Rutland and "The Twelve Tribes" Hostel

[MOWGLI]

\the NY times, NY Post and MSNBC are very reputable news agencies in the USA.

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. The NY Post is a tabloid owned by Ruppert Murdock. Other than the fact that they have a pretty good sports section, the paper is pretty useless - unless you need something to line the litter box with.

[Jack Tarlin]

Guy's name is actually Rupert Murdoch.

And the Post has some excellent columnists as well as a good sports page; for example Ralph Peters is one of the nation's top experts on military affairs and national defense; columnist Uri Dan is unusually well-versed on the Middle East.

If you want to get opinions other than, say, Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich, you have to branch out from the Times. I like to hear several viewpoints and voices, so I think it's good to read a variety of papers.

Oh, another admirable thing about the Post. Their chief gossip columnist, Richard Johnson, absolutely vows to NOT write anything about Paris Hilton, EVER.

Now THAT'S a journalist worthy of the name.

[MOWGLI]

Guy's name is actually Rupert Murdoch.

And the Post has some excellent columnists as well as a good sports page; for example Ralph Peters is one of the nation's top experts on military affairs and national defense; columnist Uri Dan is unusually well-versed on the Middle East.

If you want to get opinions other than, say, Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich, you have to branch out from the Times. I like to hear several viewpoints and voices, so I think it's good to read a variety of papers.

Oh, another admirable thing about the Post. Their chief gossip columnist, Richard Johnson, absolutely vows to NOT write anything about Paris Hilton, EVER.

Now THAT'S a journalist worthy of the name.

FYI, I don't read the NY Times for the opinion pieces. In fact, I rarely read Frank Rich, and haven't read Maureen Dowd in a couple of years.

I have no problem with folks who enjoy the Post. I just don't like tabloid journalism, and if something important occurs outside the world of sports, I like to read more than 4-5 paragraphs about the story. That's about all the the Post offers.

BTW, the Times regularly offers viewpoints other than left of center - including the likes of William Safire. Did I spell that correctly Jack?

Also, Elie Wiesel has a column in todays paper about the Gaza Strip. It's worth a look.

[Jack Tarlin]

Geez, I didn't say I read the Post INSTEAD of the Times; I read it in addition, in order to get a different viewpoint.

And yup, you spelled Safire right. I'm glad you're so well informed on him and his writing; you're evidently unaware that he retired from the Times last January and no longer has a political column, tho he'll still be doing a column on language and word origins for the Sunday paper.

But at least you got his name right.

[Lilred]

ok so what I'm getting from this thread is that you can't believe what you read in the papers, what you read on websites, and what you read from first hand experience. OK I'll shut up now.

[Icicle]

- unless you need something to line the litter box with.

That's a good use for The Guardian as well. I wouldn't ever recommend anyone, especially an American, to ever read the Guardian. You would be so angry after the first few sentences of *any* column to literally set fire to the damn thing! I have never come across a paper filled with more hatred.

[MOWGLI]

And yup, you spelled Safire right. I'm glad you're so well informed on him and his writing; you're evidently unaware that he retired from the Times last January and no longer has a political column, tho he'll still be doing a column on language and word origins for the Sunday paper.

But at least you got his name right.

Ah Jack, at least you are consistent! Like I said, I don't read the Times for the opinion pieces (post #43). I read it for the national and international news, art, and the science section on Tuesdays, and the sports. I also yearn to be able to finish the crossword puzzle post-Tuesday. Progress - not perfection. That's my motto! And yes, I too read other sources. I just try to avoid the "Jonah Goldbergs" of the journailstic world. They just don't titillate me.

I would HIGHLY recomend the piece in yesterdays NY Times magazine on oil by Peter Maass. It'll certainly abre los ojos. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html

[bogey]

I am American..

sorry, thought I detected an accent


As far as vocal - American bashing is a national sport here.[/QUOTE] It's the national sport EVERYWHERE!

[Icicle]

sorry, thought I detected an accent

Funny you should say that - when we started hiking in March we had Dorothy & Toto really confused...they thought I was English and couldn't figure out how/why my mother lived in Florida and was born in Michigan and yet I was English!!

We are also mentioned on a couple of trail journals as a *nice English couple* - when in fact I am American and my husband is Welsh (little country to the west of England).

[Jack Tarlin]

I'm glad Mowgli thinks I'm consistent.

In order to bolster his argument that the Times "regularly offers viewpoints other than left of center" he informs us about the presence of a noted conservative columnist who's actually been absent from their editorial page for the better part of a year. Hmmm. Doesn't sound like he's much of a regular contributor anymore, eh?

Gee, lemme get this staight so I'm clear on this. The Times has many non-right wing "regular" columnists; unfortunately, Mowgli can't name even one. Gee, sure sounds fair and balanced to me!

Mowgli further tells us that he avoids their political commentary, saying "I don't read the Times for the opinion pieces."

Well, that's fine. Read what you like. But I'm curious: If you admittedly don't read the political pieces, Mowgli, then how on earth can you claim to speak with any authority or reliability on how open-minded their editorial department is? I mean, in that you've acknowledged (twice) that you don't read the Times for its political stuff, then where do you get off telling us what they "regularly" publish? It's kinda hard to discuss what they're printing if you make a practice of avoiding reading it, no? Seems to me, you'd be better qualified to intelligently discuss what's in the Times if you actually bothered to read what's in it, but maybe that's just me.


Well, Mowgli, you're pretty consistent too! You consistently say some pretty silly things.

[MOWGLI]

Oh Jack, thank you so very much for straightening me out. Tonite before I go to sleep, I'll get down on my knees and pray that someday - I can be half as smart and open minded as you.

[Tha Wookie]

I'm glad Mowgli thinks I'm consistent.

In order to bolster his argument that the Times "regularly offers viewpoints other than left of center" he informs us about the presence of a noted conservative columnist who's actually been absent from their editorial page for the better part of a year. Hmmm. Doesn't sound like he's much of a regular contributor anymore, eh?

Gee, lemme get this staight so I'm clear on this. The Times has many non-right wing "regular" columnists; unfortunately, Mowgli can't name even one. Gee, sure sounds fair and balanced to me!

Mowgli further tells us that he avoids their political commentary, saying "I don't read the Times for the opinion pieces."

Well, that's fine. Read what you like. But I'm curious: If you admittedly don't read the political pieces, Mowgli, then how on earth can you claim to speak with any authority or reliability on how open-minded their editorial department is? I mean, in that you've acknowledged (twice) that you don't read the Times for its political stuff, then where do you get off telling us what they "regularly" publish? It's kinda hard to discuss what they're printing if you make a practice of avoiding reading it, no? Seems to me, you'd be better qualified to intelligently discuss what's in the Times if you actually bothered to read what's in it, but maybe that's just me.


Well, Mowgli, you're pretty consistent too! You consistently say some pretty silly things.

Jack, you are so hung up on the "left and right" linear scale you miss so much, my friend. I admit that I succumb to the same worthless labeling from time to time.

Political commentary opinion peices in media sources is not the place to get information on what really matters. I challenge you to stop reading them, for they and most everything else out there is poison. They are things you cannot control, and they distract from what is around you. It is no different than watching a football game, on the sidelines, with no influence on the outcome, but still the rules and parameters set from other people to get what they need out of you. You seem so much more an intelligent person than that.....

...and I think Mowgli is definitely one of the better people on this site for saying sound things, without offending people. I'm shocked that your tone is so bitter to him.

abre los ojos.....

[wacocelt]

I stayed at the Back Home Again Hostel in Rutland a few weeks ago. They are very accomodating and polite people. The location and appearance of thier hostel is impeccable, however, I did feel that they are trying to convince any and all hikers to stay as absolutely long as possible, not just to rest up for furture hiking.
I was invited to and attended two of thier daily gatherings (2 gatherings are held at 7am and 7 pm) because I felt that the folks were sincere and didn't want to seem rude. The over all feeling I got, despite all of the people being sincerely polite and helpful, put me on edge.

[Jack Tarlin]

Wookie:

This is a really silly thing to be arguing over. I'm not "hung up" on the left and right thing. I'm a registered Independent. I have no attachment to any party or particular philosophy; I've voted for all sorts of people over the years.

My recent posts were merely in response to Mowgli's comments about the New York Times. In defending their supposed open-mindedness, Mowgli opined that they regularly ran non-liberal political commentary.

I happen to question whether or not this is true.

They have almost NOBODY on staff who is consistently conservative; most of their regular featured columnists are extremely left of center.

Anyway, to bolster his comments, Mowgli offered up William Safire as an example. He didn't offer up anyone else, probably because he couldn't think of anyone else to offer. And as I've previously pointed out, Safire hasn't even had a political column for over half a year, so I think it's kind of odd to cite him as a regularly featured political commentator.

Mowgli then told us that he didn't much read the political stuff in the Times anyway, and preferred other sections.

Here's my point, Wookie, sorry you evidently missed it:

1. If his original argument is true, i.e. that the Times regularly features
non-leftist political commentary, it's pretty obvious that Mowgli seems
to have a problem proving this contention....so far, he's cited the "regular
presence in their editorial staff room of one retired guy.

2. Admitting that he doesn't read the Times political columns or editorials
hardly helps his credibility when it comes to discussing the fairness and
even-handedness of the newspaper's editorial policies. How on earth can
he tell us how "fair" their political writing is when he admits he doesn't
bother to read it read it? Been awhile since I took Journalism 101, Wook,
but it seems to me that folks who wanna be Media Critics might come off
a bit better if they were actually familiar with the entity that they're
discussing.




So sorry if you think my tone is bitter, Wookie, but Mowgli likes lecturing people here, especially on political matters. In this case, it's obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If he'd limited his comments to subjects he's actually qualified to discuss, then my criticism of his posts wouldn't have been necessary. Or when it was pointed out to him that he was unqualified to make certain comments or pass certain judgments, it would have been nice if he had the humility to admit it.

Mowgli thinks the Times is nicely balanced when it comes to political commentary, but he can't name any regulalrly featured conservative staffers or columnists. He also makes comments like this despite the fact that he doesn't read the material under discussion, or reads it so infrequently that he's unaware of who actually still works at the paper.

Bitter, Wookie? No, I'm merely pointing out that I don't particularly think Mowgli is much of an authority on America's newspaper of record, and should therefore refrain from telling us how fair and even-handed they are. There are many subjects he's undoubtedly qualified to discuss, but the editorial policies of the New York Times aren't one off them.

[MOWGLI]

Mowgli thinks the Times is nicely balanced when it comes to political commentary, but he can't name any regulalrly featured conservative staffers or columnists. He also makes comments like this despite the fact that he doesn't read the material under discussion, or reads it so infrequently that he's unaware of who actually still works at the paper.

Bitter, Wookie? No, I'm merely pointing out that I don't particularly think Mowgli is much of an authority on America's newspaper of record, and should therefore refrain from telling us how fair and even-handed they are. There are many subjects he's undoubtedly qualified to discuss, but the editorial policies of the New York Times aren't one off them.

My final thoughts on the subject Jack. A few days ago you asked me not to put words in your mouth. Now you do that to me by saying "Mowgli thinks the Times is nicely balanced when it comes to political commentary". That is not what I said at all. I said "the Times regularly offers viewpoints other than left of center." There is a big difference between what I said, and what you said. I said nothing about "balance." In fact, I made a point of saying I don't regularly read their editorials (excepting Thomas Friedman). That is not what draws me to the paper.

Now, I am not going to get in a tit for tat with you on this one, 'cause frankly, I've got more important things to do (I stole that one from your playbook ). I do happen to think that the NY Times news reporting is arguably the finest in the nation. And that comes from being a regular reader from New York for the last 15 or so years. And I would stack up my knowledge of current events - both national & international - and my ability to discuss them in an even-handed manner with most anyone on this site - including Jack Tarlin. And you can quote me on that one.

[The Solemates]

ok ok, so its obvious ya'll both read the paper too much and both think you are experts on politics. who cares! go hiking...

[Israel]

I don't know guys...i think i may need to call Homeland Security- this thread has been hijacked!!!

[MOWGLI]

ok ok, so its obvious ya'll both read the paper too much and both think you are experts on politics. who cares! go hiking...

Yup, I think you have a point - except I ain't no expert. Just informed. And if it wasn't so bloody hot in Tennessee, I'd be on the trail right now.

[Jack Tarlin]

Glad to hear your last words on the subject, Mowgli, here are mine.....

You weren't misquoted.

You said that the Times regularly published viewpoints that weren't left of center.

I disagree with you, and am still yet to see you provide us with any reason whatsoever to make us think your original statement was correct.

To bolster this bold statement, you provided us with exactly ONE conservative voice that appeared regularly on their pages.

It was pointed out to that your one measly example doesn't even write politics for the paper anymore. So where are the "regular" opposing voices, Mowgli, since you've told us repeatedly that there are plenty of them?

You further said (twice, as I recall; you really wanted to make sure we understood this point) that you don't read the Times for it's political commentary.

To which I raised the point, and it's a perfectly valid one, why should we think you're fit to discuss the contents of the New York Times when you
stress the point that avoid reading large sections of it?

My final words on this: I don't think the paper regularly publishes non-liberal columns and columnists; I don't think Mowgli provided any reason for us to think otherwise, and I think he made it clear thru his own words that he's not exactly in the best position to be telling us what a great paper it is since he's repeatedly told us that while he's a longtime reader, he deliberately skips the precise part of the paper he's attempting to educate us about.

Oh, and lastly, I think he has a really big problem admitting when he's wrong.

Geez, he tells us their reporting is "arguably the finest in the nation?"

How the hell would he know when he doesn't bother to read it?

I stand by my original comments; Mowgli might be an expert on all sorts of things, or he'd like to think so, but the New York Times isn't one of them.

Bye, now. Time for me to finish today's Times. All of it. And then go for a hike.

[Youngblood]

I stayed at the Back Home Again Hostel in Rutland a few weeks ago. They are very accomodating and polite people. The location and appearance of thier hostel is impeccable, however, I did feel that they are trying to convince any and all hikers to stay as absolutely long as possible, not just to rest up for furture hiking.
I was invited to and attended two of thier daily gatherings (2 gatherings are held at 7am and 7 pm) because I felt that the folks were sincere and didn't want to seem rude. The over all feeling I got, despite all of the people being sincerely polite and helpful, put me on edge.

Dang Chris, you've had an interesting year... you go through all this stuff every year? <that is joke from a movie> If the old saying "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is true, you should be pretty strong. Hope your injuries are healing fine and that your luck improves... you are due a few good breaks.

Youngblood