed personal prejudice. This is no way to inform the public or convince anyone. Do your research, editor, think through your argument, and try to spend a little more time on your editorials than I put into a blog post.

Related: City should shift money to needs

Search for fugitive leads to 3 unrelated arrests

I'm sure that there's a lot more to the story behind this transcribed police report, but what's here raises red flags.

Three Hispanic men drive by a sheriff's deputy, from all accounts minding their own business. The report says the deputy thought one of them looked like the white teenager who's accused of having sex with another teenager and is on the run from the law as a result. That's a whole 'nother level of stupid, but I'll stick with the story in front of us, as the Courier should have done, other than to say that if the deputy was profiling these guys as illegals, it's a likely cover story.

The deputy orders them out of the car, but they don't raise their hands as ordered, and I have to wonder whether they didn't understand what he said. One panics and pandemonium ensues, we're left to speculate why. Two of them are illegals.

I'll go over the cliff and predict that we won't hear a single word more about this case in the Courier. No one will question why the deputy chased these guys down, nor whether he did something that might have caused the panic and the charges. I'll also bet that there will be more stories like this, and the Courier won't ask followup questions.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Immigration: Documentary draws small, receptive audience

Whatever your political take on it, how does a film that draws 12 people rate coverage on the front page above the fold with pic? Could it be that the Courier editors hope to drum up some more angry comments (read: page hits) over nothing?

Followup, Monday: Ten comments -- almost as many as the film's viewers, not bad!

Editorial: Boycotts aren't a mature tactic

The unnamed Courier editor characterizes the call for boycotts of Arizona in defense of civil rights as immature. I have to wonder what the editor would consider a mature tactic other than the sort of approach one takes in a dinner conversation with someone of a different political persuasion: don't talk about it.

Of course, for the editor there's nothing at stake. He believes that an open season on brown-skinned people for lawnforcement is a perfectly reasonable response to unsightly men seeking marginal work on a certain street corner. Why fight about it?

For those of us who understand the fragility of civil rights and the lessons of history, however, the law is a breathtakingly large hole in the wall of legal protections against official abuse. Sure, it's popular here, as was Jim Crow in its day and segregation in its. But growing outrage in the better educated parts of the country brought it down. That will happen for Arizona as well, and far faster, I expect, as the courts have more practice at this now.

The editor can't avoid this fight by wishing it away -- a truly immature tactic. Whatever you think of the specifics of the law, it's clearly on the wrong side of history.

And what's the big "no" sign supposed to mean, editor? Could it be the new logo of your preferred political party?

Update, Tuesday: “Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population. A solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution.” -- Desmond Tutu, today

Taxes rising, where's the outrage now?

I notice on page three a legal announcement by the county that residents of the Community College District can expect to see a small increase in their property taxes. This is exactly what I've been predicting since the fraidy-cat Legislature turned in its deficit budget -- what the Legislature won't provide, the counties will have to raise anyway. And you can bring a lot of money in on small increments of obscure property taxes.

Given the level of recent rhetoric I might hope to see the tea-party crowd down at the public-comment meeting threatening armed rebellion against six bucks a year to keep the county's potholes filled. But they won't -- they take their orders from the Fox nutbars, who don't really care about the nuts and bolts of actual governing.

Hint: there will be more of this.

Catch-22: Perp-walks and race, again

I held off talking about the Courier's biannual "Catch-22" feature until all the journalistic perp-walks were done and I could compile them statistically. Each time this thing comes through there are accusations in the comments that Yavapai Silent Witness is unfairly favoring coverage of violent Latinos on the list, and the political implications are obvious. I've had this feeling myself, and this time as I watched the grainy old photos and tedious story reruns go by, I wanted a more objective take.

This was the fourth run, done each May and December (why those months, I wonder?) for a couple of years. The first run isn't fully archived. We've seen 14 of these names at least three times, and only three are new.

The results are interesting. Of the 22 names, 13 are Latino, not a statistically significant preponderance in a sample this small (unless you're looking at it as relative percentages of the larger population). But when I break them out by offense category, a quite different picture emerges, in which the violent criminals are almost exclusively Latino.

I separated the violent crimes (murder, mayhem, domestic homicide and sexual assault) from the non-violent (drugs, theft and administrative charges). In this group of 22 there are 15 alleged violent criminals, and 13 of those are clearly Latino. Of the two non-Latino exceptions, Travis Brewer is featured for ordinary assault and as caught already, and Adam Stevenson was a 26-year-old accused of "sexual assault on a minor female," meaning one between 16 and 18.

The rest of the violent scale is reserved for Latino suspects, reaching back as far as 1998. Further, of the 14 names appearing three times on the overall list, only three are non-Latino. I don't see how an ordinary reader could come away from this with any feeling other than that violent criminals are almost all Latino.

But this is a list specifically of people that police are seeking, so a thoughtful person might instead infer logically that our police agencies could simply be less competent at catching violent Latinos than violent non-Latinos. The nearby international border adds some weight to that inference.

Is Yavapai Silent Witness cherry-picking violent Latino suspects to present a racially slanted picture, or is it just allowing that picture to form out of what it doesn't say? The only way to get a handle on that would be to show us who's not on the list -- a breakdown of violent crime for the entire ten-year period by race and prosecution outcome, including acquittals. I think that would be a very illuminating piece for the Courier to present as a followup. In the context of deep public concern about crime by illegal immigrants, I'd also like to see that breakdown include immigration status, which is entirely absent from the Catch-22 features, thereby allowing scared people to see what they want to see.

Finally, I'm struck that with space for 22 violent criminals, we only have 15. I think it says something very positive about our county when a third of our Most Wanted are non-violent offenders, including a teenage sneak-thief, a bail-jumping drug mule and a drunk driver.

Here's my breakdown.

(murder)
Miguel Franco: murder, 2006 3x
Claudio Lopez: murder, 2006 3x
Domingo Valdez-Anguiano: murder, 2004 3x
Joel Medina-Ortiz: murder, 2006 2x
Manuel Dera: homicide, 1998 2x
(mayhem)
Valentine Hernandez: vehicular assault, 2003 3x
Luis Florez: vehicular assault, 2000 3x
Joel Vidrio: assault with a deadly weapon, 2004 3x
Pablo Arredondo-Herrera: att. murder, agg. assault, kidnapping 3x
Carlos Pimentel: home invasion, 2007 3x
Travis Brewer: assault 2x
(domestic)
Ruth Cardoso-Gomez: negligent homicide, child abuse 3x
(sexual assault)
Jose Herrera-Martinez: child molestation 3x
Adam Stevenson: sexual assault on a minor female, 2004 3x
Ernesto Romero-Salcedo: sexual conduct with a minor 2x
(drugs)
Tony Thomas: "drug-related charges" 3x
Robert Michaels: aggravated DUI 2x
Kory France: drug mule, jumped bail new
Kristen Martin: meth possession and auto theft, 2005 new
(theft)
Jason Niedermeyer: theft and burglary 2x
(administrative)
David Dehart: failure to register 3x
Herschell Scott: failure to register new

PS in defense of the language: "Catch-22," invented by Joseph Heller for his novel, expresses the bureaucratic weakness of creating conflicting or self-referencing rules that effectively prevent sensible action. Using this expression as a catchy (sorry) slug for a wanted list is illiterate and ironically ridiculous, and erodes understanding among the reading public.

From December: The Catch-22 list again, ack

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

A failure of political courage

Yesterday afternoon I was talking with a younger guy who's lived here since '74, and he admitted that at that point he still hadn't decided how he'd vote on the sales tax. He's running a small food business, and understood that the higher tax would be hard on other retailers, if not him. He could not be convinced that the tax will expire. He understood the immediate impact on schools, etc. of non-passage, but believed none of those programs are run well and there is still lots of waste to squeeze out of the system. Overall it seemed to me that he was mainly angry at the government for putting him in the position of having to decide.

I think that anger is fully justified. Our legislators have known for many years that our fiscal house is built on sand, but refused to deal with it out of fear that the anti-tax crusaders might say nasty things about them in print. Gov Napolitano wasn't any more forthcoming about this issue either, although it's understandable given that for her, speaking up would have accomplished only her unelection. With their clear and longstanding majorities in both houses, however, and their hype about fiscal responsibility, Republicans should have stood up like adults and undertaken the hard choices to avert the disaster they should have seen coming. Instead they've passed the buck, leaving the voters to wipe up some of the mess with this nasty dishrag of a tax increase.

What's important to understand about this vote is that it doesn't fix anything. It will probably depress retail sales (and jobs) somewhat, and it will stave off truly awful consequences and cuts in important programs, but it does nothing to address the structural problems that got us here or make our economy any more sustainable. Doing that will require the sort of vision and political courage that's become vanishingly rare in the state capitol.

So think about this sales-tax vote, and the political failures behind it, when you're considering your votes in September and November. We desperately need serious, high-quality people in office, across the board. Don't settle for party labels, slogans or your pet issues. Seek out the public forums, get in close and talk to the candidates so you can gauge them as people. Do the research necessary to learn what they've done in the past and, importantly, how they've done it. Then gather up your own political courage and vote for those who exhibit intelligence, maturity, strength of character and real concern for the community.

Let's aim higher this time.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Clarification

For readers who saw the band listings for last weekend in the arts section, we have not changed the name of the band. It's still Big Daddy D and the Dynamites, and "Dynomite" is still only a reference to a truly awful '70s TV show.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Column: 'Free' health care bankrupting system

I have little to add to Tom Cantlon's comments on the scattershot 'argument' presented by Dr Eck here. But there are a few notable factors that readers have yet to note.

First, it's not noted in the footer that Dr Eck and her husband are not only practicing physicians, but they're set up a Christian nonprofit to provide free health care to the poor, running it on donations and volunteer labor. She has also been an activist working to eliminate government programs from health care for many years, and is particularly alarmist about the recent health-care reform, quite freely making up her own facts in print.

Notice her anecdote about the Liberian missionary? Apparently she thinks the US should have just let him in and given him free health care too, like the unspecified tourist in the previous story. She seems to be complaining that we don't let people access health care for free if we know they're coming in sick. Or maybe that we should be doing that for everyone except Christian missionaries.

This treatise is remarkably free of solutions to the problems it trumps up, and more than a little alarmist about those devious foreigners out there -- leaving aside that if hospitals and health-care providers really have a problem with indigent care, the vast majority of it is related to serving legal Americans, and that's a clear argument in favor of public reform.

The Courier editors are very happy to fan the flames with an alarmist headline that's patently untrue and a photo in the online version prominently featuring people of color in a waiting room. The message is blatant and ugly.

It also has no connection with our area. You might think the editors could find a similar polemic by a Yavapai County author, but they either couldn't or didn't bother.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Editorial: ADOT should do the right thing

When I read on Monday that ADOT had destroyed the memorial obelisk that stood at Prescott's entrance for 55 years without so much as a by-your-leave, I was aghast. It then struck me that for over a year I'd been under the impression that the agency moved it out of the way of construction at the intersection and would put it back when that was complete. How did I miss the news that it wound up as rubble in a dump truck at 5am, skulking out of town? With a little research it appears I missed it because the Courier didn't tell anyone.

In every article over the past year, primarily about rededicating the park, the paper wrote about the obelisk, but failed to mention its actual condition, i.e. pulverized. You'd think that would be news at some point.

It takes the veteran's groups agitating for a replacement to wake the unnamed Courier editor up on this act of official vandalism by ADOT.

Anyone who's had a home or business located near an ADOT project is familiar with the agency's habit of wrecking first and not apologizing after. Ask the merchants of Tlaquepaque, for instance. But to discover that this attitude extends to historic monuments and public property ought to raise an eyebrow for everyone.

I'm not going to say that the obelisk was especially beautiful, but it was old, it was ours, and ADOT just sent its yobbos in and smashed it. This ought to raise calls for a lot more than replacement cost. Public scrutiny ought to extend as well to the City bureaucracy that allowed this to happen and has apparently done nothing in response. Or is that yet another question that the Courier has failed to ask?

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Editorial: Speeders likely to kill photo radar

One of the oldest tricks in rhetoric is to characterize your opponent in a certain way, then argue against that caricature, avoiding a more difficult contest over facts. It's called the straw-man argument, and we see it used extensively (albeit amateurishly) in yesterday's editorial.

In this case the unnamed Courier editor characterizes everyone who opposes photo radar, particularly those working the initiative process to ban it, as heedless speed demons who are only trying to avoid paying tickets. This of course completely sidesteps the very serious issues of due process, habeas corpus and community character that are the hard core of this issue. The editorial is clumsy and an embarrassment to my profession, regardless of its political intent.

In his flailing the thought-free editor manages to squash his own argument: "The safety advantages of the system became obvious early on, however. Phoenix television stations frequently showed film snippets from the cameras of people going through the camera at 120 miles per hour." Does anyone else notice that in this example, the criminal speeder does not at any point slow down? He'll get a ticket later, maybe even a summons if the court allows it, but the actual improvement of safety in the moment is nil. Frequently. on the other hand, put a patrol car in that situation and watch what happens.

This is just one more example of the editor's schizophrenic political philosophy: libertarian for himself, authoritarian for everyone else.

Sales tax followup

I've noticed a few comments accusing the Courier of favoring passage of the temporary sales tax boost in its coverage. Looking back, it appears that apart from letters, the op-ed page has carried only pro-tax comments since Senator Pierce's TOMA on April 30. News-side coverage has been about predicted impacts of non-passage, and I have to reiterate that writing about things that haven't happened yet is not news, it's opinion. So, strictly speaking, those commenters have a point.

I'm not sure how the editors could change the coverage to satisfy the anti-tax crowd other than to come out against the tax editorially and carry nothing about the possible consequences. But if you're going to wade into a political question, you've got a responsibility as an editor to balance your coverage, even on questions far clearer than this one. A few more guest columns against the tax would be apropos.

Blogpause for new album

Blogging's been slow to none recently while I work on other projects, including producing a new album by Big Daddy D and the Dynamites. That's about to go to pressing, so keep an eye out for the album release party at the band website.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Sales Tax Day on p. 4

We've got three bits on the sales-tax initiatives on the oped page today.

First the unnamed Courier editor performs some entertaining contortions in an attempt to protect his bona fides as a tax-hater while supporting a vote in favor.

Next Sen. Steve Pierce covers his own butt on whipping the ballot measure through the Senate, apparently most concerned that reactionaries will blame him for allowing them to vote. I don't understand why anyone pays attention to the know-nothings, but it demonstrates the kind of thinking our legislators are using to guide their actions in office. He's against the tax. I knew you'd be surprised. Tom Cantlon provides the smackdown in the comments without breaking a sweat.

Third, in the letters, Carl Tenney makes a plea from Chino Valley in favor of the tax.

Below all of these, most of the commenters are screaming in protest, citing all sorts of myths, misperceptions and irrelevant political irritations.

I gave my take on April 9, but here I just want to emphasize one point. If the sales tax doesn't pass, the Legislature will reduce funding to the counties for schools, corrections, health care and many other important functions. The counties will not be allowed to just drop those balls, people won't stand for it and doing so would only expand costs elsewhere. So they will require us to pay for most of the cuts, by adjusting property tax rates. In other words, if you vote against the sales tax, you're voting for higher property taxes instead. This vote is the legislative equivalent of an offer you can't refuse.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Editorial: New tourism plan makes good sense

"Tourism or bust." Ack.

At several points in today's editorial the unnamed Courier editor admits explicitly that the City staff's plan to bring tourism promotion in-house is short-term thinking. He's following up on yesterday's story by Cindy in which Council applauds shearing off years of ties to PACT, rejigging the City bureaucracy and reallocating funds to pump up tourism.

Tourism is all very nice for kitschy downtown trinket-sellers, hoteliers and restaurants, but I have a hard time imagining that anyone thinks of it as a reliable foundation for economic activity in general, good jobs or municipal revenues. Communities that rely on tourism wind up out in the cold when the fashion changes or fuel costs rise, leaving their already overstretched minimum-wage workforces bankrupt, jobless and further reliant on public services for which funds have dried up. Tourism should be the frosting on economic planning, not the cake, and it's extremely disheartening to see our Council and staff so bereft of ideas that this is being hailed as some sort of great leap forward.

Does no one notice that the plan includes dropping the office of economic development director? This was the person charged with marketing the city's advantages to large companies and manufacturers. Does that effort go away while we goof around with tourists? The Courier apparently didn't ask the question.

I'm not convinced it was a great idea in the first place to privatize the bed-tax revenues by employing PACT, which farmed the whole thing out to an ad agency. But I'm also not convinced that City staff has anything like the marketing savvy to employ those funds effectively. Right off the bat they're talking about building events and a marketing plan from the ground up, and I have to wonder what we've been spending money on all these years that apparently leaves nothing useful in terms of planning from the previous regime. I also recall how eager certain City department heads have been to expand their personal empires. Finally it seems to me that with these new salaries City staff are recommending an overall increase in expenditures for tourism promotion, and I have to wonder what PACT could have done with those additional funds. It reads like an apples/oranges comparison designed to favor salaries to City staff.

In the new director's position the City is proposing to spend 10% of bed tax revenues on one person -- not on ad buys, not on communications or infrastructure, on the person in the chair. How can they possibly justify that expense in terms of benefits to our residents? The editor isn't bothering to ask. But I imagine it's occurred to more than a few business owners and managers who rarely see benefits from tourists on the square.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

A rap on immigration

While today's Courier editorial is entertaining in its clueless confusion, I'm going to depart from accustomed practice today and try to say something more substantive than usual, from the perspective of a tenth-generation American citizen who's also had some experience as an illegal immigrant.

Only North Korean spies, Russian mobsters and American military get into Japan without some sort of documentation, so "undocumented" doesn't work for me, but I don't mind "illegal" at all. The Japanese immigration system is a maze of catch-22s, so most anyone who goes there for the work has to play the margins, working illegally until you can get someone substantial with a company to personally sponsor a work permit. This can take years. Meanwhile you're in more or less constant danger of sudden deportation if you run afoul of the notoriously rule-embracing authorities. Did I break the law? Yes, repeatedly and at length. Did I hurt anyone by it? It's quite safe to say no. Neither did the 35,000 other foreigners living in Tokyo at the time, serving the needs of businesses and individuals in an affluent and expanding economy.

So it is with illegals in the US. Crossing the border without official permission violates the law, but of itself it hurts nothing and no one. What matters is what you do after that.

So as the furor over AZ'a new anti-immigrant (or, materially, anti-Mexican) law plays out in the national media, I start there. If we seriously hope to resolve this issue and move on in a civilized, practical manner, we have to look past the political pantomime to the real, living challenges we face.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is an issue only because of political choices that ignore nature and practical reality. The idea that we can use an imaginary line in the sand to keep poor, hungry people from filling available jobs and taking the money back to their families is as dumb as a box of rocks, anyone with half a brain can see that. The people running this country for the last 200-odd years, their peace officers, their military, their businesspeople, their criminals and clergy, have generally been of at least average intelligence. So it's safe to conclude that the system is rigged to not work -- for a purpose.

That's how it was for me and thousands of other illegals in Japan. The system's official purpose is to protect Japanese jobs and society at large from international miscreants. But, like I said, the mobsters, spies and other criminals have no difficulty getting around it, nor do most legitimate job-seekers. Its true functions, demonstrated every day on the ground for anyone who cares to look, are to placate the voters' fear of foreigners while creating a cheap, pliable pool of off-the-books, politically powerless laborers. The same is true here, and it has been since immigration controls were first imposed.

Periodically, when economic conditions erode slightly here in the richest nation on earth, public attention turns to the 'foreigner problem' and how to address it. It's always been an easy sell politically, so it's been exploited by fearmongers since time began. This time is no different.

Today's illegal immigration is qualitatively the same as at any time since we've had a southern border, and quantitatively it only varies with the relative economic conditions in the US and the nations of Central America -- as you may have noticed, when Arizona's economy went south for a spell, lots of immigrants split for greener pastures. There is always a small contingent of people for whom fear of foreigners is the top concern, but the only reason we've seen "immigration" become a big public issue in recent years is that it's politically convenient for certain interests to make it so.

When you're selling something, you have to keep stock on hand, and if your product is fear you have to have an object for it. When the commies imploded, the fearmongers started selling Muslims. That pitch got old, and now they're flogging brown people from the south. It's so juvenile it would be funny if it didn't have such serious implications for our economy and national character.

But here we are. Lots of Americans are invested in the idea that illegal immigrants are suddenly "flooding in" to steal their jobs and stereos, make "anchor babies," defile their daughters, empty the government ATMs and cause general mayhem. Many shady businesses large and small depend on illegal workers to make their plans and balance sheets work. Many underqualified politicians need to provide voters with a reason to elect them. And I don't care if you throw a trillion dollars and every state militia at the border, you're not going to do much to separate poor, hungry people from available cash without an ocean. They're better motivated than we are.

For decades, immigration has been a safe issue for fearmongering authoritarians. They knew in their hearts that no amount of effort would actually have much real effect, so they could demand pretty much anything without risking success -- and losing the issue -- or substantially threatening the balance sheets of their buddies in the chambers of commerce. It was perfect.

But this time their shortsightedness has come home to roost. Having failed so miserably and spectacularly at governance for so long, they ran out of other issues to run on, and so had to ramp up the immigration issue to such a pitch that something had to give.

Enter the Arizona legislature, facing an election year with nothing to show but a bankrupt government and every fifth home in or on the brink of foreclosure, and its governor, Peter-Principled by happenstance into an office which she has neither the intellectual depth nor the leadership qualities to fulfill. When an out-of-state front group for old-school upperclass white-supremacists dangled what looked like a robust response to the "problem" of illegal immigration, our elected officials took the bait like a pike on a wiggler.

It's completely illegal, of course, the consensus among those who know is pretty clear. There will be an injunction, probably at the state level but perhaps from the federal level as well, and this legislation will not stand. The Rs only need it to get through the midterm elections, and I expect most of the survivors will back away from it after that.

But there's a new factor to bring the old edifice down. The Obama administration and the Congress are making noises about doing something, perhaps before the midterms, to intercept the ball and take back some yardage.

Obviously they can't out-fascist the fascists, so what could they do to successfully address the voters' fears and maybe do some good for us economically at the same time?

My answer is to expand NAFTA to include labor. Don't try to close a border that can't be closed -- open it further, and handle it like an adult.

Speaking as an illegal immigrant again, nobody with any sense prefers shady status. We have illegal immigrants because we impose artificial limits on how many we allow to be legal. The job demand exceeds the supply of legal visas, so more people come however they can. We can only eliminate illegals by making them legal.

We can live up to our rhetoric about free trade. We can allow Mexican (and Canadian) workers to compete on a level playing field, under the same worker protections and minimum wages, and paying the same taxes. After work we can let them go home to their families rather than force them to live as a vulnerable underclass. They can be free to speak up against criminals without fear of the legal system breaking up their homes and livelihoods. They can pay a fair share for the government services we all need. We can live up to our principles as we never have, and accept them into our society as people with dignity and and important roles to play. And we can fairly ask the Mexican (and Canadian!) government to reciprocate for US workers.

The mechanics of this are simple and relatively cheap -- way less than trying to build and staff a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall. We'll need to register everyone individually so they can be tracked and taxed, the same way we citizens are, and check them in and out at the border. Registration will not convey the vote -- only citizenship can do that, and that will remain an arduous road. We'll probably also have to modify the Constitution, though, to eliminate the blanket grant of citizenship based on birth on US soil, and instead require parents who are citizens or legal permanent residents. We're not trying to fulfill Manifest Destiny anymore.

We'll still get some criminals, of course. Everyone's human, and seven to ten percent of all humans are bad enough to be criminals. We won't keep them out as long as there is profit in smuggling. We can talk later about drug laws. But they won't be smuggling people anymore, and that's a big plus for us all. There will be challenges -- language, tax cheating, health care, education -- but we're already dealing with all of those, badly. They'll be more easily handled when the people involved aren't classed as criminals.

The businesses that have benefited from unfair compensation will have to find new ways to get by, and the fearmongers will have to find a new boogeyman to scare us with. We win. Show me the downside.

The hard part is getting past the core fear of The Other. Americans are not much different from any other group in that we identify as a group only when faced with people in other groups. For this to ever work, and if we're to ever resolve the "immigration" issue, we have to get past that irrational fear and start seeing not scary invaders but ordinary people, just like us, living in different circumstances but with the same human values.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Editorial: History is worth effort to save it

The unnamed editor is quite right that "We need the individual efforts of those who preserve our heritage," but this conclusion misfires, showing that he is among the many in our community who take our history for granted and think that "someone - usually someone else - will protect and preserve it."

Ms Ruffner is a truly dedicated and accomplished advocate for history and the arts, but she will be the first to tell you that individual effort is only effective in the context of large, dedicated groups. That means if you care, you don't wait to give Ms Ruffner a gold star, you pitch in and help row the boat. Perhaps the editor could better inform the public about how the Courier is spending sweat and money to help preserve our heritage. It's called leading by example.

In the comments, "Gracie xx" says "The (buildings) of a hundred years ago will probably still be standing and beautiful, but nothing being constructed these days will be standing beside them. Well, maybe to illustrate a lack of class," and it struck me that she's righter than she may realize. The historic structures we cherish in our town all rose before the advent of the middle class, when the skilled workers who built them typically put in 80- and 90-hour weeks under harsh and dangerous conditions for subsistence wages. Yes, Gracie, that class system is mostly gone, but as a result very few can afford the kind of construction that will endure for hundreds of years in grace and dignity, certainly not in a commercial building.

We pay that cost for our more comfortable lifestyle and better working conditions. It's a trade no civilized society regrets, but we have to be aware that only if have the vision to maintain the great legacy of the artisans of years past can we continue to live in a community with this kind of architectural depth and character.