Less than a week after the sixth anniverary of 9/11, the Lawrence Journal-World allowed Elizabeth Black to express her views on the six years that have passed since that tragic day.
Black's piece, entitled "Many hearts still bear painful memories of 9/11," started out with her experience as a "New Yorker" on 9/11. It quickly degenerated into an anti-George W. Bush screed devoid of facts or reason. Unfortunately, this type of opinion piece has become increasingly common in the Journal-World.
Black, who was born in southwest Kansas, apparently believes her one summer in New York City makes her a New Yorker. And, as a "New Yorker," Black feels free to attack us yokels in Kansas and the rest of the Midwest, which Black labels a "Sea of Stupidity."
"The pain of that day is never more than a nanosecond away from every New Yorker," Black writes. "The rest of the country doesn’t really understand it. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s true. If the rest of the country understood how New Yorkers, and to a lesser extent Washingtonians, felt, they would never have allowed six years of nonsense to pass. They would never have re-elected a president who, when he couldn’t find Osama, lost interest and turned to go after someone easier to hit."
Black continued:
"For the most part, New York has given up on Middle America. As well they should. When the 2004 election results were tallied, a sea of solid red covered the vast middle of the country. The vote was a resounding affirmation for the Texas team that brought us the trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq, even after the facts were known — no WMD, no al-Qaida connection."
According to Black's interpretation of the 2004 presidential election, we voters in the Midwest were too unintelligent to recognize the nonsense peddled by Bush and Cheney. If we had, we, like New Yorkers, would have voted for John Kerry and the nation would have been spared four additional years of the corrupt team from Texas.
It's a nice narrative for the liberals at the Journal-World and their far-left readers. However, Black's opinion is contradicted by the facts.
In 2000, before 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush received 35 perccent of the vote in the state of New York, while Al Gore received 60 percent and Ralph Nader received 4 percent. If Black is correct about New Yorkers, then Bush's percentage of the vote in New York should have dropped in the 2004 election. However, Bush received 40 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 58.4 percent of the vote. In other words, Bush picked up 5 percentage points in New York, while votes for the liberal candidate dropped by more than 5 percentage points.
Of course, Ms. Black might respond that she was referring to New York City and not the entire state of New York. According to the New York Sun, Bush received roughly 400,000 votes in New York City in 2000. However, in 2004, Bush received 543,000 votes in New York City, an increase of 35 percent. John Kerry received 9,000 fewer votes in New York City in 2004 than Al Gore received in 2000. Bush also won the New York City borough of Staten Island 57 percent to Kerry's 42 percent. Bush was the first GOP presidential candidate to win Staten Island since his father did so in 1992.
In Brooklyn, Bush's vote total grew from 96,000 in 2000 to 156,000 in 2004, an increase of 63 percent.
Now, let's look at Kansas. In 2000, Bush received 622,332 votes. In 2004, he received 736,456. This is an increase of just over 18 percent. That's an impressive improvement, but barely half the improvement Bush experienced in New York City. Using Black's ridiculous argument, it would be more accurate to say Kansas should have given up on New York City since so many more New Yorkers voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
(Another fact that Black apparently missed: A check of the votes of blue states in 2000 vs. 2004 shows that Vermont was the only blue state in which a higher percentage of voters voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 over 2000. )
Black also noted that we should have made changes after 9/11. "We should have refused to burn the bloody oil our enemies sell us," she wrote.
By "we," Black apparently meant you and me. In a May 14, 2007, column in the Journal-World, Black noted that she decided to relocate in Lawrence after receiving a parking ticket. Turns out the ticket was placed on her car's windshield. I'm pretty certain that car needs oil to get from place to place.
Perhaps some time in the future, Black will take on New Yorkers for sending Hillary Clinton back to the U.S. Senate in 2006. After all, Hillary voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In addition, her husband's administration:
- Left office in January 2001 claiming Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
- Said Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating, especially on weapons production.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
- Had eight years to get bin Laden and failed. In fact, after Clinton launched missiles at empty tents in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in August 1998, he launched a preemptive strike on Saddam in December 1998 and an illegal war of choice (if, as liberals claim, wars without the UN's imprimatur are illegal) in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.
- And, if we are to believe bin Laden (and I believe we should, just as we should have taken Hitler seriously when he wrote Mein Kampf), it was the Clinton administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq that ultimately gave us 9/11 and other "messages with no words."
http://web.archive.org/web/19990203201222/http://cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/04/embassy.bombings.02/
Which do you think is more likely? Black writing an opinion piece attacking New Yorkers for reelecting Hillary in 2006? Or Black voting for Hillary in 2008?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Rose peddled Reagan lie before
As noted in the previous item, Steve Rose, chairman of Sun Publiucations, micharacterized Ronald Reagan's record as a social conservative in a August 8 column.
Rose has done this before, this time in a February 22, 2007 column.
"[KRA leaders] claim they are 'Reagan Republicans,' who, in their delusional minds, was one of them."
As shown in the previous item, Reagan considered himself a social conservative and social conservatives in 1980 and 1984 campaigned hard for Reagan because he was one of them.
"Well, tens of millions of us were Reagan Republicans," Rose continued. "We voted for him both times he ran. And it was not because he was a right-wing ideologue. It was because he was a true conservative, but he also was flexible and tolerant. His Supreme Court appointments say it all. He picked Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two moderates. A third appointment, William Rehnquist, was a mild conservative. Only Antonin Scalia was a true-blue social conservative. The KRA would have a coronary if those appointments were made today."
First, Rehnquist was appointed by President Richard Nixon, not Reagan. Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. Second, Rose's claim that Rehnquist was merely a "mild conservative" is laughable. Check out the articles after Rehnquist died and try to find one in which he was described as a "mild conservative." Third, Rose has apparently forgotten that the conservative Robert Bork, and not Anthony Kennedy, was Reagan's first choice, after Associate Justice Lewis Powell retired. In fact, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice in a highly partisan atmosphere. O'Connor was a mixed bag. She took some moderate positions. However, upon her retirement, the Christian Science Monitor noted, "On the conservative side, her vote has been critical to the conservative wing's federalism revival."
More from Rose:
"Ronald Reagan talked a good game about social values, but his real priorities were lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union. That’s why moderates could embrace him, and that’s why Ronald Reagan unified not only his party, but brought millions of Democrats into the fold."
What Rose fails to understand is that "lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union" were (and are) priorities that had (and have) moral components. For example, the Soviet Empire had to be bring down because Reagan believed it was an "Evil Empire." Rose also fails to understand that evangelical Democrats embraced Reagan in 1980 and 1984 because they believed Carter let them down on, among other things, the abortion issue.
Rose has done this before, this time in a February 22, 2007 column.
"[KRA leaders] claim they are 'Reagan Republicans,' who, in their delusional minds, was one of them."
As shown in the previous item, Reagan considered himself a social conservative and social conservatives in 1980 and 1984 campaigned hard for Reagan because he was one of them.
"Well, tens of millions of us were Reagan Republicans," Rose continued. "We voted for him both times he ran. And it was not because he was a right-wing ideologue. It was because he was a true conservative, but he also was flexible and tolerant. His Supreme Court appointments say it all. He picked Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two moderates. A third appointment, William Rehnquist, was a mild conservative. Only Antonin Scalia was a true-blue social conservative. The KRA would have a coronary if those appointments were made today."
First, Rehnquist was appointed by President Richard Nixon, not Reagan. Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. Second, Rose's claim that Rehnquist was merely a "mild conservative" is laughable. Check out the articles after Rehnquist died and try to find one in which he was described as a "mild conservative." Third, Rose has apparently forgotten that the conservative Robert Bork, and not Anthony Kennedy, was Reagan's first choice, after Associate Justice Lewis Powell retired. In fact, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice in a highly partisan atmosphere. O'Connor was a mixed bag. She took some moderate positions. However, upon her retirement, the Christian Science Monitor noted, "On the conservative side, her vote has been critical to the conservative wing's federalism revival."
More from Rose:
"Ronald Reagan talked a good game about social values, but his real priorities were lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union. That’s why moderates could embrace him, and that’s why Ronald Reagan unified not only his party, but brought millions of Democrats into the fold."
What Rose fails to understand is that "lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union" were (and are) priorities that had (and have) moral components. For example, the Soviet Empire had to be bring down because Reagan believed it was an "Evil Empire." Rose also fails to understand that evangelical Democrats embraced Reagan in 1980 and 1984 because they believed Carter let them down on, among other things, the abortion issue.
The editorial is bogus
In his August 8, 2007, column entitled "The enemy is us," Steve Rose, chairman of Sun Publications, attacks the Kansas Republican Assembly, the Kansas GOP, and the formation of the latter's loyalty committee.
According to Rose, "Under the just amended Republican Party constitution, there will now be a loyalty committee formed, which will demand that all elected Republican leaders, all the way down to the precinct level, take a loyalty oath."
If Rose had actually read news accounts concerning the loyalty committee, he would have known that there is no such oath.
He continues: "That threat translates into the Kansas Republican Assembly recruiting, training and funding right-wing candidates to knock the disloyal moderates out of office in the Republican Party primaries."
First, there have been at least as many conservatives complaining about the loyalty pledge as moderates. Some of these conservatives who are party officials want the option of endorsing a pro-life Democrat in a general election. Second, the loyalty issue would not even be a factor in a Republican primary since all candidates would be Republicans.
"After all, in 1994," Rose contines, "then-Mayor Giuliani endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, over Republican George Pataki. Under the Kansas loyalty edict, Giuliani would have been purged from the party."
That would be quite a trick since Giuliani is not an official in the Kansas GOP. In any case, Kansas GOP officials who endorse a Democrat would not be purged from the party. The most that could happen is they would lose their positions as officials with the Kansas GOP.
"But tolerance apparently cannot be accepted in Kansas by Republicans, because there is a panic. "
If expecting loyalty from party officials is tantamount to intolerance, aren't the Democrats also guilty of intolerance? For example, last August, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and other heavyweights in the Democrat Party endorsed Sen. Joe Lieberman in his reelection bid because they thought he was the best person for the job. After Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman, they all shifted their support to Lamont. If Lieberman was the best person for the job before the primary election, why wasn't he the best person for the job after the primary election? Clearly, the Democrats placed loyalty to their party above loyalty to the most qualified person for the job.
"In the last election, there were tens of thousands of Republicans who crossed over to vote Democrat, and there were long lists of Republican leaders, including many precinct committeemen and women who publicly signed off as Republicans for Kathleen Sebelius for governor; Republicans for Paul Morrison for attorney general; Republicans for Nancy Boyda for Congress in the 2nd District; and Republicans for Dennis Moore for Congress."
How many Republicans would crossover if those in the media, such as Steve Rose, the Journal-World's Scott Rothschild, and other activists posing as journalists reported the truth about these Democrats? For example, why do they refer to Dennis Moore as a conservative to moderate Democrats when he has a lifetime rating of 85% from Americans for Democratic Action (40-60% is the moderate range. 100%, which Moore received in 1999, earns a lawmaker the title of "Liberal Hero")?
"This stampede away from Republican candidates does not suggest a loyalty problem. Rather, it suggests a philosophical chasm. The Kansas Republican Party has moved too far to the right."
This statement implies that the Kansas Democrats have not moved too far to the left. As noted above, Dennis Moore has a lifetime ADA rating of 85%. Rep. Nancy Boyda is likely to have a rating in the same neighborhood after her first year in Washington. Democrat Jim Slattery represented the Kansas 2nd from 1983 to 1995. His lifetime LQ was 56, which was within ADA’s “moderate” range. Democrat Dan Glickman represented the Kansas 4th from 1977 to 1995. His lifetime LQ was 64, just four points above ADA’s “moderate” range. Yet we never see articles decrying the Democrats leftward shift during recent years.
"Furthermore, the Kansas Republican Assembly, which calls the tunes, has an inflexible agenda. They demand that all candidates sign on to their agenda and not waver from it one iota. Moderates have become lepers."
The KRA is a political group just as the Mainstream Coalition is a political group. KRA disagrees with positions taken with some moderates such as the Mainstream Coalition disagrees with positions taken by conservatives. If you want to see a political group treat another group as lepers, check out what the Mainstream Coalition has said about conservatives.
"Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative, tough on national defense, and a charismatic cheerleader for America and its greatness. But Ronald Reagan was not a social right-winger. He appointed moderates to the Supreme Court; he never pushed a pro-life agenda; he didn't consort with the Christian Right; and, had he lived, he surely would have favored stem-cell research, as has his wife, Nancy."
This is complete nonsense. Reagan was definitively a social conservative. The "moderates" he appointed to the Supreme Court include Antonin Scalia. Reagan also elevated "moderate" William Rehnquist to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
As far as never pushing a pro-life agenda, Reagan published Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation while he was president. Usually, presidents who do not push a pro-life agenda refrain from writing books in which they push a pro-life agenda.
Reagan did not consort with the Christian Right? Perhaps Rose is unaware of the fact that Reagan's famous "Evil Empire" speech was delivered in 1983 before the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Reagan, like George W. Bush, certainly would have supported some stem cell research. However, given his consistent pro-life views, it is unlikely that Reagan would have supported EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In any case, Rose, who, out of either ignorance and/or dishonesty, has distorted Reagan's record on abortion and other issues, should not be considered an authority on Reagan's views concerning stem cell research.
"Reagan, had he been running for Kansas governor with his own agenda, would never have received the blessing of the KRA and, thus, would have been crushed in the Republican primary."
More nonsense. The KRA promotes "the solid conservative economic and social principles championed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush." Rose suggests that Reagan embraced only conservative economic principles and eschewed conservative social principles. Therefore, the KRA would have rejected his candidacy. If this were the case, social conservatives certainly would have rejected Reagan's candidacy for president. However, we know that social and religious conservatives actively worked to get Reagan elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, one of the principal bugaboos of Rev. Robert Meneilly and the Mainstream Collection, reflected on his excitement concerning Reagan's 1980 campagin in a column after Reagan died in 2004. In addition, after Reagan died, one of the leading social conservatives in Kansas asked me to place an ad in one of my publications to honor the former president.
Clearly, social conservatives in Kansas accepted Reagan as one of their own. It is ridiculous of Rose to suggest they would have rejected him as their candidate for governor.
"If the Kansas Republican Party wants to return to power in Kansas, it needs to embrace the Reagan approach, not just mouth it and then do the opposite."
Return to power? The GOP has lost some elections, but it remains the dominant party in Kansas. In fact, the Kansas GOP remains far more powerful in 2007 than it was just 15 years ago. See "Rothschild's castrated sheep."
"The Kansas Republican Party and the Kansas Republican Assembly need to look in the mirror for the answer as to why they are losing everywhere in Kansas, and why Republicans are being driven into the welcoming arms of Democrats."
The reelection of Sebelius, Boyda's victory over Jim Ryun (who replaced a Democrat), and Morrison's switch to the GOP and subsequent victory over Phill Kline does not constitute losing "everywhere." Sebelius cannot run in 2010 and the GOP has a deeper bench of potential gubernatorial candidates, Boyda is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the U.S. House, and Morrison's victory was more of a propaganda victory than a philosophical one. If those in the Kansas media, including the dishonest Steve Rose, had told the truth about Phill Kline's actions as attorney general, it is likely Morrison would still be in Johnson County today.
Rose's mischaractizations concerning Reagan and the Kansas GOP can be proven false by anyone with an Internet connection and a few minutes. Are he and his fellow liberals in the media so arrogant that they believe they can publish lies and no one will question those lies?
According to Rose, "Under the just amended Republican Party constitution, there will now be a loyalty committee formed, which will demand that all elected Republican leaders, all the way down to the precinct level, take a loyalty oath."
If Rose had actually read news accounts concerning the loyalty committee, he would have known that there is no such oath.
He continues: "That threat translates into the Kansas Republican Assembly recruiting, training and funding right-wing candidates to knock the disloyal moderates out of office in the Republican Party primaries."
First, there have been at least as many conservatives complaining about the loyalty pledge as moderates. Some of these conservatives who are party officials want the option of endorsing a pro-life Democrat in a general election. Second, the loyalty issue would not even be a factor in a Republican primary since all candidates would be Republicans.
"After all, in 1994," Rose contines, "then-Mayor Giuliani endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, over Republican George Pataki. Under the Kansas loyalty edict, Giuliani would have been purged from the party."
That would be quite a trick since Giuliani is not an official in the Kansas GOP. In any case, Kansas GOP officials who endorse a Democrat would not be purged from the party. The most that could happen is they would lose their positions as officials with the Kansas GOP.
"But tolerance apparently cannot be accepted in Kansas by Republicans, because there is a panic. "
If expecting loyalty from party officials is tantamount to intolerance, aren't the Democrats also guilty of intolerance? For example, last August, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and other heavyweights in the Democrat Party endorsed Sen. Joe Lieberman in his reelection bid because they thought he was the best person for the job. After Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman, they all shifted their support to Lamont. If Lieberman was the best person for the job before the primary election, why wasn't he the best person for the job after the primary election? Clearly, the Democrats placed loyalty to their party above loyalty to the most qualified person for the job.
"In the last election, there were tens of thousands of Republicans who crossed over to vote Democrat, and there were long lists of Republican leaders, including many precinct committeemen and women who publicly signed off as Republicans for Kathleen Sebelius for governor; Republicans for Paul Morrison for attorney general; Republicans for Nancy Boyda for Congress in the 2nd District; and Republicans for Dennis Moore for Congress."
How many Republicans would crossover if those in the media, such as Steve Rose, the Journal-World's Scott Rothschild, and other activists posing as journalists reported the truth about these Democrats? For example, why do they refer to Dennis Moore as a conservative to moderate Democrats when he has a lifetime rating of 85% from Americans for Democratic Action (40-60% is the moderate range. 100%, which Moore received in 1999, earns a lawmaker the title of "Liberal Hero")?
"This stampede away from Republican candidates does not suggest a loyalty problem. Rather, it suggests a philosophical chasm. The Kansas Republican Party has moved too far to the right."
This statement implies that the Kansas Democrats have not moved too far to the left. As noted above, Dennis Moore has a lifetime ADA rating of 85%. Rep. Nancy Boyda is likely to have a rating in the same neighborhood after her first year in Washington. Democrat Jim Slattery represented the Kansas 2nd from 1983 to 1995. His lifetime LQ was 56, which was within ADA’s “moderate” range. Democrat Dan Glickman represented the Kansas 4th from 1977 to 1995. His lifetime LQ was 64, just four points above ADA’s “moderate” range. Yet we never see articles decrying the Democrats leftward shift during recent years.
"Furthermore, the Kansas Republican Assembly, which calls the tunes, has an inflexible agenda. They demand that all candidates sign on to their agenda and not waver from it one iota. Moderates have become lepers."
The KRA is a political group just as the Mainstream Coalition is a political group. KRA disagrees with positions taken with some moderates such as the Mainstream Coalition disagrees with positions taken by conservatives. If you want to see a political group treat another group as lepers, check out what the Mainstream Coalition has said about conservatives.
"Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative, tough on national defense, and a charismatic cheerleader for America and its greatness. But Ronald Reagan was not a social right-winger. He appointed moderates to the Supreme Court; he never pushed a pro-life agenda; he didn't consort with the Christian Right; and, had he lived, he surely would have favored stem-cell research, as has his wife, Nancy."
This is complete nonsense. Reagan was definitively a social conservative. The "moderates" he appointed to the Supreme Court include Antonin Scalia. Reagan also elevated "moderate" William Rehnquist to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
As far as never pushing a pro-life agenda, Reagan published Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation while he was president. Usually, presidents who do not push a pro-life agenda refrain from writing books in which they push a pro-life agenda.
Reagan did not consort with the Christian Right? Perhaps Rose is unaware of the fact that Reagan's famous "Evil Empire" speech was delivered in 1983 before the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Reagan, like George W. Bush, certainly would have supported some stem cell research. However, given his consistent pro-life views, it is unlikely that Reagan would have supported EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In any case, Rose, who, out of either ignorance and/or dishonesty, has distorted Reagan's record on abortion and other issues, should not be considered an authority on Reagan's views concerning stem cell research.
"Reagan, had he been running for Kansas governor with his own agenda, would never have received the blessing of the KRA and, thus, would have been crushed in the Republican primary."
More nonsense. The KRA promotes "the solid conservative economic and social principles championed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush." Rose suggests that Reagan embraced only conservative economic principles and eschewed conservative social principles. Therefore, the KRA would have rejected his candidacy. If this were the case, social conservatives certainly would have rejected Reagan's candidacy for president. However, we know that social and religious conservatives actively worked to get Reagan elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, one of the principal bugaboos of Rev. Robert Meneilly and the Mainstream Collection, reflected on his excitement concerning Reagan's 1980 campagin in a column after Reagan died in 2004. In addition, after Reagan died, one of the leading social conservatives in Kansas asked me to place an ad in one of my publications to honor the former president.
Clearly, social conservatives in Kansas accepted Reagan as one of their own. It is ridiculous of Rose to suggest they would have rejected him as their candidate for governor.
"If the Kansas Republican Party wants to return to power in Kansas, it needs to embrace the Reagan approach, not just mouth it and then do the opposite."
Return to power? The GOP has lost some elections, but it remains the dominant party in Kansas. In fact, the Kansas GOP remains far more powerful in 2007 than it was just 15 years ago. See "Rothschild's castrated sheep."
"The Kansas Republican Party and the Kansas Republican Assembly need to look in the mirror for the answer as to why they are losing everywhere in Kansas, and why Republicans are being driven into the welcoming arms of Democrats."
The reelection of Sebelius, Boyda's victory over Jim Ryun (who replaced a Democrat), and Morrison's switch to the GOP and subsequent victory over Phill Kline does not constitute losing "everywhere." Sebelius cannot run in 2010 and the GOP has a deeper bench of potential gubernatorial candidates, Boyda is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the U.S. House, and Morrison's victory was more of a propaganda victory than a philosophical one. If those in the Kansas media, including the dishonest Steve Rose, had told the truth about Phill Kline's actions as attorney general, it is likely Morrison would still be in Johnson County today.
Rose's mischaractizations concerning Reagan and the Kansas GOP can be proven false by anyone with an Internet connection and a few minutes. Are he and his fellow liberals in the media so arrogant that they believe they can publish lies and no one will question those lies?
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Scott Rothschild: A Reporter in Conflict?
“Journalists cannot drop professional affiliation when it is convenient for them or for their cause. People who wish to work on behalf of a particular cause should work in public relations or advocacy groups, not for the news media. Journalists should confine their public voices to their own professional arena.” - Deni Elliott, executive director of the Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 1, no. 6 (September 1989)
After several years of reading articles written by Scott Rothschild, the Statehouse reporter for the Lawrence Journal-World, it appeared to me that he often approached stories with a liberal bias.
For example, consider this from a December 12, 2005 Rothschild article with the headline “Kansas leaning further to right”:
“Kansas is currently on a right-wing joyride.
“Name an idea that carries the right-wing label, and it’s getting serious play in Kansas.
“Constitutional ban on gay marriage — done.
“Science standards critical of evolution — done.
“Investigating abortion clinics — done.
“Obstacles to sex education — in the works.
“Politically untouchable ultra-conservative congressmen — ongoing.”
Keep in mind that Rothschild is not quoting anyone here. These are his words. By “ultra-conservative congressmen,” Rothschild was apparently referring to Republican Reps. Jim Ryun and Todd Tiahrt. However, look how Rothschild described Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in August 2006: “He is viewed as a moderate to conservative Democrat.”
Each year the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” ranks members of Congress and assigns each member a Liberal Quotient (LQ). ADA considers scores from 40-60 as “moderate” ratings. ADA has never assigned Moore a rating within that range.
Moore has been in the House since 1999. During that year, ADA declared Moore a “Liberal Hero” after the organization assigned him a perfect LQ of 100. Meanwhile, the overall average LQ for Democratic House members that year was 88.
During his eight years in the House, Moore has earned an average LQ of 85.0 percent. The average LQ for all House Democrats during the same eight years is 85.4 percent. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, there’s no difference between Moore and the average Democrat.
ADA’s ratings for Moore are in line with ratings he has received from other interest groups. According to Project Vote Smart, he received a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood in 1999, 2001 and 2006, a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2003, 2004 and 2005, an F from the National Rifle Association in 2000, 2002 and 2004, and a 100 percent from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2005. For ratings from other groups, please see Project Vote Smart.
In Rothschild’s world, mainstream conservative Jim Ryun is an “ultra-conservative,” while Dennis Moore, clearly a liberal, is a “moderate to conservative Democrat.”
Another example of Rothschild’s liberal bias can be found in an August 12, 2006 article with the headline “Opponent questions Ryun’s energy mailing.”
According to the article, Nancy Boyda, the Democrat challenger to Rep. Jim Ryun, took issue with Ryun sending a “mass mailout at taxpayer expense.” The mailout concerned energy issues.
“It’s just wrong that he uses taxpayer money for a political campaign,” said Boyda “It’s just a political piece.”
“The card also was sent right before the deadline that prohibits the use of franking for mailouts in the 90 days before an election,” noted reporter Scott Rothschild.
Rothschild made no mention of Rep. Dennis Moore, the Democrat representing the Kansas 3rd (which includes more of Lawrence than the Kansas 2nd), doing a similar mailout “right before the deadline.” That mailout also concerned energy issues. The Kansas Meadowlark has posted Moore's postcard at http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/ (see August 6 item.)
Boyda can be expected to criticize Ryun's franking while conveniently ignoring Moore's franking. However, an objective newspaper reporter would have taken the effort to look into the franking privileges of both incumbents. Rothschild did not.
I mentioned Rothschild’s bias to another media watcher a few months ago, and he replied, “Well, you know he was president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka (UUFT). That should tell you something about his politics.”
At the suggestion of the other media watcher, I used the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org and found that Rothschild had indeed served as president of UUFT during 2005-2006.
According to the Unitarian Universalist Association’s (UUA) Web site, UUA represents “over 1,000 liberal congregations in North America.” UUFT’s Web site notes that it is “A spiritual home and a beacon of liberal religious expression”
According to the Wikipedia entry on the Unitarian Universalism, “Historically, Unitarian Universalists have often been active in political causes, notably the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the social justice movement, and the feminist movement.”
In fact, given that Unitarian Universalism lacks a formal creed, one could say that it is at least as much of a political organization as it is a religious one. According to UUA’s Web site, “Unitarian Universalists believe personal experience, conscience and reason should be how a person determines his or her religion, not in any book, person or institution.”
In a 2001 survey, Unitarian Universalists in the United States were asked which provided term or set of terms best describe their beliefs. Many respondents chose more than one term to describe these beliefs. The top choices were:
Humanist - 54%
Agnostic - 33%
Earth-centered - 31%
Atheist - 18%
Buddhist - 16.5%
Christian - 13.1%
Pagan - 13.1%
Since Unitarian Universalists do not share a religion, this report is not intended to attack Rothschild’s religious affiliation. My objective is to show that his leadership position in a liberal organization that promotes certain political issues creates conflicts of interest when Rothschild reports on those very same issues.
Below I have outlined political issues for which the Unitarian Univeralists have been advocates. I then have provided links to Rothschild’s articles on those very same issues. I shared this report with Rothschild and Dennis Anderson, managing editor of the Journal-World, and asked them to let me know if there is anything in the report that is not accurate. Neither Rothschild nor Anderson responded.
Same-Sex Marriage
UUFT’s Web site notes that it is a “Welcoming Congregation.” Here's what the UUA says about the Welcoming Congregation Process:
“The Welcoming Congregation Program is a completely volunteer program for congregations that see a need to become more inclusive towards bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people.”
According to the UUA’s Web site. “At the 1996 UUA General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly to call for the legalization of same-sex marriage.”
The question regarding whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates same-sex marriage report on that issue?”
Below I have listed just a few of the many articles Rothschild has written on same-sex marriage:
“Legislator wants to stop domestic registry plan in Lawrence”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/02/legislator_wants_stop_domestic_registry_plan_lawre/
“Kline says marriage ban will not be misconstrued”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/30/kline_says_marriage/
“Same-sex marriage foes set broader agenda”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/07/samesex_marriage_foes/
“Religion mixes with politics in marriage vote”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/03/religion_mixes_with/
“Topeka vote enthuses gay rights groups”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/03/topeka_vote_enthuses/
Abortion
UUA has gone to supporting abortion under four circumstances in 1963 to becoming unambiguously pro-abortion three decades later. In 1993, UUA called for the following:
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to promote passage of federal legislation to:
guarantee the fundamental right of individual choice in reproductive matters;
require that counseling agencies receiving federal funds provide information about pregnancy options, including abortions;
provide federal funds to make abortion available to women of low income and to women in the armed services;
ensure the provision of abortion services for all women within a national health program;
protect medical personnel who supply abortion services, and their families, from harassment and intimidation; and
guarantee unrestricted access to counseling and abortion services, regardless of age, class, race, or situation, without curtailing peaceful protest.”http://www.uua.org/programs/justice/sjsb/ab.pdf
Again, the question regarding whether or not abortion should be allowed is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates a pro-abortion position report on abortion?”
Below I have listed just a few of the many articles Rothschild has written that concerned abortion:
“Morrison will fire special prosecutor in abortion case”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/08/morrison_will_fire_special_prosecutor_abortion_cas/
“Sebelius criticizes Kline's actions in abortion probe”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/28/sebelius_criticizes_klines_actions_abortion_probe/
“Change of heart?”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/07/change_heart/
“Ads refer to abortion without saying it”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/10/ads_refer_abortion_without_saying_it/
“Kline: Abortion clinics 'inquisition' based on allegations of crimes”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/03/kline_abortion_clinics/
Iraq War
UUA’s Web site on February 11, 2007 noted that “hundreds of Unitarian Universalists converged on the U.S. capitol on January 27 for an anti-war rally and march organized by United for Peace and Justice[1] and supported by the Win Without War[2] coalition. UU participants joined an estimated five hundred thousand others, united in their opposition to the war in Iraq and their support for bringing our troops home.”
UUA has made it clear that it has opposed the Iraq War from the start. (See http://www.uua.org/news/iraq/).
Again, the question regarding whether or not the Iraq War should be supporting is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates an anti-Iraq War position report on issues concerning the Iraq War?”
Below I have listed just a few of many the articles Rothschild has written concerning the Iraq War:
“Boyda criticized for vote on military funding”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/10/boyda_criticized_vote_military_funding/
“Lawmakers disagree with troop increase”[3]
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/27/lawmakers_disagree_troop_increase/
“Stances on war in Iraq separate candidates”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/15/stances_war_iraq_separate_candidates/
“Jim Ryun in first Iraq visit sticks to commitment”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/04/jim_ryun_first_iraq_visit_sticks_commitment/
“Bush defends war in Iraq, eavesdropping”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/23/bush_defends_war_iraq_eavesdropping/
Death Penalty
UUA is opposed to the death penalty. http://www.uua.org/ga/ga00/231.html.
In the February 2006 issue of UUFT Beacon, UUFT’s newsletter, it was reported that UUFT’s Social Justice Committee would submit a resolution to the Fellowship that would declare its support for the abolition of the death penalty in the State of Kansas.
Here are a few Rothschild articles on the death penalty:
“Former inmate advocates against death penalty”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/31/former_inmate_advocates_against_death_penalty/
“Death penalty opponents offer bill to repeal Kansas law”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/30/death_penalty_opponents_offer_bill_repeal_kansas_l/
“Kline: Alito likely to be key in death penalty case”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/02/kline_alito_likely_be_key_death_penalty_case/
“Kansas Supreme Court strikes down death penalty”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/dec/17/kansas_supreme_court/
Living Wage
In 2002, Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA)[4] received $3,500 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society to push for a living-wage ordinance in Lawrence.
http://www.uua.org/uufp/annual_reports/2002fjs.html
On August 19, 2003, the Lawrence Journal-World published a pro-living wage “Take a Stand” column on the same day the living-wage ordinance was scheduled to be discussed during the City Commission meeting. The column was written by Graham Kreicker, past chair of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Lawrence.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/aug/19/living_wage_is/
http://www.uufl.net/LUF%20Contact%20Us.htm
On October 25, 2003, a statewide living-wage conference was held in Wichita. The conference featured Jen Kern, director of ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center in Boston. Kern has made at least three previous trips to Kansas to promote the living wage.
http://www.ksworkbeat.org/Action/living_wage/body_living_wage.htm
ACORN and UUA both belong to the Let Justice Roll living-wage campaign.
http://www.letjusticeroll.org/member.html
Rothschild, of course, has reported on living-wage proposes in Kansas, even though the Unitarian Universalists support the living wage nationally and advocated the support of the living wage locally.
“Ban proposed on living wage ordinances”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/feb/15/ban_proposed_on/
“Living-wage plan gets state scorn”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/jul/10/livingwage_plan_gets/
Education
Several years ago, Vicky Hendley, an education writer for the Vero Beach (FL) Press-Journal was fired after sending letters of protest to 160 Florida legislators. Hendley was protesting the Supreme Court's ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
Richard Wagner, managing editor of the Vero Beach Press-Journal, said Hendley stepped over the line of permissible activity when she became a news source. “It's very difficult to separate your profession from your political life when you grant interviews to other news organizations,” he said.
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/gallery/Ethics/freepol.html
In 2002 UUFT decided to make a political statement when the 128-member fellowship wrote a check to the local Topeka School Fund for $1,323, the amount it would have paid had its building been on the tax rolls.
The Topeka Capital-Journal published an article on the UUFT check and also an editorial in which the paper stated, “Members felt the payment in lieu of taxes was a way they could make a stand for education.”
http://cjonline.com/stories/090802/com_church.shtml
http://cjonline.com/stories/091602/opi_taxes.shtml
However, the Jan/Feb 2003 issue of UU World: The Magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association had more information concerning how UUFT decided to make this stand:
“The decision wasn't a slam dunk, said member Scott Rothschild, who suggested the idea. ‘The social justice committee had a pretty thorough discussion about it. There was a lot of concern about separation of church and state and why we should help the schools when it was really up to the politicians. But in the end, people thought this was one year the funding situation was really bad so we should help out.’”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4071/is_200301/ai_n9180255
Did Rothschild cross the line when he allowed himself to be interviewed by another news organization? Did he cross the line when he went from reporting on what politicians do to making a statement concerning what he believes politicians should do? Wasn’t tying their contribution to the amount they would paid in taxes UUFT’s way of making a political statement? After all, a contribution of, say, $1,000 or $1,500 could have been made along with a statement that UUFT merely wanted to help schools. I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with that.
Naturally, Rothschild has done much reporting on public school funding in Kansas. Here are just a few articles:
“Education funding measures advance”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/24/education_funding_measures_advance/
“Moderates take aim at remaining conservatives on state education board”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/18/moderates_take_aim_remaining_conservatives_state_e/
“Legislature approves school finance plan”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/10/legislature_approves_school_finance_plan/
“Sebelius wants $400 million for schools”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/sep/10/sebelius_wants_400/
The title of this report is “Scott Rothschild: A Reporter in Conflict?” I have concluded that Rothschild’s leadership position with UUFT has created far too many conflicts of interest concerning his concurrent position as a news reporter. The Unitarian Universalists have expressed their opinions on a wide range of issues, and that, of course, is their right. However, when a reporter who served as president of a Unitarian Universalist congregation reports on those very same issues, it is unlikely that conflicts of interest can be avoided.
These conflicts present at least two serious problems. First, readers of the Journal-World are not getting the objective reporting that the Journal-World promises to share with them. Second, when Rothschild openly participates in political activism and suffers no consequences, other Journal-World reporters have no disincentive from engaging in political activism themselves. If Rothschild can make a political statement concerning the state funding of education, why can’t another reporter participate in a pro-abortion rally? Why can’t a staff photographer sign a petition calling on U.S. troops to be removed from Iraq?[5]
This writer believes the Journal-World should reassign Rothschild to a position in which he can express his viewpoints in a legitimate way. Or, better yet, Rothschild might follow the example of Diane Silver. Silver, like Rothschild, was a statehouse reporter for the Wichita Eagle. She left that newspaper, became a political activist who has worked on gay rights, served as a press secretary for a Democratic candidate for governor, and now writes for a liberal blog. I have seen no evidence that she was engaging in political activism while she was a reporter. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about Rothschild.
[1] See www.unitedforpeace.org. Member organizations of this group include American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Code Pink, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization, MoveOn, and Socialist Party USA.
[2] See www.winwithoutwarus.org. UUA is a member organization of Win Without War. See http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/coalition.html#members.
[3] Note: The headline of this article says “Lawmakers.” Just one lawmaker in the story, State Sen. Donald Betts, D-Wichita, said he opposes the troop increase.
[4] KVLWA is made up of several radical organizations, including the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW): The preamble to the IWW constitution states, “Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work,’ we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wage system.’ It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.” If you support IWW's message, you can visit its online store and buy a T-shirt for $15.00, a bumper sticker for $1.50, or a bundle of five "Time for a 4-Hour Day, 4-Day Week with No Cut in Pay!" buttons for just $5.00.
[5] The February 2007 issue of The Lawrencian, "The independent monthly voice of Lawrence, Kansas," included a full-page ad from the Lawrence Coalition for Peace & Justice. The ad includes the statement, "We, the undersigned, call for the withdrawal of American armed forces from Iraq, to begin now and to be completed no later than July 1, 2007." The signatures included the name “Mike Yoder.” There is a Mike Yoder who works as a Journal-World staff photographer. E-mails to the Mike Yoder at the Journal-World asking if he signed the petition were unanswered.
After several years of reading articles written by Scott Rothschild, the Statehouse reporter for the Lawrence Journal-World, it appeared to me that he often approached stories with a liberal bias.
For example, consider this from a December 12, 2005 Rothschild article with the headline “Kansas leaning further to right”:
“Kansas is currently on a right-wing joyride.
“Name an idea that carries the right-wing label, and it’s getting serious play in Kansas.
“Constitutional ban on gay marriage — done.
“Science standards critical of evolution — done.
“Investigating abortion clinics — done.
“Obstacles to sex education — in the works.
“Politically untouchable ultra-conservative congressmen — ongoing.”
Keep in mind that Rothschild is not quoting anyone here. These are his words. By “ultra-conservative congressmen,” Rothschild was apparently referring to Republican Reps. Jim Ryun and Todd Tiahrt. However, look how Rothschild described Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in August 2006: “He is viewed as a moderate to conservative Democrat.”
Each year the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” ranks members of Congress and assigns each member a Liberal Quotient (LQ). ADA considers scores from 40-60 as “moderate” ratings. ADA has never assigned Moore a rating within that range.
Moore has been in the House since 1999. During that year, ADA declared Moore a “Liberal Hero” after the organization assigned him a perfect LQ of 100. Meanwhile, the overall average LQ for Democratic House members that year was 88.
During his eight years in the House, Moore has earned an average LQ of 85.0 percent. The average LQ for all House Democrats during the same eight years is 85.4 percent. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, there’s no difference between Moore and the average Democrat.
ADA’s ratings for Moore are in line with ratings he has received from other interest groups. According to Project Vote Smart, he received a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood in 1999, 2001 and 2006, a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2003, 2004 and 2005, an F from the National Rifle Association in 2000, 2002 and 2004, and a 100 percent from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2005. For ratings from other groups, please see Project Vote Smart.
In Rothschild’s world, mainstream conservative Jim Ryun is an “ultra-conservative,” while Dennis Moore, clearly a liberal, is a “moderate to conservative Democrat.”
Another example of Rothschild’s liberal bias can be found in an August 12, 2006 article with the headline “Opponent questions Ryun’s energy mailing.”
According to the article, Nancy Boyda, the Democrat challenger to Rep. Jim Ryun, took issue with Ryun sending a “mass mailout at taxpayer expense.” The mailout concerned energy issues.
“It’s just wrong that he uses taxpayer money for a political campaign,” said Boyda “It’s just a political piece.”
“The card also was sent right before the deadline that prohibits the use of franking for mailouts in the 90 days before an election,” noted reporter Scott Rothschild.
Rothschild made no mention of Rep. Dennis Moore, the Democrat representing the Kansas 3rd (which includes more of Lawrence than the Kansas 2nd), doing a similar mailout “right before the deadline.” That mailout also concerned energy issues. The Kansas Meadowlark has posted Moore's postcard at http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/ (see August 6 item.)
Boyda can be expected to criticize Ryun's franking while conveniently ignoring Moore's franking. However, an objective newspaper reporter would have taken the effort to look into the franking privileges of both incumbents. Rothschild did not.
I mentioned Rothschild’s bias to another media watcher a few months ago, and he replied, “Well, you know he was president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka (UUFT). That should tell you something about his politics.”
At the suggestion of the other media watcher, I used the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org and found that Rothschild had indeed served as president of UUFT during 2005-2006.
According to the Unitarian Universalist Association’s (UUA) Web site, UUA represents “over 1,000 liberal congregations in North America.” UUFT’s Web site notes that it is “A spiritual home and a beacon of liberal religious expression”
According to the Wikipedia entry on the Unitarian Universalism, “Historically, Unitarian Universalists have often been active in political causes, notably the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the social justice movement, and the feminist movement.”
In fact, given that Unitarian Universalism lacks a formal creed, one could say that it is at least as much of a political organization as it is a religious one. According to UUA’s Web site, “Unitarian Universalists believe personal experience, conscience and reason should be how a person determines his or her religion, not in any book, person or institution.”
In a 2001 survey, Unitarian Universalists in the United States were asked which provided term or set of terms best describe their beliefs. Many respondents chose more than one term to describe these beliefs. The top choices were:
Humanist - 54%
Agnostic - 33%
Earth-centered - 31%
Atheist - 18%
Buddhist - 16.5%
Christian - 13.1%
Pagan - 13.1%
Since Unitarian Universalists do not share a religion, this report is not intended to attack Rothschild’s religious affiliation. My objective is to show that his leadership position in a liberal organization that promotes certain political issues creates conflicts of interest when Rothschild reports on those very same issues.
Below I have outlined political issues for which the Unitarian Univeralists have been advocates. I then have provided links to Rothschild’s articles on those very same issues. I shared this report with Rothschild and Dennis Anderson, managing editor of the Journal-World, and asked them to let me know if there is anything in the report that is not accurate. Neither Rothschild nor Anderson responded.
Same-Sex Marriage
UUFT’s Web site notes that it is a “Welcoming Congregation.” Here's what the UUA says about the Welcoming Congregation Process:
“The Welcoming Congregation Program is a completely volunteer program for congregations that see a need to become more inclusive towards bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people.”
According to the UUA’s Web site. “At the 1996 UUA General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly to call for the legalization of same-sex marriage.”
The question regarding whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates same-sex marriage report on that issue?”
Below I have listed just a few of the many articles Rothschild has written on same-sex marriage:
“Legislator wants to stop domestic registry plan in Lawrence”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/02/legislator_wants_stop_domestic_registry_plan_lawre/
“Kline says marriage ban will not be misconstrued”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/30/kline_says_marriage/
“Same-sex marriage foes set broader agenda”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/07/samesex_marriage_foes/
“Religion mixes with politics in marriage vote”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/03/religion_mixes_with/
“Topeka vote enthuses gay rights groups”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/03/topeka_vote_enthuses/
Abortion
UUA has gone to supporting abortion under four circumstances in 1963 to becoming unambiguously pro-abortion three decades later. In 1993, UUA called for the following:
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to promote passage of federal legislation to:
guarantee the fundamental right of individual choice in reproductive matters;
require that counseling agencies receiving federal funds provide information about pregnancy options, including abortions;
provide federal funds to make abortion available to women of low income and to women in the armed services;
ensure the provision of abortion services for all women within a national health program;
protect medical personnel who supply abortion services, and their families, from harassment and intimidation; and
guarantee unrestricted access to counseling and abortion services, regardless of age, class, race, or situation, without curtailing peaceful protest.”http://www.uua.org/programs/justice/sjsb/ab.pdf
Again, the question regarding whether or not abortion should be allowed is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates a pro-abortion position report on abortion?”
Below I have listed just a few of the many articles Rothschild has written that concerned abortion:
“Morrison will fire special prosecutor in abortion case”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/08/morrison_will_fire_special_prosecutor_abortion_cas/
“Sebelius criticizes Kline's actions in abortion probe”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/28/sebelius_criticizes_klines_actions_abortion_probe/
“Change of heart?”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/07/change_heart/
“Ads refer to abortion without saying it”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/10/ads_refer_abortion_without_saying_it/
“Kline: Abortion clinics 'inquisition' based on allegations of crimes”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/03/kline_abortion_clinics/
Iraq War
UUA’s Web site on February 11, 2007 noted that “hundreds of Unitarian Universalists converged on the U.S. capitol on January 27 for an anti-war rally and march organized by United for Peace and Justice[1] and supported by the Win Without War[2] coalition. UU participants joined an estimated five hundred thousand others, united in their opposition to the war in Iraq and their support for bringing our troops home.”
UUA has made it clear that it has opposed the Iraq War from the start. (See http://www.uua.org/news/iraq/).
Again, the question regarding whether or not the Iraq War should be supporting is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates an anti-Iraq War position report on issues concerning the Iraq War?”
Below I have listed just a few of many the articles Rothschild has written concerning the Iraq War:
“Boyda criticized for vote on military funding”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/10/boyda_criticized_vote_military_funding/
“Lawmakers disagree with troop increase”[3]
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/27/lawmakers_disagree_troop_increase/
“Stances on war in Iraq separate candidates”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/15/stances_war_iraq_separate_candidates/
“Jim Ryun in first Iraq visit sticks to commitment”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/04/jim_ryun_first_iraq_visit_sticks_commitment/
“Bush defends war in Iraq, eavesdropping”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/23/bush_defends_war_iraq_eavesdropping/
Death Penalty
UUA is opposed to the death penalty. http://www.uua.org/ga/ga00/231.html.
In the February 2006 issue of UUFT Beacon, UUFT’s newsletter, it was reported that UUFT’s Social Justice Committee would submit a resolution to the Fellowship that would declare its support for the abolition of the death penalty in the State of Kansas.
Here are a few Rothschild articles on the death penalty:
“Former inmate advocates against death penalty”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/31/former_inmate_advocates_against_death_penalty/
“Death penalty opponents offer bill to repeal Kansas law”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/30/death_penalty_opponents_offer_bill_repeal_kansas_l/
“Kline: Alito likely to be key in death penalty case”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/02/kline_alito_likely_be_key_death_penalty_case/
“Kansas Supreme Court strikes down death penalty”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/dec/17/kansas_supreme_court/
Living Wage
In 2002, Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA)[4] received $3,500 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society to push for a living-wage ordinance in Lawrence.
http://www.uua.org/uufp/annual_reports/2002fjs.html
On August 19, 2003, the Lawrence Journal-World published a pro-living wage “Take a Stand” column on the same day the living-wage ordinance was scheduled to be discussed during the City Commission meeting. The column was written by Graham Kreicker, past chair of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Lawrence.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/aug/19/living_wage_is/
http://www.uufl.net/LUF%20Contact%20Us.htm
On October 25, 2003, a statewide living-wage conference was held in Wichita. The conference featured Jen Kern, director of ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center in Boston. Kern has made at least three previous trips to Kansas to promote the living wage.
http://www.ksworkbeat.org/Action/living_wage/body_living_wage.htm
ACORN and UUA both belong to the Let Justice Roll living-wage campaign.
http://www.letjusticeroll.org/member.html
Rothschild, of course, has reported on living-wage proposes in Kansas, even though the Unitarian Universalists support the living wage nationally and advocated the support of the living wage locally.
“Ban proposed on living wage ordinances”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/feb/15/ban_proposed_on/
“Living-wage plan gets state scorn”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/jul/10/livingwage_plan_gets/
Education
Several years ago, Vicky Hendley, an education writer for the Vero Beach (FL) Press-Journal was fired after sending letters of protest to 160 Florida legislators. Hendley was protesting the Supreme Court's ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
Richard Wagner, managing editor of the Vero Beach Press-Journal, said Hendley stepped over the line of permissible activity when she became a news source. “It's very difficult to separate your profession from your political life when you grant interviews to other news organizations,” he said.
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/gallery/Ethics/freepol.html
In 2002 UUFT decided to make a political statement when the 128-member fellowship wrote a check to the local Topeka School Fund for $1,323, the amount it would have paid had its building been on the tax rolls.
The Topeka Capital-Journal published an article on the UUFT check and also an editorial in which the paper stated, “Members felt the payment in lieu of taxes was a way they could make a stand for education.”
http://cjonline.com/stories/090802/com_church.shtml
http://cjonline.com/stories/091602/opi_taxes.shtml
However, the Jan/Feb 2003 issue of UU World: The Magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association had more information concerning how UUFT decided to make this stand:
“The decision wasn't a slam dunk, said member Scott Rothschild, who suggested the idea. ‘The social justice committee had a pretty thorough discussion about it. There was a lot of concern about separation of church and state and why we should help the schools when it was really up to the politicians. But in the end, people thought this was one year the funding situation was really bad so we should help out.’”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4071/is_200301/ai_n9180255
Did Rothschild cross the line when he allowed himself to be interviewed by another news organization? Did he cross the line when he went from reporting on what politicians do to making a statement concerning what he believes politicians should do? Wasn’t tying their contribution to the amount they would paid in taxes UUFT’s way of making a political statement? After all, a contribution of, say, $1,000 or $1,500 could have been made along with a statement that UUFT merely wanted to help schools. I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with that.
Naturally, Rothschild has done much reporting on public school funding in Kansas. Here are just a few articles:
“Education funding measures advance”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/24/education_funding_measures_advance/
“Moderates take aim at remaining conservatives on state education board”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/18/moderates_take_aim_remaining_conservatives_state_e/
“Legislature approves school finance plan”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/10/legislature_approves_school_finance_plan/
“Sebelius wants $400 million for schools”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/sep/10/sebelius_wants_400/
The title of this report is “Scott Rothschild: A Reporter in Conflict?” I have concluded that Rothschild’s leadership position with UUFT has created far too many conflicts of interest concerning his concurrent position as a news reporter. The Unitarian Universalists have expressed their opinions on a wide range of issues, and that, of course, is their right. However, when a reporter who served as president of a Unitarian Universalist congregation reports on those very same issues, it is unlikely that conflicts of interest can be avoided.
These conflicts present at least two serious problems. First, readers of the Journal-World are not getting the objective reporting that the Journal-World promises to share with them. Second, when Rothschild openly participates in political activism and suffers no consequences, other Journal-World reporters have no disincentive from engaging in political activism themselves. If Rothschild can make a political statement concerning the state funding of education, why can’t another reporter participate in a pro-abortion rally? Why can’t a staff photographer sign a petition calling on U.S. troops to be removed from Iraq?[5]
This writer believes the Journal-World should reassign Rothschild to a position in which he can express his viewpoints in a legitimate way. Or, better yet, Rothschild might follow the example of Diane Silver. Silver, like Rothschild, was a statehouse reporter for the Wichita Eagle. She left that newspaper, became a political activist who has worked on gay rights, served as a press secretary for a Democratic candidate for governor, and now writes for a liberal blog. I have seen no evidence that she was engaging in political activism while she was a reporter. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about Rothschild.
[1] See www.unitedforpeace.org. Member organizations of this group include American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Code Pink, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization, MoveOn, and Socialist Party USA.
[2] See www.winwithoutwarus.org. UUA is a member organization of Win Without War. See http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/coalition.html#members.
[3] Note: The headline of this article says “Lawmakers.” Just one lawmaker in the story, State Sen. Donald Betts, D-Wichita, said he opposes the troop increase.
[4] KVLWA is made up of several radical organizations, including the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW): The preamble to the IWW constitution states, “Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work,’ we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wage system.’ It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.” If you support IWW's message, you can visit its online store and buy a T-shirt for $15.00, a bumper sticker for $1.50, or a bundle of five "Time for a 4-Hour Day, 4-Day Week with No Cut in Pay!" buttons for just $5.00.
[5] The February 2007 issue of The Lawrencian, "The independent monthly voice of Lawrence, Kansas," included a full-page ad from the Lawrence Coalition for Peace & Justice. The ad includes the statement, "We, the undersigned, call for the withdrawal of American armed forces from Iraq, to begin now and to be completed no later than July 1, 2007." The signatures included the name “Mike Yoder.” There is a Mike Yoder who works as a Journal-World staff photographer. E-mails to the Mike Yoder at the Journal-World asking if he signed the petition were unanswered.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Progress at the Lawrence Journal-World?
In a the second of two editorials in today's Journal-World, Rep. Dennis Moore is actually characterized as a "moderate or liberal." This is much more accurate than past articles that labelled Moore a "conservative."
There was a slight problem, though. According to editorial, "If there was any overriding message from the November elections, it was that voters wanted to see government run in a different, more cooperative, less contentious manner."
The editorial was about Kansas politics, and there really wasn't much a change in Topeka with last November's election.
There was a major change in Washington and, if the message of the November elections was want the Journal-World says it was, then the editorial would be better directed to Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate, who are currently being less than cooperative with President Bush.
There was a slight problem, though. According to editorial, "If there was any overriding message from the November elections, it was that voters wanted to see government run in a different, more cooperative, less contentious manner."
The editorial was about Kansas politics, and there really wasn't much a change in Topeka with last November's election.
There was a major change in Washington and, if the message of the November elections was want the Journal-World says it was, then the editorial would be better directed to Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate, who are currently being less than cooperative with President Bush.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Donald Betts is more than one lawmaker?
Liberal activist/Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild has a story in the January 27, 2007 issue of the J-W with this headline:
"Lawmakers disagree with troop increase"
The story is about Donald Betts, an ultraliberal state senator from Wichita, filing a resolution that would "put Kansas lawmakers on record as being opposed to Bush's call for 21,500 more troops to be sent to Iraq."
In addition to Betts, the article mentions just one other lawmaker, State Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence. However, Schmidt did not say that he disagrees with the troop increase.
Given this, the headline should have been "Lawmaker disagrees with troop increase."
UPDATE: Rothschild served as president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka as recently as 2005. He continues to be a leader with UUFT. The Unitarian Univeralist Association president, Rev. William Sinkford, on January 11 published an open letter in which he opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 more troops to Iraq. He also accused the president of betraying patriotic Americans.
This is yet another case in which Rothschild has reported on an issue that his organization has openly taken a stand on. Kansas Media Watch is currently compiling additional examples and will present a report to legislators in Topeka next month.
Rothschild's reporting presents a huge conflict of interest that calls the Journal-World's credibility into question.
"Lawmakers disagree with troop increase"
The story is about Donald Betts, an ultraliberal state senator from Wichita, filing a resolution that would "put Kansas lawmakers on record as being opposed to Bush's call for 21,500 more troops to be sent to Iraq."
In addition to Betts, the article mentions just one other lawmaker, State Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence. However, Schmidt did not say that he disagrees with the troop increase.
Given this, the headline should have been "Lawmaker disagrees with troop increase."
UPDATE: Rothschild served as president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka as recently as 2005. He continues to be a leader with UUFT. The Unitarian Univeralist Association president, Rev. William Sinkford, on January 11 published an open letter in which he opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 more troops to Iraq. He also accused the president of betraying patriotic Americans.
This is yet another case in which Rothschild has reported on an issue that his organization has openly taken a stand on. Kansas Media Watch is currently compiling additional examples and will present a report to legislators in Topeka next month.
Rothschild's reporting presents a huge conflict of interest that calls the Journal-World's credibility into question.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
The Lawrence Journal-World on January 1 published an AP article with the headline "Going Green." The article was primarily about environmentalist Laurie David telling us how to save the world by, among other things, using compact fluorescent bulbs and pulling the plug on electronics and chargers.
David, the wife of Seinfeld's Larry David, has been known as a hypocrite on the environmental issue for at least two years now. Even the ultraliberal Eric Alterman dicussed this hypocrisy in a September 2004 Atlantic Monthly piece called "Gulfstream Liberals." It seems that Mrs. David dislikes flying on commercial airlines and prefers private jets. As the New York Times noted in August 2004, "Compared with the average Gulfstream jet, a Hummer H2 can seem downright fuel efficient."
David also has a Tudor mansion home in the Pacific Palisades. As someone with a carbon footprint larger than King Kong's footprint, David's advice to the rest of us is laughable. The Journal-World should have known better than to share this woman's hypocrisy with its readers.
David, the wife of Seinfeld's Larry David, has been known as a hypocrite on the environmental issue for at least two years now. Even the ultraliberal Eric Alterman dicussed this hypocrisy in a September 2004 Atlantic Monthly piece called "Gulfstream Liberals." It seems that Mrs. David dislikes flying on commercial airlines and prefers private jets. As the New York Times noted in August 2004, "Compared with the average Gulfstream jet, a Hummer H2 can seem downright fuel efficient."
David also has a Tudor mansion home in the Pacific Palisades. As someone with a carbon footprint larger than King Kong's footprint, David's advice to the rest of us is laughable. The Journal-World should have known better than to share this woman's hypocrisy with its readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)