We gatekeep: No personal attacks.

The Free Press online offers readers a chance to give their two cents on stories published in The Free Press and there is no shortage of opinion, rancor and vitriol.

Of course, as a community newspaper and arbiter of civil discourse, it's our job to provide guidelines for the discussion. We do that by gatekeeping the comments.

We review each comment that is sent in and posted. We publish some and reject others.

The main reason we reject comments: they make personal attacks on other commentors or people in the community. Our brand is promoting civil discourse and allowing personal attacks does not further that brand.

But it's also just the darn right thing to do. Our parents always taught us not to fight with our siblings or anyone else, and if we did happen to get into a fight, to fight fair.

Fighting with personal attacks, attacking someone's character, intelligence or upbringing, is not fighting fair.

Whether someone is challenging an idea or a person is sometimes a judgment call: If someone says, "Bill, your lack of reasoning just astounds me." Is that an insult, or and observation?

It's a judgment call.

We, absolutely do not, ever, ever, never, never reject a comment because we don't agree with its point of view.

Doesn't happen folks. You can take that to the bank.

It would make no sense for us to do that. Free Press readership, as well as online viewership, is very diverse politically.

We want to welcome ideas of all political stripes. I think we do a good job of that.

We are more selective about allowing comments that involve a crime, especially, if that trial has not yet happened.

Sometimes, we'll get a commentor writing in something like "I'm glad they caught that dirt bag, he ripped me off blind."

This is obviously inflammatory, and we believe is not a good idea to publish while the person has not yet been judged guilty.

Market uncertainty from political threats

Here's the scariest story of the last 24 hours.

From Reuters "Republicans may push debt talk to the 11th hour"

People who need to withdraw fund from their mutual funds for say, something like paying next falls college tuition might be well-advised to take it out soon, before more political theater cuts into their investment earnings.

If you're thinking of taking out a home improvement loan or buying or refinancing a house, seems there would be risk waiting until May.

And because financial markets are much better at anticipating risk, some have probably already put the "political mayhem" discount in their trading. DJIA was down 100 points the day this story broke.

Imagine that.

Here's the essential parts of this news story from Reuters:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, fired the opening shots in what is expected to be a bitter fight with the White House over increasing the U.S. borrowing limit to enable the country to keep paying its debts.

Prolonging negotiations past mid-May when Washington will hit its debt limit could give Republicans more leverage to secure big spending cuts, but it could worry investors as the country runs up against a possible default. The Republicans said they would act before that happened.

Experts warn the country could eventually face a Greek-style debt crisis, and the International Monetary Fund urged the United States on Tuesday to outline credible measures to reduce deficits.

The government will run up against its current debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16, according to the Treasury Department. Without an increase, the country would default on its debt, roiling bond markets and pushing up interest rates for businesses and individuals.
 Republicans say they plan to push the vote to between Memorial Day and July 4.

Here's what another source in Reuters said:

"I think that's the wrong thing to do," said Lou Brien, a market strategist with DRW Trading Group in Chicago. "It risks the perception of default, and I think right now the market is thinking that there will be more adults than that, but we will see how that plays out."

Mary Miller, Treasury's assistant secretary for financial markets, said it would be "highly disruptive" if Congress did not raise the debt limit before the current ceiling was reached in mid-May.

Hang on to your pocketbooks and mutual funds people.

I wouldn't be surprised to see continual selling in markets, creep in interest rates until there is some sign of compromise on this debt agreement.

Republican ace from the past has intriguing budget ideas

David Stockman was the Republican golden boy in 1980 when Ronald Reagan swept into office in a historic landslide election.

A 30-something Michigan congressman, he became Reagan's budget director and set in motion a whole revolution in the way we thought about federal spending, tax policy, regular welfare and corporate welfare.

He was on CNN last night on Eliot Spitzer's show and had a number of intriguing ideas on today's budget deficit.

First, he says, Obama and Congressional Republicans are absolutely not even close to taking this debt situation seriously. He says we've got all this new debt to issue, but big buyers of the past Japan and China are not buying it. Japan, for obvious reasons--their nuclear problems, and China because, they've just recorded their first trade deficit in five years.

And the biggest bond house is actually short the Treasury bonds, meaning it's in line to sell them, not buy them.

Stockman says conservative House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's is not even close to what's needed, with taxes 17 percent of GDP, a level he says hasn't been achieved since the 1930s.

So, to balance the budget and get the debt down, Stockman recommends revenue increases as well as budget cuts. He recommends tax rates go back to what they were under his old boss, even higher than what is being suggested by Obama.

All programs should be means tested. If your a billionaire, you probably shouldn't get Social Security.

He also does not advise trying to close corporate loopholes. He said the billion dollar lobbies will absolutely defeat any kind of such proposal.

He recommends, again surprisingly, a "churn" tax on Wall Street, a fee for every stock transaction. This will not only raise a lot of revenue, but discourage rampant speculation that is not healthy.

Stockman, of course, came clean with all the Washington budget shenanigans, including some agreed to by his old boss, in the famous Atlantic Monthly article, I believe it was called, "the education of David Stockman."

Fascinating guy who more people should be listening to.

Here's the interview on CNN

Interesting development on Glenn Beck

Here's a story that was in the print edition of The Free Press.

It's surprising to me. Wow, advertiser boycott. That indicates Beck was really, really making people mad.

Advertisers will usually put up with a lot of stuff. This suggests serious issues for Beck's career.



Fox News drops Glenn Beck show

Advertiser boycott, sinking ratings do show in

The Associated Press

NEW YORK — Glenn Beck later this year will end his Fox News Channel talk show, which has sunk in the ratings and has suffered from an advertiser boycott.

Fox and Beck’s company, Mercury Radio Arts, said Wednesday they will stay in business creating other proj­ects for Fox television and digital, starting with some documentaries Beck is preparing.

Beck was a quick burn on Fox News Channel. Almost immediately after joining the network in January 2009, he doubled the ratings at his afternoon time slot.

Fans found his conservative populism entertaining, while Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert described Beck’s “crank up the crazy and rip off the knob” moments.

He was popular with Tea Party activists and drew thousands of people to the National Mall in Washington last August for a “restoring honor” rally.

Yet some of his state­ments were getting him in trouble, and critics appealed to advertisers to boycott his show last summer after Beck said President Barack Obama had “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Beck said that he went to Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO, in January to discuss ways they could continue to work together without the daily show.

“Half of the headlines say he’s been canceled,” Ailes said. “ The other half say he quit. We’re pretty happy with both of them.”

Beck said he noted on his show Tuesday that “ how many times can I tell the (George) Soros story,” refer­ring the liberal donor that Beck has made a target of attacks.

“ We felt Glenn brought additional information, a unique perspective, a cer­tain amount of passion and insight to the channel and he did,” Ailes said. “But that story of what’s going on and why America is in trou­ble today, I think he told that story as well as could be told. Whether you can just keep telling that story or not ... we’re not so sure.”

Beck, who outlined on Wednesday’s show his rea­sons for believing that “ we’re heading into deep and treacherous waters,” told his viewers at the end of the show that his Fox talk show would conclude.

“I will continue to tell the story and I will be showing other ways for us to con­nect,” he said.

More than 400 Fox adver­tisers told the company they did not want their commer­cials on Beck’s show. Beck’s advertisers were dominated by financial services firms, many touting gold as an investment.

Ailes dismissed the finan­cial impact of the boycott but expressed some frustra­tion with it.

“Advertisers who get weak-kneed because some idiot on a blog site writes to them and says we need to stifle speech, I get a little frustrated by that,” he said.

One of Beck’s most prominent critics — David Brock, founder of the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America — said that “ the only surprise is that it took Fox News months to reach this decision.”

Play by play on government shutdown

Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat, takes off the gloves

From AP at 12:04 p.m. Friday

"They are willing to throw women under the bus, even if it means they'll shut down the government," he said.

"Republican leaders in the House have only a few hours left to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how positively shameful that would be."

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R, seems conciliatory:

"I assure you, these are not unresolvable issues," added Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Government shutdown: who will be responsible

Sorting through the dozens of stories on the politics of the impending federal government shutdown, two statements stick out in my mind.

First: Republican Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana, saying he favors shutting government down if Democrats, who hold half the power, don't agree to House demands.

From ABC news website:

On ABC’s “Top Line” today, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told us that if the only alternative is continuing spending at unsustainable levels, “then I say shut it down.”

“Nobody wants to shut down the federal government. But if we don't take decisive efforts to change the fiscal direction of this national government, we're going to shut down the future for our children and grandchildren, and that would be decidedly worse,” Pence said.

No. 2: House Speaker John Boehner telling CNN there's a real cost to shutdown. It costs more than keeping the government running, he said. Contracts have to be interrupted, services stopped.

Government workers still get paid.

Compromise argument:


Senate Democrats and Obama say they're the ones compromising. When they agreed to $10 billion in cuts and House Republicans put up $60 billion. Splitting the different would put the number at $35 billion, and so far, the latest has Democrats offering is like $33 billion to $40 billion.

Seems like meeting pretty much in the middle to me.

Rep. Michele Bachmann and others say though that the $60 billion is a compromise because they started at $100 billion. So that means they came down $40 billion. But Obama counters with an argument that has similar weight (not much), that he's giving up $74 billion already from his starting point in budget.

Finally, Democrats charge Republicans "keep moving the middle."

Well, it kind of seems like that's the case to me, but I haven't heard an argument from Republicans about why that isn't valid.

Boehner has been said to be advising his party in caucus that they do not want a government shutdown. He was there for the 1995 shutdown and remembers how the country blamed Republicans for several years.

Government shuts out citizens

It's no secret The Free Press and yours truly objected to what we and our attorney considered a clear violation of the state's data practices act when Blue Earth County did not release the names of county administrator candidates once they became finalists. (Our story).

The county and their human resources person didn't see it that way.

The statute is 13.43. Here's what it says:

Subd. 3.Applicant data.

Except for applicants described in subdivision 5, (which refers to undercover law enforcement) the following personnel data on current and former applicants for employment by a government entity is public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. Names of applicants shall be private data except when certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, "finalist" means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.

I highlighted the relevant section.

The Free Press confirmed the candidates had been notified of their status Friday, and in one case, apparently, even Thursday.

But the county wouldn't give us the names Friday, saying the county board had to certify them as finalists.

There's nothing in the law that requires the County Board do that. In fact, the logic of that argument is flawed.

If County Boards had to "certify" finalists, they would never call anyone a finalist, and thus keep everything secret until they appointed somebody.

The Legislature and judges saw the problem with that reasoning. That's why they required the other test: as soon as the applicants are "selected to be interviewed."

The issue is near and dear to our heart because it was our case several years ago against the City of North Mankato that we won, that set up the "finalist" standard.

Stay tuned on this one. It's not over yet.