Two items in last night's local television newscasts struck me as just plain wrong. Now, I'm not one of those "all media are bad, and biased, and stupid, and controlling the agenda" types. But there are definitely moments when you have to wonder what they're thinking.
Earlier this week, a man was shot and killed by Portland police officers after he screamed he was going to shoot someone and then pointed a loaded shotgun at the officers. The news last night on our CBS affiliate was that the "victim" had been identified. Victim? Victim of what? Certainly not the police, though that was the implication. Maybe of his own stupidity or mental instability. But calling him a victim in this story made it seem like he was wrongly shot by the police. And that struck me as wrong.
Meanwhile, on our NBC affiliate ran a story about a group of seniors at a area high school who dug up a lawn on campus and planted "SENIORS 07" and a giant peace sign in flowers. Only one student has admitted to participating. Among the ridiculous details:
(1) The news station calls this a "prank"; it's actually criminal vandalism.
(2) All those other students are letting Maggie twist in the wind on this; she may want to choose some new friends.
(3) Maggie doesn't want to "out the other kids" and her mother, amazingly, says she doesn't want to encourage her to do so. Mom, sorry to resort to name-calling, but you are an idiot. When a crime has been committed, you cooperate. You're fortunate the school has handled this themselves rather than calling the police.
(4) Maggie apparently has received calls and offers of monetary assistance to pay the fine that stems from this prank/vandalism (since, as the only identified perpetrator, she is on the hook for all the damages). I was astonished to hear the news anchor editorialize at the end of the report that it's "good to see that Maggie is getting some support." Are you kidding? Support for what? Damaging school property? Withholding information about the commission of a crime? For this she deserves "support" and we're supposed to be glad?
24 May 2007
21 May 2007
Facts and accountability
On the morning of the election in our fair city last week, an anonymous (to me, anyway; I have no idea who sent it) e-mail was sent out to some Gladstone residents, ostensibly to support a particular school board candidate. Among the smears, half-truths, misleading statements and outright lies in this long, virtually unreadable missive entitled "vote for a change" from "werteachers4life@yahoo.com" was this gem:
"Neighbor Vicki Baker told candidate Janet Simmons her children were rude and weren't allowed to play with Vicki Bakers children anymore and went on to tell Janet that her neighbors all hated her and Vicki hoped Janet and her family moved out of Gladstone and Janet should have never thought about running against Leslie Everson with out telling her. What kind of behavior is this? Janet was so scared and intimidated by Vicki she thought about pulling her name from running for a Board position and that is why she isn't in the voters pamphlet. She was too intimidated and distraught to file."
If you were able to follow that, congratulations; it's like Vanessa Huxtable channeling William Faulkner. But more to the point, it's sadly lacking much basis in reality. Make no mistake, Vicki can handle her own fights, especially with people unwilling to own up to the words they write. So less to defend her honor and more in hopes that this writer (if I'm not being too generous) would see the error of his or her ways, I chose that day to respond as follows:
I have no idea who you are, but you've professed to be interested in facts and accountability [this was a significant theme of the e-mail], so you should probably reconsider at least this portion of the "vote for a change" e-mail you sent out this morning...
Point by point:
- "Vicki Baker told candidate Janet Simmons her children were rude and weren't allowed to play with Vicki Bakers children anymore..." Never happened. What actually happened was completely unrelated to the campaign and Janet's candidacy. My son had observed what he felt like was rude behavior by Janet's boys toward his sister. He's very protective of her and suggested to her that maybe she shouldn't play with them. That's it. Vicki never said any such thing to our kids nor to Janet.
- "...went on to tell Janet that her neighbors all hated her and Vicki hoped Janet and her family moved out of Gladstone" Never happened. What she actually said was that she'd discussed the matter with a couple neighbors who expressed surprise that Janet hadn't told Leslie she intended to run for the seat. She also said she'd heard from a third party that Janet (and family?) had considered moving out of the neighborhood, which might be a good idea if she doesn't like her neighbors.
- Told Janet she "should have never thought about running against Leslie Everson with out telling her." Yeah, that's true. [And rightly so.] Janet and Leslie live almost across the street from each other; directly telling someone who has been a good and helpful neighbor for a number of years that you intend to run against her for the school board would seem to be the courteous thing to do. But Janet didn't extend that courtesy, and, as you say, what kind of behavior is that?
So because most of these things never happened, I'm quite unclear as to what role Vicki had in making Janet so intimidated and distraught that she couldn't bring herself to file information for the voter's guide, and I really don't see what an e-mail supporting Joe has to do with Janet or Vicki. But I invite you to share the above facts with your original "vote for a change" distribution list.
Did you follow that? This e-mail message overall wasn't even about Janet, much less Vicki, who isn't running for anything except groceries. Why the writer (there's that word again) thought this paragraph bolstered the argument in favor of voting for Joe is a mystery. Anyway, that was last Tuesday. As of last night I hadn't heard back from werteachers4life@yahoo.com or otherwise heard that they had taken any corrective action. A reminder seemed to be in order:
Have you sent out the corrections...to your “vote for a change” distribution list? You’ll recall that you’ve come out (though anonymously, as far as I can tell) as strongly favoring accountability and publicizing the facts. The decent and accountable thing for you to do would be to share this factual information with your list in order to correct the misinformation—someone less charitable might call them lies—you disseminated last week. So that I know you’ve chosen to do the right thing, be sure to CC: me when you send it out.
It's 24 hours later, and werteachers4life@yahoo.com has not mustered the will to do the right thing. Mind you, whatever the nature and depth of their disagreement, Janet and Vicki have apparently both already set it aside and moved on. It's too bad this person has failed, even anonymously, to own up to the facts and correct his or her libelous message.
"Neighbor Vicki Baker told candidate Janet Simmons her children were rude and weren't allowed to play with Vicki Bakers children anymore and went on to tell Janet that her neighbors all hated her and Vicki hoped Janet and her family moved out of Gladstone and Janet should have never thought about running against Leslie Everson with out telling her. What kind of behavior is this? Janet was so scared and intimidated by Vicki she thought about pulling her name from running for a Board position and that is why she isn't in the voters pamphlet. She was too intimidated and distraught to file."
If you were able to follow that, congratulations; it's like Vanessa Huxtable channeling William Faulkner. But more to the point, it's sadly lacking much basis in reality. Make no mistake, Vicki can handle her own fights, especially with people unwilling to own up to the words they write. So less to defend her honor and more in hopes that this writer (if I'm not being too generous) would see the error of his or her ways, I chose that day to respond as follows:
I have no idea who you are, but you've professed to be interested in facts and accountability [this was a significant theme of the e-mail], so you should probably reconsider at least this portion of the "vote for a change" e-mail you sent out this morning...
Point by point:
- "Vicki Baker told candidate Janet Simmons her children were rude and weren't allowed to play with Vicki Bakers children anymore..." Never happened. What actually happened was completely unrelated to the campaign and Janet's candidacy. My son had observed what he felt like was rude behavior by Janet's boys toward his sister. He's very protective of her and suggested to her that maybe she shouldn't play with them. That's it. Vicki never said any such thing to our kids nor to Janet.
- "...went on to tell Janet that her neighbors all hated her and Vicki hoped Janet and her family moved out of Gladstone" Never happened. What she actually said was that she'd discussed the matter with a couple neighbors who expressed surprise that Janet hadn't told Leslie she intended to run for the seat. She also said she'd heard from a third party that Janet (and family?) had considered moving out of the neighborhood, which might be a good idea if she doesn't like her neighbors.
- Told Janet she "should have never thought about running against Leslie Everson with out telling her." Yeah, that's true. [And rightly so.] Janet and Leslie live almost across the street from each other; directly telling someone who has been a good and helpful neighbor for a number of years that you intend to run against her for the school board would seem to be the courteous thing to do. But Janet didn't extend that courtesy, and, as you say, what kind of behavior is that?
So because most of these things never happened, I'm quite unclear as to what role Vicki had in making Janet so intimidated and distraught that she couldn't bring herself to file information for the voter's guide, and I really don't see what an e-mail supporting Joe has to do with Janet or Vicki. But I invite you to share the above facts with your original "vote for a change" distribution list.
Did you follow that? This e-mail message overall wasn't even about Janet, much less Vicki, who isn't running for anything except groceries. Why the writer (there's that word again) thought this paragraph bolstered the argument in favor of voting for Joe is a mystery. Anyway, that was last Tuesday. As of last night I hadn't heard back from werteachers4life@yahoo.com or otherwise heard that they had taken any corrective action. A reminder seemed to be in order:
Have you sent out the corrections...to your “vote for a change” distribution list? You’ll recall that you’ve come out (though anonymously, as far as I can tell) as strongly favoring accountability and publicizing the facts. The decent and accountable thing for you to do would be to share this factual information with your list in order to correct the misinformation—someone less charitable might call them lies—you disseminated last week. So that I know you’ve chosen to do the right thing, be sure to CC: me when you send it out.
It's 24 hours later, and werteachers4life@yahoo.com has not mustered the will to do the right thing. Mind you, whatever the nature and depth of their disagreement, Janet and Vicki have apparently both already set it aside and moved on. It's too bad this person has failed, even anonymously, to own up to the facts and correct his or her libelous message.
20 May 2007
Hit-and-run genius
My mother-in-law's brother and his wife were involved in a hit-and-run accident yesterday. Well, "involved" hardly seems like the right word; "victimized" is probably more accurate. But besides the welcome news that they weren't seriously injured, I'm pleased to report that the impact tore the front bumper off the perpetrator's van, and yes, the license plate was still on it. Plus, the van trailed liquid all the way home, where a drunk 20-year-old was located and invited to spend the night in jail. I predict his mom's insurance carrier is about to become more profitable.
While I'm on the topic of crime...I'm not a regular reader of the police blotter in our local daily newspaper. But I've noticed twice in recent months that a theft has been reported in the 500 block of Portland Avenue. Among the buildings located in the 500 block of Portland Avenue is our local police department. Now that's some bold thievin'!
While I'm on the topic of crime...I'm not a regular reader of the police blotter in our local daily newspaper. But I've noticed twice in recent months that a theft has been reported in the 500 block of Portland Avenue. Among the buildings located in the 500 block of Portland Avenue is our local police department. Now that's some bold thievin'!
15 May 2007
All politics is local
Today is Election Day in these parts. For us, that pretty much means just the school board. And in contrast to the often boring races, this year’s campaign has featured some intrigue. Most of the seats are contested, and there are some pretty clear choices if you look just below the surface of the typical political platitudes.
One candidate distributed a flier throughout town (I wonder if he got the required permit?) that was remarkable for the amount of misleading information it contained. For example, it claimed his opponent had failed to attend every budget committee meeting. I happened to see his opponent at a Little League softball game a couple days after the flier went out, so I asked her about it. There has been exactly ONE of these meetings, and yes she did miss it—at the time the meeting notice went out, Comcast had some sort of Microsoft-related glitch causing some e-mails to not get delivered and she never got the meeting notice. But I guess the flier is sort of accurate in that regard; as she has missed every meeting—all one of them.
It also mentioned that spending is up (well, yes, after a down period, the state did come through with some additional funding that allowed some class sizes to be reduced), then juxtaposed that against a lower test scores statistic. Maybe you’ve heard that you can make numbers say anything you want, and that’s pretty much what’s happened here. The flier’s author took last year’s 10th grade test scores, which were among the lowest since testing began at the beginning of the century, and compared them to one year when a class had some of the highest scores recorded. Two data points, of course, do not make a trend, and there will always be differing levels of achievement from class to class, especially in smaller districts. He didn’t show the complete scores trend from year to year, though, nor from other classes, because revealing all the relevant information would have caused his argument to fall apart.
There was also some baseless whining about bond money going to salaries (which is closely regulated by law and by the terms of the bond measure) and a technology center which is claimed to be on the “back burner” (it’s actually a key centerpiece of how the bond money is going to be used).
Oh, and the rumors! That’s been the fun part. According to the rumor mill, my wife “verbally attacked” a neighbor regarding a school board race. Mind you, this neighbor came over to our place to approach my wife, not the other way around. And another neighbor happened to be about 15 feet away when this supposedly occurred; all he saw (and all that really happened) was a conversation. That’s just one of the silly examples.
A lot of this apparently started because a small group of citizens can’t be persuaded that it might be worth spending $10,000 to investigate ways to make sure the $40 million bond is utilized to have the greatest possible positive impact on our kids. But that’s another story.
Vote, vote, vote!
One candidate distributed a flier throughout town (I wonder if he got the required permit?) that was remarkable for the amount of misleading information it contained. For example, it claimed his opponent had failed to attend every budget committee meeting. I happened to see his opponent at a Little League softball game a couple days after the flier went out, so I asked her about it. There has been exactly ONE of these meetings, and yes she did miss it—at the time the meeting notice went out, Comcast had some sort of Microsoft-related glitch causing some e-mails to not get delivered and she never got the meeting notice. But I guess the flier is sort of accurate in that regard; as she has missed every meeting—all one of them.
It also mentioned that spending is up (well, yes, after a down period, the state did come through with some additional funding that allowed some class sizes to be reduced), then juxtaposed that against a lower test scores statistic. Maybe you’ve heard that you can make numbers say anything you want, and that’s pretty much what’s happened here. The flier’s author took last year’s 10th grade test scores, which were among the lowest since testing began at the beginning of the century, and compared them to one year when a class had some of the highest scores recorded. Two data points, of course, do not make a trend, and there will always be differing levels of achievement from class to class, especially in smaller districts. He didn’t show the complete scores trend from year to year, though, nor from other classes, because revealing all the relevant information would have caused his argument to fall apart.
There was also some baseless whining about bond money going to salaries (which is closely regulated by law and by the terms of the bond measure) and a technology center which is claimed to be on the “back burner” (it’s actually a key centerpiece of how the bond money is going to be used).
Oh, and the rumors! That’s been the fun part. According to the rumor mill, my wife “verbally attacked” a neighbor regarding a school board race. Mind you, this neighbor came over to our place to approach my wife, not the other way around. And another neighbor happened to be about 15 feet away when this supposedly occurred; all he saw (and all that really happened) was a conversation. That’s just one of the silly examples.
A lot of this apparently started because a small group of citizens can’t be persuaded that it might be worth spending $10,000 to investigate ways to make sure the $40 million bond is utilized to have the greatest possible positive impact on our kids. But that’s another story.
Vote, vote, vote!
14 May 2007
Caring even less about the NBA
Just when I was starting to get interested in rooting for the Golden State Warriors, Baron Davis and Jason Richardson proved themselves to be little more than two-bit thugs. Davis is trying to say his cheap shot "wasn't nothing," but to me it looked like Todd Bertuzzi taking out Steve Moore. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Bertuzzi) Both should be suspended for at least one game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
