The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s ombudsman, Mike King, writes that it’s time to leave Eunice Stone alone.
Stone ... reported to police last week that she overheard three men -- whom she described as Middle Eastern -- at a restaurant in Calhoun discussing what seemed like a plan to plant a bomb in Miami on Sept. 13. Her tip sent federal and state homeland security officials scurrying through two states before shutting down a busy stretch of I-75 known as Alligator Alley when they pulled over a car matching the one Stone had described.
It turned out there was no bomb or threat. It was either a misunderstanding on her part or a massively dumb hoax played by three medical students on their way to Florida.
King goes on to report that:
a few TV commentators ... assume she "profiled" the Arab-American men she overheard. Media crews hovered around her for days, so much so that by Monday night she sought emergency treatment for what she thought might be a heart attack.
She probably never expected her actions to generate such scrutiny and suspicion. Her telephone answering machine in Cartersville filled up five times over, her lawyer said. She heard and read reports of accusations that she made up the story. At one point she felt it necessary to hold a news conference to declare she was not a racist.
Then her lawyer said something that every editor should consider when covering a story such as this: "She doesn't understand why this story isn't over."
King says bluntly:
unless someone has some evidence that she lied to police, the story is over.
Note to assignment editors: Leave her alone.
I agree. The treatment Stone has been receiving at the hands of the media will work to dissuade others from reporting suspicious behavior. And when it comes to combating international terrorism that could have disastrous consequences.
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Monday, September 23, 2002
THE LAST OF THE DOUGHBOYS
But No Man's Land is a goblin sight
When patrols crawl over at dead o' night;
Boche or British, Belgian or French,
You dice with death when you cross the trench
-James H. Adkin - No Man's Land
Jerry Finch, ombudsman for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, makes note of a sad passing. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs there are now no surviving veterans of the European Civil War (WWI) living in Virginia, and there are only an estimated 250 alive nationwide. There have been no public ceremonies, no public observances and no parades. The doughboys are mostly gone and largely forgotten.
Just as the American Civil War shaped the United States as we know it today, so too did the European Civil War shape the world order that was to follow. The Second World War was largely an outgrowth of problems created at the end of the First. By comparison, Reconstruction in the South was relatively benign and peaceful.
The last remaining veterans of the American Civil War were greatly honored and celebrated, both North and South. It’s a shame we haven’t done the same for the boys who went to Europe to at least try to make the world, in the words of Woodrow Wilson, “safe for Democracy.”
posted at 2:20 PM
THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT, 1996
James DiBenedetto points to a much-overlooked piece in The Washington Post about the Federal Election Commission finally getting “around to meting out punishment for the widespread and brazen campaign finance violations of the Democratic Party and specifically the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996.” One of the more interesting aspects is that, according to The Post:
The FEC documents describe Democratic fundraisers who set specific prices for foreign nationals to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
Some of the "contributions" were funneled through dummy corporations with no assets, which served merely as conduits for money from China and other countries. It gets worse.
I credit the fact that so little has been done until now to stonewalling by Janet Reno’s Department of Justice. To my mind this stinks worse than either Teapot Dome or The Whiskey Ring. The Clinton Administration put itself for sale to foreign interests, and the stench goes all the way to the top.
TRUE LIABILITY REFORM, NOT ARBITRARY “CAPS”
Peter Sean Bradley makes good points about medical malpractice awards, although his point about insurance rates being driven by changes in interest rates applies to virtually all types of insurance, not just professional malpractice.
He points out that perhaps no group is as favored by juries as are medical doctors and that liability caps may harm the victims of malpractice by preventing them from receiving appropriate compensation. My experience in Virginia is that the cap does do harm and that victims of serious malpractice may not receive enough to cover future medical expenses that result from the malpractice, let alone any compensation for life-long pain and suffering.
Something worth considering is that the really outrageous civil-liability jury verdicts are in product liability cases, not professional malpractice. And tort reform for product liability needs to be handled at the Federal level. This is because of problems with horizontal federalism whereby standards set by one state can become the de facto standard for all 50 due to interstate commerce and forum shopping. Plaintiff’s attorneys will generally file suit in the state most favorable to their cause, with the result being that citizens of the other 49 states have little say in the standards being applied to products being sold across the country.
The solution is not some arbitrary “cap” on awards. An arbitrary cap may result in gross under-compensation in some situations, and have no effect whatsoever on trivial cases that should never have been brought. True reform requires that liability standards for products in interstate commerce be set at the national level.
When patrols crawl over at dead o' night;
Boche or British, Belgian or French,
You dice with death when you cross the trench
-James H. Adkin - No Man's Land
Jerry Finch, ombudsman for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, makes note of a sad passing. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs there are now no surviving veterans of the European Civil War (WWI) living in Virginia, and there are only an estimated 250 alive nationwide. There have been no public ceremonies, no public observances and no parades. The doughboys are mostly gone and largely forgotten.
Just as the American Civil War shaped the United States as we know it today, so too did the European Civil War shape the world order that was to follow. The Second World War was largely an outgrowth of problems created at the end of the First. By comparison, Reconstruction in the South was relatively benign and peaceful.
The last remaining veterans of the American Civil War were greatly honored and celebrated, both North and South. It’s a shame we haven’t done the same for the boys who went to Europe to at least try to make the world, in the words of Woodrow Wilson, “safe for Democracy.”
posted at 2:20 PM
THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT, 1996
James DiBenedetto points to a much-overlooked piece in The Washington Post about the Federal Election Commission finally getting “around to meting out punishment for the widespread and brazen campaign finance violations of the Democratic Party and specifically the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996.” One of the more interesting aspects is that, according to The Post:
The FEC documents describe Democratic fundraisers who set specific prices for foreign nationals to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
Some of the "contributions" were funneled through dummy corporations with no assets, which served merely as conduits for money from China and other countries. It gets worse.
I credit the fact that so little has been done until now to stonewalling by Janet Reno’s Department of Justice. To my mind this stinks worse than either Teapot Dome or The Whiskey Ring. The Clinton Administration put itself for sale to foreign interests, and the stench goes all the way to the top.
TRUE LIABILITY REFORM, NOT ARBITRARY “CAPS”
Peter Sean Bradley makes good points about medical malpractice awards, although his point about insurance rates being driven by changes in interest rates applies to virtually all types of insurance, not just professional malpractice.
He points out that perhaps no group is as favored by juries as are medical doctors and that liability caps may harm the victims of malpractice by preventing them from receiving appropriate compensation. My experience in Virginia is that the cap does do harm and that victims of serious malpractice may not receive enough to cover future medical expenses that result from the malpractice, let alone any compensation for life-long pain and suffering.
Something worth considering is that the really outrageous civil-liability jury verdicts are in product liability cases, not professional malpractice. And tort reform for product liability needs to be handled at the Federal level. This is because of problems with horizontal federalism whereby standards set by one state can become the de facto standard for all 50 due to interstate commerce and forum shopping. Plaintiff’s attorneys will generally file suit in the state most favorable to their cause, with the result being that citizens of the other 49 states have little say in the standards being applied to products being sold across the country.
The solution is not some arbitrary “cap” on awards. An arbitrary cap may result in gross under-compensation in some situations, and have no effect whatsoever on trivial cases that should never have been brought. True reform requires that liability standards for products in interstate commerce be set at the national level.
Sunday, September 22, 2002
JUST CALL IT “THE VULGARIAN”
The results of a survey carried out last week show that the [The Guardian’s] title as the world leader is quite secure. It revealed [so far this year] almost 700 stories in which the word fuck had been used, and 35 which had used the word cunt. The Independent still comes a very poor second (184 stories with fuck in them; four with cunt). The others are nowhere.
By comparison, the word wanker appeared in 82 stories, and crap in 392.
This represents an increase from 1998, when:
in the year up to [the end of October] there had been more than 400 pieces in the Guardian in which the word fuck or fucking appeared. In the same period there were 28 references to cunt...
The Guardian is so fond of the infamous c-word that one of their correspondents asked:
I don't want to make too much of this, but do we perhaps have a culture which finds it easier to print 'cunt' than 'vagina'?
Perhaps The Guardian should come packaged in a brown paper wrapper.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Lou Gelfand, The Minneapolis Star Tribune’s ombudsman, relates a story that I find troubling.
A twenty year-old adult, Michael Pigg, assaulted a 4 year-old boy of mixed race while reportedly directing “racially derogatory names at the child.” Rather than imposing “a traditional jail sentence,” Judge Robert King decided to impose a “ten-month counseling relationship” on Pigg with a retired surgeon, David Harris, who is a member of something called the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission.” For an unstated reason, Gelfand supplies the information that Harris is the grandson of a Jewish immigrant.
Gelfand reports that Pigg and Harris reached an agreement that, while Pigg could not talk to the press about the counseling, Harris was free to do so provided he did “not divulge certain details of Pigg’s life.” Any reason it was felt to be beneficial that Harris would grant “media interviews” about his counseling relationship with Pigg is left unstated.
Anyway, Harris was interviewed by the Star Tribune with the understanding that Pigg’s picture would not accompany the piece, because “the picture would destroy his relationship” with Pigg. It was also planned that the story would appear in the newspaper’s Variety section. Due however to some internal miscommunications, the Star Tribune gave the story front-page placement and used Pigg’s jail booking picture.
According to Gelfand, the story generated positive responses from readers -- at least for Mr. Harris:
"Knowing that even Mr. Harris is still learning and growing and continuing to find tolerance provides me with inspiration."
"You have written graphically about the marvelous involvement by a true man of peace."
"The judge's sentence seems to have been heaven sent for Mr. Pigg."
"While the world may be changed, either for better or for worse, one person a time, articles such as this might speed progress for the better."
Gelfand does leave one important clue that I find troubling. Pigg is quoted as telling Harris that, "I told you that you can't trust the newspaper."
It is appropriate, and even desirable, for a judge to find an alternative to sending a person to jail, when the alternative promises to have some rehabilitative value and the person does not pose a considerable threat to the public safety. A mentoring or counseling relationship may be an appropriate alternative.
In this case, however, Pigg himself was not permitted to talk to the press, and I see no legitimate purpose for Harris to be granting “media interviews” about his relationship with Pigg. Given Pigg’s reaction, “I told you that you can't trust the newspaper,” it’s clear that he was not in favor of Harris talking to the press.
The fact that a reluctant Pigg was being used to generate positive publicity for Harris and for the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission” reflects badly on the judge’s decision. He should insure that it doesn’t happen again.
By comparison, the word wanker appeared in 82 stories, and crap in 392.
This represents an increase from 1998, when:
in the year up to [the end of October] there had been more than 400 pieces in the Guardian in which the word fuck or fucking appeared. In the same period there were 28 references to cunt...
The Guardian is so fond of the infamous c-word that one of their correspondents asked:
I don't want to make too much of this, but do we perhaps have a culture which finds it easier to print 'cunt' than 'vagina'?
Perhaps The Guardian should come packaged in a brown paper wrapper.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Lou Gelfand, The Minneapolis Star Tribune’s ombudsman, relates a story that I find troubling.
A twenty year-old adult, Michael Pigg, assaulted a 4 year-old boy of mixed race while reportedly directing “racially derogatory names at the child.” Rather than imposing “a traditional jail sentence,” Judge Robert King decided to impose a “ten-month counseling relationship” on Pigg with a retired surgeon, David Harris, who is a member of something called the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission.” For an unstated reason, Gelfand supplies the information that Harris is the grandson of a Jewish immigrant.
Gelfand reports that Pigg and Harris reached an agreement that, while Pigg could not talk to the press about the counseling, Harris was free to do so provided he did “not divulge certain details of Pigg’s life.” Any reason it was felt to be beneficial that Harris would grant “media interviews” about his counseling relationship with Pigg is left unstated.
Anyway, Harris was interviewed by the Star Tribune with the understanding that Pigg’s picture would not accompany the piece, because “the picture would destroy his relationship” with Pigg. It was also planned that the story would appear in the newspaper’s Variety section. Due however to some internal miscommunications, the Star Tribune gave the story front-page placement and used Pigg’s jail booking picture.
According to Gelfand, the story generated positive responses from readers -- at least for Mr. Harris:
"Knowing that even Mr. Harris is still learning and growing and continuing to find tolerance provides me with inspiration."
"You have written graphically about the marvelous involvement by a true man of peace."
"The judge's sentence seems to have been heaven sent for Mr. Pigg."
"While the world may be changed, either for better or for worse, one person a time, articles such as this might speed progress for the better."
Gelfand does leave one important clue that I find troubling. Pigg is quoted as telling Harris that, "I told you that you can't trust the newspaper."
It is appropriate, and even desirable, for a judge to find an alternative to sending a person to jail, when the alternative promises to have some rehabilitative value and the person does not pose a considerable threat to the public safety. A mentoring or counseling relationship may be an appropriate alternative.
In this case, however, Pigg himself was not permitted to talk to the press, and I see no legitimate purpose for Harris to be granting “media interviews” about his relationship with Pigg. Given Pigg’s reaction, “I told you that you can't trust the newspaper,” it’s clear that he was not in favor of Harris talking to the press.
The fact that a reluctant Pigg was being used to generate positive publicity for Harris and for the “Red Wing Human Rights Commission” reflects badly on the judge’s decision. He should insure that it doesn’t happen again.
LEAVE EUNICE STONE ALONE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s ombudsman, Mike King, writes that it’s time to leave Eunice Stone alone.
Stone ... reported to police last week that she overheard three men -- whom she described as Middle Eastern -- at a restaurant in Calhoun discussing what seemed like a plan to plant a bomb in Miami on Sept. 13. Her tip sent federal and state homeland security officials scurrying through two states before shutting down a busy stretch of I-75 known as Alligator Alley when they pulled over a car matching the one Stone had described.
It turned out there was no bomb or threat. It was either a misunderstanding on her part or a massively dumb hoax played by three medical students on their way to Florida.
King goes on to report that:
a few TV commentators ... assume she "profiled" the Arab-American men she overheard. Media crews hovered around her for days, so much so that by Monday night she sought emergency treatment for what she thought might be a heart attack.
She probably never expected her actions to generate such scrutiny and suspicion. Her telephone answering machine in Cartersville filled up five times over, her lawyer said. She heard and read reports of accusations that she made up the story. At one point she felt it necessary to hold a news conference to declare she was not a racist.
Then her lawyer said something that every editor should consider when covering a story such as this: "She doesn't understand why this story isn't over."
King says bluntly:
unless someone has some evidence that she lied to police, the story is over.
Note to assignment editors: Leave her alone.
I agree. The treatment Stone has been receiving at the hands of the media will work to dissuade others from reporting suspicious behavior. And when it comes to combating international terrorism that could have disastrous consequences.
Stone ... reported to police last week that she overheard three men -- whom she described as Middle Eastern -- at a restaurant in Calhoun discussing what seemed like a plan to plant a bomb in Miami on Sept. 13. Her tip sent federal and state homeland security officials scurrying through two states before shutting down a busy stretch of I-75 known as Alligator Alley when they pulled over a car matching the one Stone had described.
It turned out there was no bomb or threat. It was either a misunderstanding on her part or a massively dumb hoax played by three medical students on their way to Florida.
King goes on to report that:
a few TV commentators ... assume she "profiled" the Arab-American men she overheard. Media crews hovered around her for days, so much so that by Monday night she sought emergency treatment for what she thought might be a heart attack.
She probably never expected her actions to generate such scrutiny and suspicion. Her telephone answering machine in Cartersville filled up five times over, her lawyer said. She heard and read reports of accusations that she made up the story. At one point she felt it necessary to hold a news conference to declare she was not a racist.
Then her lawyer said something that every editor should consider when covering a story such as this: "She doesn't understand why this story isn't over."
King says bluntly:
unless someone has some evidence that she lied to police, the story is over.
Note to assignment editors: Leave her alone.
I agree. The treatment Stone has been receiving at the hands of the media will work to dissuade others from reporting suspicious behavior. And when it comes to combating international terrorism that could have disastrous consequences.
Sunday, June 9, 2002
Anti-Israeli Bias
Gareth Parker addresses his complaint to OBG about the ABC's anti-Israeli bias.
OBG notes that bias in the media is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as the reporting is accurate. For example, the New York Times shouldn't publish fiction by Joseph Stalin's propagandists writing under the nom de plume Walter Duranty. Nevertheless, a thriving marketplace of ideas is essential to a free society, even when those ideas are clearly wrongheaded.
The problem is when there is a breakdown in the market. One way this can happen is through government ownership of the means of communication. Of the major English language government-owned broadcasters -- ABC, BBC and CBC – all three suffer from anti-Israeli bias, as does the western press, in general. Another way is when there is no competition. Many American cities no longer have competing newspapers, so the local paper monopolizes the coverage of the news, effectively shutting out alternative views.
Which brings us to the left-leaning Minneapolis Star Tribune, which rejects use of the word “terrorism” to describe sending human-bombs into crowded pizza parlors in Israel. Managing Editor Pam Fine explains, “This helps us avoid labels that might suggest we’re taking sides...” Not surprisingly, this prime example of cranial-rectal impaction has generated some criticism.
The Star Tribune employs an ombudsman. His name is Lou Gelfand and as Star Tribune reader Steve Meyer explains:
Every Sunday I read his column and he makes me spitting mad! His evasions and occasional halfhearted apologies for the paper's slanted coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are the worst... Is Lou Gelfand an ombudsman or an apologist?
Poor Lou seems genuinely puzzled as to why he receives so many more phone calls from readers on the right than on the left, a phenomenon he attributes to "a sort of cult thinking based on The Washington Times and stories that, sooner or later -- usually sooner -- are on talk radio...” He asks “Why is the political thinking on the left not as perverted or extreme as it is on the right?”
OBG suggests that Lou start by asking, "When is a terrorist not a terrorist?"
OBG notes that bias in the media is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as the reporting is accurate. For example, the New York Times shouldn't publish fiction by Joseph Stalin's propagandists writing under the nom de plume Walter Duranty. Nevertheless, a thriving marketplace of ideas is essential to a free society, even when those ideas are clearly wrongheaded.
The problem is when there is a breakdown in the market. One way this can happen is through government ownership of the means of communication. Of the major English language government-owned broadcasters -- ABC, BBC and CBC – all three suffer from anti-Israeli bias, as does the western press, in general. Another way is when there is no competition. Many American cities no longer have competing newspapers, so the local paper monopolizes the coverage of the news, effectively shutting out alternative views.
Which brings us to the left-leaning Minneapolis Star Tribune, which rejects use of the word “terrorism” to describe sending human-bombs into crowded pizza parlors in Israel. Managing Editor Pam Fine explains, “This helps us avoid labels that might suggest we’re taking sides...” Not surprisingly, this prime example of cranial-rectal impaction has generated some criticism.
The Star Tribune employs an ombudsman. His name is Lou Gelfand and as Star Tribune reader Steve Meyer explains:
Every Sunday I read his column and he makes me spitting mad! His evasions and occasional halfhearted apologies for the paper's slanted coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are the worst... Is Lou Gelfand an ombudsman or an apologist?
Poor Lou seems genuinely puzzled as to why he receives so many more phone calls from readers on the right than on the left, a phenomenon he attributes to "a sort of cult thinking based on The Washington Times and stories that, sooner or later -- usually sooner -- are on talk radio...” He asks “Why is the political thinking on the left not as perverted or extreme as it is on the right?”
OBG suggests that Lou start by asking, "When is a terrorist not a terrorist?"
Sunday, June 2, 2002
Grammar controversy
Reader M. Brocklehurst supports OmbudsGod in the who vs. whom grammar controversy. A self-described grammar guru, she advises, “Tell them to go and split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition or best of all get a life.” Ms. Brocklehurst addresses the “whom boom” in her soon-to-be-published tome, “Everyday Vital English, A Grammar for the 21st Century,” which she describes as a “delightful read.”
Mrs. OBG recommends that OBG take Ms. Brocklehurst’s advice and stick to The OmbudsGod’s core mission. Otherwise, OBG will be dealing with such unanswerable questions as the one Mrs. OBG already has posed: “Why aren’t they called ‘Ombudspersons?’”
OBG currently is investigating complaints relating to anti-Israeli bias involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Minneapolis Star Tribune ombudsman, Lou Gelfand. OBG observes that anti-Israeli bias is pervasive throughout the media and that, as a rule, ombudsmen have failed to fully address the issue. Additional reader input on this and other concerns is encouraged.
OBG sends special thanks to Tim Blair for linking to this site. Keep the hits coming, Tim!
Mrs. OBG recommends that OBG take Ms. Brocklehurst’s advice and stick to The OmbudsGod’s core mission. Otherwise, OBG will be dealing with such unanswerable questions as the one Mrs. OBG already has posed: “Why aren’t they called ‘Ombudspersons?’”
OBG currently is investigating complaints relating to anti-Israeli bias involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Minneapolis Star Tribune ombudsman, Lou Gelfand. OBG observes that anti-Israeli bias is pervasive throughout the media and that, as a rule, ombudsmen have failed to fully address the issue. Additional reader input on this and other concerns is encouraged.
OBG sends special thanks to Tim Blair for linking to this site. Keep the hits coming, Tim!
Saturday, June 1, 2002
Ombudsman, newspaper
A reader asks, “To whom do you complain when the ombudsgod forgets the English remnant objective case interrogative pronoun?” He is, of course, referring to my use of the conversational who instead of the stilted whom in my first post. OmbudsGod is reminded of why he chose to major in economics instead of English as an undergraduate.
Nevertheless, alleged grammatical violations by OmbudsGod may be reported to the Word Police.
A newspaper ombudsman, usually a veteran reporter or editor, serves as an external spokesperson for the public and an internal critic for the newspaper. According to guidelines adopted in 1982 by the Organization of Newspaper Ombudsmen (ONO), the ombudsman's duties are to: (1) represent the reader who has complaints, suggestions, questions or compliments; (2) investigate all complaints and recommend corrective action when warranted; (3) alert the newspaper to all complaints; (4) serve as an in-house critic; (5) make speeches or write to the public about the newspaper's policies, attitudes and operations; and (6) defend the newspaper publicly or privately when warranted.
To perform those functions, ombudsmen write newspaper columns, give speeches, circulate memoranda within the staff, and distribute questionnaires to persons mentioned in news stories.
The editorial independence of the ombudsman is a subject of debate in the newspaper field. Some believe that the person in this position should be exempt from contributing editorially to the newspaper for which he works, to preserve his neutrality in serving the interests of both the newspaper and the public; others point to the prohibitive expense of hiring a full-time ombudsman.
Use of the ombudsman in the United States came into existence only recently, the first newspaper ombudsman program having been established in 1967.
Who do you complain to when a newspaper’s coverage is terribly biased and the ombudsman is even more biased than the newspaper? The OmbudsGod!
My thanks to Tim Blair for the inspiration.
Nevertheless, alleged grammatical violations by OmbudsGod may be reported to the Word Police.
A newspaper ombudsman, usually a veteran reporter or editor, serves as an external spokesperson for the public and an internal critic for the newspaper. According to guidelines adopted in 1982 by the Organization of Newspaper Ombudsmen (ONO), the ombudsman's duties are to: (1) represent the reader who has complaints, suggestions, questions or compliments; (2) investigate all complaints and recommend corrective action when warranted; (3) alert the newspaper to all complaints; (4) serve as an in-house critic; (5) make speeches or write to the public about the newspaper's policies, attitudes and operations; and (6) defend the newspaper publicly or privately when warranted.
To perform those functions, ombudsmen write newspaper columns, give speeches, circulate memoranda within the staff, and distribute questionnaires to persons mentioned in news stories.
The editorial independence of the ombudsman is a subject of debate in the newspaper field. Some believe that the person in this position should be exempt from contributing editorially to the newspaper for which he works, to preserve his neutrality in serving the interests of both the newspaper and the public; others point to the prohibitive expense of hiring a full-time ombudsman.
Use of the ombudsman in the United States came into existence only recently, the first newspaper ombudsman program having been established in 1967.
Who do you complain to when a newspaper’s coverage is terribly biased and the ombudsman is even more biased than the newspaper? The OmbudsGod!
My thanks to Tim Blair for the inspiration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)