William - My take on the article is it looks like some kind of press release or under-developed guest column. It's filler copy, in lieu of something developed by the UTW staff. You make interesting points.
Also, what were you thinking when you published (in Davis' sports column) the line, "There may be a riot if the deal falls apart" with respect to the stadium deal? We're most likely talking about a stadium in Greenwood, which was at the center of the infamous 1921 race riot. Perhaps the columnist meant no harm (I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that point), but the line falls flat and is more tacky than anything else. An editor should have excised it from the final version.
So, you finally put together a blurb on SemGroup (in your News Update), but you included nothing on the possible impact of the firm's problems on plans for a new stadium for the Drillers. Even the sports piece by Dwayne Davis, which rambles about the stadium, doesn't get into the funding question. Reports I've seen say that Mayor Taylor had talked with SemGroup about a $7.5 million contribution, but no commitment had yet been made. The overall stadium project is to cost $60 million with some $30 million coming from private donors. There should have been something in your report on what the mayor has to say about whether the $7.5 million she discussed with SemGroup was part of the $30 million in private money she was touting at the time of the stadium vote. You should also have carried something on when the mayor knew SemGroup was in trouble.
LOL. Here we are in the midst of the SemGroup debacle and your lead items are a puffy piece about a festival and another B-list item about a borrow-a-bike program. It's been just a couple of months since you made a Valentine of a feature about Tom Kivisto your cover story. Looking back, one has to wonder why you don't appear to have asked him anything about potential pitfalls for his "empire." After all, as the TW pointed out in one of its numerous stories on SemGroup, Moody's raised a warning flag more than two years ago about Sem's debt load and penchant for acquisitions. Not having any substantial piece of reportage this week on SemGroup, after giving Kivisto the butt-kissing you gave him in that cover story leaves you with major egg on your face. Can you handle the challenge?
It is unfortunate, too, that Mr. Melcher chose to characterize the proposed legislation as a threat to science education. Science is all about free investigation, analysis and expression. Students should no more be mindlessly taught evolution than they should be barred from studying it at all. Teaching youth the history of the development of ideas is given short shrift in American K-12 ed,
None of this need require legislation or political posturing. It is unfortunate that Rep. Reynolds seems so inclined to be testy about challenges to his proposal, and it is likewise regrettable that anyone should discourage voters from being critical of legislation unless they "understand" it. Understandings may vary and criticism sparks discussion needed for clarification.
A better alternative would be for the teaching of evolutionary concepts to include a very rudimentary intellectual history of thinking about the evolution of life on earth. This would build into the coursework the fact that thoughtful people can disagree. Students from devout religious backgrounds could join the discussion by airing their anxieties.
However, an unfortunate and not unlikely result of the passage of the legislation would be adults (parents and pastors, for instance) provoking children to engage in "voluntary" expressions of dissent. This vicarious political activism could have a disruptive influence on the classroom environment.
Based on this story, it is clear that there is more at work than just an attempt to clarify for school board lawyers what the U.S. Supreme Court was trying to say. Rather, the bill accommodates the anxieties of those who reject evolution on religious grounds by insisting that their voices be heard.
Sullivan makes the case for the bill on the basis of varying interpretations of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. However, I see no indication that the bill really arose from such differences. Reynolds says a friend in Texas recommended the idea to him. It's not clear what Kern responded to, but she hardly comes across as a keen student of legal issues.
This is the most thorough consideration I've seen of what was going on April 1. If the mayor lacks influence, who is most likely to step into the vacuum? If Taylor is seen to be politically dead in the water, other egos will sense their chance to make a breakthrough.
Woo Hoo, the silence is deafening. Neither here nor on the World site is anyone really analyzing anything about the city election results. The World's editorial today was a shallow piece of self-congratulation. When I looked a few minutes ago, Batesline had said nothing new. The public isn't posting any comments. Did I miss the "Welcome to Stepford" sign somewhere?
I bet you just loved that big fat greasy "Good Job" headline on the World's editorial today about the elections. So Patrick is a "quick study"? What in Mother of Pearl is that supposed to mean? LOL. Looks like the World is feeling pretty emotionally secure today. What say you, gadfly?
Does this mean that the World doesn't have to worry about UTW or Batesline or other alternative news sources - that it can nonetheless shape public opinion sufficiently to win elections and achieve its policy goals?
I checked out your blog today for the first time and read the 2005 letter you received from the World, as well as explanatory copy that you produced then. So, as you said in 2005, it would appear the empire is striking back. The candidates it has endorsed have been elected. What now?
Still, Turner (at 75) is getting along in years. What happens when he reaches the point where he lacks the fire to run again? Who, other than the perpetual Patrick, comes forward? Surely, someone is working on that problem.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Posted by: Robert H. Smith
22 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Taxing Labor
Re: Are You Pissed Off? Tell us about it.
Re: Are You Pissed Off? Tell us about it.
Re: Are You Pissed Off? Tell us about it.
Re: Towering Babble
Re: Towering Babble
Re: Towering Babble
Re: Towering Babble
Re: Towering Babble
Re: Towering Babble
Re: The Empire Strikes Back
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day
Re: The Road to April Fool's Day