Friday night Barkeep went to the Rich DelGrasso event, the season finale of the Cactus Music Series. While I was in North Carolina in the 70s I got to know a lot of mandolin players in the bluegrass field. Between that, and a real love of blues, I had to catch this act. Folks, it was time and money well spent, my thanks to everyone who made it happen.
DelGrasso is not only a master of his art, he was a communicator par excellance. Mixing music with history, playing a variety of mandolins and guitars, by show's end one felt a personal bond with the man. His years as a teacher showed, and a world class teacher he was. I hope we can make this man at least an annual visitor.
Along with the concert, a term that doesn't really do justice to the experience, DelGrasso spent time at Central with music students from Central and Lakeview High Schools earlier in the day. His website, www.mandolinblues.com describes this "Blues in the Schools" program in more detail, but it is a loose organization of musicians willing to share their passion and time with students.
In what turned into a two-way treat, he invited three high school students he had just met that day to sit in during the second set. No rehearsal, no music sheets, just jamming. We saw Greg Ponder on trumpet, Tom Blackwood on sax, and Brianna Velasquez on bass. Tentative for a couple bars, these kids settled in and played right back at DelGrasso. The applause was not just polite noise for the "home team", these guys were good! I was able to speak to them afterwards, and they were lit up, I doubt any of them will ever forget this event. My personal history was as a high school thespian, and I can tell you, when we got a standing O for "Zoo Story", well, that was a rush I can remember like it was yesterday even though it was back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
The students gave an enthusiastic thanks to their music teachers, Adam Chappell and Mike Berry. We are blessed to have these teachers.
DelGrosso, who recently moved to Texas from Los Angeles, made a point of telling us how much he appreciated an active arts program here. As part of California's budget crunch, there is no arts curriculum there anymore in public schools.
Just in case I have made the impression that I am all about budget in the school district, let me correct that. Yes, I want to see high school graduates who can read and make change without a calculator, and I want it done within a responsible budget, but arts are an important part of becoming a well-rounded adult. Fortunately, we have a good program here, as demonstrated Friday night. We want to make sure we keep it that way in the face of an economic downturn.
Texas is nowhere close to the budget debacle California is facing. The Legislature will have less income to play with this term, but within the limits of our "Rainy Day fund"...this time. I personally predict they will find away to extend the bond guarantee program that districts with new bonds were counting on, and continue EDA support for school bonds. As voters, we need to keep those cards and letters coming, so to speak, that we don't regard arts programs as frills subject to cutting in the education budget.
I stress, no one on SAISD Board is making any noise about eliminating or cutting arts, I don't expect it anytime soon. Going back a few years and a different Board, I would not have expected cuts in Vocational Ed, but we got them. One particular item to watch; the new Admin/Science Lab building at Central will necessarily displace the existing home of the arts depatment. This will need to be done in a way that allows for continued participation in arts programs by as many students as we can interest in them.
Extra-curricular does not translate to irrelevant. Aside from the well-rounded part, any program that grabs a student's interest will help keep that kid in school. I remember a guy in high school, very good auto mechanic, this kid was making a grown man's wage after school and weekends working on cars, had a better reputation than men twice his age. He was ready to drop out, work full time in his sophomore year. My Drama teacher, Mrs. Richards (who coincidentally spent two years in San Angelo while her military husband learned Russian at Goodfellow-small world) detected something more than class clown in him and talked him into a part in a comedy we put on. Turned out, he had a comedic presence that came across the footlights, got the most laughs of anyone in this little farce, and he was hooked. I really believe he hung in and graduated high school because he was having a ball in drama. That degree probably didn't enhance his earnings much, he went on to own his own garage, but I know he still treasures the time he spent on stage.
I have good expectations of the Legislature, but if need be, we should be prepared to support the arts in our schools locally, a public/private effort if needed. My Drama club in high school, we had an auditorium and the faculty advisor, but for costumes and scenery and travel to competitions, we washed cars, sold tickets, begged, borrowed and stole (a little bit). If SAISD can find $6 million for athletic showers, we can fund a lively arts program.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Monday, June 02, 2008
Standard-Times Time-out
As it happens I had just last week written the Standard-Times my quarterly subscription check, so I shall continue to find my daily supply of fishwrap on the lawn most of the summer. After Sunday's column I can't think of a reason I should continue to fund the enterprise. No, that's unfair, the local paper is always worth reading. My very first published editorial was in the Raleigh NC News and Observer, an unabashedly liberal paper whose ownership included some of the archtects of FDR's New Deal. That goes back a ways, JFK was still President when my first editorial got ink.
I would have been pleasently surprised to find a Sunday lead editorial giving us the sincerely apologetic straight story on how the "outing" of anonymous posters happened. The explanation so far provided lacks in timeliness, details or sheer believability. What I was not prepared for was to find myself and my fellow readers lectured to, admonshished like naughty children and essentially put on "time out" and probation!
I quite agree with editor Archuleta, the quality on online posts is on the decline, but whose fault is that? Look, anonymity was never an issue for me. I "outed" myself when I took Archuleta's seat on the City Charter Review Committee just to put aside any ethical concerns about advocating for that Committee's recommendations.
Those posters who trusted the Standard-Times to abide by its privacy policy, those people who expessed opinions they would otherwise have been reluctant to state for attribution, people who have legitimate concern over possible retribution on the job or in the marketplace, those are the people with a complaint. At its best, the online comment site did attract loons and irresponsible comments. In a typical "thread" from a given story with enough interest to go "hot", let's say 50 comments, I would usually see maybe half that were worth the time to read, but so what?
One soon learned to skip lightly past the sillier tin-foil hat wearing authors, perhaps take them in for amusement. Sadly, a lot of the folks whose commentary I became accustomed to looking forward to have vanished, and who can blame them? I don't know how the Standard-Times can ever regain the trust of its readers. I suspect the San Angelo Police Dept. is experiencing a bit of difficulty developing new "confidential informants" in drug cases. Similarly there, only the desperate or the deranged would put their lives on the line and trust that organization not to put their identity on the front page. Trust once betrayed is exceedingly difficult to regain, be it a marriage, a church, or a newspaper.
What I do know is that everything the S-T has done so far has been just about precisely wrong. The "leak" of user profiles had been out there for 10 days, was being actively discussed by posters whose feelings of betrayal were evident in their comments before the S-T ink-on-dead-trees edition acknowledged it. Then the article revealing it used the "outed" user profiles to out one of the high profile Police Chief candidates, compounding the betrayal of anonymity. Assuming that article should have been written and published (two separate actions, BTW), It should have gone beyond identifying Davis and mentioned that all the candidates were using online anonymity to post, if not directly, certainly through surrogate spokespersons. I caught this incident fairly early, an SAPD source gave me a heads up that lists of user profiles were circulating in the Dept. by Thursday noon, but by the time I knew about, the barn door had been shut.
Amazingly, the S-T seems still to maintain its IT people don't talk to its reporters, who have to go to out-of-paper sources for information. While S-T passes blame to "new employees" in a Tennessee division of Scripps-Howard, a check this weekend shows the other papers in the chain are managing to keep their online comments services up and reasonably well moderated. Tells me we do have a problem, and that problem is somewhere in the Harris St. building.
Newspapers across the country are realizing the old fishwrap on the lawn model is trending toward buggy-whipdom. A recent NPR interview revealed the San Francisco Chronicle, heart of the Hearst chain, is losing a $million a WEEK. I believe the ink version of the Standard- Times is down to about 25% of households. When I was a young man, no one with pretensions of caring about "things" would have admitted to not reading the paper, and a hefty chunk of them paid for morning and afternoon editions.
I don't know how significant online revenues are to the S-T overall, but I know that online edition is a revenue source. As treasurer of two local issues SPACS, I have made out checks to pay for those annoying ads. Commercial advertizers want to see numbers of "hits" and "pageviews" to justify the ad rates. One can safely predict a sharp drop there during this "cooling off" month.
My co-author makes the case well that anonymous comments have a justifiable place in public discussion. Often exactly the people with real knowledge are in a position vulnerable to pressure from employers or commercial partners, and unlikely to risk comments for attribution. This reality justifies whistle-blower statutes granting anonymity and/or legal blocks to workplace retribution.
I hope during this period the S-T will re-examine the no anonymous posts policy announced by Mr. Archulteta. Allowing anonymity does not necessarily result in a slanderous free-for-all, that's where moderation comes into play. Set rules, keep them simple, and ENFORCE them.
I would have been pleasently surprised to find a Sunday lead editorial giving us the sincerely apologetic straight story on how the "outing" of anonymous posters happened. The explanation so far provided lacks in timeliness, details or sheer believability. What I was not prepared for was to find myself and my fellow readers lectured to, admonshished like naughty children and essentially put on "time out" and probation!
I quite agree with editor Archuleta, the quality on online posts is on the decline, but whose fault is that? Look, anonymity was never an issue for me. I "outed" myself when I took Archuleta's seat on the City Charter Review Committee just to put aside any ethical concerns about advocating for that Committee's recommendations.
Those posters who trusted the Standard-Times to abide by its privacy policy, those people who expessed opinions they would otherwise have been reluctant to state for attribution, people who have legitimate concern over possible retribution on the job or in the marketplace, those are the people with a complaint. At its best, the online comment site did attract loons and irresponsible comments. In a typical "thread" from a given story with enough interest to go "hot", let's say 50 comments, I would usually see maybe half that were worth the time to read, but so what?
One soon learned to skip lightly past the sillier tin-foil hat wearing authors, perhaps take them in for amusement. Sadly, a lot of the folks whose commentary I became accustomed to looking forward to have vanished, and who can blame them? I don't know how the Standard-Times can ever regain the trust of its readers. I suspect the San Angelo Police Dept. is experiencing a bit of difficulty developing new "confidential informants" in drug cases. Similarly there, only the desperate or the deranged would put their lives on the line and trust that organization not to put their identity on the front page. Trust once betrayed is exceedingly difficult to regain, be it a marriage, a church, or a newspaper.
What I do know is that everything the S-T has done so far has been just about precisely wrong. The "leak" of user profiles had been out there for 10 days, was being actively discussed by posters whose feelings of betrayal were evident in their comments before the S-T ink-on-dead-trees edition acknowledged it. Then the article revealing it used the "outed" user profiles to out one of the high profile Police Chief candidates, compounding the betrayal of anonymity. Assuming that article should have been written and published (two separate actions, BTW), It should have gone beyond identifying Davis and mentioned that all the candidates were using online anonymity to post, if not directly, certainly through surrogate spokespersons. I caught this incident fairly early, an SAPD source gave me a heads up that lists of user profiles were circulating in the Dept. by Thursday noon, but by the time I knew about, the barn door had been shut.
Amazingly, the S-T seems still to maintain its IT people don't talk to its reporters, who have to go to out-of-paper sources for information. While S-T passes blame to "new employees" in a Tennessee division of Scripps-Howard, a check this weekend shows the other papers in the chain are managing to keep their online comments services up and reasonably well moderated. Tells me we do have a problem, and that problem is somewhere in the Harris St. building.
Newspapers across the country are realizing the old fishwrap on the lawn model is trending toward buggy-whipdom. A recent NPR interview revealed the San Francisco Chronicle, heart of the Hearst chain, is losing a $million a WEEK. I believe the ink version of the Standard- Times is down to about 25% of households. When I was a young man, no one with pretensions of caring about "things" would have admitted to not reading the paper, and a hefty chunk of them paid for morning and afternoon editions.
I don't know how significant online revenues are to the S-T overall, but I know that online edition is a revenue source. As treasurer of two local issues SPACS, I have made out checks to pay for those annoying ads. Commercial advertizers want to see numbers of "hits" and "pageviews" to justify the ad rates. One can safely predict a sharp drop there during this "cooling off" month.
My co-author makes the case well that anonymous comments have a justifiable place in public discussion. Often exactly the people with real knowledge are in a position vulnerable to pressure from employers or commercial partners, and unlikely to risk comments for attribution. This reality justifies whistle-blower statutes granting anonymity and/or legal blocks to workplace retribution.
I hope during this period the S-T will re-examine the no anonymous posts policy announced by Mr. Archulteta. Allowing anonymity does not necessarily result in a slanderous free-for-all, that's where moderation comes into play. Set rules, keep them simple, and ENFORCE them.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Speech, Freedom, and the Internet
If you haven't noticed, the Standard Times has put their web comments on hold. I understand their reasoning and concerns, and I hope they thoroughly analyze the situation and bring the comments section back in a much improved manner. Reading the column today, though, doesn't leave me with a feeling of confidence.
First off I have to admit I have been dealing with electronic forums since before the internet was public. I was on the dial up computer bulletin boards back when a 300 baud modem was state of the art. I was on Compuserve (anyone else remember them) when they were about a year old. I have watched (and sometimes participated) in flame wars. The comments on the Standard times comments have gotten extreme sometimes, but if you really want to see how it's done you need to look at usenet (easily accessible through Groups.Google.com) and pay close attention to alt.flame and the various subgroups. I won't get in to the gritty details, but one of the groups has a subtitle "looking for the ultimate flame in return", so you can use your imagination. The interesting thing is that most usenet groups and other online forums are basically civil and manage to spread information and opinion and keep the flames, spam and other annoyances and hazards to an acceptable level. And they have done it while allowing anonymous free speech.
The key to a successful forum is a process called moderation. In its simplest definition moderation is just enforcing the rules. Moderation of forums is an ongoing process. It requires diligence and the ability to enforce rules. If you want a nice, civil, forum you have to be willing to strictly enforce the rules. You have to be willing to kill comments that break the rules, and you have to ban posters who break the rules. I normally use a 2 strikes rule. First time you break the rule, you get a warning. Next time you're banned. There are a number of tools that can be used to keep the unwanted away. Blocking emails, IP addresses, and lots of other tools can be used to keep a forum under control. You'll never get it perfect but you can make it great.
If we look at the Standard Times, and its forums, they really didn't do moderation well for quite a while. Since the comments feature came on line, there have been comments that were left on that should have been pulled. There were personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off topic posts that had nothing to do with the story that were let slide up until about half way through the last chiefs campaign. They finally started pulling some comments, and they still banned very few posters. By the time the FLDS news hit the paper, the comments were completely out of control. The genie was out of the bottle. Then, in the middle of all this, there was a poorly explained problem with their website that for about a day that disclosed the given name as well as the screen name of all of those posting comments. I still don't understand how a so called system wide change to the 19 Scripps websites only seems to have caused this problem to the Standard Times, especially when all the different websites seem to have different settings on how comments are handled. The reality is that it is time for the paper to close comments until new procedures and strategies can be put into place. They need some serious introspection.
Reading todays column over, I have a number of concerns with their approach. There have been many complaints similar to that made by aj432 long before May 22nd. Why did it take so long to react? Why have responses up until now so been ineffective? Why is it that the rest of the Scripps family of websites aren't having this many problems?
I am also very concerned that "anonymous" posting might disappear. As was shown not too long ago, the Standard times doesn't have truly anonymous posting. They still maintain a given name and an email address along with a posting history. Their current policy of keeping the given name private does give a certain amount of discreet privacy, while allowing the Standard Times to contact the poster in case of problems. If they keep the current registration procedure, they really have no way to ensure that the name the poster gave while registering is his true name. I wonder how many posters named GW Bush, M Mouse, J Davis, T Vasquez, etc. are currently signed up. There are also some much more fundamental reasons that at least some degree of anonymity should be available to the posters.
We must remember that this country has a long and proud history of anonymous commentary, especially political. Before and during the Revolution, there were numerous pamphleteers publishing articles on the injustices they saw at the time. Anonymity was important. If their identity had become known, they would have been lucky to just be hanged. Many writers in the abolitionist movement wrote anonymously for the same reasons. They were putting their life on the line to state their beliefs. Speaking out can still be dangerous today. Jobs, property, and lives can still be at stake no matter if the comments are true or not.
Then we have the history of the adoption of the constitution, with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. One of the reasons they were written under pseudonyms was so the ideas would be able to stand on their own merits, not on the reputation of the writers. Granted, many insiders knew who Publius was, but most of the audience read the papers before they knew who the author was, which gave the articles a chance at a somewhat unbiased read. This is still a meaningful goal today. There are times when an activist, official, or just well known person needs to present an idea that stands on its own merits, not on the public perception of its presenter. Anonymous speech is necessary for truly free speech and a healthy community dialog.
That doesn't mean there is little the standard times can or should do. There are some basic procedures they can implement to get their comments section back on track and still have a dynamic, healthy website.
First, limit the number of posts a day a person can do. You are already doing that in the print edition by limiting letters to the editor to one every 30 days. Between using email addresses, IP addresses, and cookies for tracking, there are ways to keep people from going overboard on the number of posts. Limit each poster to 1 post per day per topic, and 5 posts per day total, and a lot of the problems will disappear. Far too many of the current posters are using the comments section as little more than a public chat room. Some don't have a life, so are posting or responding twenty or more times a day. Limit them to one good post a day, with a response being unavailable until the next day, and the quality of the postings will improve, and the amount of vitriol will diminish significantly.
Next, enlist the web community in policing of the comments. Set the software up so that you can have posters that can moderate certain sections, and then get volunteers you can trust to help moderate the comments. Set it up so that all of their decisions can be reviewed and undone by staff if need be, but there should be plenty of people willing to help.
If you can't get help in moderating a section, set a limit on the numbers of posts per day that will be allowed. 25 to 50 might be a good starting point but flexibility will be needed to get it right.
Additionally, have staff respond to posts that are getting close to the edge within the comments section from time to time. Public explanations of how a post failed to meet the rules helps motivate all posters to play by the rules better. Remind them that free speech is not unfettered, unrestricted speech. It's your soap box and you get to decide the rules.
As I stated earlier, I have been participating in online forums for over 30 years. I know that you can run a successful forum and still have anonymous, intense, active discussions. I realize that the comments are the Standard Times soap box, and that they are a business, and they have the right to take their soap box away if they so choose, but I also know that they do want a open, healthy dialog on the issues. It contributes greatly to a healthy environment and community. I hope they consider this post and my suggestions carefully. In the mean time, we at conchoinfo will be maintaining our policy of allowing anonymous posts. It takes work, but is worth the effort. We may change how we do moderation, but anonymous speech is too important a part of free speech to be eliminated without exhausting other options.
First off I have to admit I have been dealing with electronic forums since before the internet was public. I was on the dial up computer bulletin boards back when a 300 baud modem was state of the art. I was on Compuserve (anyone else remember them) when they were about a year old. I have watched (and sometimes participated) in flame wars. The comments on the Standard times comments have gotten extreme sometimes, but if you really want to see how it's done you need to look at usenet (easily accessible through Groups.Google.com) and pay close attention to alt.flame and the various subgroups. I won't get in to the gritty details, but one of the groups has a subtitle "looking for the ultimate flame in return", so you can use your imagination. The interesting thing is that most usenet groups and other online forums are basically civil and manage to spread information and opinion and keep the flames, spam and other annoyances and hazards to an acceptable level. And they have done it while allowing anonymous free speech.
The key to a successful forum is a process called moderation. In its simplest definition moderation is just enforcing the rules. Moderation of forums is an ongoing process. It requires diligence and the ability to enforce rules. If you want a nice, civil, forum you have to be willing to strictly enforce the rules. You have to be willing to kill comments that break the rules, and you have to ban posters who break the rules. I normally use a 2 strikes rule. First time you break the rule, you get a warning. Next time you're banned. There are a number of tools that can be used to keep the unwanted away. Blocking emails, IP addresses, and lots of other tools can be used to keep a forum under control. You'll never get it perfect but you can make it great.
If we look at the Standard Times, and its forums, they really didn't do moderation well for quite a while. Since the comments feature came on line, there have been comments that were left on that should have been pulled. There were personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off topic posts that had nothing to do with the story that were let slide up until about half way through the last chiefs campaign. They finally started pulling some comments, and they still banned very few posters. By the time the FLDS news hit the paper, the comments were completely out of control. The genie was out of the bottle. Then, in the middle of all this, there was a poorly explained problem with their website that for about a day that disclosed the given name as well as the screen name of all of those posting comments. I still don't understand how a so called system wide change to the 19 Scripps websites only seems to have caused this problem to the Standard Times, especially when all the different websites seem to have different settings on how comments are handled. The reality is that it is time for the paper to close comments until new procedures and strategies can be put into place. They need some serious introspection.
Reading todays column over, I have a number of concerns with their approach. There have been many complaints similar to that made by aj432 long before May 22nd. Why did it take so long to react? Why have responses up until now so been ineffective? Why is it that the rest of the Scripps family of websites aren't having this many problems?
I am also very concerned that "anonymous" posting might disappear. As was shown not too long ago, the Standard times doesn't have truly anonymous posting. They still maintain a given name and an email address along with a posting history. Their current policy of keeping the given name private does give a certain amount of discreet privacy, while allowing the Standard Times to contact the poster in case of problems. If they keep the current registration procedure, they really have no way to ensure that the name the poster gave while registering is his true name. I wonder how many posters named GW Bush, M Mouse, J Davis, T Vasquez, etc. are currently signed up. There are also some much more fundamental reasons that at least some degree of anonymity should be available to the posters.
We must remember that this country has a long and proud history of anonymous commentary, especially political. Before and during the Revolution, there were numerous pamphleteers publishing articles on the injustices they saw at the time. Anonymity was important. If their identity had become known, they would have been lucky to just be hanged. Many writers in the abolitionist movement wrote anonymously for the same reasons. They were putting their life on the line to state their beliefs. Speaking out can still be dangerous today. Jobs, property, and lives can still be at stake no matter if the comments are true or not.
Then we have the history of the adoption of the constitution, with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. One of the reasons they were written under pseudonyms was so the ideas would be able to stand on their own merits, not on the reputation of the writers. Granted, many insiders knew who Publius was, but most of the audience read the papers before they knew who the author was, which gave the articles a chance at a somewhat unbiased read. This is still a meaningful goal today. There are times when an activist, official, or just well known person needs to present an idea that stands on its own merits, not on the public perception of its presenter. Anonymous speech is necessary for truly free speech and a healthy community dialog.
That doesn't mean there is little the standard times can or should do. There are some basic procedures they can implement to get their comments section back on track and still have a dynamic, healthy website.
First, limit the number of posts a day a person can do. You are already doing that in the print edition by limiting letters to the editor to one every 30 days. Between using email addresses, IP addresses, and cookies for tracking, there are ways to keep people from going overboard on the number of posts. Limit each poster to 1 post per day per topic, and 5 posts per day total, and a lot of the problems will disappear. Far too many of the current posters are using the comments section as little more than a public chat room. Some don't have a life, so are posting or responding twenty or more times a day. Limit them to one good post a day, with a response being unavailable until the next day, and the quality of the postings will improve, and the amount of vitriol will diminish significantly.
Next, enlist the web community in policing of the comments. Set the software up so that you can have posters that can moderate certain sections, and then get volunteers you can trust to help moderate the comments. Set it up so that all of their decisions can be reviewed and undone by staff if need be, but there should be plenty of people willing to help.
If you can't get help in moderating a section, set a limit on the numbers of posts per day that will be allowed. 25 to 50 might be a good starting point but flexibility will be needed to get it right.
Additionally, have staff respond to posts that are getting close to the edge within the comments section from time to time. Public explanations of how a post failed to meet the rules helps motivate all posters to play by the rules better. Remind them that free speech is not unfettered, unrestricted speech. It's your soap box and you get to decide the rules.
As I stated earlier, I have been participating in online forums for over 30 years. I know that you can run a successful forum and still have anonymous, intense, active discussions. I realize that the comments are the Standard Times soap box, and that they are a business, and they have the right to take their soap box away if they so choose, but I also know that they do want a open, healthy dialog on the issues. It contributes greatly to a healthy environment and community. I hope they consider this post and my suggestions carefully. In the mean time, we at conchoinfo will be maintaining our policy of allowing anonymous posts. It takes work, but is worth the effort. We may change how we do moderation, but anonymous speech is too important a part of free speech to be eliminated without exhausting other options.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Surprising San Angelo and FLDS
A few years back, a billboard on Knickerbocker greeted Mathis Field visitors with the "Surprising San Angelo" slogan. We might think about reviving that slogan, it is inarguably true.
This past week, we had an early AM, thankfully minor, tornado or two. As it happened, CNN national feed beat the local alert system on the report by a few minutes. That is not a slap at the local system, we just happened to have in town a hundred or so of the hungriest news hounds on the planet covering the FLDS sect story. Given the time of day (OK, night), the CNN crew might well have been making their way home from Fat Boss Bar when they personally encountered this remarkably fast moving storm. Don't know that, pure speculation, but...
The Standard-Times is really doing a pretty good job, but they are running out of front page space. Had someone told me last May that the next SAISD Bond proposal would be buried under more urgent news, I'd have told them straight up to activate the third brain cell, no way. Oops!, would have lost that dollars-to-donuts bet. BTW, yours truly will be truly busy Monday, SAISD will hear a second presentation of the bond Committee and at 7:00 PM the ASU College Republicans will host another police chief candidate forum in CJ Davidson Center. With luck, I can catch most of both. Conchoinfo does have limited staff.
S-T has done a remarkable job of reporting this FLDS mess, but I have a few points worth mentioning. Using the term "sect" in the paper instead of "cult" was a good starting point. More on that point later.
Before I wander afield in general speculation, let me make clear; I support the idea of prosecuting any genuine statutory, even more vigorously any forcible rape arising from this investigation. Freedom of religion has limits. The Supreme Court may allow a Santeria believer to sacrifice a chicken to his God, but human sacrifice, be it mortal or rape, is clearly out of bounds. Christian Scientists are allowed to refuse medical treatment and die in good faith, but they may not withhold it from their underage children.
When FLDS bought the Eldorado property, a lot of people went into panic mode, not without reason. The history of this group in Colorado City, Az. or Hilsdale, Utah was scary. There, they had registered voters, put people on ballot, and in essence, they were the city gov't and police force. Had FLDS tried this in Schleicher County, with its limited number of voting age eligible, they probably could have owned Eldorado, politically. One of "Prophet" Jeff's policies was to withdraw from, rather than engage in, local affairs. Where the twin towns of Hildale and Colorado City had attracted enough attention that the states took over, Jeffs counseled the FLDS that flying "under the radar" would be more effective for the sect's interests than an overt takeover.
I am a little concerned that the breadth of the warrants issued might exceed the scope justified by a slightly shaky, second hand report, recanted in the last phone call to a non-gov't agency by a 16 year old as yet unproduced. Note here; law enforcement from two states have interviewed the alleged offender and chosen not to make an arrest as yet. Fortunately or not, Texas Statute gives Child Protective Services standing here that nearly no other criminal investigating unit gets. If this were an old-fashioned drug-trafficking case, it would take a high pockets Miami lawyer about two minutes to shred the warrant and the subsequent "fruit of the poisonous tree", effectively dumping a week long investigation in the nearest bar ditch. If one is curious, the warrant application is here.
As has been reported, State Rep. Hildebrand (Kerrville) put forth several legislative changes in response to FLDS. The most important was the change in the age at which a marriage can be "blessed" by the state from 14 to 16. There was also an "anti-polygamy" law which has yet to be tested in the real world.
To me, the most under-appreciated player in this drama is Schleicher Co. Sheriff David Doran. By approaching the FLDS leaders non-confrontationaly, he at least got their ear. Thanks to Doran and his connections, FLDS elders cannot claim ignorance of the change in statute: also thanks to Sheriff Doran, this raid did NOT turn into a Waco, Branch Davidian armed stand-off. Should it come to pass that the authorities over-reacted, at least everybody will be alive to hear that judicial determination. If Sheriff Doran comes off as "Andy of Mayberry", well look back at that TV series and its stress on common sense: good ol' boy Andy Taylor was hardly an idiot.
FLDS is one of the original spin-offs from the Utah statehood/Mormon agreement to ban polygamy. The Mormons disavowed polygamy in 1890 and Utah was given statehood in 1896. FLDS is not the only polygamist sect out there, they just get the headlines. Most of the 40-50,000 polygamists tracing back to some sect of Mormon belief escape official attention by drawing a bright line at age 18. Once past the age of legal consent, "spiritual unions" escape most polygamy/bigamy laws by not sanctioning with state license. In the eyes of the law, they are no different from any unwed "shack-up" relationship.
My "Let's take a deep breath" moment on this comes to considering the application of the legal changes not to this sect, but to society at large. We all know that there are an unfortunately large number of under 16 girls in Texas who somehow manage to produce babies each year, completely unrelated to FLDS, virgin birth, or anything remotely religious. If it is society's will that these children be consigned to illegitimacy, something the 14-with-parental-consent law sought to avoid, well, bastardy isn't the social burden it was in my youth, so be it. Do we intend to go after the fathers of these children as criminals?
I grant that FLDS has demonstrated a pattern of forced under-age marriage beyond anything society should tolerate in the name of religious freedom going back to the 1890 schism from the Mormon Church. I am afraid the tools we craft in haste to go after FLDS will turn into an instrument of prosecutorial discretion which could later be used against individuals or groups which simply happen to be out of favor.
I recall the 70's when a few states dusted off the old, long dormant laws prohibiting unwed cohabitation. They were almost always used against "Hippies", mixed-race relationships, or whomever the local law thought to be "subversive". We saw police raiding large houses, counting noses, counting bedrooms, checking whose clothes hung in which closets, and busting unwed adults for sleeping in the same bed. As I recall, the passion for this sort of suppression weakened about the time the Governor's daughter was charged along with the Mayor's son, but perhaps you see where I'm going.
We need to take whatever time is needed and craft laws that are directed to the act we want to abolish, not suppression of a religion most of us find to be "weird". By definition, any religion, being a belief in something supernatural, requires a "suspension of disbelief". Typically, if it is our religion, we call it "Faith" and hold it in high esteem; if it is someone else's religion, we pity the poor brainwashed fool. When Thomas Jefferson forced into reality the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the most notable "cult" protected by it was some new-fangled bunch of deranged Protestants known as "Baptists".
Take the following thought experiment. The majority of us are Christian, so assume we are describing our belief to someone of average intelligence and good moral character, but he is from the other side of the world and knows nearly nothing about Christian doctrine. After you have thoroughly befuddled him with the mystery of the Trinity and the duality of Christ's manhood/Godhood, throw in an explanation of a core Christian doctrine, the Miracle of Transubstantiation. Just for fun, explain that while taking Communion. Assuming he believes you, don't be shocked if he becomes physically ill watching you (from his point of view) drink blood and indulge in cannibalism.
I am not mocking my own religion, I am making the point that to a non-believer, ANY religion is horsefeathers. Civic law needs to rest on non-discriminatory legal precedent, not anyone's Holy Book. To do otherwise invites another generation, using another Holy Book, to turn the tables on us.
This past week, we had an early AM, thankfully minor, tornado or two. As it happened, CNN national feed beat the local alert system on the report by a few minutes. That is not a slap at the local system, we just happened to have in town a hundred or so of the hungriest news hounds on the planet covering the FLDS sect story. Given the time of day (OK, night), the CNN crew might well have been making their way home from Fat Boss Bar when they personally encountered this remarkably fast moving storm. Don't know that, pure speculation, but...
The Standard-Times is really doing a pretty good job, but they are running out of front page space. Had someone told me last May that the next SAISD Bond proposal would be buried under more urgent news, I'd have told them straight up to activate the third brain cell, no way. Oops!, would have lost that dollars-to-donuts bet. BTW, yours truly will be truly busy Monday, SAISD will hear a second presentation of the bond Committee and at 7:00 PM the ASU College Republicans will host another police chief candidate forum in CJ Davidson Center. With luck, I can catch most of both. Conchoinfo does have limited staff.
S-T has done a remarkable job of reporting this FLDS mess, but I have a few points worth mentioning. Using the term "sect" in the paper instead of "cult" was a good starting point. More on that point later.
Before I wander afield in general speculation, let me make clear; I support the idea of prosecuting any genuine statutory, even more vigorously any forcible rape arising from this investigation. Freedom of religion has limits. The Supreme Court may allow a Santeria believer to sacrifice a chicken to his God, but human sacrifice, be it mortal or rape, is clearly out of bounds. Christian Scientists are allowed to refuse medical treatment and die in good faith, but they may not withhold it from their underage children.
When FLDS bought the Eldorado property, a lot of people went into panic mode, not without reason. The history of this group in Colorado City, Az. or Hilsdale, Utah was scary. There, they had registered voters, put people on ballot, and in essence, they were the city gov't and police force. Had FLDS tried this in Schleicher County, with its limited number of voting age eligible, they probably could have owned Eldorado, politically. One of "Prophet" Jeff's policies was to withdraw from, rather than engage in, local affairs. Where the twin towns of Hildale and Colorado City had attracted enough attention that the states took over, Jeffs counseled the FLDS that flying "under the radar" would be more effective for the sect's interests than an overt takeover.
I am a little concerned that the breadth of the warrants issued might exceed the scope justified by a slightly shaky, second hand report, recanted in the last phone call to a non-gov't agency by a 16 year old as yet unproduced. Note here; law enforcement from two states have interviewed the alleged offender and chosen not to make an arrest as yet. Fortunately or not, Texas Statute gives Child Protective Services standing here that nearly no other criminal investigating unit gets. If this were an old-fashioned drug-trafficking case, it would take a high pockets Miami lawyer about two minutes to shred the warrant and the subsequent "fruit of the poisonous tree", effectively dumping a week long investigation in the nearest bar ditch. If one is curious, the warrant application is here.
As has been reported, State Rep. Hildebrand (Kerrville) put forth several legislative changes in response to FLDS. The most important was the change in the age at which a marriage can be "blessed" by the state from 14 to 16. There was also an "anti-polygamy" law which has yet to be tested in the real world.
To me, the most under-appreciated player in this drama is Schleicher Co. Sheriff David Doran. By approaching the FLDS leaders non-confrontationaly, he at least got their ear. Thanks to Doran and his connections, FLDS elders cannot claim ignorance of the change in statute: also thanks to Sheriff Doran, this raid did NOT turn into a Waco, Branch Davidian armed stand-off. Should it come to pass that the authorities over-reacted, at least everybody will be alive to hear that judicial determination. If Sheriff Doran comes off as "Andy of Mayberry", well look back at that TV series and its stress on common sense: good ol' boy Andy Taylor was hardly an idiot.
FLDS is one of the original spin-offs from the Utah statehood/Mormon agreement to ban polygamy. The Mormons disavowed polygamy in 1890 and Utah was given statehood in 1896. FLDS is not the only polygamist sect out there, they just get the headlines. Most of the 40-50,000 polygamists tracing back to some sect of Mormon belief escape official attention by drawing a bright line at age 18. Once past the age of legal consent, "spiritual unions" escape most polygamy/bigamy laws by not sanctioning with state license. In the eyes of the law, they are no different from any unwed "shack-up" relationship.
My "Let's take a deep breath" moment on this comes to considering the application of the legal changes not to this sect, but to society at large. We all know that there are an unfortunately large number of under 16 girls in Texas who somehow manage to produce babies each year, completely unrelated to FLDS, virgin birth, or anything remotely religious. If it is society's will that these children be consigned to illegitimacy, something the 14-with-parental-consent law sought to avoid, well, bastardy isn't the social burden it was in my youth, so be it. Do we intend to go after the fathers of these children as criminals?
I grant that FLDS has demonstrated a pattern of forced under-age marriage beyond anything society should tolerate in the name of religious freedom going back to the 1890 schism from the Mormon Church. I am afraid the tools we craft in haste to go after FLDS will turn into an instrument of prosecutorial discretion which could later be used against individuals or groups which simply happen to be out of favor.
I recall the 70's when a few states dusted off the old, long dormant laws prohibiting unwed cohabitation. They were almost always used against "Hippies", mixed-race relationships, or whomever the local law thought to be "subversive". We saw police raiding large houses, counting noses, counting bedrooms, checking whose clothes hung in which closets, and busting unwed adults for sleeping in the same bed. As I recall, the passion for this sort of suppression weakened about the time the Governor's daughter was charged along with the Mayor's son, but perhaps you see where I'm going.
We need to take whatever time is needed and craft laws that are directed to the act we want to abolish, not suppression of a religion most of us find to be "weird". By definition, any religion, being a belief in something supernatural, requires a "suspension of disbelief". Typically, if it is our religion, we call it "Faith" and hold it in high esteem; if it is someone else's religion, we pity the poor brainwashed fool. When Thomas Jefferson forced into reality the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the most notable "cult" protected by it was some new-fangled bunch of deranged Protestants known as "Baptists".
Take the following thought experiment. The majority of us are Christian, so assume we are describing our belief to someone of average intelligence and good moral character, but he is from the other side of the world and knows nearly nothing about Christian doctrine. After you have thoroughly befuddled him with the mystery of the Trinity and the duality of Christ's manhood/Godhood, throw in an explanation of a core Christian doctrine, the Miracle of Transubstantiation. Just for fun, explain that while taking Communion. Assuming he believes you, don't be shocked if he becomes physically ill watching you (from his point of view) drink blood and indulge in cannibalism.
I am not mocking my own religion, I am making the point that to a non-believer, ANY religion is horsefeathers. Civic law needs to rest on non-discriminatory legal precedent, not anyone's Holy Book. To do otherwise invites another generation, using another Holy Book, to turn the tables on us.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Free Money
I received an unexpected bonus check this week, and after careful consideration, decided to use it for pure indulgence, a pricey meal at a local restaraunt. The "economic stimulus" crowd of federal gov't would be proud of me, as will the eatery and the Chamber of Commerce.
We do limit ourselves to local issues, so I spare my loyal readers a symposium on Keynesian macroeconomics.
I did think it worth an alert to pass this on. My roommate is retired, Social Security income, and does not have to file tax returns, as she has no additioal reportable income. Something I heard on NPR Sirius radio, the "economic stimulus rebate" will go to last year's filers, just for an address base. Roommate owed no taxes, could have skipped filing altogether, BUT...
She went down to the local federal office, explained her situation to the helpful soul there, he filled out her 1040EZ return and she will get a Gov't check for about $300 this May! Same result for at least two other retirees we personally alerted. Now whether they will use it to pay bills or stimulate the economy is up to them, my opinion, as long as the feds have been taking their money, they are entitled to get some of it back.
We have plenty of people in my roommate's situation as a retirement city. If this circumstance applies to you, or someone you know, make sure they file for the "free money". No guilt about being welfare queeens here, anyone qualifying will have been a long-term tax payer.
Good luck; the local economy is so diverse, failure in one aspect won't kill the deal. If my job is senior supervisor of buggy-whip manufacturing, I should worry. San Angelo may not be the town to get rich in, but damned if it ai't fun
Just another helpful hint from conchoinfo.
We do limit ourselves to local issues, so I spare my loyal readers a symposium on Keynesian macroeconomics.
I did think it worth an alert to pass this on. My roommate is retired, Social Security income, and does not have to file tax returns, as she has no additioal reportable income. Something I heard on NPR Sirius radio, the "economic stimulus rebate" will go to last year's filers, just for an address base. Roommate owed no taxes, could have skipped filing altogether, BUT...
She went down to the local federal office, explained her situation to the helpful soul there, he filled out her 1040EZ return and she will get a Gov't check for about $300 this May! Same result for at least two other retirees we personally alerted. Now whether they will use it to pay bills or stimulate the economy is up to them, my opinion, as long as the feds have been taking their money, they are entitled to get some of it back.
We have plenty of people in my roommate's situation as a retirement city. If this circumstance applies to you, or someone you know, make sure they file for the "free money". No guilt about being welfare queeens here, anyone qualifying will have been a long-term tax payer.
Good luck; the local economy is so diverse, failure in one aspect won't kill the deal. If my job is senior supervisor of buggy-whip manufacturing, I should worry. San Angelo may not be the town to get rich in, but damned if it ai't fun
Just another helpful hint from conchoinfo.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Information Freedom
You have probably heard this verse "And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)." This is one of the reasons we are doing ConchoInfo.org. Easy access to information is necessary to get at the truth. Easy access to the truth is absolutely necessary for freedom to flourish.
Much of the research on any issue is done over the internet today. You can wake up at 3:00 am and check out the facts on that idea you just had. No need to wait until the library opens the next morning. No reason to trek through the cold and spend hours searching the stacks.
The Standard Times, our major local news paper, used to have their complete archive on line back to 1996 for free. This was a great service for politically active or just interested individuals. Use it to research who said what about the sales tax or tennis court or proposed prison. It was quick and easy.
Some time this year, the paper changed their web presence and services. They added some blog like capabilities so readers can comment on articles right there, and they are occasionally publishing these comments like they used to run Speak Your Mind, a great way to get reader feed back.
They also changed their Archives. If you use the basic search, you get any article from the first of the year. Any article older than that requires you to search their archive separately. The titles and first paragraph comes up, but if you click for the full article you are redirected to a site ran by newsbank.com. You will be presented with a price list that starts with $2.95 for a single article, and ranges up to $1995.00 for a one year, 1000 article max annual subscription (they do have a $995 plan that allows 500 articles a year.) Talk about sticker shock.
If you go directly to newsbank, you can save yourself considerable money. It still costs $2.95 if you just want a single article, but if you sign up as a researcher or free lance writer (not sure about other plans) you can get 50 articles a month for $19.95, which they will bill monthly. This access also allows access to a number of papers that are signed up for their news library service. Still a bit high, but affordable.
I understand that print media such as newspapers are facing financial challenges. They are struggling to make money off their articles, etc.. A reasonable charge for past articles, if you can't figure out how to pay for views through advertising, is also reasonable but lets be reasonable. The New York Times has free registration which allows access to current news and a significant part of their articles. They have a full access service called times select that is only $7.95 per month or $49.95 a year. It is hard for me to swallow that Standard Times articles cost that much more than articles from the premier American paper.
In a way, I find this a step backwards. It limits article access to those with deep pockets. NewsBank seems to be archiving a lot of regional and small town papers. With that number of papers they could charge a more modest fee and actually make more money.
Much of the research on any issue is done over the internet today. You can wake up at 3:00 am and check out the facts on that idea you just had. No need to wait until the library opens the next morning. No reason to trek through the cold and spend hours searching the stacks.
The Standard Times, our major local news paper, used to have their complete archive on line back to 1996 for free. This was a great service for politically active or just interested individuals. Use it to research who said what about the sales tax or tennis court or proposed prison. It was quick and easy.
Some time this year, the paper changed their web presence and services. They added some blog like capabilities so readers can comment on articles right there, and they are occasionally publishing these comments like they used to run Speak Your Mind, a great way to get reader feed back.
They also changed their Archives. If you use the basic search, you get any article from the first of the year. Any article older than that requires you to search their archive separately. The titles and first paragraph comes up, but if you click for the full article you are redirected to a site ran by newsbank.com. You will be presented with a price list that starts with $2.95 for a single article, and ranges up to $1995.00 for a one year, 1000 article max annual subscription (they do have a $995 plan that allows 500 articles a year.) Talk about sticker shock.
If you go directly to newsbank, you can save yourself considerable money. It still costs $2.95 if you just want a single article, but if you sign up as a researcher or free lance writer (not sure about other plans) you can get 50 articles a month for $19.95, which they will bill monthly. This access also allows access to a number of papers that are signed up for their news library service. Still a bit high, but affordable.
I understand that print media such as newspapers are facing financial challenges. They are struggling to make money off their articles, etc.. A reasonable charge for past articles, if you can't figure out how to pay for views through advertising, is also reasonable but lets be reasonable. The New York Times has free registration which allows access to current news and a significant part of their articles. They have a full access service called times select that is only $7.95 per month or $49.95 a year. It is hard for me to swallow that Standard Times articles cost that much more than articles from the premier American paper.
In a way, I find this a step backwards. It limits article access to those with deep pockets. NewsBank seems to be archiving a lot of regional and small town papers. With that number of papers they could charge a more modest fee and actually make more money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)