Flood coverage

I have been following the flood coverage mainly from out of town, so was eager to see it in actual print once I got back. Overall, I'd say they did a darn good job. The coverage was comprehensive and wide-ranging. They actually used the website to advantage. Even the story about the guy and his Sny River theory was interesting, I thought, although I've seen others complaining about it. Anybody who thinks the Mississippi is not capable of busting out and capturing an old river channel, ruining shipping for a long time to come, should read John McPhee's “The Control of Nature: Atchafalaya,” which ran in the New Yorker February 23, 1987. It was reprinted in his 1989 book The Control of Nature.

I'd say the word "valiant" was overused, but that's a minor complaint. Now, when will we get that follow-up piece that examines the whole flood control philosophy? Or will that just be too much of a hot potato? I have seen anonymous commenters on other blogs that express the opinion that only towns and highways should be protected, while farmland is left to the river's mercies. I don't know enough on the subject to have an opinion, but it's a debate worth having. Such an idea would involve a huge reshaping of the levee system. On the other hand, since we're getting 500-year floods every 15 years, maybe a reshaping of the levee system needs to be considered.

Reading online

Traveling at the moment so am only reading the online edition. Could it be that they ran the same photo on Page One and Page Three? I can hardly wait to get a look at the print version when I get home to check......because that's sure what it looks like on the Digital Whig.

Last Time I Checked.....

"Floodwaters" was plural and "has" was singular. I do hate to be picky but for heaven's sake, it's a front-page headline.

This and That

Nice story/photo package about the effects of the smoking ban on area restaurants and bars. Good coverage. Two observations, however:

1. A website poll, such as the one cited on the front page along with the smoking ban story Sunday, has no validity. Absolutely none. It is a worthless statistic that only serves to mislead.

2. The assertions that the drop in business at taverns is caused by the smoking ban, or by a general drop in economic activity, could be tested a little bit by simply checking sales tax revenue overall. Up or down? Not a surefire test, but a useful insight.

I hope I am not the only person who thinks the Whig needs to upgrade its Sunday editorial cartoons from around the nation. I suppose the ones they get are cheap, but they seem to be aimed at two-year-olds. Just think, the poor souls in Knoxville, Tennessee, have to suffer through one of those every day.

I thought Rodney Hart's column on bailiffs in Saturday's paper was a nice job. Best of all, he named names. Why is it that we never think to do that when praising someone?

You could see this one coming

The H-W reported yesterday:

"The Country Inn and Suites failed to make its April hotel-motel tax by the May 31 deadline, the
fourth straight missed payment by the hotel despite assurances from a managing member of the ownership group that the taxes would be paid."

Back in September 2007, the Whig reported:

"'Supply is in excess of demand, so the market is down more than 10 percent' when it comes to room-occupancy share for established hotels and motels, [hotel/motel association director Mariann] Barnard said.

"One hotel manager who requested that his name not be used was surprised that inns in Quincy did more business in June and July overall because his receipts were down.

"'I don't think any of us are seeing numbers go up,' he said.

"Things could get even more competitive when the Microtel opens at 200 South Third in a few months and a Holiday Inn Express opens as expected early next year at 48th and Oak. The addition of those rooms will draw some guests away from existing facilities at a time when industry officials say they already are challenged."