Today, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post
marvels at the opposition of some to a system whereby teachers would get paid according to their performance:
Although in any other field you'd want to reward your best performers, the union opposition has meant that merit pay has gone nowhere.
I agree with Kurtz, and wish to add that a law should be passed deducting $1,000 per lie off a journalist's salary. The funds could be used to aid the homeless, for example, or for health care initiatives.
Case in point: Kurtz himself.
Just last week, you must remember, Howard Kurtz said without a scintilla of evidence that Rush Limbaugh had doubled his radio ratings thanks to the controversy created by his desire to see Obama fail as President. This was proved to be false. (see
here)
Today Kurtz woke up feeling like telling yet another lie, this time about earmarks. He wrote:
As the WP noted yesterday, many Hill Democrats aren't scrambling to embrace parts of their man's agenda. This includes his push to eliminate earmarks
But is that true? NO. Obama vowed to return to 1994 levels; that is, less than $7.8 billion worth of earmarks.
That is far from "eliminating" them.
One might argue that we are about to surpass or already barely surpassed that figure. But to claim that the proposal was to eliminate earmarks altogether is unprofessional, and a lie.
The independent, non-partisan website Politifact.com recently
observed:
New York Times , for example, reported that Obama would sign the bill, earmarks and all, "despite campaign promises to put an end to the practice."
That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to "reform" it, and eliminate "screwy" or wasteful earmarks.
Kurtz (who by now would have lost $2,000 in less than a week for misinforming you and me) made no attempt to separate wasteful from useful earmarks, choosing to bundle them all together instead.
Kurtz himself may benefit from my proposal in the future. Let me explain. At this rate, his salary will be cut so many times that he will soon be unable to afford his expensive mortage(s) and car(s) insurances. He will then end up homeless in a shelter or motel room that will eventually receive aid, under my proposal, from the revenue obtained by taxing lies by the George Wills and Sean Hannitys of the world. This assistance would allow Kurtz to get back on track and find a job mopping floors or doing anything other than journalism.
To those who believe this would be too cruel a punishment for Kurtz and the rest of the village, be aware that they could easily avoid the doomsday scenario I described by simply telling the truth or consulting with a fact-checker.
How do you like my idea?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(180 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
