Changes at newspapers; some for the better and some for the worse
After some 50 years as a daily newspaper subscriber, I cancelled our subscription to Lane County’s daily paper. I have always been a fan of the opinion sections of papers from our time living in the Chicago area with the Tribune, Southern California with the LA Times and here in Florence. As an equal opportunity reader, I also have subscribed to the online Washington Post.
In addition to columnists like economist Paul Krugman, political writers like Dana Milbank, Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gerson, I also like to read the opinions in the letters columns.
With the recent change in ownership, our nearest daily newspaper has narrowed down in providing, not just a cross section of opinion pieces, but other features that have been of interest to me. So when the Tribune recently offered several weeks of its e-edition at no cost, I decided to give it a try. The difference in what they provide compared to what I had been used to was startling.
True, the first few pages were slanted heavily towards Chicago area news, but the depth of coverage of all other areas turned out to be a satisfying experience.
When I took a look at the recent subscription rates to our local daily, I was quite surprised. In 2010, the annual cost was $189.
By 2014, it had risen to $260.
And last year, it was $322.
In contrast, the Washington Post online is $4 a month.
Now on to the Siuslaw News. As our local daily has deteriorated, our local twice-a-week paper has improved in quality over the last year or so. Important topics of interest to the Florence community get in-depth coverage.
The opinion page is nearly always entertaining, if not enlightening. However, one problem is that there are just a few writers contributing to the letters column, at least just a few who get published on a regular basis. By now, one only need look at the subject of the letter and the name at the bottom to be able to predict quite accurately what the writer will say.
One last question: Whatever happened to that guy who used to write those humor columns?
The numbers of his columns have dropped sharply.
Has he lost his sense of humor?
Innovative tax idea
I am a concerned native-born Oregonian. My concern is our state’s financial future, specifically our schools. Education should be a priority for us all.
I am aware that my proposal might or possibly will disgust and surprise many in our lovely state, but please at least read this and consider this proposal as a legitimate idea.
I am proposing a state sales tax ... but a sales tax not on Oregonians, but only for those passing through this incredible state. Why would we not want to collect sales taxes on those who travel through and enjoy our state?
I don’t believe this tax on passers through would negatively affect tourism; sales taxes have never deterred my travels to where I wanted to go.
And, this proposed sales tax will not be on you or on me!
—Sheldon Meyer, PhD
Where are the cries of ‘un-American’ then?
A friend of mine sent me an email which I deem worthy of passing on. Knowing Ned Hickson, this paper’s editor, he won’t print anything without some kind of verification, so I verified this article by going to Google and typing in McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which is a law that has been on the books for 66 years.
The article stated that President Donald Trump was severely criticized for suggesting the U.S. should temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities and even people of certain religions (Muslims). They said it was un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless and racist.
This Act of 1952 allows for suspension of entry or imposition of restriction by a president whenever that president finds the entry of aliens or any class of alien into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.
A president may, by proclamation and for such time as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien, immigrants or non-immigrant, or impose any restriction on the entry of aliens he deems to be appropriate.
Harry Truman was president when this was passed by the 82nd U.S. Congress over the president’s veto, with a vote of 278 to 113 in the House, and 57 to 26 in the Senate.
Who last used this Act?
Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, 39 years ago in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the U.S. He had 7,000 Iranian students deported for being in violation of their visas. A total of 15,000 Iranians in all were forced to leave the USA.
So what was all this criticism by Democrat senators, representatives, members of the Obama Administration and liberal democrats and judges?
There was no cry of un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless and racist as I recall back then when a liberal Democrat sat in the Oval Office — so why now ?
It’s just more party biases as I see it.
(Editor’s nore: It’s important to note that President Jimmy Carter initiated sanctions against Iran in 1980, including the cancellation of visas for Iranian citizens, a cessation of diplomatic relations, a prohibition on trade and a moratorium on new visas (with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations) in response to Iranian terrorists’ having invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, during which 50 American citizens were takern hostage.)