Why am I attacking the WSJ?
Simple.
I'm disappointed. But on a deeper level - I'm bothered by their very UNbusiness-like assumptions.
Recently - I've noticed that more and more articles have a socialist bent. The headlines, sub heads and story content are often written in such a way as to ASSUME (and we all remember the old line about assuming - right? You know: When you assume, you make and Ass out of U and Me.) that
a. Government is inherently good, even sacred.
b. Business is evil
c. People and governments DESERVE to share in the profits of business...
Let's take the first and show a very recent and disturbing example. Then let me offer the WSJ a rewrite. (This is what I'd write if I were the dude writing this article.)
Here goes: The headline from a recent story:
Tax Revolt in a Boom Town
Some Refineries Challenge Property Valuations, Threatening Municipal Revenue
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303717304577280050073230784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Booo Hoooo. If someone protests and challenges tax laws and rates, that will likely take money away from government. In this case that is city government.
GOOOD!
But notice the assumption of the headline that government being deprived of money is something to be avoided. Almost as if government and its well being has become sacred.
Something TOO many of us have begun taking unquestioningly. And protect -faithfully- with our very lives if necessary?
Hmmmm. Because the way I see it...
The less money government has, the less it can waste. The less it can use that money to build apparatuses that intrude on the lives of its citizens, forcing them to need apply for permission for the simplest action.
The less money overreaching government has, the fewer means it has to make everything a crime, then sell a pass for a price..
The less money it has, the less it can enrich itself at every turn while slowly enslaving its people....
Here's the way I would rewrite the headline:
Rewrite #1: Mild Rewrite
Tax Revolt in a Boom Town
Some Refineries Challenge Property Valuations, Forcing Municipality To Be Cut Waste
Or how about this version? It's a little more to the point...
Rewrite #2:
Companies Fight Back Against Grasping City Government
Move Forces Further Downsizing in Bloated, Intrusive Government Agencies Resulting In Improved Essential Services
It's always sad to see a great news outlet become the mouthpiece of a new socialist agenda which demonizes the very businesses which provide the fuel and brains which drive prosperity. But alas - the best we can do is recognise what's happening and at least read with a critical eye.
Just because the WSJ has lost its ability to think doesn't me we need to...
Simple.
I'm disappointed. But on a deeper level - I'm bothered by their very UNbusiness-like assumptions.
Recently - I've noticed that more and more articles have a socialist bent. The headlines, sub heads and story content are often written in such a way as to ASSUME (and we all remember the old line about assuming - right? You know: When you assume, you make and Ass out of U and Me.) that
a. Government is inherently good, even sacred.
b. Business is evil
c. People and governments DESERVE to share in the profits of business...
Let's take the first and show a very recent and disturbing example. Then let me offer the WSJ a rewrite. (This is what I'd write if I were the dude writing this article.)
Here goes: The headline from a recent story:
Tax Revolt in a Boom Town
Some Refineries Challenge Property Valuations, Threatening Municipal Revenue
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303717304577280050073230784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Booo Hoooo. If someone protests and challenges tax laws and rates, that will likely take money away from government. In this case that is city government.
GOOOD!
But notice the assumption of the headline that government being deprived of money is something to be avoided. Almost as if government and its well being has become sacred.
Something TOO many of us have begun taking unquestioningly. And protect -faithfully- with our very lives if necessary?
Hmmmm. Because the way I see it...
The less money government has, the less it can waste. The less it can use that money to build apparatuses that intrude on the lives of its citizens, forcing them to need apply for permission for the simplest action.
The less money overreaching government has, the fewer means it has to make everything a crime, then sell a pass for a price..
The less money it has, the less it can enrich itself at every turn while slowly enslaving its people....
Here's the way I would rewrite the headline:
Rewrite #1: Mild Rewrite
Tax Revolt in a Boom Town
Some Refineries Challenge Property Valuations, Forcing Municipality To Be Cut Waste
Or how about this version? It's a little more to the point...
Rewrite #2:
Companies Fight Back Against Grasping City Government
Move Forces Further Downsizing in Bloated, Intrusive Government Agencies Resulting In Improved Essential Services
It's always sad to see a great news outlet become the mouthpiece of a new socialist agenda which demonizes the very businesses which provide the fuel and brains which drive prosperity. But alas - the best we can do is recognise what's happening and at least read with a critical eye.
Just because the WSJ has lost its ability to think doesn't me we need to...
