Monday, July 7, 2008

Phoning it in to DC

by Mary Turck, TC Daily Planet
A giant, red phone rolled up to the offices of Senators Klobuchar and Coleman bright and early on Monday, July 5. The phone, and the people accompanying it, delivered a message: stop FISA.


Want to get involved? Here are a couple of options:

Call Senator Klobuchar (612-727-5220) or Senator Coleman (651-645-0323) and tell them what you think—about FISA or health care or anything else. (Then enter their numbers on your cell phone, so you can call them whenever you have something to tell them.)

Go to the press conference and then write a comment, letter or article telling us what you thought about it.

As the Minnesota Independent explains, the FISA amendments bill "would grant immunity for telecoms that break the law in the course of cooperating with the feds and grant the executive branch additional surveillance powers."

Breaking it down—Congress already granted broad and sweeping surveillance and wiretap powers to the executive branch. Telecom companies went even farther than the law allowed, bowing to every demand the federal cops made, without warrants of any kind. Now Congress is going to give them a free pass. Warrants? We don't need no stinking warrants!

FISA is one of the major issues waiting in Washington as congress returns to work this week. The House passed the bill by a 293-129 margin in June, and now it is the Senate's turn to tackle the bill. According to the Red Phone people, "If passed, the FISA Amendment would grant sweeping new powers to spy on innocent Americans. It legalizes mass, untargeted and unwarranted spying on our phone calls and emails, even when they have no connection to terrorism. " Both MN senators have said they'll support FISA.

A second major issue awaiting congressional action is a tiny bureaucratic tweak to health care. Every year, payments to 600,000 doctors serving Medicare patients are cut—unless Congress acts to stop the cuts. This year, the cuts went into effect on July 1, because Congress was too busy bickering to pass the legislation needed to stop them. The
American Medical Association says the cuts have put the country "at the brink of a Medicare meltdown."
The House passed the bill—HR 6331—by a veto-proof majority of 355-59. In the Senate, 60 votes were needed to cut off debate and get to a vote. The alignment was 59-39, with two non-voting Senators. Senator Kennedy is hospitalized, and Senator McCain on the campaign trail.

Of course, this is one small vote on one small issue—whether doctors will get paid slightly more to treat Medicare patients—and it will not resolve larger health care issues facing the nation. On the larger issues, Minnesotans are joining people in 45 other states in the Health Care For American Now! coalition. The kick-off press conference is set for Tuesday, July 8 at 11 a.m. at La Clinica, the West Side Community Health Services at 153 Cesar Chavez Street in St. Paul. According to the organization's press release:

Funded by a $40 million grant from the Atlantic Philanthropies, the campaign will organize citizens to ask elected officials and policy makers to declare if they believe in quality, affordable health care for all or if they think everyone should navigate the system on their own. Between now and election day, the group plans to spend $25 million in paid media and have 100 organizers in 45 states.

How far for free speech?

(Written for TC Daily Planet)
"Stick your political correctness up your ass." So begins one of the comments we recently received (and posted.)

We post almost every legit comment that we receive. By "legit," I mean comments that are not spam or advertising/self promotion. The very few that we refuse to post are overtly racist, probably libelous, or personal attacks of the "I know him personally and he is a crook/liar/shoplifter/child abuser" variety.

Obviously, we print a lot of comments that we disagree with. We do so in the interest of fostering dialogue and civic engagement. I'm not sure this always works. At times, comments seem downright nasty.

Two recent comments pose the issue clearly:

Troy Wodele, 5/20/08 • I have a very difficult time reading news on both the Star and Tribune and the Pioneer Press’ websites, primarily because of the comments sections at the end of the article. Invariably, I find myself reading them, despite the fact that most of the rants are racist, sexist, and ill informed. I’m not sure why the two papers put up with this type of discourse. They are not required to post every response, so why do they?

In addition, as an educator, I am also appalled at the grammar and spelling that is displayed in many of these comments.


Marcia Lynx Qualey, 5/21/08 • Why do newspapers—and I’ll add the St. Cloud Times to the list, as they hosted hundreds of hateful comments after the recent service-dog story—allow their websites to become forums for unmoderated hate? They certainly wouldn’t allow that to happen in print. Interactive doesn’t have to mean “anything goes.”

It’s damaging to the community and does not fit with a responsible media-outlet’s mission.


The Des Moines Register has given a great deal of thought to on-line conversation. They have come up with some guidelines that look pretty good to me:

Our updated standards make the distinction between offensive opinion and offensive approach.

As we are alerted to them, we reserve the right to remove comments including these types of specific information or language:

- Libel. In general terms, that means a comment that includes a false statement of fact that actually harms a person's reputation (as opposed to insulting or offending them). ...

- Sexually explicit or crude sexual comments about someone.

- Threatening statements or statements that suggests violent acts against someone.

- Crude comments about a child.

- Swearing or obscenity.

- Derogatory phrases to define a group of people.

- Nasty name-calling (language such as "moron" and "white trash").

But we will allow opinions some will find offensive.

We will allow conversation that is simply strident in tone.

We will allow criticism of public officials.

We will allow criticism of people who are subjects of stories.

We will allow opinions that some may find offensive about tough social issues around race and sexual orientation, as long as they don't include the kind of specific language described above.


I like the tone of the Des Moines Register policy, though it goes farther than we do in limiting comments. Other suggestions for limiting comments include:

1) require registration for anyone posting a comment
2) refuse to post anonymous comments
3) put up a button that readers can use to flag "objectionable" comments

I'm not sure that we need a more defined comment policy, but I'm open to conversation about it. Comment away!