Not having blogged for the last few days owing to a helter skelter work schedule and trying to get ready for Hallowe'en. As a consequence, a few days work to pore over. Steve Smith of the Spokesman-Review has let go of 14 worker bees esp. from his North Idaho news bureau. And further announced that layoffs would probably go as high as 17. His claim, it is getting too spendy to publish a newspaper. Therefore do it on 1/2 or less of a workforce. Really? Depending on "local news" that comes from national syndicated columnists and republished articles from other newspapers can't be inexpensive. The internet is available, my suggestion would be to provide an insert of columnists and articles and inform internet surfing readers where they can read in full the opinions and articles of interest. And occasionally republish, once a month, syndicated columnists. What to do with the rest of the editorial space? Invite local people to put in editorials. Indeed, invite people to volunteer news items from the community that could easily be published. Instead of continually copying other news sources. Given that the internet is available, if people want to see national and international news, they can surely go directly to that web site.
Letter from Ron Catlin in the Readers Write on 31 October 2007, where he hypocritically calls the pot (Nancy Pelosi) black. This concerns the SCHIP program that GW decided was "too expensive" compared to his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and according to Robert Scheer) a real profit making venture for Boeing and other industries that supply our military hardware. Incidentally, the folks opposing the expanded SCHIP oppose abortion. Which puts Catlin in a highly problematic position. Ellen Goodman also mentioned that anti-abortion religious activists applauded the vetoing of the expanded SCHIP program. Okay, they want children born by government intervention, but children shouldn't have their health needs met by government intervention. As stated before, you really can't have it both ways.
GW demonstrating he is still relevant as president by attacking Democrats and politically exploiting terrorism. The Democrats have serious concerns over whether the new prospective AG Mukasy (sic?) understands that torture is against the law. The fact that the guy's testimony before Congress left a lot to be desired, is the reason for such serious concerns. As is warrantless wiretapping. Given that GW has probably never heard the word no in his lifetime, is why he threw an on-stage tantrum before the Heritage Foundation. He couldn't come out and say that "no" is a big bust to his over-sized ego, instead; "no" means we lose the war on terrorism. "No" means a guaranteed weakening of the "Justice" Dept. At what point have we "won" the war on terrorism where what grounds we have gained locally and internationally have not been compromised seriously by GW's continually playing to a base that has government enriching an industry that makes its most profits on war, or enriching corporations that makes their profits on cheap labor, and slashing anything budgetary that would actually keep Americans safe. That is from food and toys as well as toothpaste to our ports and borders. Why?
Letter from Ron Catlin in the Readers Write on 31 October 2007, where he hypocritically calls the pot (Nancy Pelosi) black. This concerns the SCHIP program that GW decided was "too expensive" compared to his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and according to Robert Scheer) a real profit making venture for Boeing and other industries that supply our military hardware. Incidentally, the folks opposing the expanded SCHIP oppose abortion. Which puts Catlin in a highly problematic position. Ellen Goodman also mentioned that anti-abortion religious activists applauded the vetoing of the expanded SCHIP program. Okay, they want children born by government intervention, but children shouldn't have their health needs met by government intervention. As stated before, you really can't have it both ways.
GW demonstrating he is still relevant as president by attacking Democrats and politically exploiting terrorism. The Democrats have serious concerns over whether the new prospective AG Mukasy (sic?) understands that torture is against the law. The fact that the guy's testimony before Congress left a lot to be desired, is the reason for such serious concerns. As is warrantless wiretapping. Given that GW has probably never heard the word no in his lifetime, is why he threw an on-stage tantrum before the Heritage Foundation. He couldn't come out and say that "no" is a big bust to his over-sized ego, instead; "no" means we lose the war on terrorism. "No" means a guaranteed weakening of the "Justice" Dept. At what point have we "won" the war on terrorism where what grounds we have gained locally and internationally have not been compromised seriously by GW's continually playing to a base that has government enriching an industry that makes its most profits on war, or enriching corporations that makes their profits on cheap labor, and slashing anything budgetary that would actually keep Americans safe. That is from food and toys as well as toothpaste to our ports and borders. Why?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment