For several reasons, including generally lousy schooling and "news" coverage, most people today see Abraham Lincoln as some kind of saint and forget he was a politician. (For a very different view, see http://www.lneilsmith.com/abelenin.html.)
"Mrs. Sheehan's protest," an editorial in the Free Press, edition of Tuesday, 16 August, quotes a letter over Lincoln's signature, dated 1864, to a widow, Mrs. Lydia Bixby, saying in part, "... you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle."
The editorial writer treads gently, mentioning that apparently there were actually two sons who "died gloriously" and one or possibly two who had deserted, although one of them might have died as a prisoner of war. The fifth was honorably discharged.
He also mentions that Mrs. Bixby "was a Confederate sympathizer who disliked President Lincoln."
There is a lot of irony in the story of the letter, but the editorial tries to make this point: "But sadness over the loss of life has never justified surrender of American purpose to the enemies who have killed them."
Perhaps it should, though.
More, what is the "American purpose" of the invasion of Iraq?
During the Clinton years and earlier, Republicans and conservatives continuously shrieked, "The United States cannot be the world's policeman!"
The invasion of Iraq has been rationalized by several proffered reasons, one succeeding another as one after another has been shown to be not true. Knee-jerk supporters of President Bush and/or the Republican Party have dutifully swallowed and regurgitated each, no matter that one contradicts another.
The editorial's last sentence, "But there is no cause for surrender in any degree to our terrorist enemies," is one example.
The "terrorist enemies" who now are attacking U.S. military people, as well as Iraqi police and, worst of all, Iraqi civilians, including children, weren't doing so until the U.S. invasion.
A secular Saddam Hussein, called "an infidel" by Osama bin Laden, might have given various kinds of support to terrorists, but I haven't seen any proof of it.
It's awfully easy to sit in plush offices in Washington, D.C., suffering no other hardships than traffic jams, miffed constituents, and slow waiters at the expensive air conditioned eateries, or in the more austere editorial offices in various "news"papers around the country, and urge on to "glory" young American men and women sweltering in the Iraqi desert.
But there is no "glory" in death.
There is no "glory" in war.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Someone got it right!
To the best of my knowledge, all the Free Press editorials are written by Lee Anderson.
In the edition of Tuesday, 16 August, is an editorial titled "It's what you do with free choice."
It mentions a propaganda movie of 2004, "Super Size Me," the creator of which ate only at McDonald's for some period, ingested some 5,000 calories per day, and gained weight.
Of course, at 5,000 calories per day, the man could have gained weight at a salad bar, but McDonald's-bashing is more popular and no doubt helped him get considered for some kind of award.
Two women, one in North Carolina and one in New Hampshire, also went on McDonald's-only diets, limiting themselves to 1,400 and 2,000 calories per day and lost 37 and 36 pounds respectively.
The editorial says, "Both women made a point that bears repeating: Choosing to eat healthfully is a matter of personal responsibility. Restaurants do not force us to eat junk food."
(In my case, the service at all the McDonald's restaurants I've tried, with the exception of one in Needles, California, has been so lousy I haven't eaten the food in years. In effect, McDonald's has forced me NOT to dine there. But that's a personal choice, too.)
In the last paragraph, the editorial says, "But consumers can make healthful food choices at restaurants and the grocery store, and enjoy the benefits of doing so. ..."
Double bravo to the writer, likely Mr. Anderson. It might be the first time the correct words, "healthfully" and "healthful," have been used in that paper in a long time, and of course philosophically he's right, too, about self-responsibility.
In the edition of Tuesday, 16 August, is an editorial titled "It's what you do with free choice."
It mentions a propaganda movie of 2004, "Super Size Me," the creator of which ate only at McDonald's for some period, ingested some 5,000 calories per day, and gained weight.
Of course, at 5,000 calories per day, the man could have gained weight at a salad bar, but McDonald's-bashing is more popular and no doubt helped him get considered for some kind of award.
Two women, one in North Carolina and one in New Hampshire, also went on McDonald's-only diets, limiting themselves to 1,400 and 2,000 calories per day and lost 37 and 36 pounds respectively.
The editorial says, "Both women made a point that bears repeating: Choosing to eat healthfully is a matter of personal responsibility. Restaurants do not force us to eat junk food."
(In my case, the service at all the McDonald's restaurants I've tried, with the exception of one in Needles, California, has been so lousy I haven't eaten the food in years. In effect, McDonald's has forced me NOT to dine there. But that's a personal choice, too.)
In the last paragraph, the editorial says, "But consumers can make healthful food choices at restaurants and the grocery store, and enjoy the benefits of doing so. ..."
Double bravo to the writer, likely Mr. Anderson. It might be the first time the correct words, "healthfully" and "healthful," have been used in that paper in a long time, and of course philosophically he's right, too, about self-responsibility.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
All you need to know
Everything that is wrong with the United States is spelled out in one headline, published in the edition of Sunday, 7 August: "Wal-Mart battle shifts to Washington."
Everything that is wrong with journalism today is spelled out in the subhead: "Campaigns are pressuring the retailer to be a better employer."
I admire what Wal-Mart and Sam Walton and his family have accomplished.
I recognize that lots of people patronize Wal-Mart for its apparently lower prices.
I do not like Wal-Mart.
I do not like to shop in Wal-Mart.
There are several reasons, including the proliferation of shoddy merchandise made in Communist China, the sullenness of the cashiers (at least in the store nearest me), the general lack of knowledge of employees (at least in the store nearest me, where one day as I entered I asked the person at the door for the whereabouts of a certain item, and was told he was merely a greeter, he didn't know where stuff was*), and the huge crowds of rude, sullen, pushy customers.
(It reminds me of that line attributed to Yogi Berra: "Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded.")
My dislike of Wal-Mart includes a belief the new generation of owners, Mr. Sam's children, is greedy, that too many of the stores are being built, violating one of Mr. Sam's rules, not to build in population centers greater than 50,000, and concentrating too much shopping into one place.
I have never found the savings, if any, to be worth the efforts of the looooong walks in the HUGE stores and putting up with the crowds. And I absolutely HATE it that excellent grocery stores such as Winn-Dixie go out of business at least partly because people shop for lower quality at Wal-Mart.
My dislike of Wal-Mart is my personal problem, and I solve my personal problem by not shopping at Wal-Mart, unless I desperately need something the store sells and it is the only place open.
I avoid going into the store. I do not ask for legislation to regulate the private business into something I do like.
Easy.
Other people, though, and obviously in the tens and hundreds of millions, love Wal-Mart, or at least like it enough to spend lots of money there.
Still other people love it enough that there are loooooong lines of them making application for employment.
Wal-Mart is, in fact, the largest private employer in the United States and probably in the world. (There are, of course, many more employees in the federal government. Of the two groups, which provides a genuine service and which creates many more problems than it solves?)
There are more Wal-Mart employees than there are journalists, and they are at least as good at their jobs.
Which brings us to the subhead: "better employer."
That's a portion of a sentence from the story and the opinion of Anne D'Innocenzio of the Associated Press, which is the disseminator of some of the most hate-filled garbage, some of the most vicious propaganda in print.
Her story is only the latest of a long line of glorification of would-be tyrants and social engineers, most of whom, in the accompanying photograph, seem to be in their 20s and therefor absolute founts of wisdom and knowledge and omniscient ideas on how everybody else should live.
Those are also prime requisites to be journalists, especially page designers and layout "editors."
"Better employer." What gall on the part of the Times Free Press designer, with his or her nose stuck in the air and looking down it at the peons who are employed by the Wal-Mart octopus, caught in its tentacles and unable to make their own decisions.
OK, that's a personal opinion, to which that person is entitled. But that person is not entitled to publish personal opinions as "news."
Reporters cannot write grammatically, and editors cannot edit objectively, not just at the Times Free Press.
And social engineers are so cocksure in their smug self-righteousness that they know, they just KNOW, that laws should be based on their feelings.
And "news"papers encourage their fascistic notions with such garbage as this story.
*That was worse than an experience I had a few years ago at a Wal-Mart in Nogales, Arizona. There is another Nogales, in Sonora, Mexico, just a few miles to the south, but I was firmly in Arizona, an integral part of the United States since the Gadsden Purchase. At the door, I asked the greeter where something was and she said, "No ingles." I was dumbstruck for a moment, but she graciously and courteously led me to another employee, a gringa who spoke English. It was an interesting experience and an intriguing phenomenon.
Everything that is wrong with journalism today is spelled out in the subhead: "Campaigns are pressuring the retailer to be a better employer."
I admire what Wal-Mart and Sam Walton and his family have accomplished.
I recognize that lots of people patronize Wal-Mart for its apparently lower prices.
I do not like Wal-Mart.
I do not like to shop in Wal-Mart.
There are several reasons, including the proliferation of shoddy merchandise made in Communist China, the sullenness of the cashiers (at least in the store nearest me), the general lack of knowledge of employees (at least in the store nearest me, where one day as I entered I asked the person at the door for the whereabouts of a certain item, and was told he was merely a greeter, he didn't know where stuff was*), and the huge crowds of rude, sullen, pushy customers.
(It reminds me of that line attributed to Yogi Berra: "Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded.")
My dislike of Wal-Mart includes a belief the new generation of owners, Mr. Sam's children, is greedy, that too many of the stores are being built, violating one of Mr. Sam's rules, not to build in population centers greater than 50,000, and concentrating too much shopping into one place.
I have never found the savings, if any, to be worth the efforts of the looooong walks in the HUGE stores and putting up with the crowds. And I absolutely HATE it that excellent grocery stores such as Winn-Dixie go out of business at least partly because people shop for lower quality at Wal-Mart.
My dislike of Wal-Mart is my personal problem, and I solve my personal problem by not shopping at Wal-Mart, unless I desperately need something the store sells and it is the only place open.
I avoid going into the store. I do not ask for legislation to regulate the private business into something I do like.
Easy.
Other people, though, and obviously in the tens and hundreds of millions, love Wal-Mart, or at least like it enough to spend lots of money there.
Still other people love it enough that there are loooooong lines of them making application for employment.
Wal-Mart is, in fact, the largest private employer in the United States and probably in the world. (There are, of course, many more employees in the federal government. Of the two groups, which provides a genuine service and which creates many more problems than it solves?)
There are more Wal-Mart employees than there are journalists, and they are at least as good at their jobs.
Which brings us to the subhead: "better employer."
That's a portion of a sentence from the story and the opinion of Anne D'Innocenzio of the Associated Press, which is the disseminator of some of the most hate-filled garbage, some of the most vicious propaganda in print.
Her story is only the latest of a long line of glorification of would-be tyrants and social engineers, most of whom, in the accompanying photograph, seem to be in their 20s and therefor absolute founts of wisdom and knowledge and omniscient ideas on how everybody else should live.
Those are also prime requisites to be journalists, especially page designers and layout "editors."
"Better employer." What gall on the part of the Times Free Press designer, with his or her nose stuck in the air and looking down it at the peons who are employed by the Wal-Mart octopus, caught in its tentacles and unable to make their own decisions.
OK, that's a personal opinion, to which that person is entitled. But that person is not entitled to publish personal opinions as "news."
Reporters cannot write grammatically, and editors cannot edit objectively, not just at the Times Free Press.
And social engineers are so cocksure in their smug self-righteousness that they know, they just KNOW, that laws should be based on their feelings.
And "news"papers encourage their fascistic notions with such garbage as this story.
*That was worse than an experience I had a few years ago at a Wal-Mart in Nogales, Arizona. There is another Nogales, in Sonora, Mexico, just a few miles to the south, but I was firmly in Arizona, an integral part of the United States since the Gadsden Purchase. At the door, I asked the greeter where something was and she said, "No ingles." I was dumbstruck for a moment, but she graciously and courteously led me to another employee, a gringa who spoke English. It was an interesting experience and an intriguing phenomenon.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Why pay taxes?
One of the silliest comments ever printed appeared in a Free Press editorial Friday, 5 August.
It begins with "Nobody wants higher Hamilton County property taxes."
Actually, that is not true.
There are people who have been urging, even demanding higher property and other taxes.
They are not people I would invite over for supper. (Unless I were Lucretia Borgia or her brother.)
Anyway, the editorial ends thusly: "Why do taxpayers pay taxes? Because we seek the greater good."
Hogwash!
People pay taxes because they risk jail or death from government thugs if they don't, or they risk not being allowed to carry their groceries home if they don't pay the sales tax, which is an outrageous nearly-10-percent in this area.
No, dear editorial writer, they are called "taxes" because they are demanded at gunpoint.
Anybody who seeks "the greater good" can hand over his own money to any cause he thinks enhances that amorphous "greater good" any time.
Taxes, on the other hand, and especially federal and state taxes, go to all kinds of causes that wouldn't receive a penny from working people, from producing and creative people, from any people who had a choice in the matter.
Even local taxes, though, get distributed often to the loudest applicants, not necessarily the most deserving.
That's why taxes are collected at gunpoint, or at least at the threat of guns and jails.
It begins with "Nobody wants higher Hamilton County property taxes."
Actually, that is not true.
There are people who have been urging, even demanding higher property and other taxes.
They are not people I would invite over for supper. (Unless I were Lucretia Borgia or her brother.)
Anyway, the editorial ends thusly: "Why do taxpayers pay taxes? Because we seek the greater good."
Hogwash!
People pay taxes because they risk jail or death from government thugs if they don't, or they risk not being allowed to carry their groceries home if they don't pay the sales tax, which is an outrageous nearly-10-percent in this area.
No, dear editorial writer, they are called "taxes" because they are demanded at gunpoint.
Anybody who seeks "the greater good" can hand over his own money to any cause he thinks enhances that amorphous "greater good" any time.
Taxes, on the other hand, and especially federal and state taxes, go to all kinds of causes that wouldn't receive a penny from working people, from producing and creative people, from any people who had a choice in the matter.
Even local taxes, though, get distributed often to the loudest applicants, not necessarily the most deserving.
That's why taxes are collected at gunpoint, or at least at the threat of guns and jails.
Oxymoronic headline writing
"Before I start," began the very amateurish public speaker, "I want to say something."
I was reminded of that bit of illustrative whimsy by a front-page headline in the Friday, 5 August, edition. It tries to boost the governor's visit to promote the Tennessee school system with, "A pre-start on education."
Copy editors, if there are any at the Times Free Press, and page designers are, at least at most "news"papers, under a lot of pressure, and are often not given more than six to ten hours to produce and proofread the pages sent out to subscribers and other readers.
Perhaps that explains the "duh" head on a national story: "Dobson angers critics with stem cell remarks."
Dobson could say "The sun comes up in the east" and he'd anger "critics."
This is a "dog bites man" story.
The real story would have been if his supporters had been angered; or if his critics had said, "Well, golleee, he's right."
Or, perish the thought, the real story is what Dobson said, not the reaction of the people with whom the majority of reporters and editors agree.
For the record: I have no opinion, yet, on stem cell research.
But I do know the U.S. Constitution in no way authorizes the federal government to spend our money on it.
A Libertarian Party candidate said in 1992, when the government pays for research, it gets research. Perhaps instead, he said, the government should pay for results.
I was reminded of that bit of illustrative whimsy by a front-page headline in the Friday, 5 August, edition. It tries to boost the governor's visit to promote the Tennessee school system with, "A pre-start on education."
Copy editors, if there are any at the Times Free Press, and page designers are, at least at most "news"papers, under a lot of pressure, and are often not given more than six to ten hours to produce and proofread the pages sent out to subscribers and other readers.
Perhaps that explains the "duh" head on a national story: "Dobson angers critics with stem cell remarks."
Dobson could say "The sun comes up in the east" and he'd anger "critics."
This is a "dog bites man" story.
The real story would have been if his supporters had been angered; or if his critics had said, "Well, golleee, he's right."
Or, perish the thought, the real story is what Dobson said, not the reaction of the people with whom the majority of reporters and editors agree.
For the record: I have no opinion, yet, on stem cell research.
But I do know the U.S. Constitution in no way authorizes the federal government to spend our money on it.
A Libertarian Party candidate said in 1992, when the government pays for research, it gets research. Perhaps instead, he said, the government should pay for results.
Lying incompetence
This is a paragraph from a sports story about a University of Tennessee, Knoxville, athlete who struck another: "A surveillance video from the University of Tennessee recreation center, released Wednesday by the district attorney general's office, shows defensive tackle Tony McDaniel punching student Edward Goodrich and walking away as fellow basketball players scattered to the other end of the court. Goodrich laid motionless on his back for a minute before anyone attempted to help him."
I know very little about sports generally, and I know the rules of basketball have changed considerably since I was young and agile enough not to be qualified to play any other position than equipment manager. I mean, back then basketball was a game of finesse, of shooting and dribbling and passing, and was not a contact sport.
Still, I don't think even today there is such a basketball position as "defensive tackle."
Usually, prosecutors' offices consist of attorneys general or district attorneys. Knoxville is a Southern anomaly, a historically Republican area, but I really doubt if, even in such a strange place, there is such a thing as a district attorney general, though I haven't done a search yet to verify.
But I know for darn sure Mr. Goodrich (who is "Mr. Goodrich" on the other pages of the Times Free Press, but just "Goodrich" on the sports pages) never "laid motionless."
"Motionless" is not a noun so it can't be a direct object of the transitive verb "laid."
This story, written by, or at least blamed on, Darren Epps, staff writer, appeared in the Thursday, 4 August, edition.
Apparently neither Mr. Epps nor any supposed "copy editor" knows about "lying" or "laying."
I know very little about sports generally, and I know the rules of basketball have changed considerably since I was young and agile enough not to be qualified to play any other position than equipment manager. I mean, back then basketball was a game of finesse, of shooting and dribbling and passing, and was not a contact sport.
Still, I don't think even today there is such a basketball position as "defensive tackle."
Usually, prosecutors' offices consist of attorneys general or district attorneys. Knoxville is a Southern anomaly, a historically Republican area, but I really doubt if, even in such a strange place, there is such a thing as a district attorney general, though I haven't done a search yet to verify.
But I know for darn sure Mr. Goodrich (who is "Mr. Goodrich" on the other pages of the Times Free Press, but just "Goodrich" on the sports pages) never "laid motionless."
"Motionless" is not a noun so it can't be a direct object of the transitive verb "laid."
This story, written by, or at least blamed on, Darren Epps, staff writer, appeared in the Thursday, 4 August, edition.
Apparently neither Mr. Epps nor any supposed "copy editor" knows about "lying" or "laying."
Thursday, July 28, 2005
In a nanny state, we're the goats
"Life in a nanny state" is the intriguing title of an editorial on the right side of the Times Free Press edition of Monday, 25 July.
The editorialist mentions a particular pharmaceutical suddenly banned because the wise and all-knowing Food and Drug Administration, in its omniscient wisdom, has ordered sales halted.
"Why?" asks the editorial, answering, "Because if a patient ignores the clear warning on the drug that it should not be taken with alcohol, it could do the patient harm. It might even be deadly."
Wow. What a shocker. Mixing drugs and alcohol could be harmful? Who'da thought?
But the editorial says the FDA, in its omniscient wisdom, thinks the warning label "is not good enough, so the agency apparently feels the need to protect consumers from themselves."
It concludes, "A few people who theoretically may take the drug incorrectly should not have veto power to bar far more from benefiting from its pain-relieving properties."
On Tuesday, an editorial, "Continuing tobacco hypocrisy," points out the 400-year history of governmental opposition to and criticism of tobacco, and its 400-year history of taxing tobacco, and its more modern history of suing tobacco.
"But despite knowing its ill effects, governments and smokers have been tolerating it and using it -- then suing for damages for destructive results.
"Not satisfied with taxes and past multi-billion lawsuit judgments against tobacco companies, the U.S. government currently is seeking $280 billion more in damages from tobacco companies.
"But why the hypocrisy? No one holds a gun to force tobacco on users. So why should they or the government sue? ..."
Sounds as if the editorialist believes in freedom of choice?
Well, the editorialist rejoiced when, a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court very unconstitutionally and very immorally and very irrationally ruled the federal laws against marijuana could hold sway even when citizens in the states had voted to allow medical or medicinal use of marijuana.
Isn't that supporting the notion of a nanny state?
And is that also hypocrisy?
I prefer to call it "inconsistency," but I will understand when others use the earlier term.
The editorialist mentions a particular pharmaceutical suddenly banned because the wise and all-knowing Food and Drug Administration, in its omniscient wisdom, has ordered sales halted.
"Why?" asks the editorial, answering, "Because if a patient ignores the clear warning on the drug that it should not be taken with alcohol, it could do the patient harm. It might even be deadly."
Wow. What a shocker. Mixing drugs and alcohol could be harmful? Who'da thought?
But the editorial says the FDA, in its omniscient wisdom, thinks the warning label "is not good enough, so the agency apparently feels the need to protect consumers from themselves."
It concludes, "A few people who theoretically may take the drug incorrectly should not have veto power to bar far more from benefiting from its pain-relieving properties."
On Tuesday, an editorial, "Continuing tobacco hypocrisy," points out the 400-year history of governmental opposition to and criticism of tobacco, and its 400-year history of taxing tobacco, and its more modern history of suing tobacco.
"But despite knowing its ill effects, governments and smokers have been tolerating it and using it -- then suing for damages for destructive results.
"Not satisfied with taxes and past multi-billion lawsuit judgments against tobacco companies, the U.S. government currently is seeking $280 billion more in damages from tobacco companies.
"But why the hypocrisy? No one holds a gun to force tobacco on users. So why should they or the government sue? ..."
Sounds as if the editorialist believes in freedom of choice?
Well, the editorialist rejoiced when, a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court very unconstitutionally and very immorally and very irrationally ruled the federal laws against marijuana could hold sway even when citizens in the states had voted to allow medical or medicinal use of marijuana.
Isn't that supporting the notion of a nanny state?
And is that also hypocrisy?
I prefer to call it "inconsistency," but I will understand when others use the earlier term.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Avoiding healthy fare
"Study finds students choose healthier fare" reads the headline on a story from the Associated Press in the Wednesday, 27 July, edition.
Personally I always avoid healthy food, especially beef and pork items.
No, sir, if I am going to eat beef or pork, I want it to be dead, not healthy.
I'm not sure how those terms apply to vegetables, but since they generally have been cooked before I ingest them, I'd guess they are pretty well dead, too, not healthy.
It's easy to blame the "copy editors" of the Times Free Press for being further ... let's say uninformed about the English language.
Generally, usually, the Associated Press gets it wrong, the difference between "healthy" and "healthful" apparently being unknown among journalists and other graduates of government schools.
If you want to be healthy, then eat food that is healthful.
Otherwise you might be asking for trouble, violating not only the rules of grammar but the dietary laws.
Personally I always avoid healthy food, especially beef and pork items.
No, sir, if I am going to eat beef or pork, I want it to be dead, not healthy.
I'm not sure how those terms apply to vegetables, but since they generally have been cooked before I ingest them, I'd guess they are pretty well dead, too, not healthy.
It's easy to blame the "copy editors" of the Times Free Press for being further ... let's say uninformed about the English language.
Generally, usually, the Associated Press gets it wrong, the difference between "healthy" and "healthful" apparently being unknown among journalists and other graduates of government schools.
If you want to be healthy, then eat food that is healthful.
Otherwise you might be asking for trouble, violating not only the rules of grammar but the dietary laws.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Three thousand words
Bruce Tinsley, artist and philosopher, made one of the most profound points of anyone regarding the Kelo decision with this strip, published in the Times Free Press edition of Monday, 25 July:
Futile disagreement
"Tennessee race in national spotlight" reads the headline in the edition of Monday, 25 July.
The story makes the not-very-profound observation that the U.S. Senate race coming up in 2006 will attract national attention, not too hard to figure out since the battle between the two old parties for control of the various parts of the federal government is ongoing, and each jostles fiercely with the other for any advantage.
Senator Bill Frist is retiring. Good.
He is just another big-government Republican, but he is, for some reason, important in politics, being the majority leader in the Senate, and being a likely candidate for president, which tells us something about the quality or lack thereof of old-party candidates.
In the story is discussion from one Larry Sabato, identified as director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, and apparently the only non-candidate ever applied to for discussion of American politics.
Not to take away from Dr. Sabato's expertise, but surely there are other people just as expert, SOMEwhere in the country, who could be interviewed at least once in a while.
The story, by a staff writer, contains this sentence: "Tennessee, Maryland, Minnesota and Vermont each have an open Senate seat in 2006 ..."
What is really puzzling is why apparently no "copy editor," if there really is anyone on the paper's staff who qualifies for that title, ever seems to know about noun-verb agreement. Reporters should get it right, of course, but certainly some editor should catch such errors.
Constantly, the Times Free Press publishes that kind of sloppy sentence with noun-verb disagreement, many of which we have referenced here.
It is reminiscent of Casey Stengel's asking, while managing the hapless early New York Mets, "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"
The story makes the not-very-profound observation that the U.S. Senate race coming up in 2006 will attract national attention, not too hard to figure out since the battle between the two old parties for control of the various parts of the federal government is ongoing, and each jostles fiercely with the other for any advantage.
Senator Bill Frist is retiring. Good.
He is just another big-government Republican, but he is, for some reason, important in politics, being the majority leader in the Senate, and being a likely candidate for president, which tells us something about the quality or lack thereof of old-party candidates.
In the story is discussion from one Larry Sabato, identified as director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, and apparently the only non-candidate ever applied to for discussion of American politics.
Not to take away from Dr. Sabato's expertise, but surely there are other people just as expert, SOMEwhere in the country, who could be interviewed at least once in a while.
The story, by a staff writer, contains this sentence: "Tennessee, Maryland, Minnesota and Vermont each have an open Senate seat in 2006 ..."
What is really puzzling is why apparently no "copy editor," if there really is anyone on the paper's staff who qualifies for that title, ever seems to know about noun-verb agreement. Reporters should get it right, of course, but certainly some editor should catch such errors.
Constantly, the Times Free Press publishes that kind of sloppy sentence with noun-verb disagreement, many of which we have referenced here.
It is reminiscent of Casey Stengel's asking, while managing the hapless early New York Mets, "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Paper can't even be literate on Web site
Trying to set up an account to view the Times Free Press Web site for a friend who is also a subscriber to the "news"paper, I filled in all the information and clicked "register."
This is the wording on the page that popped up:
No active Subscription was not found based on the information you supplied.
Please contact Customer Service at 423-757-6262
I called the number given, got a "Jeffry" (phoneticized), told him the situation and he said, "....(pause) I don't really know anything about the Web site."
Typically, the communications medium doesn't communicate to its employees the information it tells customers and would-be customers the employees have.
I told "Jeffry" what the Web page said, but realized it would gain nothing, and I backed up, verified instead the correct name on the subscription list, and tried again.
This time the message said, No active Subscription was not found based on the information you supplied.
Please contact Customer Service at 423-757-6262
Is there too harsh a term for such stupidities?
This is the wording on the page that popped up:
No active Subscription was not found based on the information you supplied.
Please contact Customer Service at 423-757-6262
I called the number given, got a "Jeffry" (phoneticized), told him the situation and he said, "....(pause) I don't really know anything about the Web site."
Typically, the communications medium doesn't communicate to its employees the information it tells customers and would-be customers the employees have.
I told "Jeffry" what the Web page said, but realized it would gain nothing, and I backed up, verified instead the correct name on the subscription list, and tried again.
This time the message said, No active Subscription was not found based on the information you supplied.
Please contact Customer Service at 423-757-6262
Is there too harsh a term for such stupidities?
Re: "Another dumb headline"
Praise for the Internet can never be over done.
However, it does have at least one limitation: It's hard to convey subtly when one is intending to be tongue-in-cheekish.
Honest, I knew what the headline writer was saying. I read the story.
I was merely playing with the wording and with my own anarchistic tendencies.
So the anonymous person who wrote all the obscenities, some of which were spelled wrong, and who is apparently a staffer at the "news"paper should just calm down.
I was kidding.
That time.
However, it does have at least one limitation: It's hard to convey subtly when one is intending to be tongue-in-cheekish.
Honest, I knew what the headline writer was saying. I read the story.
I was merely playing with the wording and with my own anarchistic tendencies.
So the anonymous person who wrote all the obscenities, some of which were spelled wrong, and who is apparently a staffer at the "news"paper should just calm down.
I was kidding.
That time.
Columnist Leo wrongly bashes director Stone
Nationally syndicated columnist John Leo strongly attacked Hollywood generally in his column published on the Free Press side of the Times Free Press edition of Sunday, 24 July.
Generally I have a lot of respect for Leo, but his harsh language for director Oliver Stone overstepped the limit.
Leo wrote, or at least the Times Free Press printed, this delineation of Stone: "a wacky, pro-terrorist paranoid ..."
Leo should be ashamed of himself, or perhaps the "copy editors" of the Times Free Press should be ashamed.
Properly, the phrase should be "a wacky, pro-terrorist paranoiac ..."
Generally I have a lot of respect for Leo, but his harsh language for director Oliver Stone overstepped the limit.
Leo wrote, or at least the Times Free Press printed, this delineation of Stone: "a wacky, pro-terrorist paranoid ..."
Leo should be ashamed of himself, or perhaps the "copy editors" of the Times Free Press should be ashamed.
Properly, the phrase should be "a wacky, pro-terrorist paranoiac ..."
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
A cute headline
Tuesday's big story is about the generally worthless U.S. Senator Lamar ("I'm a lumberjack and that's OK") Alexander and his "worries" that "state's mountaintops are too tempting for builders of power farms."
The story is a localizing of the national story that environmental wackoes who have been for decades demanding alternative energy sources are suddenly changing direction and opposing the building of wind-powered generators.
Much of that is the old NIMBY syndrome: Not In My Back Yard.
Staff writer Ian Berry interviewed some people, specifically in the East Tennessee town of Oliver Springs, who love their proximity to a wind-generator farm, so there is more than one view presented.
Still, the headline does credit to the paper's usually-not-very-good editors: Tilting at windmills.
The story is a localizing of the national story that environmental wackoes who have been for decades demanding alternative energy sources are suddenly changing direction and opposing the building of wind-powered generators.
Much of that is the old NIMBY syndrome: Not In My Back Yard.
Staff writer Ian Berry interviewed some people, specifically in the East Tennessee town of Oliver Springs, who love their proximity to a wind-generator farm, so there is more than one view presented.
Still, the headline does credit to the paper's usually-not-very-good editors: Tilting at windmills.
Another dumb headline
Monday, 18 July, the Times Free Press runs this as its major headline: "Age drain on state employees."
It's another example of the liberal journalists boosting the state and, in this case, the state's agents.
Be real: People seek employment in government jobs because of the perks and bennies and because of the better-than-private-sector pay and because the "work" is far less demanding than in the real world.
Well, now that I mention it, some people seek employment in government because they enjoy bossing other people around, too. (Been in a motor vehicle office lately?)
So for "journalists" to flack for bureaucrats is disgraceful. Shameful.
Besides, face it: Age is a drain on EVERYbody.
It's another example of the liberal journalists boosting the state and, in this case, the state's agents.
Be real: People seek employment in government jobs because of the perks and bennies and because of the better-than-private-sector pay and because the "work" is far less demanding than in the real world.
Well, now that I mention it, some people seek employment in government because they enjoy bossing other people around, too. (Been in a motor vehicle office lately?)
So for "journalists" to flack for bureaucrats is disgraceful. Shameful.
Besides, face it: Age is a drain on EVERYbody.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Pro-tax hypocrisy
Wednesday editions of the Times Free Press are enlivened by the inclusion of the grocery ads and other circulars.
Alas, Wednesday editions are deadened by the inclusion of a weekly column by one David Magee, supposedly a famous writer, although I had never heard of him.
Advent of the inauguration of the local column was hailed by the paper as if it were a momentous event.
I looked forward to seeing it, but the first one, or at least the first one I saw, about a month ago, contained one sentence that caused me to stop reading.
The subject was something about area private schools and how the parents of children sent to them were not a cause of financial problems for government schools, despite claims to the contrary (by whom I have never known) that those parents were somehow depriving the government schools of money.
Magee had one sentence that said something like "school A or school B or school C are not ..."
That is where I stopped reading.
Mr. Magee must himself be a product of government schools, and likely Chattanooga-area government schools or he would know the verb should be "is."
Conceivably, though, especially considering the medium, a "copy editor" made the change and Mr. Magee is innocent of the charge.
He is not innocent of this new charge, though: He is attempting, through rather childish sarcasm, to promote more taxation, supposedly to benefit the local government schools.
He begins his column, published 13 July 2005, and titled "Let's line our pockets with school funds," with "Those who staunchly oppose additional funding for our public schools at the local level have won me over. Never a man too big to admit when he's wrong, I no longer am claiming that our schools need more money.
"In fact, I've seen the light. We residents need this money, these extra pennies that might be added to the property taxes, more than those greedy administrators, teachers and students do. I can barely afford my golf green fees anymore [sic], and cable television, what with must-have HBO add-ons and all, is beginning to be a real financial drag."
Such drivel continues for several paragraphs, and he concludes, finally, with "...The objective is not to give our children, teachers and administrators every advantage, but to put as many pennies back into our own pockets as possible.
"After all, we need it more than they do."
There are so many errors in such nonsense, it's hard to know where to begin with correction.
Well, let's try this: The school systems spending the most money, and the most money per child, are also the ones getting the worst results. Such places include New York City and Washington, D.C.
North Dakota, on the other hand, is routinely criticized for not spending as much per student, but its students routinely receive higher scores on such tests as SAT and ACT.
Mr. Magee uses his sarcasm to try to defend such school activities "like drama and debate and music" as being preferable to, say, football. Actually, I agree with that point, but quite obviously tens of thousands of parents and students don't.
Mr. Magee is making two serious errors, beyond his writing: Believing government schools have some kind of sacred position in society and believing that a need is some kind of right.
There is a third error, one that could, by some harsher critic than Marshmallow Morrison, be called hypocrisy: Mr. Magee is absolutely free to hand over as much of his own money to the school system as he wishes.
Alas, he strives with heavy-handed sarcasm to shame others into handing over their money -- no, worse than that: He tries to shame us into asking government officials to raise taxes, which means forcing us -- everybody -- into handing over our money.
Sure, he uses the demagogue's trick: It's only pennies. But, as my Scottish forebears said, Many a mickle makes a muckle.
It's true, by the way, the Hamilton County teachers are underpaid. By the scores and droves, they are applying for jobs in other systems, especially in Georgia (strange as it might seem to anyone who doesn't know how that state spends money on schools; Georgia teachers come a lot closer to getting what they deserve than many other states), but even in smaller-population, more nearly rural systems nearby.
The Hamilton County administrator, though, is vastly overpaid and the system is, as is so often true, top-heavy with administrative personnel; and an annual fortune is paid out to "consultants," people from outside brought in to do what the local people are supposed to do in the first place.
And those are the reasons local residents and citizens are so reluctant to have to pay higher taxes -- on top of an obscene sales tax, nearly 10 percent, even on food and clothing!
They just don't see the system as being capable of spending what money it gets wisely or efficiently.
Alas, Wednesday editions are deadened by the inclusion of a weekly column by one David Magee, supposedly a famous writer, although I had never heard of him.
Advent of the inauguration of the local column was hailed by the paper as if it were a momentous event.
I looked forward to seeing it, but the first one, or at least the first one I saw, about a month ago, contained one sentence that caused me to stop reading.
The subject was something about area private schools and how the parents of children sent to them were not a cause of financial problems for government schools, despite claims to the contrary (by whom I have never known) that those parents were somehow depriving the government schools of money.
Magee had one sentence that said something like "school A or school B or school C are not ..."
That is where I stopped reading.
Mr. Magee must himself be a product of government schools, and likely Chattanooga-area government schools or he would know the verb should be "is."
Conceivably, though, especially considering the medium, a "copy editor" made the change and Mr. Magee is innocent of the charge.
He is not innocent of this new charge, though: He is attempting, through rather childish sarcasm, to promote more taxation, supposedly to benefit the local government schools.
He begins his column, published 13 July 2005, and titled "Let's line our pockets with school funds," with "Those who staunchly oppose additional funding for our public schools at the local level have won me over. Never a man too big to admit when he's wrong, I no longer am claiming that our schools need more money.
"In fact, I've seen the light. We residents need this money, these extra pennies that might be added to the property taxes, more than those greedy administrators, teachers and students do. I can barely afford my golf green fees anymore [sic], and cable television, what with must-have HBO add-ons and all, is beginning to be a real financial drag."
Such drivel continues for several paragraphs, and he concludes, finally, with "...The objective is not to give our children, teachers and administrators every advantage, but to put as many pennies back into our own pockets as possible.
"After all, we need it more than they do."
There are so many errors in such nonsense, it's hard to know where to begin with correction.
Well, let's try this: The school systems spending the most money, and the most money per child, are also the ones getting the worst results. Such places include New York City and Washington, D.C.
North Dakota, on the other hand, is routinely criticized for not spending as much per student, but its students routinely receive higher scores on such tests as SAT and ACT.
Mr. Magee uses his sarcasm to try to defend such school activities "like drama and debate and music" as being preferable to, say, football. Actually, I agree with that point, but quite obviously tens of thousands of parents and students don't.
Mr. Magee is making two serious errors, beyond his writing: Believing government schools have some kind of sacred position in society and believing that a need is some kind of right.
There is a third error, one that could, by some harsher critic than Marshmallow Morrison, be called hypocrisy: Mr. Magee is absolutely free to hand over as much of his own money to the school system as he wishes.
Alas, he strives with heavy-handed sarcasm to shame others into handing over their money -- no, worse than that: He tries to shame us into asking government officials to raise taxes, which means forcing us -- everybody -- into handing over our money.
Sure, he uses the demagogue's trick: It's only pennies. But, as my Scottish forebears said, Many a mickle makes a muckle.
It's true, by the way, the Hamilton County teachers are underpaid. By the scores and droves, they are applying for jobs in other systems, especially in Georgia (strange as it might seem to anyone who doesn't know how that state spends money on schools; Georgia teachers come a lot closer to getting what they deserve than many other states), but even in smaller-population, more nearly rural systems nearby.
The Hamilton County administrator, though, is vastly overpaid and the system is, as is so often true, top-heavy with administrative personnel; and an annual fortune is paid out to "consultants," people from outside brought in to do what the local people are supposed to do in the first place.
And those are the reasons local residents and citizens are so reluctant to have to pay higher taxes -- on top of an obscene sales tax, nearly 10 percent, even on food and clothing!
They just don't see the system as being capable of spending what money it gets wisely or efficiently.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Ogden Nashing my teeth
Several attempts at publishing my last entry resulted apparently in nothing but gears whirling and LEDs flickering and the screen flashing and me gnashing my teeth.
And finally shutting down the computer in frustrated disgust.
Coming back later to the computer, surprise, surprise, somehow it was published after all, several times.
Later I will go back and remove the extras, but in the meantime, I am reminded of a poem by Ogden Nash; though I might not have all the words right, it says
Here's an ode to the ketchup bottle:
First none'll come and then a lot'll.
And finally shutting down the computer in frustrated disgust.
Coming back later to the computer, surprise, surprise, somehow it was published after all, several times.
Later I will go back and remove the extras, but in the meantime, I am reminded of a poem by Ogden Nash; though I might not have all the words right, it says
Here's an ode to the ketchup bottle:
First none'll come and then a lot'll.
Double standard?
Following a sting operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, several members and former members of the Tennessee General Assembly have been indicted for accepting bribes.
They were supposedly given money to pass certain legislation from which a particular company would be able to profit.
One problem: The company didn't really exist; it was a front by the FBI.
Still, several Democrats and one Republican are accused of having taken the bait.
A few days ago, a vocal "moral leader" of the Tennessee Republicans called for the indicted Republican to resign or be thrown out of the legislature.
Times cartoonist Bruce Plante, Pulitzer Prize winner, immediately penned a vitriolic cartoon denouncing the "moralist" for not even giving the accused a fair trial before hanging him, for forgetting that even a politician is innocent until proven guilty.
On Tuesday, 12 July 2005, the same Bruce Plante, Pulitzer Prize winner, drew a cartoon of a man and woman staring at a poster, "Slime-Man" apparently a movie "starring Karl Rove."
The woman asks, "What are his super powers?"
The man answers, "Revealing the secret identity of heroes and sliming his way out of it."
On Wednesday, the Times editorial is headlined, "Karl Rove must go."
Last I heard, as of Wednesday afternoon, Karl Rove has not been proved guilty of anything, except being a Republican.
Granted that's a pretty bad sin, but it's not yet a crime.
Except, apparently, to cartoonist Bruce Plante, Pulitzer Prize winner, and whichever vitriolist of the Times editorial page wrote the editorial.
Double standard? or no standard?
They were supposedly given money to pass certain legislation from which a particular company would be able to profit.
One problem: The company didn't really exist; it was a front by the FBI.
Still, several Democrats and one Republican are accused of having taken the bait.
A few days ago, a vocal "moral leader" of the Tennessee Republicans called for the indicted Republican to resign or be thrown out of the legislature.
Times cartoonist Bruce Plante, Pulitzer Prize winner, immediately penned a vitriolic cartoon denouncing the "moralist" for not even giving the accused a fair trial before hanging him, for forgetting that even a politician is innocent until proven guilty.
On Tuesday, 12 July 2005, the same Bruce Plante, Pulitzer Prize winner, drew a cartoon of a man and woman staring at a poster, "Slime-Man" apparently a movie "starring Karl Rove."
The woman asks, "What are his super powers?"
The man answers, "Revealing the secret identity of heroes and sliming his way out of it."
On Wednesday, the Times editorial is headlined, "Karl Rove must go."
Last I heard, as of Wednesday afternoon, Karl Rove has not been proved guilty of anything, except being a Republican.
Granted that's a pretty bad sin, but it's not yet a crime.
Except, apparently, to cartoonist Bruce Plante, Pulitzer Prize winner, and whichever vitriolist of the Times editorial page wrote the editorial.
Double standard? or no standard?
Monday, July 11, 2005
Skin show?
A funny and funnily written story, published in the Times Free Press, can be found at http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/living/people/teens/11845096.htm
I enjoyed it more than anything in the paper outside "Frank & Ernest" or "Dilbert" in a long time.
It also reminded me of a comment, strangely attributed to the late, not-so-great John Lindsay, to the effect, "Miniskirts are quite beneficial. They help young women run faster -- which they will have to do if they wear them."
I enjoyed it more than anything in the paper outside "Frank & Ernest" or "Dilbert" in a long time.
It also reminded me of a comment, strangely attributed to the late, not-so-great John Lindsay, to the effect, "Miniskirts are quite beneficial. They help young women run faster -- which they will have to do if they wear them."
ESOL headline
In the Chattanooga Times Free Press edition of Monday, 11 July 2005, there are two headlines on above-the-fold stories.
The big one, on the hurricane story, says, "Dennis menaces Gulf Coast."
Ha ha.
By the time the paper hit front yards (late for many if not most of its subscribers because of a tacky advertisement* stuck on the front page; the sticker creates problems in the paper's machinery and carriers don't get the paper for as much as an hour or more later than the usual time), the hurricane had moved far north of the Gulf Coast and was, in fact, pouring rain onto Chattanooga and environs.
The second head says, "Closing sock mills hurt immigrants."
Hmmmm. I've pondered and puzzled over this and finally concluded ...
Well, first, let's analyze just what it says: The mills are harming immigrants.
Even though they're closing, they hurt people, though apparently just immigrants.
How can that be? If the mills were, say, polluting the atmosphere with smoke, then they'd be hurting everyone.
Most likely, though, that isn't what was intended.
The subject, "closing," needs a verb in agreement (as do all nouns), and in this case "hurts" would be correct.
The story is a follow-up of one in the previous day's edition and contains what is surely unintended irony. A man who had come from somewhere in Central America became unemployed after the sock mill at which he had worked departed for Honduras.
Fort Payne, Alabama, is now more famous for its singers and "singers" than for its industrial base.
But isn't most of the United States now generally barren of industry?
And that is another subject for another blog.
Our subject continues to be, Why can't "editors" edit? Why can't they learn correct grammar?
*Putting advertisements on the front page is (also) another subject entirely. Essentially, though, it is a low-class thing to do and merely accentuates the concept that "news"papers are mostly, really advertising media, not news media.
The big one, on the hurricane story, says, "Dennis menaces Gulf Coast."
Ha ha.
By the time the paper hit front yards (late for many if not most of its subscribers because of a tacky advertisement* stuck on the front page; the sticker creates problems in the paper's machinery and carriers don't get the paper for as much as an hour or more later than the usual time), the hurricane had moved far north of the Gulf Coast and was, in fact, pouring rain onto Chattanooga and environs.
The second head says, "Closing sock mills hurt immigrants."
Hmmmm. I've pondered and puzzled over this and finally concluded ...
Well, first, let's analyze just what it says: The mills are harming immigrants.
Even though they're closing, they hurt people, though apparently just immigrants.
How can that be? If the mills were, say, polluting the atmosphere with smoke, then they'd be hurting everyone.
Most likely, though, that isn't what was intended.
The subject, "closing," needs a verb in agreement (as do all nouns), and in this case "hurts" would be correct.
The story is a follow-up of one in the previous day's edition and contains what is surely unintended irony. A man who had come from somewhere in Central America became unemployed after the sock mill at which he had worked departed for Honduras.
Fort Payne, Alabama, is now more famous for its singers and "singers" than for its industrial base.
But isn't most of the United States now generally barren of industry?
And that is another subject for another blog.
Our subject continues to be, Why can't "editors" edit? Why can't they learn correct grammar?
*Putting advertisements on the front page is (also) another subject entirely. Essentially, though, it is a low-class thing to do and merely accentuates the concept that "news"papers are mostly, really advertising media, not news media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
