Minnesota Republicans passed the Castle Doctrine law that would have made prosecution of self defense cases tougher, but Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed it.
Dayton argued the vast majority of law enforcement in state said it would make their job more dangerous.
Florida's "Stand your ground" law goes much further than the Castle Doctrine would have, it seems, from a general understanding.
The "neighborhood watch" citizen was apparently chasing Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., thinking he was "up to no good" according to 911 call. Ultimately, they had a confrontation and the neighborhood watch guy shot Martin with a nine millimeter automatic.
Florida authorities didn't charge him because they determined he was in "defensive position" which is allowed under Stand your ground. You don't have to retreat.
The guy, George Zimmerman, contended the 17 year old knocked him down and smashed his head against the ground several times. Police report says he "asked for help but no one would help him." That's apparently when he shot the Martin.
Police report is here.
It's tough to take a side in these cases when Trayvon won't be around to tell his side.
I'm just thinking I'm a older guy, possibly overweight. Do I chase down a 17 year old kid in Florida asking what he's up to, and do I carry a gun while doing it?
Do they need police protection that badly down there.?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Health care reform and the Surpremes (The government doesn't give us free broccoli)
Well the Supremes are going to be center stage this week as they consider cases on different sides of the health care reform act Obama and Congress approved two years ago.
Key to the discussion: Can the government, under the Constitution's Commerce clause, force people to buy health insurance? It's often framed in that simplistic way, but it's much more complicated than that.
We can't compare it to anything else the government might make us buy because the circumstances are different.
Those who try to simplify the argument (and there are many taking advantage of the average person's unwillingness to spend a lot of time understanding the issue), argue the government can't require you to buy broccoli or gasoline for that matter, so they should NOT be able to require you to buy health insurance or any other product.
Actually, they don't require you to buy it. If you don't buy it you pay a minimal surcharge of like $95 a year, which I understand escalates a bit after that but not more than say $2,200 a year for a single person making $100,000. (Which, actually would be a pretty good price for emergency health care whenever you needed it, no co-pays etc. I'll explain that next).
The argument is different because "Everyone consumes" health care or if they don't consume it they have the right -- given by Congress actually -- to consume it free of charge if you can't pay.
That law, codified under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)42 USC Sec. 1395dd) was passed in 1986 by Congress and enacted "to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay"
So, it's a law that anyone can get free health care. It reasonably follows that we all should have to pay for that, and it shouldn't be pushed on through the insurance system, but rather spread out through taxation or fines. The mandate is simply collecting a payment for what we gave away in 1986.
The Supremes could rule that since the Commerce clause allows for the providing of goods (health care) by the government, the government should be able to require payment. Take away the guaranteed goods (health care for free) and you can take away the requirement.
The parallel argument that the government doesn't require us to buy broccoli would have to be set up to show that the government had at one time required broccoli producers to give you broccoli free if you met government's criteria.
We know that's not the case.
Good luck Supremes! Give me a call if you'd like to bounce some ideas off me.
Key to the discussion: Can the government, under the Constitution's Commerce clause, force people to buy health insurance? It's often framed in that simplistic way, but it's much more complicated than that.
We can't compare it to anything else the government might make us buy because the circumstances are different.
Those who try to simplify the argument (and there are many taking advantage of the average person's unwillingness to spend a lot of time understanding the issue), argue the government can't require you to buy broccoli or gasoline for that matter, so they should NOT be able to require you to buy health insurance or any other product.
Actually, they don't require you to buy it. If you don't buy it you pay a minimal surcharge of like $95 a year, which I understand escalates a bit after that but not more than say $2,200 a year for a single person making $100,000. (Which, actually would be a pretty good price for emergency health care whenever you needed it, no co-pays etc. I'll explain that next).
The argument is different because "Everyone consumes" health care or if they don't consume it they have the right -- given by Congress actually -- to consume it free of charge if you can't pay.
That law, codified under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)42 USC Sec. 1395dd) was passed in 1986 by Congress and enacted "to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay"
So, it's a law that anyone can get free health care. It reasonably follows that we all should have to pay for that, and it shouldn't be pushed on through the insurance system, but rather spread out through taxation or fines. The mandate is simply collecting a payment for what we gave away in 1986.
The Supremes could rule that since the Commerce clause allows for the providing of goods (health care) by the government, the government should be able to require payment. Take away the guaranteed goods (health care for free) and you can take away the requirement.
The parallel argument that the government doesn't require us to buy broccoli would have to be set up to show that the government had at one time required broccoli producers to give you broccoli free if you met government's criteria.
We know that's not the case.
Good luck Supremes! Give me a call if you'd like to bounce some ideas off me.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Crime in Mankato region is worrisome
As someone who sees the serious, personal, violent crimes go from police reports to news reports, I am more than a little worried about what appear to trends in violent crime in our region.
I can cite six domestic homicides we have reported in about the last 18 months to two years. This is not something I could have done two years ago.
There was the double homicide in Lewisville, of a mom and her dad killed by the estranged husband. There was the shooting of Svetlana Mundt in front of her children by her estranged husband in Rasmussen Woods.
There was a young mother killed by her boyfriend in Kasota, a young college girl killed by a former boyfriend in broad daylight on Mankato's hilltop and there is a pending case in Blue Earth County Court that is turning in surprising ways in terms of who is guilty, but there was a domestic death.
Then a few weeks ago, we have an estranged husband killing his wife's male friend in Blue Earth, a town about 45 miles south of here.
Recently, another woman was abducted for short time by another former domestic partner. Luckily she escaped.
It's important to point out that these are "regional" crimes, not centered only in the city of Mankato or even North Mankato.
Mankato Director of Public Safety Todd Miller correctly asserts that violent crime in Mankato as well as other crime may be up in 2011 compared to 2010, but it is down from 2006.
He has the data to prove it. There were 68 aggravated assault in 2006 and 45 in 2011. There were 46 rapes in 2006 and 19 in 2011, through Nov. 30.
Still, the trend is more than a little unsettling, and we need to think about ways to reduce the risks of these kinds of things happening.
I can cite six domestic homicides we have reported in about the last 18 months to two years. This is not something I could have done two years ago.
There was the double homicide in Lewisville, of a mom and her dad killed by the estranged husband. There was the shooting of Svetlana Mundt in front of her children by her estranged husband in Rasmussen Woods.
There was a young mother killed by her boyfriend in Kasota, a young college girl killed by a former boyfriend in broad daylight on Mankato's hilltop and there is a pending case in Blue Earth County Court that is turning in surprising ways in terms of who is guilty, but there was a domestic death.
Then a few weeks ago, we have an estranged husband killing his wife's male friend in Blue Earth, a town about 45 miles south of here.
Recently, another woman was abducted for short time by another former domestic partner. Luckily she escaped.
It's important to point out that these are "regional" crimes, not centered only in the city of Mankato or even North Mankato.
Mankato Director of Public Safety Todd Miller correctly asserts that violent crime in Mankato as well as other crime may be up in 2011 compared to 2010, but it is down from 2006.
He has the data to prove it. There were 68 aggravated assault in 2006 and 45 in 2011. There were 46 rapes in 2006 and 19 in 2011, through Nov. 30.
Still, the trend is more than a little unsettling, and we need to think about ways to reduce the risks of these kinds of things happening.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Gov. Dayton meets with FP editorial board, reporters
Gov. Mark Dayton paid his first visit since election to the home office of The Free Press and met for about an hour with The Free Press editorial board and political reporter Mark Fischenich.
A few snippets from the meeting.
Vikings stadium
The Vikings stadium deal was a 50-50 proposition at the start of the legislative session and it is still at 50-50, Dayton said. He noted this is his 14th legislative session as someone in the executive branch, and says he knows anything can happen even at the last minute.
In response to a question, he said he believes there is amazing support for Vikings stadium in outstate Minnesota. He related a story from Republican Sen. Majority Leader Dave Senjem who asked a Rochester restaurateur if he is affected by the Vikings being in state.
The restaurateur said he schedules four more workers on days the Vikings game is on the television. At a Twin Cities restaurant, they put on 12 more people.
Health care law
The state is moving ahead setting up health care exchanges, those comparison shopping institutions for consumers and small business.
He says the task force working on it has very broad support from health care providers, insurance companies even the business lobbies like the Minnesota Chamber and Minnesota Business Partnership.
These will likely go on even if they become voluntary and even if parts of health care law are struck down by the Supreme Court.
Mankato bonding proposal
Dayton has the Mankato project in his bill, but noted the just released House Republican bill does not include it and some other projects.
He says he's glad Mankato area Republican legislators are supporting it but raised his eyebrows and chuckled a bit when he was told the Republican legislators expect him to help with the project. He said he's happy to push for it but needs the support of the local Republicans since the House Republican bill is a very bare bones $280 million, and that the Legislature is controlled by the Republicans.
He remembered former Republicans including some of his relatives who would always support the idea that a strong downtown was great economic engine for a community and was "mystified" Republicans anew don't seem to support that idea.
Highway 14 upgrades
Dayton listened and took notes on editorial board's discussion of Highway 14 and needed upgrades. Free Press series detailed Highway 14 as one of the most dangerous road in the state. Dayton said he was going to check on leftover money in MnDOT funds from overbids that may be able to finance some of the four-lane project from North Mankato to New Ulm. That was a suggestion to me a few years ago from then deputy MnDOT commissioner
He seemed generally interested and said he was going to get a briefing from MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel and get back to us on what could be done.
Local leaders have vowed to contact Dayton and have him tell MnDOT to put the road on the 20 year list for improvements. But Dayton said that can be a "slippery slope" dictating to commissions in ways that would seem political.
He also said it was his responsibility to make sure safety as well as congestion were emphasized in MnDOT road project decisions.
Look for Joe Spear's columns on these subjects in the print edition, where there will be more context and analysis.
A few snippets from the meeting.
Vikings stadium
The Vikings stadium deal was a 50-50 proposition at the start of the legislative session and it is still at 50-50, Dayton said. He noted this is his 14th legislative session as someone in the executive branch, and says he knows anything can happen even at the last minute.
In response to a question, he said he believes there is amazing support for Vikings stadium in outstate Minnesota. He related a story from Republican Sen. Majority Leader Dave Senjem who asked a Rochester restaurateur if he is affected by the Vikings being in state.
The restaurateur said he schedules four more workers on days the Vikings game is on the television. At a Twin Cities restaurant, they put on 12 more people.
Health care law
The state is moving ahead setting up health care exchanges, those comparison shopping institutions for consumers and small business.
He says the task force working on it has very broad support from health care providers, insurance companies even the business lobbies like the Minnesota Chamber and Minnesota Business Partnership.
These will likely go on even if they become voluntary and even if parts of health care law are struck down by the Supreme Court.
Mankato bonding proposal
Dayton has the Mankato project in his bill, but noted the just released House Republican bill does not include it and some other projects.
He says he's glad Mankato area Republican legislators are supporting it but raised his eyebrows and chuckled a bit when he was told the Republican legislators expect him to help with the project. He said he's happy to push for it but needs the support of the local Republicans since the House Republican bill is a very bare bones $280 million, and that the Legislature is controlled by the Republicans.
He remembered former Republicans including some of his relatives who would always support the idea that a strong downtown was great economic engine for a community and was "mystified" Republicans anew don't seem to support that idea.
Highway 14 upgrades
Dayton listened and took notes on editorial board's discussion of Highway 14 and needed upgrades. Free Press series detailed Highway 14 as one of the most dangerous road in the state. Dayton said he was going to check on leftover money in MnDOT funds from overbids that may be able to finance some of the four-lane project from North Mankato to New Ulm. That was a suggestion to me a few years ago from then deputy MnDOT commissioner
He seemed generally interested and said he was going to get a briefing from MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel and get back to us on what could be done.
Local leaders have vowed to contact Dayton and have him tell MnDOT to put the road on the 20 year list for improvements. But Dayton said that can be a "slippery slope" dictating to commissions in ways that would seem political.
He also said it was his responsibility to make sure safety as well as congestion were emphasized in MnDOT road project decisions.
Look for Joe Spear's columns on these subjects in the print edition, where there will be more context and analysis.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Bomb threats and responsible journalism
Several readers asked us why we publicize bomb threats at schools and why we used a photograph of one threat written on a bathroom wall.
Generally, we try to do minimal coverage on what we consider non-serious bomb threats. It happens every year. A nice spring day, somebody wants to get out of school, and they create a "bomb threat" not knowing, of course, the seriousness of the situation.
Our rule of thumb: If the kids were evacuated and the school was swept by police or bomb squads, we do a story. We reason people are going to want to know why kids are leaving school. Could be gas leak, could be infrastructure problem, could be bomb threat.
It's important to know how serious authorities are taking the threat as well.
So, we report that news without say but don't put it on the top of page one in a banner headline, unless of course, there was a bomb found.
When there is a second, kind of copycat, bomb threat, we try to downplay....maybe do a brief on the inside news pages. If schools take no action and authorities don't take a threat seriously, we sometimes do nothing.
In the bomb threats a few weeks ago, we did a story on the one at East, and included a picture.
Some readers wondered why we included the picture. Wouldn't that just encourage kids to copycat?
We used the picture after verifying its authenticity. We also determined it was all over Facebook, so we were not going to be able to keep kids from seeing it anyway.
We also talked with Mankato Supt. Sherri Allen and she said she thought it might be helpful to publish the picture with the idea that more kids, more parents, more staff would see it and maybe recognize the handwriting or some other revealing characteristic that would help apprehend the person making the threat.
We did learn later that evening that it appeared a person had been caught. We could have pulled the picture, but again, we felt, it was all over the Internet anyway. And we could lend words to the picture and a story explaining the facts of the case and how serious it is taken.
Whereas if you pull the picture, then the only place kids are getting information about it is Facebook, where a lot of kids were making fun of it, framing it as a joke, thinking it was not serious.
We always think about these kinds of decisions more than people would expect or predict. We're very aware of the power of the media and some of these things just need to be thought through a bit now and then.
Generally, we try to do minimal coverage on what we consider non-serious bomb threats. It happens every year. A nice spring day, somebody wants to get out of school, and they create a "bomb threat" not knowing, of course, the seriousness of the situation.
Our rule of thumb: If the kids were evacuated and the school was swept by police or bomb squads, we do a story. We reason people are going to want to know why kids are leaving school. Could be gas leak, could be infrastructure problem, could be bomb threat.
It's important to know how serious authorities are taking the threat as well.
So, we report that news without say but don't put it on the top of page one in a banner headline, unless of course, there was a bomb found.
When there is a second, kind of copycat, bomb threat, we try to downplay....maybe do a brief on the inside news pages. If schools take no action and authorities don't take a threat seriously, we sometimes do nothing.
In the bomb threats a few weeks ago, we did a story on the one at East, and included a picture.
Some readers wondered why we included the picture. Wouldn't that just encourage kids to copycat?
We used the picture after verifying its authenticity. We also determined it was all over Facebook, so we were not going to be able to keep kids from seeing it anyway.
We also talked with Mankato Supt. Sherri Allen and she said she thought it might be helpful to publish the picture with the idea that more kids, more parents, more staff would see it and maybe recognize the handwriting or some other revealing characteristic that would help apprehend the person making the threat.
We did learn later that evening that it appeared a person had been caught. We could have pulled the picture, but again, we felt, it was all over the Internet anyway. And we could lend words to the picture and a story explaining the facts of the case and how serious it is taken.
Whereas if you pull the picture, then the only place kids are getting information about it is Facebook, where a lot of kids were making fun of it, framing it as a joke, thinking it was not serious.
We always think about these kinds of decisions more than people would expect or predict. We're very aware of the power of the media and some of these things just need to be thought through a bit now and then.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Controversial abortion Doonesbury strips pushed online only
Like many newspapers around the country, The Free Press will not be publishing this week's "Doonesbury" strips in the print edition of the newspaper.
The strips contain some rather graphic illustrations and language involving abortion that would be better suited to our online site where people can view them at their own discretion.
I just didn't feel publishing the controversial strips would go well with the "Garfield," "Family Circus," and "Peanuts" comic strips.
People who read our comics pages may not only be young children, but also unaware adults who might be offended by some of the panels in this week's "Doonesbury." The syndicate we purchase "Doonesbury" from supplied us with alternate strips for this week that we will publish in the print edition.
We are publishing the controversial strips online under our "Talkers" banner at the top right hand side of our web page.
Many other newspapers made the same decision, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Des Moines Register.
As Free Press readers know, we moved both Doonesbury and Mallard Fillmore off the opinion page and into the comics section several months ago. We did this partly to free up more space on the opinion page for letters and other columns.
We made room on the comics page by moving the horoscopes to the classified section.
We may not have moved "Doonsebury" if it were still on the opinion page, the thought being not a lot of young children are reading that page.
Anyway, I personally believe the controversial strips are worth reading. As usual, "Doonesbury" author Garry Trudeau raises important issues and offers a new, though graphic, way to look at how we are coming to deal with abortion in the country through policy and courts.
The strips contain some rather graphic illustrations and language involving abortion that would be better suited to our online site where people can view them at their own discretion.
I just didn't feel publishing the controversial strips would go well with the "Garfield," "Family Circus," and "Peanuts" comic strips.
People who read our comics pages may not only be young children, but also unaware adults who might be offended by some of the panels in this week's "Doonesbury." The syndicate we purchase "Doonesbury" from supplied us with alternate strips for this week that we will publish in the print edition.
We are publishing the controversial strips online under our "Talkers" banner at the top right hand side of our web page.
Many other newspapers made the same decision, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Des Moines Register.
As Free Press readers know, we moved both Doonesbury and Mallard Fillmore off the opinion page and into the comics section several months ago. We did this partly to free up more space on the opinion page for letters and other columns.
We made room on the comics page by moving the horoscopes to the classified section.
We may not have moved "Doonsebury" if it were still on the opinion page, the thought being not a lot of young children are reading that page.
Anyway, I personally believe the controversial strips are worth reading. As usual, "Doonesbury" author Garry Trudeau raises important issues and offers a new, though graphic, way to look at how we are coming to deal with abortion in the country through policy and courts.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
An amendment to my dissertation on letters to the editor
Newspaper reporters and editors learn to summarize when they write.
Unfortunately, they do this at their peril.
So when I wrote recently that letter writers have to be civil, accurate, fair and within the 275 word limit, I was too brief and too vague.
I was recently challenged by a letter writer's friend and associate who couldn't figure out why their letter was rejected because they felt it met all the criteria listed.
Well, one criteria I assumed at my peril and did not articulate was this: Letters to the editor should and actually must be "about the news." They should be an "opinion" about "the news."
They're not really a place to say you love your aunt sally or that people should be nice to each other. While those are certainly worthy thoughts and I appreciate folks who have them, we have limited space and purpose in the letters column.
We generally want people to respond to what we put in the newspaper, i.e. the news.
I often get letters from people wanting to recite the homily they heard at church, quoting sometimes word for word. While it's laudable, it's not a "letter to the editor." The "letter to the editor" suggests you're going to address something the "editor" has done, or at least approved for publication.
And while this editor does attend church, he does not generally take religious commentary. Can you think of something more difficult to treat fairly? If we allow the Catholics to preach, we must allow the Lutherans, and their four of five branches, the Buddists, the Hindus, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Muslims......you get the picture.
We would never have any room for the regular folks just commenting on the news.
It's not to say religious folks are banned for the letters page, we just are not a surrogate for the pulpit. Besides, we wouldn't want to give people a reason for not going to church.
So, yes, a letter writer needs to comment on the news. Make it relevant. Preach if you want. Do it in 275 words and relate it to a story in the paper.
You're good.
Unfortunately, they do this at their peril.
So when I wrote recently that letter writers have to be civil, accurate, fair and within the 275 word limit, I was too brief and too vague.
I was recently challenged by a letter writer's friend and associate who couldn't figure out why their letter was rejected because they felt it met all the criteria listed.
Well, one criteria I assumed at my peril and did not articulate was this: Letters to the editor should and actually must be "about the news." They should be an "opinion" about "the news."
They're not really a place to say you love your aunt sally or that people should be nice to each other. While those are certainly worthy thoughts and I appreciate folks who have them, we have limited space and purpose in the letters column.
We generally want people to respond to what we put in the newspaper, i.e. the news.
I often get letters from people wanting to recite the homily they heard at church, quoting sometimes word for word. While it's laudable, it's not a "letter to the editor." The "letter to the editor" suggests you're going to address something the "editor" has done, or at least approved for publication.
And while this editor does attend church, he does not generally take religious commentary. Can you think of something more difficult to treat fairly? If we allow the Catholics to preach, we must allow the Lutherans, and their four of five branches, the Buddists, the Hindus, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Muslims......you get the picture.
We would never have any room for the regular folks just commenting on the news.
It's not to say religious folks are banned for the letters page, we just are not a surrogate for the pulpit. Besides, we wouldn't want to give people a reason for not going to church.
So, yes, a letter writer needs to comment on the news. Make it relevant. Preach if you want. Do it in 275 words and relate it to a story in the paper.
You're good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)