Replies

Having read your about page, I regret having to differ, but here is why. I grew up in the area, knew both reporters and management of both papers, and based my post on those data.

Who pays the Piper does call the tune - in most cases. The Poynter Institute has been left wing since its inception. And Poynter owns controlling stock in the St. Pete Times.

While Poynter will happily cover corporate abuses because this is part of the Critical Theory approach, their coverage of agency abuses is conspicuously different.

Agency abuse is often based upon powers derived from the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Endangered Species Act. As science has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, the Indigenous fire managed North America since the Quaternary Extinctions. Such anthropogenic fires rendered the Wilderness Act's definition of "wilderness" as "an area of the earth and it's community of life that is untrammelled by the presence of man" rather a moot point, wouldn't you agree?

Knowing this, The Times/Poynter has continued to relentlessly beat the drums for the enviro-socialist agenda. Such editorial agenda-driven management is why I criticized the Times.

Another reason is that to advocate giving land to government to "preserve the land" is a historically proven way to degrade land. As proof consider the lamentable condition of the old USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea and our National Park system.

Yet the Times has never met a government land acquisition it opposed. As an old girl friend's professor Mom said "I can't hear what they are saying for what they are doing." If the Times talks enviro-socialism, supports enviro-socialism, it can be said to have an enviro-socialist agenda.

Arguably, this is the proximate cause for the inarguable fact that the Times has not covered the multitudinous abuses of both Unalienable Rights and property rights which in any significant manner while the pro enviro-socialist agenda de jury was voluminously covered.

While I can (and would enjoy) discussing the voluminous evidence of enviro-socialism's widespread dominance of lamestream media management minds (term used loosely), I do have to return to the interior of the Everglades where my research facility suffered the multiple visits of embedded tornadoes in te southern eye wall of Wilma.

In closing, since you saw fit to refer to my post as "pure bovine scatology" I will take a moment to point out that as scatology is the study of feces, a more accurate phrase would have been "pure bovine exhaust (byproduct, etc.).

I also find that your defense of the Times/Poynter agenda might just be motivated by the fact that the Times/Poynter bias against corporate/capitalism serves your firm and litigation interests.

Which is not to say that I disagree in anyway with the dangers of massive corporations and the unavoidable abuses that size and bureaucratization bring to such huge enterprises.

Best of luck in your attempts to bring "justice" to the citizen. Having been present in the court room when the most egregious abuses of clients were carried out by some of America's and certainly FloriDUH's most prestigious law firms, do forgive me if i am unimpressed with FloriDUH's courts and the Times/Poynter agendas.

FloriDUH has degenerate courts and newspapers to match. The Tampa Tribune is somewhat of an exception and the demographics are represented by the paper's different editorial perspectives.

Gotta crank up the Rangie and run.