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?
Saturday, February 07, 2009
... 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
