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.

Wiederaenders: Sparring over bills is not the norm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casserly: Foul language degrades humanity

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

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

Hear, hear.

Panic at the comments desk

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