POTPOURRI

     A few items that do not take up a lot of room.
     First, I love the cartoon that is posted on the My Village  
blog. It is funny and well executed, as well as straight to the point. A political cartoon at its best. Congrats to the talented cartoonist, whomever that might be - and my envy. I still draw stick figures!
     Second, and this is addressed to Joy Vestal, our esteemed co-editor of The Reporter. It has gotten back to me that if I were to wish to insert any article in the paper, even if it has nothing to do with the politics or policies of the Village - I CANNOT DO SO UNLESS I FIRST APOLOGIZE  TO YOU.  (That means, and I am not bragging here, that you have willfully banned an excellent writer, as can be seen by articles within your own paper, from your pages.)
     I have nothing against apologies. In fact, what a great idea - David Israel and henchmen can apologize to the Village for the disaster they have placed in our path. But anyway, what reason have I to apologize to you? For saying that the paper is biased? That  is quite obvious and even you have stated so in your own words by banning certain people or groups of people. You know, that is what editorials are for - and that is what op-eds are for. Check your Journalism 101 textbook for that.
      So, for calling the paper a rag? Well, so it 'tis. You were running a good paper until you went off the rails, overboard in protecting your lord and master, anxious to protect your turf. Well, sorry, Joy, go check the textbook again. Papers are meant to be factual reporters of information unless it is in an editorial, op-ed, or in a marked analysis column.
     So again, what have I to apologize for? You have taken yourself, a journalist, and a pretty decent paper which you ran, and turned it into a shill and yourself into the shillmaster. On that path, you have made promises to people that you claim not to remember having made. That could be a symptom of several things, including perhaps just too many pies or worse. That is for you to figure out and for me not to like and I am free to say so. What is not free is for you to take upon yourself the right to free press and free speech and set yourself up as arbiter of who "deserves" or is "allowed, approved" for inclusion in your purported paper. So yet again, what is the reason I must apologize? Please help  me since it is quite befogged in some obscure reasoning. Thank you ever so much. Oh, and I won't demand an apology from you for having strayed off the path of true and honest journalism.