In the Sunday, 30 August, edition, that was the headline on a typical story. I wrote the reporter whose name was on it:
31 August 2009
Ms. Emily Bregel
ebregel@timesfreepress.com
Dear Ms. Bregel,
You did a pretty good job in your Sunday article on the “tempest” around the so-called health care reform proposals, but you stepped away from reporting into advocacy in one paragraph in particular.
You said, or perhaps an editor made you say, “… referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s widely debunked assertion that the Obama administration’s reform proposal would lead to government panels deciding to withhold health care for those deemed ‘unproductive.’”
There are several things wrong in that one partial sentence.
First, Sarah Palin is not the only person to make such a claim. Writings by Pres. Obama’s own medical adviser discusses, even advocates, exactly such a panel. If you need documentation, please let me know and I’ll send it.
In those countries and even states where some government or other controls health care, individual bureaucrats or groups of them are making such decisions even as we sit here.
Of course no one involved would call it a “death panel” and would, in fact, flinch from any such appellation, or even hint of such intentions. And possibly it really is an extreme statement of what is proposed … but it is not completely wrong.
Second, the assertion has indeed been widely opposed and even denounced but not disproved. If you want to talk about ideas that have been “widely debunked,” I offer you the notion of human-caused global warming. Thousands of scientists and philosophers have “debunked” the idea, but the notion still holds sway among politicians and journalists and indeed some other scientists, especially those dependent on government grants.
The terminology itself is not honest journalism. Merriam-Webster defines it thus: “to expose the sham or falseness of.” You, or an editor, take sides with such phraseology.
I spent too many years as a journalist myself to allow such partisanship to go unchallenged.
Finally, let me share with you this story of a government-run health-care system:
Disease vector — Though swine flu has yet to do much harm in the United States, it is not only Mexico and parts south that are suffering. The virus has spread quickly among the tribal villages of far northern Manitoba, accounting for one-quarter of that province’s sick. The urgency of the situation is compounded by many of the affected communities lacking a source of running water, making impossible the hygienic procedures necessary for containing the flu.
As one might imagine, getting vaccines to such remote locations is a daunting logistical challenge, and a demonstration of how poorly suited bureaucratic structures are for tasks such as delivering emergency aid. One might think, though, that the many layers of government devoted to ensuring Canadian health care could at least coordinate an airdrop of a case of hand sanitizer. But healthcare paternalism is way too advanced up north to roll back now; the Toronto Star (June 25) reports that “Health Canada had delayed sending alcohol-based hand sanitizers to some First Nations communities for fear some residents might drink it.”
So here we have a simple and cheap method for dealing with the virus among one of the poorest groups of people in the country, kept at bay by the fear that this method will speed the demise of chronic alcoholics whose lives already have less expectancy than those infected with the flu. The utter predictability of it all is telling; yet another giveaway that healthcare boards have far less interest in the public weal than in the perpetuation of their own power. — Andrew Ferguson
You will please note that this is not an attack on you, nor really an attack on what you wrote, or at least what had your byline.
It is, though, a plea that you try to avoid partisanship in the future, or try to urge your editor to avoid it.
If you have any questions on the subject or any aspects thereof, I will be more than happy to help you find the answers.
Thanking you for your time and attention, I am
Yours sincerely and respectfully,
Michael Morrison
Monday, August 31, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Paper publishes, encourages hate, dishonesty
Times cartoonist Clay Bennett is either dishonest or unintelligent ... or, to be fair, I guess he could be both.
Obviously he wouldn't have been hired for his position if he weren't a flaming leftie, but even for this excuse of a paper and even for this astonishingly stupid editorial page, Bennett is something of an extremist.
His Sunday, 9 August, cartoon, straight out of the talking points directive from the Democrat National Committee, shows the back of some speaker at a town hall meeting looking at an audience where all the signs say, for example, "Obamacare equals communism" and "Health care reform promotes euthanasia."
The caption reads, "Unfortunately, the town hall meeting was taken over by the village idiots."
One of the major problems with such leftists as Bennett is the unwillingness to grant either intelligence or knowledge or sincerity to their opponents; one of the other problems with such leftists as Bennett is their eagerness to set up straw men, who are, of course, much easier to knock down than the real opponents.
And it is much easier to knock down straw men than to deal with the issues, such as the obscene costs such government intrusion will have, or the total lack of any constitutional authority, or, most of all, the total immorality of such intrusion.
When such hatemongers as Clay Bennett are given access to such a podium, is it any wonder those who oppose further federal interference get angry?
Is such distortion by such hatemongers as Bennett going to help or just further such anger?
Obviously he wouldn't have been hired for his position if he weren't a flaming leftie, but even for this excuse of a paper and even for this astonishingly stupid editorial page, Bennett is something of an extremist.
His Sunday, 9 August, cartoon, straight out of the talking points directive from the Democrat National Committee, shows the back of some speaker at a town hall meeting looking at an audience where all the signs say, for example, "Obamacare equals communism" and "Health care reform promotes euthanasia."
The caption reads, "Unfortunately, the town hall meeting was taken over by the village idiots."
One of the major problems with such leftists as Bennett is the unwillingness to grant either intelligence or knowledge or sincerity to their opponents; one of the other problems with such leftists as Bennett is their eagerness to set up straw men, who are, of course, much easier to knock down than the real opponents.
And it is much easier to knock down straw men than to deal with the issues, such as the obscene costs such government intrusion will have, or the total lack of any constitutional authority, or, most of all, the total immorality of such intrusion.
When such hatemongers as Clay Bennett are given access to such a podium, is it any wonder those who oppose further federal interference get angry?
Is such distortion by such hatemongers as Bennett going to help or just further such anger?
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Not news: TFP run by incompetent morons
This is a letter to the editor, Sunday, 4 July:
Have we acquired another tyranny?
We are celebrating the independence of our country from England. How wonderful that there were such giants at that particular time. The courage, dedication, selflessness, and wisdom that it took to form our government were phenomenal.
Have we swapped one tyranny for another? It appears so. Without teaching history, how can our young know the true meaning of courage, sacrifice and independence? The government does not make jobs and create income. It doles out transfer payments from producers -- it just seems to come from the government.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we cannot raise up one person by tearing down another. We are saddling our economy and our future with a debt from which we may not recover. We're penalizing our producers to benefit non-producers. We are hobbling our industry with costs and restrictions that our competitor countries are not dealing with. We're raising taxes and costs on people with the economy in recession. We have politicians trying to run bands, corporations and the government who've never even run a candy store.
Let's hope and pray the nation will come to its collective senses. I fear that it will not.
Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar.
Don Moon
The incompetents at the TFP obviously don't even read their copy before sending it off to the presses.
And that's one more reason normal people don't read the raggedy paper.
I am trying to contact Mr. Moon to learn his reaction to the morons' adding that advertising line to his letter.
My guess is incredulity.
Have we acquired another tyranny?
We are celebrating the independence of our country from England. How wonderful that there were such giants at that particular time. The courage, dedication, selflessness, and wisdom that it took to form our government were phenomenal.
Have we swapped one tyranny for another? It appears so. Without teaching history, how can our young know the true meaning of courage, sacrifice and independence? The government does not make jobs and create income. It doles out transfer payments from producers -- it just seems to come from the government.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we cannot raise up one person by tearing down another. We are saddling our economy and our future with a debt from which we may not recover. We're penalizing our producers to benefit non-producers. We are hobbling our industry with costs and restrictions that our competitor countries are not dealing with. We're raising taxes and costs on people with the economy in recession. We have politicians trying to run bands, corporations and the government who've never even run a candy store.
Let's hope and pray the nation will come to its collective senses. I fear that it will not.
Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar.
Don Moon
The incompetents at the TFP obviously don't even read their copy before sending it off to the presses.
And that's one more reason normal people don't read the raggedy paper.
I am trying to contact Mr. Moon to learn his reaction to the morons' adding that advertising line to his letter.
My guess is incredulity.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
13th Amendment ignored if not repealed
In few words, it says, "1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
(Note, by the way, the reference to "their" jurisdiction. The Constitution was still acknowledging that these United States compose a union of sovereign states.)
"Involuntary servitude," in other words, is thenceforth, illegal.
Yet this story appeared in the TFP Saturday, 23 May, on Page A1: "Arrests near for jury-duty dodgers."
"Two Hamilton County residents will be arrested for failing to show up for jury duty, officials confirmed Friday.
"The arrest warrants are the first to be issued since Tennessee's new, tougher jury rules went into effect at the beginning of the year."
So, someone who finds it abhorrent to put another human being into a cage will himself be put into a cage?
Or someone who has been out of town and didn't get his mail is now subject to being jailed?
Or, even more basic, a citizen, a human individual, can be forced into being on a panel that might put another human being into a cage?
And what are the reasons for that caging? Perhaps that human being ingested some substance that doesn't have official approval?
Still, let me re-stress that basic point: How can a country that claims to be free in actuality force allegedly free human beings into servitude -- by definition involuntary servitude?
Jury duty is something an awful lot of people actually fear.
Probably tens of thousands of people across the country never register to vote purely out of the fear of being called for jury duty.
Now, of course, the statists and collectivists use driver license lists as well as voter rolls, and sometimes other lists, to find victims for the conscription.
Finally, consider the ridiculous contradiction of forcing people to be jurists, based on the paradox that the jury system protects freedom.
Probably that part is true: Juries can provide a bulwark against tyranny, as witness some great trials in history when the jurors refused to accept the court's orders, even risking punishment themselves to stand for right.
(I recommend you check into the Fully Informed Jury Association.)
Juries are, and are so told in, for example, Georgia, arbiters of both the law and the facts in any individual case.
But in far too many states, juries are lied to and told they must rule according to a judge's instructions, and phooey on the immorality or irrationality of any law.
Try, though, to volunteer for jury service. Try it.
In most states, if not all, that is not allowed.
Jurors are selected only from a bunch of coerced people who mostly don't want to be there.
Someone defined a jury as twelve people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty.
Very cynical, perhaps, but it is also a truism that lawyers often want the dumbest people possible on a jury.
There must be a better system. Coercion is always wrong.
Maybe someone reading this will offer a more reasonable plan.
(Note, by the way, the reference to "their" jurisdiction. The Constitution was still acknowledging that these United States compose a union of sovereign states.)
"Involuntary servitude," in other words, is thenceforth, illegal.
Yet this story appeared in the TFP Saturday, 23 May, on Page A1: "Arrests near for jury-duty dodgers."
"Two Hamilton County residents will be arrested for failing to show up for jury duty, officials confirmed Friday.
"The arrest warrants are the first to be issued since Tennessee's new, tougher jury rules went into effect at the beginning of the year."
So, someone who finds it abhorrent to put another human being into a cage will himself be put into a cage?
Or someone who has been out of town and didn't get his mail is now subject to being jailed?
Or, even more basic, a citizen, a human individual, can be forced into being on a panel that might put another human being into a cage?
And what are the reasons for that caging? Perhaps that human being ingested some substance that doesn't have official approval?
Still, let me re-stress that basic point: How can a country that claims to be free in actuality force allegedly free human beings into servitude -- by definition involuntary servitude?
Jury duty is something an awful lot of people actually fear.
Probably tens of thousands of people across the country never register to vote purely out of the fear of being called for jury duty.
Now, of course, the statists and collectivists use driver license lists as well as voter rolls, and sometimes other lists, to find victims for the conscription.
Finally, consider the ridiculous contradiction of forcing people to be jurists, based on the paradox that the jury system protects freedom.
Probably that part is true: Juries can provide a bulwark against tyranny, as witness some great trials in history when the jurors refused to accept the court's orders, even risking punishment themselves to stand for right.
(I recommend you check into the Fully Informed Jury Association.)
Juries are, and are so told in, for example, Georgia, arbiters of both the law and the facts in any individual case.
But in far too many states, juries are lied to and told they must rule according to a judge's instructions, and phooey on the immorality or irrationality of any law.
Try, though, to volunteer for jury service. Try it.
In most states, if not all, that is not allowed.
Jurors are selected only from a bunch of coerced people who mostly don't want to be there.
Someone defined a jury as twelve people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty.
Very cynical, perhaps, but it is also a truism that lawyers often want the dumbest people possible on a jury.
There must be a better system. Coercion is always wrong.
Maybe someone reading this will offer a more reasonable plan.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Pot suspicious of kettle
"Morley Safer," reads the headline, "suspicious of the blogosphere."
In the TFP of Thursday, 21 May, in the section called "People in the News" which is usually reserved to stories about show biz folks, is the Associated Press story about the "CBS News veteran" saying "he trusts citizen journalism as much as he would trust citizen surgery."
Safer, 77, "said good journalism needs structure and responsibility."
Most rational and knowledgeable people agree that CBS has been responsible, responsible for some mighty dishonest and biased reporting for a mighty long time.
From my childhood, CBS was known as the "Communist Broadcasting System" for its far-left orientation.
The only thing worse than the CBS bias was the CBS sanctimony when people expressed their belief in its bias.
To this day, the "Rather-biased" Dan tries to insist he believed his obvious forgery about George W. Bush's National Guard service, and swears it's true ... despite all the evidence.
Are there ignorami, paranoiacs, wackos, liars, and propagandists among the blogosphere? Yep. Just as there are among the CBS "news" people.
Which is not to omit NBC and ABC from this charge. ABC, for example, used to carry signs to '60s demonstrations to be sure it would have plenty to take pictures of.
With the blogosphere, though, we have a lot more options and we can make comparisons of some different perspectives we never get from those networks.
In the TFP of Thursday, 21 May, in the section called "People in the News" which is usually reserved to stories about show biz folks, is the Associated Press story about the "CBS News veteran" saying "he trusts citizen journalism as much as he would trust citizen surgery."
Safer, 77, "said good journalism needs structure and responsibility."
Most rational and knowledgeable people agree that CBS has been responsible, responsible for some mighty dishonest and biased reporting for a mighty long time.
From my childhood, CBS was known as the "Communist Broadcasting System" for its far-left orientation.
The only thing worse than the CBS bias was the CBS sanctimony when people expressed their belief in its bias.
To this day, the "Rather-biased" Dan tries to insist he believed his obvious forgery about George W. Bush's National Guard service, and swears it's true ... despite all the evidence.
Are there ignorami, paranoiacs, wackos, liars, and propagandists among the blogosphere? Yep. Just as there are among the CBS "news" people.
Which is not to omit NBC and ABC from this charge. ABC, for example, used to carry signs to '60s demonstrations to be sure it would have plenty to take pictures of.
With the blogosphere, though, we have a lot more options and we can make comparisons of some different perspectives we never get from those networks.
13th Amendment Repealed?
"Truant's parent given jail time," reads a front-page headline Thursday, 21 May.
In a story by the unfortunately named Chloé Morrison (not that there's anything wrong with "Chloé"), we are told a juvenile court judge in Marion County sentenced "the mother of a Whitwell Elementary School second grader to 48 hours in jail for not getting her child to school."
Here is the astonishing news, leading to the headline on this post: "School leaders said they are forced to crack down on parents of truant students because federal law requires schools to have high attendance rates."
Knowing the very low quality of "school leaders" in this part of the world, I suppose it is quite possible they actually believe the hogwash quoted here.
In fact, though, there is not one word in the U.S. Constitution that allows any federal official or agency to "require schools to have high attendance rates."
However, perhaps the gimmick is the one so many of us tried to warn about, the unconstitutional law that says, Obey our orders or we will cut your funding.
"School leaders" across this once-great nation have foolishly, and perhaps criminally, been suckered by the promise of "free money," and continue to pant and beg for it even after they learn about some of the catches, including having to match or more than match that "free money" and, worst of all, unquestioned obedience to the "education czars," although it is far less about education than about schooling.
Ironically, the "No Child Left Behind" concept was accountability, but the actual result has been obedience to educrats, far less knowledge among the youthful victims, and a huge growth industry in layers of bureaucrats among school districts across the country.
Neither the 13th nor the 10th Amendments allow such federal intervention, but the cowardice of "school leaders" has over-ridden the law.
In a story by the unfortunately named Chloé Morrison (not that there's anything wrong with "Chloé"), we are told a juvenile court judge in Marion County sentenced "the mother of a Whitwell Elementary School second grader to 48 hours in jail for not getting her child to school."
Here is the astonishing news, leading to the headline on this post: "School leaders said they are forced to crack down on parents of truant students because federal law requires schools to have high attendance rates."
Knowing the very low quality of "school leaders" in this part of the world, I suppose it is quite possible they actually believe the hogwash quoted here.
In fact, though, there is not one word in the U.S. Constitution that allows any federal official or agency to "require schools to have high attendance rates."
However, perhaps the gimmick is the one so many of us tried to warn about, the unconstitutional law that says, Obey our orders or we will cut your funding.
"School leaders" across this once-great nation have foolishly, and perhaps criminally, been suckered by the promise of "free money," and continue to pant and beg for it even after they learn about some of the catches, including having to match or more than match that "free money" and, worst of all, unquestioned obedience to the "education czars," although it is far less about education than about schooling.
Ironically, the "No Child Left Behind" concept was accountability, but the actual result has been obedience to educrats, far less knowledge among the youthful victims, and a huge growth industry in layers of bureaucrats among school districts across the country.
Neither the 13th nor the 10th Amendments allow such federal intervention, but the cowardice of "school leaders" has over-ridden the law.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Writers should know correct English first
Before trying to be cute, reporters and editors really should know the English language, then understand the variations and dialects.
In the fyiWeekend insert, the entertainment magazine published each Friday, there is this sentence in an article about the "Legendary Loretta Lynn," which she truly is.
"When Loretta Lynn sings about whooping a rival after her man ..."
"Whooping" is what certain cranes do, or perhaps partiers, along with "hollering."
What writer Barry Courter meant was "whupping," and if the TFP had any competent editors, that is what the printed article would have said.
There is also some confusion about just when the Loretta Lynn show will be: The final sentence says, "She said fans who come to the show Saturday will hear 'whatever comes to mind and whatever people holler out. That's what happens. We just let it happen.'"
Unfortunately, the schedule, in the inset box and earlier in the copy, says the show is Sunday.
If lots of people show up Saturday, the TFP could have an exclusive scoop, with photos of an angry mob.
In the fyiWeekend insert, the entertainment magazine published each Friday, there is this sentence in an article about the "Legendary Loretta Lynn," which she truly is.
"When Loretta Lynn sings about whooping a rival after her man ..."
"Whooping" is what certain cranes do, or perhaps partiers, along with "hollering."
What writer Barry Courter meant was "whupping," and if the TFP had any competent editors, that is what the printed article would have said.
There is also some confusion about just when the Loretta Lynn show will be: The final sentence says, "She said fans who come to the show Saturday will hear 'whatever comes to mind and whatever people holler out. That's what happens. We just let it happen.'"
Unfortunately, the schedule, in the inset box and earlier in the copy, says the show is Sunday.
If lots of people show up Saturday, the TFP could have an exclusive scoop, with photos of an angry mob.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Deserved mention: TFP gets TV Times right
This should have been written sooner. I'm often very quick to point out the errors and stupidities of the TFP, and therefore when it gets something right, I really ought to mention it just as quickly.
Well, after futzing around for weeks, and making the situation worse each time, the people in charge of the TV Times insert finally got the program listings right.
The magazine finally has figured how to keep the number of pages down but still list all the programs scheduled.
It continues with two pages for all the daytime programming but now manages to get in all the movies, such as on TCM and AMC, and other variations, such as at USA.
It took them a while, but By George they got it.
Well, after futzing around for weeks, and making the situation worse each time, the people in charge of the TV Times insert finally got the program listings right.
The magazine finally has figured how to keep the number of pages down but still list all the programs scheduled.
It continues with two pages for all the daytime programming but now manages to get in all the movies, such as on TCM and AMC, and other variations, such as at USA.
It took them a while, but By George they got it.
TFP's Department of Redundancies Department
Newspapers are slowly disappearing from our lives.
I would like to think that one reason is people's disgust with the general sloppiness and poor quality. I don't think it, but would like to.
If, though, the Times Free Press were losing readers because of linguistic incompetence, then it lost another batch with a headline of Wednesday, 13 May. The story is about the mini-city of Ridgeside, which somehow came into existence though entirely enclosed inside Chattanooga.
The headline: "Surrounded on all sides."
I would like to think that one reason is people's disgust with the general sloppiness and poor quality. I don't think it, but would like to.
If, though, the Times Free Press were losing readers because of linguistic incompetence, then it lost another batch with a headline of Wednesday, 13 May. The story is about the mini-city of Ridgeside, which somehow came into existence though entirely enclosed inside Chattanooga.
The headline: "Surrounded on all sides."
Monday, May 04, 2009
Hate surprising even for today's climate
People like Sean Hannity and Monica Crowley manage to personalize the political arguments and make them difficult ever to resolve.
But the right-wingers, even the most rabid, can't seem to equal in venom, in sheer nastiness the hate-mongering racism of certain leftists, especially one letter writer to the TFP.
In the Monday, 4 May, edition, one Rickey Spivey, Sr., makes this astonishing comment: "All right already, Columnist Thomas Sowell. Black and white folks get that you're the black journalist who doesn't agree with the black president. Uncle Tom would be proud."
This hate-filled ignoramus obviously knows nothing about Dr. Sowell, who is not a "journalist" but a scholar, author of dozens of books, and one of the most highly admired economists in the world.
Dr. Sowell, whom I have severely criticized (see http://morrisonhimself.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html, "Sowell sells out" and http://morrisonhimself.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html) started life in segregated poverty, and pulled himself up by his bootstraps, making himself into a highly educated and brilliant scholar.
Rickey Spivey, Sr., whose shriveled soul is destined for a place even hotter than a Chattanooga summer, concluded his screed with this paragraph: "You mentioned witch hunt and people being 'demonized' for disagreeing with the Homeland Security paper. Didn't Bush and the boys demonize people who disagreed with the war in Iraq? Now will be a great time to have a federal police force to keep those stay-at-home terrorists and you at bay."
Childish writing, fascistic ideology, and psychotic rhetoric all in one letter -- another reason the TFP is having to cut back on pages and staff.
But the right-wingers, even the most rabid, can't seem to equal in venom, in sheer nastiness the hate-mongering racism of certain leftists, especially one letter writer to the TFP.
In the Monday, 4 May, edition, one Rickey Spivey, Sr., makes this astonishing comment: "All right already, Columnist Thomas Sowell. Black and white folks get that you're the black journalist who doesn't agree with the black president. Uncle Tom would be proud."
This hate-filled ignoramus obviously knows nothing about Dr. Sowell, who is not a "journalist" but a scholar, author of dozens of books, and one of the most highly admired economists in the world.
Dr. Sowell, whom I have severely criticized (see http://morrisonhimself.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html, "Sowell sells out" and http://morrisonhimself.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html) started life in segregated poverty, and pulled himself up by his bootstraps, making himself into a highly educated and brilliant scholar.
Rickey Spivey, Sr., whose shriveled soul is destined for a place even hotter than a Chattanooga summer, concluded his screed with this paragraph: "You mentioned witch hunt and people being 'demonized' for disagreeing with the Homeland Security paper. Didn't Bush and the boys demonize people who disagreed with the war in Iraq? Now will be a great time to have a federal police force to keep those stay-at-home terrorists and you at bay."
Childish writing, fascistic ideology, and psychotic rhetoric all in one letter -- another reason the TFP is having to cut back on pages and staff.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
What? Defending the TFP?
No blog, probably no single public voice is as critical of the "news" paper as is this one right here, but, look, right is right, wrong is wrong, and blind stupidity is, yes, blind stupidity.
A letter to the editor, published Thursday, 23 April, is headlined "Slanted cartoons a daily onslaught." One might think it's a reference to the house editorial cartoonist, Clay Bennett, but no, this is what it says:
"I have been a subscriber to your paper ever since I moved to Tennessee. I, along with some other people to whom I have talked, are sick and tired of the daily political conservative slanted cartoons. Enough is enough! If this daily onslaught against our president continues, I will not be renewing my subscription. Not only that, I will be sure to address this issue with all of the Democratic offices in the state. ... When Mr. Bush was in office, you did not put such daily trash in the paper ..."
Ronald C. Merrill, of Dayton, Tenn., is listed as the author and in many ways I feel sorry for him. I mean, I'd hate to have my name in public attached to such ignorant nonsense.
Though it can't take credit for much, the TFP does deserve plaudits for one thing: Each day, and I mean seven days a week (so far), it runs two separate and different editorial pages.
Yes, on both sides, the editorials themselves are usually stultifying, boringly written, and betraying very little intellectual content.
But there ARE two pages, one "liberal" and one "conservative."
Though the Times side, the left page, carries mostly stultifying and dull (and often mean-spirited) columnists such as Ellen Goodman and E.J. Dionne, Jr., the right side will carry the brilliant Walter Williams, along with some not-so-brilliant columnists, too.
The left side has its own cartoonist, the aforesaid Bennett, and also carries the hate-filled Luckovich and others, but the point is this: Mr. Merrill is apparently blind as a bat.
A letter to the editor, published Thursday, 23 April, is headlined "Slanted cartoons a daily onslaught." One might think it's a reference to the house editorial cartoonist, Clay Bennett, but no, this is what it says:
"I have been a subscriber to your paper ever since I moved to Tennessee. I, along with some other people to whom I have talked, are sick and tired of the daily political conservative slanted cartoons. Enough is enough! If this daily onslaught against our president continues, I will not be renewing my subscription. Not only that, I will be sure to address this issue with all of the Democratic offices in the state. ... When Mr. Bush was in office, you did not put such daily trash in the paper ..."
Ronald C. Merrill, of Dayton, Tenn., is listed as the author and in many ways I feel sorry for him. I mean, I'd hate to have my name in public attached to such ignorant nonsense.
Though it can't take credit for much, the TFP does deserve plaudits for one thing: Each day, and I mean seven days a week (so far), it runs two separate and different editorial pages.
Yes, on both sides, the editorials themselves are usually stultifying, boringly written, and betraying very little intellectual content.
But there ARE two pages, one "liberal" and one "conservative."
Though the Times side, the left page, carries mostly stultifying and dull (and often mean-spirited) columnists such as Ellen Goodman and E.J. Dionne, Jr., the right side will carry the brilliant Walter Williams, along with some not-so-brilliant columnists, too.
The left side has its own cartoonist, the aforesaid Bennett, and also carries the hate-filled Luckovich and others, but the point is this: Mr. Merrill is apparently blind as a bat.
Might makes right?
With readership and, thus, income dropping, "news" organizations are seeking desperately for SOMEthing to write about, ANYthing.
Except, often, news.
When Texas Governor Rick Perry used the "s-word," secession, naturally the intellects in the "news" media were all a-flutter.
In the TFP of 19 April, an article from McClatchy Newspapers, but with no other byline, was headlined "Secession talk strikes a chord."
A clever opening read, "Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears to have given new life to the state's two decades-old tourism promotion -- Texas: It's like a whole other country."
Here is a paragraph from the middle of the story: "The fact is, the treaty under which Texas joined the union provides that it could be divided into five states. But it is not empowered to leave the union, a question settled by the Civil War."
So forget common sense, ignore logic, turn away from more intelligent and knowledgeable historians and Constitutional authorities and concentrate on one thing: The Yankees had more soldiers, more and better weaponry, and an industrial base from which to wage war like that of Attila and Genghis Khan, destroying farms and homes and burning private and public buildings and looting and leaving homeless women and children by the tens of thousands.
But they won, and therefore must have had God and St. George and all other Right on their side.
That, gentle reader, is what passes for "news" coverage these days.
Except, often, news.
When Texas Governor Rick Perry used the "s-word," secession, naturally the intellects in the "news" media were all a-flutter.
In the TFP of 19 April, an article from McClatchy Newspapers, but with no other byline, was headlined "Secession talk strikes a chord."
A clever opening read, "Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears to have given new life to the state's two decades-old tourism promotion -- Texas: It's like a whole other country."
Here is a paragraph from the middle of the story: "The fact is, the treaty under which Texas joined the union provides that it could be divided into five states. But it is not empowered to leave the union, a question settled by the Civil War."
So forget common sense, ignore logic, turn away from more intelligent and knowledgeable historians and Constitutional authorities and concentrate on one thing: The Yankees had more soldiers, more and better weaponry, and an industrial base from which to wage war like that of Attila and Genghis Khan, destroying farms and homes and burning private and public buildings and looting and leaving homeless women and children by the tens of thousands.
But they won, and therefore must have had God and St. George and all other Right on their side.
That, gentle reader, is what passes for "news" coverage these days.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Dishonesty in advertising
A full page insert in a recent edition of the TFP shouts, with large red capitals,
"DEFENDING
FREEDOM
DAILY
SINCE 1776"
Right below is a picture of the Constitution (which was written in 1787), beginning "We the People of the United States ..."
This from a publication that on a frequent, if not regular, basis omits needed facts, distorts others, and on one of its editorial pages, and sometimes both, calls for more and bigger government -- is that hypocrisy, fraud, or merely inconsistency?
"DEFENDING
FREEDOM
DAILY
SINCE 1776"
Right below is a picture of the Constitution (which was written in 1787), beginning "We the People of the United States ..."
This from a publication that on a frequent, if not regular, basis omits needed facts, distorts others, and on one of its editorial pages, and sometimes both, calls for more and bigger government -- is that hypocrisy, fraud, or merely inconsistency?
Doubly astonishing column in TFP
As noted here before, Leonard Pitts, Jr., is a left-wing racist columnist, but who must get at least partial credit for his column in the TFP Sunday, 12 April.
The headline is "Let's at least begin talking about leglizing" (sic) "drugs in U.S."
Obviously no one read the headline before sending the page to press, and there is probably a good chance no one read the column either since it almost makes sense, especially considering the source.
Naturally, being from Pitts, there is a racial element. Pitts blames the whole "War on Drugs" (also known as "The Insane War on Drugs" and as "The War on Some Drugs") as coming "into being under President Nixon, whose chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, once quoted the president as saying, 'You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to.'"
Pitts' silly and/or paranoid belief is just one among many, including the belief that William R. Hearst started the anti-marijuana war in order to make sure his forests in Canada would continue to be the prime source of wood pulp.
Another was that, when Prohibition ended, Harry Anslinger wanted to keep some kind of government job so the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed to help him.
Regardless of the nonsense from Pitts and the TFP, it really is way past time to do more than talk about "leglizing" drugs.
Look at the thousands of deaths just in Mexico because of the drug war -- NOT because of drugs, but because their illegality makes them so profitable. Even Pitts is able to see the comparison to the era of Prohibition and the resultant rise of organized crime in the United States. (But at least we got Las Vegas.)
My guess is very few people bother to read Pitts' columns any more, but this time he really has said something needing saying.
The headline is "Let's at least begin talking about leglizing" (sic) "drugs in U.S."
Obviously no one read the headline before sending the page to press, and there is probably a good chance no one read the column either since it almost makes sense, especially considering the source.
Naturally, being from Pitts, there is a racial element. Pitts blames the whole "War on Drugs" (also known as "The Insane War on Drugs" and as "The War on Some Drugs") as coming "into being under President Nixon, whose chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, once quoted the president as saying, 'You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to.'"
Pitts' silly and/or paranoid belief is just one among many, including the belief that William R. Hearst started the anti-marijuana war in order to make sure his forests in Canada would continue to be the prime source of wood pulp.
Another was that, when Prohibition ended, Harry Anslinger wanted to keep some kind of government job so the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed to help him.
Regardless of the nonsense from Pitts and the TFP, it really is way past time to do more than talk about "leglizing" drugs.
Look at the thousands of deaths just in Mexico because of the drug war -- NOT because of drugs, but because their illegality makes them so profitable. Even Pitts is able to see the comparison to the era of Prohibition and the resultant rise of organized crime in the United States. (But at least we got Las Vegas.)
My guess is very few people bother to read Pitts' columns any more, but this time he really has said something needing saying.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Correction: TFP did so write on Tea Party
I do apologize to you the reader and to the maligned Times Free Press: On 15 April, the paper did run a story on the Tea Party to be held that night, on Page B-3, and there was a related story in business, "Tax deadline a yearly ritual."
Well, the paper says it's related.
Well, the paper says it's related.
Finally, TFP sees a story
"Tax Day Tea Party draws big crowd" is the inane headline on the story of the Chattanooga gathering.
Reporter Adam Crisp's story was pretty fair, but there is this error: "The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey."
In fact, there were probably dozens, even scores, of organizations and thousands of individuals promoting the nationwide tea parties.
Whether it's Mr. Crisp's intent, or an "editor's," making mention of only one backing group terribly misleads the readers and terribly distorts the meaning of the phenomenon.
Otherwise, the too-short article gave a nice overview, quoting local organizer Mark West and some others in attendance.
So why did the TFP not give any advance mention?
Will the rag give future coverage?
We'll keep looking.
ADDENDUM: Mr. Crisp did NOT intend any bias. The lack of good background is not his fault. The "news" media in general can be faulted, and the TFP in particular, but not Mr. Crisp.
Reporter Adam Crisp's story was pretty fair, but there is this error: "The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey."
In fact, there were probably dozens, even scores, of organizations and thousands of individuals promoting the nationwide tea parties.
Whether it's Mr. Crisp's intent, or an "editor's," making mention of only one backing group terribly misleads the readers and terribly distorts the meaning of the phenomenon.
Otherwise, the too-short article gave a nice overview, quoting local organizer Mark West and some others in attendance.
So why did the TFP not give any advance mention?
Will the rag give future coverage?
We'll keep looking.
ADDENDUM: Mr. Crisp did NOT intend any bias. The lack of good background is not his fault. The "news" media in general can be faulted, and the TFP in particular, but not Mr. Crisp.
One more reason it's called a "news" paper
Probably the biggest domestic story this month is the widespread "Tea Parties" phenomenon.
Until Tuesday, 14 April, the Times Free Press published NOT ONE WORD about it until a letter to the editor made mention of the local party, giving time, place, and date.
Millions of people throughout the country have been expressing opposition, even anger, and thousands of people locally have joined in.
Yet NOT ONE WORD has appeared in the miserable excuse for a "news" paper that is the Times Free Press.
Even some of the more leftish "news" organizations have at least made mention, and even the Fox News Channel -- which went out of its way to avoid mention of, for example, Ron Paul and his presidential candidacy and has bent over backward to avoid mentioning the Libertarian Party -- has broadcast stories leading up to the event.
But good ol' "without fear or favor" TFP has managed to miss the biggest story.
Until Tuesday, 14 April, the Times Free Press published NOT ONE WORD about it until a letter to the editor made mention of the local party, giving time, place, and date.
Millions of people throughout the country have been expressing opposition, even anger, and thousands of people locally have joined in.
Yet NOT ONE WORD has appeared in the miserable excuse for a "news" paper that is the Times Free Press.
Even some of the more leftish "news" organizations have at least made mention, and even the Fox News Channel -- which went out of its way to avoid mention of, for example, Ron Paul and his presidential candidacy and has bent over backward to avoid mentioning the Libertarian Party -- has broadcast stories leading up to the event.
But good ol' "without fear or favor" TFP has managed to miss the biggest story.
Irony and lousy editing
On Page 1 of the Metro section, 14 April, there is this sentence: "Ray Diaz, 46, was pronounced dead on arrival at Earlanger hospital after police responded to 1653 Fernwood Circle on a domestic disorder call and found Mr. Diaz laying unresponsive in the front yard."
The story doesn't say what kind of direct object "unresponsive" is, whether it's like a brick or an egg.
Right above, in a story of a fatal traffic accident, is this sentence: "Neither the driver, who was not wearing a seat belt, nor the boy were identified by police."
"Neither ... were" is, of course, more semi-literate writing and/or editing.
Here's the irony: On the back page of the Life section is a story by James Yolles of Columbia News Service; its headline is, "Obsessive about possessive's? Youve got company out there (sic)"
The story refers to, among other errors, the common mistake of making plurals by adding apostrophe s ('s). (You see it a lot in genealogy circles and on mailboxes: The Smith's, the Johnson's, the Jones's. It is, I believe, further evidence the American republic is doomed.)
Apparently SOMEone at the TFP knows the rules of punctuation, and apparently even has a sense of humor.
Too bad that someone isn't given more to do, since obviously the TFP is in desperate need of someone who knows how to edit.
The story doesn't say what kind of direct object "unresponsive" is, whether it's like a brick or an egg.
Right above, in a story of a fatal traffic accident, is this sentence: "Neither the driver, who was not wearing a seat belt, nor the boy were identified by police."
"Neither ... were" is, of course, more semi-literate writing and/or editing.
Here's the irony: On the back page of the Life section is a story by James Yolles of Columbia News Service; its headline is, "Obsessive about possessive's? Youve got company out there (sic)"
The story refers to, among other errors, the common mistake of making plurals by adding apostrophe s ('s). (You see it a lot in genealogy circles and on mailboxes: The Smith's, the Johnson's, the Jones's. It is, I believe, further evidence the American republic is doomed.)
Apparently SOMEone at the TFP knows the rules of punctuation, and apparently even has a sense of humor.
Too bad that someone isn't given more to do, since obviously the TFP is in desperate need of someone who knows how to edit.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Does anybody read this? Not its "editors"
Though I've commented before on the waste of space taken up by "late nite laughs" in the TV Times, I want to give you one more example.
From the issue of 5-11 April, here is the entire section of quotes from "The Late Show with David Letterman (Mar 18 09)":
*Friday is the first day of spring. You know it's spring in New York City when the rats come out of hibernation.
*You know it's spring in New York City when the street vendors start putting chlorine in the hotdog water.
*They say in 150 years, when he gets out, the recession will likely be over.
The first two inanities (obviously I'm no Letterman fan) might stand alone, even though they're not very funny. The third, though, makes absolutely no sense.
With so many people out of work, surely the Chattanooga Publishing Co. could find one real editor, someone who would actually read the stuff he puts onto the pages.
From the issue of 5-11 April, here is the entire section of quotes from "The Late Show with David Letterman (Mar 18 09)":
*Friday is the first day of spring. You know it's spring in New York City when the rats come out of hibernation.
*You know it's spring in New York City when the street vendors start putting chlorine in the hotdog water.
*They say in 150 years, when he gets out, the recession will likely be over.
The first two inanities (obviously I'm no Letterman fan) might stand alone, even though they're not very funny. The third, though, makes absolutely no sense.
With so many people out of work, surely the Chattanooga Publishing Co. could find one real editor, someone who would actually read the stuff he puts onto the pages.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Even glucosamine won't help this knee jerk
Alaska's former senator Ted Stevens was investigated and prosecuted by the federal "Justice" department, and Stevens was found guilty. That decision was announced in time for him to lose the senatorial election last November.
Well, surprise, surprise, the new "Justice" department found all kinds of misbehavior by the prosecutors, threw out the charges, and has said there will be no further action against Stevens.
The Times editorial writer of 8 April said this: "During the Bush years, the Justice Department" (sic) "was known for its cavalier ways. There is much to support that view. ... Politics, not the rule of law, prevailed at that time."
Yeah, yeah. The editorialist apparently missed the fact that Mr. Stevens was himself a Republican.
In the winter of 1976-77, I visited in Tennessee and Virginia and was inundated by snow, three and four times a week.
I got back to California just in time to see the beginning of what became a 10-year drought.
I phoned a local radio talk show to comment, "We never had weather like this until Jimmy Carter got elected."
The host, the legendary Hilly Rose, laughed.
Sad to say, Democrats and other lefties, including in the media, have made similar statements for the last eight years, but weren't intentionally joking.
Such as, we never had hurricanes like Katrina until George W. Bush was president.
Everything bad, storms, plagues, wars, boils, can be blamed on the other party, but it is only mean-spiritedness that allows any blame to befall our side.
Well, surprise, surprise, the new "Justice" department found all kinds of misbehavior by the prosecutors, threw out the charges, and has said there will be no further action against Stevens.
The Times editorial writer of 8 April said this: "During the Bush years, the Justice Department" (sic) "was known for its cavalier ways. There is much to support that view. ... Politics, not the rule of law, prevailed at that time."
Yeah, yeah. The editorialist apparently missed the fact that Mr. Stevens was himself a Republican.
In the winter of 1976-77, I visited in Tennessee and Virginia and was inundated by snow, three and four times a week.
I got back to California just in time to see the beginning of what became a 10-year drought.
I phoned a local radio talk show to comment, "We never had weather like this until Jimmy Carter got elected."
The host, the legendary Hilly Rose, laughed.
Sad to say, Democrats and other lefties, including in the media, have made similar statements for the last eight years, but weren't intentionally joking.
Such as, we never had hurricanes like Katrina until George W. Bush was president.
Everything bad, storms, plagues, wars, boils, can be blamed on the other party, but it is only mean-spiritedness that allows any blame to befall our side.
Journalist Karl Marx would feel right at home
Devaluing the individual, submerging individuals into the mass was not exactly invented by Karl Marx. The idea goes back to at least Plato, who liked to say it was Socrates'.
Still none of those ancient people had the additional stigma of being a writer for "news" publications.
The old joke about Karl Marx was that the paper he wrote for is to blame for communism: If it had paid him less, he would have starved to death; if it had paid him more, he would have been a capitalist.
Well, though his flesh is gone, his spirit lives on, in the soul of headline writers and in the scribblings of Associated Press ... uh, journalists.
For example, tighten your upper esophageal sphincter and read this headline in the TFP of 8 April: "Do smokers cost society money?"
The problem begins with two problems: Defining society and accepting as a given that, whatever "society" is, it controls and governs and pays for the individuals, who apparently have no other function than to be a component thereof.
I believe it was a Reason -- either Foundation or Magazine -- writer who first promulgated the notion that smokers actually saved the government -- NOT, note, "society" -- money by dying early and thus not costing Medicare as much as the longer-lived non-smokers.
This AP article, by one Erica Werner, hashes over some of that thought but, of course, phrases it this way: "Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too -- by living longer."
So, according the the obvious collectivist Ms. Werner, whatever you do, smoke or don't, live long and prosper or die early, you ought to be ashamed: You are just a burden.
Funnily enough, though, I'll bet if you met Ms. Werner and tried to lump her in with all the other Obama supporters and the general run of leftist members of the race of journalists (which formerly also included Benito Mussolini), she would be horribly offended and try to defend her individualism.
Sad, though, it is that people like her can't see the rational answer: Quit operating on the collectivist approach to everything. Let a free system operate, and let individuals live their own lives freely.
For those who don't have adequate resources, there are many voluntary organizations who could do a much better job of helping -- and genuinely helping, really assisting -- the needy than any government in the whole sad history of the world has ever done or been able to do.
Still none of those ancient people had the additional stigma of being a writer for "news" publications.
The old joke about Karl Marx was that the paper he wrote for is to blame for communism: If it had paid him less, he would have starved to death; if it had paid him more, he would have been a capitalist.
Well, though his flesh is gone, his spirit lives on, in the soul of headline writers and in the scribblings of Associated Press ... uh, journalists.
For example, tighten your upper esophageal sphincter and read this headline in the TFP of 8 April: "Do smokers cost society money?"
The problem begins with two problems: Defining society and accepting as a given that, whatever "society" is, it controls and governs and pays for the individuals, who apparently have no other function than to be a component thereof.
I believe it was a Reason -- either Foundation or Magazine -- writer who first promulgated the notion that smokers actually saved the government -- NOT, note, "society" -- money by dying early and thus not costing Medicare as much as the longer-lived non-smokers.
This AP article, by one Erica Werner, hashes over some of that thought but, of course, phrases it this way: "Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too -- by living longer."
So, according the the obvious collectivist Ms. Werner, whatever you do, smoke or don't, live long and prosper or die early, you ought to be ashamed: You are just a burden.
Funnily enough, though, I'll bet if you met Ms. Werner and tried to lump her in with all the other Obama supporters and the general run of leftist members of the race of journalists (which formerly also included Benito Mussolini), she would be horribly offended and try to defend her individualism.
Sad, though, it is that people like her can't see the rational answer: Quit operating on the collectivist approach to everything. Let a free system operate, and let individuals live their own lives freely.
For those who don't have adequate resources, there are many voluntary organizations who could do a much better job of helping -- and genuinely helping, really assisting -- the needy than any government in the whole sad history of the world has ever done or been able to do.
Lefties of the species more vicious than ...
"Mean-spirited" was one of those cliches thrown around by the media during the time of Republican ascendancy.
Surely no one, though, has ever matched the left for sheer nastiness.
In the 8 April edition, on, naturally, the Chattanooga Times side, there is a cartoon I haven't in a long time seen matched for ugliness -- or stupidity.
Don Wright, of the Palm Beach Post, writes "Loose lips ... " then writes in, around a toothy open mouth, the names Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, and "Chuck Norris, etc."
First of all, I'd be awfully hesitant about attacking Chuck Norris. Even though he now qualifies for membership in AARP (born 10 March 1940) and other "senior" groups, he is still in better shape than ... well, especially any editorial cartoonist I know or know of.
Otherwise, of course, the cartoon is right on the money: The man despondent because his wife was leaving killed his family only because of something Glenn Beck said.
The fellow in despair because his employer closed down murdered his family because he had been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Come on. Seriously. Does any rational person think any of those multiple murderers even knows who Michele Bachmann is?
Especially that poor immigrant in Binghamton?
I know various right-wingers have also used guilt by association over the years, but for sheer viciousness, it's hard to beat this kind of garbage.
The cartoonist ought to be ashamed, but the "editor" responsible for putting this on a TFP page should too.
Surely no one, though, has ever matched the left for sheer nastiness.
In the 8 April edition, on, naturally, the Chattanooga Times side, there is a cartoon I haven't in a long time seen matched for ugliness -- or stupidity.
Don Wright, of the Palm Beach Post, writes "Loose lips ... " then writes in, around a toothy open mouth, the names Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, and "Chuck Norris, etc."
First of all, I'd be awfully hesitant about attacking Chuck Norris. Even though he now qualifies for membership in AARP (born 10 March 1940) and other "senior" groups, he is still in better shape than ... well, especially any editorial cartoonist I know or know of.
Otherwise, of course, the cartoon is right on the money: The man despondent because his wife was leaving killed his family only because of something Glenn Beck said.
The fellow in despair because his employer closed down murdered his family because he had been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Come on. Seriously. Does any rational person think any of those multiple murderers even knows who Michele Bachmann is?
Especially that poor immigrant in Binghamton?
I know various right-wingers have also used guilt by association over the years, but for sheer viciousness, it's hard to beat this kind of garbage.
The cartoonist ought to be ashamed, but the "editor" responsible for putting this on a TFP page should too.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Racism is racism is racism
Letter-to-the-editor writer James R. Mapp, no city given, is blamed for an especially egregious pile of nonsense: He urges the election of a particular city council candidate, in the words of the headline, "to avoid loss of black on council."
Many years ago, when I was still a child, but even then smarter than Mr. Mapp, I realized that voting for a candidate because of his skin color was just as bad as voting against a candidate because of his skin color.
Apparently Mr. Mapp accepts the racist notion that "all them blacks think alike."
Ironically, two black thinkers of a very different set appear with frequency on the editorial pages of the Free Press, Walter Williams (one of my particular heroes) and Thomas Sowell (for whom my admiration often palls).
One of the goals we who fought for Civil Rights sought was, as even Martin Luther King sometimes said, a color-blind America, one in which we judged people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
People like Mr. Mapp, and other racists, however well-meaning they might believe themselves, are setting back that possibility of color-blindness. They are furthering, instead, the cause of racism, and are helping to encourage racism from people of other racial and ethnic connections.
However, I offer this solution to warped-minded people who believe as does Mr. Mapp: Let's have a tri-cameral legislature; let's have a Senate based on geographical boundaries, a House based on population numbers, and a third house (and we need a name here) based on something else.
That third house (oh, what can we call it?) could be created by, say, petition, with people who belong to some group or other, including even racial identity, forming themselves into a bloc and choosing a representative.
We could have, say, blacks choosing a rep, plumbers choosing one, Rotarians choosing one, Presbyterians another, atheists still another ...
Oh the grouping are, perhaps, endless.
The advantages to a tri-cameral legislature are numerous, with the disadvantages being, to my belief, one: More tax money being spent on politicians and bureaucrats.
But, and this is one hope, a third house could slow down the legislative process so that the ultimate result would be far less spending.
Many years ago, when I was still a child, but even then smarter than Mr. Mapp, I realized that voting for a candidate because of his skin color was just as bad as voting against a candidate because of his skin color.
Apparently Mr. Mapp accepts the racist notion that "all them blacks think alike."
Ironically, two black thinkers of a very different set appear with frequency on the editorial pages of the Free Press, Walter Williams (one of my particular heroes) and Thomas Sowell (for whom my admiration often palls).
One of the goals we who fought for Civil Rights sought was, as even Martin Luther King sometimes said, a color-blind America, one in which we judged people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
People like Mr. Mapp, and other racists, however well-meaning they might believe themselves, are setting back that possibility of color-blindness. They are furthering, instead, the cause of racism, and are helping to encourage racism from people of other racial and ethnic connections.
However, I offer this solution to warped-minded people who believe as does Mr. Mapp: Let's have a tri-cameral legislature; let's have a Senate based on geographical boundaries, a House based on population numbers, and a third house (and we need a name here) based on something else.
That third house (oh, what can we call it?) could be created by, say, petition, with people who belong to some group or other, including even racial identity, forming themselves into a bloc and choosing a representative.
We could have, say, blacks choosing a rep, plumbers choosing one, Rotarians choosing one, Presbyterians another, atheists still another ...
Oh the grouping are, perhaps, endless.
The advantages to a tri-cameral legislature are numerous, with the disadvantages being, to my belief, one: More tax money being spent on politicians and bureaucrats.
But, and this is one hope, a third house could slow down the legislative process so that the ultimate result would be far less spending.
Headline writers don't read stories
Robin Hood not so good? reads the headline, with this sub-head following:
Ancient Brits questioned outlaw, says history professor.
Then the story, on Page 2 of the Sunday, 15 March edition, is about one -- ONE -- notation in the margin of "an ancient history book."
Julian Luxford, identified as "an art history lecturer at Scotland's University of St. Andrews," said "a 23-word inscription in the margins of a history book, written in Latin by a medieval monk in about 1460, casts the outlaw as a persistent thief."
Regardless of what is true history, once again the TFP headline contradicts or ignores the content of the story.
Besides, it's funny to find a story in any way disparaging the legend of Robin Hood when "robbing the rich" is so much a part of the current political miasma which was very much foisted upon us by the lamestream media, as someone calls it.
Ancient Brits questioned outlaw, says history professor.
Then the story, on Page 2 of the Sunday, 15 March edition, is about one -- ONE -- notation in the margin of "an ancient history book."
Julian Luxford, identified as "an art history lecturer at Scotland's University of St. Andrews," said "a 23-word inscription in the margins of a history book, written in Latin by a medieval monk in about 1460, casts the outlaw as a persistent thief."
Regardless of what is true history, once again the TFP headline contradicts or ignores the content of the story.
Besides, it's funny to find a story in any way disparaging the legend of Robin Hood when "robbing the rich" is so much a part of the current political miasma which was very much foisted upon us by the lamestream media, as someone calls it.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Here's what's wrong with the country
Even for Chattanooga and even for the TFP, letter-writer Harry Geller stands out as dumb.
Here is the beginning of a letter published Sunday, 22 March:
"I do not claim any expertise on the economy. I am entitled to my opinion, however ..."
Yep, a glowing tribute to what's coming out of the government schools, Mr. Geller also has this: "I am sick and tired of the oft-repeated phrase 'redistribution of wealth' ..."
Yes, I can understand he would object strenuously to any cold water of facts splashed in his face.
Feelings, emotions, reactions to the demagoguery -- yessir, that's what Mr. Geller and his ilk, including many a "journalist," offer to the conversation.
But, holy cow, learning anything about the subject? Hah!
Here is the beginning of a letter published Sunday, 22 March:
"I do not claim any expertise on the economy. I am entitled to my opinion, however ..."
Yep, a glowing tribute to what's coming out of the government schools, Mr. Geller also has this: "I am sick and tired of the oft-repeated phrase 'redistribution of wealth' ..."
Yes, I can understand he would object strenuously to any cold water of facts splashed in his face.
Feelings, emotions, reactions to the demagoguery -- yessir, that's what Mr. Geller and his ilk, including many a "journalist," offer to the conversation.
But, holy cow, learning anything about the subject? Hah!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Can't find a cartoonist with a brain?
Very few newspapers today have the luxury of on-staff cartoonists.
Because there are, though, plenty of cartoonists, it would seem even a small-market publication such as the Chattanooga Times Free Press, specifically the left-wing side, the Times, could find a cartoonist who knew something besides how to draw.
Maybe the company just hasn't made the effort. Certainly the previous cartoonist, Bruce Plante, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, was sorely lacking in knowledge of economics or political morality.
The current holder of the position, Clay Bennett, knows nothing about economics or how government should deal with the economy, though he is a good stylist.
For example, his cartoon of Thursday, 12 March, shows a burning building, labeled "economy," with firefighters hosing it down, and bystanders saying, "Just look at all the water they're wasting."
As one would expect with the Times, Mr. Bennett has everything backward. A better equivalent would be firefighters squirting gasoline onto a burning building, or pouring water onto someone drowning.
What is wrong with the economy is, in fact, government intervention, government coercion, government spending, government restrictions on a genuinely free market.
If Mr. Bennett is drawing from his own misunderstanding of the world, shame on him; if he is drawing according to orders from his bosses, shame on him and shame on them.
The United States economy could be improved if government, meaning politicians and bureaucrats, would get out of the way, remove the obstacles to starting and running businesses and factories, and let the free market operate, which means grow.
A reminder: Politicians are like cockroaches: It's not what they steal and carry away; it's what they fall into and mess up.
Because there are, though, plenty of cartoonists, it would seem even a small-market publication such as the Chattanooga Times Free Press, specifically the left-wing side, the Times, could find a cartoonist who knew something besides how to draw.
Maybe the company just hasn't made the effort. Certainly the previous cartoonist, Bruce Plante, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, was sorely lacking in knowledge of economics or political morality.
The current holder of the position, Clay Bennett, knows nothing about economics or how government should deal with the economy, though he is a good stylist.
For example, his cartoon of Thursday, 12 March, shows a burning building, labeled "economy," with firefighters hosing it down, and bystanders saying, "Just look at all the water they're wasting."
As one would expect with the Times, Mr. Bennett has everything backward. A better equivalent would be firefighters squirting gasoline onto a burning building, or pouring water onto someone drowning.
What is wrong with the economy is, in fact, government intervention, government coercion, government spending, government restrictions on a genuinely free market.
If Mr. Bennett is drawing from his own misunderstanding of the world, shame on him; if he is drawing according to orders from his bosses, shame on him and shame on them.
The United States economy could be improved if government, meaning politicians and bureaucrats, would get out of the way, remove the obstacles to starting and running businesses and factories, and let the free market operate, which means grow.
A reminder: Politicians are like cockroaches: It's not what they steal and carry away; it's what they fall into and mess up.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
"Truth" advocate manages to mis-lead
TFP publisher Tom Griscom likes to pretend he is, or was, a Republican, and in one of his Sunday columns, referenced below, he tried to say it was his policy the paper always tell the truth.
Once again, though, he shows why we should hesitate to believe either him or the rest of his writers.
For some reason, there is currently a "controversy" about people, and especially members of the legislature, who are licensed to carry firearms and, more to the point, the public listing of their names.
Here is a sentence from the "truth-teller": The more pressing issue, under the direction of the National Rifle Association, a Washington-based lobbying group, is to approve a series of handgun measures.
"Lobbying group" is a phrase that means "you don't have to think about this slimy outfit; just know it's bad."
For those, though, who are slow, he later adds this sentence: But the issue that has rallied the gun supporters and brought in the well-heeled Washington lobbyists ...
It is always possible, though highly unlikely, that Mr. Griscom is just ignorant or, to be more polite, uninformed.
But the NRA is more than just a lobbying organization. It is composed of about four million members, including probably a few people who are about to cancel their subscriptions to the TFP.
As do many other pro-freedom individuals, I have problems with the NRA; I much prefer the Gun Owners of America and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
But I much prefer the NRA to the TFP, and to any other inaccurate and/or dishonest misrepresentative person or publication.
Whether gun permits are records that ought to be made public is an interesting issue, but one TFP reader made an even more interesting counter-proposal: Make public the records of people drawing welfare or other taxpayer-funded checks.
Obviously the real basis for "controversy" is the neurotic opposition to any ownership of guns.
Here is another counter-proposal: Pass a law that everyone who opposes the individual right to own firearms must post a sign reading "No Guns in this House."
Once again, though, he shows why we should hesitate to believe either him or the rest of his writers.
For some reason, there is currently a "controversy" about people, and especially members of the legislature, who are licensed to carry firearms and, more to the point, the public listing of their names.
Here is a sentence from the "truth-teller": The more pressing issue, under the direction of the National Rifle Association, a Washington-based lobbying group, is to approve a series of handgun measures.
"Lobbying group" is a phrase that means "you don't have to think about this slimy outfit; just know it's bad."
For those, though, who are slow, he later adds this sentence: But the issue that has rallied the gun supporters and brought in the well-heeled Washington lobbyists ...
It is always possible, though highly unlikely, that Mr. Griscom is just ignorant or, to be more polite, uninformed.
But the NRA is more than just a lobbying organization. It is composed of about four million members, including probably a few people who are about to cancel their subscriptions to the TFP.
As do many other pro-freedom individuals, I have problems with the NRA; I much prefer the Gun Owners of America and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
But I much prefer the NRA to the TFP, and to any other inaccurate and/or dishonest misrepresentative person or publication.
Whether gun permits are records that ought to be made public is an interesting issue, but one TFP reader made an even more interesting counter-proposal: Make public the records of people drawing welfare or other taxpayer-funded checks.
Obviously the real basis for "controversy" is the neurotic opposition to any ownership of guns.
Here is another counter-proposal: Pass a law that everyone who opposes the individual right to own firearms must post a sign reading "No Guns in this House."
What does it mean?
Among the many problems at the TFP is the headline writing.
Often it seems the layout people haven't read the article for which they are supposed to be writing headlines -- but then more and more people in the tri-state area are not reading them.
But here is a puzzler: For what is apparently the major story (slow news day?) on Monday, 9 March, under the main head, "Saddling up for safety," is this apparently intendedly cute subhead: "Sheriff's office has 'neigh' old time with new mounted patrol."
The word is pronounced "nay," so I have no idea what is meant.
I hope someone will enlighten me.
Often it seems the layout people haven't read the article for which they are supposed to be writing headlines -- but then more and more people in the tri-state area are not reading them.
But here is a puzzler: For what is apparently the major story (slow news day?) on Monday, 9 March, under the main head, "Saddling up for safety," is this apparently intendedly cute subhead: "Sheriff's office has 'neigh' old time with new mounted patrol."
The word is pronounced "nay," so I have no idea what is meant.
I hope someone will enlighten me.
Propaganda labeled as "news"
Probably the most frequent gripe about "news" papers is that they editorialize in what are supposed to be news pages.
Here is an example in the TFP of 8 March. Headline: "Both Parties love big government -- just different programs."
It begins: Strip away the political finger-pointing over President Obama's proposed budget and the fight boils down to a clash of values. Both major parties are really for big government -- just big in different places.
Republicans say they're outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the '80s and the current decade. And they love big government -- when it's at the Pentagon.
Really there is not a thing a rational observer can criticize, except it is "analysis" and not "news," and should have been so labeled.
Unusually, in the piece there is even a comment from the relatively libertarian Cato Institute.
This article was by Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspapers.
Here is an example in the TFP of 8 March. Headline: "Both Parties love big government -- just different programs."
It begins: Strip away the political finger-pointing over President Obama's proposed budget and the fight boils down to a clash of values. Both major parties are really for big government -- just big in different places.
Republicans say they're outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the '80s and the current decade. And they love big government -- when it's at the Pentagon.
Really there is not a thing a rational observer can criticize, except it is "analysis" and not "news," and should have been so labeled.
Unusually, in the piece there is even a comment from the relatively libertarian Cato Institute.
This article was by Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspapers.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Look for this reader to stop, too
Letter-to-the-editor writer Barbara S. Arthur, of Rossville, is likely another soon to drop her subscription.
She wrote a letter titled "Article about Poe had many errors," published 23 February.
Responding to an article titled "University of the South to mark 200th Birth of 18th-Century mystery writer," published 12 February, she says, in part:
Poe was not an 18th-century mystery writer. Mystery writers in the modern sense were unknown in the 18th century and in Poe's day. In his short life, lived entirely in the 19th century, Poe invented the detective story ... Contrary to your reporter's fatuous remark, his poems and stories do not produce in the reader anything so banal as goosebumps, but, at their best, a profound sense of dread. ...
Certainly Poe did not undergo 200 births, yet this is what the headline says. Another poet, Dylan Thomas, said that after the first death, there is no other. Likewise everyone, including Poe, is born but once.
Must the reader of the newspaper point out these things, or is this the duty of the reporter and editor?
Bless her heart, she answered her own question.
She wrote a letter titled "Article about Poe had many errors," published 23 February.
Responding to an article titled "University of the South to mark 200th Birth of 18th-Century mystery writer," published 12 February, she says, in part:
Poe was not an 18th-century mystery writer. Mystery writers in the modern sense were unknown in the 18th century and in Poe's day. In his short life, lived entirely in the 19th century, Poe invented the detective story ... Contrary to your reporter's fatuous remark, his poems and stories do not produce in the reader anything so banal as goosebumps, but, at their best, a profound sense of dread. ...
Certainly Poe did not undergo 200 births, yet this is what the headline says. Another poet, Dylan Thomas, said that after the first death, there is no other. Likewise everyone, including Poe, is born but once.
Must the reader of the newspaper point out these things, or is this the duty of the reporter and editor?
Bless her heart, she answered her own question.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
TFP accomplishes amazing feat
After receiving hundreds of complaints about the TV Times' stupidly showing only Monday daytime programming under the heading "Weekday mornings Monday - Friday" and "Weekday afternoons Monday - Friday," the brilliant editors at the TFP woke up, a little, and now their listings are even more generic.
For example, for Turner Classic Movies, which shows almost nothing but movies, with an occasional documentary about movies or movie-makers, and the occasional short, including cartoons or travelogues, this is now the listing: "Movie" followed by "Varied Programs" followed by "Movie" followed by "Varied programs."
Same for American Movie Classics, for HBO, for Showtime, for ...
Well, I never would have thought it possible, but the geniuses at Chattanooga Publishing have really accomplished something: Their TV magazine is now as lacking in useful information as the front page!
For example, for Turner Classic Movies, which shows almost nothing but movies, with an occasional documentary about movies or movie-makers, and the occasional short, including cartoons or travelogues, this is now the listing: "Movie" followed by "Varied Programs" followed by "Movie" followed by "Varied programs."
Same for American Movie Classics, for HBO, for Showtime, for ...
Well, I never would have thought it possible, but the geniuses at Chattanooga Publishing have really accomplished something: Their TV magazine is now as lacking in useful information as the front page!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Paper's so bad, it infects community
On most of the nation's editorial pages, often the only intelligent, rational commentary is in the letters to the editor.
Alas, the Times Free Press is so bad, even the letters are generally irrational and unintelligent, if not just partisanly dishonest.
On Saturday, 14 February 2009, is this headline on a letter from one Pat Hagan, no community or address given, apparently with good reason: "Wamp denies health care for children."
Hagan (Mr.? Ms.?) says, "I just read where Republican Zach Wamp voted against the federal bill that expands health insurance for low-income children."
Naturally the letter rambles on and on, further denouncing Wamp, the member of Congress now running for governor.
Hagan and whichever knucklehead wrote the headline apparently can't discern the difference between another government program of -- as even Hagan wrote -- "insurance" and medical treatment.
Possibly neither the letter writer nor the headline writer is being intentionally dishonest; possibly both are just dumb.
I mean, never mind that most of the opposition to the program's expansion is based on the fact, or belief, that many more than "low-income children" would be suddenly eligible, there are other, including constitutional, reasons to oppose the bill.
Even Wamp, by no means an admirable member of Congress, and certainly no friend of the working and producing people, would actually "deny" medical care to children, or to anybody else.
Once in a while, though, even Wamp will say "no" to further federal tax waste.
It's too bad the editorial page employees have so little understanding ... or, perhaps, honesty.
Alas, the Times Free Press is so bad, even the letters are generally irrational and unintelligent, if not just partisanly dishonest.
On Saturday, 14 February 2009, is this headline on a letter from one Pat Hagan, no community or address given, apparently with good reason: "Wamp denies health care for children."
Hagan (Mr.? Ms.?) says, "I just read where Republican Zach Wamp voted against the federal bill that expands health insurance for low-income children."
Naturally the letter rambles on and on, further denouncing Wamp, the member of Congress now running for governor.
Hagan and whichever knucklehead wrote the headline apparently can't discern the difference between another government program of -- as even Hagan wrote -- "insurance" and medical treatment.
Possibly neither the letter writer nor the headline writer is being intentionally dishonest; possibly both are just dumb.
I mean, never mind that most of the opposition to the program's expansion is based on the fact, or belief, that many more than "low-income children" would be suddenly eligible, there are other, including constitutional, reasons to oppose the bill.
Even Wamp, by no means an admirable member of Congress, and certainly no friend of the working and producing people, would actually "deny" medical care to children, or to anybody else.
Once in a while, though, even Wamp will say "no" to further federal tax waste.
It's too bad the editorial page employees have so little understanding ... or, perhaps, honesty.
Can't spell, sure, but can't count?
Headline: "4 stations to begin digital broadcasts Tuesday." That's the front page of the Metro & Region section of Saturday, 14 February 2009.
In the article, we see this: "Switching on Tuesday, WTCI, Channel 45, WDEF, Channel 12."
I've counted it several times to be sure and every time it comes out two.
I don't know if the "editors" can't count, or if they, like a growing number of other people in this area, just don't read the paper.
In the article, we see this: "Switching on Tuesday, WTCI, Channel 45, WDEF, Channel 12."
I've counted it several times to be sure and every time it comes out two.
I don't know if the "editors" can't count, or if they, like a growing number of other people in this area, just don't read the paper.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
More on the TV magazine
Lest anyone dare to think my criticism of the Times Free Press is mere nitpicking, let me point out one more example of the lack of care, the lack of thought in the TV magazine, which is named TV Times.
Each week there is some quiz titled "TV Trivia Questions."
Here is a sample: "In Terminator 3 who played the role of the killer cyborg?" Three possible answers are given ... right next to a photo of Kristanna Luken.
In the current issue (1-7 Feb. 2008), the question is "What film star was a former all-star point guard, fashion model and apeared on Ugly Betty (a) Gabrielle Union (b) Lindsay Lohan (c) Heather Tom (sic)"
No punctuation. And right next to it is a photo of Gabrielle Union.
Yep, a real brain-stretcher.
The real quiz is, How can one publication be so slovenly?
Each week there is some quiz titled "TV Trivia Questions."
Here is a sample: "In Terminator 3 who played the role of the killer cyborg?" Three possible answers are given ... right next to a photo of Kristanna Luken.
In the current issue (1-7 Feb. 2008), the question is "What film star was a former all-star point guard, fashion model and apeared on Ugly Betty (a) Gabrielle Union (b) Lindsay Lohan (c) Heather Tom (sic)"
No punctuation. And right next to it is a photo of Gabrielle Union.
Yep, a real brain-stretcher.
The real quiz is, How can one publication be so slovenly?
... and further ... and wider
There is an old story about the parents of a horrible child discussing buying their little hellion a bicycle. Mama asks, “Do you think it will improve his behavior?” Daddy replies, “No, but it will spread it around further.”
Perhaps that is the thinking behind Chattanooga Publishing's decision to create still another publication, this one a slick monthly called “Chatter.”
It is, of course, generally inane, with almost no worthwhile content (though of course that is really subjective).
There is a cover price on the February edition, but that apparently is just a joke, or perhaps someone is being hopeful. Chatter is found in free boxes around the area.
Alas, Chatter is just another example of the company's total lack of quality control.
Articles will have a beginning single quote mark (‘) rather than an apostrophe (’), which is the result of one or both of two problems: No one reads the stuff before it is printed, or no one cares … or possibly no one understands the difference.
Worse, in the January edition is an article about a couple who moved from Michigan to open a shotgun club in the area. Looking at the big photo of the two firing their shotguns, I thought, “Gee, they’re both left-handed.”
Well, no, they’re not. Some non-thinker, or non-carer, flopped the photo.
Pictures further into the article show they’re both right-handed.
The Table of Contents says the article begins on Page 26, but it doesn't: It begins on Page 44. Very careless, and further evidence of no quality control.
A naggy article about “calorie-laden dishes” says of fettuccini Alfredo “there’s nothing remotely healthy about it.”
Uh, no, of course not: It’s dead or no one would try to eat it.
However, just as with the rest of the mis-educated writers at Chattanooga Publishing, the writer does not know that “healthy” means “having health” and what was meant was “healthful,” which means “giving health.”
Reading the daily or weekly or monthly publications from Chattanooga Publishing is, more than fettuccini Alfredo, very dangerous to one’s health, including, perhaps especially, one's blood pressure and digestion.
(By the way, "fettuccini" is usually spelled "fettuccine," but other spellings are listed as acceptable.)
Perhaps that is the thinking behind Chattanooga Publishing's decision to create still another publication, this one a slick monthly called “Chatter.”
It is, of course, generally inane, with almost no worthwhile content (though of course that is really subjective).
There is a cover price on the February edition, but that apparently is just a joke, or perhaps someone is being hopeful. Chatter is found in free boxes around the area.
Alas, Chatter is just another example of the company's total lack of quality control.
Articles will have a beginning single quote mark (‘) rather than an apostrophe (’), which is the result of one or both of two problems: No one reads the stuff before it is printed, or no one cares … or possibly no one understands the difference.
Worse, in the January edition is an article about a couple who moved from Michigan to open a shotgun club in the area. Looking at the big photo of the two firing their shotguns, I thought, “Gee, they’re both left-handed.”
Well, no, they’re not. Some non-thinker, or non-carer, flopped the photo.
Pictures further into the article show they’re both right-handed.
The Table of Contents says the article begins on Page 26, but it doesn't: It begins on Page 44. Very careless, and further evidence of no quality control.
A naggy article about “calorie-laden dishes” says of fettuccini Alfredo “there’s nothing remotely healthy about it.”
Uh, no, of course not: It’s dead or no one would try to eat it.
However, just as with the rest of the mis-educated writers at Chattanooga Publishing, the writer does not know that “healthy” means “having health” and what was meant was “healthful,” which means “giving health.”
Reading the daily or weekly or monthly publications from Chattanooga Publishing is, more than fettuccini Alfredo, very dangerous to one’s health, including, perhaps especially, one's blood pressure and digestion.
(By the way, "fettuccini" is usually spelled "fettuccine," but other spellings are listed as acceptable.)
Monday, February 02, 2009
Believe it or not, TFP deteriorates further
Sunday circulation of most papers rises because readers want the TV magazine (sad to say, too often mis-called "the TV guide").
Readers get the Sunday ads, the coupons, and the color funnies (the best part of any paper) for their money, so apparently see the Sunday paper as a better deal than the actual TV Guide magazine, whose sole purpose is to outline the coming week's programming.
Compared to other such TV magazines in the area, the TFP's was rather well laid out, although its movie listings and descriptions usually omitted the very movies I wanted to know about (possibly not on purpose ... but who knows?).
As of 1 February, though, the magazine has deteriorated even further. Rather than a full day's listing, it now tries to consolidate the daytime listings, apparently under the delusion that daytime programming is the same Monday through Friday.
So the premiere issue of the new magazine has page 14 labeled "Weekday Mornings, Monday Feb. 2 - Friday Feb. 6" and there is, sure enough, the listings for Monday, including TCM and AMC movies ... but nary a word, anywhere in the rag, as to what will be playing the rest of the week.
Obviously, quality control is an unknown concept at the TFP.
Here's another example of the lack of attention by the "editors" and other people who really ought to be paying attention to what goes into the TFP pages: Each week, on the last page of the listings, right above the Saturday Late Night schedule, is a box labeled (though in my opinion mis-labeled) "late nite laughs."
For this Feb. 7 page, here is one of the supposed laughs, from a routine by Jay Leno: "Now the real pressure is on. He only has three days left to respond to Hurricane Katrina."
This is WEEKS after the coronation, and the TFP is still printing would-be jokes about President Bush.
Whoever chooses this stuff is terribly humor-challenged anyway, but surely someone could train the person to pay a little attention to a calendar.
Perhaps, though, calendars have just bypassed the TFP completely, and it will soon go the way of the dodo, which its editors rather resemble.
Readers get the Sunday ads, the coupons, and the color funnies (the best part of any paper) for their money, so apparently see the Sunday paper as a better deal than the actual TV Guide magazine, whose sole purpose is to outline the coming week's programming.
Compared to other such TV magazines in the area, the TFP's was rather well laid out, although its movie listings and descriptions usually omitted the very movies I wanted to know about (possibly not on purpose ... but who knows?).
As of 1 February, though, the magazine has deteriorated even further. Rather than a full day's listing, it now tries to consolidate the daytime listings, apparently under the delusion that daytime programming is the same Monday through Friday.
So the premiere issue of the new magazine has page 14 labeled "Weekday Mornings, Monday Feb. 2 - Friday Feb. 6" and there is, sure enough, the listings for Monday, including TCM and AMC movies ... but nary a word, anywhere in the rag, as to what will be playing the rest of the week.
Obviously, quality control is an unknown concept at the TFP.
Here's another example of the lack of attention by the "editors" and other people who really ought to be paying attention to what goes into the TFP pages: Each week, on the last page of the listings, right above the Saturday Late Night schedule, is a box labeled (though in my opinion mis-labeled) "late nite laughs."
For this Feb. 7 page, here is one of the supposed laughs, from a routine by Jay Leno: "Now the real pressure is on. He only has three days left to respond to Hurricane Katrina."
This is WEEKS after the coronation, and the TFP is still printing would-be jokes about President Bush.
Whoever chooses this stuff is terribly humor-challenged anyway, but surely someone could train the person to pay a little attention to a calendar.
Perhaps, though, calendars have just bypassed the TFP completely, and it will soon go the way of the dodo, which its editors rather resemble.
Times Free Press furthers cause of racism
Back in the bad old days, Lee Anderson, then editor of the Chattanooga News-Free Press, was -- sad to say -- a segregationist.
I believe he's grown up since then.
Unfortunately the "news" paper with which he is now affiliated continues to disseminate racist propaganda.
My guess is it's the same people who fill up the Times side of the editorial section who force the racist garbage of Leonard Pitts, Jr., onto the Sunday pages.
Now to give the devil his due, Pitts did, around the time of the coronation, caution Obamaniacs not to get too carried away with the worship of Abraham Lincoln, and not to draw a direct line of succession from Lincoln to Obama, citing Lincoln's oft-stated belief blacks could never be equal to whites, could not live with them, and certainly could not rule over them.
But usually Pitts is the kind of columnist who would find something "racist" in so innocuous a statement as "the sun rises in the east."
Pitts has now jumped on the bandwagon trying to silence Rush Limbaugh (see below) for his "I hope he fails" comment.
I'd be willing to bet that Pitts never hears Rush's show, and I'd double the bet he didn't hear that particular comment.
The intellectual level of Pitts' diatribe is illustrated by his frequent use of the word "clown" to describe Rush and, apparently, conservatives generally.
Pitts is, obviously, angry, and he is, apparently, not very sane.
All of which brings into question the sanity, or the honesty, of the "editors" who propagate the ... well, at least inaccuracy of such screechiness as Pitts'.
Why would this excuse of a paper, just a few weeks after publisher Griscom swore up and down he wanted "truth" (sic) in his paper, waste the precious lives of trees to print the ranting of an obsessive racist such as Leonard Pitts, Jr.?
I believe he's grown up since then.
Unfortunately the "news" paper with which he is now affiliated continues to disseminate racist propaganda.
My guess is it's the same people who fill up the Times side of the editorial section who force the racist garbage of Leonard Pitts, Jr., onto the Sunday pages.
Now to give the devil his due, Pitts did, around the time of the coronation, caution Obamaniacs not to get too carried away with the worship of Abraham Lincoln, and not to draw a direct line of succession from Lincoln to Obama, citing Lincoln's oft-stated belief blacks could never be equal to whites, could not live with them, and certainly could not rule over them.
But usually Pitts is the kind of columnist who would find something "racist" in so innocuous a statement as "the sun rises in the east."
Pitts has now jumped on the bandwagon trying to silence Rush Limbaugh (see below) for his "I hope he fails" comment.
I'd be willing to bet that Pitts never hears Rush's show, and I'd double the bet he didn't hear that particular comment.
The intellectual level of Pitts' diatribe is illustrated by his frequent use of the word "clown" to describe Rush and, apparently, conservatives generally.
Pitts is, obviously, angry, and he is, apparently, not very sane.
All of which brings into question the sanity, or the honesty, of the "editors" who propagate the ... well, at least inaccuracy of such screechiness as Pitts'.
Why would this excuse of a paper, just a few weeks after publisher Griscom swore up and down he wanted "truth" (sic) in his paper, waste the precious lives of trees to print the ranting of an obsessive racist such as Leonard Pitts, Jr.?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
More untruths delivered by the "editors"
Among the many disservices "news" papers perform is the dissemination of untruths, falsehoods, and inaccuracies.
During the dark days of the Clinton presidency, one of his female victims was further victimized by a sleazy ex-boyfriend, who sold the poor woman's photo (in a nude pose) to one of the porn magazines ... which magazine, of course, defended and loved Bill Clinton.
The "news" paper in Dallas published a letter to the editor in which was the statement that the poor woman had posed for the magazine, an allegation already in the news as being false. In fact, the woman had filed suit to prevent the porn rag from printing her photo, but the court -- and remember it was the Clinton era -- ruled against her.
(That poor woman sure did have bad luck in the men with whom she was acquainted, sleazebags of the worst kind.)
The paper knew -- had to have known -- the statement was false, but printed it anyway.
The Chattanooga Times has followed docilely along in that tradition, though in a less offensive matter: It published a letter, Wednesday, 28 January, from one Walter M. Benton of Signal Mountain, titled "Right-wing dogma spreads falsehoods" (boy, talk about pot calling kettle ...), in which is this paragraph:
"When asked about President Obama, Limbaugh said, 'I hope he fails!' This statement is undoubtedly the vilest line that any radio or TV 'personality' could state! Think about it! This is our country!(sic)" (And that many exclamation points indicates a limited intelligence.)
Though Rush Limbaugh is hardly our favorite political philosopher, even he deserves to be treated fairly. By an odd coincidence I happened to hear the segment of his program in which he made that comment.
The context was, if (or since) Obama's plan is to increase big government and lessen individual freedom, "I hope he fails."
And that is a perfectly rational position.
And a perfectly American position.
In the next day's paper, on the Free Press side, letter writer Ben M. Wolk, of Fort Oglethorpe, responded, his letter being titled "Limbaugh comment taken out of context."
Mr. Wolk made two statements I want to repeat: "If President Obama ever promotes individual freedoms and marketplace solutions, I will happily support him" and "Secondhand information is seldom reliable."
The so-called "news" media have made a scarecrow and strawman out of Rush, using and mis-using him to scare their lock-step followers (who must be dying off or getting intelligent, since newspaper circulation is falling steeply) and trying to portray him as some kind of bell-wether, at least for the Republican Party or the conservative bloc.
Rush might not be, despite his book title, always, or even often, right, but he is at least as honest and reliable as the "news" media, and probably much more so than the Times Free Press.
During the dark days of the Clinton presidency, one of his female victims was further victimized by a sleazy ex-boyfriend, who sold the poor woman's photo (in a nude pose) to one of the porn magazines ... which magazine, of course, defended and loved Bill Clinton.
The "news" paper in Dallas published a letter to the editor in which was the statement that the poor woman had posed for the magazine, an allegation already in the news as being false. In fact, the woman had filed suit to prevent the porn rag from printing her photo, but the court -- and remember it was the Clinton era -- ruled against her.
(That poor woman sure did have bad luck in the men with whom she was acquainted, sleazebags of the worst kind.)
The paper knew -- had to have known -- the statement was false, but printed it anyway.
The Chattanooga Times has followed docilely along in that tradition, though in a less offensive matter: It published a letter, Wednesday, 28 January, from one Walter M. Benton of Signal Mountain, titled "Right-wing dogma spreads falsehoods" (boy, talk about pot calling kettle ...), in which is this paragraph:
"When asked about President Obama, Limbaugh said, 'I hope he fails!' This statement is undoubtedly the vilest line that any radio or TV 'personality' could state! Think about it! This is our country!(sic)" (And that many exclamation points indicates a limited intelligence.)
Though Rush Limbaugh is hardly our favorite political philosopher, even he deserves to be treated fairly. By an odd coincidence I happened to hear the segment of his program in which he made that comment.
The context was, if (or since) Obama's plan is to increase big government and lessen individual freedom, "I hope he fails."
And that is a perfectly rational position.
And a perfectly American position.
In the next day's paper, on the Free Press side, letter writer Ben M. Wolk, of Fort Oglethorpe, responded, his letter being titled "Limbaugh comment taken out of context."
Mr. Wolk made two statements I want to repeat: "If President Obama ever promotes individual freedoms and marketplace solutions, I will happily support him" and "Secondhand information is seldom reliable."
The so-called "news" media have made a scarecrow and strawman out of Rush, using and mis-using him to scare their lock-step followers (who must be dying off or getting intelligent, since newspaper circulation is falling steeply) and trying to portray him as some kind of bell-wether, at least for the Republican Party or the conservative bloc.
Rush might not be, despite his book title, always, or even often, right, but he is at least as honest and reliable as the "news" media, and probably much more so than the Times Free Press.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Licking the boots that soon will be kicking 'em
Not to be outdone by the national "news" media, the Times Free Press has almost wet itself in oohing and ahing about the recently crowned "leader of the free world" (which will almost certainly be less free if his party has its way).
Here is just one example of partisan headline writing, from the front page of the Wednesday, 21 January 2008, edition: All agree, it's time for a change.
The first sentence: "The energy of President Barack Obama's inauguration rippled through Chattanooga on Tuesday as people around the city sat glued to televisions, witnessing history in the making."
Urp.
Being a "news" outlet, naturally the next paragraph is racial: "Black elderly residents wept ..."
Actually, a lot of people, of various races and creeds and colors, wept, threw up, snarled, and even drank, less at the sight of Barack Obama being sworn in than at the disgusting display of slavish sycophanting (and if there ain't such a word, there oughta be) by the media.
Here is just one example of partisan headline writing, from the front page of the Wednesday, 21 January 2008, edition: All agree, it's time for a change.
The first sentence: "The energy of President Barack Obama's inauguration rippled through Chattanooga on Tuesday as people around the city sat glued to televisions, witnessing history in the making."
Urp.
Being a "news" outlet, naturally the next paragraph is racial: "Black elderly residents wept ..."
Actually, a lot of people, of various races and creeds and colors, wept, threw up, snarled, and even drank, less at the sight of Barack Obama being sworn in than at the disgusting display of slavish sycophanting (and if there ain't such a word, there oughta be) by the media.
Picture worth many thousands of words
Mallard Fillmore is a rarity: a non-left-leaning journalist.
If you're not familiar with him, here is an excellent example:
If you're not familiar with him, here is an excellent example:
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thinking about the Electoral Elementary School
Fifth-grader Olivia Samples probably ought to sue her school and perhaps all its teachers.
Poor Olivia was allowed to display her mis-education on the editorial page of the Free Press Saturday, 22 Nov. 2008, in a letter headlined "Electoral College isn't fair process."
Being in the fifth grade, she can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding the "process," but her school and, indeed, the entire mis-called "education" system are to be condemned for not teaching Olivia and all the other students just why there is such an institution as the Electoral College.
This is why: When the 13 colonies rebelled against tyrannical King George, they won and became 13 sovereign states.
Those states formed a confederation, but remained sovereign.
A faction decided the confederation wasn't working well enough (to suit them, anyway) so they met in Philadelphia and wrote a constitution, the Constitution, for a union of those sovereign states.
In order to get all 13 to go along, several compromises were agreed to, including the bicameral legislature and an (almost fatal and far less forgivable) acceptance of chattel slavery.
The Founders had a well-founded fear of democracy, and their fears were proven sound in the last presidential election (as well, come to think of it, as most of the ones before that).
They rightly feared that individuals might well vote for someone likable rather than someone capable, for someone personable rather than for someone knowledgeable of the Constitution.
Checks and balances was the approach, and among those was a filtering system for electing people to the United States Senate: Those senators were to be chosen by the legislatures of the respective states rather than directly by the people.
Also rightly fearing a centralized government, the Founders -- and remember they were organizing a union of sovereign states -- created a method of having the states directly, rather than the people directly, electing the chief executive officer, the president.
Each state would send a delegation of Electors to pick the president and vice president; and those Electors would be chosen by the people in the respective states.
Today, partly because of miserable "news" media and partly because of terrible "education" systems, people don't know and/or don't understand why there is an Electoral College.
Others, who might well understand the why, really don't like the checks and balances and want a system more vulnerable to demagoguery.
There is a movement under way to change that system, to elect the president directly by a popular vote.
Naturally, most of the success of that movement is in those states themselves susceptible to demagoguery, such as New York and California and Massachusetts.
Petr Beckmann said, in his book on "The History of Pi," that in battles between thugs and thinkers, thugs always win, but thinkers always outlast them.
Thugs might well get a democracy, but you thinkers will be around longer.
Poor Olivia was allowed to display her mis-education on the editorial page of the Free Press Saturday, 22 Nov. 2008, in a letter headlined "Electoral College isn't fair process."
Being in the fifth grade, she can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding the "process," but her school and, indeed, the entire mis-called "education" system are to be condemned for not teaching Olivia and all the other students just why there is such an institution as the Electoral College.
This is why: When the 13 colonies rebelled against tyrannical King George, they won and became 13 sovereign states.
Those states formed a confederation, but remained sovereign.
A faction decided the confederation wasn't working well enough (to suit them, anyway) so they met in Philadelphia and wrote a constitution, the Constitution, for a union of those sovereign states.
In order to get all 13 to go along, several compromises were agreed to, including the bicameral legislature and an (almost fatal and far less forgivable) acceptance of chattel slavery.
The Founders had a well-founded fear of democracy, and their fears were proven sound in the last presidential election (as well, come to think of it, as most of the ones before that).
They rightly feared that individuals might well vote for someone likable rather than someone capable, for someone personable rather than for someone knowledgeable of the Constitution.
Checks and balances was the approach, and among those was a filtering system for electing people to the United States Senate: Those senators were to be chosen by the legislatures of the respective states rather than directly by the people.
Also rightly fearing a centralized government, the Founders -- and remember they were organizing a union of sovereign states -- created a method of having the states directly, rather than the people directly, electing the chief executive officer, the president.
Each state would send a delegation of Electors to pick the president and vice president; and those Electors would be chosen by the people in the respective states.
Today, partly because of miserable "news" media and partly because of terrible "education" systems, people don't know and/or don't understand why there is an Electoral College.
Others, who might well understand the why, really don't like the checks and balances and want a system more vulnerable to demagoguery.
There is a movement under way to change that system, to elect the president directly by a popular vote.
Naturally, most of the success of that movement is in those states themselves susceptible to demagoguery, such as New York and California and Massachusetts.
Petr Beckmann said, in his book on "The History of Pi," that in battles between thugs and thinkers, thugs always win, but thinkers always outlast them.
Thugs might well get a democracy, but you thinkers will be around longer.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Funny and talented John Trever
John Trever is one of the most intelligent and talented editorial cartoonists in the world. Ever.
His home base is the Albuquerque Journal, once a fair-to-middling paper but now having almost no value beyond Mr. Trever.
His cartoons are syndicated and on 30 Oct. 2008, the Free Press has his cartoon captioned "Barack Obama, the early years."
On a homeowner's porch is a gang of kids in various costumes, all saying "trick or treat," except one little boy in an archer's outfit, complete with feathered hat, saying "spread the wealth."
Actually, I've always seen Halloween as a Democrat holiday, with the offspring of Dr. Spock and the '60s protests demanding and expecting someone -- ANYone -- to hand over the goodies, just because the kids want them.
"Spread the wealth" seems to perfectly appropriate, completely in keeping with the spirit of the day, or night.
But this link leads to Trever cartoons, always a delight: http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/trever.asp
His home base is the Albuquerque Journal, once a fair-to-middling paper but now having almost no value beyond Mr. Trever.
His cartoons are syndicated and on 30 Oct. 2008, the Free Press has his cartoon captioned "Barack Obama, the early years."
On a homeowner's porch is a gang of kids in various costumes, all saying "trick or treat," except one little boy in an archer's outfit, complete with feathered hat, saying "spread the wealth."
Actually, I've always seen Halloween as a Democrat holiday, with the offspring of Dr. Spock and the '60s protests demanding and expecting someone -- ANYone -- to hand over the goodies, just because the kids want them.
"Spread the wealth" seems to perfectly appropriate, completely in keeping with the spirit of the day, or night.
But this link leads to Trever cartoons, always a delight: http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/trever.asp
More leftist mean-spiritedness
After the former cartoonist Bruce Plante moved west (poor Oklahoma), the editorial page of the Times searched low and lower to find just the meanness of spirit to complement the rest of the dull but nasty editorial page.
The search was successful and the new cartoonist is one Clay Bennett.
Artistically, he is fairly talented.
Alas, his philosophical training must have stopped at kindergarten.
His cartoon of Thursday, 30 Oct. 2008, shows an apparent young person (but whose face seems that of someone 30 or older) looking at a book titled "Sharing Is Fun."
The caption is "Socialists!"
I remember an editor during my brief college journalism days who raised his eyebrows at my pejorative use of the word "socialism" and said, "I don't believe there's anything wrong with helping people."
Of course, he meant "helping people" with someone else's money or life or property.
Strictly, socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Interestingly, the McCain-Palin campaign is using, or misusing, the term in regard to the Obama-Biden campaign.
Actually, Obama is a welfare-state fascist, not a socialist.
Bennett, though, is probably some kind of fascist (judging from his cartoons, and why else would he be at the Times?), and certainly a hate-monger.
His cartoons, usually well drawn, with lots of detail and color, might seem more suited to some rag like the Nation or People's World or Daily Worker than a daily newspaper.
Yet he is right at home in the editorial page of the Chattanooga Times.
Some of his work is available at http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/cartoons/
The search was successful and the new cartoonist is one Clay Bennett.
Artistically, he is fairly talented.
Alas, his philosophical training must have stopped at kindergarten.
His cartoon of Thursday, 30 Oct. 2008, shows an apparent young person (but whose face seems that of someone 30 or older) looking at a book titled "Sharing Is Fun."
The caption is "Socialists!"
I remember an editor during my brief college journalism days who raised his eyebrows at my pejorative use of the word "socialism" and said, "I don't believe there's anything wrong with helping people."
Of course, he meant "helping people" with someone else's money or life or property.
Strictly, socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Interestingly, the McCain-Palin campaign is using, or misusing, the term in regard to the Obama-Biden campaign.
Actually, Obama is a welfare-state fascist, not a socialist.
Bennett, though, is probably some kind of fascist (judging from his cartoons, and why else would he be at the Times?), and certainly a hate-monger.
His cartoons, usually well drawn, with lots of detail and color, might seem more suited to some rag like the Nation or People's World or Daily Worker than a daily newspaper.
Yet he is right at home in the editorial page of the Chattanooga Times.
Some of his work is available at http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/cartoons/
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Pot calls kettle ... again
Free Press editor Lee Anderson wrote on 18 October 2008 an editorial titled "When government rigs elections."
His point, in sum, was "Outrageous injustice occurs when politicians rig election district lines to assure certain partisan results."
He claimed that, for example, North Carolina has “rigged” election districts to ensure that blacks make up a majority of certain districts to elect black candidates.
He said, too, that the N.C. politicians have gone further, rigging districts to ensure Democrats are elected.
It's very serpentine, how they do that, and Mr. Anderson is rightly offended.
But if rigging elections is bad, then the so-called "news" media are also to be condemned, and especially so is the Times Free Press.
In Tennessee, there are six other presidential candidates on the ballot besides McCain and Obama.
Tennessee's election laws are so oppressive and repressive, downright fascistic, in fact, that no other parties are allowed on the ballot; however candidates, even party nominees, can be listed, but only as "independents."
Among other things, this means no news coverage.
In fact, recently the TFP did publish a story about the "other" candidates, but stuck the story on the Metro page, where the local stories are printed.
Now, try to follow: This is about the national presidential race, but the story is stuck way back with the local PTA meetings and United Fund teas.
(This isn't unusual. In 2004, the Libertarian Party national convention was held in Atlanta and that event was treated as a local story by the Atlanta Communistution and the daily in Lawrenceville; that same year, three LP candidates came to Chattanooga as part of the drive for the LP nomination and that too was put on the local page -- although it was amazing that it was even covered, considering the poor quality of the TFP.)
If ignoring other options, if denying voters knowledge of other choices (see post below) does not contribute to election rigging, well, what else can it be called?
I guess "rigging" is when Democrats do it, but a Republican editor and a miserable excuse for a "news" paper are allowed to skew elections.
His point, in sum, was "Outrageous injustice occurs when politicians rig election district lines to assure certain partisan results."
He claimed that, for example, North Carolina has “rigged” election districts to ensure that blacks make up a majority of certain districts to elect black candidates.
He said, too, that the N.C. politicians have gone further, rigging districts to ensure Democrats are elected.
It's very serpentine, how they do that, and Mr. Anderson is rightly offended.
But if rigging elections is bad, then the so-called "news" media are also to be condemned, and especially so is the Times Free Press.
In Tennessee, there are six other presidential candidates on the ballot besides McCain and Obama.
Tennessee's election laws are so oppressive and repressive, downright fascistic, in fact, that no other parties are allowed on the ballot; however candidates, even party nominees, can be listed, but only as "independents."
Among other things, this means no news coverage.
In fact, recently the TFP did publish a story about the "other" candidates, but stuck the story on the Metro page, where the local stories are printed.
Now, try to follow: This is about the national presidential race, but the story is stuck way back with the local PTA meetings and United Fund teas.
(This isn't unusual. In 2004, the Libertarian Party national convention was held in Atlanta and that event was treated as a local story by the Atlanta Communistution and the daily in Lawrenceville; that same year, three LP candidates came to Chattanooga as part of the drive for the LP nomination and that too was put on the local page -- although it was amazing that it was even covered, considering the poor quality of the TFP.)
If ignoring other options, if denying voters knowledge of other choices (see post below) does not contribute to election rigging, well, what else can it be called?
I guess "rigging" is when Democrats do it, but a Republican editor and a miserable excuse for a "news" paper are allowed to skew elections.
Friday, October 24, 2008
What is truth? asked Pilate
You’ve probably heard the story of the boy who murdered his parents, then begged for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.
That’s usually portrayed as the perfect illustration and very definition of “ultimate gall.”
Here is another example: The publisher of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tom Griscom, writing his weekly column, published 31 August 2008, said this:
News consumers have, especially this election year, come to expect partisanship and downright dishonesty in their “news” coverage. But the Times Free Press set some kind of standard in its “coverage” of the 2006 campaign for the Third District congressional seat.
Incumbent Zach Wamp is one of the …, what, hypocrites? elected in 1994 who supported term limits. Until he got elected.
In truth, advocates of limited government and lower taxes didn’t have a lot to complain of in his first couple terms but, as so often happens, the longer he was subjected to the virus of “inside-the-Beltway-itis,” the sicker he got.
Now Wamp is considered a veritable “Prince of Pork,” following in the steps of West Virginia’s Sen. Robert Byrd.
Opposition to Wamp has been limited. One local attorney, wacky John Wolfe, tried twice to unseat him, and he got something like 20 to 30 percent of the vote.
In 2006, though, with public opinion turning against the Iraq war, Democrats thought they had a chance and a far-leftist named Terry Stulce was anointed to run.
Party leadership (using the term loosely) did not, though, reckon on a maverick named Brent Benedict.
Benedict announced his entry … and was promptly ignored.
Stulce got thousands of dollars of contributions, Benedict hundreds.
He called himself a “conservative Democrat,” which didn’t help with the machine politicians who led the party.
Benedict sent out many news releases, through his volunteer Press Coordinator, yours truly. Nary a one got printed, especially not by the Times Free Press.
In fact, when Benedict phoned or e-mailed or even made a personal visit, he was never answered, despite leaving multiple phone numbers and an e-mail address and a Web site.
Free Press editor Lee Anderson, being pretty much of a gentleman, did interview him, but made no endorsement, or even comment, in the Democrat primary.
Times editorializers pretended, in fact claimed, they never got any message from him, and besides were not able to reach him.
The Times editorially endorsed Stulce, saying he had “only token opposition,” and never even mentioned the name of Brent Benedict.
And the “news” pages continued the blackout, never mentioning Brent Benedict, never even discussing the congressional race.
The letters-to-the-editor section continued the blackout, never allowing mention of Brent Benedict, never printing even one letter endorsing him. We know there were some sent because we know at least some of the people who wrote such letters.
Lies come in several sizes and shapes.
One type of lie, especially for a “news” medium, is the ignoring of a fact it doesn’t want its consumers to know.
Brent Benedict’s name and campaign were never mentioned in the shameful excuse of a “news” paper.
Until the day before the Thursday vote.
Then on the sample ballot, brief mention was made; it was finally admitted that, yes, there was another candidate than Terry Stulce, one Brett (sic) Benedict.
The Friday paper, the one for the morning after the primary vote, hit the presses probably about midnight and the headline, actually a sub-head, announced Stulce had won.
The story said the “official” (sic) returns showed Stulce had defeated … Bruce (sic) Benedict.
Not true.
Since the Third District is strongly Republican, the Democrat turnout was not great, but the margin of victory for Brent Benedict was, relatively, substantial. Benedict won every county except Hamilton, wherein sits Chattanooga and the raggedy Times Free Press.
Admitting to egg on their faces, the Times Free Press published a story next day admitting that the now “unofficial” (funny how that happened) returns showed, yes, Brent Benedict had won.
Brent told me he made sure he was courteous and friendly to the reporter, but the reporter still got most of the story wrong as to what Benedict believed.
The miserable excuse of a “news” paper continued with the same tactics during the general election campaign, and pretty much ignored Benedict’s efforts. (He still got the highest losing percentage of any Wamp opponents.)
In the intervening two years, I have tried to talk with and to as many election news reporters as I could reach.
Because of what they said, I had to promise confidentiality, so no names will be mentioned, not even those of the people who said I could quote them.
Some of them have left the company, at least one saying this was the reason.
Essentially, the story is this: From on top, word came down not to mention Brent Benedict.
I repeat, the word came from the top, possibly but not certainly from Tom Griscom.
It might be a long time before, it might be never that we learn the truth.
But it is just one more example of the obscene dishonesty that permeates the entire “news” industry, and it certainly illustrates the perfidious dishonesty that masquerades as the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
That’s usually portrayed as the perfect illustration and very definition of “ultimate gall.”
Here is another example: The publisher of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tom Griscom, writing his weekly column, published 31 August 2008, said this:
A short set of rules applies in our newsroom:
· Tell the truth.
This should be apparent but read a week’s worth of newspapers and make a list of stories that are the result of someone shading the truth.
· Tell the truth.
This should be apparent but read a week’s worth of newspapers and make a list of stories that are the result of someone shading the truth.
News consumers have, especially this election year, come to expect partisanship and downright dishonesty in their “news” coverage. But the Times Free Press set some kind of standard in its “coverage” of the 2006 campaign for the Third District congressional seat.
Incumbent Zach Wamp is one of the …, what, hypocrites? elected in 1994 who supported term limits. Until he got elected.
In truth, advocates of limited government and lower taxes didn’t have a lot to complain of in his first couple terms but, as so often happens, the longer he was subjected to the virus of “inside-the-Beltway-itis,” the sicker he got.
Now Wamp is considered a veritable “Prince of Pork,” following in the steps of West Virginia’s Sen. Robert Byrd.
Opposition to Wamp has been limited. One local attorney, wacky John Wolfe, tried twice to unseat him, and he got something like 20 to 30 percent of the vote.
In 2006, though, with public opinion turning against the Iraq war, Democrats thought they had a chance and a far-leftist named Terry Stulce was anointed to run.
Party leadership (using the term loosely) did not, though, reckon on a maverick named Brent Benedict.
Benedict announced his entry … and was promptly ignored.
Stulce got thousands of dollars of contributions, Benedict hundreds.
He called himself a “conservative Democrat,” which didn’t help with the machine politicians who led the party.
Benedict sent out many news releases, through his volunteer Press Coordinator, yours truly. Nary a one got printed, especially not by the Times Free Press.
In fact, when Benedict phoned or e-mailed or even made a personal visit, he was never answered, despite leaving multiple phone numbers and an e-mail address and a Web site.
Free Press editor Lee Anderson, being pretty much of a gentleman, did interview him, but made no endorsement, or even comment, in the Democrat primary.
Times editorializers pretended, in fact claimed, they never got any message from him, and besides were not able to reach him.
The Times editorially endorsed Stulce, saying he had “only token opposition,” and never even mentioned the name of Brent Benedict.
And the “news” pages continued the blackout, never mentioning Brent Benedict, never even discussing the congressional race.
The letters-to-the-editor section continued the blackout, never allowing mention of Brent Benedict, never printing even one letter endorsing him. We know there were some sent because we know at least some of the people who wrote such letters.
Lies come in several sizes and shapes.
One type of lie, especially for a “news” medium, is the ignoring of a fact it doesn’t want its consumers to know.
Brent Benedict’s name and campaign were never mentioned in the shameful excuse of a “news” paper.
Until the day before the Thursday vote.
Then on the sample ballot, brief mention was made; it was finally admitted that, yes, there was another candidate than Terry Stulce, one Brett (sic) Benedict.
The Friday paper, the one for the morning after the primary vote, hit the presses probably about midnight and the headline, actually a sub-head, announced Stulce had won.
The story said the “official” (sic) returns showed Stulce had defeated … Bruce (sic) Benedict.
Not true.
Since the Third District is strongly Republican, the Democrat turnout was not great, but the margin of victory for Brent Benedict was, relatively, substantial. Benedict won every county except Hamilton, wherein sits Chattanooga and the raggedy Times Free Press.
Admitting to egg on their faces, the Times Free Press published a story next day admitting that the now “unofficial” (funny how that happened) returns showed, yes, Brent Benedict had won.
Brent told me he made sure he was courteous and friendly to the reporter, but the reporter still got most of the story wrong as to what Benedict believed.
The miserable excuse of a “news” paper continued with the same tactics during the general election campaign, and pretty much ignored Benedict’s efforts. (He still got the highest losing percentage of any Wamp opponents.)
In the intervening two years, I have tried to talk with and to as many election news reporters as I could reach.
Because of what they said, I had to promise confidentiality, so no names will be mentioned, not even those of the people who said I could quote them.
Some of them have left the company, at least one saying this was the reason.
Essentially, the story is this: From on top, word came down not to mention Brent Benedict.
I repeat, the word came from the top, possibly but not certainly from Tom Griscom.
It might be a long time before, it might be never that we learn the truth.
But it is just one more example of the obscene dishonesty that permeates the entire “news” industry, and it certainly illustrates the perfidious dishonesty that masquerades as the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Coming soon: Expose of TFP dishonesty
It's been about two years, but this particular, and particularly slimy, act by the miserable Times Free Press still needs to be aired.
When people know about this, surely no one will be able to say anything nice about the rag, except it does have a pretty good comics page.
When people know about this, surely no one will be able to say anything nice about the rag, except it does have a pretty good comics page.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Can't stay away
Several recent in-person discussions have shown me many people equally suffer the dread addiction -- blogging.
We just can't stop and stay stopped.
Besides, an election is impending ("impending," as in "doom").
The raggedy Times Free Press won't be much, if any, worse than the other miserable lying or incompetent "news" media, but since it does have a monopoly here, it behooves me to comment.
We just can't stop and stay stopped.
Besides, an election is impending ("impending," as in "doom").
The raggedy Times Free Press won't be much, if any, worse than the other miserable lying or incompetent "news" media, but since it does have a monopoly here, it behooves me to comment.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Partisanship and dishonesty
Though I won't have the filthy thing in my home, and I will certainly NEVER pay for it, still I do occasionally see the raggedy Times Free Press.
In anticipation of the August 3 election, the two editorial pages have begun publishing endorsements.
It is no surprise the Chattanooga Times editorially endorsed Terry Stulce, one of the Third District candidates for Congress.
After all, his Marxism lite is very much in line with Times editorial policy over the years and decades I've been reading the publication.
What is or should be surprising, though, is that no one in the editorial department, or even the news department, has yet bothered to contact the other Democratic Party primary candidate, Brent Benedict.
Mr. Benedict made a minimum of five efforts to contact the editorial board by telephone, and left a voicemail message each time.
He was in the publication's offices and handed his card to a minimum of 20 people in the news and editorial and other departments.
He was in the publication's offices to talk with Free Press editor Lee Anderson, who is right wing but obviously more open minded: Mr. Anderson had already set up an appointment to talk with Mr. Stulce.
Brent Benedict tried at that time to see the Times editorial page editor, who supposedly wasn't in.
I know for a fact the Benedict campaign sent to the news room the contact phone number, the contact fax number, the e-mail address, and the Web site of Brent Benedict, which also contains all the contact information.
"Without fear or favor"?
Hah!
A Times endorsement does not, of course, mean very much to the open-minded and thinking people of the area; in fact, a Times endorsement is likely viewed to be as good a reason as any to vote for the other candidate, whoever it might be.
In this case, though, open-minded and thinking people of the area will want to vote for Brent Benedict anyway, for other reasons, because Brent Benedict is so much closer to the values and philosophy of most of the people of the Third District.
To those voters who have not yet decided: I urge you to check Brent Benedict's Web site at http://www.brentbenedict.com.
For contrast, also look at http://www.stulceforcongress.com.
In anticipation of the August 3 election, the two editorial pages have begun publishing endorsements.
It is no surprise the Chattanooga Times editorially endorsed Terry Stulce, one of the Third District candidates for Congress.
After all, his Marxism lite is very much in line with Times editorial policy over the years and decades I've been reading the publication.
What is or should be surprising, though, is that no one in the editorial department, or even the news department, has yet bothered to contact the other Democratic Party primary candidate, Brent Benedict.
Mr. Benedict made a minimum of five efforts to contact the editorial board by telephone, and left a voicemail message each time.
He was in the publication's offices and handed his card to a minimum of 20 people in the news and editorial and other departments.
He was in the publication's offices to talk with Free Press editor Lee Anderson, who is right wing but obviously more open minded: Mr. Anderson had already set up an appointment to talk with Mr. Stulce.
Brent Benedict tried at that time to see the Times editorial page editor, who supposedly wasn't in.
I know for a fact the Benedict campaign sent to the news room the contact phone number, the contact fax number, the e-mail address, and the Web site of Brent Benedict, which also contains all the contact information.
"Without fear or favor"?
Hah!
A Times endorsement does not, of course, mean very much to the open-minded and thinking people of the area; in fact, a Times endorsement is likely viewed to be as good a reason as any to vote for the other candidate, whoever it might be.
In this case, though, open-minded and thinking people of the area will want to vote for Brent Benedict anyway, for other reasons, because Brent Benedict is so much closer to the values and philosophy of most of the people of the Third District.
To those voters who have not yet decided: I urge you to check Brent Benedict's Web site at http://www.brentbenedict.com.
For contrast, also look at http://www.stulceforcongress.com.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Maybe there's a reason
Sorry, the cartoon has disappeared.
And, worse, I don't even remember what it was, so I can't go find it.
Getting old is definitely not for sissies ... or bloggers.
And, worse, I don't even remember what it was, so I can't go find it.
Getting old is definitely not for sissies ... or bloggers.
Monday, August 29, 2005
-- 30 --
"Thirty" at the end of a submitted story meant the reporter had concluded.
It was a standard journalistic symbol back in the days of typewriters.
I don't know if much of anybody (other than one free-lancing writer friend) still uses it.
Jack Webb made a movie with the title of "--30--" way back ... and the best source I know of on that subject is http://www.imdb.com. Check it out.
Anyway, I'm saying "-- 30 --" because this is my last blog entry on the generally miserable Times Free Press, at least for the foreseeable future.
Last week, the Hamilton County Commission voted 5-4 (those numbers sound familiar?) to raise the local property taxes.
That was bad enough, but both the left-wing Times and the right-wing Free Press editorialists praised the decision as "the right thing to do," and praised the miscreants who passed such a vicious, not to mention ill-timed, proposal. (See http://www.morrisonhimself.blogspot.com for more comments on courage versus wisdom.)
As all people, even editors, know, gasoline prices have soared. Everything hauled by truck has, as a result, increased in price, including groceries.
Individuals and families are rapidly approaching financial crisis.
Businesses are cutting back on payrolls; individuals are cutting back on purchases.
Burdens need to be lessened, not increased.
The Times has probably never met a tax it didn't like, but the Free Press has usually, though certainly not always, called for restraint in government, thus opposing higher taxes.
The new tax won't be paid directly by me, since I'm a renter. I will, of course, pay indirectly.
The new tax will, though, be borne by the working and producing people, and maybe even by some employees of the "news"paper.
The amount of the tax is about the same as the cost of a subscription to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
I'm urging as many people as I can reach to drop their subscriptions, telling the publisher and editors that they're doing so because of the unconscionable support by the editorialists of the unconscionable tax increase.
The politician and editorialist excuse given for the increase is the usual one: for the schools.
Hogwash.
The government schools have already been given the largest percentage of the local property tax gouge, and they still have done a terrible job of educating the local children.
What is wrong is the same problem with every other government entity. The process is botched; the premise is wrong.
Essentially, everything a government touches it fouls. Government can do nothing without first initiating force, including threatening people to force them to hand over as much money as it can coerce.
Anyone who objectively peruses a government budget can see item after item after item that is, at best, non-essential, as usual wasteful and unnecessary, and at worst criminal.
Every time some budget-writing body meets, special interest group after special interest group appears and details why its particular pet project is absolutely the most essential, most vital project the body could possibly fund.
Why, the Acme Boulevard Property Owners Association plan to plant tulips in the median will just absolutely make the city or county, and, why shucks, it will cost only about $12,575, money well spent, obviously.
Immediate past County Commission Chairman Curtis Adams spoke on a local talk show about that process, saying something like, "Everybody who appeared was just the nicest person."
I interpreted that to be a wry comment along the very lines I'm taking: Everybody believes his project is worthy, and worthy of taxpayer support.
Maybe not quite worthy, though, of the interested people's putting up their own money.
Many a mickle, said my Scottish forebears, makes a muckle.
All those possibly nice but certainly not vital projects make the eventual budget a vote-getter, perhaps, but definitely a burden on the taxpayers.
One supporter of the increase told me the teachers need more money.
Of course, I said. It is pretty hard to overpay teachers, considering not only what they do but what they have to put up with.
The local superintendent, though, is grossly overpaid. There are, as with probably every government agency and body and bureau, way, way too many administrators, way, way, way too many bureaucrats.
They are the eaters of substance, the destroyers of efficiency, the chief cause of waste. They are the misusers of money that could, indeed, be used to pay teachers more nearly what they deserve.
Still, it's not just the fouled-up school system that is burdening the county budget.
It is waste, such as all the taxpayer-funded trips one commissioner has made, many with racial overtones.
That commissioner, William Cotton, Jr., also is notoriously slow at paying his own tax bills.
Yes, that story was in the Chattanooga Times Free Press news pages.
So, Cotton wastes more taxpayer funds than any other commissioner; he creates more controversy than any other commissioner; he is slower to pay his own taxes than any other commissioner; and he pushes harder than any other commissioner for a tax increase on the producing and working members of the community.
Despite his hypocrisy and his evident corruption, his pro-tax position prevails.
The current commission chairman, Fred Skillern, was one of the "no" voters, one of the opponents of a tax increase.
The Times editorialist is proposing one of the tax increasers be named the new chairman.
Generally, across America newspapers endorse every kind of government growth. Sometimes they oppose seeming violations of part of the First Amendment, but generally they accept or even endorse every other Amendment's violation -- including the rest of the First beyond the "freedom of the press" clause.
Newspapers often, if not usually, endorse tax increases, except those on newspapers, of course.
Why, a sales tax on single-copy papers is ... why, it's unconstitutional!
So we've denounced papers generally and the Times Free Press specifically as hypocrites, as enemies of freedom, as obstacles to prosperity.
It's time to quit buying the thing.
Oh, I will still see one occasionally. I do like the funnies, especially the current love fest with the "Blondie" strip approaching its 75th anniversary. (All the crossover references alone would make a great book.)
But, interestingly, all those funnies and many more are available on the Internet. For free.
I won't willingly and knowingly give my money to an enemy.
And the Chattanooga Times Free Press has announced itself the enemy of not only me, but of all the working and producing people, of all the people who prefer liberty to serfdom.
There will be no more copies of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in my home.
It was a standard journalistic symbol back in the days of typewriters.
I don't know if much of anybody (other than one free-lancing writer friend) still uses it.
Jack Webb made a movie with the title of "--30--" way back ... and the best source I know of on that subject is http://www.imdb.com. Check it out.
Anyway, I'm saying "-- 30 --" because this is my last blog entry on the generally miserable Times Free Press, at least for the foreseeable future.
Last week, the Hamilton County Commission voted 5-4 (those numbers sound familiar?) to raise the local property taxes.
That was bad enough, but both the left-wing Times and the right-wing Free Press editorialists praised the decision as "the right thing to do," and praised the miscreants who passed such a vicious, not to mention ill-timed, proposal. (See http://www.morrisonhimself.blogspot.com for more comments on courage versus wisdom.)
As all people, even editors, know, gasoline prices have soared. Everything hauled by truck has, as a result, increased in price, including groceries.
Individuals and families are rapidly approaching financial crisis.
Businesses are cutting back on payrolls; individuals are cutting back on purchases.
Burdens need to be lessened, not increased.
The Times has probably never met a tax it didn't like, but the Free Press has usually, though certainly not always, called for restraint in government, thus opposing higher taxes.
The new tax won't be paid directly by me, since I'm a renter. I will, of course, pay indirectly.
The new tax will, though, be borne by the working and producing people, and maybe even by some employees of the "news"paper.
The amount of the tax is about the same as the cost of a subscription to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
I'm urging as many people as I can reach to drop their subscriptions, telling the publisher and editors that they're doing so because of the unconscionable support by the editorialists of the unconscionable tax increase.
The politician and editorialist excuse given for the increase is the usual one: for the schools.
Hogwash.
The government schools have already been given the largest percentage of the local property tax gouge, and they still have done a terrible job of educating the local children.
What is wrong is the same problem with every other government entity. The process is botched; the premise is wrong.
Essentially, everything a government touches it fouls. Government can do nothing without first initiating force, including threatening people to force them to hand over as much money as it can coerce.
Anyone who objectively peruses a government budget can see item after item after item that is, at best, non-essential, as usual wasteful and unnecessary, and at worst criminal.
Every time some budget-writing body meets, special interest group after special interest group appears and details why its particular pet project is absolutely the most essential, most vital project the body could possibly fund.
Why, the Acme Boulevard Property Owners Association plan to plant tulips in the median will just absolutely make the city or county, and, why shucks, it will cost only about $12,575, money well spent, obviously.
Immediate past County Commission Chairman Curtis Adams spoke on a local talk show about that process, saying something like, "Everybody who appeared was just the nicest person."
I interpreted that to be a wry comment along the very lines I'm taking: Everybody believes his project is worthy, and worthy of taxpayer support.
Maybe not quite worthy, though, of the interested people's putting up their own money.
Many a mickle, said my Scottish forebears, makes a muckle.
All those possibly nice but certainly not vital projects make the eventual budget a vote-getter, perhaps, but definitely a burden on the taxpayers.
One supporter of the increase told me the teachers need more money.
Of course, I said. It is pretty hard to overpay teachers, considering not only what they do but what they have to put up with.
The local superintendent, though, is grossly overpaid. There are, as with probably every government agency and body and bureau, way, way too many administrators, way, way, way too many bureaucrats.
They are the eaters of substance, the destroyers of efficiency, the chief cause of waste. They are the misusers of money that could, indeed, be used to pay teachers more nearly what they deserve.
Still, it's not just the fouled-up school system that is burdening the county budget.
It is waste, such as all the taxpayer-funded trips one commissioner has made, many with racial overtones.
That commissioner, William Cotton, Jr., also is notoriously slow at paying his own tax bills.
Yes, that story was in the Chattanooga Times Free Press news pages.
So, Cotton wastes more taxpayer funds than any other commissioner; he creates more controversy than any other commissioner; he is slower to pay his own taxes than any other commissioner; and he pushes harder than any other commissioner for a tax increase on the producing and working members of the community.
Despite his hypocrisy and his evident corruption, his pro-tax position prevails.
The current commission chairman, Fred Skillern, was one of the "no" voters, one of the opponents of a tax increase.
The Times editorialist is proposing one of the tax increasers be named the new chairman.
Generally, across America newspapers endorse every kind of government growth. Sometimes they oppose seeming violations of part of the First Amendment, but generally they accept or even endorse every other Amendment's violation -- including the rest of the First beyond the "freedom of the press" clause.
Newspapers often, if not usually, endorse tax increases, except those on newspapers, of course.
Why, a sales tax on single-copy papers is ... why, it's unconstitutional!
So we've denounced papers generally and the Times Free Press specifically as hypocrites, as enemies of freedom, as obstacles to prosperity.
It's time to quit buying the thing.
Oh, I will still see one occasionally. I do like the funnies, especially the current love fest with the "Blondie" strip approaching its 75th anniversary. (All the crossover references alone would make a great book.)
But, interestingly, all those funnies and many more are available on the Internet. For free.
I won't willingly and knowingly give my money to an enemy.
And the Chattanooga Times Free Press has announced itself the enemy of not only me, but of all the working and producing people, of all the people who prefer liberty to serfdom.
There will be no more copies of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in my home.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Why lobbyists?
Times cartoonist Bruce Plante, who is among the top of opinion-page illustrators, but (inconsistently) near the bottom of opinion-page thinkers and logicians, has a cartoon in the edition of Friday, 26 August, that asks "Why do we have lobbyists ...?"
It is well drawn but ill designed and presented.
A man is shown sitting at a table behind a name plate reading "TN LOBBYIST ASSOCIATION."
He is apparently being questioned by someone or other, and is pouring, projecting sweat.
Skip over the moronic use of the two-letter post office state abbreviation and look at the question in a speech balloon from the left-hand border. "Sir, the Citizens Advisory Group on Ethics is waiting for your answer ... Why do we have lobbyists in the first place?"
Tennessee is in the throes of a scandal: The Federal Bureau of Investigation staged an ABSCAM-like trap, setting up a fake corporation called e-Cycle and bribing (or at least allegedly bribing) several current and former members of the legislature.
In panicky reaction, both the legislature and the Hamilton County (Chattanooga) Commission have hastily drawn up "codes of ethics."
People who have ethics don't need codes to tell them what to do, or what not to do.
Alas, people in politics (especially those in the two old parties) seem not to have ethics, generally, and all such codes do is force them to use microscopes to find the proverbial loopholes.
Remember Algore's famous year 2000 disclaimer after he illegally used White House resources to solicit political funds?
Well, to get back to the above question and give it the correct answer: Lobbyists exist for one or both of two reasons.
Their employers either want the government in question to do something for them, or they want government not to do something to them.
In the first category is, for example, Cargill, or ADM. Or various city, county, and state governments.
In the second is, for example, the National Rifle Association.
Parenthetically, which is treated most shamefully, and dishonestly, by the "news" media?
The simple solution to the alleged problem of lobbyists is, Cut government back down to its proper size and function.
It is well drawn but ill designed and presented.
A man is shown sitting at a table behind a name plate reading "TN LOBBYIST ASSOCIATION."
He is apparently being questioned by someone or other, and is pouring, projecting sweat.
Skip over the moronic use of the two-letter post office state abbreviation and look at the question in a speech balloon from the left-hand border. "Sir, the Citizens Advisory Group on Ethics is waiting for your answer ... Why do we have lobbyists in the first place?"
Tennessee is in the throes of a scandal: The Federal Bureau of Investigation staged an ABSCAM-like trap, setting up a fake corporation called e-Cycle and bribing (or at least allegedly bribing) several current and former members of the legislature.
In panicky reaction, both the legislature and the Hamilton County (Chattanooga) Commission have hastily drawn up "codes of ethics."
People who have ethics don't need codes to tell them what to do, or what not to do.
Alas, people in politics (especially those in the two old parties) seem not to have ethics, generally, and all such codes do is force them to use microscopes to find the proverbial loopholes.
Remember Algore's famous year 2000 disclaimer after he illegally used White House resources to solicit political funds?
Well, to get back to the above question and give it the correct answer: Lobbyists exist for one or both of two reasons.
Their employers either want the government in question to do something for them, or they want government not to do something to them.
In the first category is, for example, Cargill, or ADM. Or various city, county, and state governments.
In the second is, for example, the National Rifle Association.
Parenthetically, which is treated most shamefully, and dishonestly, by the "news" media?
The simple solution to the alleged problem of lobbyists is, Cut government back down to its proper size and function.
Hamilton County passes tax increase; editorial writers sing Hosanna
"I still believe there is not a man in this country that can't make a living for himself and his family. But he can't make a living for them and his government, too. Not the way this government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheaply as the people do." -- Will Rogers
Appropriate
"FDA to regulate old-time remedies," reads a headline on the front page of the edition of Thursday, 25 August.
The subhead says, "Government agencies looking at ways to control leeches, maggots and bone wax."
Who knows more about leeches and maggots than a government agency?
The subhead says, "Government agencies looking at ways to control leeches, maggots and bone wax."
Who knows more about leeches and maggots than a government agency?
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Someone got it horribly wrong
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.
"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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
