Please do some fact-checking! In your article (7-13 June, "He Said, He Said"), you write, "Sager also noted that he already invested $150,000 of his own money in
the project when he purchased the Jacobs Hotel building in the 1970s, and another $800,000 since then to make improvements."
Check the deeds at the court house and you will see Sager did not take ownership of the 310 E First building until 1999.
As for the $800,000 spent on improvements? Sadly, I can provide you with check copies for the improvements we made when we restored the first floor for FINALES Restaurant.
Editor's Note: We take the accuracy and reliability of our news coverage extremely seriously here at UTW, and this story was no exception. It might seem like hair-splitting, but it's worth noting that Mr. Ervin did not report that Mr. Sager purchased the building in the 1970s, but that Mr.
Sager SAID he purchased the building in the 1970s.
It would be nice to be able to check and document every single fact, trivial or otherwise, that makes its way into our paper, but that's not always possible or realistic. If we did that, we wouldn't have time for much
of anything else. As an example, when reporting on something like health care, it would be nice to be able to go to medical school to make sure each and every medical fact reported is accurate, but it's much more efficient to
just ask a doctor or some other expert, and let the readers make their own judgments on whether or not to trust that source.
And so we thank you, dear readers, "citizen journalists" all, for your feedback, amplification and news.
I understand freedom of the press and yes I fully understand editorials are just a single person's view for the most part; however journalistic integrity has to kick in at some point.
I love your paper, though sadly I may not read it any longer. The reason is that you allowed the "editorial cartoon" biased and hateful slam against OKDHS to be printed. I wonder if you are even remotely a journalist since it appears you failed to do any actual research into the fault of the most recent daycare case this piece is making "fun" of.
If you had you would not be slamming that finger of yours in the face of DHS.
I work for DHS and I give more time to my job than I have almost any other job, and let me tell you the salaries are nothing impressive. I do it to help others. All of DHS does for the most part. If you knew more of the facts about the daycare case in question you would find the blame to be spread across MANY entities, chiefly a parent.
If I were to ever place my child in the hands of another person I would want to find out as much as I can on my own, and NEVER assume anything, regardless of if they are approved or not. I would want to know their recent "report cards", I would physically do a visit myself as a parent to check them out, there are so many factors as a parent I should do.
Regardless of the situation at this point, I wanted to let you know my sever disappoint in a paper I used to think pretty highly of. I will not be reading it any more and I will be asking all of my friends to think strongly before they continue doing so also. That cartoon was hateful and rude at its best points and made "fun" of a very grim and serious event that occurred.
Editor's Note: We have only one reply. Check out our Cover Story, Page 16.
The Beauty of Tax Cuts
In a recent "Wizard of Id" comic strip, the king informs his subjects, "I'm pleased to announce that I've balanced the budget." One subject then asks another, "What does that mean?" The all-too-true (and thus only mildly funny) response is: "He spent every dime we gave him."
This is a dead-on accurate description of how the Oklahoma budget process works. The state agencies, teachers, state universities, and all the other tax consumers first spend weeks holding teary press conferences describing the millions of dollars worth of unmet needs. These figures, when you add them all up, far outstrip any estimate of the money available for that year. When the money comes in, it surely all must be spent -- and generally is -- because no matter what we have we will never meet the needs of those dependent on government.
Well, the horrible cries you have been hearing from the vicinity of 23rd and Lincoln these last few months are coming from these tax consumers and their political patrons. They have discovered that we have less money to spend than they had hoped for. It turns out that, strangely enough, recent tax cuts may have played some role in the reduction of the pie. The Tax Commission estimates that the tax cuts passed the last two years may have reduced the spending pie by as much as $300 million -- and these permanent spending cuts will increase each and every year.
These developments should go a long way to settle an intramural debate among Oklahoma conservatives. Some conservatives have been arguing that reducing spending is more pressing than cutting taxes -- or at least one should invest as much political capital in trying to cut government programs as in cutting taxes.
Others of us have argued that the only way to cut government spending is to cut taxes. Unlike with the federal government, the state requires a balanced budget -- if you cut the revenues, you have to cut the spending. Now if you had tried to cut government programs directly, the tax consumers would have trotted out the poor child, the teacher, the rural firefighter, or the correctional officer who would be hurt by the cruel cuts, and you would find yourself on the losing end of the political stick.
If, however, you cut spending by reducing taxes, all that will appear in the press is an announcement that revenue has dropped -- or, as is the case this year, that it hasn't gone up as much as projected. The whining and wailing of the tax consumers that their money has been stolen by the greedy taxpayer causes no stir at all.
So if you a hear a House or Senate leader tell you we have to cut spending before we can cut taxes, keep in mind that failing to cut taxes guarantees that we do neither.
I find it a bit interesting how I have watched J. Inhofe be so rude all the time. By all the time I mean when I see him on CSPAN channels. Since 2000, I have seen his pattern, so I know that this specific example is not a one time "bad moment" (see attachment)
Open Letter to Sen. Inhofe
23 March 2007
Senator J.M. Inhofe,
I am extremely displeased with your mode of questioning when Mr. Gore was before the Senate this week.
It IS irregardless as to whether you agree with climate change and the role humans play in it. The very foundation of "public" hearings - and any hearings is to "fact find". Note this is different from tailoring questions to manipulate the answers given. Any federal representative should avail themselves of all the info. and then evaluate appropriate actions. Furthermore, I expect as a citizen in this country, that Senators and Congresspersons will always conduct themselves with grace, modesty, courtesy and openess. This was a poor display entirely unbecoming of you, and the American identity.
We have many serious and compelling problems and issues to contend with, and none of us ever will place ourselves in an ideal position to address any of it, if the only way we probe an issue is with a "yes-or-no-answers" mindset. It is only a disservice to us all.
Understand, this is not about Gore, Democrat, Republican or conservative. I am speaking of conduct and honest intentions to problem-solve. Regarding party "b.s." I'll only say the Republicans can ill afford to have snippy and combative people leading them at this juncture (not that it is EVER appropriate anyway).
Thank you for your attention. Let me close by asking two things: 1) did YOU take the eco-pledge? If you didn't, then your attempted point, to Gore, is voided; 2) Help me understand how you have shown role-model leadership by being a part of a Congressional body which only met a mere some 105 days for 2006...was the state of our union so blissful to only require such little time devoted to working for the public?
Scott T. Shier,
College student &
Flying Under Radar--Until Now
I am writing to introduce your readers to the Fraternal Order of Eagles, I have been involved with the Fraternal Order of Eagles for more than 14 years and beginning in July of this year; I will be serving as the Membership Chairman for the state of Oklahoma. I am writing today to raise awareness of the Fraternal Order of Eagles and all the great things we are doing for our local communities, our state, and our country.
The Fraternal order of Eagles is an international non-profit organization with more than 1.1 million members worldwide. We are known throughout the United States & Canada as "People Helping People." Together, we donated more than $100 million to our local communities, charities, medical research, families in need and many more.
Oklahoma is the home to six aerie and auxiliaries, 1989-2007 we have raised over $400,000.00 for charities such as, diabetes, heart, cancer, spinal cord, child abuse, etc. 1989-2007 we have given over $460,000.00 in grants for medical research across the state including, The LaFortune Cancer Center, St. John's Health Systems, Oklahoma Health Science Center, funding research for kidney, diabetes, spinal cord, and Alzheimer's.
The Fraternal Order of Eagles, founded in 1898, has had seven United States Presidents as members, it was through the Eagles that the concept of Mothers Day was started, we sponsored America's first Workman Compensation Law, and played a major role in the fight for Social Security.
I encourage community members to reach out to your local Fraternal Order of Eagles aeries & auxiliaries. Together, we can work as one to continue being "People Helping People."
Share this article: