The Granite State doesn't take in much revenue. As a result, they offer limited services to residents and far fewer benefits to public servants. This can be a shock to those who move across the state line to escape the high taxes in Massachusetts and discover the schools aren't as good and there's no assistance to help care for the disabled and the elderly.

Bottom line: If you need to be rescued you're probably going to have to foot the bill yourself. Can't have it both ways.

Yeah, they named the summit building for Mr. Adams. I didn't know he started Loon Mountain. No, no gondola on Mt. Washington, that's across the notch on Wildcat. There is a train, though.

Congratulations -- barbjk, you weren't asked to bring your brain to the schoolyard, just a handfull of rocks to throw in the direction Glenn pointed. You didn't disappoint with this mindless rock-throwing:

Watching all the fawning and preening since Friday night announcement has been nauseating at best. "Brian Williams, "watching Walter Cronkite in the old Black and White television days and looking up to him as a hero" Really, I think color TV has been around now for a good 45 years or so and I think Brian is younger than I am."

I'm one year older than Williams and watched Cronkite on B&W teevee. In fact I watched the manned moon landing on B&W in '69. Should I be under suspicion? Am I fawning? Or preening?

Yesterday I watched a C-Span replay featuring Walter Cronkite sitting elbow-to-elbow with Brian Willaims and talking about the future of journalism. It went on for over an hour. I didn't detect either fawning or preening. Not only that, but the venerable Cronkite and the venal Williams seemed to be in agreement on almost every point. Now I'm wondering if that tape was a fake, like some say the moon landing was. I also understand Williams had Cronkite over for dinner. Williams didn't say what year, so I don't know if they were eating in black and white or color. Nor am I sure if Williams was actually eating or simply fawning and preening.

BTW, fawn: To exhibit affection or attempt to please. To seek favor or attention by flattery and obsequious behavior.

preen: To take pride or satisfaction in (oneself); gloat.

Thank god those things weren't on display on this thread.

--Publican @ MLK: For years on April 4th Amy Goodman, to her everlasting credit, has been broadcasting King's Beyond Vietnam speech. The fact that King gave the speech one year to the day before he was assassinated would, by our usual media standards, be enough of a (perhaps) coincidental novelty to ensure that it be at least referenced once a year, were it not for its seditious anti-Exceptionalism. It was soundly ridiculed by our liberal press for the truths it told when he gave it and remains disappeared for the same reason.

I don't blame you your passion for it. I do wonder, however, how it's possible, as Glenn did, to equate (parenthetically, no less) the complete disappearance year after year, of a speech by one of the most influential figures in American history, to the media not including Halberstam's criticisms of journalism during their one-day commemorations, and how from there it's possible to equate those two difference-of-scale whitewashes with Cronkite's Vietnam report ("So, too, with the death of Walter Cronkite."), which we are told in the very next sentence was "his most celebrated and significant moment" and which hasn't failed to be mentioned by literally any of the television commentators who've spoken about him.

The first comparison, Halberstam to King, besides putting the greater in the lesser form, misses by exponential proportionality, the second comparison, Halberstam and King to Cronkite doesn't even logically exist.

Should you be concerned that there isn't any interest in King, or that the interest in him today was simply to try and force a point? Don't feel too badly about King, though. Cronkite himself was simply a prop in this post as well.

OK, it's a train (thanks for the correction).

My step-grandfather was a friend of Sherm Adams, former Gov of NH, and we spent a day there when I was under 10. It was fun and I'd like to go back some day.

Friday, July 17, 2009 12:58 PM

Hypothesis Precedes Observation.

"Some people say we were at fault for not questioning the government’s hypothesis for going to war against Iraq. But it’s not the business of the press to impudently try and test the government’s hypothesis for war. They had made it not only preceding any observation but by wilfully ignoring the observables that were right under their noses to begin with. No it is merely our duty to report the fact that the government had made a hypothesis and lay it in front of the public for their deferential approval without any further comment from us. Some Hypotheses are very delicate things. They can’t stand up to being rudely looked at and questioned by grubby fingered members of the great unwashed. And it is certainly the not the press job to do so either.

David Ondelette Gregory.

From CSPAN's program, Booknotes:

Mr. Cronkite talked about his memoir, A Reporter's Life, published by Knopf. Mr. Cronkite described his 31 years with CBS News as well as his childhood in Kansas City, Missouri and his personal hobbies and favorite activities. Mr. Cronkite also talked about the deterioration of network news coverage and some of the reasons behind this decline.

The program is about an hour long. Cronkite is speaking for himself instead of "media stars" speaking for him or jimolts such as jlnum making ignorant comments here on UT about Cronkite.

(Linked at Signature)

When I tried the link at my signature it didn't work. I hope this will work.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=81241-1

Walter Cronkite had a fine career with some notable high points. He was avuncular and non-threatening to the public who watched him and he as they say, "wore well". He also had the good fortune to be retired for a long time, enjoy decent health for most of it and made appearances infrequently enough (sadly, unlike Tom Brokaw) to avoid overstaying his welcome.

That said, he was one of several fine newscasters of his generation, perhaps the best, perhaps merely the most popular. He was not anti-establishment, one reason why he succeeded. Those who think that the public sat around in the 60's, TV sound turned up, breath bated, waiting to hear what Walter Cronkite thought about an issue are misinformed. He was good at what he did, made some good calls and was considered honest and trustworthy. I believe he would say this was good enough, not a bad remembrance. Let's skip the hagiography.