Unedited internet blogs often get posted with mistakes, mistruths and bias. In fact, it's almost a definition of today's blogs that they must be slanted and presumptuous. Regrettably, some readers believe everything they read, and the reputation of journalism as an industry suffers. [Jon M. Hunter, "Halberstam's Attention to Detail Could Be Used Today," MDL, 2007.04.24, p. 3]
This blogger agrees wholeheartedly with most of Hunter's comment. Internet blogs have a higher baloney content than my summertime lunches. Blogs are obviously and unashamedly slanted, this one included. Any reader who believes everything written in the Madville Times, just because the Madville Times says it, is thanked graciously but urged to check with other sources nonetheless.
But presumptuous? Let me take issue with just that word. This blog -- and I welcome readers' observations about other blogs -- does not presume to be anything other than what it is: one young curmudgeon-activist-teacher dad offering his commentary on life on the lake and the prairie. Nor does this blog presume to be the only voice worthy of consideration or publication. This blog certainly does not presume to decide whose opinions will be published and whose won't.
And ultimately, this blog does not presume to be a replacement for Mr. Hunter's great local paper. This blog, with an official staff of one and a half (I ask resident eco-theological powerhouse Mrs. Madville Times a question every now and then and translate her wisdom into blog fodder), picks a handful of seemingly important issues, offers some facts and comments, and opens the door for immediate public discussion. What this blogger may lack in knowledge and editorial skill is compensated at least somewhat by the diligent efforts of you loyal readers, who can quickly offer corrections, counter-evidence, and straight-up raspberries.
To emphasize, the Madville Times does not presume blogging to be journalism. Blogging here is something else, something fun and perhaps (oh, careful, maybe we are a bit presumptuous after all!) just as vital to our small community as a good daily newspaper.
Presumptuous is appropriate for Jon Hunter's editorial comments on blog content. An example of mistruths is your liberal use of the $10 Million Gym in your comments, which, as you know, was only $5.8 Million. Unfortunately, you don't put out the truth in your blog, you simply show your animosity for growth and progress. You have truly joined the ranks of Madison's group of CAVE men. Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
ReplyDeleteHi, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteAssuming your accusations are correct, presumptuous still isn't the right word. As I consult my dictionary, I find I have not "overstepped due bounds" in stating my opinion any more than you do by labeling me as being "against virtually everything" (the pages here indicate that I'm for all sorts of things, including women's rights, energy conservation, development of wind power, expansion of parks, affordable health care, local arts, and a sensible events center plan, for which I've even done supporters the courtesy of offering a Plan B).
Again on the definition of presumptuous, I certainly have not "taken liberties," at least not with the gym figures, which I calculate directly from the athletic supporters' website, which states the annual gym debt service would be $391,000 (a figure placed in small print at the bottom of the chart). Multiply that by 25 years, and you get $9,775,000. $5.8 million is the principal; the remainder is the interest we would have had to pay for doing the project through bonds instead of raising more capital now through private donations or user fees (for which no plan was ever offered during the campaign). The promoters offered no figures for operations and maintenance costs, which I baldly speculate would have pushed the overall long-term cost of this facility well over the $10 million mark. I thus stand by the $10-million figure as a reasonable estimate of the total amount of money that would have come out of taxpayers pockets to pay for the project. I welcome any and all evidence to the contrary so that should the gym supporters come back with their Plan B, we can have a clearer cost-benefit analysis.
"CAVE men" -- clever acronym! Unsupported, unevidenced, but clever rhetoric.
Oh, and to avoid any misconception, please don't presume that I'm using school time to blog -- I have the day off! Whee!
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous, Cory is correct with the $10M figure for the cost of the gym. It's not really fair to say an item costs X dollars when you are asking people to spend X + interest for said item.
ReplyDeleteAnd your CAVE men comment shows your lack of understanding of one of the reasons this did not pass. I happen to think that the gym was nicely laid out as far as location was concerned. However, it is NOT fair to ask a certain part of the people in the district to pay through the nose for this gym for the next 25 years while another segment of the district pays 0 or very little. This would only benefit a small segment of the people in the district regardless of how it was spun. And to ask another segment of the population to pay for it is not right. Please don't categorize everyone as "against virtually everything" just because we did not buy you your new playground. Try to understand some of the reasons this failed, and then address those reasons.
Find a way to pay for most of the cost by the people who will actually use it. It's touted as ecnomic benefit to the city; get the city to kick in thru the second penny sales tax; it is legal to do so.