Lots of interesting comments this week on Roger Clawson's column about alleged government giveaways to Indians.
Some of them are even pro-Clawson. How often do you get to read something like that?
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Beer bust
If I had known it was going to cause a national economic crisis, I wouldn't have cut back on my beer drinking.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Hiatus
The hiatus on this blog will last a bit longer. I finished up classwork at Rocky last week, but still have a final and a lot of grading to do. I'll finish this week at MSU-Billings, then there's quite a bit to clear off the desk here at the Outpost, including monthly billing and some very difficult decisions about where this paper is going and how it's going to get there.
So it will be next week at the earliest before there's much to read here. So move along now.
So it will be next week at the earliest before there's much to read here. So move along now.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Murdoch on the press
I had meant earlier to link to this speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The speech has gotten a lot of play in the blogosphere, not, I suspect, so much for its content as for who said it.
But one statistic caught my eye: "According to one recent study, the percentage of national journalists who have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American public to make good decisions has declined by more than 20 points since 1999." That number was new to me.
Murdoch opines, "Perhaps this reflects their personal politics and personal prejudices more than anything else, but it is disturbing." Perhaps. I suspect that it may reflect a reaction to the fairly overwhelming public distrust of journalists. If I know I'm telling the truth, and you call me a liar, then my respect for your judgment diminishes.
But I agree with Murdoch that it's a disturbing number. When journalists think their readers are stupid, that can't be good for journalism.
Here at The Outpost, I struggle with the opposite problem. I think Outpost readers are the bee's knees. It's the nonreaders I don't trust. Sometimes on Thursdays, when I'm out delivering papers all day long, I catch myself silently cursing the intelligence and character of people who walk by our racks without picking up a copy.
I'm not saying that's smart, and I'm not proud of it. But if you ever see me on Thursday with a couple of bundles of Outposts under my arm, you might want to ask for a copy. Someday, who knows? I might just blow.
But one statistic caught my eye: "According to one recent study, the percentage of national journalists who have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American public to make good decisions has declined by more than 20 points since 1999." That number was new to me.
Murdoch opines, "Perhaps this reflects their personal politics and personal prejudices more than anything else, but it is disturbing." Perhaps. I suspect that it may reflect a reaction to the fairly overwhelming public distrust of journalists. If I know I'm telling the truth, and you call me a liar, then my respect for your judgment diminishes.
But I agree with Murdoch that it's a disturbing number. When journalists think their readers are stupid, that can't be good for journalism.
Here at The Outpost, I struggle with the opposite problem. I think Outpost readers are the bee's knees. It's the nonreaders I don't trust. Sometimes on Thursdays, when I'm out delivering papers all day long, I catch myself silently cursing the intelligence and character of people who walk by our racks without picking up a copy.
I'm not saying that's smart, and I'm not proud of it. But if you ever see me on Thursday with a couple of bundles of Outposts under my arm, you might want to ask for a copy. Someday, who knows? I might just blow.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
More winners
Here are a couple of more legislative winners I meant to mention:
Dave Wanzenreid: After he was maneuvered out of the House speaker job, Rep. Wanzenreid, D-Missoula, could have spent the rest of the session pouting. Instead, he took the defeat with class and held Democrats together during crucial votes.
Alternative energy: Wilbur Wood, who has been writing about wind energy and other alternative energy sources, says that amendments took much of the meat out of the final version of Senate Bill 415. But renewables are on the map now, and they won't go away.
Dave Wanzenreid: After he was maneuvered out of the House speaker job, Rep. Wanzenreid, D-Missoula, could have spent the rest of the session pouting. Instead, he took the defeat with class and held Democrats together during crucial votes.
Alternative energy: Wilbur Wood, who has been writing about wind energy and other alternative energy sources, says that amendments took much of the meat out of the final version of Senate Bill 415. But renewables are on the map now, and they won't go away.
Legislature: Who won?
Here's my quick read on winners and losers in the legislative session. In true blogging fashion, I have based these judgments on virtually no research, so your corrections and improvements are welcome.
Winners
Brian Schweitzer: I'm not persuaded that the governor did as well as he thinks he did, but considering that he was breaking in his first elective office with a slim legislative majority, anything this side of total disaster has to be a positive. Give him a B.
Jon Tester: The Senate president promised to be fair and bipartisan, and, by and large, he seemed to keep that promise. Now there's talk he'll run for Congress.
The ACLU: Strange, but true. Not only did public defender legislation pass in an effort to ward off an ACLU suit, the Legislature also lined up behind a resolution against the Patriot Act.
Losers
Education: It probably was too much to expect a solution to school funding problems to come out of this session, but Sen. Corey Stapleton, R-Billings, was right: Legislators should have debated education until the bitter end. Heck, I haven't had a day off since January; why shouldn't the Legislature burn 90 days of midnight oil? Back to Helena, folks.
Republicans: As I have noted before, I hold Republican leader Roy Brown in considerable esteem. I think he's smart and honest and fights for what he genuinely thinks is right. But I thought Republicans were much too quick to adopt the minority party role. They ought to have played from a position of strength: We're still the majority party in this state, and don't think a little gerrymandering changes that. Either show some bipartisan cooperation, or eat our dust in the next election. But conservative Republicans can't seem to shed the minority mentality: Sean Hannity has 12 million radio listeners, and his party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress, yet he still sounds every day like a besieged minority. Time to grow up.
Too close to call
Democrats: Interesting session for Democrats. On one hand, they had a fat surplus to spend -- every politician's wet dream. On the other, they had genuine needs to meet from court cases and a dozen years of tight budgets. It's one thing to freeze state workers' pay when the state's struggling to stay in the black, quite another when the Legislature has a couple of hundred million to play around with.
So Democrats had to spend, but they also had to avoid as much as possible the big spender label. Tough trick to pull off, and Republicans weren't eager to make it easier. The spoiler is still school funding. If the Legislature can come out of a special session with a reasonable solution and no big new tax bite, the Dems should be OK. If they don't, well, welcome to 2007.
That's enough for now. I'll add more as needed.
Winners
Brian Schweitzer: I'm not persuaded that the governor did as well as he thinks he did, but considering that he was breaking in his first elective office with a slim legislative majority, anything this side of total disaster has to be a positive. Give him a B.
Jon Tester: The Senate president promised to be fair and bipartisan, and, by and large, he seemed to keep that promise. Now there's talk he'll run for Congress.
The ACLU: Strange, but true. Not only did public defender legislation pass in an effort to ward off an ACLU suit, the Legislature also lined up behind a resolution against the Patriot Act.
Losers
Education: It probably was too much to expect a solution to school funding problems to come out of this session, but Sen. Corey Stapleton, R-Billings, was right: Legislators should have debated education until the bitter end. Heck, I haven't had a day off since January; why shouldn't the Legislature burn 90 days of midnight oil? Back to Helena, folks.
Republicans: As I have noted before, I hold Republican leader Roy Brown in considerable esteem. I think he's smart and honest and fights for what he genuinely thinks is right. But I thought Republicans were much too quick to adopt the minority party role. They ought to have played from a position of strength: We're still the majority party in this state, and don't think a little gerrymandering changes that. Either show some bipartisan cooperation, or eat our dust in the next election. But conservative Republicans can't seem to shed the minority mentality: Sean Hannity has 12 million radio listeners, and his party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress, yet he still sounds every day like a besieged minority. Time to grow up.
Too close to call
Democrats: Interesting session for Democrats. On one hand, they had a fat surplus to spend -- every politician's wet dream. On the other, they had genuine needs to meet from court cases and a dozen years of tight budgets. It's one thing to freeze state workers' pay when the state's struggling to stay in the black, quite another when the Legislature has a couple of hundred million to play around with.
So Democrats had to spend, but they also had to avoid as much as possible the big spender label. Tough trick to pull off, and Republicans weren't eager to make it easier. The spoiler is still school funding. If the Legislature can come out of a special session with a reasonable solution and no big new tax bite, the Dems should be OK. If they don't, well, welcome to 2007.
That's enough for now. I'll add more as needed.
Giving Wendy's the finger
Assuming this case results in a conviction, then it's too bad about that pesky provision in the Constitution banning cruel and unusual punishment. It wouldn't be hard to think of a fitting penalty: chili con pinkie.
Racicot grilled
Those of you who don't read The Outpost regularly (damn your eyes) will want to look at this story on Marc Racicot. And those of you who do look at The Outpost probably will want to look at this (link courtesy of Tony).
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Testy with Tester
Dirt Between Light Bulbs finds Senate President Jon Tester's logic a bit tortured. Sen. Tester essentially argued that Republican neglect of education in recent years forced Democrats to increase education spending this year.
While I don't have much use for legislators who blame the other party for their own failings, I would never get into an argument with a man who has a haircut like a drill sergeant's. But Tester, who always has struck me as a reasonable fellow, actually has a point.
Everybody knew that a lawsuit over school funding was coming. I wrote nearly four years ago that it was in the works. And most people I talked to predicted that the suit would succeed.
Now, you can talk all you want about whether the suit was reasonable and necessary. And you can argue until you're red in the face that more money doesn't necessarily equal more quality.
But the fact is, Republicans knew this suit was on the way. And they knew it would probably be successful. And they knew that success would cost the taxpayers money. And they ran the show. And now they are looking for a way to blame Democrats. That won't fly.
While I don't have much use for legislators who blame the other party for their own failings, I would never get into an argument with a man who has a haircut like a drill sergeant's. But Tester, who always has struck me as a reasonable fellow, actually has a point.
Everybody knew that a lawsuit over school funding was coming. I wrote nearly four years ago that it was in the works. And most people I talked to predicted that the suit would succeed.
Now, you can talk all you want about whether the suit was reasonable and necessary. And you can argue until you're red in the face that more money doesn't necessarily equal more quality.
But the fact is, Republicans knew this suit was on the way. And they knew it would probably be successful. And they knew that success would cost the taxpayers money. And they ran the show. And now they are looking for a way to blame Democrats. That won't fly.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Lee ethics: an oxymoron?
From the e-mail:
I ask you keep my name and location out of this for obvious reasons, but you could identify me (if you must) as a Lee newspaper employee...
In your April 16 post, you said the other anonymous poster was correct and that Lee has an ethics policy in its "Principles for Quality Journalism." That is very nice, but it is not an ethics policy. It's a mission statement.
If you review some other newspaper ethics policies available online, you'll see that they are strict personnel policies that -- for editorial personnel --govern how they conduct themselves. Ethics policies are hard rules on issues like conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, travel expenses and the like from potential news sources, etc. They generally carry severe penalties, including dismissal, for violations. Here is the San Jose Mercury News policy:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/contact_us/about/9723906.htm
for an example; it the first one that Googled up. Lee has nothing like that.
Right now, if I were a Lee reporter, I could be a member of an organization, report on that organization, and violate no company policy. I could be a stockholder in a corporation and write editorial praising that corporation. Furthermore, there is no Lee policy requiring that those relationships be disclosed to readers.
Here's one line from Lee's "Principles for Quality Journalism":
Employees shall "Play a leadership role and be a force for change in the community through coverage, editorials and civic involvement."
Lee strongly encourages middle management editorial employees to join local civic organizations and then allows those same employees to contribute to and even to author news coverage and editorials of those same organizations without disclosure to readers. That violates most other newspapers' ethics policies, and it leads to biased coverage.
I sorta expect publishers to have such community ties, but publishers don't put out the paper every day and good publishers don't insert their biases into local coverage. Lee is unusual in promoting such conflicts among its grunts in the editorial trenches.
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm glad you're offering a forum for this discussion. I've been fighting over these issues here for years.
I ask you keep my name and location out of this for obvious reasons, but you could identify me (if you must) as a Lee newspaper employee...
In your April 16 post, you said the other anonymous poster was correct and that Lee has an ethics policy in its "Principles for Quality Journalism." That is very nice, but it is not an ethics policy. It's a mission statement.
If you review some other newspaper ethics policies available online, you'll see that they are strict personnel policies that -- for editorial personnel --govern how they conduct themselves. Ethics policies are hard rules on issues like conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, travel expenses and the like from potential news sources, etc. They generally carry severe penalties, including dismissal, for violations. Here is the San Jose Mercury News policy:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/contact_us/about/9723906.htm
for an example; it the first one that Googled up. Lee has nothing like that.
Right now, if I were a Lee reporter, I could be a member of an organization, report on that organization, and violate no company policy. I could be a stockholder in a corporation and write editorial praising that corporation. Furthermore, there is no Lee policy requiring that those relationships be disclosed to readers.
Here's one line from Lee's "Principles for Quality Journalism":
Employees shall "Play a leadership role and be a force for change in the community through coverage, editorials and civic involvement."
Lee strongly encourages middle management editorial employees to join local civic organizations and then allows those same employees to contribute to and even to author news coverage and editorials of those same organizations without disclosure to readers. That violates most other newspapers' ethics policies, and it leads to biased coverage.
I sorta expect publishers to have such community ties, but publishers don't put out the paper every day and good publishers don't insert their biases into local coverage. Lee is unusual in promoting such conflicts among its grunts in the editorial trenches.
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm glad you're offering a forum for this discussion. I've been fighting over these issues here for years.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Lee update
An e-mailer who asks to remain anonymous takes exception to an anonymous comment about Lee Enterprises below that says that "Lee is also alone among the major newspaper corporations in that it has no professional ethics policy to guide its newsgathering."
The e-mailer is correct: Lee does in fact have a statement of Principles for Quality Journalism.
David Summerlin also asks, "In your most honest moments, is it possible that your contempt for Lee is driven as much by jealousy as by high minded journalistic principles?"
It's a fair question, worth reflecting upon. My contempt for Lee actually drips at a much slower rate than Nathaniel Blumberg's. And although it is driven by many factors, jealousy, I believe I can safely say, is not one of them.
I always have ranked Lee somewhere in the middle of the pack of corporate newspaper behemoths. It offers good benefits. It has conducted layoffs with a certain restraint. Corporate headquarters seems content to stay out of local editorial matters. As competitive pressure on newspapers has intensified, Lee has doubled up on its commitment to publishing newspapers, a move that I find admirable if not especially smart.
Mr. Summerlin is correct, I believe, in saying that Lee's faults are typical of, and probably less serious than, those of larger media conglomerates. So why pick on Lee?
1. Lee is a medium-sized fish in the world of media conglomerates, but it is a great white shark in Montana. You fight the enemy where you find it.
2. All corporate newspapers, in my view, are far more alike than they are distinguishable, and their differences become tinier every year. That means that the worst newspaper companies either reform or get out of the business (Thomson, Worrell), and that the best newspaper companies cut editorial quality to jack up profits (Knight Ridder). Attempting to choose the best of the lot of is a fool's game, a meaningless scoresheet on an ever-contracting scale.
3. Most of my knowledge about Lee comes from The Gazette. At the time I worked there, I thought it was the worst-run newsroom I had ever seen, and I thought the publisher was a chronic abuser of both the staff and the newspaper's reputation. By all accounts, things are better there now, but I can't let Lee off the hook for what went on there.
4. Lee can't be relied upon to aggressively cover stories in which it is involved. Just look at how Lee covered its Pulitzer acquisition.
5. As another commenter below notes, Lee is a ruthless monopolist that tries any tactic it can think of to sew up every media-related market niche in every town where it operates. It starts pointless niche publications with no editorial aim other than to dry up advertising dollars in the market. When we ventured into the car ad business, Lee cut rates in half for selected advertisers to induce them to sign long-term contracts. It did the same thing in the early days of The Outpost. When we asked the Legislature to give us a chance to bid on county legal ads, Lee's lobbyist (so I am reliably told) threatened senators with retaliation.
Sometimes Lee's attempts to head off competition can be amazingly petty, such as the Missoulian's refusal to run help-wanted advertising for a perceived competitor. Then there's this story, which I can't prove but which was told to me by a person involved whom I believe to be reliable: The founder of a media outlet in this region was nominated for recognition in the Gazette's 40 Under 40 special edition, but the Gazette rejected the nomination because she was a competitor. A competitor? Her creation is too small even for The Outpost to worry about, and The Gazette is a hundred times larger than we are.
Jealous? That's not the word for how that sort of story makes me feel.
The e-mailer is correct: Lee does in fact have a statement of Principles for Quality Journalism.
David Summerlin also asks, "In your most honest moments, is it possible that your contempt for Lee is driven as much by jealousy as by high minded journalistic principles?"
It's a fair question, worth reflecting upon. My contempt for Lee actually drips at a much slower rate than Nathaniel Blumberg's. And although it is driven by many factors, jealousy, I believe I can safely say, is not one of them.
I always have ranked Lee somewhere in the middle of the pack of corporate newspaper behemoths. It offers good benefits. It has conducted layoffs with a certain restraint. Corporate headquarters seems content to stay out of local editorial matters. As competitive pressure on newspapers has intensified, Lee has doubled up on its commitment to publishing newspapers, a move that I find admirable if not especially smart.
Mr. Summerlin is correct, I believe, in saying that Lee's faults are typical of, and probably less serious than, those of larger media conglomerates. So why pick on Lee?
1. Lee is a medium-sized fish in the world of media conglomerates, but it is a great white shark in Montana. You fight the enemy where you find it.
2. All corporate newspapers, in my view, are far more alike than they are distinguishable, and their differences become tinier every year. That means that the worst newspaper companies either reform or get out of the business (Thomson, Worrell), and that the best newspaper companies cut editorial quality to jack up profits (Knight Ridder). Attempting to choose the best of the lot of is a fool's game, a meaningless scoresheet on an ever-contracting scale.
3. Most of my knowledge about Lee comes from The Gazette. At the time I worked there, I thought it was the worst-run newsroom I had ever seen, and I thought the publisher was a chronic abuser of both the staff and the newspaper's reputation. By all accounts, things are better there now, but I can't let Lee off the hook for what went on there.
4. Lee can't be relied upon to aggressively cover stories in which it is involved. Just look at how Lee covered its Pulitzer acquisition.
5. As another commenter below notes, Lee is a ruthless monopolist that tries any tactic it can think of to sew up every media-related market niche in every town where it operates. It starts pointless niche publications with no editorial aim other than to dry up advertising dollars in the market. When we ventured into the car ad business, Lee cut rates in half for selected advertisers to induce them to sign long-term contracts. It did the same thing in the early days of The Outpost. When we asked the Legislature to give us a chance to bid on county legal ads, Lee's lobbyist (so I am reliably told) threatened senators with retaliation.
Sometimes Lee's attempts to head off competition can be amazingly petty, such as the Missoulian's refusal to run help-wanted advertising for a perceived competitor. Then there's this story, which I can't prove but which was told to me by a person involved whom I believe to be reliable: The founder of a media outlet in this region was nominated for recognition in the Gazette's 40 Under 40 special edition, but the Gazette rejected the nomination because she was a competitor. A competitor? Her creation is too small even for The Outpost to worry about, and The Gazette is a hundred times larger than we are.
Jealous? That's not the word for how that sort of story makes me feel.
Montana astroturf
Daily Kos, one of the prominent liberal blogs, calls Dirt Between Light Bulbs the first astroturf GOP blog. Follow the link to the Swing State Project for more info about these guys. And more here from Matt Singer.
In Dirt's favor: It provided the links that led to all of the above. And Dirt claims that nobody is getting paid to run the blog. OK by me, but you had better be telling the truth. I don't care how your politics lean, but I do care where your money comes from.
In Dirt's favor: It provided the links that led to all of the above. And Dirt claims that nobody is getting paid to run the blog. OK by me, but you had better be telling the truth. I don't care how your politics lean, but I do care where your money comes from.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Publisher of the Year
As some readers may suspect, I am no particular fan of Lee Enterprises. So you might anticipate I would have a snide response to the decision by Editor & Publisher magazine (subscription required) to name Lee CEO Mary Junck as Publisher of the Year 2005.
Actually, I don't -- except perhaps to point out that CEO and publisher are not exactly the same job, even when they are held by the same person. But that's E&P's worry, not hers.
Ms. Junck probably deserves the accolade if for no other reason than Lee's huge purchases of the Howard Publications and Pulitzer chains. That's an impressive investment in the future of a mature and probably permanently declining industry. Impressive, even if not smart -- and possibly smart, too.
A sidebar in the E&P story asks the crucial question: "Just how good are Lee's papers?" The puff-filled article quotes only one naysayer: Nathaniel Blumberg, former dean of the University of Montana journalism school. Nathaniel doesn't say much to E&P, but he says it emphatically: "My contempt for Lee Enterprises and what it has done to the journalism profession runs so deep that I prefer not to be quoted at this time."
Me neither.
Actually, I don't -- except perhaps to point out that CEO and publisher are not exactly the same job, even when they are held by the same person. But that's E&P's worry, not hers.
Ms. Junck probably deserves the accolade if for no other reason than Lee's huge purchases of the Howard Publications and Pulitzer chains. That's an impressive investment in the future of a mature and probably permanently declining industry. Impressive, even if not smart -- and possibly smart, too.
A sidebar in the E&P story asks the crucial question: "Just how good are Lee's papers?" The puff-filled article quotes only one naysayer: Nathaniel Blumberg, former dean of the University of Montana journalism school. Nathaniel doesn't say much to E&P, but he says it emphatically: "My contempt for Lee Enterprises and what it has done to the journalism profession runs so deep that I prefer not to be quoted at this time."
Me neither.
Heavy handed
An e-mailer suggests that one reason the free weeklies were able to get House Bill 474 passed (see numerous posts below) was that "Lee Newspapers has one of the most obnoxious lobbyists in the session." He adds, "I guess there is some symmetry there."
The e-mailer may have a point. One senator said that the Lee lobbyist (who also lobbies for the Montana Newspaper Association -- a disturbing conflict of interest) "threatened me with the wrath of the Gazette."
Can that be? Would a major news organization leverage its near-monopoly status to stifle free-market competition for government services? Hmmm. I'll have to think it over and get back to you.
The e-mailer may have a point. One senator said that the Lee lobbyist (who also lobbies for the Montana Newspaper Association -- a disturbing conflict of interest) "threatened me with the wrath of the Gazette."
Can that be? Would a major news organization leverage its near-monopoly status to stifle free-market competition for government services? Hmmm. I'll have to think it over and get back to you.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Up with stupidity
"I just don't think we can legislate against stupidity," Sen. Joe Balyeat this week during a legislative debate on banning smoking in public buildings.
He's right. We probably can't legislate against stupidity. But that doesn't mean we have to elect it to office.
He's right. We probably can't legislate against stupidity. But that doesn't mean we have to elect it to office.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Whew
House Bill 474, the Free Weekly Legal Advertising Relief Act, has passed the Senate on third reading. Now it goes back to the House with a minor amendment.
So the little guys do occasionally win one.
So the little guys do occasionally win one.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Back to life
Guess I was too pessimistic below about House Bill 474. The Senate just voted to reconsider the bill, and it has been scheduled for a second reading.
I don't have any details yet. Matt Gibson, who has been fanning the flames on behalf of Montana's free weeklies, heard from a senator last night who said he thought there were enough votes to change the outcome. As of this morning, the bill still had failed, 25-23. Somewhere during the day, it picked up another vote to make it 25-24. I sent out four or five messages to senators last night, and a few more this morning.
Now, by a 30-20 vote cast this evening, we will get another chance. Since the bill already has passed the House, with a little luck we're in. Cool.
The breakdown on this evening's voting isn't up yet. In the House, all the negative votes were cast by Republicans, but party lines were less visible in the Senate on Monday. Republican Jeff Essmann, for instance, voted for us, while a good Democrat, Jim Elliott (whose column occasionally appears in The Outpost), voted against us. Republican Corey Stapleton voted against us, but so did Democrat Jon Tester.
As I was firing off e-mails this morning, it occurred to me that, for the first time in my life, I was lobbying. It was a weird feeling - violating my oath of political celibacy. Guess I am a businessman after all.
UPDATE: HB 474 has now passed on second reading, 26-22. It goes to a third reading on Wednesday.
I don't have any details yet. Matt Gibson, who has been fanning the flames on behalf of Montana's free weeklies, heard from a senator last night who said he thought there were enough votes to change the outcome. As of this morning, the bill still had failed, 25-23. Somewhere during the day, it picked up another vote to make it 25-24. I sent out four or five messages to senators last night, and a few more this morning.
Now, by a 30-20 vote cast this evening, we will get another chance. Since the bill already has passed the House, with a little luck we're in. Cool.
The breakdown on this evening's voting isn't up yet. In the House, all the negative votes were cast by Republicans, but party lines were less visible in the Senate on Monday. Republican Jeff Essmann, for instance, voted for us, while a good Democrat, Jim Elliott (whose column occasionally appears in The Outpost), voted against us. Republican Corey Stapleton voted against us, but so did Democrat Jon Tester.
As I was firing off e-mails this morning, it occurred to me that, for the first time in my life, I was lobbying. It was a weird feeling - violating my oath of political celibacy. Guess I am a businessman after all.
UPDATE: HB 474 has now passed on second reading, 26-22. It goes to a third reading on Wednesday.
Butcher block
City Lights finds itself agreeing with Sen. Ed "The Vegetable" Butcher that a bill requiring school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies is a bad idea. Note to Ed: Anytime you find yourself tempted to agree with Sen. Butcher, you should rethink your position.
I don't like the state dictating every step school districts take (and I like it even less when the feds do it) but this bill doesn't dictate a policy; it simply requires school districts to adopt one that includes a process for handling complaints. That seems to be a sufficiently modest and sensible approach to dealing with a real problem that is at least anecdotally linked to school shootings.
And it might even be good news for bullies. The lives that are saved could be theirs.
I don't like the state dictating every step school districts take (and I like it even less when the feds do it) but this bill doesn't dictate a policy; it simply requires school districts to adopt one that includes a process for handling complaints. That seems to be a sufficiently modest and sensible approach to dealing with a real problem that is at least anecdotally linked to school shootings.
And it might even be good news for bullies. The lives that are saved could be theirs.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Whittled down again
Apparently my optimism expressed below about the passage of House Bill 474 was excessive. I just got an e-mail from Matt Gibson saying that the Senate voted the bill down, 26-23, and it probably is dead for the session. Apparently the paid-circulation papers and their lobbyist got to enough senators to beat it down.
For what it's worth, here's some of the written testimony I submitted to the House:
So it's another loss for the little guy. I wish I could be the big guy for just one day.
For what it's worth, here's some of the written testimony I submitted to the House:
Newspapers were born free, but everywhere they are in chains. The number of independently owned daily newspapers in the United States has fallen from a peak of more than 2,100 to about 250 today. Many of those absent newspapers went out of business; most of the rest were absorbed by increasingly larger and increasingly more concentrated newspaper chains.
But in recent decades, alternatives have arisen. Free distribution weekly newspapers are published in nearly every major American city. During the 1990s, these newspapers doubled in circulation and revenue.
In Montana, free and independent weeklies have blossomed in the last dozen years: The Missoula Independent, the Butte Weekly, The Billings Outpost, the Queen City News here in Helena. These papers offer a genuine alternative to established weeklies and dailies, and have readerships that rank favorably with most of the state's long-established newspapers.
I regret that I cannot be here personally today. As a small publisher, I wear many hats, and I have a couple of those on today. But I do want to take a few moments to ask that we be given the same right that paid newspapers have to compete for legal notices placed by county government. I, and the publishers of these other weeklies, seek no special favors or breaks. I'm not asking that legal ads be awarded to us. I'm just asking that we be given a chance to compete. I'm not even asking for a level playing field; I just want a chance to get in the ballgame.
The Montana Newspaper Association, of which The Outpost has been a member since we started business, opposes this legislation. It will argue, among other things, that the bill, as offered, defines newspaper too loosely. The association's larger concern is that counties may use this bill as a wedge to give up legal notices in newspapers altogether.
I agree with the association that that would be a mistake. No entity in any community does more to keep the public aware of what local government is up to than the local newspaper. It just makes sense that newspapers should remain the place where citizens go to keep track of legal matters that affect them and their community.
But I believe that newspapers, like government, must be open to the changes that are sweeping communications at a pace that I have never before seen in the two decades I have practiced this craft. Without question, free weekly newspapers are a substantial portion of that change. They will play an increasingly vital role in helping to fill democracy's need for robust debate on the issues of the day. It is time that they were accepted as a legitimate and lasting force in Montana communities. Allowing them to accept county legal notices will be an important step in their growth.
So it's another loss for the little guy. I wish I could be the big guy for just one day.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Gerrymandering
Dirt Between Light Bulbs is doing a good job of trying to track down answers to questions I raised below about Democratic gerrymandering. It's worth scrolling down through several entries to get the full story.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
One step closer
House Bill 474, which I wrote about here, has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 7-5 vote. The bill would give free weeklies like ours a chance to bid on county legal ads -- potentially a tidy, although not terribly profitable, little sum.
The bill already passed the House by an 84-14 margin, so chances look good. If it becomes law, the most satisfying aspect will be that it is opposed both by the Montana Newspaper Association and by Lee Enterprises -- which, coincidentally enough, both have the same lobbyist. It will be a nice little win for the little guy, helped along, primarily, by Matt Gibson of the Missoula Independent.
The bill already passed the House by an 84-14 margin, so chances look good. If it becomes law, the most satisfying aspect will be that it is opposed both by the Montana Newspaper Association and by Lee Enterprises -- which, coincidentally enough, both have the same lobbyist. It will be a nice little win for the little guy, helped along, primarily, by Matt Gibson of the Missoula Independent.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Making money
In comments on my Blogcasting post below, David Summerlin makes thoughtful suggestions about commercial prospects for blogging. He suggests that an alternative model to advertising may be needed, as well as an alternative to highly populated uppercrust blog sites.
I wish I had a clue what to offer. New West obviously has its own ideas about how to make money at this, and I wish them well, I think, but I'm not convinced that approach will work. Actually, I'm not convinced any approach will work.
But just to toss something out: What if you had four bloggers sharing one site, each putting in a couple of hours a day. That way everybody has enough time to keep a day job, but yet the blog gets full-time reasonable attention. With that much blogging, I think, you could become the premier Montana news and commentary site in the state (although without, I fear, much original reporting).
It could make money from:
1. Whatever ads were available.
2. The tip jar.
3. Annual memberships (?).
Nobody would get rich, but everybody might get a little cash. And it would be a must read for all folks serious about Montana affairs. Or maybe not. Anybody got a better idea?
I wish I had a clue what to offer. New West obviously has its own ideas about how to make money at this, and I wish them well, I think, but I'm not convinced that approach will work. Actually, I'm not convinced any approach will work.
But just to toss something out: What if you had four bloggers sharing one site, each putting in a couple of hours a day. That way everybody has enough time to keep a day job, but yet the blog gets full-time reasonable attention. With that much blogging, I think, you could become the premier Montana news and commentary site in the state (although without, I fear, much original reporting).
It could make money from:
1. Whatever ads were available.
2. The tip jar.
3. Annual memberships (?).
Nobody would get rich, but everybody might get a little cash. And it would be a must read for all folks serious about Montana affairs. Or maybe not. Anybody got a better idea?
Extreme moderates
I went to a meeting of a new campus group at Rocky Mountain College on Wednesday. The idea is to organize at the grassroots level to create the Moderate Party, a rational alternative to the partisanship and bickering of the two major parties.
The name of the party elicited a few inevitable chuckles. For example, when the next meeting was set, the time was placed at 6:15 p.m. -- exactly midway between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
I am naturally skeptical about the odds of rallying support for a rational approach to politics, but I'm happy to see college students meeting to discuss such matters. Even if nothing comes of it but a few debates on the nature of political compromise, it will be time well spent. On the basis of what I have heard, the students sounded more libertarian than moderate -- an idea also worth exploring.
But that can be changed. That could be my opportunity. Since Tony Lewis keeps labeling me as an "extreme moderate," maybe I could carve out a niche as a leader of the extreme wing of the Moderate Party.
If you would like any more information about all this, let me know. I will put you in touch.
The name of the party elicited a few inevitable chuckles. For example, when the next meeting was set, the time was placed at 6:15 p.m. -- exactly midway between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
I am naturally skeptical about the odds of rallying support for a rational approach to politics, but I'm happy to see college students meeting to discuss such matters. Even if nothing comes of it but a few debates on the nature of political compromise, it will be time well spent. On the basis of what I have heard, the students sounded more libertarian than moderate -- an idea also worth exploring.
But that can be changed. That could be my opportunity. Since Tony Lewis keeps labeling me as an "extreme moderate," maybe I could carve out a niche as a leader of the extreme wing of the Moderate Party.
If you would like any more information about all this, let me know. I will put you in touch.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Lousy day
The wife smashed up the Oldsmobile Thursday morning. Nobody hurt, at least not seriously, but the Olds got a lot older.
Lousy day
The wife smashed up the Oldsmobile Thursday morning. Nobody hurt, at least not seriously, but the Olds got a lot older. And I spent a frantic day trying to teach a class, deliver papers and tutor writing between ferrying her to the hospital.
When I got home at 8 p.m., just before falling asleep at 8:20 p.m., she said the doctor had given her a few days off work.
"Can I get a doctor's excuse?" I asked.
When I got home at 8 p.m., just before falling asleep at 8:20 p.m., she said the doctor had given her a few days off work.
"Can I get a doctor's excuse?" I asked.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
New kid on the block
I'm adding a link to another new Montana blog, Dirt Between Light Bulbs, which appears to be interesting and well written. So I might as well go ahead and disagree with it right off the bat. Demosthenes argues that because Republicans won the popular vote for the Legislature 50-47, they should have been expected to win a 50-47 margin in the House (with three up for grabs).
T'aint so. If districts were perfectly apportioned, then the side that won just over 50 percent of the total vote (which Republicans did) would win 100 percent of the House seats. That detail matters if you are curious, as I am, about whether Democrats gerrymandered the districts before the next election. I don't dispute that Democrats tried to do it; I just wonder whether they succeeded.
It's a trickier calculation than you might at first suspect. Presumably, the purpose of gerrymandering is to create districts in which the votes of Democrats (in this case) are maximally effective while the votes of Republicans are discounted. So you try to construct districts in which Democrats win all the close races while Republicans win large victories in districts where a Republican win can't be avoided.
So did Democrats in fact win the close races while losing the lopsided ones? I actually spent a couple of hours trying to compute this for Yellowstone County in the last election, but it got too complicated, and I gave it up. To really nail it down, you would almost have to compute it on a precinct-by-precinct basis, comparing 2004 results to results from previous elections.
Even then, lots of things can go wrong. Plotting a strategy to win close races appears to be sound, but it can easily backfire. You can't afford to cut your margins too close. Did, for example, Carol Gibson lose her bid for re-election because Democrats got too clever for their own good? Hard to tell.
So did Democrats in fact successfully gerrymander the new election districts? I don't know, but I would sure like to see somebody come up with the answer.
UPDATE: For some reason, I can't link directly to the post. You'll have to scroll down to March 27.
T'aint so. If districts were perfectly apportioned, then the side that won just over 50 percent of the total vote (which Republicans did) would win 100 percent of the House seats. That detail matters if you are curious, as I am, about whether Democrats gerrymandered the districts before the next election. I don't dispute that Democrats tried to do it; I just wonder whether they succeeded.
It's a trickier calculation than you might at first suspect. Presumably, the purpose of gerrymandering is to create districts in which the votes of Democrats (in this case) are maximally effective while the votes of Republicans are discounted. So you try to construct districts in which Democrats win all the close races while Republicans win large victories in districts where a Republican win can't be avoided.
So did Democrats in fact win the close races while losing the lopsided ones? I actually spent a couple of hours trying to compute this for Yellowstone County in the last election, but it got too complicated, and I gave it up. To really nail it down, you would almost have to compute it on a precinct-by-precinct basis, comparing 2004 results to results from previous elections.
Even then, lots of things can go wrong. Plotting a strategy to win close races appears to be sound, but it can easily backfire. You can't afford to cut your margins too close. Did, for example, Carol Gibson lose her bid for re-election because Democrats got too clever for their own good? Hard to tell.
So did Democrats in fact successfully gerrymander the new election districts? I don't know, but I would sure like to see somebody come up with the answer.
UPDATE: For some reason, I can't link directly to the post. You'll have to scroll down to March 27.
Blogcasting
I see that all the other panelists on last night's blogging show on Yellowstone Public Radio have weighed in with comments already. I do have an excuse. Tuesday night is production night at The Outpost, so I had to go crank out a few pages after the show (and after Pug Mahon's).
We made a noble effort to finish this week's edition before the show but didn't quite make it. So I put the finishing touches on this week's Outpost while under the influence of two pints of Guinesss Stout. Cheers! All libels will be cheerfully retracted.
The show itself was fun, and good, I hope. It's always hard to tell when you are in the middle of it. Good calls, and Ken Siebert was really well prepared. It wasn't as journalism-oriented as I would have preferred, but that's not a criticism. Ken wanted a show that would be of interest to bloggers, potential bloggers and the what-the-heck-are-bloggers crowd, and I think he pulled that off.
One thing that struck me was how different my motives are from the other bloggers on the panel. Maybe I've been writing for a living for too long, but I have trouble even conceiving of writing a blog as a hobby or for personal satisfaction (which is not to say that it doesn't provide elements of both). I'm just so obsessed with figuring out a way to use the blog to help me make a living (and have so little time to devote to it) that it sort of becomes another beast to be fed. That may explain why I'm not better at it.
It certainly would be appealing to toss aside the dead-tree edition of The Outpost and become a full-time online journalist. I could actually do journalism a few hours every day instead of spending most of my time keeping books, delivering papers and holding the fort together.
A pure online Outpost actually was an idea we kicked around one rainy (remember rain?) Sunday afternoon before we started The Outpost in 1997, but we decided it was too early for such a move. When the dot.com bust came, we felt pretty smart. I don't feel so smart anymore.
UPDATE: Fame is so fleeting. My wife called me at the office last night to make sure she knew when the program would be on so she could listen. This morning I asked her, "So how was the show?"
Her reply: "What show?"
We made a noble effort to finish this week's edition before the show but didn't quite make it. So I put the finishing touches on this week's Outpost while under the influence of two pints of Guinesss Stout. Cheers! All libels will be cheerfully retracted.
The show itself was fun, and good, I hope. It's always hard to tell when you are in the middle of it. Good calls, and Ken Siebert was really well prepared. It wasn't as journalism-oriented as I would have preferred, but that's not a criticism. Ken wanted a show that would be of interest to bloggers, potential bloggers and the what-the-heck-are-bloggers crowd, and I think he pulled that off.
One thing that struck me was how different my motives are from the other bloggers on the panel. Maybe I've been writing for a living for too long, but I have trouble even conceiving of writing a blog as a hobby or for personal satisfaction (which is not to say that it doesn't provide elements of both). I'm just so obsessed with figuring out a way to use the blog to help me make a living (and have so little time to devote to it) that it sort of becomes another beast to be fed. That may explain why I'm not better at it.
It certainly would be appealing to toss aside the dead-tree edition of The Outpost and become a full-time online journalist. I could actually do journalism a few hours every day instead of spending most of my time keeping books, delivering papers and holding the fort together.
A pure online Outpost actually was an idea we kicked around one rainy (remember rain?) Sunday afternoon before we started The Outpost in 1997, but we decided it was too early for such a move. When the dot.com bust came, we felt pretty smart. I don't feel so smart anymore.
UPDATE: Fame is so fleeting. My wife called me at the office last night to make sure she knew when the program would be on so she could listen. This morning I asked her, "So how was the show?"
Her reply: "What show?"
Monday, March 28, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Happy Easter
If religious conservatives had their way, Jesus never would have died for our sins. He would still be on life support.
Nonsense on the web
Writing about "The Coming War on Blogs," James D. Miller is way off target. He speculates that blogs pose a threat to existing media; therefore, MSM will fight back by using their lobbying power to pass laws and regulations that will thwart bloggers in three areas:
1. Campaign finance reform.
2. Libel law.
3. Copyright law.
I believe he is correct that bloggers will be challenged on all three fronts, but he is whistling in the dark if he thinks those challenges will all come from MSM. Campaign finance challenges will come from political parties, candidates and activists, and they will be based on the sort of abuses practiced by South Dakota Politics. Nobody in MSM wants judges defining bloggers vs. legitimate media.
Libel law challenges will come from people who have been libeled. Bloggers can't argue that they are important and influential but that they should be exempt from libel law. And it's just nonsense to say that MSM can handle the burden of defending themselves from libel suits more easily than bloggers can. Libel is finely tuned to the resources of the defendant. The more money you have, the more the plaintiff will ask for. Most bloggers are, in fact, less exposed to libel than MSM because most bloggers (1.) don't have large enough audiences to causes significant damages and (2.) don't have enough resources to pay for the damage they do cause.
Copyright law challenges will come from writers, artists and, yes, MSM. Assuming that bloggers profit from their parasitical relationship with MSM (MSM reports, bloggers pontificate) existing media will look for ways to be compensated for the expensive, difficult work of reporting that fuels so much of the blogosphere. Rather than organize to defend their right to profit from the work of others, bloggers would be wiser to start doing their own reporting.
1. Campaign finance reform.
2. Libel law.
3. Copyright law.
I believe he is correct that bloggers will be challenged on all three fronts, but he is whistling in the dark if he thinks those challenges will all come from MSM. Campaign finance challenges will come from political parties, candidates and activists, and they will be based on the sort of abuses practiced by South Dakota Politics. Nobody in MSM wants judges defining bloggers vs. legitimate media.
Libel law challenges will come from people who have been libeled. Bloggers can't argue that they are important and influential but that they should be exempt from libel law. And it's just nonsense to say that MSM can handle the burden of defending themselves from libel suits more easily than bloggers can. Libel is finely tuned to the resources of the defendant. The more money you have, the more the plaintiff will ask for. Most bloggers are, in fact, less exposed to libel than MSM because most bloggers (1.) don't have large enough audiences to causes significant damages and (2.) don't have enough resources to pay for the damage they do cause.
Copyright law challenges will come from writers, artists and, yes, MSM. Assuming that bloggers profit from their parasitical relationship with MSM (MSM reports, bloggers pontificate) existing media will look for ways to be compensated for the expensive, difficult work of reporting that fuels so much of the blogosphere. Rather than organize to defend their right to profit from the work of others, bloggers would be wiser to start doing their own reporting.
Friday, March 25, 2005
The sorrow and the pity
Dan McGee lets us know that he doesn't hate homosexuals, he pities them. And no wonder. They throw around words like "straight" and "fundamentalists"; they have chosen perversion, just a pedophile does; and they cannot love. The upside: The Democratic Party "supports and promotes homosexuality." Now if homosexuals could just get some support from the majority party.
World's dumbest columnist reflux
So, as I was fixing to say, Cal Thomas appears to be auditioning to take over Joseph Perkins' title as World's Dumbest Syndicated Columnist. In this column, which appeared this week in the Gazette, Thomas belittles the Project for Excellence in Journalism for reporting that opinions sometimes infiltrate news reports. As he so often does, Thomas totally misses the point.
Thomas notes, correctly, that his employer, Fox News, was singled out for opinionated coverage. As the project's annual report on the news media put it, "On Fox News, the journalists themselves offer their opinions, without attribution to any reporting, in seven out of ten stories. That happens in less than one story out of ten on CNN, and in fewer than three stories out of ten on MSNBC."
As the report makes clear, the point of the study wasn't to determine whether opinions exist in journalism. It was to measure the extent of those opinions as systematically as possible. Such studies inevitably require some subjective judgments, and independent thinkers should be skeptical and critical of them.
Thomas' response? He ignores the evidence. He doesn't even defend Fox's reporting. Instead, he cites a few anecdotal examples of what he considers opinion on other news networks. He concludes, "If they had been truly reporting and not indoctrinating, there would be no Fox and no bloggers to study." He doesn't even bother to try to explain why viewers who are turned off by "indoctrination" would therefore turn on the network that features the most indoctrination.
In short, he responds with clueless drivel. Joseph Perkins must be turning over in his hammock.
Thomas notes, correctly, that his employer, Fox News, was singled out for opinionated coverage. As the project's annual report on the news media put it, "On Fox News, the journalists themselves offer their opinions, without attribution to any reporting, in seven out of ten stories. That happens in less than one story out of ten on CNN, and in fewer than three stories out of ten on MSNBC."
As the report makes clear, the point of the study wasn't to determine whether opinions exist in journalism. It was to measure the extent of those opinions as systematically as possible. Such studies inevitably require some subjective judgments, and independent thinkers should be skeptical and critical of them.
Thomas' response? He ignores the evidence. He doesn't even defend Fox's reporting. Instead, he cites a few anecdotal examples of what he considers opinion on other news networks. He concludes, "If they had been truly reporting and not indoctrinating, there would be no Fox and no bloggers to study." He doesn't even bother to try to explain why viewers who are turned off by "indoctrination" would therefore turn on the network that features the most indoctrination.
In short, he responds with clueless drivel. Joseph Perkins must be turning over in his hammock.
World's dumbest columnist redux
I've been having a hard time posting: My posts disappear, the computer freezes up, posts get lost in draft mode, etc. Earlier this week, I totally lost one of the most incisive posts in all of blogdom. You'll have to trust me on that.
This is just an experiment to see if I can get this thing to work again. If it does, I'll be back.
This is just an experiment to see if I can get this thing to work again. If it does, I'll be back.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Bloggers need not apply
Had a great time this morning talking to Walt Gulick's ethics class about media ethics, such as they are. The usual question was asked of about 20 students: How many of you read blogs? The usual answer came back: zero. At least this time, I didn't have to explain what a blog is, although I suspect some were wondering.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Schweitzer for prez
Brian Schweitzer and Barack Obama? Hey, I didn't say it. It's in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Obits for free
The New Mexico House wants newspapers to print free obituaries. Those already are available in The Outpost, of course, and in The Billings Gazette for decedents who are willing to settle for a "pine box," with no usable information that would help identify how that person fit into the community.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
The Billings Olympiad
First, scroll down to the last item under Sports News on "Stories to Watch." Then scroll up to the top right of the screen and read the disclaimer.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Rant spoken here
Warning: This could become a rant.
The discussion about Natelson's column at City Lights, referenced below, has taken a few odd turns. Some are now arguing that I am somehow guilty of a journalistic felony for even printing Natelson. I don't get that. The Outpost prints a range of opinions, including my own column, Clawson, Siegner, occasionally Todd Wilkinson and fairly frequent guest columns. Perhaps none of those is as reliably liberal as Natelson is conservative, but it strikes me as a fair mix. And Natelson's critics get free rein (see, for example, this week's letter to the editor).
I like Natelson not because I agree with him but because he makes arguable assertions that can be tested in the marketplace of ideas. Obviously, his interpretation of why certain schools have higher test scores is open to challenge. I would challenge it on certain points myself. But I think the evidence that small schools work bigger than big schools is fairly persuasive. And while I don't know much about the evidence that religious schools work better than private schools, it sounds like a credible argument to me. I have never attended a religious school, but I have taught at them, and I have had brothers who attended them, and it seems to me that those schools both attract and nurture qualities in students that cause them to be more successful in traditional measures of academic achievement.
The point is that Natelson lays his evidence out there, open to challenge and interpretation by anyone. To me, that's the job of an alternative paper: to present evidence and ideas not readily available in other media. It doesn't matter whether those ideas are conservative or liberal or somewhere in between. As I have argued before, notions of liberal and conservative in 21st century America border on the nonsensical. George Bush is arguably the most liberal president since FDR: big spender, big deficits, intrusive government, little respect for states' rights and an interventionist foreign policy that ignores two centuries of tradition. Yet he gets a pass from conservatives because he's a Republican. How does that make sense?
Real conservatives, like real liberals, don't fit easily into either party. That's why this paper gives a voice to people like Natelson and Molnar. And Hurdle and Toole. I like politicians who place principle above party at either end of the spectrum.
I don't want to paint the commenters at City Lights with too broad a brush. Some make legitimate points. But some seem to fall into the trap of simply demonizing people they expect to disagree with. I'm amazed when liberal friends say they never read Natelson or Molnar. I thought the whole notion of liberalism was that you listen to and consider all relevant points of view.
It all reminds me quite unpleasantly of the lack of uproar that greeted Wolfgang von Eitzen's deportation to Germany. We practically made a crusade of that story. It was, to my mind, about as clearcut a case of systematic government abuse as I have ever encountered. Yet my liberal friends, with few exceptions, didn't give a damn. Why? Because Wolfgang was, in their minds, a conservative crank whose rights need not concern rational people. The only people I saw speaking out and demonstrating on his behalf were conservatives. I wish I could say that they did it out of principle, but I suspect that if Wolfgang had been a socialist, they would have been silent, too.
When The Outpost says that we "will hew to no ideological doctrine and toe no partisan line," we mean that seriously. We don't choose what to print on the basis of how well it fits our preconceptions of what the world ought to look like. Natelson challenges received wisdom, even when it estranges him from his own party, and he is welcome here.
As long as I'm ranting, here's one final note for Tony, who chides The Outpost for failing to cover stories in depth: Tony, you're right, sort of. Obviously, we don't have the kind of depth I wish we had. But our cover stories often run more than 2,000 words and sometimes hit 3,000. That may not sound impressive, but with our news hole it's a huge commitment.
The Outpost's entire editorial budget wouldn't pay the wages of even one Gazette reporter. Yet we get our shots in. We ran a two-part story about the Crow tribal chairman's sweetheart deal with a local car dealership a full year before the indictments came down. No other media outlet even touched that story until the grand jury acted.
We printed a long story about a local prostitution ring months before participants were arrested and brought to trial. Although I can't confirm this because of the nature of criminal investigations, I have been told that our story helped spur prosecution.
We broke the story about financial irregularities at Commonwealth University. The story about a massive firefighters lawsuit against the city that was in this week's Gazette? The Outpost had it in January 2003. We broke the story about the county public works director accusing a county commissioner of malfeasance. We broke the story about a huge lawsuit by West End landowners alleging that the city screwed up a sewer project. We broke a statewide story about the Montana government going to India for computer support. That story made the front page of the Great Falls Tribune, with credit to the Outpost. It never, so far as I am aware, made the Gazette.
I could go on. Just a couple of weeks ago, Natelson pointed out that the Montana Supreme Court's recent habit of issuing decisions without giving their legal reasoning specifically violates state law. Have other media picked this up? Maybe, but I haven't seen it. In next week's edition, I plan to break another significant story that you have not read or heard anywhere else. I won't tell you what it is, for obvious reasons, but it will be there. And our coverage of the media itself, such as taking a critical look at Lee's recent purchase of the Pulitzer chain, will never appear in Lee Enterprises papers. Ever.
Obviously, with our tiny resources, we take shortcuts, and we get beat on plenty of stories. Heck, I do most of our reporting, and I have had to take two other jobs just to stay afloat. But Tony, you've got elite media credentials and, obviously, time on your hands. If you don't think we're getting enough good stories, how about submitting some yourself? I will pay you exactly what the publisher makes. Or, of course, you could sit around and bitch.
The discussion about Natelson's column at City Lights, referenced below, has taken a few odd turns. Some are now arguing that I am somehow guilty of a journalistic felony for even printing Natelson. I don't get that. The Outpost prints a range of opinions, including my own column, Clawson, Siegner, occasionally Todd Wilkinson and fairly frequent guest columns. Perhaps none of those is as reliably liberal as Natelson is conservative, but it strikes me as a fair mix. And Natelson's critics get free rein (see, for example, this week's letter to the editor).
I like Natelson not because I agree with him but because he makes arguable assertions that can be tested in the marketplace of ideas. Obviously, his interpretation of why certain schools have higher test scores is open to challenge. I would challenge it on certain points myself. But I think the evidence that small schools work bigger than big schools is fairly persuasive. And while I don't know much about the evidence that religious schools work better than private schools, it sounds like a credible argument to me. I have never attended a religious school, but I have taught at them, and I have had brothers who attended them, and it seems to me that those schools both attract and nurture qualities in students that cause them to be more successful in traditional measures of academic achievement.
The point is that Natelson lays his evidence out there, open to challenge and interpretation by anyone. To me, that's the job of an alternative paper: to present evidence and ideas not readily available in other media. It doesn't matter whether those ideas are conservative or liberal or somewhere in between. As I have argued before, notions of liberal and conservative in 21st century America border on the nonsensical. George Bush is arguably the most liberal president since FDR: big spender, big deficits, intrusive government, little respect for states' rights and an interventionist foreign policy that ignores two centuries of tradition. Yet he gets a pass from conservatives because he's a Republican. How does that make sense?
Real conservatives, like real liberals, don't fit easily into either party. That's why this paper gives a voice to people like Natelson and Molnar. And Hurdle and Toole. I like politicians who place principle above party at either end of the spectrum.
I don't want to paint the commenters at City Lights with too broad a brush. Some make legitimate points. But some seem to fall into the trap of simply demonizing people they expect to disagree with. I'm amazed when liberal friends say they never read Natelson or Molnar. I thought the whole notion of liberalism was that you listen to and consider all relevant points of view.
It all reminds me quite unpleasantly of the lack of uproar that greeted Wolfgang von Eitzen's deportation to Germany. We practically made a crusade of that story. It was, to my mind, about as clearcut a case of systematic government abuse as I have ever encountered. Yet my liberal friends, with few exceptions, didn't give a damn. Why? Because Wolfgang was, in their minds, a conservative crank whose rights need not concern rational people. The only people I saw speaking out and demonstrating on his behalf were conservatives. I wish I could say that they did it out of principle, but I suspect that if Wolfgang had been a socialist, they would have been silent, too.
When The Outpost says that we "will hew to no ideological doctrine and toe no partisan line," we mean that seriously. We don't choose what to print on the basis of how well it fits our preconceptions of what the world ought to look like. Natelson challenges received wisdom, even when it estranges him from his own party, and he is welcome here.
As long as I'm ranting, here's one final note for Tony, who chides The Outpost for failing to cover stories in depth: Tony, you're right, sort of. Obviously, we don't have the kind of depth I wish we had. But our cover stories often run more than 2,000 words and sometimes hit 3,000. That may not sound impressive, but with our news hole it's a huge commitment.
The Outpost's entire editorial budget wouldn't pay the wages of even one Gazette reporter. Yet we get our shots in. We ran a two-part story about the Crow tribal chairman's sweetheart deal with a local car dealership a full year before the indictments came down. No other media outlet even touched that story until the grand jury acted.
We printed a long story about a local prostitution ring months before participants were arrested and brought to trial. Although I can't confirm this because of the nature of criminal investigations, I have been told that our story helped spur prosecution.
We broke the story about financial irregularities at Commonwealth University. The story about a massive firefighters lawsuit against the city that was in this week's Gazette? The Outpost had it in January 2003. We broke the story about the county public works director accusing a county commissioner of malfeasance. We broke the story about a huge lawsuit by West End landowners alleging that the city screwed up a sewer project. We broke a statewide story about the Montana government going to India for computer support. That story made the front page of the Great Falls Tribune, with credit to the Outpost. It never, so far as I am aware, made the Gazette.
I could go on. Just a couple of weeks ago, Natelson pointed out that the Montana Supreme Court's recent habit of issuing decisions without giving their legal reasoning specifically violates state law. Have other media picked this up? Maybe, but I haven't seen it. In next week's edition, I plan to break another significant story that you have not read or heard anywhere else. I won't tell you what it is, for obvious reasons, but it will be there. And our coverage of the media itself, such as taking a critical look at Lee's recent purchase of the Pulitzer chain, will never appear in Lee Enterprises papers. Ever.
Obviously, with our tiny resources, we take shortcuts, and we get beat on plenty of stories. Heck, I do most of our reporting, and I have had to take two other jobs just to stay afloat. But Tony, you've got elite media credentials and, obviously, time on your hands. If you don't think we're getting enough good stories, how about submitting some yourself? I will pay you exactly what the publisher makes. Or, of course, you could sit around and bitch.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Your free and independent press
Some people think that blogging technology provides all the alternative to mainstream media that readers need. But take a look at how the Missoulian attempts to block out competition and you realize just how badly needed alternative publications (ahem, like this one) are still needed.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Natelson gets graded
Lots of interesting discussion going on at City Lights about Rob Natelson's column this week. Only two thoughts from me:
1. When the list of schools with top scores is so dominated by small rural schools, and when large, urban schools are nearly all excluded, something must be going on besides how private/religious/conservative these schools are. I'm not sure what, but something. Class sizes, perhaps?
2. Rob writes, "western Gallatin County is a relatively religious area." Relative to what?
1. When the list of schools with top scores is so dominated by small rural schools, and when large, urban schools are nearly all excluded, something must be going on besides how private/religious/conservative these schools are. I'm not sure what, but something. Class sizes, perhaps?
2. Rob writes, "western Gallatin County is a relatively religious area." Relative to what?
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Jackie gets the goods
Interesting piece here on Gov. Schweitzer at the governors' meeting in Washington. It was passed along by Jackie Corr, of course.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Now here's bias
I idly entered "iconoclast" into Google and landed at this column by Charles Krauthammer. He makes the usual case about liberal bias with one distinction: He cites a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism that found the press far more critical of George Bush than John Kerry in the weeks before the election.
This is serious stuff, if true, because the Project for Excellence folks are serious people. So I went to the Project's summary of its study. Sure enough, Krauthammer was right. But what he didn't mention was that the results were almost exactly the opposite of coverage in 2000, when Al Gore took a press beating while Bush got off lightly. How does liberal bias explain that? The study attributed at least some of the difference in coverage to Bush's lousy debate performance.
Which goes to show, when you are looking for bias you can nearly always find it -- even in conservative columnists.
This is serious stuff, if true, because the Project for Excellence folks are serious people. So I went to the Project's summary of its study. Sure enough, Krauthammer was right. But what he didn't mention was that the results were almost exactly the opposite of coverage in 2000, when Al Gore took a press beating while Bush got off lightly. How does liberal bias explain that? The study attributed at least some of the difference in coverage to Bush's lousy debate performance.
Which goes to show, when you are looking for bias you can nearly always find it -- even in conservative columnists.
So long
The Worst Syndicated Columnist in America has now become the Worst Syndicated Columnist in America Emeritus. I think they should retire the title.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
The crime of hate
If you haven't looked at Slate lately, you probably should read this article by Dahlia Lithwick on hate crimes legislation, including Montana's.
My own take:
1. There are rational arguments that laws against hate crimes cause more problems than they solve.
2. Getting rid of Montana's hate crimes legislation probably won't happen, at least not this session.
3. If we're going to have hate crimes legislation, which we apparently are, then gays should be in the protected group.
My own take:
1. There are rational arguments that laws against hate crimes cause more problems than they solve.
2. Getting rid of Montana's hate crimes legislation probably won't happen, at least not this session.
3. If we're going to have hate crimes legislation, which we apparently are, then gays should be in the protected group.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
New kid on the block
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but it's pretty impressive and a little scary. Just take a gander at the "about us" section.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Out of commission
For some reason, I have been having a hard time posting. Not that I have had much to say. But I did, of course, have to repeat Hunter S. Thompson's famous quote about journalism. When I borrowed a newspaper buddy's well worn copy of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," the book always automatically and instantly fell open to this passage:
The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.”
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Big winner
More great news: I just won 800,000 Euros from the El Gordos Sweepstakes Lottery Intl. I knew my luck had to turn one of these days. Maybe I'll hang onto this one for a while and see how the dollar holds up against the Euro.
My winnings
Hah! I just won another 500,000 Euros in the Prime Lottery International SP. How often can lightning strike in the same place? As soon as the check shows up, I'm quitting this stinking racket.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Fine whine
Helena graphic artist Marty Lord apparently gets credit for this. The label reads: "Made from hand-picked prevaricated gripes from our Missoula Vineyard and a blend of sour grapes with a bouquet of fresh defecation of a male bovine from our Belgrade Vindictive.
"The Balyeat brothers are a festuring [sic] cyst on the right buttock of an otherwise fine and gentlemanly Session."
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Art project
This is kind of cool: A website that tracks progress on a bighorn sheep art project for the Billings Depot Bighorn Magic project.
On the web
Here's another new Montana "web paper" (isn't that an oxymoron?). Warning: The link comes through the MT-GOP Ebrief, which should give you some notion of its political leanings. Second warning: The creator of the "paper" isn't identified.
Sssh!
Just won 250,000 Euros in the lottery. And I didn't even enter! Eat your hearts out.
Dang it! They told me to keep it quiet for now. Don't tell anybody, OK?
Dang it! They told me to keep it quiet for now. Don't tell anybody, OK?
Buffalo Brian
I was in Helena on Friday and heard Gov. Schweitzer defend the cancellation of the buffalo hunt. He said Montana's has had three governors since the last hunt, and would probably have three more before the next hunt if this one had gone forward. In short, he argued, the hunt was too small to solve any bison problems and too unsporting (he referred to buffalo as a "refrigerator with horns") to avoid controversy.
But apparently buffalo hunts don't cause controversy everywhere.
But apparently buffalo hunts don't cause controversy everywhere.
Lesson learned
One thing I have learned by reading blogs: The list of people who are worth reading every day is extremely short.
Cheap shot
In this week's Editor's Notebook, I take cheap shots at Lee Enterprises and The Billings Gazette. I honestly don't know what comes over me.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
A.J. Liebling
I liked this quote from Michael Young:
Writing about the press' efforts to comment on the death of Stalin—an event about which no journalist had any actual information—A.J. Liebling described three types of journalists: the reporter, "who writes about what he sees"; the interpretive reporter who "writes what he sees and what he construes to be its meaning"; and, in Liebling's most venomous description, the "expert, who writes what he construes to be the meaning of what he hasn't seen."
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Semi-famous
So now your humble blog host is being quoted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In case you missed it, the full column is here.
UPDATE: Hmm. The link above seems to require registration. But I found it without registering by entering "Nick Coleman David Crisp" into Google. Also, more here from an unsympathetic source.
UPDATE: Hmm. The link above seems to require registration. But I found it without registering by entering "Nick Coleman David Crisp" into Google. Also, more here from an unsympathetic source.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Congrats in order
Evelyn Pyburn, editor of the Big Sky Business Journal, reflects on surviving 23 years as a small publication in the Billings market. "It's amazing," she writes. As someone who has survived seven years in the same racket, I can only nod my head.
Big time at the dance
We went to see the Bruce Wood Dance Company at the Alberta Bair last night. It wasn't something I would have paid for, but The Outpost sponsors a couple of shows a year at the Bair, so we occasionally get free tickets. I wasn't too thrilled about going: cold weather, can't dance, behind at the office (as always), feeling glum because of an in-office confrontation on Friday that was both historic and epic in sweep -- the sort of six-guns-blazing showdown that gets talked about for years and leaves scars that never heal. But I thought, what the heck, looking at nubile young female dancers for a couple of hours can't be bad for this frigid heart of mine. So we went anyway, and are damn glad we did.
It was a heck of a show, played out in three parts. The first was modernistic, to music by Philip Glass, and was greeted fairly tepidly by the audience. But I found myself digging it, and not just because of the skimpy outfits. The second was "Follow Me," a tribute to the infantry that you can read about here. Corby Skinner told me beforehand that it made him cry. I'm made of sterner stuff but could see his point. It's hard to describe what it was like, and I don't get paid enough for this to try, but it was indeed moving, sad, tragic -- military combat stripped to its essence, beyond patriotism, beyond uniforms, beyond weapons and marching bands -- just suffering, and friendship and enduring.
The last part, a series of dances to music by Lyle Lovett, was just sheer fun. The crowd loved it, and I suspect the dancers did, too. It must be inwardly satisfying for those Texas artistes to get up on stage and show off country-style moves that the cowboys at Billy Bob's have never even dreamed about. This brought the second of two standing ovations, and we headed for home, still cold but not nearly so glum.
It was a heck of a show, played out in three parts. The first was modernistic, to music by Philip Glass, and was greeted fairly tepidly by the audience. But I found myself digging it, and not just because of the skimpy outfits. The second was "Follow Me," a tribute to the infantry that you can read about here. Corby Skinner told me beforehand that it made him cry. I'm made of sterner stuff but could see his point. It's hard to describe what it was like, and I don't get paid enough for this to try, but it was indeed moving, sad, tragic -- military combat stripped to its essence, beyond patriotism, beyond uniforms, beyond weapons and marching bands -- just suffering, and friendship and enduring.
The last part, a series of dances to music by Lyle Lovett, was just sheer fun. The crowd loved it, and I suspect the dancers did, too. It must be inwardly satisfying for those Texas artistes to get up on stage and show off country-style moves that the cowboys at Billy Bob's have never even dreamed about. This brought the second of two standing ovations, and we headed for home, still cold but not nearly so glum.
Feds in the classroom
What really bugs me about this whole discussion is the utter acquiesence to the notion that the feds have every right to tell us how to run our schools. Where are the brave conservatives who will stand up and tell the federal government to mind its own business?
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Riotland
Anthony Killebrew notes that a new issue of Riotland Comics, his Billings-based e-zine, has been posted.
Local boy makes good
The indefatigable Jackie Corr sends along this link about a Miles City native who became CFO for Microsoft. Jackie says that the article doesn't mention Conners' role in the Touch America fiasco.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
School bells
As of today, I'm back teaching at Rocky Mountain College. It's another first-year writing course, and today's class was pretty fun, so I'm looking forward to it. My reading list is quirky, bordering on eccentric: a new book of Montana short stories, a book by Tim Cahill and Marquez's "100 Years of Solitude." I'm not sure what I was thinking when I came up with that list, but perhaps it will come back to me.
Next week I'm back to tutoring in the writing lab at MSU-Billings, so it will be another busy semester. Blogging will suffer, naturally, but perhaps not as badly as last semester. We'll see.
Next week I'm back to tutoring in the writing lab at MSU-Billings, so it will be another busy semester. Blogging will suffer, naturally, but perhaps not as badly as last semester. We'll see.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Occasionally wacky
Left in the West calls Joe Balyeat's package of bills to reform the Montana Supreme Court "crazy." He's not entirely right. Here's my estimate:
• Opening Supreme Court deliberations to the public. GOOD IDEA.
• Electing justices from regions of the state. Currently, they are elected statewide. OK IDEA.
• Justices would run with political party affiliation. Currently, those seeking for the Supreme Court seats run nonpartisan campaigns. BAD IDEA.
• Paying justices the same rate as legislators: About $20,000 a year, plus expenses, slightly less than the wage of office assistants of Montana's district court judges. WACKY IDEA.
• Allowing the governor and Legislature to overrule the Supreme Court. WACKY, BORDERING ON INSANE, IDEA.
• Applying the same campaign spending caps to justice candidates and legislative candidates. Currently, campaign donations to justices are capped at $250 a person, the same limit as other statewide offices. Legislative candidates have a cap of $130 per donor. BAD IDEA.
• Justices would not have to be lawyers. Currently, only attorneys who have passed the state bar exam can run for the Montana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is also head of the state bar. Balyeat's bill would have non-lawyers governing the practice of law. WACKY IDEA.
• Limiting the number of terms that justices could serve. BAD IDEA, BUT NOT CRAZY.
A few of my own thoughts about the Supreme Court are located here.
• Opening Supreme Court deliberations to the public. GOOD IDEA.
• Electing justices from regions of the state. Currently, they are elected statewide. OK IDEA.
• Justices would run with political party affiliation. Currently, those seeking for the Supreme Court seats run nonpartisan campaigns. BAD IDEA.
• Paying justices the same rate as legislators: About $20,000 a year, plus expenses, slightly less than the wage of office assistants of Montana's district court judges. WACKY IDEA.
• Allowing the governor and Legislature to overrule the Supreme Court. WACKY, BORDERING ON INSANE, IDEA.
• Applying the same campaign spending caps to justice candidates and legislative candidates. Currently, campaign donations to justices are capped at $250 a person, the same limit as other statewide offices. Legislative candidates have a cap of $130 per donor. BAD IDEA.
• Justices would not have to be lawyers. Currently, only attorneys who have passed the state bar exam can run for the Montana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is also head of the state bar. Balyeat's bill would have non-lawyers governing the practice of law. WACKY IDEA.
• Limiting the number of terms that justices could serve. BAD IDEA, BUT NOT CRAZY.
A few of my own thoughts about the Supreme Court are located here.
Good stuff
As usual, I'm probably the last guy to notice this, but Left in the West in doing a lot of good Montana political blogging these days. Still no Outpost on his news links, though.
On the down side, No Girl Friday has gone out of publication. Too bad. It was one of my favorite Montana reads.
On the down side, No Girl Friday has gone out of publication. Too bad. It was one of my favorite Montana reads.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
That egomaniac
The MTGOP-Ebrief, always good for a snuckle (which is somewhere between a sneer and a chuckle), says that Gov. Brian Schweitzer wouldn't let departing Gov. Martz give 60 seconds of farewell remarks on her last day in office.
Schweitzer is determined that any credit for Montana’s improving economy should be his, even though he was not in office when key economic-development and tax policy were implemented. In fact it enrages our new egomaniacal governor any time that anyone would suggest that Governor Martz did a good job of managing the state’s economy. The refusal to let Governor Martz speak on Monday was overlooked in news reports of Schweitzer’s inauguration, but it certainly underscores the fact that it is indeed a “new day for Montana.”
Friday, January 07, 2005
Flame warriors
A friend sent along this handy guide to blogging Flame Warriors. Any resemblance between these characters and actual readers of this blog is, no doubt, strictly coincidental.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Running in place
So there were a grand total of three contested legislative primary races in Yellowstone County in June. And there were three races with no candidates at all. Yet when the opportunity comes to fill John Bohlinger's Senate seat by appointment, 20 people apply. How come?
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Those ornery Montanans
Walter Kirn, writing in New York Times magazine, speculates on why Montanans voted the way they did. Hint: It's that Western ornery streak.
Montana's decline
This week's Green Party Bulletin reprints (e-prints?) a book review in Scientific American of Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." Diamond is a Pulitzer Prize-winning geography professor at UCLA. Here's an excerpt from the review:
According to the review, ecological devastation, particularly over-logging, are a major factor in the decline of civilizations, such as the Maya and Anaszai.
Diamond begins with the failed state of Montana. Montana? Well, a Pulitzer Prize-winning tenured professor can take the liberty of giving priority to his passions. So Diamond the ardent fly-fisherman, defender of ecological pristineness, sympathetic friend of the farming "locals" has come to the sad conclusion that Montana is going to the dogs. Once one of the richest states of the union, it now ranks among the poorest, having squandered its nonrenewable mineral resources and savagely over-logged its forests. Maybe worst of all, some cad put pike into the trout waters.
According to the review, ecological devastation, particularly over-logging, are a major factor in the decline of civilizations, such as the Maya and Anaszai.
Ballots up close
Here are the five ballots I mentioned in the post below. All five were counted for Jore, and a district judge agreed. But they are pretty similar, aren't they?
Real or fake?
At City Lights, Ed Kemmick makes a good point in his own comments section:
I didn't mention this before, but five of the seven disputed ballots had been marked in exactly the same way: Ovals for Cross and Jore were both completely filled in, and an X was marked on Cross' name. None of the five ballots had been changed in any other way. Of the other two ballots, one had a squiggly line through Cross' name, and the other is the one I reproduced below. I'm not saying anybody tampered with the ballots, but it did strike me as odd that they all were changed in precisely the same way. Even the X's were all about the same size.
In a column on this topic, Sen. Joe Balyeat calls the Supreme Court decision "pure sophistry and a farce," and he points out that that some votes the Democratic candidate also contained multiple markings. That's true: One ballot marked both Windham and the box for a write-in candidate, then failed to write a name in the spot for a write-in. Another marked the boxes both for Windham and a write-in, then wrote Windham in as a write-in. The same voter did that in several other races, too.
Balyeat's column also makes an odd presumption. He says that on all seven disputed ballots, voters "first filled in the oval next to the Republican, but then crossed it out and filled in the oval next to the Constitution candidate." I don't see how he could possibly know which oval was filled in first.
In regard to smudges, erasures, cross-outs, etc., isn’t that the whole point of instructing voters who have marred their ballots to request a new one? If you fill in one oval and someone tries to tamper with that, it is immediately apparent. But if a poll worker, election office employee or anyone else with access wants to tamper with a ballot – by cross-outs, erasures, smudges, etc. – whose [sic] to say who made those marks?
I didn't mention this before, but five of the seven disputed ballots had been marked in exactly the same way: Ovals for Cross and Jore were both completely filled in, and an X was marked on Cross' name. None of the five ballots had been changed in any other way. Of the other two ballots, one had a squiggly line through Cross' name, and the other is the one I reproduced below. I'm not saying anybody tampered with the ballots, but it did strike me as odd that they all were changed in precisely the same way. Even the X's were all about the same size.
In a column on this topic, Sen. Joe Balyeat calls the Supreme Court decision "pure sophistry and a farce," and he points out that that some votes the Democratic candidate also contained multiple markings. That's true: One ballot marked both Windham and the box for a write-in candidate, then failed to write a name in the spot for a write-in. Another marked the boxes both for Windham and a write-in, then wrote Windham in as a write-in. The same voter did that in several other races, too.
Balyeat's column also makes an odd presumption. He says that on all seven disputed ballots, voters "first filled in the oval next to the Republican, but then crossed it out and filled in the oval next to the Constitution candidate." I don't see how he could possibly know which oval was filled in first.
Comments here
An anonymous commenter below asks why readers have to sign in to post comments. The short answer: I don't know. If anybody knows why, and could tell me how to leave out that requirement, I would appreciate hearing about it.
Friday, December 31, 2004
No solon Left Behind
Curious about the candidates to replace John Bohlinger in the Senate, I ran Corky Harkins through Google. This hit was interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that I've heard that Harkins' fondness for motorcoach trips cost him his Senate primary race against Bruce Simon. Supposedly, he took off for a couple of weeks right before the election.
The other is Harkins' choice of favorite books. I haven't read the "Left Behind" series, so I shouldn't be too judgmental, but when you consider all the great books that have been written since, say, Homer, it seems like, at best, an odd choice. Obviously, millions of fans disagree.
The other is Harkins' choice of favorite books. I haven't read the "Left Behind" series, so I shouldn't be too judgmental, but when you consider all the great books that have been written since, say, Homer, it seems like, at best, an odd choice. Obviously, millions of fans disagree.
HD 12 fuss
Outpost associates Brad Molnar and Rob Natelson take a predictably dim (and blistering) view of the Supreme Court decision in the House District 12 race. As I noted over at City Lights, I agree with them that the Supreme Court acted improperly if all it did was substitute its own opinions for those of the duly constituted local officials. But since we haven't seen the legal reasoning behind the court's decision, I'm willing to cut the justices some slack for now. But there are interesting parallels to the 2000 debacle in Florida, with implications for both parties:
1. Remember all the Bush supporters who said that people in Florida who were too dumb to mark their ballots properly didn't deserve to vote? I'm still waiting to hear a Republican make the same observation about this race, even though, if you look at the disputed ballots, it's pretty clear that some of these voters were pretty darn clueless.
2. Democrats who didn't like having the U.S. Supreme Court nose its way into the Florida vote better not crow too much about the Montana Supreme Court's decision in this case. As a rule, elections ought to be settled at the most local level feasible.
Having said that, I still think that the ballot I posted below (provided by the Jore campaign) is highly questionable. I don't know what the "NLA" or "NRA" by Cross' name is supposed to mean, but one reasonable guess would be that the voter wrote his or her initials to show that Cross, not Jore, should get the vote. However, I should have noted yesterday that the Jore campaign says the smudge is an erasure. That isn't obvious in this copy, but if it was clear in the original, that would lend weight to their argument that it was a vote for Jore.
1. Remember all the Bush supporters who said that people in Florida who were too dumb to mark their ballots properly didn't deserve to vote? I'm still waiting to hear a Republican make the same observation about this race, even though, if you look at the disputed ballots, it's pretty clear that some of these voters were pretty darn clueless.
2. Democrats who didn't like having the U.S. Supreme Court nose its way into the Florida vote better not crow too much about the Montana Supreme Court's decision in this case. As a rule, elections ought to be settled at the most local level feasible.
Having said that, I still think that the ballot I posted below (provided by the Jore campaign) is highly questionable. I don't know what the "NLA" or "NRA" by Cross' name is supposed to mean, but one reasonable guess would be that the voter wrote his or her initials to show that Cross, not Jore, should get the vote. However, I should have noted yesterday that the Jore campaign says the smudge is an erasure. That isn't obvious in this copy, but if it was clear in the original, that would lend weight to their argument that it was a vote for Jore.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
The fatal ballot
This may be the ballot that cost Rick Jore a House seat and Republicans control of the Montana House.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Bloggers you know
Here's a short piece from the Montana Heritage Project about Montana blogging. Some bloggers you know are mentioned.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
GOP vs. GOP
The MT GOP E-brief accuses Yellowstone County commissioners of "underhanded chicanery" for failing to select a replacement for Sen. John Bohlinger from nominations submitted by the Republican Central Committee here. That's a tough charge, considering that two of the three commissioners are Republicans, and the lone Democrat, Bill Kennedy, stayed out of the fracas. The session hasn't even started yet, and Republicans are already beating each other up.
Christmas in Iraq
An Outpost reader sent along this fascinating e-mail from a buddy serving in Iraq:
Hi frm Iraq!
Mail arrived today. Got a package my folks shipped that had some much-needed toner for a printer, along with two post cards and a card in a red envelope... Also got a christmas stocking from the East Helena VFW, full of candy and other odds and ends... no idea how they got my name and address.
Doesn't seem at all like xmas; no sign of snow (although it is quite cool in the mornings - below freezing), no decorations, no constant barrage of sappy christmas music from every storefront (for that matter, on the Forward Operating Base, or FOB, there is no such thing as a storefront). There is music at some storefronts, but it has a distinctly non-US touch... anyone who has heard it knows what I mean, and anyone who hasn't should check it out at least once in their lifetime, just to say they did.
Had some kind of upper respiratory crud since Kuwait, which generates amazing quantities of thick nasty mucous. Hope it goes away soon, but sleep is hard to find...
By the way, disclaimer before I get too far: everything I say is true, but 1. lacks specifics because of security requirements and 2. isn't all the story - it's a complicated land of contrasts, and you could probably find a counter-example to anything I could possibly say.
The Iraqis have done me the favor of not mortaring our FOB since I arrived - very quiet, considering that this summer, it was one of the most mortared FOBs in Iraq. Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have been our nemesis instead. Since I arrived here just a few short days ago, several convoys have been hit, and one had six casualties. Now remember, casualties doesn't necessarily mean deaths; in this case, one individual will probably lose sight in one eye; one will probably take three to four months to heal up, but most likely be just fine; and four already went back to work. Shortly before we arrived, another convoy was not so lucky; three soldiers were riding in the cargo compartment of a Hummer when it was hit by an IED, and a fragment of shrapnel penetrated the armor and a soldier's face, removing enough of it to kill him. Another lost a leg, and the third, although he sustained only minor physical injuries, will probably have a hard time for the rest of his life with the experience. He saw what was rest of his comerades and did what too many of us naturally do: fainted. Now he feels guilty for not having been able to render greater immediate assistance - although in this case, it most likely wouldn't have made a difference in the outcomes anyway.
Mosul has of course made the news; the good news is that a repeat is unlikely, given the accuracy of most of the indirect fire systems (rockets and mortars) that the AIF have been using. The bad news is that with a glorious victory such as this, they're likely to launch many more hoping to have a similar stroke of luck.
AIF, by the way, is "Anti-Iraqi Forces", a classic example of spin. The AIF are made up of multiple components; Former Regime Elements, Disgruntled Iraqis, Foreign Jihadists, Iranian and Syrian non-jihadist proxies (this last being subject to much dispute, but I personally am sure they're a part of it - see Stratfor.com or Globalsecurity.org for more on the topic)... the list goes on and on. But since we're liberating and building freedom in Iraq, and since the American public has a short attention span, we don't name each group. Instead, we just use a group label that implies that they're against the Iraqi people... even though the majority of their foot soldiers (but perhaps not the organizers, financiers, and training cadres) are, um, well, Iraqi people. Calling them AIF isn't wrong, exactly; they really are against the majority of the Iraqi people... but it's definitely spin.
I have to convoy between our outlying FOB and the much larger FOB that has our Brigade Headquarters at least twice a week for meetings. Very interesting - every time you go past a dog, or a car, or a pile of gravel, or trash by the road, or a patch in a curb, or a pothole, or a bridge, you hope that it doesn't blow up. Amazing how many ways a truly creative jihadist can come up with to hide old munitions... Most IEDs here are improvised out of old munitions, because they are in such supply. There are vast tracts of land that are litterally littered with old shells and bombs, stockpiled as the Iran-Iraq war or the "Kurdish problem" swung its way back and forth, and then forgotten. Want to build a bomb? just go hike around for a while until you find a shell you like... And not all IEDs use munitions. The numbers of IEDs are stupendous, but of course only the ones that cause casualties, preferably deadly, get reported on CNN - and not even all of those. The majority either cause damage, but no injuries, or are discovered before being detonated; in our Battalion's AO, there are only token numbers that go off every day (I can't get too specific without violating Operational Security, or OPSEC). Most Iraqi factions generally try to avoid killing Iraqis with their IEDs, but the jihadists and the foreign fighters just don't care - if a few kids bite it too, well, it's all for the cause... and actually, more Iraqis die from IEDs than Americans. We have armor, after all.
The convoy goes past mud huts with poor farmers trudging around looking grim, and their innocent kids waving at the convoy - often without smiles. Their disgruntled parents have taught them that they shouldn't enjoy waving to the infidels, but they haven't quite broken the habit of waving itself. Every once in a while, we also pass the home of one of the highly placed members of the regime, and the contrast is stunning - Huge white homes with orchards, gardens, pools, etc, all for one family, and two hundred meters down the road an entire village of mud huts on far less land, with everything drab dirt except the clothes. In many ways, it reminds me of eastern Turkey, but without anyone who seems to hope for the future. Of course, part of that is built into the religion; you are supposed to accept what Allah has willed for your life. To even try and change it is most likely heresy!
The large FOB that serves as the Brigade Headquarters is on an old Iraqi airbase; it shows that the military were definitely better treated than the general public, but the facilities are still a far cry from the homes of the regime insiders. There are dirt fields fenced off with signs reading "Warning - High Radiation Area", but presumably, the missing WMD aren't in 'em... although it's probably residue from the programs, which did exist, even if they never did generate Wal-Mart sized warehouses of chemical warheads. Seems the picture a certain still extant regime painted rather dramatically overstated the case. There are pyramid-shaped concrete bunkers that we've taken over, designed to shelter the Iraqis from air raids from Iran and then the US... there's also a ragged half-pyramid with a monument sticking out of its middle for those who died inside it during gulf war one. We probably all watched the video on CNN as it got hit...
Elections are coming up, and many of the troops we work with are extended until they're over - though they're not happy about it, they're professional and keep on going. These elections will choose a group to write a new constitution... and the first elections for the form of government that results will probably take place about a year from now, roughly the time we're slated to rotate out. Which means, of course, that there's a good chance that we too will be extended. Only time will tell.
Well, would love to write more, but I really must be getting to sleep; have to get up in the morning and convoy in the opposite direction to an outlying village to check into reports that the violence there is getting pretty bad... Will keep my eyes open for dogs along the way.
Hi frm Iraq!
Mail arrived today. Got a package my folks shipped that had some much-needed toner for a printer, along with two post cards and a card in a red envelope... Also got a christmas stocking from the East Helena VFW, full of candy and other odds and ends... no idea how they got my name and address.
Doesn't seem at all like xmas; no sign of snow (although it is quite cool in the mornings - below freezing), no decorations, no constant barrage of sappy christmas music from every storefront (for that matter, on the Forward Operating Base, or FOB, there is no such thing as a storefront). There is music at some storefronts, but it has a distinctly non-US touch... anyone who has heard it knows what I mean, and anyone who hasn't should check it out at least once in their lifetime, just to say they did.
Had some kind of upper respiratory crud since Kuwait, which generates amazing quantities of thick nasty mucous. Hope it goes away soon, but sleep is hard to find...
By the way, disclaimer before I get too far: everything I say is true, but 1. lacks specifics because of security requirements and 2. isn't all the story - it's a complicated land of contrasts, and you could probably find a counter-example to anything I could possibly say.
The Iraqis have done me the favor of not mortaring our FOB since I arrived - very quiet, considering that this summer, it was one of the most mortared FOBs in Iraq. Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have been our nemesis instead. Since I arrived here just a few short days ago, several convoys have been hit, and one had six casualties. Now remember, casualties doesn't necessarily mean deaths; in this case, one individual will probably lose sight in one eye; one will probably take three to four months to heal up, but most likely be just fine; and four already went back to work. Shortly before we arrived, another convoy was not so lucky; three soldiers were riding in the cargo compartment of a Hummer when it was hit by an IED, and a fragment of shrapnel penetrated the armor and a soldier's face, removing enough of it to kill him. Another lost a leg, and the third, although he sustained only minor physical injuries, will probably have a hard time for the rest of his life with the experience. He saw what was rest of his comerades and did what too many of us naturally do: fainted. Now he feels guilty for not having been able to render greater immediate assistance - although in this case, it most likely wouldn't have made a difference in the outcomes anyway.
Mosul has of course made the news; the good news is that a repeat is unlikely, given the accuracy of most of the indirect fire systems (rockets and mortars) that the AIF have been using. The bad news is that with a glorious victory such as this, they're likely to launch many more hoping to have a similar stroke of luck.
AIF, by the way, is "Anti-Iraqi Forces", a classic example of spin. The AIF are made up of multiple components; Former Regime Elements, Disgruntled Iraqis, Foreign Jihadists, Iranian and Syrian non-jihadist proxies (this last being subject to much dispute, but I personally am sure they're a part of it - see Stratfor.com or Globalsecurity.org for more on the topic)... the list goes on and on. But since we're liberating and building freedom in Iraq, and since the American public has a short attention span, we don't name each group. Instead, we just use a group label that implies that they're against the Iraqi people... even though the majority of their foot soldiers (but perhaps not the organizers, financiers, and training cadres) are, um, well, Iraqi people. Calling them AIF isn't wrong, exactly; they really are against the majority of the Iraqi people... but it's definitely spin.
I have to convoy between our outlying FOB and the much larger FOB that has our Brigade Headquarters at least twice a week for meetings. Very interesting - every time you go past a dog, or a car, or a pile of gravel, or trash by the road, or a patch in a curb, or a pothole, or a bridge, you hope that it doesn't blow up. Amazing how many ways a truly creative jihadist can come up with to hide old munitions... Most IEDs here are improvised out of old munitions, because they are in such supply. There are vast tracts of land that are litterally littered with old shells and bombs, stockpiled as the Iran-Iraq war or the "Kurdish problem" swung its way back and forth, and then forgotten. Want to build a bomb? just go hike around for a while until you find a shell you like... And not all IEDs use munitions. The numbers of IEDs are stupendous, but of course only the ones that cause casualties, preferably deadly, get reported on CNN - and not even all of those. The majority either cause damage, but no injuries, or are discovered before being detonated; in our Battalion's AO, there are only token numbers that go off every day (I can't get too specific without violating Operational Security, or OPSEC). Most Iraqi factions generally try to avoid killing Iraqis with their IEDs, but the jihadists and the foreign fighters just don't care - if a few kids bite it too, well, it's all for the cause... and actually, more Iraqis die from IEDs than Americans. We have armor, after all.
The convoy goes past mud huts with poor farmers trudging around looking grim, and their innocent kids waving at the convoy - often without smiles. Their disgruntled parents have taught them that they shouldn't enjoy waving to the infidels, but they haven't quite broken the habit of waving itself. Every once in a while, we also pass the home of one of the highly placed members of the regime, and the contrast is stunning - Huge white homes with orchards, gardens, pools, etc, all for one family, and two hundred meters down the road an entire village of mud huts on far less land, with everything drab dirt except the clothes. In many ways, it reminds me of eastern Turkey, but without anyone who seems to hope for the future. Of course, part of that is built into the religion; you are supposed to accept what Allah has willed for your life. To even try and change it is most likely heresy!
The large FOB that serves as the Brigade Headquarters is on an old Iraqi airbase; it shows that the military were definitely better treated than the general public, but the facilities are still a far cry from the homes of the regime insiders. There are dirt fields fenced off with signs reading "Warning - High Radiation Area", but presumably, the missing WMD aren't in 'em... although it's probably residue from the programs, which did exist, even if they never did generate Wal-Mart sized warehouses of chemical warheads. Seems the picture a certain still extant regime painted rather dramatically overstated the case. There are pyramid-shaped concrete bunkers that we've taken over, designed to shelter the Iraqis from air raids from Iran and then the US... there's also a ragged half-pyramid with a monument sticking out of its middle for those who died inside it during gulf war one. We probably all watched the video on CNN as it got hit...
Elections are coming up, and many of the troops we work with are extended until they're over - though they're not happy about it, they're professional and keep on going. These elections will choose a group to write a new constitution... and the first elections for the form of government that results will probably take place about a year from now, roughly the time we're slated to rotate out. Which means, of course, that there's a good chance that we too will be extended. Only time will tell.
Well, would love to write more, but I really must be getting to sleep; have to get up in the morning and convoy in the opposite direction to an outlying village to check into reports that the violence there is getting pretty bad... Will keep my eyes open for dogs along the way.
Republicrats
In his City Lights column, Ed Kemmick picks up on something I mentioned here. Wonder why it is that neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to notice that they are politically much closer to each other than they are to any of the third parties in this country? Governance in this country overwhelmingly takes place in the big political middle, and Republicans and Democrats stand toe to toe over that middle ground.
First one side, then the other
I have to wonder if some people have trouble deciding which side of the bed to get out of in the morning. This letter in today's Gazette (fifth letter down, under the heading "Judges should follow opinion of most voters," begins by arguing, quite sensibly, that the job of judges is to interpret the law based upon the constitution. Then it concludes by arguing, "Judges should be subject to recall from the ballot box if they do not represent the opinion of the majority of the voters."
Which do you want? Interpret the law or obey the voters? No wonder public notions about jurisprudence are so muddled.
Which do you want? Interpret the law or obey the voters? No wonder public notions about jurisprudence are so muddled.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Foreign orders
I'm paying bills this Christmas Eve and just noted, once again with irritation, that my Billings Gazette payment now goes to Portland, Ore. Why am I paying somebody in Oregon to get a local newspaper?
Self-serving addendum: Every subscription payment to The Billings Outpost is personally handled, drooled over and deposited by the editor and publisher.
Self-serving addendum: Every subscription payment to The Billings Outpost is personally handled, drooled over and deposited by the editor and publisher.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Networks get religion
Here's my take on the United Church of Christ ad that two networks wouldn't run, along with related controversies.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
World's dumbest columnist
Joseph Perkins widened his lead in the race for World's Dumbest Columnist with this entry, which appeared in today's Gazette. Perkins notes, accurately, that reporters rate low in public esteem for ethical standards. He then finds "prima facie" evidence of media bias in three recent Iraq stories:
1. The reporter who got a soldier to ask Donald Rumsfeld about vehicle armor.
2. The NBC correspondent who filmed an American soldier shooting an apparently wounded Iraqi.
3. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
Perkins acknowledges, as any journalist would, that all three of these are legitimate stories. Then he adds this odd but true sentence: "Indeed, when stories appear on the front pages of major dailies or air on the evening news offering decidedly negative assessments of America's prosecution of the war in Iraq, or reflecting badly upon this nation's men and women in uniform, many Americans wonder about the reporter's motivation."
The upshot being -- what? Reporters shouldn't do stories, no matter how legitimate, that might cause Americans to question our motivation? Even Perkins isn't willing to go that far. So he ends with this insipid drivel: "In many cases, if not most, the reporter may simply be calling it as he or she sees it. But in at least some cases, it seems, the reporter's story is driven by anti-war bias."
Oh. And what might Americans wonder about the motivation of columnists who write such pathetic crap? Only one conclusion is possible: Such writers are determined to lay claim to the title of World's Dumbest Columnist. But no one will catch Perkins.
1. The reporter who got a soldier to ask Donald Rumsfeld about vehicle armor.
2. The NBC correspondent who filmed an American soldier shooting an apparently wounded Iraqi.
3. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
Perkins acknowledges, as any journalist would, that all three of these are legitimate stories. Then he adds this odd but true sentence: "Indeed, when stories appear on the front pages of major dailies or air on the evening news offering decidedly negative assessments of America's prosecution of the war in Iraq, or reflecting badly upon this nation's men and women in uniform, many Americans wonder about the reporter's motivation."
The upshot being -- what? Reporters shouldn't do stories, no matter how legitimate, that might cause Americans to question our motivation? Even Perkins isn't willing to go that far. So he ends with this insipid drivel: "In many cases, if not most, the reporter may simply be calling it as he or she sees it. But in at least some cases, it seems, the reporter's story is driven by anti-war bias."
Oh. And what might Americans wonder about the motivation of columnists who write such pathetic crap? Only one conclusion is possible: Such writers are determined to lay claim to the title of World's Dumbest Columnist. But no one will catch Perkins.
Back to blogging
Just turned in the last of my grades for the fall semester, and I don't start back to school until Jan. 10. So my self-imposed exile from blogging is at an end -- for at least a couple of weeks. That isn't meant to say that I will be blogging much; I still have a huge backlog of Outpost work. But any blogging at all would beat what I have been doing.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Sirota on Schweitzer
You will want to read this Washington Monthly piece about the Schweitzer campaign.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Joke of the weak
Best line from "A Prairie Home Companion's" fall Joke Show last Saturday:
What's the difference between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War?
George W. Bush had a plan for getting out of the Vietnam War.
What's the difference between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War?
George W. Bush had a plan for getting out of the Vietnam War.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Mail bugs
Ed Kemmick is bugged by a letter to the editor in today's Gazette. I was bugged by the same letter for a different reason. "When will Montana get a newspaper that is owned by Montanans and run by Montanans," the writer asks.
Well, there's the Outpost, now seven years old and still struggling. And the Missoula Independent, a dozen years old. And the Queen City News, pushing three. And the Butte Weekly, a couple of months older than the Outpost. The writer's question has an easy answer: When more Montanans start supporting the Montana-owned and Montana-run newspapers that already exist.
Well, there's the Outpost, now seven years old and still struggling. And the Missoula Independent, a dozen years old. And the Queen City News, pushing three. And the Butte Weekly, a couple of months older than the Outpost. The writer's question has an easy answer: When more Montanans start supporting the Montana-owned and Montana-run newspapers that already exist.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Sort of extreme
Over at City Lights, Tony Lewis brands me an "extreme moderate." As a great statesman once said, "Extremism in the defense of moderation is ... " well, never mind.
Unlike Tony, I have no particular interest in using my newspaper (or the blogosphere) as a soapbox to preach to the world. What does interest me is making the world a better and more reasonable place, even if only by tiny increments. I don't see how to do that by standing at one extreme and trying to pull the world toward you. I think you have to take up reasonable ground somewhere in the middle and try to steer in the direction you want to go.
Heck, you don't even have to know where you want to wind up. You just have to steer.
Unlike Tony, I have no particular interest in using my newspaper (or the blogosphere) as a soapbox to preach to the world. What does interest me is making the world a better and more reasonable place, even if only by tiny increments. I don't see how to do that by standing at one extreme and trying to pull the world toward you. I think you have to take up reasonable ground somewhere in the middle and try to steer in the direction you want to go.
Heck, you don't even have to know where you want to wind up. You just have to steer.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Excessive exaggeration
I was surprised to the see that the Gazette printed this letter today (scroll to the bottom). I have declined to print it.
I got suspicious when the writer said that Russ Doty's book is 108 pages long, and 54 of those pages are footnotes. I have a copy of the book in front of me. It is 134 pages long. Footnotes are included at the bottom of each page, so I don't know how many pages they cover, but they appear to be the sort of documentation one would expect in a well supported academic paper. The bibliography is nine pages long, including a lot of personal interviews.
Then there's the allegation that Doty lied about saying he worked for the Public Service Commission rather than the Railroad and Public Service Commission. The name changed; Doty's service did not, and I have never heard him misrepresent that. I also have never heard his "supporters" misuse the "assistant attorney general" title, although it is a confusing term and they might well have done so.
We've got about 80 political letters to the editor in the pipeline, and I don't fact check them all. I'm sure the Gazette can't either. But the obvious distortions in this letter jumped out at me.
The letter writer says that "excessive exaggeration is a sign of insecurity." Wonder what he's insecure about.
UPDATE: Now Russ Doty has filed an additional libel complaint, this one alleging seven more libels by Molnar and four in the letter cited above. Most of the new complaints against Molnar concern a letter he wrote to the Outpost last week. I think Doty's gone on a bit over the edge with this one.
I got suspicious when the writer said that Russ Doty's book is 108 pages long, and 54 of those pages are footnotes. I have a copy of the book in front of me. It is 134 pages long. Footnotes are included at the bottom of each page, so I don't know how many pages they cover, but they appear to be the sort of documentation one would expect in a well supported academic paper. The bibliography is nine pages long, including a lot of personal interviews.
Then there's the allegation that Doty lied about saying he worked for the Public Service Commission rather than the Railroad and Public Service Commission. The name changed; Doty's service did not, and I have never heard him misrepresent that. I also have never heard his "supporters" misuse the "assistant attorney general" title, although it is a confusing term and they might well have done so.
We've got about 80 political letters to the editor in the pipeline, and I don't fact check them all. I'm sure the Gazette can't either. But the obvious distortions in this letter jumped out at me.
The letter writer says that "excessive exaggeration is a sign of insecurity." Wonder what he's insecure about.
UPDATE: Now Russ Doty has filed an additional libel complaint, this one alleging seven more libels by Molnar and four in the letter cited above. Most of the new complaints against Molnar concern a letter he wrote to the Outpost last week. I think Doty's gone on a bit over the edge with this one.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Go West, young man
Just ran across this letter while trying to track down the spelling of Horace Greeley's name. I had to break my personal blogging ban long enough to ask this question: Will any current or future occupant of the White House, or any serious aspirant to that office, ever even once write anything so clear, so eloquent, so honest and so right?
I didn't think so.
I didn't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)