THE LOCAL AREA WATCH

HARD LEFT AND CLUELESS

I know the folks over at Media Mouse, River City's progressive local media critic, are earnest in their endeavors (which is one reason why we provide a link to their website).  But the trouble with the leftist take on society is that your Big Idea about how the world is supposed to work trumps the facts instead of letting the facts inform your ideas about what really drives things.  If this penchant for rationalism doesn't lead to an out-and-out detachment from reality, it can manifest a certain cluelessness.

For example, this recent Media Mouse notice that Obama has rejected public financing for his presidential campaign:

Last week, Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama announced that he will not be participating in the public financing system for his campaign. Instead, Obama will be able to raise an unlimited amount of money. However, much of the discussion on his decision has missed larger issues--why does it cost so much money to run for president and why do media corporations profit so much from elections?

The larger issue is the very thing that Obama ditched, the public financing system for presidential campaigns.  Why is it that the bedrock freedom of political speech is confounded, constrained, and controlled by campaign financing restrictions that leave many a candidate no choice but to run for office on the public dole under the dictates of federal election commissars?  Why is it that the so-called progressives who decry entrenched power and extoll the voice of the people are enamored with the bureaucratic bean-counting of the size and frequency of campaign contributions that favors incumbents and the super-rich at the expense of dark horses and ordinary citizens in political races?  That is the fundamental issue.

The larger issue certainly is not:  "Why does it cost so much money to run for president?"  It doesn't.  Americans spend a pittance on the publication of campaign speech compared to the advertising dollars that we pour into pushing mundane products like laundry detergent, fast-food burgers, and the latest amazing gadget for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling.  For presidential candidates to spend what amounts to at most only a few bucks per voter every four years to get their messages out to the public is hardly a scandal.  Indeed, stack that up to what pornographers spend to ply their putrid wares (which so-called progressives are so quick to defend under the free speech banner), and one wonders about the bad wiring in the heads of those who link arms with the flesh peddlars while sanctimoniously denouncing the few dollars spent on getting political speech on the air, on the internet, and in print.

Nor is the larger issue:  "Why do media corporations profit so much from elections?"  Is this really a head-scratcher for our progressive friends?  The answer is obvious.  The [shudder] "media corporations" own soapboxes that candidates want to rent to get their message out to the readers, viewers, and listeners of those companies.  Meanwhile, all the other businesses and organizations that still need to advertise in the ordinary course of business don't go away.  So demand goes up while the supply of space and minutes available for advertising remains about the same.  Hence, the price for advertising laundry detergent and campaign slogans goes up.  Nothing sinister.  Economics 101.

If the leftists think the solution is to force the evil media corporations to hold their prices, just who do you think is going to get the limited supply of advertising available?  Those customers of the media corporations placing ads day in and day out, or the fellow that comes along once every four years to get ink or air for a couple of months ahead of the election?  Now if those leftist wheels are really turning, no doubt the solution to this is to force media corporations to ration ads to candidates -- and steamroll over the freedom of the press in the process.

All of which is to demonstrate that if our progressive friends put the facts first rather than their pet ideas, they might not wring their hands over things that are a problem only because they do not fit into the tidy world of their Big Idea.

G.R. PRESS BREAKS BIG STORY

In today's edition of the Grand Rapids Press, our newspaper of record broke the following big story on Page 3:

"If you can evenly divide the year by 4, it's a leap year.  We have leap years because the earth's rotation doesn't keep up with the calendar.  We lose a quarter of a day every year, so we add an extra day to the calendar every 4 years to make up for it.  Otherwise, eventually, summer would fall in winter."

I'll let you, dear readers, add the punchline to the joke that the Press has become.

A PRIMER IN CUSSING

I was reading a Grand Rapids Press article about Monday's city school board meeting at which the members approved by a 5-2 vote, with Superintendent Bernard Taylor's backing, the use of The Literary Experience as a textbook in City High's Honors English class.  As readers of L.A.W. are well aware, this textbook contains the Suzan-Lori Parks play "Topdog/Underdog" and provoked controversy because of excessive foul language and graphic depictions of sex.  Reporter Rick Wilson repeatedly wrote that it was the play's "profanity" that raised hackles.

Also I noted that in the lead editorial a few days earlier, the Grand Rapids Press was quite high on having City High students read Parks's play:  "College-bound seniors -- the ones who would be using the book -- are generally mature enough to handle an edgy work with profanity and sexual content.  In fact, they should be encouraged to read the unassigned stories in any textbook they have."  [Our emphasis.]  Others supporting the use of The Literary Experience have also repeatedly spoken about the play's profanity and the need to expose high schoolers to it.

Well, OK.  But is it too much to ask all those who are ardent in their commitment to this "foul language as literature" education project to get a clue about their subject?  As far as I know, Parks's play contains no profanities.  It does have more than a hundred uses over a run of 70 pages of variations of "s---" and "f---", neither of which are profanities.  The former is either a vulgarity or obscenity depending upon its usage, and the latter is almost always an obscenity (although arguably the indiscriminate use of "f---" over the past few decades has so reduced its force that some usage of it is now merely vulgar).

In brief, if it is such a good idea to teach the kiddies swear words, then teach them!  That means understanding the difference between a profanity, an obscenity, and a vulgarity.  A profanity is sacrilegious.  It takes God's name in vain, which the utterance of neither "s---" nor "f---" do.  So the dispute over Parks's play has nothing to do with profanities.  Indeed, in light of the secularist dogma that predominates public education these days, any grievance against genuine profanity in the classroom would likely bring down the wrath of the ACLU as a violation against the separation of church and state.  Yes, I exaggerate, but you get my point:  Few today work up much of a fuss over real profanity.

So the dispute lies with the obscenities and vulgarities in Parks's play.  An obscenity is a depraved or disgusting reference to the body or bodily functions, most often sexual or scatological.  Therefore, "f---" is clearly an obscenity, and "s---" often is.  Therefore, Park's play is obscene not profane on account on the usage of those words, not to mention the graphic depictions of sex.  Finally, a vulgarity is a crude or crass expression that lacks an obscene connotation but remains impolite, mild examples of which are the words "ass" and "crap".

One way to remember the differences is that these days a vulgarity will probably get you in trouble only with your grandmother, an obscenity with the FCC, and a profanity with the Almighty.  Now you know how to swear, folks.

DEAD ZONE UPDATE

Last week we noted that the local media has been AWOL in its coverage of the Grand Rapids mayoral race.  Since then reporter Jim Harger wrote an article about the Neighborhood Business Alliance's candidate forum that ran in the Friday evening edition of the Grand Rapids Press.  Harger gave prominent coverage to the snarky remarks challengers Rick Tormala and Jim Rinck made about incumbent George Heartwell's dubious record as mayor.  Admittedly they were funny, keeping in mind how tepid local politics are, but there was a lot more to report from that forum than was covered in the Press.  Stayed tuned, because we will fill that gap.

THE DEAD ZONE

Yesterday evening the four Grand Rapids mayoral candidates appeared at the Wealthy Street Theater for a 90-minute question-and-answer session hosted by the Neighborhood Business Alliance.  It was an informative presentation of the candidates' views, and we'll have our commentary on it in an upcoming article.  However, don't expect much from the local media if you want to know what the candidates are promising.

The mayoral race is a dead zone in local media coverage.  We've noted that previously regarding last week's public call-in to quiz the candidates.  The t.v. news reportage was, if not non-existent, abysmal, and though the Grand Rapids Press did cover the call-in, you learned nothing much about the candidates' views from their story.  So far, the N.B.A.'s Q&A with the candidates isn't getting any better notice from the local media.

Last night, your Executive Director and Editor checked out Fox17 News instead of WOOD TV8 to see what the t.v. news would have to say about the Q&A.  We figured that with an hour-long local news show, Fox would have the time to report on a mayoral debate seeing that the primary election is only a week and a half away.  As it happened, Fox had time to plug as news the Fox conglomerate's entertainment products, including the premiere of The Simpsons Movie and the late-breaking flash that the new season of the t.v. show 24 will be set in D.C. rather than L.A.

But not a word about how mayoral candidates Jim Rinck, Jackie Miller, Rick Tormala, and George Heartwell want to run* Grand Rapids for the next four years.

(* Yes, we at LAW know that so long as the City Commission is supine before the apparatchiks of the city staff, no mayor actually runs G.R.  Perhaps challenging the regime of City Manager Kurt Kimball would make a good campaign issue for the local media to raise ... oh, that's right, that would mean the local media would have to actually cover the campaign.)

IS THERE A MAYORAL RACE?

Not if you are relying upon the local media to find out.

Last night the four candidates in the race for mayor of Grand Rapids -- incumbent George Heartwell, grocery clerk Jackie Miller, GR school board member James Rinck, and City Commissioner Rick Tormala -- participated in a discussion in which the public could call in questions.  It was televised on the GRTV cable channel.  Unfortunately, your Editor and Executive Director had to attend a meeting at Davenport College during the broadcast, so we didn't get to watch the candidates in action.

No problem.  We thought we would tune into the 11 o'clock news on TV8.  Sure, enough the anchor informed us that the call-in forum took place -- and that was it!  Absolutely no coverage as to what transpired.  Nothing about the questions asked, nor the answers given by the candidates.  Pitiful coverage.

THE QUIET ONES

A few of our regular readers noticed we did not have any entries recently regarding the tragic shooting of Grand Rapids Police Officer Robert (Bob) Kozminski.

Since you asked, we’ll address it.

We decided to leave this issue to the main media outlets to cover.  We couldn’t help but notice the high level of exposure this incident received in the G.R. Press, on local radio stations and of course, on t.v. stations 3, 4, 8, 13 and so on. Grief was expressed in normal ways;  anger that domestic violence took another tragic turn, sadness over the loss of an honored police officer – the first in many, many years,  words of condolences for a precious life lost, flowers of honor at police headquarters, photographs of the officer,  interviews with those who knew and  loved him and words of support and admiration for the life this officer lived.  All appropriate and expected outpourings of loss over the unexpected and heartbreaking death of a well respected public official, boyfriend, son and co-worker.

But, as the days went on, expressions of grief started to reach a crescendo we did not expect.  Flags were flown at half staff at many buildings.  Signs all around town had words of comfort for the fallen and for fellow officers. Television stations and radio broadcasts couldn’t seem to discuss any other topic. Interviews were being done constantly with friends, family, church members, etc. City buses were advised they needed to pull over for a moment of silence before resuming their route. Roads were closed off for the long procession of city and private cars involved in the open funeral ceremony.   The funeral was even broadcast on t.v. for anyone to view.

We chose to stay on the sidelines as the media frenzy ensued.

Our distance did not mean we did not feel similar sadness over such a tragic and unexpected loss of life – especially by a trusted public servant.  Our sympathy also goes out to the officer’s family and his fellow officers – those left behind.  I’m sure his loss will be a vacancy that will take many, many years to fill. As for Kozminski himself, he was on the job doing his sworn duty to protect the citizens of this city and lost his life in the line of duty.  He seemed to be a top officer and a quality human being.  We thank him for his service and his ultimate sacrifice.  May he rest in peace and have perpetual light shine upon him always.

We have no way of knowing if Officer Kozminski would have wanted such a public display of grief and loss on radio, t.v. and news print.  We’ll have no answer to that question in our lifetime.  We chose not to shine the media spotlight on him that way.   On the other hand, we hope he wouldn’t mind that each one of us says a private prayer on his behalf in our own quiet way.   

It’s at times like this, it’s important to remember the “everyday” people who are out there making a difference.  Doctors, nurses, ambulance workers, police, firefighters, security personnel, all branches of our military – Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard and Coast Guard and more. Thank them now for their service, not after it’s too late.  Each one of these groups, along with everyday average citizens like you and I, make a difference in keeping our communities safe, healthy, clean and beautiful. We just do it in our own ways.  Most of us don’t loose our lives in the pursuit of these things. For those that do, we share with you our eternal thanks.

At The Local Area Watch, we may be quiet in our appreciation and remembrance of this honorable local officer, but it is there nonetheless. Our outpouring is simply more reserved and private than that of the general media.  I'm sure many of you agree.

Regards,

Bridget Dupont-Tingley
Editor
The Local Area Watch

MISSING WASTE NO JOKE SEZ G.R. PRESS

In today's editorial section, the Grand Rapids Press took us to task for any giggling over last month's mysterious disappearance of 15 million gallons of partially treated sewage from a retention pond in Sand Lake.  Some of the local and national media have been yucking it up, but "It's no laughing matter", thundered the Press.  After all, the consequences of this wastewater seeping into the groundwater and nearby wells "could be costly to people's health and the environment".

Well, yes.  More than likely, according to engineers from Kent County's Public Works Department, the pond's liner sprung a leak and the wastewater flowed into a sinkhole.  This water contains human waste from Sand Lake village and is retained in the pond for treatment with bacteria before being released into the environment.  So it's not anything you should drink or come into contact with, but then treatment was well underway and the material is biodegradable.  Furthermore, the local wells are being monitored, and so far there's been no sign of contamination.

Nevertheless, the Press has taken a dour view of the accident and has no patience for anyone having a chuckle or two over the missing waste:  We need to keep an eye on the government to make sure that defective retention pond isn't part of a bigger problem.  Probably so, but the Press hasn't always had such a stern take on environmental contamination and suspicion of the government's response to it.  When the Boardwalk developers a few years back excavated 27,000 cubic yards of severely contaminated soil from the old Berkey & Gay factory site and dumped it into the old water tanks of the defunct water filtration plant up the street (now Clearwater Plaza), the Press wasn't bothered by it all.  The reporter on the story said there was no story because the government had given the developers a pass on the dumping.  In fact, to the extent that the Press covered the story at all it denigrated those who filed the complaint against the Boardwalk developers -- that is, yours truly, the Local Area Watch.

So why is 15 million gallons (about 74,000 cubic yards) of partially treated wastewater accidentally released into a sinkhole a very serious matter that merits keeping a close eye on the government's response, but the government's lack of a response to 27,000 cubic yards of raw solid hazardous waste with toxic concentrations of lead, mercury, and arsenic deliberately dumped out in the open next to a residential neighborhood rates a blind eye from River City's watchdog of record?

The difference, folks, is that no power players are involved in the Sand Lake fiasco.  However, the Boardwalk project gang includes some of the biggest bigwigs in G.R. who cut corners in a rush to make illicit financial deals on the eve of Old Kent Bank's acquisition by Fifth Third Bancorp.  (That story and its web of corruption is well-detailed in the "Toxic Towers", "Logie's Landfill", "Hall of Shame", "Fifth Third", and "The Fixer" series of articles we have run and so we won't cover it here again.)  Just note that a free press is a boon to society only when the watchdog bites.  But then that requires teeth, something the "happy fun" news Grand Rapids Press lacks.

G.R. PRESS GIVES THUMB'S UP TO HEARTWELL'S NEW RIDE

Mayor George Heartwell wants Grand Rapids taxpayers to buy him a new car, and on yesterday's editorial page, the Grand Rapids Press opined that we should be happy to do so.  In fact, the Press dismissed political opposition to Heartwell's request as "puffing", "pontificating", and "political theater".  After all, what's twenty grand for a new Ford Escape Hybrid when $5.7 million has to be cut from the city government budget to pay for out-of-control employee and retiree health care benefits?

For starters, it's twenty grand that doesn't have to be cut from services the government provides to city residents, businesses, and taxpayers.  There's no question that the lack of political will to cut deeply into the bloated bills for the city's payroll, benefit packages, and pensions approaches the scandalous.  That should be the #1 issue in balancing the budget.  However, that doesn't mean ignoring the small stuff in the meantime, like a new car for the mayor.  Why shouldn't a first principle of budget-balancing be that city officials, staffers, and employees take all the hits before the rest of us do?

According to the Press, what must come first is giving the mayor of Grand Rapids a "respectable ride".  After all, visiting dignitaries shouldn't be carted around in just any ol' set of wheels.  Well, perhaps not, but then I'm not sure a Ford Escape Hybrid piloted by the mayor is going to impress anyone, especially when he needs to pull off the road to run the extension cord into a local citizen's home to recharge the battery.  (OK, I know that's not how gas-electric hybrids work.)  If the Press's point is that the second-largest city in Michigan needs a fancy car to transport out-of-town guests to and from city government functions, fine.  Let the city government spend forty or fifty grand for a plush ride every five or six years that any city official can use for the appropriate occasion.  Meanwhile, let the mayor use whatever other vehicles are available in the city's garage for routine business and commuting.

What doesn't make sense is having the taxpayers pony up to buy a car suited only to the personal peculiarities of our top city official.  The taxpayers should only be asked to pay for what serves the public's interest, not the mayor's fancy.

PRESS BURIES AMWAY DEFEAT IN SATANIC CULT CASE

Starting in the early 1980's a group of Amway distributors spread the falsehood that competitor Procter & Gamble Co. donated part of its profits to satanic cults.  As evidence they claimed that the Fortune 500 company's man-in-the-moon logo was a symbol of satanism.  These distributors began circulating their tales of P&G's links to satanism to customers via voice mail in 1995.  P&G responded by filing suit against the Amway Corporation and the rumor-mongering distributors under a federal law that prohibits false advertising.  The case was heard at the U.S. district court in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Amway was eventually dismissed from the suit, but twelve years later a jury awarded P&G a judgment of $19.25 million against the distributors.

The Grand Rapids Press buried the climax of this long-running story on E4 of the business section, the very last page of yesterday's newspaper.  While the projects that Amway's owners are pitching get puff pieces on the front page, for instance the expansion of the Van Andel Institute, the bad news doesn't seem to make it there.  If nothing else, sticking the story on the back page certainly helped to keep under wraps the Press's lack of scrutiny of Amway's ludicrous response to the adverse court decision.  A miffed flack from the company's public relations department denounced P&G for "destroying" the lives of these now-former distributors.  However, the flack didn't actually say that these ex-distributors hadn't done what the jury said they had, nor was any explanation forthcoming as to why they are now ex-distributors.  Granted, you'd expect Amway's mouthpiece to make self-serving statements.  It just that you'd also expect a reporter to question them.

But then you're looking at this from the perspective of the man in the street.  You need to consider the matter from Amway's angle.  Burying an unfavorable story without any critical reporting is just the kind of favor you'd expect from the daily rag when the publisher is a friend of the company's owners.