Holding ignoramuses accountable for their own shortcomings
When you publicly state your opinion on a regular basis, such as through a weekly newspaper column, you are bound to receive feedback, eventually.
How much feedback one receives obviously greatly depends on the opinions expressed and the nature of the subject.
For example, when I write about something emotionally charged, such as the deaths of a couple children in a car accident, the feedback is usually intensified.
As you may recall, I predicted Karli Brown wouldn’t spend a day in prison after she pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide. I went one step further and suggested a more productive sentence than prison would be to require her to retell her story and the associated dangers of texting while driving to area students.
Sure enough, I did receive a lot of comments on that column, most of which people stated they agreed wholeheartedly with me. Occasionally, someone would mildly disagree and I always enjoyed the opportunity to further explain my views while listening to theirs as well.
While it’s been my experience that most people who don’t agree with me won’t tell me as such, some still do, albeit in a less confrontational manner.
People get much bolder when sending emails or letters, especially when they don’t attach their names.
For example, my favorite letter from this column and arguably in my Top 10 of all time was one from an unnamed reader who threatened to cancel his or her subscription if Brown didn’t go to prison.
In the one-page handwritten letter, the author expresses several strong opinions as to why this teenager should spend the rest of her life in prison, but never really explains why she is going to hold the newspaper responsible if the judge decides otherwise.
Confusing matters even more, the author included a copy of the front-page story about Brown pleading guilty.
Had it been a copy of my column, I might have understood the author was implying I might be influencing the judge by expressing my opinions.
Re-gardless, I’m fairly certain my column will do little to influence the justice system, but if the reader is going to hold the newspaper accountable for a judge’s ruling, so be it.
I don’t really have any more control over that than I do over what the judge decides.
******
You know what can ruin a trip to the park faster than anything: dog crap.
My son stepped in a nice pile of it just before walking into the playground area at College Park, Saturday.
Luckily, I noticed the pungent odor before he started running around on the playground equipment and was able to scrape it off his shoe.
I understand a certain segment of the population are bound to be ignoramuses and let their dog defecate wherever without regard to cleaning up their pet’s mess.
“Stupid is as stupid does,” as Forrest Gump would say.
That’s why we have laws … to control the ignoramuses amongst us.
With Red Oak building a new dog park, maybe now would be a good time for the Council to consider passing an ordinance banning dogs at all other city parks, or at the very least, ones with playground equipment.
By not allowing dogs in parks with playground equipment, we wouldn’t have to rely on someone getting caught not cleaning up after their dog to alleviate the problem.
It’s unfortunate the majority of responsible dog owners would be inconvenienced by a few ignoramuses.
But if the Council does decide to take action on this, or not, please don’t cancel your subscription.
Gregory Orear is the General Manager/Editor of the Red Oak Express. He can be contacted at publisher@redoakexpress.com.