The Ungoverned have formed a vast conspiracy to destroy local editorial cartoons (and eventually turn newspapers into advertising-only rags) so that they can get away with anything they like on a local level. That's what the voices told me.
The CA, and lots of papers around the country, shot themselves in the foot long ago, and have been limping along ever since. After the demise of competing newspapers in any large city (by which one could actively compare the success of good reporting, different columns and comic strips) the newspapers had to publicly admit that advertising (tied closely to the fear of upsetting anyone who one day might want to buy advertising) provided their main income, they set themselves up to fall completely. When subscriptions and other reader's purchases of the paper were no longer WHY the paper did what they did, there was no reason to continue good reporting, better columns or comics strips at all. Then the internet took over what the newspapers pretended to still offer. The fact that the internet does a lousy job at news is irrelevant. The papers had already thrown away all 'journalistic integrity' they ever laid claim to. Nobody has stepped up to lay a new claim to it, either. There's no money in it.
Rebel Schmebel. I run with my dog. If I wanted to stand around in a small fenced in area, I'd stand in my back yard. If I want to run around, I go to Overton Park. And, yes, I pick up my dog's poop so no one has to step in it. And yes, I'm exasperated by those who don't, but not enough to go stand around in a fake back yard. Don't pretend the Dog Bark is for dog owner's benefit. It's to suit people who don't want the park to be for everyone that uses it now.
Oh, man. When I saw 'March Madness and Cheladas'... at first glance, I assumed the article was about hip-hop style 'cheerleaders' and that was just how it was spelled so as to 'keep it real'.
She's a politician. Politicians can recall and forget whatever they need to, so long as it serves whatever purpose is currently closest to lining his or her own pocket.
There should be a law restricting catkins. There probably already is. Probably also a law against there being a law against it. All this on top of the 1854 law prohibiting white women from being seen to sweep catkins from public benches but must have a male family member do so unasked, as it otherwise could lead to a breakdown in general moral behavior.
The only way I could follow this story was to 'hear' it in John Cleese's voice and start it off with "And Now for Something Completely Different."
All Comments »
By Leonard Gill
download this issue
click here to see more »