-you're suggesting he has regrets? / are you aware of him ever apologizing to anyone for anything reprehensible he has ever said or done? you can have him, because (just like the first time) we, i.e. the majority, do. not. want. him. / notwithstanding, another monster, the electoral college [w/the help of Facebook, the Russians, the "christian" right, [then] FBI Director Comey, etc., etc.] left us no choice / -perhaps we should have refused to accept the results: and "toured" the Capital as they were confirming that election's results?!
Yes, because "the Deep State" is a vague term that could mean all sorts of things. Saying "the Deep State," without defining what it is, is meaningless. And claiming it exists without proof is not credible. All the things I mentioned, such as Trump being credibly accused of sexual assault by more than 20 women, have received extensive coverage. It's clear what I mean and the backup is easy to find.
One thing you learn in most writing courses is you are never to use Wikipedia as a source. It is not a credible source as it is not properly vetted and anyone can edit it. Even its founder, Jimmy Wales, told students not to cite it.
I think Wikipedia is pretty good and that the recommendation not to use it as a source is out of date. Each entry lists its sources, which can be consulted for anyone wanting more information.
"It is not the Times’ fault that the truth often makes Trump look bad."
That's the heart of it.
Trump supporters, including many elected Republican officials, chose a candidate in part because he makes them feel good by vowing revenge and retribution. But at the same time, he is objectively unfit for office for numerous reasons. (Which, given Trump's statements and actions, is an inevitability. Any candidate running on a platform of revenge and retribution is unfit by definition.)
Truthful reporting about Trump will always offend his supporters. That's what happens when you choose a twice-impeached, convicted felon who pledges to be a dictator and prosecute (baselessly) his political opponents.
Mark Frost won’t say anything to lose access to “interviews” with Elise Stefanik. Thanks for calling out his both sidesing of issues. He also makes frequent use of strawmen and whataboutism.
I assume there are guidelines for journalistic integrity, but then he has no one to answer to anyway. It’s really not worth picking up The Chronicle for free if I think his kneejerk opinions are in it.
I once wrote a letter calling out a transcript of an interview with Elise he published in which she told a factually provable lie and he did not challenge her or write an editor's note clarifying the facts. He banned me from publishing letters in The Chronicle.... in the same issue he went on one of his biweekly tirades on "cancel culture." Giant hypocrite.
My favorite Frost column was the one where he endorsed Matt Funiciello and said of the Democratic candidate "I see Aaron Woolf as a privileged dilettante from NYC." He did say he wouldn’t be dismayed if Elise Stefanik won. I guess the Albany prep schools and Harvard education didn’t make her a privileged dilettante from Albany.
Defenders of Trump are so deeply ensconced in the alternate “conservative” reality constructed parallel to the reality based reality the rest of us live in that they often will not accept even the most fundamental basis on which societal cohesion is founded. They will argue the most picayune, most petty, most hairsplitting of issues. They will deny plain fact out of hand. If you use a word with 2 meanings they will insist you’re using the definition that makes the sentence illogical. They fight against finding common ground, communion, community if you are on the side they oppose yet at the same moment embrace the wildest, most ludicrous conspiracy theories their thought leaders propose. They believe they are insightful and clever rather than the mean-spirited, nit-picking, spiteful ignoramuses they are.
I would like to see opposing views here more often — ones that are articulate and well-reasoned. A discussion that civilly exchanges rational views. We’ll still have areas where we disagree, but we might find some where we do agree.
But I think the few commenters here who do hold opposing views often deflect, snipe, and fail to engage in serious discussion when replying to Ken’s commentary, and when replying to commenters with whom they disagree. As a result, it’s a lost opportunity to explore our diverse beliefs regarding public policy and ideology.
There are some conservative voices here who do engage in civil debate. The general bent of this forum does lean to the left, so a conservative will probably often feel like an outlier. Having a different opinion than the crowd about the same facts and being willing to defend it takes some courage, so my hat is off to anyone who is willing to enter a serious and civil discussion knowing they are outnumbered.
I identify publicly as a liberal, but I also contend that the labels conservative and liberal are basically meaningless. In my own mind I am a rational, reality based conservative.
I try to base my political opinions in what I believe to be the profound concepts that founded our nation. They were definitionally liberal ideas, the founders created a liberal democracy, but I believe after nearly 250 years adhering to those concepts is a form of conservatism.
But I also believe in limited government, following just laws, and an economic system largely rooted in capitalism. The problem Conservatives have with my opinions (based in what I hope are thoughtful readings of the concepts our nation was founded on) is that I believe that the world is a far different place than it was even 50 or 100 years ago, let alone 250, and I recognize that human flaws such as greed, fear, hate, etc influence how government functions.
Government could be very small if humans weren’t prone to greed/theft of all kinds and so a proper government must supply control against those sorts of societal dysfunction. And I believe various forms of taxes are necessary to achieve the goals of our founding principles
But because I call myself a liberal a lot of people who call themselves conservatives suggest that my opinions are based in “feelings,” that my philosophy is grounded in compassion. It is not - except that compassion is a rational response to injustice.
In fact, it seems to me those who believe they believe differently are often acting out of their feelings rather than a rational philosophy based on rational principles.
Hello Bob I believe one part of deflection is to blame others, which you appear to be doing when you write “who do hold opposing views often deflect, snipe, and fail to engage in serious discussion”
Another part of deflection is to change the subject. here is an example of it after time marker 5:29. The question asked to both Clinton and Trump is “do you feel you’re modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth” If there was an answer to the question asked in either of their replies, I can’t find it.
Rep Jim Jordan commands a committee investigating the weaponization of the federal government, while Rep Stefanik weaponizes accusations of antisemitism, and SCOTUS is laden with justices legislating from the bench after decrying the concept in senate hearings.
There is nothing more obscene than the set of Republicans of the do-nothing-but-obfuscate-and-obstruct Congress, and their supporters.
It's disorganized and confusing. However, to pick out one bit, he cited Mr. Kahn as saying: “We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side? And that would accomplish — what?”
Wait, wait...
Pro-democracy, anti-fascist thinkers and writers would naturally often say the same or similar things as the Biden campaign, and, indeed, the Biden administration.
The fact that we see the same historical events and express the same or similar conclusions doesn't mean that we are puppets of a dictatorial regime.
In my mind, this piece by Mark Frost puts up a huge red flag about bias at The Chronicle.
Somehow, I am reminded of Steve Bannon who said (paraphrasing): "Flood the zone with confusion."
Seventy years ago to the year, I entered college with the intent of majoring in political science and economics in preparation for a career in foreign service. In Political Science 101 we were required to read the Sunday New York Times and the daily Kalamazoo (MI) Gazette. Then every Friday Dr. Chen would give us a twenty question true or false quiz on the papers’ news.
Ever since, the NYTimes has been my paper of choice along with the local newspaper.
I think Mark Frost is basically appealing to his ad base, which like most of the people around here are conservative to a fault, and doesn't want to take a chance on irritating them. At the time of the Afghanistan withdrawal, I sent a long letter to The Chronicle giving a series if broader views based on recent news and history. He refused to print it because it was too long. I pared it down and made it conform to his 250 word standard. He arrived st the word count by asserting research showed readers won't read a letter to the editor that is longer than 250 words. A few weeks later a front-page letter-to-the-editor anti Biden screed that had a full column-length jump that was obviously more than words. (I worked as a feature writer and data-base editor for 20 years at Tribune Media so my "opinion" of the length was based on experience.) I think that says a lot about editorial practice at the Glens Falls weekly. Thought I'd pass that along.
The Frost Family Newsletter is just another version of a penny saver type publication. Mostly ads and irrelevant information. The most worthless being his editorials.
NAACP’s Climate and Environmental Justice Committee challenged The Chronicle to include articles on climate warming consequences to promote public awareness and taking action.
Mark Frost is not exactly a climate change denier, he’s something worse, he’s apathetic on climate change.
He said to me during a conversation many years ago (paraphrasing), “the way I look at it, if it’s 68° today it’ll be 70° tomorrow. We’ll get used to it.”
He had done an interview with Rep Sweeney and asked Sweeney about climate change. Sweeney replied, “it was cold last winter.” Frost didn’t do a follow up question.
I called Frost after reading the interview, dumbfounded that he allowed Sweeney to get away with that statement.
When I related what he said some years later one of his friends saw it and let him know what I had said. He threatened a defamation suit if I didn’t retract the truth I told. I did not retract. It is what he said.
It is the historically ordained responsibility of the free press (the Fourth Estate), and it's explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability, to uncover and expose corruption and untruths, especially in matters of government and politics, so as to enable the people to make informed decisions. This is especially important in a time of disinformation deliberately intended to deceive a gullible electorate.
Since Stefanik will not publicly debate, which is still among the better tools for exposing a corrupt politician (wait until Biden - Trump 6/27), perhaps we can get the Chronicle and The Front Page to go at it.
If an antisemite wants to kill all Jews and a Jew wants to live--it is not two sides in a debate. One could accuse all news of being fake, all elections rigged, all juries and judges left wing biased socialist pedophiles but if almost all historians, judges, juries, facts go against the repeated (ad nauseam) grievance claims, are all denied using the same stupid script...one would have to say: this is a paranoid person and his followers are cult followers...unwilling to hear the "leader: himself. .Clearly nothing nothing can ever come into a enclosed fearful mind....You don''t have to listen to those liberal biased socialist communist pedophiles, (those words also repeated an nauseam), Just listen to the man you support, listen to what says, his exact words (which how could you deny) and what he says he wants to do if elected. As a teacher for 30 years, I never impost a position...just ask us all to observe closely, question, make connections, give evidence and seek to grow and learn...be open....grow.... .
Well said, as always! News should inform the public by documenting the words with facts. This is an imperative when elected officials spout lies, disrespect and denigrate our democracy, our constitution and our rules of law. Those that take an oath and ignore it are dangerous to our country, and must be held accountable. They are dangerous and need to be called out just as bullies in schools!! This is the job of our press and its journalists!! ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸
Are you kidding.......why don't you provide us evidence he didn't??
As for the NPR link, you are correct . But that said it all lead up to an illegal payoff to a porn star.
I heard trump himself say women liked to be grabbed by their p***y . I trust my own eyes and ears. Why would you defend this pig?
Understanding we all are entitled to our own opinions, it's my opinion that you are defending a monster.
Well I'm not speaking to Ken. This is about YOU.
You're the one defending garbage.
As for my own self - of course I've said things I regret.
The difference is I'm not saying I never said them - and my words did not effect an entire nation.
Why do you defend trump?
Or do you just have a hard on for Will and Ken?
It was a question. You are always here trolling.
How would that get me banned?
It's legit....I believe in discourse but you seem (to me) to always attack whatever position put forth here.
So honestly, why do you take s position that's perceived as defensive of trump?
-you're suggesting he has regrets? / are you aware of him ever apologizing to anyone for anything reprehensible he has ever said or done? you can have him, because (just like the first time) we, i.e. the majority, do. not. want. him. / notwithstanding, another monster, the electoral college [w/the help of Facebook, the Russians, the "christian" right, [then] FBI Director Comey, etc., etc.] left us no choice / -perhaps we should have refused to accept the results: and "toured" the Capital as they were confirming that election's results?!
For this and the other assertions in the column, there are many easily found sources with simple Googling, for the curious.
Yes, because "the Deep State" is a vague term that could mean all sorts of things. Saying "the Deep State," without defining what it is, is meaningless. And claiming it exists without proof is not credible. All the things I mentioned, such as Trump being credibly accused of sexual assault by more than 20 women, have received extensive coverage. It's clear what I mean and the backup is easy to find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States
Trump spoke about the Deep State just a day or 2 ago, threatening them, saying he knows who they are without actually mentioning anyone by name.
One thing you learn in most writing courses is you are never to use Wikipedia as a source. It is not a credible source as it is not properly vetted and anyone can edit it. Even its founder, Jimmy Wales, told students not to cite it.
I think Wikipedia is pretty good and that the recommendation not to use it as a source is out of date. Each entry lists its sources, which can be consulted for anyone wanting more information.
Simply Put, I often wonder if you just want to throw something at the wall and hope it will stick or if you are looking for a honest conversation?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
"It is not the Times’ fault that the truth often makes Trump look bad."
That's the heart of it.
Trump supporters, including many elected Republican officials, chose a candidate in part because he makes them feel good by vowing revenge and retribution. But at the same time, he is objectively unfit for office for numerous reasons. (Which, given Trump's statements and actions, is an inevitability. Any candidate running on a platform of revenge and retribution is unfit by definition.)
Truthful reporting about Trump will always offend his supporters. That's what happens when you choose a twice-impeached, convicted felon who pledges to be a dictator and prosecute (baselessly) his political opponents.
Next time, Republicans, choose wisely.
Very simply put, DJT is just plain nuts. He is driven by a huge ego and a life where he was always right.
It is interesting that now Trump is not admitting to what he said. And that he is deflecting and accusing Biden of everything he has done.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unprecedented-2024-campaign-pitch-elect-revenge-government/story?id=100778347
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-made-up-to-160-million-from-foreign-countries-as-president/
yea Will...very well said!!! I can't wait to see what kind of snivelling rebuttal Mark will publish in his "paper"....
"Pin cushion skunk cabbages"
Great find! It’s always reassuring to see how, in these uncertain times, we can count on nature to surprise us. Thanks, Will.
Mark Frost won’t say anything to lose access to “interviews” with Elise Stefanik. Thanks for calling out his both sidesing of issues. He also makes frequent use of strawmen and whataboutism.
I assume there are guidelines for journalistic integrity, but then he has no one to answer to anyway. It’s really not worth picking up The Chronicle for free if I think his kneejerk opinions are in it.
I once wrote a letter calling out a transcript of an interview with Elise he published in which she told a factually provable lie and he did not challenge her or write an editor's note clarifying the facts. He banned me from publishing letters in The Chronicle.... in the same issue he went on one of his biweekly tirades on "cancel culture." Giant hypocrite.
Yes, I noticed that he’s big on taking on the “woke.” Not so big on confronting the MAGA.
My favorite Frost column was the one where he endorsed Matt Funiciello and said of the Democratic candidate "I see Aaron Woolf as a privileged dilettante from NYC." He did say he wouldn’t be dismayed if Elise Stefanik won. I guess the Albany prep schools and Harvard education didn’t make her a privileged dilettante from Albany.
Cheapshot artist.
I haven't picked up a Chronicle since my last cat died (2011). It was the best kitty pan liner I had ever used.
As for Mark Frost - his last endorsement of lying Stefanik sent me over the edge.
He and I had a conversation about it and I no longer speak to him.
Will NEVER pick up a Chronicle.
Defenders of Trump are so deeply ensconced in the alternate “conservative” reality constructed parallel to the reality based reality the rest of us live in that they often will not accept even the most fundamental basis on which societal cohesion is founded. They will argue the most picayune, most petty, most hairsplitting of issues. They will deny plain fact out of hand. If you use a word with 2 meanings they will insist you’re using the definition that makes the sentence illogical. They fight against finding common ground, communion, community if you are on the side they oppose yet at the same moment embrace the wildest, most ludicrous conspiracy theories their thought leaders propose. They believe they are insightful and clever rather than the mean-spirited, nit-picking, spiteful ignoramuses they are.
I agree.
I would like to see opposing views here more often — ones that are articulate and well-reasoned. A discussion that civilly exchanges rational views. We’ll still have areas where we disagree, but we might find some where we do agree.
But I think the few commenters here who do hold opposing views often deflect, snipe, and fail to engage in serious discussion when replying to Ken’s commentary, and when replying to commenters with whom they disagree. As a result, it’s a lost opportunity to explore our diverse beliefs regarding public policy and ideology.
There are some conservative voices here who do engage in civil debate. The general bent of this forum does lean to the left, so a conservative will probably often feel like an outlier. Having a different opinion than the crowd about the same facts and being willing to defend it takes some courage, so my hat is off to anyone who is willing to enter a serious and civil discussion knowing they are outnumbered.
Then there are the others. A cross to be borne.
I identify publicly as a liberal, but I also contend that the labels conservative and liberal are basically meaningless. In my own mind I am a rational, reality based conservative.
I try to base my political opinions in what I believe to be the profound concepts that founded our nation. They were definitionally liberal ideas, the founders created a liberal democracy, but I believe after nearly 250 years adhering to those concepts is a form of conservatism.
But I also believe in limited government, following just laws, and an economic system largely rooted in capitalism. The problem Conservatives have with my opinions (based in what I hope are thoughtful readings of the concepts our nation was founded on) is that I believe that the world is a far different place than it was even 50 or 100 years ago, let alone 250, and I recognize that human flaws such as greed, fear, hate, etc influence how government functions.
Government could be very small if humans weren’t prone to greed/theft of all kinds and so a proper government must supply control against those sorts of societal dysfunction. And I believe various forms of taxes are necessary to achieve the goals of our founding principles
But because I call myself a liberal a lot of people who call themselves conservatives suggest that my opinions are based in “feelings,” that my philosophy is grounded in compassion. It is not - except that compassion is a rational response to injustice.
In fact, it seems to me those who believe they believe differently are often acting out of their feelings rather than a rational philosophy based on rational principles.
It’s a conundrum.
Hello Bob I believe one part of deflection is to blame others, which you appear to be doing when you write “who do hold opposing views often deflect, snipe, and fail to engage in serious discussion”
Another part of deflection is to change the subject. here is an example of it after time marker 5:29. The question asked to both Clinton and Trump is “do you feel you’re modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth” If there was an answer to the question asked in either of their replies, I can’t find it.
Rep Jim Jordan commands a committee investigating the weaponization of the federal government, while Rep Stefanik weaponizes accusations of antisemitism, and SCOTUS is laden with justices legislating from the bench after decrying the concept in senate hearings.
There is nothing more obscene than the set of Republicans of the do-nothing-but-obfuscate-and-obstruct Congress, and their supporters.
I found Mark Frost's editorial at
https://www.glensfallschronicle.com/newspapers-soul-seinfeld/
It's disorganized and confusing. However, to pick out one bit, he cited Mr. Kahn as saying: “We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side? And that would accomplish — what?”
Wait, wait...
Pro-democracy, anti-fascist thinkers and writers would naturally often say the same or similar things as the Biden campaign, and, indeed, the Biden administration.
The fact that we see the same historical events and express the same or similar conclusions doesn't mean that we are puppets of a dictatorial regime.
In my mind, this piece by Mark Frost puts up a huge red flag about bias at The Chronicle.
Somehow, I am reminded of Steve Bannon who said (paraphrasing): "Flood the zone with confusion."
Seventy years ago to the year, I entered college with the intent of majoring in political science and economics in preparation for a career in foreign service. In Political Science 101 we were required to read the Sunday New York Times and the daily Kalamazoo (MI) Gazette. Then every Friday Dr. Chen would give us a twenty question true or false quiz on the papers’ news.
Ever since, the NYTimes has been my paper of choice along with the local newspaper.
I think Mark Frost is basically appealing to his ad base, which like most of the people around here are conservative to a fault, and doesn't want to take a chance on irritating them. At the time of the Afghanistan withdrawal, I sent a long letter to The Chronicle giving a series if broader views based on recent news and history. He refused to print it because it was too long. I pared it down and made it conform to his 250 word standard. He arrived st the word count by asserting research showed readers won't read a letter to the editor that is longer than 250 words. A few weeks later a front-page letter-to-the-editor anti Biden screed that had a full column-length jump that was obviously more than words. (I worked as a feature writer and data-base editor for 20 years at Tribune Media so my "opinion" of the length was based on experience.) I think that says a lot about editorial practice at the Glens Falls weekly. Thought I'd pass that along.
The Frost Family Newsletter is just another version of a penny saver type publication. Mostly ads and irrelevant information. The most worthless being his editorials.
No one should take lectures on journalism from the long-time editor of a newspaper that's rarely ever produced any.
NAACP’s Climate and Environmental Justice Committee challenged The Chronicle to include articles on climate warming consequences to promote public awareness and taking action.
Not happening. Too liberal?
Diane Collins
Co-founder North Country Earth Action
Mark Frost is not exactly a climate change denier, he’s something worse, he’s apathetic on climate change.
He said to me during a conversation many years ago (paraphrasing), “the way I look at it, if it’s 68° today it’ll be 70° tomorrow. We’ll get used to it.”
He had done an interview with Rep Sweeney and asked Sweeney about climate change. Sweeney replied, “it was cold last winter.” Frost didn’t do a follow up question.
I called Frost after reading the interview, dumbfounded that he allowed Sweeney to get away with that statement.
When I related what he said some years later one of his friends saw it and let him know what I had said. He threatened a defamation suit if I didn’t retract the truth I told. I did not retract. It is what he said.
Thank you.
It is the historically ordained responsibility of the free press (the Fourth Estate), and it's explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability, to uncover and expose corruption and untruths, especially in matters of government and politics, so as to enable the people to make informed decisions. This is especially important in a time of disinformation deliberately intended to deceive a gullible electorate.
Since Stefanik will not publicly debate, which is still among the better tools for exposing a corrupt politician (wait until Biden - Trump 6/27), perhaps we can get the Chronicle and The Front Page to go at it.
This is a dare. I'll gladly moderate.
LMAO. Stefanik will never debate again for the current seat. Hopefully she moves on to some high paying FOX News job sooner than later.
Bravo!
If an antisemite wants to kill all Jews and a Jew wants to live--it is not two sides in a debate. One could accuse all news of being fake, all elections rigged, all juries and judges left wing biased socialist pedophiles but if almost all historians, judges, juries, facts go against the repeated (ad nauseam) grievance claims, are all denied using the same stupid script...one would have to say: this is a paranoid person and his followers are cult followers...unwilling to hear the "leader: himself. .Clearly nothing nothing can ever come into a enclosed fearful mind....You don''t have to listen to those liberal biased socialist communist pedophiles, (those words also repeated an nauseam), Just listen to the man you support, listen to what says, his exact words (which how could you deny) and what he says he wants to do if elected. As a teacher for 30 years, I never impost a position...just ask us all to observe closely, question, make connections, give evidence and seek to grow and learn...be open....grow.... .
Well said, as always! News should inform the public by documenting the words with facts. This is an imperative when elected officials spout lies, disrespect and denigrate our democracy, our constitution and our rules of law. Those that take an oath and ignore it are dangerous to our country, and must be held accountable. They are dangerous and need to be called out just as bullies in schools!! This is the job of our press and its journalists!! ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸