Inbox — Oct. 21, 2009
Letters to the Editor
Blogs are Beneficial
Regarding Phillip M. Bailey’s “Beware of blog” (LEO Weekly, Oct. 7): Ed Manassah’s dismissive comments regarding the blogosphere are unfortunate and, to borrow his own words, jaundiced. According to the former publisher of The Courier-Journal, you may not be seeing “reality” if you believe everything you read in the blog world because the writers write from their personal perspective and not that of an institution.
Indeed. It is precisely for that reason people should read blogs. While there are certainly bloggers who deliberately misrepresent facts, there are also many hard-working bloggers who are dedicated to finding the truth, and because we are not beholden to institutions like Rupert Murdoch’s empire or Gannett, we have no vested interest and are free to speak truth to power. The notion that mainstream media always gets it right and fact-checks what it presents as truth is delusional.
While the mainstream media was busy embedding reporters with the military in Iraq and reporting the Bush administration lies as fact, the blogosphere was asking the hard questions about why we were there in the first place, what connection Saddam Hussein had with the bombing of the World Trade Center, and where were the weapons of mass destruction. If we had paid heed to the blogosphere where questions were being asked about the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the federal government, we would have seen the sub-prime mortgage crisis coming, because that information was being blogged several years before the economy went in the toilet. The list goes on.
When supporters of mainstream media insist on belittling the blogosphere, they only show their ignorance. Instead of trivializing the substantive work done by many dedicated people working on shoestring budgets, why not be supportive and share expertise and resources and embrace the potential of expanding the paradigm of how we become informed. Considering publications like the C-J have shrunk to the point that there is barely enough left to line a birdcage, Manassah might want to rethink his arrogant attitude about the blogosphere.
Lucinda Marshall, East End
Regarding Sarah Kelley’s “Cruel & Unusual” story (LEO Weekly, Oct. 7): The crimes of Gregory Wilson and the others on Kentucky’s death row were cruel, and undoubtedly, defenders of the death penalty will use this fact in their arguments. These inmates, however, didn’t force me to be part and parcel to their crimes. No such thing can be said of the state executing them. Can’t people see that when society kills, killing becomes less anti-social?
George Morrison, Original Highlands
Sob Dog Stories
I am incredulous at the tone of Jonathan Meador’s article on Louisville’s dog ordinance (LEO Weekly, Oct. 14). Are these the best sob stories he could come up with? I’m sorry Ms. Head was ill, but couldn’t whoever was running her kennel while she was hospitalized have followed up on getting her kennel license?
And Mr. Crisel, how is it that you have money for attorneys and not vaccinations? Am I supposed to think that since your dog was only “wayward” for a few minutes, it’s OK? A few minutes is all it takes for a dog to attack. I know because last year I was walking my dog (on a leash) on the sidewalk a few blocks from my home, and when I passed a business at the same time an employee happened to open their gate, their St. Bernard ran out and bit my dog. (I didn’t call the city then; I merely presented them with my vet bill and they paid it.) A few weeks later, I was walking my dog with my children on the opposite side of the street, and again the gate was opened, and the St. Bernard ran across traffic to corner us. Luckily (for us and them), the employee was able to catch the dog before it bit again. You better believe I called the city that time. The St. Bernard disappeared, and I am glad the city did its job. No one has the “right” to keep an animal like that, or six rottweilers, in a residential area. They have a responsibility to control their dogs.
Amanda Clark, Germantown
I always enjoy thumbing through LEO, but last week, I cracked up at the many references to “capitalism.” In his letter (Oct. 7 issue), Alex Bradshaw points to the irony of capitalistic movie theaters showing Michael Moore’s movie on capitalism. To be consistent, one should also note the irony of Moore profiting in a capitalistic manner. In any case, the problem with the movie is that Moore is not describing capitalism as much as the use of government to pervert markets and capitalism. This is contrary to capitalism and is often labeled “crony capitalism.”
Bradshaw exhorts us to “move on from capitalism.” But the fact is that we already have. Our current economy is a dog’s breakfast of capitalism, socialism and interest groups using government to enrich themselves at our expense — from health, education and welfare to farming, banking and manufacturing.
Elsewhere, Phillip M. Bailey’s story and Jennifer Adams-Tucker’s letter both lament the government regulation — i.e., the lack of capitalism — at the St. James Court Art Show.
Bottom line: A lot of people think they don’t like capitalism. But everyone seems to want it around a lot — and they stick it with all sorts of non-capitalistic attributes.
D. Eric Schansberg, professor of economics at IUS
“Capitalism: A Love Story,” leftwing filmmaker Michael Moore’s new polemical documentary, discusses America’s economic history since World War II. Included is a discussion of the current economic meltdown, including several visits to poor and working-class people suffering from this social upheaval. Although Moore makes some good points about the corruption on Wall Street and in Washington, D.C., he calls capitalism evil and says it should be replaced with a socialist utopia. This movie is full of distortions and outright lies. Also, Moore never presents the other side of the argument. Nor does he mention any of the possible conservative proposals to fix the economic mess. The movie also contains lots of anecdotal evidence and emotional appeals encouraging viewers to pity the people caught in the current recession. All this makes Moore’s movie unduly biased and deceitful.
David Hammer, Louisville
Michael Moore does our country a great service by critiquing capitalism via his current documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” Greed is the underlying source of our country’s current economic crisis. Rarely, if ever, does a person of wealth point to greed as being a problem. Moore’s timely documentary offers us an opportunity to have a needed national discussion about capitalism and greed.
During past showings of Michael Moore documentaries, many people who dislike him and his views said they wouldn’t pad his bank account by paying to see the films. Would they view his current film if it were shown free of charge? Will Wall Street operatives, members of Congress and faith community members around the country see it and respond to its content? To bury our heads in the sand is to be part of the problem.
Capitalistic greed is a contagious disease that breeds injustice, divisiveness and is in need of a cure. I hope we, as a nation, haven’t reached our zenith and started the decline that has befallen all great empires of the past.
To a large degree, how well America does economically in the immediate and distant future will be determined by its ability to take the money out of politics and the greed out of capitalism.
Paul L. Whiteley Sr., St. Matthews
In response to the Ed Perry letter “Get Out More” (LEO Weekly, Oct. 7): I find it amusing that Perry suggests I “get out more.” I recently finished four years of active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps. In addition to my tour in Iraq, I spent two years living in Okinawa, Japan. After returning home from my world travels, I find our government is trying to pass a sub-par health care reform. I saw firsthand the second-rate health care system that my friends overseas were subjected to, and it is very similar to the health care system our government is pushing for.
I also know families with annual incomes less than $25,000 a year. If they can’t afford health insurance and are forced into great debt to receive the health care they need to survive, then they should pay every cent of that debt with much gratitude for being able to live one more day. I’m not naïve. I understand it can be a real struggle. However, I still don’t believe that health insurance is a right — it is a privilege. Nathaniel Hawthorne once said, “Families are always rising and falling in America.” That used to be true. Then again, businesses used to fail, too. I guess the government should just take care of everything now.
Zachary Sanders, St. Matthews