This is discouraging. Yesterday I posted what I thought was a reasonably coherent post on a timely topic of broad concern. Matt Singer, at least, thought it was worthy and quoted it at length. At this writing, he has received seven responses to the post, some of them disagreeing with my point but all of them rational, civil and on topic. I have received ... garbage. You can judge for yourself, except that I already have deleted the most offensive (read: Mellonesque) comments.
This can't go on. Someone in comments suggested blocking Mellon's IP address, but I have no clue how to do that. Perhaps someone can fill me in. In the meantime, I am adopting another suggestion: I have enabled comment moderation. Since my various other jobs require me to be away from this desk for long periods, this may mean a considerable gap between the time comments are posted and when they show up here. I'm not happy about that, but the only other options I can see are closing off all comments or shutting the whole blog down. So I am taking the least drastic alternative.
Perhaps, someday soon, Mellon's final blinking brain cell will wink out, and he no longer will be able to type. Then, blogging may have a future.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Blog some more
Some readers inferred from the post below that I wouldn't blog again. Perhaps it was that pesky headline: "Blog no more." But everybody knows you can't rely on headlines in newspapers. Why trust blog headlines?
I really only meant to say that I had no regrets about taking three weeks off and that I would blog again only with good reason, such as when I have something to say that isn't likely to fit into the Outpost. Here is one such topic:
Some conservatives (but not all; George Will makes the sensible conservative argument here) make the case against illegal immigration that U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher made Friday night on “Real Time with Bill Maher”: It hurts American workers, and it hurts the American economy.
Many conservatives (I don’t know whether Rohrabacher is one of them) also make the case for Wal-Mart: It helps American workers by providing jobs and low prices, and it helps the American economy. But one reason Wal-Mart has low prices is that it buys heavily overseas, and pressures its suppliers to lower their costs by exporting manufacturing jobs overseas.
Here’s what I don’t get: If it’s good for America to buy cheap goods made by low-wage workers in other countries, why isn’t it good for America to buy cheap goods and services provided by low-wage workers who come here from other countries? What’s the difference?
One difference, Wal-Mart supporters will say, is that illegal immigrants don’t play by the rules. But neither does Wal-Mart. At last count, some 44 lawsuits had been filed against Wal-Mart for forcing employees to work illegally off the clock . And nearly 2 million women are involved in a sex discrimination suit against the company.
So illegal immigrants are just doing what smart entrepreneurs have been doing for centuries: Cutting costs, and a few corners. They are following the dictates of the market. So why is it wrong when they do it and right when Wal-Mart does it?
If we really want to help the American economy, maybe we ought to build a fence around Bentonville.
UPDATE: Don Mellon is permanently banned from this blog. Life is too short to waste any of it on losers like him. If you post a comment that even looks like it be from that scum, it will be deleted. If I have deleted your post in error, please contact me by e-mail. Hear that, Mellon? GO AWAY!
I really only meant to say that I had no regrets about taking three weeks off and that I would blog again only with good reason, such as when I have something to say that isn't likely to fit into the Outpost. Here is one such topic:
Some conservatives (but not all; George Will makes the sensible conservative argument here) make the case against illegal immigration that U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher made Friday night on “Real Time with Bill Maher”: It hurts American workers, and it hurts the American economy.
Many conservatives (I don’t know whether Rohrabacher is one of them) also make the case for Wal-Mart: It helps American workers by providing jobs and low prices, and it helps the American economy. But one reason Wal-Mart has low prices is that it buys heavily overseas, and pressures its suppliers to lower their costs by exporting manufacturing jobs overseas.
Here’s what I don’t get: If it’s good for America to buy cheap goods made by low-wage workers in other countries, why isn’t it good for America to buy cheap goods and services provided by low-wage workers who come here from other countries? What’s the difference?
One difference, Wal-Mart supporters will say, is that illegal immigrants don’t play by the rules. But neither does Wal-Mart. At last count, some 44 lawsuits had been filed against Wal-Mart for forcing employees to work illegally off the clock . And nearly 2 million women are involved in a sex discrimination suit against the company.
So illegal immigrants are just doing what smart entrepreneurs have been doing for centuries: Cutting costs, and a few corners. They are following the dictates of the market. So why is it wrong when they do it and right when Wal-Mart does it?
If we really want to help the American economy, maybe we ought to build a fence around Bentonville.
UPDATE: Don Mellon is permanently banned from this blog. Life is too short to waste any of it on losers like him. If you post a comment that even looks like it be from that scum, it will be deleted. If I have deleted your post in error, please contact me by e-mail. Hear that, Mellon? GO AWAY!
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Blog no more
It's been three weeks since I started a long-needed break from this blog. I didn't really mean for it to last this long, but I kept stretching the break because of an early insight: The best thing about blogging is that it feels so good to quit.
I won't apologize for the break but will explain it a bit:
1. With two college classes to teach, and tutoring and the endless Outpost slog, something just had to give. So long, blog.
2. My foot has been hurting for a couple of months now. Presumably the gout, but still not officially diagnosed. I keep telling myself that it's my foot that hurts, not my brain, but it's remarkable how a little pain in the lower extremities goes straight to the head. No energy, no enthusiasm, just a ration of self-pity and suffering. Besides, I used to console myself during these attacks by thinking that at least I'm not one of those people you see limping around permanently (amazing how many there are, once you start to notice). Now after gimping around for two months, that consolation is pretty much gone.
3. We're getting serious about this newspaper business. We're just finishing the most profitable first quarter in Outpost history. It's about time. The future may be on the web, but the present is very much in print. We've got to stick to our knitting, dance with the one who brung us, and stop fouling our own nest (or a cliche to that effect).
4. Nothing to say. Zippo. I never was one for small talk, and blogging increasingly seems like the smallest talk of which humans are capable. One less voice makes the blogging world a better place.
5. Don Mellon.
I still think blogging makes sense as a long-term business strategy for a weekly newspaper like ours. But I'm sick of long-term thinking. I just want to make a couple of bucks and head for the house at a decent hour. Before long, it will be too late.
I won't apologize for the break but will explain it a bit:
1. With two college classes to teach, and tutoring and the endless Outpost slog, something just had to give. So long, blog.
2. My foot has been hurting for a couple of months now. Presumably the gout, but still not officially diagnosed. I keep telling myself that it's my foot that hurts, not my brain, but it's remarkable how a little pain in the lower extremities goes straight to the head. No energy, no enthusiasm, just a ration of self-pity and suffering. Besides, I used to console myself during these attacks by thinking that at least I'm not one of those people you see limping around permanently (amazing how many there are, once you start to notice). Now after gimping around for two months, that consolation is pretty much gone.
3. We're getting serious about this newspaper business. We're just finishing the most profitable first quarter in Outpost history. It's about time. The future may be on the web, but the present is very much in print. We've got to stick to our knitting, dance with the one who brung us, and stop fouling our own nest (or a cliche to that effect).
4. Nothing to say. Zippo. I never was one for small talk, and blogging increasingly seems like the smallest talk of which humans are capable. One less voice makes the blogging world a better place.
5. Don Mellon.
I still think blogging makes sense as a long-term business strategy for a weekly newspaper like ours. But I'm sick of long-term thinking. I just want to make a couple of bucks and head for the house at a decent hour. Before long, it will be too late.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Burns the liberal
I thought Conrad Burns' last radio ad was pretty bad, but the new one seems worse. It starts by bragging about the health of Montana's economy, then gives the reason: the $2 billion in federal funds that Burns has brought to Montana. It concludes: "With his experience and seniority — no one is doing more to create a future of opportunities than Senator Conrad Burns."
Funny thing is, I could swear I heard him say almost exactly the opposite on "Home Ground" a few weeks ago: You can't rely on government to create wealth; private enterprise does that. That was the classic conservative mantra; now he seems to have gone all liberal.
Next thing you know, he'll be drinking with Ted Kennedy.
Funny thing is, I could swear I heard him say almost exactly the opposite on "Home Ground" a few weeks ago: You can't rely on government to create wealth; private enterprise does that. That was the classic conservative mantra; now he seems to have gone all liberal.
Next thing you know, he'll be drinking with Ted Kennedy.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Government blues
I not much of one to complain about the burdens of government regulation on small businesses. It ain't that bad, at least not for this one. But this bugged me:
On Friday I got a notice from the Montana Department of Revenue assessing The Outpost a "penalty/fee" of $60 on withholding taxes for the Dec. 31, 2004, filing period. Why? No idea. The department offers no explanation, and my own records show that the payment was made on time, and the government cashed the check.
So now I have to fill out a "Request for Informal Review" stating "factual reasoning for your dissatisfaction." But since I don't know why the fee has been assessed, factual reasoning will be a challenge. The good news is that if the department finds against me, which is likely, I can file an "APLS102F with the Office of Dispute Resolution."
Or I could just pay the $60, which is likely to be cheaper. Damn it.
On Friday I got a notice from the Montana Department of Revenue assessing The Outpost a "penalty/fee" of $60 on withholding taxes for the Dec. 31, 2004, filing period. Why? No idea. The department offers no explanation, and my own records show that the payment was made on time, and the government cashed the check.
So now I have to fill out a "Request for Informal Review" stating "factual reasoning for your dissatisfaction." But since I don't know why the fee has been assessed, factual reasoning will be a challenge. The good news is that if the department finds against me, which is likely, I can file an "APLS102F with the Office of Dispute Resolution."
Or I could just pay the $60, which is likely to be cheaper. Damn it.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Yuks
Roger Clawson's column this week on sexually oriented businesses is drawing some pretty funny responses.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Superintendent revisited
Just got off the phone with Kathy Kelker, the chairman of the School District 2 board. Our failure to connect between last week's deadline and this week's deadline, by the way, was my fault, not hers. I was planning to get back to her in time to write a story yesterday, but I realized that the Outpost Home Improvement section would eat up all the newshole, so I put the story off for a week. Hope it's worth the wait.
Here's a quick overview of what she had to say. She cited most of the reasons we've heard for the decision not to renew Mr. Svee's contract: concern about the budget format, a tendency to overdelegate, failure to mesh with the board's strategic plan and vision. She said that he would claim that the failure to mesh was the board's fault, and she said he might be right, but that doesn't get the problem resolved.
She also agreed, generally, with his assessment that the district was running well and gave him credit for helping get the district past the strike. She said he was a steady, calming influence and didn't let things rattle him.
She said the board could not have adopted Mr. Svee's suggestion that he be given a one-year contract with the understanding that he could be let go without a further evaluation if philosophical differences could not be worked out in that time. State law requires an evaluation, she said.
As for whether there was any orchestration of the decision against renewing his contract, she said it could have appeared that way because the board seemed to reach consensus before the meeting that no one favored another three-year contract. But she said that she went into the meeting without knowing how the vote would turn out.
She also denied speculation that has surfaced on this blog and elsewhere that she had designs on the superintendent's job. "I'm a tenured college professor," she said. "Why would I want to do that?"
She predicted that Mr. Svee's departure would not have any long-term impact on the district's ability to pass bond issues and mill levies, primarily because those are difficult to pass in any case.
The board will meet next week to begin discussing the hiring of an interim superintendent, probably someone from outside the district, she said.
Here's a quick overview of what she had to say. She cited most of the reasons we've heard for the decision not to renew Mr. Svee's contract: concern about the budget format, a tendency to overdelegate, failure to mesh with the board's strategic plan and vision. She said that he would claim that the failure to mesh was the board's fault, and she said he might be right, but that doesn't get the problem resolved.
She also agreed, generally, with his assessment that the district was running well and gave him credit for helping get the district past the strike. She said he was a steady, calming influence and didn't let things rattle him.
She said the board could not have adopted Mr. Svee's suggestion that he be given a one-year contract with the understanding that he could be let go without a further evaluation if philosophical differences could not be worked out in that time. State law requires an evaluation, she said.
As for whether there was any orchestration of the decision against renewing his contract, she said it could have appeared that way because the board seemed to reach consensus before the meeting that no one favored another three-year contract. But she said that she went into the meeting without knowing how the vote would turn out.
She also denied speculation that has surfaced on this blog and elsewhere that she had designs on the superintendent's job. "I'm a tenured college professor," she said. "Why would I want to do that?"
She predicted that Mr. Svee's departure would not have any long-term impact on the district's ability to pass bond issues and mill levies, primarily because those are difficult to pass in any case.
The board will meet next week to begin discussing the hiring of an interim superintendent, probably someone from outside the district, she said.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Disgruntled
Some of the newest Lee Enterprises employes, those at the St. Louis Post Dispatch, aren't happy.
Read far enough and you'll see that Lee's circulation fell in the last fiscal year.
Read far enough and you'll see that Lee's circulation fell in the last fiscal year.
Honesty in advertising
According to Jason Klindt, Sen. Conrad Burns' newest radio ad contains this line: "Today, through his experience and seniority, Sen. Burns has secured over $2 billion in federal funds for Montana – while voting to lower taxes."
Is that a campaign ad or a confession?
Is that a campaign ad or a confession?
Sunday, February 26, 2006
So maybe, sort of
The Gazette editorial board gives a weak endorsement today of the Billings school board's decision not to renew Superintendent Rod Svee's contract. The thrust of the opinion appeared to be this: If eight of nine board members agree, they must be right.
The editorial defends Svee from allegations that he spends too much time in Helena and that he delegates too much. It agrees that Svee communicated inadequately, but praises him for keeping his "rift" with the board from the public. Lack of communication seems to be OK, so long as it's the public that doesn't know what's going on.
Svee's "lack of commitment" to a more transparent budget process also is cited. Trustee Malcolm Goodrich also cited that in his interview with me, and I don't doubt the sincerity or legitimacy of his concern. But I have trouble seeing why that's not a fixable problem.
Considerations that seem more important to me aren't given their due. For example:
1. The district has an image problem that is not of the superintendent's creation nor within his power to repair. The problem arises from the board. Getting rid of the superintendent doesn't solve the problem; it exacerbates it.
2. Svee argues, persuasively to me, that the real work of the superintendent isn't to be, as the Gazette puts it, "communicator, leader, innovator, negotiator, cheerleader and healer." The ephemeral dream of finding all of those qualities in one package guarantees a history of superintendents with brief and troubled tenures. I've covered quite a few school boards over the years (though never this one, on any consistent basis) and I have never known a superintendent, no matter how capable, who could fill the Gazette's job description. The position needs to be cut to a manageable size, and Svee, I think, tried to do that.
3. Svee's departure will inevitably mean another long period of transition and training. Can we afford it? As the Gazette notes, crucial issues lie before the school district. If the district can navigate those issues with a lame duck superintendent, a novice superintendent, or no superintendent at all, then maybe it doesn't really matter so much who, if anybody, gets the job.
3. Odds are quite good that whoever replaces Svee will also fail, in important respects, to meet the board's expectations. Superintendents nearly always do. Measure Svee's flaws -- communication style, interaction with the board -- against his strengths -- unquestioned integrity, decency and competence -- and it's not hard to imagine that we could wind up a whole lot worse off.
The editorial defends Svee from allegations that he spends too much time in Helena and that he delegates too much. It agrees that Svee communicated inadequately, but praises him for keeping his "rift" with the board from the public. Lack of communication seems to be OK, so long as it's the public that doesn't know what's going on.
Svee's "lack of commitment" to a more transparent budget process also is cited. Trustee Malcolm Goodrich also cited that in his interview with me, and I don't doubt the sincerity or legitimacy of his concern. But I have trouble seeing why that's not a fixable problem.
Considerations that seem more important to me aren't given their due. For example:
1. The district has an image problem that is not of the superintendent's creation nor within his power to repair. The problem arises from the board. Getting rid of the superintendent doesn't solve the problem; it exacerbates it.
2. Svee argues, persuasively to me, that the real work of the superintendent isn't to be, as the Gazette puts it, "communicator, leader, innovator, negotiator, cheerleader and healer." The ephemeral dream of finding all of those qualities in one package guarantees a history of superintendents with brief and troubled tenures. I've covered quite a few school boards over the years (though never this one, on any consistent basis) and I have never known a superintendent, no matter how capable, who could fill the Gazette's job description. The position needs to be cut to a manageable size, and Svee, I think, tried to do that.
3. Svee's departure will inevitably mean another long period of transition and training. Can we afford it? As the Gazette notes, crucial issues lie before the school district. If the district can navigate those issues with a lame duck superintendent, a novice superintendent, or no superintendent at all, then maybe it doesn't really matter so much who, if anybody, gets the job.
3. Odds are quite good that whoever replaces Svee will also fail, in important respects, to meet the board's expectations. Superintendents nearly always do. Measure Svee's flaws -- communication style, interaction with the board -- against his strengths -- unquestioned integrity, decency and competence -- and it's not hard to imagine that we could wind up a whole lot worse off.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Still wondering
My somewhat truncated take on the decision not to renew the contract of Billings Public Schools Superintendent Rod Svee can be found here. It's hard to squeeze in much reporting on production day.
I should add that two board members who did not immediately return my phone calls eventually did: Karen Moses and Katharin Kelker. Mary Jo Fox indicates on a comment on the story that she would have talked to me but did not get my message.
I still haven't talked to Moses or Kelker (I'm out of the office a lot these days), but I did talk to Svee on Wednesday. As in all of dealings with him, dating back to when he was superintendent in Hardin and I was covering the Indian beat for the Gazette, he was courteous, patient and candid.
He said the board's action took him by surprise.
"I had no clue that they were going to do it," he said. "It was obvious that something had been talked about, and something had been planned. I just wasn't privy to it." (I didn't see the meeting, but others who have said the board's action appeared to be orchestrated.)
He said that he feels good about his tenure as superintendent and believes that the district is running well. He defended his emphasis on delegating and building the district from within rather than publicly touting the district's achievements.
"You can't sell a product if the people don't believe it," he said.
He said that he would have been willing to accept a one-year contract without the nonrenewal provision. That would have been true even if the contract had noted philosophical differences with the board and called for an end to his tenure, with no further evaluation, if those differences could not be resolved. But he wouldn't accept a "lame duck" contract.
What about the notion that superintendent really isn't a viable job anymore?
"If they [the board] functioned, and let the administration do its job, like most school districts, rather than run it all through the board, it might work just fine."
He noted that one board goal when he was hired was to calm the waters following the teachers' strike. Now the board seems to want a superintendent who will be more activist and stir things up.
Now what do they do, he asked, when they need someone to calm the waters again?
I should add that two board members who did not immediately return my phone calls eventually did: Karen Moses and Katharin Kelker. Mary Jo Fox indicates on a comment on the story that she would have talked to me but did not get my message.
I still haven't talked to Moses or Kelker (I'm out of the office a lot these days), but I did talk to Svee on Wednesday. As in all of dealings with him, dating back to when he was superintendent in Hardin and I was covering the Indian beat for the Gazette, he was courteous, patient and candid.
He said the board's action took him by surprise.
"I had no clue that they were going to do it," he said. "It was obvious that something had been talked about, and something had been planned. I just wasn't privy to it." (I didn't see the meeting, but others who have said the board's action appeared to be orchestrated.)
He said that he feels good about his tenure as superintendent and believes that the district is running well. He defended his emphasis on delegating and building the district from within rather than publicly touting the district's achievements.
"You can't sell a product if the people don't believe it," he said.
He said that he would have been willing to accept a one-year contract without the nonrenewal provision. That would have been true even if the contract had noted philosophical differences with the board and called for an end to his tenure, with no further evaluation, if those differences could not be resolved. But he wouldn't accept a "lame duck" contract.
What about the notion that superintendent really isn't a viable job anymore?
"If they [the board] functioned, and let the administration do its job, like most school districts, rather than run it all through the board, it might work just fine."
He noted that one board goal when he was hired was to calm the waters following the teachers' strike. Now the board seems to want a superintendent who will be more activist and stir things up.
Now what do they do, he asked, when they need someone to calm the waters again?
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Dancin'
A customer who paid his bill late sent in this note with his check: "Howdy, Sorry it took me so long. Been dancing in spagetti."
Best excuse for a slow pay I ever heard.
Best excuse for a slow pay I ever heard.
Gift to rioters?
Ed Kemmick aptly opines that the decision in Austria to send a historian to prison for denying the Halocaust is a gift to rioters angry about Danish caricatures of Mohammad.
This country will give rioters an even bigger gift if it ever passes a flag-burning amendment. I wouldn't want to have to explain to a devout Muslim why protecting a purely secular symbol from desecration is so important that we had to amend the Constitution to protect it, but religious figures are fair game.
This country will give rioters an even bigger gift if it ever passes a flag-burning amendment. I wouldn't want to have to explain to a devout Muslim why protecting a purely secular symbol from desecration is so important that we had to amend the Constitution to protect it, but religious figures are fair game.
Bad call
This strikes me as a very bad decision. With my various jobs, it's impossible for me to follow the board closely, and I haven't had time to do any reporting on this yet, but I am struck right out of the chute by a couple of things:
1. Svee's biggest job was to calm the waters after the strike. He did that well and deserved to be rewarded for it.
2. The staff gave him much better evaluations than the board did. When the staff and board disagree, the staff is usually right.
3. His highest marks were for ethical behavior, personnel matters and accepting responsibility. Those marks should carry disproportionate weight.
4. Fruit basket turnover every three years is a lousy way to run a school district. I've been saying this for a long time, and it seems truer now than ever: City administrator and school superintendent have become impossible jobs. It would be better to get rid of the positions altogether than to keep hacking away at the hopeless dream of finding the perfect candidate. The district could buy a punching bag for a lot less money.
1. Svee's biggest job was to calm the waters after the strike. He did that well and deserved to be rewarded for it.
2. The staff gave him much better evaluations than the board did. When the staff and board disagree, the staff is usually right.
3. His highest marks were for ethical behavior, personnel matters and accepting responsibility. Those marks should carry disproportionate weight.
4. Fruit basket turnover every three years is a lousy way to run a school district. I've been saying this for a long time, and it seems truer now than ever: City administrator and school superintendent have become impossible jobs. It would be better to get rid of the positions altogether than to keep hacking away at the hopeless dream of finding the perfect candidate. The district could buy a punching bag for a lot less money.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Savage but untrue
Michael Savage just said on KBLG that Bill Clinton, speaking in Pakistan, called for the conviction of European publishers who printed caricatures of Muhammad.
Say what? I'm guessing that Savage got his information from the notoriously unreliable World Net Daily, which printed this story. That story, in turn, probably came from this account or a similar one. But the BBC version omitted the inflammatory quote.
Whom should we believe? Consider the stories that make the claim: They are all similar in quotes and structure, which may indicate they are not independent reports. Several contain this quote or a variation: "the media should be disallowed to play with the religious sentiments of other faiths," wording awkward enough to indicate that there may have been a language barrier. One quotes Clinton as saying, "Media should avoid to publish that things which create gap among different religions." Even Clinton's bitterest enemies would have trouble believing that sentence ever escaped his lips.
Perhaps most suspect is the utter lack of any followup. If Clinton made such a remark to newsmen, wouldn't someone have asked a question? When an ex-president calls for the repeal of the First Amendment, even in other countries, you'd think somebody would ask why.
All of which would be fairly inconsequential if Savage hadn't just told millions of listeners that the story is true, without the slightest doubt or qualification. New media, indeed.
Say what? I'm guessing that Savage got his information from the notoriously unreliable World Net Daily, which printed this story. That story, in turn, probably came from this account or a similar one. But the BBC version omitted the inflammatory quote.
Whom should we believe? Consider the stories that make the claim: They are all similar in quotes and structure, which may indicate they are not independent reports. Several contain this quote or a variation: "the media should be disallowed to play with the religious sentiments of other faiths," wording awkward enough to indicate that there may have been a language barrier. One quotes Clinton as saying, "Media should avoid to publish that things which create gap among different religions." Even Clinton's bitterest enemies would have trouble believing that sentence ever escaped his lips.
Perhaps most suspect is the utter lack of any followup. If Clinton made such a remark to newsmen, wouldn't someone have asked a question? When an ex-president calls for the repeal of the First Amendment, even in other countries, you'd think somebody would ask why.
All of which would be fairly inconsequential if Savage hadn't just told millions of listeners that the story is true, without the slightest doubt or qualification. New media, indeed.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Tony on the prowl
I was idly wondering what Tony Lewis has been up to, so I wandered over to Republican Asshats and found it no longer in operation. Then I went to Not Always There and found this.
Considering how easy it is to piss Tony off, he's going to be a very busy man.
Considering how easy it is to piss Tony off, he's going to be a very busy man.
Friday, February 17, 2006
He writes!
The editor has finally written an Editor's Notebook. With a cartoon!
UPDATE: When I wrote this column, I didn't realize that one of the newspapers that has reprinted an image of Muhammad is The Northern Light over in Molt. The Light apparently was responding to a Christian Newswire story that quoted Christian Newswire Director Gary McCullough as saying, "I ask you to publish the controversial cartoon of Muhammad to send the message; 'We will not be censored by treats [sic] of violence.'" (At this writing, the caricature still does not seem to be in the online edition.)
UPDATE 2: David Summerlin posts a thoughtful response to the Stranger.
UPDATE: When I wrote this column, I didn't realize that one of the newspapers that has reprinted an image of Muhammad is The Northern Light over in Molt. The Light apparently was responding to a Christian Newswire story that quoted Christian Newswire Director Gary McCullough as saying, "I ask you to publish the controversial cartoon of Muhammad to send the message; 'We will not be censored by treats [sic] of violence.'" (At this writing, the caricature still does not seem to be in the online edition.)
UPDATE 2: David Summerlin posts a thoughtful response to the Stranger.
Overblown Cheney
So I was driving around delivering papers Thursday, and Sean Hannity kept talking about how the liberal media were overplaying the Dick Cheney shooting story. He tossed out the topic off and on for a couple of hours, then promised a complete update on "Hannity and Colmes" Thursday night.
Then Glenn Beck came on, and he was absolutely livid about how the liberal media have overplayed the Dick Cheney shooting story. He talked about nothing else for 45 solid minutes, when I switched him off to listen to the news on NPR.
NPR! The hotbed of liberal media excess. Now I was going to get to hear the real thing, live on radio: The Dick Cheney shooting story overblown by the liberal media itself.
Except, it didn't happen. In the hour that I listened, the Dick Cheney shooting story drew maybe a minute of air time, most of that devoted to the brief remarks President Bush had made about the story earlier that day.
Hard to figure, except for the obvious hypocrisy of Hannity and Beck. Like every other media type on the planet, they knew that the Dick Cheney shooting is great talk radio material: pithy, with a clear-cut plotline, and with rich opportunities for humor and punditry. They couldn't pass up the story, but, as card-carrying conservatives, they couldn't let on that somebody at the White House might actually have screwed up. What to do? Blame the messenger, of course. They milked the story for ratings for at least three hours between time, all the time blasting the MSM for their coverage.
Such inconsistencies heighten my skepticism about commenters below who have such unshakable confidence that this story would have been played differently if Cheney had been a Democrat. Certain stories have a power of their own that pull the media along whether they really want to go or not. While it is easy to say, as commenters have pointed out, that this is not a world-altering story, it is, however, one of those stories that everyone will read or listen to, and nearly everyone will talk about. That sort of widespread appeal trumps media bias every time.
UPDATE: If this topic interests you at all, go read this.
Then Glenn Beck came on, and he was absolutely livid about how the liberal media have overplayed the Dick Cheney shooting story. He talked about nothing else for 45 solid minutes, when I switched him off to listen to the news on NPR.
NPR! The hotbed of liberal media excess. Now I was going to get to hear the real thing, live on radio: The Dick Cheney shooting story overblown by the liberal media itself.
Except, it didn't happen. In the hour that I listened, the Dick Cheney shooting story drew maybe a minute of air time, most of that devoted to the brief remarks President Bush had made about the story earlier that day.
Hard to figure, except for the obvious hypocrisy of Hannity and Beck. Like every other media type on the planet, they knew that the Dick Cheney shooting is great talk radio material: pithy, with a clear-cut plotline, and with rich opportunities for humor and punditry. They couldn't pass up the story, but, as card-carrying conservatives, they couldn't let on that somebody at the White House might actually have screwed up. What to do? Blame the messenger, of course. They milked the story for ratings for at least three hours between time, all the time blasting the MSM for their coverage.
Such inconsistencies heighten my skepticism about commenters below who have such unshakable confidence that this story would have been played differently if Cheney had been a Democrat. Certain stories have a power of their own that pull the media along whether they really want to go or not. While it is easy to say, as commenters have pointed out, that this is not a world-altering story, it is, however, one of those stories that everyone will read or listen to, and nearly everyone will talk about. That sort of widespread appeal trumps media bias every time.
UPDATE: If this topic interests you at all, go read this.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Shooting critters
Several online readers looking for Dick Cheney hunting stories have stumbled across this 2004 column by Roger Clawson. Bottom line: "maybe the Veep just likes to shoot holes in critters."
Condolences
Stephen Joseph Tokarski, 89, the father of Steve and Mark Tokarski, a frequent commenter here and on other blogs, has died. Funeral Mass will be at 11 a.m. Friday at St. Pius X Catholic Church. Details will be in Thursday's Outpost.
UPDATE: The Outpost obituary is here.
UPDATE: The Outpost obituary is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)