Message From A Parallel Universe?

The letter from one of our friends in Henrico County was in the print edition of today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch. Reader, you will find this so incredible that I will print the whole thing so you can be sure this maven is not making it up:

Do you really think your readers are so stupid that they believe your so-called facts? It’s so, so obvious that you are biased it’s pathetic. You constantly pick on Republicans to show they have lied, but seldom do you feature Democrats. If you did it on them, you would need an insert to cover all the lies they tell.
Once in a while, you do feature a Democrat—just to try to act fair. You better not do it too much because those on the left will get mad and stop buying your paper. You should change your name to the Democratic Times-Dispatch.”

Dear reader, you and I have been reading the TD for a long time. I must ask you, have you ever suspected that our great metropolitan daily is biased toward Democrats?

Some time back, on the Science Channel, I saw some membrane-theory astrophysicists explaining the possibility that ours is just one of an infinite number of parallel universes. I found it hard to believe. After reading today’s letter, I wonder.

Times-Dispatch Neutrality

Our beloved metropolitan daily made it clear today that it would not allow fairness to get in the way of influencing the “right” election results. In its Letters to the Editor it published three letters relating to the Third District contest between Democrat Bobby Scott and Republican Chuck Smith. All of them were pro Smith and anti Scott. I find it hard to believe that the TD didn’t have a single letter to publish that advocated Bobby Scott’s reelection. Oh well, I guess this maven expects too much from the editorial staff of the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Charter Schools, New Buildings And Other Panaceas (Part I)

Yesterday, in its lead story the Richmond Times Dispatch revealed that Virginia “gets F on charter schools in report.” I know that Monday is a slow news day but, come on, is this the most important event that took place in the world over the weekend? It wasn’t until I read past the headline that I realized that this wasn’t even news. The F that Virginia received was from the Center for Education Reform, an organization that is a strong advocate of (you guessed it) charter schools. If the Center had rated Virginia higher than an F, that would have been a real news story. Let’s be honest. The Center’s rating is based on the sole fact that Virginia has a small number of charter schools.

Which brings us to today’s RTD editorial. The RTD editors agree with the Center’s conclusion that Virginia’s charter school law is “abysmal.” As evidence the editors go back to the simple fact that Virginia has only three functioning charter schools, much less than other states. The editors then switch to their other hand and acknowledge the argument by the Virginia Education Association that Virginia has so few charter schools because it has other types of innovative schools. However, they reject this argument as “risible.” (For those of you who are vocabularily challenged risible means laughable or ludicrous.)

Now the editors come to the meat of their argument:

The Center's report follows closely behind a new poll showing that most Virginians think highly of their public schools; all the same, a majority also would like to see more educational choices available. Regardless of political party, most Virginians would support tuition tax credits and even school vouchers.

Stop! Dear editors, what poll are you referring to that shows that “most Virginians” would support tax credits and school vouchers? Well this maven may have been born and raised in the past century, but I have learned to do Internet research. So, it didn’t take me long to find out about this poll. I found a RTD article on November 17, 2009, which begins with, “Virginians like their public schools but would still like more public options.” It relies on a poll “sponsored by several organizations supporting school vouchers and tax-credit scholarship programs.” 1

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that this fight was fixed. But to rely on a self- serving poll “sponsored” by organizations supporting vouchers and tuition tax credit for the conclusion that most Virginians support vouchers and tax credits is like relying on a poll sponsored by foxes that concludes that most chickens want to be eaten. RTD editors, I find your reliance on this poll to be itself risible.

Trusted reader, I am not opposed to charter schools. Our public schools are not doing as good a job educating our children as they should and every type of innovation must be considered. What I do object to is those “true believers” who tell us that charters schools are the only way to save our children. They want us to believe that merely because it is a charter school, rather than a normal public school, such a school must necessarily perform better. I was having a facebook discussion with a friend (I’m sorry to admit, dear reader, that I do use facebook on occasion) about charter schools. I asked what benefit the children in my neighborhood school would gain from the opening of the Patrick Henry charter school in Richmond next fall. He replied that we could also make our neighborhood school into a charter school, as if that would automatically make it better.

I’m not sure whether Virginia’s charter school laws need to be fixed. After all, it’s not as if there are hundreds of people in line to open charter schools in the Commonwealth. Nor do I see evidence that school boards across Virginia have conspired to deny charter applications. If there is such desire to open charter schools in the Old Dominion let’s see some people put in the hard work that the proponents of the Patrick Henry school put in and let’s see them file their applications for charters. If after that happens we see evidence that school boards are routinely denying charter applications then the law needs fixing.

The charter school “true believers” are always reminding us that charter schools are public schools. And they certainly expect that public moneys, both state and local, will be made available for them to operate their schools. Yet they object to school boards, which are accountable for those public funds, having any authority to decide whether their application for a charter has merit and from reviewing their operations to assure that public funds are being properly spent. I know that if Richmond Public Schools misuses public money I can hold my school board representative accountable and vote her out at the next election. But who do I vote against if a charter school misspends public funds? I have no representative on its managing board.

(To be continued)

Biased Reporting

A short time after it runs its feature on Creigh Deeds next Sunday, the Richmond Times-Dispatch will endorse Bob McDonnell for Governor, Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor, and Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General. Over the years the TD has consistently endorsed Republican candidates in major elections. I understand the policy position of the TD ownership and I have no problem with it. It’s their paper and they can do with it whatever they want.

But, dear reader, when this bias passes into news reporting, this maven must protest. Today’s paper marks the second time that I have seen the TD running unflattering photos of Creigh Deeds. Each time they have shown Deeds frowning. These photos are the type that I would expect the Bob McDonnell campaign to use in their attack ads against Deeds. They make it very hard for the voter to like Mr. Deeds. After all, who wants to vote for someone who is always frowning?

I am sure that Bob Brown, the TD photographer who covered the gubernatorial debate, must have gotten at least one shot of Creigh Deeds without a frown on his face. Yet the editors chose to run this photo.

The TD is the daily newspaper for Greater Richmond. Regardless of its editorial bent toward supporting Republican candidates, it should be neutral in its news reporting. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. I hope that between now and the election the TD stops showing its bias in the photos it uses in its news reporting.

Please Help Me Here

Although I have lived in Virginia more than two-thirds of my life, and when people ask me where I’m from I’m proud to say I’m from Virginia, I am still disabled by the early years I spent in Yankee-land. So, there are times when I just can’t understand what I read in my morning Times-Dispatch. You who are regular readers of the Maven know that I have had this difficulty before. So, you’re probably not surprised when I say that I have no idea what the TD editorial “Dinner Guests” means. In case you missed it—

Del. Dwight Jones has announced his candidacy for election as Richmond's mayor. Doug Wilder responded to the news with a statement:
"I have seen nothing as of yet that would influence my plans, nor do I see an earnest commitment to continue the positive change we have already begun."
When Deborah Jewell-Sherman announced she will retire as superintendent of Richmond's schools, Wilder said:
"Suffice it to say that Dr. Jewell-Sherman has brought improvement to the academics of the school system since taking the job and she has received ample credit for that."
A dream dinner would be to sit between Wilder and . . . Winston Churchill -- and across from Alice Roosevelt.

Really, trusted reader, that’s all there is to it. Now, the version in the print edition differs from the cyber version in being prefixed by “Two Masters,” so that could be a clue to the ethereal thinking of our TD editors.

I often think that the editors of the TD are mired in the Twentieth Century in their philosophy. But to talk about Winston Churchill and Alice Roosevelt convinces me that they haven’t even made it to the 1960s. Most of us know about Mr. Churchill. I think I even remember him. Alice Roosevelt, however, is not a name that rolls off the tongue very frequently these days. As a great admirer of our twenty sixth president, I know that Alice was the daughter of Teddy Roosevelt’s short and tragic marriage to Alice Lee. I know that she was an outspoken teenager when her father was president and, after she married Congressman Nicholas Longworth, she became a fixture on the Washington, DC, social circuit.

So, let’s go back to “Dinner Guests.” The two quotes from His Mayorship are typical Doug. They certainly don’t compare with anything that ever came out of the mouth or pen of Winston Churchill, who was one of the finest speakers, writers and statesman of the last century. In using the preliminary “Two Masters,” can the editors possibly be comparing the mayor with Mr. Churchill? Can they be so deluded as to think that they can even use the names Douglas Wilder and Winston Churchill in the same breath? Nothing has ever crossed the mind of Doug Wilder that can compare with Mr. Churchill’s “We shall never surrender,” or “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few,” or “This was their finest hour.” I think that if Doug and Winston had ever been at the same dinner table it is highly unlikely that the mayor would ever get to speak and if he did I’m sure Mr. Churchill would slash him mercilessly with his repartee. After a few minutes it would be a really dull dinner.

So, maybe the two masters are the Doug and Alice. I have done a bit of research on things that Alice Roosevelt said. Here are her best quotes:
“I have a simple philosophy. Empty what’s full. Fill what’s empty. Scratch where it itches;” “Harding was not a bad man, he was just a slob;” [Coolidge] looks as though he was weaned on a pickle;” and “If you can’t say anything nice about someone, sit right here by me.” So maybe Doug is a little closer to Alice than to Winston. But, at least Alice was funny. Doug is just a grumpy old man.

I don’t understand the TD. During Mr. Wilder’s tenure as mayor, no matter how outrageous have been his actions or his words, the TD editors can see no evil. They always explain Doug by saying that there is plenty of blame to go around, or that “the people wanted a strong mayor.” The TD editors are always looking at Doug through the rosiest of glasses. As a man much wiser than this maven once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But the Times Dispatch . . .”

“Killing” Fascists

In their attempt to heap scorn on the recent peace protesters in Richmond, Washington, D.C., and other cities, the editors of the Times-Dispatch have showed their own ignorance. In the third of three bullets under the heading WEEK’S END in today’s TD the editors said:

A sign taped to the tuba of the Rude Mechanical Band outside IRS headquarters struck a rather incongruous note: “This Machine Kills Fascists.” But isn’t killing for peace like . . . oh, never mind.

The editors should know that the sign on the tuba was not original to the Rude Mechanical Band. The great American troubadour and songwriter Woody Guthrie had the identical message on his guitar during the 1930s and 1940s, when fascists like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler threatened freedom throughout the world. Guthrie’s message was simple—the music generated by his guitar and the words that he put to that music were as powerful weapons against evil as were bullets and bombs. Contrary to the suggestion of the TD editors, there is nothing incongruous in using music to combat the savage beasts.

TD, Wrong Again

Okay, I know you’re going to ask me. Maven, why are you always picking on the Richmond Times-Dispatch? If you don’t like it, just cancel your subscription.

That is a fair question. The answer is, “I don’t know.”

But seriously, I criticize the TD because I want to see it become a great newspaper. A great community like Metro Richmond needs a paper worthy of its citizens. When the editors of the TD fail in being world class, this maven needs to let them know.

So what am I in a huff about now? It is yesterday’s editorial “Obama and Che.” This editorial reveals the editors’ lack of understanding and sensitivity with regard to a symbol that is terrifying to many African Americans. It also shows that even though Senator Obama has not yet captured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination it is not too early for the TD to start branding him with the L word.

The editorial reads,

Barack Obama, whom National Journal ranks the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, doesn't hold with American-flag lapel pins. He says they're a substitute for real patriotism.
On the other hand, he apparently doesn't mind the fact that workers in an Obama campaign office in Houston hung a big Cuban flag with Che Guevara's mug emblazoned on it. Obama's team says merely that the flag is "inappropriate."
It's a lot more than that. Guevara wasn't some romantic mystic reading poetry in an ashram. He was a terrorist who directed hundreds of show trials and executions. He overthrew one bloody dictatorship only to impose another.
A poster glorifying Che is the moral equivalent of a noose. Why can't Obama -- who likes to be thought of as a noble exception to political orthodoxy -- come out and say so?

I have only been a journalist since I started this blog a year and a half ago. Yet, it is obvious to me that the reference to the National Journal ranking Barack Obama as the most L member of the Senate has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the editorial. The only reason I can see for it being there is to arouse negative feelings about Obama in those within the TD’s circulation area who consider liberals as a threat to truth, justice and the American way.

But it is the last paragraph of the editorial that mystifies me. How can any reasonable person suggest that a poster of Che Guevara is the “moral equivalent” of a noose? I was around in the 60s, so I know that Che wasn’t the Robin Hood figure he was portrayed as. He was a pretty nasty dude. Che had a large roll in turning the Cuban revolution into a reign of terror.* So, any person, especially one not even born in the 60s, who displays a poster glorifying Che as a hero probably doesn’t know “the rest of the story.” A noose as a symbol, however, is an entirely different matter.

Over the years, thousands of African Americans were murdered by being hanged. To generations of African Americans, especially men, it was not unreasonable to fear that their lives might end hanging from a tree with a noose around their necks. The threat of the noose was used to keep African Americans in line. Lately, when it has become fashionable for racists, or even those just playing pranks, to suspend nooses either in public places or in places close to a particular African American, the fear of the noose has been brought back. Displaying a noose is not only telling African Americans “we don’t like you,” it is also threatening that “we know how to deal with you.”

Clearly, a poster of Che is not the “moral equivalent” of a noose. A poster of Che hanging in one of Senator Obama’s campaign offices is clearly “inappropriate.” However, it is not even in the same ballpark as a noose.


*Calling him a “terrorist” is of course in the eye of the beholder. I am sure that George III considered Washington and the Continental Army as a band of terrorists (assuming he had ever heard of the word “terrorist.")

[Not Quite] Enough Said

Although the Braves are leaving, I assume I am stuck with the Richmond Times-Dispatch (at least for so long as the publishers can make a buck here). So I’ve been trying real hard to coexist with the TD. Some times it’s not that easy. I think the paper’s editorial policy is a bit Neanderthal, but it’s their nickel. Sometimes I’m a bit astounded by what the TD chooses to give front page attention to, while relegating to the back pages stories I consider to be of monumental importance. And then there are the times when I just sit at my kitchen table baffled.

A week or so ago, the TD used at least half of its editorial to give us all a history of the Church of England. Not that I minded. I learned that if your name was Thomas and you were appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by a king named Henry you would probably not lead a long life. I even went to the website of the Archbishop to learn about the appointment process (I had been surprised by the TD’s statement that the Prime Minister of England appoints the Archbishop. Actually, it’s not that simple. If you’re interested in the detailed appointment process, you might want to look at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/854?q=appointment+process). But, what was the point of this editorial? The TD thought the fact that former Prime Minister Tony Blair might have been a closet Catholic at the time he forwarded the name of Rowan Williams to be archbishop merited the observation “History works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform.” To which I replied at my breakfast table “?”

Today, under the title “Enough Said,” the TD editorial quoted from a post-Appomattox letter from “retired” Confederate General Robert E. Lee to Commonwealth Governor John Letcher. I’ll quote the letter here so you don’t have to switch channels.

"The duty of [the South's] citizens, then, appears to me too plain to admit doubt. All should unite in honest effort to obliterate the effects of the war and to restore the blessing of peace. They should remain, if possible, in the country, promote harmony and good feeling, qualify themselves to vote, and elect to the state and general legislatures wise and patriotic men who will devote their abilities to the interests of the country and the healing of all dissensions. I have invariably recommended this course since the cessation of hostilities, and have endeavored to practice it myself."

So, says I to myself, why exactly is this old letter being printed? What is it that the TD is trying to say to us under the title “Enough Said?” Is the TD suggesting that there are still citizens of Virginia that have not yet accepted the military decision of 1865? I certainly hope not. Are they saying that we are not promoting “harmony and good feeling?” Or, is it that we are not electing to the Congress and the General Assembly “wise and patriotic men?”

These are just a couple of examples of TD editorials that leave me wondering whether it is me or the editors that have lost the power of reason. If the TD is using its bully pulpit to tell us something, wouldn’t it be better to just let us know the lesson it is trying to teach? Is there some point to what the editorial is saying? Guys, could you help me out here?

But wait, you say. Maven, aren’t you sometimes guilty of the same baffling prose? Reader, you cut me to the quick. I spend hours writing and rewriting to make sure my preaching makes sense. I am proud of the reasonableness of my writing. And, even if there are times when my writing also baffles, I have license to do so. I am a CPM (certified public maven). And that, loyal reader, has made all the difference.

The Virginia Holocaust Museum at 10

The Richmond Times-Dispatch published my letter this morning. However, the editors made some changes that subtracted from the message I was trying to convey. Further, since there may be some people outside the publishing range of our great metropolitan daily who read my rantings, I shall exercise my editorial discretion and publish the whole thing.

"Thank you for your editorial today, “An Anniversary,” acknowledging the important work being done by the Virginia Holocaust Museum. However, by prefacing your congratulations with several paragraphs describing current instances of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world, you portray the Nazi Holocaust and the ten years of work by the Museum as exclusively Jewish issues. They are not.

"Certainly the event we call the Holocaust was a disaster of unprecedented proportions for the Jewish people. Approximately six million Jews, including more than one and a half million children, were murdered by the German Nazi regime and its allies. It is also alarming that today so many people still express such animosity toward Jews. However, the Holocaust was a disaster for others in Nazi-controlled Europe. Millions of other “undesirables”—Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, mentally or physically handicapped—were murdered by the Nazis.

"In addition to being a Jewish issue, the Holocaust is a Christian issue. It is an unfortunate fact that the many thousands who participated directly in the murders and the millions of bystanders who either watched without protest or cheered the elimination of the Jews from their area of Europe were born and raised as Christians. Christians today must still address the question of how worshippers of a God of Love could have acted with such hatred towards Jews and others.

"The Holocaust is still an ongoing issue for the whole world. It is another unfortunate fact that since the end of World War II millions of defenseless humans have been “eliminated” by various regimes throughout the world in the interest of racial or ethnic or religious or political purity. We need to recognize that either through evolution or by intelligent design we humans are a very violent species. We have been endowed by our creator, or by the accident of natural selection, with a very powerful sense of xenophobia. This allows us to carry out rather nasty acts against “them” in defense of “us.”

"Finally, the Holocaust is an issue for you and me. Another of those unfortunate facts is that most of the Nazi murderers were “normal” people. How is it that someone can machinegun or shove hundreds of people into execution chambers during the day and then go home and have a normal dinner that night? It is very comforting to think that only very evil people can commit such terrible crimes. However, history shows that under certain circumstances ordinary people like you and I can be persuaded to perpetrate acts of unspeakable cruelty against our fellow humans."

You may ask, why this waste of bits and bytes when anyone can read the edited letter in the TD? Maven, is your ego so big that you can’t tolerate a little editing?

I must confess that my ego often is too big for my own good. But, this is not just a matter of the pride of authorship. The TD version misses some important issues I was trying to address.

First, the TD left out the next-to-last paragraph, highlighted above. We, as humans, especially with the power and sophistication of our weapons systems, need to realize that we have been programmed to defend our own tribe against the “other.” Perhaps, hundreds of thousands of years ago, this trait helped our ancestors to survive. In the 20th and 21st centuries, however, this inborn xenophobia (Fear and hatred of foreigners—Webster’s English Dictionary), has led to the brutal murders of tens of millions of our fellow humans. We need to know that all of us have inherited this trait and must guard against demagogic leaders who exploit this trait by urging us to purge our society of this or that group of “undesirables.” This is the most important lesson we need to learn from the Holocaust. Unfortunately, since genocide continues unabated in the world, it is clear that this lesson has still not sunken in.

Second, the TD has made a few language changes that have affected the meaning of my original letter. In one sentence in the last paragraph I asked how someone could “machinegun or shove hundreds of people into execution chambers” and go home to a normal dinner at night. The TD took out my graphic description of what the Holocaust murderers actually did and substituted the word “execute.” This is not just a matter of using a euphemism. I have read diaries of Holocaust perpetrators and they often refer to the killings they did as “executions.” One of the definitions of “execute” in Webster’s English Dictionary is “to put to death in compliance with a legal sentence.” It may have given perpetrators comfort to think that they were merely carrying out government policy. However, the people they killed were murdered, not executed.

Finally, by leaving out the little word “however,” the TD editor weakened the concluding sentences of the letter. All of us assume that only certain “evil” people could perpetrate genocide. You and I know that we are basically good people and could “never” commit atrocities. By blaming genocide on evil people, we can avoid considering what we are capable of doing. The history that the Virginia Holocaust Museum teaches us, however, shows that it is possible for “ordinary” people, like you and me, to carry out terribly evil acts.

Deja Vous—Again?

Despite my diatribe yesterday, I do read the Richmond Times Dispatch every day. Without it, I couldn’t write this blog. Where else would I get my information? The local broadcast news only reports on four things—crime, accidents, weather and sports. So, for me, it’s the TD or nothing. (Well, not exactly; I occasionally find meaningful stories in Style Weekly or the Richmond Free Press.)

In case you’re interested (and even if you’re not) this is the way I read it. First I look at the cover to see what non-news item the editors have chosen to make the lead story. Then I immediately go to the editorial/op-ed pages where all the action is. I especially pay attention to the letters to the editor. Every once in a while I’ll find a gem of inanity that deserves my “most wonderful letter of the day” award. I also like to see the kind of letter that the editors deem worthy to be their Correspondent of the Day. (For the record, my maveness has won this award; I have not.)

Well, today, the lead story on page 1 was “Richmond jail forms mental-health unit.” I guess I’ll concede that is news. The editorials consisted of a tribute to my favorite local congressman for his opposition to taxes and some kind of religious piece about Jamie Lynn Spears (who has embarked on the family’s favorite activity, teen pregnancy.) If I hadn’t attacked the editorial yesterday, I’m sure I could have found something useful in these pieces. Oh, lest I forget, I was quite impressed with the editors’ observation that “[t]he slotting of six Democrats and six Republicans in next year’s presidential primaries suggests Virginia could be a battleground.” I can only guess at the logic behind that statement.

So, I looked at the Correspondent of the Day. It was a letter asserting that the founders intended the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to apply to everybody, not just state militias. That sounded amazingly familiar. I got this eerie feeling that I had sat and read that letter before (but who knows where or when?) Counting from the time of conception, my brain is over 64 years old. And, during the dark times of the year, it only functions at about 37% capacity. So it was entirely possible that my gray matter was deceiving me. But the earlier letter seemed so real.

I went looking for an earlier TD. However, since our resident recycler allows papers to accumulate for only 36 hours in our home, I had to log onto the TD website. I looked through the letters for December 20; nothing. I looked through the letters for December 19; there it was! The Correspondent of the Day on December 19 (that’s about 48 hours ago for those of you who can count) was a letter asserting that the founders intended the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to apply to everybody, not just state militias. Wait a second! Did they mistakenly print the same letter twice? Did they mistakenly print the same letter twice? Nope—different letter, different correspondent. I started hearing the familiar music and Rod Serling’s voice saying “There’s the signpost up ahead...”

But seriously, how can the same newspaper award the same award to virtually the same letter first on December 19 and then again on December 21? The Richmond Times-Dispatch is certainly entitled to its editorial policy, although you and I find it to be rather Neanderthal. If they want to rave about Nancy Pelosi, that is their right. But, I would expect that their editorial policy would not affect their choices of what letters to print and award each day. I don’t care if they feel a lot safer packing their Glocks, they need to be objective about the letters they print.

How I long for the Brooklyn Eagle!

Would George III Be A Strong Enough Mayor?

I went to the website of the Pulitzer Prize to make sure. Yes, the 1948 prize for “distinguished editorial writing” was awarded to TD Editor Virginius Dabney, not to the Richmond Times-Dispatch itself. So, I guess the Pulitzer committee cannot retroactively rescind the award based on the current quality of TD editorials.

What, you may ask, led me to check out the Pulitzer thing? I had just finished reading today’s (December 20, 2007) lead editorial “Charter Member,” http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/editorials/more.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-20-0055.html, and I was baffled. Not that I think that today’s editorial was the worst I have read. Since I came to live in River City in 2004, I have read many TD editorials that have left me wondering whether it was me or the editors who had lost the power of reason. By comparison, today’s editorial was not that bad.

As were many Richmond citizens, the TD editorial was discussing our beloved mayor’s Tuesday speech to the Crusade for Voters. As I noted yesterday, Mr. Wilder’s remarks indicate that he is getting back into his imperial aggressive mode after a couple of months of playing mild-mannered Uncle Doug. The TD used His Excellency’s remarks to raise its repeated assertion that our city charter does not give to the mayor as much power as we the people wanted our mayor to have. In the words of the editorial,

“This summer many Richmonders learned the mayor's office was not so powerful as they may have suspected. The city has a strong personality in a relatively weak position.”

Excuse me, Mr. Editor. Are you saying that we Richmonders want a mayor who has the authority to ignore the law? Does the ruling by the District Court that Mr. Wilder cannot disregard an ordinance passed by City Council indicate that the office of mayor of Richmond is a weak position? The President of the United States governs subject to restrictions placed upon the position by the Constitution and laws enacted by the Congress. The Governor of Virginia rules subject to the Commonwealth’s constitution and the laws enacted by the General Assembly. Are you suggesting that the presidency and the governorship are weak positions?

The editorial goes on to say,

"Maybe it [Richmond’s citizenry] did not want a mayor who would have an impact on Richmond similar to the impact celebrated mayors such as Rudy Giuliani have had on the cities they are credited with reviving."

We need not examine Mr. Giuliani’s performance as mayor of New York City. There is plenty of time to do that should he win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. I need to point out, however, that through no fault of my own I grew up in New York City and I know for a fact that mayors of the Big Apple govern subject to the constitution of the State of New York and also to laws enacted by the New York legislature and ordinances enacted by the City Council of New York City. If Mr. Giuliani did “revive” New York City, he did not do it by asserting that the law did not apply to him.

We citizens do desire a mayor and City Council that will work together to make Richmond the great city it can be. However, we do not want, nor did we intend to elect, a tyrant who claims powers we have denied to our executives since 1776.

As I indicated in my October 26 post, “It Ain’t Broke, It’s Just Badly Bent,” our city charter divides power between a legislature (the City Council) and an executive (the mayor). This is the model of government that has worked very well for us for over two hundred years. The division of power keeps both the executive and the legislative branches from gaining dictatorial powers.

The penultimate paragraph of the editorial is the strangest. It explains Mr. Wilder’s expressed intention to abandon his attempts to have the charter revised to “clarify” his power. In the words of the editorial,

"Wilder's decision regarding the charter reflects political reality, alas. The city's legislative delegation did not figure to be helpful; the Assembly would have been unlikely to embrace reforms that lacked the enthusiastic backing of senior Richmond legislators. This season suggests the aptness of one of the late Henry Howell's favorite aphorisms: There's more than Santa Claus running around in the dark."

That the editor quoted Henry Howell is strange enough. Considering its editorial policy, I don’t suppose the TD had much use for Mr. Howell when he was alive. But what is the editor driving at? What’s this stuff about Santa running around in the dark? If we look at what old Howlin’ Henry actually said, the editor’s meaning becomes clearer. Mr. Howell’s adage was “There's more going around in the dark than Santa Claus, and hanky-panky is its name! “ When read with the complete quote from Howell, it becomes clear that the editor is accusing the Richmond area’s General Assembly representatives of conspiring to keep the mayor from achieving the greater powers that he somehow deserves. If, in fact, our local delegates and senators oppose Mr. Wilder’s attempt to rewrite the charter in his image they deserve our gratitude. Rather than hanky-panky, they are merely responding to the Commonwealth’s motto, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

Michael Vick: Why Should I Care?

It's so easy being a maven when you deal with the Times-Dispatch. As I predicted yesterday, the TD devoted all five columns on the front page today to the Vick story. And, I was wrong. Vick went to court today, not yesterday. So, we may very well see the main story tomorrow being about Mr. Vick.

I am trying to understand. Mr. Vick is an athlete. He comes from Virginia and played college football in Virginia. He now works in Atlanta. I cannot figure out the TD. Why is this such big news? There were at least a dozen events that happened yesterday that are far more relevant to our lives than Mr. Vicks troubles. Why didn't they make front page news?

Should I be sorry for Michael Vick? Should I have been in front of the court house protesting against dog fighting?

I have a confession to make. I don't care what happens to Michael Vick. I just want this to be over so I can find out what is actually happening in the world.

Hey, I Pay for this Rag

Somebody at our beloved Times-Dispatch has lost touch with reality. I don't know if it's the publisher or one of the vice presidents or the editor, but nobody seems to understand what the word "news" means.

Every day it's there on the front page of the main section. Another story about Michael Vick. And I know it will probably be a five-column headline tomorrow, because Mr. Vick is going to court this afternoon.

I realize that Richmond is not Metropolis and that the TD is not the Daily Planet. I also know we don't have journalists like Perry White, Lois Lane and Clark Kent. But even a cute little city like Richmond deserves a quality daily newspaper. Unfortunately, the TD doesn't seem to be it.

Every morning I read the TD. It takes me about ten minutes. Then I have to read my wife's Washington Post so I can find out what's actually going on in the world, the US of A, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Common Greater Richmonders. We have to stop putting up with this publication that has the audacity to call itself "Virginia's Newsleader."

Michael Vick, Michael Vick, Michael Vick

A few weeks ago it was two days of front page headlines in the TD that local and federal police officials were investigating the home of Michael Vick. There was a suspicion of dog-fighting. This week it was two days of front page headlines in the TD that Michael Vick and friends had been indicted on charges relating to dog-fighting.

There must be something more important going on in the world for the TD to report on than the antics of an athlete. We have problems in this city with our schools, with crime, with transportation, with the hemorrhage of the middle class population. But, all the TD can report about is Michael Vick.

Get real, guys and gals. He is only an athlete.