Search Results for: ’

The New York Times announced today that it intends to charge readers for frequent access to its website, starting in early 2011.

Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site without extra charge.

What exactly the NY Times considers “frequent,” and how much they will charge, not even the paper’s executives seem to know, but the move to squeeze subscription fees from online readers doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

Will it work? That is, will revenue from online subscribers substantially exceed the online advertising revenue lost due to the inevitable drop in page views? I dunno. The NY Times fills a kinda unique position in our media landscape as our nation’s undisputed paper of record. So, maybe.

But the big question for me is, successful or not, will this prove to be a viable business model that, say, the Seattle Times might follow in an effort to turn around its own declining financial prospects?

I don’t think so.

The Seattle Times simply does not play as vital and unique a role in our local community as their New York counterpart does nationally. While the NY Times consists almost entirely of original content from some of the best and most highly respected reporters and columnists in the nation, the Seattle Times relies heavily on the Associated Press and other newswires and syndication services to fill its pages. For example, two of the four articles on the front page of today’s dead-tree edition are newswire reprints, including an above-the-fold lead story culled from the pages of… the New York Times.

Why would I pay twice for the same story? Indeed, why would I pay at all for a newswire story I can read elsewhere for free?

Well, I might, because part of my schtick is critiquing the Seattle Times, but as an unrepentant news junkie, I’m the exception that proves the rule. Unless the news industry universally adopts the NY Times model, I just don’t see how dailies like the Seattle Times can demand a high enough flat-rate subscription fee to offset the inevitable loss of readership that would come from hiding their content behind a firewall.

Newspapers are kinda like information department stores, presenting a broad variety of content on a range of subjects and issues in one easy to consume package. But the hierarchy of the Internet is flat, and the barriers to entry relatively nonexistent in terms of capital and infrastructure investments, leaving publications like the Seattle Times vulnerable to specialized competitors.

In the old media technology, where folding a bunch of pages together into one convenient bundle was the most efficient means of distributing news and opinion, the Seattle Times merely needed to do everything well to fend off new competitors. But in the new media technology, being merely good is not good enough.

If The Stranger provides better coverage of the music and arts scene, and the neighborhood blogs provide better coverage of the neighborhoods, and Publicola provides more thorough coverage of Olympia, and HA provides more entertaining and relevant political commentary and analysis… what exactly is the economic incentive for consumers interested in those subjects to subscribe to the Seattle Times as a whole? Indeed, ironically, it is specialized news and opinion sites that have the more compelling argument for placing their content behind subscription firewalls, a model that has worked well for the Puget Sound Business Journal and other online trade publications.

I don’t mean to dis the valuable original reporting that the Seattle Times does produce, but I’m not sure there’s enough of it to make a flat-fee, all-you-can eat subscription a compelling product. I don’t subscribe to cable TV for the very same reason. Sure, there are networks I might purchase on an a la carte basis, were I given the option, but I’m not going to pay $60/month for 500 channels of stuff I’ll never watch. Especially not now, with so much equally compelling content available over the Internet.

No doubt Frank Blethen and his bean counters are encouraged by the NY Times pioneering effort, but they shouldn’t be. The Seattle Times simply is no NY Times, and I don’t see how the business model of one easily translates to the other.

I’m not sure what the solution is for the Seattle Times and other dailies. Hell, I’m not even sure there is one.

Scott Horton reveals that the reported suicides of three Guantanamo detainees in June 2006 weren’t suicides at all:

This is the official story, adopted by NCIS and Guantánamo command and reiterated by the Justice Department in formal pleadings, by the Defense Department in briefings and press releases, and by the State Department. Now four members of the Military Intelligence unit assigned to guard Camp Delta, including a decorated non-commissioned Army officer who was on duty as sergeant of the guard the night of June 9–10, have furnished an account dramatically at odds with the NCIS report—a report for which they were neither interviewed nor approached.

All four soldiers say they were ordered by their commanding officer not to speak out, and all four soldiers provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners’ deaths. Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman and men under his supervision have disclosed evidence in interviews with Harper’s Magazine that strongly suggests that the three prisoners who died on June 9 had been transported to another location prior to their deaths. The guards’ accounts also reveal the existence of a previously unreported black site at Guantánamo where the deaths, or at least the events that led directly to the deaths, most likely occurred.

This is a giant story by any measure, but not a single major American newspaper has yet to print their own report on it. We often argue about media bias being liberal or conservative, but the bias in our traditional media is that they’re too chickenshit to take on powerful institutions.

UPDATE: It looks like it was covered on Countdown on MSNBC, but there’s still nothing on the MSNBC front page about this.

Back in the 2009 City Attorney’s race, in a response to a question about pursuing low-level marijuana cases, Tom Carr replied:

You’re apparently reading from the Stranger. You’re talking about relatively small numbers. We do between a hundred and 200 cases a year. Whether we prosecute depends on the report that’s in front of us; whether or not it’s a case. Most of our marijuana cases are cases that come in when we’ve got another crime, so someone gets in a bar fight and they have marijuana in their pocket. That’s pretty much all we do.

So now that Pete Holmes has taken over Carr’s office and announced that he’s no longer prosecuting people for marijuana possession, what’s he finding out?

As PubliCola reported (via Twitter) from our Town Hall event with City Attorney Pete Holmes last night, Holmes’ new criminal division director Craig Sims is in the process of reviewing all outstanding marijuana prosecutions pursued by former City Attorney Tom Carr.

…

Interestingly, although Carr insisted repeatedly that he was only prosecuting cases with associated crimes (e.g., resisting arrest with pot in your pocket), Mulady says most of the cases Sims has reviewed so far are “stand-alone marijuana cases”—the sort of cases the city attorney and police were explicitly instructed not to pursue after the passage of Initiative 75, which made marijuana possession the city’s lowest law-enforcement priority.

No kidding! So an overzealous law enforcement official with a penchant for nanny crusades was lying about what his office was doing? Who could’ve seen that coming?

The only local editorialist that The Columbian prints, other than members of their editorial board, is one Ann Donnelly, a former county GOP chair. Today she really stepped in poo by making the usual conservative mistake of projection, applying her own limited experiences to the Democratic Party.

In a column promoting the upcoming February Republican precinct caucuses, Donnelly first makes an egregious error of fact by stating both parties will hold them this year.

On Saturday, Feb. 13, in school libraries and other public venues around Clark County, both political parties will hold caucuses open to all registered voters, who with a smidgen of research can determine their voting precincts and assigned meeting places.

Speaking of research, a cursory Google by Donnelly would have revealed that Democrats have decided to eschew the lightly attended precinct caucuses in favor of starting the process in March with legislative district caucuses. That’s some pretty bad journalamism, and some pretty lazy and inept punditry.

But that’s just mechanical stuff. The real outrage comes later in Donnelly’s column, where she makes a baseless jump equating the actions of Ron Paul supporters in 2008 with the actions of Obama supporters the same year.

Meanwhile, at the 2008 Democratic caucuses, I’m told that raucous Obama supporters caused similar havoc for Hillary Clinton supporters, thus eventually enabling a far-left national movement led by a largely unknown candidate with an enticing slogan to defeat a more centrist, experienced candidate. It will be interesting to see if Clark County Democrats achieve a mid-course correction in their caucuses this year.

As you may imagine, that’s just complete bullshit, and a picture-perfect example of conservative projection. Some crazy Ron Paul people hassled her in 2008, so they are the same as Obama people. Geebus.

I was at the Democratic county convention here in 2008, as well as my local precinct caucuses, and Donnelly is flat out uninformed or lying. There were no disruptions on the Democratic side, no havoc and nothing out of the ordinary other than massive numbers of ordinary citizens doing ordinary caucus things. You know, cheering when a chance arises (for all candidates,) being bored, wondering about lunch, buying trinkets, etc.

So while it’s not a surprise that a conservative would tell “projection-lies” about Democrats, the real concern is that The Columbian thinks it’s okay to print such lies, and that it’s okay to give a former GOP chair a weekly local column while offering no alternative local viewpoint.

Frankly, it’s kind of hard to believe that in a county of over 400,000 people they can’t find anyone on the Democratic side to write 700 words of bullshit per week, which is what Donnelly does. Hell, I used to write 700 words of bullshit per hour, before I entered my recent fallow-sanguine period.

We’ve got a big Congressional race down here in WA-03, and until the Democratic Party and other interested allies decide to make The Columbian an issue, we’re fighting with at least one hand tied behind our backs.

There are local folks responding to this crap, and The Columbian will likely print letters and one-time responses, but if The Columbian is going to operate as a small-time Fox Noise outlet, the race in WA-03 is going to be that much tougher. Portland media doesn’t cover us much, and Seattle media just doesn’t reach people here, despite the Internet Tubes. Lots of folks commute to and from Portland, and it leads to a fairly low-information voting populace overall.

A thought I want to get out there is this: just because a bunch of mouth-breathing, Fox-Noise watching morons harass The Columbian on a daily basis does not make The Columbian a liberal outlet. It just means the right yells louder, and has a sympathetic local publisher.

Columbian reporters are not the enemy, of course, because they aren’t writing editorials and columns. But if we want to hold this seat The Columbian and its bizarre editorial arrangements are a huge challenge, frankly nearly as important as which candidate emerges as the nominee.

I’m wondering if now might not be the perfect time for the state Legislature to attempt to repeal Washington’s Defense Of Marriage Act, since political buggery appears to be all the rage in Olympia these days:

A bill co-sponsored by Senate transportation chair Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10) and North Seattle Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-46) would severely restrict Seattle’s say in major state construction projects like reconstruction of the SR-520 bridge and the deep-bore tunnel along the waterfront.

Essentially, the bill would exempt the state department of transportation from the requirement to get local government permits to build state highway projects—a clear swipe at Seattle, which has two major state highway projects—the waterfront tunnel and replacement of the 520 bridge over Lake Washington—in the pipeline.

Specifically, the state transportation department would no longer be “required to obtain local government master use permits, conditional use permits, special use permits, or other similar local zoning permits for staging areas related to the construction of state highways.”

Additionally, under the bill, any street use permits obtained by the state for major state road projects (i.e., the tunnel) would be “presumed approved as submitted” and could only be appealed in superior court, not to a local hearing examiner “or through any other local appeal process.”

So, let me get this straight. Under this proposed legislation, and last year’s measure funding the deep bore tunnel, the state could build whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, without any input or say from local governments, and then (here’s the punchline…) stick local taxpayers with any cost overruns.

Or, I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t we just give Rep. Doug Eriksen the billions of dollars the state has reserved for replacing the 520 bridge and the Viaduct, so that he can spread the money around throughout the rest of Washington like he says he wants to do, while at the same time we eliminate the state gas and MVET taxes altogether, and hand off such authority to cities and counties to levy these taxes locally, if they so choose, to pay for the local transit and transportation projects they want?

That way, the rest of the state won’t have to worry about Seattle stealing its money, while we in the Seattle area can address our own infrastructure needs without worrying about the rest of the state repeatedly fucking us up the ass.

I’m just sayin’.

One of the issues debated at last night’s 37th LD Dems meeting was a resolution supporting Mayor Mike McGinn’s decision to suspend the city’s ban on all-day parking lots near Link Light Rail stations. Only it wasn’t really debated, per se… more like passed unanimously without much discussion, let alone dissent

I was kinda surprised, as one of the purposes of the ban is to prevent the neighborhoods surrounding the stations from becoming destinations for park and riders. The purpose of light rail, after all, is more to get people out of their cars than it is to save folks a few bucks on downtown parking, and paving the surrounding properties over with parking lots does little to serve the local community.

But while I agree with the intentions of the ban, there’s something to be said for being flexible, and with many development projects on hold due to the bad economy, and local businesses struggling to make ends meet, a temporary lift of the ban only makes sense. As Martin Duke aptly explains at Seattle Transit Blog:

The reason to oppose park and rides is that they cost a lot of public money ($40k a space in some cases) for not a lot of riders, and because they take up valuable space that could be used for more vibrant development.  In some cases, people who park might otherwise have walked, taken the bus, or biked to the station.

Here we have private lots that aren’t costing a dime of tax money, and are in fact generating parking tax revenue; an abundance of empty gravel pits around all Rainier Valley stations, so that there’s no shortage of TOD locations; and of course, a small parking fee to limit users to those who have really bad bus transfers, live too far to walk, and are strongly disinclined to bike.  It’s a perfect situation.

In fact, anything that gets more people using light rail short term will be good for light rail long term. Just as long as we don’t turn the Rainier Valley into a permanent desert of park and ride lots.

This is shaping up to be a pretty historic week for drug law reformers in Washington state. On Wednesday, the State House will be holding a hearing on not just a marijuana decriminalization bill, but also a full legalization bill that uses the state liquor stores for regulated sales of marijuana to those over 21. To coincide with that bill, a group called Sensible Washington has filed a ballot initiative to remove all criminal penalties for adult marijuana possession, manufacturing, and sales. If that collects enough signatures, it will be on the ballot this November. If it passes, it would essentially put the onus on the legislature to come up with a system of regulating sales.

In a previous post, I laid out my arguments for why the legislature should be working to pass a bill that legalizes and regulates marijuana. A number of the reasons for doing so are economic ones. Arguing against that rationale – sort of – is Bill Virgin in the Tacoma News-Tribune:

[Read more…]

House minority floor leader Doug Ericksen (R-42, Ferndale) says that if Seattle can’t make up its mind on how to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Eastern Washington would be happy to take our money:

“As someone who actually understands that the Eastside means the east side of the state, not the east side of the lake, I get a little bit irritated with the amount of money we spend waiting for Seattle to make a decision on transportation projects,” Ericksen said. “We’d be happy to take that $3 billion and spread it to the rest of Washington.”

Notice how he doesn’t say “We’d be happy to take that $3 billion and use it to balance the state budget.” No, he’d just be happy to take money from an economically vital Seattle project and spread it around the red counties, whether it’s needed there or not.

Huh. I guess that’s what Republicans mean when they describe themselves as fiscal conservatives.

What’s heartbreaking about this Eli Sanders post concerning WA-03 is not that he wrote it, because everyone is entitled to his opinion. What’s heartbreaking is how utterly clueless he appears to be about democracy in general and SW Washington in particular.

Dwight Pelz, chair of the Washington State Democrats, won’t take sides yet. “We have several strong democratic candidates running right now,” he said. “We want to see who can get out there and get the most support before we let a good Democrat know we would like them to pull out of the race.”

He should figure it out as quickly as possible. Time’s a-wasting and Democrats need—way before the summer primary—to rally behind a single candidate if they want to hold on to this seat.

Luckily for those of us who actually live in WA-03, neither Pelz nor Sanders can actually stop people from running for office. Look, I get that everyone plays the “who can win” game, but in the end, if someone wants to throw their hat in the ring, you can’t stop them.

There are five Democrats running in WA-03. They are state Rep. Deb Wallace of Vancouver, Denny Heck, former Legislator and founder of TVW, state Sen. Craig Pridemore of Vancouver, political activist Maria Rodriguez-Salazar of Vancouver and political activist Cheryl Crist of Olympia.

Wallace has a solid, pro-business record and is well liked in Vancouver. I hold her in high regard. She’s a great example of the “big-tent” party, because she may have a different viewpoint but she doesn’t punch the hippies in the face just to score cheap points. Frankly I feel kind of bad about her not being my first choice, but Pridemore is a long-time friend and has his own proud record. Democrats would be lucky to choose between Wallace and Pridemore.

Heck has a lengthy resume, including stints as a Legislator in the late 1970’s and the early-to-mid 1980’s and as an aid to Gov. Booth Gardner in the early 1990’s. He also founded TVW and has business experience. I’ve never seen the guy in Clark County, and I’ve lived here since 1993. Maybe he comes to visit family at Christmas or something. He did grow up here.

Heck lost a race for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1988 as an odds-on-favorite with WEA backing, so that tells you something. Then he quit and moved on to jobs he didn’t have to get elected at, and he hasn’t been back until…now.

Here’s a fun quote Heck had from today’s Columbian:

“I’m the only practicing capitalist in this race. Nobody has to teach me that 70 percent of jobs are created by small businesses. I’ve done that.”

Practicing capitalist? What does that even mean?

I’ve always maintained that capitalism is the one true religion in this country, so maybe Heck is onto something. It sure seems like the Democratic establishment in this state is looking to impose their religion on those of us down here. Good luck with that, BTW. We always just love having Puget Sound folks decide our fate.

Heck is supported in Clark County by a bunch of old guard Democrats, and that’s just a fact. These people are not progressive and never were. It’s a motley assortment of BIAW-Scoop Jackson types, to put it simply. Plus they are all really, really old, not that there’s anything wrong with that. It beats the alternative. Here’s how long it’s been since Heck ran for office.

However, it sounds like most of us would like Heck personally if we ever saw him, plus his wife once taught Craig Pridemore when he was in middle school. That’s kind of charming, actually.

Heck also has some small personal fortune and has pledged an initial $100,000 to his campaign. Must be nice. Just what we need, another corporate Democrat. Maybe we can reform the bankruptcy laws and turn forest destruction into a good thing. Oh wait, I was thinking of Brian Baird, not Denny Heck, my bad.

Pridemore, my pick, has been a Clark County commissioner and has a proven track record as both a progressive and a winner. He got an earned income tax credit bill passed a few years back, although it wound up not getting funded due to legislative wrangling. Pridemore first scored a political victory in 1998 by beating Republican county commissioner Mel Gordon here in Clark County, and then beat entrenched incumbent state senator Don Carlson to win his state senate seat.

Those who would dismiss Pridemore because of Heck’s money don’t understand Pridemore’s tenacity nor the retail nature of politics down here. Nothing is a lock in politics, but you put your money on the solid horse, and Pridemore is as solid as they come.

What about a TV blitz by Heck’s money? That’s why nothing is a lock. Pridemore is an adept fundraiser, but I’d have to admit it will be a challenge to keep pace with a self-funder. Thus this post, regular folks who care need to know they can play a part in fighting against the corporate Democrats.

As for Rodriguez-Salazar, at the December meeting of the Clark County Democrats she first tripped and broke her shoe, and then announced that she is a Blue Dog. Oh well.

Crist has run before and you can google her. Heart in right place, no chance.

Larry Phillips legislative aide, Leah Zoppi, emailed me to thank me for my earlier post, but also to correct a factual error:

Thanks for your post about Larry’s decision to support Councilmember Drago as a caretaker for the 8th District seat.  However, I need to let you know it contains a factual inaccuracy.  The decision would not have reverted to Governor Gregoire.  That’s only the case for partisan positions, not non partisan positions as voters made the County Council.  There is NO tiebreaker currently in place for filling County Council vacancies.  Which means, if the Council remained deadlocked on the issue of filling this vacancies, the Council would have remained 4-4, with neither side having a majority and District 8 residents having no representative.  This would have impacted the Council conducting business like reorg and passing legislation, and it would have left the people in District 8 with no one to turn to for advocacy on their behalf.

My bad.

Even the most casual observer of Washington state politics is acutely aware of the Cascade Curtain, the physical and cultural barrier that separates East from West, right from left, and Republicans from Democrats. This pathological East/West divide is the cause of much of the dysfunction that plagues our state political system, yet if you ask an elected official how we might bridge this gap, don’t expect to elicit much more than tired platitudes or a roll of the eyes.

But I wonder if one of the ways to bring the two sides of the state closer together both politically and culturally is to close the physical distance between them… namely, by building high-speed rail from Seattle to Spokane.

That’s exactly what’s happening in Spain, where an ambitious new high-speed rail network is binding historically separate and distinctive regions together into a much more cohesive nation:

Spain opened its first Alta Velocidad Española, or AVE, high-speed train route in 1992, between Madrid and Seville. The network has grown to nearly 2,000 kilometers and stretches from Malaga on the south coast to Barcelona, which is north and east.

Supporters say the AVE has begun to transform the country, binding remote and sometimes restive regions to Madrid and leading traditionally homebound Spaniards to move around for work or leisure.

“Spaniards have rediscovered the train,” said Iñaki Barrón de Angoiti, director of high-speed rail at the International Union of Railways in Paris. “The AVE has changed the way people live, the way they do business. Spaniards don’t move around a lot, but the AVE is even changing that.”

By slashing the time it takes to travel from one city to another, high-speed rail in Spain and elsewhere has increased tourism, altered housing patterns, and lured millions of travelers out of airplanes and cars. According to the International Union of Railways, a high-speed train can carry eight times as many passengers as an airplane over an equal distance, using the the same amount of energy, while emitting a quarter of the CO2 per person. It also creates economic opportunities outside the traditional urban cores that never before existed.

For example, previous studies have suggested that high-speed rail could connect downtown Seattle to Moses Lake in under an hour, with Spokane only another half hour away. That’s downtown Seattle to downtown Spokane in less time than one typically spends at the airport before departure. Such a rail line could instantly transform Moses Lake into a viable international airport, while creating the freedom to live and work anywhere near a station.

Live in Spokane and work in Seattle, or vice versa? That’s a shorter commute, time-wise, than between some parts of Long Island and Manhatten. And just think of the economic opportunity this would create in the half dozen or so counties through which a high-speed line would pass.

When we tie the people and economies of Washington state closer together, when prosperity in King County directly generates prosperity in Kittitas and Grant counties too, that’s when the politics of this state will become less divisive. And as has been proven in other parts of the world, high-speed rail can put us on the fast track toward achieving that goal.

As any regular reader here knows, one of my favorite subjects is the intersection between the war on drugs and the war on terror. And as we now get sucked into the lawlessness of Yemen, it provides another subject matter. Qat (also spelled ‘khat’) – a plant that can be chewed for its stimulant effects – is extremely popular in Yemen, among all strata of their society from rural villagers to government officials. I’ve even read one report out of Yemen that much of the country shuts down in the early afternoon as many people use qat as a daily ritual. I’m not sure how much of an exaggeration that is, but it’s safe to say that chewing qat is a fairly significant part of daily life in that country.

Here in the United States however, and even here in Seattle, qat is an illegal substance. This has caused a significant backlash from this area’s Somali immigrants, who feel they should have the right to partake in a custom that was commonplace in their homeland and does not harm others.

With that in mind, I noticed this passage from a blog specifically devoted to dealing with Yemen:

The US must be much more active in presenting its views to the Yemeni public. This does not mean giving interviews to the Yemen Observer or the Yemen Times or even al-Hurra, which is at least in Arabic. It means writing and placing op-eds in Arabic in widely read Yemeni newspapers like al-Thawra. I detailed a golden opportunity that the US missed with the Shaykh Muhammad al-Mu’ayyad case in August in a report I wrote for the CTC Sentinel (which is available on the sidebar). This also means allowing US diplomats to go to qat chews in Yemen – and even, perish the thought, chew qat with Yemenis. The US should be honest about what qat is and what it does and not hide behind antiquated rules that penalize a version of the stimulant that does not exist in Yemen. Whether or not the US knows it, it is engaged in a propaganda war with al-Qaeda in Yemen and it is losing and losing badly. US public diplomacy is all defense and no offense in Yemen, this has to change or the results of the past few years will remain the roadmap for the future. And that future will witness an increasingly strong al-Qaeda presence in Yemen.

As we’ve already seen in Afghanistan, an overzealous drug war can severely undermine attempts to combat Islamic radicalism when we’re not realistic about both cultural differences and economic realities when it comes to drugs. It’s definitely something to keep an eye on in Yemen because if we deal with qat there the way we’ve been dealing with it here, it has the potential to really blow up in our face.

Back in November, I posted the following:

Remember the big push a few years back after the Terri Schiavo mess to encourage people to have a living will for such situations? If you were one of the people who did that, make sure you avoid Catholic health care institutions as they’ve been ordered by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops to ignore people’s wishes and keep patients alive regardless of the circumstance.

When I posted this, I didn’t think it was too terribly daring a thing to post about (although I certainly could have been more specific about the relevant circumstances, which are fairly rare), but for Joel Connelly of the Seattle PI, it apparently struck a nerve, as he left this comment for me:

Would you please spare us your anti-Catholic bigotry? It was disgusting during the I-2000 [sic] campaign. It is despicable now.
A simple call to Providence administrators, or the boss up at St. Joseph Hospital in Bellingham, would have given you honest material with which to work. You could have asked about living wills — in which a person’s wishes get laid out — which are strongly encouraged.
You could have asked about the provision for hospice care, available to everyone regardless of ability to pay.
Or you could have delved into what they’d do in the case of a patient wishing to exercise his/her “right” to end life.
Instead, we get an ignorant screech.
Apparently, on Horsesass.org, one form of religious prejudice is not only acceptable but encouraged.

After reading this, I was genuinely worried that the folks at Compassion and Choices might have overstated their case and that maybe I was being a little too harsh in my post. So I tried to contact a number of local Catholic hospitals via email asking if Connelly was right and that they would refuse the directive that C&C was referencing, but I got nothing back. Then I contacted Connelly directly to see if he could point me to a facility who would “give me honest material with which to work”. Oddly, when I did this, Connelly sent me the name of a hospital administrator to contact, then started walking back his claims after I posted an update to HorsesAss.

By this point, though, I was already starting to become well aware that Connelly was full of shit. In fact, the hospital administrator whose name he gave me wasn’t the only name he passed along. He also sent me the name of a hospital administrator in Canada, despite the fact that this directive was from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. Connelly apparently knew nothing about the updated directive or the legal and ethical issues involved and simply didn’t care. As far as I can tell, he just assumed that Compassion and Choices was full of it because he doesn’t like them. And he was confident enough about this blind assertion to call me a bigot over it.

Barbara Coombs Lee from Compassion and Choices, however, does know what she’s talking about and does understand the issues involved here. Her latest post details more of the legal and ethical issues behind this decree and points to this article, which quotes from someone a bit more qualified than Connelly:

Alan Meisel, founder and director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Bioethics and Health Law, wonders if Catholic hospitals could be compelled by law to respect patients’ advance directives, regardless of the Church’s moral stance. He says it is not clear whether the legally binding power of an advance directive would outweigh the Church’s right to administer medicine in accordance with its beliefs.

…

“[If] the hospital seeks to impose a treatment on a patient which that person does not want, to impose that treatment is battery,” he says,but adds a caveat: “One could say since you’ve admitted yourself to a Catholic hospital, that’s a form of consent.

“If I were a patient with a directive,” he continues, “I would probably add to it that I didn’t want to be taken to a Catholic hospital.”

I’m sure Joel Connelly will get his typewriter out now and send Meisel a little note informing him that he needs to spare us all his anti-Catholic bigotry.

UPDATE: In somewhat related news, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that legalizes death with dignity in that state.

Sometimes you find stuff out pretty much because of who you happen to know. In this case, the “strange case” of one Canopy Financial, Inc., which dealt in health savings accounts (HSA’s,) is made known to me because another Clark County blogger is among the victims of alleged financial fraud involving Canopy’s health care savings accounts. From Politics is a Blood Sport:

HSA’s were once touted as the market oriented solution to putting the consumer in charge of health care decisions. You see, in libertarian-land, the consumer would have more skin in the game since it was their pre-tax dollars combined with a high deductible insurance policy, and would thus magically drive down prices. And since the individual insurance market is broken anyway, why not get some tax benefit being self-employed?

Instead, what we’re left with is the CEO class absconding with the funds, both from investors and HSA account holders. In Canopy’s letter to me they “deeply regret this development”. Well, they’re going to deeply regret messing with the thousands of HSA account holders after all is said and done. Eventually, Canopy Financial’s insurance will have to foot the bill, but that’s probably months away. In the meantime, it’s time to raise a ruckus, with a class action lawsuit.

The mind boggles at the outright theft. From Dow Jones Venture Wire:

Venture-backed Canopy saw its once-positive reputation come crashing down after it was discovered in early November that a KPMG audit of the company was falsified. That discovery led the Securities and Exchange Commission to file a fraud suit against the company, naming only President and Chief Operating Officer Jeremy Blackburn, who is also the subject of criminal charges. The Chicago-based company has also let go most of its 100-plus member staff and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company’s downfall followed about $75 million in equity investments through Foundation Capital, GGV Capital and Spectrum Equity Investors.

In its recorded statement to customers, Canopy didn’t state a reason how these funds could have disappeared.

“All of the funds for these savings accounts were supposed to be held in custodial bank accounts. We regret to inform you that most or all of the funds were misappropriated from the bank accounts and are now missing,” Canopy said. “As a result, Canopy can no longer process customer transactions for the health savings accounts maintained through these providers or the health savings accounts maintained by Canopy for its Wellfund customers. At present, all of these accounts have been frozen.”

Canopy states that the affected health savings account holders will be listed as creditors in its bankruptcy case, while the company cannot offer immediate access to those funds.

So even while we’re debating whether the current health care “reform” proposals deserve to become law, we’re seeing that previous laws crafted by the very same industry lobbyists have, in this case, resulted in outright theft.

While Chris Bassett of Politics is a Blood Sport has already received some inquiries from other consumers who have been ripped off, you kind of wonder what it might take to get this story further into the traditional media. I mean, if I walked off from a convenience store after stealing $75 million I would at least expect to get my mug on the tee-vee for my trouble.

This is a story that is just begging for some enterprising reporter(s) and other bloggers to start piecing together who all the victims are. Bassett tells me he lost a relatively paltry amount of money, but he’s hearing from folks who lost thousands. And while criminal indictments are nice, that doesn’t really do much if you have cancer or something and your money has been stolen.

Hell, this ought to be a campaign issue. The glibertarians never get called out on their failures, and this is a massive and timely example.