Letters to the editor:
[email protected]

Correction & Amplification

We incorrectly identified a reporter at presidential candidate Wesley Clark's rally last week. She was not a Halls Shopper reporter. Sandra Clark, the Halls Shopper News editor and publisher, says she had no reporter at the rally. We're sorry about the mix-up; we didn't know at the time that there was another Halls paper, the Halls Weekly. The young woman identified herself as a Halls reporter, but she works for the newly established Halls Weekly. We're still startled that anyone has the temerity to challenge Clark's Shopper on her own turf, but we should have checked.
—The Editor.

A Decent Respect...

Great article [Dec. 18] on John Davis. Repentant sinners who have as high a profile as he did run the risk of suffering ridicule in the media when they walk in the light. Of course, that is not Metro Pulse's style (and for that I am grateful).

In this day and age (2003 PC) Christian faith (often mocked simply as a bigoted ideology) is a touchy subject to handle. You handled it well. You gave the sincere faith of your subject ample respect.

I know how John feels; my spiritual journey was incredibly similar—trapped by my own punk rock post-pubescent slumming, spewing my anti-philosophies as if I had something important to say, finding myself a choking parody of my own godhood (not worthy of worship especially from myself), finally coming to the end of myself and finding nothing. God is good. On this side of my leap it all makes great sense.

I look forward to John's emergent voice. The Christian music scene is pretty dismal and I have all but worn out my Staples Singers, Blind Boys of Alabama, Emmy Lou Harris and Johnny Cash.

Jeff Townsend
Knoxville

Remembering Joe

As to your [Nov. 27] piece on Joe Jenkins, in days gone by the Corner Lounge was one of my stops. A buddy of mine played country music there. I would say, "Who is that sitting over there?" My buddy would say, "That's the sheriff; don't 'f' with him!"

Dave Beason
Seymour

Media Bias is Everywhere

In last week's [Dec. 18] sports column, Tony Basilio spoke of "a popularity contest of the highest order" that is, in his opinion, "built around the politics of regional bias and network power-broking." Mr. Basilio spoke, of course, about the Heisman balloting, but this would have been a good opening line to argue "for" a division I playoff. Of course, Tony opposes that, doesn't he?

It's amazing that someone with such a total disdain for the media supports giving them substantial authority in determining college football's highest team award—the national championship. The case has been made over and over again that biases exist within the media when ranking teams. Anyone remember the 1993 season—the one wherein Florida State and Notre Dame both lost late games, but somehow Florida State wound up ahead of the Fighting Irish in spite of a head-to-head loss? The one where an undefeated West Virginia team was left out of the discussion altogether? Or how about 1995 when Penn State was undefeated even after the bowl games? Or 1990, 1991, and 1997 when there were two champions?

The biases that Mr. Basilio laments do exist. Just ask the Pacific 10 Conference. Since the BCS was adopted in 1998, a one-loss Pac-10 team has been left out three separate times (Washington in 2000; Oregon in 2001; USC in 2003). They will probably tell you that there is a bias, all right, but not against the south.

It is insane to decide champions based on factors they cannot control, which is precisely what happened to Southern California this year. It is equally insane to eliminate roughly 50% of all Division I schools before the season begins.

Deciding the champions based on computers and polling is asinine, especially if Mr. Basilio's arguments hold water. If the college football world is subject to "the crass lobbying of ESPN and ABC" and "guided by public opinion," then the sport needs a playoff yesterday.

Tony is correct about the biases; he just needs to hold the poll voters to the same standards as the Heisman voters. As for the voting for the world's ugliest paperweight, it is very difficult to argue for Mr. Manning's candidacy, when the quarterback for the No. 1 team in the nation (arguably) has better numbers than last year's winner and didn't even get invited.

Scott Boles
Kingston