Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from Pennsylvania’s newspapers:
Philly needs to make tough calls on coronavirus - canceling St. Patrick’s parade was the right one
The Philadelphia Inquirer
March 10
The Philadelphia Department of Public Health officially confirmed the first case of coronavirus in the city Tuesday afternoon.
In a news conference at City Hall, Health Commissioner Thomas Farley updated the city’s recommendations to include a warning against attending events with more than 5,000 participants - such as the upcoming St. Patrick Day’s Parade on Sunday. Farley and Managing Director Brian Abernathy said that they have not asked the organizers to cancel the event, but recommend that people watch it from home.
This may have been an attempt to navigate a fine line between maintaining calm and keeping people safe, but the action transmitted a mixed signal. Late last evening, the signal cleared, when the parade organizers announced they had canceled the event.
City Council President Darrell L. Clarke said earlier Tuesday that Council is ready to support the mayor’s effort to deal with coronavirus. But Council, too, has sent some mixed signals.
During last week’s meeting, Council passed a resolution introduced by Councilmember Allan Domb to authorize the Committee on Public Health and Human Services to hold hearings on the city’s preparedness to “respond to the inevitable arrival of coronavirus.” Now, it’s here. According to Committee Chair Cindy Bass, the coronavirus hearing is scheduled for April 6 - 26 days from now.
A person confirmed with the coronavirus today can be in isolation for the recommended 14 days, take a 10-day vacation, and still attend the hearing with a couple of days to spare.
Scheduling a prompt hearing is possible. When Councilmember David Oh introduced a bill to essentially ban supervised injection sites, it took the Committee on Public Health less than two weeks to hold a hearing.
Both City Council and the administration need to get on the same page and show a unified course of action.
Canceling the St. Patrick’s Day Parade was the right step. For a city with a large and deep-rooted Irish population, the parade is an institution. It is the second oldest in the country - marking 250 years this week. Michael J. Bradley Jr., the current grand marshal of the parade, told WHYY that the celebration can draw up to 100,000 spectators.
Ireland - which had 24 confirmed cases - and Boston - which had 10 cases in Suffolk County - had already canceled their parades for the benefit of the public’s health.
In 1918, in the midst of the global Spanish flu pandemic, nearly 200,000 packed Broad Street to view a parade to bolster support for U.S. troops fighting in World War I. At the time of the parade, there were no known cases in Philadelphia. Two days after, the city announced that Spanish flu hit, and every hospital bed in Philadelphia was full. Within a couple of weeks, more than 4,500 died.
Coronavirus is not the Spanish flu, and the health services in 1918 were not as advanced as today’s. But a respiratory virus is transmitted in a large crowd today - just like it was then.
The coronavirus poses a difficult challenge to city leaders: taking necessary precautions without inciting panic. Action does not equal panic. Canceling the parade was the right one.
Online: https://bit.ly/2W7175E
___
A shameful past: Lynching finally considered a federal crime
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
March 11
It took 120 years and nearly 5,000 innocent deaths, but Congress finally acknowledged the nation’s inexcusable past by approving legislation to make lynching a hate crime under federal law.
The shame of taking more than a century to classify one of the most barbaric acts of hatred as a federal crime remains a stain on the legislative process, but the Emmett Till Antilynching Act at least takes a stand against future instances of bigotry and racial violence.
Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., who introduced the bill, said it would belatedly bring justice for Emmett Till and the thousands of other lynching victims.
Emmett, a black 14-year-old, was brutally tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955, supposedly for whistling at a white woman in a grocery store. His death shocked the nation and helped drive the growing civil rights movement.
Despite the moral outrage, Congress remained steadfastly opposed to classifying lynchings as federal crimes. The rationale from opponents, largely from Southern states, was that such crimes were matters for the state to handle, not the federal government.
There’s no small measure of contemptible hypocrisy to be found there, considering that lynchings largely went unprosecuted in the South for decades. From 1882 to 1968, 4,743 people were lynched in the United States, of which 3,446 were black, according to statistics compiled by the NAACP. Many of the nearly 1,300 white people who were lynched died because they had the audacity to help a black person or because they took a moral stand against lynchings.
The first effort at federal anti-lynching legislation came in 1900 under a proposal from North Carolina Republican Rep. George Henry White, the lone black member of Congress. The bill failed, as would some 200 similar proposals over the next 12 decades. Even while Congress found the will to pass the Civil Rights Act, the anti-lynching bills stalled, falling victim to the debate over whether the states or federal government should have jurisdiction in such crimes.
While lawmakers debated, the lynchings went on, often viewed as community gatherings, a spectacle to be seen and photographed. Archived photos show black men hanging from trees, or their bodies being burned, often with crowds of white people standing by and smiling for the camera.
The anti-lynching legislation passed nearly unanimously in the House, as did similar legislation last year in the Senate. Though largely symbolic - the last recorded lynching in the United States took place in 1981 - it represents a long-overdue tribute to those who were killed not for a crime, but for the color of their skin.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., in urging the passage of the bill, said: “It’s never too late to do the right thing and address these gruesome, racially motivated acts of terror that have plagued our nation’s history.”
He’s right, but shame on us as a nation for taking so long to do the right thing.
Online: https://bit.ly/2vZEhlJ
___
For coal, pessimism is new reality
Altoona Mirror
March 8
Revitalization of America’s coal industry was a notable topic in the 2016 presidential election campaign - certainly for the Southern Alleghenies area and Pennsylvania’s other coal-producing regions – and it also might be an issue during this year’s campaign.
If so, the industry will be in focus for a different reason. The promised revitalization
hasn’t come about; coal’s plight has worsened, not improved.
That situation isn’t likely to change in the foreseeable future, unless big new demand for the fossil fuel can be generated on the international front. And there is no evidence of such a surge coming about.
Judging from developments in the industry last year, domestic demand seems destined to decrease markedly. Consider some of the pessimistic coal news of last year, despite the Trump administration’s acceleration of efforts to weaken Obama-era rules perceived as having hurt the industry.
On Oct. 30, the Wall Street Journal reported on Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp.’s decision to file for Chapter 11 protection - what the Journal described as “a stark example of coal’s shrinking role in the U.S. energy sector.”
The Journal went on to say that “the eighth coal producer to collapse into bankruptcy over the past year, Murray Energy is the latest to fall victim to diminished demand for coal and competition from cheaper fuels.”
The U.S. continues to turn to abundant natural gas and other cheaper, less-polluting renewable energy sources; across the nation, coal-fired power plants are being retired.
Meanwhile, homeowners across the nation aren’t scrambling to install coal furnaces when cleaner, less-work-demanding heat sources are available. For coal revitalization, then, political promises have been and will be empty, although coal-producing areas like hearing them.
For coal, pessimism is the reality of the times.
It is important to recall that 2019’s coal company bankruptcies were preceded in 2015 and 2016 by a larger wave of Chapter 11 filings. As the Journal noted in an Oct. 14 article, some mines were back in Chapter 11 after being purchased in earlier bankruptcies at a discount.
Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas prices hit 20-year lows last June and July.
A Journal headline last year made the point that betting on coal was a path to bankruptcy court, and there have been no significant developments to counter that observation, despite what is happening in Wyoming, which produces nearly half the coal burned by U.S. power plants.
Last month, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, urged his state’s GOP-controlled Legislature to adopt a raft of measures to support coal. However, the governor is facing an uphill battle because most Wyoming coal is used in states where retirement of coal-fired power plants shows no signs of waning.
For Pennsylvania coal miners and voters in general, then, perk up your ears when the word “coal” is voiced on the campaign trail this year and ponder whether what is being said acknowledges reality.
Also, realize the limitations couched within Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s October announcement regarding $8 million in new funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission to help counties affected by job losses in coal mining, coal power plant operations and coal-related supply chain industries. In actuality, that amount is a pittance.
The future for coal here and elsewhere is not bright. That is the unfortunate bottom line.
Online: https://bit.ly/2vWBcms
___
State Legislature must share spending details
Reading Eagle
March 8
Pennsylvania’s bloated House and Senate has 253 lawmakers making between $88,610 and $138,327 a year, plus perks and benefits, with thousands of staffers at their disposal.
Even with all the resources at its disposal at an annual price tag of roughly $360 million, the General Assembly has been declining in productivity when it comes to enacting meaningful legislation.
Considering all this, one would think legislative leaders would be forthcoming regarding how its money is being spent. The people footing the bill might like to know. But that is hardly the case.
While the Legislature is not subject to most of the transparency laws that relate to local government, it is supposed to make its financial records public. Yet when a pair of news organizations requested records relating to legislative spending, the House and Senate turned over documents that were redacted so heavily that it was impossible to get a clear understanding of the purpose behind the listed expenditures. The redactions primarily concealed with whom legislators were meeting, and why.
Officials said the House information was kept secret based on “legislative privilege,” an obscure clause in the state constitution that they said protects lawmakers’ ability to speak and debate without retribution. Information in the Senate documents was erased without any explanation at all, and without making it clear that material had been removed.
This is deeply wrong.
For one thing, it is not in lawmakers’ interests to keep this information secret. Just look at some of the material that was initially redacted but later made public. A great example relates to two breakfast meetings totaling $1,623 that outgoing House Speaker Mike Turzai held last year. The unredacted records revealed that the speaker had met with Eagle Scouts.
Keeping information on government spending secret only leads people to think the worst, especially in this era of conspiracy theories and general deep suspicion of political leaders. It also further erodes public trust in government, which Pennsylvania can hardly afford. And if lawmakers really do have something to hide, that’s an even bigger problem.
We have serious doubts that the framers of Pennsylvania’s constitution intended the legislative privilege clause to be an excuse for hiding relevant information from taxpayers. The point of it, according to good-government advocates, was to allow lawmakers to speak freely in official proceedings.
Yet the clause was the cited reason for blocking much of the information requested by Spotlight PA and The Caucus, a pair of independent Pennsylvania news organizations that were seeking records covering all legislative expenses, except salaries and benefits, from 2017 through 2019. It was part of their collaborative effort to document the spending of the Legislature. What could be of greater interest to the public than that?
We were glad to see that the House responded to the embarrassing report by backing off its legislative privilege claim and promising to release records with spending details intact. Republican leaders will also propose a new House rule that would narrow the scope of redactions in the future.
The Senate should follow suit and do the right thing. Its deceptive practices in responding to the journalists’ requests were shameful and should never be repeated.
It’s a shame that it took public pressure from journalists to push legislators toward transparency.
David Cuillier, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Arizona and president of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, offered an excellent analysis of the situation in Spotlight PA’s report: “They (lawmakers) need to buck up, have some backbone, and be accountable.”
We couldn’t agree more, and we congratulate our colleagues at Spotlight PA and The Caucus for pushing to get this information out to the public.
Online: https://bit.ly/38LfxLo
___
Creators deserve to be paid for the use of their music
LNP
March 9
It’s time for a Monday morning mini-lesson on how music copyright and royalties work.
First up, here’s an excerpt from the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Those words provided the foundation for United States copyright law.
The phrase “useful Arts” very much includes music. And so copyright law protects original music and lyrics. The most common examples are songs and compositions for movies, TV and advertising, but any original work is covered.
And it’s covered upon creation.
As copyright.gov, the website of the United States Copyright Office, notes: “Work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that … is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”
So, original works do not have to be registered to be protected. But it’s not enough to just be protected. Creators don’t have the time to deal with everyone who wants to use their music. Enforcing and profiting from copyrights would be daunting.
And so there are performance rights organizations - such as ASCAP - that serve the function of collecting royalties from entities that want to use works of music and then passing those royalties back to the creators.
ASCAP, a nonprofit, was formed in 1914. It monitors public performances of its members’ music and makes sure they are correctly compensated. Some of its first clients were creators Irving Berlin and John Philip Sousa.
Today, 106 years later, it’s looking out for artists who have written popular songs such as “Jump Around” and “Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)”.
And that’s how one Manheim Township business came to be sued for multiple alleged copyright violations, according to LNP ’ LancasterOnline’s Stairiker.
According to court documents, Jukebox Nightclub, 1703 New Holland Pike, initially entered into a licensing agreement with ASCAP in May 2009.
“ASCAP licensing fees vary depending on the business in question, though yearly fees are typically determined by a combination of whether music is performed live, how and how often the music is performed, occupancy and if a cover charge is collected at the door,” Stairiker explained.
Again according to court documents, Jukebox Nightclub continued to pay its fee until 2018, but representatives of ASCAP “have been rebuffed since then in efforts to contact the Jukebox and reinstate the licensing agreement,” Stairiker reported.
The lawsuit claims that three ASCAP-represented songs, including “Jump Around,” were performed Dec. 31, 2019, and Jan. 1, 2020, at Jukebox Nightclub.
“After over a year of not hearing from businesses that infringe works, ASCAP will usually hire an independent investigator to visit the business and report the songs that were played on a given night,” Stairiker wrote.
In filing lawsuits of this type, ASCAP says its primary aim is to protect the rights of its member artists.
That seems more than fair.
“We don’t necessarily want to litigate this at the end of the day,” Jackson Wagener, vice president of business and legal affairs at ASCAP, told LNP ’ LancasterOnline in a phone interview. “We’re looking to settle and get an amicable settlement agreement. That’s our preference.”
When it comes to monetary damages that could arise from successful lawsuits, Wagener said it’s not about overly punitive damages but, rather, “The rationale that judges have picked up on is that it can’t be cheaper to ignore your rights under the copyright law than it is to comply.”
That makes sense to us, too.
Ultimately, we share ASCAP’s stance that the fairest thing for all sides is for businesses to pay their licensing fees.
“We want every business that uses music to prosper, including bars and restaurants,” ASCAP Chairman and President Paul Williams stated in a news release. “After all, as songwriters and composers, we are small business owners, too, and music is more than an art form for us. It’s how we put food on the table and send our kids to school.”
We hope that’s a note we can all agree upon.
Online: https://bit.ly/33eT6gv
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.