MONTICELLO, Ark. – Just came across the following on the LR Metro Cafe’ listserv:
I just picked up a couple of free end rolls of blank newspapaper paper at the Democrat-Gazette warehouse and figured I’d spread the word. There’s a lot of paper on a roll–great for kids’ art projects. We’re going to paint and marker some for Christmas wrapping paper.
The folks working there are really nice. Just ask if you can have a few rolls. They’re at the loading dock on 3rd Street, catty-corner to the Clinton School/old Choctaw RR Station. A word of warning: the metal ends are pretty inky-messy on your hands.
Happy painting!
Though I’m happy to see the Democrat-Gazette giving away unused newsprint to the community (although I hadn’t heard about it through regular channels), I wonder if it would be more prudent to save the ends of the rolls. It seems that would add up over time, perhaps freeing up more money for reporters?
"I'm Workin' Here!"
MONTICELLO, Ark. — I just took a survey administered by Free Press. I give you my answers here if you want to see what I think about the future of journalism and the Republic.
I suggest you take the survey yourself to tell the FTC what type of media you need to make informed decisions about important events while you’ve still got the chance, before corporate media overwhelms the discussion and further diminishes the voices affecting the political process.
You’ve only got until Nov. 6. After all, you don’t want Sitton’s views to dominate the discussion, do ya?
How is the Internet changing the way you consume news and information? (How has it affected your ability to access high-quality local, national and international news? Will greater competition among media outlets support new forms of journalism?)
The Internet provides access to high-quality national and international news at the click of a button. It’s easy to cross-check information by accessing multiple sites. By gathering more than one version of the news, I get closer to the truth of the matter. I can gain international or national perspective by taking the “pulse” of multiple papers in a region of interest and comparing those views to the views promoted nationally or in area states.
But it’s nearly impossible to cross-check local news, the quality of which depends on the owner. If local outlets don’t have competition, you only get one side of the news.
Typically it’s in the best interest for a monopoly-type business to maintain the status quo; but that’s not neccessarily good for a democratic Republic like that found in the United States. Citizens must have quality information to make informed decisions that will affect generations that follow. Without good journalism, the Republic won’t survive.
If the Internet is not free, the larger voices will drown out alternative viewpoints, delegitimizing them with terms like “radical” or “fringe” because those alternative viewpoints don’t match corporate profit motives. A Free Internet is the best friend of a democratic Republic because it ensures multiple voices are heard in issues of national importance.
How has cost-cutting by news organizations affected your access to quality journalism and reporting? (What types of news stories receive less coverage than they used to? What are the long-term consequences of media consolidation for consumers and citizens?)
Newspapers continue to downsize, which limits the information the public receives about issues of major importance. Consolidation is not the answer.
Going from a two-paper city to a one-paper city in the early 1990s halved the amount of information I received. Instead of multiple angles of an issue to consider, typical reports only cover the “usual suspects” instead of seeking out diverse opinions. “Official” voices have the advantage of providing media-friendly soundbites and press releases, as well as being considered the place to start. Government coverage comes with a conservative bias. I only get one side of the news, and if that’s not business friendly, I might not get it at all.
State-sanctioned executions moved off A-1 to B-1 within a year after the merger of the Arkansas Gazette and Arkansas Democrat. Within another year, the Democrat-Gazette moved ALL state executions to B-3. You’ll still find them there today, even considering:
- the state’s triple execution, which made page 1 of the New York Times, only made page B-3 in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.
- the state’s execution of a retarded man received front-page coverage in regional publication, but appeared on page B-3 of the Democrat Gazette.
Continued media consolidation will limit public information as corporations remain more concerned about the bottom line than about getting relevant information to a public that needs it to make informed decisions.
What government polices are needed to ensure that communities have access to the kind of high-quality journalism they need? (Examples include changes in media ownership laws, funding for public media, tax codes, Internet policy or other media laws and policies.)
First off, put some teeth in the recommendations of the Hutchins Commission report from 1947. If media outlets cannot perform these functions, censor or disband them. The recommendations assert media must remain free of government control, but in exchange media must serve the public:
- Media should accept and fulfill certain obligations to society.
- Media can meet these obligations by setting high standards of professionalism, truth, accuracy and objectivity.
- Media should be self-regulating within the framework of the law.
- Media should avoid disseminating information that might lead to crime, violence or civil disorder, or that might offend minority groups.
- As a whole, media should be pluralistic, reflect the diversity of the culture, and give access to various points of view and rights of reply.
- The public has a right to expect high standards of performance, and official intervention can be justified to ensure the public good.
- Media professionals should be accountable to society as well as to their employers and the market.
Change the media ownership laws considering ALL media such that no one voice can control the exchange of ideas, e.g. bring back the fair comment rules, require equal time for rebuttal, limit ownership of multiple media outlets in one area.
When one voice drowns out everything else, and then charges for information access, a democratic Republic suffers because its citizens do not have equal access to equal information from a diverse set of viewpoints.
If the government must invest into the business side of journalism, invest locally to promote alternative viewpoints. Small papers can save journalism and democracy. If the small papers go online, their readers will follow. If their readers go, their advertisers will follow. Publications should note that’s where the younger generation gets its information now. If they want to keep a print product, charge more for the online advertising by noting it’s a target audience. Media could use key words in stories to keep ads from appearing that would comment on the story.
How can the government support new forms of journalistic innovation and entrepreneurship? (Should the government invest in journalism the way it does in sectors like technology, medicine and defense?)
Require advertisers to pay the cost of publications and take the burden off the consumer. Newspapers currently use pass-along readership when attracting advertisers, but there’s no way to accurately count that. The Internet, however, can count exactly how many hits each page receives. If news primarily comes online, publications eliminate printing costs, which should make it easier to pay more to quality reporters if advertisers support the publications.
The government can help by limiting the paper supply used for newsprint or increasing the cost such that publications must go online. If that’s where the public goes, advertising will follow. Newspapers should be charging 10-15 percent more for online ads considering the flexibility of making and updating them. Online ads offer audio, video, animation … the price increase will help cover the expense of the extra skills needed to produce those ads. The longevity of the online ad compared to its printed counterpart is enough to justify the additional expense. Also, the ads will reach a larger audience, potentially worldwide.
Advertisers should understand consumers follow content, i.e. without a public there’s no need to advertise. A targeted audience typically produces better results. Younger readers and educated readers are going online for their information; media must lead or risk being marginalized by bloggers. Consumers can print ads (and their barcodes) that can be used at the store, saving on paper costs and reducing waste that typically ends up in a landfill.
The government could invest in free WiFi such that Internet access is a Right rather than a Privilege, and everybody gets an address just like they get a home address. They’re free to build on it, but how much they want will depend on the time and money they’re willing to invest in their own site. Cable and phone monopolies should not be able to control access or speed of access.
True, this will increase the voices and that will concern some in media. However, people will continue to frequent reputable media outlets because of the brand name and the reputation for reliable news. When they sully their reputation, people will turn to a better outlet.
In short, media doesn’t need a bailout. Media needs to reframe its outlook and realize it’s here to serve the people. Without good journalism, the Republic is doomed.
Government should help by ensuring the public receives quality reporting, and the only way to do that is through education. Increasing the quality of the field will increase the earning potential, thus attracting better reporters who understand we not only need the news, we need it in context. The Internet allows information to be accessed at a click, so funding computer-assisted reporting will help produce reporters trained to access databases that can provide the in-depth issue analysis so thoroughly lacking in most local reporting.
Every year, public media organizations like NPR and PBS struggle to retain funding. How should the federal government tackle this problem? (How might public media help address some of the problems facing commercial journalism? Should there be more public funding to support journalists?)
I love NPR and PBS. They provide information seldom covered by corporate media. However, if the government made information access a Right, not a Privilege, people could get that information through other channels.
When government gets involved in journalism, the potential for conflicts of interest increases exponentially. Even if everyone stays on the up and up, the perception will remain that information will be hidden at the government’s bidding. Perception is reality.
No, commercial journalism doesn’t need public funding. Commercial journalism must adapt to the 21st century and take the public with it. Of course, that leaves the public. The government MUST increase public access by investing in libraries and other avenues for the general public to get online (perhaps by recycling old computers into Internet-only machines?).
An uneducated public is a dangerous public, subject to the sway of demagogues. Why should we face such uncertainty in a new millennium when free and equal Internet access could be a reality through the leadership of a government with foresight?
NORTH LITTLE ROCK — Woke up this mornin’ late after a long Halloween night and a time change. Got a cup of coffee and got online only to find out I’d been the victim of a dastardly trick.
All I wanted was to read about the Razorbacks trouncing of Eastern Michigan. I went to my favorite Web site, Razorback Central, but was redirected to Whole Hog Sports. Confused, I tried again and was redirected once more. So I went to The Morning News site, only to be redirected to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. There, I finally found the method behind the madness.
I originally complained about the idea of making the consumer pay for content back in August. I still believe they should be charging the advertisers to reach these niche audiences instead of passing the buck to the consumer.
Of course, some of you might say I should shut up and pay the man since I’m obviously accessing the content. I’ll be willing to do that when they make everyone pay for the pass-along readership that happens every day at libraries, doctor’s offices, barbershops, etc. By the way, the newspapers COUNT those figures when selling space to advertisers, so why not do the same for online publications?
In short, I think Walter Hussman is short-sighted and has passed on his disease to Rupert Murdoch, who’s also charging for people to access online content of the Wall Street Journal. Not only are they short-sighted, they’re just plain LAZY for not making online advertising work.
Apparently Hussman and Murdoch have failed to watch what’s happened to other media.
Back in the 1970s, VCRs came out, allowing people to record things and watch at their leisure. Of course, the movie industry hated this and spent a lot of time with the labels calling everyone pirates if they dubbed a flick. All their complaining didn’t keep people from doing it, though. The film industry finally got enough sense to quit going after the consumer and figured out how to make money from the advertiser through product placement.
Fast-forward to the Internet age. The music industry labeled everyone pirates when they downloaded MP3s of their favorite songs. They tried to punish this “crime” by going after the users and the P2P networks. However, BitTorrent file-sharing software makes enforcement of Grokster practically impossible. As industry sales continued to plummet, they finally woke up (thanks in part to iPods) and started charging per song, which people obviously are willing to do if they feel they’re getting their money’s worth.
Some of you may think I’ve messed up in bringing up music in my argument, but hang with me.
First and foremost, I believe media need to figure out Internet advertising because that’s the way the industry’s going. I used to believe we’d always have newspapers, but I’ve changed my mind. Looking at how the younger generation gets its information, I now believe media will reach a point where it only offers “print” papers for subscribers who want a hard copy, and they’ll be charged extra for it.
But why charge people for paper costs when they can get the same information online (and save a few trees in the process)?
Then it becomes a problem of proximity, which galls me. We’re moving to southeast Arkansas next summer to be closer to my job. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette does a piss-poor job (at best) of covering that section of the state, and yet they want me to pay for a full subscription so they can pay paper costs. I can get my relevant information in other places, so why pay when they should make the advertisers make up the difference?
Hey Walter, get rid of all of the advertising and I’ll be willing to pay for the content only (that’s my music industry connection)! But I bet your money-grubbin’ paws aren’t willing to do that.
The everyday Joe who’s trying to get food on the table and occasionally wants to escape life’s doldrums by reading about his favorite football team must now decide if it’s food on the table or a paper on the porch. Of course, if he can afford Internet access, he can still go to ESPN’s SEC blog, Mr. SEC or Razorback 360, which does just as good of a job covering the Hogs as the DOG without having to deal with Wally Hall’s nonsense.
The Hussmans and Murdochs of the world want to make sure only the rich can get information, which will ultimately doom democracy. Their actions show they hate the everyday Joe and could care less about his sports addictions.
Meanwhile, in the corner of my small home state, I’ve got to work a little harder to find out Joe Adams returned from a “mild stroke” to have a 109-yard game with two TDs.
MONTICELLO, ARK. — Arkansas plays Ole Miss this weekend following “Ref-gate” at Florida.
In case you’ve been in a cave with no reception bars, I’ll make this quick: three horrible calls changed the momentum of the game, leading to a kick made after the play clock expired. The SEC apologized for the most egregious call , suspended the repeat offenders and reprimanded the Arkansas coach for commenting on the mess.
Drama? At least it kept the Houston Nutt haters too busy to provide that drama. But just when you think it’s going to be a drama-free game off the field, the Ole Miss student government suggests the band use the phrase “To Hell with LSU” to end a medley played at the beginning and end of football games.
I personally don’t have a problem with the “To Hell with LSU” reference. My Cajun friends would wear it as a badge of honor, noting they’ve been very, very, very, very good compared to Ole Miss, which must love the fact it’s got a little brother in Starkville that at least makes it look good sometimes. ;0)
But I get a little riled learning the intent is to remove the phrase “The South Will Rise Again” in the chant at the end of the song, “From Dixie With Love.” This song mixes the Confederate Army’s fight song – “Dixie” – with the Union Army’s fight song: “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” a song found in my Baptist Hymnal as a child, presumably for the initial lead of “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord” or the refrain, “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!” … I digress.
Anyway, I think they got the whole thing wrong. Look at the money in the SEC compared to other conferences: the South HAS risen again! The SEC commissioner should send out a mandate to every conference school MANDATING the teams no longer wear white jerseys, the band plays “From Dixie With Love” at every game and every fan be required to chant “The South Will Rise Again” followed by five short blasts of “SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC!” to be allowed entrance or exit into the games.
Yes, some will say this smacks of the plantation mentality exhibited during The South’s agrarian years. I disagree; The plantation mentality never disappeared from the football fields. We watch as young men give the best years of their minds and bodies without compensation.
If they hit the lottery, they get to go pro and we complain about the outlandish salaries they receive. Considering the recent information on the effects of the game, you’ve got to wonder: are they making enough? And what about those who suffered from the effects but never got the payday?
That’s where the real drama is (and Ani chants “That’s where the truth is at; that’s where the truth is at”).
And yet, even though I now know this, I cannot say, “I won’t watch SEC football.” Am I evil?
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARK. — Arkansas plays Florida Saturday in what most expect to be a Hog-slaughter for the Gators. A fan ’til I die, I look for the Hogs to pull a trap-game upset.
But I have a confession: I’ve reconsidered football for the first time in my life. Malcolm McDowell convicted me in a recent column in The New Yorker ( I read it because I saw Andy Staples’ piece on ESPN). McDowell compares football to dog-fighting while detailing what happened to Michael Vick’s dogs and what happens to linemen after they’ve been hit nearly every play during their career.
I played on the line from the age of 8 until moving to defensive back in high school … a long time ago. I tried making up for my “145-pound dripping wet” frame with acumen and tenacity. I lined up against guys who easily doubled my size and got my bell rung in practice more than a few times. But I looked up to guys like Allison, Megginson, Smith … guys who taught me the difference between “playing hurt” and being injured, who led by example, who ran the “Loop” when they made mistakes, who motivated me to excel.
I clearly remember “Bull in the Ring,” when I stood in the middle of the circle reacting to different players hurtling at me and trying to keep from being pushed out. “Bear” Gilliam weighed an easy 280 (and I may be underestimating a bit) and came at me six or seven times.
I wore a helmet passed down from my brother; I shaved the front pads for it to fit, but this left plastic ridges that tore into my forehead after several hits from “Bear.” Still, I kept him from knocking me out of the “ring.” Blood oozed down my face; Coach Bowers stepped up, swiped his forefinger across my brow, turned to the ring and licked the blood from his finger while making his point:
“I love the taste of first blood.”
Some may call that barbaric. As a teenage lineman, I loved it – even though I couldn’t see straight – as well as the respect I earned for withstanding the pounding.
In McDowell’s dog-fighting parlance, I possessed “gameness,” wanting to play even after it wasn’t in my best interest. In some cases, I learned it from those who coached me. “Are you a hammer or are you a nail?” Coach Chandler queried in 7th grade. I ran into Coach Davis 20-something years later while dining with my mom and dad.
“Y’all were tough,” he said. “These kids today wouldn’t make it through what we put y’all through.”
Reading McDowell’s descriptions of concussions and other effects of being hit made me more nauseous than reading about the brutality of dog-fighting; I felt like I was reliving something I thought I’d forget. Learning that multiple concussions increase the “tau” in the brain, seemingly increasing the possibility of Alzheimer’s or dementia, turned my stomach.
After reading about Kyle Turley, Mike Webster, Andre Waters, Terry Long and others who’d given their minds and bodies to the game, it made me curious if some of my own nemeses (like “going off” and occasional memory lapses) could be traced back to my days playing football.
I’m not making excuses; I own my mistakes.
Yet while his depiction of the effects of multiple concussions makes me wonder, I cannot agree with McDowell’s analogy between football and dog-fighting. The dog never has a choice as it’s dependent on its owner for food, housing, in some instances … life.
Professional athletes, on the other hand, receive a lot of money to offset the risk of a career known to have a short earning window. Football players and boxers can always walk away … if their pride will let them. At least that’s free will.
But even with the knowledge that individuals exercise their free will, like Staples, I felt convicted of being a spectator to the slaughter after reading McDowell’s article, knowing that the next vicious hit might end with another Darryl Stingley, another Duk Koo Kim. Now, I know it might not even be apparent when the death knell begins.
Sometimes knowledge can make one feel evil.
And yet, even though I now know this, I cannot say, “I won’t watch SEC football.” I just need to start recognizing it as the vice it truly is, and begin feeling bad about it like I feel bad about smoking cigarettes.
If you caught Ken Burns documentary on the National Parks, you’ve no doubt heard that Yellowstone National Park is America’s first National Park. That may be the only story not told in M. Mark Miller’s book, “Adventures in Yellowstone: Early Travelers Tell Their Tales.”
Miller takes those interested in Yellowstone’s history on a captivating tour through the eyes of some of the earliest records from white Americans visiting the region. Those who saw Burns documentary will recognize the story of the Washburn Expedition and Truman Everts’ 37 perilous days; if that’s enough for you, stick to the documentary. For the rest of us, Miller abbreviates 12 fascinating accounts into an anthology of stories that made me rethink Yellowstone.
Sure, I saw the Yellowstone I know by reading Margaret Cruikshank’s jaded account of too many visitors … granted, that was in 1883. But I also gained a new appreciation for the natural wonders revealed through the eyes of Nathaniel Pitt Langford, the Earl of Dunraven and Stephen M. Dale, each of whom tried to describe the majesty of Yellowstone Falls, each of whom acknowledged their limitations through words. It reminded me of the insatiable longing to see the next curiosity described by Emma Cowan and Eleanor Corthell, as well as Carrie Adell Strahorn’s feeling that I was too close to beauty to be deterred from seeing it.
I read the book tonight over 5 hours instead of making class notes or grading papers; I think that’s indication enough that it’s captivating. Granted, I studied under Miller, so I may be biased. But considering that was more of a “quantitative” tour, I found his “qualitative” story-telling not only informative but highly enjoyable. He documents where he found the stories, and provides additional readings for those not content with the abridged versions. Though he doesn’t claim to be a historian, he provides the trail for historians wishing to follow his tracks.
Lest I forget, Miller does provide the “tall tale” of creating a national park in Langford’s account. He corrects misunderstandings in the accounts of Langford, Strahorn and Henry Calfee, and generally warns you about “outlandish” tales. But I cannot pinpoint any other “outright fabrications” he warns the reader about in the preface. Miller claims not to fret over the “literal truth” in seeking to compel modern readers; I think he succeeded in his goal.
Besides, only the most exaggerated embellishments must have done justice to a pristine Yellowstone. If there’s a better sample, somebody please send it to me.
I’m continuing the week’s focus on National Parks by heading to the Big Apple and the National Parks of New York Harbor. What? You’ve never heard of such? According to the National Park Service, the area covers 10 National Parks and 23 unique destinations.
I must admit, I haven’t been to every destination listed though Gateway National Recreation Area looks interesting enough that I plan to take a look next time I’m up there. But this isn’t about the places I haven’t been …
Carnegie Hall Stagebill
I first visited the Big Apple as an “adult” in the spring of 1989 with the UALR Concert Choir, which had joined with Mid-America Productions to sing Mozart’s “Coronation Mass” at Carnegie Hall. As the old saying goes, “How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.”
It was quite an experience for a 20-year-old sprung on the city for the first time. I may have slept two hours a night. But I was more interested in the downtown sites (like the bar Don’t Tell Mama”) than in the historical sites. Luckily, I got to see some anyway.
After our performance, we took a cruise on the Hudson and partied with all of the other performers. During the cruise, I stepped out on the deck and saw the Statue of Liberty shining in the night sky. It was a sobering experience seeing the lit-up Lady Liberty staring at us as we passed through the night. I immediately regretted not taking the opportunity to go see it in person, but vowed to come back.
Ron does his best John Lennon imitation. (Photo by Michael Ford)
It took 19 years to return, but I took a group of student journalists to the College Media Advisers’ annual conference in the Big Apple in spring 2008. Three students took the opportunity to get up early in the morning and join me on the jaunt to The Battery to catch a boat that took us out to Liberty Island and Ellis Island.
It’s the first time I’d seen the Statue of Liberty up close and personal. I knew it was big, but I had no idea how big it was (OK, I kind of stole that line from “Roxanne”). I made one of my students shoot at least four shots of my best John Lennon pose to make sure he got me and the statue in the same frame.
We walked around to the entrance to go up into it. They’re really strict about what can and cannot be brought into the monument. It took awhile to get through the line, but it was worth it in my mind.
The original torch from the Statue of Liberty.
When you go into the visitor’s center, you see the original torch that Americans butchered to show off the incandescent bulb, which couldn’t even be seen across the harbor.
Today, the refurbished Statue of Liberty features a gold-covered flame that can be seen miles away.
While waiting for the tour to start, we milled around looking at the story describing how the statue was constructed. It’s hollow on the inside, with a thin covering of copper over a framework of steel.
We went up as far as we could go, all the way to the pedestal observation deck. Unfortunately, the Statue’s crown and torch were not accessible.
After leaving Liberty Island, we took the boat to Ellis Island National Monument. I must admit, it’s not as exciting as the Statue of Liberty … but how could it be?
Ellis Island gives you an opportunity to consider what immigrants experienced when trying to get to the United States. A tour explains America’s heritage. If you know your family’s last name and when they arrived, you can look up their arrival date.
Visitors view exhibits at Ellis Island
Even though it may not have the “wow” factor, Ellis Island is an important piece of our history and will be worth your time to visit. The picture shows the flag of faces, i.e. you see a flag from one angle and faces of immigrants from another angle.
I also suggest getting a bite to eat, but beware of the birds. This clip from Michael Thomas shows how they aren’t shy at all about seeing if you’ll feed them. Notice the face of the lady in the window!
Fall in the Great Smoky Mountains
For those wondering, this week’s celebrating the U.S. National Parks and Ken Burns’ documentary showing on PBS. After staying West for most of the week, it’s time to turn attention to the Eastern United States.
First frost, Great Smoky Mountains
The Great Smoky Mountains hold a special place in my heart for many reasons, some of which I will describe. I first remember visiting the Smokies at the age of 5, about the time my parents were going through a divorce. Mama and Papa took me on a tour of the Southeast in hopes of getting my mind off the events at home. For the most part, it did.
It’s amazing that 35 years later, I still remember some of the things I saw, e.g. I remember seeing people outside of their cars trying to get pictures of the black bears. Granted, some of this memory has been muddled as Tanya told me about her dad trying to take a picture of a black bear and getting closer and closer until he realized he was way, way TOO close.
Much clearer, I remember coming into the North Carolina side of the Smokies. A caged bear amused tourists by drinking soda pop from a bottle. I’ll never forget how sad it seemed to see such a magnificent animal behind bars when I’d just seen other bears in the “wild.”
I also remember meeting Chief Fish (at least that’s what he told me his name was) and getting a picture. When I returned to the area a quarter of a century later, I asked about Chief Fish and was told that he had moved away to start a road-paving business. I don’t hold that against him, but I wonder if he got tired of being a curiosity. I know I will never forget him.
A stream in the Smokies
I moved to Eastern Tennessee in the late 1990s to work on my doctorate at the University of Tennessee. While there, I took a bunch of trips to the Great Smoky Mountains to clear my mind. It was a special haven, especially after one of the most severe break-ups I encountered in my lifetime. I don’t recommend having personal angst as a reason to see it, but the beauty puts things into perspective.
I turned the camera eye on the Smokies to provide pictures for Scenic Vistas, a special feature in The Southerner online magazine that we started while I was in graduate school. The picture at the bottom of this post and the river picture to the left both came from that period.
One of the best places in the Smokies must be Cades Cove, a nice circular drive that takes you past some of the original settlers’ outposts and pastoral scenes, including this one of deer in the field.
Cades Cove drive
One of the funniest things about the Great Smoky Mountains that I heard actually came from a conversation with a North Carolina resident while I was visiting Boone. She noted the “Flor-idiots” would come up to see the scenery and stop in the middle of the roads, causing traffic jams (at the very least) and occasionally being a health hazard to those not smart enough to get out of the road.
But really, who can blame them when you see sights such as this (below)? Once again, I plan to add a section to my home page of photos from across the nation … but that takes time and right now, time is taken. Soon? I hope. Until then, hope you enjoy what’s shown here, but better yet, get out and see it for yourself. It makes me proud that our government set land aside for future generations to enjoy without having to be wealthy individuals. Truly, it’s one of the best things our government has ever done.
Smoke on the Great Smoky Mountains
The Grand Canyon
No mention of National Parks would/could be complete without mentioning The Grand Canyon. And no, the pictures I have of it cannot completely do it justice, i.e. I didn’t have a panoramic lens or anything like that.
That being said, I find it to be one of the most awe-inspiring parks in the nation — of those I’ve visited; Tanya prefers the Redwoods and I’d agree, but although listed as a National Park, most of the Redwoods are managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. I digress.
I first visited the Grand Canyon by myself in the summer of ‘94 on another jaunt from my Telluride base. (BTW, I need to thank the Telluride Rose for letting me do all of this traveling back then; I couldn’t have asked for a better employer — if anybody’s out there from Telluride, please tell Cookie that Ron said hi). This jaunt was planned to go to the Canyon and to Las Vegas to see the Grateful Dead; at least I got to see the canyon.
I drove in just before nightfall and was surprised to find no one at the booths taking money. I had no idea how big the place was (it was dark) and I couldn’t find the campgrounds. So I drove until I found the parking lot for the boats (which looked like giant cruisers to me) and slept in the back seat of the Cressida.
Ron at the Grand Canyon
I woke the next morning and got my bearings, then headed over to the South Rim to walk along as other people took their tour. A kind gentleman took a picture of me next to the rim. I returned the favor and kept walking along, taking in the full South Rim and wondering what it might look like from the other side. But I didn’t have time to see that if I was going to make it to Vegas. Aaahhh youth … had I known then what I know now, I would’ve hung around longer. But that’s another story.
So it took 12 years for me to make it back. On this trip, Tanya and I helped Bob Pryor move to Portland and then we took our time coming down the Northwest Coast into Northern California, where we were awed by the Redwoods. In fairness to Tanya, she saw the Redwoods first. Had she seen the Grand Canyon first, perhaps it would’ve been more impressive.
Anyway, we went to the North Rim this time because I wanted to see that side of the Canyon. However, it’s not as developed as the South Rim and I felt Tanya was cheated, so we went to the South Rim, too. That’s a lot of driving folks.
When we got to the South Rim, it seemed more overgrown with tourists than I remembered it. But of course, I came at night the first time and left by mid-morning, so perhaps I just didn’t get the full effect. Even with all of the tourists this time, I didn’t get the overwhelming feeling of too many folks as I did at Yellowstone.
I guess the most memorable things about the second trip to the Grand Canyon was A) I bought John McPhee’s “Encounter with the Archdruid,” a book about David Brower, the most militant conservationist in the world and B) the squirrel with no fear.
When we pulled up to the parking lot, a squirrel came directly up to Tanya looking for food. Though she started moving toward it, it refused to run away. I came around to take pictures and still it stood its ground. I’m not sure if that’s good for the animal population … in fact, I think it shows people have been feeding the animals entirely too much.
Once again, I have photos of the squirrel but that will have to wait for the photo section on the home page. For now, here’s one of Tanya and me during that 2006 trip. If we go again, we’ll take money to try the Skywalk and perhaps go down into the Grand Canyon on donkey or, better yet, ride the rapids of the Colorado River to see it from the inside.
Tanya and Ron at the Grand Canyon
I’ll stick to my ‘94 jaunt to discuss the Arches National Park near Moab, Utah.
The Delicate Arch
I had driven back from Seattle and cut across Utah. There’s a different kind of beauty in the desert and you wonder how could anything live in such conditions.
Three Gossips
On every Utah license plate, I kept seeing an arch and I wondered why they would choose to feature a rock formation on their Centennial license plate. But when I got to the park, I understood and got a picture of the real thing (above).
As neat as it was, it was not the most impressive thing I saw. I cannot remember if I first heard the expression there, but Arches National Park could be called God’s playground, i.e. some of the formations look like the creator was just having fun.
For example, the “Three Gossips” look remarkably like three women talking about a fourth standing just to the side. I bet a man had a say in naming that formation. 
Even more fun? The “March of the Elephants.” When I saw it, I couldn’t help but whistling Henry Mancini’s “Baby Elephant Walk” through the rest of the park. Perhaps you don’t see these things in the formations? You’ve got to use your imagination a little, ya know. But if you watch the YouTube clip, maybe it’ll help you see it while you listen to the tune and watch the Duke.
March of the Elephants
It’s a shame I don’t have a digital copy of the balancing rock, but that’ll give you something to look forward to when I post these to the home Web site. I guess it’s a good thing I got some of these pictures when I did as Wall Arch collapsed last year.
