Issue link: http://www.epageflip.net/i/715527
GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIALBOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@ redbluffdailynews.com Fax: 530-527-9251 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 728Main St., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS That'snearlythelengthof a full-term pregnancy. That's the length of a baseball sea- son, from spring training to the World Series. That's the length of a Grateful Dead con- cert song on a bootleg CD, or at least it feels that way. When Clinton and her ad- visers are asked about this fundamental breach of trans- parency, they blithely shrug it off. During the recent Demo- cratic Convention, campaign pollster Joel Berenson said, "We'll have a press confer- ence when we want to have a press conference." Campaign manager Robby Mook report- edly laughed when the is- sue was raised, and replied, "We'll see." And back in May, when Clinton was asked when she planned to meet the press again, she simply blew off the question: "Oh, I'm sure we will." I'm well aware that media complaints about lack of ac- cess rank last on the average Joe's list of concerns. If people believed that Clinton's stiffing of the traveling press was a black mark on her candidacy, she wouldn't be increasing her lead over Trump in just about every new poll that's released. And in the 24/7 digital era, there are all kinds of ways to credibly cover and critique a candidate, even without inter- active face time. But this is a character test, and Clinton is failing it. I get that she doesn't "need" to do press conferences, given all the alternative routes to the voter, from Twitter to Flickr to YouTube. And since she's so well-positioned to win, why risk going off script in the midst of an unscripted media scrum? And hey, she's hardly the first candidate to seek me- dia exposure purely on her own terms. I'm done with the caveats. To gain full presidential cred- ibility, she needs to demon- strate a willingness to handle tough and often impertinent questions in a spontaneous en- vironment. It would be nice, for in- stance, to hear what she thinks about the flap du jour, the delivery of money long owed to Iran at the same (co- incidental?) time that Iran was releasing American prisoners. And reporters should have the chance to question her lat- est remarks about her pri- vate email server. Last Sunday she told Fox News that she'd been "truthful" to the Ameri- can people when she'd insisted that no classified info had been emailed. But FBI director James Comey told Congress, "There was classified material emailed." Clinton's problem is that she's just not comfortable in uncontrolled settings. After repeated media beat- ings dating back a quarter century — some of them jus- tified, many of them disgrace- fully unfair — she's guarded and gun shy. This was obvi- ous 17 months ago, when she weathered one of her only press conferences of 2015. The email story had just broken. She scheduled a brief- ing on very short notice, which limited the number of attendees; she stayed for only 21 minutes; and the ques- tioners were pre-picked by her staff. (Very first question, from Turkish television: "If you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?") But her ongoing stonewall does her no favors. It's an impractical pos- ture that accelerates the vi- cious news cycle. Jack Shafer, the media critic at Politico, says it well: "Her avoidance of the media leads 1) reporters to further distrust her, which 2) leads to more coverage that she regards as negative, which 3) confirms her bias that re- porters will never give her a fair shake, so why bother?" By the way, this situation exposes the right-wing lie about how the so-called "lib- eral" media is in the tank for Clinton. She and the "liberal" media are locked in mutual distrust. Her press conference famine is Exhibit A. And, alas, it bodes ill for transparency during a second Clinton presidency. DickPolmanisthenational political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia (newsworks. org/polman) and a "Writer in Residence" at the University of Pennsylvania. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com. Dick Polman Hillary Clinton's transparency phobia Cartoonist's take In August of 2015, one year ago, a new installment of a re- port on the freedom of coun- tries around the world came out. In "United States Drops In Overall Free- dom Ranking," Casey Harper (The Daily Caller) notes the decline in freedom, eco- nomically and overall. We tend to take freedom for granted; gradual changes are hardly no- ticed, for better or (usually) worse. Imagine the phrase, "Make America Free Again," on the shirts and caps of a presiden- tial candidate. The same polit- ical crowd that derides Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would probably object to the idea that America isn't as free as it once was; the same ones that think this eco- nomic recovery is the best we can hope for in a time of low- ered expectations. Does freedom play a major role in what constitutes great- ness? Does the chipping away of basic freedoms have a cu- mulative effect on the national, community, even personal, psyche? Is America like the sto- ried frog placed in a pot of wa- ter, which is slowly heated and tolerated by said frog until it si- multaneously becomes both in- tolerable and deadly? How do you measure the businesses not starting up, or once started, failing to achieve profitability? Well, that can be and has been measured; it has declined—not improved—and it does play a role in freedom. Harper cited a report created by the Cato Institute, Fraser In- stitute and the Swiss Libera- les Institut together. "A new re- port on the freedom of coun- ties around the world ranks the United States 20th…The U.S. was ranked 17th in 2008, but a steady decline of economic freedom and 'rule of law' has dropped the level of freedom. Co-author Ian Vasquez told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the steady growth of gov- ernment and increased regula- tions of business and labor con- tribute to the U.S. lowered rat- ing. "Since the year 2000, the U.S. has been on a decline in terms of economic freedom," Vasquez told the DCNF. "The other main reason for the United States' low rank comes from the 'rule of law' mea- sures, (while) increased inva- sions of privacy through the war on drugs and war on terror have contributed to the decline in freedom. Also, the increased use of eminent domain is fac- tored in as a violation of prop- erty rights. "The other indicators used to make the list were security and safety, movement, religion, as- sociation, assembly and civil society, expression, relation- ships, size of government, legal system and property rights, ac- cess to sound money, freedom to trade internationally, regu- lation of credit, labor and busi- ness…The U.S. performance is worrisome and shows that the United States can no lon- ger claim to be the leading bas- tion of liberty in the world," Vasquez wrote. If you wish to see the full list, enter the title of the article from the first paragraph in an Internet search box. You'll find that countries freer than Amer- ica range from large ones like Canada (no. 6), Germany (no. 12) and the United Kingdom (no. 9), to lesser countries like Chile (no. 18), Ireland (no. 8), Finland (no.3), with Hong Kong coming in at number 1. The "war on drugs" is a mixed blessing, or curse, if you will. I condemn drug use as a social ill, even evil (count me out of the well-intended but foolishly ad- vocated Libertarian legalization push). There have admittedly been excesses and unintended collateral damage to innocent people, as well as gross abuses of property rights through seizures without due process. Absent capital punishment for drug sellers, who directly cause a scourge of death and violent crime, I would support long sen- tences for dealers. That policy debate will have to wait. I think the observable proof is plain for all to see that leniency for drug dealers—perversely known as "prison reform," "realign- ment," and the Orwellian ini- tiative, "Safe neighborhoods and schools act,"—has horri- ble results. July 2nd Daily News headline: "Number of violent crimes jumps." The "war on drugs" doesn't reduce freedom as much as the spread of violence and crime from drugs, users, sellers and such ilk. Crime and drugs kill local economies and reduce freedom measurably. Similarly, the "war on terror" may have curtailed freedom in a marginal way; however, ac- tual instances of extra-legal abuses have been rare. Given the need for all levels of law en- forcement to be right 100 per- cent of the time, they will still be minutes away when seconds count; afterwards, they'll ana- lyze the who, what, where, why and how of terrorist attacks. Can they apply that analysis to proactively identify terror- ists before they go operational? Now you risk crossing the thin line created by civil libertari- ans and the ACLU-types. They favor the politically correct, non-judgmental approach to, let's be blunt, profiling people. Does it warrant the use of "pre- crime" techniques like those in the film, "Minority Report"? Still, those two wars—on drugs and terror—have a more negative impact on the freedom of law-abiding citizens by their failure than by their success. Is- lamic terrorism, unlike the lone- nut out to kill co-workers or ex- lovers, is intended to "terrorize" the wider public and induce anx- iety and fear of doing econom- ically productive things. The ji- hadists have taken note of the $1-trillion+ hit to America's economy from the minimal cost (to them) of 9/11. Compare that to the almost $2-trillion annual cost of reg- ulations; the decidedly exces- sive level of (often frivolous) liti- gation, directed at businesses of all sizes; and some of the high- est taxes in the world on busi- nesses—those all negatively im- pact economic freedom and free- dom overall. Next week: the impact of Medicaid spending, immigration and reduced entre- preneurism. Don Polson has called Red Bluff home since 1988. He can be reached by e-mail at donplsn@ yahoo.com. The way I see it Let freedom reign, it's slipping away Sounding off A look at what readers are saying in comments on our website and on social media. Saw this right a er it happened, awful, he hit that car hard. Would like more info. Donna Marie: On cyclist killed in collision with car Friday on Antelope Boulevard Good letter. Perhaps a visit to the next City Council meeting is on order? I would be more than happy to echo your observations and concerns. Don Black: In response to a letter complaining about the condition of roads in Red Bluff HillaryClintonisridinghigh,thanksto the latest Trumplosions. But just because she's winning in the polls, we shouldn't whitewash her flaws. And here's one that sticks in my craw: It has been over 240 days since she last held a press conference. Don Polson Clinton's problem is that she's just not comfortable in uncontrolled settings. After repeated media beatings dating back a quarter century — some of them justified, many of them disgracefully unfair — she's guarded and gun shy. This was obvious 17 months ago, when she weathered one of her only press conferences of 2015. OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Tuesday, August 16, 2016 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A6