Pursuant to an exchange we had earlier in the comments, here's an interesting perspective from Wired. It seems a whole lot of people besides me are coloring outside the dictionary lines in talking about socialism. Hint: by reading this, you're involved, comrade.
Hat-tip to MikeD for the link.
Duane Mumper wonders why Rep Kirkpatrick is not planning any town halls on health care reform. Could adolescent teabagger BS be a factor?
Or maybe she's just too busy getting things done.
Like many around the state, I got one of these bogus tax-reduction letters over the weekend. It's good that the Courier went after it, and apparently Bruce Colbert got in deep enough to talk to a hired call center as well as the county assessor.
One thing Bruce apparently missed, and which caused me to throw the thing on the junk pile unopened: on the front of the envelope, to the right of "PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION ENCLOSED," is a box saying, "THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT." I'd call that "the most glaring clue."
It continues to surprise me that The Verde Independent is able to find space for news from the state capitol, but the Courier apparently can't.
Here are a couple examples from today's Verdenews.com:
John Pelander state's newest high court justice
Still no state budget: 16 votes needed to meet Brewer demands
While the Courier front page is padded with fluff like this:
Tim's Toyota Center offering week of public ice skating
What is it, where is it?
These papers share resources, ownership and even some personnel, but they're quite different in terms of editorial choices. Editor-ial choices.
Here's the sort of thing we might see if the Courier editors were more interested in statewide issues:
10 new laws that got lost in the shuffle
Renewable energy bill may resurface in special session
The unnamed Courier editor gets a cookie today for stumping up some support for one of our local food banks. There are many programs operating here, of course, and we shouldn't neglect any of them.
We've got two bits on the op-ed page today related to health care, and that makes a nice jumping-off place for a little rant.
First, Tina Blake, billed as a "Yavapai County Community Member" (I think a hack of Yavapai County Community Health Services Member), urges readers to take a class and take control of their own health. In Prescott this is on offer Fridays at the YMCA.
Then there's the Talk of the Town column by Tom Bromley, credited as a retired NY state health care administrator, who sees the need for public health care, but can't quite see how we'll pay for it.
It's a fortuitous coincidence that these appear on the same page.
Bromley's thesis seems to depend largely on the idea that including 45 million uninsured Americans will incur enormous new costs, as if they're paying for it all out of pocket now and they'll pay nothing for it later. I think five seconds of thought about that pretty well dissolves it.
This is not to say that a "robust" public health-care system will cost nothing, of course. What so many of these commenters seem to miss or gloss over is that as a nation we're already paying for all of our health care, that cost grossly inflated by waste, excess bureaucracy, a strong bias for acute care over preventative care, and massive profit-taking. Reducing those costs is what makes these systems economically sensible, and it's also what scares an industry grown fat on the status quo.
What's a lot fuzzier is the huge potential for reducing costs simply by working to prevent health problems. This is practically impossible under our profit-motivated system, and that factor deserves a lot more scrutiny and thought from voters. The YCCHS program is a perfect example of what government is compelled to do that private industry simply won't. Imagine what's possible when reducing costs by making people healthier becomes a primary goal of the entire system.
Here's a smart, easy read today from the LA Times by a Canadian doctor comparing the US and Canadian systems and the lessons we could learn from Canada if we'd deign to take a look.
Lesley contributes an interesting list:
Countries with universal health coverage
Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
*Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
The unnamed Courier editor urges readers to help get a cap-and-trade system passed through the Senate, something every other developed economy has done long since and proved worthwhile both environmentally and economically. I sure wouldn't have expected it, but I'll take it, and thanks. But he seems to go out of his way to undermine his objective.
The references to the refinery accident, "brown stuff" and "America's lungs" seem pretty well unrelated to the issue of atmospheric CO2 that cap-and-trade would focus on. Pollution would fall as coal plants phase out, yes, but that's beside the point of the legislation and bound to confuse the reader. The incompetent headline-writer's reference to breathing just aggravates the error.
I gotta wonder whether the editor has even a sliver of a clue what he's talking about. Thanks, editor, but no thanks -- this sort of thing does not help.
Here's the third op-ed piece I've seen labeled "Column," the first writ by a regular contributor. Does this signify that the editors take George Seaman as seriously as Randall Amster, or is it a demotion for Randall?
Randall attempts to call intolerant, absolutist Xtians on their anti-Xtian ways. But he tries so hard to be nice about it and sidle up to it slowly, I imagine most readers will have moved on before he even mentions his real topic. It's like he's taking the role of Aesop, talking slowly under an olive tree on a lazy afternoon, the reader lolling at his feet waiting for the clever twist that gets to the moral of the story.
You have to hit it harder, Randall. You don't lead a column about religious discourse with a reference to Social Security, it just confuses people. Get to what you mean, state your thesis clearly, then back it up.
If your editor was doing his job, he'd be giving you these tips himself and guiding you, because when the paper reads better, it sells better to readers.
I have to mention this LTE from yesterday, in which the writer opines that forcing everyone in town to rely on the Miller Valley PO will likely lead to career problems for the persons making that decision.
It's all of four sentences long. So why couldn't the headline writer figure out what Mr Johnson was saying? How did we get yet another op-ed headline that says something quite different from what the writer intended? Idiotic.
Today's is the second in this series, in which the Courier asks all the candidates to write answers to the same question in 65 words or less.
Now I'm not particularly wordy myself, but 65 words seems like an awfully tight restriction if you want the voters to learn anything worthwhile. One might infer that the editors are limiting the candidates for space if Cindy's background preamble to the question didn't take up at least half the story. I also notice that sometimes she includes candidate quotes up there too. So we have the form of a level playing field without the substance of allowing every candidate equal and sufficient space to answer the question.
I know the editors probably think they're making fair rules for these things. I just wish they would think through what they're doing, so that the result will be better for the voters and the paper. It's this sort of incompetence that makes people roll their eyes whenever you mention the Courier.
Update, Tuesday 3:30pm: I had the feeling that the answers given in the Courier sounded an awful lot like answers at the candidate forum last week, so I asked my neighbor Paul Katan about the Courier's process. He told me that his answers are indeed new and written entirely by him for this series, so Cindy was not cribbing from the forum recording.
He mentioned that part of his answer to the economy question was left out of the paper, and he complained. I see on checking the Web version of the story that the editor has gone back in to add the omitted section in bold, with a note that the omission was a mistake. I think this may be the first online correction I've seen.
Blah, blah, blah. It's so enervating to have to read the unnamed Courier editor going off yet again on "getting control of the border" and such (as if he were willing to pay the gargantuan cost of anything that might even approach doing that), that I almost missed him holding his nose and noting that our rep in Congress did several things that he likes. If ol' Ranger Rick Renzi (R - Military-Industrial Complex) had done exactly the same thing it would probably have rated a page-one story with a pic above the fold.
And do I read it right that the editor is proposing to subsidize the citizenship process for 20 million illegals? Somebody pinch me.
It's a telling event when the state proposes to pawn state buildings, including the House and Senate office buildings, several prisons and our own Pioneer Home and Sharlot Hall Museum. Joanna smartly includes the eventual cost of the proposal high up in the story -- it appears the state would be paying 1.2 billion clams for a loan of 735 million.
Is it just me, or does this seem more than a little insane?
None of our lawmakers has gone on record in favor of this Grover Norquist government-killing wet dream so far, but I'm reasonably sure that the Dept of Admin didn't just come up with this on its own, that's not how bureaucracies work. I'll be talking with Rep Mason about this on The People's Business this weekend, 2pm Saturday and Sunday on KJZA, 90.1 FM.
Not much to read in the Daily Disappointment today other than another opportunity for me to rant about the Elks, which I'll spare you, dear reader.
Do yourself and your community a favor, though, and show up at the League of Women Voters forum at Yavapai College Performance Hall at 6pm, meet the candidates and think about Prescott's future.
I don't usually respond to anonymous challenges, but this commenter makes a fair point in response to Friday's post about the Elks debacle. I'm putting up a new post because Friday will soon scroll off the front page.
The commenter says:
You state previously, the editor gives no reason except they said so, yet you do the same thing on this piece. What is your expertise here?
Some of the commenters have already pointed out that the unnamed Courier editor's "hurtling" train has been an awfully long time coming. But the editor knows that, of course. He's just transcribing the Fox News chyrons, which furnish everything a good Republican foot-soldier needs to know about anything.
Why are we in a hurry, editor? Because out here in the reality-based community we're impoverished, bankrupt, chronically ill and dying for the lack of a civilized health-care system.
Clear models have been in place and working since the 1940s. We know what to do and how to do it. What's holding up the train has always been the entrenched insurance industry and its corporatist soldiers, like the editor, who don't mind how much it costs our society as long as they get theirs.
Why does it have to be 1,000 pages, editor? I'd like to count up how many of those pages are in there to try to mollify you and your industry overlords with exemptions, loopholes and sweetheart deals demanded by the corporations, just because Democrats are determined to be inclusive, even though they know that in the end the Rs will vote against them anyway. The result is looking to be another hopelessly watered-down, ineffective waste of time, I fear.
So, editor, you're getting your wish. Your guys have derailed the train again. Be happy.
It's not really surprising that Wayne Holmes feels so besieged by barking dogs. I experienced something similar myself when I moved into my current neighborhood. It takes some work to find the relevant chunk of City code, and some hassle to prepare a complaint that the PD will attend to. Here's the code:
5-2-5: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:The key point: you have to prove your complaint, unless you can get an officer to hang out for a few minutes and hear for hermself. It's a PIA, but you're not powerless.
(A)
1. All dogs, hybrid dogs and hybrid cats shall be kept and maintained in such a manner so as not to disturb the peace, comfort or health of any person residing within the boundaries of the city. (Ord. 3026, eff. 12-24-92)2. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or maintain a dog or hybrid dog which is in the habit of barking, howling or otherwise disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the boundaries of the city. For purposes of this section, a dog or hybrid dog shall be deemed to be in the habit of barking if it is proven that the animal barks, without justification, for five (5) or more continuous minutes on two (2) separate occasions within a thirty-six (36) hour period. (Ord. No. 3026, eff. 12-24-92)
The unnamed Courier editor poo-poohs the reader letters and comments about the proposed loss of service at the Goodwin Street post office on the square. We can reasonably infer that the editor doesn't go there, so he doesn't care. Typically, in his myopia he's glossing over several important considerations.
The square is the beating heart of our vibrant downtown area. Living here for a long time, it's easy to forget how unusual it is to have a historic city center that is healthy and thriving, and how fragile it is if neglected. Our downtown works because it offers a healthy range of business and government functions in a walkable space.
I expect that most residents don't realize that the Goodwin St building is more than a post office. Along with City Hall and the county courthouse, it's the third leg in the government tripod, the historic federal building, including the district court and other functions upstairs. It's also an impressive historic structure, its warm, woody interior embellished with WPA art and the subtle smell of brass.
In the context of other government functions, it just makes sense to look for the post office on the square, and the postal function is the building's biggest draw. It's a place where we can count on meeting friends and acquaintances in passing. Last I heard there was still a substantial waiting list for those quaint PO boxes with the 86301 zip code. Closing the office will reduce foot traffic on the square and for downtown in general. (And let's not forget that people work there who eat lunch.)
Then there's the question of what happens with the building if there's no post office in it. There's little danger that it'll be torn down, I'm sure, but an empty space there is unacceptable, and converting it for other use would destroy much of the building's historic character, also unacceptable.
No, editor, the sky won't fall. But losing the old post office would be bad for downtown business, bad for Prescott's historic district, and bad for the community as a whole. The Courier long since abandoned downtown physically, and it's clear the editors are willing to abandon it generally.
Update, 6:30pm: BearWhizBeer asks whether anyone actually asserted that losing the PO meant the end of the universe. I've gone through the comments on the original story, and found no one predicting either the end of the world, as the editor says, or the end of the universe, as the breathless headline writer gave us.
