"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.
So I was reading an article on PostStar.com. It reported on the brilliant idea some downtown Glens Falls merchants have of making people spend money for the glorious privilege of spending money at their stories.
I made the mistake of reading a few of the comments. The stereotype many have is that the only comments on the PS website are from uneducated rednecks. This is not entirely true.
Here's one rant: As an educated professional (whatever that's worth), here's my take on Downtown Glens Falls... note to Business owners and Diamond, you don't have a clean or respectable downtown yet. Sorry, but I don't wanna see welfare Tammy and abusive Tyrone with 6 kids smoking cigarettes and arguing in downtown. Out of thousands of dollars I've spent on food and entertainment in recent years, Downtown GF is lucky to have gotten 40 of that.
That some judgmental rhymes with witch who describes human beings like pieces of trash to be 'cleaned up' doesn't shop here is no loss to the city. Screw her. How does her 'educated' self propose to 'clean up' downtown of these pieces of human refuse? Put a cordon around downtown where you have to show proof of a minimum $35,000 a year income before being issued a laminated snob card and then granted the privilege of entering?
Showing posts with label arrogance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arrogance. Show all posts
Monday, March 05, 2012
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Exclusive: the letter The Post-Star won't* publish! (updated)
(*-At least I think they won't publish it. I'm not entirely sure, for reasons which will become clear after you read this entry)
Last Sunday, Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley wrote a typically obnoxious column bashing one of his favorite targets: teachers unions.
For context, please first read the column in question here.
I was so infuriated by his column, particularly its tone, that I immediately fired off a letter to the editor.
With the exception of one tangential sentence that was inaccurate and that I subsequently asked be removed, the letter read as follows:
If there were a Pulitzer Prize for hypocrisy, Ken Tingley's column "This us vs. them attitude has to end" would be a sure winner. What's next? Cal Thomas pontificating on religious tolerance? Floyd Landis lecturing on honesty?
Tingley repeatedly insists that he has nothing against teachers per se. Yet his primary qualification for acceptable school board members is their willingness to, as he puts it, "wage war with teachers unions."
How exactly is a school board member supposed "to wage war with teachers unions" while simultaneously "[ending] this us vs. them attitude”?
The winners of Tuesday's polls were the communities. Tingley and his editorial board wanted people to act as taxpayers and nothing else. Perhaps, voters noticed that the Constitution doesn't begin, "We the taxpayers..." They decided to balance their roles as taxpayers, parents and citizens. In most places, they approved the budget. In a few, they defeated it. But in all cases, they rejected Tingley's narrow, consumerist-only definition of what were once called citizenship and parenthood.
Tingley should have a chat with his colleague Will Doolittle. Doolittle has the decency to recognize that when teachers claim they are underpaid for the credentials required of them and that when residents claim they are overtaxed, they are both right.
Doolittle understands what Tingley refuses to see: the problem is not the teachers' union, but the fundamentally broken structure of education funding in New York. Tingley stubbornly insists on taking sides on the sinking ship; Doolittle and other wiser heads want to save the ship.
It's disappointing that someone in such a position of responsibility consistently behaves in such a divisive, irresponsible manner.
The following morning, I received a harsh email from Tingley denouncing me. As a general policy, I do not publish private emails without the consent of the author, but suffice it to say, he denied my claim and angrily accused me of taking his words out of context. I replied that my interpretation was based not only on this particular column but on his broader body of work on the topic and that I stood by my interpretation.
My letter was sharply worded so I have no problem that his email was in the same vein, though it did make a typically patronizing reference.
That day, Tingley even Tweeted what I assume was a comment about my letter: Received a letter to the editor today that made my blood boil. I hate when people twist your words for their own convenience.
(Note: Twitter is public so I have no problem re-posting that comment)
It occurred to me that Tingley's fury might prevent the letter's appearance in the paper so that Monday, I emailed Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney (the usual contact person for letters) asking him whether the letter would be published or not. Seven days later, I've received no response.
A few days later, I emailed Tingley back asking him the same question. I have no response.
A few days after that, I emailed Publisher Rick Emanuel but his away message indicated that he was on temporary leave.
After submitting letters, I typically receive a call from a Post-Star staffer confirming that I did indeed submit a letter. I've received no such call for this letter. And I've yet to see it appear in the paper.
Over the years, I've submitted dozens and dozens of letters to the paper. I've never once had a letter rejected or even questioned. But I know other people who've had letters refused and the paper typically gives a specific reason for the rejection.
I don't care how angry Tingley is that somebody called him out, I find it completely unprofessional that he and Mahoney continue refuse to respond to my simple yes/no question. If they want to reject the letter (which was never my intention), it's their business but they should at least have the guts to tell me directly.
Update: What's interesting is that although Tingley claims my letter took his comments out of context, the paper published yesterday a letter expressing the exact same sentiment as mine. If my interpretation was so unreasonable and deceitful as to be unpublishable, why was the other one printed?
Second update: In his managing editor's blog, Tingley bragged about how easy it is to submit letters to the editor.' I left a comment asking why it wasn't so easy to get an answer of whether a submitted letter will actually be published. Not surprisingly, he didn't publish the comment or even respond to it privately.
Third update: Surprisingly, the paper DID decide to publish the letter, with the editor's note claiming I took Tingley's words out of context. Though I never get a response one way or the other from Tingley or Mahoney. Makes you wonder if they read this blog!
Fourth update: Tingley seems to be showing the pique one might expect of an 8 year old denied candy for dinner. He is now apparently and without explanation (a common theme here) refusing to publish my comments on his managing editor's blog, even non-controversial comments like asking what percentage of website users watch the videos reporters now post.
Last Sunday, Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley wrote a typically obnoxious column bashing one of his favorite targets: teachers unions.
For context, please first read the column in question here.
I was so infuriated by his column, particularly its tone, that I immediately fired off a letter to the editor.
With the exception of one tangential sentence that was inaccurate and that I subsequently asked be removed, the letter read as follows:
If there were a Pulitzer Prize for hypocrisy, Ken Tingley's column "This us vs. them attitude has to end" would be a sure winner. What's next? Cal Thomas pontificating on religious tolerance? Floyd Landis lecturing on honesty?
Tingley repeatedly insists that he has nothing against teachers per se. Yet his primary qualification for acceptable school board members is their willingness to, as he puts it, "wage war with teachers unions."
How exactly is a school board member supposed "to wage war with teachers unions" while simultaneously "[ending] this us vs. them attitude”?
The winners of Tuesday's polls were the communities. Tingley and his editorial board wanted people to act as taxpayers and nothing else. Perhaps, voters noticed that the Constitution doesn't begin, "We the taxpayers..." They decided to balance their roles as taxpayers, parents and citizens. In most places, they approved the budget. In a few, they defeated it. But in all cases, they rejected Tingley's narrow, consumerist-only definition of what were once called citizenship and parenthood.
Tingley should have a chat with his colleague Will Doolittle. Doolittle has the decency to recognize that when teachers claim they are underpaid for the credentials required of them and that when residents claim they are overtaxed, they are both right.
Doolittle understands what Tingley refuses to see: the problem is not the teachers' union, but the fundamentally broken structure of education funding in New York. Tingley stubbornly insists on taking sides on the sinking ship; Doolittle and other wiser heads want to save the ship.
It's disappointing that someone in such a position of responsibility consistently behaves in such a divisive, irresponsible manner.
The following morning, I received a harsh email from Tingley denouncing me. As a general policy, I do not publish private emails without the consent of the author, but suffice it to say, he denied my claim and angrily accused me of taking his words out of context. I replied that my interpretation was based not only on this particular column but on his broader body of work on the topic and that I stood by my interpretation.
My letter was sharply worded so I have no problem that his email was in the same vein, though it did make a typically patronizing reference.
That day, Tingley even Tweeted what I assume was a comment about my letter: Received a letter to the editor today that made my blood boil. I hate when people twist your words for their own convenience.
(Note: Twitter is public so I have no problem re-posting that comment)
It occurred to me that Tingley's fury might prevent the letter's appearance in the paper so that Monday, I emailed Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney (the usual contact person for letters) asking him whether the letter would be published or not. Seven days later, I've received no response.
A few days later, I emailed Tingley back asking him the same question. I have no response.
A few days after that, I emailed Publisher Rick Emanuel but his away message indicated that he was on temporary leave.
After submitting letters, I typically receive a call from a Post-Star staffer confirming that I did indeed submit a letter. I've received no such call for this letter. And I've yet to see it appear in the paper.
Over the years, I've submitted dozens and dozens of letters to the paper. I've never once had a letter rejected or even questioned. But I know other people who've had letters refused and the paper typically gives a specific reason for the rejection.
I don't care how angry Tingley is that somebody called him out, I find it completely unprofessional that he and Mahoney continue refuse to respond to my simple yes/no question. If they want to reject the letter (which was never my intention), it's their business but they should at least have the guts to tell me directly.
Update: What's interesting is that although Tingley claims my letter took his comments out of context, the paper published yesterday a letter expressing the exact same sentiment as mine. If my interpretation was so unreasonable and deceitful as to be unpublishable, why was the other one printed?
Second update: In his managing editor's blog, Tingley bragged about how easy it is to submit letters to the editor.' I left a comment asking why it wasn't so easy to get an answer of whether a submitted letter will actually be published. Not surprisingly, he didn't publish the comment or even respond to it privately.
Third update: Surprisingly, the paper DID decide to publish the letter, with the editor's note claiming I took Tingley's words out of context. Though I never get a response one way or the other from Tingley or Mahoney. Makes you wonder if they read this blog!
Fourth update: Tingley seems to be showing the pique one might expect of an 8 year old denied candy for dinner. He is now apparently and without explanation (a common theme here) refusing to publish my comments on his managing editor's blog, even non-controversial comments like asking what percentage of website users watch the videos reporters now post.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
This is Pulitzer Prize editorial writing?!
Check out this editorial, which is a perfect example of The Post-Star's typical editorial tone: a snide condescension that treats readers like petulant children.
An editorial that begins:
OK class, put away your cell phones, take out your notebooks, and pay attention. It’s time for review. What did we learn from Tuesday’s school elections?
And concludes:
Tuesday’s election was very educational — for school boards and for the citizens. Let’s hope they don’t forget those lessons at budget time next year. Class dismissed.
Surprisingly, the graphic does not include a wagging finger or a ruler smacking against knuckles.
This obnoxiousness apaprently constitutes Pulitzer Prize-caliber editorial writing in the 21st century.
To the four children on the daily's editorial board, here is a message.
Despite the unexpected absence of grammatical and spelling errors, I'm afraid to inform you that this essay is wholly inadequate.
Your assignment is to re-write it so that it meets the standards expected of a serious newspaper.
This assignment is due on Tuesday morning.
If you fail to turn in the assignment, you risk being...
... dismissed.
An editorial that begins:
OK class, put away your cell phones, take out your notebooks, and pay attention. It’s time for review. What did we learn from Tuesday’s school elections?
And concludes:
Tuesday’s election was very educational — for school boards and for the citizens. Let’s hope they don’t forget those lessons at budget time next year. Class dismissed.
Surprisingly, the graphic does not include a wagging finger or a ruler smacking against knuckles.
This obnoxiousness apaprently constitutes Pulitzer Prize-caliber editorial writing in the 21st century.
To the four children on the daily's editorial board, here is a message.
Despite the unexpected absence of grammatical and spelling errors, I'm afraid to inform you that this essay is wholly inadequate.
Your assignment is to re-write it so that it meets the standards expected of a serious newspaper.
This assignment is due on Tuesday morning.
If you fail to turn in the assignment, you risk being...
... dismissed.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sarah Palin's contempt for human life
"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.
Leaving aside the pomposity and shameless nationalist pandering of the Sarah Palin's other remarks, the conservative diva and Tea Party darling claimed, "I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower."
For a woman who equated geographic proximity to Russia to foreign policy knowledge, it should be to no one's surprise that she has no clue that geopolitics is an Xbox game.
The lives lost are those of real humans beings. The lives lost are those of the sons and daughters of real Americans... as well as many of Palin's loathed "fake Americans" from places like Vermont and California.
Oh yea, some humans from the countries who Palin is happy for us to aggress are slightly impacted by all this too.
For her to be so flippant and casual about human life should automatically disqualify from ever being near the White House.
Leaving aside the pomposity and shameless nationalist pandering of the Sarah Palin's other remarks, the conservative diva and Tea Party darling claimed, "I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower."
For a woman who equated geographic proximity to Russia to foreign policy knowledge, it should be to no one's surprise that she has no clue that geopolitics is an Xbox game.
The lives lost are those of real humans beings. The lives lost are those of the sons and daughters of real Americans... as well as many of Palin's loathed "fake Americans" from places like Vermont and California.
Oh yea, some humans from the countries who Palin is happy for us to aggress are slightly impacted by all this too.
For her to be so flippant and casual about human life should automatically disqualify from ever being near the White House.
Friday, October 30, 2009
How the beautiful people live
Normally, I buy The Post-Star at the newsstand every day, which may surprise readers of this blog, as I like to have something to read when I'm eating lunch. Sometimes if I'm eating dinner out, I'll buy a second newspaper. In the past, it's usually been the Albany Times-Union, but I haven't bought that recently because of the boycott against it.
I looked at the other papers. The Schenectady Gazette covers issues outside my region of interest. I deemed The Saratogian a poor use of my 75 cents (imagine a paper with less quality and content than The Post-Star that costs 50 percent more). I didn't feel like paying 6 bucks and leg and two fingers or whatever The New York Times is changing now. And there was no way I was giving a dime to Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. So I ended up getting a New York Daily News to read with my meatball sub. It's not the highest quality news organization but it has its entertainment value.
I was intrigued by a very unentertaining story about wife-beating allegations against a prominent TV news anchor. The big shot warned the judge, "I've appeared on the cover of The New York Times and TV Guide... I covered the state attorney general and the chief judge of the court," before bragging about how he knew the state's recently retired top judge.
First, the wife called 911 to accuse her husband of beating her. Now that the case has gone to trial, she's claiming she lied because she was mad at him; recantations under pressure are not that uncommon in domestic abuse cases. Though she did admit in court that her husband called her a "dumb, stupid, project bitch."
One argument in her defense was revealing, though. In recanting, she claimed that it was actually a day laborer, not her husband, who assaulted her, but that she couldn't remember his name.
"You don't ask a laborer his name," she explained. "You ask a laborer to work."
I don't quite get why showing a laborer the basic human dignity of asking his name is so taboo, why it goes without saying that she'd never do such a thing. But then again, I'm not part of the glitterati.
I looked at the other papers. The Schenectady Gazette covers issues outside my region of interest. I deemed The Saratogian a poor use of my 75 cents (imagine a paper with less quality and content than The Post-Star that costs 50 percent more). I didn't feel like paying 6 bucks and leg and two fingers or whatever The New York Times is changing now. And there was no way I was giving a dime to Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. So I ended up getting a New York Daily News to read with my meatball sub. It's not the highest quality news organization but it has its entertainment value.
I was intrigued by a very unentertaining story about wife-beating allegations against a prominent TV news anchor. The big shot warned the judge, "I've appeared on the cover of The New York Times and TV Guide... I covered the state attorney general and the chief judge of the court," before bragging about how he knew the state's recently retired top judge.
First, the wife called 911 to accuse her husband of beating her. Now that the case has gone to trial, she's claiming she lied because she was mad at him; recantations under pressure are not that uncommon in domestic abuse cases. Though she did admit in court that her husband called her a "dumb, stupid, project bitch."
One argument in her defense was revealing, though. In recanting, she claimed that it was actually a day laborer, not her husband, who assaulted her, but that she couldn't remember his name.
"You don't ask a laborer his name," she explained. "You ask a laborer to work."
I don't quite get why showing a laborer the basic human dignity of asking his name is so taboo, why it goes without saying that she'd never do such a thing. But then again, I'm not part of the glitterati.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
But at least he wears an American flag lapel pin so it must be all good
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
To say that President Bush is astoundingly arrogant and elitist to point of complete cluelessness would be to state blindingly obvious.
But he seems committed to rubbing people's noses on a daily basis in his complete detachment from the reality of the decent, ordinary Americans he's shipping into the hellhole that is 'liberated' Iraq.
Last week, The Decider bragged about how he was selflessly showing solidarity with the young soldiers dodging roadside bombs in 120 degree heat. His munificient sacrifice? He gave up golf.
Suffice it to say, many families of troops killed in Iraq were irate at the president's contemptuous mockery of their relatives who made a real sacrifice, the utlimate one, in the name of Bush's destructive war of aggression.
Comments like this are something you'd expect from The Colbert Report. That this is judgment and perspective of a real human being who has complete control over the lives of well-intentioned young Americans is a terrifying prospect.
To say that President Bush is astoundingly arrogant and elitist to point of complete cluelessness would be to state blindingly obvious.
But he seems committed to rubbing people's noses on a daily basis in his complete detachment from the reality of the decent, ordinary Americans he's shipping into the hellhole that is 'liberated' Iraq.
Last week, The Decider bragged about how he was selflessly showing solidarity with the young soldiers dodging roadside bombs in 120 degree heat. His munificient sacrifice? He gave up golf.
Suffice it to say, many families of troops killed in Iraq were irate at the president's contemptuous mockery of their relatives who made a real sacrifice, the utlimate one, in the name of Bush's destructive war of aggression.
Comments like this are something you'd expect from The Colbert Report. That this is judgment and perspective of a real human being who has complete control over the lives of well-intentioned young Americans is a terrifying prospect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)