Chuck Stone…The Reader's Advocate?

Now that Election Day in St. Louis has passed, a brutal, long-smoldering feud between incumbent mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. and chief challenger Clarence Harmon draws to a temporary close. However, over these past couple of months, there developed a second battle. I'm speaking of the unprecedented animosity, which was created between the people of St. Louis and a particular newspaper writer, one Chuck Stone.

The first thing I noticed about Stone, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's "readers' advocate" brought in at the first of this year, is that he's a snob. Or, at least, he thinks an awful lot of himself. The second sentence in his January 5th column indicates as much:

"Do you know why this job is so important?"

He may as well have written, "Do you know why I am so important?"

Now I may have said a lot of things and thought a lot of things, but I have never considered myself to be so important; certainly not in the eyes of the general public. So it won't hurt my ego to amend myself so early in this commentary by saying that I could be wrong; Chuck Stone may not be a snob. Most snobs I know may be opinionated bastards, but each has had the education necessary for expressing him or herself with proper use of the English Language. Obviously, Stone has not as evidenced by his use of the slang terms "dis," "dissed," and "dissing.” Not one of these three terms is found in the 12-volume edition of the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.

Stone's stated number one reason for taking the job is his relationship with Post-Dispatch editor, Cole Campbell. My guess is that this is the only reason he has the job. (I'm not sure what kind of dirt Stone could have on Campbell to warrant such a cushy [not to mention undeserving] seat, but I’d sure as hell like to find out.)

Chuck Stone was, according to his introduction from the editors of the Post-Dispatch in an early column, hired to "focus on the St. Louis mayoral election." Indeed, he touched on many topics, but the election was rarely one of them. In the first sentence of one column, Stone complained that "the last thing readers of this column had in mind last Sunday was an election." Well, if the columnist doesn't bother discussing the election - which he has rarely done - why should the readers? On separate occasions, he viewed his job as a seat from which (1) to explain various news stories which run in the paper for presumed thick-headed readers or (2) to explain various comments from readers or (3) to report to the rest of us what other readers are thinking. In some instances, he merely used the readers as editors. What he did not do was cover the race for mayor on a consistent basis. His earliest columns were virtually void of the subject. (At one point, he reported from Huntsville, Alabama . . . . was a candidate there on vacation?) When he finally did get around to giving substantial attention to the race, he mocked it by once mentioning Candidate Bill Haas in a particular column, but ignoring co-front-runner Clarence Harmon. This is a bad move when you're hired to analyze the race for The Rest Of Us. Though I must give credit when it's due. At another point in his indistinguishable stay, he did raise one of the much-discussed issues when he seemed to ask, "how much (has) the racial factor . . . (been) turning off St. Louisans from the mayoral campaign?" Wasn’t Stone supposed to be answering that question?

While this is just one thing he failed to do, I must say that Chuck Stone possesses an elaborate style when doing nothing. The fancy language, including the literary quotes, the Latin phrases and the newsroom slang are sharp and, when used by the right people to address the right audience, can have an impact. But failing at simple marketing (learning your audience), Stone forgot that he was speaking to we common folks, not a group of Shakespearean historians. In all of his years, Chuck Stone has yet to learn that simple language is not necessarily the product of a simple mind. I was reminded of this one night last fall as I stood alone in the brisk October air and read the brief but powerful - and effective - Gettysburg Address off the giant limestone walls which line the interior of the Lincoln Memorial. In the end, Abraham Lincoln made his point and it may have saved the union. Meanwhile, Chuck Stone never made a point. By mid-February, it seemed that even Post-Dispatch editor Cole Campbell recognized the futility of Stone's efforts to produce anything containing even a semblance of sense. In the February 16th edition of the paper, Campbell felt compelled to introduce to us Sylvester Brown Jr., who would also – hopefully – be kicking in his two cents on the mayoral race.

* * * * *

I've waited the duration of the mayoral contest before making a comment, figuring to give Stone a chance to . . . . to just do his job. (Which, by the way, he failed to do right up to the very last column. Any summation of the race mentioned?) Maybe even Stone himself didn’t see this column as much of an opportunity to make any contribution. Hell, he seemed to confess as much in his March 2nd column when he wrote, "....this column belongs to you." His February 23rd column had been a terrific example of this. In an approximately 600-word article, he saved any mention of the mayor campaign for the final 48 words:
In the meantime, St. Louisans, I implore you to think, read, talk and argue about only one thing for the next eight days - the election on Tuesday, March 4. If you do nothing else that day, VOTE - as if your life depended on it. Your city's future does.

Well, I wouldn't exactly stake the city's future on the fact that St. Louisans would more readily accept journalistic commentary from one of their own (of which Chuck Stone is not) but suffice it to say that if I were a betting man, I'd all but swear that local folks would probably prefer such commentary from a Post-Dispatch staffer rather than some outsider. Which reminds me - I find it hard to believe that in all St. Louis, the Post-Dispatch couldn't find an adequately qualified person to cover this contest for the mayor's office. Both Jo Mannies and Gregory Freeman delivered fine coverage. And Bill McClellen, who took Stone to task early on, could have, of course, performed the job. All three certainly communicated more about what the hell transpired during this campaign than Chuck Stone did. It's quite clear that Stone spent more time defending himself - basically, fighting with readers - than analyzing the race for city hall. Maybe this was because he really didn’t know what he was doing in the first place, as he essentially admitted in a late column: “It took us 13 columns, but I think we’ve got it, we finally got it.”

“We?” “We” had nothing to “get.” But considering his decades worth of “credentials,” Stone should have “got it” from week one. But he never did. Sure, he is loudmouthed and pious; worst, though, is that he fails as a writer - and remains a brain-dead fool, incapable of making a clear point.

To borrow a phrase - a practice of which Stone is fond - from one of his columns, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

* * * * *

Webster tells us that an "advocate" is a "defender," which, according to some Post-Dispatch folks, makes Chuck Stone a defender "for all readers."

Well, no thanks . . . not me . . . I will defend myself. And vehemently suggest that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch never again pull such a stunt.

For now, thankfully, there’s relief. After thirteen embarrassing weeks, Chuck Stone is finally going away. Maybe if he’s still bent on becoming a communicator, I could help him.

I’d start by loading one of my old manual Royal typewriters into the back seat of the convertible, drive very fast down to the Post-Dispatch building and launch the thing through the window of Chuck Stone’s office as a reminder of what blunt, effective, crystal clear communication can be.

(Of course, in these modern times, there’s probably no “window of Chuck Stone’s office” or any office for that matter, and it’s doubtful Stone has ever really stepped foot in the Post’s offices. Most likely, he’s sitting in a convalescence home somewhere, possessing just enough mental capacity to dial up Cole Campbell’s extension now and then to remind him of “that incident” so long ago - the one he appears to be holding over Campbell’s head for the twisted sake of keeping a weekly byline.)

But I’m not going to do that. And let me say, for the permanent record, that I would never consider such a deed. That would be . . . . destruction of property . . . . vandalism . . . . a crime. And Chuck Stone’s weekly blathering is probably as much crime as the Post’s staff writers - the ones who were bypassed in favor of Stone - are able to stomach.

No - instead, I’d just stay put and think about Chuck Stone sitting in some cozy North Carolina hideaway, insulated from the folks he's worked so hard to alienate these past three months.

Dick Gephardt: Family Man

TO: U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt
FR: Mad Bomber

Through two presidential campaigns now, with a pandering whimper that could only come from Washington D.C., you’ve called for the urgent return to “family values.” And through two campaigns, I’ve turned the other cheek, foregoing cries of discrimination against single and/or childless adult Americans like myself. But with your little gathering at the home of the Hensley family of St. Louis this past Sunday … Congressman, your asinine stance has finally hit too close to home to ignore.

You claim that “the main challenge for the American people is having successful families.” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 13, 1997.) Oh? Is it, Dick? Define “families,” will you? I bet such a definition would include children, leaving out “families” who choose not to have children; or worse, would like to have children, but can’t.

As viewed by politicians, families with kids are truly the chosen ones in society, while the rest of us pitiful souls are second-class citizens…personae non grata. And this is sad enough. But the tax breaks you’re pushing for those with children are simply wrong and border on discrimination. Were I a woman unable to bear a child, I’d sue your ass and your collective ilk, and in our litigation-happy society, I’d probably win.

But being a fair individual, I’ll give you a chance to make amends with the many childless, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of your district who must also be pissed off with your “families only” agenda. I’m offering the perfect setting – my own home – for a gathering similar to the one held this past Sunday in order to announce your “Kidless Adults Count, Too,” agenda. This should correct your screw-up.

I’ll look forward to hearing from your office so that this shindig may be set up as soon as possible.

Private Parking in Webster Groves

TO: Webster Groves City Council
FR: Mad Bomber

I understand from recent news reports that the council is considering legislation which would dictate to property owners the number of maintained, functioning automobiles which may be legally parked on their property.

Just try it.

* * * * *

The above Memo was in response to a notice I saw in one of the small neighborhood newspapers this past fall; possibly this very one. The item stated that the Webster Groves City Council had "discussed a measure to limit the number of vehicles on residential property."

No - it can't be. Could they really be proposing to limit the number of vehicles I – we – you – can park on your own property?

No...not this administration. Not Mayor Terri Williams and this council who'd already danced with controversy. You'd think they know enough to keep a low profile for a while.

Though I'd just moved to Webster a few months ago, I'd heard of the alleged shenanigans of Williams and her bunch. I'd even written about it before, suggesting that in a democracy, people get the politicians they deserve; certainly, the ones they vote into office and, that said, the office-holder was entitled to the remainder of her elected term and that any move for a recount should be squelched.

Upon moving to Webster Groves, I was chided for such things as the need to "gift-wrap the trash." Indeed, after reading through some of the propaganda I'd picked up at city hall, I was surprised to learn, for example, that there is a limit to how high a backyard fence can be. (No more than four feet.) But as some clerical worker at Elm and Lockhart informed me, "in the end, it's for the overall good of the community."

For the overall good of the community, eh? Well, okay. I guess I can learn to appreciate such logic. After moving from an urban Chicago neighborhood, where my major concern was not fence height, but flying bullets, you'd think I'd be ready for a change. But news of the "car limit" ordinance was pushing things a bit far. That's when I issued the above Memo - the warning shot.

And then I sat back and waited.

* * * * *

In a city council meeting held on October 8th, an ordinance was passed that essentially limits how many vehicles one may own.

A few days later, I sent a note to City Hall requesting the minutes of each meeting in which this topic was discussed. I spoke to City Clerk Katie Nakazono who kindly explained that this mess started with "one resident complaint about cars parked in the street. So to correct this problem ... create a law which limits the number of cars which can be parked in a driveway.... it's really not something that's going to be enforced; only in response to calls."

Then, along with the information I requested, she answered my concern that the ordinance seemed to prohibit out-of-state licensed vehicles from parking on residential property, public or private, with a note which, with regards to out of town guests, the police "will investigate each situation cautiously, as there may be situations where out of state plates are acceptable in certain situations." That's your visiting relatives and mine, gang.

In reviewing the requested minutes Ms. Nakazono sent to me, I was astonished by what appeared to be a case of a lone squeaky wheel getting too much oil. Admittedly, I was also struck by the continuum of inane banter on the topic. Here are some pertinent highlights from the September 3, 1996, council meeting minutes:

- Police Chief (Gene) Young said there is no problem with unlicensed cars on the street. His officers can address that situation. If it is a licensed car, the driver can technically park anywhere in town.

- Councilmember (Richard) Gowan asked if there was a way to limit the number of unlicensed vehicles.

- (City Attorney) Mr. Starr said we don't want to get into court and have an ordinance that can't stand a chance.

- Councilmember (Steven) Beck said because of the discussion and the stipulations, the Bill was looking less and less appealing...

- Councilmember (Dotty) DeLassus said she would like to know if they have the right to limit the number of unlicensed vehicles on property.

Of course, in lieu of a new city law, the more simple solution would be to address each situation individually, as the Chief of Police claims will be done with out-of-state license plates that are going to be investigated.

* * * * *

While some folks collect stamps or antique furniture, some of us collect antique cars and they're just too big to store in the house and out of sight. (Besides, there's probably an ordinance prohibiting the operation of a carbon monoxide spewing device indoors.) If the city would let me build a fence high enough, (which they won't) nobody would be subjected to the sight of my own personal collection of Detroit iron in the event I opted to keep it at my home.

* * * * *

So what have we learned? That we have to sacrifice personal liberty for the sake of "the overall appearance of the community."

Indeed. But at what price do we enjoy the "appearance of the community?" Where is the line drawn? Should we continue to let the council draw the line for us? What's next? A "lights out" rule? A law prohibiting the running of a car motor only within certain hours of the day? Where will it end with this group? And when will this city council begin to focus on more important issues, beginning the sky-high taxes in Webster Groves.

Bob Dole: All or Nothing

Bruce Herschensohn, one of the last who opposed resignation, turned and said to no one in particular, "That's probably the real Nixon. It's a shame he couldn't have been like that more often."

That is from the eerie last pages of The Final Days, the controversial chronicle of Richard Nixon's demise. God knows if this actually happened considering that the book was written, for the most part, by that master dramatist, Bob Woodward, of Watergate/Washington Post/Deep Throat fame. Yet anyone who has seen video footage of Nixon's final farewell to his staff on the morning of his departure from the White House, can understand the sentiment reflected in this passage. For once in his life, the stiff, abrasive Nixon gave way to a gentler, kinder Nixon, to borrow a phrase. So it was deja vu when Bob Dole announced his resignation from the Senate - totally and completely - in order to spend his every waking hour pursuing the Holy Grail which has eluded him for so many years now....the Presidency - The White House - The Big Chair - The Whole Enchilada.

For once in his life, Bob Dole was human, too, and it couldn't have come at a better time.

He was emotional, yet never lost his composure as he did at Nixon's funeral. As Nixon himself said on the morning of August 9, 1974, in front of his staff, "it is a new beginning always." And this was one hell of a new beginning for Battling Bob; one of those high moments in the sport of politics that transcends party affiliation and leaves one relieved to be an American and have the opportunity to even witness such an event. These kinds of things don't happen too often in China, and they probably seldom happened in the days of Brezhnev. Dole was humbled (for a politician) and sounded, for a change, like he wanted to win for the sake of the American people, and not for himself.

It was also a brilliant strategic move; in considering what he must do to have a shot at winning this election, Dole broke free from the tainted chains of Newt Gingrich.

The tragedy here is that this brief seven minutes of some of the best political oration I've ever heard won't save Bob Dole was being beaten badly come November, as he is sent without grace and with no mercy into retirement. This country has already forgotten the Fighting Newt of a mere eighteen months ago; don't expect them to remember Battling Bob's Senate Resignation Speech, especially amid a fresh load of that infamous Dole rancor - which is sure to come - six months after the fact.