Letters

One dissatisfied customer

To the editor:

After being in Mobile a few years, I was happy when someone told me that there was an alternative paper in town. I thought it would provide balance to the daily newspaper and show different points of view. I’ve been disappointed since it seems your publication has much of the same agenda as the Press-Register. You seem biased with positive focus given to your advertisers.

Is Lagniappe a direct department of the Chamber of Commerce or does the Chamber just cut you a big check every month? The latest article from your business reporter is a good example. It’s nothing more than another commercial for the Chamber repeating most of the same sales pitch you used in the previous feature story about Mobile’s “bright future.” There’s no objective analysis but just propaganda.

Your business reporter wrote about all the “nice jobs for little ol’ Mobile” created by the steel plant. Why didn’t she explore how and why ThyssenKrupp lied about the value of those jobs and try to get a response on where the difference came from?

A recent article in the Press-Register pointed out that a large part of those 29,000 construction jobs will be taken by out-of-state workers. It also said that they will be living in trailers that they bring with them, not renting apartments. They will stay in the trailer for their four-day work week and then go home on their three-day weekend taking their money with them.

Your reporter didn’t write about the fact that the plant is barely in Mobile County and the houses the permanent workers will buy or rent won’t even be close to the city. Those workers won’t be spending money in town other than coming in for big events or holidays.

The writer asked if we are “becoming another Birmingham or Pittsburgh, a steel town with mostly manufacturing jobs?” She must not know much about either of those cities because if she had checked she would see that both Birmingham and Pittsburgh diversified their economies decades ago.

Speaking of Birmingham and Pittsburgh, both of those cities got a lot cleaner when the steel industry died down. Why haven’t you had any discussion of the possible environmental problems from bringing the steel industry down here? Is it because of the ad the steel plant bought in your paper? How else are you connected to that new plant?

The writer also repeated an incorrect fact given to her by the Chamber about the Brookley runway being “long enough for the space shuttle.” The Florida runway for the shuttle is 15,000 feet with a 1,000 foot overrun and 300 feet wide. The longest runway at Brookley is 9,600 feet.

You seem to be fond of the “All is well” slogan popular among the other media in town. Where is the objective look at how businesses manipulate the system to their own benefit? Why is there no discussion about the heavy toll that has been paid in this community by the fear of taxes and the way that public schools have been made to pay the price? Are you trying to make it look as if there is nothing wrong with Mobile, that there is no room for improvement? You don’t seem to be concerned with the interests of consumers or the general public as much as protecting business interests. How is that different than the Press-Register?

Calling yourself an alternative paper makes the reader think about something like the Village Voice when you’re not even close. No wonder you’ve been so paranoid about the Current. I would say you’re more like a New York Post-type tabloid but even that’s not accurate. Considering your obsession with equating your paper with BMWs and young professionals, it seems Lagniappe is more like what would happen if the Wall Street Journal started a tabloid.

My college professors used to talk about how our whole system breaks down when the press forgets their duty. If you want to be an alternative act like one.

Fred Smith

Mobile

Thanks from afar

To the editor:

As an active duty soldier currently deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was naturally highly interested when my home town arts & entertainment paper included an article on the current state of the recruiting process in the Mobile area (Cover story, 5/23/07-6/5/07). However, at the end of the story I found myself a little confused and with many questions that simply were not answered by the article.

A prominent example was the brief tale of Toni Hamilton. In the three sentences dedicated to Ms. Hamilton’s story, we are told merely that Ms. Hamilton’s was assured that she had a low likelihood of deployment but “found out that wasn’t true.” In what way was the statement not true? Was Ms. Hamilton given a statistic showing that her MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) was in high demand or did she come to believe this from anecdotal evidence? Is it possible that the recruiter’s statement was true at the time but has been affected by changes on the ground? What was the background to this incident? I am deeply curious as to why the Lagniappe would include such an incomplete story.

The example of Deborah Thompson was also somewhat puzzling. The article states that she “did not have a good experience” with the military, yet goes on to state that she was able to prevent her son’s deployment with some phone calls. I am sure there are many parents would be thrilled if they were able to do that for their children, so I find it difficult to label Ms. Thompson’s story as “bad.”

Taken as a whole, I found the article left much to be desired because it focused only on those who seek to use the military to further their education. There are a wide range of reasons why people join (I admit the educational opportunity is one of them) and I believe the article would have been much better if it had delved more into this range of reasons. Personally, I joined because I simply do not care much civilian life. I much prefer being in an organization where honor is valued, discipline is enforced, and physical courage is esteemed rather than considered barbarous. Yes, my Uncle Sam did pay for my college degree. But I view that as a bonus, not an end.

I sincerely hope that you will consider publishing a follow up article that touches more on the other reasons that people join the military and answers some of the questions left by the first. I also hope that this letter will be considered constructive criticism rather than an angry diatribe. The Lagniappe is always a worthwhile read (particularly Sean Sullivan’s column) and I find it indispensable to how I keep up with my beloved yet distant hometown. All in all, the paper is a fine piece of work and I wish y’all much success in all future endeavors. Keep Mobile Funky!

Very Respectfully,

William L. Brooks

CPT, QM

Foundation is cracked

To the editor:

If you want to build a good house, you start with a good foundation. If only the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), in its publication “Jackpot Justice,” which incorrectly states that the U.S. civil justice system costs taxpayers $865 billion a year, had followed that advice. Many of PRI’s arguments rely on a publication by insurance industry consultants Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, data a leading Tillinghast researcher even said could be manipulated by tort reform advocates to mislead people.

The $865 billion figure PRI advertises contains a long list of costs not at all associated with the civil justice system. For example, the Tillinghast study, which PRI calls the “gold standard” and bases much of its study on, says tort costs in the US are around $279 billion.

Business Week, one of the corporate community’s most trusted publications, said Tillinghast’s total included “everything from payouts for fender-benders to the salaries of insurance industry CEOs,” and is “a wild exaggeration.” With Tillinghast’s grossly exaggerated total tort costs of $279 billion, PRI’s total, largely based on and more than three times Tillinghast’s, is even more far fetched.

PRI tries to convince people that the civil justice system is out of control, but again, the facts tell a different story. Department of Justice statistics show the number of civil trials dropped by 47 percent and tort cases dropped by 31 percent between 1992 and 2001.

Finally, Insurance Journal, a major insurance industry publication, said the Tillinghast publication PRI used as the basis for much of its study has “nothing to do with the costs of litigation, courts or the legal system” and is “wrong,” “misleading” and “highly unreliable.” Again, a good house starts with a good foundation.

Ralph Cook

President

Alabama Association for Justice

Archives