Jump to content
Paulding.com

Pubby just wanted you to know


Recommended Posts

I got the mailer from Paulette Rakestraw to in my mail box, that you help send. Just want you to know I don't want that kind of trash in my mailbox. I am sending it back , oh the address you had on it, she sold it last year.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Told you he was working for politicians.

What do you want, a gold star? This crap ^^ sounds so juvenile.

 

And so freaking what if he is? I am sure you would also complain if he wasn't working at all, just because that's how NON-partisan (Republican) types roll.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you want, a gold star? This crap ^^ sounds so juvenile.

 

And so freaking what if he is? I am sure you would also complain if he wasn't working at all, just because that's how NON-partisan (Republican) types roll.

And your post (a week later) isn't juvenile?

 

Hahaha. Pot meet kettle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question, maybe, kinda, a question I've asked myself before http://paulding.com/forum/topic/322926-so-its-1am-and-this-happens/?p=4058507

Are there some activities in which a person can engage that are incompatible or incongruent with the declaration of oneself to be a journalist by either vocation or avocation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question, maybe, kinda, a question I've asked myself before http://paulding.com/forum/topic/322926-so-its-1am-and-this-happens/?p=4058507

Are there some activities in which a person can engage that are incompatible or incongruent with the declaration of oneself to be a journalist by either vocation or avocation?

 

Journalism is a job that requires a specific skill set and knowledge base.

 

Like any job, if you have the skills you can do that job. What separates a good journalist from a hack is their dedication to the truth. For instance, when there was the story of the girl shot in California by the illegal immigrant, the initial story was that he had a gun and just shot here. This was the way it was played despite the fact that a judge and jury deemed the guy innocent because he found the gun and when he dropped it - at least that is one report - it accidentally discharged and killed the girl. Certainly there is proof that the kid didn't bring the gun and further proof he didn't aim it at the girl and with no intent, just an unfortunate intersection in time, the kid is innocent of murder or even reckless behavior. (Anyone unfamiliar with guns may just drop one if it takes them time to figure out what it is they're holding.)

 

A journalist would look at the story, the motives of those involved and the circumstance and say, a tragic story of an accident.

 

A propagandist would, however, dwell on the fact that kid was undocumented and 'shouldn't be here in the first place' ... Hence, even though he was in a public place, he was tresspassing and since the happenstance of a death in the commission of a felony is by definition murder. By dwelling on that circumstance, the propagandist could rile folks up into thinking this was a murder that was ignored by the authorities because they're 'liberals' who have taken down the border and are inviting criminals in to prey upon us all.

 

Heck, such propaganda in the hands of a provocateur could rally a mob to the kids house and within a few short minutes, the 'murderer' could find himself hanging from an oak tree. If you don't believe it can't happen or couldn't happen here, just ask Leo Frank, the Jewish pencil factory supervisor. Wait, you can't, because he was taken from prison by the leaders of Cobb County and hung in Marietta just over 100 years ago.

 

Propagandists and journalists often have the same skills but they do have different characters. The propagandist effort is based on the notion that the ends justify whatever means. The journalist is more about process and getting to the truth, however imperfectly they may perceive it. You can probably do numerous other jobs as well as journalism as the skills of organizing and analyzing information and coming to a conclusion as in telling a story has economic value provided one has the integrity to follow the process.

 

There is an area of journalism called advocacy journalism where the writer is acknowledged to have a point of view. You see this a lot among people writing stories about the environment or large social issues like criminal justice or even immigration. For instance, on immigration, you could be either for or against it and if you were, say against, you would point out every crime ever committed by an illegal immigrant. Similarly if you were for immigration, you would pepper your work with examples from Einstein to the Marquis De Lafayette.

 

Again, the key difference between a propagandist and a journalist - that being their fidelity to the truth - remains.

 

That said, the last time I had the official title of 'reporter' was probably 1995 just before I was named editor of the Neighbor.

 

I've fashioned myself on pcom more as a publisher than a journalist although I still do some journalism. For instance when there was a standoff at a nearby house, I covered the event as a journalist despite my being the 'publisher'.

 

I have been much more comfortable with the role of publisher as it doesn't preclude straight reporting but because being a publisher means you have the role of an actor as well as observer.

 

I think we are all old enough and wise enough to know that everyone is fallible; no one is omniscient and perfection eludes us all.

 

When I started this adventure in life, I was brought up to be respectful of others, considerate of others and concerned about what injustices existed. I wasn't of the opinion that all politicians are crooks and I always sought to take the long view of what was happening around me. I was taught to take note of history because it is the history of man, including how individual men are driven to devious ends and how their efforts were folly and how there is really nothing new under the sun.

 

One lesson from history is that while there are only a few Napoleons, Hitlers, Ceasar's and Sun Kings there are legions plotting to be the next Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. Which just goes to show us all that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. to wit:

 

 

The quote “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is often mistakenly attributed to the Irish lawyer and politician John Philpot Curran and frequently to Thomas Jefferson.

In fact, Curran’s line was somewhat different. What he actually said, in a speech in Dublin on July 10, 1790, was:

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”

And, according to Jefferson scholars there is “no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty’ or any of its variants.”

Traditionally, the most famous use of “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” that’s included in books of quotations is from a speech made by the American Abolitionist and liberal activist Wendell Phillips on January 28, 1852.

Speaking to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society that day, Phillips said:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.
The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”

However, Anna Berkes, a research librarian at the Jefferson Library, has discovered uses that predate Phillips’ speech.

In a post on the Jefferson Library blog, Berkes wrote:

“Not to be mean to Mr. Wendell Phillips, but he’s about to get slightly less famous. After two days of ridiculously feverish searching, I’ve traced the purported Phillips version of this quote all the way back to 1809. (For the record, Mr. Phillips was -2 years old at that time.)”

Berkes noted that, in a biography of Major General James Jackson published in 1809, author Thomas Charlton used the same words, just in a different order. Charlton wrote that that one of the obligations of biographers of famous people is “fastening upon the minds of the American people the belief, that ‘the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.’

Berkes also found several news articles that include the more familiar version of the line as later used by Phillips.

For example, an article in the May 2, 1833 edition of The Virginia Free Press and Farmers' Repository says:

“Some one has justly remarked, that ‘eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’ Let the sentinels on the watch-tower sleep not, and slumber not.”

One of the news articles she found, in the January 4, 1838 edition of the Pennsylvania Inquirer and Daily Courier, uses the same quote and attributes it to Thomas Jefferson — one of the earliest sources to do so.

Berkes reiterated that the consensus of Jefferson scholars is that he never spoke or wrote the words “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

She also concluded that, although Wendell Phillips still gets credit for the most famous use of that phrase, it was already a well-known saying prior to his speech in 1852.

Many witty variations on this old saying have been created since then.

My personal favorite is by the novelist Aldous Huxley.

In his spoken introduction to the 1956 CBS Radio Workshop adaptation of his novel Brave New World, Huxley said: “The price of liberty, and even of common humanity, is eternal vigilance.”

 

In this time, I sense our liberty is at stake.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Journalism is a job that requires a specific skill set and knowledge base.

 

Like any job, if you have the skills you can do that job. What separates a good journalist from a hack is their dedication to the truth. For instance, when there was the story of the girl shot in California by the illegal immigrant, the initial story was that he had a gun and just shot here. This was the way it was played despite the fact that a judge and jury deemed the guy innocent because he found the gun and when he dropped it - at least that is one report - it accidentally discharged and killed the girl. Certainly there is proof that the kid didn't bring the gun and further proof he didn't aim it at the girl and with no intent, just an unfortunate intersection in time, the kid is innocent of murder or even reckless behavior. (Anyone unfamiliar with guns may just drop one if it takes them time to figure out what it is they're holding.)

 

A journalist would look at the story, the motives of those involved and the circumstance and say, a tragic story of an accident.

 

A propagandist would, however, dwell on the fact that kid was undocumented and 'shouldn't be here in the first place' ... Hence, even though he was in a public place, he was tresspassing and since the happenstance of a death in the commission of a felony is by definition murder. By dwelling on that circumstance, the propagandist could rile folks up into thinking this was a murder that was ignored by the authorities because they're 'liberals' who have taken down the border and are inviting criminals in to prey upon us all.

 

Heck, such propaganda in the hands of a provocateur could rally a mob to the kids house and within a few short minutes, the 'murderer' could find himself hanging from an oak tree. If you don't believe it can't happen or couldn't happen here, just ask Leo Frank, the Jewish pencil factory supervisor. Wait, you can't, because he was taken from prison by the leaders of Cobb County and hung in Marietta just over 100 years ago.

 

Propagandists and journalists often have the same skills but they do have different characters. The propagandist effort is based on the notion that the ends justify whatever means. The journalist is more about process and getting to the truth, however imperfectly they may perceive it. You can probably do numerous other jobs as well as journalism as the skills of organizing and analyzing information and coming to a conclusion as in telling a story has economic value provided one has the integrity to follow the process.

 

There is an area of journalism called advocacy journalism where the writer is acknowledged to have a point of view. You see this a lot among people writing stories about the environment or large social issues like criminal justice or even immigration. For instance, on immigration, you could be either for or against it and if you were, say against, you would point out every crime ever committed by an illegal immigrant. Similarly if you were for immigration, you would pepper your work with examples from Einstein to the Marquis De Lafayette.

 

Again, the key difference between a propagandist and a journalist - that being their fidelity to the truth - remains.

 

That said, the last time I had the official title of 'reporter' was probably 1995 just before I was named editor of the Neighbor.

 

I've fashioned myself on pcom more as a publisher than a journalist although I still do some journalism. For instance when there was a standoff at a nearby house, I covered the event as a journalist despite my being the 'publisher'.

 

I have been much more comfortable with the role of publisher as it doesn't preclude straight reporting but because being a publisher means you have the role of an actor as well as observer.

 

I think we are all old enough and wise enough to know that everyone is fallible; no one is omniscient and perfection eludes us all.

 

When I started this adventure in life, I was brought up to be respectful of others, considerate of others and concerned about what injustices existed. I wasn't of the opinion that all politicians are crooks and I always sought to take the long view of what was happening around me. I was taught to take note of history because it is the history of man, including how individual men are driven to devious ends and how their efforts were folly and how there is really nothing new under the sun.

 

One lesson from history is that while there are only a few Napoleons, Hitlers, Ceasar's and Sun Kings there are legions plotting to be the next Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. Which just goes to show us all that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. to wit:

 

 

In this time, I sense our liberty is at stake.

 

pubby

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our liberty was in question during Obama's eight years, and would have been in grave danger had Hillary won. By the time she got done with the Supreme Court, it would have looked like George Soros' dream team.

Whatever faults Trump has are relatively minor compared to what Hillary would have brought us.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Journalism is a job that requires a specific skill set and knowledge base.

 

Like any job, if you have the skills you can do that job. What separates a good journalist from a hack is their dedication to the truth. For instance, when there was the story of the girl shot in California by the illegal immigrant, the initial story was that he had a gun and just shot here. This was the way it was played despite the fact that a judge and jury deemed the guy innocent because he found the gun and when he dropped it - at least that is one report - it accidentally discharged and killed the girl. Certainly there is proof that the kid didn't bring the gun and further proof he didn't aim it at the girl and with no intent, just an unfortunate intersection in time, the kid is innocent of murder or even reckless behavior. (Anyone unfamiliar with guns may just drop one if it takes them time to figure out what it is they're holding.)

 

A journalist would look at the story, the motives of those involved and the circumstance and say, a tragic story of an accident.

 

A propagandist would, however, dwell on the fact that kid was undocumented and 'shouldn't be here in the first place' ... Hence, even though he was in a public place, he was tresspassing and since the happenstance of a death in the commission of a felony is by definition murder. By dwelling on that circumstance, the propagandist could rile folks up into thinking this was a murder that was ignored by the authorities because they're 'liberals' who have taken down the border and are inviting criminals in to prey upon us all.

 

Heck, such propaganda in the hands of a provocateur could rally a mob to the kids house and within a few short minutes, the 'murderer' could find himself hanging from an oak tree. If you don't believe it can't happen or couldn't happen here, just ask Leo Frank, the Jewish pencil factory supervisor. Wait, you can't, because he was taken from prison by the leaders of Cobb County and hung in Marietta just over 100 years ago.

 

Propagandists and journalists often have the same skills but they do have different characters. The propagandist effort is based on the notion that the ends justify whatever means. The journalist is more about process and getting to the truth, however imperfectly they may perceive it. You can probably do numerous other jobs as well as journalism as the skills of organizing and analyzing information and coming to a conclusion as in telling a story has economic value provided one has the integrity to follow the process.

 

There is an area of journalism called advocacy journalism where the writer is acknowledged to have a point of view. You see this a lot among people writing stories about the environment or large social issues like criminal justice or even immigration. For instance, on immigration, you could be either for or against it and if you were, say against, you would point out every crime ever committed by an illegal immigrant. Similarly if you were for immigration, you would pepper your work with examples from Einstein to the Marquis De Lafayette.

 

Again, the key difference between a propagandist and a journalist - that being their fidelity to the truth - remains.

 

That said, the last time I had the official title of 'reporter' was probably 1995 just before I was named editor of the Neighbor.

 

I've fashioned myself on pcom more as a publisher than a journalist although I still do some journalism. For instance when there was a standoff at a nearby house, I covered the event as a journalist despite my being the 'publisher'.

 

I have been much more comfortable with the role of publisher as it doesn't preclude straight reporting but because being a publisher means you have the role of an actor as well as observer.

 

I think we are all old enough and wise enough to know that everyone is fallible; no one is omniscient and perfection eludes us all.

 

When I started this adventure in life, I was brought up to be respectful of others, considerate of others and concerned about what injustices existed. I wasn't of the opinion that all politicians are crooks and I always sought to take the long view of what was happening around me. I was taught to take note of history because it is the history of man, including how individual men are driven to devious ends and how their efforts were folly and how there is really nothing new under the sun.

 

One lesson from history is that while there are only a few Napoleons, Hitlers, Ceasar's and Sun Kings there are legions plotting to be the next Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. Which just goes to show us all that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. to wit:

 

 

In this time, I sense our liberty is at stake.

 

pubby

 

Did anybody actually read all that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody actually read all that?

There is an old saying. When you can't blind'em with brilliance, bury'em in bull s**t.

There was a whole lot there, having nothing to do with anything other than an opportunity to bloviate, that covers up an answer to a long side stepped question slid in towards the end. One that could be easily questioned with a word search I imagine. Only the most dedicated would wade thru that word swamp to get to it. It's the kind of thing one does when the straight answer is "inconvenient".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...