Just when I think there can’t be even more outrageous examples of Zero Tolerance — in schools or in real life — I come across more that I just can’t resist telling you about. But there is hope, which I’ll get to in a minute. First, one of the ZT stories from this week’s (25 February 2007) issue to illustrate:
Editorial
The Public Be Damned
In the 28 January issue I ran a story about two murderers who escaped from prison in England. I noted the story was an example of “zero tolerance” mentality migrating to the real world:
The NFL’s Copyright: Round Two
There’s an interesting update on the story and discussion last week about the NFL’s fight against churches — the NFL warned churches not to show the Super Bowl game to parishioners due to copyright restrictions.
Super Bowl vs. Churches — NFL Loses
This week’s lead story brought a fair amount of mail from the Premium subscribers, many of whom were surprised by my take on the story. Here it is:
TV Land
I don’t watch very much TV, so when I do I want something that’s interesting and thought-provoking as well as entertaining. There’s a new show on this year that I really like — and naturally it’s not doing all that well in the ratings. Why?
Zero Tolerance: The Backlash Has Begun
Here we go again: more Zero Tolerance stories. This week (7 January 2007 issue) is, I think, the first time ever that the entire issue consists of ZT stories, starting with this one:
Another Day, Another Cry-Baby
Quite a few Premium subscribers actually stay on the free distribution specifically to see the advertising. That’s cool: the advertisers pay for the free distribution, so it’s nice that people actually look at the ads! But now and then people whine about the ads. That’s dumb: without them, they wouldn’t be getting the newsletter at all, would they?!
War on Drugs
I fully expect to be called “anti-police” for the lead story this week. One doesn’t have to be “anti” anything to decry stupidity, or even to call to task organizations you fully support when they do something wrong.
Here’s the story, from True’s 17 December 2006 issue:
Peace Sign
In the 3 December 2006 issue I led with this story:
The Power of Collective Outrage
I had reserved this space tonight for a major rant. What makes one of my rants “major”? I was actually going to call for a boycott and a letter-writing campaign — I don’t recall ever doing that before. I wanted to show how collective outrage can make a difference. But you know what happened? Collective outrage grew on its own, quickly rising to a spontaneous chorus of “NO!” And the perpetrator listened.
Republican Bash?
I have something to say about last week’s story “about the vice president” (as most people are terming it):
Why You Need to Vote
Midterm elections are being held in the U.S. on November 7. Midterms, which are called that because they are for open seats in the federal House of Representatives and Senate but not the President, tend to have low voter turnouts. That is a huge mistake.
Two Case Studies in American Freedom
The 24 September 2006 issue had a couple of stories which proved to be a bit controversial, so I did a bit more research on them.
First, the stories:
Define “Political Correctness”
A story this week is notable not just because of my offered “definition” of “Political Correctness,” but for some interesting commentary it brought. First, the story, from True’s 28 August 2006 issue:
Sadly, This Isn’t a Lawyer Joke
I Expect to Get a Few Complaints from lawyer readers about the lead story this week — a lot of my readers are lawyers. (I also have a relatively high number of cops and preachers in my distribution. Apparently those three professions particularly like this kind of reading.)
Why Publish Letters from “Idiots”?
Now and then there’s a story or item that brings a nearly violent response from a small subset of readers. Even though they are usually represent a very small minority of my readers, I’ll often publish such letters. Why?
A “Letter”? From an “Editor”!
Do the ! and ? in the title above, in relation to the quotation marks, bother you? Vindicate you? Make you wonder? Maybe you’ll enjoy this little debate, which opened in the 22 January 2006 issue.
Zero Tolerance — the Next Step
The lead story last week brought an outraged response from a reader. First, here’s the story, from the 2 July 2006 issue:
That’s Not Funny!
Now and then a reader will write to say they’re outraged by a story — that it’s “not humorous.”
Is There Too Much ZT in True?
After several ZT-in-schools stories over the last month, Laine in Utah complained: