It's got to be tough on the lazy D. When the democrats own you because they gave you a huge tax break while they jacked everybody else's taxes up, you know you're beholden to them because you also know that switch flips both ways.
In this case, the democratian is repaying the favor by continuing to bury the Jim Jacks misconduct story as they have failed to engage in even 7th grade school newspaper journalism to get the facts in the hopes that everyone will "forget."
Well, I won't forget. And every so often, I'll remind the reader that the local paper failed in its duty to dig out the story, letting the supposedly "transparent" democrats completely off the hook and failing to report on then Rep. Jacks' rank misconduct, likely alcohol-fueled but never the less, misconduct of a sort they don't want the average reader to know about... because the pattern of misconduct isn't recent... it's long-term.
Our local paper has lowered the bar to unheard of levels. The editor, who has had no trouble at all crusading against ME, seems incapable of speaking truth to power and crusading against THEM.
Rest assured, gentle reader, had it been Rep. Hinton, there is no stone the local rag would not have turned over; no colleague or staffer they wouldn't have interviewed, no rumor they wouldn't have run down to the DNA level.
Because that's how they roll.
It's not unlike someone writing a column about how great it's going to be for the vast majority of the people of Clark County paying for a ballpark they will never set foot in while the paper makes bank off advertising... and doesn't pay a thing.
Others have asked Brancaccio about the idea of the paper paying a tax with the money to go to the ballpark; while they stand to make money off this endeavor is very appealing (and not mentioned by Brancaccio in his pie in the sky column) his response to the idea that maybe the newspaper should chip in as much as they want the rest of us to is greeted with a rather hypocritical silence... which apparently means "no."
It's not like that isn't the long-term pattern of our local daily; they want us to go into debt by the billions to build their utopian idea of a bridge with loot rail... and they want to avoid paying a dime for that as well.
So, these two most recent episodes are not surprising, given the established pattern.
And frankly, that's just a damned shame.
There are so many other ways to pay for this ballpark that won't insult either our intelligence or our wallets. But those would include making the fans responsible for paying for it; making the people of the city of Vancouver pay for it instead of ramming the responsibility down our throats county-wide without a vote (Imagine that... a bridge and loot rail that we had to vote on once before, but suddenly can't vote on now (to the silence of the newspaper) and a ballpark they don't want us to vote on, paid for by those of us who go to optional "entertainment" but not for those who buy an optional "newspaper."
The cover-up, the forced payments without a vote, the paper yelling the loudest for something they want and will make money off of but not have to pay one thin dime to profit from.
Why am I not surprised?
In this case, the democratian is repaying the favor by continuing to bury the Jim Jacks misconduct story as they have failed to engage in even 7th grade school newspaper journalism to get the facts in the hopes that everyone will "forget."
Well, I won't forget. And every so often, I'll remind the reader that the local paper failed in its duty to dig out the story, letting the supposedly "transparent" democrats completely off the hook and failing to report on then Rep. Jacks' rank misconduct, likely alcohol-fueled but never the less, misconduct of a sort they don't want the average reader to know about... because the pattern of misconduct isn't recent... it's long-term.
Our local paper has lowered the bar to unheard of levels. The editor, who has had no trouble at all crusading against ME, seems incapable of speaking truth to power and crusading against THEM.
Rest assured, gentle reader, had it been Rep. Hinton, there is no stone the local rag would not have turned over; no colleague or staffer they wouldn't have interviewed, no rumor they wouldn't have run down to the DNA level.
Because that's how they roll.
It's not unlike someone writing a column about how great it's going to be for the vast majority of the people of Clark County paying for a ballpark they will never set foot in while the paper makes bank off advertising... and doesn't pay a thing.
Others have asked Brancaccio about the idea of the paper paying a tax with the money to go to the ballpark; while they stand to make money off this endeavor is very appealing (and not mentioned by Brancaccio in his pie in the sky column) his response to the idea that maybe the newspaper should chip in as much as they want the rest of us to is greeted with a rather hypocritical silence... which apparently means "no."
It's not like that isn't the long-term pattern of our local daily; they want us to go into debt by the billions to build their utopian idea of a bridge with loot rail... and they want to avoid paying a dime for that as well.
So, these two most recent episodes are not surprising, given the established pattern.
And frankly, that's just a damned shame.
There are so many other ways to pay for this ballpark that won't insult either our intelligence or our wallets. But those would include making the fans responsible for paying for it; making the people of the city of Vancouver pay for it instead of ramming the responsibility down our throats county-wide without a vote (Imagine that... a bridge and loot rail that we had to vote on once before, but suddenly can't vote on now (to the silence of the newspaper) and a ballpark they don't want us to vote on, paid for by those of us who go to optional "entertainment" but not for those who buy an optional "newspaper."
The cover-up, the forced payments without a vote, the paper yelling the loudest for something they want and will make money off of but not have to pay one thin dime to profit from.
Why am I not surprised?
No comments:
Post a Comment