WHAT WERE STEROIDS WORTH TO BARRY BONDS? OH, ABOUT A HUNDRED HR'S
Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post seems to be deeply conflicted about Barry Bonds and his steroid-tainted home run record. In a column yesterday, he suggested that no one can guess how much the drugs affected his performance. In fact, an educated guess can be made. Here is my letter to Mr. Wilbon:
Dear Mr. Wilbon: I think I can provide an answer, or at least a logical guess, to your questions about the impact of steroids on Barry Bonds' home run performance. I am not an expert, and the "sabremetrics" people who study these things closely would not doubt have more precise estimates, but mine are based on the very interesting chart published Thursday on page E12 of the Post, so they must be right.
Look at it this way: Hank Aaron was a very consistent performer, hitting between 24 and 47 home runs in nearly every year of his career. If you average his entire career, you get 33 home runs per year (755 divided by 23 years). If you drop his rookie year and the last three years of his career, when he was obviously declining, you get a very impressive average of 37 home runs per year.
Bonds was also very consistent in his peak years. If you drop his rookie year and average the years from 1987 through 1999, you get 33 home runs per year. Why stop at 1999? Because most people think he started with the drugs in 2000, when his home run production suddenly surged to 49, as a prelude to the incredible total of 73 in 2001.
In other words, in "normal" years, Bonds was about four runs per year behind Aaron. If you assume that his drug years were 2000-2004, when he hit more home runs than all but one of his non-drug years, he hit 258 home runs in those years, an average of 52 per year, 19 more than his average for his peak period. Therefore, the drugs were worth at least 95 home runs (19 times five).
Therefore, had it not been for steroids, Barry Bonds would still be chasing Hank Aaron's record and would be standing right now at around 715 or 720 home runs -- more than Babe Ruth but less than Aaron. Since his HR production is slumping with age, as did Aaron's, he would need two or even three more seasons to surpass Aaron. Maybe he could have done it, maybe not. We will never know.
That's the tragedy of Barry Bonds. He is -- or was -- a truly great player who would have walked right into the Hall of Fame in a few years, whether or not he broke the home run record -- if he hadn't chosen to cheat. Instead, he is a controversial and divisive figure whose record obviously deserves an asterisk. What a shame.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lobb
Friday, August 10, 2007
Thursday, May 31, 2007
WARD CHURCHILL AND THE LESSON OF THE FISH
Ward Churchill, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, is back in the news because he might get fired. It seems that the university has finally figured out that he makes stuff up, or steals somebody else's stuff, or brazenly quotes other people's stuff as supporting his position, even when it doesn't. And all these lies and misrepresentations are in apparently serious, academic works, not street-corner ranting.
It appears that Professor Churchill (not "Doctor" Churchill -- he has no advanced degree) freely ripped off the works of another academic and did it several times in a way that can only be described as outright plagiarism. His defense against another charge of plagiarism is that he actually ghostwrote the article so he was only quoting himself; but the article was attributed to the author of record, so he was lying one way or the other. He claimed that Captain John Smith "of Pocahontas fame" attempted to wipe out the Indians of New England with smallpox and footnoted a source, which actually provides no support for that assertion whatsoever. And so on.
His defenders have attacked the report of the committee that reviewed the charges against him and have focused on some wacky stuff such as an alleged connection to Lynn Cheney. The only point on which they can muster much of a counter-argument is the dispute over whether a certain 19th century federal law required, or did not require, proof of Indian ancestry, which Churchill terms a "blood quantum." It looks like the law in question did not but that federal policy did in practice. (Native American tribes today are certainly keen on proving ancestry.) But on the questions of plagiarism and misquotation, the defenders have no defense.
Churchill might be hypersensitive to questions of Indian ancestry and tribal identity because his own Indian descent is so attenuated, if it exists at all. Churchill has passed himself off as a Native American but admits he is really no more than one-sixteenth native, and media reports question even that portion.
The heck of it is that his academic offenses might have gone basically unnoticed (or noticed only by a few specialists) if he had restrained himself in his non-academic speech, specifically his notorious description of the office workers killed in the World Trade Center attack of Sept. 11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns" because they supposedly were part of the worldwide holocaust of American capitalism. It was a cheap shot and by itself would not get a tenured professor fired, but it opened a window into Churchill's dark, closed work of paranoia and intellectual dishonesty. It's been all downhill for him from there.
As the fisherman said of the fish, he wouldn't have gotten into trouble if he hadn't opened his mouth.
Ward Churchill, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, is back in the news because he might get fired. It seems that the university has finally figured out that he makes stuff up, or steals somebody else's stuff, or brazenly quotes other people's stuff as supporting his position, even when it doesn't. And all these lies and misrepresentations are in apparently serious, academic works, not street-corner ranting.
It appears that Professor Churchill (not "Doctor" Churchill -- he has no advanced degree) freely ripped off the works of another academic and did it several times in a way that can only be described as outright plagiarism. His defense against another charge of plagiarism is that he actually ghostwrote the article so he was only quoting himself; but the article was attributed to the author of record, so he was lying one way or the other. He claimed that Captain John Smith "of Pocahontas fame" attempted to wipe out the Indians of New England with smallpox and footnoted a source, which actually provides no support for that assertion whatsoever. And so on.
His defenders have attacked the report of the committee that reviewed the charges against him and have focused on some wacky stuff such as an alleged connection to Lynn Cheney. The only point on which they can muster much of a counter-argument is the dispute over whether a certain 19th century federal law required, or did not require, proof of Indian ancestry, which Churchill terms a "blood quantum." It looks like the law in question did not but that federal policy did in practice. (Native American tribes today are certainly keen on proving ancestry.) But on the questions of plagiarism and misquotation, the defenders have no defense.
Churchill might be hypersensitive to questions of Indian ancestry and tribal identity because his own Indian descent is so attenuated, if it exists at all. Churchill has passed himself off as a Native American but admits he is really no more than one-sixteenth native, and media reports question even that portion.
The heck of it is that his academic offenses might have gone basically unnoticed (or noticed only by a few specialists) if he had restrained himself in his non-academic speech, specifically his notorious description of the office workers killed in the World Trade Center attack of Sept. 11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns" because they supposedly were part of the worldwide holocaust of American capitalism. It was a cheap shot and by itself would not get a tenured professor fired, but it opened a window into Churchill's dark, closed work of paranoia and intellectual dishonesty. It's been all downhill for him from there.
As the fisherman said of the fish, he wouldn't have gotten into trouble if he hadn't opened his mouth.
Monday, April 30, 2007
ROSIE O'DONNELL, CALL THE CONSPIRACY OFFICE
I wonder if Rosie O'Donnell, that noted metallurgist and expert in thermodynamics, will offer a conspiratorial explanation of the collapse of a highway overpass near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Otherwise, she would have to eat her words about the collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7, which she claims was brought down not by fire but by explosives, perhaps in an attempt to cover up the Enron scandal.
Rosie's interesting hypothesis about WTC #7, made March 15 on her blog and on "The View,"a daytime talk show from which she is being unceremoniously dumped, is that "for the first time in history, fire melted steel" on 9/11. This came as a great surprise to recyclers who melt steel all the time, and shipbuilders and others who bend steel every day. Rosie the Riveter could have told her how easy it is soften steel with heat.
Rosie O'Donnell has retreated a little, stating on her blog merely that the destruction of the World Trade Center was the first time steel buildings had been destroyed by fire.
The vulnerability of steel-framed structures to intense heat, however, was demonstrated again Monday in Oakland when a gasoline tanker truck rammed into a guardrail and caught fire.
According to news reports: "Heat from the flames exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the overpass to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."
It is quite true that most high-rise fires do not result in collapse of the structure. There are very few fires in high-rises in the first place since they are designed to be fireproof and are made of inflammable material (steel and concrete). But if you smash thousands of pounds of aviation fuel into a highrise and set it on fire, you will indeed have an inferno that will warp the steel and cause the building to collapse in pancake fashion as the north and south towers did. It was not the fact of the airplanes hitting the buildings that caused the collapse, as Rosie seems to think, but the intense fire touched off by the aviation fuel.
Building 7 might well have survived the disaster that consumed its neighbors but for the fact that it was equipped with generators served by high-pressure fuel lines, which, experts believe, pumped fuel into a fire started by burning debris. Building 7's steel skeleton lost integrity and collapsed after nine hours of such punishment.
But all that makes too much sense for Rosie, who prefers to believe that somebody took advantage of the chaos to blow up Building 7 to derail the investigation of Enron. Or something. One wonders what mysterious forces she will find that benefit from the collapse of a highway in Oakland.
I wonder if Rosie O'Donnell, that noted metallurgist and expert in thermodynamics, will offer a conspiratorial explanation of the collapse of a highway overpass near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Otherwise, she would have to eat her words about the collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7, which she claims was brought down not by fire but by explosives, perhaps in an attempt to cover up the Enron scandal.
Rosie's interesting hypothesis about WTC #7, made March 15 on her blog and on "The View,"a daytime talk show from which she is being unceremoniously dumped, is that "for the first time in history, fire melted steel" on 9/11. This came as a great surprise to recyclers who melt steel all the time, and shipbuilders and others who bend steel every day. Rosie the Riveter could have told her how easy it is soften steel with heat.
Rosie O'Donnell has retreated a little, stating on her blog merely that the destruction of the World Trade Center was the first time steel buildings had been destroyed by fire.
The vulnerability of steel-framed structures to intense heat, however, was demonstrated again Monday in Oakland when a gasoline tanker truck rammed into a guardrail and caught fire.
According to news reports: "Heat from the flames exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the overpass to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."
It is quite true that most high-rise fires do not result in collapse of the structure. There are very few fires in high-rises in the first place since they are designed to be fireproof and are made of inflammable material (steel and concrete). But if you smash thousands of pounds of aviation fuel into a highrise and set it on fire, you will indeed have an inferno that will warp the steel and cause the building to collapse in pancake fashion as the north and south towers did. It was not the fact of the airplanes hitting the buildings that caused the collapse, as Rosie seems to think, but the intense fire touched off by the aviation fuel.
Building 7 might well have survived the disaster that consumed its neighbors but for the fact that it was equipped with generators served by high-pressure fuel lines, which, experts believe, pumped fuel into a fire started by burning debris. Building 7's steel skeleton lost integrity and collapsed after nine hours of such punishment.
But all that makes too much sense for Rosie, who prefers to believe that somebody took advantage of the chaos to blow up Building 7 to derail the investigation of Enron. Or something. One wonders what mysterious forces she will find that benefit from the collapse of a highway in Oakland.
Friday, April 27, 2007
DEAN OF ADMISSIONS -- AND COMMON SENSE -- FALLS TO RESUME CREATION
The dean of admissions at the ultra-prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology has resigned after admitting that she had falsified her resume for the past 28 years and covered up the fact that she did not have even an undergraduate degree, much less the advanced degrees she claimed.
Which, of course, begs the question -- do you really need a college degree to be the dean of admissions at MIT? Apparently not.
Marilee Jones was highly regarded in line of work, and MIT was obviously very happy with her, since the institution promoted her repeatedly since she started at the entry level in 1979. She is famous for urging success-obsessed students and their parents to calm down and get a grip. Which is ironic, since MIT is one of the most selective colleges in the world, and admission to it is widely regarded as a sure path to success.
Of course, how hard is it to be dean of admissions at an institution that rejects 88 percent of applicants? It isn't like she had to generate applications. They came flooding in. Her job as dean was to make sure that the institution had the best possible freshmen class, and no one is suggesting that she failed to carry out that task.
According to The New York Times, at MIT "Ms. Jones was widely admired, almost revered, for her humor, outspokenness and common sense." So when somebody ratted her out for resume inflation (resume creation, really), of course she had to be fired. Humor, outspokenness and common sense don't count against embarrassing a prestigious institution that will now face many questions about whether its student body was really as carefully chosen as everyone thought. Especially an institution that is a pillar of our credentials-obsessed society.
Still, one can only wish that the chancellor had had the nerve to announce that while Ms. Jones did a bad thing, she had earned her job and would be retained so she could continue to apply her "humor, outspokeness, and common sense." But that would make just too much sense.
The dean of admissions at the ultra-prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology has resigned after admitting that she had falsified her resume for the past 28 years and covered up the fact that she did not have even an undergraduate degree, much less the advanced degrees she claimed.
Which, of course, begs the question -- do you really need a college degree to be the dean of admissions at MIT? Apparently not.
Marilee Jones was highly regarded in line of work, and MIT was obviously very happy with her, since the institution promoted her repeatedly since she started at the entry level in 1979. She is famous for urging success-obsessed students and their parents to calm down and get a grip. Which is ironic, since MIT is one of the most selective colleges in the world, and admission to it is widely regarded as a sure path to success.
Of course, how hard is it to be dean of admissions at an institution that rejects 88 percent of applicants? It isn't like she had to generate applications. They came flooding in. Her job as dean was to make sure that the institution had the best possible freshmen class, and no one is suggesting that she failed to carry out that task.
According to The New York Times, at MIT "Ms. Jones was widely admired, almost revered, for her humor, outspokenness and common sense." So when somebody ratted her out for resume inflation (resume creation, really), of course she had to be fired. Humor, outspokenness and common sense don't count against embarrassing a prestigious institution that will now face many questions about whether its student body was really as carefully chosen as everyone thought. Especially an institution that is a pillar of our credentials-obsessed society.
Still, one can only wish that the chancellor had had the nerve to announce that while Ms. Jones did a bad thing, she had earned her job and would be retained so she could continue to apply her "humor, outspokeness, and common sense." But that would make just too much sense.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
"TRUE CONFESSIONS" FROM THE BRITS . . . AND OUR CAPTIVE
The U.S. government must be very unhappy with the misadventure of the British sailors and marines who demonstrated that it is quite easy to get captives to say things that they don't actually believe -- or to change their minds about what they do believe. The eight sailors and seven Royal Marines -- the latter supposedly the tough guys of the UK military -- apologized profusely for straying into Iranian waters and did it on Iranian TV, humbling the once-mighty British and handing the Islamist regime a publicity coup.
After the debriefing, no doubt explanations will be offered to the effect that the confessions were just a clever dodge, they didn't mean it, they sent coded signals in their TV performance, etc. All well and good. But the fact is that the British service members basically cracked in less than two weeks and did whatever it took to get the hell out of there.
Which brings us to Khalid Sheik Mohammed. KSM, as he is known, has been in United States custody since 2003 and spent the last six months in Uncle Sam's Carribean resort for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After lengthy interrogations by American agents, KSM has reportedly confessed that he, himself, murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and that he planned, among other things:
-- the 9/11 attacks
-- the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center
-- A hotel bombing in Kenya in 2002
-- The Bali, Indonesia, nightclub bombing
-- Assasination attempts against Bill Clinton when he was president; Jimmy Carter; Pope John Paul II; and Pakistan ruler Pervez Musharaff.
-- Attempts to destroy the the Panama Canal; the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower, and other famous buildings in the U.S.; and the Canary Wharf, Big Ben, and Heathrow Airport in Britain.
Not to mention numerous other plots.
Judging from KSM's confessions, he was pretty much the CEO of the al-Qaeda Terrorism Company, the world's biggest bad guy, the Bill Gates of evil. In capturing KSM and putting him out of the mayhem business, we took down a major operative and presumably dialed back on terrorism around the world, didn't we?
Except apparently we didn't. The Global War on Terrorism goes on, not to mention the very specific battle with miscellaneous bad guys in Iraq. Government foresees an endless war against the forces of evil as personified by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, with no relief in sight.
Armed with such a splendid confession, you'd think the U.S. would put KSM on trial. Surely we have some sort of extraterritorialty laws that would let us haul this bird into a courtroom in New York and ask for the death penalty.
Except the government will never do that, because his confession would be pretty much the whole case, and any law school dropout would know that the first thing to do is disavow the confession on the grounds that it was extracted by torture.
But wait, the U.S. would never engage in "real" torture, stubbing out lit cigarettes on his belly fat or ripping out fingernails with channel-lock pliers. We would never do that. We might see how long we can hold his breath underwater, though -- that seems to be within the rules.
But four years of solitary confinement, total isolation from friends (if he has any) and allies, no contact with counsel, legal or otherwise, and constant interrogation, is pressure enough for most people. The British sailors and marines 'fessed up without a mark on them, looking perfectly chipper and cheerful, and said what the Iranians wanted to hear in order to win their release. Wouldn't KSM admit to almost anything if he thought it would end his ordeal? How much pressure can even a dementedly dedicated terrorist take?
The U.S. claims that it got valuable information -- names and dates -- from KSM. Let's hope that's true. If KSM is really the major bad guy that he confessed to being, then surely we can roll up his network and clip al-Qaeda's wings.
One can only wish his confession was worth that much.
The U.S. government must be very unhappy with the misadventure of the British sailors and marines who demonstrated that it is quite easy to get captives to say things that they don't actually believe -- or to change their minds about what they do believe. The eight sailors and seven Royal Marines -- the latter supposedly the tough guys of the UK military -- apologized profusely for straying into Iranian waters and did it on Iranian TV, humbling the once-mighty British and handing the Islamist regime a publicity coup.
After the debriefing, no doubt explanations will be offered to the effect that the confessions were just a clever dodge, they didn't mean it, they sent coded signals in their TV performance, etc. All well and good. But the fact is that the British service members basically cracked in less than two weeks and did whatever it took to get the hell out of there.
Which brings us to Khalid Sheik Mohammed. KSM, as he is known, has been in United States custody since 2003 and spent the last six months in Uncle Sam's Carribean resort for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After lengthy interrogations by American agents, KSM has reportedly confessed that he, himself, murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and that he planned, among other things:
-- the 9/11 attacks
-- the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center
-- A hotel bombing in Kenya in 2002
-- The Bali, Indonesia, nightclub bombing
-- Assasination attempts against Bill Clinton when he was president; Jimmy Carter; Pope John Paul II; and Pakistan ruler Pervez Musharaff.
-- Attempts to destroy the the Panama Canal; the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower, and other famous buildings in the U.S.; and the Canary Wharf, Big Ben, and Heathrow Airport in Britain.
Not to mention numerous other plots.
Judging from KSM's confessions, he was pretty much the CEO of the al-Qaeda Terrorism Company, the world's biggest bad guy, the Bill Gates of evil. In capturing KSM and putting him out of the mayhem business, we took down a major operative and presumably dialed back on terrorism around the world, didn't we?
Except apparently we didn't. The Global War on Terrorism goes on, not to mention the very specific battle with miscellaneous bad guys in Iraq. Government foresees an endless war against the forces of evil as personified by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, with no relief in sight.
Armed with such a splendid confession, you'd think the U.S. would put KSM on trial. Surely we have some sort of extraterritorialty laws that would let us haul this bird into a courtroom in New York and ask for the death penalty.
Except the government will never do that, because his confession would be pretty much the whole case, and any law school dropout would know that the first thing to do is disavow the confession on the grounds that it was extracted by torture.
But wait, the U.S. would never engage in "real" torture, stubbing out lit cigarettes on his belly fat or ripping out fingernails with channel-lock pliers. We would never do that. We might see how long we can hold his breath underwater, though -- that seems to be within the rules.
But four years of solitary confinement, total isolation from friends (if he has any) and allies, no contact with counsel, legal or otherwise, and constant interrogation, is pressure enough for most people. The British sailors and marines 'fessed up without a mark on them, looking perfectly chipper and cheerful, and said what the Iranians wanted to hear in order to win their release. Wouldn't KSM admit to almost anything if he thought it would end his ordeal? How much pressure can even a dementedly dedicated terrorist take?
The U.S. claims that it got valuable information -- names and dates -- from KSM. Let's hope that's true. If KSM is really the major bad guy that he confessed to being, then surely we can roll up his network and clip al-Qaeda's wings.
One can only wish his confession was worth that much.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
MEDIA NOTES: ACCURACY IN THE WASHINGTON POST
The Washington Post claims to be the local newspaper for the Washington area but has yet to figure out some of the peculiarities of the suburbs, especially in Virginia. For one thing, the Post believes that the cities of Falls Church and Fairfax and the county of Fairfax constitute a single, Pangea-like entity called "Fairfax." This has come up in the Post's coverage of the attempt by two conservative Episcopal churches to break away from the Diocese of Virginia. The Post could not accurately place the actual location of the churches in question. Today the Post published an edited version of my second letter on the subject. The first letter resulted in a correction published December 5. Below are the full versions of both letters.
January 4, 2007
Editor, The Washington Post
Just curious, but in what sense is The Falls Church located in "Fairfax," as the Post reported on its front page today? It is obviously not in Fairfax City since that municipality lies several miles to the west, and it is not located in Fairfax County. As the name implies, The Falls Church is in Falls Church, a small but decidedly independent city which is bordered by Arlington County on one side and Fairfax County on the other.
The Post managed to place Truro Church in Fairfax City and noted that it is located near the intersection of two major thoroughfares. Well, The Falls Church is located near the intersection of Broad Street (Virginia Route 7) and South Washington Street (U.S. Route 29), which is the central intersection of Falls Church. So why can't you figure out that it is in Falls Church? Where do you think that little city got its name, anyway?
Virginia is literally unique in its separation of city and county. Falls Church has its own city council, school system, library, police force, etc. It used to share courts with Fairfax County but switched to sharing them with Arlington County. Believe me, no one in Falls Church city thinks he or she lives in Fairfax County. People will pay more for a house specifically to live in the city.
The Post acknowledged in a correction December 5, 2006, that The Falls Church is in Falls Church and not in Fairfax County. Today's story seems to indicate that the editors do not read the corrections.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lobb
___________________
ORRECTIONS
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page A02
· A Dec. 4 article incorrectly said that two Episcopal churches considering a split from the national church are located in Fairfax County. The Falls Church is in the city of Falls Church, and Truro Church is in Fairfax City.
___________________________________________
Letter to the Editor December 4, 2006
Editor, The Washington Post:
I am not an Episcopalian (I belong to the Roman varsity squad) and have no great interest in whether the Episcopal church suffers a schism, but I can tell you for a fact that The Falls Church is not located in Fairfax County, as you reported today, but rather, as the name implies, in the City of Falls Church, which is independent of, and separate from, its giant neighbor. The Falls Church is located right smack in the center of that little city and is a major local institution.
Furthermore, Truro Church is not in Fairfax County, either. It is located in the center of the City of Fairfax, a jurisdiction that zealously guards its independence from the county.
Virginia’s separation of city and county is literally unique since no other state arranges local government that way. I lived for many years in Fairfax County with a Falls Church mailing address, and now have a Fairfax mailing address, without ever having lived in either of those cities.
The Post seems to have a hard time grasping this concept and comes up with strange circumlocutions such as describing a location as “the Alexandria section of Fairfax County” (“Jurors Debate Murder Charge Against Youth, 14” by Jamie Stockwell, B06 11/03/2006), which makes it sound like that entire, rather large, city is in Fairfax County -- which it is not. Just say, “in Fairfax County near Alexandria.”
And please put The Falls Church back into the city that is named for it.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lobb
The Washington Post claims to be the local newspaper for the Washington area but has yet to figure out some of the peculiarities of the suburbs, especially in Virginia. For one thing, the Post believes that the cities of Falls Church and Fairfax and the county of Fairfax constitute a single, Pangea-like entity called "Fairfax." This has come up in the Post's coverage of the attempt by two conservative Episcopal churches to break away from the Diocese of Virginia. The Post could not accurately place the actual location of the churches in question. Today the Post published an edited version of my second letter on the subject. The first letter resulted in a correction published December 5. Below are the full versions of both letters.
January 4, 2007
Editor, The Washington Post
Just curious, but in what sense is The Falls Church located in "Fairfax," as the Post reported on its front page today? It is obviously not in Fairfax City since that municipality lies several miles to the west, and it is not located in Fairfax County. As the name implies, The Falls Church is in Falls Church, a small but decidedly independent city which is bordered by Arlington County on one side and Fairfax County on the other.
The Post managed to place Truro Church in Fairfax City and noted that it is located near the intersection of two major thoroughfares. Well, The Falls Church is located near the intersection of Broad Street (Virginia Route 7) and South Washington Street (U.S. Route 29), which is the central intersection of Falls Church. So why can't you figure out that it is in Falls Church? Where do you think that little city got its name, anyway?
Virginia is literally unique in its separation of city and county. Falls Church has its own city council, school system, library, police force, etc. It used to share courts with Fairfax County but switched to sharing them with Arlington County. Believe me, no one in Falls Church city thinks he or she lives in Fairfax County. People will pay more for a house specifically to live in the city.
The Post acknowledged in a correction December 5, 2006, that The Falls Church is in Falls Church and not in Fairfax County. Today's story seems to indicate that the editors do not read the corrections.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lobb
___________________
ORRECTIONS
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page A02
· A Dec. 4 article incorrectly said that two Episcopal churches considering a split from the national church are located in Fairfax County. The Falls Church is in the city of Falls Church, and Truro Church is in Fairfax City.
___________________________________________
Letter to the Editor December 4, 2006
Editor, The Washington Post:
I am not an Episcopalian (I belong to the Roman varsity squad) and have no great interest in whether the Episcopal church suffers a schism, but I can tell you for a fact that The Falls Church is not located in Fairfax County, as you reported today, but rather, as the name implies, in the City of Falls Church, which is independent of, and separate from, its giant neighbor. The Falls Church is located right smack in the center of that little city and is a major local institution.
Furthermore, Truro Church is not in Fairfax County, either. It is located in the center of the City of Fairfax, a jurisdiction that zealously guards its independence from the county.
Virginia’s separation of city and county is literally unique since no other state arranges local government that way. I lived for many years in Fairfax County with a Falls Church mailing address, and now have a Fairfax mailing address, without ever having lived in either of those cities.
The Post seems to have a hard time grasping this concept and comes up with strange circumlocutions such as describing a location as “the Alexandria section of Fairfax County” (“Jurors Debate Murder Charge Against Youth, 14” by Jamie Stockwell, B06 11/03/2006), which makes it sound like that entire, rather large, city is in Fairfax County -- which it is not. Just say, “in Fairfax County near Alexandria.”
And please put The Falls Church back into the city that is named for it.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lobb
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)