Local news: Thursday 4/16
Dang parasites
Who is the person going around telling journalists that bloggers are “anticipating the death of newspapers”? I’ve never heard of a single person who is excited about the collapse of the news industry. In fact, many blogs actually rely on newspapers for content so they can comment on their stories. The ADG’s Gene Lyons is responsible for the above quote but what’s strange is that he used it right before throwing out the Salon-coined “P” word. Whether it actually kills its host or not, I doubt there’s a single parasite in this world who actually wants its host to die. I would say these people should spend more time trying to find a solution rather than sitting around complaining about it but from the looks of things, it’s already too late. Oh yeah, the story. Sorry: “Bad news for the news” (ADG)
Fayetteville Forward results
The results are in and action items have been formed. Session 1 info can be found right here on the Flyer at “Fayetteville Forward Results: Post-its and Dream Trees” or you can check out the following newspaper stories:
- “Fayetteville City Council To Review Report” (Morning News)
- “Forward concentration: Marr asks aldermen to focus on 15 summit priorities” (NWA Times)
- “Aldermen begin narrowing down summit results” (NWA Times)
- “Action items identified at Fayetteville Forward summit” (NWA Times)
Tea on the square
A bunch of people got together yesterday for a non-Partisan (click for photo via Morning News) protest rally. For more photos, see “Tea Party” (Morning News Photoblog). For some stories about it, clicky on these:
- “Taxed out: Hundreds protest at Tax Day TEA party” (NWA Times)
- “Northwest Arkansans Join In Tea Party” (Morning News)
What else?
Beats me. That’s all I’ve got for now. And I didn’t even post any local news yesterday. Hey, don’t get ticked at me. If you want more, maybe you should buy a newspaper. Or two.
[Photo by estherase via Flickr and Creative Commons 2.0.]
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Roger Benningfield
April 16, 2009
RE: “non-partisan”
Yeah. I loved the organizer who had to keep taking the mic after each speaker to disclaim any support from or for the people who had just been on stage, as well as deny any connection to the AFA.
Me
April 16, 2009
I’ve never been very political, but I did show up to this. A friend told me about it and I wanted to ride my bike so I rode it there. Of course there were a few things said and a few signs that were a bit hateful, but overall it was the calmest “protest” I’ve seen. I do think it was obviously more of a conservative rally, but themes of government spending (and control) and taxation should be universal to all parties. I am very socially liberal, but I am concerned about what our government (Bush and Obama) has been doing lately. Has anyone else heard that several banks are trying to pay back the TARP money but the government is not accepting it? Now that is crazy if it is true!
Scott Stapp of Creed
April 16, 2009
http://i44.tinypic.com/34pnrr4.jpg
Total Bastard
April 17, 2009
The diversity of opinions on the right is almost as varied as the diversity of opinions on the left.
Your typical Obama voter may not be a Marxist, but some are.
There are just as many, if not more, completely clueless people who vote Democrat as there are who vote Republican.
I didn’t make the tea party, but I like the spirit of it.
I can see how a person could arrive at the conclusion that people who hate higher taxes and want government accountability are just anti-Obama. Its pretty much the same in my book.
I like how lefties are all for civil disobedience and public displays of angst, until its somebody they disagree with. Those people, when they march, are just Nazis and such.
The true comedy of the day’s protests was the hystrionic CNN reporter who couldn’t do her job because she was so upset at the “anti-CNN” protests.
Total Bastard
April 17, 2009
This is an interesting video of the CNN coverage I saw. Look at 4:00 when the reporter iss standing in front of a sign that says “Republicans Suck too” yet she claims to not be able to grasp the situation as anything other than “anti-government” . Yes, she’s upset because the protests are “anti-government”. You wouldn’t see a liberal CNN reporter-person upset like this over anti-war protests and calling the protesters “anti-government”. Its pretty easy to tell which side she is on, and every other CNN talking head when they open their mouths.
How dare anyone criticize BHO’s government!! How dare these Americans protest! Who do they think they ARE??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd2tg8gxCDU
Fox News may be rightwing, but its no moreso than CNN is leftwing. Cambpell Brown looked positively aroused when talking about BHO leading up the election, yet she has the chutzpah to call her show bias-free.
Scott Stapp of Creed
April 17, 2009
I don’t think anyone’s complaining about a protest. I think what’s ridiculous about the stupid teabagging parties are that these people are protesting TAXES IN GENERAL. Obama may tax more than Bush, but he’s taxing 95% of the population less, and placing the increased tax burden on the richest 5%. Anyone got a problem with that?
George
April 17, 2009
There is nothing more patriotic than paying taxes.
There is nothing more annoying than politicians wasting people’s hard earned tax money.
I don’t mind paying taxes at all as long as the money’s spent responsibly. That didn’t happen under Bush. It’s yet to be seen if it will under Obama. No Scotty, I don’t have a problem with repealing the wealthy tax cuts. The people who make the most should pay the highest percentage…that’s just the way it is.
@TB – I think anyone who doesn’t see the left-wing CNN bias either isn’t paying attention or has demo-goggles on. I lean long and to the left, but I cringe at some of the obvious liberal slants CNN puts on stories (MSNBC does the same thing). They are as bad as Fox News…just on the opposite end. That’s why people should diversify their news sources. Switch it up to get all sides. The most un-biased to me are NPR and BBC America.
Dummy
April 17, 2009
The massive bailouts are what got people’s attention about taxes in general.
The insinuation of your little cartoon is that people are just looking for an excuse to hate Obama because it couldn’t be anything else.
Community Reinvestment Act.
Community Reinvestment Act.
Community Reinvestment Act.
Both sides share the blame.
My stance is that all politicians are pretty much corrupt past a certain level. They waste our money. Their meddling in business doesn’t help.
A little accountability would be nice, and in that, I also agree with the tea parties. I heard where Janeane Garafalo called the protests “White Supremacist Rallies”. WTF?
Scott Stapp of Creed
April 18, 2009
The bailouts are NOT what “got people’s attention” about taxes. There was a Joe the Plumber before there was talk of bailouts. Conservatism is a pretty simple philosophy, and it’s based on the idea that the less the government takes from the individual, the better. It disregards the notion that people need and efficient and responsive government, and a quality government has to be paid for with taxes. Conservatives are obsessed with idea of taxation because they’re obsessed with their individuality. Conservatives don’t like to do it right, they like to do it cheap. THAT’S what got us into this mess, don’t forget it. The bailouts are a solution. If you don’t like the solution, tough. The option of that armed compound in the woods I mentioned before is always on the table.
My little cartoon mentions Obama once. I don’t know how you’re reading it, or what is going on in your mind when you do, but it seems pretty clear to me that the “insinuation” has very little to do with Obama hate and pretty much everything to do with conservatives flipping out over the idea of being taxed, without considering that it is a just and necessary concept. How that fact has gone unnoticed by the anti-tax demographic for so long is beyond me. All conservatives want is lower taxes. They don’t realize that it’s a really short-sighted goal, and unfortunately you’re ultimately going to get what you pay for.
By the way, that socioeconomic demographic, the anti-tax one? I think what Janeane meant was that if you made a venn diagram of anti-tax people compared with the typical sort of folk you’d find at a common white supremacist rally, the center portion would be ridiculously large. If you follow me. I don’t think she meant that if you hate taxes you consider the white race superior. Liberals tend to speak with subtlety and nuance. It’s complicated, I know.
Your stance that politicians are corrupt past a certain level is not really a stance, it’s more of a meaningless platitude. CEO’s are corrupt “past a certain level.” Cops, pastors, anyone in power is corrupt “past a certain level.” Power corrupts, nobody’s arguing that. The idea is to design a government system with checks and balances so we can reduce the instances of ENRONs or Blagojeviches. Politicians are high-profile personalities, of course you’re going to associate corruption with them and not corporations which are largely faceless and nameless. I’m getting off on a tangent here…
Community Reinvestment Act typed out three times, wow. Is that your way of asking people to Google it or something?
Me
April 18, 2009
@Scott – Keepin’ it short:
Taxes aren’t everything, the more prominent conservative philosphy is small government. There are plenty of programs supported and plenty of taxes paid willingly for those programs. They just know the government (republican and democratic) is not very efficient and society doesn’t need to be micromanaged anyways. Remember, what you are saying also applies to our founding fathers and much of the principles our government was founded upon.
Scott Stapp of Creed
April 18, 2009
Small government, low taxes, what’s the difference? Nobody wants an unnecessarily large government. Governments should be lean and mean, just like any organization should be. I will also continue to assert that government organizations ARE efficient, or at least are exactly as efficient as “society” (as if they are mutually exclusive terms, and government workers don’t pay taxes too) wants it to be. Besides, it isn’t logical to compare the management of a not-for-profit organization to one whose sole purpose is to turn a profit.
As for our founding fathers, those great slave-owning idealist heroes of ours, I’m having trouble understanding the correlation you’re trying to draw between what I’m saying about government, taxes, and them.
MRB
April 19, 2009
Typical American political debate. I love it when things break down to name-calling and insults. Conservatives aren’t smart enough to pick up on the subtleties of Liberal conversations. Really? None of them? The Founding Fathers were all slave owners so that makes all of their accomplishments irrelevant. Gee, that’s sure helpful to know when trying to solve our current problems. All politicians are corrupt? Doubtful.
The big problem behind all of this is that our two-party political system sucks. When its us v. them, black v. white, rich v. poor, Dem v. Rep then EVERYBODY loses. What we really need are more choices. We need options for those of us who don’t think that either party has it totally right. There are good ideas on both sides of the aisle but no one on either side will ever admit that anyone on the other side can ever come up with a good idea.
There is common ground, we just need to be open minded and look for it.
Me
April 19, 2009
MRB – Great response! That really is one of our big problems because when there are only two parties bickering, it is easy to “cherry pick” the faults of the other party. We try to simplify everyone’s philosophy way too much. Imagine a Miss America pagent where there were only two contestants!
Scott Stapp of Creed
April 19, 2009
I’d agree with you that some of the similarities between Democrats and Republicans can be disappointing, especially when it comes to lobbying and how both parties can often be too cozy with corporate interests. But if there are actual issues you care about, I’m not so sure the two parties would seem so indistinguishable. You cannot deny that there are fundamental philosophical differences between left and right, policy-wise. For instance, where do you stand on the war, the bailouts, abortion, healthcare reform, welfare reform, immigration reform, etc? Your opinions determine what side of the aisle you fall on. Do you have any, or are you like those Miss America contestants?
When it comes to politics, or checking yes or no on a ballot, simplifying philosophies is the name of the game. What other party options do you want? What issues concern you?
MRB: a guy named Dummy didn’t understand what Janeane Garofalo meant and I helped him figure it out. Also, I get tired of the Founding Fathers being referred to as the baseline of American integrity. Not trying to be an Iconoclast here, and I do love me some The Constitution, but let’s get real: in 2009 they don’t exactly represent what America stands for anymore, and there are plenty of unsung American heroes worthy of praise whose faces look a lot different than those featured on our currency.
MRB
April 20, 2009
I definitely have issues I care about to different degrees and even if I don’t care much, I usually at least have an opinion. The premise that I reject is that, for example, if I’m pro-abortion then I automatically fall into the Dem party and therefore I also have to be opposed to the war(s) and in favor of the bailouts. When in reality I’m pro-abortion, anti Iraq war, pro Afghan war and against the bailouts.
As to the rest of the issues you mentioned, I don’t know very many people, regardless of political leanings, who don’t believe we need reforms in all of those areas. But if both sides can agree that they need to be reformed, then they should also be able to sit down and hash out a plan to fix them. But neither side is ever willing to give the other side credit for a good idea or to give the appearance of caving in to the demands of the other party. Consequently, nothing gets done.
Having 3 or 4 viable parties would (could/should/might) force all of them to start compromising and being more open to ideas from another party. And I’d feel a lot better about legislation that was supported by 2/3 or 3/4 of the politicians instead of 51%. Or, maybe it will just increase the bickering. I don’t know.
By the way, Scott, I don’t mind an iconoclast in the interest of clearing up the facts. Ever read “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong”?
Don’t get me started on Christopher Columbus…