In its blind zeal to promote development at any cost in Erie, the Times-News breathlessly editorialized on behalf of Lake Erie Biofuels Tuesday which has been producing biofuels at the old Hammermill plant site for a year or so now.
Applauding the plant's planned production expansion from 40 million to 70 million gallons annually with the help of a $1.6 million state loan, the editorial ignored the internally inconsistent claim that the company's newly announced expansion will help the nation to achieve "energy independence" despite the fact that virtually all its heavily taxpayer-subsidized product(amounting to about $1 a gallon) will continue to be exported outside the U.S.
The Times-News hailed the fact that the company has changed its name to "Hero X," appropos to nothing in evidence except that "The name change is part of a branding campaign to reach a worldwide market," while boasting that its use, among other raw materials, of vegetable oils would promote environmentally benign goals. This further ignores the hard lessons of the recent ethanol craze which resulted in a 35 percent increase in the national average consumer cost of foods like bread, cereals, poultry, beef and other foodstuffs dependent primarily upon ethanol feedstocks such as corn and grains.
On one hand, the editorial quoted a company official as saying:"We believe in biodiesel and its role for our country in increasing our energy independence (my emphasis)and improving our environment." But on the other hand it quotes the same official as saying "the plant is strategically located to export(my emphasis)its products using rail, highways and Lake Erie."
Oblivious to the inherent contradiction, the Times-News editorial exulted: "It's exciting to realize that Erie can help lead the way as Americans make good on our decades-old pledge to achieve energy independence."
To date, Erie Biofuels has exported most if not all of its product across the oceans, where there are more lucrative markets. There's no reason to believe that will change anytime soon,if ever. How does that promote national energy independence? Exporting domestic biolfuels and U.S. energy independence are mutually exclusive conceits.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Bar Assn. correctly disses Domitrovich
I rarely agree with lawyers, but the Erie County Bar Assn.'s
poll released yesterday evaluating county judges up for ten-year retention in the Nov. 3 election, got it exactly right when a pluralty recommended against the retention of Judge Stephanie Domitrovich. In my opinion Domitrovich is utterly unqualified to serve as dogcatcher in Erie County, much less as judge.
Unaccountably, the Erie Times-News article reporting on the bar association poll failed to flesh out the story, simply giving the rating scores of the three candidates up for retention, also including Judges Kelly and Dunlavey, who were rightly recommended. Covering a mere seven or eight column inches as published online, the sketchy story was co-reported by Lisa Thompson and Ed Pallatella, writer overkill if there ever was for such a meager epistle.
Domitrovich's service as a county judge since 1989, if one can call it that, followed by her ten-year retention by county voters in 1999, is testament to their collective ignorance when it comes to judging judges. Let's hope their collective IQ has been elevated sufficiently in time for the November election to heed the county bar association's enlightened recommendation against Domitrovich's retention, of which she is wholly unworthy.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have never been a party in litigation in Domitrovich's court. I was an observer in an orphan's court proceedings in 2007 involving a friend of mine - let's call him "Andy" - seeking to escape the legal clutches of an abusive son who controlled the substantial inheritance his slightly impaired father had received upon the death of his mother several years earlier, a son who forced him unjustly to reside in a substandard assisted living facility against his informed wishes.
In ruling against the father, Domitrovich trampled all over his due
process rights, among other things denying him the legal right to be present at the first hearing on his case in her court which was conducted without his knowledge and ended with his virtual incarceration, rendering any reversal against herself of Domitrovich's initial ruling a very steep, and as it turned out, impossible climb.
Why? Because the abusive son, striving to gain unquestioned control of his father's inheritance, was represented by an attorney who was a member of a law firm with a familiar name and high-powered political connections in Erie which need not be elaborated, David Ridge. Domitrovich, who received campaign money from at least one member of that firm, baldly acquiesced to the Thrasimicusian precept of realpoliticks that "might makes right." It was power politics in the guise of justice at its ugliest.
So disorganized were Domitrovich and her courtroom staff, that she did not see the father's brief seeking to unseat his son as his "guardian" until minutes before a second dispositive hearing was underway.
But just to make certain the impoverished father, denied his rightful inheritance by his abusive son, didn't prevail, Domitrovich appointed to represent him an incompetent sycophant whose represention more reflected the son's cupidity rather than the father's best interests. In addition, she exercised on the stand impermissible and undue influence on the father, craftily leading him in directions opposite to his wishes.
The father lost his case, his inheritance, his personal freedom and, denied the expert care his inheritance would have afforded him, in less than a year, his life. He died, the doctors said, of cancer. But in my untutored opinion, "Andy" succumbed to a broken heart. Soon thereafter his abusive son claimed a significant portion of his father's inheritance which might have been used, as intended by his mother, to enhance and extend his life.
This is not the first time Domitrovich has been found lacking by an official judicial evaluation panel. Following her retention as county judge in 1999, she presented herself as a candidate in 2001 for election to the State Superior Court. In that year's state judicary elections, she was the only candidate whom the Pennsylvania Judicial Evaluation Commission gave a "not recommended" rating.
In reaching that decision the Commission said it had "received numerous
and consistent reports concerning the Candidate’s shortcomings as a judge that were found credible and were neither acknowledged nor sufficiently refuted by the Candidate.
"Specifically, the Commission found that the Candidate lacks proper judicial temperament and decorum, often exhibiting a lack of proper respect for lawyers and litigants in her courtroom. There was a significant concern that she frequently adopts one side of an argument presented to her, failing to give proper weight and consideration to the opposite position.
"Reports also suggested," the Commission said, "that the Candidate can and does lose her temper in the courtroom. Most significantly, the Commission observed that the Candidate was a poor listener, a critical weakness in a prospective appellate court judge. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the Candidate lacks the skills necessary to serve adequately as a Judge of the Superior Court."
These were the exact failings wich led to a gross instance of miscarried justice in the case I cite above.
One wonders how a judge with those articulated disqualifications is equipped to serve on any court, much less the state Superior Court. Do Erie Countians deserve a judge who, according to her peers, "lacks proper judicial temperament and decorum," or one who "lacks the skills necessary to serve adequately" on the appellate court level? I don't think so.
Her judicial disqualifications aside, Domitrovich's clownish antics in the courtroom are legend. She once recessed a hearing in mid-progress, inconveniencing all parties, some of whom had travelled miles to reach the courthouse, because she had a hair appointment.
Don't be deceived by Domitrovich's glitzy but shallow self-contrived resume, voluminusly padded with inconsequeantial but high-sounding attributes. Vote "NO" in November against the retention of Domitrovich!
poll released yesterday evaluating county judges up for ten-year retention in the Nov. 3 election, got it exactly right when a pluralty recommended against the retention of Judge Stephanie Domitrovich. In my opinion Domitrovich is utterly unqualified to serve as dogcatcher in Erie County, much less as judge.
Unaccountably, the Erie Times-News article reporting on the bar association poll failed to flesh out the story, simply giving the rating scores of the three candidates up for retention, also including Judges Kelly and Dunlavey, who were rightly recommended. Covering a mere seven or eight column inches as published online, the sketchy story was co-reported by Lisa Thompson and Ed Pallatella, writer overkill if there ever was for such a meager epistle.
Domitrovich's service as a county judge since 1989, if one can call it that, followed by her ten-year retention by county voters in 1999, is testament to their collective ignorance when it comes to judging judges. Let's hope their collective IQ has been elevated sufficiently in time for the November election to heed the county bar association's enlightened recommendation against Domitrovich's retention, of which she is wholly unworthy.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have never been a party in litigation in Domitrovich's court. I was an observer in an orphan's court proceedings in 2007 involving a friend of mine - let's call him "Andy" - seeking to escape the legal clutches of an abusive son who controlled the substantial inheritance his slightly impaired father had received upon the death of his mother several years earlier, a son who forced him unjustly to reside in a substandard assisted living facility against his informed wishes.
In ruling against the father, Domitrovich trampled all over his due
process rights, among other things denying him the legal right to be present at the first hearing on his case in her court which was conducted without his knowledge and ended with his virtual incarceration, rendering any reversal against herself of Domitrovich's initial ruling a very steep, and as it turned out, impossible climb.
Why? Because the abusive son, striving to gain unquestioned control of his father's inheritance, was represented by an attorney who was a member of a law firm with a familiar name and high-powered political connections in Erie which need not be elaborated, David Ridge. Domitrovich, who received campaign money from at least one member of that firm, baldly acquiesced to the Thrasimicusian precept of realpoliticks that "might makes right." It was power politics in the guise of justice at its ugliest.
So disorganized were Domitrovich and her courtroom staff, that she did not see the father's brief seeking to unseat his son as his "guardian" until minutes before a second dispositive hearing was underway.
But just to make certain the impoverished father, denied his rightful inheritance by his abusive son, didn't prevail, Domitrovich appointed to represent him an incompetent sycophant whose represention more reflected the son's cupidity rather than the father's best interests. In addition, she exercised on the stand impermissible and undue influence on the father, craftily leading him in directions opposite to his wishes.
The father lost his case, his inheritance, his personal freedom and, denied the expert care his inheritance would have afforded him, in less than a year, his life. He died, the doctors said, of cancer. But in my untutored opinion, "Andy" succumbed to a broken heart. Soon thereafter his abusive son claimed a significant portion of his father's inheritance which might have been used, as intended by his mother, to enhance and extend his life.
This is not the first time Domitrovich has been found lacking by an official judicial evaluation panel. Following her retention as county judge in 1999, she presented herself as a candidate in 2001 for election to the State Superior Court. In that year's state judicary elections, she was the only candidate whom the Pennsylvania Judicial Evaluation Commission gave a "not recommended" rating.
In reaching that decision the Commission said it had "received numerous
and consistent reports concerning the Candidate’s shortcomings as a judge that were found credible and were neither acknowledged nor sufficiently refuted by the Candidate.
"Specifically, the Commission found that the Candidate lacks proper judicial temperament and decorum, often exhibiting a lack of proper respect for lawyers and litigants in her courtroom. There was a significant concern that she frequently adopts one side of an argument presented to her, failing to give proper weight and consideration to the opposite position.
"Reports also suggested," the Commission said, "that the Candidate can and does lose her temper in the courtroom. Most significantly, the Commission observed that the Candidate was a poor listener, a critical weakness in a prospective appellate court judge. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the Candidate lacks the skills necessary to serve adequately as a Judge of the Superior Court."
These were the exact failings wich led to a gross instance of miscarried justice in the case I cite above.
One wonders how a judge with those articulated disqualifications is equipped to serve on any court, much less the state Superior Court. Do Erie Countians deserve a judge who, according to her peers, "lacks proper judicial temperament and decorum," or one who "lacks the skills necessary to serve adequately" on the appellate court level? I don't think so.
Her judicial disqualifications aside, Domitrovich's clownish antics in the courtroom are legend. She once recessed a hearing in mid-progress, inconveniencing all parties, some of whom had travelled miles to reach the courthouse, because she had a hair appointment.
Don't be deceived by Domitrovich's glitzy but shallow self-contrived resume, voluminusly padded with inconsequeantial but high-sounding attributes. Vote "NO" in November against the retention of Domitrovich!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
What happened to the Erie Times-News's online readers' comment forum?
ADDENDUM: This morning, after this blog was posted, I received a response to my query addressed to Managing Editor Pat Howard as to when the Erie Times-News plans to resume online readers' comments. It came from Jeffrey Hileman/Managing Editor/New Media. He replied: "Mr. LaRocca – Pat Howard asked me to respond to your questions. GoErie.com plans to reintroduce reader comments as part of its redesign, though we do not yet have a start date." ____________________________________________________
Until last Spring, the Erie Times-News followed the relatively new practice adopted by most newspapers here and abroad in recent years of enabling readers of their online editions to comment freely on articles, in writing, by appending a comment box at the bottom of each article.
Then, without warning, The Times-News dropped the highly popular feature, a move which was explained by Managing Editor Pat Howard as a temporary one while the Times-News’s website – know as GoErie.com – was being reprogrammed or redesigned.
Howard promised readers the feature would be resumed soon thereafter. As all regular readers of GoErie.com know, to date it has not been resumed. And since neither Howard nor any Times-News person has revealed in the prolonged interim why it has been discontinued, or whether it will ever be resumed, readers remain gagged and in the dark.
I e-mailed Howard yesterday to ask him why the Times-News has discontinued online readers’ comments, whether it plans to resume them and, if so, when? Not surprisingly, I’ve not received a response from Howard. If I do, I’ll post it later on this blog. (See ADDENDUM above.)
The Times-News is not the only newspaper to discontinue online readers’ comments, but there have been only a handful nationwide.
While not within the rationale provided by Howard at the time the Times-News discontinued readers’ comments, most of the other newspapers which have done so have cited widespread abuse of the feature, primarily by anonymous bloggers who persistently engaged in ad hominem attacks which, if identifiable as to source, could be actionable, obscene language, irrelevant posts and other uncivil practices.
This is a common complaint lodged by virtually every newspaper which allows online readers’ comments. It is mitigated to some extent by some newspapers which attempt to monitor the abusive posts and delete them.
But because they receive hundreds to thousands of readers’ posts each day, depending upon the size of the newspaper, it’s virtually impossible for small newspapers with limited intellectual staff like the Times-News to monitor the comments effectively.
Big metro or national newspapers like the New York Times, USA Today, the LA Times, the Washington Post and others affluent enough to afford them have created staff positions whose exclusive province is to monitor and manage online readers’ comments, because they recognize that in this new era of the worldwide web they must follow the crowd if they are to survive in the fast-changing cyber environment.
In some but not all smaller newspapers, the vast majority of comments which are abusive make it into print. While the newspapers provide standing guidelines demanding civility for readers’ comments, they are almost universally ignored, and the newspapers are in most cases helpless to enforce them.
This leaves them with only two options: Either maintain the status quo and continue to suffer the abusive behavior – an unpleasant option at best - or discontinue the highly popular online readers’ comments altogether, and alienate their spiraling online readership. The latter is the path the Times-News has apparently chosen.
There is, however another option which would almost certainly eliminate most if not all of the abuses pertinent to online readers’ comments: disallow anonymity or psuedonymity, an option which I personally support. (See, for example, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Maureen Dowd’s recent column on anonymous blogging, “Stung by the Perfect Sting,” Aug. 26, perhaps the only time I’ve ever agreed with her hyperbolic rants).
That aside, there’s an unspoken dynamic at play within this context which I believe is primarily responsible for the Times-News’s discontinuance of online readers’ comments, as opposed to the rationales asserted above.
An inordinate number of the anonymous ad hominem attacks and abuses were directed at the newspaper staff, its erratic news coverage, editorial stances and its ownership, the longstanding Times Publishing Co., a newspaper monopoly which over the years has swallowed up all the competition, both daily and weekly, except for the Corry Journal, throughout its northwestern PA circulation area, as well as parts of surrounding counties in New York and Ohio.
Much of the commentary, mostly anonymous, was highly critical in unflattering, indeed embarrassing terms of the Times-News’s news and editorial policies and practices and personnel, which are, with good reason, widely seen as biased, shallow, inaccurate, self-serving, unprofessional and arrogant (I concur). Moreover, its Letters to the Editor section is routinely mismanaged.
I believe the thin-skinned operatives at the Times-News chose to discontinue the feature rather than suffer sustained embarrassment at the hands of merciless bloggers, most of them anonymous.
While I do not post or blog anonymously, but always identify myself by name, I was a frequent online critic of articles published in the Times-News, as well as its overall news and editorial practices. While I am often blunt in my criticism, I pride myself on my civility. I do not presume, however, that the Times-News discontinued online readers’ comments because of my feeble and captious criticism.
The last comment I posted before online readers’ comments were discontinued occurred on April 12 of this year. In response to Howard’s regular Sunday column boasting of the Times-News’s showing at the Pennsylvania Newspaper Assn’s. awards program, I posted a detailed factual analysis showing that The Times-News’s performance was greatly exaggerated by Howard.
For one thing, the Times-News is not in the same competitive category as the Commonwealth’s major newspapers in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia. And several of the newspapers in towns smaller than Erie made a much better showing. (See my April 12, 2009 archive blog at http//.www.eriecounternewsmediablogspot.com.)
It should be noted that NO privately/corporately-owned newspaper is obliged to provide a forum for online readers and commenters. However, it ill-behooves any newspaper which persistently and piously preaches on behalf of First Amendment freedoms of press and speech, as the Times-News does, to be seen as a censor of populist expressions of opinion from the vast unwashed which the internet now makes readily and universally possible.
The Times-News is already criticized widely for crass rewriting and editing of Letters to the Editor which is tantamount to, if not actual censorship.
Until last Spring, the Erie Times-News followed the relatively new practice adopted by most newspapers here and abroad in recent years of enabling readers of their online editions to comment freely on articles, in writing, by appending a comment box at the bottom of each article.
Then, without warning, The Times-News dropped the highly popular feature, a move which was explained by Managing Editor Pat Howard as a temporary one while the Times-News’s website – know as GoErie.com – was being reprogrammed or redesigned.
Howard promised readers the feature would be resumed soon thereafter. As all regular readers of GoErie.com know, to date it has not been resumed. And since neither Howard nor any Times-News person has revealed in the prolonged interim why it has been discontinued, or whether it will ever be resumed, readers remain gagged and in the dark.
I e-mailed Howard yesterday to ask him why the Times-News has discontinued online readers’ comments, whether it plans to resume them and, if so, when? Not surprisingly, I’ve not received a response from Howard. If I do, I’ll post it later on this blog. (See ADDENDUM above.)
The Times-News is not the only newspaper to discontinue online readers’ comments, but there have been only a handful nationwide.
While not within the rationale provided by Howard at the time the Times-News discontinued readers’ comments, most of the other newspapers which have done so have cited widespread abuse of the feature, primarily by anonymous bloggers who persistently engaged in ad hominem attacks which, if identifiable as to source, could be actionable, obscene language, irrelevant posts and other uncivil practices.
This is a common complaint lodged by virtually every newspaper which allows online readers’ comments. It is mitigated to some extent by some newspapers which attempt to monitor the abusive posts and delete them.
But because they receive hundreds to thousands of readers’ posts each day, depending upon the size of the newspaper, it’s virtually impossible for small newspapers with limited intellectual staff like the Times-News to monitor the comments effectively.
Big metro or national newspapers like the New York Times, USA Today, the LA Times, the Washington Post and others affluent enough to afford them have created staff positions whose exclusive province is to monitor and manage online readers’ comments, because they recognize that in this new era of the worldwide web they must follow the crowd if they are to survive in the fast-changing cyber environment.
In some but not all smaller newspapers, the vast majority of comments which are abusive make it into print. While the newspapers provide standing guidelines demanding civility for readers’ comments, they are almost universally ignored, and the newspapers are in most cases helpless to enforce them.
This leaves them with only two options: Either maintain the status quo and continue to suffer the abusive behavior – an unpleasant option at best - or discontinue the highly popular online readers’ comments altogether, and alienate their spiraling online readership. The latter is the path the Times-News has apparently chosen.
There is, however another option which would almost certainly eliminate most if not all of the abuses pertinent to online readers’ comments: disallow anonymity or psuedonymity, an option which I personally support. (See, for example, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Maureen Dowd’s recent column on anonymous blogging, “Stung by the Perfect Sting,” Aug. 26, perhaps the only time I’ve ever agreed with her hyperbolic rants).
That aside, there’s an unspoken dynamic at play within this context which I believe is primarily responsible for the Times-News’s discontinuance of online readers’ comments, as opposed to the rationales asserted above.
An inordinate number of the anonymous ad hominem attacks and abuses were directed at the newspaper staff, its erratic news coverage, editorial stances and its ownership, the longstanding Times Publishing Co., a newspaper monopoly which over the years has swallowed up all the competition, both daily and weekly, except for the Corry Journal, throughout its northwestern PA circulation area, as well as parts of surrounding counties in New York and Ohio.
Much of the commentary, mostly anonymous, was highly critical in unflattering, indeed embarrassing terms of the Times-News’s news and editorial policies and practices and personnel, which are, with good reason, widely seen as biased, shallow, inaccurate, self-serving, unprofessional and arrogant (I concur). Moreover, its Letters to the Editor section is routinely mismanaged.
I believe the thin-skinned operatives at the Times-News chose to discontinue the feature rather than suffer sustained embarrassment at the hands of merciless bloggers, most of them anonymous.
While I do not post or blog anonymously, but always identify myself by name, I was a frequent online critic of articles published in the Times-News, as well as its overall news and editorial practices. While I am often blunt in my criticism, I pride myself on my civility. I do not presume, however, that the Times-News discontinued online readers’ comments because of my feeble and captious criticism.
The last comment I posted before online readers’ comments were discontinued occurred on April 12 of this year. In response to Howard’s regular Sunday column boasting of the Times-News’s showing at the Pennsylvania Newspaper Assn’s. awards program, I posted a detailed factual analysis showing that The Times-News’s performance was greatly exaggerated by Howard.
For one thing, the Times-News is not in the same competitive category as the Commonwealth’s major newspapers in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia. And several of the newspapers in towns smaller than Erie made a much better showing. (See my April 12, 2009 archive blog at http//.www.eriecounternewsmediablogspot.com.)
It should be noted that NO privately/corporately-owned newspaper is obliged to provide a forum for online readers and commenters. However, it ill-behooves any newspaper which persistently and piously preaches on behalf of First Amendment freedoms of press and speech, as the Times-News does, to be seen as a censor of populist expressions of opinion from the vast unwashed which the internet now makes readily and universally possible.
The Times-News is already criticized widely for crass rewriting and editing of Letters to the Editor which is tantamount to, if not actual censorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
