Comments by dcole
Page 1 of 1
Posted on June 4 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cuss:
You have a point. When you say, "anonymity provides freedom to say what you think without retribution," that's true. Unfortunately, it also provides freedom to avoid accountability and responsibility.
Fostering an environment in which people are afraid to use their names is more totalitarian than democratic.
Requiring names would reduce the cheap shots and character assassination that some commenters resort to. If that means that some readers will be afraid to comment, then so be it. More people would write letters to the editor if they didn't have to sign their names too.
I want to see people use their names so that we can raise the level of discourse and attract other readers to comment.
In addition to destroying the local letters to the editor forum, which I believe will happen, we also run the risk of allowing an anonymous electronic mob to drive reasonable people away from politics.
I expect the anonymous slurs to increase as the campaign season progresses, aided and abetted by a policy that allows critics to remain in the shadows.
Fairbanks will be a poorer place if we accept the idea that public discussion should be anonymous and that much of it should take the form of comments that people would be afraid or embarrassed to make to someone else in person.
On ‘I love living in Fairbanks’ comments reflect community traits worth keeping
Posted on May 29 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We strive to inform people in advance and take these comments and that responsibility seriously. The events listing should be improved, I agree.
Let me point out, however, that this was a six-column headline in the News-Miner on Tuesday:
Wednesday bonfire, barbecue to mark 50th anniversary of statehood milestone
Posted on May 25 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Paul:
I'll make it a point to highlight some aspects of the Oregon experience. I don't have the information in front of me, but I think the underlying theme was that an external review was deemed appropriate just to make sure that the institution was operating in the way it should. The reviewers included academic, lobbyists, ex-lawmakers, current lawmakers, business types, political activists and regular citizens.
To "Ms. DeltaLady."
Always great to hear from you.
The details are on my desk. I haven't written about them yet, along with about two dozen other things, but I'm glad you reminded me.
In fact, the per capita distributions in recent years were much closer than this year, which is why the Southeast legislators erred in grabbing too much for themselves, creating an obvious veto target.
In general, I'd say that one of the improvements this year in the pork barrel budget was that background information on projects was posted. The problem, however, is that it took place after the fact.
In years to come, lawmakers need to post that information as soon as it comes in. In other words, when the Delta or the Fairbanks XYZ organization asks for money for a racetrack or streetlights or a new building, share that with the public. Don't hide it until the last days of the session.
And don't leave out the hundreds of requests that didn't make it. If a group is asking for public money, then share that information with the public.
Lawmakers can correct this error next year.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the system we have is corrupt, but it invites backroom deals. That has been the case since the advent of the one-third, one-third, one-third pork barrel distribution plan. That was the scheme under which the governor, House and Senate each had the "right" to allocate one-third of the pork.
The problem with this approach is that while the executive is supposed to take a statewide view and there are commissioners who have to justify projects and take competing needs into account, legislators don't.
For decades the assumption in Juneau has been that individual lawmakers get money that they can bestow upon constituents without any formal review of the merits of the projects.
In the wrong hands, this has the potential to be an officially sanctioned form of buying votes.
One step we can take is to ask that lawmakers share the pork barrel proposals that they intend to fund with local government officials and the public in advance.
All in all, I think we can do better.
I'm open to suggestions.
On Capital budget shows need for external review of legislative operations
Posted on May 13 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Paul:
Good points, as usual. My comment was directed at what is most important in the here and now. Those who drive cars and ride bikes have to be alert to the threat at this moment.
The broader issues you mention are worth examination and have long been ignored.
Dermot
On Hospice volunteers seek plant donations to nurture spring sale at greenhouse
Posted on May 8 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Mark Twain Jr.:
So exactly how are people held accountable when they don't use their names?
Posted on April 29 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GVEA is a cooperative. If you don't like the way it is run,then get involved.
Name-calling is not productive.
In fact, it's the easy way out.
There are solutions,but they require work and greater involvement by members of the cooperative. Dismissing GVEA's board as "clowns" is not fair to our neighbors and will not lead to progress.To quote Red Green, "We are all in this together."
On Oil price surge shows need to diversify fuel sources for local electric supply
Posted on April 28 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I plan to look into the distribution of funds in past years. That's certainly relevant to this discussion.
Thanks,.
Dermot
On Palin should use vetoes to fix capital budget and prevent ‘Christmas in spring’
Page 1 of 1
Posted on June 4 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I appreciate the comments.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me. It has never happened yet in my 30-plus years writing about life in Alaska.
There may be cases where job conflicts or family situations mean that people are unable to express a point of view and be identified. I'm not sure how to handle situations of that type. It's an interesting question.
The comments that I find objectionable are the personal attacks and libelous statements. These have little to do with job conflicts or family situations.
Allowing people to attack others and deliver cheap shots while staying hidden is not fair.
While driving home tonight my wife and I watched as a guy in a gray SUV and a kid in a white sedan drove aggressively at about 70 mph and weaved in and out on the Steese between Johansen and Farmers Loop. It was a scary incident that reminded me of the fatal crime a few years ago caused by an argument about whose car belonged where, a point of pride over a matter of a few seconds.
The guy in the pickup changed lanes so fast I thought his vehicle was going to flip over. He stopped at the Farmers Loop light, which was green, so he could shout at the kid and flip him off.
I don't know what the kid did, but he had changed lanes suddenly and cut in front of someone else to get into the left-turn lane to go onto Farmers Loop.
They were driving like idiots, showing no respect for others and endangering the lives of people around them.
I'm not going to overstate the case and say the News-Miner comments are the verbal equivalent of that episode, but I think that we should keep in mind that we want to avoid behavior that resembles the disregard for others that I saw on the Steese tonight.
The rules of the road are long established for drivers and everybody knows what they are, though the rules are sometimes broken. This forum is a fairly recent venture and the rules are still being worked out.
I think we should start by treating others with respect. Just because someone is a public official or dares to write a letter to the editor or winds up as the subject of a news story, that does not mean the person is "fair game" and open to any kind of attack.
On ‘I love living in Fairbanks’ comments reflect community traits worth keeping