Times editorial page 'editing' continues to degenerate

"Editor's Note" to a letter, published Monday, 11 October, that endorsed Mark DeVol for Congress uses a cliched and erroneous term.
Letter writer Jim Sims, of Red Bank, endorses Mr. DeVol at least in part because the candidate "is for eliminating Congress' retirement program."
Mr. DeVol, who also favors term limits, stresses that members of Congress are supposed to be public servants, that they are being honored enough by being elected, and that the huge benefits and perquisites cost the people too much and are not deserved.
"Urban myths" is what the "editor" calls that. Even if it were an error, it is not an "urban myth," which is a particular class of erroneous beliefs.
Then, though the "editor" deigned to try to contradict the Sims letter, no answer is given to a really stupid letter from Ann Benton of Signal Mountain.
Among other nonsense, she says, "... corporations are buying Republican politicians."
Fact: More corporations gave money to the Democrat national convention than to the Republican national convention.
Multi-billionaire George Soros has decided not to fund the Democrats this year because, he said, he doesn't "want to stand in front of an avalanche." But you know his heart, even if not his money, is with the Democrats.
She said Republicans want to "Demolish Social Security and Medicare."
Where is any editorial rebuttal to that garbage?

It must be asked again: Stupid or dishonest?

In a not very good paper already, quality takes another bashing with the continued presence of the garbagey "TheRant" each Sunday.
Even the new executive editor hasn't seen fit to get rid of it.
I hope everyone will write him, jtfoster@timesfreepress.com, and urge either new editors or a new feature. Frankly, either would be an improvement.
In the edition of Sunday, 26 September, is this shameful trash: "The only difference between the tea party zealots and the KKK is that one group wears white cone heads."
And this ugliness: "I took someone's advice and listened to Glenn Beck. Well, he's even crazier than I thought."
If "TheRant" has published any hatred like those aimed at the left-collectivists, I have never seen it. And even if I had, I would say the same thing: No quality "news" paper would publish such anonymous garbage. No decent, rational editor would allow it.

Asking for help with an adjective

Self-righteous hypocrite is not quite the right terminology (and I'm serious about needing help finding the right word or words), although it might come close, for describing the author of a column in the edition of Sunday, 26 September.
Somebody named Garrett Gruener writes, according to the headline writer, "I'm rich -- and I don't mind if you tax me more."
There is an effrontery and, frankly, a dishonesty that would, of course, appeal to the left-collectivists of the "news" media and other Democrats, but which is highly offensive to working and producing people.
Mr. Gruener claims to be an entrepreneur, though I must admit I've never heard of him, or if I had I've forgotten.
Regardless of his fame or lack thereof, what is so irritating about that claim is this: If he really wants to pay more money to any government, all he has to do, especially since he is "rich," is write a check.
No, what he is actually saying is "I want you to be taxed more."
In fact, whenever you hear a "news" person or academic or other Democrat say "They voted to tax themselves," you know it's an untruth. What people voted for was an additional tax on others.
Anyone, rich or not, can always carry money or write a check to any government or governmental body, if they really want it to have more.
Decent people, including even the occasional Republican, but apparently not any Democrat office-holder, believe people ought to be allowed to keep their own property, their own lives, and even their own money -- even "rich" people, a term which keeps being defined downward during these Obama years.
Mr. Gruener, whoever you are, please keep your sticky hands out of my pockets, and Times Free Press "editors," please learn something about economics, about history, about honesty, and about morality. Please.

Amazing: TFP publishes front-page story on Libertarian Party candidates in Georgia

So-called "news" media usually bend over backward to avoid mentioning any new party or any candidate falling outside the narrow guidelines of the media's own preferences or the even narrower guidelines of the media's knowledge.
But on Saturday, 25 September, the TFP not only acknowledged the existence of the Libertarian Party of Georgia, it treated the party almost as if it were credible.
Naturally it had to find two "experts" who said the LP had no chance, that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy "news" media are so good at and good with.
Here is the rather telling lead: "Though Republicans and Democrats catch almost all of the headlines, John Monds, the Libertarian candidate for Georgia governor, sees factors lining up so his party can make a historic run in the Nov. 2 election."
The fact that Monds is honest and capable could help with the voters, IF the voters can learn of his candidacy.
The Republican has a real problem with ethical questions, at least some of which were brought up by his primary opponent.
The Democrat was already governor once and lost his re-election bid, having angered several constituencies.
The TFP is to be honored for doing its job. If the "news" media just had the decency more often to give voters the facts, the truth, our country might not be in such a mess.

Perfect, easy solution

Thomas Sowell, in his column published 5 September, says the federal government, specifically the State Department, has used taxpayer dollars to send the imam of that proposed New York mosque (which is NOT at “ground zero”) on a diplomatic visit to the Middle East.
Being thoughtful and sensitive, I have thought hard and come up with the perfect compromise that should satisfy everyone, or at least other thoughtful and sensitive people: Let the New York Muslims build their mosque, and let us close down the federal government.

Still more evidence

In the edition of Sunday, 29 August, is a story about black re-enactors of the mis-called "Civil War."
One of the participants was quoted as saying re-enacting was a calling. "It just kept calling me when I discovered the history, because this was never taught to us."
Another said, "My teachers didn't know that black soldiers fought in (the war), so they didn't teach us that."
"New scholarship" is credited, as well as the movie "Glory" and "Ken Burns' PBS documentary" on the war.
However, there was a man named George S. Schuyler who had previously written on that subject. Alas, he had also written his autobiography and called it "Black and Conservative," dooming it to obscurity in the left-collectivist controlled media and academia.
His autobiography can be found at Amazon.com.
At Amazon, you can also find several versions of "Black Phalanx," a history of black soldiers from the Revolution onward. Highly recommended to serious historians and anyone just curious about that generally ignored aspect of history.

More evidence of left-collectivist racism

One more reason John Monds, Libertarian candidate for governor of Georgia, gets left out of "news" coverage: John Monds, Libertarian candidate for governor of Georgia, is black.
To rational people, his skin color is totally irrelevant.
To "news" people, though, it matters.
It matters because black people who stray off the reservation, black people who think for themselves, black people who don't follow a party line -- that party line promulgated by the "news" media -- are ignored, are treated as if they don't even exist.
Thoughtful humorist, and Georgia resident, columnist Ron Hart said, in 2004, "A recent Pew Trust poll told us what we already know: The major media in America are very liberal. They are out of touch with mainstream citizens and their reporting is agenda-driven."
He also said, "The major media are dying because of their lack of objectivity and their desire to use the news to achieve their agenda."

Remember November -- and forget "news" media

Unlearned (which is nicer than "ignorant") people might not be aware that, come November, the American people will have an opportunity to rectify a mistake made two Novembers back.
One mistake the people need to avoid this year is heavy reliance on the "news" media, perhaps especially the Times Free Press and definitely especially The Associated Press.
For example, in the TFP of Sunday, 29 August, there was a story of the three-way debate with the candidates for governor of Georgia, Republican Nathan Deal, Democrat Roy Barnes ... and, oh, yeah, Libertarian John Monds.
"Oh, yeah," because, as usual, the AP story barely mentions his name and, as usual, the points he tried to make during the debate get left to the bottom of the story which any local paper is likely to cut.
That happened to a candidate I was helping in 1998. Walker Chandler was running as a Libertarian for Georgia attorney general. In the debate, which Georgia public radio broadcast, the Republican and the Democrat just made fools of themselves, and resorted to some childish mud-slinging.
AP, as usual, mentioned the Libertarian as being present, then put his argument at the bottom of the story.
Next morning, when we couldn't find his name in the AP story in the local paper, Walker Chandler got angry at the sorry, dishonest coverage for the first time in the campaign.
I talked to the assistant managing editor and asked why. She said she had been in charge of laying out the paper that night. She also said her paper ordinarily moved that bottom-of-the-story mention of Walker Chandler to the top, since he was a local boy making good.
Alas, that night, being by herself laying out the paper, and being rushed, she didn't see his name, and the story remained in the lousy, dishonest format AP sent it.
Papers usually just clip the story where the space ends, and information at the bottom, no matter how important, just gets left out.
That, gentle reader, shows you how much "news" papers, including the Times Free Press, really care about content.
And that, gentle reader, shows you why "news" papers lose circulation every day, why "news" papers are being relegated to the dustbin of history as people seek their information from better, more immediate, more varied sources.

Surprise: No word from "anonymous"

But I will make one more comment.
Among the attempted insults was "your three readers."
Actually I have about seven: I, the two anonymouses, and three or maybe even four others who have commented.
We're open to the public, but we do have standards.

Anonymous name-calling

Recently some apparent coward wrote me a bit of hate-filled name-calling. I didn't read it all and obviously haven't published it -- not for the reason the person seems to ... I won't say "think," but feel.
No, I didn't publish it, not because it is an attack on me, but because it was anonymous and too general to respond to.
If the person had been paying attention, he or she would have seen a previous anonymous attack but with a specific point. Granted, some people thought I had made it up because it failed so miserably to hit its target, but I didn't.
This current attacker called me a "bully," which would be laughable, I guess.
I well remember my first encounter with a bully, two really big kids, monstrous fourth-graders. I was a scrawny little second-grader, so "monstrous" is relative, of course,.
After entering the boys' room, I was accosted by the bullies who demanded I say "yes, sir" to them. I said, "No, sir."
I got my head banged against the wall a few times but never said more than "no," dropping the "sir."
Maybe the bell rang, but the episode ended with my never acquiescing.
I have my name on this blog, and anyone who has paid attention knows my primary political doctrine is the ZAP, the Zero-Aggression Principle. I do not initiate force. By no rational definition can a sane person call me a "bully."
Here, on my blog, I can state a fact or opinion and someone can respond. If it's relatively civil and without obscenities, a response will be published -- IF it is signed.
Let me return to those school days: In junior high one day I shoved the school bully, who responded with a shocked look and almost tears in his eyes: "Why did you shove me?"
Like all real bullies, he was a coward and my little display of anger and even physical response so unnerved him, he never bullied me again.
So I know, from real life, what bullying is.
Bullying includes a government's telling individuals to live a certain way, or else.
Bullying includes threats, which governments are fully capable of carrying out.
Bullying includes intimidation.
How my stating facts and even opinions can be called "bullying" escapes my understanding.
So if this anonymous name-caller wants to write a third time, signing his or her name, and now I need some kind of proof, too, I will be more than glad to publish all three comments.
This is Monday, 16 Aug. By an interesting coincidence, I had planned to post this comment today replying to the anonymous hate post and found the second one sneering that I hadn't posted the first.
Well, here is why. If you have any courage, please respond. But I won't hold my breath.

Logic in "The Rant"

Out of many bad features in the TFP, "The Rant" is the worst, generally even worse, more ignorant or hate-filled, than the Times editorials.

For thoroughly fouled-up logic, consider this gem from 18 July: "People complain gripe and hate our government but seldom offer any solutions. Remember what nine years of war has cost our nation." (sic)

And this one, which has become one of the Democrat Party's talking points: "George Bush cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and 15 million people lost their jobs to pay for those tax cuts."

Perhaps the new editor will use some thought and eliminate this moronic anonymous garbage.

Two funny comments

In the usually abominable "Rant" of Sunday, 1 August, is this: "Overheard while giving out free U.S. Constitutions at Pops in the Park: A woman replied 'No Thanks, I'm a Democrat.' "

Almost as funny, if it weren't so sad: The TFP apparently has a new executive editor. His name is J. Todd Foster. "And I will share with you a pledge I made July 3 ...: We will give the news impartially, without fear or favor ..."

Yep, we've been seeing that same joke for many decades now. Originally it was on the Times, and was less true than even now.

OK, Mr. Foster is new. We'll give him a chance, but we're not holding our breath.

Inside look at behind the scenes

Following is a slightly redacted e-mail sent from a TFP reporter to candidates in a certain congressional district race.
I'm leaving out the reporter's name and anything else that serve to identify individuals.

Gang,

As you can see from this e-mail list, there’s quite a few of you running for the (redacted) Congressional District of Tennessee. My name is Red Acted and I’m going to be doing my best to cover each of you fairly in the run up to the election. (Yes I know it’s a bit late to send this, but I’m new here. Doing the best I can.) A couple of housekeeping notes.

1. Please give me a good number to reach you the night of the election. By this number, please include your name, age and party affiliation. I know that’s redundant, but with so many of you in the race it will make it easier for me to keep track of things.
2. A number of you have come in for editorial board meetings over the past few weeks and more than one has said they would release their IRS forms (I’m thinking specifically of Mr. X and Mrs. Y, but I wanted to expand this opportunity.) Any candidte that wishes to provide their most recent tax returns may e-mail them to me here or fax them to 423-668-5039.
   

Good luck to all of you and I look forward to working with you.

Of the candidates who told me about this, some wondered if the person was really a reporter, considering the poor writing style and spelling. I assured them that, yes, that is par for the course at the TFP.
Some also questioned the reporter's wanting to see their Infernal Revenue returns; so do I.
There is not, to my knowledge, any legal requirement for such a declaration. If there is, there shouldn't be; and if there is, it would be unwise, I think, to send it to a stranger.

Good point foolishly attributed

After some e-mail communication about the horrors of "The Rant," those frequently incredibly stupid and often just nasty anonymous short pieces, apparently the editors of the Sunday TFP are exercising a little more care.
But not much.
For example: "Thomas Jefferson said, 'Seventy percent of the people want free enterprise, 30 percent don't. So why is the 30 percent in charge?' Sound like today?"
It is a very good point ... but it is NOT something Thomas Jefferson ever said.
Any knowledgeable newspaper editor -- of which apparently there isn't one in the Tri-State area -- should know the term "free enterprise" was not in use then.
And that mythical editor should know that, at the time of Mr. Jefferson, mostly it was the free-enterprisers who were in charge.
OK, by no means one of the worst errors in this error-filled section of this error-filled publication, but another example of carelessness that calls into question every word in it.

Phooey on the people, raise them taxes!

Perhaps it would be like Adolf Hitler's declaring the Sabbath to be a holy day for the Chattanooga Times editorial page to support a rational economic policy (after all, it considers Paul Krugman to be an economist), but its editorial of Sunday, 27 June, is certainly one of its most fascistic and cynical.
In a time of high unemployment, high foreclosure rates, and general consumer worries, its editorial, "Fiscal reality begs tax hike," surely hits a new low even for these economic illiterates.
Chattanooga's mayor, Ron Littlefield, called for an outrageous tax hike, so outrageous that a recall was promptly initiated.
Even the members of the silly council objected ... but only to the outrageous amount, not to the horrible premise.
Still, the big government addicts who write the "down with the people" and "down with freedom" and "up with more government" editorials couldn't or wouldn't see the evil.
The Times will support big government under probably any circumstance.
And what is worse, calling the insanity "fiscal reality" really adds insult to the injury.

He is but a man

No columnist, no economist, no thinker, no substitute talk-show host in the world stands higher in my estimation than the great, the extraordinary Walter Williams.
Despicable as the Times Free Press is, I still look forward to Sundays because most Sundays, Dr. Williams' column appears, right beneath one by Thomas Sowell.
On 23 May, though, I was reminded of the pageantry of a victorious general leading his troops into Rome to be greeted and adored. He would be riding in a chauffeur-driven chariot pulled by gleaming white horses, and right behind him would be a slave murmuring into his ear (in the King James Latin), "Thou art but a man ... thou art but a man ..."
Just in case your senses have been dulled by too much reading of the TFP, the point was to keep the general's feet on the ground, to keep his head from swelling, to remind him he was a mortal, not a god.
Alas, Walter Williams is but a man. His 23 May column is titled "Immigration and liberty," but, double alas, he doesn't present his usual impervious argument in favor of liberty ... nor in favor of immigration.
He begins, "My sentiments on immigration are expressed by the welcoming words of poet Emma Lazarus' that grace the base of our Statue of Liberty: 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' Those sentiments are probably shared by most Americans and for sure by my libertarian fellow travelers, but their vision of immigration has some blind spots. This has become painfully obvious in the wake Arizona's law that cracks down on illegal immigration. ..."
Then he blots his copy: "There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I'd like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.?"
No one is asking such a silly question.
It is a straw man.
Worse, it deviates sadly from Dr. Williams' usual position that an individual is self-owned, that it is the individual that counts.
Such a question begins, instead, with the premise of the nation-state, with individuals being merely components thereof.
Even more worse, his last sentence begins, "Most importantly ..."
As I have told clients and students, "importantly" is nearly always wrong. Correct use of "importantly" might be in this example: "President Obama strutted around importantly."
Walter Williams remains one of the greatest minds on Earth, however he is but a man.

Golden oldie reminds us

Looking back to Thursday, 6 November 2008, we can see a glaring reminder of just why so many reasonable individuals believe the Times Free Press to be a miserable excuse for a "news" paper.
In the Metro&Region section of that day the "journalists" and editorializers (so often the same people) were still basking in their accomplishment, there appeared this headline:
"Voters still relishing Obama's victory."
Bear in mind that the circulation area of this rag voted pretty overwhelmingly against Barack Obama and you will surely wonder what was going through whatever passes for a mind in the layout department.
Well, of course, some voters relished that victory, apparently including a large segment of the "news" media generally, but certainly including some pretty second-rate headline writers at the TFP.

Defending the indefensible

Following a post quite some time ago, "Racist Stulce endorses racist Bennett," I got an anonymous comment, to which I replied, and then I got this anonymous comment (also printed at the original post):

Anonymous said... I will apologize for my actual errors seeing as how I'm an engineer in the navy, not a writer like yourself. But, what I refuse to apologize for is my accusation of you personally attacking Bennett. If you reread your last paragraph, and can't see any attacks, you must be blind. To someone who knows personally that Clay is one of the most anti-prejudice and unbigoted men I've ever met, that looks like an attack. Yes, our CIC is black, so Clay draws him as a black man. That's the closest he's ever come to being a racist. Honestly sir, if you falsely accused me of being a racist, when all my friends and family know that I do everything possible to eliminate any racism or bigotry in my life and workplace, you'd get a good old fashioned military ass-chewing. And in mine and Clay's eyes alike, that is an attack.
Oh, by the way.. I'm remaining anonomous to save my family from any further personal attacks, thank you. I have the iron and resolve of a true american sailor, so please, don't challenge my courage.
MMFN MP

I have no idea what those letters on the bottom line mean, but I left everything just as it was written. Let 'em hang themselves.
Apparently poor Anonymous doesn't really grasp English, judging not only by his spelling but by his complete failure to understand what I said originally, and in my reply to his first anonymous comment.
He tells me "don't challenge my courage," as if joining the Navy (note the capital) is conclusive proof. No, conclusive proof would be his signing his name and standing proud for what he believes, whatever that might be.
Certainly a lot of brave people have joined the military, although I knew a man in Arizona who joined the Navy to stay out of the range of North Vietnamese bullets ... and was made into a corpsman [which is NOT pronounced "corpseman"], was assigned to the Marines, and got wounded three times!
Again, I don't attack Clay Bennett, except as a lying and vicious racist cartoonist. He is a racist, as I have explained several times, apparently to no avail, not because he draws Pres. Obama "as a black man," but because he ignores black people who don't buy into the same vicious, fascistic, racist viewpoint he does.
A friend told me she thought Anonymous's first comment was a hoax, a put-on -- in fact, she accused me of making it up -- then on re-reading just decided that, if that is an example of Clay Bennett's friends, he doesn't need any enemies.
However, even if he doesn't need any enemies, he keeps creating them, with every new cartoon attacking honest people, attacking people who prefer freedom to his desired racist, fascist system.
I, though, will not be an enemy of Clay Bennett, the person. I am not an enemy of much of any person, although, alas, there are persons who consider me an enemy, and there are persons who want to make me some type of political peon, me and every other individual.
But Clay Bennett, cartoonist of hatred, racism, fascism, and, yes, dishonesty, will definitely continue to be a target, though not an enemy.
By the way, why does Anonymous think being an engineer is an acceptable excuse to be semi-literate?
P.S. It is possible, although highly unlikely, that Mr. Bennett draws his vitriolic cartoons at direction from an editor or publisher or somebody. But it probably won't save his soul.

Why does Times publish falsehoods?

Again the question: Incompetence or Dishonesty?
Please see the link at the top of the blog.
Someone has a book and a film titled "Not Evil Just Wrong."
The nice people producing them believe, and want us to believe, the "global warming" scammers are not intentionally telling us falsehoods, that in fact the "global warming" proponents do also believe what they are saying, but are, simply, wrong.
Is that what we should in turn believe about the people who produce the Times editorial page?
That they believe their hogwash, but are just uninformed? Or dumb?
On said page for Wednesday, 21 April, there is a letter with this sentence: "Rep. Randy Neugebauer called Rep. Stupak, a leading right to life advocate, a 'baby killer' while Stupak was addressing Congress."
What Rep. Neugebauer said was, in fact, that the bill was a baby killer, and he explained that and apologized to Rep. Stupak, and some "news" organizations did report the facts.
Now if I, a very limited consumer of "news," can know that fact, why can't the editors of this alleged "news" paper know it?
And if they know it, why do they allow a falsehood into print on their editorial page?
Yes, I realize it follows their tradition of allowing their cartoonist and their syndicated columnists to call Tea Party people "racist," when any honest or sane person knows that also is a falsehood. (To repeat, just in Memphis and in Mississippi, there are three Tea Party candidates who are black, a fact easily knowable to "news" people in Chattanooga.)
The mis-called editors botch the heck out of grammar and punctuation and change well-written and accurate letters frequently. So why can't they correct genuine errors, why don't they avoid falsehoods?
The same letter continues the apparent falsehoods about some congressmen being called racially disparaging names, although no one has offered any proof, and at least one person who was with the alleged victims said it didn't happen.
Why, to ask again, though expecting no answer, why do the editors of the Times editorial page continue to publish blatant falsehood?
Letter writer John Bratton, of Sewanee, might be blind and honestly ignorant. He might have an excuse to write such inaccurate garbage.
The editors have no excuse. They must know they are publishing falsehood.

Time to reign in incompetent editing

Yes, I know what my headline says, but the "editor" for letters to the Times, Wednesday, 7 April, apparently doesn't recognize homonyms.
His letter head reads "Time to reign in wild spending."
The otherwise intelligent letter contains the same mistake, though it was not necessarily the writer who did it, but a real editor would have caught the error.