Somebody's Bad Day Just Got a Little Worse
Re: 2 Good 2 B True
Reading 2 Good 2 B True was like reading the diary of a stoned sixteen year old. It was utterly impossible to follow.
Did you seriously MEAN to publish this story? Did you read it first? Please, tell me the wrong one went to print and this version was the one you totally tore apart, handed back Michael Miner (the writer), and told him you wouldn't wipe you ass with this piece of shit.
As read the article I could see squalls of red handwriting, question marks, and those long arrows telling me to switch paragraph order like on my essays in High School.
It's the wrong version right? You didn't just publish the biggest piece of shit since my essay on the Scarlett Letter in the 11th grade did you? Because, if this is all you've got... I can absolutely dig up something I've written about the Economic Revolution or King Lear circa Shawnee High School, 1995. And yes, I was high and in the 11th grade when I wrote them, but at least I would EDIT them so they are suitable for publication... even if it is the READER. (Which, after reading this shitatious story, makes me think the RedEye deserves a Pulitzer.) —Meghan DeLong
The Straussian Debate Continues
Re: "Defending Strauss" by Julie Englander, August 24, 2007
I came to read Strauss through reading Bloom and I came to read Bloom through reading Plato and I came to read Plato because I was in the Great Books Program at the University of Notre Dame.
To offer an argument to both Brian Leiter and Another UofC Kid, perhaps no one in philosophy or political science departments take Strauss seriously because no one in philosophy or political science departments take Plato seriously. "Long live Karl Popper!" they shout as they try to produce mathematical models that hash out a modernist utopia. Or perhaps they ironically yawp, "Long live Derrida!" as they play Wittgensteinian word games that justify their post-modern nihilism. —Steve McDevitt
Will They or Won't They?
Re: "Colonel McCormick, Get Ready to Roll Over: Is this the year the Tribune will endorse its first Democrat for president?" by Michael Miner, September 25
I thought the Trib had already endorsed Obama because of their slanted reporting. So now it's going to be official? —fh
I canceled my subscription in 2004 when the Tribune endorsed Bush. And after this week's absurdity out of the McCain camp, I can't imagine how the Trib can justify an endorsement of that man. It can always abstain from endorsing either candidate if it would be too earth-shattering to endorse Obama. —Beth 4158
Prediction: Under pressure from higher-ups, Dold and staff endorse Obama. Disdainful of it all, they offer a weak argument and barely explain the "seismic shift," because they know it's all about making money. —DAS
All bets are off. I've worked at the Tribune and I can honestly say that they used to be proud of their "union-busting" and Republican position. But frankly, regardless of Zell's political leanings (anyone care to guess what they are?), it's evident that what Tribune Co. values above all is money. Therefore, whatever position will get them the most money will be the one they endorse. Or maybe they will simply waffle away, as McCain has done, and hope no one notices. —ATB
I work for the (formerly) union-busting LA Times—small world, eh?, and am happy to report that things are just as confused out here as news stories indicate. We have no idea who the paper will back, but we must keep in mind that it was the driving force behind RMN's election to the presidency. Of course, that was when the hated Chandler crowd, but not Otis of hallowed memory, was in charge. We are mostly still happy with the change from the absentee owners, but still have plenty of doubts about Zell and his mystical crew of soothsayers. One question, however, from one not in the know about the old Tribune of the Colonel: Was he as much of a SOB to his employees as was the departed CEO of Tribune? —Driscoll
Dream on, Mr. Miner. The Trib not only has never endorsed a Dem for prez, but, to my knowledge, it's only endorsed only two such for U.S. Senator (the fact Obama was one doesn't shake my conviction on whom it will endorse for prez next month) and never for governor (indeed, once endorsing, as you'll recall, a man it earlier said deserved neither trust nor honor).
ATB, is your question rhetorical? I recall a profile of Zell in the New Yorker that made his politics quite clear—and give me still more certainty about its pending McCain endorsement.
Driscoll, I thought it was the policy of the LAT not to endorse presidential candidates, its machinations for So Cal pols you note aside. —Flyby Reader
Maybe the Trib will endorse... no one. —The_Little_Pig
Little Pig—the Trib declined to endorse when Braun ran against Williamson for the U.S. Senate in '92. The editorial, as I recall, was disdainful of both candidates. I can't see it being similarly disdainful of both McCain and Obama. Even if it were, it'd still pick McCain. See, for example, its endorsement of Reagan in '84. —Flyby Reader
While this is amusing to read. Fact is the Tribune has sunk into an abyss of irrelevance.... no one cares anymore about endorsements, and they hold NO influence in the way people vote. They haven't for 30 years... —Neal Niemiec
Neal—thirty? I might have guessed a few times that... —Flyby Reader
"As the Times didn't spell out its own position on undermining..."
Gee, I wonder what those positions might be. Maybe Miner should be reading the NYT a bit more often. He could learn a thing or two.
"... honoring its roots and traditions by making the best case for the Republican presidential nominee there is to make..."
Wow, only among our local media would such an approach be considered, in the terms of Miner, a "good reason."
There's nothing "honorable" about endorsing someone just because that's the way you've always done things. It's might get you invited back to the Union League Club but it doesn't do anything good for our country. —leo
The content of the paper has been mainstream milquetoast moderate-liberal for decades. The GOP endorsement policy was just to fool the old-timers who made up the bulk of the subscriber base. But, as everyone knows, by now newspaper endorsements have reached the point of complete unimportance, so it doesn't matter what they do. —san jose
The Chicago Tribune has always been a Chuck Percy Republican paper—which is to say, not very Republican at all. —Tim1979
Puhleeze! The tribune would endorse a dead rat for president as long as it knew the rat was a republican. —Paul Waterhouse, North Center
I canceled my subscription 4 years ago when the Trib endorsed Bush again. If they're concerned with a declining subscriber base they can look to themselves for a reason why. The TRIBUNE endorsed and is partly responsible for the WORST presidency in American history. —PulSamsara