Congress would be wrong to condemn Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark, just as it was wrong to condemn MoveOn.org for its "Betrayus" ad. If Congress were less dim-witted, it would have been obvious at the time of the MoveOn.org vote that our representatives were headed down a path they should not travel. Still, there is a certain satisfaction in seeing Limbaugh hoist on his own considerable petard.
Of course, Limbaugh now says he was referring to just one soldier who did, in fact, lie about his service. Fair enough. I can't argue with what he says was in his heart. But that wasn't clear from the context of his remarks, and the usual thing to do when one is misunderstood, no matter how innocently, is to apologize. He refuses to do that.
The other thing he could do would be to say explicitly that it is possible for a "real soldier" to think the war in Iraq is a bad idea. He hasn't said that either, or at least I haven't found it in the long screed linked above. For Limbaugh to acknowledge that loyal Americans, including soldiers, could legitimately disagree with his point of view would demonstrate the generosity of spirit that is essential to a healthy democracy. So I don't expect to hear him do it.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Another one down
Tough week. I made a serious mistake last weekend: I took a day off. At a Mustangs game last summer, my program had a lucky number and I won two free round-trip tickets to any place Big Sky Airlines flies. So my wife and I flew to Missoula last weekend, visited my daughter, ate Indian food and saw a They Might Be Giants concert.
That began the brewing of a near-perfect storm. I was, of course, behind on the paper and struggling late Monday and all day Tuesday to catch up. Our classified person quit on short notice last week, and Paula, our ace production person, was sick and went home early Tuesday evening. My wife, who helped by entering some ads late Monday, couldn't help on Tuesday because she had a paper due in a course she is taking. Our fall intern also sent an e-mail saying she was sick. That left our ad guru, Jim Larson (henceforth known as Lord High Muckety-Muck His Holiness King James I, or Lord Jim for short), and I to figure out how to get the classified pages done. Between us, we had only slight clues.
It was a nightmare, except worse, because nightmares at least involve sleep. After Jim struggled with the classifieds for four hours or so, we still had production problems that took a couple of hours to unravel. Somewhere in the course of our futile efforts, I managed to save the classified file over the file of the entire paper -- wiping out several hours of work.
Jim gamely hung in and rebuilt the paper. By the time he finished at 4 a.m., I was four hours away from deadline with about 12 pages to go. Cranking out a page every 20 minutes for four hours is a fairly tough slog under good circumstances, but I had been on the job for 18 hours already, after working until 2:30 a.m. the night before. And the stories all still needed to be selected and edited.
I didn't quite make it. By the time the printer called to ask about the last four pages, I was distilling them into PDFs. They were on the way within minutes, and I had time to go home, change my shirt and brush my teeth before teaching a couple of German classes.
And the paper looked, well, pretty good to me. I've said it before: This isn't a weekly newspaper. It's a weekly miracle.
That began the brewing of a near-perfect storm. I was, of course, behind on the paper and struggling late Monday and all day Tuesday to catch up. Our classified person quit on short notice last week, and Paula, our ace production person, was sick and went home early Tuesday evening. My wife, who helped by entering some ads late Monday, couldn't help on Tuesday because she had a paper due in a course she is taking. Our fall intern also sent an e-mail saying she was sick. That left our ad guru, Jim Larson (henceforth known as Lord High Muckety-Muck His Holiness King James I, or Lord Jim for short), and I to figure out how to get the classified pages done. Between us, we had only slight clues.
It was a nightmare, except worse, because nightmares at least involve sleep. After Jim struggled with the classifieds for four hours or so, we still had production problems that took a couple of hours to unravel. Somewhere in the course of our futile efforts, I managed to save the classified file over the file of the entire paper -- wiping out several hours of work.
Jim gamely hung in and rebuilt the paper. By the time he finished at 4 a.m., I was four hours away from deadline with about 12 pages to go. Cranking out a page every 20 minutes for four hours is a fairly tough slog under good circumstances, but I had been on the job for 18 hours already, after working until 2:30 a.m. the night before. And the stories all still needed to be selected and edited.
I didn't quite make it. By the time the printer called to ask about the last four pages, I was distilling them into PDFs. They were on the way within minutes, and I had time to go home, change my shirt and brush my teeth before teaching a couple of German classes.
And the paper looked, well, pretty good to me. I've said it before: This isn't a weekly newspaper. It's a weekly miracle.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Cal on the loose
I don't suppose it will surprise anyone to hear that I was perfectly OK with letting the president of Iran speak to students at Columbia, before the United Nations or on the corner stool at the Empire Bar. Letting unpopular ideas air freely is in my DNA.
The usual arguments against letting him speak -- that he denies the Holocaust, that we are on the brink of war with Iran, that he has American blood on his hands -- all make me more rather than less eager to give him a forum. If we are going to spend billions of dollars and possibly thousands of lives to remove the guy from power, we ought to at least listen to what he has to say first.
After all, we have a fair amount of Iranian blood on our hands, too, mostly shed on behalf of our staunch ally -- scratch that -- arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. If talking things over has even a tiny chance of preventing further bloodying of hands, then I'm all for it.
I had hoped that Ahmadinejad might come across as a more reasonable and flexible person than we had been led to believe. I didn't expect it, but I hoped for it. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. He came across as a lying loon. I'm not happy about that, but that's the chance you take when you let people speak openly. I favor free speech even when it produces results I don't like.
Besides, he gave us the best weapon we might have against him. Despite the efforts of "60 Minutes," Ahmadinejad couldn't be embarrassed or cajoled into answering questions honestly. But he could be ridiculed, and that's what students at Columbia did best in response to his stupid comments about homosexuals in Iran. He won't listen to people who attack him, but he might listen to people who laugh at him.
This all seems pretty simple to me. But no position is so simple that Cal Thomas can't find a way to muddle it. In a column that appeared this week in the Gazette, Thomas compares the trials of being a conservative who speaks on a college campus to those of blacks who integrated lunch counters in the South in the 1960s. He makes me wonder why those blacks didn't just collect their honorary diplomas and go air their grievances on talk radio.
Thomas makes a perfectly sound argument except for one detail. He has no actual evidence. Indeed, every single example he gives of repression of conservative speech on college campuses involves people who actually were speaking on college campuses at the time.
Two of his examples even seem to provide counter evidence against his thesis. One is Ahmadinejad himself, who serves as a beacon of liberalism to no one this side of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian president is a testament to the ability of conservatives to be heard on college campuses.
Another example is a former PLO terrorist turned anti-jihadist -- a step toward liberalism, not away from it. As in the other cases, the speaker did find an audience, but Thomas says that access to the talk was limited because of security concerns. As Thomas rightly points out, security concerns are an easy excuse to restrict speech, but fears that a former terrorist publicly denouncing his old beliefs might be at a bit of public risk hardly seem misplaced.
Thomas' other examples didn't involve conservatives who weren't allowed to speak on college campuses but conservatives whose speeches were disrupted by hecklers and protesters. This is a legitimate concern, but accusing colleges of poor crowd management isn't quite the same thing as accusing them of denying conservatives a chance to speak.
Besides, it isn't clear to me that the hecklers were liberals. Perhaps they were hard leftists; I don't know. But liberalism strikes me as less a political platform than as an attitude. Part of that attitude is a willingness to listen to other points of view because you never know when somebody you disagree with might turn out to be right. So it isn't clear to me how liberalism can be blamed for the deeds of students whose actions are profoundly anti-liberal.
My favorite line from Thomas' column: "Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist." So what's he doing, counting security guards at the airport? Timing shift changes at the Empire State Building? He is capable of anything -- and so is Thomas.
UPDATE: I would have thought it impossible to write a dumber column on this topic than Cal Thomas did, but Ann Coulter was up to the challenge. Favorite quote: "Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy."
Is there a brain cell functioning anywhere in that head?
The usual arguments against letting him speak -- that he denies the Holocaust, that we are on the brink of war with Iran, that he has American blood on his hands -- all make me more rather than less eager to give him a forum. If we are going to spend billions of dollars and possibly thousands of lives to remove the guy from power, we ought to at least listen to what he has to say first.
After all, we have a fair amount of Iranian blood on our hands, too, mostly shed on behalf of our staunch ally -- scratch that -- arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. If talking things over has even a tiny chance of preventing further bloodying of hands, then I'm all for it.
I had hoped that Ahmadinejad might come across as a more reasonable and flexible person than we had been led to believe. I didn't expect it, but I hoped for it. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. He came across as a lying loon. I'm not happy about that, but that's the chance you take when you let people speak openly. I favor free speech even when it produces results I don't like.
Besides, he gave us the best weapon we might have against him. Despite the efforts of "60 Minutes," Ahmadinejad couldn't be embarrassed or cajoled into answering questions honestly. But he could be ridiculed, and that's what students at Columbia did best in response to his stupid comments about homosexuals in Iran. He won't listen to people who attack him, but he might listen to people who laugh at him.
This all seems pretty simple to me. But no position is so simple that Cal Thomas can't find a way to muddle it. In a column that appeared this week in the Gazette, Thomas compares the trials of being a conservative who speaks on a college campus to those of blacks who integrated lunch counters in the South in the 1960s. He makes me wonder why those blacks didn't just collect their honorary diplomas and go air their grievances on talk radio.
Thomas makes a perfectly sound argument except for one detail. He has no actual evidence. Indeed, every single example he gives of repression of conservative speech on college campuses involves people who actually were speaking on college campuses at the time.
Two of his examples even seem to provide counter evidence against his thesis. One is Ahmadinejad himself, who serves as a beacon of liberalism to no one this side of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian president is a testament to the ability of conservatives to be heard on college campuses.
Another example is a former PLO terrorist turned anti-jihadist -- a step toward liberalism, not away from it. As in the other cases, the speaker did find an audience, but Thomas says that access to the talk was limited because of security concerns. As Thomas rightly points out, security concerns are an easy excuse to restrict speech, but fears that a former terrorist publicly denouncing his old beliefs might be at a bit of public risk hardly seem misplaced.
Thomas' other examples didn't involve conservatives who weren't allowed to speak on college campuses but conservatives whose speeches were disrupted by hecklers and protesters. This is a legitimate concern, but accusing colleges of poor crowd management isn't quite the same thing as accusing them of denying conservatives a chance to speak.
Besides, it isn't clear to me that the hecklers were liberals. Perhaps they were hard leftists; I don't know. But liberalism strikes me as less a political platform than as an attitude. Part of that attitude is a willingness to listen to other points of view because you never know when somebody you disagree with might turn out to be right. So it isn't clear to me how liberalism can be blamed for the deeds of students whose actions are profoundly anti-liberal.
My favorite line from Thomas' column: "Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist." So what's he doing, counting security guards at the airport? Timing shift changes at the Empire State Building? He is capable of anything -- and so is Thomas.
UPDATE: I would have thought it impossible to write a dumber column on this topic than Cal Thomas did, but Ann Coulter was up to the challenge. Favorite quote: "Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy."
Is there a brain cell functioning anywhere in that head?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Utter waste
Hard to believe that Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester would put out a joint news release bragging that they voted for this piece-of-crap resolution. But they did.
The meat of the resolution is this: "It is the sense of the Senate ... to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization."
Baucus' canned statement: “Montana men and women who fight for freedom and democracy across the globe shouldn’t have to fight for their dignity once they return.”
Tester's canned statement: “Personal attacks on America’s heroes for political gain have no place in the discussion and debate on the serious issues that face this nation.”
I understand that these two characters were trying to provide themselves some political cover from a resolution that condemned solely the MoveOn.org ad against Gen. Petraeus. But the gambit failed. The Boxer resolution failed, and both wound up voting to condemn the MoveOn.org ad anyway.
But the resolution has to stand on its own merits. And its merits are nill.
In the first place, condemning speech is not one of the duties of Congress. It's incredible that many of the senators who earlier condemned Democrats' "meaningless" resolutions against the Iraq War voted for this. If it's meaningless to pass resolutions on a war, an issue that goes to the heart of Congress' duties, then a resolution condemning political speech -- an issue over which Congress expressly has absolutely no constitutional authority -- must be beyond all known meaninglessness. It's a Britney Spears tune sung by Lindsay Lohan.
In the second place, military service by no stretch insulates anybody from personal attack. If it did, the Dave Rye dust-up over at City Lights could never have happened. Both Rye and his critics would have been rendered speechless.
And the higher up the military hierarchy one goes, the less insulation there is. Generals are, and ought to be, among the most vulnerable figures in the public eye. Those whose honor and integrity are on the line when the nation is most gravely at risk must never be exempt from personal attack. They are not gods; they are soldiers, and their performance is an open book.
Fortunately, so is the senators'. And on this day, their performance was dismal.
The meat of the resolution is this: "It is the sense of the Senate ... to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization."
Baucus' canned statement: “Montana men and women who fight for freedom and democracy across the globe shouldn’t have to fight for their dignity once they return.”
Tester's canned statement: “Personal attacks on America’s heroes for political gain have no place in the discussion and debate on the serious issues that face this nation.”
I understand that these two characters were trying to provide themselves some political cover from a resolution that condemned solely the MoveOn.org ad against Gen. Petraeus. But the gambit failed. The Boxer resolution failed, and both wound up voting to condemn the MoveOn.org ad anyway.
But the resolution has to stand on its own merits. And its merits are nill.
In the first place, condemning speech is not one of the duties of Congress. It's incredible that many of the senators who earlier condemned Democrats' "meaningless" resolutions against the Iraq War voted for this. If it's meaningless to pass resolutions on a war, an issue that goes to the heart of Congress' duties, then a resolution condemning political speech -- an issue over which Congress expressly has absolutely no constitutional authority -- must be beyond all known meaninglessness. It's a Britney Spears tune sung by Lindsay Lohan.
In the second place, military service by no stretch insulates anybody from personal attack. If it did, the Dave Rye dust-up over at City Lights could never have happened. Both Rye and his critics would have been rendered speechless.
And the higher up the military hierarchy one goes, the less insulation there is. Generals are, and ought to be, among the most vulnerable figures in the public eye. Those whose honor and integrity are on the line when the nation is most gravely at risk must never be exempt from personal attack. They are not gods; they are soldiers, and their performance is an open book.
Fortunately, so is the senators'. And on this day, their performance was dismal.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Feds pay for Cobb Field
I just ran across a news release that Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus put out last week boasting that they had fended off an amendment to cut $500,000 in federal funding for Cobb Field.
In his shocking floor remarks, Sen. Baucus disclosed that "Field of Dreams" is one of his favorite movies, suggesting that he should perhaps see more movies. Sen. Tester said the new park would a "major economic boost" and an "asset to the entire region."
This will baffle some readers here who are convinced beyond all evidence that I'm a liberal, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it is a federal responsibility to build baseball parks. Maybe if times were flush it would be different, but not when the federal government already is running massive deficits and spending a couple of billion dollars a week on a war that looks endless.
Congressmen come and go, but the pork never stops.
In his shocking floor remarks, Sen. Baucus disclosed that "Field of Dreams" is one of his favorite movies, suggesting that he should perhaps see more movies. Sen. Tester said the new park would a "major economic boost" and an "asset to the entire region."
This will baffle some readers here who are convinced beyond all evidence that I'm a liberal, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it is a federal responsibility to build baseball parks. Maybe if times were flush it would be different, but not when the federal government already is running massive deficits and spending a couple of billion dollars a week on a war that looks endless.
Congressmen come and go, but the pork never stops.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
What counts
A Zogby poll finds that 81 percent of Americans say that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were the most significant historical event of their lives.
Can that be? I have always thought that the most significant historical event of my life was the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the only thing that has happened in my life, I suspect, that had both the scale and significance of World War II (which I can't put on my list because I'm not quite that old).
I'm not sure I would even put the 9-11 attacks as No. 2. Vietnam, the Kennedy assassination, the first moon landing -- those all have to be up there pretty high. Then no doubt a thing or two has surely happened in my life that has significance I can't yet fully appreciate. All those Nigerian philanthropists, for example.
The commonplace that Sept. 11 changed everything has always seemed wrong to me. We already knew that the world contained terrorists, and that they wanted to kill us, and even that the World Trade Center was a favored target. Sept. 11 certainly made us take the threat more seriously, but it didn't change the nature of the threat in any major way.
What am I missing?
Can that be? I have always thought that the most significant historical event of my life was the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's the only thing that has happened in my life, I suspect, that had both the scale and significance of World War II (which I can't put on my list because I'm not quite that old).
I'm not sure I would even put the 9-11 attacks as No. 2. Vietnam, the Kennedy assassination, the first moon landing -- those all have to be up there pretty high. Then no doubt a thing or two has surely happened in my life that has significance I can't yet fully appreciate. All those Nigerian philanthropists, for example.
The commonplace that Sept. 11 changed everything has always seemed wrong to me. We already knew that the world contained terrorists, and that they wanted to kill us, and even that the World Trade Center was a favored target. Sept. 11 certainly made us take the threat more seriously, but it didn't change the nature of the threat in any major way.
What am I missing?
GOP hijinx
Montana Republicans have put out a news release criticizing Jon Tester for:
1. Refusing to denounce an infamous MoveOn.org ad that appeared in the New York Times.
2. Failing to return campaign contributions from the group.
Republicans also tried to amend a housing and transportation bill to publicly denounce moveon.org. Tester, who apparently was presiding over the Senate at the time, ruled the amendment out of order because it wasn't germane to the bill, which of course it wasn't.
The idea that political candidates should refuse to take campaign contributions from people and groups that say and do stupid things seems to be on the rise, especially from Republicans. But it makes no sense.
If all candidates refused to take money from people who say things the candidate disagrees with, then that would wring a lot of money out of political campaigns. But it's hard to see how it would do anything for democracy.
I don't really want my elected officials poring over campaign reports to detect ideological impurities. And I don't want them rushing to the House or Senate floor to pass meaningless resolutions every time somebody says something they don't like. I would rather they didn't even know who was giving them money, and I would rather they spent their time in Congress working on issues that really matter. I don't want government in the business of telling people what they ought and ought not say.
I don't expect Republican legislators to denounce the GOP E-brief every time it says something stupid and irresponsible, even though that is almost a daily occurrence, and even though the E-brief is an official party publication. I just take it for granted that in a political system dominated by two huge, undisciplined parties, a certain number of energetic morons are going to get into positions of influence. I don't blame the whole party for that.
I do want elected officials who are able to represent a broad range of people with whom they may have powerful disagreements. Politicians are elected to represent all of us, not just those who pass an ideological litmus test. When Jesus was criticized for breaking bread with sinners, he said he had come to save them, not the righteous. Politicians should have the same attitude.
Am I wrong to say that Republicans are worse about this than Democrats? I welcome evidence to the contrary. Abramoff doesn't count. I didn't really care whether Conrad Burns returned Abramoff's contributions or not, but I can see why he felt he should. Abramoff didn't get in trouble for what he said but for trying to use contributions to abet illegal activities. It's a different animal.
And if it's true that Republicans are worse about this than Democrats, then maybe that helps explain why the polls show Republicans are in trouble.
1. Refusing to denounce an infamous MoveOn.org ad that appeared in the New York Times.
2. Failing to return campaign contributions from the group.
Republicans also tried to amend a housing and transportation bill to publicly denounce moveon.org. Tester, who apparently was presiding over the Senate at the time, ruled the amendment out of order because it wasn't germane to the bill, which of course it wasn't.
The idea that political candidates should refuse to take campaign contributions from people and groups that say and do stupid things seems to be on the rise, especially from Republicans. But it makes no sense.
If all candidates refused to take money from people who say things the candidate disagrees with, then that would wring a lot of money out of political campaigns. But it's hard to see how it would do anything for democracy.
I don't really want my elected officials poring over campaign reports to detect ideological impurities. And I don't want them rushing to the House or Senate floor to pass meaningless resolutions every time somebody says something they don't like. I would rather they didn't even know who was giving them money, and I would rather they spent their time in Congress working on issues that really matter. I don't want government in the business of telling people what they ought and ought not say.
I don't expect Republican legislators to denounce the GOP E-brief every time it says something stupid and irresponsible, even though that is almost a daily occurrence, and even though the E-brief is an official party publication. I just take it for granted that in a political system dominated by two huge, undisciplined parties, a certain number of energetic morons are going to get into positions of influence. I don't blame the whole party for that.
I do want elected officials who are able to represent a broad range of people with whom they may have powerful disagreements. Politicians are elected to represent all of us, not just those who pass an ideological litmus test. When Jesus was criticized for breaking bread with sinners, he said he had come to save them, not the righteous. Politicians should have the same attitude.
Am I wrong to say that Republicans are worse about this than Democrats? I welcome evidence to the contrary. Abramoff doesn't count. I didn't really care whether Conrad Burns returned Abramoff's contributions or not, but I can see why he felt he should. Abramoff didn't get in trouble for what he said but for trying to use contributions to abet illegal activities. It's a different animal.
And if it's true that Republicans are worse about this than Democrats, then maybe that helps explain why the polls show Republicans are in trouble.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Cobb Field
The Outpost editor tells you more about the last game at Cobb Field than you could ever possibly want to know. And he makes you want more.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Punditry done wrong
By way of Dave Budge I found this unfortunate post at Montana Pundit. Rarely has a post gotten so much wrong in so little space. I address only three points:
1. "Truth is the democrats [sic] have such disdain and hatred for the military and all who serve, that no matter what the general says it does not matter."
That is shameful and irresponsible and an unforgivable insult to all Democrats who served their country honorably, both in and out of the military. And it is presented, of course, totally without evidence.
2. "It is impossible to support someone when you do not support what they [sic] do."
Dead wrong. Nobody blames the soldiers for the war. They didn't start it. As Americans gradually have soured on the war, their support for the troops has wavered almost not at all.
3. "If we leave now all who have died will have died for nothing."
Wrong militarily, wrong politically, wrong morally. Sending soldiers to die solely because other soldiers have died is always wrong. Soldiers live and die based on decisions by their commanders. Those decisions may be wise, or they may be foolish, but in neither case do soldiers die for nothing. They die for their country. Perpetuating a bad decision in hopes of vindicating the sacrifice of those who already have died guarantees disaster.
1. "Truth is the democrats [sic] have such disdain and hatred for the military and all who serve, that no matter what the general says it does not matter."
That is shameful and irresponsible and an unforgivable insult to all Democrats who served their country honorably, both in and out of the military. And it is presented, of course, totally without evidence.
2. "It is impossible to support someone when you do not support what they [sic] do."
Dead wrong. Nobody blames the soldiers for the war. They didn't start it. As Americans gradually have soured on the war, their support for the troops has wavered almost not at all.
3. "If we leave now all who have died will have died for nothing."
Wrong militarily, wrong politically, wrong morally. Sending soldiers to die solely because other soldiers have died is always wrong. Soldiers live and die based on decisions by their commanders. Those decisions may be wise, or they may be foolish, but in neither case do soldiers die for nothing. They die for their country. Perpetuating a bad decision in hopes of vindicating the sacrifice of those who already have died guarantees disaster.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Uff
Lessee. I worked 16 hours on Tuesday, 18 on Wednesday and 19 on Thursday. Bad trend. Think I'll lock up early and head to the ball yard to watch the Mustangs' season end.
I did see two signs worth mentioning on delivery day:
1. "Military and war, 20% off"
At first, I found it immensely cheering that war had fallen so far into disfavor that it had be sold off at a discount. Then I realized the sign was for a bookstore.
2. "A Childs Place Early Learning Center"
How early should children learn to use apostrophes? Not until after they receive advanced degrees in education, apparently.
I did see two signs worth mentioning on delivery day:
1. "Military and war, 20% off"
At first, I found it immensely cheering that war had fallen so far into disfavor that it had be sold off at a discount. Then I realized the sign was for a bookstore.
2. "A Childs Place Early Learning Center"
How early should children learn to use apostrophes? Not until after they receive advanced degrees in education, apparently.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Hypocrisy on the grill
I disagree with Ed's Sunday column, although not by much. I'm not persuaded that Larry Craig is a hypocrite. He probably really does believe in family values, traditional marriage and the evils of homosexuality. The fact that he personally is unable to uphold those values doesn't make him a hypocrite, just weak. As are we all.
Of course, that doesn't make it any less annoying that he is willing to use the law to create conditions that cause people like him to break the law. But again, I suspect that is weakness rather than hypocrisy. When his defense is, "I don't do these kinds of things" rather than "I didn't do this thing," he is juxtaposing his view of what he thinks he should be against what he really is. That can be an ugly look in the mirror.
Of course, that doesn't make it any less annoying that he is willing to use the law to create conditions that cause people like him to break the law. But again, I suspect that is weakness rather than hypocrisy. When his defense is, "I don't do these kinds of things" rather than "I didn't do this thing," he is juxtaposing his view of what he thinks he should be against what he really is. That can be an ugly look in the mirror.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Baseball online
The city of Billings plans to post photos every few days for those who wish to keep track of construction at the new ballpark. Here's the link.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Nag
Letters like this one appealing to the conscience of a thief appear commonly. Other than perhaps making the letter writer feel better, do you suppose such letters ever do any good?
Somehow, I doubt it. I don't see thieves as regular readers of the editorial page. Nor would they, I suspect, be thieves in the first place if their consciences could be so easily touched. Anybody ever hear of someone who returned a stolen wallet because of a guilty conscience induced by a letter to the editor?
Somehow, I doubt it. I don't see thieves as regular readers of the editorial page. Nor would they, I suspect, be thieves in the first place if their consciences could be so easily touched. Anybody ever hear of someone who returned a stolen wallet because of a guilty conscience induced by a letter to the editor?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Viva Cambodia
This week's best delivery day talk radio rant came from Bill O'Reilly, who said that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was "off the charts" on the far left.
Off the charts? I thought the chart pretty much ended at Karl Marx. So if the P-I is off the charts, with whom is it aligning itself? Pol Pot? Next time you see a pro-Khmer Rouge editorial in the P-I, be sure to give O'Reilly a call. You might get a free copy of his latest best-seller, "The No Sense Zone."
Off the charts? I thought the chart pretty much ended at Karl Marx. So if the P-I is off the charts, with whom is it aligning itself? Pol Pot? Next time you see a pro-Khmer Rouge editorial in the P-I, be sure to give O'Reilly a call. You might get a free copy of his latest best-seller, "The No Sense Zone."
Befuddled
I'm a little confused. If you are the top dog in the state for the biggest media company in the state, and you get a chance to become at the same time the head of the state's largest advertiser, is that really a community service?
Winding down
School starts next week, so this blog may be headed into hibernation again shortly. I'm teaching three classes this fall: two German classes at MSU Billings and my usual fall journalism class at Rocky. I will also be tutoring at the Academic Support Center a couple of evenings a week and, of course, trying to hold the Outpost together.
I will make an effort to keep the blog from going completely dark, as it has in some past semesters. Since it is now linked to the Outpost website, I have a financial incentive to keep it up, which is more than most people have. But I also am going to try to devote more of what writing energy remains into the Outpost, where the payoff is potentially higher.
I must admit that I don't feel quite ready for all this. I did work on my German some this summer -- saw a few movies, read a couple of books -- but I didn't do a very good job of clearing up the backlog at the office. I didn't get out enough, didn't take enough days off, didn't write enough, didn't even get my desk cleaned off. It's still August, and I feel a bit stressed, tired and overburdened already. Dang it.
There is something invigorating, though, about heading back to school. It's just the right mix of the familiar and the new, a charge of adrenaline, a chance to try new things. That's the best part about the job, and other jobs would be wise to try to do something similar.
I will make an effort to keep the blog from going completely dark, as it has in some past semesters. Since it is now linked to the Outpost website, I have a financial incentive to keep it up, which is more than most people have. But I also am going to try to devote more of what writing energy remains into the Outpost, where the payoff is potentially higher.
I must admit that I don't feel quite ready for all this. I did work on my German some this summer -- saw a few movies, read a couple of books -- but I didn't do a very good job of clearing up the backlog at the office. I didn't get out enough, didn't take enough days off, didn't write enough, didn't even get my desk cleaned off. It's still August, and I feel a bit stressed, tired and overburdened already. Dang it.
There is something invigorating, though, about heading back to school. It's just the right mix of the familiar and the new, a charge of adrenaline, a chance to try new things. That's the best part about the job, and other jobs would be wise to try to do something similar.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Instapunk
In his infamous style, Glenn Reynolds sort of but not quite accuses a TV station of showing bias by burying the party affiliation of a politician charged with assault. Reynolds invites the smug reader to guess that the politician's party was buried because he is a Democrat.
Where was it buried? In one version of the story, party affiliation apparently was in the lede. In another, it was in the second paragraph. It the current version, the station placed the fact that it broke the story in the second paragraph and dropped party affiliation to the third. Apparently, in no version has the party been named lower than the third paragraph. Even on TV, most people listen that long.
I've always wondered how some people are able to spot liberal bias in places it would never occur to me to look. Apparently, they have more vivid imaginations. To me, it would have appeared that a reporter who broke a story about political corruption and put the party affiliation before the jump was just doing his job.
Now I know better. Thank God that Reynolds is looking out for me. I might have wound up hating Democrats one trillionth of a percentage point less. And that TV station -- who knows? -- might not have mentioned the party until the fifth paragraph.
Where was it buried? In one version of the story, party affiliation apparently was in the lede. In another, it was in the second paragraph. It the current version, the station placed the fact that it broke the story in the second paragraph and dropped party affiliation to the third. Apparently, in no version has the party been named lower than the third paragraph. Even on TV, most people listen that long.
I've always wondered how some people are able to spot liberal bias in places it would never occur to me to look. Apparently, they have more vivid imaginations. To me, it would have appeared that a reporter who broke a story about political corruption and put the party affiliation before the jump was just doing his job.
Now I know better. Thank God that Reynolds is looking out for me. I might have wound up hating Democrats one trillionth of a percentage point less. And that TV station -- who knows? -- might not have mentioned the party until the fifth paragraph.
Small people
The Outpost is a free publication that relies upon the kindness of businesses to allow us to place racks. Because of that, I resolved long ago that I would never hold it against a business that wouldn't allow us in or that asked us to leave. But I do take manners into account.
Last week provided a good example of how this can work. When I delivered papers to the West End Wal-Mart on Thursday, our rack was missing. I called on Friday to ask if anyone knew what had happened, and I was told that the rack had been removed because it had not been "authorized." I asked to speak to the manager. The guy who answered was immediately rude and defensive. When he repeated the "unauthorized" claim, I told him that wasn't true: We always get approval before we place a rack, and our Wal-Mart rack had been in place for years (more than seven years, my research revealed later, since June 14, 2000, with never a complaint that I know of).
"Are you trying to argue with me?" he said. I said I wasn't arguing; I was just stating a fact. Eventually, he said that the order to remove racks had come from Bentonville. “So you don’t really have the power to authorize racks?” I asked. “Not really,” he conceded. So I asked why other racks remained where ours had been. "Guess what?" he said, they're gone.
But they weren't. When I went to pick up our rack, which had been stuffed out back, four or five other racks were still in place, just as before. I don't know why, but I do know this: I would no longer believe any explanation he gave me.
The second removal came at Godfather's Pizza on 24th Street West. The manager left a message on the machine. He explained why the owner wanted the rack removed and asked us to stop by and pick it up. He said there was no rush and left his name and number in case we had any questions. In short, he was a pro. I'm not much of a Godfather's customer, but nothing he said would make me less inclined to eat there.
Readers of this blog know I have my complaints about Wal-Mart, but this isn't a Wal-Mart thing. When we were asked to remove our Heights Wal-Mart rack, the manager there was perfectly decent about it. It's a human being thing: Small people should not be given power, even the modest power of a store manager. I saw it happen often enough in the Army: Small people who got small promotions would sometimes act like they ruled the world. In the Army, there was no escaping them, but in civilian life, they do not get my business.
UPDATE: Just got word from the real manager at Wal-Mart. The rack is back.
Last week provided a good example of how this can work. When I delivered papers to the West End Wal-Mart on Thursday, our rack was missing. I called on Friday to ask if anyone knew what had happened, and I was told that the rack had been removed because it had not been "authorized." I asked to speak to the manager. The guy who answered was immediately rude and defensive. When he repeated the "unauthorized" claim, I told him that wasn't true: We always get approval before we place a rack, and our Wal-Mart rack had been in place for years (more than seven years, my research revealed later, since June 14, 2000, with never a complaint that I know of).
"Are you trying to argue with me?" he said. I said I wasn't arguing; I was just stating a fact. Eventually, he said that the order to remove racks had come from Bentonville. “So you don’t really have the power to authorize racks?” I asked. “Not really,” he conceded. So I asked why other racks remained where ours had been. "Guess what?" he said, they're gone.
But they weren't. When I went to pick up our rack, which had been stuffed out back, four or five other racks were still in place, just as before. I don't know why, but I do know this: I would no longer believe any explanation he gave me.
The second removal came at Godfather's Pizza on 24th Street West. The manager left a message on the machine. He explained why the owner wanted the rack removed and asked us to stop by and pick it up. He said there was no rush and left his name and number in case we had any questions. In short, he was a pro. I'm not much of a Godfather's customer, but nothing he said would make me less inclined to eat there.
Readers of this blog know I have my complaints about Wal-Mart, but this isn't a Wal-Mart thing. When we were asked to remove our Heights Wal-Mart rack, the manager there was perfectly decent about it. It's a human being thing: Small people should not be given power, even the modest power of a store manager. I saw it happen often enough in the Army: Small people who got small promotions would sometimes act like they ruled the world. In the Army, there was no escaping them, but in civilian life, they do not get my business.
UPDATE: Just got word from the real manager at Wal-Mart. The rack is back.
Al Jazeera -- nowhere near you
The refusal of American cable companies to carry the English language version of Al Jazeera is one of the great disgraces of our time. The fact that Al Jazeera presents points of view that Americans object to isn't a a negative; it's a good thing. We need to hear that perspective, even if only to avoid blundering into ill-considered wars (hat tip to Paul Stephens).
At the fire
We headed out to the Ford fire for a while on Sunday to see if there was anything useful we could do. I heard about the fire from an Outpost staffer who saw the smoke as she drove home from work. A few minutes later, my friend Gary Svee called, and we went to see what was up. From initial reports, it might have been a refinery going up or something equally dramatic, and we wanted to know for sure.
Lots was going on, but it was an impossible story for a weekly newspaper to cover. Becraft Lane was blocked by a fallen tree, and so we stopped by the Lockwood fire station. We heard that 400 homes had been evacuated in a three-mile radius around the fire. We talked to a woman who said the strong winds that accompanied the afternoon storm had riffled the tiles on her house -- the first time that had happened in 11 years out there. Other people were standing around anxiously, waiting for news. Smoke hung heavy in the air. No word at that time on any injuries or any destroyed homes. That news came later.
So what to do? We had a sneaking feeling that we were more likely to get in the way than to do any good. Gary had to get home. We would have to wait a while to try to get up in the hills to shoot pictures. Any breaking news we dug up would have been ancient by Thursday, when the paper comes out. I could have hung around and dug up feature quotes, but considering how uncertain it all was, even those likely would have been obsolete by press time. Theoretically, we could provide daily coverage on the website, but with tons of work waiting at the office, there was no chance to update meaningfully today and Tuesday.
So we made a brave decision. Gary went home, and my wife and I drove to Tiny's Tavern to drink a couple of Schoonies and listen to Norrine the Outlaw Queen and her band. She had been urging me to come hear her for several years, and it at least seemed possible to work off that longtime obligation.
What a contrast. The beer was cold, the chicken was hot, and the band was relaxed and enjoying itself. Tunes by Ernest Tubb, Hank Williams, Willie Nelson and Eddy Arnold filled the evening air. Norrine gave the Outpost a half-dozen good plugs, which meant that going to hear her play probably was a better business decision than trying to cover the fire.
The smoke in Lockwood seemed very far away.
UPDATE: The governor will be in Lockwood at 2:30 p.m. today for a look at the fire.
Lots was going on, but it was an impossible story for a weekly newspaper to cover. Becraft Lane was blocked by a fallen tree, and so we stopped by the Lockwood fire station. We heard that 400 homes had been evacuated in a three-mile radius around the fire. We talked to a woman who said the strong winds that accompanied the afternoon storm had riffled the tiles on her house -- the first time that had happened in 11 years out there. Other people were standing around anxiously, waiting for news. Smoke hung heavy in the air. No word at that time on any injuries or any destroyed homes. That news came later.
So what to do? We had a sneaking feeling that we were more likely to get in the way than to do any good. Gary had to get home. We would have to wait a while to try to get up in the hills to shoot pictures. Any breaking news we dug up would have been ancient by Thursday, when the paper comes out. I could have hung around and dug up feature quotes, but considering how uncertain it all was, even those likely would have been obsolete by press time. Theoretically, we could provide daily coverage on the website, but with tons of work waiting at the office, there was no chance to update meaningfully today and Tuesday.
So we made a brave decision. Gary went home, and my wife and I drove to Tiny's Tavern to drink a couple of Schoonies and listen to Norrine the Outlaw Queen and her band. She had been urging me to come hear her for several years, and it at least seemed possible to work off that longtime obligation.
What a contrast. The beer was cold, the chicken was hot, and the band was relaxed and enjoying itself. Tunes by Ernest Tubb, Hank Williams, Willie Nelson and Eddy Arnold filled the evening air. Norrine gave the Outpost a half-dozen good plugs, which meant that going to hear her play probably was a better business decision than trying to cover the fire.
The smoke in Lockwood seemed very far away.
UPDATE: The governor will be in Lockwood at 2:30 p.m. today for a look at the fire.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Taking the pledge
I'm behind on my reading, as usual, and just saw 4&20 Blackbirds' discussion of a resolution requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at Missoula City Council meetings.
I have expressed my own reservations about the pledge often enough. In short: I was raised to believe that the pledge undermines religion and borders on blasphemy because it uses the name of God in a rote recitation that promotes secular purposes.
So much for that. But it did strike me the other day that quite a few allegedly religious people who are sensitive about protecting the fragile beliefs of creationists have no such sensitivity to religious qualms about the pledge. How come?
I have expressed my own reservations about the pledge often enough. In short: I was raised to believe that the pledge undermines religion and borders on blasphemy because it uses the name of God in a rote recitation that promotes secular purposes.
So much for that. But it did strike me the other day that quite a few allegedly religious people who are sensitive about protecting the fragile beliefs of creationists have no such sensitivity to religious qualms about the pledge. How come?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Partisan goofiness
Montana's two major political parties appear to be competing for the goofiest news release of the week.
First, the Democrats attack Denny Rehberg for taking a "junket" to France, Brazil, Argentina and Chile while brave Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus are fighting it out on the front lines against raging Montana fires. Right.
Then, the Republicans attack Tester and Baucus for continuing to "question military commanders on the ground from the comfort of the US Senate" while Rehberg has made two trips to Iraq -- one as recently as 2005. "Congressman Rehberg continues to seek out the facts for himself, while others choose to sit on the sidelines," said Chris Wilcox, executive director of the Montana Republican Party.
Note to both parties: If you really think that having a couple of senators in the state is going to help get the fires out, and if you really think that a couple of quick trips to Iraq are going to help you understand the war, then you really don't get either situation.
For the rest of us, there is at least the consolation of knowing that if the two parties can waste their time on this garbage, not much of importance must be going on in the world.
UPDATE: Here's a better explanation than I gave of why a couple of trips to Iraq don't make you an expert, especially if you are a traveling congressman.
First, the Democrats attack Denny Rehberg for taking a "junket" to France, Brazil, Argentina and Chile while brave Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus are fighting it out on the front lines against raging Montana fires. Right.
Then, the Republicans attack Tester and Baucus for continuing to "question military commanders on the ground from the comfort of the US Senate" while Rehberg has made two trips to Iraq -- one as recently as 2005. "Congressman Rehberg continues to seek out the facts for himself, while others choose to sit on the sidelines," said Chris Wilcox, executive director of the Montana Republican Party.
Note to both parties: If you really think that having a couple of senators in the state is going to help get the fires out, and if you really think that a couple of quick trips to Iraq are going to help you understand the war, then you really don't get either situation.
For the rest of us, there is at least the consolation of knowing that if the two parties can waste their time on this garbage, not much of importance must be going on in the world.
UPDATE: Here's a better explanation than I gave of why a couple of trips to Iraq don't make you an expert, especially if you are a traveling congressman.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Fraud?
Left in the West recants its acceptance of reports in The New Republic by now notorious soldier Scott Thomas Beauchamp. "I backed the wrong guy," writes Jay Stevens.
I'm not so sure. I was an agnostic about Beauchamp's honesty before the Army investigation, and I remain one. The only remarkable thing about his story, it seems to me, is the war-backing blogosphere's surprise at learning that soldiers can be cruel and insensitive during wars.
I served in the Army and used to subscribe to The New Republic. Given a choice between the Army's version of events and The New Republic's, I tend to lean toward TNR. For every Steven Glass at TNR, the Army has a Pat Tillman cover-up. Taken in sum, the Army has more incentive and more power to get the results it wants out of an investigation than TNR does.
A couple of other things incline me Beauchamp's way. One is that at least one of the anecdotes he tells makes him look like a real jerk. In my experience, people rarely tell lies that make themselves look bad. The only exceptions I can think of are professional comedians and people who concede a small indiscretion in hopes of concealing a larger one.
The other thing is that the stories are so unexceptional. If I were willing to risk my writing career and professional reputation on a pack of lies, I would print more sensational lies. Admittedly, I have been burned on this point before. When questions were first raised in the "60 Minutes" forged documents scandal, I figured the documents had to be authentic because anyone who would take the trouble to forge documents would have put a little more smoke in the gun. But I may have been wrong. Some people lie just because they can.
So I remain agnostic. But I do hold out against those who argue that Beauchamp's admission that one incident occurred in Kuwait rather than Iraq changes everything. They say that if the incident occurred before he went to war, then that undermines his point that war leads to cruelty. Wrong. The cruelty of war begins well before actual combat.
I'm not so sure. I was an agnostic about Beauchamp's honesty before the Army investigation, and I remain one. The only remarkable thing about his story, it seems to me, is the war-backing blogosphere's surprise at learning that soldiers can be cruel and insensitive during wars.
I served in the Army and used to subscribe to The New Republic. Given a choice between the Army's version of events and The New Republic's, I tend to lean toward TNR. For every Steven Glass at TNR, the Army has a Pat Tillman cover-up. Taken in sum, the Army has more incentive and more power to get the results it wants out of an investigation than TNR does.
A couple of other things incline me Beauchamp's way. One is that at least one of the anecdotes he tells makes him look like a real jerk. In my experience, people rarely tell lies that make themselves look bad. The only exceptions I can think of are professional comedians and people who concede a small indiscretion in hopes of concealing a larger one.
The other thing is that the stories are so unexceptional. If I were willing to risk my writing career and professional reputation on a pack of lies, I would print more sensational lies. Admittedly, I have been burned on this point before. When questions were first raised in the "60 Minutes" forged documents scandal, I figured the documents had to be authentic because anyone who would take the trouble to forge documents would have put a little more smoke in the gun. But I may have been wrong. Some people lie just because they can.
So I remain agnostic. But I do hold out against those who argue that Beauchamp's admission that one incident occurred in Kuwait rather than Iraq changes everything. They say that if the incident occurred before he went to war, then that undermines his point that war leads to cruelty. Wrong. The cruelty of war begins well before actual combat.
Water, water
While delivering papers in the heat this week, I had another thought about the national decline in customer service that I harp on from time to time. Maybe this is a North-South thing, but I remember when I was a kid that lots of businesses had water fountains for customers. Nearly every gas station did, usually right by the pop machine, plus lots of department stores, grocery stores, even fast-food restaurants. I think every Dairy Queen in Texas had a water fountain.
Now? On my delivery route, with well over a hundred stops, I can think of two with water fountains, at the courthouse and at a home for seniors. Maybe there is one at Rimrock Mall. When I do the Medical Corridor route, I can hit the water fountains at Billings Clinic. Are there others? I can't think of any. If I want water (and I constantly do), I have to pay a buck a quart for it.
P.S. The general comment should not cover up the kindness of certain businesses, or at least of certain employees. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen occasions when businesses either offered me a drink for free or refused to take my money when I tried to buy something. I won't name names for fear of endangering the job of a good-hearted employee who may be working for a hardhearted owner.
Now? On my delivery route, with well over a hundred stops, I can think of two with water fountains, at the courthouse and at a home for seniors. Maybe there is one at Rimrock Mall. When I do the Medical Corridor route, I can hit the water fountains at Billings Clinic. Are there others? I can't think of any. If I want water (and I constantly do), I have to pay a buck a quart for it.
P.S. The general comment should not cover up the kindness of certain businesses, or at least of certain employees. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen occasions when businesses either offered me a drink for free or refused to take my money when I tried to buy something. I won't name names for fear of endangering the job of a good-hearted employee who may be working for a hardhearted owner.
Crash and burn
I don't get many days off, and occasionally it catches up to me. Yesterday was one of those days. Slept and read, bought groceries, hot tub, finally scraping together enough energy to cook some Indian food in belated recognition of my wife's birthday. The simple life -- it's easy to miss.
The Babe
In all the hoopla over Barry Bonds and the home run record, it's worth remembering that no modern player comes close to Babe Ruth in terms of overall dominance of the game. In his prime years, Babe Ruth hit more home runs all by himself than any other team in baseball. In 1927, the Red Sox and Senators combined didn't hit as many home runs as Ruth did -- and neither of those teams finished last in the league in home runs. To have that kind of impact today, a player would have to hit 200 home runs a season.
Had he remained a pitcher, Ruth probably could have made the Hall of Fame on that alone. As it was, he set a World Series pitching record that lasted for decades.
And then there was the Ruth charisma: rags to riches, a boy in a man's body, abounding in excess, full of life and charm, the American dream in a pot-bellied package. He was one of a kind, and no number of asterisks will ever change that.
Had he remained a pitcher, Ruth probably could have made the Hall of Fame on that alone. As it was, he set a World Series pitching record that lasted for decades.
And then there was the Ruth charisma: rags to riches, a boy in a man's body, abounding in excess, full of life and charm, the American dream in a pot-bellied package. He was one of a kind, and no number of asterisks will ever change that.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Backup
Aren't they transferring the wrong guy? Seems to me that failing to back up a fellow officer, whether you like him or not, would be extremely dangerous and a firing offense.
To me, if you have a left fielder who won't back up throws to third base because he doesn't like the third baseman, you get rid of the outfielder, not the infielder.
To me, if you have a left fielder who won't back up throws to third base because he doesn't like the third baseman, you get rid of the outfielder, not the infielder.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Somewhere over the striped apparition
I don't read much contemporary fiction, unless it has Montana or Wyoming roots, but I am wasting the summer reading "Absolute Power," a potboiler of a political thriller that was made into a movie starring Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the author, David Baldacci, has sold 40 million books. Forty million. And he can't write a lick. Maybe he learned something after writing "Absolute Power," which was his first novel, but this one has clunkers on every page. The New York Times called it a "mountain of thudding prose" -- and that was the film critic. I can imagine what the book critic must have thought.
You'd think a guy who wants to write novels for a living would bother to learn the craft. But if he can sell 40 million books, maybe it doesn't matter.
I won't waste your time by quoting from the book, except for this brilliant bit: In one strained metaphor, he refers to "the pot of gold at the end of the striped apparition."
OK. I'm ready to die now.
UPDATE: 6 Generations asks, sensibly enough, why waste time reading a poorly written book? Several reasons:
1. Bad habits. I finish bad books for the same reason I eat everything on my plate. There's some poor kid in China who would give anything to have a badly written book.
2. Some poorly written books are worth reading. Exhibit 1: David Halberstam. Terrible writer, in my view, but a terrific reporter who must be read. He is the example I use when journalism students go into despair that they can't write well enough to make a living at it. This particular novel has an premise interesting enough that I still want to know how it turns out (although I have been reading very ... very ... slowly).
3. You can learn a lot from poor writing. The trouble with good writers is that they are so skilled I can't figure out how they do it. With bad writers, I can see all of the seams between the joints, all the badly fitted boards and missing nails. I think: I could do better than that. The good ones just intimidate me.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the author, David Baldacci, has sold 40 million books. Forty million. And he can't write a lick. Maybe he learned something after writing "Absolute Power," which was his first novel, but this one has clunkers on every page. The New York Times called it a "mountain of thudding prose" -- and that was the film critic. I can imagine what the book critic must have thought.
You'd think a guy who wants to write novels for a living would bother to learn the craft. But if he can sell 40 million books, maybe it doesn't matter.
I won't waste your time by quoting from the book, except for this brilliant bit: In one strained metaphor, he refers to "the pot of gold at the end of the striped apparition."
OK. I'm ready to die now.
UPDATE: 6 Generations asks, sensibly enough, why waste time reading a poorly written book? Several reasons:
1. Bad habits. I finish bad books for the same reason I eat everything on my plate. There's some poor kid in China who would give anything to have a badly written book.
2. Some poorly written books are worth reading. Exhibit 1: David Halberstam. Terrible writer, in my view, but a terrific reporter who must be read. He is the example I use when journalism students go into despair that they can't write well enough to make a living at it. This particular novel has an premise interesting enough that I still want to know how it turns out (although I have been reading very ... very ... slowly).
3. You can learn a lot from poor writing. The trouble with good writers is that they are so skilled I can't figure out how they do it. With bad writers, I can see all of the seams between the joints, all the badly fitted boards and missing nails. I think: I could do better than that. The good ones just intimidate me.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Nigerians still at it
Just got my all-time favorite Nigerian e-mail, this from an outfit claiming to collect money from "fraudstars" to refund to scam victims.
It starts:
And it ends:
If you aren't a victim, just wait. Your time is coming.
It starts:
GOOD DAY,
FIRST WE INTRODUCES THIS COMMISSION, Economic & Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) WE FIGHT CYBER CRIME FRAUD SCAM MONEY LAUNDERING IN AFRICA.OUR COMMISSION HAS BEEN IN EXSITANCES SINCE 2004.
OUR DUTIES IS TO STOP INTERNET FRAUD SCAM. AS FOR TODAY WE HAVE PUT ALOT OF PEOPLE FRAUDSTERS BEHIND BARS ALOT OF THEM ARE IN JAIL WE GO ALL OVER AFRICA TO PICK THIS THIEFS.
And it ends:
WE ARE AWARE THIS FRAUDSTARS HAS BROKEN ALOT OF HOME, MADE ALOT OF PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR JOB, SELL THEIR PROPERTIES, CLOSED THEIR BUSINESS, PUT MANY ON THE STREET, AND MADE ALOT TO EVEN LOSE THEIR LIFE. PLEASE YOU ARE TO REACH US IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE FOR FUTHER CLERIFICATIONS ON HOW YOU ARE TO RECEIVE YOUR LOST FUNDS YOU ARE TO FORWARD YOUR FULL PARTICULARS AND RECENT TELPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS TO OUR EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE ON IF YOU ARE A VICTIM.
If you aren't a victim, just wait. Your time is coming.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The government sector
KBLG has been running a promo for "The Radio Factor" in which Bill O'Reilly says that the only things that government can do are run the military and collect taxes. Even allowing for the usual O'Reilly exaggeration, this seems like an awfully short list.
And I'm not even sure it's accurate. Does government really run the military that well? Granted, the United States has the most powerful military history has ever seen. But since armies are nearly always run by governments, the U.S. military can't really be compared to a private sector army, can it? And while I don't doubt that the U.S. Army today is a better-run outfit than the one I served in 35 years ago, certain inefficiencies common to any bureaucracy appear to be built in to the military hierarchy.
To give just one of many possible examples: Since I was stationed with a small detachment of soldiers on the East German border, we had to drive to Bremerhaven to conduct much Army business: medical appointments, shipping goods, clearing up paperwork. On narrow and crowded German roads, it was about a seven-hour round trip, and a military vehicle generally made the run at least once a week.
One week, the Army changed its policy and decided that soldiers had to have an appointment before they could conduct any business in Bremerhaven. Nobody told us, of course, and we drove up as usual. And even though the clerk in Army personnel appeared to have nothing whatever to do, he wouldn't help any of us -- a half-dozen soldiers wasting a full day apiece for absolutely no good reason. This sort of thing happened all the time, and nobody in charge cared very much because nobody had to meet a bottom line.
Still, I don't really want to know how a government-run army would stack up against a privately run army because I don't want big private armies running around out there. This is one monopoly I'm happy for government to keep. The same goes for prisons and courts of law, where I'm willing to accept a little government inefficiency in exchange for the power to vote for or against the people in charge.
Beyond all that, it seems to me that government does do some things well -- at least as well and perhaps better than the private sector. A few come to mind:
1. National parks. Does anybody think that Yellowstone would be a better place if Disney ran it? I don't.
2. Campgrounds. Sight unseen, I would prefer any federal or state campground over
any private campground. In my experience, government-run campgrounds are nearly always prettier and cheaper. The amenities may not be as good, but I don't care much for amenities when I go camping, and I don't like camping close to people who do.
3. Highways. A few privately funded highways have been built in high-traffic areas, but government-built highways suit me just fine, even allowing for the occasional bridge collapse.
4. Public libraries. Nothing else comes close.
5. Mail service. People always bitch about this, but I have never understood why. Almost without exception everywhere I have lived, mail service has been reliable and cheap, and postal employees have been pleasant to deal with. I don't argue that my experience is typical, but I have no gripes.
6. Customer service. Another supposed government weak point, but again it doesn't fit with my experience. Private sector customer service keeps getting worse, in my view, and government service keeps getting better.
7. Fire protection. Who complains about the fire department?
8. Museums.
9. NPR. Not strictly government run, but it gets a few federal dollars, and it is vastly superior to commercial radio in every respect (except sports coverage).
That's not a complete list, but it's a fairly big chunk of what government does. And while you certainly might argue that turning all those services over to the private sector would save a few tax dollars, it's hard for me to see that we would ultimately really be better off.
UPDATE: Two more I neglected to mention:
1. Trash pickup. I never even see those guys, but the trash is always picked up.
2. Water. In all the cities I have lived in over the years, I can't recall that I ever once had any contact with a municipal water department. Why? Because I never once had a problem -- water always has been cheap, plentiful and clean.
And I'm not even sure it's accurate. Does government really run the military that well? Granted, the United States has the most powerful military history has ever seen. But since armies are nearly always run by governments, the U.S. military can't really be compared to a private sector army, can it? And while I don't doubt that the U.S. Army today is a better-run outfit than the one I served in 35 years ago, certain inefficiencies common to any bureaucracy appear to be built in to the military hierarchy.
To give just one of many possible examples: Since I was stationed with a small detachment of soldiers on the East German border, we had to drive to Bremerhaven to conduct much Army business: medical appointments, shipping goods, clearing up paperwork. On narrow and crowded German roads, it was about a seven-hour round trip, and a military vehicle generally made the run at least once a week.
One week, the Army changed its policy and decided that soldiers had to have an appointment before they could conduct any business in Bremerhaven. Nobody told us, of course, and we drove up as usual. And even though the clerk in Army personnel appeared to have nothing whatever to do, he wouldn't help any of us -- a half-dozen soldiers wasting a full day apiece for absolutely no good reason. This sort of thing happened all the time, and nobody in charge cared very much because nobody had to meet a bottom line.
Still, I don't really want to know how a government-run army would stack up against a privately run army because I don't want big private armies running around out there. This is one monopoly I'm happy for government to keep. The same goes for prisons and courts of law, where I'm willing to accept a little government inefficiency in exchange for the power to vote for or against the people in charge.
Beyond all that, it seems to me that government does do some things well -- at least as well and perhaps better than the private sector. A few come to mind:
1. National parks. Does anybody think that Yellowstone would be a better place if Disney ran it? I don't.
2. Campgrounds. Sight unseen, I would prefer any federal or state campground over
any private campground. In my experience, government-run campgrounds are nearly always prettier and cheaper. The amenities may not be as good, but I don't care much for amenities when I go camping, and I don't like camping close to people who do.
3. Highways. A few privately funded highways have been built in high-traffic areas, but government-built highways suit me just fine, even allowing for the occasional bridge collapse.
4. Public libraries. Nothing else comes close.
5. Mail service. People always bitch about this, but I have never understood why. Almost without exception everywhere I have lived, mail service has been reliable and cheap, and postal employees have been pleasant to deal with. I don't argue that my experience is typical, but I have no gripes.
6. Customer service. Another supposed government weak point, but again it doesn't fit with my experience. Private sector customer service keeps getting worse, in my view, and government service keeps getting better.
7. Fire protection. Who complains about the fire department?
8. Museums.
9. NPR. Not strictly government run, but it gets a few federal dollars, and it is vastly superior to commercial radio in every respect (except sports coverage).
That's not a complete list, but it's a fairly big chunk of what government does. And while you certainly might argue that turning all those services over to the private sector would save a few tax dollars, it's hard for me to see that we would ultimately really be better off.
UPDATE: Two more I neglected to mention:
1. Trash pickup. I never even see those guys, but the trash is always picked up.
2. Water. In all the cities I have lived in over the years, I can't recall that I ever once had any contact with a municipal water department. Why? Because I never once had a problem -- water always has been cheap, plentiful and clean.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Who's next?
Now that Rupert Murdoch has Dow Jones, which newspaper company will be the next to go? Most likely Gannett, according to the Wall Street Journal. Lee Enterprises doesn't rate a mention until deep in the comments (3:12 p.m. Aug. 1).
Bad Pat
I like Pat Buchanan because he is mean and smart and a real-deal conservative. But I think he would be a terrible president and would never vote for him. Today on MSNBC, I got a reminder of why.
Buchanan was bloviating on this story, which pits the forces of good (English speakers) against the forces of evil (Spanish speakers) over what languages beach rules should be printed in. That this should be news even in Merrimack is remarkable, but it is astounding that it became national news.
It happened, of course, because guys like Buchanan are willing to go on national TV to express outrage that any language other than English should be heard between the unpatriotically named Rio Grande and the Great Lakes. Judging from the comments, many Merrimack readers, no matter how slipshod their own grasp of English, feel the same way.
As someone who has spent a fair chunk of time struggling with unfamiliar languages (German, French, Spanish, even a semester of Old English), I think I have learned a couple of things:
1. The purpose of language is to communicate, not to make political statements. So if your goal is to have people understand what the beach rules are, you should print the signs in a language they understand. If you have some other goal in mind, then maybe you need to think about why you have signs in the first place.
2. Yes, English is the language of success in America, but even the most diligent students of English are going to struggle for a few years. They deserve a break.
3. In German, the beach is masculine, the sign is neuter and the sea is feminine. Do I have to make you a sign?
P.S. The German equivalent of "That's Greek to me" is "Das kommt mir Spanisch vor," or "That's Spanish to me."
Buchanan was bloviating on this story, which pits the forces of good (English speakers) against the forces of evil (Spanish speakers) over what languages beach rules should be printed in. That this should be news even in Merrimack is remarkable, but it is astounding that it became national news.
It happened, of course, because guys like Buchanan are willing to go on national TV to express outrage that any language other than English should be heard between the unpatriotically named Rio Grande and the Great Lakes. Judging from the comments, many Merrimack readers, no matter how slipshod their own grasp of English, feel the same way.
As someone who has spent a fair chunk of time struggling with unfamiliar languages (German, French, Spanish, even a semester of Old English), I think I have learned a couple of things:
1. The purpose of language is to communicate, not to make political statements. So if your goal is to have people understand what the beach rules are, you should print the signs in a language they understand. If you have some other goal in mind, then maybe you need to think about why you have signs in the first place.
2. Yes, English is the language of success in America, but even the most diligent students of English are going to struggle for a few years. They deserve a break.
3. In German, the beach is masculine, the sign is neuter and the sea is feminine. Do I have to make you a sign?
P.S. The German equivalent of "That's Greek to me" is "Das kommt mir Spanisch vor," or "That's Spanish to me."
Monday, July 30, 2007
The cruelty of war
If you roam the blogosphere at all, you have encountered this story, or at least the controversy about it. The remarkable thing is that anyone finds it remarkable.
I can understand why soldiers in Iraq might be offended if the stories Beauchamp tells turn out not be true. He makes other soldiers -- and himself -- look bad for no good reason. And I can understand why certain people just want to bash The New Republic. That's an entertaining thing to do.
But the idea that soldiers do mean things in wars is hardly news. Military history is full of the banal cruelty of war. Even under the best of circumstances, putting young men together under stress is likely to have coarse consequences. Just go to a rugby practice or cowboy bar. Give 20-year-olds superior firepower, and most anything could happen. That is no slur on soldiers, unless it is a slur to say that soldiers are human beings.
In "Goodbye to All That," Robert Graves describes moving with a bunch of soldiers during World War I through a trench past a soldier who had been buried so deep under an artillery shell that only one hand remained visible. As the soldiers passed by, each shook the hand in turn.
Now, Graves was a humane and erudite man. And the British Army is among the most disciplined and "civilized" in the world. Yet in Graves' memoirs, this grotesque act (imagine the response if rescue workers at a mining accident did such a thing) seems perfectly understandable and, yes, even funny. War does peculiar things to people.
That's one reason why using wars to pursue diplomatic aims so often backfires. Armies are good at breaking things, but not very good at putting them back together again.
And that may be why so many pro-war bloggers with no personal stake in the truth or falsity of The New Republic's claims have taken such offense. Having been wrong so long about how this war would turn out, they take every cruel detail as an affront.
The odd thing is that so many of those appalled by these stories are among those who think the war should be even crueler. We should loosen rules of engagement. We should torture prisoners. We should expand the war to Iran. Such actions inevitably expand the number of war stories that people like Scott Thomas Beauchamp tell.
War tests to its limits our capacity for civilized behavior. If we can't accept the consequences of pushing those limits, we have no business fighting wars.
I can understand why soldiers in Iraq might be offended if the stories Beauchamp tells turn out not be true. He makes other soldiers -- and himself -- look bad for no good reason. And I can understand why certain people just want to bash The New Republic. That's an entertaining thing to do.
But the idea that soldiers do mean things in wars is hardly news. Military history is full of the banal cruelty of war. Even under the best of circumstances, putting young men together under stress is likely to have coarse consequences. Just go to a rugby practice or cowboy bar. Give 20-year-olds superior firepower, and most anything could happen. That is no slur on soldiers, unless it is a slur to say that soldiers are human beings.
In "Goodbye to All That," Robert Graves describes moving with a bunch of soldiers during World War I through a trench past a soldier who had been buried so deep under an artillery shell that only one hand remained visible. As the soldiers passed by, each shook the hand in turn.
Now, Graves was a humane and erudite man. And the British Army is among the most disciplined and "civilized" in the world. Yet in Graves' memoirs, this grotesque act (imagine the response if rescue workers at a mining accident did such a thing) seems perfectly understandable and, yes, even funny. War does peculiar things to people.
That's one reason why using wars to pursue diplomatic aims so often backfires. Armies are good at breaking things, but not very good at putting them back together again.
And that may be why so many pro-war bloggers with no personal stake in the truth or falsity of The New Republic's claims have taken such offense. Having been wrong so long about how this war would turn out, they take every cruel detail as an affront.
The odd thing is that so many of those appalled by these stories are among those who think the war should be even crueler. We should loosen rules of engagement. We should torture prisoners. We should expand the war to Iran. Such actions inevitably expand the number of war stories that people like Scott Thomas Beauchamp tell.
War tests to its limits our capacity for civilized behavior. If we can't accept the consequences of pushing those limits, we have no business fighting wars.
Perverse ways
The new Republican strategy on waging war in Iraq seems wildly perverse. I keep arguing that the Constitution requires Congress to begin and end wars and the president to conduct them. This appears to be the exact opposite: The president can still decide when the war will end, but Congress will control the mission of the troops. Outside of the obvious political grandstanding in this maneuver, how can it possibly make sense?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Move on, Moveon
Trying to get advertisers to pull ads from Fox News strikes me as a terribly bad idea. Given the overwhelming -- if badly exaggerated -- perception that most news tilts left, it makes no sense for leftists to encourage businesses, which mostly tilt right, to make advertising choices based on political biases. It's brainless.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Wacky news
The wackiest talk radio news on delivery day this week was about this story. Duncan Hunter was pushing this bill on Hannity's Inanity radio show, where it passed conservative muster with a gleeful Hannity.
So people who think they are conservatives believe that it's OK for Congress to impose itself in the middle of the criminal appeals process, but at the same time they think Congress should keep its nose out of its constitutional duty to decide when wars begin and end.
How do these people get to claim they are conservatives? Has the term lost all meaning?
UPDATE: Slate lays out the legal case.
So people who think they are conservatives believe that it's OK for Congress to impose itself in the middle of the criminal appeals process, but at the same time they think Congress should keep its nose out of its constitutional duty to decide when wars begin and end.
How do these people get to claim they are conservatives? Has the term lost all meaning?
UPDATE: Slate lays out the legal case.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
BBI no go
Just got a phone call from our very own Public Service commissioner, Brad Molnar, R-Laurel, who says that the PSC voted today to deny a rehearing to Babcock and Brown Infrastructure on its $2.2 billion proposal to buy NorthWestern Energy. The vote was 5-0.
BBI can still appeal the decision or file for a new case, Molnar said.
He said that most commissioners were concerned that the request for rehearing contained deficiencies. His own concerns had to do with a couple of issues:
* BBI proposed to build a new transmission line that eventually would have made Colstrip electricity available for sale in California, driving up Montana rates.
* Fraudulent claims by NorthWestern Energy when it acquired Montana Power Co.'s assets cost Montana ratepayers $300 million, he said, and the proposal includes only $20 million in rate relief. "That's not a dime on the dollar," he said.
BBI also would take NWE profits out of Montana while leaving local ratepayers with debt, Molnar said. "It's like living on a credit card," he said.
The PSC plans a final vote on denying the purchase next week. The Lee State Bureau story is here.
BBI can still appeal the decision or file for a new case, Molnar said.
He said that most commissioners were concerned that the request for rehearing contained deficiencies. His own concerns had to do with a couple of issues:
* BBI proposed to build a new transmission line that eventually would have made Colstrip electricity available for sale in California, driving up Montana rates.
* Fraudulent claims by NorthWestern Energy when it acquired Montana Power Co.'s assets cost Montana ratepayers $300 million, he said, and the proposal includes only $20 million in rate relief. "That's not a dime on the dollar," he said.
BBI also would take NWE profits out of Montana while leaving local ratepayers with debt, Molnar said. "It's like living on a credit card," he said.
The PSC plans a final vote on denying the purchase next week. The Lee State Bureau story is here.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The shadow economy
The Big Sky Business Journal considers the possibility that Montana's underground economy is twice as large as in other states.
Media salvation
Apparently, lack of media coverage is all that prevented protesters from going to jail here Saturday. In a e-mail about Saturday night's protest at the Yellowstone County Democrats' Truman Dinner, organizer William Crain says:
I have been to a Truman Dinner or two, but not this one. If I had gone, I might have jail time on my conscience. Apparently, at least one reporter was there, but I didn't see that she mentioned the protest in her story. Crain said that Baucus stopped to shake hands with one protester, saw her "Out of Iraq" sign and said, "We're working on it."
even the media didn't think these dupes [Tester and Baucus] were worth the time of day. Otherwise, we can assure you, when the police came and with the media there we'd have gone down for the cuffs! but alas no media and i really thought there be some there.
I have been to a Truman Dinner or two, but not this one. If I had gone, I might have jail time on my conscience. Apparently, at least one reporter was there, but I didn't see that she mentioned the protest in her story. Crain said that Baucus stopped to shake hands with one protester, saw her "Out of Iraq" sign and said, "We're working on it."
Whose ox?
When I read this letter in the Gazette, I couldn't help but wonder if the writer would feel the same way if her life savings had been part of the loss. If it were my money, I would say, "Let him rot."
Chasing Chase
I took the day off on the Fourth of July. It was my first, or maybe second, day off in six months, and one result was that I forgot to pay a Chase credit card bill. When I realized my mistake, I paid the bill, one or two days late.
The penalty? A $39 late fee, of course, which I expected. But Chase also tripled our interest rate. The monthly payment we had been making no longer even covers the cost of the interest, and our payment went up about $150 a month.
This wasn't our first bad experience with Chase. The first credit card the Outpost ever got had a reasonable 13 percent interest rate. We had it for three or four years and never went over our credit limit and never, in my memory, made a late payment. Then Chase bought the company that issued the card. Almost immediately, our credit limit was reduced, and our interest rate went to 29.9 percent. Pleas for mercy were ignored.
Fortunately, we have other alternatives. We have paid off the business card, and we will be able to close out our personal account. But the incidents set several thoughts in motion:
1. Defenders of the free market may say we have other options and shouldn't do business with unscrupulous companies. But in neither case did we choose to do business with Chase. In both cases, it bought out more honest companies that we had been dealing with. People with fewer options than we have can easily get trapped by scoundrels through no fault of their own.
2. The idea that usury is a crime runs deep in the human psyche, well back to biblical times and probably much longer. Credit card companies test the public's tolerance of usury at their peril.
3. As a small business owner, I don't have to speculate about how I would react if a loyal customer occasionally made a payment a day or two late. I would say, as I have said many times, "Don't worry about it. Thanks for your business." Honest customers are too precious to throw away on a triviality.
4. Just from a business standpoint, it would be interesting to hear how Chase thinks that what it does makes sense. We have been good customers for years. They have made money off us every single month. Now, because of one payment two days late, they will never make another nickel off us. How does that make sense?
5. What they did isn't a crime, but the penalty would be smaller if it were. All things considered, it would have cost me less to go to Chase headquarters and punch the CEO in the nose. The law takes a dim view of misdemeanor assault, but it also understands that some people need punching.
6. Every couple of weeks, we get a "preferred customer" offer from Chase asking us to borrow more money at low rates, sometimes as low as 4 percent. When the next offer comes, should we take it?
UPDATE: This story curled my toes.
The penalty? A $39 late fee, of course, which I expected. But Chase also tripled our interest rate. The monthly payment we had been making no longer even covers the cost of the interest, and our payment went up about $150 a month.
This wasn't our first bad experience with Chase. The first credit card the Outpost ever got had a reasonable 13 percent interest rate. We had it for three or four years and never went over our credit limit and never, in my memory, made a late payment. Then Chase bought the company that issued the card. Almost immediately, our credit limit was reduced, and our interest rate went to 29.9 percent. Pleas for mercy were ignored.
Fortunately, we have other alternatives. We have paid off the business card, and we will be able to close out our personal account. But the incidents set several thoughts in motion:
1. Defenders of the free market may say we have other options and shouldn't do business with unscrupulous companies. But in neither case did we choose to do business with Chase. In both cases, it bought out more honest companies that we had been dealing with. People with fewer options than we have can easily get trapped by scoundrels through no fault of their own.
2. The idea that usury is a crime runs deep in the human psyche, well back to biblical times and probably much longer. Credit card companies test the public's tolerance of usury at their peril.
3. As a small business owner, I don't have to speculate about how I would react if a loyal customer occasionally made a payment a day or two late. I would say, as I have said many times, "Don't worry about it. Thanks for your business." Honest customers are too precious to throw away on a triviality.
4. Just from a business standpoint, it would be interesting to hear how Chase thinks that what it does makes sense. We have been good customers for years. They have made money off us every single month. Now, because of one payment two days late, they will never make another nickel off us. How does that make sense?
5. What they did isn't a crime, but the penalty would be smaller if it were. All things considered, it would have cost me less to go to Chase headquarters and punch the CEO in the nose. The law takes a dim view of misdemeanor assault, but it also understands that some people need punching.
6. Every couple of weeks, we get a "preferred customer" offer from Chase asking us to borrow more money at low rates, sometimes as low as 4 percent. When the next offer comes, should we take it?
UPDATE: This story curled my toes.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Lives of others
This is a shameless plug intended to persuade you to go see "The Lives of Others" at the Carmike 7. It isn't likely to stay longer than a week, so hurry.
It's one of those movies we get so few of at local Carmike theaters: a subtitled foreign-language film that has won a pile of awards and great reviews, but doesn't draw the masses like the big summer movies do. It's highly worth seeing: a grim but undoubtedly accurate view of life in East Germany and the extraordinary ethical and moral pressure that country placed on its citizens. The acting is great, and the suspense builds steadily as the secret police close in on the dramatist at the center of the film. Well, not quite the center. That position belongs to a true believer, a dedicated socialist who begins to see the world in a new way. That's a vague description, but to say much more would begin to give away something that you should see for yourself.
German cinema has come a long ways since I lived over there. The number of worthy-to-excellent German films has expanded exponentially in recent years, from "Run, Lola, Run," to "Downfall" to "Stalingrad" to "Goodbye, Lenin," a comedy to which "The Lives of Others" provides a stern counterpoint. For me, popular German cinema used to pretty much begin and end with "Das Boot." This is a golden age.
Be prepared for the usual Carmike experience. A long string of commercials delayed the start, and a pile of boxes piled up near the stage blocked part of the subtitles for those who, like me, prefer to sit up close. I was actually kind of glad that the subtitles were hard to see, since that made me rely more on my German listening skills and less on my English reading skills. But it would annoy most people.
At the end, just as the credits began to roll, the screen inexplicably went blank. I particularly wanted to see who did the music, but no such luck. No final credits, and the lights didn't even come on. The handful of viewers had to stumble out in the dark. But at least we had a couple of hours of light.
It's one of those movies we get so few of at local Carmike theaters: a subtitled foreign-language film that has won a pile of awards and great reviews, but doesn't draw the masses like the big summer movies do. It's highly worth seeing: a grim but undoubtedly accurate view of life in East Germany and the extraordinary ethical and moral pressure that country placed on its citizens. The acting is great, and the suspense builds steadily as the secret police close in on the dramatist at the center of the film. Well, not quite the center. That position belongs to a true believer, a dedicated socialist who begins to see the world in a new way. That's a vague description, but to say much more would begin to give away something that you should see for yourself.
German cinema has come a long ways since I lived over there. The number of worthy-to-excellent German films has expanded exponentially in recent years, from "Run, Lola, Run," to "Downfall" to "Stalingrad" to "Goodbye, Lenin," a comedy to which "The Lives of Others" provides a stern counterpoint. For me, popular German cinema used to pretty much begin and end with "Das Boot." This is a golden age.
Be prepared for the usual Carmike experience. A long string of commercials delayed the start, and a pile of boxes piled up near the stage blocked part of the subtitles for those who, like me, prefer to sit up close. I was actually kind of glad that the subtitles were hard to see, since that made me rely more on my German listening skills and less on my English reading skills. But it would annoy most people.
At the end, just as the credits began to roll, the screen inexplicably went blank. I particularly wanted to see who did the music, but no such luck. No final credits, and the lights didn't even come on. The handful of viewers had to stumble out in the dark. But at least we had a couple of hours of light.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Berg alert
I don't listen to Dave Berg's radio show much anymore, but I did hear him railing this morning about the story on Iraq mentioned below. He didn't have the courtesy to mention me by name, or even the newspaper, but he did misread the headline "Billings against Iraq War?" as "Billings against Iraq War." I fired off this response:
I didn't mention that, while I opposed the war from the outset, I am far from the pull-out-now-at-any-cost crowd. I am very much of the Colin Powell if-you-break-it-you-own-it school. By invading, we took on a moral obligation to see things through. That's one reason I thought the war was a bad idea: The military should be used to protect our interests, not the interests of other countries.
But it's too late for that now. I won't support until a pullout until I am persuaded that it is in the best interests of Iraq to do so.
Dave,
You badly mischaracterized the headline on my story this week by omitting the question mark. The headline was meant to indicate that a debate over the war appears to be pending with the City Council. By implying that I had made a flat statement "Billings against Iraq War," you misstated both my own position and the message of the story.
As the story made clear, the number of organized protesters in Billings is quite small. To presume that they represent the majority opinion here would be irresponsible, and it was irresponsible of you to imply that I made that presumption.
I also wonder why you characterized The Outpost as a "throwaway" newspaper. Is is because it is free? If that's the case, then you host a throwaway talk show.
I didn't mention that, while I opposed the war from the outset, I am far from the pull-out-now-at-any-cost crowd. I am very much of the Colin Powell if-you-break-it-you-own-it school. By invading, we took on a moral obligation to see things through. That's one reason I thought the war was a bad idea: The military should be used to protect our interests, not the interests of other countries.
But it's too late for that now. I won't support until a pullout until I am persuaded that it is in the best interests of Iraq to do so.
Fantasy land
While I was out delivering papers yesterday, I ran into Ed Kemmick and Gazette photographer David Grubbs. Kemmick said to Grubbs something to the effect that I would make a good source for a story on people who work in hot weather.
He was referring, I presume, to the newspaper perennial feature of rounding up people who have outdoor jobs and interviewing them during hot weather for a quick and easy summertime feature. It's in the genre of what Mark Twain called, if memory serves, "strawberry surprise" stories, a reference to newspaper editors' unfailing ability to greet with wonder the fact that every spring plants grow.
Kemmick and Grubbs were kidding around, but it did ease the tedium of a long, hot afternoon to fantasize about spending a day relating my delivery adventures to an attentive reporter and photographer. Most of the fantasy was idle nonsense, including the point at which I felt something resembling heat exhaustion coming on, and I pulled in under a tree to rest. "Here's your chance," I fantasized telling Grubbs, "to get a real front-page shot: 'Editor dies carrying news to the people.'" It would have made the perfect climax to the upcoming Nobel Prize nomination story.
Then there was the half hour or so I wasted speculating about who has it harder: guys who work in the heat every day, or a guy like me who sits on his butt staring at a computer screen for 60 hours a week, then works outside like a dog for one day a week. I never came up with the answer to that, but I did decide who had it toughest of all: the friend I had back in East Texas who repaired air conditioners. Everywhere he went, the air conditioning was on the fritz.
He was referring, I presume, to the newspaper perennial feature of rounding up people who have outdoor jobs and interviewing them during hot weather for a quick and easy summertime feature. It's in the genre of what Mark Twain called, if memory serves, "strawberry surprise" stories, a reference to newspaper editors' unfailing ability to greet with wonder the fact that every spring plants grow.
Kemmick and Grubbs were kidding around, but it did ease the tedium of a long, hot afternoon to fantasize about spending a day relating my delivery adventures to an attentive reporter and photographer. Most of the fantasy was idle nonsense, including the point at which I felt something resembling heat exhaustion coming on, and I pulled in under a tree to rest. "Here's your chance," I fantasized telling Grubbs, "to get a real front-page shot: 'Editor dies carrying news to the people.'" It would have made the perfect climax to the upcoming Nobel Prize nomination story.
Then there was the half hour or so I wasted speculating about who has it harder: guys who work in the heat every day, or a guy like me who sits on his butt staring at a computer screen for 60 hours a week, then works outside like a dog for one day a week. I never came up with the answer to that, but I did decide who had it toughest of all: the friend I had back in East Texas who repaired air conditioners. Everywhere he went, the air conditioning was on the fritz.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Billings vs. the war
The Outpost editor takes a regrettably incomplete look at what could be an upcoming vote on an Iraq War resolution before the Billings City Council.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Comma Wars
As an editor and teacher who has spent many years fighting the comma wars, I naturally read this City Lights post, and Samuelson's column, with great interest. Most of my students are so averse to commas that I have become something of a crusader on the topic, even though mastery is unobtainable.
I know no better comma story than this one (retold in Lynne Truss' "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"), which resulted from legendary comma battles between James Thurber and Harold Ross, editor of the New Yorker. Someone once asked Thurber why a comma appeared in this sentence he wrote for the New Yorker: "After dinner, the men went into the living-room." Thurber replied, "This particular comma was Ross's way of giving the men time to push back their chairs and stand up."
I know no better comma story than this one (retold in Lynne Truss' "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"), which resulted from legendary comma battles between James Thurber and Harold Ross, editor of the New Yorker. Someone once asked Thurber why a comma appeared in this sentence he wrote for the New Yorker: "After dinner, the men went into the living-room." Thurber replied, "This particular comma was Ross's way of giving the men time to push back their chairs and stand up."
Monday, July 16, 2007
Why is Billings so much like Billings?
I'm interested in collecting thoughts on the difficulty (or ease) of exciting political activism in Billings. My read is that it's much tougher here than most places, but I haven't lived in most places. Can anyone enlighten me?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Best movie line
Bumper stickers of the week
Delivery day bumper sticker highlights (all from the same car in the Perkins parking lot):
"I love my country ... but I think we should start seeing other people."
"Support the troops: Impeach Bush."
"Liberty and Justice for all. Prices may vary. Offer not available in some areas."
And one more, next to drawing of an ancient Indian chief: "Fighting terrorism since 1492."
"I love my country ... but I think we should start seeing other people."
"Support the troops: Impeach Bush."
"Liberty and Justice for all. Prices may vary. Offer not available in some areas."
And one more, next to drawing of an ancient Indian chief: "Fighting terrorism since 1492."
Tough week
July is always a tough month in the newspaper business, and this one is tougher than most. It would be nice to have the luxury of losing a million bucks now and then, the way some companies do, but here a couple of subpar weeks pushes us into panic mode. So I'm feeling panicky.
Finding somebody with bigger problems sometimes helps, so I listened to the president's news conference while delivering papers on Thursday. He actually sounded better than usual -- it was one of the few times I wasn't wishing that Tony Blair was around to explain our Iraq policy to us. But as Mara Liasson pointed out, it did seem that Bush was involved in a different debate than the rest of us. Most of the country is arguing about how best to leave Iraq; Bush seems to be ready to stay there forever.
Bush also bothered me when he said it was the job of commanders of the ground to decide when troops should come home. Dead wrong. The job of commanders is to conduct the war under the general direction of the commander in chief. Congress is supposed to decide when wars begin and end. The opinion of commanders about when the situation is stable enough to send troops home safely obviously should be considered carefully, but it isn't their call.
Then there was the other story of the day: Harriet Miers refused to appear at a congressional hearing. This seemed to get less attention than it deserved, and I was glad to finally find the post I had been looking for. Whatever the merits of the executive privilege claim, I don't see how it entitles someone to ignore a subpoena. But then lots of things that go on in the administration these days don't make much sense to me.
Personally, I don't much care about what the executive branch is required to disclose to Congress. But I do care about what it is required to disclose to me. Those people all get paid with my money. And Congress appears to be the only dog I have in this fight right now, so I'm pulling for Congress.
Finding somebody with bigger problems sometimes helps, so I listened to the president's news conference while delivering papers on Thursday. He actually sounded better than usual -- it was one of the few times I wasn't wishing that Tony Blair was around to explain our Iraq policy to us. But as Mara Liasson pointed out, it did seem that Bush was involved in a different debate than the rest of us. Most of the country is arguing about how best to leave Iraq; Bush seems to be ready to stay there forever.
Bush also bothered me when he said it was the job of commanders of the ground to decide when troops should come home. Dead wrong. The job of commanders is to conduct the war under the general direction of the commander in chief. Congress is supposed to decide when wars begin and end. The opinion of commanders about when the situation is stable enough to send troops home safely obviously should be considered carefully, but it isn't their call.
Then there was the other story of the day: Harriet Miers refused to appear at a congressional hearing. This seemed to get less attention than it deserved, and I was glad to finally find the post I had been looking for. Whatever the merits of the executive privilege claim, I don't see how it entitles someone to ignore a subpoena. But then lots of things that go on in the administration these days don't make much sense to me.
Personally, I don't much care about what the executive branch is required to disclose to Congress. But I do care about what it is required to disclose to me. Those people all get paid with my money. And Congress appears to be the only dog I have in this fight right now, so I'm pulling for Congress.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Hyper local
City Lights points to this interesting piece by Johnathan Weber on the demise of Backfence. I don't disagree with Weber, but I would add this observation: Even with a strong editorial proposition, hyperlocal news content has never struck me as a moneymaker on the web.
Hyperlocal content -- although it has never gone by that name -- has worked for many years at community newspapers because, in a small town, everybody is a celebrity. News about people you know is rarely boring. So if John Smith across the street gets a DWI, or buys a building permit for a backyard deck, or even just gets a new car (yes, I once worked for a paper that printed new car registrations), there's a market for that information. And since everybody reads the local paper, everybody gets a chance to be a celebrity a few times a year.
As communities get larger, this proposition becomes harder to sustain. I may care about my kid's Little League batting average, but I don't care about the averages of 10,000 other kids. That hyperlocal content has to compete with everything else in the world for a tiny piece of newspaper real estate. The bigger they get, the pickier newspapers have to be about what they print.
On the surface, the internet appears to offer the perfect solution to this longstanding dilemma. With news hole unlimited and virtually free, newspapers would appear to have the best of both worlds. They can print all of the hyperlocal stuff anybody asks for and still print the big stories without hurting anybody.
But there are a couple of problems with that. For one, entering all of that hyperlocal information on the web is time consuming and boring, so you have to either pay people to do it or rely on people to submit their own stuff - which means they may be happy to send you the Little League score when their team wins but a no-show when the team loses. So you get spotty or inaccurate information.
For another, getting your name in the newspaper always has had a certain cachet for most people. If a photo of your kid hitting a home run makes the local paper, the page is likely to hang on the refrigerator door for months. So readers are willing to endure a fairly large chunk of boring content in the paper to get to their own name or the name of someone they know.
It isn't clear that this will ever translate to the web. After all, for no cost at all, I can announce to the whole world in large print every day on this blog that David Crisp deserves the Nobel Prize. But that doesn't mean anyone will read it, or that I will get the prize. It's just not the same as if the Gazette were to run a full page ad saying I should get the Nobel Prize -- something I expect to see any day now.
So if people aren't willing to donate the content, and if they aren't willing to read it, and if they derive no particular benefit from having it appear on the web, where's the business model? It makes more sense to give away newspapers for a living.
Hyperlocal content -- although it has never gone by that name -- has worked for many years at community newspapers because, in a small town, everybody is a celebrity. News about people you know is rarely boring. So if John Smith across the street gets a DWI, or buys a building permit for a backyard deck, or even just gets a new car (yes, I once worked for a paper that printed new car registrations), there's a market for that information. And since everybody reads the local paper, everybody gets a chance to be a celebrity a few times a year.
As communities get larger, this proposition becomes harder to sustain. I may care about my kid's Little League batting average, but I don't care about the averages of 10,000 other kids. That hyperlocal content has to compete with everything else in the world for a tiny piece of newspaper real estate. The bigger they get, the pickier newspapers have to be about what they print.
On the surface, the internet appears to offer the perfect solution to this longstanding dilemma. With news hole unlimited and virtually free, newspapers would appear to have the best of both worlds. They can print all of the hyperlocal stuff anybody asks for and still print the big stories without hurting anybody.
But there are a couple of problems with that. For one, entering all of that hyperlocal information on the web is time consuming and boring, so you have to either pay people to do it or rely on people to submit their own stuff - which means they may be happy to send you the Little League score when their team wins but a no-show when the team loses. So you get spotty or inaccurate information.
For another, getting your name in the newspaper always has had a certain cachet for most people. If a photo of your kid hitting a home run makes the local paper, the page is likely to hang on the refrigerator door for months. So readers are willing to endure a fairly large chunk of boring content in the paper to get to their own name or the name of someone they know.
It isn't clear that this will ever translate to the web. After all, for no cost at all, I can announce to the whole world in large print every day on this blog that David Crisp deserves the Nobel Prize. But that doesn't mean anyone will read it, or that I will get the prize. It's just not the same as if the Gazette were to run a full page ad saying I should get the Nobel Prize -- something I expect to see any day now.
So if people aren't willing to donate the content, and if they aren't willing to read it, and if they derive no particular benefit from having it appear on the web, where's the business model? It makes more sense to give away newspapers for a living.
Kitzenberg running?
Just had a pleasant chat with Sen. Sam Kitzenberg, D-Glasgow, who was in town for breakfast this morning with Yellowstone County Democrats. He is considering a run for superintendent of public instruction to replace Linda McCulloch, who is finishing her second term.
Kitzenberg, of course, is notorious for switching parties just after the last election. That gives him an edge in name recognition, but that may not be helpful in his case. Republicans were infuriated by his switch, and it sounded as if Democrats this morning weren't quite prepared to jump on board his campaign.
He is a maverick, which has some appeal, and he does have a background in education. He taught high school English for 17 years, emphasizing poetry. He might have to struggle against the perception that the superintendent's office has become a "women's seat," at least in the eyes of Democrats, but he says he's tough enough to stand up against both parties and the teachers' union when needed.
Kitzenberg, of course, is notorious for switching parties just after the last election. That gives him an edge in name recognition, but that may not be helpful in his case. Republicans were infuriated by his switch, and it sounded as if Democrats this morning weren't quite prepared to jump on board his campaign.
He is a maverick, which has some appeal, and he does have a background in education. He taught high school English for 17 years, emphasizing poetry. He might have to struggle against the perception that the superintendent's office has become a "women's seat," at least in the eyes of Democrats, but he says he's tough enough to stand up against both parties and the teachers' union when needed.
Play ball
In Ed's Gazette piece this morning on the filmmaker filming a documentary about Cobb Field, I was struck by this sentence:
Ain't it the truth? When so many ballparks, and sports, are sullied by promotions, noise and razzle-dazzle, Cobb Field remains a wonderfully pure place to watch baseball. Sometimes I forget how grateful I should be for that, but I will think of it tonight, when the Outpost sponsors its annual game with the Downtown Billings Association. No park I know makes the classic rulebook instruction to umpires seem so real: "Keep your eye everlastingly on the ball."
Most of all, he liked the lack of frills and the near-total focus on baseball that was part of the Cobb Field experience.
Ain't it the truth? When so many ballparks, and sports, are sullied by promotions, noise and razzle-dazzle, Cobb Field remains a wonderfully pure place to watch baseball. Sometimes I forget how grateful I should be for that, but I will think of it tonight, when the Outpost sponsors its annual game with the Downtown Billings Association. No park I know makes the classic rulebook instruction to umpires seem so real: "Keep your eye everlastingly on the ball."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
More fairness
Montana Headlines has a thorough response, well worth reading, to my piece on the Fairness Doctrine (yes, the link is OK; you just just have to scroll down for a while).
Just sick
You can see it in Bozeman and Missoula. It is now the ninth-biggest box office film, despite showing in only a third as many theaters as the movies ranked above it. But you still can't see "Sicko" in Billings.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Gore on top
Al Gore has outsmarted his critics. When conservatives are writing posts like this one, Gore wins. Keep burning that carbon, Al.
Cool Hand
Andrew Sullivan has been rounding up great movie lines. I might do the same thing, except that all of my favorite lines come from one movie: "Cool Hand Luke." Here are a few:
1. "I can eat 50 eggs."
2. "I'm just standing in the rain, talking to myself."
3. "Calling it a job don't make it right."
And the sentence that became a tagline for the '60s:
4. "What we have here is failure to communicate."
The movie also has the best on-screen performance of "Plastic Jesus" I have ever heard. And bloodhounds.
Best movie ever? Yep.
1. "I can eat 50 eggs."
2. "I'm just standing in the rain, talking to myself."
3. "Calling it a job don't make it right."
And the sentence that became a tagline for the '60s:
4. "What we have here is failure to communicate."
The movie also has the best on-screen performance of "Plastic Jesus" I have ever heard. And bloodhounds.
Best movie ever? Yep.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Talk radio
In the post below, I quoted Jesus, which prompted a commenter to accuse me of hypocrisy for quoting the founder of a religion I dislike. When I asked the commenter to cite evidence that I dislike Christianity, he replied, "You don't seem to like rightwing talk radio, which is full of Christian morality and teaching."
Even by blogging standards, that is a remarkably weak argument. But it raises a larger question: How much Christian morality and teaching can one find on right-wing talk radio? My response: not much.
I'm going to make a few broad generalizations here, so bear with me. Specific examples available upon request. While talk radio generally supports some Christian notions, such as chastity, it badly abuses others. Here's the moral stance I find on much right-wing talk radio:
1. Moral relativism. No conservative should be punished if any Democrat has ever committed an equally egregious act. If Bill Clinton pardons a political buddy, Scooter Libby must go free. If Giuliani has three marriages, Robert Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan. If a Republican congressman makes untoward advances on a page, well, what about Chappaquiddick?
2. Hard-heartedness. Jesus commanded us to forgive one another. Byrd has apologized for decades for his KKK membership, but Sean Hannity, to cite an example, never misses a chance to label him "Robert 'KKK' Byrd." And what about Chappaquiddick?
3. Greed. When the rich man asked Jesus how to be saved, Jesus told him to go and sell all that he had and give it to the poor. That idea does not appear on talk radio. Even asking for a few tax dollars to help the poor is questionable in talk-radio world.
4. Afflicting the comfortless. Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter accused World Trade Center widows of enjoying the deaths of their husbands, a clearcut violation of the command to comfort widows and orphans. Oddly enough, she did it in a book whose thesis appears to be that God likes conservatives better than liberals. That went too far even for some talk-radio hosts, but Hannity defended her. After all, Chappaquiddick was worse.
5. Violence. As John Prine said, Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for. But talk radio leads the push for institutionalized violence of all sorts, from waging war to abusing prisoners. Would Jesus have attacked Iraq? Interesting question, but don't even try to argue on talk radio that he wouldn't have.
Should I go on? No, time to get back to work.
Even by blogging standards, that is a remarkably weak argument. But it raises a larger question: How much Christian morality and teaching can one find on right-wing talk radio? My response: not much.
I'm going to make a few broad generalizations here, so bear with me. Specific examples available upon request. While talk radio generally supports some Christian notions, such as chastity, it badly abuses others. Here's the moral stance I find on much right-wing talk radio:
1. Moral relativism. No conservative should be punished if any Democrat has ever committed an equally egregious act. If Bill Clinton pardons a political buddy, Scooter Libby must go free. If Giuliani has three marriages, Robert Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan. If a Republican congressman makes untoward advances on a page, well, what about Chappaquiddick?
2. Hard-heartedness. Jesus commanded us to forgive one another. Byrd has apologized for decades for his KKK membership, but Sean Hannity, to cite an example, never misses a chance to label him "Robert 'KKK' Byrd." And what about Chappaquiddick?
3. Greed. When the rich man asked Jesus how to be saved, Jesus told him to go and sell all that he had and give it to the poor. That idea does not appear on talk radio. Even asking for a few tax dollars to help the poor is questionable in talk-radio world.
4. Afflicting the comfortless. Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter accused World Trade Center widows of enjoying the deaths of their husbands, a clearcut violation of the command to comfort widows and orphans. Oddly enough, she did it in a book whose thesis appears to be that God likes conservatives better than liberals. That went too far even for some talk-radio hosts, but Hannity defended her. After all, Chappaquiddick was worse.
5. Violence. As John Prine said, Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for. But talk radio leads the push for institutionalized violence of all sorts, from waging war to abusing prisoners. Would Jesus have attacked Iraq? Interesting question, but don't even try to argue on talk radio that he wouldn't have.
Should I go on? No, time to get back to work.
Bad advice
Worst advice I heard on the radio while delivering papers for 12 hours in 104-degree heat on Friday: Drink before you get thirsty.
I woke up thirsty on Friday morning. I drank all day long, and was still thirsty when I woke up the next morning. If I'm going to drink before I get thirsty on days like this, I will have to start in April.
I woke up thirsty on Friday morning. I drank all day long, and was still thirsty when I woke up the next morning. If I'm going to drink before I get thirsty on days like this, I will have to start in April.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Mockery
The Outpost was delivered one day late because of the holiday, so my usual Thursday dose of talk radio came on Friday this week. The topic of the day was "Live Earth," and the tone was mockery.
I don't get it. Even if you think global warming is no big deal, it's hard to see why contempt is the appropriate response to a bunch of people getting together to encourage others to take better care of the planet. What do conservatives have against the planet?
The general argument was that the various talk show hosts and callers didn't want to be lectured to by rock stars whose lifestyles are less than perfectly earth friendly. That strikes me as willful nonsense. If anyone ought to be able to separate the message from the messenger, it should be conservatives. The Bible, a respectable conservative text, tells us we all sin and fall short. So if you are waiting for the stainless messenger, you will never get the message.
The whole thing reminded me of the fake outrage over John Edwards' haircuts. We all spend time and money on things that strike others as frivolous or silly. I buy my Shiner Bock; you buy your SUV. I piddle away an evening at the baseball game; you squander an hour on "American Idol." When did conservatives become the ones to decide what personal indulgences are socially acceptable? Isn't that supposed to be a left-wing malaise?
The standard reply appears to be, "But Edwards wants to increase your taxes to help the poor while he's wasting money on expensive haircuts." The message, I suppose, is that if Edwards wanted to lock poor people up in cages, then he could buy whatever haircut he wanted. But if he wants to help the poor, then he has no business being wealthy. The logical incoherence is staggering.
As for the moral argument that it is wrong to spend money on haircuts while poor people are suffering, we don't have to ask what Jesus would do. He already told us. When Mary washes his feet with expensive spikenard, Judas asks, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" Jesus replies, "Let her alone."
Good advice, Republicans.
I don't get it. Even if you think global warming is no big deal, it's hard to see why contempt is the appropriate response to a bunch of people getting together to encourage others to take better care of the planet. What do conservatives have against the planet?
The general argument was that the various talk show hosts and callers didn't want to be lectured to by rock stars whose lifestyles are less than perfectly earth friendly. That strikes me as willful nonsense. If anyone ought to be able to separate the message from the messenger, it should be conservatives. The Bible, a respectable conservative text, tells us we all sin and fall short. So if you are waiting for the stainless messenger, you will never get the message.
The whole thing reminded me of the fake outrage over John Edwards' haircuts. We all spend time and money on things that strike others as frivolous or silly. I buy my Shiner Bock; you buy your SUV. I piddle away an evening at the baseball game; you squander an hour on "American Idol." When did conservatives become the ones to decide what personal indulgences are socially acceptable? Isn't that supposed to be a left-wing malaise?
The standard reply appears to be, "But Edwards wants to increase your taxes to help the poor while he's wasting money on expensive haircuts." The message, I suppose, is that if Edwards wanted to lock poor people up in cages, then he could buy whatever haircut he wanted. But if he wants to help the poor, then he has no business being wealthy. The logical incoherence is staggering.
As for the moral argument that it is wrong to spend money on haircuts while poor people are suffering, we don't have to ask what Jesus would do. He already told us. When Mary washes his feet with expensive spikenard, Judas asks, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" Jesus replies, "Let her alone."
Good advice, Republicans.
Up and running
We got our servers changed over yesterday, so your old links to the Outpost website should now work again. However, e-mail appears to have been down for a while during the changeover, so if you sent any e-mail to me or the Outpost in the last couple of days, better resend.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Waiting for 358
I had precisely this thought when I was typing the very same phrase while writing this story Wednesday morning. I thought I should try for some fresher way of saying this. Then I thought:
1. It's 6 a.m.
2. I have been working for 20 hours.
3. It's the Fourth of July.
4. I promised the printer the paper would be shipped to Bozeman by 7:30 a.m.
5. If I stay with the code, everyone will know what I am talking about. If I break new ground, I will have to explain what I mean.
6. Who am I to stand in the way of history?
1. It's 6 a.m.
2. I have been working for 20 hours.
3. It's the Fourth of July.
4. I promised the printer the paper would be shipped to Bozeman by 7:30 a.m.
5. If I stay with the code, everyone will know what I am talking about. If I break new ground, I will have to explain what I mean.
6. Who am I to stand in the way of history?
Doomed to repeat
Dave Budge has an interesting post about the importance of history. For some reason, the comments on his site are almost impossibly hard to read, so I will make my own brief comment here:
Sean Hannity's "Man on the Street" interviews this week included an interview with a kindergarten teacher who identified:
1. World War I as the war that won America's independence.
2. Abraham Lincoln as the author of the Declaration of Independence.
Abandon hope.
Sean Hannity's "Man on the Street" interviews this week included an interview with a kindergarten teacher who identified:
1. World War I as the war that won America's independence.
2. Abraham Lincoln as the author of the Declaration of Independence.
Abandon hope.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
God bless baseball
We spent a classic Fourth of July. For the first seven hours, I exercised my First Amendment right to publish a newspaper. Then I slept for a few hours, and slowly jogged myself awake by watching the Cubs play the Nationals and then watching an exercise in the best of America: an angry documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that blasted oil companies, car companies and the government in roughly equal measure.
Then we went to the baseball game, sitting near the top, just at the edge of the roof with enough shade and breeze to fend off the summer heat. It was a fine day and a good game, although the local boys didn't show much offense. We finished off the day by watching "1776," a favorite Fourth of July pleasure.
My only gripe was the decision at the ballgame to replace the usual seventh-inning stretch playing of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" with Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A."
People weren't sure how to act. Some treated it like the National Anthem, removing their hats and holding their hands over their hearts. I stood, of course, since it was the seventh-inning stretch, but, sorry, I'm not taking my hat off for Lee Greenwood.
It isn't that I don't much like songs that tell God what to do. I have pretty well gotten over my fundamentalist background, which preached that using God's name to promote secular purposes, even love of country, borders on blasphemy. And it isn't because Greenwood says "ain't." I'm no purist about such matters, but he doesn't sound like the sort of person who drops "ain't" in casual conversation. Why would he adopt it when he's aspiring to a certain grandeur of expression? Is he striving for the common touch, or does he just have a tin ear?
The only reason I really objected was that Greenwood replaced a song that already is one of America's finest patriotic works. Not only does it celebrate America's greatest game ("Take Me Out to the Ballgame") but it also pays homage to most of the best of America:
* Unity ("Take me out to the crowd"),
* Consumerism ("Buy me some"),
* American cuisine ("peanuts and crackerjack"),
* Liberty ("I don't care if I never get back"),
* Freedom of speech ("Let me root, root, root")
* Loyalty ("for the home team")
* Empathy ("If they don't win it's a shame"),
* Pragmatism ("For it's one, two, three strikes you're out") and
* Respect for tradition ("at the old ball game").
Don't tell me that "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" isn't patriotic enough for the Fourth of July. No song describes America better.
Then we went to the baseball game, sitting near the top, just at the edge of the roof with enough shade and breeze to fend off the summer heat. It was a fine day and a good game, although the local boys didn't show much offense. We finished off the day by watching "1776," a favorite Fourth of July pleasure.
My only gripe was the decision at the ballgame to replace the usual seventh-inning stretch playing of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" with Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A."
People weren't sure how to act. Some treated it like the National Anthem, removing their hats and holding their hands over their hearts. I stood, of course, since it was the seventh-inning stretch, but, sorry, I'm not taking my hat off for Lee Greenwood.
It isn't that I don't much like songs that tell God what to do. I have pretty well gotten over my fundamentalist background, which preached that using God's name to promote secular purposes, even love of country, borders on blasphemy. And it isn't because Greenwood says "ain't." I'm no purist about such matters, but he doesn't sound like the sort of person who drops "ain't" in casual conversation. Why would he adopt it when he's aspiring to a certain grandeur of expression? Is he striving for the common touch, or does he just have a tin ear?
The only reason I really objected was that Greenwood replaced a song that already is one of America's finest patriotic works. Not only does it celebrate America's greatest game ("Take Me Out to the Ballgame") but it also pays homage to most of the best of America:
* Unity ("Take me out to the crowd"),
* Consumerism ("Buy me some"),
* American cuisine ("peanuts and crackerjack"),
* Liberty ("I don't care if I never get back"),
* Freedom of speech ("Let me root, root, root")
* Loyalty ("for the home team")
* Empathy ("If they don't win it's a shame"),
* Pragmatism ("For it's one, two, three strikes you're out") and
* Respect for tradition ("at the old ball game").
Don't tell me that "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" isn't patriotic enough for the Fourth of July. No song describes America better.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Amnesty
Apparently, amnesty is OK for some people.
UPDATE: A commenter suggests I go look at Bill Clinton's pardons. I won't because I don't care about Bill Clinton's pardons, but this is certainly of interest. And so is this. The only president since FDR to commute fewer sentences than George W. Bush was his daddy.
UPDATE: A commenter suggests I go look at Bill Clinton's pardons. I won't because I don't care about Bill Clinton's pardons, but this is certainly of interest. And so is this. The only president since FDR to commute fewer sentences than George W. Bush was his daddy.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Hall of Fame
Interesting question raised here: Does Craig Biggio belong in the Hall of Fame? Such questions used to be easy for me. If a batter gets 3,000 hits or 500 home runs, or if a a pitcher gets 300 wins, he's in. Biggio is closing in on 3,000 hits, but even a Biggio fan like me has a hard time seeing him in the Hall. As the article notes, the old rules don't quite apply.
UPDATE: The revived What's Right in Montana already is being taken over by lying trolls, which is sad because Eric deserves better. But he's got to lay down the law over there or his blog will be destroyed again.
So I won't comment there, but Eric does bring up an always interesting debate: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?
Here I break my usual rules and say no. Rose certainly has the numbers to be there, and I generally don't think what players do off the field should influence their election to the Hall. If it did, then as Kirk Dooley notes in comments below, Ty Cobb would never have made it.
But while Rose's gambling happened off the field, it affected what happened on the field, and he was very much in the game when it all happened. It was way outside the boundaries, and he has earned permanent punishment.
Perhaps even more interesting is the question of what to do with the steroid athletes, especially those who never admit it and against whom it can never be proved. That's a tough call, and I don't have the energy tonight to make it. Game called.
UPDATE: The revived What's Right in Montana already is being taken over by lying trolls, which is sad because Eric deserves better. But he's got to lay down the law over there or his blog will be destroyed again.
So I won't comment there, but Eric does bring up an always interesting debate: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?
Here I break my usual rules and say no. Rose certainly has the numbers to be there, and I generally don't think what players do off the field should influence their election to the Hall. If it did, then as Kirk Dooley notes in comments below, Ty Cobb would never have made it.
But while Rose's gambling happened off the field, it affected what happened on the field, and he was very much in the game when it all happened. It was way outside the boundaries, and he has earned permanent punishment.
Perhaps even more interesting is the question of what to do with the steroid athletes, especially those who never admit it and against whom it can never be proved. That's a tough call, and I don't have the energy tonight to make it. Game called.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Lange announces
I'll have more later on the Outpost website about Mike Lange's announcement this morning for the U.S. Senate against Max Baucus. Brief highlights:
1. He said he has zero money but expects to start raising campaign funds when the new reporting period opens on Sunday.
2. He works four 10-hour shifts a week as a pipefitter, so he will have three days a week to campaign. Plus, he said, his employer gave him four months off during the session and is likely to be willing to give him more time.
3. On Iraq: "Americans have had enough of it." He called for securing Iraq's borders and seeking international help to restore and maintain order.
4. He called for reforms of NAFTA and other trade agreements and of the No Child Left Behind act.
5. His best answer, I thought, was on the question of how he can get by the notoriety he acquired during the legislative session. He didn't sound very sorry for what he said about Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but he continued to express regret for the words he used to say them. He called his tirade a "mulligan," one that Republicans will forgive him but one that cannot be repeated.
1. He said he has zero money but expects to start raising campaign funds when the new reporting period opens on Sunday.
2. He works four 10-hour shifts a week as a pipefitter, so he will have three days a week to campaign. Plus, he said, his employer gave him four months off during the session and is likely to be willing to give him more time.
3. On Iraq: "Americans have had enough of it." He called for securing Iraq's borders and seeking international help to restore and maintain order.
4. He called for reforms of NAFTA and other trade agreements and of the No Child Left Behind act.
5. His best answer, I thought, was on the question of how he can get by the notoriety he acquired during the legislative session. He didn't sound very sorry for what he said about Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but he continued to express regret for the words he used to say them. He called his tirade a "mulligan," one that Republicans will forgive him but one that cannot be repeated.
To speak or not to speak
Interesting post at Electric City Weblog on whether the Great Falls City Commission can legally order someone removed for exceeding the three-minute time limit for public comments.
The issue may be even larger than the post indicates. At a free information seminar I attended with John Shontz, who used to be the lawyer for the Montana Newspaper Association, he raised doubts that any speaker time limit is permissible in Montana, given the state's guarantees of the public's right to participate in making decisions.
If somebody pushed it, city council meetings might come to resemble the old Crow Tribal Council meetings, where people spoke for as long as they felt moved to do so.
The issue may be even larger than the post indicates. At a free information seminar I attended with John Shontz, who used to be the lawyer for the Montana Newspaper Association, he raised doubts that any speaker time limit is permissible in Montana, given the state's guarantees of the public's right to participate in making decisions.
If somebody pushed it, city council meetings might come to resemble the old Crow Tribal Council meetings, where people spoke for as long as they felt moved to do so.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Lange for Senate
Mike Lange has called a press conference for tomorrow morning to announce his run for Congress.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Stubborn Cal
It could be that an argument can be made against allowing consumers, rather than cable companies, to decide what channels should be allowed into their homes, but Cal Thomas can't seem to think of one.
I mulled over his attempts at an argument this morning while reading the Gazette as I nodded off to sleep after putting another Outpost to bed. That's a harsh rule of journalism: The paper always goes to bed before the editor does. So I was about 80 percent asleep while trying to decipher his column, but his arguments appear to be these:
1. If people could choose which channels to subscribe to, they would have to make hard decisions. Cable providers should protect them from those decisions.
2. If people could make their own cable choices, they would actually have less freedom to choose than if the choices were restricted to a limited menu offered by the cable companies.
3. A la carte cable options would be bad for business because people might not make the choices that businesses want them to make.
4. Most American households don't have children under age 18. It isn't clear to me what this has to do with anything, but it seems to be important to Cal.
5. If people could choose their own channels, they might choose not to subscribe to Fox News or religious networks. Then what would the world come to?
6. People would have to pay as much to get the 20 channels they wanted as they now do to get 150 channels they never watch. So I could get, say, the English language version of Al Jazeera, a couple of German stations, a sports channel or two, C-SPAN and a few movie channels for the same price as I now pay to get the Shopping Network and a hundred or so variations on old history documentaries, recycled sitcoms and tips on cooking and home renovations. That would be awful.
7. The whole thing is a plot by the government to control our lives and limit our information choices. How allowing people to make their own choices expands the power of government is another one of those sweet mysteries, penetrable to Cal Thomas but cloaked in mist for the rest of us.
I mulled over his attempts at an argument this morning while reading the Gazette as I nodded off to sleep after putting another Outpost to bed. That's a harsh rule of journalism: The paper always goes to bed before the editor does. So I was about 80 percent asleep while trying to decipher his column, but his arguments appear to be these:
1. If people could choose which channels to subscribe to, they would have to make hard decisions. Cable providers should protect them from those decisions.
2. If people could make their own cable choices, they would actually have less freedom to choose than if the choices were restricted to a limited menu offered by the cable companies.
3. A la carte cable options would be bad for business because people might not make the choices that businesses want them to make.
4. Most American households don't have children under age 18. It isn't clear to me what this has to do with anything, but it seems to be important to Cal.
5. If people could choose their own channels, they might choose not to subscribe to Fox News or religious networks. Then what would the world come to?
6. People would have to pay as much to get the 20 channels they wanted as they now do to get 150 channels they never watch. So I could get, say, the English language version of Al Jazeera, a couple of German stations, a sports channel or two, C-SPAN and a few movie channels for the same price as I now pay to get the Shopping Network and a hundred or so variations on old history documentaries, recycled sitcoms and tips on cooking and home renovations. That would be awful.
7. The whole thing is a plot by the government to control our lives and limit our information choices. How allowing people to make their own choices expands the power of government is another one of those sweet mysteries, penetrable to Cal Thomas but cloaked in mist for the rest of us.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
My kind of place
I have heard several people who have never visited 12th Planet say, "It's not my kind of place." That's sort of how I felt, but as a highly trained professional journalist, I try not to let my biases influence my perceptions, so I have steadfastly withheld judgment.
Last night I actually went into 12th Planet for the first time, thanks to an invitation from Connoisseur Media, which was celebrating its first anniversary in Billings. It was fairly impressive: colorful lights, multi-media screens, a three-level layout with bar and stage. A bit classy for the likes of me, but there's no reason why I shouldn't step up in class in my old age.
So I wandered over to the bar to cash in one of my free drink tickets for a beer. By my count, the bar had 18 beer spigots. Fifteen of them were for Bud or Bud Light. One was for Miller Lite, one for Coors Light and one lonely tap for Blue Moon.
I thought, "This is not my kind of place."
Last night I actually went into 12th Planet for the first time, thanks to an invitation from Connoisseur Media, which was celebrating its first anniversary in Billings. It was fairly impressive: colorful lights, multi-media screens, a three-level layout with bar and stage. A bit classy for the likes of me, but there's no reason why I shouldn't step up in class in my old age.
So I wandered over to the bar to cash in one of my free drink tickets for a beer. By my count, the bar had 18 beer spigots. Fifteen of them were for Bud or Bud Light. One was for Miller Lite, one for Coors Light and one lonely tap for Blue Moon.
I thought, "This is not my kind of place."
Promotional bust
The 5:01 blog says that last weekend's Crash Boom Bang concert apparently was a bust. Some commenters blame poor promotion, a motion I second. I heard about it only in passing and spent half an hour late last Tuesday on the internet trying to track down information. I found only a tiny, nearly unreadable, copy of a poster on a MySpace site. And the internet, apparently, is the only place the concert was promoted.
It continues to amaze me how clueless some concert promoters are. You'd think that anybody who has ever even stood within 25 feet of Tim Goodridge would know better.
It continues to amaze me how clueless some concert promoters are. You'd think that anybody who has ever even stood within 25 feet of Tim Goodridge would know better.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Defunding Cheney
The proposal to strip funding from Dick Cheney's office may be a political gimmick, but the graphic makes it all worthwhile.
Casidee Riley
Update
To use Quickbooks payroll, I had to buy Quickbooks 2007. To use Quickbooks 2007, I had to buy Microsoft Office 2007. Now that I have Microsoft Office 2007, I have to buy Quickbooks payroll.
And so it goes. Since Friday, I have mostly been relearning computer programs that I had used without problems for 10 years. In Word 97, for example, I used to close files by clicking on an x in the top right corner. In Word 2007, I have to click on a logo in the top left corner, then click on the Close command.
In Word 97, headers and footers were under the View menu. Not a terribly logical place to put them, but nevertheless I found them and learned how to use them. In Word 2007, headers and footers are under the Insert menu. Not a terribly logical place to put them, and I had to learn to find them all over again.
And, of course, the mail merge interface between Quickbooks and Word no longer works the same way and often doesn't work at all. I spent about three hours on Friday writing subscription renewal letters, a job that normally takes a half-hour or less. I finally got it to work by ignoring the instructions, which were worse than worthless because they provided not just unhelpful information but quite self-evidently bad information that reduced the chances of getting the program to work. One of the bright spots of Quickbooks used to be the thorough and easy-to-follow instructions. That's long gone, and Microsoft instructions retain their perfect record: Never once, in 10 years of using Word, have I ever found a useful piece of information in the Help section. The Help appears to have been designed for some totally unrelated program.
So I am out several hundred bucks, and many hours of lost productivity, paying for stuff I already owned and relearning stuff I already had learned. At the same time, we are still fiddling with the new website, which actually is shaping up a little every day and now can carry breaking news. I spent yesterday afternoon and this morning adding links to the link section. The links are far from complete, and suggestions are welcome.
And so it goes. Since Friday, I have mostly been relearning computer programs that I had used without problems for 10 years. In Word 97, for example, I used to close files by clicking on an x in the top right corner. In Word 2007, I have to click on a logo in the top left corner, then click on the Close command.
In Word 97, headers and footers were under the View menu. Not a terribly logical place to put them, but nevertheless I found them and learned how to use them. In Word 2007, headers and footers are under the Insert menu. Not a terribly logical place to put them, and I had to learn to find them all over again.
And, of course, the mail merge interface between Quickbooks and Word no longer works the same way and often doesn't work at all. I spent about three hours on Friday writing subscription renewal letters, a job that normally takes a half-hour or less. I finally got it to work by ignoring the instructions, which were worse than worthless because they provided not just unhelpful information but quite self-evidently bad information that reduced the chances of getting the program to work. One of the bright spots of Quickbooks used to be the thorough and easy-to-follow instructions. That's long gone, and Microsoft instructions retain their perfect record: Never once, in 10 years of using Word, have I ever found a useful piece of information in the Help section. The Help appears to have been designed for some totally unrelated program.
So I am out several hundred bucks, and many hours of lost productivity, paying for stuff I already owned and relearning stuff I already had learned. At the same time, we are still fiddling with the new website, which actually is shaping up a little every day and now can carry breaking news. I spent yesterday afternoon and this morning adding links to the link section. The links are far from complete, and suggestions are welcome.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Joe Galloway
I wasn't going to blog about this exchange, but it has been haunting me, so I will at least link to it. You people who think the MSM don't know war never met Joe Galloway.
Galloway, by the way, is a bit of a home boy. He attended Victoria College, where I spent part of an unhappy semester, and he's from Cuero, Texas, if memory serves, a few miles up U.S. 87 from my hometown. In those days, we called U.S. 87 the Cuero Highway or, on longer trips, the San Antonio Highway. Now I call it the Billings Highway.
Galloway, by the way, is a bit of a home boy. He attended Victoria College, where I spent part of an unhappy semester, and he's from Cuero, Texas, if memory serves, a few miles up U.S. 87 from my hometown. In those days, we called U.S. 87 the Cuero Highway or, on longer trips, the San Antonio Highway. Now I call it the Billings Highway.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Free tickets
Free tickets for the July 11 Billings Mustangs game that the Downtown Billings Association and the Outpost are sponsoring have arrived. Stop by the office at 1833 Grand Ave. and pick up a few.
Questions for Romney
Left in the West has a few questions for Mitt Romney when he is in Great Falls this weekend for the Republican convention. Two questions I would like to ask are omitted:
1. In a recent presidential debate, you said that Saddam Hussein wouldn't open up his country to weapons inspectors. But weapons inspectors were there until the eve of the war. Why did you say that?
2. In a recent presidential debate, you said you would like to double the size of Guantanamo. Recently, Colin Powell said he would like to close it not tomorrow but this afternoon. Explain why you are right and he is wrong.
1. In a recent presidential debate, you said that Saddam Hussein wouldn't open up his country to weapons inspectors. But weapons inspectors were there until the eve of the war. Why did you say that?
2. In a recent presidential debate, you said you would like to double the size of Guantanamo. Recently, Colin Powell said he would like to close it not tomorrow but this afternoon. Explain why you are right and he is wrong.
Power of the blog
Just a month ago, I was complaining about Albertsons preferred savings cards. Today comes this.
I shouldn't take all of the credit. This outfit has something to do with it -- and gets a hat tip for pointing out the story. Also I think I saw a story the last time this came up that said Albertsons had discontinued the cards in stores in the Northwest, although not in Montana. I can't find the link now, but I don't think I dreamed it.
I shouldn't take all of the credit. This outfit has something to do with it -- and gets a hat tip for pointing out the story. Also I think I saw a story the last time this came up that said Albertsons had discontinued the cards in stores in the Northwest, although not in Montana. I can't find the link now, but I don't think I dreamed it.
Brain dead
Sounds like the Montana Republican Party is seriously brain dead. Since when is a political convention a private party?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
On bias
Montana Headlines has a thoughtful post (meaning, I agree with it) on media bias. He cites a Jay Cost piece that makes a point I have been pounding on for years: Sure, media bias exists, but the left-right bias that gets all of the attention is only a tiny, and not terribly relevant, part of the picture.
Progressively tense
I'm not a Fox News basher, but one thing Fox does on radio irritates the heck out of me. It broadcasts most of its news in the progressive tense. So we get, "The president meeting with Tony Blair" rather than "The president met with Tony Blair" or "The president is meeting with Tony Blair" or "The president will meet with Tony Blair," any of which would be more precise than the vague progressive. But then, the motto is "fair and balanced," not "accurate and precise."
I advise my English students to avoid the progressive tense because it is unclear and wordy. I sometimes point out to them, and I always point out to my German students, that German has no progressive tense at all -- and nobody ever misses it.
Now Fox is pounding the progressive tense into their impressionable heads, for no other reason, I suppose, than that the past tense sounds so, well, past. Fox, I can forgive you for Bill O'Reilly, but not for this.
I advise my English students to avoid the progressive tense because it is unclear and wordy. I sometimes point out to them, and I always point out to my German students, that German has no progressive tense at all -- and nobody ever misses it.
Now Fox is pounding the progressive tense into their impressionable heads, for no other reason, I suppose, than that the past tense sounds so, well, past. Fox, I can forgive you for Bill O'Reilly, but not for this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)