Because I was in Columbia until pretty recently, and because I care about the paper a lot, I’ve kept tabs on how things have been going there over the past couple years and my understanding of this situation is that it’s the culmination of an entire year of poor judgments and missteps on the part of the executive editors. The editorial board, in a statement, confirms this. The April Fool’s issue led to the editor-in-chief and managing editor both resigning, something that is unprecedented at The Maneater and has led to a lot of concern and confusion for the staff and a lot of the alumni I know.

I’ll put a list of links about this situation at the end of this post so people can read and make their own judgments, but my feelings about this haven’t changed a whole lot since the whole thing started. As with any crisis situation, it’s hard, as an outsider, to really understand all the factors that were in play in the newsroom over the last couple days. The ed board’s statement clarifies it a bit, and confirms some of my suspicions about what went on. But given the record of problems and miscommunications and bad decisions that happened over the course of the year, I understand the ed board’s decision to push impeachment and the executive editors’ decisions to resign. It was clear they had lost the confidence of their staff, which would have made the rest of the year very difficult for them; it was clear the paper had lost the confidence of the MU community, which would have made the staff’s jobs much harder for the time being if the executive team didn’t take some sort of quick, decisive action to either remedy the situation or distance themselves from it as the faces of the organization. With it being the end of the year, and the leadership team for next year already being in place, I can see where it would be a logical option to step aside and let the new team take over and build off of a fresh start.

A group of my fellow Maneater alums are circulating a letter in support of the paper as an institution, asking that the paper not take the fall for the problems and that the university retain the paper’s editorial integrity and independence and respect its traditions. The MU administration doesn’t seem to be interested in threatening any of those things, since the university’s publication’s board met and basically just told them to be more careful next time (they were meeting to decide the future of the editor-in-chief and managing editor’s jobs, but they’d already resigned, so there wasn’t much left to do). And I have difficulty putting my name on the letter because of that.

There isn’t a threat from the university any more. The letter was originally much more strongly worded to condemn the resignation of the executive editors, and for the reasons I listed above, I don’t think I agree with that. But also, the letter talks a lot about The Maneater as a learning paper, and the lessons that can be learned from this being paramount. That’s true, in a sense, but being a learning paper is an excuse that only goes so far. When your mistakes become a pattern, instead of getting better, you’re not learning. And there is a valuable lesson in accountability that can be learned from this situation. Take responsibility for your actions. Sometimes the consequences for your actions are severe, particularly when you’ve taken on a leadership role. But you have to live with those consequences. I don’t think the paper’s status as a learning institution has been weakened by this, I don’t think the paper’s independence or integrity are under threat, and I don’t think that being a student newspaper is an excuse for the series of mistakes the staff has made this year. And that’s why I’m not keen on signing the letter.

This whole situation really makes me sick because I love the paper so much. I learned a lot there, not just about journalism but about being a leader, and making sound decisions, and how to comport myself in a professional setting. I met some of my best friends there, and we had some really great times. But we can’t let those sentimental feelings get in the way of the realities that The Maneater is also a working newspaper, and a business that has to stay relevant and solvent in order for MU students in the future to have those same experiences we did. The executive team took the action they thought would best help the paper do that, and now the new team will have to rebuild. Best of luck to them. And hopefully they’ve learned a lot from how this all has been handled.

Links:
This is just a selection of the many stories out there about the situation.

Resignation Letters:
http://www.themaneater.com/blogs/the-newsroom/2012/4/11/apology-and-letter-resignation/
http://www.themaneater.com/blogs/the-newsroom/2012/4/10/letter-resignation/

Apology Letter:
http://www.themaneater.com/blogs/the-newsroom/2012/4/6/letter-editor/

News stories:
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/11/3548310/mu-newspaper-editor-resigns-amid.html
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/apr/11/maneater-editors-resign-after-parody-edition-flap/

I only got about a quarter of the way through this commentary by former Sen. Tom Daschle before I was too angry to keep reading because of this comment:

“The only real question, in fact, is whether we have an individual mandate — one that requires individual responsibility, which I always thought was claimed as a conservative value — or we have a community mandate.”

Forced responsibility isn’t responsibility. It’s an indenture, of sorts. Responsibility is something you recognize and take care of on your own. Mandates can force you to do a lot of things, but they don’t force you to do that.

Sandra, your rights do not extend to anything that someone else has to pay for. The vast majority of us will gladly keep our hands out of your uterus if you keep your hands out of our wallets.

In many ways, the fact that Sandra Fluke’s name has even been entered into our collective consciousness is a testament to how much the conservatives have lost control of the narrative on this issue. Instead of continually deflecting back to the mandates or the religious freedom issue, our talking heads and politicians are engaging on birth control and letting the debate get hijacked into something that we can’t win. It remains to be seen whether or not it’s too late to get it back.

It’s interesting to think about how a city would shut down. Cities, towns and other municipal entities do so much that affects our lives, and when that stops, what happens? In this case, everything gets handed over to the county, and the county has to take over and assimilate the city’s processes. St. George had already turned over police services to the county after charges of corruption and perception of the city as a speed trap undermined the residents’ trust in the department. The article also discusses how the county is converting the city’s zoning categories over to the county’s equivalents.

Another issue this raises is municipal consolidation. St. George was one of 91 municipalities in St. Louis County. According to the article, it had 1,300 residents and spanned 2/10 of a square mile. There are a lot of cities like that in the St. Louis area, and there have been a lot of proposals to combine some of them. In the 50′s and 60′s there were proposals to merge St. Louis city with the county, creating a New York-style borough system (the city and county have been separated since the 1870′s). Today, many regional officials talk about bringing the city back into the county as the 92nd (or 91st, now that St. George is gone) municipality, in order to allow for greater regional cooperation.

These proposals have failed in the past for a variety of reasons — the idea of bringing the city’s crime and corruption into the county, the pension plans for city employees moving toward insolvency, and racial and economic tensions have all contributed to the failures of the past. Today, though, there are several examples of successful city-county integration, with Louisville and Indianapolis being nearby cities that have pulled it off. Those cities, though, didn’t have as many different cities and neighborhoods with their entrenched power structures that would all be trying to exert influence in a merger process. 91 cities, 91 mayors, hundreds of city councillors, almost 1.5 million people and countless other players would be affected by such a plan. And hell hath no fury like a municipal official scorned.

It probably would be better for St. Louis County to have fewer municipalities and more regional cooperation, and it probably would be better for the region if the city were part of the county again and there weren’t as many duplicative offices and services. There’s a lot that would have to be resolved for those things to happen, though. The story of St. George, though, is one that opens up all of these issues and provides a template for other cities’ residents to see when they consider if their city is necessary in the big picture.

¹² For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ¹³ Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

— Ephesians 6:12-13

The whole passage, from verses 10-20, is even better.

The Armor of God

 ¹⁰ Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. ¹¹ Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. ¹² For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ¹³ Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. ¹⁴ Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, ¹⁵ and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. ¹⁶ In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. ¹⁷Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 ¹⁸ And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. ¹⁹ Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, ²⁰ for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

— Ephesians 6:10-20

Tuna Noodle Casserole

Boil a pound of pasta and drain. Mix pasta with two or three cans of tuna depending on your preference (I used three), two cans of cream of mushroom soup, a bag of shredded cheddar cheese, and one or two handfuls of parmesan (a “traditional” tuna noodle casserole includes peas too, if you’re into that, but I’m not so I left them out). Put in a greased casserole dish and cover with another layer of shredded cheese. Bake at 350 for 30-35 minutes. I put a couple dashes of dried onions and dried garlic in with the pasta mixture too, so there’s also that, but I put garlic in everything.

Company Chicken (as in, chicken for when you’re having company, not a company of chickens)

A nurse at the hospital told us about this one. Take four or five chicken breasts and put them in a greased baking dish. Pour 1/3-1/2 cup of white wine over the chicken, enough to put about 1/2 inch in the bottom of the pan. Put slices of provolone cheese on top of each piece of chicken. Pour a can of cream of chicken soup over the chicken and cheese. MISTAKE THAT TURNED OUT DELICIOUS: I accidentally grabbed a can of broccoli cheese soup and poured that over it instead, then I put the cream of chicken on top of that. Melt a stick and a half of butter and mix with herb stuffing mix, then sprinkle the mixture over the top of everything. Bake at 375 for 50-60 mins.

Beef Stew

This one can be done in a roaster in the oven (at 275 for five hours) or in the crock pot (on low for 5-6 hours). Line the bottom of the roaster/crock pot with beef stew meat. Add chopped onion, carrots, celery, potatoes, and mushrooms. I also added several generous shakes of salt, pepper and dried garlic. Pour a can of tomato soup over it and then fill the can half way with water and add that as well.

The whole reproductive health mandate issue has been the dominant story in the news the last couple days. I’ve written about it here three times now, mostly in reaction to what was going on as it was happening. This is an issue, though, that reveals many deeper problems with Obamacare, with the administration’s policies, and with the driving principles behind these decisions.

Underlying issue #1: Religious freedom

The crux of the matter here is not the morality, accessibility, legality, acceptability, or any other “-ity” of birth control and contraceptives. I don’t think anyone has made an argument that we need to block access to birth control for people who choose to use it, or that we should make it illegal. The issue is that religious institutions don’t want to be forced to pay for insurance policies that include things they teach are immoral.

The other distinction to be made here is that churches themselves are exempted, but their affiliated institutions such as schools, hospitals and social services organizations are not. Because these institutions hire and serve people who are not members of the faith they are affiliated with, some argue, they should be subject to the mandate like any other school or hospital. Take, for example, a Catholic school, though. An integral part of a Catholic school’s curriculum, mission, and identity is the Catholic faith and moral teaching. What kind of example would it set for the students of the school if the school’s administration went along with this mandate? And if they don’t go along with it, would the school, without offering health insurance benefits, still be able to attract high quality teachers and administrators? That’s a horrible situation to box an institution into — its principles, or its livelihood. The same could be said for a religious hospital or social service organization.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The First Amendment is intended to stop this type of philosophical interference. The Establishment Clause has been debated as to its intention for a long time in the context of school choice and social services. But this issue isn’t one of government-church cooperation, it’s one of forced contradiction. And that’s where the Free Exercise Clause kicks in to protect our churches and their affiliates.

Underlying issue #2: Mandates in general

A further issue with the contraceptives mandate is that the federal government is telling private insurance companies that they have to cover these things. The justification for any type of regulation like this is under the interstate commerce clause, but Obamacare failed to open the insurance market to transactions across state lines.

Insurance, by definition, is meant to be a safety net against catastrophes. Your car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes and tire rotations, it covers accidents and thefts. Health insurance isn’t meant to be a catch-all for every type of health expense. It’s a relatively recent development that insurance covered portions of routine check-ups and prescription drugs. In general, insurance is meant to cover hospitalizations and other major expenses. When you start mandating that certain things be covered, and that certain things be covered fully instead of partially, and you don’t let the companies make those decisions based on what makes business sense and will allow them to make money and not go out of business, you’re destabilizing the industry. There is a legitimate argument to be made that government interference of this type, and the resulting destabilization, is to blame at least in part for the rising costs of health care in the U.S., because by covering more things you’re requiring insurance companies to take on more overhead and more risk.

The federal government doesn’t mandate what Jiffy Lube includes in its oil change packages, and we still have an operational, efficient auto repair industry. Health insurance is a product, and people who have the ability to earn their way in society should have to earn their insurance as well. The federal government has not business mandating that people have to be covered, that they have to carry a policy, or that policies have to cover certain things. The market will work all that out over time. The states have the constitutional power to make those regulations, and some states have, but logically they probably shouldn’t. If there is a legitimate reason for contraceptives to be covered (and there is an argument that there is, because of the preventative nature of the medication, etc etc), the companies will offer it as an option and people can choose that.

Underlying issue #3: The End Game

The underlying issue of the religious freedom debate is, like I wrote before, that of forced contradiction. Does a religiously affiliated organization cave in and do something that runs contrary to its mission, and have that hypocritical stigma making their services less desirable on the market? Or does it drop health insurance for employees and lose a major recruiting tool to bring in qualified employees and maintain quality of services? It’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t (pun intended) situation.

The other issue of insurance mandates is one that destabilizes a huge sector of the American economy. Health care is an industry that has grown as manufacturing and production in the U.S. have declined. By destabilizing the insurance companies, the government is setting them up for a colossal failure in the same way they set up the mortgage and student loan bubbles. And we saw what happened with those — nationalizations, bailouts, and crony capitalism.

So what’s the end game here? The religious schools and hospitals and social service groups are being put in a position of choosing between two paths that both weaken them. Insurance companies are being put on a path toward a bursting bubble. And who will be there when the hospitals close, and the schools shut down, and the insurance companies collapse? The government. With single-payer health care, bureaucratic welfare offices, and politically correct public schooling to “pick up the pieces.” It makes you wonder if that liberal utopian idea is the intended outcome of all of these policy decisions. That’s a scary thought.

On one hand, it’s a good step toward flexibility as harnessing the power of federalism to solve problems. In that way I have to give President Obama some props. Allowing states to design their own programs and letting them out of the NCLB requirements to implement them is a much better idea than the stupid Race To The Top redistributionism system they are also pushing.

On the other hand, though, states shouldn’t need a waiver from the federal government to design their own education policies and programming. We’d probably all be better off if the feds took their hands off education and let people at the local level decide what works best in their community. So in the larger scheme of things, 10 waivers is a good step, but not far enough toward true federal education reform.

Quotes like, “Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God-given rights,” are things you’d expect to hear from oppositions in banana republics somewhere, not in the U.S., but here we are in America in 2012.

And, His Excellency is a dog person, so you know he’s good people.