For readers of the Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona. Comment and discuss. Be nice, now.
Muggs archive
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Editorial: "Water scarcity is causing ripple effect"
I'd like to give the unnamed Courier editor some props here, as it appears that flying-brick-obvious reality may at last be bubbling up through cracks in the floor of the editorial suite. But then he applies witless characterization, apparently attempting to deprive all involved in the issue of public credibility, undermining the reader's hope for positive change.
No, no one involved wants to "stop growth cold," and if the editor had been paying attention he'd have seen that in the recent public comments on the proposed new Fann development near the airport, where the developer seems to be sincere about doing things differently. Similarly, there's no "camp" advocating growth at any cost, though Carol Springer would be happy to assemble one if she could find enough halfwits to carry her flag.
This sort of characterization says far more about the editor's lack of interest in what's really happening than the progress we're making toward solving our water problems. It's good that he's finally starting to connect the dots on a picture most of us have understood for a decade or more, and I invite the editor to start showing up at the meetings and listen. He's way behind the curve.
Talk of the Town: "Do the math: Local population explosion looms"
The juxtaposition with today's editorial is interesting.
A1: Rodeo season
A1:"Council gets first look at Regional Transit Study"
I've said it before: you don't build mass transit in baby steps. Extensive routes, hours and frequency are necessary to success, and the best way to sour people on the idea is to make them pay for something they can't really use.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Editorial: "Status quo preferable to immigration bill"
His use of charged buzzwords in place of thinking is obvious. Less obvious is his employment of poll numbers to support his preconceptions. A more nuanced and reliable analysis is easily available from the Pew Center, directly contradicting several of the editor's core points. The overall point that most people say they don't like the bill is true as far as it goes, but not because they have a considered understanding of the issues or the bill.
Here the editor is fulfilling only his chosen role as part of the right-wing echo chamber, where he should be getting past his personal prejudices to serve the interests of the community. A personal, bylined column is fundamentally different from an unsigned editorial in this regard, and this piece should have come with a byline.
A1: "Council cuts bed tax hike proposal by half"
We have the major business players supporting a two-percent bed-tax rise to allow for more tourism promotion. We have an apparently small group of hotels resisting, and Councilcritters compromising as a result, probably in part because of ideological opposition to taxes.
What's bugging me is that if City-sponsored promotion is making the Chamber happy, why are some hotels not happy? Might there be some favoritism going on in the promotions? If investing in promotion is working, why don't the Chamber members just get together and invest the money that Council now says it won't extract in taxes? Might the tax regime be creating a market distortion that some businesses can use to advantage over others?
I'd like to see more on this.
A1: "School board member is at the heart of 9-1-1 dispute"
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
A1: "No water in a desert"
This issue might also make for a more pertinent editorial, informing both urban and rural voters. Either our legal system is too weak to properly regulate these companies, or somebody in government is falling down on the job.
Editorial: "Method is ugly, results are the same"
I can picture this with the editor's picture at the top on B1 -- it's essentially the breezy commentary column that's been missing for a while. I'd say it's time for the unnamed Courier editor to move into the old-soldier role and turn the top-left space over to someone who's got the energy to do it right.
Wiederaenders: "Somebody must step up to transportation plate"
Coming?: Kyl shills for rightwing talker
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the key conservative negotiator behind the compromise bill, told reporters Friday that California-based radio host Hugh Hewitt “had several ideas” that “we are trying to include” in amendments to be offered in an upcoming series of crucial votes.
Hewitt, a conservative who has criticized many aspects of the bill, had Kyl as a guest on Thursday and asked: “Does the bill provide for any separate treatment of aliens, illegal aliens from countries of special concern?”
Kyl replied: “It’s going to, as a result of your lobbying efforts to me.”
Monday, June 25, 2007
Amster: "'Sanctity of life' too complex for narrow views"
I appreciate Randall's assiduous work to calm the waters and get people talking on an adult level. It still ropes me off that we're dealing with this as any kind of controversy, though. We all know, if we're paying attention and honest about it, that this is an invented political issue directly related to the ongoing effort to assign human rights to blastocysts, which is a reactionary stratagem designed primarily to regain legal control over the sexuality of women. I'm really sick of it, we ought to be past this.
Editorial: "Congress disappoints again with ‘pork’ bill"
Drawing from a comparative report by the Congressional Research Service (big PDF), I did a couple of sums. It appears that for '05, following a decade of consecutive increases, Congress earmarked over 1.2 billion bucks for over 16,000 individual projects. Took me about ten minutes, including downloading the 50-page report on dialup.
I can't say how the editor arrived at his number, so I don't know that it's directly comparable, but I'm sure that if he'd found a higher number he'd have used it. I'll walk right past the discussion we ought to be having about the good that's bound to be mixed in with the bad in the earmark pile. Just taking the editor's supposed point of view, it seems to me that in the context of his apparent desire to reduce earmarks, a drop in this category of spending by nearly an order of magnitude in two years ought to be cause for celebration rather than disappointment.
So which do we have here: a lack of interest in the simplest research, or a considered effort to make the voters dumber and slam Democrats? Either way, our community is poorly served.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Editorial: "Missing FTA deadline pushes back progress"
Letters: Guns kill reason
Talk of the Town: "Cheap tomatoes cost the U.S. $2.4 trillion"
I knew Tom was headed for trouble with his lead: "Most people know Latino farm workers have been part of our American picture since the 1940s." Most people also know that Mexican farm workers have been in the picture throughout the Southwest since long before there was an American picture at all.
But Tom's core argument is built on the idea that illegal workers receive more in services than they contribute in tax revenues. Here's a little of the research that Tom missed, as quoted by the National Immigration Law Center:
According to Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, in congressional testimony, July 2001, "undocumented workers contribute more than their fair share to our great country". He continued to inform Congress that immigrants, including undocumented workers, in essence donate $27 billion to state and local economies.These are older numbers, but there's plenty more. This is an easy one.
This is the difference between what they pay in taxes -- $70 billion -- and what they use in services -- $43 billion. Greenspan also testified that in Illinois alone "Illegal workers pay $547 million in taxes yearly, compared to $238 million in services used." This is a net "profit" for Illinois of $309 million.
A recent February 2002 study by the University of Illinois found that even as undocumented workers paid federal and state income taxes -- one study puts the amount of taxes paid at $90 billion per year -- they did not claim the tax refunds for which they were eligible. These unclaimed refunds amount to the donation of billions of dollars to the public coffers.
Another study by the Urban Institute found that undocumented workers contribute $2.7 billion to Social Security and another $168 million to unemployment insurance taxes. Because of their illegal status, these workers will not be able to access these programs even if they wanted to. In addition to the above tax donations, undocumented workers pay billions of dollars in local and state sales taxes when they purchase appliances, furniture, clothes and other goods.
According to The National Immigration Forum undocumented immigrants pay about $7 billion annually in taxes, subsidizing funds like Social Security and unemployment insurance from which they cannot collect benefits. In California, which accounts for about 43 percent of the nation's undocumented population, or about 1.4 million people, undocumented immigrants pay an additional $732 million in state and local taxes.
Tom's big number in the headline is based on this idea: The (unimpeachably right-wing) Heritage Foundation "estimates the 'underpayment' of all taxes including the earned income tax credit, items previously mentioned and the projection of all Social Security benefits for life on these 20 million legal residents, is estimated at $2.4 trillion!" Hate to break it to you, Tom, but notice that this is about legal beneficiaries. Illegals can't get Social Security benefits. If they could, you might have a case, in the real world, no.
Tom is kiting large parts of his argument on his own prejudice that no one is paying attention to the real social costs incurred by illegals. It's just not true. These costs are well studied, well documented and available to anyone who can handle a Google search line. The social scientists and economists are in broad agreement that illegals are net contributors by a large margin.
Yup, and your tomatoes are cheap -- not because the illegals are being subsidized, but because their employers can more easily exploit them. You want a real scary story, look at what's happening with corn, what government subsidies of corn producers here are doing to the Mexican agricultural industry, and how that's affecting the northward flow of economic refugees.
A1: "Endowment equals more money for teachers, students"
We get a hint of that on the other side of the turn from Humboldt, estimating maybe $450 per year, but Prescott was pretty coy, as usual, and more focused on administrative staff. I'd expect rather more blunt language from a representative of the teachers union, but apparently that interview didn't happen. Any reason for that, Shari?
A1: "Municipalities release review critical of USGS water reports"
The strategy has become standard in our anti-intellectual age -- use the scientists' own acceptance that nothing is ever completely known against them (and us) and argue that since it's not completely true, it's therefore completely false. While this line of reasoning ought not to work on anyone over the age of seven, our education system seems to be allowing altogether too many people to graduate unequipped to deal with even this most obvious logical fallacy.
It'll be interesting to see what the editor makes of this on the op-ed page. Tomorrow, maybe, with a cowboy reference?
The sidebar notes that the USGS scientists have not been invited to the party as the PR campaign rolls out. I'm so surprised.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Reagan: "Republicans going down with the ship"
Reagan seems to be forgetting that his industry -- ravening right-wing entertainment -- was invented in the early '90s to move the country's political discourse rightward, not to actually serve the wacky ideas the wingnuts and religionists put forward out there in reactionary Bizarro world. Reagan came to truly believe that the nutbar tail has been wagging the corporate dog, and now he's all hurt that the corporatists are abandoning the extremists faster than a Vegas escort dumps a crapped-out date. Life's tough when you're stupid.
"Going Down with the Ship," June 14
Meta: Link policy
Editorial: "City-county land swap a win-win deal"
OK, here's what really bugs me about this.
The constitutional role of the press is to inform the voter so that the voter is equipped to make informed decisions about public policy. An editorial is a position on public policy taken by the news organization as a whole, which is why editorials are traditionally unsigned. The purpose of a newspaper publicly endorsing what amounts to a political position is a call to action by the public, presumably informed by the editor's knowledge and analysis.
So the time to take a position is before the political decision is made, hopefully far enough in advance that voters have time to weigh in effectively. Editorials like this, reacting to the end of a long series of events and applauding from the sidelines, or like yesterday's, reacting to something on TV that has absolutely nothing to do with our community, demonstrate a weak grasp of the editor's responsibility to the community. The top left corner should never be treated as filler.
Update, 11:20: Relinked.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
A1: "Williamson Valley Road design almost complete"
Editorial: "Nifong deserves whatever he gets"
Goodman: "Politics: the red and blue of stem cells"
Here's Ellen's lead sentence:
"By now you may be forgiven for suspecting that science is tinted -- if not entirely tainted -- by politics. "
And the Courier version:
"By now most will forgive you for suspecting that politics taint science."
Somebody please explain to me how this improves the column. To my eye it's hack work of the lowest order.
Monday, June 18, 2007
A3: "Council to reconsider Young’s Farm rezone"
Editorial: "Reneging shows lack of integrity"
Guys, you know how the business operates, and you knew that guy would turn around and raise his middle finger to everyone involved as soon as he got the chance. You could have been more skeptical when the controversy was happening, and you could have given more credence to the legitimately concerned neighbors rather than dismiss them as cranks. Your shaking a finger now insults the intelligence of your readers. You ought instead to be apologizing for your complicity in creating the problem.
Herron: "Sports salaries say a lot about our priorities"
"I sit here wondering why we humans are so crazy. I can explain it fairly well as a result of about 100,000 years of human evolution. Would someone please explain it to me as God’s handiwork?"This is just calculated to draw amusing responses from people who are intellectually ill-equipped to defend themselves. It's hardly fair, Al.
A1: "RETURN TO ROPING"
What they do realize, I'm sure, is that the events of rodeo constitute sport, and commercial sport at that. If they feel it's worthy of coverage, fine, I'll just ask that they put it where it belongs: in the sports section.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A1: "Archaeologists relate challenges of border fence work"
Father's Day issue
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Letters: Asphalt blues
Editorial: "Mesa Air rekindles its Love connection"
Now can we talk about something important?
Gratuitous dated pop-culture reference: The Love Connection. I'll just go gargle some Drano now.
Cartoon: Iraqi Benchmarks
Talk of the Town: "Rodeo regulations ensure animals' welfare"
My sister's a horsewoman and I understand the insider viewpoint. I also understand the viewpoint from outside the fence, which should not be dismissed as simply ignorant. That fence separates quite different values and the people involved are talking past one another, neither getting what the other is seeing at all.
This non-communication is important to Prescott in that the rodeo is such a big deal and taken for granted as such by its devotees and fans, ignoring the large and growing part of the population that finds it disgusting. I expect that there's eventually gonna be some trouble over this that the rodeo people won't see coming.
A1: "Undercover: Retailers smoke out underage customers "
A1: "Witness: Taskforce lacked training, info to properly raid home"
What's up with the blog?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Editorial: "Immigration law is smoke and mirrors"
That's not particularly remarkable, but the dark brutishness so proudly displayed in today's rant is breathtaking:
"Democrats are drooling over the prospect of a torrent of potential votes from a whole new dependent class. Republicans are loathe to give up campaign contributions from employers who want to keep the cheap labor. ... Do we want the folks who are driving most of the major crime stories of recent months and those who congregate at Lincoln and Grove avenues every morning not only increasing in number but also voting in our elections?"
("Loathe" is the verb, by the way, editor, you were looking for "loath.") Let's see, how many fear buttons can we push at once? Dems want dependent (stupid, shiftless) voters (for them), capitalists want cheapo labor (at public expense), all those nasty brown people are criminals, and your political representatives are only in it for themselves. It would be amusing if it weren't so embarrassing for our community.
Cartoon: Crumbling conservative base
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Editorial: "Authorities are to 'protect and serve'"
Wiederaenders: "'Handle' it - just remember to smile"
Letters: Grumble, grumble
A3: "PVPD suspends K-9 dog again, victim suffers minor injuries"
A1: "Principal resigns weeks after student protest"
A1: "Wildfire report raises concerns of gun range neighbors"
A1: "Campaign committee disputes complaint but willing to settle"
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Light posting this week
Monday, June 4, 2007
Coming: Courier editor takes it back
Editorial: "Prop. 400 groups take the low road"
Herron: "Embassy is proof U.S. not leaving Iraq"
All I'd ask for in addition, Al, is a pointer or two so that a less informed reader can find her way to authoritative, trustworthy sources.
Letters: Yes on roundabouts
John K mentioned in comments here that the roundabout story was heavily read, so I imagine it got a lot of comments. I wonder whether anyone did a tally on support vs. disaffection.
A1: "Public Fiduciary protects county's most vulnerable"
There's a telling quote at the end, however, and I wonder whether Paula fully understood it when she put it in. The fiduciary says, "... In reality, a public fiduciary is the defacto client. We are the person we are protecting," managing with one sentence to be both patronizing to the people she serves and self-aggrandizing while she thinks she's expressing good public service. This is a cultural trait down at the county building that we all ought to pay a bit more attention.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Talk of the Town: "Q & A: The immigration reform bill"
And what might be the point of having a New Yorker comment on immigration policy in a local Arizona paper under a "local" slug? Consider the implications....
Editorial: "Survey says: People like photo radar"
Cartoon: War bill pork
Like most people outside of Congress, I agree that our rules for making legislation are way too permissive about unrelated amendments,and the culture that's developed is horrible. But it's not OK to only bitch about it when your favored team is out of majority.
Letters: The Kestrel walkout
A1: "Frustration, low pay drive teachers away"
Even though teachers cite pay as an important factor, Shari Lopatin didn't give us any numbers on that. It's been covered before to an extent, but it should have been here. According to the American Federation of Teachers, Arizona ranks 31st among the states in teacher pay, averaging just under $40K. That's not terrible, a little below the midline, until you compare with California at #1 and approaching $56K on average, with a comparable cost of living.
I was pleasantly surprised to see number agreement in the headline where it's been reliably out of sync before. Progress?
A1: "Townsend plans to sue assessor"
The headline bit is that Townsend will sue Hambrick over $2.9 million that she says he owes and he says he doesn't, related to a Safford real-estate deal. But we learn nothing about why the sum is in dispute. Are both parties being coy about that, or is Joanna Dodder not asking the question? I expect the former, but as a reader I'd like to know that a question remained unanswered. Without that, the story does more backhand damage to both parties, and one of them is probably less deserving of that.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Editorial: "Local student leads by example"
Boring, but essentially harmless.
A1: "Wal-Mart foes face campaign violation charges"
I think the editors could have hit this copy a little harder, though. As with previous stories on this legal battle, it's messy and confusing.
Letters: Round and round
Talk of the Town: "For American taxpayers, the hits just keep on coming"
So I'm fascinated to find the "Talk of the Town" slug over a piece lifted directly from the Cato Institute's house organ, The American Spectator ("Free at Last," April 30), scribbled "special to the Courier" by well known media whore Doug Bandow. Having been forced out of Cato, a couple of years ago Bandow washed up on a desert island called Citizen Outreach to continue his radical libertarian ranting, subsequently expanding to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
I admit to a brief flirtation with libertarian thinking back in the '70s, but I grew out of it. Since the Reagan era this market has been cornered by rich people taking advantage of weak, angry minds to push the idea that the only good government is a dead government, and they're pursuing that goal by any means necessary to make themselves richer. But scan their stuff yourself at the links, you don't need me to tell you how sophomoric and dangerous it is.
That the Courier editors are shoveling this insidious crap at us under their 'local' slug ropes me off, though. Go ahead, tell me this is an accident. Now tell me another one.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Scorecard: What hasn't been covered
May 2: Renzi calls for investigation of Justice Department "electioneering"
May 3: Dems back Renzi on DOJ probe
May 12: Mary Kim Titla declares candidacy for AZ-1
Add yours in comments.
Coming?: Flagstaff Sustainable Living Fair
A1: "More woes for Wilhoit Water Co."
A1: "Intermediate programs for teen drivers aims to curb crashes and deaths"
Obtaining a driver's license is perhaps the first meaningful sign of independence for many teenagers. However, motor vehicle crashes continue to account for the greatest number of preventable deaths of children in Arizona.The real lead:
Motor vehicle crashes continue to account for most preventable deaths of children in Arizona, but Arizona is finally doing something about it.
Do we really need to further endorse the idea that driving is the "first meaningful sign" of maturation? I mean, really. That idea is why we have so many impatient, unprepared young drivers out there.
Beyond the first graphs we've got an OK news story. But it was tough getting past the beginning and the terrible headline. (Hints: A program can't aim, but if it could it would do it with number agreement.)
A1: "Phone survey shows 78-percent support for photo radar in PV"
Here's the actual story: PV paid a company to call 300 residents and not weight the data, which ensured a result that favors the opinions of retirees and stay-at-homes, who tend to be more fearful, knowing that this would favor the town's position on the issues, and it could then write up a press release that the Courier would dutifully print.
Because the story is engineered to reflect only PV's official line, it amounts to disinformation. Maybe most PV residents really do support photo radar, but by jacking the table the town and the Courier are preventing us from learning the truth.
Goodman: "Changing the world one garden at a time"
That's all good, and it's in strong contrast to what was happening before a few weeks ago. If this stays consistent, there's only one hurdle left to clear. Goodman's columns range pretty widely, regularly including coverage beyond the "women's" issues that the Courier tends to cherry-pick, and when I see the Courier treating those opinions with equal respect, I'll be encouraged that we're seeing real progress on the editorial page.
Editorial: "Congress needs reforms, term limits"
Here's another great example of viewing the evidence through the filter of your own agenda.
Let's start with the unnamed Courier editor's assertion about Congressional approval relative to that of the Current Resident. Have a look at these trend graphs on pollster.com. Since the Dems have come into majority, public approval of Congress has turned around radically despite the unrelenting denigration of legislators and the institution itself by the mainstream media (clue: that's you, Mr. Editor). Meanwhile the Preznit's numbers continue to fall, admittedly at a lower rate as he approaches his statistical minimum -- that's where the only people left in his column are the completely clueless.
"Congress so far has been unable to make headway on such key issues as ..." only because of intractable Republicans in the Senate and White House. If those stubborn dead-enders were paying as much attention to public-opinion polls as the Courier editor pretends and doing their jobs responsibly, Congress would have already ordered withdrawal from Bush's adventure in Iraq, a radical restructuring of education and energy policy across the board and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast, and we'd be well on the way to a sensible national health-care system. If we keep the pressure on we can hope to sweep out most of the radicals in '08 and get moving forward in '09. But don't blame the Dems because a majority in Congress does not equal the dictatorial powers the editor seems to so admire. The system don't work like that, thank dread Cthulhu.
The editor gains a little cred for even mentioning the ethics problems of Richie Rich Renzi (R-Pentagon), but then squanders it by sweeping it under the smellier pile left by William Jefferson (D-Whirlpool Deep Freeze) -- as if that makes Renzi more ethical. That's a fourth-grade tactic, guys, and Renzi is our problem. You're right that the Dems haven't summarily tossed Jefferson out, but somehow you missed that the criminal investigation is continuing in the Republican Justice Department. Maybe the AG forgot about it, like everything else.
All this is designed to set up one of the editor's favorite canards, of course, the idea that term limits will make things better. Apparently the Courier editor believes that outlawing legislative experience and putting all the power of Congress in the hands of its bureaucratic staff is a vision of utopia. Ayayai.
The Courier continues to work to make you, the reader and voter, dumber about the political process that protects your freedom and maintains our society. Push back.