Reading Eagle editorial: Trump deserves a chance

by Steve Reinbrecht

The Reading Eagle’s editorial Wednesday about Donald Trump is yet another example of the newsroom leaders’ disconnect with reality. It suggests the evil bullying bigot could be an acceptable president.

The earnest piece demands that Trump provide some details, darn it, to support some of his famous campaign promises.

The editorialist points out that Trump’s tax numbers just don’t add up, although “to be fair, Trump's 15 percent corporate tax rate, with its potential for repatriating corporations and jobs, is worth considering.”

The editorial writer also savages Trump on his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border. Research clearly shows, the Eagle points out, how unaffordable such a wall would be.

And come on, Trump must realize how hard it would be to deport 11 million undocumented workers. The Eagle writer supports this claim with further research. "The American Action Forum estimated its cost at $400 billion to $600 billion over 20 years." 

The answer to the Trump problem, the Eagle argues, is for more details about his ideas. As the Eagle demands, let’s hope Trump explains these things in calm and reasonable detail so that the Eagle newsroom leaders can comprehend how these controversial plans can actually be put in place to make America great again.

The newsroom leaders don't come to the conclusion that Trump is an awful man who must be stopped because he is gleefully tapping into hate and ignorance and unleashing the worst elements of humanity.

Don't the men running the Eagle see Trump as a threat to what America values, as a cynic who has cleverly adopted the election process as Hitler did in the 1930s? Most observers, here and around the world, understand this and are helping to get out the message.

In the meantime, why doesn't the Eagle press some of the many Republicans in Berks County who have been elected to make decisions about our lives on what they think about Trump?

We deserve to know. Berks needs better journalism.

Front-page non-story shows Reading Eagle leaders’ lack of news judgment

by Steve Reinbrecht

The story on the Reading Eagle’s front page Sunday – the spot traditionally reserved for the best story of the week – is another example of a bunch of words that look like journalism but really are not.

I can see how this happened – some old white male editor in the newsroom really does believe this is an issue, in a hip kind of women’s-lib way, and assigned it.

“Debate over the draft,” the headline says. “Inside the issue.”

But it’s not a “debate” or an “issue.” Who in their right minds would say that though young men have to register for the military draft, young women should not have to?

In fact, nobody in the 1,200-word story says that women should not register, except for a Kutztown University sophomore who says the idea is “scary.”

Because it doesn’t have an idea holding it together, the article disintegrates into a mushy discussion of whether anybody should be drafted, or whether women should fight.

The last time anyone was drafted was 1973.

Berks County needs media with the will and competence to identify and explore REAL issues in the community, and many are inadequately examined.

• ·      Health-care access for poor people
• ·      Urban economic development
• ·      Reading politics
• ·      Any sort of story about jail operations
• ·      Recidivism
• ·      Bail amounts
• ·      The county nursing home
• ·      Crime trends
• ·      The laughable county tourism and visitors bureau
• ·      Trends in child-pornography arrests
• ·      Curriculum issues in public schools
• ·      New businesses springing up around the new hotel in Reading
• ·      Particle and lead pollution
• ·      Municipal government transparency
• ·      How to get treatment if you are addicted to opiates

Open letter to Berks lawmakers: Do you support Trump?

By Steve Reinbrecht

I am asking the local state representatives to help me with a story for my blog.

Donald Trump is the front runner for GOP presidential candidate, but even many conservative observers see him as a bigot, a bully, a populist, a demagogue. 

The Economist: “The front-runner is unfit to lead a great political party, let alone America.”

The Federalist: “It’s not just about conservative credentials or his slimy personal history. Donald Trump is a danger to the American ideals of a free and open society.”

George Will: “We are about to learn much about Republican officeholders who are now deciding whether to come to terms with Trump, and with the shattering of their party as a vessel of conservatism.”

The Wall Street Journal: “While some current and former Republican officials have endorsed Donald Trump, others have said they wouldn't support him even if he were the party's presidential nominee.”

Nevertheless, many politicians are starting to hop on the Trump bus.

Here are my questions:

1. Do you think Trump would be a good president?
2. Do you support or admire Trump?
3. Why is he so popular among Republicans?
4. What does his popularity mean for the future of the Republican Party?
5. Would you support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?
6. How many of your constituents support him?

I’ll post your answers.

Thanks!

Reading Eagle is wrong that 'leaders' should choose which businesses open

by Steve Reinbrecht

I was surprised at the Reading Eagle’s editorial’s call for Reading leaders to try to pick the businesses that should open downtown. 

These fake people are NOT in Reading.

“As Reading redevelops and brings in new businesses, as we hope will happen, leaders must do all they can to make sure new downtown tenants are a good fit," it said.

I say, let the market do its job. Nobody in Reading is qualified to pick the winners, or arbitrate taste.

Remember when city leaders tried to get an S&M mannequin off Penn Street, objecting to the image it was portraying?

In April 2013, the Eagle ran an editorial about how “a chained nude figure in bondage paraphernalia managed to get a remarkable amount of attention from City Council last week.

“The mannequin had been posed outside the Little Paris store at 523B Penn Street, in the heart of Penn Square, until city leaders took issue with it.

“Members of City Council expressed outrage at the inappropriate display, especially in such a high profile location.

“Councilwoman Marcia Goodman-Hinnershitz pointed out that the store already was pushing the boundaries of good taste by keeping mannequins modeling see-through negligees in its window. Advertising a set of chains and straps on the street simply went too far.”

Following the Eagle’s notion, which leaders would decide what’s a “good fit”?

Economic-development leaders? Al Boscov?

Just set good rules and enforce them.

Maybe sexy mannequins are what Penn Square needs.

I really hope no city leaders are discouraging businesses based on some sort of values.

Reading suffers from poor planning. Maybe it’s time for an organic approach, bottom up from the people who live there.