The real news from Illinois
It’s hardly a surprise that the governor of Illinois, a state legendary for its political corruption, has been indicted for soliciting bribes. The real news was that Gov. Rod Blagojevich allegedly threatened to withhold state money as a weapon to get the Chicago Tribune’s editorial writers fired.
That’s the jaw-dropper. Who knew people even paid attention to newspaper editorials anymore?
Of all the ways that newspapers have become anachronisms, the idea of having an institutional voice of authority and leadership is first among them. The world moves too fast and judgments are made too quickly these days. By the time your typical newspaper editorial board hashes out an issue and gives birth to a ponderously written opinion on the matter, it’s already been picked over endlessly online and on the air. Seriously, when is the last time you ever encountered anyone whose opinion on something had been formed only after reading a newspaper editorial? Or the last time you ever heard anyone cite an editorial in a casual discussion?
My dirty little secret (one of many, actually) is that I rarely read the editorials in any of the various newspapers that employed me in the course of 30 years. It seemed pointless. They neither enlightened nor informed.
In fact, the only readily identifiable group of people who place any stock in newspaper editorials are those politicians who’ve received the endorsement of their local newspaper. To them, editorials are wise and flawless, and should be taken as articles of faith. Of course, for every politician who gets an endorsement there is another who doesn’t. That group now has a patron saint: Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I love reading the editorials. I like to see what the locals are all up in arms about. I never read it to gain any clarity; it’s just a guilty pleasure- like Perez Hilton’s website.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Who knew people even paid attention to newspaper editorials anymore?”
*****************************************
This is an interesting issue and one rarely discussed…..by newspapers, anyway.
I think it’s older people who have never gotten into the computer craze and who still read the newspaper print edition, solely, who still rely on editorials to inform their decisions—pro or con—about issues.
I’ve always thought that it’s extremely “early 20th century” for an editorial staff to endorse candidates. That self-massaging exercise has long lost its potency.
Moreover, it engenders a perverted relationship between the newspaper and the candidates who win.
My concern goes to those people who still rely on the newspaper as the only way to get their news. They either don’t know or care that they receive only a small fraction of the news.
But more importantly, they only receive a small fraction of the truth.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Something that has always bothered me, even as a journalism student, is unsigned editorials. I realize the editorial staff on most newspapers is probably pretty small, but I find it hard to take it seriously–whether supporting a politician or rambling about NC’s probation system–when there’s not a direct name attached to it.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
This Illinois governor is really a piece of work. He even looks creepy, physically.
His deep set eyes and bully-on-the-playground fluffy do are straight out of big-city-bad-taste-redneck-heaven.
Think New Jersey or Ohio or upstate New York.
The South is infamous for the term “redneck”. Even black bigots who work as editors of newspapers and whose reason for living often seems to revolve around “being about the business of rights for their people”……use the term “redneck” with no fear of losing a job for such professional bigotry.
I’ll admit that I’ve called John Edwards a “dressed-up redneck”….simply because he is; however, only people in power will I ever chastise in such a way that they deserve.
Not vulnerable people and certainly not when I am in a professional setting.
I most enjoy saying things like that directly to the people in question. That way, there’s no back-biting or confusion. LOL!
Now back to the original point:
I have met more “rednecks” from places mentioned above than in the South. Although, the South certainly has its share.
It’s curious that a grating Joisey accent or a Midwestern twang or clipped Michigan or Ohio verbiage is supposed to absolve these people of having all the qualities of bad taste that we associate with “rednecks”.
The reason this is an issue at all is that I believe ALL epithets should be acceptable or none of them should be.
Nothing more disgusting than to witness career race-hustlers use such words with abandon…..and have the gall to complain about “rights” and “inequality”.
A special word for such people comes to mind.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The problem with editorials in this age seems to be, in my humble opinion, the newspapers lack of attention to equal time. If the paper prints a guest editorial should it not allow a counterpoint? Have you seen one lately? Do you think that is because people lack a counterpoint or no one writes in? Occassionally one will se letters to the editor but who reads those?
December 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Here’s a prime example how an editorial staff operates by using their own very insular and very biased views.
I have responded to this below the post simply because the woman needed an education.
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/opinion/noon-musing
This is also the person on staff who will decide which letters you send will be printed.
Is this scary to anyone but me?
Weeks ago, the N&O began printing op-eds again sent to them by Gene Nichol. Google his name and you will see that he was forced to resign from William & Mary because he took down religious symbols that only a few students objected to.
That was only one thing this dimwitted Leftist did, however.
Before being hired at W & M, Nichol was a failed candidate for the U. S. Senate as well as for the U. S. House of Representatives.
While the dean of the law school at UNC-Chapel Hill, he set up the “make-work” poverty center so John Edwards could keep a public profile while revving up for another run for president. (How did it work out for him? LOL!!!)
All at the taxpayers’ expense.
Now that Nichol has been run out of W & M, he’s crawled back to Chapel Hill and is now drawing a publicly-funded salary off the very position he cooked up for Edwards.
This sow of a man who would take the rights away from others has the bad taste to send op-eds to the N&O instructing everyone about the U. S. Supreme Court and other gems from a Lefty loser with the big gut that only comes from sitting on his flat posterior all day long.
I wrote a letter to the N&O detailing Nichol’s history and his lack of credibility in those matters mentioned above.
The editorial staff would not print it because it told far too much truth. Yet they have chosen to continue to disrespect readers by giving the bum Nichol carte blanche at the paper….again.
If you read the link above–(on a totally different subject)–and my response to it, you get an idea of the one-sided laziness of such people.
The print edition contains only a sanitized version of news……reflecting only the archaic views of those who run the paper.
And they muzzle the free speech of others who challenge them with the facts.
Not very respectful of readers. How should one view such people?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
” If the paper prints a guest editorial should it not allow a counterpoint?”
That’s my point, Gary.
I was never allowed the space to reply to the use of Nichol as an op-ed contributor—again. Not even in a letter.
They allowed this creepy SOB a forum years earlier and now he’s back. If they didn’t subscribe to his molded rhetoric, it would not be printed.
If a letter is “too mean”, what the heck is “kind” about perpetrating such a fraud as Nichol onto the readership?
The editorial staff will smile that sick smile as they behave in the same old archaic way.
Both my grandfather and my father fought in battle for this country and for our freedom of speech. Do you think that any of us should settle for such BS?
And be patronized?
I have learned over and over again from personal experience that such people are not sincere and couldn’t give a damn about the truth and giving readers both sides.
And such people are quite inferior in so many ways that this kind of tactic makes it all the more revolting.
Only scared and jaded and insular people are afraid of the truth.
A very small issue is magnified……and for what?
December 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
“Occassionally one will see letters to the editor but who reads those?”
***************************************
I hope that you do, on occasion.
It gives you an idea of the kinds of people who live around you.
I don’t read every editorial or every letter. It’s too time-consuming and many have little to offer.
However, I do like to skim the section just to be aware of my surroundings.
This also is an X-ray into the mindset of the editorial staff and what they consider “important”…..or what they will allow to permeate their insular world of half-truths.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I read letters to the editor because they are a hoot! Sometimes you’ll get a real doozy that made the time skimming them well worth it. It is so funny to see what people get worked up about–so worked up that they actually take the time to write to the paper! I love it love it love it!
That said, my husband wrote in once calling out the N&O for writing some inconsistencies (I won’t bore you with the details because I don’t remember them, but it was a sports story a few years back). He is very passionate about sports. It’s always good when the news can instill passion in the average reader, even if it is to point out their flaws (who do I write to about all the copyediting errors I’ve seen over the past few months? I can’t blame Pam Nelson because she kicks butt… I can only assume it’s the lack of staff due to layoffs?).
December 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Pam Nelson is excellent.
Her methods harken back to the time when there were real school teachers around who cared.
“It is so funny to see what people get worked up about–so worked up that they actually take the time to write to the paper! I love it love it love it!”
*****************************************
Dipsh!ts who run editorial pages of propaganda and indoctrination rely on people like you who find humor in working for more honest and intelligent media.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“My concern goes to those people who still rely on the newspaper as the only way to get their news. They either don’t know or care that they receive only a small fraction of the news.
But more importantly, they only receive a small fraction of the truth.”
Yeah, Debrah, you’re a real genius. Like the television gives any in depth stories and they ALWAYS tell the truth. I bet you wake up every morning and thank god for the internet. Since it supplies a milk crate for someone as misinformed as you to stand on and spout off the nonsense you do.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Debrah, I think you read my comment wrong. But I really don’t care to get into it.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“Yeah, Debrah, you’re a real genius.”
Well, I don’t wish to toot my own horn, but IQ tests have always been a friend. :>)
“Like the television gives any in depth stories and they ALWAYS tell the truth. I bet you wake up every morning and thank god for the internet.”
No, when I pray I thank G/d for making such a perfect specimen of creativity, intellect, and sheer animal magnetism.
It should be against the law to be this hot, but thank heavens it’s not!
LOL!!!
LIS!!!
December 10th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The always-anonymous “Mr. Question” sounds a lot like the always-anonymous “Mr. Cranky”.
I just love it when impotence surfaces so freely on this much-maligned “internet”.
What would the anonymous-pseudonymous commentariate do without the “internet” when they want to flame, but are too cowardly to post their real names?
Ha!
December 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
ha debrah, you’re certainly not as smart as I think I am.
love, mom
December 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hey, “Debrah,” speaking of names, why don’t you give us your full name? Personally, I think you’re named Murray and live in your mom’s basement like so many other trolls. You crawl out to launch your vicious personal attacks and then slither away to strike another day. The only reason I ever criticize you is that I was taught (and it became my profession) to defend people under attack by bullies like you.
You may have heard our profession’s motto: De Oppresso Liber.
Attack a person’s words and ideals and I will defend you. Attack the person and I will fight back. There is much to dislike about Gene Nichol but criticizing him for his weight makes you look silly and mean. This is not a schoolyard playground, little girl. This is a forum for intelligent adult discourse. The winner is not the fastest, nastiest quip, but the well-reasoned, well-researched argument.
Take your shots, Debrah. You won’t be the first.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I’m convinced that Debrah would welcome all form of opinion and print anything that came along if she swapped places with Burgetta Wheeler. Bottom line is that any paper cannot print every single letter that is sent. Someone has to decide what is not going to make it. If the letter in question contained the level of bile and inane ranting that fill her postings here, it should come as no surprise to anyone that they gave it a pass. Not that similar bellowings haven’t made it to print before. Debrah, I think you’re just bitter because your opinion is treated with the same weight as anyone else and not with the level of import that you ascribe to your own personal feelings.
I believe if you gave an honest assessment (not one weighted down by your own biases and opinions) of the opinions represented by the letters that make it to print in the N&O you would find a fairly decent cross section of opinion. This is proven repeatedly by letters accusing the whole paper as biased to the right alongside others claiming leftist leanings. And, one would need to dig no further than letters following the Bizzell brouhaha to find opinions spanning the spectrum from the far left to far right, intelligent comments alongside the most simply formed offerings.
Debrah, replace your personal attacks with thoughtful comments and more people might take you seriously. And while you’re at it, why don’t you save your postings for when you have something meaningful to contribute? Your input is not required on every single topic and every single matter every single day.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I will look over the “cranky” post.
No more playground tactics are needed from this geriatric wonder.
My G/d, what a crusty syllable-chaser.
Ha!
December 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
NTI, this woman (if she really IS a woman) has no life….that’s the only way to explain her rants. She (it) is one of those people who likes to read what they type, and actually assumes everyone else does, also.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“Debrah, replace your personal attacks with thoughtful comments and more people might take you seriously. And while you’re at it, why don’t you save your postings for when you have something meaningful to contribute? Your input is not required on every single topic and every single matter every single day.”
*********************************************
Take a good look, everybody!
Never will there be a better set of stale, overwrought Liberal effulgences….designed to let everyone know “how to behave” and “how to live” and “how to think”.
Oh, what nauseating predictable bile.
It’s been a very busy day and since this is yesterday’s post, I might have missed it.
Only a coward leaves such comments on a day-old post. Where was your bravado yesterday?
To “not that important”—
Let me first instruct you that all of the people I will ever need most certainly “take me seriously”….so ram that comment somewhere inside a dark place….left to your imagination.
I must preface my reply to your encysted dry rot by urging you to post your name…..if, indeed, it’s “not that important”. LOL!!!
Or better yet, if you are the commenter from New Bern who visited my blog at about the same time or just after you posted your comment here, then post your comments under your real name inside The Diva World.
We’ll have a go of it there.
That way your endless instructions might be given some weight.
However, for the purposes of this forum I will say unequivocally that if I were in some job as an editorial editor of a paper, before I even took the job I would have it spelled out that I’d have the authority to choose what would be printed—from BOTH SIDES and ALL SIDES.
There would be no lapdog-esque following of any party line.
You see, I enjoy debate and am not afraid to allow others their say. My life does not require a smooth ride full of an apple cart of heads bobbing…..”Yes!” “Yes!”…..up and down.
If I knew your name, I would end by saying that you are so very ignorant of the dynamics of this situation that it’s not even humorous.
And if the robotic tactics you feel compelled to defend were working so well, the newspaper business wouldn’t be tanking right now.
You have a personal stake in this debate and that’s why you’ve come here with your head concealed in your studded chador.
Lots of self-serving logorrhea designed to make excuses for those who lack the intelligence, the insight, and the panoramic outlook needed to comfortably deal with the truth……
…….regarding a whole host of issues.
I do hope your buddies at the paper send you a nice holiday bubbly!
December 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Oh, and “not that important”—-Do regale us with the performance of the editorial staff and the paper’s editors during the internationally-publicized Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
Do “instruct” everyone on how “fair and balanced” the coverage was.
How dare you defend such low-rent tactics of the media when three innocent men could have been sent to prison for 30 years.
Do “instruct” us on the kinds of op-eds printed and the kinds of op-eds that were not printed.
Tell us, why don’t cha?
Not That Important defines you, dear commenter.
It’s lovely to see such self-actualization on display.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Debrah, I visited your website. Very instructive. Rarely have I seen someone so hopelessly in love with the overblown and overexposed self-image they have created. It must be extraordinarily difficult to tear yourself away from your mirror each morning. My God, woman, you are the Queen of Hearts!
I am comforted to know that you will never be “editorial editor” of a real newspaper (psst, it is “editorial page editor”). Not today, not tomorrow, not for a thousand years. You see, no “editorial editor” has such authority. The editorial page is the institutional voice of the company. Only one person has the final authority to make such decisions and that is the publisher. He or she may delegate, but the authority and the responsibility rest in the hands of one person.
But I am not surprised that you would make such an overweening demand. One look at your puffed up on line persona is proof that you would never take advice.
But I will offer it anyway: put on some clothes. You look foolish.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“Cranky”–
Dear man, you are hopelessly provincial.
FYI, I have never sought a job with a newspaper.
I try to be more creative than that.
I have enjoyed writing many guest columns in the past when the mood struck.
It would be fun—and I believe profitable for any news outlet—to have someone like me do a column with an edge. Pop culture, politics, and the arts….all rolled into one.
I’ve tried to be civil to you in the past; however, as I’ve mentioned, your ilk is far too provincial and morbidly predictable to have very much interesting to say.
Consequently, harassing women is about all that’s left for you and ‘ol Mr. Question, eh?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
come on “debrah” wink wink. we all know you’re not really a woman
December 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Debrah,
I posted to the day old topic because, fortunately for me, I was too busy to read the posting on the day it was originally authored. I don’t live and breath to force every single thought that crosses my mind upon others.
I will admit that I have personally come into contact with all the people who make up the Editorial staff at the N&O in a professional capacity, and certainly have a much deeper understanding and appreciation for what it takes to put out a newspaper than anyone who has “… never sought a job with a newspaper.” I can assure you that I have no personal stake, or interest in the success or failure of the N&O (or any other paper for that matter) other than I enjoy reading newspapers every day. I will also admit that I am not, and never have been, a journalist.
It would be fun—and I believe profitable for any news outlet—to have someone like me do a column with an edge. Pop culture, politics, and the arts….all rolled into one.
It’s comforting to know that some people can derive soooo much pleasure from themselves. If I ever find myself at a point in my life when my wife, family and those who care about me, all suddenly decide they hate me, I can just pursue a relationship with myself. I never realized it was possible for someone to fall in love with themselves so completely. I would like to take a poll on this site (which is totally free) to see what percentage would choose to suppress your postings if the option was available. If you truly believe you could author a column so compelling, that it would bring profits to “any news outlet” that carried it, why do you need them? Publish it yourself and reap your own fortunes. Please invest your total net worth (and whatever you can borrow) in this venture.
My intention was not to “defend” the paper. I was only pointing out that all submissions to a print publication CANNOT be included because the costs would be prohibitive. Some things must be discarded. The job, like most in the journalism profession, is not an easy one and I personally doubt that you could do any better (actually, having been subjected to your rantings for months now I have ZERO doubt that you don’t possess the ability to be objective but I was being kind). If the letter you sent was filled with the acid and personal attacks you posted here, it should come as no surprise to anyone that it was cut. Your version of “the truth” is only one side of the story in every case you present. There is more “truth” that you personally choose to ignore or take issue with.
I do not offer any defense for the paper’s coverage (my post was not even about coverage) of the Duke Lacrosse case and whether “innocent men could have been sent to prison for 30 years.” But, if you truly were a fair minded person, you would also concede that they eventually did discover their original error and much of what was investigated and reported by the N&O and other media outlets helped unravel the claims of a crooked prosecutor. It could also be argued that the N&O can take credit for freeing multiple, wrongly convicted people who actually spent real time in prison for crimes they never committed. I don’t think anyone (including everyone employed by the N&O) would not concede that they made some mistakes in their early coverage of the Duke story (actually, I believe they admitted as much in print). It must be nice to never have had a single error in judgment and never said or written anything you later regretted.
AND, my point was not about coverage in the paper, it was ONLY about the letters that get published in the opinion section. Go back and read those printed throughout the Duke mess and I think you would find letters supporting all sides of the scandal from every conceivable angle.
You can now proceed with your personal and degrading attacks on me. You really don’t need my name for that.
Lastly…
… I’ve tried to be civil to you in the past…”
When was that? I’ve not noticed much civility in the postings you’ve made here.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:45 am
TO “not that important”–
Oh well, I see that you’re continuing this issue, so I will reply; however, this time with a comprehensive view provided.
Last evening a few friends stopped by briefly for a holiday exchange and I asked one of these people who is an attorney by profession to take a look at some of your comments to me……just to get an objective critique from a guy who couldn’t care less about this issue, but is very analytical by nature.
His first comment was how longwinded your posts are…..even as you attack me for posting in the same fashion.
He was struck by your obsession with me and the N&O…..even as you say you have no real connection to the paper.
He echoed my thoughts as I read how long you’ve been keeping up with the “Debrah posts” and how long you have been bothered by them.
And now, to have saved up all that anger and to emerge by attempting to muzzle someone’s comments.
He called you a “chickensh!t”—(his word, not mine!!) for posting these things under a pseudonym to disguise yourself…..as you reveal you are a family man with children.
He wondered aloud if this kind of shielded cowardice is how you raise your children.
Good points. I agree!
This guy is a Harvard Law School alumnus and is also, as luck would have it, quite the Liberal…..so he doesn’t come to his critique with a hostile ideology.
He was disappointed that you seem to want to close down another commenter simply because YOU don’t like what’s being said. The “poll” you mentioned was particularly odious in his way of looking at “argument” or “debate” of any kind.
This was my first thought about you as well as I read your comment. You exude what is almost a caricature of the “sleazy fascist Liberal” who can’t or won’t tolerate any opinion different from his own. A very insular individual who trips over himself as he contradicts himself.
If you go away understanding nothing else from these exchanges which have resulted from your unprovoked attacks on me, know that this issue goes WAY beyond one mere letter-to-the-editor.
I’m not some little disgruntled person writing letters to chastise for no reason. I have a long history of freelance writing as a hobby and have had numerous critiques of praise from those who do it for a living.
Not printing my letter complaining about Nichol had nothing to do with anything but their disagreement with it and not wishing to have someone clearly detail this man’s questionable history.
They printed a letter from a man in Durham who also chastised Nichol, but it was a cheesy letter and much less eloquent. By using his letter—which was full of “acid”—they, and Nichol, could just toss it off and say the man was “anti-intellectual and not well-educated” and didn’t live in Nichol’s world.
That’s how some editorial page editors work it to elevate their personal agendas.
It might interest you to know that back in the ’90s a man from McClatchy—a company who bought the N&O—in California contacted me because he was riveted by a column I had written which was in the N&O at that time. He wanted to meet with me when he came to the Triangle.
You see, during that time McClatchy was “casing the place” for new acquisitions, no doubt, and after reading my op-ed, felt the Triangle would be an interesting market.
I gave the man’s letter to a local politician and referred the McClatchy guy to him for further information about the area, etc…..
So, you see, you know absolutely nothing about the background of this matter; however, I will assure you that “Debrah” has no trouble getting things published when others are not working with their biases and their personal agendas.
I would ask you to please refrain from giving me or anyone advice on how to conduct our business.
In a funny kind of way, I feel that I was a tiny bit responsible for the very liberal McClatchy to have even considered coming to the Triangle and buying the N&O.
Ha!
I will print my letter and the letter from the man in Durham for your benefit….so that you might finally comprehend that writing on a blog is different from writing an op-ed or a letter for the editorial pages.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
TO “not that important”—
After this reply, I’m finished with this exchange. I do hope that you will begin to accept and deal with the fact that other people have opinions…..and that they will express them.
And there’s not much you will be able to do about that.
I’ve always had good will toward those who run the N&O. I adore John Drescher and am glad that such an evenhanded person is now the paper’s editor.
The editorial page editors are another story. Personally, I don’t have anything against them. Why should I? I don’t know them.
My issue is how they conduct themselves on the job and how that affects the readership’s right to get the whole picture.
Wheeler is a b!tch, pure and simple. Typical rural woman with a sweet surface demeanor who is actually a vengeful simpleton who uses her job to get back at her betters.
I once told her that Joe Neff—who is an excellent reporter—saved the N&O during the horrific Duke Lacrosse Hoax. The editorial staff sat on their hands, editorially speaking, and allowed every Far Left op-ed contributor to run the show with libel and innuendo…..long before there was any evidence of guilt.
That put gasoline on the Hoax and none of them ever uttered one word of regret or apology.
I had been trying to give them a chance to redeem themselves and refrain from such one-sided coverage; however, it was not to be.
Good will has been my goal. I can be as charming as anyone you will ever meet…….however…….
…….I will not be played and treated unfairly by those who, IMHO, don’t have the goods to polish my shoes on their best day.
*****************************************
Here is a copy of my letter in question:
“As an N&O subscriber and reader, I strongly request that you find commentary from a new, fresh, and more inclusive range of local contributors on the opinion page.
Realizing that you do not solicit opinions from these people and that they send their offerings to the paper for their own self-promotion, it is still within the editors’ discretion
whether or not to jump every time diatribes from the same tired kibitzers are offered up.
As an Obama supporter and also a fervent supporter of all forms of expression in the public arena, I do not need someone like Gene Nichol instructing me about the
upcoming election and its ramifications.
Nichol is both a failed candidate for the U. S. Senate as well as for U. S. House of Representatives.
I see that he’s crawled back to the UNC-CH law school after having been run out of William & Mary.
I suggest that readers apprise themselves of Nichol’s remarkably short history there and the reasons for it.
Seems that freedom of expression for all isn’t much of a feature inside Nichol’s value system.
Ironic that such an individual would be giving advice regarding the U. S. Supreme Court.”
Debrah
*******************************************
A copy of the letter from a man in Durham which was printed:
“Can anyone find out what’s in the Kool-Aid at Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill that attracts radical lefties to their professorships? At least Duke has shipped its laughable law professor to the West Coast, but UNC continues to humor Gene Nichol, who says, probably with a straight face, in an Oct. 5 Point of View article that “a vote for McCain is a vote … to place the presidency above the rule of law.” What irresponsible nonsense!
Any rational North Carolinian, regardless of political affiliation, should be appalled that our hard-earned money pays this College of William & Mary reject’s salary.”
C.J. Goode Jr.
Durham
*******************************************
The difference in these two letters and why one was used and the other one, not, speaks for itself.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
So debrah, you get all pissed and insult people because the bottom line is someone’s elses letter got published and yours did not. You need to reel in that overinflated ego of yours. Just because YOU think YOUR tirades are important do not mean they are. It is actually quite the opposite. Your writing oft times comes off as wild eye rants by someone who has been hitting the bottle a little too much. But of course this criticism will fall on deaf ears because we all know how highly you think of yourself and your own opinions. Your writings come off as some sharp tongued harpy who is jealous of people who actually get paid to write or edit for a living. After this last post I actually am starting to pity you. You are truly a sad pathetic wannabe.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I have two missions here, one more important than the other:
1. top off the responses to this column at an even-thirty (this makes 29, so my work is not quite done).
2. defend Debrah’s right to post glamour shots of herself on her website. Heck, I think she’s even n-n-n-nekkid in a couple of ‘em. We should all look so “foolish” in the buff. And that reminds me, I got a polaroid of Gearino (circa 1970) taken in the boys locker room at our dear old alma mater. The bidding starts at…
I have no quarrel with “mr. question” and “cranky old guy” - I’m just speaking up for a one-of-a-kind contributor to WAW. Where-the-hell-else can a plodder such as myself go for an injection of French in his everyday banter?
She’s providing a freaking public service.
And ascribe nobility to my post at your own risk.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
… and thirty!
In the spirit of Terrell Pryor, how about the way gas prices have dropped, huh?
And I see Oprah’s topped 200 pounds again. In her defense, she’s big-boned and I expect food is a substitute for something missing in her life. C’mon Steadman, get off the schnied man! Lady O needs some lovin’!
And she still looks pretty good - must be the aura of money and power that seeps from her every pore.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
My apologies to John and everyone else who may innocently stumble onto this now nearly week old squabble but a personality flaw which prevents me from letting things go has coerced me into responding.
I also offer an apology to Debrah — I am sorry my posting was so personally troubling that you deemed it necessary to disrupt your social gathering to deal with it.
how longwinded your posts are…..even as you attack me for posting in the same fashion.
I am not sure at what point you inferred I have some disdain for the length of your posts. I have no problem with the length. Actually, I have no problem with your opinion (other than the name calling and personal attacks). I only suggested that you limit your posts to when you have an actual opinion that offers some intelligent perspective. As far as my own longwindedness, I was attempting to respond to all of the matters you brought forth. Since it bothers you, I will try to practice some brevity.
That’s how some editorial page editors work it to elevate their personal agendas.
Conspiracy theorist
They printed a letter from a man in Durham who also chastised Nichol, but it was a cheesy letter and much less eloquent.
So, in your view, it would have been better to stifle the thoughts and words of the man from Durham because you believe his intellect is subjacent to your own? That’s very “BOTH SIDES and ALL SIDES” of you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion unless “Debrah,” the self styled “Diva” declares their intellect suspect.
The difference in these two letters and why one was used and the other one, not, speaks for itself.
Perhaps in your warped version of reality. His letter raises similar concerns in about half the space. Your point “As… a fervent supporter of all forms of expression in the public arena, I do not need someone like Gene Nichol instructing me…” is a little contradictory don’t you think? You welcome all forms of expression except Mr. Nichol’s (and apparently those of one Mr. Goode, Jr.). How can you be so tolerant and intolerant at the same time?
and didn’t live in Nichol’s world.
I can only conclude this statement exists to imply your experience and achievements are in parity with Mr. Nichol. I looked at that mess you call a website and cannot find any reference to any biographical information that provides any basis for this. However, extending the benefit of doubt, the argument itself (aside from directly maligning Mr. Goode, Jr. who I assume you don’t know) is elitist, pompous, arrogant and just not very nice. Where does one find the “Good will?”
as you reveal you are a family man with children.
I should let this one go but that character flaw has it’s elbow in my ribcage. This is a PERFECT example of you reading something into my statements that is not even there. Where did I state that I have children?
It might interest you to know that back in the ’90s a man from McClatchy…
Actually, it doesn’t interest me but thanks anyway. I’m not much for pissing matches but let’s just say I don’t require any education on McClatchy or the history of the paper.
I feel that I was a tiny bit responsible for the very liberal McClatchy to have even considered coming to the Triangle and buying the N&O.
Of course you do. Doesn’t the whole world revolve around Debrah — the center of the universe?
I would ask you to please refrain from giving me or anyone advice on how to conduct our business.
Fair enough. Perhaps you should do likewise.
After this reply, I’m finished with this exchange.
While I find that doubtful, I did notice Dan’s last few entries have been in want of any commentary from “The Diva.” Perhaps you are practicing some restraint? I look forward to your next intelligent posting. I will assume that comes following your personal and degrading attack on me.