Mobile
Monday, March 12, 2007
Citizen Servatius CITIZEN SERVATIUS: Observer, Not Petitioners Misleading Readers
Posted By Tara Servatius on Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 9:25 AM
The folks at the Charlotte Observer are in a tizzy over the idea of voters actually being allowed to have a say -- God forbid! -- on whether they want to keep the half cent sales tax for mass transit, and the multi-billion dollar boondoggle of a light rail line that goes with it.
The paper's editorial staff used words like "mislead," "unseemly" and "fraud" to describe the efforts of petition gatherers paid by the group "Stop the Train" to get the 48,000 signatures they need for a revote on the half-cent sales tax for mass transit.
But who is misleading whom? In a Tuesday editorial, the Observer's editorial board wrote this about the petition Stop the Train is circulating:
Yes, if you take the time to read the fine print legalese, you may understand you're signing to force a new vote on the transit sales tax. Many people don't read it, though.
Fine print? Legalese? You'd have to be half-blind or half-witted -- I'm not arguing that the Observer's editorial board isn't -- to describe the wording at the top of the petition that way. But don't take my word for it. Download the petition, print it out and decide for yourself.
The version online looks small, as most PDFs do when viewed online, which may have tripped the Observer up. Right now I'm looking at a copy I printed. It's exactly four feet away (I measured) and I can read every word written in what looks to be a 12-point font across the top of it.
The five-line explanation of what the petition is about was written in legal language not to confuse people, but to meet state and board of elections legal requirements. (The Observer folks know this.)
It's not hard to understand, either.
The petition clearly says the signer supports a repeal of "the levy of the one-half percent (1/2%) local sales and use tax for public transportation systems theretofore levied after a referendum in 1998."
Again, I typed that while reading the petition from four feet away.
Look for more misleading and unseemly reporting and editorializing on this from the Big O in weeks to come. The paper's executives and their golf partners have a lot riding on that train.
Friday, March 9, 2007
News NEWS: Who’s Homeless?
Posted By Karen Shugart on Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 9:50 AM
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently released a report on homelessness that estimates more than 754,000 people – or less than 0.3 percent of the United States population – were homeless at any one point in January 2005. The Charlotte Observer recently wrote that local homeless advocates say the HUD’s numbers for Charlotte are off, and the national numbers are lower than many previous calculations during similar periods. Homeless advocates nationally already have complained that the federal budget is shortchanging them. This is the first time since 1984 that HUD has reported the number of homeless people in the United States. I hear a lot of people say that Charlotte really needs to consider how it helps homeless folks. (Full disclosure: I sort mail occasionally at the Urban Ministry Center).
See the report here.
More resources about homelessness:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Mental Health Information Center
News NEWS: Guess Some People Aren’t Fans of Modern Drunkard Magazine
Posted By Karen Shugart on Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Recently, I wrote an off-the-cuff article about things to do here for five bucks.
It was intended to give people genuine ideas as well as make a few jokes. Some were, well, not too realistic. Days later, I received an e-mail from someone offended by this suggestion:
Crash an AA meeting: On the classic sitcom Golden Girls, Rose is upset by her boyfriend's excessive frugality after Miles takes her on a succession of cheap dates, including an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting that he describes as "theater of the living." I don't know if this is a well-advised idea, but hey, when you only have five bucks you have to improvise. Just be as respectful as one can possibly be when crashing a self-help group based on anonymity.
It was a joke, obviously, but here’s what the e-mailer had to say:
“I just finished reading your Cheap Thrills article and would like to comment on your addition of "Crash an AA Meeting". Just because Golden Girls made it sound amusing doesn't make it an acceptable thing for people to do. And you even state that you didn't know if it was a well-advised idea, and you were right. That should have been the first clue as to why not to print it in your article.I don't think one can be that respectful when "crashing" an AA meeting. They aren't for non addicts to get their kicks off on seeing how some people's lives have been destroyed by this disease. It's for the people who have come to rely on this group for support in a safe setting. You may have now just made it a place where someone might be hesitant to seek help wondering if there is someone there who doesn't respect anonymity.
Bad choice for a cheap thrill for your readers. I am dissapointed (sic) in Creative Loafing for this disrespect and disregard for people.”
Most of us, myself included, know someone who attends or has attended AA meetings. That it helps many people is indisputable. But is joking about AA off limits?
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Film FILM: From Oscar to ... Norbit?
Posted By Matt Brunson on Thu, Mar 8, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Ever since Luise Rainer won back-to-back Best Actress Oscars in the mid-1930s and then watched her career fade into obscurity, there's always been talk of an Oscar curse, as if winning the gold statue was a sure sign that a performer's days in the spotlight were numbered. This of course is pure nonsense — I wouldn't say that Jack Nicholson's career was curtailed in any way after winning an Academy Award for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (on the contrary, he later won two more), but certainly there have been examples of Oscar-winning thespians who, like Rainer, have largely become footnotes in the annals of film history.
One example is F. Murray Abraham. Since winning the Best Actor Oscar for Amadeus, he's appeared in 65 productions, but good luck trying to name more than a couple (many have been straight-to-DVD titles or international productions that haven't reached our shores). But the most curious example of the post-Oscar blues belongs to Cuba Gooding Jr.
Gooding earned the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for 1996's Jerry Maguire. That victory hasn't exactly translated into choice roles in acclaimed films, but neither is he going quietly into the night. Instead, Gooding has been working steadily in movies that are backed by major studios and released on thousand of screens across the nation. What's astonishing is that, with rare exception, these pictures tend to be bottom-of-the-barrel excursions, turkeys which indicate that either Gooding has the worst taste in scripts or will do anything for a buck.
What Dreams May Come, Chill Factor, Instinct, Pearl Harbor, Rat Race, Snow Dogs, Boat Trip, Radio, Norbit ... it's a depressing list.
Among this year's winners, Helen Mirren, Alan Arkin and Forest Whitaker have already established themselves, so Jennifer Hudson is the only one who needs to heed the Cuba curse.
