Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Keleigh - Colorado on August 13, 2011:

It's always bothered me how fines are commonly assessed in this country. A $50 fine against a poor person can force weeks of austerity. That Mercedes owner OTOH (and yes, I saw that it's a stunt, but it's a good opportunity to make a point) can probably let the ticket go to warrant before paying it and he will still likely experience no real hardship unless his mate finds out he spent a few hundred dollars for a latte because he was too lazy to find a legitimate parking space.

Crushing is rather drastic for this offense, but it at least is a somewhat egalitarian application of official force. Fines should ideally assessed on a percentage of income, not some arbitrary number. That said, cool stunt.

---

Some countries do assess fines based on a percentage of income. Including Sweden, if I recall correctly. It's a fascinating idea; it's neither deterrence nor punishment if the fine amounts to pocket change. -rc

Posted by John, Missouri on August 13, 2011:

To those who had not seen the video, there was no way they would know there were "multiple high-end professional video cameras set up to capture the crushing..." And nowhere did I mention a "powerless peasant" in my criticism. I suppose it's a case of telling the truth, the whole, truth and nothing but the truth. But that doesn't make much of a story, does it? I've been a follow of "This Is True" for many years, but I think you've lost your touch and are becoming a cranky old man, belittling anyone who questions your perfection. ("A publicity stunt, you say? Duhhhhh, really?!") I will defend your right to becomes this, but I am just sorry to see it happening.

---

Let's see what other readers have to say about it, John. Even without seeing the video, it's still incredibly obvious, for all the other reasons stated. It's all about thinking first, acting second -- which is what I've been pushing people to do for years. You didn't, and you were caught out as "the fool" (as your e-mail address puts it). Yet it's my fault? Please. -rc

Posted by Jenny from Sonoma, CA on August 13, 2011:

I don't think it's that unreasonable that people took the story at face value.

Yes, it would be a lame and stupid move for that mayor to randomly run over illegally parked cars. Yes, it would be an extreme and uncalled for overreaction. BUT "This is True" is constantly reporting on stories of people who do just that: people who do lame, stupid things, people who go to extreme measures and have uncalled for overreactions.

It seems to me that a major theme of "This is True" is telling stories that seem unbelievable but are actually true. Therefore it isn't fair to chastise people for believing an outrageous story.

---

You miss the point entirely. The story is true: what was described did happen. It was even described as a "performance". Is it really too much to ask for people to think before complaining that the story is "not true", "makes it sound as if the mayor is some wild-eyed crazy man", etc.? -rc

Posted by Sharon, SC on August 13, 2011:

I've been a True reader for years. I don't think, however that insulting your readers because they disagree with you is very professional. Furthermore, many of us believed that you didn't slant stories for more sensationalism. The whole point behind True was that you didn't have to, the world was messed up enough already.

I've enjoyed True. I can find these stories myself though, and I'd rather do that than be a member of a list where readers are called idiots and fools. Perhaps you're having a bad day and are taking it out on the wrong people. I don't know. If not, perhaps it's time you hung it up. Either way I've read True for years, but am unsubscribing.

---

Where, exactly, do I call anyone a "fool" or "idiot" on this page? Right: neither word appears here, except where I quoted one reader's e-mail address -- he was calling himself a fool. If you have to lie to make your point, it's not a very good point.

Further, John in Missouri was a Premium subscriber when the question was asked whether readers should be "exempt" from being called out. Read the readers' comments to learn what they responded.

But yeah: I think you're a total fool for unsubscribing over this. It's called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" -- you may want to look that up. It derives from a German proverb, "das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten". The earliest record of this phrase is in 1512, in Narrenbeschwörung. Translation: "Appeal to Fools". -rc

Posted by Jenny from Sonoma, CA on August 13, 2011:

If someone disagrees you tell them they missed the point, and condescendingly remark that people need to think before complaining. Perhaps we simply disagree, and did not "miss the point." We got the point and did not see it the same way. Perhaps you did not clearly communicate that this was staged, and that is why people did not perceive this as a story about a staged event. You keep citing the word "performance" as though that clears it all up and proves that the complainers are idiots who didn't think hard enough. You have a very educated audience, and should give them more credit. The word "performance" is often used loosely to describe actions. Please consider that your story may have been a bit too vague. Like Sharon of SC, I am a long time reader, but I don't know that I will continue to subscribe.

---

You still miss the point. You say I should give my "very educated audience more credit" -- yet that's exactly what we did. My writer didn't insult their intelligence by pointing out an absurdly obvious publicity stunt was ...an absurdly obvious publicity stunt. It's because my readers are intelligent that they demanded that I not spare them when they do something stupid themselves. Calling this story "not true" is, indeed, stupid, since the described events did happen -- you can watch it happen on this very page, and before this page existed the story told you where to find the video. It is similarly stupid to think the politician had no political gain in mind when he did it -- and had it recorded for posting to YouTube. Again, think, damn it, before posting again. It's not too much to ask of "highly educated" readers! -rc

Posted by Doug, Kansas City, KS on August 13, 2011:

I think the confusion came from a single line in the story: "The 'performance' came when Zuokas drove a tank over an illegally parked Mercedes Benz."

The words "illegally parked" certainly made me think that the car was parked there by a citizen, and not the mayor or a person in on the stunt. If it was a legal performance, then the car couldn't really be said to be illegally parked.

As soon as I saw the video I realized that it was staged. I never considered the story to be misleading or wrong. I just read it in a certain way that clearly wasn't what was intended.

---

The car was, in fact, illegally parked in the bike lane. -rc

Posted by steve in st louis on August 13, 2011:

I'm with you on this one. I hadn't seen the video until just now, but it sure didn't sound like he was driving around in a Sherman flattening every car in the city.

I will concede the point about "several" high-end cameras...I saw one. But, the editing, the quality of the shots, the quality of the sound...all point to a professionally shot video. This was not some random anger-tinged political stunt. It was just a political stunt, as you mentioned. Add in the fact that the seemingly major street is empty...how did THAT happen? It was planned, obviously.

I've disagreed with you many times, and told you so. You always respond with your thoughts, but you've never insulted me. Possibly, that's because my points are made with some sort of logic. I never threaten to unsub, either. Great story, great follow-up, too bad for those who don't think things through.

---

There are clearly at least two video cameras, as the video shows one of them. Thus, obviously, there has to be more than one. Plus, of course, there are different angles....

I'm always fine with differing opinions, but I refuse to submit to blackmail. If I won't sell out for a $24 subscription, I sure as hell won't sell out for a freebie subscription. It's rather insulting for people to infer that I will. -rc

Posted by Keith, Boston on August 13, 2011:

It's fascinating to me that even when you clearly point out people aren't thinking, they come back for more, and again show that they are not, in fact, thinking. I agree that the threats to unsubscribe are blackmail, and I'd think very little of you if you bowed to such silly threats. To not point out the illogic of your own readers would cause me to lose faith in you too. I applaud your integrity.

I hadn't seen the video until just now, but it was, as you say, obviously a political stunt. I didn't need the video to know it. I actually snorted when I saw Mike repeated the word "performance" in quotes. If that doesn't give readers a clue, then they ARE stupid!

A few years ago, I wrote to you complaining about a story. Your reply was brief, but it pointed out where I was off in my thinking: I was too close to the story emotionally to see its humor and truth. Your response stung a little, but unlike "Jenny from Sonoma" and "Sharon, SC", I took it to heart and thought about it, and saw you were right. I stepped back and saw that everyone else in the world could see what I couldn't. I had a choice: whimper and cry and stomp away (unsubscribe), or rise to your challenge. THANK YOU for not backing down, and for taking the time to reply. I'm a better person for it, unlike Jenny and Sharon. How sad for them, and for those around them, for refusing to rise to your challenge to think before opening their mouths.

I used to be a proud Premium subscriber. I'm now a proud Premium subscriber FOR LIFE. Don't ever stop.

---

I can't say I won't ever stop, but I have no plans to yet! I looked for your earlier complaint, but I didn't find it, or my reply. Still, I'm hugely gratified if I helped you to grow a little. We need more thinking, less reacting. Thanks for proving this is worth the effort. -rc

Posted by David, Canada on August 13, 2011:

People are saying Randy's "cranky" like it's a bad thing! With the nature of Randy's job, that is scouring the news wires to read about how humanity behaves on a day to day basis, I don't blame him for being a bit jaded and bitter. People never "unsubscribed" from H.L. Mencken and Ambrose Bierce, yet their curmudgeonly nature was well-known, and that's why people liked them and read them. Mark Twain remained famous for over 100 years from his death because of his lovable irascibleness. Characters like Frasier's Martin Crane and Corner Gas' Oscar Leroy endear millions because of their world-weary crankiness. That's the kind of personal, human touch I like from Randy's writing. If he was chipper and upbeat after reading all these stories, it's only then I'd start to wonder at what he's become.

---

Far be it for me to object to anyone comparing me to Mencken, Bierce, or Twain! But I'm far from cranky. I've said before that I'm not a pessimist, but rather a frustrated optimist. Far from hating letters of objection, I consider them part of the entertainment. Still, debate is healthy for society: I don't want sheep following me, I want the citizens of the world to think, talk with others, and act against what they find wrong. Viva the thinkers! -rc

Posted by Rob, Germany on August 13, 2011:

I don't comment often here, but every once in a while I have a thought that I feel like sharing, so here goes:

Upon my first reading, the original article certainly seemed to me to be worded as if the story was not about a staged event. Quotes like Irma Juskenaite's go a long way toward achieving this general feeling, along with the previously mentioned idea that TRUE has covered stranger things in the past. However, when a story seems to be making a (sort of) democratically elected official out to be a "wild-eyed crazy man" I'm likely to look into it myself, as John did, though that's probably where our paths diverge.

As has been pointed out, anyone who looks at that video cannot possibly believe it was anything but staged (well, I suppose I probably shouldn't say "anyone").

After looking at the video (currently 2nd hit on Google search of Arturas Zuokas, not difficult to find), I re-read the TRUE article, and totally got the joke. John, by all evidence, left out that last part.

I think this is part of what Randy means when he asks his readers to think before simply reacting. Instead of letting himself in what I found to be a very clever bit of TRUE wit, it appears as if he chose to assume (against all evidence) that Randy and his staff were trying to trick the readers, or else were duped themselves.

As long as the intent is not to deceive, sometimes it's like John said, "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...doesn't make much of a story." Sometimes finding it out on your own makes the experience much richer.