There are certainly links between poverty and crime, but it's not what most people think, at least not in this country. Crime went down during both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Being "impoverished" can mean a lot of things, not necessarily food and money. The majority of people that turn to crime in one way or another feel they have "less to lose" https://www.city-journal.org/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand
"Racism is discrimination on steroids, powered by privileges given to those in the culturally dominant race. In the United States, it’s a bias with a pickax. It’s a prejudice with the weight of 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow laws and history behind it. That’s a distinction that has sometimes been hard for white people, myself included, to discern."
This is poppycock. A system in which there is a "culturally dominant race" is, by definition "racist." In addition, if you are on the receiving end of "bias with a pickax" you probably think that the colour of your skin is somehow involved. People like Reeder (who he?) would be more gainfully employed combatting injustice rather than trying to parse names for that injustice in a verbal angels on a pinhead paragraph.
Just the usual right-wing smart alec. Angling for a slot on the NYTimes with Douthat, Stephens, etc.--the better class than the right-wing goons on the Washington post like Olsen, Theissen, etc. If you are on the receiving end of a pickax, who cares which name applies to the person wielding the ax?
Wrong: having a culturally dominant race is not, by definition, racist. It is racist if a plurality of its populace believes any one race to be intellectually superior to all others.
We have not cut the cord yet because my husband likes cable for the sports, yes, including Marquee for the Cubs. However, we did make some what of a Ricketts protest. We, and others in our group, gave up 5 season tickets to the Cubs which we have held since 1986.
I do like the ale carte cable approach. For us, it would include sports and TCM only!
I found it ironic that on the day you're polling about the pre-eminence of Chicago's two dailies (both of which are mere shells of their prior journalistic vigor) your item on the use of [sic] used an example where the Sun Times copy editor failed to note (unlike you, who caught it) that Ald. Austin incorrectly used the word "it's" in place of the correct "its". Would a properly staffed Sun-Time newsroom have missed that one?
The newspaper is reporting - verbatim - what the original author wrote (which is what newspapers do). Historically, newspapers wanted to make it clear to their readers that it was not the newspaper whose English was incorrect - it was the original author's incorrect usage - hence the use of [sic] in the newspapers' reporting. The reading public used to be able look up to newspapers as paragons of proper English usage; and news editors were proud of that role. Few newspapers today are properly staffed to be able to continue in this role.
Yes, that “pouring” definitely calls for a “sic”. It’s also, alas, a textbook example of how much our cultural literacy just continues to dwindle and fade. It may seem a trivial error to most people, but as you point out, it’s the front page a major metropolitan daily.
It appears that the mistake you cite wouldn't call for "sic." It would call for the reporter/copy editor using the correct spelling. No sic needed. But -- definitely ignorance!
I'm a Sun-Times devotee. But I find that when local news comes up in conversation, the Tribune is the standard reference for people. If the papers were facial tissues, the Trib is Kleenex, and Sun-Times is Puffs.
Walgreens---medications (for women only) are "indecent materials"? Whaaaa? Thank you DOJ for not set us up for going back 200 years...this time.
Marquee---we were happy to have it included when we changed platforms only to learn we are locked out because we live to close to Wrigley. Um...we live about 300 miles away.
UnFoxing-I went to share this on FB as it's a great great idea but was routed to "Media Matters America's" FB page and it was not there that I could find. I'm going to do it anyway..Zorn could you follow up to see how many actually do that. I'm skeptical that it would ever happen. Carlson is on a short list of people "I'm very close to hating"; it's a sad state of affairs that citizens cannot believe something is true when there's hard documentation...
Vallas-paranoid right wing clap trap indeed. Why would parents discipline children for learning facts?...oh yeah, that's the world we live in.
Thanks for not 'sicing' and the great tweets this week..loved the baby phones
No shopping at Walgreen’s because X; drop Disney because Y; wish for politically segregated cable packages; no more Tesla or Ben and Jerry’s because politics over products and quality. If you get enjoyment out of buying based on politics, I guess you are getting your money’s worth, but I leave that out of the decision and enjoy the product. My plenty progressive daughter loves Ben and Jerry’s and only wants Oberweis’ skim milk, and she gets such pleasure out of both. Smart kid!
Is it smart to buy products you like from folks who contribute money to politicians and political action committees who are trying to enact legislation that goes against your interests? I imagine Chik-Fil-A sandwiches taste good, but I will never know because the owner of Chik-Fil-A, who gets rich from purchases of Chik-Fil-A products, donates a significant amount of money to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and groups, and those politicians and groups are enacting laws that hurt me and my community. The idea that politics should not enter into our commercial decisions reminds me a little of V. I. Lenin’s famous quotation: “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.”
Sounds like an argument Lenin would make. While he’s enjoying his People’s Flakes, I’ll eat delicious Morning Summit, the worlds best cereal, without considering its 2nd order politics.
Thank you for this comment. Because it illustrates what I said above about white heterosexual cis-gender privilege. You don’t have to worry about your purchases funding groups seeking to enact legislation taking away your healthcare or your ability to use a public bathroom or to approve facilities that emit environmental pollutants in your neighborhood. Okay. But then don’t try to sell me the idea that we don’t have white heterosexual cis-gender privilege in this country.
I stopped going to Walgreens some time ago for customer service reasons. I've had bad luck with the ones near me -- people not nice, long lines, missed appointments, screw-ups with refills, etc. I tried CVS, which can boast carpet tiles and an admirable refusal to sell tobacco products. But the pharmacy was one of those arrogant pharmacies, where they're like, look, the white coat means, yeah, you're going to be standing around for a while before I acknowledge your presence, okay? I'm now exclusively an Osco person. The one I use is super nice and quick.
The CVS in our local Target gives better service than their stand alone store, and the OTC prices are a lot cheaper. Walgreens has deteriorated over the years in general, and you wait forever for pre-ordered prescription pickup. I'm switching to mail order.
I'm ok with boycotts, but why aren't other pharmacies publicly stepping up to provide what Walgreens won't? I believe they're cowered as well by the far right. How long before others refuse services and medications that are legal?
I switched to CVS because it was very easy to find and schedule my COVID vaccines. I then discovered that they are properly integrated with Rush and the Rush doctors, so my medical record was properly updated. But I have noticed the behavior you mentioned in the pharmacy staff.
Yep, time to boycott Wallgreens. They chose to cave to conservative pressure to infringe on women's inalienable right to control their own life and that must not be tolerated. The fact is that Dobb's is unconstitutional and will be repealed or overruled by a future court as being so, such as Lawrence v Texas.
Article III provides no power to the SCOTUS to nullify rights as explained in the Federalist #84. Read both and you'll see. If someone doesn't, then they are a conservative and as conservatives do not believe in rights by definition, that would be expected. conservatives have no place on any court for that reason.
I think that Prof. Terry is correct about the effect of ala carte pricing. But while he may be thrilled by 'cutting them off at the knees' for Fox, he should acknowledge the same effect on MSNBC and CNN. FOX has 30% more viewers than MSNBC and twice as many as CNN. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-the-cable-news-ratings-for-january-2023/523190/
If the number of people willing to pay for a service is a fraction of viewers, then the impact will be worse for the smaller players. As with newspapers, there are few people that are willing to pay what the product costs.
The idea of 'red' and 'blue' bundling is interesting but would increase the echo chamber aspect of media consumption and reduce the ability of interested viewers to sample or routinely consume alternative media.
In the end, this may be moot, as more media migrates to streaming platforms. An all-news and commentary streaming platform might be able to support a subscriber base but would probably have to include all of the largest products and not go 'red' and 'blue'.
Good luck boycotting Walgreen's if you have pricey prescriptions and are enrolled in an ACA or Medicare plan. You have the choice of paying out of pocket (no prob if you're a Rickets or Pritzker, but tough for most of us) or shopping during open enrollment for 2024 this fall for the best deal that doesn't involve Walgreen's, finally being able to switch when the new choice goes into effect in January. I'll pick up toothpaste and cough drops somewhere else for now, and will see what all of the pharmacies are doing about abortion pills on the fall, but if Walgreen's remains the only affordable source of a must-hav, pricey medication, that's where we'll commit to buy it in 2024.
Maybe Walgreens is just being careful. It wasn't very long ago that it paid something like $5.7 billion for dispensing opioids that were declared safe and legal by the FDA.
I have to disagree with you Eric on discontinuing the use of [sic] to indicate that the speaker or writer quoted used incorrect grammar. In many, but not all, cases I find the use of incorrect grammar diminishes the credibility of the speaker or writer for me on the subject matter. (But then again, grammar is probably racist. Why? Because everything is racist now, you can look it up! 😁)
There's plenty of reporting on the link between poverty and crime.
https://tinyurl.com/52xh55te
There are certainly links between poverty and crime, but it's not what most people think, at least not in this country. Crime went down during both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Being "impoverished" can mean a lot of things, not necessarily food and money. The majority of people that turn to crime in one way or another feel they have "less to lose" https://www.city-journal.org/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand
I had a hard time with the "tweet poll." Several were very funny--a higher % than usual. Well collected!
Good to hear. You can always vote for more than one!
Seconded.
I agree! I voted for a majority--but loved the shell pasta/surgeon/ yacht
"Racism is discrimination on steroids, powered by privileges given to those in the culturally dominant race. In the United States, it’s a bias with a pickax. It’s a prejudice with the weight of 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow laws and history behind it. That’s a distinction that has sometimes been hard for white people, myself included, to discern."
This is poppycock. A system in which there is a "culturally dominant race" is, by definition "racist." In addition, if you are on the receiving end of "bias with a pickax" you probably think that the colour of your skin is somehow involved. People like Reeder (who he?) would be more gainfully employed combatting injustice rather than trying to parse names for that injustice in a verbal angels on a pinhead paragraph.
I didn't really get it...
Just the usual right-wing smart alec. Angling for a slot on the NYTimes with Douthat, Stephens, etc.--the better class than the right-wing goons on the Washington post like Olsen, Theissen, etc. If you are on the receiving end of a pickax, who cares which name applies to the person wielding the ax?
Wrong: having a culturally dominant race is not, by definition, racist. It is racist if a plurality of its populace believes any one race to be intellectually superior to all others.
I'm no zoologist, but aren't chimpanzees apes?
Yeah, but they are not silverback gorillas, which is why the tweet ultimately falls
We have not cut the cord yet because my husband likes cable for the sports, yes, including Marquee for the Cubs. However, we did make some what of a Ricketts protest. We, and others in our group, gave up 5 season tickets to the Cubs which we have held since 1986.
I do like the ale carte cable approach. For us, it would include sports and TCM only!
I found it ironic that on the day you're polling about the pre-eminence of Chicago's two dailies (both of which are mere shells of their prior journalistic vigor) your item on the use of [sic] used an example where the Sun Times copy editor failed to note (unlike you, who caught it) that Ald. Austin incorrectly used the word "it's" in place of the correct "its". Would a properly staffed Sun-Time newsroom have missed that one?
I don't recall teachers using "sic" when correcting written material. A typo is a typo is a typo
The newspaper is reporting - verbatim - what the original author wrote (which is what newspapers do). Historically, newspapers wanted to make it clear to their readers that it was not the newspaper whose English was incorrect - it was the original author's incorrect usage - hence the use of [sic] in the newspapers' reporting. The reading public used to be able look up to newspapers as paragons of proper English usage; and news editors were proud of that role. Few newspapers today are properly staffed to be able to continue in this role.
The Tribune front page today refers to some people "pouring over timetables." That's not a typo, it is ignorance.
Yes, that “pouring” definitely calls for a “sic”. It’s also, alas, a textbook example of how much our cultural literacy just continues to dwindle and fade. It may seem a trivial error to most people, but as you point out, it’s the front page a major metropolitan daily.
It appears that the mistake you cite wouldn't call for "sic." It would call for the reporter/copy editor using the correct spelling. No sic needed. But -- definitely ignorance!
Yeah, that occurred to me after the fact. “Sic” could be applied if the line was quoted and reprinted anywhere else.
I'm a Sun-Times devotee. But I find that when local news comes up in conversation, the Tribune is the standard reference for people. If the papers were facial tissues, the Trib is Kleenex, and Sun-Times is Puffs.
"Puffs" is right. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/1/24/23564273/five-nurses-berwyn-macneal-hospital-birthing-center-baby-boom
We should also boycott Walgreens for what they've done to the refrigerated section, swapping out the clear glass doors for annoying video screens.
Walgreens---medications (for women only) are "indecent materials"? Whaaaa? Thank you DOJ for not set us up for going back 200 years...this time.
Marquee---we were happy to have it included when we changed platforms only to learn we are locked out because we live to close to Wrigley. Um...we live about 300 miles away.
UnFoxing-I went to share this on FB as it's a great great idea but was routed to "Media Matters America's" FB page and it was not there that I could find. I'm going to do it anyway..Zorn could you follow up to see how many actually do that. I'm skeptical that it would ever happen. Carlson is on a short list of people "I'm very close to hating"; it's a sad state of affairs that citizens cannot believe something is true when there's hard documentation...
Vallas-paranoid right wing clap trap indeed. Why would parents discipline children for learning facts?...oh yeah, that's the world we live in.
Thanks for not 'sicing' and the great tweets this week..loved the baby phones
No shopping at Walgreen’s because X; drop Disney because Y; wish for politically segregated cable packages; no more Tesla or Ben and Jerry’s because politics over products and quality. If you get enjoyment out of buying based on politics, I guess you are getting your money’s worth, but I leave that out of the decision and enjoy the product. My plenty progressive daughter loves Ben and Jerry’s and only wants Oberweis’ skim milk, and she gets such pleasure out of both. Smart kid!
Is it smart to buy products you like from folks who contribute money to politicians and political action committees who are trying to enact legislation that goes against your interests? I imagine Chik-Fil-A sandwiches taste good, but I will never know because the owner of Chik-Fil-A, who gets rich from purchases of Chik-Fil-A products, donates a significant amount of money to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and groups, and those politicians and groups are enacting laws that hurt me and my community. The idea that politics should not enter into our commercial decisions reminds me a little of V. I. Lenin’s famous quotation: “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.”
Sounds like an argument Lenin would make. While he’s enjoying his People’s Flakes, I’ll eat delicious Morning Summit, the worlds best cereal, without considering its 2nd order politics.
Thank you for this comment. Because it illustrates what I said above about white heterosexual cis-gender privilege. You don’t have to worry about your purchases funding groups seeking to enact legislation taking away your healthcare or your ability to use a public bathroom or to approve facilities that emit environmental pollutants in your neighborhood. Okay. But then don’t try to sell me the idea that we don’t have white heterosexual cis-gender privilege in this country.
Shopping is hard! Full of ideological land mines.
It is if you don’t want to provide money to people who will use it to hurt you or your community.
I stopped going to Walgreens some time ago for customer service reasons. I've had bad luck with the ones near me -- people not nice, long lines, missed appointments, screw-ups with refills, etc. I tried CVS, which can boast carpet tiles and an admirable refusal to sell tobacco products. But the pharmacy was one of those arrogant pharmacies, where they're like, look, the white coat means, yeah, you're going to be standing around for a while before I acknowledge your presence, okay? I'm now exclusively an Osco person. The one I use is super nice and quick.
The CVS in our local Target gives better service than their stand alone store, and the OTC prices are a lot cheaper. Walgreens has deteriorated over the years in general, and you wait forever for pre-ordered prescription pickup. I'm switching to mail order.
I'm ok with boycotts, but why aren't other pharmacies publicly stepping up to provide what Walgreens won't? I believe they're cowered as well by the far right. How long before others refuse services and medications that are legal?
I switched to CVS because it was very easy to find and schedule my COVID vaccines. I then discovered that they are properly integrated with Rush and the Rush doctors, so my medical record was properly updated. But I have noticed the behavior you mentioned in the pharmacy staff.
Yep, time to boycott Wallgreens. They chose to cave to conservative pressure to infringe on women's inalienable right to control their own life and that must not be tolerated. The fact is that Dobb's is unconstitutional and will be repealed or overruled by a future court as being so, such as Lawrence v Texas.
Article III provides no power to the SCOTUS to nullify rights as explained in the Federalist #84. Read both and you'll see. If someone doesn't, then they are a conservative and as conservatives do not believe in rights by definition, that would be expected. conservatives have no place on any court for that reason.
I think that Prof. Terry is correct about the effect of ala carte pricing. But while he may be thrilled by 'cutting them off at the knees' for Fox, he should acknowledge the same effect on MSNBC and CNN. FOX has 30% more viewers than MSNBC and twice as many as CNN. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-the-cable-news-ratings-for-january-2023/523190/
If the number of people willing to pay for a service is a fraction of viewers, then the impact will be worse for the smaller players. As with newspapers, there are few people that are willing to pay what the product costs.
The idea of 'red' and 'blue' bundling is interesting but would increase the echo chamber aspect of media consumption and reduce the ability of interested viewers to sample or routinely consume alternative media.
In the end, this may be moot, as more media migrates to streaming platforms. An all-news and commentary streaming platform might be able to support a subscriber base but would probably have to include all of the largest products and not go 'red' and 'blue'.
Good luck boycotting Walgreen's if you have pricey prescriptions and are enrolled in an ACA or Medicare plan. You have the choice of paying out of pocket (no prob if you're a Rickets or Pritzker, but tough for most of us) or shopping during open enrollment for 2024 this fall for the best deal that doesn't involve Walgreen's, finally being able to switch when the new choice goes into effect in January. I'll pick up toothpaste and cough drops somewhere else for now, and will see what all of the pharmacies are doing about abortion pills on the fall, but if Walgreen's remains the only affordable source of a must-hav, pricey medication, that's where we'll commit to buy it in 2024.
Maybe Walgreens is just being careful. It wasn't very long ago that it paid something like $5.7 billion for dispensing opioids that were declared safe and legal by the FDA.
I have to disagree with you Eric on discontinuing the use of [sic] to indicate that the speaker or writer quoted used incorrect grammar. In many, but not all, cases I find the use of incorrect grammar diminishes the credibility of the speaker or writer for me on the subject matter. (But then again, grammar is probably racist. Why? Because everything is racist now, you can look it up! 😁)