Businessman Hunter Likes Big Government Mail

Jon Hunter loathes big government. In Hunter's world, health insurance reform, financial reform, and energy reform are all efforts to shrink the private sector and grow government.

So how does the Leader Printing executive feel about scaling back the United States Postal Service?

The prospect of losing Saturday delivery from the Postal Service is a huge concern for Americans, and we should fight to retain it to better serve America.

...[T]he Postal Service should be considering improving its delivery performance and expanding choices for mailers. As the economy recovers, businesses and consumers will need a reliable and affordable deliverer of mail. Our nation's economic health depends on it.

South Dakota's congressional delegation supports ongoing Saturday delivery. But we'll need the help of other members of Congress to reject this idea and push the Postal Service back into fulfilling its mission of affordable, universal delivery. [Jon Hunter, "Now Is the Time to Fight to Retain Saturday Delivery," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.07.20].

By Hunter's logic, Americans may not have a right to universal health care, but they apparently have a right to receive advertisements six days a week mailed from Madison's convenient central location at the lowest rates possible, courtesy not of the free market of but Uncle Sam.

Hunter's business interest in cheap federal mail inspires not only political inconsistency but typical MDL illogic:

The irony is that the Postal Service blames an increase in the use of email as a contributing factor in volume decreases and financial losses. Yet they believe that reducing service will somehow reverse this trend? [Hunter, 2010.07.20]

Hunter's language in that last sentence is a bit unclear. What trend does he think USPS officials are trying to reverse? Obviously, reducing service will not reverse the trend of Internet-driven decreases in mail volume, and I don't think any USPS official has argued that it would. But when there's less mail to deliver, the logical way to reverse or at least mitigate financial losses is to spend less money, and reducing service is one logical way to do that.

Perhaps Hunter simply believes that it's more important for the federal government to continue stimulating the economy by providing printers and advertisers with cheap universal delivery and by employing lots and lots of postal workers. I'm fine with that. And heck, I enjoy sending and receiving mail on Saturday, too. But I don't have to square my support for reliable, efficient, universal government mail service with conservative Republican principles the way Jon Hunter does.

BP Makes Hunter Queasy about Pipelines

Last year, MDL publisher Jon Hunter gave thanks for the TransCanada Keystone pipelines. In light of the BP oil disaster, our man Hunter is now sounding a more cautious tone:

In general, we think the oil pipelines are good projects. We've generally believed the pipeline operators when they say they have sensing equipment and mitigation procedures in place in case something goes wrong.

But when our trust was broken for the offshore drilling containment measures, we now feel we need to question the pipeline operators, too.

There are three main issues to be addressed: equipment, procedures and resources [Jon Hunter, "Gulf Oil Spill Creates Worries for S.D. Pipelines," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.06.02].

Hunter expresses the hope that regulators and others will work with pipeline owners to make sure any leaks are addressed quickly and effectively.

I wonder what Senator Russell Olson would have thought of such advice last winter when he voted to kill the pipeline tax that would have created an environmental fund to address pipeline accidents, or when he voted to give TransCanada a tax break eight times larger than the amount he shorted K-12 education in the state budget.

Hunter, Heidelberger on Same Page, in Same Room... at IgniteSD #2 Tonight!

Jon Hunter gives tonight's IgniteSD #2 some good press in his editorial corner of the world. (Thanks, Jon!) He compares the event to the "speaker's corner" at London's Hyde Park. I wonder who will be our Marx, Lenin, or Orwell!

Jon's excited (he's on tonight's program!) and so am I (I'm the MC... yo!). Also presenting:

• Montrose idea guy Joe Bartmann
• Brookings photog and city councilwoman Jael Thorpe from Brookings
• MHS grad Megan Nelson
• Madison Area Arts Council exec Chris Francis
• Miner County Bank president and medical missionary Kent Thompson
• Journalist and new Peace Corps enlistee Heather Mangan
  

IgniteSD #2, tonight, 7:30 p.m., Mochavino, downtown Madison. Come be part of the show!

Race, Power, and Unity: Hunter Wrong on Indians

Our man Hunter comments on the two big racial incidents making headlines in Chamberlain and Oelrichs. In last night's Madison Daily Leader editorial, he blames those trouble-making Indians:

We find the term "white pride" offensive, as it implies white people are different than [sic] others and should celebrate their unique heritage.

But if that's true, why does the Chamberlain School District allow T-shirts that say "Native Pride" on them? We believe that statement also implies racial differences and causes unnecessary tension.

...Oelrichs graduates are expected to wear caps and gowns with school colors at the ceremony. If Aloysius Dreaming Bear wins the lawsuit, he will wear clothing that will emphasize a racial difference and clearly stand out from his classmates.

Dreaming Bear says he wants to honor his culture and his people. While those may be his intentions, the reality is that it unnecessarily divides his class into different groups [Jon Hunter, "Two incidents show that 'pride' and 'honor' harm race relations," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.05.04].

If there's anything that motivates publisher and advertiser Hunter, it's avoiding unnecessary tension and division... for the white folks (and advertisers) in charge.

I'll admit I have a harder time arguing against Hunter on the Chamberlain incident. High school students are often obsessed with fairness, and they often perceive fairness as Hunter does, as absolute equality. Had I been a Chamberlain student, I might well have joined the "white pride" shirt wearers as a "fairness" and free-speech provocateur: if one group can publicly declare pride in their identity, why can't every group?

My worldview has grown a bit since high school. I recognize that fairness is not complete equality. I recognize that Native Pride, Black Pride, and White Pride are not equivalent statements. Lakota people declaring Native Pride are making a countercultural statement, an active defense of a minority cultural identity imperiled by the pressure of the majority. People of European ancestry declaring White Pride are defending a dominant culture and powers-that-be that don't need defending. I don't need to shout White Pride to feel secure in my cultural identity when the culture around me screams "White! White! White!" at almost every turn. If Lakota people want to be Lakota, they have to work a little harder to keep a grip on who they are and where they've come from.

I understand that both Native Pride and White Pride may be interpreted as a verbal flipping of the bird at folks of other colors. But Hunter's assimilationism misses a crucial point: in cultural and historical context, Native Pride is more often than not defensive; White Pride is more often than not offensive (both meanings).

---------------------------------------
The Oelrichs graduation lawsuit is an easier call. Hunter is just wrong. Hunter baselessly rejects the honest intentions of a student as unnecessary division. To suggest that Aloysius Dreaming Bear is dividing his class into two groups is nonsense. The class is already divided into two groups, whites and Indians, by its own superintendent Lawrence Jaske, who clearly views Indian students as a drag on his budget who don't bring tax dollars from Pine Ridge or Red Cloud when they open-enroll. The class is already divided by the dominant culture into kids who will be looked at suspiciously when they walk into the gas station and kids who won't.

Jaske insists kids should have to wear the traditional graduation robes because "We're not a Native American school." Yet this year's graduating class at Oelrichs consists of nine Indian kids and one white kid. If we're really worried about creating unnecessary division, maybe it would be easier to just ask that one white kid to wear an Indian robe.

It's easy for Jaske and Hunter to say everyone should conform to a single standard, regardless of race... when that standard is still defined by the dominant culture of which they (and I) are comfortable members.

I seem to recall Governor Rounds saying something about a "Year of Unity" to take up Governor Mickelson's unfinished work on reconciliation between white and red. I would suggest the incidents at Oelrichs and Chamberlain demonstrate the need to recognize Unity as something more complicated than assimilation.

Big Government/Bad Rhetoric Week on MDL Editorial Pages

Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter gets his groove back this week with not one but three editorials. Interestingly, every one of these missives will bring tears to the eyes of the anti-nanny-state free-market fundamentalists who count on hunter to counter the liberal socialist media:

1. On Monday, Hunter cheers the Governor's veto of fireworks on Christmas Eve. MDL thus agrees with the Madville Times, saddening Republican readers everywhere. Government restricting your right to play with explosives after Christmas Eve vigil—might as well impose martial law, right?
2. On Tuesday, Hunter boosts the Census... which we all know is just a plot to organize the internment camps for subversive elements.
3. On Thursday, Hunter stretches his brain and advocates economic sanctions, a gross intrusion of government power on your right to conduct free market activities with whomever you want. How dare big government forbid you from buying Cuban cigars?
   

Worth noting: Hunter advocates economic sanctions, even though their "terms don't make much sense," even though "we don't know much more" about economic sanctions beyond a one-line definition, even though "it isn't clear whether economic sanctions are effective," and even though "most analysts" believe sanctions against "Middle East enemies" are "too small to matter."

"Nevertheless," concludes Hunter, "we believe sanctions should continue and even expand, adding another tool to help fight terrorism around the world."

The Jon Hunter School of Logic and Rhetoric: make four points against a policy, then advocate more of it. Ah, so he is still a Republican!

Madison Daily Leader: We Have No Opinion?

Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter must be wearing himself out on SDPB's Political Junkie segment. He's working so hard sharing his political observations with the statewide audience, he's run out of opinions for local readers:

Madison Daily Leader: We have no opinion?

You know, Jon, if you're short on material, I know a certain local online columnist who can provide plenty of opinion to rouse your readers' thoughts....

Madison Daily Leader: News by Web Illiterates, for Web Illiterates

I note with amusement that the Madison Daily Leader's Chuck Clement devotes an entire article to the school district's posting of election information on its website. The full information posted by the district:

VOTE April 13^th - Madison City Armory from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Voter Registration
Voter registration forms are to be sent to the Lake County Auditor, 200 E. Center St.

Absentee voting:
Absentee voting information and form
Absentee Ballot Form

Three external links and three lines of web content is a news story? I crank out more valuable Web content than that between spoonfuls of raisin bran! Dang, Chuck, where's my coverage?

The Leader management probably still finds it amazing that government and anyone else can publish its own content on the Intertubes. I am reminded of how last week, in his appearance as a political junkie on SDPB, MDL publisher Jon Hunter smoothly sidestepped a question about how he handles user comments on his news website. Why the sidestepping? The Leader has never allowed any user comments!

In further signs of its Web illiteracy, the Leader publishes this story about online information without providing a single functional hyperlink. It's a href, Chuck. Call me. I'll explain.

Madison Daily Leader Shuns Homosexuals, Even in Death

The Madison Daily Leader runs an obituary for MHS alumnus William Charles Elliot Clarke:

He was born on Feb. 23, 1962, at Lennox to Erhard and Lily Borchardt. He grew up in Madison and graduated from Madison High School. He attended the University of Arizona at Flagstaff and was a music and art major. In 2004, he received his nursing license.

He was preceded in death by his parents; a sister, Sharon Lampson; and a brother, Ray "Butch" Borchardt.

Hmm... no spouse or family to survive him? I have to turn to a paid obituary, lower left, page 2 of Friday's print edition, to learn about Mr. Clarke's significant other:

He was a true friend, caring brother, and loving partner to his life partner Bob Schmitz. Bill and Bob were together for 21 years and through all times their deep love and support for each other was apparent.

So Mr. Clarke had a partner of 21 years, and our local newspaper chooses not to mention him in the formal obit?

This is not the first time Madison's newspaper has chosen to omit mention of a gay partner from an obituary. Consider this 2003 obit for Douglas Richard Larson (emphasis mine):

He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, Lions Club, Toastmasters, Madison Chamber of Commerce and the Area Development Board.

Survivors include his wife Victoria of Brookings; two sons, Sean and Kenneth, both of Brookings; his father, Richard of Brookings; a brother, Brent of San Francisco, Calif.; a sister, Linnea (David) Bradbury of Plano, Texas; two nieces and a nephew.

He was preceded in death by a grandfather and a grandmother.

Now view the obit from Rude's Funeral Home:

He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, Lions Club, Toastmasters, Madison Chamber of Commerce and the Area Development Board. He enjoyed riding motorcycle, sailing, photography, computers, writing and philosophy. He was also an ordained minister. He especially enjoyed spending time with his family. Doug is survived by his wife Victoria of Brookings; two sons Sean and Kenneth both of Brookings; one brother Brent Larson and his partner Joseph Driste of San Francisco, CA; one sister Linnea Bradbury (David) of Plano, TX; his father Richard Larson of Brookings; nieces Andrea Lovoll and Stephanie Simons and nephew Nick Simons. He was preceded in death by his grandfather Ferman Feeney and grandmother Pearl Larson.

The MDL obit mentions the husband of a sister, but not the partner of a brother.

As I've said before, the Madison Daily Leader is a private business. Publisher Jon Hunter can choose to print or not print whatever he wants (and he usually does, regardless of any stated "policy").

But the choices Hunter and his staff make tell us something about our local culture. The Leader will mention fiancées in obituaries. Compare also the coverage of the death last week of MHS alumnus Benjamin Bundy. Along with Bundy's formal obit, Hunter publishes a tribute article that, in Friday's print edition, features a color photo of Bundy "with his long-time girlfriend, Laura Niedert."

Long-time. Bundy was 20. Long-time means what, six years, tops? Clarke shared his life with a man for 21 years, and the Leader won't mention that unless it's paid.

I guess some meaningful relationships are acceptable for news coverage, but some remain unspeakable to our "free" press.

What Questions? Stimulus Working!

Being an SDPB Political Junkie must have gotten Jon Hunter excited: he's written three editorials in one week! In last night's editorial, the Madison Daily Leader publisher joins the Madison Republican hypocrites who hate government spending but love to get it:

While there are real questions about whether the federal stimulus program was effective or not, we're glad to see the act provide funding for a South Dakota highway reconstruction to make it much safer [Jon Hunter, "Despite Stimulus Questions, We're Glad Road Will Be Safer," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.02.17].

Note that Hunter is o.k. with stimulus for reservation infrastructure... as long as it's not an airport.

But wait a minute: what's this about questions about the stimulus? Economists are all pretty clear on the effects of the stimulus: it worked and it should have been bigger! Adam Feser points us toward the David Leonhardt column Hunter missed in Tuesday's New York Times:

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative [David Leonhardt, "Judging Stimulus by Jobs Data Reveals Success," New York Times, 2010.02.16].

Leonhardt says that if you look at data and history (instead of GOP wishing points), you see the stimulus deserves "a big heaping of credit." The current stimulus package confirms that government spending is the surest way to fight a recession:

The last year has shown — just as economists have long said — that aid to states and cities may be the single most effective form of stimulus. Unlike road- or bridge-building, it can happen in a matter of weeks. And unlike tax cuts, state and local aid never languishes in a household’s savings account [Leonhardt 2010].

So what was your question again, Jon?

Turn down Fox Noise, pay attention to reality.

---------
Update 2010.02.19: The Obama Administration is also creating jobs for unemployed speech makers like Sarah Palin.

New SDPB Political Junkie: Jon Hunter!

I just heard on the radio that SDPB has tapped Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter as its newest political junkie! Hunter will join Kevin Woster on today's Dakota Midday to talk politics.

Jon Hunter may be an improvement over Dave Kranz, who seemed to have trouble getting to the weekly interviews on time. And maybe Hunter's prep work for his SDPB appearances explains the recent paucity in his editorials here at home. After a little surge in editorial activity last year, Hunter has been getting lazy, ceding his commentary space all too often to columns clipped from other newspapers.

SDPB appears to be building a rotating corps of junkies: last week they brought in Jonathan Ellis from that Sioux Falls paper. If Hunter's commentary on air is as bland as most of his commentary here at home, expect SDPB to rotate him quickly right back out.

But hey! Maybe our man Hunter will surprise us. Give a listen this noon on SDPB (88.3 FM from Brookings; 89.7 FM from Vermillion).

MDL Publisher Sends Mixed Messages on Eminent Domain

Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter still "lives with his contradictions intact." In his Tuesday editorial, Hunter lauds Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for her sponsorship of H.R. 4288, legislation intended to negate the ills of the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision on eminent domain. Hunter apparently agrees with me that Kelo was one of the worst Supreme Court rulings of the past decade. He cites this press release from SHS:

"The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London dealt a serious blow to the fundamental rights of the private property owner," said Rep. Herseth Sandlin. "In essence, the ruling means that governments can take your property and give it to someone else for private use. This was a dangerous precedent when the case was first decided and it remains a dangerous precedent that deserves congressional action" [quoted in Jon Hunter, "Property Rights Would Regain Some Stature If Bill Passes," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.12.15].

What Hunter fails to explain—and what would make an interesting follow-up editorial, or a discussion in the comment section beneath his editorials, if his newspaper website had one—is how his apparent revulsion at the prospect of eminent domain fits with his expression of support of the Keystone pipelines. Hunter rejects the use of eminent domain for private use, yet he never mentions TransCanada's resort to eminent domain for the construction of its private pipeline. In his November 23 editorial, he relegates eminent domain to a blithe subordinate clause referring to "challenges with acquiring rights of way."

So which is it, Jon? Is eminent domain for private use always bad? Is it o.k. for Big Oil? Or is it just another meme to signal your allegiance to the big business crowd?

Make University Research Relevant: Blog It!

Our man Hunter pines for more applied research from our universities... but he also calls on folks outside academia to pay more attention to the papers our eggheads are currently churning out:

The state of South Dakota has an office whose mission is to help commercialize the research that's going on in state universities. But we believe the responsibility also lies in the rest of us who are working throughout the state to seek out such research.

Here's an example: A Dakota State University biology education student presented research results at a national conference and was a fellowship awardee. The research project was titled "Effects of Plant and Soil Samples on Microorganisms on Corn and Soybeans." Yet we wonder how many people involved in corn and soybeans in South Dakota have read it or taken action knowing the results [Jon Hunter, "The Rest of Us Need to Learn from Higher Education Research," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.11.30].

Hunter makes a reaonable point: I'll bet few if any farmers or elevator managers have spent time reading the academic research journals related to their industry. I'll also bet few if any farmers or elevator managers have spent an enjoyable evening removing hair from their butts with duct tape. The two experiences are roughly similar in pleasure and productivity.

Why on earth would any practitioner in any field want to read an academic journal? Academics publish in the arcane journals of their field to win and keep tenure. They write their articles for a narrow audience of fellow professors who serve on the boards of elite journals. Writing for practitioners is actually viewed as a ding against one's record at some universities. University researchers expect each other write abstract, detached epistles to theory and methodology, devoid of context, specifics, or passion.

My friend Toby and I submitted a paper on this very topic at the MWAIS conference here at SDU last May. Even as we wrote, we struggled against that same urge for fancy academic lingo. We recommended researchers adopt a research methodology called scholarly personal narrative, in which the researcher talks directly about his or her own experience and puts it in the context of actual practice as well as the latest developments in the field.

One excellent way to carry out scholarly personal narrative and produce the sort of relevant, engaging research that Hunter wants is the blog. Researchers (like Lilia Efimova, who researches the Internet) can conduct and write about their research online. They can blog their ideas, their data collection process, their thought processes. They can put rough drafts online, in publicly accessible language. They can even turn on the comments and seek the input of their readers, who may see things in a very different light from the laboratory perspective. They can make their results available to everyone, immediately, with the push of a button, rather than waiting for an academic review process that can take years and results in papers locked away in proprietary journals and databases that folks outside the university can't afford to access.

Some researchers are pursuing something like blog-based research and "open access" publishing. If academics want to fulfill Hunter's desire for more engagement between researchers and practitioners, they should look at the open access model. They should look at breaking away from the insular language and rules of the current journals and speak directly to the general public online.

Madison Press Loves Big Oil, Ignores Property Rights

Republicans love socialist redistribution... when it serves their big-business sensibilities. In the run-up to Turkey Day, Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter gave thanks for the TransCanada Keystone pipelines:

There are many challenges with acquiring rights of way, construction and financing to build such a pipeline. But in the bigger picture, we believe bringing oil from Canada and Alaska will be critical steps to help the United States free itself from its dependence on oil from the Middle East [Jon Hunter, "Despite Challenges, Pipelines Will Ease Energy Dependence," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.11.23].

Challenges—that's our man Hunter's convenient euphemism for the threat of eminent domain, the threat of forced socialist redistribution that TransCanada wielded to take property rights away from South Dakota landowners to serve its private business interests.

I remain amazed that we can't find one prominent Republican voice in this state who will stand up for South Dakotans' property rights against a foreign corporation.

Top Ten Reasons MDL Editorial Is Bunk

Jon Hunter gets back to form printing Madison's Republican "glory and praise pamphlet" with a little anti-government rant on Monday's editorial page. His outburst wins quotation from Dakota War College (easily ten-tupling MDL's web traffic) and mild approval from the DWC peanut gallery.

Hunter's squawking also proves his continued inability to string together a coherent argument. Therefore...

Top Ten Reasons Jon Hunter Should Stick with
"Isn't Madison Pretty?" As Editorial Topic

10

For not liking government, Hunter and his newspaper pals sure like having a monopoly on publishing government notices.

9

Hunter advocates reforming Congress by electing new members this year. I assume his editorial endorsing anyone who challenges John Thune is all ready to go.

8

Hunter recites the Fox-GOP mantra that "health care 'reform' means government control." Jon (and Republicans everywhere)—seriously? Come on: if the bill the House passed last weekend were a complete government takeover of health insurance, Dennis Kucinich would have voted for it.

7

Hunter bemoans the fact that the government sets interest rates. Looks like his Tea Party roots are showing: I guess his preference is to abolish the Federal Reserve.

6

Hunter says cap-and-trade gives the government the power to punish and reward industries. Um, Jon? Read the bill. Carbon trading is a market-based and market-tested solution that works.

5

Hunter gripes about stimulus dollars growing the public sector while the private sector shrinks. But the private sector wasn't exactly an engine of growth before the stimulus. And the kids getting food on the table thanks to those stimulus job paychecks don't give a rip which sector those jobs are in.

4

Hunter thinks the government is meddling with banks to force them to give loans to people who can't pay them back. The bankers were the ones making sleazy, stupid subprime loans that melted down the economy in the first place; the banks could use some regulation.

3

Hunter beats the anti-regulation drum further by quoting Rep. Barney Frank on the effort to increase government regulation. Again, predatory lenders get what they deserve.

2

Hunter cites polls (no links, of course) saying only 29% of Americans approve of Congress's job performance. Funny: that's the same percentage of Americans who think news organizations get the facts straight. But where is Hunter's call for replacing all the newspaper editors?

1

More poll numbers from the same Pew Research Center data: 21% of Americans think news organizations are willing to admit their mistakes. 20% think news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations. Throw the bums out, right?

Hunter Violates Editorial Policy, "Leader" Publishes Personal Attack... Again

Jon Hunter, publisher,
Madison Daily Leader (photo credit)

Ah, the things I put up with. Once again, Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter makes an exception to his letters-to-the-editor "policy," just for little old me. From Thursday's Madison Daily Leader, a letter from Jim Hagemann (with annotations):

Editor, The Daily Leader:

This letter is in response to Cory Heidelberger's blog on the bike trail meeting¹. It seems Cory is a highly educated man². I would like to suggest he go back to school and learn some manners.

Just because David Pitts doesn't want a bike trail on his land is no excuse for Cory's³ personal attacks on him⁴. Cory, I'm guessing you have never driven a tractor or combine down the road and had impatient people pass you before a hill. The bike trail would be liability for any landowner or business⁵.

Do we need to be making bike trails when we cannot afford to keep our roads in Lake County up? The grant money is not free money. It comes from taxpayers. Maybe it's time we stopped spending money on luxuries and spend money on priorities first.⁶

Cory, let's see how much of a man you are and give Dave an apology⁷.

Jim Hagemann
Ramona, Nov. 4

Believe it or not, I'm not that mad at Mr. Hagemann. Had he had the courtesy to send a comment or just call, as Mr. Pitts did last week, I suspect we could have had a neighborly conversation and gotten our facts straight. He probably just got hot and blew his stack... on paper. It happens. I've left a message on the Hagemanns' machine; I'm sure we'll get a chance to talk man-to-man and straighten things out.

And it's not the personal criticism that gets my goat. You loyal readers see me catch worse heck from folks here on the blog every day. Sure, folks need to learn not to turn every policy discussion into irrelevant personal criticism, but I'm used to it, and I don't let it get me down.

What grates my cheese is that, for the second time in two years, Jon Hunter has allowed a personal attack against yours truly to grace his editorial page, in clear contravention of his stated editorial policy. During last year's school board election, his paper published a vindictive and untruthful letter from Heather Maher Devries (a condensed version of a similar screed she penned years ago) on the Friday night before the election. That letter was, at a minimum, a direct violation of Mr. Hunter's declared ban on letters urging citizens to vote for (or here, against) specific candidates.

And now, Mr. Hunter's paper posts Mr. Hagemann's letter. Two years ago, on rejecting a letter my wife wrote questioning an offensive sign downtown, Mr. Hunter said that his paper will publish "criticism of public officials and government agencies, but not of individuals or businesses."

Let's see: I am a public official... but I wasn't speaking on the bike trail in any official capacity. I have been writing about the bike trail from my individual perspective, on my blog, which is, marginally, a business.

When I called about last year's letter, Mr. Hunter said he had been out of town and that the nasty letter must have slipped through. He allowed a couple hastily composed letters of response in the following Monday paper, the night before the election.

One mistake. Sure. It happens.

Publishing Mr. Hagemann's letter is mistake number 2. Mistake number 2 doesn't happen. Not at a newspaper that conscientiously applies its editorial policy.

And to top it off, Mr. Hunter doesn't even do the community the courtesy of publishing the name of the blog or its URL so interested readers could see for themselves what Mr. Hagemann's hubbub is about.

Once again we see the superiority of blogs. Sure, we bloggers engage in some pretty sharp arguments. We dish out some stern criticism against all sorts of people and businesses. Our commenters can be even rougher. But we also post the citations and hyperlinks to back up our claims so you, dear readers, can see for yourself.

Like Mr. Hagemann, I expect to see a public apology in the pages of the Madison Daily Leader in the coming few days. Mr. Hunter will write that apology. He will acknowledge the breach of his stated editorial policy. And he will publish in large, bold print, so everyone can easily read that complicated Internet stuff, the URL of the blog and author maligned in tonight's letter:

http://
madvilletimes
.blogspot
.com

Seems only fair, don't you think?

----------------------------------
Notes on the letter itself:

1. My main blog, the Madville Times, is about a wide range of important issues. I have written a number of posts about the proposed Lake Herman bike trail (five so far). Mr. Hagemann appears to think I've only written one such post. Hmm... hasn't Mr. Hagemann been reading?
2. I've heard enough anti-intellectualism around here to know that, 9 times out of 10, the words highly educated don't bode well.
3. Note first-name basis from a man I don't know. Note that in the post to which I assume Mr. Hagemann refers, I consistently refer to Mr. Pitts.
4. Note we get no evidence of a personal attack. I questioned bad reasoning and policy statements, but Mr. Hagemann provides no example of a personal attack.
5. Mr. Hagemann evidently missed my post on how South Dakota law may say otherwise.
6. This part of the letter is perfectly reasonable, and it contradicts nothing I've said on the matter.
7. Is a two-and-a-half-hour phone conversation and a follow-up blog post telling Mr. Pitts's side of the story enough to prove my manhood, Mr. Hagemann? Or do I still need to come out and drive your combine in traffic? Gas 'er up... and watch out on 230th Street!
   

Swine Flu. Yes, I Said Swine Flu. Pass the Bacon

Jon Hunter expresses his deep concern about the darned media that persists in referring to H1N1 as "swine flu." Calling it swine flu, says Hunter, "causes confusion and likely contributes to some people not eating pork products for fear of contracting the virus."

Obviously we need a fine slew of swine flu euphemisms... lest pork producers whine and sue.

It grinds my gourd that we have masses of media muckrakers calling the President of the United States of America all sorts of things he isn't—Communist, socialist, Kenyan—and that's all fine and dandy. But refer to a virus by a name that might threaten the price of bacon, and see the editorials fly!

And the funny thing is, even the CDC calls H1N1 swine flu and says it is "of swine origin."

Swine flu. H1N1. Whatever. You can't catch it from eating pork; you're probably a greater danger to your pigs (and ferrets). Now pass the bacon.

Hunter: Lake County Should Lead Water Quality Projects

Lake is our county's name, so perhaps it makes obvious sense that our county government should take the lead in protecting water quality in our namesakes. Madison Daily Leader editor Jon Hunter calls for the Lake County Commission to take just such an environmental leadership role:

The first reason is geography. Any efforts to improve surface and ground water must focus on the Lake County watershed, which in rough terms approximates the boundaries of Lake County.

Second, the government entity is already in place that can apply for, and accept, federal grants to help pay for the projects.

Third, the county commission members are a diverse set, including people who live in the city, at a lake, in the country and so on. They are knowledgeable about local water issues and can make sound decisions about which path to take.

Fourth, experienced partners are available. The lake associations have decades of experience working on water quality issues, the sanitary districts are right in the middle of the action, and the city of Madison staff has knowledge and resources to draw upon [Jon Hunter, "Who Should Take the Lead for Better Water? Lake County," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.09.01].

That's one of the most logical things I've heard our man Hunter say this year. I might quibble only with one point: our sanitary districts are restricted by statute from being in "the middle of the action" on water quality projects (though I'm working on changing that!). Otherwise, Hunter makes a great case. Our county commission is positioned to do what no other taxing and governing agency in our county can do: take action that will benefit nearly the entire watershed at a shot. The only improvement on county action would be to see the Legislature take a more active role in water quality.

Of course, if we add new duties to the county's plate, we need to find money to support that action. At the very least, we might have to extend hours for someone in the auditor's or treasurer's office to write those grant applications and administer the money. I'm not worried on the fiscal side, though. If we can find $25,000 for the Lake Area Improvement Corporation, we can find another $25,000 to pay for actual improvement of our lakes and streams.

Jon, heck of an idea. County Commission, run with it!

MDL's Hunter Agrees: Sanford MeritCare Merger Means We'll Pay More

Health care providers Sanford and MeritCare promise their merger will bring more jobs and health services for everyone on both sides of the Dakota border. Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter brings to bear his business acumen to point out something the merger is more likely intended to bring: higher costs.

But another reason is negotiating power with private insurance companies, managed care companies and state and federal governments, all of whom are working to reduce the high cost of health care. Some people may be critical of these groups, but we're glad someone is working to reduce health care costs. We shouldn't be excited about a transaction that is intended to negotiate higher prices [Jon Hunter, "Large-Scale Merger of Hospitals May Result in Higher Prices," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.07.21].

This may be the smartest business observation I've heard our man Hunter make. Sanford and MeritCare aren't just looking for political clout; they want financial clout to dicker for more money from insurers... and us.

Hunter's analysis is right in line with the analysis from USD health law prof and former hospital CEO Michael Myers. Might be time to shop around to Avera....

Hunter vs. Heidelberger: The Madison Debate on Health Insurance Reform

Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter spouted some nonsense about health care and government control on his editorial page last week. I promised Sibby I would set our man Hunter straight this week. Mr. Hunter does me the favor of publishing the following letter in last night's MDL. For those of you with paper allergies and Madison ex-pats everywhere, I reprint that letter below (with hyperlinks!):

To the Editor, Madison Daily Leader:

I have observed the Madison Daily Leader's continuing campaign against sensible, affordable taxpayer-funded health care with alternating amusement and annoyance. MDL's latest fear-mongering about government involvement in health care reform (see the July 2 editorial) rouses me to write.

Last Thursday's editorial frets about the provision of "free" health care for the uninsured. The editorial wrongly assumes that government health insurance is a handout. Actually, many participants in a public health insurance plan would pay their fair share through taxes. There are plenty of middle-class taxpayers who lack health coverage now either because they cannot afford the exorbitant premiums or because our vaunted for-profit insurance system won't cover them due to previous illnesses or injuries that are no fault of their own.

Thursday's editorial waves the usual red flag of terror at the prospect of government making your health care decisions. Let government pay for health care, and next thing you know, government will be telling you what doctor to see, what pills to take, and so on... so goes the usual refrain. This false thinking ignores the current reality of the for-profit insurance system, where private bureaucrats and insurance company lawyers dictate which doctors you can see and which procedures will be covered, all while devising loopholes to deny you the coverage you thought you were paying for. MDL's argument also ignores the fact that the government is us: we can exert much more control as democratic participants over a public plan run by us and our elected officials than we can exert over any private insurance company whose primary goal is to generate profit, not serve the public good.

Thursday's editorial then veers off on a tangent about the $1.1 billion portion of February's stimulus package that supports research to compare treatments for various medical problems and identify the most effective treatments. The editorial constructs a paternalist straw-man, claiming that a public program seeking to lower costs and provide better care just shows government mistrust of the common man's wisdom.

Now the stimulus package is completely separate legislation from the health care reform Congress is currently working on. But since the editorial brought it up, I'll note that nothing in the stimulus package or, likely, any health care reform Congress passes this year will stop Jon Hunter or me or anyone else from reading all we want about "prostate cancer, back pain, and hearing loss." Of course, when I limp into the hospital with some malady, the last thing I want to hear from Dr. Beecher is, "O.K., Cory, you're smart: read these fifty medical textbooks, study the different treatments, and then tell us which one you want." I really would rather the experts—medical researchers, supported by stimulus dollars, providing the evidence that doctors themselves say they need—save me time and money and tell me what treatment is best.

But nothing in that odd diversion in Thursday's editorial addresses the fundamental advantage of public health insurance. The whole idea of insurance is that we pool our resources with our neighbors to help each other out when misfortune strikes. The best insurance has the biggest pool. Why not create the biggest pool possible: 300 million Americans contributing tax dollars to one universal non-profit insurance plan?

Congress will not, alas, go that far. President Obama himself has said a single-payer option is not on the table. The best we'll get is a public plan option (keyword: option, meaning no one is required to join, no one has to give up the insurance they have). New numbers from the Congressional Budget Office find that a public option would cut the 10-year cost of health coverage reform from a trillion-plus to $400 billion. $40 billion a year -- not a bad price tag for near universal coverage. A public plan would also create price competition that is currently mostly non-existent in our alleged "free" market system.

Hmm: saving money, enhancing competition, and taking better care of our neighbors. Those sound like good American goals to me. Perhaps MDL will rediscover those values before its next discussion of health coverage reform.

Sincerely,
Cory Allen Heidelberger
Lake Herman, SD
[published in the Madison Daily Leader print edition, 2009.07.07]

If you think the arguments here in Madison are fun, just wait 'til you hear the debates Congress will have this month... just in time for the arrival of stealth wonk Senator Al Franken (who, by the way, believes single-payer is the most effective way to cut administrative costs and provide universal coverage—yes! Al! Make the push!).

Hunter Forgets Quote Marks, Cribs Editorial from Wall Street Journal

Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter caught heck from Lakota authors a couple weeks back for not citing sources to back his arguments about economic conditions on the reservations. He might catch heck this week for not citing the source of his current editorial.

Hunter evidently reads the Wall Street Journal. His latest editorial, arguing for delaying the minimum wage increase scheduled for July 24, echoes David Neumark's op-ed from last Friday's WSJ... perhaps a little too closely.

Jon Hunter, "Last Phase of Minimum Wage Increase Should Be Delayed," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.06.15	David Neumark, "Delay the Minimum-Wage Hike," Wall Street Journal, 2009.06.12
The best estimates from studies in the last two decades indicate that the upcoming 11 percent increase in the minimum wage will lead to the loss of an additional 300,000 jobs among teens and young adults, on top of previous job losses.	The best estimates from studies since the early 1990s suggest that the 11% minimum wage increase scheduled for this summer will lead to the loss of an additional 300,000 jobs among teens and young adults. This is on top of the continuing job losses the recession is likely to throw our way.

Eeesh—that's too close for my comfort.

I know space is tight for Mr. Hunter's editorials. He embraces bloggy brevity, rarely developing his opinions beyond a couple hundred words so as not to crowd out the garden club news and other localia. But citing sources takes only one line. Online, it takes even less: you can cite with a hyperlink and tuck the author, title, and date in an HTML title attribute that will show only when people hover their mouse over it.

Hunter has previously critiqued online media for being unedited and lacking integrity. I would suggest that citing sources, particularly from colleagues in the newspaper business, is one of the "basic principles of what it takes to do a writer's job well" [Jon Hunter, "Halberstam's Attention to Detail Could Be Used Today," Madison Daily Leader, 2007.04.24].