Thursday, June 17, 2004
Has anybody noticed that Bob Brown's proposed clean campaign pledge doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense?
As reported in the GOP E-brief, the pledge reads:
"On television, radio ads, newspaper ads, direct mail, and in phone calls all parties agree not to criticize, attack, condemn or characterize in any way any of their opponents in the 2004 election. Instead, all candidates agree to only use paid communication to highlight their own views on the issues of importance to Montana voters. Issues associated with governing the state of Montana ought to be the focus of this campaign.
"Should any party break the pledge the other party shall be released from the conditions of the pledge."
As I read this, Brown would violate the pledge if he said, "Brian Schweitzer is a fine fellow, and I think he would make an excellent governor." Wouldn't that statement violate the "characterize in any way" provision of the pledge?
Then there's the misplaced "only." As I read the pledge, candidates agree not to say anything about issues of importance unless they are paying to say it. If the pledge said what I suspect Brown meant to say, the "only" would have gone after "communication."
Schweitzer's version makes more sense, but I can't say that I like it much better. I don't think much of clean campaign pledges. They always have a provision canceling the agreement if either party violates it, so all a pledge really means is that the candidates agree to run a clean campaign for as long as they run a clean campaign.
If candidates want to pledge a clean campaign, they should pledge it to themselves, as a matter of conscience; or to God, as a matter of morality; or to the voters, as a matter of honor. The one person to whom no pledge is owed is the opponent.
As reported in the GOP E-brief, the pledge reads:
"On television, radio ads, newspaper ads, direct mail, and in phone calls all parties agree not to criticize, attack, condemn or characterize in any way any of their opponents in the 2004 election. Instead, all candidates agree to only use paid communication to highlight their own views on the issues of importance to Montana voters. Issues associated with governing the state of Montana ought to be the focus of this campaign.
"Should any party break the pledge the other party shall be released from the conditions of the pledge."
As I read this, Brown would violate the pledge if he said, "Brian Schweitzer is a fine fellow, and I think he would make an excellent governor." Wouldn't that statement violate the "characterize in any way" provision of the pledge?
Then there's the misplaced "only." As I read the pledge, candidates agree not to say anything about issues of importance unless they are paying to say it. If the pledge said what I suspect Brown meant to say, the "only" would have gone after "communication."
Schweitzer's version makes more sense, but I can't say that I like it much better. I don't think much of clean campaign pledges. They always have a provision canceling the agreement if either party violates it, so all a pledge really means is that the candidates agree to run a clean campaign for as long as they run a clean campaign.
If candidates want to pledge a clean campaign, they should pledge it to themselves, as a matter of conscience; or to God, as a matter of morality; or to the voters, as a matter of honor. The one person to whom no pledge is owed is the opponent.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
I wear my cynicism like a cheap coat, so patriotic stirrings are rare. Last week I had two patriotic impulses, and neither was Reagan-related.
The first was familiar and came as I walked out of American Lutheran Church after voting. Happens every time. I always get this vague good feeling about myself and my country and the whole world every time I vote. It's such a good, cheap high that it amazes me that most people don't bother.
The second came as I sat through plank committee meetings at the Democratic convention. I know politics is corrupt and tainted by money and ultimately run by the big boys. But there's something about that grassroots effort, citizens working out their political philosophy with each other, with everybody welcome and everybody getting a chance to speak -- well, it just got to me.
Damn, I love this country.
The first was familiar and came as I walked out of American Lutheran Church after voting. Happens every time. I always get this vague good feeling about myself and my country and the whole world every time I vote. It's such a good, cheap high that it amazes me that most people don't bother.
The second came as I sat through plank committee meetings at the Democratic convention. I know politics is corrupt and tainted by money and ultimately run by the big boys. But there's something about that grassroots effort, citizens working out their political philosophy with each other, with everybody welcome and everybody getting a chance to speak -- well, it just got to me.
Damn, I love this country.
Pulled an all-nighter getting out the Classified section yesterday and today. No big deal there, but it was the second all-nighter of the week -- and it's only Wednesday. I was at the office for 25 hours straight starting early Sunday morning after covering the Democratic convention most of Friday and Saturday.
And I feel pretty good. My goal is by September to have gotten over this sleep thing altogether. Then I can create my "Sleep is for losers" bumper sticker. Every entrepreneur will want one.
And I feel pretty good. My goal is by September to have gotten over this sleep thing altogether. Then I can create my "Sleep is for losers" bumper sticker. Every entrepreneur will want one.
In a comment below, Ed Kemmick wonders why I bother to respond to some of the more idiotic blogger attacks on "mainstream media." It's a good question, especially since I'm not even part of mainstream media, and especially since I quit the mainstream media in part because of the same complaints bloggers have.
Some of it is sheer laziness. Since I keep my own hours, and work a lot of them, I'm always looking for excuses to do things that are vaguely work-related without requiring much actual work. What would you rather do, edit your eighth obit of the day or sound off on some unsuspecting bloggers' website?
Some of it is sheer frustration. I didn't want to educate Mr. Porretto, I wanted to spank him. I know lots of good, honest journalists who have devoted their lives to high-quality, fair reporting and writing. To see some jerk put them down just sets me off sometimes. Maybe if I hadn't devoted so much of my own life to this business, and if I got paid better for it, I wouldn't mind so much.
Still, Ed's right. It's not my job to defend the New York Times. It's a poor use of my time, and it doesn't help the Times. But even as I was thinking that very thought after reading Ed's comment yesterday, I was already firing off another round of comments on yet another website. I'm a hopeless case.
Some of it is sheer laziness. Since I keep my own hours, and work a lot of them, I'm always looking for excuses to do things that are vaguely work-related without requiring much actual work. What would you rather do, edit your eighth obit of the day or sound off on some unsuspecting bloggers' website?
Some of it is sheer frustration. I didn't want to educate Mr. Porretto, I wanted to spank him. I know lots of good, honest journalists who have devoted their lives to high-quality, fair reporting and writing. To see some jerk put them down just sets me off sometimes. Maybe if I hadn't devoted so much of my own life to this business, and if I got paid better for it, I wouldn't mind so much.
Still, Ed's right. It's not my job to defend the New York Times. It's a poor use of my time, and it doesn't help the Times. But even as I was thinking that very thought after reading Ed's comment yesterday, I was already firing off another round of comments on yet another website. I'm a hopeless case.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
I have at last achieved some notoriety in the blogosphere. Francis W. Porretto has banned me from his blog.
My offense? I was guilty of the rather pedestrian observation that it was dishonest of him to willfully mischaracterize the New York Times obituary of Ronald Reagan as an "undisguised hit piece," then to use that mischaracterization as the basis of an attack on the integrity of the reporter who wrote the obit and on the journalistic profession in general. As it turns out, Mr. Porretto's blog tolerates attacks on the integrity of others but not on his own integrity. That's his prerogative, but isn't it the sort of policy that, if it were adopted by the mainstream media, would be assaulted in the blogosphere as -- dare I say the word? -- arrogant?
Note to Mr. Porretto: To bone up on the meaning of "undisguised hit piece," read this column by Christopher Hitchens. No Mafia hit man ever pulled off a neater job. Mr. Hitchens is unfair and intemperate -- and possibly not even sober; on the one occasion when I heard him speak, he acknowledged that he had fortified himself with a drink or two too many before facing a presumably hostile Texas A&M audience.
But unlike Mr. Porretto, Mr. Hitchens retains his integrity. Not only does he back his accusations with facts and examples (something Mr. Porretto doesn't deign to do) but he willingly battles the aspersions on his integrity that inevitably follow such a piece. On MSNBC, Mr. Hitchens' unrestrained attack on Reagan reduced Joe Scarborough and Ken Adelman to sputtering rage, demonstrating that even a week of national mourning can be relieved by moments of unintentional hilarity.
My offense? I was guilty of the rather pedestrian observation that it was dishonest of him to willfully mischaracterize the New York Times obituary of Ronald Reagan as an "undisguised hit piece," then to use that mischaracterization as the basis of an attack on the integrity of the reporter who wrote the obit and on the journalistic profession in general. As it turns out, Mr. Porretto's blog tolerates attacks on the integrity of others but not on his own integrity. That's his prerogative, but isn't it the sort of policy that, if it were adopted by the mainstream media, would be assaulted in the blogosphere as -- dare I say the word? -- arrogant?
Note to Mr. Porretto: To bone up on the meaning of "undisguised hit piece," read this column by Christopher Hitchens. No Mafia hit man ever pulled off a neater job. Mr. Hitchens is unfair and intemperate -- and possibly not even sober; on the one occasion when I heard him speak, he acknowledged that he had fortified himself with a drink or two too many before facing a presumably hostile Texas A&M audience.
But unlike Mr. Porretto, Mr. Hitchens retains his integrity. Not only does he back his accusations with facts and examples (something Mr. Porretto doesn't deign to do) but he willingly battles the aspersions on his integrity that inevitably follow such a piece. On MSNBC, Mr. Hitchens' unrestrained attack on Reagan reduced Joe Scarborough and Ken Adelman to sputtering rage, demonstrating that even a week of national mourning can be relieved by moments of unintentional hilarity.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Friday is Ronald Reagan Day in Montana, Gov. Judy Martz has proclaimed. So party hearty.
"The passing of President Reagan marks the end of great era in American
history," Gov. Martz stated. "President Reagan made whole an America
that had been fractured by war, Watergate, and economic downturn. He wanted
America to thrive. His eternal optimism and courageous leadership created
hope and promise in a nation that had gone too long without encouragement."
Maybe my memory's going the way of Reagan's, but I don't recall 1980 as such a grim time. 1972 was worse. 1968 was definitely worse. Even 1964 was worse.
1980? We had inflation, of course. And Carter made his infamous "malaise" speech. But the speech didn't prove that malaise existed; in fact, the voters' rejection of Carter demonstrated that they weren't buying that kind of talk. I always took the whole "Morning in America" spiel as just campaign blabber. Maybe I missed it.
"The passing of President Reagan marks the end of great era in American
history," Gov. Martz stated. "President Reagan made whole an America
that had been fractured by war, Watergate, and economic downturn. He wanted
America to thrive. His eternal optimism and courageous leadership created
hope and promise in a nation that had gone too long without encouragement."
Maybe my memory's going the way of Reagan's, but I don't recall 1980 as such a grim time. 1972 was worse. 1968 was definitely worse. Even 1964 was worse.
1980? We had inflation, of course. And Carter made his infamous "malaise" speech. But the speech didn't prove that malaise existed; in fact, the voters' rejection of Carter demonstrated that they weren't buying that kind of talk. I always took the whole "Morning in America" spiel as just campaign blabber. Maybe I missed it.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Nearly everybody I talked to about the Lee Enterprises poll that showed the Republican gubernatorial primary in a dead heat just a couple of weeks before the election was skeptical. Virtually without exception, people said:
1. Bob Brown would do better than the poll showed.
2. Ken Miller would do better than the poll showed.
3. Pat Davison would do worse than the poll showed.
Guess what? Conventional wisdom was right on all three counts. Of course, none of that proves the poll was wrong. Sentiments can change rapidly right before an election, especially one as negative as this one was. Next time, though, I will pay closer attention to conventional wisdom and less to the polls.
1. Bob Brown would do better than the poll showed.
2. Ken Miller would do better than the poll showed.
3. Pat Davison would do worse than the poll showed.
Guess what? Conventional wisdom was right on all three counts. Of course, none of that proves the poll was wrong. Sentiments can change rapidly right before an election, especially one as negative as this one was. Next time, though, I will pay closer attention to conventional wisdom and less to the polls.
The defeat of the Cobb Field and Heights pool proposals raises this question: Is there any proposal that could pass in this town right now?
Tuesday night's vote was only the latest in a string of bond issue defeats. A new high school was beaten down. Voters rejected a new library. They turned down a cultural mill levy. But there were problems with each of those proposals.
The school district was hurt by the plan to build on the West End, as well as by internal dissension and aftereffects of the stike. The library, I'm convinced, was a worthy proposal, but it wasn't obviously worthy without a fair amount of study, and most people won't study. The cultural mill levy probably looked too much like socialism for this town.
But the baseball bond issue seemed to have everything going for it. Even the proposal's strongest critics seeemed to agree that something had to be done. Bond supporters raised better than $100,000 and spent it wisely. They lined up lots of support from business and nonprofits. They tried to answer every question anybody raised. But again the voters said no.
Here's my question: Did the bond supporters make some simple error that doomed this proposal? Or have we reached a point in Billings where nothing outside of a sewer or a city street will ever get built unless a philanthropist or private enterprise builds it?
If the latter is true, then I fear we are on our way to destroying the system that built 20th century America.
Tuesday night's vote was only the latest in a string of bond issue defeats. A new high school was beaten down. Voters rejected a new library. They turned down a cultural mill levy. But there were problems with each of those proposals.
The school district was hurt by the plan to build on the West End, as well as by internal dissension and aftereffects of the stike. The library, I'm convinced, was a worthy proposal, but it wasn't obviously worthy without a fair amount of study, and most people won't study. The cultural mill levy probably looked too much like socialism for this town.
But the baseball bond issue seemed to have everything going for it. Even the proposal's strongest critics seeemed to agree that something had to be done. Bond supporters raised better than $100,000 and spent it wisely. They lined up lots of support from business and nonprofits. They tried to answer every question anybody raised. But again the voters said no.
Here's my question: Did the bond supporters make some simple error that doomed this proposal? Or have we reached a point in Billings where nothing outside of a sewer or a city street will ever get built unless a philanthropist or private enterprise builds it?
If the latter is true, then I fear we are on our way to destroying the system that built 20th century America.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Thursday, June 03, 2004
This letter arrived too late to make The Outpost before the election, but it's worth a read:
Just read the "Cobb Field Strikes Out" article [Outpost, May 27]. It brought up a number of "whys" for me also.
Why is it when the city needs something, we can't get what we need, without it being a monument to someone's ego?
We need a better ball park! No question about that. The Mustangs, Scarlets, Royals, fans and yes the city deserve something better.
Why can't we have a new ball park, in the same configuration as we currently have, and not move all the major lighting? Tom Llewlyn made a good point.
Why do we have to have a field eight feet deeper, unless it is to accommodate the underground batting cage? That might be OK if additional seating goes down another eight feet, but expecting people to sit on a grassy hillside, in our Montana sun and/or "rain", come on get real! The stampede to cover will be worse than it currently is.
And why stop with only 4000 "real live" seats. I have seen Downtown Billings Night, and other special nights exceed 4000 many times over the years.
If there are skyboxes, why not have them be part of a roof, or cover, that can extend over the majority of the seats behind home plate like it now does?
Do you think the neighbors are going to like the diagonal (and dangerous if I might add) parking? What do you gain? Two or three spaces on one side of a block?
This also, in essence, makes the diagonal parking street a "One Way Street."
Did anyone consider that the number of vehicles probably will be multiplied with the splash park families in addition to the ball game fans. Will they shut down the splash park during games like they now close the pool? Just picture the number of vehicles backing into traffic after a game. You think there is traffic problems now? Just wait.
Speaking of parking. Why does the parking have to be in the back of the outfield instead of closer to the ticket booths and front gate? It will be almost a "two block walk" from the center of the proposed parking area, as illustrated, to the ticket booth and front gate. Why not take a note from the Metra handicapped parking and ticket booths? With the field in the same approximate position, and if the splash park was on the Northwest corner, the parking could be where it is now and extend up N. 27th Street for one-quarter to one-half block. Why not make it as easy as possible for your customers to do business with you? We "seasoned citizens" would appreciate a little consideration in the parking. Most of us don't have the young legs and/or the wind that young survey takers and planners of ball parks have.
The "plaza" looks nice, but serves little or no useful purpose. Are trees mandatory? Put them in some parking dividers and let the rest of the area be for vehicles.
I agree, the new ball park idea is great. I also agree, the proposed plan, as advertised, needs work.
Mustangs start June 18. Lets all go out to the ball game.
Harold Kelso
Billings
Just read the "Cobb Field Strikes Out" article [Outpost, May 27]. It brought up a number of "whys" for me also.
Why is it when the city needs something, we can't get what we need, without it being a monument to someone's ego?
We need a better ball park! No question about that. The Mustangs, Scarlets, Royals, fans and yes the city deserve something better.
Why can't we have a new ball park, in the same configuration as we currently have, and not move all the major lighting? Tom Llewlyn made a good point.
Why do we have to have a field eight feet deeper, unless it is to accommodate the underground batting cage? That might be OK if additional seating goes down another eight feet, but expecting people to sit on a grassy hillside, in our Montana sun and/or "rain", come on get real! The stampede to cover will be worse than it currently is.
And why stop with only 4000 "real live" seats. I have seen Downtown Billings Night, and other special nights exceed 4000 many times over the years.
If there are skyboxes, why not have them be part of a roof, or cover, that can extend over the majority of the seats behind home plate like it now does?
Do you think the neighbors are going to like the diagonal (and dangerous if I might add) parking? What do you gain? Two or three spaces on one side of a block?
This also, in essence, makes the diagonal parking street a "One Way Street."
Did anyone consider that the number of vehicles probably will be multiplied with the splash park families in addition to the ball game fans. Will they shut down the splash park during games like they now close the pool? Just picture the number of vehicles backing into traffic after a game. You think there is traffic problems now? Just wait.
Speaking of parking. Why does the parking have to be in the back of the outfield instead of closer to the ticket booths and front gate? It will be almost a "two block walk" from the center of the proposed parking area, as illustrated, to the ticket booth and front gate. Why not take a note from the Metra handicapped parking and ticket booths? With the field in the same approximate position, and if the splash park was on the Northwest corner, the parking could be where it is now and extend up N. 27th Street for one-quarter to one-half block. Why not make it as easy as possible for your customers to do business with you? We "seasoned citizens" would appreciate a little consideration in the parking. Most of us don't have the young legs and/or the wind that young survey takers and planners of ball parks have.
The "plaza" looks nice, but serves little or no useful purpose. Are trees mandatory? Put them in some parking dividers and let the rest of the area be for vehicles.
I agree, the new ball park idea is great. I also agree, the proposed plan, as advertised, needs work.
Mustangs start June 18. Lets all go out to the ball game.
Harold Kelso
Billings
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
In the weekly Montana Green Party Bulletin, Paul Stephens is upset about a Lee Newspapers poll that asked opinions on a Schweitzer vs. Brown and Schweitzer vs. Davison gubernatorial matchup but not on a Vincent vs. Brown or Davison matchup.
He writes:
"Like all polls based on commercial media "spin" and advertising, it is necessary that the polls reflect the amount of money spent on advertising. Because Schweitzer has raised and is spending about 20 times what Vincent has, he is clearly the "frontrunner" and must win the primary election. If he didn't, and wasn't portrayed in this light, why would any candidate want to pay the same commercial media which commissions and publicizes the polls?
"So it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. And the media can make sure it happens by not even considering how the better Democrat might do against the Republicans. For all we know, Vincent might beat both Republicans by a larger margin than Schweitzer. And we have no idea what will happen when
the Republicans start in on Schweitzer's career in Saudi Arabia, and the fact that he has made a fortune, indirectly, from the same oil imperialism which is killing American soldiers on a daily basis. He might end up with 20% of the vote, whereas Vincent, probably the best-prepared governor
candidate we have ever had, would easily win against any Republican if people knew who he is and what he stands for. But the corporate media will heavily bias their coverage of his campaign for the simple reason that he isn't paying them enough to help their bottom line."
I'm not quite sure how this meshes with the Gazette's endorsement of Vincent.
He writes:
"Like all polls based on commercial media "spin" and advertising, it is necessary that the polls reflect the amount of money spent on advertising. Because Schweitzer has raised and is spending about 20 times what Vincent has, he is clearly the "frontrunner" and must win the primary election. If he didn't, and wasn't portrayed in this light, why would any candidate want to pay the same commercial media which commissions and publicizes the polls?
"So it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. And the media can make sure it happens by not even considering how the better Democrat might do against the Republicans. For all we know, Vincent might beat both Republicans by a larger margin than Schweitzer. And we have no idea what will happen when
the Republicans start in on Schweitzer's career in Saudi Arabia, and the fact that he has made a fortune, indirectly, from the same oil imperialism which is killing American soldiers on a daily basis. He might end up with 20% of the vote, whereas Vincent, probably the best-prepared governor
candidate we have ever had, would easily win against any Republican if people knew who he is and what he stands for. But the corporate media will heavily bias their coverage of his campaign for the simple reason that he isn't paying them enough to help their bottom line."
I'm not quite sure how this meshes with the Gazette's endorsement of Vincent.
Still trying to decide who should be governor? Here's your instant voters' guide:
You should vote for Bob Brown if you think government should be run by people who have devoted their lives to it.
You should vote for Pat Davison if you think the absolute worst thing that anybody could ever do to you is raise your taxes.
You should vote for Ken Miller if you think that governors should look as much like Abraham Lincoln as possible.
You should vote for John Vincent if you think Democrats have had the right answers all along.
You should vote for Brian Schweitzer if think the second-best choice for governor is a Republican.
You should vote for Tom Keating if you think that 19th-century solutions will solve 21st-century problems.
You should vote for Stan Jones if you think that libertarian ideology trumps competence and experience.
You should vote for Bob Kelleher if you think the Revolutionary War was a bad idea.
You should vote for Bob Brown if you think government should be run by people who have devoted their lives to it.
You should vote for Pat Davison if you think the absolute worst thing that anybody could ever do to you is raise your taxes.
You should vote for Ken Miller if you think that governors should look as much like Abraham Lincoln as possible.
You should vote for John Vincent if you think Democrats have had the right answers all along.
You should vote for Brian Schweitzer if think the second-best choice for governor is a Republican.
You should vote for Tom Keating if you think that 19th-century solutions will solve 21st-century problems.
You should vote for Stan Jones if you think that libertarian ideology trumps competence and experience.
You should vote for Bob Kelleher if you think the Revolutionary War was a bad idea.
This commentary on the new Pew Research Center poll on journalists is well worth reading. The discussion I've read in the blogosphere (for example, here) has nearly all focused on the liberal vs. conservative aspects of the poll. The blogosphere's fascination with this feature of mainstream journalism continues to astonish me. The poll covers vital issues with broad implications for the health of American democracy: the extent to which the media are influenced by bottom-line pressures, concerns over quality, concerns over the relationship between journalists and readers, the general sense that journalism is headed in the wrong direction. Yet all anybody wants to talk about is the liberal vs. conservative divide. I don't get it.
I suspect the public's growing distrust of journalists also influences journalists' growing distrust of the public. If the public thinks I'm corrupt and incompetent, and I know I'm not, then the public has no clue, does it? It becomes a self-reinforcing -- and widening -- divide.
I suspect the public's growing distrust of journalists also influences journalists' growing distrust of the public. If the public thinks I'm corrupt and incompetent, and I know I'm not, then the public has no clue, does it? It becomes a self-reinforcing -- and widening -- divide.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
The highlight of my Memorial Day was watching the national lacrosse championship game on ESPN. Syracuse held off Navy, 14-13, in what was the most thrilling sports event I have seen in years. Even my wife got caught up in it, and, trust me, that almost never happens.
Since it was Memorial Day, I think everybody was sort of rooting for Navy, which had a Cinderella year and had several players preparing for active duty practically as soon as the game ended. A half-time feature showed a former player who lost both legs in the war. But Syracuse was a worthy champion, with a proud lacrosse history and one of the best players in the business in Mike Powell.
What amazed me was that the game drew 44,000 people (mostly Navy fans) to the Baltimore Ravens stadium. 44,000! I always thought I could be a lacrosse fan if I got the chance, but I have rarely even seen a game, much less had a chance to play. It's a sport with the contact of rugby, the teamwork of basketball, the speed (almost) of hockey and the grace of throwing and catching that distinguishes baseball. And it's an authentic American game. You can't beat it.
Since it was Memorial Day, I think everybody was sort of rooting for Navy, which had a Cinderella year and had several players preparing for active duty practically as soon as the game ended. A half-time feature showed a former player who lost both legs in the war. But Syracuse was a worthy champion, with a proud lacrosse history and one of the best players in the business in Mike Powell.
What amazed me was that the game drew 44,000 people (mostly Navy fans) to the Baltimore Ravens stadium. 44,000! I always thought I could be a lacrosse fan if I got the chance, but I have rarely even seen a game, much less had a chance to play. It's a sport with the contact of rugby, the teamwork of basketball, the speed (almost) of hockey and the grace of throwing and catching that distinguishes baseball. And it's an authentic American game. You can't beat it.
In response to comments to the post below:
Craig, Ayn Rand is indeed tempting but, as you indicate, probably too much to take on, both for the class and for me. Thanks for the suggestion.
Eric, Thurber is wonderful but probably doesn't fit. He did, however, have one of my all-time favorite lines about the working life: "There is, of course, a certain amount of drudgery in newspaper work, just as there is in teaching classes, tunnelling into a bank, or being President of the United States. I suppose that even the most pleasurable of imaginable occupations, that of batting baseballs through the windows of the RCA Building, would pall a little as the days ran on." Perhaps "The Catbird Seat" would work?
JR, I have operated my own business for seven years. Contempt? No way. But I do think a certain contempt for business runs through the literary crowd -- probably because writers are so often underpaid. As my post indicated, I would welcome suggestions on material that gives a more positive view. Got any?
Craig, Ayn Rand is indeed tempting but, as you indicate, probably too much to take on, both for the class and for me. Thanks for the suggestion.
Eric, Thurber is wonderful but probably doesn't fit. He did, however, have one of my all-time favorite lines about the working life: "There is, of course, a certain amount of drudgery in newspaper work, just as there is in teaching classes, tunnelling into a bank, or being President of the United States. I suppose that even the most pleasurable of imaginable occupations, that of batting baseballs through the windows of the RCA Building, would pall a little as the days ran on." Perhaps "The Catbird Seat" would work?
JR, I have operated my own business for seven years. Contempt? No way. But I do think a certain contempt for business runs through the literary crowd -- probably because writers are so often underpaid. As my post indicated, I would welcome suggestions on material that gives a more positive view. Got any?
Sunday, May 30, 2004
I will be teaching a freshman comp course at Rocky this fall in conjunction with an introductory business course. This means, for one thing, that this site probably will go dormant again for a while. More significantly, it means I am in the market for ideas to marry the two courses.
One possible avenue is a literary approach to business. Possible titles that have occurred to me, or that have been suggested to me, include:
Babbitt
Death of a Salesman
Liar's Poker
Bartleby the Scrivener (a must!)
an essay by Thoreau
Studs Terkel's "Working"
The Jungle
Dead Souls
Barbarians at the Gate
Any thoughts? I can't think of much literature that takes a positive view of business, but I may be overlooking something.
One possible avenue is a literary approach to business. Possible titles that have occurred to me, or that have been suggested to me, include:
Babbitt
Death of a Salesman
Liar's Poker
Bartleby the Scrivener (a must!)
an essay by Thoreau
Studs Terkel's "Working"
The Jungle
Dead Souls
Barbarians at the Gate
Any thoughts? I can't think of much literature that takes a positive view of business, but I may be overlooking something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)