Well, I called the Muskogee Phoenix publisher again on Thursday (it could have been Friday) and left another voice mail asking about the letter to the editor that used the words "tea bagger" or "bagger" seven times in last Sunday's Phoenix (Larry Parsons was the writer).
Guess I'd better check and see if he was at work any last week though you'd think the wouldn't have transferred me to his phone if he wasn't and his voice mail said he'd get "right back" to you.
Did, however, talk to the editor/opinion editor about that letter to the editor. He claimed that this was the first time he knew what the definition of "tea bagger" was. I informed him that it was all over CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the Internet, etc. Again, he said he tries to keep up with all the latest "bad" language. So I recommended he add 'tea bagger' to his "don't publish" list of words/phrases.
Somehow I don't think he appreciated my phone call. Mark
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/
http://muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/x62852867/THE-PEOPLE-SPEAK-Did-Chief-Eskridge-mislead-council-city
Let's see how long before the personal attacks being.
http://muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/x62852867/THE-PEOPLE-SPEAK-Did-Chief-Eskridge-mislead-council-city
Let's see how long before the personal attacks being.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Follow-up to Muskogee's "family friendly" newspaper
As promised, I called the Muskogee Phoenix publisher on Monday and left a voice mail. Here it is almost Thursday and no return phone call. In my voice mail I pointed out Sunday's letter to the editor by Mr. Parsons who used the vile term "tea bagger" and "bagger" to refer to the Republican Party and Tea Party supporters.
I told the publisher that I doubted the Phoenix would (or could) publish a letter to the editor that specifically defined what a 'tea bagger' was since the definition is so sexually explicit. So if the Phoenix wouldn't/couldn't publish the definition of the word 'tea bagger,' then how can they allow the word being defined to be used seven times in a letter to the editor?
I'll call again on Thursday and see if I can actually speak to the publisher.
I told the publisher that I doubted the Phoenix would (or could) publish a letter to the editor that specifically defined what a 'tea bagger' was since the definition is so sexually explicit. So if the Phoenix wouldn't/couldn't publish the definition of the word 'tea bagger,' then how can they allow the word being defined to be used seven times in a letter to the editor?
I'll call again on Thursday and see if I can actually speak to the publisher.
Monday, February 21, 2011
What has happened to Muskogee's "family friendly" newspaper?
Warning: This blog contains adult material.
I avoid using sexually explicit words in my blogs because I want to keep them as "family friendly" as I can. However, the Muskogee Phoenix published a letter to the editor in Sunday's paper, Feb. 20 from Mr. Larry Parsons of Warner, Okla. If you are a regular reader of the Phoenix's editorial page you will understand that Mr. Parson's is admittantly opposed to the Republican Party and the recently established Tea Party and is unabashadedly a firm supporter of the Democratic Party. Fine. That's his Constitutional right. But his "right"
to use sexually explicit terms seven times in his letter to the editor to describe the Tea Party doesn't pass the "community smell" test--and the editor of the Muskogee Phoenix knows better.
Before I continue, let me state right now that I am registered as a Republican, support the Tea Party in their effort to reduce taxes, reduce the intrusiveness of government control of our daily lives and business, and also support a smaller (not weaker) federal government. Now that I've cleared the air . . .
As much as I oppose Mr. Larry Warner's far left ideology (as he would say of my Republican beliefs), I support Mr. Warner's right to "rail" against the "evils of the Republican Party and the newly "established" Tea Party.
However, when Mr. Larry Warner's letter to the editor in today's paper uses the term "tea baggers" and "baggers" seven times referring to members of the Republican party and to Tea Party leaders, the Phoenix editor had an obligation to step in and else edit the letter to meet the family values of the Phoenix or reject the letter and ask Mr. Parsons to rewrite without the sexual inuendo. (This is what I was taught during journalism classes at Northeastern State University [NSU] where I obtained my undergraduate degree in journalism/education in 1976. At that time NSU was Northeastern State College.)
(WARNING: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL FOLLOWS)
To make sure everyone knows how vile and offensive the word "tea bagger" is, here's the definition from Wikipedia: Tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner. This practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion. As a form of non-penetrative sex, it can be done for its own enjoyment or as foreplay." The last paragraph of Wikipedia's definition of "tea bag" states, "In 2009, the right-leaning Tea Party movement formed in the United States, referencing the Boston Tea party for its name. The appellation "teabagger" emerged, promting puns by both policitcally-opposed commentators and protestors based on its sexual connotation."
So I guess we should rest assured that the person responsible for allowing Mr. Parson's use of the word "tea bagger" or "bagger" seven times in his letter to the editor was aware of the origination and sexual innuendo of this phrase?
I can reassure you that if I submitted a letter to the editor with the above defition it would not be published. So how does the Phoenix justify using the word of a defition they can't print in their own newspaper?
I don't know. But I plan on asking the publisher on Monday. And if he's not available, I'll make an appointment and let you know what he says.
I avoid using sexually explicit words in my blogs because I want to keep them as "family friendly" as I can. However, the Muskogee Phoenix published a letter to the editor in Sunday's paper, Feb. 20 from Mr. Larry Parsons of Warner, Okla. If you are a regular reader of the Phoenix's editorial page you will understand that Mr. Parson's is admittantly opposed to the Republican Party and the recently established Tea Party and is unabashadedly a firm supporter of the Democratic Party. Fine. That's his Constitutional right. But his "right"
to use sexually explicit terms seven times in his letter to the editor to describe the Tea Party doesn't pass the "community smell" test--and the editor of the Muskogee Phoenix knows better.
Before I continue, let me state right now that I am registered as a Republican, support the Tea Party in their effort to reduce taxes, reduce the intrusiveness of government control of our daily lives and business, and also support a smaller (not weaker) federal government. Now that I've cleared the air . . .
As much as I oppose Mr. Larry Warner's far left ideology (as he would say of my Republican beliefs), I support Mr. Warner's right to "rail" against the "evils of the Republican Party and the newly "established" Tea Party.
However, when Mr. Larry Warner's letter to the editor in today's paper uses the term "tea baggers" and "baggers" seven times referring to members of the Republican party and to Tea Party leaders, the Phoenix editor had an obligation to step in and else edit the letter to meet the family values of the Phoenix or reject the letter and ask Mr. Parsons to rewrite without the sexual inuendo. (This is what I was taught during journalism classes at Northeastern State University [NSU] where I obtained my undergraduate degree in journalism/education in 1976. At that time NSU was Northeastern State College.)
(WARNING: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL FOLLOWS)
To make sure everyone knows how vile and offensive the word "tea bagger" is, here's the definition from Wikipedia: Tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner. This practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion. As a form of non-penetrative sex, it can be done for its own enjoyment or as foreplay." The last paragraph of Wikipedia's definition of "tea bag" states, "In 2009, the right-leaning Tea Party movement formed in the United States, referencing the Boston Tea party for its name. The appellation "teabagger" emerged, promting puns by both policitcally-opposed commentators and protestors based on its sexual connotation."
So I guess we should rest assured that the person responsible for allowing Mr. Parson's use of the word "tea bagger" or "bagger" seven times in his letter to the editor was aware of the origination and sexual innuendo of this phrase?
I can reassure you that if I submitted a letter to the editor with the above defition it would not be published. So how does the Phoenix justify using the word of a defition they can't print in their own newspaper?
I don't know. But I plan on asking the publisher on Monday. And if he's not available, I'll make an appointment and let you know what he says.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Wasterwater proposal and change
http://muskogeephoenix.com/local/x1248735535/Wastewater-proposal-not-sitting-well-with-some
Muskogee Public Works Director Mike Stewart said a private contractor has approached the city about providing management services for the plant. (Operative word is "management," not replacing the 28 city employees with private company employees.)
Change comes extremely hard to Muskogee--city charter, Greater Muskogee Development, election campaign finance reform, ward voting, still no strategic plan for Muskogee, lack of true community involvement in city planning (a future blog article), ad naseum.
Note Mayor Hammons comment that, "City employees must be given the opportunity to improve services." Well, Mr. Mayor, they've had no incentives to improve services until now. Nothing like like free enterprise to get the competitive juices flowing, huh?
Councilman Lucky asked, "Do we not have that type of knowledge to run (the wastewater plant) properly." Well, obviously we do because the city has been operating it for years. But that's not the issue. The issue is how more efficiently can the wastewater plant be operated. And if city employees/management is not motivated to improve efficiencies by free market challengers, then there's no reason to do so. Remember the city is working on reducing a $1.8 million budget deficit.
The union is opposed because that's the job of the union--oppose anything that may change the status quo.
And City Attorney John Vincent, according to the Phoenix, said that once the city receives "request for porposals" from interested outside entities, the city must go to employees and say, "This is ther bid price, what can you do."
I think that's a fair question; and should management of the city's wastewater treatment plant come under a private contractor, that should be an incentive for other city workers to increase the efficiencies of their departments or face private management challenging their status quo.
The Muskogee Public Works Committee voted 7-2 to solicit "statements of qualification" from firms that could management the facility. Councilmen Kenny Payne and Jackie Luckey voted against the motion. The vote is subject to City Council approval. We'll see if efficiency wins over "tradion."
It really is time to drag Muskogee kicking and screaming into the 21st century of city management. Nobody likes change because it threatens their way of life, their power, their structure, their influence. Could that be the reason Muskogee has been stagnant for years? Hopefully the city council will vote to allow private management of the wastewater treatment plant thereby cracking open a sliver of hope that Muskogee has a future of growth and prosperity.
Muskogee Public Works Director Mike Stewart said a private contractor has approached the city about providing management services for the plant. (Operative word is "management," not replacing the 28 city employees with private company employees.)
Change comes extremely hard to Muskogee--city charter, Greater Muskogee Development, election campaign finance reform, ward voting, still no strategic plan for Muskogee, lack of true community involvement in city planning (a future blog article), ad naseum.
Note Mayor Hammons comment that, "City employees must be given the opportunity to improve services." Well, Mr. Mayor, they've had no incentives to improve services until now. Nothing like like free enterprise to get the competitive juices flowing, huh?
Councilman Lucky asked, "Do we not have that type of knowledge to run (the wastewater plant) properly." Well, obviously we do because the city has been operating it for years. But that's not the issue. The issue is how more efficiently can the wastewater plant be operated. And if city employees/management is not motivated to improve efficiencies by free market challengers, then there's no reason to do so. Remember the city is working on reducing a $1.8 million budget deficit.
The union is opposed because that's the job of the union--oppose anything that may change the status quo.
And City Attorney John Vincent, according to the Phoenix, said that once the city receives "request for porposals" from interested outside entities, the city must go to employees and say, "This is ther bid price, what can you do."
I think that's a fair question; and should management of the city's wastewater treatment plant come under a private contractor, that should be an incentive for other city workers to increase the efficiencies of their departments or face private management challenging their status quo.
The Muskogee Public Works Committee voted 7-2 to solicit "statements of qualification" from firms that could management the facility. Councilmen Kenny Payne and Jackie Luckey voted against the motion. The vote is subject to City Council approval. We'll see if efficiency wins over "tradion."
It really is time to drag Muskogee kicking and screaming into the 21st century of city management. Nobody likes change because it threatens their way of life, their power, their structure, their influence. Could that be the reason Muskogee has been stagnant for years? Hopefully the city council will vote to allow private management of the wastewater treatment plant thereby cracking open a sliver of hope that Muskogee has a future of growth and prosperity.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The future of economic development in Muskogee
If you've been watching the televised city council/public works and finance committee meetings on the city's TV channel or on the city's web site, you'll see that the council is facing a tough issue: whether to abandon the 40+ year organization that's been in charge of recruiting industry to Muskogee, Muskogee Development. http://muskogeedevelopment.org/ The city of Muskogee
Muskogee Development's problem has always been that no one outside of city officials and the board members know what that organization does nor the successess they have had. Scott Robinson, who is the director of the Port of Muskogee and who could also be taking on Muskogee Development's mission is the longest serving Muskogee Development board member at 20 years He's quoted in the Phoenix as saying, “Why has it taken 20 years, and we’re still in the same spot,” he said. “There is a lot of confusion on what Muskogee Development is. It’s hard for the community to grasp.”
I did note with some dismay, that during the city council's discussion of giving economic development to the Port of Muskogee, that no city councilor asked the basic question: What will the Port of Muskogee do differently than Muskogee Development to ensure their success at this venture?
And until that question is answered in specificity, it will remain Muskogee's economic Rubik's cube.
Muskogee Development's problem has always been that no one outside of city officials and the board members know what that organization does nor the successess they have had. Scott Robinson, who is the director of the Port of Muskogee and who could also be taking on Muskogee Development's mission is the longest serving Muskogee Development board member at 20 years He's quoted in the Phoenix as saying, “Why has it taken 20 years, and we’re still in the same spot,” he said. “There is a lot of confusion on what Muskogee Development is. It’s hard for the community to grasp.”
I did note with some dismay, that during the city council's discussion of giving economic development to the Port of Muskogee, that no city councilor asked the basic question: What will the Port of Muskogee do differently than Muskogee Development to ensure their success at this venture?
And until that question is answered in specificity, it will remain Muskogee's economic Rubik's cube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)