A reader sent me an email the other day and at the end of it he mentioned that he'd had to call the Telegraph and had a bit of trouble getting my email address. So I thought it worth posting again: You can reach me by email at readeradvocate@nashuatelegraph.com.

I keep a pretty close eye on this account, so if you drop me a note I'll see it usually the same day, or the next day at the latest.

And while we are on the subject of correspondence:

The Telegraph calls the position I fill the "reader advocate" rather than "ombudsman," which is also used. The difference is that a reader advocate's charter is a little broader than an ombudsman, which means a person who mediates disputes. While a reader who disagrees with how the newspaper handled a particular story or situation is a big part of a reader advocate's job, it also includes explaining various aspects of the newpaper business to the readers and sometimes pointing out where the newspaper has, in my opinion, fallen short of, or exceeded reasonable expectations for the newspaper.

While I am never short of opinions, I'd rather be writing and blogging about topics that readers have expressed an interest in. These do not have to be weighty issues, or ones requiring a detailed response. Seen a small item in the Telegraph you liked? Disliked? Ever ask yourself, "why'd they do that?" -- even about something that's not really a heavyweight issue? Then drop me a note, so I can share with other readers, as well as the editors and reporters, what you like or don't like; what puzzles or delights you. And again, the place to send those items is:

readeradvocate@nashuatelegraph.com

********

Am I the only one surprised by the lack of heated editorial response to the President's latest signing statement?

The Congress, as part of a larger bill, inserted a stipulation that the next director of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have a certain level of experience in the field. The requirement seems broad enough that the President would have a wide range of candidates even with this restriction; and such restrictions have been placed by Congress on the filling of a number of federal positions in the past.

Nevertheless, the President attached a signing statement which seem to say he felt justified in ignoring this stricture as an infringement on his powers. Since it is hard to imagine the President appointing another Michael Brown -- whose disaster management experience was apparently confined to mediating horse show judging disputes -- the only purpose of the signing statement seems to have been to tell Congress, yet again, that the President recognizes few restrictions on the power of the "unitary executive." Some of the earlier signing statements at least involved bills relating to terrorism issues, where the position of Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (the power explicitly granted to the President in the Constitution) might have some relevance. A terrorism attack may indeed be a disaster, but Congress clearly had the Katrina episode more in mind.
So it is hard to see how this signing statement was anything but a clear message of how the President views his power in relation to that of the Congress.

Given the countless school lectures devoted to describing our government as a system of checks and balances among three equal branches, it's surprising that more newspapers -- generally pretty quick to leap to the defense of their freedom as enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- didn't take the opportunity to weigh in on the President's latest signing statement and its implications for how the Constitution is viewed and interpreted.