In finding Chris Morris' Green Deal (sic) "oops-ed" to be disinformative, misinformative, objectionable and dismissive, our guest columnist is being charitable.

I had planned on writing a response of some sort to one of Chris Morris' worst ever News and Tribune opinion column outings: OPINION: Green Deal a little farfetched. Morris' column truly is abominable, but Randy Smith beat me to the critique. Here it is.

---

Keep Chris Away from the Children.

I'm a writer and have been a writer most of my life. I've also been a newspaper reporter and newspaper news and copy editor (over the course of two decades), a book editor, and a published author. I also wrote a nationally distributed column on topics of my choosing for a few years.

On Tuesday, I woke to find a Twitter referral to an opinion column by Chris Morris, an assistant editor of the Jeffersonville daily newspaper. Given that Morris is a member of that paper's editorial board, I don't know whether that particular piece would be called an op-ed, but in my view, it certainly qualifies as an "oops-ed."

I consider myself a fairly sophisticated reader of mainstream science and politics, so the error in the very first sentence was jarring to me.

Morris referred to something he calls the "New Green Deal." No one else has ever heard of it, though there is a dramatic proposal circulating about a "Green New Deal." That was either a glaring mistake by the writer or a disingenuous attempt to belittle by mis-terming something one opposes. In modern times, such mis-terming has been a primary tool for disinformation, popularized by former Speaker Newt Gingrich and his technocratic ally, Frank Luntz.

Nothing if not determined, the columnist continues to refer to his bugbear as the "Green Deal" throughout his editorial. Again, there is no such thing. There is a Green New Deal.

Morris at least acknowledges that the proposal, in its breadth and ambition, hearkens back to the second President Roosevelt's New Deal designed to address a nation in crisis.

The column's headline calls this new proposal "a little farfetched." In most dictionaries, it would be "far-fetched," but I'll postpone further criticism of what could have been a difference of opinion on orthography.

However, as an aside, Mr. Morris's newspaper is becoming known for its near-daily errors in facts, spelling, grammar, and word choices that are, to me, risible.

As a natural editor, I've made a pest of myself in pointing those out, sometimes privately but more often via social media. And sometimes, it is appreciated by the reporter, who tries to correct the errors in online editions. I'm sure others resent my suggestions.

I do this for historical reasons. I became a precocious and accomplished reader early in life because I read newspapers. My parents modeled this and I, being an eldest child, emulated their example. In short, I learned to read by reading newspapers. Over the years I developed a highly advanced ability to proofread, a skill that no longer offers remuneration.

A newspaper that has no standards when it comes to spelling, grammar, or word choice puts children (and adults) like me at risk of being "word dummies." Beyond that, for a certain class of individual, it diminishes greatly the reputation of the newspaper. We can ill afford that.

But back to Mr. Morris's opinion piece.

I'm generally inclined toward the ideas of the Green New Deal. I see them as ambitious but doable. Mr. Morris sees them as far-fetched.

And I'm certainly not the person within his readership who can best refute the disinformation and misinformation Morris relies on to form and express his opinion. But I'll bet I can express mine in a more credible way than he has done with his.

Mr Morris unintentionally "blows it" in his second graf, one in which he poo-poos recent reports of climate change scientists with incendiary intent. He exaggerates:

The basis behind the Green Deal (sic) is a recent climate change report which (sic) basically states if (sic) we don't change our ways, the Earth as we know it will cease to exist and be swallowed up by floods, out-of-control fires and will basically be inhabitable.

Inhabitable means capable of being inhabited. That is, those bad things (can we agree?) will make life on earth, "basically," livable. If the mischaracterization hadn't already undermined the editorial, the poor word choice essentially refutes the point Mr. Morris was (presumably) trying to make.

Later in the piece, Mr. Morris does it again. See if you can pinpoint the moment where he undercuts the credibility of his own piece.

I do believe many Americans, however, have absolutely no conscious when it comes to littering and being more environmentally friendly.

I am conscious of where Morris went wrong here. How about you? He may have meant to write "consciousness" here, but it's more likely he meant to say "conscience." These are different words with different spellings and meanings. One implies awareness. The other implies guilt and a need for correction.

Morris continues:

Do I believe in a lot of what this Green New Deal [ah-ha!] is pushing [you know, like a drug dealer]? It is way too left of center for me and unreasonable.

There are many places you can go to read more about current climate science. I believe we are already seeing the effects of anthropogenic global warming and the resultant extremes in temperature, precipitation, winds, captured oxygen, etc. It's plausible that we are very near a tipping point where we will be unable to reverse the effects of the gases we are injecting into our atmosphere.

I'm eager to see if we have politicians and policy makers who can come up with an American and a global solution.

I don't believe I've read an opinion from a masthead editor of a mainstream newspaper that used such pejorative and dismissive language. The piece does little to inform while hurling insults at broad swathes of Americans. Had I been in charge, it would never have been published.

I could critique it line-by-line, but as I said, there are others who can do that better than I can. Chris Morris, after all, is paid to inform and opine. I am not.

I am, however, willing to submit an invoice if his newspaper is willing to underwrite a well-researched op-ed column.

Let's leave it at this: Almost every paragraph is acid-tongued, deliberately insulting, objectionable, misinformative, or disinformative. That's not what I look for in a newspaper or from a man who represents the editorial board of his publication.

And far sooner than 11 years from now, Mr. Morris will disavow this contribution to the public discourse. If his is the view from the "center," God help us all.

Embarrassment as "the Donnelly campaign demonstrates the futility of seeking to surmount these obstacles by trying to out-Republican the Republicans."

This guy who wrote this piece teaches at Indiana University, the same place where Romeo is playing basketball.

The Guardian is big-time, so please pay attention.

Are there any questions?

The Democrats shouldn't move right to win Trump voters. Here's why, by Jeffrey C Isaac (The Guardian)

The midterms showed that pandering to Trumpism is a recipe not just for defeat but for demoralization. Even losing progressive campaigns brought hope

 ... How should the Democrats move forward with an eye toward 2020 and beyond? There are no easy answers, and in the weeks and months to come many answers will be debated. Democrats scored most of their victories in more or less liberal suburban and urban areas where Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and experienced defeat in much of Republican “red state” America, and especially the rural areas, where Trump won in 2016. Do the Democrats need to do better in these conservative, “red” areas? Certainly. Should Democrats attempt this by running candidates who play to the right and appeal to elements of Trump’s base? Many pundits are already stepping forward to urge this. I disagree. And the case of my home state of Indiana is instructive.

Is it ever.

One of the most striking Democratic losses on Tuesday was the resounding defeat of the incumbent Senator Joe Donnelly by conservative Republican Mike Braun. 

The word "loss" simply doesn't convey the odiousness.

The worst features of Trumpism dominated the Indiana Senate race. How did Donnelly respond? By emphasizing his closeness to Trump and the fact that he voted with Trump over 60% of the time, and by campaigning not against his rightwing attackers but against the left of his own party, running his own anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, and red-baiting ads.

It was a destructive and cynical calculation that severely compromised Donnelly’s integrity. More importantly, it was an abysmal political failure. Indiana voters drawn to Trumpism demonstrated on Tuesday that they strongly preferred a real, unadulterated Trumpist to a Democratic facsimile. And so Donnelly lost. First his soul, and then the election. A significant Democratic defeat.

Let's repeat that: "They strongly preferred a real, unadulterated Trumpist to a Democratic facsimile." And yet, how many self-styled local "progressives" voted for Donnelly and Liz Watson?

Area chiropractors should be having a field day.

Democrats lost big in Indiana. But some electoral losses can be seen as ethical and even political victories. And so I turn to Indiana’s ninth congressional district, and to the effort of Democrat Liz Watson to unseat one-term incumbent Republican Trey Hollingsworth.

As we already know, Watson also lost big.

In a way, the electoral margin underestimates the power of (her) loss. For while Watson campaigned tirelessly for months, holding town halls in every county in the district, Hollingsworth did virtually nothing. He held no town hall meetings, and he refused to debate Watson even once. One of the richest men in Congress and a beneficiary of all of the Trumpist support thrown to Republicans in the state, Hollingsworth demonstrated a cynical contempt for the competitive elections and public accountability that are the hallmarks of constitutional democracy. And he won.

Hollingsworth’s victory is a devastating blow for Indiana liberal Democrats, and it underscores just how stacked is the deck against Democrats in the state, who confront a trifecta of serious obstacles: gerrymandered districts profoundly favoring Republicans; garden-variety Republican voter suppression; and a general electorate demographically inclined towards and seriously mobilized by the right.

At the same time, while the Donnelly campaign demonstrates the futility of seeking to surmount these obstacles by trying to out-Republican the Republicans, the Watson campaign demonstrates the potential for something better ... Unlike Donnelly, she refused to turn on her own base. Instead, she tried hard to expand that base. Watson lost, indeed by roughly the same margin that Donnelly lost. But while Donnelly inspired widespread disillusionment among liberal Democrats, Watson inspired hope, in the promise of citizen activism, and in the possibility of a better Democratic party.

The author goes on to make the point that Watson's loss can be rationalized according to future-oriented strategy, while that might possibly be gained from Donnelly's dopey foolishness is a desire to take as many showers as possible in a futile effort to out-distance the taint.

Harvest Homecoming explains: "The Tribune sold the ad to the Democratic party. This is was completely out of our control."

The newspaper profits from City Hall advertisements, and City Hall profits from a free ride in editorial terms.

Insert graphic of vigorous mutual backscratching. Too bad that Harvest Homecoming gets stuck in the middle of crassness coming from both sides.

Just another day in paradise -- so why wouldn't the Democratic Party join in the fun? It's probably the mayor's campaign finance money, anyway.

To whom it may concern,

As current president of Harvest Homecoming, it is important for me to address the advertisement on the front of our annual HHC tabloid. The News and Tribune has full control over selling the advertisements and the front of the tabloid always has an advertisement. The ads make the circulation to the community possible. For many years that space has been purchased by a local car sales company. This year, they opted to not purchase the ad. With the space up for grabs, The Tribune sold the ad to the Democratic party. This is was completely out of our control and I was not aware of the advertisement until it was published.

For 50 years, HHC has been a non-partisan organization supporting all facets of our community. It is important that we continue this tradition of celebrating our great festival and the wonderful diversity of the New Albany-Floyd County community. I ask that we put politics aside, join together as a HHC family, and show this community an outstanding festival.

Regards,

Art Niemeier
President – Harvest Homecoming

If local Democrats can't honestly address Jeff Gahan's public housing putsch, how can they "resist" Trump?

Once again, I asked.

"C'mon down, Floyd County Democrats. If you're a FCDP type of guy or gal AND support Mayor Gahan's plans for (and handling of) the New Albany Housing Authority, let us know why. Gahan describes himself as a public housing 'advocate.' How so? I keep asking, and crickets keep chirping, but surely there's a Democrat out there willing to make the case. Thanks in advance."

Once again, only the dulcet tones of pins dropping came back to my yearning ears. A Facebook conversation developed, albeit with no one actually answering the question I posed.

Then Susan, one of the few prescient and consistent progressive Democratic commentators in New Albany, especially since Deaf Gahan's Public Housing Putsch 2017 got under way, made this comment.

"I have been asking the same question. We keep waiting for Republicans to recognize what is going on with Trump. Strikes me that this is a similar situation."

It strikes me, too.

The oddest thing about Gahan's public housing housing land grab is the deafening silence emanating from his own Democratic Party camp. If it's the best policy, shouldn't Gahan's allies be out in force, lifting anchors and praising Dear Leader's unerring judgment?

And yet they're not. In fact, they're not uttering a single muffled peep.

Voices in opposition have come from a broad array of society: a holdover board member, former NAHA employees, social workers, activists, honest Democratic Party progressives like Susan, and even a couple of non-office-holding Republicans.

What you permit, you promote -- and silence is complicity.

It makes sense to me why most Republicans would clam up; after all, a Democrat's doing something they agree with, and politically, there's no point in agreeing publicly.

But shouldn't the hosannas be sounding for Gahan from the Democratic rank and file?

Or are they just too damned embarrassed?

And, whether they're supportive of the putsch and somehow to shy to show it, or opposed to the shambles and weirdly unwilling to utter it, how can the party even pretend to be marching to Adam Dickey's hyperbolic "resistance" campaign against The Donald?

There's something nasty and Trumpian worthy of resistance right here in New Albany, but because Gahan's one of them, lots of spines aren't showing up on the x-rays.

Has the Floyd County Democratic Party ever been this hypocritical and useless?