Jackson Free Press

Todd Stauffer was on SuperTalk Mississippi (we're ashamed to say we don't know the frequency -- 97.3 FM, maybe?) at 8:05am on Tuesday to talk to Paul Gallo about the Clarion-Ledger's scheme to control free publications in the Metro. But instead of sticking to the non-partisan topic of free enterprise, Gallo kept trying to bait Todd into an argument about "liberals." Then Mike Lott, the legislator from Petal, called into falsely accuse the JFP of running a page 1 story about him, calling him a racist. When Todd said we didn't do that, Gallo said that, yes, indeed it was the Jackson Free Press. Then Donna Ladd called in to set the record straight, reportedly causing Gallo & Co. to launch into personal attacks against the JFP and its staff the next morning. The following thread contains more information on this little far-right temper tantrum.

Previous Commentsshow

Yep, it is on 97.3. And in case you're not in Jackson, SuperTalk is heard throughout the state on 97.3 Hattiesburg (not the same Jackson 97.3), 96.9 Indianola, 105.5 Oxford, 94.3 Corinth and 100.9 Columbus/Starkville.

golden eagle

May 30 2006

Good show, for the most part. Between Mr. Gallo's baits over Melton and "liberals," Todd managed to get in some good talk about the Gannett/Clarion-Ledger TDN scheme. And the talk about the Northeast Ledger as "litter" was hilarious. It sounds like the SuperTalk staff might even attend a "Throw Your Ledger Back Day." ;-) The part that was frustrating to me, though, is when Mike Lott -- the legislator from Petal or somewhere -- called in to declare that the Jackson Free Press had run a front-page story "written by Bill Chandler," the immigrant-rights guy, and a photo of him (Lott) calling him "a racist"—without his side in it. Todd said we didn't do that, that it must have been some other paper. Then, and this really got me, Gallo said something like, "No, it was the Jackson Free Press." Unbelievable. Meet the difference between what we do and what talk radio does. We find, examine, consider and publish facts, and then form opinions based on them. Too many frequenters of talk radio form an opinion and then make up facts to put around them. So I called the show at the end to ask them to correct this ridiculous assertion of "fact." They patched me through to Gallo (which I didn't know because I could barely hear), and then I told him that we most certainly did not do what Mr. Lott accused us of doing, and that Mr. Gallo agreed with. I then Googled to see what they could possibly be talking about and, lo and behold, this little February news brief written by Adam is what I find. Here's the part about Mr. Lott: Rep. John Moore, R-Brandon, has submitted a slew of bills restricting access for illegal immigrants. Moore, partnering with Rep. Mike Lott, R-Petal, released HB 500, which would prohibit non-English-speaking undocumented workers from applying for any kind of license or public assistance. Moore also submitted HB 500, which would prohibit contractors from hiring non-citizens, and encourage law enforcement to target contractors who do. Lott’s HB 947 would revoke licenses for anyone convicted of hiring undocumented workers. Lott and Moore joined Rep. Ricky Cummings, D-Iuka, and Rep. Harvey Moss, D-Corinth, in submitting HB 1072, which seeks to restrict the children of undocumented workers from enrolling in schools, and requires schools to report children who attempt to enroll to immigration authorities. HB 1073, authored by Lott, Cummings, Moore, Moss and Rep. Gary Staples, R-Laurel, would carry that restriction up into higher education, prohibiting undocumented students from those institutions. Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance President Bill Chandler noted a curious common trait of what he called the “xenophobic authors” of these bills. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the anti-immigration bills were authored by white male legislators,” Chandler said. Reps. Lott, Staples, Cummings and Moore did not return calls by press time. This small news story ran, incidentally on page 8, in the middle of the page with no photo attached to it. I hope Mr. Lott is a bit more concerned with veracity of his statements with his own constituency than this talk-radio visit demonstrated. Sigh. And it's rather remarkable to me that a Petal man who is trying to keep little kids out of schools would give a damn what a progressive paper in Jackson thinks about him. Be yourself, man. And don't go around lying about what others say about you.

DonnaLadd

May 30 2006

You know the very nature of right-wing hate radio is to spin the facts to fit the way they want you to hear it. It's like a cult: you're supposed to follow the leader (Gallo, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) and accept everything they tell you without question. Since I bet many of Gallo's audience don't read or never even heard of the JPF, they probably would've believed what Mike Lott said and never gave it a second thought to research it.

golden eagle

May 30 2006

I know. That's why I called in. And why I wouldn't last long on talk radio. I call out inaccuracies, or unsubstantiated innuendo, when I hear it. This was just wrong. And I couldn't believe Mr. Gallo simply assumed that his statement was accurate and backed him up when Todd said we didn't do that. Again, though, I appreciate his interviewing Todd about the Gannett scheme, which I guess wasn't partisan enough. So they had to go looking, and making stuff up, to make us into the Big Bad Liberal Monsters. Screw the whole "liberal" rhetoric. Had I been there when he was trotting out the tired old liberal-mongering, I would have said, "apparently, a liberal is anyone who disagrees with you. Tell me, Mr. Gallo, are the 70+ percent of Americans who disapprove of the president these days all "liberals," or could it be a bit more nuanced and intelligent than that? (Oops, I mentioned intelligence; that means I'm an elitist. Damn, forgot.) Or, could you define "conservative" for me, Mr. Radio Talker (fill in name of favorite Rush wannabe here). In fact, I told Todd afterward that we should come up with a quiz for these guys. Quick, define "conservative": 1. Believe in wiretapping of American citizens without warrants? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. 2. Believe in balancing the federal budget? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. 3. Believe in outsourcing Amerian jobs to China and India? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. 4. Believe in individual rights to make decisions in your own bedroom and about your own body? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. 5. Believe that Mayor Melton should be able to search people's homes and cars without notice or warrant? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. 6. Believe that the mayor should be able to terrorize old ladies with a shotgun and two dudes with machine guns, but no probable cause? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. 7. Believe that the neocons' "shock and awe" claim was a bunch of kablooey? Conservative or liberal. Pick one. You get the idea. Y'all feel free to fill in other conservative quiz questions at will.

DonnaLadd

May 30 2006

Oh, and golden eagle boy, I don't do cults. Life's too short.

DonnaLadd

May 30 2006

Wow, I'm sorry to have missed you on Gallo's show. Personally, I would have liked to have heard a debate between you two. One of the things that finally turned me off to right-wing talk radio was the lack of intelligent debate from the left-wing. Most of the callers who disagree with the host aren't informed enough or skilled enough to go toe-to-toe with the host, and the few that are generally get cut off before they can finish their point, or get sidetracked by some stupid question offered by the host designed to throw them off balance and get them angry or emotional, making them easy fodder for the host and his right-wing callers to gang up on them. Its difficult to argue with the person who holds the mike, and therefore controls the terms of the debate.

Jeff Lucas

May 30 2006

This wasn't really a debate. To Todd's credit, he didn't really respond to the bait, because he was trying to stay focused on the Gannett scheme. A liberal-conservative discussion would have eaten up all the time. That said, I would love to hear Todd go on one of these shows and have that discussion. He's *very* articulate on these issues. As I said, I would have less patience for stupid or false comments. When I went on the Kim Wade show with Ben Allen, I outright told a caller he was making an "ignorant" statement when he trotted out that racist old "blacks are better offer because of slavery" argument that takes into account nothing that has happened to or in Africa in the last few centuries. I have little tolerance for idiocy.

DonnaLadd

May 30 2006

This is the reason I dont' listen to talk radio; they're not really interested in Right/Left wing issues. Rush and others are experts at provoking people, pure and simple. These days, it's slyly argue a trumped up Fascist worldview and get people to call in and complain. That gets listeners, which drives ads. Gallo was probably overjoyed that Lott called in with his inaccurate but flammable tirade. The best defense for that bit of bating is ignore it.

Ironghost

May 30 2006

I've never had any use for the Gallo show. However, I do enjoy the JT and Dave show on SuperTalk. Even though they may not agree with you (or each other), they are much better at presenting all sides of an argument. Plus, they are much funnier. However, they are a big supporter of the Lott legislation.

James Hester

May 30 2006

Ditto (ugh) on the "JT and Dave" show. They are very entertaining, and on occasion I happen to agree with them on topics like school consolidation, pit bulls, and The Beef Plant fiasco. Dave can be a little irritating on days when he's extra feisty, but the way they play off of each other is hilarious. Plus I love when they take shots at their radio time-slot competitor, "Mr. Oxycontin".

Jeff Lucas

May 31 2006

Oh, the only time I listen to Supertalk is when I want to catch up on Coast to Coast AM. :D Gotta keep track of the conspiracies somehow.

Ironghost

May 31 2006

That Coast to Coast show is weird. I was listening on night several years ago and some guy said the Armegeddon will be started Chinese Red Army when they attack Denver. What's in Denver for the CRA to want to attack?

golden eagle

May 31 2006

My English didn't look too good...Armegeddon will be started by the Chinese Red Army when they attack Denver.

golden eagle

May 31 2006

Donna, is it possible to add a limited editing feature to this board? One that keeps track of when comments have been edited?

Jeff Lucas

May 31 2006

And allows posters to self edit to a limited extent?

Jeff Lucas

May 31 2006

I had never listened to the Gallo show, or JT & Dave. I listen to very little talk radio. I've never had a reason to. However, the Kim Wade Show has grown on me, at least when he's talking about issues that have little or nothing to do with partisanship (like the city and such). Kim is VERY funny. I don't mind Ben Allen on the air; he can be good, too -- but never when he's on with Nesbit. I wish he'd do a show alone or with a reasonable co-host, perhaps even one more to the left, but not radical (like, say, Todd or Othor Cain). That would be a great show. I got a couple messages that Gallo was trashing us this morning. I guess he didn't like being factchecked yesterday. Sad, because the topic of that show had nothing to do with partisanship, but talk radio seems to obsess over party. It's such a limiting way to lead a discussion. But, hey. That's what their audience wants, I guess. Anyway, it seems like everytime we get trashing by the far right, we get new readers. Publicity is publicity. ;-)

DonnaLadd

May 31 2006

As for the editing tool, I dunno. We edit posts very little, so it's not very needed. I can understand readers wanting to clean up mistakes, but it's not really a big deal.

DonnaLadd

May 31 2006

Oooo, this is a delicious bit of Paul Gallo Show trivia. I just found out that after Mike Lott called into the show about the Gannett scheme Tuesday a.m. to blast the JFP for publishing a front-page story written by immigrant-rights leaders Bill Chandler with a picture of Lott calling him a racist (every fact of which is simply inaccurate), and then I called in to say that it wasn't true, Lott got on the phone to conversatives he knows around the state trying to find out if we actually ran that article, and where he could get ahold of it! Ha. Boys, boys, boys. Remember: Facts come before accusations, even for extreme right-wingers. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jun 1 2006

BTW, I bumped this SuperTalk thread to my blog. There are some interesting issues raised here—about the radical right's cheap "liberal" labels of anyone they disagree with or who thinks independents—that I think y'all might like to discuss. I hear Gallo challenged me to come on his show to be, I guess, attacked in person. ;-) I guess he doesn't understand that I've been pissing off the radical right (and the radical left, for that matter) for years, and don't have any need to defend myself to him or anyone else. Get over it, dude. So, I caught you in an unfactual statement happens. Be an adult, apologize for misrepresenting something about the JFP, and move on. It happens.

DonnaLadd

Jun 1 2006

Even if you went on Gallo's show, he'd probably try to talk all over you without letting you get a word in edgewise. That's how right-wing hate radio works. Either that way or they'll get a couple more right-wingers to gang up on you. The latter once happened on MSNBC when Joe Scarborough first started his show after Michael Savage was let go. He had a guy on who was trying to dispel the notion of a liberal media and two other right-wingers were brought in to gang up on him. To be truthful, I don't listen to Gallo enough to know if he would've done that. But should you change your mind and do so, go in there with the facts and body armor. BTW, how many more days will we do without Air America in Jackson? The countdown continues...

golden eagle

Jun 1 2006

I know, golden boy, that's why I don't do screech-radio with people I know won't be respectful. Mr. Gallo had written us several e-mails wanting us to come on, especially to talk about Melton, so I figured the completely non-partisan issue of local free enterprise would be a good, safe topic. But they can't resist throwing red meat to their frothing listeners, I guess. It's sad more than anything at the waste that incurs. I'm not going on his show. I have no need to. Recall that it took me three years to go on with Ben Allen or Kim Wade. There was a certain amount of mutual trust and respect that needed to be established first. Besides, I doubt his listener base is very high in the area that the JFP serves. I'll have to check the numbers to see. Also, I was thinking about the whole "liberal"-baiting thing. It is so not smart. Are these guys really saying that a conservative can't be "progressive"? I know plenty of progressive conservatives. I just don't think they understand what words mean. A few children were indeed left behind in the past in this state. Dictionary.com — "progressive" pro·gres·sive P Pronunciation Key (pr-grsv) adj. Moving forward; advancing. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax. Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis. Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress. n. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party. Grammar. A progressive verb form. Now, tell me you can't have conservative ideals and be a progressive. Are they really this stupid or do they just act like it on the radio?

DonnaLadd

Jun 1 2006

Whatever your political persuasion, there of those of us "out here" who believe the following tenets deep in our mean libertarian hearts: 1. US Citizenship is a privilege, not a "right." 2. US Citizenship is a hard-earned privilege. 3. New US citizens should be conversent in English. 3. The fact of birth (only) on US soil should not "automatically" infer US citizenship if the parent(s) are not US citizens. 4. No person entering this country illegally, working in this country illegally, or residing in this country illegally should be allowed US citizenship unless this person acknowledges this violation of US law and agrees to start again at the beginning of US immigration policy like any other new immigrant. This would negate the fact that babies born on US soil are, ipso facto, US citizens, if neither parent is a US citizen. 5. US -based countries should be fined huge fines ($25,000) per illegal alien employee per year. 6. This, of course, would require some type of "national identity card." If liberals don't want this, we can always have a national tatoo card which would not alter liberal behavior. 7. There are thousands of immigrants from 100's of countries other than Mexico who wish to immigrate to the US, especially Indian citizens and Asian citizens. Why are these potential immigrants discriminated against by the hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants whose only calling to this country is a large, contiguous border? Sincerely, HDMATTHIAS, md

HDMatthias, MD

Jun 2 2006

HD, I'm not going to take the bait on immigration issues. But Lott has even gone on the attack against infant children of undocumented immigrants--who, because they were born in this country, are unquestionably citizens under the Constitution--calling them "anchor babies" and demanding that they be denied access to basic rights, such as health care. This could literally kill them. Infants. Who haven't done a damned thing wrong. There's a name for that kind of position, but it's not conservative, and it's not libertarian. As far as I'm concerned, Chandler's assessment of Mike Lott is completely accurate. The man from Petal will go far in this state with his hatred, stupidity, and lies, and may even have limited success using his political muscle to silence critics like Chandler, but the least the rest of us can do is keep watching and honestly record what we see without trying to spin it into something less disgusting out of a misguided sense of loyalty towards "people like us." Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 2 2006

I've been listening to a fascinating battle this morning between Gallo and his in-studio guest former A.G. Mike Moore regarding the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi (or as JT and Dave call it, the "Patnahship") and the recent judgement regarding its funding. I was only able to listen to the first hour of their debate, but Mike handled himself well. He would not let Gallo interrupt him, he stayed on message and was well-armed with the facts to defend his position (the benefit of being a seasoned attorney), and called Gallo out on some of his race-baiting on the issue. Mike stayed in control and for a short while had Gallo on the ropes, IMO. I'm not a fan of Mike Moore and I'm not thrilled about the lack of direct oversight of the Partnerships various benefactors, but I think this morning's discussion proves that Gallo (or Wade, or Nesbit) can be dealt with if you can debate without getting frustrated and angry at the ad hominem attacks from him and his callers (which there weren't very many hurled when I was listening) and can stay on message. Believe me, Gallo is a pussycat next to Sean Hannity, who is such an awful, smug, arrogant, obnoxious bully that I almost stopped listening to WJNT altogether when he was added to the lineup.

Jeff Lucas

Jun 2 2006

Speaking of race-baiting, I couldn't believe the talkover Gallo did on that blues song during Todd's appearance the other day. How offensive and back-ass can you sound. He seems to be the one-man evidence that Mississippi hasn't finished its evolution. Icky. The good news, of course, is that that kind of talk radio is quickly becoming dated with listenership getting even older than that of daily newspapers. Blogging is eating their lunch, and gives people a chance to study, factcheck and correct what is said rather than be accosted by drive-by sound bites. Smart talkers should have their own blogs and be accountable there. I noticed that Cam Edwards has a blog.

DonnaLadd

Jun 2 2006

This, of course, would require some type of "national identity card." If liberals don't want this, we can always have a national tatoo card which would not alter liberal behavior. Anybody familiar with that whole "Mark of the Beast" thing in Revelations? Scary, Scary.

Lori G

Jun 2 2006

Do you know there's actually a term for fear of that dreaded number? The term is "Hexakosioihexakontahexaphobia." Real word. As for your comments, HD, how is citizenship a "hard-earned" right? I didn't do anything to become a citizen except make it out of the birth canal, and to be honest, mom did most of the work.

Brian C Johnson

Jun 2 2006

As you're all aware, a non-US citizen may be allowed to join our Armed Forces, and upon completion of his/her duty, is "expediated" in some fashion towards US citizenship. My friend-- "Why don't we allow non-US citizens seeking citizenship (after serving in the Armed Forces for 2 years) a "fast-track" to citizenship, and that for every additional year served they may bring in any family member, who can, after the appropriate time, study, and language acquisition, become a US citizen?" He looked at me and said, "Tell immigrants this---Are you willing to fight for, and possibly die, for this country? If so, you will be welcomed here." In other words, "how much are you willing to pay in order to become a US citizen?" Those of certain political persuasions will see this as nothing other than a way for this country to wage wars using the poor, the downtrodden, the darker skinned. My father escaped Nazi Germany by joining the US Army. He served stateside and in the Far East. Let's talk about Canada, my special country. Quebec in the 70's was wild. I was in The Royal Bank of Montreal when two ski-masked Quebecois radicals entered the bank with machine guns and demanded money. I saw my life in retrograde (it goes "real fast," by the way). Hit the floor, people! It all happened so quickly. As soon as they exited the bank, they were blown to smithereens by the always handy "Royal Mounted Police." I learned that day that when you are shot with multiple rounds of high velocity bullets, the shots actually lift you off the ground. Turned out that someone had squealed on them to the Mounties, and that the bank had been under surveillance all day, with the Mounties, et. al. sitting in the bushes across the street, ready and waiting. Canada loves its immigrants. (Call your Hewlett Packard "help" number and you will talk to someone in Quebec province, usually Ottawa, who sounds as if he/she is from Nigeria by way of Jamaica {which was the case on my last call)}. (I'm pretty good with accents, if I say so myself). Here's why Canada loves its immigrants. I won't quote the official policy, but, in essence, here is the way you become a foreign-born Canadian citizen. (Be advised that the population of Vancouver is nearly 50% Asian.) 1. Have a skill that Canada wants. Come, work your skill, and learn the language. (All language courses in Canada are free. I can attest. I took French.) You can become a citizen. 2. Have enough money to invest in a new business in Canada. This is what occurred when China took over Hong Kong. Hong Kong money "flew" to Vancouver. Condo rates and real estate in Vancouver went through the roof. If you're rich and a business person, welcome to Canada! 3. Have a family member sponsor you, with a $10,000 bond. This requires that this sponsored person cannot receive any Canadian benefits for at least 5 years. 4. I forget all the rest at this time. Please refer to the Canadian immigration website. No wonder Canada loves its immigrants! I wish this country would build an underground tunnel from Juarez to the Canadian border, and then see how happy this truly wonderful, socialized, beautiful country feels about "immigrants." It's so easy for Canada to talk. Canada has few immigration problems (not NO immigration problems, especially in Toronto) compared to this country. I love Canada. I wish we had their immigration policies. However, Canada has a 3000m mile border with the US. We, however, have a 2000 mile border with Mexico. BIG DIFFERENCE!!! My husband and I love Montreal, Vancouver, British Columbia, etc. and we visit often. This country should have, at least as difficult an immigration policy as our chilly, socialist, and friendly neighbors to our North. How come this great country has no immigration policy?? Sincerely, HDMatthias, MD

HDMatthias, MD

Jun 2 2006

HD, nobody is talking about Canada and nobody is talking about ordinary immigration policy. You keep trying to bait us on this issue, but the real concern is Mike Lott's persistent attacks on the infant children of undocumented immigrants, who are American citizens according to the Constitution, and whether Bill Chandler's assessment of him is correct. I happen to believe that it is. Whether our immigration policy should be more or less like Canada's is irrelevant. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 2 2006

I still say it's remarkable that that Lott guy is so paranoid about what progressives think about him. He seems to be a proud extreme-radical-ring-winger. I mean, look at these policies. They're his policies; we didn't come up with them for him. It tickles me that he got so bent about somebody being quoted pointing out that he and his extremist buddies are all white. What's wrong with being white? Some of my best friends are white. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jun 3 2006

BTW, all, we also heard that Mr. Gallo, during his JFP-and-anybody-who-questions-my-beliefs-is-a-liberal rant the day after Todd was on there, "challenged" me to go on his show and, uh, give him therapy for his fear of "liberals," I guess. (I paraphrase, being that I didn't hear exactly what he said. ) What he needs to understand is that I called his show to correct his and his guest's error, pure and simple. That's all I needed to do. People can Google for themselves to see what we actually had published about Mr. Lott (or follow the link above). Also, being that Mr. Gallo has been a member of the JFP Web site in good standing since February 2004, he is welcome to come on here and speak his mind, as long as he complies with the User Agreement just like everyone else. And I'm sure he will do that; he has not violated it to date in his two-plus-year membership, so there is reason to think that he would. My best advice to him, though, is to stop worrying about "liberals" (which, in his world, is a mighty large and amorphous category). In this great nation of ours, there will always be people of different viewpoints, and that's a good thing. Personal attacks and lies about them is not going to make people of diffreent viewpoints go away. As our friend Ben Allen might say here: "Calm down. Don't worry. Be happy. Enjoy life and spirited debate." Life's too short to pop a vein just because there is someone out there willing to challenge your views.

DonnaLadd

Jun 4 2006

I disagree with our US Constitution regarding the "accident of birth." I would ask that the states amend the Constitution. Our country should move into the 21st century (isn't that Bill Clinton's phrase?) and change our Constitution. Why should this country give US citizenship to a baby born to an illegal immigrant who, by luck, or purpose, has her baby (illegally) in this country? The baby is an "anchor baby." and her mother is a "mule." These women and children have no relationship to this country other than the ER and obstetrical ward where the baby is born. Nothing more, nothing less. There are hundreds of thousands of babies in this world who would love to be born in the US and have US citizenship bestowed upon them. They come from every country in the world, but 90% "make it" to this country because of our contiguous border. This is absolutely UNFAIR. Mexican and Central Americans should have no "special privilege" to become citizens of this country. I reiterate that the only "border" this country has with Mexico is an imaginary line on a Rand-McNally map. I beg this country to allow citizenship to "legal" aliens from all over this world. We'd be far better off. Just look at the highest graduating seniors in American high schools. Look at USA Today's best scholars. Their names are Ho, Chen, Nyugen, Raju, Patel, Songsharoen, etc. For the most part, their names are not Martinez or Chavez. Europeans, Asians, Indians are dying to immigrate to this country. There is no reason that illegal Mexican immigrants should move ahead of these other immigrants. Sincerely, HDMatthias, MD

HDMatthias, MD

Jun 5 2006

HD, the fact that you describe Mexican mothers as "mules," never mind describing their children as "anchor babies," tells me that we do not have enough common ground to discuss this topic. In any case, the Constitution will never be revised along the lines you suggest. That would require two-thirds of the House and Senate (when the Senate wouldn't even vote to deport), plus three-quarters of the states. It won't fly. And Clinton was much harsher with regard to immigrants than Bush is. In fact, I'm working on a piece of content for my About.com site that addresses this issue. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 5 2006

And I might add: Regardless of what the Constitution might one day say in your fantasy world, everyone born in this country is a U.S. citizen and has the same rights you or I do. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 5 2006

If WFMN did not have the rights to broadcast Ole Miss sports, would it make enough money to stay in business? I've heard for years that Ole Miss broadcast revenue is what keeps that station afloat. Thank goodness we don't have Matt Friedeman to listen to anymore on there.

Kingfish

Jun 5 2006

I can't stand to read Matt, Jimmy, but I must say that I like him as a person. And he's a big fan of the JFP. He writes me every few months to tell me what a great job we're doing, especially for the city of Jackson. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jun 7 2006

Here's an apropos section from Richard Dortch's column today in the Ledge: 'CENTRISTS' AREN'T LIBERALS If Bush supporters in Mississippi ended up being the last of their kind on Earth (and this may yet turn out to be the case), they would still believe themselves to be "mainstream." Because everywhere they look in their conservative-biased subculture, they see another naive Bush supporter beaming back at them - assuring them that the Iraq war is justified, global warming doesn't exist, deficits don't matter and the Earth is flat. Living in cultural isolation can lead conservatives to some rather kooky ideas. Like the idea that their far-right agenda is actually centrist. Or the notion that anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to conservatism must be labeled "liberal" and dismissed without a hearing. Accusing centrists of being liberal has been a very effective ploy for conservatives. It has been used, for example, to bully and intimidate news directors and newspaper editors across the South, who are so browbeaten with accusations of "liberal bias" that they have picked up the political 50-yard-line and moved it 40 yards downfield as an act of appeasement. I don't know about in every Ole Miss classroom, but I get the feeling this has changed a lot in the last few years. Four years ago, it was hard to get people to admit that they didn't like Bush or had progressive ideas around here. Now, they seem to be coming out of the woodwork, probably due to a combination of the horrendous Bush presidency, off-the-chart extremists like Ann Coulter, and simply more people seeing that you're not necessarily a "liberal" (in the ugly way it's defined) if you're not an off-the-charts wingnut. That is progress, I would say. Again, I think the majority of Mississippians are, or would be progressives, if given a chance to be. Progressive as in believing in moving forward, etc., as defined somewhere up above. Truly, a coalition of progressive Democrats, progressive Republicans and progressive others is what we need right now int he state. We've got to eject the dinosaurs, though, which we've always needed to do. They're the ones holding us back and making us look ignorant.

DonnaLadd

Jun 11 2006

Link to that Dortch column.

DonnaLadd

Jun 11 2006