Get off my lawn, etc.

Hering really gets his wires crossed with this editorial:

Normally you would think that the government should stay out of deciding what people can eat and drink. But we crossed that bridge long, long ago with generally good results. We rely on the government, for example, to inspect meat and other products to try to make sure they are safe to eat.

Then, we took another step when the people consented to let the government tell citizens about the risks of drinking and smoking tobacco.

From there it is no big departure for the government to go after other substances that are found to be bad for your health.

Today that is trans fats. Tomorrow maybe sugar. After that, what? (hh)

So.... the government regulating food and drink is a good thing, because it keeps us safe. But it's a bad thing because the government shouldn't regulate anything, and who knows what they might decide to regulate next!

Does Hering not realize he's essentially written two wildly conflicting viewpoints into one editorial? Or that he reveals the lack of logic in his belief that any kind of government regulation is bad when he clearly states that certain regulations on food and drink are good things, then immediately drops a warning about the possibility of future regulations with no evidence that said regulations will be anything but good....

I'm so confused. Why is this man allowed to write editorials again?

This is to say nothing, of course, at the stupid rumor-mongering Hering presents when he brings up sugar as something that might be banned. I always understood newspaper editors to be journalists - and that journalists shouldn't be putting things in print that have no source or are merely rumors. But what do I know...

*Urp*

I'm not going to comment on the content of this editorial, but merely note that the tone is incredibly whiny and anti-intellectual. I suppose it's intended to be a mockery of the state, but to me it comes across as saying a lot more about how Hering sees the world than anything else.

...OK, fine: The editorial contains not a single bit of information on why there are land-use laws and restrictions in the first place and without that it's about as worthless as all that horse shit I stepped over this morning while trying to find this.

[Hasso Hering] Free Double Whammy! Plus Bonus Snark!

It's been some time since I did this... *cracks knuckles*

OK.

Editorial #1: I don't want to wear no stinkin' seatbelt:

The right question is: Why is the state making officers do something as ridiculous as stopping motorists on the streets and highways, exposing themselves to the usual hazards of traffic stops and subjecting motorists to the heart-pounding experience of seeing the flashing lights go on behind them?

Interesting - I wonder if Hering thinks that pulling people over for speeding, running red lights or other similar infractions is any different, since ALL require doing something as "ridiculous" as stopping motorists on the road?

Better yet, are police officers supposed to simply not enforce this law? I mean I have plenty of criticisms of police practices, but Hering gets points for being completely incomprehensible.

It makes my brain hurt.

Oh yeah:

The few drivers who don’t use their belts now and then, and who ignore the warning bells, do not represent a public hazard. Whatever danger they represent is only to themselves...

Can I just call bullshit? If the claim is true, does that mean Hering just implied that people who don't wear seatbelts deserve to be hurt? I hope not.

In any case, the banality of this editorial is more than made up for in the comments section. At least now I know Hering has fans, or at least ideological allies. The totality of the comments submitted so far, unedited for your reading pleasure:

Bill wrote on Feb 11, 2008 3:15 PM:
" The nanny state has spoken: do what we say is good for you or else face the consequences. "


Willpower wrote on Feb 11, 2008 4:39 PM:
" The fascist state speaks with police. Of course Albany cops aren't bothering with DRIVING VIOLATIONS. Safety and courtesy are too hard to track down i suppose."


Barefoot wrote on Feb 11, 2008 5:48 PM:
" [quote]
The few drivers who don’t use their belts now and then, and who ignore the warning bells, do not represent a public hazard.
[/quote]

OH REALLY? So- you are also against helmet laws, Hasso? "


Lash Goldenrod wrote on Feb 11, 2008 6:02 PM:
" The right question: Why does the state need to coerce us by imposing seatbelt use? Everybody knows it's the smart thing to do so virtually all of us voluntarily buckle up. The government doesn't have to make this choice for us. H.L. Mencken said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." Seat-belt laws are government at its most arrogant. "


178 wrote on Feb 11, 2008 7:42 PM:
" Everyone know it's the smart thing to obey the speed limit on the freeway so why bother enforcing that law?

Wow. Just wow.

OK. Moving on to editorial #2: Completely ignoring the issue you bring up in your own editorial.

First, the setup:

An editorial here last week backing the idea of a liquid natural gas terminal in Oregon set off a wave of letters, several of which appeared Saturday. How could anyone favor importing this form of energy, they all more or less exclaimed. Don’t we all know this would just extend our dependence on fossil fuel, and foreign fuel at that? Pipelines would have to be built. And the danger!

You get that? Dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

OK. Now check out the entirety of the rest of the editorial and tell me where Hering addresses the 5,000-lb gorilla in the room:

Liquid natural gas is a perfectly harmless form of energy. Tanks of LNG have existed at Newport and in the heart if Portland for years. Stored LNG is not under pressure, and if a tank should spring a leak, the liquid turns back into gas and escapes to the air.

We already live with fuel and gas pipelines. And the lower Columbia is a busy international shipping lane where a few added tankers wouldn’t even be noticed.

And as for LNG raising the price? If domestic natural gas is available and cheaper than imported LNG, utilities won’t buy it. Imports would stop.

In short, the objections to LNG may be loud, but they make no sense. (hh)

That's right. He completely omits it. And then he has the gall to claim that the objections "make no sense."

Damn, that's good. Or ballsy. Or arrogant. Or - perhaps - just really bad editorial writing.

Immediate Update: The commenters take Hering to task about the safety of LNG storage in no small way, shredding what little material was actually in the editorial. Check it out.

Summary: Hering Still Unable to Tell the Truth

Two recent editorials in the DH remind me that Hering is still struggling with honesty.

Hering on the EPA/California dustup:

Then last Wednesday, the federal Environmental Protection Agency denied the California waiver request, provoking cries of outrage from California officials and others including Oregon Governor Kulongoski.

But the EPA made the right decision. Automobiles are an international business, and the United States is better off with a uniform national standard on how car engines have to be built. It’s the federal government that should be in charge of setting standards that apply equally in all the states.

He sure does love him some law and order - especially when he can hide behind that as justification to ignore the needs of the environment. This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Or, as commenter Publicus put it: "Isn't it curious how conservatives are all for states' rights until a state does something they don't like?"

Hering advocates for the "Fair Tax" - a 23% national sales tax:

Such a proposal exists. It’s called the Fair Tax, fittingly enough. It boils down to a national sales tax collected at the point of final sale. Instead of exemptions for basics, it includes a plan to send every American a check once a year to compensate for taxing those items.

Beyond that, we all would pay at the same rate whenever we bought anything. The backers say a rate of 23 percent of sales would equal what the government gets from the income and payroll tax.

The Fair Tax proposal has been destroyed so many times I'm not going to bother (but see here for one example). It's snake oil: It sounds good at first glance (or so I am told - I thought it was poppycock from day one) but is incredibly regressive and would almost certainly cause immense economic misery. Is it any wonder that Hering and a bunch of rich white guys advocate for it?

Grover Norquist advocates for the Fair Tax. That should tell you all you need to know. He was, for the record, the guy who said he wants to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Note: I am aware that I probably give Hering a (very small) boost in web traffic since I tend to link to his editorials often. This does not bother me.

Memo to Hering: The DH is Not Your Private Diary

The funny thing is, I think there's a broad sense in which I agree that the direction of technology in closed markets (like cell phones) does not always coincide with the wishes of the consumer. But that's not what Hering wrote. He used his platform to make a personal complaint, which is actually pretty common for him. I just wish he'd stop assuming that what he thinks is a universal concern and learn to make an argument that relies on more than bland assertion:

The world no longer needs a good five-cent cigar. What the world needs instead is a cell phone technology that works and is applied to all such calls.

If you receive a lot of telephone calls from various people and locations, and if your hearing might have been better a few decades ago, you know the frustration of the modern age: the lousy quality of the acoustics in far too many calls.

Many calls are marred by interference. Others sound as though they originate inside an empty 50-gallon drum. Still others give you every second word and the the first half of each word in between.

There is, in other words, good reason for the ad campaign that asks: “Can you hear me now?”

The answer is no. Or just a little. Or, well, I missed the last few words because you must have gone through a tunnel. Or stood under a tree. Or turned your head sideways.

Voice communication by telephone used to be a wonder of the modern world. We have made it more ubiquitous but less reliable. Progress? No, it’s going backward. (hh)

Get Off My Lawn Or I'll Shoot Edition

Of course it's Hering. Who else would it be?

I'll keep this short - I have better things to do:

The same issue has come up in Oregon in connection with public schools. A Medford teacher challenged her school district’s policy that barred her from being armed on school grounds. She went to court and lost, but she’s appealing. Now the school district plans to ask the Oregon Legislature to amend the law in order to give school districts explicit authority to enforce such policies. The question would be how. Metal detectors? Regular pat-downs?

Yes, actually. Apparently Hering is unaware that some schools actually have metal detectors and bag searches.

I always thought that being an editor meant that one actually researched the editorials they wrote.

There's also this:

Another is that people who have met the requirements for a permit to carry a concealed weapon are, as a general rule, more law-abiding and responsible than your average individual in the population at large — and certainly more so than the criminal who just ignores the law.

Really? Evidence, please. I hear this all the time from gun advocates, but I have never seen a single scrap of evidence for the claim that people with concealed weapons permits are safer than those without. My experience is completely contradictory to that - the craziest people I know are also the ones who carry concealed.

Hering really shouldn't be in the business of printing - or writing - evidence-free assertions based on unsupported (and frankly ridiculous) beliefs. It's not becoming of a newspaper editor.

Hasso Hering, Professional Educator

It's been a long time since any of Hering's columns have made me laugh without also making me angry. So good on you, Hasso.

That's not to say I agree with Hasso's latest; in fact, I think it does a marvelous job of reaching his usual standard of incoherence and/or irrelevance. I am waiting with baited breath for someone above him in the Lee Enterprises hierarchy to notice.

It gets better - this column is on what should be taught in schools. Let's look at Hasso's list:

Teach them what? Well, how about reading, writing and enough arithmetic and math to know if their computers or calculators are kidding them when they want to know how much tile to buy to cover the bathroom floor.

...

Our own history is crucial but not enough. Our students must know something about the world as well, including its geography and history.

People are hard pressed to have a conversation, let alone enjoy life, if they haven’t been exposed to music, literature and the arts, preferably by learning to play an instrument and attempting a painting or a sculpture, even if it’s only an earthen pot.

...

Whether it’s Spanish or Chinese or Arabic, by 2030 it may be crucial to know at least one or two other tongues.

...

Schools need an identity, one that lets children and teenagers know they are part of something larger, something that has a wholesome and valued tradition. Athletic competition can provide this as long as it also reinforces virtues such as sportsmanship, meaning manners and ethical conduct.

What Oregon needs are young people who are optimistic instead of glum about the prospects of the country and their own selves. They can have that confidence if their schools teach them well.

Wow... that list is indicative of the cutting of pedagogical theory...from the 1950s. Possibly earlier. Very Eurocentric. One suspects unapologetically so.

Also, I believe the Albany School District - according to Hasso - asked for values, not subject areas. All he did was recite a list of subject areas (math, "the science on which our society is built," history, reading, writing, literature, the arts, foreign languages) with the inclusion of 'school spirit' as a value.

This is insulting to anyone even remotely involved with education. Hering should have devoted his editorial space to a column or op-ed by someone with ANY knowledge of pedagogy or the role of schools in modern society. That might have been interesting, or at least relevant. What Hering wrote is absolute rubbish on the merits.

Besides, as mentioned, he just talks about subjects, not values. 'School spirit' might be a value, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it's not really sustainable or even a good idea (as it serves as a model for learning patriotism).

Instead, why don't we teach students to think critically about themselves and the world? Why not teach them to have the ability to learn, so we don't necessarily have to teach them all about the content, but they can - with some guidance and advice - teach themselves and keep learning far after they leave school? I know that the 'lecture' model of learning does not work well for me, and I know I'm not alone. Also, those are values - and applicable to all subject areas to boot!

Anyway, Hering also reveals his ignorance in other ways besides ignoring the parameters of the assignment:

What Oregon needs are young people who are optimistic instead of glum about the prospects of the country and their own selves. They can have that confidence if their schools teach them well.

I suppose it never occurred to Hering that there might be even a shred of good sense behind the glumness of young people. Obviously, they just need better indoctrination socialization! That line also reeks of a linear model of history in which one's own can do no wrong. Eurocentrism what?

Also, because optimism TOTALLY trumps corporate globalization and the creation of a feudalistic service economy. Who knew Hering was so New Age?

I hope the Albany School District's employees got a good laugh out of this. That's about all it's good for.

A Brief on New York Times v. Sullivan

Someone sent this in, and I thought I'd post it. See here for why.

New York Times V. Sullivan
376U.S. 254
84 S.Ct. 710
11 L.Ed. 2d 686

Summary:

A paid advertisement was published in the New York Times that told about the mistreatment of black students in Montgomery, Ala. who were peacefully protesting segregation. The City commissioner of Montgomery, L.B. Sullivan, filed a lawsuit claiming libel in the circuit court. Along with the NY Times, four black students were named as defendants. The Jury awarded Mr. Sullivan $500,000 in damages against each defendant.

Constitutional questions:

What constitutes libel? Can this advertisement printed in the New York times be shown to cause damage to Mr. Sullivan? What limits does the constitution impose upon states power to award damages in libel action brought by public official against critics of his official conduct?

Ruling: Reversed, 9-0

Reasoning:

The evidence Mr. Sullivan presented, and was the basis for the state supreme court judgment, was found insufficient to impose a fine of any magnitude upon the defendants. The rule of law applied to this case by the Alabama courts does not provide safeguards for freedom of speech required by the first and fourteenth amendment in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his conduct.

The paragraphs of the advertisement in question that respondent claims damage his character refer only indirectly to him. One refers to police action against students, which he claims to be the personification of the police by virtue of his position as city commissioner. The other paragraph refers to arrests made of students protesting. Police make arrests, so once again Mr. Sullivan claims it is referring to him.

We find it necessary that the national debate on public issues should be open, uninhibited, robust “and may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

The present issue is without question covered by the constitutional protection for free expression. We also find it unnecessary to determine the falsity of any factual statements. There shall be no exceptions to the protections of free speech based on the truth of a statement. Error in open public debate is inevitable. It is most important that the burden of truth never be on the speaker.

A rule requiring a guarantee of truth in criticism or public debate would have the effect of self-censorship. Potential critics would be deterred by the risk of accidentally stating the wrong facts or other similar mishaps.

In order for a public official to recover damages as a result of false criticism they must prove the statement is made with “actual malice,” that is, with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. As for the defendants, we find their is insufficient evidence to show an “actual malice.” It was at most negligence on the part of the NY times. The lower court ruling is reversed and remanded.

Italics added.

Hering, Evidence, and Assertions

I couldn't resist noting a little problem this Hering editorial: There is zero connection to the problem at hand and Hering's conception of a solution. In fact, I'd say his characterization of the "problem" is, in fact, a problem itself.

Let's see exactly what Hering says...

Here is the problem:

An anthropologist at the University of Oregon has told state Superintendent Susan Castillo that research has shown that the display of Indian stereotypes, no matter how positively they might be intended or regarded by white people, damages the self-esteem of Indian students, even if they don’t admit it.

(My only comment: Of course - even positive stereotypes create impossible expectations on behavior.)

Here is Hering's solution:

One way may be to end the official status of tribes as “nations” that always need help, and of their members and descendants as protected minorities. If people are told all the time they need special help and treatment, fragile self-esteem might not come as a big surprise. (hh)

Does anyone else see the incredibly gigantic disconnect between his assertion and the evidence he offers?

The mascots in question - Warriors and other "positive" stereotypes of Native Americans - bear absolutely no resemblance to what Hering describes as the state of affairs regarding Native Americans. In fact, the evidence Hering does cite - the study that found that all stereotypes are damaging - sort of disproves Hering's point entirely by showing that even if Native Americans had a solid material existence and were confronted with positive stereotypes, they would still be faced with what Hering calls "self-esteem" issues.

This is, of course, to say nothing of how shitty it is to suggest that the real problem is that Native folks just have "low self esteem" and that if, as Hasso suggests, those stupid Indians just suck it up, we could all go on and enjoy our white-supremacist mascot traditions.

I wonder if Hering has any idea how incredibly deprived, bigoted and racist this editorial is.

Get Off My Lawn, Confusion Edition

UPDATE: Significant content changes and editing. This was too sloppy even for me.

Hering's editorial from Friday is so strange I don't really know what's going on. Ostensibly, it's about the fact that Oregon has a two-year budget cycle and how that is confusing. However, there is so little opinion in this editorial I'm not even sure what Hering's point is - is it merely that the two-year thing is confusing to people? Really? That's it?

As far as I can tell, this is the entirety of the substance of his editorial:

Two-year budgeting has its upside. The main one is that you have to worry about it only every other year.

But it also has a steep downside: It confuses people, and not just residents in state correctional institutions.

He then goes on to hypothesize what life would be like if people used two-year cycles instead of one, presumably to illustrate how confusing it is.

I missed it the first time around, but that crack of Hering's could be construed as a shot at the prisoner who wrote it. I don't think it is, but given his history of sad ad hominem attacks, I would not be surprised.

I just have one objection, and that's this: The only 'argument' Hering presents for the two-year cycle is that - and I quote "you have to worry about it only every other year."

I am so, so tired of getting dumber when I read the editorials in the DH. Someone should really tell the publisher to give Hering days off that end in 'y'.

How about this? A two-year cycle means all the legislative wrangling and gridlock that happens is cut in half, freeing the Leg to work on other things. It allows for far more stability for state agencies who have to adjust to a constantly rising and falling budget as is, which is pretty important - and it allows, presumably, for more creative budget management since agencies and departments have a much larger pool of money to shuffle around. I came up with those literally as I was writing them, so you know I didn't exactly spend a lot of time on this one.

My point is simply that Hering makes no effort to point out why a two-year cycle is good, and instead spends his time forcing his readers to suffer through the most inane and banal writing I've seen since the last time I read his stuff. It's practically embarrassing, even for a Friday.

Get Off My Lawn, Global Climate Change Edition

There's not really much to say about Hering anymore, at least not for me.

I mean, what do you say to something like this:

Having won the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore said: “We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

A crisis?

The word has been overused in recent years. But if we take it at its real meaning, we must do something. Now. A crisis doesn’t last long. It tips one way or the other in a short time. The Cuban Missile Crisis was real. If it had gone the wrong way, it could have ended in a nuclear war. For a couple of weeks there in October 1962, the survival of the world hung in the balance. Then the crisis was resolved.

If the climate is having a crisis, we should know the outcome in a couple of months at most.

If the issue is not resolved by then, if in fact we keep droning on about it for the rest of our lives, then it’s not a crisis at all.

It might be a problem — like overpopulation or the world gradually running out of oil — but it’s not an emergency that we have to overcome right now. We can deal with it as we learn how, as long as we’re not rushed into the wrong approach by the likes of Al Gore. (hh)

A couple of months? Obviously, he has no idea what kind of time frame climatologists use.

Second, he's either missing or omitting one of the major points around climate change: that actions humans take now are cumulative, and have effects that extend for hundreds of years - so yes, what we do now is important even if the planet's atmosphere doesn't completely destabilize tomorrow.

And that last dig - "not rushed into the wrong approach" - has got to burn the thousands of scientists who have been working on global climate change for decades. One would think the evidence they've gathered is worth something, anything.

Oh well - it's not like Hasso will have to deal with it.

I always thought that editorials were supposed to include some level of research on the part of the author, but Hering is really proving me wrong.

h/t MS.

Please Stay on My Lawn and Have Some Lemonade

Hering wrote - by far - the most sensible thing I have ever seen him write today:

The president of Columbia University in New York has thing or two to learn about manners. The main thing is that you don’t insult your guests.

...

If you’re revolted by somebody, you don’t have to invite him to your house. But once you invite him and he comes, even for a speech, he is owed the common courtesies that any guest has a right to expect. (hh)

Sadly, the middle of the editorial called inviting Ahmadinejad a case of "bad judgment." I disagree; while I think Hering is right that academic freedom does not compel one to invite someone like Ahmadinejad, I also think that inviting someone with such radically different views is a sign of the potential for very good discourse and the free exchange of ideas.

"See?" One can say. "We can invite this man, who we disagree with on very fundamental things, to our university and listen to him talk. We can consider his ideas, find them wanting, and reject them without insult or damage to anyone. Such is the nature of the free exchange of ideas."

Instead, Lee Bollinger, the Columbia President, apparently just let fly a string of ad hominem attacks on Ahmadinejad.

What's weird is that Hering seems to get the idea of academic freedom. And that I agree with Hering. I must be coming down with something...

Get Off My Lawn, Pretty Please?

Hering's editorial for today isn't actually that bad... except for one giant, glaring error.

Well, there may be more than one. The beginning:

The case of Brandon Mayfield is a poor test of the secret searches and surveillance authorized by the Patriot Act. It’s a poor test because the man was no terrorist. Instead he turned out to be an innocent man wrongly suspected of being involved in an atrocity in Spain.

OK, yeah, that's an error. Last time I checked, we were talking about the process, not the outcome. If the process - in this case the new PATRIOT Act stuff - is good, then the fact that Mayfield was wrongly accused should not matter, right? If the process that the government used to go after him was legal... but apparently it somehow makes a difference.

Anyway. Moving on:

Suppose the government gets wind that somebody with links to al-Qaida has recently signed for shipments of material that could be assembled into a bomb to spread poison gas. Getting a warrant and searching his address would tip off the terrorist cell, if any. So the government uses the Patriot Act to do a search in secret and — a week and a half later — manages to arrest the entire cell together as they huddle in the basement assembling their own version of a WMD.

Is anybody other than the terrorists going to complain about how the search was conducted and the evidence obtained?

Oops. There's the giant glaring error, or, as I like to call it, Hasso's latest lie by omission. I refuse to believe the man is stupid, so I can only assume this is intentional.

Hering sets up a dichotomy here that turns out to be false. He claims the choices are between a) "Getting a warrant and searching his address would tip off the terrorist cell..." or b) "So the government uses the Patriot Act to do a search in secret..."

Problem is - well there are actually two problems. The first problem is that Hering never establishes why option A results in the terrorist cell being tipped off - certainly the search can be conducted when no one is home, yes?

But the second problem is the bigger one: There is already a way, without resorting to the PATRIOT Act, to get a secret warrant. It's called the FISA Act, and it allows for all kinds of secret and nasty shit on the part of the government. Hering's omission of this (or any other kind of) option is misleading. Of course, it's kind of obvious where he falls:

Let us also hope that when there’s an actual and imminent threat of terrorist destruction, government agents do whatever it takes in the time required to protect us from that threat. (hh)

Yup. He's been watching 24 again.

Get Off My Lawn, or I Make You Take an Introductory Logic Class

This editorial by Hering is so predictable I would have only been surprised had he not written it.

It suggests all the intelligence of a really mad squirrel.

And all the critical thinking and analytical skills of a squirrel, too. I'm just going to assume that Hering did not actually write this, but instead farmed it out to a) his crack staff of trained weasels that he keeps in back for emergencies (a comment not to be construed as an insult to DH reporters), or b) he was possessed by the ghost of Lee Atwater.

Nah, this editorial is too nice for Atwater. It lacks a gratuitous shot at people of color and/or women.

Anyway.

Hering's latest waste of space - can you tell I'm annoyed yet? - is on the topic of a recent pay increase for some "60 department heads working for the state" who "will get raises of up to 24 percent."

Needless to say, Hering is not happy. On the one hand, I understand why - on its face, that's a really large set of raises, and it's public money. OK. But check out Hering's criticisms:

It’s good to know that Oregon is so flush that it can afford this extraordinary largesse. Voters may want to keep it in mind when they decide next month on a tax increase that would hit mainly the poor. (We’re talking, of course, about the exorbitant 72 percent increase in the state cigarette tax, from $1.18 a pack to $2.025.)

Manages to bash the cigarette tax hike, even though there's really no relation between it and the raises. Check.

The Kulongoski administration is justifying the whopping raises on the grounds of comparisons. It says the adjustments are needed to keep good administrators from jumping ship for higher-paying jobs in other states or in the private sector.

This is the standard drill in government on the local level too: You do a comparison. You find some reasonably comparable jobs that pay more than the ones you are concerned about. Then you say the pay needs to go up because it’s below the list of comparables.

You manage to mock the perfectly valid and acceptable reason given for the raises without ever actually admitting that you're mocking it, thereby implying for the reader that there's a problem with comparison-based raises... even though you don't ever actually say what the problem might be. (Hint: In a market economy, which Hering claims to favor, comparison-based raises make perfect sense - so any bashing Hering could come up with would problem be either inconsistent with his beliefs or very poorly reasoned.)

It would be easier to have confidence in the validity of such comparisons if they ever showed that somebody’s pay had to be lowered in order to be fair. But that’s not how it works. The comparison approach works like a ratchet — always up.

You pull some pure nonsense out of somewhere and expect it to be taken seriously by your readers, since after all, you're a big, respectable journalist. Check.

As much as I suspect Hering detests academia, I'm beginning to think even tenured professors have to work more to keep tenure than Hering does to keep his job.

Besides, getting back to that market thing: When's the last time you saw the price of something drop in a marketplace because someone else was selling said product cheaper? I know, I know - that's certainly the way it's supposed to be, but I'm just not seeing it happen anymore. Globalization and the monopolization of many areas of the economy suggest that there isn't really a whole lot of competition in the marketplace anymore. Do some research on cell phone plans here vs. plans in Europe or Asia. It's scary.

And Hering's suggestion that pay doesn't get lowered is, um, evasive at best. Of course job pay gets lowered occasionally, especially in the public sector. However, the reason is usually something besides a comparison-based setup. That would be punishing someone by cutting their pay for something they did not do.

Then there's the closer:

Lon Hoklin, a spokesman in the state Department of Administrative Services, was quoted that the state agency directors and managers “affect literally millions of people, and we need people who get it right.”

Well, if they’re getting it right already, a more modest pay adjustment probably would have kept them happy. And if they’re not getting it right, what justifies their soaring pay?

And if they are indeed getting it right, how come it takes years to get anything done in the state, anything from fixing highway bottlenecks (such as Pacific Boulevard in the Albany couplet) to getting access to a state park such as Bowers Rocks? (hh)

Hering is dishonest here again by implying that the job raises are fixed to one person. Nothing in the announcement suggests that people are any less likely to be fired. Instead, an across-the-board set of comparison raises like this suggests that Oregon is trying to attract or retain higher quality people (and that they are using a tool first perfected in Hering's beloved private sector to do it). Rather than focus on the individual in the job, the pay raises are focused on the job - so people can still be fired for doing poorly. I'd call it sloppy writing on Hering's part but I think the dishonesty through omission is intentional.

Finally, there is the unbelievable last line, the complaint about how things take so long. There is so little connection between what Hering is complaining about and the pay raises that, well, it's obvious that Hering just stuck that complaint in there as a sop to ideology. It's the sort of complaint a three-year-old makes, one that requires no critical thinking whatsoever. It assumes the state is a single, cohesive, uniform, and consistent entity, so any mistake can just be blamed on the "state bureaucracy."

Actually, now that I think about it, that sort of blaming is generally a stalking horse for right-wingers who want privatization for ideological reasons. I'd say Hering - pretensions to libertarianism aside - fits that bill.

I'm waiting for him to endorse Ron Paul, or maybe an actual Libertarian candidate.

I'm Never Too Busy for Hasso Hering

I don't have time for this... but I can't resist.

In the Sunday DH (what is it about Sunday that produces some of the most obnoxious opinion work?), my good friend Hasso Hering has a commentary piece on politics.

Let me preface this post by saying that if this had written by someone with a different history (namely, one that wasn't so antidemocratic), I might have read it differently. However, given the context, it's just silly:

The trouble with politics is that it never quits.

...

But most citizens — at least those with a sense of proportion — have other things on their mind. These are the people with a memory, who remember that elections come around every two years, that this has been going on for more than two centuries and with any luck will continue for a good many years to come.

They also remember that with few exceptions, life in the country continues more or less as it has, except that in many cases things get a little worse as time goes on, regardless of who got elected the last time or the time before that.

How about that last little dig: "...things get a little worse as time goes on, regardless of who got elected the last time..."

I'd consider that evidence that Hering is a cranky old man. I've tried (and failed, sometimes) to stick to criticizing Hering's work on the editorial page and not him personally. However, that sentence just made me laugh: "Go away!" I heard him say. "Get off my lawn, you punk kids! Leave me alone! I want to go back to my idyllic childhood!"

Sorry, Hasso. Life doesn't work that way.

Don't get me wrong - I know that many, many people feel the same way as Hasso. Even I've felt that way at some points in my life - but in the end, I'm aware that such a feeling is some combination of nostalgia for a fondly-remembered past and a meme that won't die regarding the supposed goodness that was the 1950s/The Greatest Generation in Suburbia. In other words, a myth. (Case in point: The 1950s suburban utopia myth is racist; everyone is white & people of color don't exist. Not to mention patriarchal - have you ever watched "Leave it to Beaver?")

The other thing about this editorial is that it comes across, though not all that strongly for me, as Hering complaining about having to pay attention to politics more often than he wants. Of course, he paints it as "everyone" getting annoyed or just tuning out, but if there's one thing I've learned about Hering and his writing, it's that everything is ultimately about him, or that he writes "everyone" when he really means "me."

As I alluded to above, I think there's actually something to the complaint that 'politics' (and here he is really talking about campaigning; politics is always happening, even when it's not in the news) is too ever-present; that's been noted by lots and lots of folks, though they have the good sense to talk about the increasing length of campaigns and how that relates to the amounts of money being spent. Hering's level of analysis here is puddle-deep by comparison: remember, he just wants to be left alone.

Check out this sentence:

But having gone through an election, voters have earned the right to be left alone until the next one. Or so you would think.

Get that? It's the right of citizens to be left alone from the harassment of their elected officials. That's what he's implying right there.

What the fuck kind of model of society is that? I know - one that promotes consumerism and commercialism over genuine participation in the decisions that affect one's life. (Also, conveniently, one that allows cranky old men like Hering to sit on their lawn and complain constantly.) And he is a newspaper editor. It's like having the fox guard the henhouse, or an industry executive running an governmental oversight department...wait....the point is that Hering should not be in journalism if he thinks that less oversight and less democracy is a good thing. He should be writing press releases for the Heritage Foundation.

Finally, he ends this piece with a suggestion:

Maybe what the country needs is a change in the Constitution: Senate terms of eight instead of six years, House terms of four instead of two. That would give citizens a breather, at least on the national level.

...

For now we are stuck with the amendment and the schedule that requires elections whether anybody wants them or not. But not now. Wait till next year, at least.

Right. Because less democracy, and longer terms, is actually a solution to the problem Hering describes (again, no mention of how money or the two-party system affects campaigning). I swear, he must write half this stuff in his sleep. For most opinion writers, being able to get past the obvious and do a little analysis is a good thing, an advantage to being an opinion writer. I wonder why Hasso so rarely bothers?

Oh, and for the record, such a suggestion is both anti-democratic and would be totally ineffective. Rather, it would serve to entrench an already-elite class even more, and raise even more hurdles to citizen participation. Then again, we are talking about Hering here. I should have expected this.

One last thing: Hering refers to uses the term politics in this piece in a very broad and generic way. As I mentioned, he's really talking about campaigning, or at the least the sort of politics that happens when officials or elites are trying to convince the public of something. I would define politics in a much different way, but I'll leave that for another post.

Idiotic

Sometimes that's the best word I can find to describe the work of Hasso Hering.

One of his latest is a bizarre piece on the future of Iraq. Near the end, he says something that prompted me to post about it.

Except that when I opened Blogger, I found myself staring at my hands and the keyboard - I couldn't find the words to describe how I felt about his latest that one can use at a sporting event, much less in polite conversation.

I mean, WTF? How does one respond to this?

After 9/11 in 2001, some of us predicted a long, long struggle. Most Americans still have not taken part and not borne any burdens except for being slightly inconvenienced at airports.

...

Our government has failed to devise ways in which almost everybody contributes to the sacrifice and effort. Now and then somebody talks about a draft, but it’s not a serious possibility and would still leave out most people.

No wonder there is no sense that we’re all in this together and that everybody has a role. (hh)

1. He fails to point out that there was an enormous opportunity to do just that right after September 11th. Instead, Bush told people to go shopping and go on vacation - there was a very explicit message, in fact, to not sacrifice and contribute to the effort. Hering's failure to mention this can only mean one of two things, I guess: He doesn't remember it (not a good sign) or he deliberately left it out (which is both my bet and very, very dishonest). Then again, if one considers Hasso to be, functionally, a Republican shill, then this aggravating omission makes all kinds of sense.

2. Now, with public support for Iraq so low, Hering's suggestion is laughable on its face. The idea that it would be anything but absurd to ask people to start sacrificing for a cause most of them think is lost...I have no words. Hasso is about six years too late on this one. I don't know what's worse: that he's just now realizing this, or that he's so cynical as to pretend he's just now realizing this.

3. It's flat-out insulting that Hasso writes from a position of assuming that everyone should sacrifice for "the war." It's almost like he's just re-hashing his memories of WWII posters or WWII propaganda (perhaps he has read The Greatest Generation one too many times). Specifically, I am insulted by the idea that since it's war, every American citizen should automatically buy in (the assumption of patriotism, perhaps?). Given the poll numbers - with somewhere below 30% of the population still supporting Bush's position - it's a fucked-up assumption to make, and it subtly tars dissenters with the suggestion that we are not patriotic if we do not support (not only the troops but) the entirety of the war, including its necessity and all the stupid shit that has come out of the mouth of Bush Administration officials in the last six years.

That's really low, even for Hering. Hell, I'm not the least bit patriotic and pretty open about that, and I'm still insulted.

Get Off My Lawn, or I Get the Shotgun

I had noticed that for quite some time, Hasso Hering had been writing fairly plain and inane editorials. A few I even had trouble disagreeing with. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

In either case, that little vacation is over. This one makes my brain hurt:

Democrats in the Oregon legislature circumvented the constitution on tax increases (it requires two-thirds approval) by simply sending their proposed cigarette tax jump to the voters this fall. Voters seem to like the idea, but we might consider what happened in New Jersey.

Um, Hasso? I get that the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote, but are you seriously complaining that sending it to the voters is worse than trying to ram it through the State Legislature? Really? I thought democracy was a good thing.... No, this is just a piss-poor excuse for an argument. Sadly, however, I think there are some people who will agree with you that in this case, more democracy is bad, simply because it might mean more taxes. That seems shortsighted to me.

And honestly, if the State Leg had actually passed the increase without sending it to voters, you'd being pulling your last few hairs out over the injustice. You'd be calling for it to be sent to the ballot, I suspect. Pathetic.

That state, according to the Wall Street Journal, raised cigarette taxes 17.5 cents to $2.575 per pack last year in hopes for more revenue. Instead, revenue dropped. Some of the drop was attributed to cigarette smuggling from out of state.

In Oregon, the tax of $1.18 per pack, already 15th highest in the country, would go to $2.025 per pack if the voters don’t stop it. California’s tax is only 87 cents, Nevada’s only 80 cents and Idaho’s 57 cents. Sounds like an incentive for smugglers.

Our undermanned highway patrol, tasked with watching for marijuana and meth smugglers, then can have something else to worry about. (hh)

This is a reason not to raise cigarette taxes? Yes, it's a potential consequence. Well, maybe, anyway. Just because something happened in New Jersey does not guarantee the same will happen here. As a commenter noted on the DH website, the distances required to travel to smuggle into Oregon are a hell of a lot farther than the relevant ones in New Jersey. The only possible exception to that is Vancouver, Washington and its proximity to Portland.

Besides, look at the size of the rise in NJ - less than 20 cents per pack all the way to $2.575. That's almost a 1300% increase, and over $2.30 in real terms. Oregon's increase is around 80 cents per pack, making it somewhere around 70%. To imply that they are the same situation is dishonest.

Then again, I don't think Hasso ever met a truth he couldn't bend or distort in some fashion to support his pseudo-libertarian agenda. It's a pretty fucked-up skill for a so-called journalist to be using. Maybe he should become a pundit, or perhaps get a radio show. Then he'd fit right in.

UPDATE: It strikes me that this is a really poor editorial even by Hasso's normal standards. I wonder why.

One can only hope he's losing steam and decides to let someone else write them soon. As long as it's not Ann Coulter, I think I'll be content.

Get Off My Lawn, Part X

I'm getting tired of fisking (I know, I know) Hering's editorials. But this is just too annoying not to note:

The resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is another sorry example of how our political system works. He was hounded out of office based on accusations, not because anyone had actually shown that he had done anything wrong.

When I first read that, I thought Hering was joking, as a statement that inane and out of touch just has to be a joke, right?

I wish. Apparently, he isn't being tongue-in-cheek.

It's an interesting standard, though; the fact that Hering doesn't distinguish between legal malfeasance and political malfeasance suggests, to me, that legal malfeasance is what really matters. (Maybe - I'm not really sure about that.) In any case, as far as I know, the reason there was so much pressure on Gonzales is that he refused to come clean about the possibility of legal malfeasance - and in doing such he committed political acts (see his performances before Congress and his refusal to turn over relevant records) that resulted in the pressure for his removal for essentially political reasons. The two are pretty linked, especially, I imagine, in D.C.

That aside, as many, many people besides me have pointed out, Gonzales was a pretty incompetent AG. I'm sure Hering would agree that incompetence is a good reason to let someone go - or, in this case, for someone to resign before the mistakes they have made are discovered. Or, to be even nicer about it, to resign because such incompetence paints the boss in a bad light.

I suppose it's possible that Hering really believes Gonzales has done nothing wrong, but if that's the case, he's either ignoring the news or has been reading too many Republican Party memos. Or both.

In any case, I'm curious as to what would have satisfied Hering in terms of evidence of wrongdoing on Gonzales' part. Legal action? Perjury? Anything, as long as it didn't come from the mouth of a Democrat? It's hard to tell.

Get Off My....Wait a Minute. You Can Stay, But Just For A Few Minutes

He finally (sort of) did it. Hasso Hering wrote something I don't entirely disagree with. I'm in a little bit of shock. So congrats, Hasso, for making an attempt to support kids, even if you did cloak it in some strange attacks on the state government.

Also, that doesn't mean I'm not going to pick it apart, because it's still got problems.

This particular editorial is on the topic of expanding health care, particularly for children. Hering is critical of a bill recently passed by the State Legislature:

The governor has signed Senate Bill 3, which he says “creates the Healthy Kids Plan.” It doesn’t yet, because it depends on voters this fall increasing a cigarette tax to pay for it. But even if the plan eventually is put into effect, it does nothing to cut the cost of medical care and falls far short of the kind of medical legislation that one wishes Oregon would someday adopt.

...

In short, the program is a bundle of red tape, though families would be shielded from complications by being able to submit a simple application. But while it throws more money into the pot, it does nothing to solve the issues facing medical care in Oregon.

Well, I thought Hering had a populist streak. If the Leg had directed this bill become law without voter approval, I could easily see him arguing that it should have been referred to voters, so I'm not sure what that's about. That and there's no reason for him to say "one wishes" when it's clearly Hering that wishes it. I know it's probably some sort of editorial etiquette, and I know he signs his name (unlike many editors), but still. That sort of posturing is best reserved for bad philosophers.

I'm also confused about how this bill "is a bundle of red tape" if families just have to "submit a simple application." Normally, the phrase red tape indicates a frustrating bureaucracy that the end user or consumer has to deal with, but Hering suggests otherwise in the same sentence.

He's really good at sticking to his guns.

Must...insult...bureaucracy...at...all...costs.

So, on to the more important - and interesting - part of this editorial. Hering claims that the bill does not "cut the cost of medical care" and "falls short" of the legislation needed in this area because "it does nothing to solve the issues facing medical care in Oregon."

Those are pretty sketchy claims, since this bill was not designed to do solve any of the problems you just listed, but to insure more children. How f****** hard would it have been to be honest just this once, Hasso? Would it have killed you to be a straight shooter on this one?

Maybe, because Hering spends the rest of the editorial talking about something else entirely - Oregon's forthcoming doctor shortage. I give him major credit for this one; as a true libertarian, I would expect him not to care. Instead, he is actually calling for more government intervention in the form of incentives:

They might, for instance, propose and budget money to pay off the student loans of any newly licensed doctor who agrees to practice in Oregon for, say, 10 years. They would provide tax exemptions or other incentives for health-care providers who see a certain number of children without charging them or their parents.

They might also relax the licensing requirements for paramedical professionals, increasing their number so that more poor people, especially children, could get medical attention for all the common ailments that kids get.

The state might go so far as to provide immunity from malpractice suits to doctors who administer a certain percentage of care to the indigent, especially children. Or the state might offer to pay the malpractice premiums of those doctors who provide that service.

Sigh. I knew I wasn't getting out of it this that easy. The first suggestion - paying off the loans of medical students who practice in Oregon for 10 years - is a pretty good one as far as I can tell. There's not really a downside, though I think it should be paired with finding a way to provide more slots in M.D. programs now, since the shortage is partially due to too-small classes in med schools around the state.

The second and third suggestion, however, are not so good. I don't really think relaxing the licensing requirements of paramedical professionals is a good idea. Personally, I'd want - if I actually had access to health care - the medical professionals taking care of me to have more training, not less. This suggestion just makes no sense on its face, not even by Hering's normal standards, unless he actually believes they are overqualified, which is just silly. Why not create incentive programs for paramedicals like he's suggesting for doctors?

The last one - giving doctors immunity from malpractice and/or paying their malpractice premiums - is pure ideology. Two things have caused a measurable increase in malpractice suits and premiums: An increase in mistakes by doctors and hospitals, and the insurance industry. Personally, I'd go after #2 if I was the Leg, but Hering would rather exacerbate #1 by cutting licensing requirements for paramedical professionals. Doesn't seem smart to me. The whole "we're a nation that sues at the drop of a hat" is mostly a giant myth concocted by conservatives and their hatred of accountability. Well, that and their hatred of trial lawyers, since trial lawyers give their donations overwhelmingly to Democrats. Are the number of lawsuits up? Sure - but the cause is complex, and shielding doctors from malpractice is a stupid conservative trick to avoid taking responsibility for the possibility that doctors make mistakes.

So, Hering manages to make fun of an otherwise solid program - expanding insurance coverage to children - and suggest a few ideologically sound but otherwise crappy "fixes' to another problem entirely. A pretty mediocre editorial, if you ask, but that makes it better than most.

Get Off My Lawn, Part II

Hering's at it again - this time he thinks the music that companies pipe into restaurants and stores is too loud. He also thinks it's a bad idea because - well, I'll let him explain it:

What about the kind of music that the providers of these sound systems assume we like? ... With that much individual choice available — and in use, considering the vast number of people walking around with phones in their ears — mass exposure to background music is the last thing that anybody wants or needs. Or so you would think.

Again, I sort of understand where he's coming from (though I've never actually been in a place where the music is so loud as to inhibit conversation, except for bars, where it's understandable), but he just comes across as an old man complaining again. Maybe if he did some digging and found out why music is played in the first place and then wrote about that...but that would require research and reporting. Apparently that's too much to ask for an editor, or something. As it stands, the editorial reads like he wrote it at the last second. In school, we called it "bullshitting" or "pulling it out of your ass." I suppose in the 'real world' it's called "working under pressure," or something...