So when I started to buy records, it was pretty much Simon and Garfunkel for a while (even at $2.60 a pop at Gibson's Discount, I couldn't afford to buy many records). There must be another S&G song stuck somewhere in my head. Lessee:
I'm sitting in a railway station,
Got a ticket for my destination.
On a tour of one-night stands,
My suitcase and guitar in hand,
And every stop is neatly planned
For a poet and a one-man band.
Homeward bound, I wish I was homeward bound.
Home, where my thoughts' escaping,
Home, where my music's playing,
Home, where my love lies waiting
Silently for me.
Every day's an endless stream
Of cigarettes and magazines.
And each town looks the same to me,
The movies and the factories,
And every stranger's face I see
Reminds me that I long to be ... (Chorus)
Tonight I'll play my songs again,
And I'll play the game, and pretend.
But all my words come back to me
In shades of mediocrity.
Like emptiness and harmony,
I need someone to comfort me. (Chorus)
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Afghanistanism
This item from Intelligent Discontent reminded me of my boss when I was editor of the Palestine Herald-Press in Texas. When I presented him with an idea for an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand editorial, he liked to quote an old editor's saw: "Well, let's not go pissing down both legs."
Thursday talk radio update
Glenn Beck admitted he has been wrong: Obama isn't out to make us all socialists, after all. Well, not exactly wrong, just shortsighted. Obama is making us all socialists, but that's just a way station: The real goal is fascism.
Evidence for this amazing claim? Hard to say exactly because Beck, like Mark Twain, has enormous respect for the truth and therefore uses it sparingly. I think the hardest piece of evidence he offered was the disturbing fact that Mussolini's symbol for fascism appeared on the Mercury dime, which appeared in 1916, which means it can be blamed on Woodrow Wilson, which means it can be blamed on progressives, which means it can be blamed on Barack Obama. The fact that Mussolini was still a corporal in the Italian army, not a fascist leader, when the dime appeared didn't seem to figure into Beck's calculations. Those progressives hate America so much, they can betray it years in advance.
The other evidence for fascism appeared to be that Obama fired the CEO of General Motors. I don't quite get that. I can see why people might oppose entanglement with GM for economic reasons, or even for ideological reasons. But I don't see how it's a step toward fascist dictatorship. After all, before Obama stepped in, GM basically had two choices: It could shut its doors, or it could declare bankruptcy. After Obama stepped in, GM still had those two choices plus one more: It could take more government money under conditions opposed by the government.
Not a pretty choice, but even GM seemed to think Obama's offer looked better than its other options. I know that if Obama called me up and offered to pump a billion bucks into The Outpost on condition that I resign, I would have exactly one question: Which door do you want me to leave by?
Evidence for this amazing claim? Hard to say exactly because Beck, like Mark Twain, has enormous respect for the truth and therefore uses it sparingly. I think the hardest piece of evidence he offered was the disturbing fact that Mussolini's symbol for fascism appeared on the Mercury dime, which appeared in 1916, which means it can be blamed on Woodrow Wilson, which means it can be blamed on progressives, which means it can be blamed on Barack Obama. The fact that Mussolini was still a corporal in the Italian army, not a fascist leader, when the dime appeared didn't seem to figure into Beck's calculations. Those progressives hate America so much, they can betray it years in advance.
The other evidence for fascism appeared to be that Obama fired the CEO of General Motors. I don't quite get that. I can see why people might oppose entanglement with GM for economic reasons, or even for ideological reasons. But I don't see how it's a step toward fascist dictatorship. After all, before Obama stepped in, GM basically had two choices: It could shut its doors, or it could declare bankruptcy. After Obama stepped in, GM still had those two choices plus one more: It could take more government money under conditions opposed by the government.
Not a pretty choice, but even GM seemed to think Obama's offer looked better than its other options. I know that if Obama called me up and offered to pump a billion bucks into The Outpost on condition that I resign, I would have exactly one question: Which door do you want me to leave by?
Gay marriage
The Montana Family Foundation, headed by Jeff Laszloffy of Laurel, takes exception to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling permitting gay marriage. In a news release, Laszloffy wrote: "An issue as large as the redefinition of marriage properly belongs to the people. In Montana, we believe marriage should be defined by folks who wear blue jeans not those who wear black robes."
Defining words isn't normally the work of folks in blue jeans, but never mind. More interestingly, Laszloffy says the decision proves the wisdom of Montana's Constitutional Initiative 96, under which Montanans (in blue jeans and otherwise) limited marriage to a man and a woman.
"We were concerned the Montana courts would toss out Montana's [Defense of Marriage Act] and mandate same-sex marriage in our state," he wrote.
When folks in black robes start mandating same-sex marriage, then I will join the revolution. But so far, judges haven't mandated marriage for anybody. They have said only that people are free to do as they please so long as governments are unable to demonstrate a compelling state interest in stopping them. Smells like freedom to me.
To Rob Natelson, however, the ruling smells like politics.
Defining words isn't normally the work of folks in blue jeans, but never mind. More interestingly, Laszloffy says the decision proves the wisdom of Montana's Constitutional Initiative 96, under which Montanans (in blue jeans and otherwise) limited marriage to a man and a woman.
"We were concerned the Montana courts would toss out Montana's [Defense of Marriage Act] and mandate same-sex marriage in our state," he wrote.
When folks in black robes start mandating same-sex marriage, then I will join the revolution. But so far, judges haven't mandated marriage for anybody. They have said only that people are free to do as they please so long as governments are unable to demonstrate a compelling state interest in stopping them. Smells like freedom to me.
To Rob Natelson, however, the ruling smells like politics.
Out of my head
I grew up on gospel music and whatever country leaked into my ears from the radio or from passing by the living room when my father was watching "Louisiana Hayride," Porter Wagoner or Red Foley on television. Then I went to see "The Graduate" and things started to change. Still not sure what it all meant, but it sure was different:
Hello, darkness, my old friend,
I've come to talk with you again.
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seed while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains, within the sounds of silence.
In restless dreams I walked alone,
Narrow streets of cobblestone.
'Neath the halo of a street lamp,
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light,
That split the night, and touched the sounds of silence.
And in the naked light I saw
10,000 people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never shared,
No one dared disturb the sounds of silence.
Fools, said I, you do not know,
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you,
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence.
And the people bowed and prayed
To a neon God they'd made.
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls,
And in the sounds of silence."
Hello, darkness, my old friend,
I've come to talk with you again.
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seed while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains, within the sounds of silence.
In restless dreams I walked alone,
Narrow streets of cobblestone.
'Neath the halo of a street lamp,
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light,
That split the night, and touched the sounds of silence.
And in the naked light I saw
10,000 people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never shared,
No one dared disturb the sounds of silence.
Fools, said I, you do not know,
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you,
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence.
And the people bowed and prayed
To a neon God they'd made.
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls,
And in the sounds of silence."
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Pants beating
If, as seems likely (see post below), Americans are willing to tolerate just about any conceivable level of animal cruelty as long as it makes pork chops cheaper, let's consider another species: human beings.
I've had Charles Fishman's "The Wal-Mart Effect" around for a couple of years, and for some reason I never read quite all of it. Not sure why. It's an extremely well written and enlightening book, and it is by no means a screed against Wal-Mart. Even Wal-Mart apparently eventually realized that he was trying to be fair, since it finally gave in and allowed him to speak to some employees.
The random chapter I turned to last week had a section about a lawsuit filed by 15 workers in five countries who allege that Wal-Mart is guilty of sweatshop mismanagement. The suit proposes the novel legal theory that although Wal-Mart isn't based in those countries and doesn't own the factories involved, it in effect has control of the factories and is responsible for workplace abuses there.
Since Fishman's book was published, a U.S. court has dismissed the suit, finding, unsurprisingly, that it had no jurisdiction. But an appeal is planned and, according to Fishman, Wal-Mart has not disputed the underlying allegations.
One of those allegations is from a factory worker in Bangladesh, who was working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for 13 cents an hour sewing back pockets onto pants that eventually were sold in Wal-Mart stores. If she kept at the job for 50 years, Fishman calculated, she would still earn less in her career than Wal-Mart made in profits in every minute of 2004.
But here's the point: The 16-year-old worker claimed that workers were required to sew 120 pairs of pants an hour. If they made mistakes or fell behind, supervisors would beat them across the face with the pants they were working on.
If her account is true, Fishman says, "then it is possible that Wal-Mart's customers were buying pants off the display racks that might literally have been used to beat the people who made them. Who is wearing those pants now?"
Good question. Second question: Would Americans knowingly buy pants that were used to beat the workers who made them? My guess: Yes.
I've had Charles Fishman's "The Wal-Mart Effect" around for a couple of years, and for some reason I never read quite all of it. Not sure why. It's an extremely well written and enlightening book, and it is by no means a screed against Wal-Mart. Even Wal-Mart apparently eventually realized that he was trying to be fair, since it finally gave in and allowed him to speak to some employees.
The random chapter I turned to last week had a section about a lawsuit filed by 15 workers in five countries who allege that Wal-Mart is guilty of sweatshop mismanagement. The suit proposes the novel legal theory that although Wal-Mart isn't based in those countries and doesn't own the factories involved, it in effect has control of the factories and is responsible for workplace abuses there.
Since Fishman's book was published, a U.S. court has dismissed the suit, finding, unsurprisingly, that it had no jurisdiction. But an appeal is planned and, according to Fishman, Wal-Mart has not disputed the underlying allegations.
One of those allegations is from a factory worker in Bangladesh, who was working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for 13 cents an hour sewing back pockets onto pants that eventually were sold in Wal-Mart stores. If she kept at the job for 50 years, Fishman calculated, she would still earn less in her career than Wal-Mart made in profits in every minute of 2004.
But here's the point: The 16-year-old worker claimed that workers were required to sew 120 pairs of pants an hour. If they made mistakes or fell behind, supervisors would beat them across the face with the pants they were working on.
If her account is true, Fishman says, "then it is possible that Wal-Mart's customers were buying pants off the display racks that might literally have been used to beat the people who made them. Who is wearing those pants now?"
Good question. Second question: Would Americans knowingly buy pants that were used to beat the workers who made them? My guess: Yes.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Cruel world
Wandering through the Intertubes the other day, I ran across someone who said, approximately, that the thing that may strike future generations as most barbaric about early 21st century America is our wanton cruelty to farm animals.
I forgot who said that, but it came back to my mind when I was watching a documentary on HBO the other night about a corporate pig farm. An undercover activist took a job there so that he could secretly try to confirm a rumor he had heard: that the farm disposed of unmarketable hogs by hanging them with a chain.
He got the goods, all right: shots of pigs unable even to walk being dragged out of barns by their legs and strung up, kicking for four or five minutes before expiring.
That was the sensational shot, but the whole atmosphere had a sense of casual cruelty to it that made it hard to watch. Pigs were confined in pens so narrow they could not move about or even turn around. They could lie down only in their own filth.
Piglets were sorted and tossed into barrels like lumber, piled by the dozen on top of each other while still alive and squealing.
Why are we so mean?
I don't think I'm a polyanna about this sort of thing. I grew up in the country. We kept our own chickens and occasionally chopped off the head of one or two to make Sunday dinner. Farming isn't a PETA party.
But there was a certain rough justice in it. You couldn't call it a social contract because the animals didn't get to vote. But they did get certain compensations. If farm life is tough on animals, life in the wild is often even tougher. Farmers offered their livestock a steady, nourishing diet, relative safety from predators and reasonable accommodations. In return, the occasional animal became dinner. Farmers often felt protective, even affectionate, toward the animals they tended and sometimes slaughtered.
None of that was on display on this farm. The whole idea seemed to be to treat pigs as much like inanimate objects as possible, without the slightest hint of what used to be called humanity. It does seem likely that our descendants will look back on us someday and wonder what evil lurked in our hearts.
How's that bacon smelling?
I forgot who said that, but it came back to my mind when I was watching a documentary on HBO the other night about a corporate pig farm. An undercover activist took a job there so that he could secretly try to confirm a rumor he had heard: that the farm disposed of unmarketable hogs by hanging them with a chain.
He got the goods, all right: shots of pigs unable even to walk being dragged out of barns by their legs and strung up, kicking for four or five minutes before expiring.
That was the sensational shot, but the whole atmosphere had a sense of casual cruelty to it that made it hard to watch. Pigs were confined in pens so narrow they could not move about or even turn around. They could lie down only in their own filth.
Piglets were sorted and tossed into barrels like lumber, piled by the dozen on top of each other while still alive and squealing.
Why are we so mean?
I don't think I'm a polyanna about this sort of thing. I grew up in the country. We kept our own chickens and occasionally chopped off the head of one or two to make Sunday dinner. Farming isn't a PETA party.
But there was a certain rough justice in it. You couldn't call it a social contract because the animals didn't get to vote. But they did get certain compensations. If farm life is tough on animals, life in the wild is often even tougher. Farmers offered their livestock a steady, nourishing diet, relative safety from predators and reasonable accommodations. In return, the occasional animal became dinner. Farmers often felt protective, even affectionate, toward the animals they tended and sometimes slaughtered.
None of that was on display on this farm. The whole idea seemed to be to treat pigs as much like inanimate objects as possible, without the slightest hint of what used to be called humanity. It does seem likely that our descendants will look back on us someday and wonder what evil lurked in our hearts.
How's that bacon smelling?
Out of my mind
Time for a little Jimmie Rodgers, eh, Ed?
I've ranged, I've roamed and I've traveled.
I've been a no-good, they say.
Many years of my life I have wasted,
But I stopped leading that life today.
I had a dear old mother,
A dad and a sister, too.
But I was the youngest, and spoiled, some say,
By Mother, as mothers will do.
I left when a kid for the city;
I craved the Great White Way.
But it is a place without pity;
I went wrong the very first day.
I met there a lady,
She seemed so jolly and gay.
She took me up to her apartment
Where a dozen or more men stay.
For it was her gang, and she was their boss,
They talked of the fun they had.
We all played poker and soon I had lost
Every nickel that I had.
They said, "Come on, kid, and cheer up,
We'll let you join our gang."
They took me out on a job that night;
That's when my troubles began.
For one of the gang shot the watchman;
They laid the blame on me.
I spent 20 years in the prison,
I'm a man of forty-three.
It was then I thought of my mother,
At home, feeble and gray.
I want to see you, Mother,
As I did when I went away.
I sat down and wrote her a letter,
And this is how it ran:
I said, "Mother, I've been gone 20 long years,
Out West across the Rio Grande.
"No mail ever reaches me here,
There's nothing but sagebrush and sand.
Mother, I love you and want to come home,
And start life all over again."
(Add "yo-do-lay-lee" as needed).
I've ranged, I've roamed and I've traveled.
I've been a no-good, they say.
Many years of my life I have wasted,
But I stopped leading that life today.
I had a dear old mother,
A dad and a sister, too.
But I was the youngest, and spoiled, some say,
By Mother, as mothers will do.
I left when a kid for the city;
I craved the Great White Way.
But it is a place without pity;
I went wrong the very first day.
I met there a lady,
She seemed so jolly and gay.
She took me up to her apartment
Where a dozen or more men stay.
For it was her gang, and she was their boss,
They talked of the fun they had.
We all played poker and soon I had lost
Every nickel that I had.
They said, "Come on, kid, and cheer up,
We'll let you join our gang."
They took me out on a job that night;
That's when my troubles began.
For one of the gang shot the watchman;
They laid the blame on me.
I spent 20 years in the prison,
I'm a man of forty-three.
It was then I thought of my mother,
At home, feeble and gray.
I want to see you, Mother,
As I did when I went away.
I sat down and wrote her a letter,
And this is how it ran:
I said, "Mother, I've been gone 20 long years,
Out West across the Rio Grande.
"No mail ever reaches me here,
There's nothing but sagebrush and sand.
Mother, I love you and want to come home,
And start life all over again."
(Add "yo-do-lay-lee" as needed).
Monday, March 23, 2009
Idle thoughts
Just wondering: If Hannity, Limbaugh and their ilk had spent, say, 10 percent as much energy over the previous eight years attacking the Bush administration -- going after torture, deficits, undeclared wars, civil liberties violations -- as they already have spent going after Obama, would the country be better off?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Hard times at the Missoulian
The Missoulian whines about losing county legal notices to the Missoula Independent (h/t Matt Singer. As you may recall, the Outpost lost out on Yellowstone County legals last year, despite submitting the low bid, based on similar concerns raised by Yellowstone County commissioners.
Our argument remains:
1. People who read legals will go where the legals are.
2. No. 1 is especially true when they can go where the legals are for free.
3. Lots of people read the Outpost who will never shell out for a Gazette subscription. And those numbers are increasing steadily.
4. As more and more legals readers migrate to the web, whatever edge the daily might have continues to diminish.
5. Competition holds costs down.
So why not save taxpayers a few bucks?
UPDATE: In comments to this post, I said that I didn't know the status of a bill this session that would allow free newspapers to print legal notices for cities and towns as well as for counties. According to the Montana Newspaper Association, that bill (SB296) has been sent to the governor for his signature.
Our argument remains:
1. People who read legals will go where the legals are.
2. No. 1 is especially true when they can go where the legals are for free.
3. Lots of people read the Outpost who will never shell out for a Gazette subscription. And those numbers are increasing steadily.
4. As more and more legals readers migrate to the web, whatever edge the daily might have continues to diminish.
5. Competition holds costs down.
So why not save taxpayers a few bucks?
UPDATE: In comments to this post, I said that I didn't know the status of a bill this session that would allow free newspapers to print legal notices for cities and towns as well as for counties. According to the Montana Newspaper Association, that bill (SB296) has been sent to the governor for his signature.
Thursday talk radio update II
After listening to the usual daylong attacks on Obama, I finally arrived home after a 13-hour delivery day and watched Barack Obama hold a town meeting on C-SPAN.
I felt one of those weird disconnects. Could this guy on TV, who sounded so reasonable and intelligent, actually be the same guy I had just heard all day was an incompetent, dishonest socialist? Hard to reconcile the two.
To give just one example: Hannity repeatedly attacks Obama's stimulus package, arguing among many other things that it is unsustainable. To which my internal Hannity Rebuttal Machine inevitably replies, "Of course it's not sustainable. The whole point of a stimulus to kick start the economy, not to provide a sustainable model for economic growth."
In fact, very nearly the first thing we heard at the town hall meeting was a questioner raising concerns about the prospects for long-term deficits. To which Obama replied, surprise, surprise, that current deficits aren't sustainable. Instead, they must be endured for a year or two until the economy gets back on its feet.
Of course, I have long argued that the more extreme right-wing voices on the radio probably help Obama more than hurt him. Democrats apparently have concluded that as well, since they seem delighted to label Limbaugh as the No. 1 voice of the Republican Party.
I got more of the same feeling Thursday evening when Paul Krugman was interviewed on Yellowstone Public Radio. Krugman's major criticism of the stimulus, of course, was that it wasn't big enough. I have no idea whether he is right about that, but he certainly knows how to make a heck of a case. I was especially impressed by his point that having too much debt was less risky than having too little stimulus.
It's great to have a Nobel Prize-winning economist who is able to express his ideas so clearly and succinctly, and Krugman makes Hannity look like the total hack he is.
I felt one of those weird disconnects. Could this guy on TV, who sounded so reasonable and intelligent, actually be the same guy I had just heard all day was an incompetent, dishonest socialist? Hard to reconcile the two.
To give just one example: Hannity repeatedly attacks Obama's stimulus package, arguing among many other things that it is unsustainable. To which my internal Hannity Rebuttal Machine inevitably replies, "Of course it's not sustainable. The whole point of a stimulus to kick start the economy, not to provide a sustainable model for economic growth."
In fact, very nearly the first thing we heard at the town hall meeting was a questioner raising concerns about the prospects for long-term deficits. To which Obama replied, surprise, surprise, that current deficits aren't sustainable. Instead, they must be endured for a year or two until the economy gets back on its feet.
Of course, I have long argued that the more extreme right-wing voices on the radio probably help Obama more than hurt him. Democrats apparently have concluded that as well, since they seem delighted to label Limbaugh as the No. 1 voice of the Republican Party.
I got more of the same feeling Thursday evening when Paul Krugman was interviewed on Yellowstone Public Radio. Krugman's major criticism of the stimulus, of course, was that it wasn't big enough. I have no idea whether he is right about that, but he certainly knows how to make a heck of a case. I was especially impressed by his point that having too much debt was less risky than having too little stimulus.
It's great to have a Nobel Prize-winning economist who is able to express his ideas so clearly and succinctly, and Krugman makes Hannity look like the total hack he is.
Out of my head
My first-year German students are learning the dative case, which prompted me to teach them this dative-rich song:
Du, du liegst mir im Herzen,
Du, du liegst mir im Sinn.
Du, du machst mir viel Schmerzen,
Weisst nicht wie gut ich dir bin.
Ja, ja, ja, ja, weisst nich wie gut ich dir bin.
Wenn, wenn, wenn in der Ferne,
Mir, mir dein Bild erscheint.
Dann, dann, wuenschte ich so gerne,
Dass uns die Liebe vereint.
Ja, ja, ja, ja, dass uns die Liebe vereint.
Approximately,
You, you are in my heart,
You, you are on my mind.
You, you cause me much pain,
You don't know how good I am to you.
When, when, when in the distance,
To me, to me your image appears.
Then, then, I wish so gladly,
That we were united by love.
To hear a prettier voice, and see a prettier person, plus get a couple of verses I haven't memorized, go here.
Du, du liegst mir im Herzen,
Du, du liegst mir im Sinn.
Du, du machst mir viel Schmerzen,
Weisst nicht wie gut ich dir bin.
Ja, ja, ja, ja, weisst nich wie gut ich dir bin.
Wenn, wenn, wenn in der Ferne,
Mir, mir dein Bild erscheint.
Dann, dann, wuenschte ich so gerne,
Dass uns die Liebe vereint.
Ja, ja, ja, ja, dass uns die Liebe vereint.
Approximately,
You, you are in my heart,
You, you are on my mind.
You, you cause me much pain,
You don't know how good I am to you.
When, when, when in the distance,
To me, to me your image appears.
Then, then, I wish so gladly,
That we were united by love.
To hear a prettier voice, and see a prettier person, plus get a couple of verses I haven't memorized, go here.
Thursday talk radio update I
For months, Sean Hannity has been defending America's healthcare system by pointing out that medical providers are obligated by law to provide emergency help. Every time he says this, my internal Hannity Rebuttal Machine responds, "That's not an example of free-market success. That's an example of free-market failure." When laws are passed requiring McDonald's to give a free Big Mac to every broke customer who walks in the door, then we will know that the free market for food has broken down, too.
Since Hannity routinely interrupts just about every sentence spoken by those who disagree with him, I never heard a caller dispute this bromide. Until Thursday. Hannity, perhaps unwittingly, let an unusually articulate and persistent caller point out that laws requiring free emergency medical care are an example of socialism, not capitalism. Even more remarkable, Hannity agreed with the caller. This prompted him to go ahead and actually describe his own medical plan, which would require Americans to pay into mandatory health savings accounts.
My Hannity Rebuttal Machine wants to know why Obama's plan, which as I understand it would require employers who don't offer medical insurance to pay into a pool to cover the uninsured, is more socialistic than Hannity's. In one case, the government tells employers what they have to do. In the other, it tells private citizens what they have to do. Socialism, anyone?
Since Hannity routinely interrupts just about every sentence spoken by those who disagree with him, I never heard a caller dispute this bromide. Until Thursday. Hannity, perhaps unwittingly, let an unusually articulate and persistent caller point out that laws requiring free emergency medical care are an example of socialism, not capitalism. Even more remarkable, Hannity agreed with the caller. This prompted him to go ahead and actually describe his own medical plan, which would require Americans to pay into mandatory health savings accounts.
My Hannity Rebuttal Machine wants to know why Obama's plan, which as I understand it would require employers who don't offer medical insurance to pay into a pool to cover the uninsured, is more socialistic than Hannity's. In one case, the government tells employers what they have to do. In the other, it tells private citizens what they have to do. Socialism, anyone?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Laid off, written up
The Helena Independent Record laid off Bill Skidmore not long ago. Now it has written a profile of him. Just so you'll know what you're missing, I guess (h/t Queen City News).
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Crisp gets it backwards
Over at Electric City Weblog, Rob Natelson asked if I would have published the Kaimin sex column in the Outpost. I replied:
This, Mr. Natelson replies, gets it exactly backwards. He replies, "The standards of quality for discourse in university newspapers ought to be higher, not lower, than in the mainstream press, and certainly higher than in alternative papers."
I'm not sure where I said that student newspapers should aspire to lower standards than commercial ones, but let it be. This is an argument I am glad to have backwards. I would like to be as far away from Mr. Natelson's position as it is possible to get.
What I actually said (see below) was that student newspapers, no matter how high their standards, are likely to fall short of them. Professional journalists do that, too, and, by definition, students are still learning. My point was not that students shouldn't have standards but that they need to be given plenty of room to feel their way toward those standards, and that nobody should get too upset when they mess up.
Mr. Natelson, however, has been unable to make a case that the Kaimin, in fact, falls short of acceptable journalistic standards. He calls the newspaper's sex column pornography, but I can't see that it is in any meaningful way, and he hasn't bothered to demonstrate that it is. At best, he points to SPJ's Code of Ethics, but the code, while well intentioned, is laughably imprecise.
Rather than deal with that complexity, Mr. Natelson falls back on the argument that it's coercive to make taxpayers support speech of which they disapprove. As I indicate below, that's life. I would anticipate that taxpayer-supported universities every single day would be filled with ideas, expressions and notions with which I disagree.
Heck, sometimes in my own university classes I say things that even I don't agree with, just because I hope to get students thinking about complicated matters. I don't know to what extent taxpayer-supported Mr. Natelson lets his political views leak out into his classes, but I expect that they do, and I hope that they do. Students ought to be exposed to those ideas.
Because some Kaimin students are paid, he now argues, and because they fall short of what he believes their professional standards should be, the Kaimin is now somehow different from every other form of taxpayer-supported opinion, expression and utterance that shows up on any healthy campus. And taxpayers should stick their noses into an arena best handled by professionals and by readers and by students who are aspiring to become professionals.
Or maybe I have that backward. If so, I'll keep it that way.
I probably wouldn’t publish that column because I don’t think that Billings has a typical audience for an alternative weekly. Our readers, I think, are generally older and more conservative than the typical alternative audience (and far more so than the Kaimin audience), so I suspect that it wouldn’t work well for us.
But if you want a taste of what’s typical at alt-weeklies, try Dan Savage at http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author?oid=259
Pandering to lurid curiosity? I thought that’s how newspapers made a living.
This, Mr. Natelson replies, gets it exactly backwards. He replies, "The standards of quality for discourse in university newspapers ought to be higher, not lower, than in the mainstream press, and certainly higher than in alternative papers."
I'm not sure where I said that student newspapers should aspire to lower standards than commercial ones, but let it be. This is an argument I am glad to have backwards. I would like to be as far away from Mr. Natelson's position as it is possible to get.
What I actually said (see below) was that student newspapers, no matter how high their standards, are likely to fall short of them. Professional journalists do that, too, and, by definition, students are still learning. My point was not that students shouldn't have standards but that they need to be given plenty of room to feel their way toward those standards, and that nobody should get too upset when they mess up.
Mr. Natelson, however, has been unable to make a case that the Kaimin, in fact, falls short of acceptable journalistic standards. He calls the newspaper's sex column pornography, but I can't see that it is in any meaningful way, and he hasn't bothered to demonstrate that it is. At best, he points to SPJ's Code of Ethics, but the code, while well intentioned, is laughably imprecise.
Rather than deal with that complexity, Mr. Natelson falls back on the argument that it's coercive to make taxpayers support speech of which they disapprove. As I indicate below, that's life. I would anticipate that taxpayer-supported universities every single day would be filled with ideas, expressions and notions with which I disagree.
Heck, sometimes in my own university classes I say things that even I don't agree with, just because I hope to get students thinking about complicated matters. I don't know to what extent taxpayer-supported Mr. Natelson lets his political views leak out into his classes, but I expect that they do, and I hope that they do. Students ought to be exposed to those ideas.
Because some Kaimin students are paid, he now argues, and because they fall short of what he believes their professional standards should be, the Kaimin is now somehow different from every other form of taxpayer-supported opinion, expression and utterance that shows up on any healthy campus. And taxpayers should stick their noses into an arena best handled by professionals and by readers and by students who are aspiring to become professionals.
Or maybe I have that backward. If so, I'll keep it that way.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
New magazine
Print may be dying, but it ain't dead.
At the Missoula Independent, Matt Gibson is launching Headwall, an outdoor recreation magazine.
At the Missoula Independent, Matt Gibson is launching Headwall, an outdoor recreation magazine.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Electric City makes a porno
I have largely stayed out of the exhaustive discussion at Electric City Weblog over the Kaimin's sex column (numerous links; just check my blogroll, where my longstanding broken link to that site has now been fixed). I jumped in only to ask Rob Natelson whether the sex column was truly pornographic. He assured me that it was; I was dubious but didn't want to make the argument without having read the columns, and I didn't want to read the columns.
Now I have read a few, and I don't see any pornography there. What I read doesn't go much further than the sex column that appears in the refurbished MSU Billings Retort, and that doesn't go very far. But that's not my point. I'm more interested in the larger issue, which is the professor's complaint that taxpayers are being forced to pay for content they may not like.
I'm not insensitive to the argument, but that's the breaks. We all have to pay for government we don't want, including the occasional war. Democracies tend to be self-correcting on those sorts of issues, but they aren't perfect.
I even agree that the Hazelwood case, however little I may like it, was correctly decided. Somebody has to take final responsibility for what appears in print; as long as schools have to pay the libel judgments, they are entitled to some control. So, sure, taxpayers have a lot of power to dictate what student papers can print. It is interesting to hear the argument coming from a professor who might easily have the most to lose if Montana taxpayers were to begin seriously clamping down on people who draw state paychecks while expressing unpopular views.
But there is a big difference between the legal obligations of taxpayer-funded entities and what works best. I'd rather have student newspapers left in the hands of students, with some faculty guidance, than placed under the thumb of hyper-sensitive taxpayers. Students need a place where they can screw up pretty freely without ruining their careers; giving student publications the longest possible leash helps ensure that will happen. So what if they make mistakes? Small price to pay. They get a lesson in what works for readers, and they acquire a couple of layers of shellac on their hides.
The same argument applies to such controversies as federal funding of, for instance, an exhibition of Mapplethorpe photographs back in 1989. Some conservatives saw that as final proof that the federal government should not be funding art. The way I see it, such errors are the natural consequence of a robust and uninhibited arts-funding process. If we don't have a process broad enough to tolerate a few stupid mistakes, then we have no process at all.
UPDATE: Worth mentioning, perhaps, that one of my German students brought to class a book about sex that is used for required sex education classes in Germany for about third or fourth grade. It is far more graphic, in language, content and illustration, than anything I read in the Kaimin's sex column for young adults.
We are a bunch of Puritans, aren't we?
Now I have read a few, and I don't see any pornography there. What I read doesn't go much further than the sex column that appears in the refurbished MSU Billings Retort, and that doesn't go very far. But that's not my point. I'm more interested in the larger issue, which is the professor's complaint that taxpayers are being forced to pay for content they may not like.
I'm not insensitive to the argument, but that's the breaks. We all have to pay for government we don't want, including the occasional war. Democracies tend to be self-correcting on those sorts of issues, but they aren't perfect.
I even agree that the Hazelwood case, however little I may like it, was correctly decided. Somebody has to take final responsibility for what appears in print; as long as schools have to pay the libel judgments, they are entitled to some control. So, sure, taxpayers have a lot of power to dictate what student papers can print. It is interesting to hear the argument coming from a professor who might easily have the most to lose if Montana taxpayers were to begin seriously clamping down on people who draw state paychecks while expressing unpopular views.
But there is a big difference between the legal obligations of taxpayer-funded entities and what works best. I'd rather have student newspapers left in the hands of students, with some faculty guidance, than placed under the thumb of hyper-sensitive taxpayers. Students need a place where they can screw up pretty freely without ruining their careers; giving student publications the longest possible leash helps ensure that will happen. So what if they make mistakes? Small price to pay. They get a lesson in what works for readers, and they acquire a couple of layers of shellac on their hides.
The same argument applies to such controversies as federal funding of, for instance, an exhibition of Mapplethorpe photographs back in 1989. Some conservatives saw that as final proof that the federal government should not be funding art. The way I see it, such errors are the natural consequence of a robust and uninhibited arts-funding process. If we don't have a process broad enough to tolerate a few stupid mistakes, then we have no process at all.
UPDATE: Worth mentioning, perhaps, that one of my German students brought to class a book about sex that is used for required sex education classes in Germany for about third or fourth grade. It is far more graphic, in language, content and illustration, than anything I read in the Kaimin's sex column for young adults.
We are a bunch of Puritans, aren't we?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Out of my head
I wonder if these are still in my head: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Revelations.
I'm afraid to check to see if I'm right.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Revelations.
I'm afraid to check to see if I'm right.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday talk radio update
Sean Hannity has been criticizing Barack Obama for saying that he doesn't pay much attention to day-to-day fluctuations of the stock market. This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable thing for Obama to say, and it is what even Hannity would want the president to say if the president were a Republican. Nobody wants a president who changes his economic policies every day based on how many points the stock market goes up or down. But Obama is a Democrat, so Hannity has been mocking this comment daily.
Hannity also has been saying that Obama is to blame for recent market declines and has even called this "the Obama economy." He also has repeatedly asserted that he will treat Obama fairly, giving credit where credit is due and criticizing where criticism is due.
The stock market rose 240 points on Thursday. So, if:
1. The president is responsible for the stock market, and
2. Daily fluctuations matter, and
3. Fair is fair,
then Hannity must have been praising Obama to the heavens on Thursday, right?
Wrong. Funny thing, I listened for two hours, and he never mentioned the stock market. Probably just an oversight.
Meanwhile, Ed sent me this link, in which Hannity endorses torture. Many of the comments focused on the last four words: "And I'm a Christian." What could possibly have been the point? commenters wanted to know.
I took the point to be that Hannity is aspiring to membership in Christians for Torture, which meets Tuesdays in the Satanic Hall. But I liked best the response that said: "I'm trying to figure out the the point of Hannity's last ten million words."
Hannity also has been saying that Obama is to blame for recent market declines and has even called this "the Obama economy." He also has repeatedly asserted that he will treat Obama fairly, giving credit where credit is due and criticizing where criticism is due.
The stock market rose 240 points on Thursday. So, if:
1. The president is responsible for the stock market, and
2. Daily fluctuations matter, and
3. Fair is fair,
then Hannity must have been praising Obama to the heavens on Thursday, right?
Wrong. Funny thing, I listened for two hours, and he never mentioned the stock market. Probably just an oversight.
Meanwhile, Ed sent me this link, in which Hannity endorses torture. Many of the comments focused on the last four words: "And I'm a Christian." What could possibly have been the point? commenters wanted to know.
I took the point to be that Hannity is aspiring to membership in Christians for Torture, which meets Tuesdays in the Satanic Hall. But I liked best the response that said: "I'm trying to figure out the the point of Hannity's last ten million words."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Out of my head
I don't know why this is in my head, but it has been there for a long time, at least since high school:
I give you now Professor Twist,
The conscientious scientist.
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles,"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."
I give you now Professor Twist,
The conscientious scientist.
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles,"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)