Kansas Media Watch

Smearing Brownback

2011-11-29T16:50:00.002-05:00

In today's Lawrence Journal-World, letter writer Phil Minkin writes the following:

"After an unfavorable tweet by an 18-year-old high school senior, a Brownback henchman, whose job it must be to monitor social media, sniffing out criticism, contacted the girl’s high school principal seeking some retribution."

This is factually incorrect. As the Journal-World also noted today, "When the governor’s office saw the tweet during monitoring of social media comments, it was reported to Youth in Government officials." News reports over the weekend also noted that the governor's office contacted the Youth in Government program.

There is no indication that Brownback's staff ever contacted the student's principal. There is also no indication that the staff pressured the Youth in Government program to contact the student's principal, which it did. The only person who attempted to punish the student was the principal. If the Brownback staff sought retribution against the student, it seems to me that they would have contacted the principal themselves. They did not.

While the purpose of a letter to the editor section is to allow readers to express their opinions, those opinions should be based on facts. In this case, Mr. Minkin's opinions were not based on facts, and the Journal-World was fully aware of what the facts were.

Journal-World publishes canned letter--twice

2011-10-12T08:30:00.005-04:00

This morning, the Lawrence Journal-World published the following letter to the editor, purportedly written by Sammie Locke of Lawrence:

"The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.

"President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need: a bill full of ideas that both parties support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.

"We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and put America back to work."

It seemed to me that I had read this same letter before. Why, yes, I did--two days ago in the Lawrence Journal-World! The J-W published this letter by Mike Lawrence on October 10:

"The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.

"President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need — a bill full of ideas that both parties should support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.

"We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and help put Lawrence, northeast Kansas and America back to work."

Did Sammie plagiarize Mike? Not quite. The same letter has been published throughout the country. Here are two other examples:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/jobs-44312-american-act.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-111011butler_briefs,0,6044589.story

Yael Abouhalkah gets caught in lie

2011-10-11T13:16:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, The Kansas City Star's Yael Abouhalkah offers a blog item entitled "'Occupy' movement is pro-American, anti-Republican." According to Abouhalkah, "I know the Occupy movement is having some effect, because ultra-conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh called the Americans involved in the group 'idiots,' 'clowns' and other names Monday."

Of course, anyone who actually listened to Limbaugh's program on Monday knows Limbaugh had a guest host, Mark Davis.

Scott Rothschild's biased article on the Koch brothers, American Legislative Exchange Council

2011-07-25T23:01:00.004-04:00

I found liberal activist Scott Rothschild's July 24 hit piece on the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) quite biased. While he painted the Kochs and ALEC as being motivated by ideology, he presented the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and Common Cause--two groups critical of the Kochs and ALEC--as "public watchdog groups."

Those familiar with CMD and Common Cause know that both groups have very liberal/progressive agendas. CMD was founded by liberal environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. Stauber's books include titles such as Banana Republicans, The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq, and Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq.

Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman, heads Common Cause. Its chairman is Robert Reich, who served as Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary. Reich's anti-conservative views are well-known.

Both CMD and Common Cause have received financial support from the Open Society Institute, headed by liberal financier George Soros. Soros, you may remember, spent nearly $25 million in a failed effort to defeat President Bush in 2004.

Rothschild is the Lawrence Journal-World's "statehouse reporter," which means he is supposed to be engaged in objective reporting. If he cannot report both sides, perhaps the Journal-World should make him an op-ed columnist.

Journal-World hits Palin again

2011-06-12T08:50:00.002-04:00

On June 10, one day after the Lawrence Journal-World published a Leonard Pitts column in which the Miami Herald columnist claimed that Sarah Palin got her facts wrong regarding Paul Revere (historians have backed up Palin's version), the J-W published a Pat Oliphant cartoon that repeated Pitts' error.

A Boston Herald article that quotes several historians who back up Palin's comment regarding Paul Revere was published on June 6.

Lyin' Lenny Strikes Again

2011-06-09T19:11:00.002-04:00

In the June 9 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, columnist Leonard Pitts writes the following:

"[Sarah Palin] makes mistakes like Apple makes iPhones, so there is a temptation to catalogue her recent bizarre claim that Paul Revere’s midnight ride in April 1775 was to “warn the British.” (He actually rode to alert patriots Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were coming to arrest them) as superfluous evidence of intellectual mediocrity. The instinct is to think her historical illiteracy speaks ill only of her."

However, in a June 6 Boston Herald article with the headline "Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account," several historians point out that Palin had her history right.

According to Boston University history professor Brendan McConville, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

Cornell law professor William Jacobson said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

Pitts appears to be both ignorant of history and dishonest.

Leonard Pitts smears Rep. Peter King

2011-03-18T08:58:00.002-04:00

In his March 18 column in the Lawrence Journal-World, Leonard Pitts writes, "Then there is the fact that King has a history of Muslim bashing. He claims, for instance, that 85 percent of mosque leaders in this country are extremists. It is a 'statistic' based on nothing."

That's not true.

On Fox News, King told Martha MacCallum the following: "Martha, let me just first say, to me, it's a badge of honor to be attacked by CAIR, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist financing case. Number two, I said in 2004 that up to 80 percent of the mosques in America were controlled by Islamic radicals. I based that on the testimony of Sheikh Kabanni, a national Muslim leader, who was testifying at a State Department hearing in 1999. That was his testimony, saying that the imams in this country were out of touch with the Muslim community. So I was basing my statement on what a national Muslim leader had said."

I found Kabanni's 1999 comments after just a few seconds, and assume Pitts could have done likewise. Kabanni's argument was that Islamic extremism posed a national security threat to the U.S., and he made it two and a half years before 9/11. He wasn't taken seriously by the left then, and it appears that the left is dismissing the threat again in 2011.

As he so often does, Pitts lied in his column.

Journal-World misses major local story

2009-06-15T10:40:00.001-04:00

One advantage a local newspaper has over national newspapers is, well, its focus on local news. Unfortunately, the Lawrence Journal-World has apparently decided not to exercise that advantage.

In April the Lawrence school district decided not to renew Tim Latham’s contract with the district. According to Latham, a history teacher, the director of human resources said he was not a good fit for the district.

Why isn’t Latham a good fit? According to Latham and several of his students, Latham’s conservative views had something to do with it. Jan Gentry, assistant principal at Lawrence High School, seems to have had several problems with Latham. According to Latham, Gentry called him into her office and said that his school-affiliated Web site was "too patriotic." The site had links to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force, the U.S. Army, and other military-and history-related sites. His site also said that he wanted students to love their country. Horrors!

Gentry also allegedly asked Latham about his “McCain-Plain” bumper sticker. "She said, 'I don't know how you could support that woman,'" Latham said. "That was the beginning of what was going on. They were trying to find a reason to get rid of me."

I have three children in the Lawrence school district and this is the first I have heard of a principal or assistant principal having a problem with bumper stickers, especially one as innocuous as Latham’s. I have seen far more offensive bumper stickers (e.g., “A village in Texas is missing its idiot,” “The emperor is an idiot,” etc.) on teachers’ vehicles.

To me, one of the most interesting things about this story is the coverage it has received. Latham appeared on the Fox News Channel this morning with two of his former students. Chloe Mercer, who graduated from Lawrence High School last month, describes herself as a liberal. "It's really disappointing because he's a really good teacher," she said. "It doesn't seem fair. Why would they let a good teacher go?"

Latham’s story was also covered by KansasLiberty.com on May 27. KansasMeadowlark.com has covered the story and has included videos of students speaking in support of Latham. News busters, a Web site of the Media Research Center, included an item on Latham’s story on June 11. Latham was interviewed on Kansas City radio KCMO 710am on Sunday night.

Oddly, the Lawrence Journal-World has yet to publish an article on Latham’s firing. It’s not that they are ignorant of the story. A reader blog by bearded gnome discussed the story on nearly a week ago on June 9. As of 9:00 this morning, that item had 153 comments.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/bearded_gnome/2009/jun/09/fired-for-being-conservative-lhs-fires-a-teacher/

So while Latham’s story has gotten nationwide coverage, the folks at the Journal-World can’t seem to find a few column inches for it. And they wonder why their paid circulation numbers are falling.

Leubsdorf lies again

2008-12-24T09:48:00.002-05:00

In my November 29 item, I noted that Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Daily News claimed that prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Republicans were using opposition to civil rights to woo the South from its century-long Democratic home." I responded that, contrary to Leubsdorf's claim, it was the GOP that overwhelmingly supported civil rights acts while a large percentage of Democrats opposed those acts.

Today, in a tribute to his "regular correspondents" (if one e-mail makes one a "regular correspondent," Mr. Leubsdorf must not receive much correspondence), Leubsdorf writes, "[Groenhagen] was correct that Republican support was essential in passing those bills. But my basic point about Southern Republicans also was correct, since in 1964, such prominent Republicans as Barry Goldwater and Texas Senate candidate George H.W. Bush attracted Southern votes by denouncing that bill."

Notice the switch there? In his original column, Leubsdorf did use the words "Southern" and "Republicans," but he did not use the words together, i.e., "Southern Republicans." His original "basic point" smeared the GOP in general.

In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Mr. Leubsdorf's most recent column only adds further evidence to my contention that he is a dishonest man.

Carl Leubsdorf rewrites civil rights history

2008-11-29T15:07:00.003-05:00

In today's Lawrence Journal-World, Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Daily News claims that prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Republicans were using opposition to civil rights to woo the South from its century-long Democratic home." In doing so, Leubsdorf suggests that it was the Democrat Party that helped Lyndon Johnson pass that bill, while the GOP opposed the bill. That was not the case.

In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), and Al Gore, Sr. (which exposes the lie that southern Democrats switched to the GOP after the passage of the Civil Rights Act). The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Republicans also showed a high level of support for LBJ's nomination of Thurgood Marshall as the first black Supreme Court justice in 1967. A large percentage of Senate Democrats either voted against the nomination of Marshall or did not vote at all.

Leubsdorf either deliberately lied in his column or he is woefully ignorant of the facts. In either case, the column should not have been published.

World Company creates "void" in Eudora

2008-11-07T13:11:00.004-05:00

During the 1990s, I worked for TeleGraphics, Inc., which published the Baldwin Ledger and the Lawrence Business Ledger. In 1995, we moved the main office for the company from Baldwin City, Kan., to Lawrence. However, we maintained an office in Baldwin City for the Baldwin Ledger.

During the latter part of the decade, The World Company, the parent company of the Lawrence Journal-World, began buying weekly newspapers in the area. They approached the owners of the Baldwin Ledger about buying that newspaper during the summer of 1998. Since the owners had already committed to selling the newspaper to their general manager, they declined The World Company's offer. Undeterred, The World Company started the Baldwin City Signal in March 1999. According to a Jeff Myrick article in the Lawrence Journal-World, "Baldwin City once again has a newspaper that the community can call its own." Of course, that statement ignored the fact that the Baldwin Ledger had been the community's newspaper since 1883.

Dan Simons of The World Company also suggested that there was no other newspaper in Baldwin City. In the first issue of the Baldwin Signal, Simons was quoted as saying the Signal would fill the void that was created when the Ledger left town. Of course, the Ledger never left town. As noted above, the Ledger had an office in Baldwin, reporters continued to cover politics and sports in Baldwin, and I continued to sell advertising in Baldwin.

Given that Simons apparently believed that a void was created in Baldwin after TeleGraphics moved its main office to Lawrence, The World Company's latest move in Eudora a bit puzzling. According to the web site of the Eudora News, a World Company newspaper, "The Eudora News will be closing its Eudora office Nov. 14 and moving its newsroom operations to The World Company’s news center in Lawrence."

Has The World Company created a void in Eudora? Does the company plan to create similar voids in Baldwin City, Tonganoxie, and other communities in the future?

No Room for Ronnie?

2008-05-29T16:16:00.002-04:00

Next Thursday is the fourth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's death. I recently discovered that the Newseum web site includes an archive containing the front pages of many daily newspapers. The site's archive list includes historical dates during the past few years. One of those dates was Reagan's death on June 6, 2004. Interestingly, the vast majority of daily newspapers in the country devoted most or all of their front pages to that story the day after Reagan died. In our area, both the Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star were amongst the newspapers to honor Reagan with their entire front pages. The Lawrence Journal-World, however, included just a thumbnail photo of Reagan and about three column inches of copy on its front page.

The Journal-World also included a story on Roy Creek, a local resident who had parachuted into Normandy on D-Day, which occurred 60 years earlier on June 6. This story certainly warranted front-page placement. However, it seems that the huge AP file photo, the AP story on drought "menacing western half of Kansas" (Lawrence is in the eastern half of Kansas), and the article on a visit to France could have been moved to the inside pages to allow more coverage of Reagan on the front page.

Of course, if you're a liberal editor working for a liberal newspaper, not giving Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War, adequate coverage on the front page might be the natural thing to do.

The Capital-Journal pulls a "Journal-World"

2008-04-26T09:43:00.002-04:00

As noted earlier on this blog, the Lawrence Journal-World has no problem with publishing letters to the editor from liberals who make claims that cannot be substantiated. Now the Topeka Capital-Journal has pulled a Journal-World.

In its April 25 issue, the Capital-Journal published a letter from Warren Allen of Topeka. According to Allen, "And Bush's clone, McCain, said he wants to continue the killing in Iraq for 100 years. Why would a presidential candidate say such a ridiculous thing?"

Allen has repeated the same lie that Barack Obama has repeated time after time, even after being reprimanded by a few in the media, including Zachary Roth with the liberal Columbia Journalism Review.

Here is what McCain actually said:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day

The purpose of letters to the editor is to allow readers an opportunity to express their opinions. However, those opinions should be based on facts, not falsehoods that can be exposed with a quick search on the Internet.

Dishonest letters to the editors find forum at Journal-World

2008-03-31T19:45:00.004-04:00

Back when the Journal-World used to publish my letters to the editor (Ralph Gage threw a hissy fit over my scrutiny of his newspaper's reporting, so the J-W no longer accepts my letters), I was often asked to provide sources. However, during the last few months I have noticed letters that are published (from liberals, of course) for which there are no sources or no credible sources. A case in point is a letter today by Julie Matchett.

Matchett's first claim is that President George W. Bush said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.” According to Matchett, "These remarks were leaked to the press by three GOP politicos in attendance, who didn’t want to be identified."

The only source for the Bush quote is a December 5, 2005 article written by Doug Thompson on a web site called Capitol Hill Blue. Wonkette characterizes Capitol Hill Blue as "the political rag that also functions as a tin foil hat." Another Thompson story seems to confirm that characterization. FactCheck.org goes even further in casting doubt on Thompson's article.

Matchett also claimed the following: "Barbara Bush, on 'Good Morning America,' March 18, 2003, while defending her son’s administration’s censorship of images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, said, 'Why should we hear about body bags and death … or, I mean, it’s not relevant, so why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'"

Of course, on March 18, 2003, there were no flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq since the invasion of Iraq had not yet started. Matchett implies that Barbara Bush was reacting to past events when instead she was being asked to speculate about possible future events. Snopes.com, which analyzes urban legends, put Bush's comment into proper perspective nearly three years ago. Nevertheless, the J-W decided this letter was fit to print.

Lying Lenny

2008-01-24T17:55:00.001-05:00

In the January 24 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, Leonard Pitts Jr. writes the following: "It is, however, true that blacks tended to vote Republican for much of the last century, the simple reason being that the GOP was 'the party of Lincoln.' But as Lincoln receded in history, the GOP stranglehold on the black vote was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and by the GOP’s stubborn silence on civil rights."

This is a blatant lie.

The effort to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. Senate was led by Everett Dirksen, a Republican (and my fellow Frisian) from Illinois. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that just 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). Democrats, including Gore, Heflin, Byrd (a former Klansman), and Hollings, led a filibuster against the act.

In the House, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act. Among the GOP, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Eighty-two percent of House Republicans backed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the Senate, 94 percent of the Republicans backed it. Seventeen southern Democrats in the Senate voted against the act, including William Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor.

A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the Senate also voted to confirm Thurgood Marshall's (who died 14 years ago today) nomination to the Supreme Court. Thirty-five Democrats voted for confirmation, while 32 Republicans voted for confirmation. Ten Democrats voted against confirmation, while Strom Thurmond was the lone Republican to vote against confirmation. There were 64 Democrats in the Senate at the time and just 36 Republicans. In other words, nearly half of the Democrats did not vote for Marshall's confirmation (a large number did not vote at all).

As you can see, the GOP was not silent on civil rights. In fact, without them, LBJ would not have had a Civil Rights Act to sign into law or the first African-American Supreme Court justice.

If Pitts had any integrity, he would apologize to his readers.

Never Heard of Code Pink?

2008-01-15T17:13:00.000-05:00

Been writing a book the last few months, so I haven't had time to post.

There were many items that could have been posted here since September, but I didn't make note of them. However, one did stay in my memory.

Last September, Journal-World Editorial Page Editor Ann Gardner visited Washington, D.C., and had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill when Gen. Petraeus testified. In a column she wrote after the visit, Gardner noted, "At the head of the line were women from 'Code Pink,' an anti-war group that was new to me but not to the Washington press corps."

Actually, anyone who has followed the news closely during the past few years would know about Code Pink. In fact, anyone who has read the Journal-World op-ed pages should know about Code Pink. Just a few months prior to Gardner's visit to Washington, Cal Thomas wrote about the group in his column.

Shouldn't an editorial page editor read her own newspaper's op-ed pages?

"New Yorker" misrepresents New Yorkers

2007-09-18T20:25:00.001-04:00

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?

Rose peddled Reagan lie before

2007-08-13T18:02:00.000-04:00

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.

The editorial is bogus

2007-08-13T13:16:00.000-04:00

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?

Scott Rothschild: A Reporter in Conflict?

2007-08-07T12:19:00.000-04:00

“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.

Progress at the Lawrence Journal-World?

2007-02-15T18:08:00.000-05:00

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.

Donald Betts is more than one lawmaker?

2007-01-27T14:08:00.000-05:00

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.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

2007-01-02T17:41:00.000-05:00

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.

Miracle of demagoguery

2006-12-10T14:41:00.000-05:00

In a December 10 editorial entitled "Miracle of democracy," the Lawrence Journal-World praises actor Richard Dreyfuss, who, in a "recent appearance on HBO’s 'Real Time with Bill Maher'" (he actually appeared on the program on November 17, suggesting the author didn't actually watch the program), "decried what he called 'our partisan-addicted society.'”

According to the Journal-World, "Skills like reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility and debate are essential tools of democracy, he said, and 'without them you can kiss this thing (democracy) goodbye.'”

Dreyfuss had a few others things to say on "Real Time," but those statements didn't find their way into the editorial. Here are just a few of them:

"And it’s one thing to say that Bush is a villain for getting us into a war, and it’s another thing when we realize that he couldn’t do anything without our eventual consent."

"And lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you’ve got a bad problem on your hands."

"Even if we lose – if you lose an impeachment hearing, whoever 'we' are, then at least you have a body that says, 'We stand against these things.' And unless you do that, then you’re for them."

So Dreyfuss characterizes President Bush as a "villain," calls him a "liar," and calls on the Democrat-led Congress to begin the process of impeaching Bush, yet the Journal-World praises Dreyfuss for calling for civility and decrying our "partisan-addicted society."

Dreyfuss's message about teaching civics in our schools is a good one, but Dreyfuss is an extremely bad messenger. And it would be difficult to think of a more inappropriate forum than Bill Maher's.

Oldie: Conservatives slam door on moderate

2006-12-08T13:53:00.000-05:00

While preparing my post on the Lawrence Journal-World's latest editorial on the Republican Rift, I was reminded of 1998 editorial that failed to report the facts accurately and thoroughly.

After the elections for the Douglas County GOP leadership that year, a Journal-World editorial reported the following:

"Tuesday's meeting at the Lawrence Holidome apparently was a disheartening display. The tone was set before the official meeting when favored conservative party members gathered in a separate meeting room and shut the door in the face of a moderate Republican who was seeking to chair the county party."

An earlier Tim Carpenter article reported the following:

"Prior to the reorganization meeting, conservative precinct representatives assembled in a Holidome meeting room for snacks and soft drinks. Watkins prevented [Craig] Templeton from entering the room."

A Carpenter article from the previous day quoted a moderate Republican who placed blame on the conservative leadership of the county GOP for Democrat Dennis Moore's victory over Republican Vince Snowbarger earlier that month. ""These people have not led," Johnston said. "You can't lose your congressman. The county chairman ... was sitting on his hands."

If you buy the Journal-World's version of events, the conservatives sat on their hands and allowed Vince Snowbarger to be defeated. They then displayed intolerance by not even allowing a moderate seeking the chairmanship of the party to enter a room.

Not surprisingly, the facts behind this story are quite different. Nowhere in the Carpenter articles or the editorial was it mentioned that Craig Templeton was elected to the board of directors of the newly-formed MAINstream Coaltion of Douglas County in May 1998. This is not a minor detail since the MAINstream Coalition's PAC, MAIN*PAC, mailed 67,000 postcards in OPPOSITION TO THE RE-ELECTION OF SNOWBARGER. In other words, Templeton, who had hopes of leading the Douglas County GOP, belonged to a group that worked to defeat the Republican congressman who represented the county.

Interestingly, former state Sen. Wint Winter Jr. was part of the moderate faction promoting Templeton's candidacy. Winter's brother, Dan, was on the MAINstream Coalition's board of directors. According to the Statement of Organization filed with the Federal Elections
Commission by the MAINstream Political Action Committee (PAC) on June 17, 1998,
the PAC’s bank was the Johnson County Bank of Overland Park, Kan. Coincidentally, Dan Winter was the president and CEO of Johnson County Bank.

Now, back to the door being shut in Templeton's face. Earlier that day yours truly informed the conservative faction of Templeton's membership in the MAINstream Coalition. At the time Templeton attempted to enter the room, the conservative precinct representatives were discussing Templeton's situation. It was, as John Watkins stated, a "private party."

The Journal-World reported on Templeton's membership in the MAINstream Coalition six months prior to the the reorganization election. Either they forgot about it or deliberately hid that fact in their November 1998 articles and editorial. In either case, the omission of that fact does not reflect well on the newspaper's reporting.

Journal-World's nonsensical spin on GOP rift

2006-12-06T17:59:00.000-05:00

The Lawrence Journal-World's December 5 editorial had so many nonsensical comments in it that I have added extended commentary in red.

Republican rift
It’s unfortunate Republicans in the Kansas House passed over
Rep. Kenny Wilk for the speaker’s job.

"Monday’s leadership elections in the Kansas House seem to point to a continuation of the rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in the Legislature."

The editorial does not explain how electing a moderate Speaker would have pointed away from a continuation of the rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in the Legislature. For years now, the Journal-World has reported on the rift between conservatives and moderates. The Journal-World has reported on that rift regardless of whether conservatives were in charge or moderates were in charge. In August 1999, Journal-World reporter Chris Koger wrote that a meeting of Douglas County Republicans "apparently only increased tensions between conservatives and moderates."

At the time of that meeting, Mark Parkinson, who was in attendance, was the moderate chairman of the Kansas GOP. Parkinson switched parties this year and ran as Gov. Sebelius' running mate. The House speaker at the time was Republican Robin Jennison, another moderate.

"On the first ballot, Neufeld received 29 votes to Wilk’s 25 and O’Neal’s 24. After O’Neal was eliminated, most of his votes went to Neufeld, resulting in a 47-31 victory on the second ballot.
The choice of a solid conservative, Neufeld, over a solid moderate, Wilk, is a strong indication that conservatives still will be a dominant force in the Kansas House."

Republicans lost just five seats in the House in November. Does the Journal-World really believe that a handful of losses would make the conservatives less than a dominant force?

"It seems Wilk would have been in a much better position than Neufeld to work with moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House. That will be even more important this session given that Democrats gained five House seats in the recent elections."

The role of Speaker of the House should not be to "work with moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House." The goal should be to work to pass good legislation and to stop bad legislation. The Democrats did gain five seats, but, as noted in an earlier post, they still remain far weaker than they were just 14 years ago, when they actually had a majority in the Kansas House.

"Unfortunately, it seems the state has heard from Neufeld mostly when he was opposing some initiative or action."

And the country heard mostly from Abraham Lincoln when he was opposing slavery. Legislators should oppose poor legislation.

"He was among those who bottled up budget measures last year with a proposal to define cloning and ban state funding for it. He dug his heels in against the Kansas Supreme Court during the school finance debate. And he’s certainly no friend of higher education in the state, attacking university budgets and saying as recently as this fall that most Kansas workers don’t have a need for a college education."

The editorial failed to tell us why most workers in Kansas should have a college education. According to the Census Bureau, 28 percent of Kansas have a bachelor's degree or higher. Can the editorial writer explain why at least an additional 23 percent NEED a college education?

In any case, it appears the editorial writer misquoted Neufeld. In the September 17, 2006 issue of the Journal-World, reporter Scott Rothschild writes, "And, [Neufeld] said, changes in the workplace have in many instances placed less emphasis on a college education."

"'The economy does not have a demand that everyone have a fine arts degree. Employers care if someone has the specialized training to do the job,' Neufeld said."

There is a difference between "most" and "everyone." Saying that the "economy does not have a demand that everyone have a fine arts degree" is not tantamount to being an enemy of higher education. It's a statement of fact.

"Given that more moderate Republican leadership will remain in control of the Kansas Senate — President Steve Morris and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt — the election of Neufeld seems to ensure continued discord between the two chambers."

Apparently, it never occurred to the editorial writer that the Republicans in the Kansas Senate could choose a conservative majority leader in order to end the discord between the two chambers. After all, there are far more conservative Republicans in the House than there are moderate Republicans in the Senate. Why does the Journal-World believe the majority should capitulate to the minority?

"It also is likely to mean that moderate House Republicans will continue to look to House Democrats, rather than members of their own party, for support on key policy issues."

So if a moderate Speaker had been chosen, moderate House Republicans would have had no need to look to House Democrats for support on key policy issues? Where would they then look? There are not enough moderate Republicans in the House to pass anything on their own.

"It seems likely that if both Democrats and Republicans had voted on a House speaker, Wilk would have won. But that’s not how it works."

No, that's not how it works. Never has worked that way. So why share this hypothetical nonsense with your readers?

"Republicans hold the majority in the House and conservatives apparently still hold the majority in the Republican House delegation."

Well, of course they do. Although I should point out that Wilk’s and O’Neal’s votes totaled 49 to Neufeld's 29. On the second ballot, Neufeld picked up 18 of O'Neal's votes while Wilk picked up just six. If conservatives do not hold a majority in the Republican House delegation, then a large number of moderate Republicans thought Neufeld was the better choice to led them.

"There has been considerable talk since the November elections about the positive aspects of 'divided' government, referring to the Republican president and the newly Democratic Congress. If such divisions really do force more discussion and compromise and lead to better policy, then Kansas should be in for a banner year."

Speaking of the Democratic Congress in Washington, perhaps some day the Journal-World will editorialize on how Democrats in the U.S. House should have elected a moderate speaker over ultraliberal Nancy Pelosi even though liberals still hold a majority in the Democrat House delegation. After all, it seems a moderate would have been in a much better position than Pelosi to work with moderate Democrats and Republicans in the House.

Don't hold your breath waiting on that editorial.

Blue Dog Boyda?

2006-12-04T18:35:00.000-05:00

In his November 24 column in the Topeka Metro News, Peter Hancock writes that "Kansas Rep.-elect Nancy Boyda hopes to join fellow Kansan Dennis Moore in the centrist-conservative caucus known as the 'Blue Dog Democrats.'"

"Boyda says there's an interview process that goes along with it," Hancock writes. "If it's fiscal conservatism they want, she might just get away with faxing over a copy of her expenditure report."

I have already dealt with the Myth of the Moderate Moore. I believe Boyda will be just as "moderate."

As far as Boyda's fiscal conservatism, as of October 18, her campaign had outstanding debts totaling $316,742.

Oh brother, Broder!

2006-12-04T09:45:00.000-05:00

In today's Lawrence Journal-World, liberal columnist David Broder discusses Sen. Mitch McConnell and his new position as leader of the GOP senators:

"Ask Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to name his role models for his new responsibilities as the leader of Senate Republicans, and the answer is surprising. 'Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell,' he replied the other day. 'I know they’re both Democrats, but I admire the way they ran things here.'"

Broder then wrote the following:

"Mansfield allowed Everett McKinley Dirksen, his Republican counterpart, to claim most of the credit for the civil rights bills of the 1960s...."

Mansfield did not "allow" Dirksen to claim most of the credit. Dirksen rightfully earned that credit.

Mansfield was unable to prevent a 74-day filibuster led by members of his party when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was being debated. In the end, just 69 percent of Senate Democrats voted for the act. Eighty-two percent of Dirksen's Republicans voted for the act.

When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came up for a vote, 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted for it, while 17 Democrats voted against it.

Dirksen gets most of the credit for the civil rights bills of the 1960s because his Republicans passed those bills over the opposition of a large percentage of Senate Democrats.

The phantom "overtly racist" Kline commercial

2006-12-02T13:47:00.000-05:00

Kansas Media Watch does not usually scrutinize college newspapers. The writers are young, inexperienced, and, therefore, prone to making mistakes. For example, Frank Tankard, writing for the University Daily Kansan editorial board on November 6, endorsed Rep. Dennis Moore for re-election. Tankard's praise for Moore, however, was not unqualified:

"Republican challenger Chuck Ahner, who has never held elective office, says he would vote to make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, which could hurt the U.S. economy when the country is in a deficit. Moore voted for the cuts in 2000, before the economy went into recession, but voted against extending them permanently."

Of course, Bush's tax cuts were passed after Bush became president in 2001. Also, the Clinton-Gore recession began in March 2001 (i.e., under Clinton and Gore's final budget), months prior to Moore voting for the Bush tax cuts.

I'm reluctant to scrutinize Peter Hancock's work because it often resembles that of a college sophomore's.

Hancock, a statehouse reporter for Kansas Public Radio and a columnist for the Topeka Metro News, on November 17 wrote a column which included the following paragraph:

"And how about the other [Phill] Kline commercial - the one about the horribly ugly-looking black man who was let out of prison early, only to rape and kill more innocet white women - that was so overtly racist and demagogic that it made George H.W. Bush's 'Willie Horton' ad look tame by comparison?"

"Overtly racist" commercial? If there were such a commercial, surely the Kansas media would have written much about it. Yet a Google search of the words "Phill Kline racist commercial" turns up nothing. Phill Kline's campaign Web site has a page for his commercials, but the links are inactive. Several of those commercials are available at YouTube, but none shows the "horribly ugly-looking black man."

I contacted Hancock, but he offered few details other than saying he saw the commercial while a guest on public television's "Kansas Week."

In the same column, Hancock noted that he was "eating the same stale carry-out pizza from 20 years ago."

I'd like to give Hancock the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that his 20-year-old pizza brought on some serious hallucinations.

Journal-World publishes dishonest LTE

2006-12-02T12:08:00.000-05:00

In today's Journal-World, letter writer Karl Brooks writes, "The weekend before Election Day, right here in Kansas, [President Bush] denounced Democrats as unpatriotic and misguided for simply asking him to share the facts about Iraq!"

This is a false statement. I was at the event in Topeka and Bush explicitly said Democrats were not unpatriotic for questioning his policies in Iraq. The Topeka Capital-Journal accurately reported on Bush's statement:

"Bush said he didn't think Democrats with alternative views on Iraq were unpatriotic."

The Journal-World's own reporter, Scott Rothschild, heard the same thing:

"Democrats who have criticized the president for the war and his tactics in fighting terrorists aren’t unpatriotic, Bush said, 'I’m just saying they’re wrong.'”

One would think such claims would be fact-checked before they are published. The failure to do so does not reflect well on the editorial page editor or the newspaper as a whole.

Rothschild's castrated sheep

2006-11-28T09:35:00.000-05:00

In a November 19 article with the headline "Kansas Democrats’ victory seen as ‘bellwether’ for party," Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild wrote the following:

"Historically, Democrats have been the long-suffering minority party in Kansas. Of the state’s 1.66 million voters, 47 percent are registered as Republicans, 27 percent unaffiliated and 26 percent Democrat.

"But now, Democrats have established themselves as a tough, growing adversary to the dominant Republican Party."

Growing adversary? In 1999, Democrats made up 29 percent of the state's voters, which means they have lost 3 percentage points in just seven years. Republicans and unaffiliated voters have grown from 45 percent and 25 percent, respectively, during the same period.

In 2001, Republican Gov. Bill Graves served with 30 GOP senators in the Kansas Senate and 79 GOP representatives in the Kansas House. When the next legislative session begins in 2007, Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius will serve with 30 GOP senators in the Kansas Senate and 78 GOP representatives in the Kansas House. In six years, the "growing adversary" has picked up just a single seat in the Kansas House. In the Kansas Senate, there are currently three fewer Democrats than in 1999.

Yes, but we now have a Democrat governor in an overwhelmingly Republican state. True, but during the past three decades Kansas also elected Democrats Bob Docking, John Carlin, and Joan Finney to the same office. When Finney was governor in 1992, Democrats actually had a majority in the Kansas House (63-62).

Kansans this November also elected a Democrat to serve as attorney general. However, just a year ago Paul Morrison was a Republican. It seems that a "tough, growing adversary" would be able to field candidates without recruiting from the other party. That Morrison ran unopposed in the Democrat primary suggests that the Kansas Democrat Party is weak, not tough.

The dictionary defines "bellwether" as "a male sheep, usually castrated, that wears a bell hung from its neck and is followed by a flock of sheep."

Rothschild would be wise to examine the facts and think for himself instead of following the folks wearing the bells in the liberal media.

Leonard's fact-free zone

2006-11-27T21:24:00.000-05:00

Earlier this month I wrote that the Lawrence Journal-World's syndicated columnists are overwhelmingly liberals, and that those liberal columnists tend to be dishonest. Leonard Pitts provided more evidence of that with his latest column in which he takes on Michael Richards, Seinfeld's "Kramer." In his column, Pitts wrote that Seinfeld "presents New York City, of all places, as a black-free zone."

In truth, many blacks have appeared on the sitcom. Those in recurring roles include Phil Morris as the Johnnie Cochran-esque Jackie Chiles, Lawrence Mandley as Larry the Cook, the owner of Monk's Diner, and Tom Wright as Mr. Morgan. NBC's Al Roker and Bryant Gumbel even appeared as themselves on Seinfeld.

To call Seinfeld a black-free zone is outrageous, egregious, and preposterous.

Incidentally, during the years that Seinfeld was on the air (1989-1998), the Journal-World's newsroom was essentially a minority-free zone.

No full disclosure for columnist

2006-11-20T10:47:00.000-05:00

In a Lawrence Journal-World opinion piece replete with personal attacks, Georgetown University professor Rosa Brooks attacks the GOP for abandoning its humility so soon after the November 7 election.

The Journal-World failed to note, however, that Brooks worked in the State Department in the Clinton administration. She has also served as a consultant to George Soros' Open Society Institute. Soros, of course, spent millions of dollars to defeat President Bush in 2004.

Columnist fails to note activist's support for Democrats

2006-11-19T11:14:00.000-05:00

In her November 19 column, the Kansas City Star's Rhonda Chriss Lokeman quoted Paul Rieckhoff's criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rieckhoff is the founder and executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Lokeman failed to mention that Rieckhoff served as an adviser to the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004 and even delivered the Democrats' radio address in 2004. The Kerry campaign immediately publicized Rieckhoff's address.

By failing to note that Rieckhoff was Democrat Party partisan, "military expert" Lokeman creates the impression that he speaks for all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. He does not.

Journal-World continues to peddle moderate myth

2006-11-18T18:14:00.000-05:00

In an earlier item, I noted that Rep. Dennis Moore (R-KS) was just as liberal as the average Democrat House member. This was in response to J-W reporter Scott Rothschild writing that Moore “is viewed as a moderate to conservative Democrat.”

Rothschild returned on November 18 with another article to help Moore and the newly-elected Nancy Boyda perpetuate the myth that they are moderates.

"Both Moore and Boyda said that although Pelosi may be viewed as to the left of most Kansas voters, they intend to stay in the center," Rothschild writes.

Further, "Moore said Pelosi as the new House leader 'will have to look out for all of the party,' which includes the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 44 moderate to conservative Democrats that he belongs to."

In its 2005 ratings of legislators, Americans forDemocratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” ADA noted that it considers representatives with "Liberal Quotients" of 40-60 percent "moderates." Using that criterion, just four Democrat members of the House would be considered moderates. (And, no, there are not 40 Democrat members of the House with LQs below 40 percent. In fact, there is not one single Democrat member of the House with an LQ below 40 percent. In others words, there are no conservative Democrats currently in the House.)

My guess is that Boyda, like Moore, will have an LQ well above 60 percent. A true moderate has served the Kansas Second before. Democrat Jim Slattery, who served the district from 1983 to 1995, had a lifetime LQ of 56 percent. However, Boyda is no Jim Slattery.

No liberals in the House

2006-11-18T14:01:00.000-05:00

In a November 17 story about the Democrat leadership elections, a Lawrence Journal-World headline notes that Rep. Steny Hoyer, the newly elected majority leader, is a "moderate."

In a Kansas City Star article on the same day, Margaret Talev also reported that Hoyer is a "moderate."

In its 2005 ratings of legislators, Americans forDemocratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” assigned Hoyer a"Liberal Quotient" (LQ) of 95 percent. The overall average for House Democrats in 2005 was 90.7 percent.

Hoyer received a perfect LQ of 100 percent the year before and was named a "House Hero." The overall average for House Democrats in 2004 was 85 percent.

Incidentally, ADA’s definition of a “moderate” is a House member who earned an LQ of 40-60 percent. Hoyer's opponent, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, received LQs of 50 percent and 75 percent in 2005 and 2005, respectively. Nevertheless, the mainstream media portrayed Hoyer as the more moderate.

Hoyer is clearly a liberal. The Journal-World claims that it stands for accuracy in reporting. Hasn't it fallen short of that goal by portraying Hoyer as something he is not?

The Cost of Criticism

2006-11-18T13:53:00.000-05:00

I received an e-mail from the Lawrence Journal-World's COO, telling me that his company would no longer deliver a newspaper to my home "Because of the comments you have made about our company and our employees."

I responded with an e-mail and asked the COO if any of my comments were untrue. I have yet to receive a response.

It seems to me a newspaper that publishes vile and false statements concerning President Bush and other conservatives should have a thicker skin when those statements are scrutinized.

Journal-World receives kudos from prominent liberal

2006-11-16T15:32:00.000-05:00

Harold Piehler today thanked the Journal-World for its election coverage and endorsement of Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. He concluded his letter with this question:

"Does this indicate that there is a glimmer of hope that you might support a Democrat for president in 2008?"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/nov/16/election_coverage/?letters_to_editor

It may or not be an indication of that. However, after reading Piehler's previous letters to the editor, I would say his pleasure with the J-W's election coverage is an indication that the J-W has indeed shifted to the left.
http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?sortby=date&q=piehler

Accentuate the negative

2006-11-06T14:14:00.000-05:00

KMBZ at 11:00 a.m. today reported that Democrats should be smiling over CNN's 11/5 generic poll that showed Democrats up over Republicans by 20 points (i.e., 58 to 38).

KMBZ's report ignored the 11/5 USAT/Gallup poll that showed the Democrats up by just 7 points. The same poll showed Democrats up by 13 points on 10/22. It also ignored the 11/4 ABC/WP poll that showed the Democrats up by just 5 points. The same poll showed Democrats up by 13 points on 10/22. KMBZ also ignored the 11/4 Pew poll that showed the Democrats up by just 4 points. That poll showed the Democrats up by 11 points on 10/22.

The only other poll that showed the Democrats gaining ground was the 11/5 Fox/OD poll, which had the Democrats up by 13 points. The same poll had the Democrats up 11 points on 10/25.

With three major polls showing the race between the Republicans and Democrats tightening, it is odd that KMBZ chose to highlight the CNN poll, which, excluding CNN's 10/8 poll, has the largest spread of the year. It's especially odd when you consider that KMBZ gets its national news from ABC.

Post-election note: The most recent tally shows that Democrat senatorial candidates received 53.7% of the votes on November 7, while GOP candidates received 42.6% of the votes, a difference of 11.1%. Of the polls cited above, the 11/5 Fox/OD poll was closest to the final tally.

Who rebranded "liberal"?

2006-11-01T00:11:00.000-05:00

Of all the syndicated columnists the Journal-World runs on a regualr basis, only two (George Will and Cal Thomas) are conservatives. To make matters worse, the liberal columnists tend to be dishonest. For example, the Journal-World continued to run Robert Scheer's columns for years after he lied about U.S. aid to the Taliban. Also, I have documented several lies that Garrison Keillor has written.

Leonard Pitts also has a habit of stretching the truth, as he did in his October 23 column:

"Consider the [GOP]’s masterpiece. Of all the terms it has arrogated unto itself (values, tradition, patriotism) and all those it has used to jab the competition (secular, culture wars, moral relativism), its best work is embodied in one word: liberal.

"Truth is, we’re all pretty liberal — at least if you’re using the word as historically defined. It’s hard to imagine even Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter coming out in favor of racial segregation, child labor or male-only workplaces. To the degree the word no longer evokes the fight against those things and connotes moral squishiness and effete elitism instead, Republicans have been astoundingly successful in deconstructing it, rebranding it, making it unusable."

It wasn't Republicans who deconstructed the word "liberal," rebranded it, and made it unusable. This is a lie that those on the left have been telling themselves for decades.

In The Road to Serfdom (1944), Friedrich Hayek tells us exactly how "liberal" became rebranded:

"I use throughout the term 'liberal' in the original, ninetheenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that 'liberal' has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control."

Further:

"Unquestionably, the promise of more freedom was responsible for luring more and more liberals along the socialist road, for blinding them to the conflict which exists between the basic principles of socialism and liberalism, and for often enabling socialists to usurp the very name of the old party of freedom. Socialism was embraced by the greater part of the intelligentsia as the apparent heir of the liberal tradition: therefore it is not surprising that to them the idea of socialism's leading to the opposite of liberty should appear inconceivable."

Socialists rebranded the word "liberal" when they usurped it. It was they, and not the GOP, who turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

Kid gloves for an old goat

2006-10-31T23:05:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I initially ignored the Lawrence Journal-World's article about former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's appearance at the Lied Center last month. However, Wright's book reminded me of just how willing the reporter was to accept Albright's claims.

One of Albright's claims was “I personally feel we did everything we could” to battle and prepare for the threat of terrorism. Well, anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission's report knows that that is a false statement. The reporter apparently made no effort to talk to anyone who would take issue with Albright's claim. I highly suspect that if a Bush administration official had made a similar statement, the reporter would have found someone on the other side to quote.

If the reporter really wanted to scrutinize Albright's claim, he would have noted that, according to CNN correspondent Peter L. Bergen in Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (2001), "The aptly named Prudence Bushnell, a veteran diplomat, had long been concerned about the security of the [U.S.] embassy [in Kenya], which because of its busy downtown location was threatened not only by terrorism but also by crime. Bushnell had cabled Washington on December 24, 1997, pointing out the threat of terrorism and the embassy's extreme vulnerability because of its location and the lack of setback from the street. She wrote another letter to the U.S. secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in April 1998, reprising her concerns."

Albright ignored Bushnell's warnings.

On August 7, 1998 Al Qaeda simultaneously bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing a total of 257 people and wounding 4,500.

In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke recounts a one-on-one discussion with Albright. "What do you think will happen if you lose another embassy?" Clarke asked. "The Republicans in the Congress will go after you."

"I had her attention," Clarke wrote. "She shot back, 'First of all, I didn't lose these two embassies. I inherited them in the shape they were.'"

Keep in mind that Albright was sworn in as secretary of state 18 months prior to the embassies being bombed.

Now back to The Looming Tower. According to Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker, after the embassy in Kenya was bombed, "investigators were stunned to learn that nearly a year earlier an Egyptian member of al-Qaeda had walked into the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi and told the CIA about the bombing plot. The agency had dismissed this intelligence as unreliable. This was not an isolated incident. All through the spring there had been a drumroll of threats and fatwas from bin Laden, but few had taken them seriously. Now the consequence of that neglect was starkly evident."

Albright's cavalier attitude towards security vis-a-vis the embassy in Nairobi was actually detailed seven years ago in a New York Times special report. According to the report, "The State Department has acknowledged that Ms. Bushnell raised questions about security before the bombing. But a close examination of events in the year before the assaults, based on interviews with officials throughout the U.S. government, shows her concerns were more intense, more well-founded, more specific, and more forcefully expressed than has previously been known."

Albright had 18 months to fix the security problems at the embassy. She did nothing. She received well-founded and specific wanrings about an imminent attack on that embassies. She ignored them. Then she appeared at the Lied Center and claimed the Clinton administration did everything it could to prepare for and battle terrorism.

Albright had the gall to assert, “The record shows [the Bush administration] actually didn’t do a lot” about terrorism during its first eight months in office. If the Bush administration had had well-founded and specific information about an imminent attack on 9/11, does anyone really believe they would have ignored the threat in the same way that Albright and the Clinton administration ignored the threat in Kenya?

Remarkably, Madeleine Albright may be as responsible as any American for the attacks on our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11. Mohamed al-'Owhali, convicted in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, relied on Albright's words during a 1996 60 Minutes interview in mounting his defense against the death penalty. According to 60 Minutes, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children had died from the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in August 1990. Albright, who was then U.S. ambassador to the UN, answered, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Osama bin Laden himself mentioned these deaths in Iraq in a March 1997 interview with CNN. According to bin Laden, "The hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of America and the American president [Bill Clinton]. The president has a heart that knows no words. A heart that kills hundreds of children definitely knows no words. Our people on the Arabian Peninsula will send him messages with no words because he does not know any words. If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land.... I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over one billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government's policy."

Those "messages with no words," which were largely inspired by Albright's words, were delivered in August 1998, October 2000, and September 2001.

The Journal-World could have detailed Albright's and the Clinton administration's shortcomings and failings in the fight against terrorism. Instead it choose to give Albright a forum for a revisionist concerning that fight. That was a disservice to its readers.

Journal-World finds counterinsurgency instructor

2006-10-23T09:16:00.000-04:00

As noted in an October 1 post, Journal-World reporter Joel Mathis wrote in article that suggested that the military had not considered how to battle insurgencies prior to this summer. See

I quoted a retired Green Beret who I had interviewed a few years ago. The Green Beret was called back to Ft. Leavenworth just after 9/11 to teach counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.

In today's Journal-World, reporter Mike Belt shares the Green Beret's views on violence on Iraq. The Journal-World deserves credit for finally publishing an article that does not fit the Bush-haters' template concerning Iraq.

Of course, Lt. Col. Johnson has already been attacked by one liberal on the J-W forum:

"Wow...a retired Lieutenant Colonel! Impressive! What's next? A retired Assistant Manager of Burger King commenting on the state of the fast-food industry?"

Comparing a lieutenant colonel in the Green Berets to an assistant manager of Burger King is simply ignorant. Naturally, Dan Cox will allow the post to stand.

Endorsements: Speaking with one voice?

2006-10-22T18:59:00.000-04:00

The Wichita Eagle and Salina Journal both endorsed Paul Morrison for attorney general today. In reading the endorsements, I couldn't help but note the similarities between the two.

WE: "Phill Kline can rightfully claim some notable achievements -- fighting for tougher penalties for child predators, launching a dragnet for parole absconders, and successfully defending Kansas' death penalty statute before the U.S. Supreme Court."
SJ: "Kline deserves credit for some successes as Kansas attorney general. He beefed up the Kansas Bureau of Investigation crime lab to handle increased workloads. He rightly pursued abortion records to find child rapists, despite charges it is a fishing expedition."

WE: "But just as notable -- and regrettable for Kansas -- are Kline's lapses of judgment and questionable priorities."
SJ: "But there are troubling aspects to Kline’s term that bring judgment into question."

WE: "Kline hiring his nephew as chauffeur, and choosing as his consumer fraud chief an anti-abortion activist with 12 arrests and an outstanding $61,000 court judgment."
SJ: "Consider Kline’s 2003 appointment of Bryan Brown as chief of the AG consumer protection division. Brown was arrested 12 times during anti-abortion protests starting some 20 years ago. Civil disobedience is not too troubling. But Brown dodged a federal judge’s ruling demanding he and two others pay $61,000 in attorney’s fees resulting from the protests."

WE: "And Kline encouraging Kansas State Board of Education members to add anti-evolution stickers to textbooks."
SJ: "Kline also erred when he met with conservative members of the Kansas State Board of Education to discuss the evolution debate. Kline visited with the six members in two groups of three, which circumvented the Kansas Open Meetings Act."

WE: "It's telling that former Attorney General Bob Stephan -- like Kline, a Republican and born-again Christian -- recently resigned as an adviser to Kline after raising concerns about Kline using churches as political fundraising machines."
SJ: "Former Attorney General Bob Stephan told the Lawrence Journal-World last week that he resigned as special assistant to Kline because he was troubled with Kline using people’s faith to raise money. In particular, he said, was an incident where a church gathered donations and gave the money to a company owned by Kline’s wife."

OLDIE: DAVID MILLER AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

2006-10-22T18:03:00.000-04:00

From May 1996:

When it comes to David Miller, the Kansas media often find it difficult to get the story right.

For example, after Bob Dole and Phil Gramm tied for first place in the 1995 Iowa straw poll, The Hutchinson News editorialized that Dole’s “failure
in Iowa sits squarely on the shoulders of David Miller,” who was then chairman of the Kansas GOP.

This editorial concluded that the Kansas GOP “should give David Miller the boot.” Apparently, The Hutchinson News missed Bob Dole’s appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “We’re going to save our resources for the main event next February,” Dole told the moderator. By “main event,” Dole was referring to the 1996 Iowa caucuses. If Dole considered the Iowa straw poll insignificant, why was Miller expected to, in the words of The Hutchinson News, “communicate how important this vote was for Dole”?

Since Miller announced on May 5 that he would run for governor, it looks as if the Kansas media have been in a race to see who can print the most inane
comments regarding Miller and conservative Republicans. Below are merely a few examples:

• “David Miller is going to devote the next three months of his life to the proposition that democracy doesn’t work.” - George Pyle, Salina Journal.

According to Pyle, the “anti-abortion, anti-tax, pro-gun minority of Kansas Republicans [Miller] speaks for can be expected to go to the polls Aug. 4, while the more moderate majority that makes up the base of Gov. Bill Graves may forget to pencil the election into their busy schedules.”

A 1996 Kansas City Star survey found that exactly 50 percent of Kansans believe abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and saving
the life of the mother. According to this year’s Kansas Survey, “A proposed ban on partial-birth abortion was supported by seven out of ten” Kansans. The Kansas Survey also found that “Kansans want tax cuts.” And guns? In 1996
Lawrence Research found that 61 percent of Kansans favor a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection outside of their homes.

Now, if a majority of all Kansans favor restrictions on abortion, want tax cuts, and believe law-abiding Kansans should be allowed to carry firearms, is it possible that “anti-abortion, anti-tax, pro-gun” Republicans make up a minority of the GOP? As Dan Rather would put it, that’s about as likely as a one-ended stick.

• “Conservative Republicans believe that the term ‘conservative Republican’ is redundant. They say that Republican means conservative, that a Republican who says he is not conservative is not a Republican.” - Jim Hitch, Hays Daily News.

I asked Hitch if he could name a conservative Republican who actually made such a statement. Speaker of the House Tim Shallenburger, R-Baxter
Springs, was his response. During a recent interview with Shallenburger, Hitch claims that the Speaker “characterized moderate Republicans as fence straddlers and said that in reality, some of them may even be Democrats.”

Some of them may even be Democrats? That’s quite a bit different from
saying that a Republican who says he is not conservative is not a Republican.

While Hitch’s example fell short of demonstrating his original assertion, we do have plenty of examples of moderates questioning the legitimacy
of conservative Republicans. Sen. Dick Bond, R-Overland Park, himself said Miller could be elected governor if the “regular Republicans” don’t vote.

“Right now there are the David Miller Republicans, and the rest of the Republicans,” writes the Topeka Capital-Journal’s Dick Snider.

“That, after all, it why Miller is the chairman of Graves’ party,” notes George Pyle. (My emphasis)

• “A more moderate GOP also would motivate disaffected GOP bigwigs to reopen their checkbooks for the party. Under social conservatives,
official politicking has been a small-budget operation—though successful just the same because of the political zeal of social conservatives.” - Denney Clements, Wichita Eagle.

Excuse me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t liberals such as Clements been pushing campaign-finance reform in order to limit the involvement of big wigs?

• “Since Statehood, Kansans have elected governors, both Republican and Democratic, who try to run state programs efficiently while holding
the line on taxes—and who leave moral improvement to the clergy,” - Denney Clements, Wichita Eagle.

This isn’t quite true. “If we fail in building character, democracy will fail,” said Kansas Gov. Alf Landon. “And if democracy fails, free religion and a free church, as we know them, are gone too.”

By “character,” the moderate Republican surely meant “the combined moral or ethical structure of a person or group.” Landon, who was not a member
of the clergy, was essentially echoing Abraham Lincoln’s contention that “Democracy must be based not on ‘mere’ opinion but on ‘moral purpose.”

• “Graves has proved that he can compromise.” - Jim Hitch, Hays Daily News.

Hitch assumes that compromise is a virtue. That’s not always the case. For example, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 stated that the number of free
states and slave states must remain equal. Is a “moderate” amount of slavery virtuous?

“Important principles may and must be inflexible,” Lincoln told an audience just days before his assassination. It was Lincoln’s inflexibility on the moral issue of slavery that led to the demise of that evil institution (and, regretfully, his own death).

The above are merely a few examples of how the mainstream media are distorting the truth about David Miller and other conservative Republicans.
Sadly, as the Aug. 4 primary election grows nearer, their statements are likely to become even further removed from the truth.

Salina Journal's hypocritical stand on columnists

2006-10-22T14:14:00.000-04:00

Last June, Salina Journal editor Tom Bell informed readers that his newspaper would no longer carry Ann Coulter's syndicated column. Oddly, Bell cited Coulter's appearance on The Today Show with Matt Lauer as the main reason. The appearance included Coulter's comments about the socalled Jersey Girls, the 9/11 widows who capitalized on their status to campaign for John Kerry and other Democrats. Here is part of what Bell had to say about Coulter:

"Coulter said the women are an example of how liberals put forth spokespeople who cannot be criticized because they are protected by sympathy or other sensitivities.

"She makes a valid point. The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s critics are accused of racism. Cindy Shahan (sic), who leads an anti-war and anti-Bush movement, is considered off limits for criticism because she lost a son in the Iraq war."

While Coulter is a controversial columnist, Bell concedes that she made a valid point. Nevertheless, Bell dropped Coulter's column.

Molly Ivins is also a controversial columnist, a fact that Ivins acknowledged when she entitled one of her books, Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?

Ivins' rhetoric is no less extreme that Coulter's, yet the Salina Journal continues to carry Ivins' column. But there is a difference between Coulter and Ivins. As Bell acknowledged, Coulter made a valid point regarding the Jersey Girls. Coulter's points are usually valid. Ivins' points seldom are.

For example, in the most recent Ivins column (October 20) published by the Salina Journal, Ivins writes,

"I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq 'the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.' And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq."

The uninformed reader would conclude from this paragraph that Odom retired from the military because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. However, Odom clearly retired from the military long before Bush even became president. His offocial biography does not note the exact year, but does say from 1985 to 1988, he served as the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.
Odom has been on the board of directors of two corporations since 1996, so it is clear that he retired from the military at some point between 1988 and 1996. In fact, it appears that Odom's military career ended after he left the NSA, which was nearly 15 years prior to the invasion of Iraq.

If Bell drops a controversial columnist after making a valid point, why continue publishing Ivins, whom seldom makes a valid point?

Rallying versus preaching

2006-10-22T12:41:00.000-04:00

I couldn't help but to notice how Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter described Phill Kline and Paul Morrison's appearances before supporters in his profiles of the two candidates in today's edition.

From the first paragraph of the Morrison profile:

"Paul Morrison jumped on an office chair to rally volunteers preparing to distribute 2,000 of his campaign yard signs."

From the first paragraph of the Kline profile:

"Phill Kline paced back and forth while speaking in a rhythm that mirrors his style of pulpit preaching."

Using Paul Morrison's talking points

2006-10-22T12:23:00.000-04:00

Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter on October 22 did attorney general candidate Paul Morrison a favor by repeating a Morrison campaign talking point:

"Morrison said he took note when Kline hired a man who had been arrested more than 10 times to run the consumer protection division in the attorney general's office."

Carpenter did not say why Bryan Brown was arrested. All of his arrests took place during anti-abortion protests.

Making an issue of Brown is tantamount to saying Rep. Joe Lewis should not be allowed to represent the people in his district in Georgia because he was arresated numerous times during the civil-rights movement.

Without noting why Brown was arrested, Carpenter's article leaves the uninformed reader to speculate why Brown was arrested.

Ignoring the who behind CREW

2006-10-19T21:32:00.000-04:00

In his October 19 article about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics' (CREW) call for an IRS investigation of Attorney General Phill Kline’s campaign, Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter failed to tell readers who is behind CREW.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, used to work for Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who hopes to impeach President Bush. She has also worked for liberal Democrat Sens. Schumer and Joe Biden.

CREW’s deputy director and communications director, Naomi Seligman Steiner, formerly served as communications director for Media Matters for America, a left-wing media “watchdog.” Media Matters was formed with help from the Center for American Progress (CAP), whose president is John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. CAP was started with seed money from George Soros, the billionaire financier. Reportedly, Soros contributed $23,450,000 to America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and several other anti-Bush 527 committees during the 2004 election cycle.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, CREW itself receives funding from The Open Society Institute (OSI), the grantmaking foundation run by Soros.

Paul Morrison, Kline’s Democratic opponent, is an associate member of the Vera Institute for Justice, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from OSI during the past few years through its Gideon Project. According to OSI, one of the goals of the Gideon Project is the abolition of the death penalty.

In September 2006, CREW released a report titled "Beyond Delay: The 20 most corrupt members of Congress (and five to watch)." Of the 25 members of Congress listed, just four are Democrats.

CREW is obviously closely aligned with the Democrat Party, yet Carpenter's article makes is seem as if the group is a non-partisan watchdog organization that is sincerely concerned about ethics. If this group were really concerned about ethics, would it have taken money from George Soros? After all, a French court in 2002 convicted Soros of insider trading and fined him $2.2 million. An appeals court upheld the conviction in 2005.

Fostering a healthy community online

2006-10-18T12:17:00.000-04:00

As noted previously, Dan Cox, Director of New Media at the World Company, e-mailed a banned conservative poster to explain that he and other conservatives were apparently banned "in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online."

This blogger contends that the conservatives were actually banned because they expressed conservative opinions. Threads concerning Attorney General Phill Kline provide more evidence that this blooger is correct. Here are just a few comments from the past two days:

"Geez, if morally bankrupt Bob Stephan is bolting the campaign, thinks must be smelling rotten. I love it when the morally 'superior' Grand Old Party finds themselves in the thick of an odious stench."

"If Kline wants to follow the whims of a small number of uber-religous zealots, then he should start working for Mr. Phelps or even a less hateful church."

"You know Crime and Kline rhyme. They go hand in hand."

"Sorry, Loudmouth, weasels in the wild are intelligent, unlike Phil Kline who is like a blood sucker with no brains, who takes away OUR FREEDOMS with no reasonable cause established! END OF LINE, KLINE!"

"Kline is an idiot and there is no connection although we do have proof of the right diggin it. Fortunatel enough right conservatives now see Kline as what he is a jerk with no values whatsoever but a personal agenda with the backing of fundamentalist clowns in little churches who want to be bigger and to say they got an AG in their pocket would help."

"Wow! Ol Phil must really be desparate if he saying things like that. What a scumbag plain and simple!"

The above is just a small sampling. Obviously, Dan Cox considers this "civil community dialogue" since all the comments were allowed to stand. Cox did find one post from a liberal to be uncivil. The poster strongly implied that Kline was sexually molesting his own daughter. The post was removed. However, the poster was not banned and continues to post.

J-W forum bans another conservative

2006-10-16T14:30:00.000-04:00

We received word today that the Journal-World banned yet another conservative from its forum merely for submitting posts from a conservative perspective. A review of engagehorn's posts shows that he violated no rules.

During the several days that engagehorn posted, he was called numerous names by others posters (a violation of the rules). One poster (observer) even offered a veiled threat when he said he would pay engagehorn a visit at his office.

The Journal-World has clearly launched a jihad against conservative posters. Conservatives are banned for engaging in dispassionate, reasoned debate, yet liberals can post almost anything they want and remain on the forum. Here's just one example of a post from a liberal with the user name of xenophonschild:

"Am I the only one on the board to notice a similarity between this 'Pilgrim' and the not-too-lamented Arminianus? Pilgrim was always a dim-bulb fascist, but his most recent incarnation shows unmistakeable traces of the 'hero of Silawa.' Can it be that the liar-maggot Arminianus somehow managed to transmogrify into the malicious twit Pilgrim?"

That is clearly an example of name-calling, yet xenophonschild continues to post.

We received an e-mail from one banned conservative with the unfortunate user name conservativeman. Dan Cox, Director of New Media, e-mailed this poster after the poster requested an explanation concerning his banishment. Here is what Cox wrote:

"You were banned after I was presented with a couple of cases for banning, both of which were not posters who were explicitly in violation of our use policy in matters of insults or name calling. These cases were in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online. Some posters are so egregiously aggressive in posting ideological sentiments of hate filled opposition that community dialogue suffers."

Cox did not tell conservativeman exactly why he was banned. However, reread Cox's staetement and then reread xenophonschild's post. Clearly, Cox employs a blatant double standard when banning posters.

Cox has failed to respond to several inquiries to explain this double standard.

Dennis Moore's "conservative credentials"

2006-10-06T15:18:00.000-04:00

The Lawrence Journal-World today published yet another article that inaccurately portrayed Rep. Dennis Moore as a conservative.

According to AP reporter Sam Hananel, Republican challenger Chuck "Ahner has challenged Moore’s conservative credentials, calling him 'soft' on national security. Moore recently voted in favor of President Bush’s legislation outlining the treatment of terror-war detainees, but against a bill to grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program."

As I noted on September 5, ADA ratings show that Moore is just as liberal as the average Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Kansas City Star defames Phill Kline

2006-10-03T19:56:00.000-04:00

In an October 1 editorial, the Kansas City Star accused Attorney General Phill Kline of twisting the truth and misleading the voters. Turns out that the Star got its facts wrong and misled readers. A correction was offer in its October 3 edition, which, of course, was read by fewer readers.

Perhaps the Star, the Journal-World, and other members of the Blue Dress Press should end their jihad against Kline and stick to objective reporting.

Garrison Keillor lies again

2006-10-03T19:25:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I reported on Garrison Keillor's phanotm videotape of Rudy Giuliani fleeing the WTC site on 9/11.

Well, Keillor is at it again in a column in today's Lawrence Journal-World:

"But the camera can be fearfully truthful. Look at the picture of the Current Occupant, reading a speech to the troops at Camp Pendleton, wearing a zip-up jacket with little epaulets on the shoulders, a presidential seal sewn on the right breast, and on the left breast the words, 'George W. Bush, Commander in Chief.' Is this for his benefit or that of the troops? No president ever needed to wear a nametag before. He is the first. Insecurity is written all over him. Look at Dick Cheney. No need for a nametag there."

George W. Bush is not the first president to wear a military-type jacket with a nametag. In fact, Dean's World provides photographic evidence showing all four of Bush's immediate predecessors wearing such jackets.

Tolerating another dishonest columnist

2006-10-02T18:21:00.000-04:00

The Lawrence Journal-World in early September published a column by Garrison Keillor that included this claim:

"Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who does not appear in a leadership capacity in the reliable accounts of that morning, who was captured on videotape fleeing uptown...."

According to the official account, Giuliani was in a meeting in Upper Manhattan when the first plane hit the WTC. He then left the meeting and went to the WTC site in Lower Manhattan. He was there when the second plane hit the WTC.

I have done a Google search and can find nothing about such a videotape. I e-mailed Keillor twice to ask for a source. No response. Keillor's column is syndicated through Tribune Media Services, so I contacted TMS. Here is the message I received from the managing editor on September 5:

"Thank you for your message. We do extensive fact-checking on all the columns we send out, including Mr. Keillor's. I have forwarded your message to the editor in charge of the column. If there are errors, we truly regret that, but the editor is meticulous and sometimes there are different interpretations of statements in a column. Certainly we will check out your questions."

I followed up at the end of September and received this message from TMS:

"In the initial editing of the column, Mr. Keillor's direct editor approved the use of the language that you are questioning. While it may be open to interpretation, we stand behind the sense that Mr. Keillor intended."

I believe I interpreted Keillor claim in the same sense as he intended. What other intepretation could one have? It is quite a charge to say that Giuliani was not a leader on 9/11 and that he fled the scene. If Keillor and TMS have evidence to support this charge, why do they refuse to share it? If there is no evidence, why do they refuse to apologize to readers. In either case, the Journal-World should refrain from publishing Keillor's column until he provides evidence or apologizes. They continued to run Robert Scheer's column long after he was proven to be dishonest. Why repeat the same mistake?

Keillor's column does not appear to be in the J-W online archives. Here's another site with the column:http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=364x1971571

BTW, Keillor has displayed dishonesty in the past regarding 9/11. Last March he wrote the following: “I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era theother day in an airport, and he said that what mostoffended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. ‘You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing,’ he said. ‘I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order.’” See http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/15/keillor/index_np.html

Of course, the August 6 PDB said absolutely nothing about planes being hijacked and crashed into buildings, yet Keillor presented it to readers as fact. The information in the PDB concerned an uncorroborated 1998 report about the possibility of planes being hijacked to win the release of ther Blind Sheikh and other Islamofascists in captivity in the U.S.

More Journal-World hypocrisy

2006-10-01T23:13:00.000-04:00

With the Lawrence Journal-World banning conservatives from its online forum and, apparently, its letters to the editor section, I found it interesting that the same newspaper would publish this letter to the editor.

If you removed the name-calling, personal attacks, and falsehoods, there wouldn't be a single sentence left.

Pay no attention to that man behind the white hood

2006-10-01T10:45:00.000-04:00

In his September 17, 2006 column, Kansas City Star columnist Rhonda Chriss Lokeman praises Sen. Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, for fathering Constitution Day.

"No one in Congress is more passionate about the Constitution than the West Virginian Byrd," Lokeman writes. "He carries a small bound copy in his pocket 'close to my heart.'"

Further:

"Critics view Byrd, who opposed the war in Iraq, as an obstructionist to this presidency and a partisan Democrat when, in fact, he is one of the few principled leaders in Congress willing to lecture his colleagues on constitutional matters. His is not a partisan pitch but the voice of a true patriot."

What Lokeman, an African-American, failed to note was that this "true patriot" was a Kleagle (i.e., recuiter) with the Ku Klux Klan, participated in the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and voted against confirming both African-American nominees to the Supreme Court (Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas). Byrd also opposed George W. Bush's African-American nominees, such as Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In addition, Byrd used the N-word on national television as late as 2001. As an example of blatant liberal media bias, Byrd's recent use of the word was largely ignored, while GOP Sen. George Allen's alleged used of the word when he was in college has been a major issue in newspapers and on the network news.

Unfortunately, for the Bush-hating Lokeman, Byrd's opposition to President Bush trumps all else, including Byrd's racism and opposition to laws that probably made it possible for Lokeman to have the column she writes today.

Hey, maybe we should teach about counterinsurgency

2006-10-01T10:19:00.000-04:00

In an October 1, 2006, article Lawrence Journal-World reporter Joel Mathis starts with this paragraph:

"After a half-decade fighting guerrillas in Afghanistan — and another three years doing the same in Iraq — the U.S. military has decided to start some hard thinking about how to battle insurgencies."

I doubt Mathis has ever worn a military uniform, so his insult against the military was probably unintentional. However, an editor should have caught the error.

The fact is, the military started thinking about how to battle insurgencies long before this summer. The School of the Americas has been teaching counterinsurgency warfare for more than 50 years. The military published a new counterinsurgency guide in 2004. Also, a counterinsurgency academy for soldiers and Marines in Iraq was set up before the Counterinsurgency Center at Ft. Leavenworth came into existence.

This writer interviewed a former Green Beret shortly after 9/11. He was called back to Ft. Leavenworth just a year after 9/11 to prepare officers for the fight against al Qaeda, which, of course, included counterinsurgency instruction.

“They wanted me to consult and teach special operations," said the former Green Beret. "I went back to the Middle East a couple of times and the Far East a couple of times to be an advisor/consultant/instructor and assist our Special Operators with the global war on terror. I now have six retired lieutenant colonels working for me at Fort Leavenworth. When I was a student in Staff College, we had basically one hour of special operations instruction. We now have 400 hours of special operations instruction, which we have designed, written, and now instruct.”

On a personal note, I looked through my "Individual Training Record" while I was an enlisted Marine between 1982 and 1986. I had at least eight training sessions on counterinsurgency/counterterrorism and one Marine Corps Institute course on counterinsurgency during that period.

So, obviously, the military started giving some serious thought on how to battle insurgencies long before this summer.

Ban Extended to LTE?

2006-09-30T17:53:00.000-04:00

I had reported earlier that the Lawrence Journal-World began banning certain conservatives from its online forum. After reports that conservatives were having their letters to the editor rejected, I e-mailed Ann Gardner, the J-W's editorial page editor, and asked if the ban had been extended to the submission of letters to the editor. Her failure to respond would appear to indicate that it indeed has.

Being Frank About Franking

2006-09-28T13:02:00.000-04:00

The Lawrence Journal-World on August 12 ran an 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 Third, doing a similar mailout "right before the deadline." That mailout also concerned energy issues. The Kansas Meadlowlark has posted Moore's postcard.

Boyda can be expected to criticize Ryun's franking while conveniently ignoring Moore's franking. She's a desperate policitican looking for any excuse to smear her opponent. However, an objective newspaper would have taken the effort to look into the franking privileges of both incumbents. The Journal-World did not, and has not, done that.

Journal-World forum bans conservatives

2006-09-26T22:17:00.000-04:00

In August, the moderators of the Lawrence Journal-World forum began banning conservative posters, ostensibly due to "habitual name-calling and harassing." According to Dan Cox, director of new media, yours truly had "historically been a great example of someone who gets into intense ideological arguments but maintains an honorable level of civility." Nevertheless, I was banned after "name calling with another poster that we had banned earlier for the same thing and then brought back after he had agreed to abide more by the site's use-policy."

The poster who was banned earlier claims that he spent time in prison after killing someone. The same poster habitually calls conservtives evil fascists and calls into question their character. My sin was merely asking him why, considering a background that he himself shared with other posters, he feels comfortable passing judgment on others. Other conservatives were banned for similar "sins."

Meanwhile, one liberal poster who strongly implied that Attorney General Phill Kline molests his own daughter has been allowed to continue posting on the Journal-World forum. Another liberal poster actually broached the topic of my dead brother in an attempt to "harass" me. She has yet to be banned.

Cox was asked to explain the blatant double standard, but did not respond.

If the Journal-World cannot run its forum in a fair and balanced manner, then it is time for Cox to shut it down.

Dennis Moore viewed as "moderate to conservative"?

2006-09-05T19:16:00.000-04:00

In an article written after the August 1 primary election, Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild wrote that incumbent 3rd District Congressman Dennis Moore “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 “House Hero” after the organization assigned him a perfect LQ of 100. Meanwhile, the overall average LQ for Democratic House members that year was 88. In fact, Moore’s LQ has been higher than the overall average LQ for Democratic House members in four of the seven years ADA has rated his votes.

Moore’s average LQ for the seven years ADA has rated his votes is 85. The overall average for all Democratic House members during those seven years is 85.7. Does anyone view the average House Democrat as “moderate to conservative”?

The Journal-World will have many more articles concerning Rep. Moore between now and the general election in November. If labels must be used, shouldn’t Moore be characterized as a “liberal Democrat”? After all, the Journal-World notes that its goal is to “provide fair, accurate and honest information to the community.”

Star confused over Alito

2006-01-23T22:17:00.000-05:00

The Kansas City Star on January 23 urged U.S. senators to vote against the confirmation of Supreme Court justice nominee Samuel Alito.

According to the Star, "Alito consistently supported restrictions on abortion."

Of course, this is not true. As NPR reported, "Alito's record on abortion cases is not one-sided. As an appeals court judge in 2000, he helped overturn a New Jersey ban on what opponents call 'partial-birth abortions,' a surgical procedure of extracting a fetus from the womb between the fifth and ninth months of pregnancy."

The Star also noted that it had "supported Bush’s earlier nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice, in part because he understood that the framers intended the Constitution to 'apply to changing conditions.'” The Star went on to say, "Alito appears to think the framers viewed their work as set in stone, which is simply incorrect. "

However, the Star criticized Alito for refusing to "say the crucial Roe v. Wade ruling was 'settled law.'”

Perhaps Alito is allowing for the possibility that conditions have changed since 1973 and that Roe is not set in stone.

Lastly, the Star said Alito "said little of substance during his hearings before the Senate." I feel the same way whenever I read an editorial in the Star.

One poll a trend makes?

2005-12-14T10:32:00.000-05:00

As of today, all polling firms listed at PollingReport.com show President Bush's job approval rating has improved since early November. Nevertheless, KMBZ on December 14 cited a single Zogby International poll as evidence that Bush's approval rating was dropping again. By the way, Zogby's polling numbers prior to the 2004 presidential election were so bad that National Review concluded that pollsters such as Zogby "deserve to be mocked at every public appearance." See http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200411031159.asp.

Bush Republicans as axe-wielding apes

2005-05-12T18:34:00.000-05:00

The Lawrence Journal-World on May 10 published a Pat Oliphant editorial cartoon in which "Bush Republicans" were portrayed as axe-wielding apes outside Bill Moyers' office at PBS. It also published an accompanying column by Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New Republic, that attacked "Republican hacks" for "strangling" PBS and NPR.

Chait notes that Kenneth Tomlinson, the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which controls NPR and PBS, " has appointed a pair of ombudsmen who can report on the networks' political bias."

" One of them is William Schulz, a full-blooded movement conservative," Chait writes. The other is Ken Bode, whom Chait claims "tries to be painstakingly evenhanded." Chait did not mention that Bode was a strategist in liberal Democrat Morris Udall's 1976 presidential campaign.

Chait's column was definitely argued from the left, so, if a political cartoon was to accompany it, it would not be unreasonable to expect a cartoon that balanced that arugment. Instead, the Journal-World opted to publish a cartoon that not only attacked those who see a liberal bias at PBS (even Current, a newspaper founded in 1980 by the National Association of Educational Broadcasters, a forerunner and parent of both PBS and NPR, recognizes the lack of balance on PBS), but suggested those who make those claims are irrational beings. We all know that liberals would never be portrayed this way in the pages of Lawrence's daily newspaper.

Here's something the Journal-World should keep in mind the next time it is tempted to portray Bush Republicans as axe-wielding apes:

According to the latest Audit Bureau Circulations data, the Lawrence Journal-World had an average daily circulation of 19,449—(6*daily + Sunday)/7—during the six months that ended on March 31, 2005.

The 2005 Editor & Publisher Market Guide placed the total number of households in this market at 52,712 in 2000. E&P also estimated the number of households in Douglas County would grow from 35,591 in 2000 to 41,620 in 2005. This estimate would bring the total number of households in the market to at least 58,741. Using this figure, the Journal-World’s household penetration rate is, at most, 33 percent, down from over 60 percent just 25 years ago.

John Kerry won Douglas County in 2004 with 57 percent of the vote, and it would be reasonable to expect the Journal-World’s editorial page to reflect the slight liberal advantage in its home county.

However, it should also be noted that the number of Bush voters (20,544) in Douglas County was greater than the Journal-World’s daily circulation.

If your household penetration rate is dropping at a rapid pace, it might not be a good idea to publish cartoons that insult a large percentage of your readers.

Talk radio promotes liberal angst

2005-04-30T01:06:00.000-05:00

In his April 27 Journal-World column entitled “Talk radio promotes anger,” KU Law School professor Mike Hoeflich writes about his recent encounter with talk radio.

Hoeflich concludes that the talk radio he has heard is “dangerous,” and that talk show hosts are “very angry people who seem to use their shows as a form of public therapy.” (Translation: “These hosts are conservatives—they must be crazy.”)

Hoeflich goes on to write that the hosts frequently make false or misleading statements. “I have just been shocked by the number of times I have heard talk show hosts make incorrect statements of fact,” Hoeflich writes. “Sometimes I think that they simply make things up as they go along. I suppose that the explanation for this may well be that no one can know everything and since people often telephone with obscure questions, one cannot expect the host's show to know all the answers. But must they give incorrect answers?”

Oddly, nowhere in his 600-word column does Hoeflich cite an example of a false or misleading statement. One would expect an attorney to provide evidence to back up a charge.

Hoeflich then takes a stab at determining the make up of the talk radio audience. “My sense is that the listeners tend to be people in cars and trucks, elderly folks sitting at home, and those who, for one reason or another, have little better to do,” he writes.

This may come as a surprise to Hoeflich, but there are many people who are capable of listening to talk radio at the same time they are doing other things. In fact, many of those people in cars and trucks are actually driving while listening. As far as being elderly (ageism, anyone?), a Talkers Magazine survey in 2004 found that just 7 percent of the talk radio audience is 65 or older. Eighty-four percent of the audience is between 25 and 64, i.e., the years during which most people are in the workforce. Seventy-two percent voted in the 2000 election, 70 percent have at least some college, and 68 percent have annual household incomes over $50,000. It appears as if the talk radio audience includes many in the productive middle class, not folks with nothing better to do.

Hoeflich concludes his column as such: “Isn't it time to get rid of the ‘shock jocks,’ the angry, bitter, outrageous talk show hosts, and the ignorant masters of nothing and begin to offer radio programs that entertain and educate rather than reinforce prejudice, intolerance, and hatred? I hope so.”

If it is “dangerous,” liberals naturally want to get rid of it. Handguns kill people, get rid of them. Alar poisons children, get rid of it. Abortion kills babies, get … well, there are exceptions.

After reading Hoeflich’s columns for several years, I believe his 600-word column could have been reduced to three sentences: “I recently discovered talk radio. It is overwhelmingly conservative. Therefore, we need to get rid of it.”

I suppose I should cut Hoeflich a little slack. The day after his column appeared in the Journal-World, the New York Post reported that the Secret Service was investigating the all liberal Air America for “shooting” President Bush on-air. Of course, I don’t believe you can pick up Air America on an AM radio in Lawrence, Kansas. In any case, I doubt Hoeflich heard anything as “dangerous” as that from conservative talk show hosts. And if we’re going to get rid of “outrageous” talk radio hosts, perhaps those who advocate the assassination of a president should be gotten rid of first. However, it’s my sense that Hoeflich will give Air America a pass.

Schenk's Fonda Jane

2005-04-21T08:31:00.000-05:00

A day after a disabled veteran spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face in Kansas City, KMBZ morning host Ellen Schenk told listeners that Fonda "recently said she regretted visiting Vietnam" during the war.

First, there were two Vietnams at the time Fonda went overseas. Numerous celebrities visited SOUTH Vietnam during the war with USO tours. Fonda visited NORTH Vietnam. That's a major difference.

Second, Fonda has never said she regretted going to North Vietnam. When she spoke before the National Press Club last Thursday, she stated that she had no regrets about participating in the anti-war or going to Hanoi. However, she reiterated her statement, first made in 1988, that she regretted having her picture taken while she was on the anti-aircraft gun. This was the only thing Fonda apologized for when she appeared on 60 Minutes in April to promote her new book.

Scheer dishonesty

2005-04-15T22:40:00.000-05:00

During the week leading up to the Pope John Paul II's funeral, you couldn't tune into CBS, ABC, CNN, or any other media outlet and hear that the Pope opposed to the war in Iraq. Of course, that didn't stop The Los Angeles Times' Robert Scheer from making the following claim in a column: "OK, I get it, the pope was a really important guy. So why, during weeks of fawning coverage of his humanity and the elaborate Vatican funeral rituals, did American journalists and politicians ignore the pontiff's passionate opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?"

If you're not familiar with Scheer, he is largely responsible for the lie that the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million prior to 9/11. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix dealt with Scheer's lie shortly after 9/11, after talking heads on the left and right started repeating the lie. The $43 million did not go to the Taliban, as Scheer claims. In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted that the humanitarian aid would bypass the Taliban. Scheer also failed to note that the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan was a continuation of a Clinton administration policy. That administration sent $114 million to Afghanistan during 2000.

Scheer's column appeared in the Lawrence Journal-World on April 15. Newspapers should publish views from those on the far left. However, there are enough honest liberals in the world that the Journal-World shouldn't allow a dishonest one like Scheer a platform for his lies.

Precious privilege becomes a right

2005-04-11T23:10:00.000-05:00

In her March 18 column entitled "Narrow-minded Majority," the Kansas City Star's Barbara Shelly writes, "Conservatives were outmaneuvered in Topeka last session and missed the chance to send Kansans to the polls to defend the sanctity of marriage, preserve the Judeo-Christian tradition and spare the state from the homosexual agenda and activist judges."

"Whose day-to-day lives are actually worse off if committed gays and lesbians enter into formal lifelong partnerships?," Shelly asks. " I haven't yet heard a good answer to that one. Who gets hurt by these public votes to deny a precious privilege to a minority group?"

Speaking for myself, my day-to-day life wouldn't be worse off. However, I also don't believe my day-to-day life would suffer if some guy in Olathe were married to five women. The point is we as a society have placed limits on the "precious privilege" known as marriage. Shelly and other liberals would unlikely expand the privilege to one man and one tree or to one man and five women, so the difference between the "narrow-minded majority" and the "enlightened" liberals is at what point do we place the limits. A majority believes the point should be where it has always been in Kansas and this country, i.e., marriage is between one man and one woman.

Further into her column, Shelly changes the "precious privilege" of marriage into a "right" t0 marry: "You can't affirm a person as an equal and then deny him or her access to the same legal and human rights that you take for granted."

Given that all rights are individual rights, the belief that there is a right to marry is where those activist judges come in. The late Balint Vazonyi explained the misinterpretation of rights in America's 30 Years War (1998): "What do we make of the assertion by a highly placed member of the judiciary that 'rights not listed in the Constitution are cherished, if anything, more than the ones that are'? What is the source of such rights? Who guarantees them? Judge Reinhardt's first example is the right to marry. But since marriage will occur only with the consent of two people, no individual can assert a right to it. Government cannot require the consent of either party, thus government cannot deliver a guarantee for it."

Now outside money is bad

2005-04-08T23:05:00.000-05:00

In his March 30 column in the Lawrence Journal-World, KU law professor Mike Hoeflich laments the fact that money from outside of Kansas was being used in the campaigns for the "gay marriage amendment" (sic) and the proposed taxpayers' bill of rights.

"In the past, outside money has flooded into Kansas for election campaigns," Hoeflich writes. "Given the very close contests for control of the U.S. House and Senate in recent years, the national political parties have had very good reasons for wanting to support their candidates' campaigns."

Hoeflich continues: "But recently, money has been coming into Kansas campaigns that have no direct bearing on national politics." Further, "Whatever is decided on April 5 or in future votes on policy issues should reflect the considered votes of Kansans, free from outside influence. I would hope that our Legislature would consider the very real dangers of outside campaign funding and find ways, if not to stop it, to at least regulate it better."

Of course, this isn't the first time that money from out of state has funded campaigns that have no bearing on national politics. In fact, out-of-state money was used to fund the living-wage campaign right here in Lawrence.

In the spring of 2000, the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice (LCPJ) applied for and received a $5,500 New Initiatives Fund (NIF) grant from the Central Regional office of the American Friends Service Committee (LCPJ was founded by members of the Oread Meeting of the Society of Friends in the late 1970s). The grant was used to launch the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA) and to hire a part-time coordinator. AFSC's Central Regional office, which is based in Des Moines, Iowa, has also given grants to the Flinthills Living Wage Campaign in Manhattan, Kan., and The Kansas Action Network "for support of a statewide Living Wage Conference designed to strengthen KAN's member organizations and build their capacity to act locally and statewide to achieve fair wage victories."

KVLWA in 2002 received $3,000 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society. The UUA, which is based in Boston, Mass., gave KVLWA another $3,200 in 2004 for "a campaign to ensure implementation of the new living wage law and to build a social justice coalition."

Incidentally, UUA operates "Freedom to Marry" campaigns in support of same-sex marriage in several states. It does not appear that any UUA money was sent to Kansas to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Manhattan, contributed $157.60 to the Flint Hills Human Rights Project), but the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC) contributed $5,000 to Kansans for Fairness, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. (Interestingly, Kansans for Fairness' list of founding organizations includes ProKanDo, the political action committee founded by Wichita abortionist George Tiller. ProKanDo's receipts and expenditures reports show numerous out-of-state contributions, money that was funneled to pro-abortion candidates in Kansas. Would Hoeflich have Kansas ban such contributions and outside influence?)

Hoeflich was writing his column for the Journal-World during the entire living-wage campaign, yet never complained about the "outside influence" then. He also failed to take HRC to task for the "very real dangers" of its "outside campaign funding."

Could it be that Hoeflich is only against out-of-state contributions when those contributions are given to campaigns with which he disagrees?

DeLay chastised, Reid ignored

2005-04-08T09:25:00.000-05:00

Taking its lead from Democrat Party talking points, the Kansas City Star today attacked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for allegedly funneling half a million dollars to his wife and daughter. The money came from DeLay's political action and campaign committees, not from taxpayers.

The Star also noted that members of the House need "to review similar though smaller payments to relatives of other lawmakers in both parties."

If The Star is truly concerned about the relatives of politicians benefiting finacially from such relationships, why stop with a Republican and why stop with the House?

It has been known for some time that the four sons and son-in-law of Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, have benefited financially from their relationship with the senator. A chart produced by The Los Angeles Times in 2003 shows that the boys' firms received far more than one million dollars.

Kansas Media Watch has invited The Star to write an editorial on Sen. Reid's ethical lapses. We received this mesage from Mirriam Pepper, The Star's editorial page editor:

"Thanks for the tip to the LAT piece. I'm sure you noticed that we mentioned Democratic ethical breaches and specifically used Jim Wright in the editorial. But you should also recall that we've got a long history of vigorously criticizing powerful Democrats in Washington -- Wright, Dan Rostenkowski and many others. We criticized Reid's predecessor, Tom Daschle. The page blasted the Clinton administration for its ethics problems, and printed loads of editorial cartoons against Clinton as well. So please be assured that there is a willingness to go after top Democrats when they deserve it, and we always appreciate good tips. It's important to remember that Democrats aren't in power right now, so they inevitably get less attention -- just as the Republicans did, back when Democrats ran Washington."

Of course, Jim Wright left Congress in 1989 and Dan Rostenkowski's scandal occurred more than a decade ago. A search of the words "editorial, Tom, Daschle, ethics" in The Star's archive's results in just one entry, and that 1994 editorial claims that "the Democrats have made wise choices in their top leadership races."

Many people would consider Sen. Reid's actions vis-a-vis his sons and son-in-law far less ethical than Rep. DeLay paying his wife and daughter from his own committee funds. If Reid's sins "inevitably get less attention" because his party is currently in the minority, will we have to wait for The Star to finally give them attention if and when Reid's party becomes the majority?

Wichita Eagle supports starvation of innocent Americans

2005-04-07T08:44:00.000-05:00

More than a week after Terri Schiavo was starved to death, The Wichita Eagle weighed in with its opinion on the case: "Apparently tone-deaf to public unease with Congress' clumsy intervention in the Schiavo case -- polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved -- these conservatives are playing to their political base by pushing ahead with efforts to intimidate the judiciary for not handing down the 'right' decisions."

The Eagle is apparently referring to a misleading ABC News poll that had implied that Schiavo was on life support. A Zogby International poll with fair and accurate questions found that 79% of those polled answered "should not" to the following question: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?

Zogby also noted that its poll "lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts."

The headline for The Eagle's editorial is "Schiavo judges just doing their jobs." Didn't we hear that same excuse many times during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials?

Kansas newspapers mischaracterize same-sex vote

2005-04-06T08:15:00.000-05:00

The Kansas City Star, the Lawrence Journal-World, The Wichita Eagle, and the Topeka Capital-Journal today all inaccurately referred to the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage as a "gay-marriage ban."

As noted last week, Wikipedia says, "Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as gay marriage, but the legal implications extend beyond the lesbian and gay population. In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."

It should also be noted that a heterosexual man would also be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man.

One of the reporters who used the term "gay marriage" in his article today admitted to me last week that "same-sex marriage" was the more accurate term. Use of the less accurate term suggests the newspapers have a political agenda.

Kansas media largely ignore hate crime

2005-04-04T16:50:00.000-05:00

(Kansas Media Watch note: The message below was sent out as an E-Flash by Senator Tim Huelskamp on April 3. Kansas Media Watch was unable to find a mention of the fire in the Kansas City Star, Topeka Capital-Journal-Journal, or Lawrence Journal-World.)

Church Nearly Torched by Anti-Marriage Activists

In an attempt to intimidate supporters of traditional marriage, a church in Wichita, Kansas was nearly torched last weekend by opponents to the proposed Kansas Marriage Amendment.

In a story reported only by KAKE News, someone viciously torched a pro-amendment yard sign and the lawn of the Trinity Baptist Church. The flames from the fire clearly came within feet of the church itself. A shaken pastor Craig Atherton reported the burning incident to the police. This the second act of intimidation against this church in the last five days – last week someone also destroyed two other signs on the property.

Violent and desperate acts like these have absolutely no place in our election system. These charred grounds are clearly an attempt to intimidate supporters of the Marriage Amendment. These actions not only violate our state laws against voter intimidation, but most assuredly they are violations of federal civil rights protections. No one should have to be fearful for taking a stand for marriage.

Outside of KAKE News, the week-old story apparently has been completely ignored by every major media outlet. While the mainstream media has issued multiple editorials attacking the Amendment and our motives, no other mention of the torching can be found anywhere on the Internet. Can anyone say MEDIA BIAS?!?

Imagine how loudly the calls for a HATE CRIME investigation would have been if the violence had not been done to a conservative, Christian church?

Let us not be intimidated. Please call or E-mail at least 10 friends between now and Tuesday morning. Kindly remind them of Tuesday’s vote and encourage them to vote YES on the Marriage Amendment!!

One may access the intimidation story at this site: Sign Burned at Church

Beaver Island doesn't give a dam about Bush (oldie)

2005-04-01T13:53:00.000-05:00

David Broder's August 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post had the headline "Politics on Beaver Island" and was about Mary Stewart Scholl, a Democrat on the Lake Michigan island. In 2000, Bush won Beaver Island over Al Gore, 186 to 173.

"If this election is as close as it now appears, Karl Rove may have to figure out how to land Air Force One on Beaver Island," Broder wrote. " Just to offset Mary Scholl."

A day later, the closeness of the election had shifted decidedly in Kerry's favor, at least according to this Lawrence Journal-World headline for Broder's column: "Kerry has island of support."

Headline switches focus from "hefty-lefty" to Bush (oldie)

2005-04-01T13:40:00.000-05:00

Here are the opening paragraphs of a February 6, 2004 column written by the Orlando Sentinel's Peter A. Brown:

"The presidential campaign is already so nasty that the Democratic establishment is taking its cues from filmmaker Michael Moore.

"It shows, sadly, that the Democrats believe their core supporters hate Bush so much they don't care about the truth of accusations that impugn his character."

The headline for this column in the Sentinel was "Dems' military guru a lefty filmmaker?"

When the Lawrence Journal-World published Brown's column on February 10, 2004, the headline was "AWOL report still dogging Bush."

One Golden Fraud? (oldie)

2005-04-01T13:20:00.000-05:00

In a February 21, 2004 Lawrence Journal-World editorial entitled "Deception" (which, incidentally, borrowed liberally from a Tim Rutten column entitled "Now smear this: a Web of deceit" in the February 18, 2004 issue of The Los Angeles Times), the following claim was made:

"Then there was a doctored photo showing Kerry, a decorated and thrice-wounded Vietnam Navy veteran, sitting with Jane Fonda, the controversial actress reviled by many for her wartime sentiments." Further, "the picture was circulated widely over the Internet and even made some newspapers, false as it was."

There was a doctored photo that showed Kerry seated while Fonda stood behind a podium. However, the photo of Kerry and Fonda sitting together was not doctored. It was taken by photojournalist Leif Skoogfors at a September 7, 1970 Vietnam Veterans Against the War rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and can be found and licensed at Corbis. The Kerry campaign has confirmed that Kerry was a speaker at the rally. The New York Times covered the rally and reported that Jane Fonda was also a speaker.

The same Journal-World editorial suggested that "the various media think they have a credibility problem." Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.

The Journal-World never published a correction concerning this editorial.

Bush works things out after pullout (oldie)

2005-04-01T13:00:00.000-05:00

The Kansas City Star's Rhonda Chriss Lokeman on February 15, 2004 wrote, "while untold numbers of young men and women were losing their limbs and lives in Southeast Asia, Bush somehow 'worked things out.'"

By "worked things out," Lokeman was referring to George W. Bush leaving the National Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School.

Bush was last paid for Guard duty on July 30, 1973. The last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The official halt of combat activity in Southeast Asia occurred on August 15, 1973, when the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ended. In other words, official combat activity in Southeast Asia ended before Bush began business school.

If Lokeman were truly concerned about a future president who "worked things out," she could have written a column about Bill Clinton, who missed his draft induction date of July 28, 1969. How did he work that out, especially in a year in which nearly 10,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in action?

Diuguid's shifting lies

2005-03-31T14:52:00.000-05:00

In his March 23 column, Lewis W. Diuguid, angered by e-mails "gloating" over the successful election in Iraq, shoots back and claims that the rationales for the war shifted during the past two years:

"Tens of thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers have suffered injuries in a war that Bush first sold as a way to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. "

"The reason for the war and casualties later shifted to the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

"The pro-war push shifted to giving the Iraqis the gift of democracy."

All three of those reasons were mentioned in the very first sentence of President Bush's March 19, 2003 address to the nation: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Diuguid has apparently forgotten that President Bush on March 17, 2003 gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq, so the ouster of Saddam was an objective from the very beginning.

Jesus, amendment both silent on homosexuality

2005-03-31T14:36:00.000-05:00

In his February 2 column, Dave Seaton of The Winfield Courier, writes, "As the Kansas Legislature capitulates to demand for a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage — and civil unions — we might consider what Jesus had to say about homosexuality.

"... Absolutely nothing."

What a coincidence. The proposed amendment also says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.

Seaton also writes, "The idea that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of our society is a contemporary idea. It is a good idea, worth fighting for." If it is a good idea, an amendment that states marriage should be between one man and one woman should be part of that fight. Instead, Seaton calls the amendment a "step backward" and claims the amendment "would leave Kansas a less open-minded, less diverse place."

Diuguid decries media's "slacking off"

2005-03-31T12:06:00.001-05:00

In his March 30 column, Lewis W. Diuguid complains that the media have "slacked off" during the past few years. "During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the press mostly parroted President Bush and officials in his administration, claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction," Diuguid writes.

What Diuguid will not acknowledge is that claims concerning Iraq's WMD did not begin in 2001. The U.S. has operated under the belief that Iraq had WMD since 1991, and the Clinton administration continued to believe that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the U.S. until its very last days.

Few journalists questioned the claims concerning Iraq's WMD between 1993 and January 2001. In fact, CNN's Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw in February 1998 even moderated a town hall meeting in which Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger described the dire threat that Iraq and its WMD posed to the world. Neither Woodruff nor Shaw questioned any of the many claims made by the trio of national security principals.

If Diuguid sincerely believes that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the U.S. (even though it was on the State Department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire Clinton administration), why is his criticism of his fellow journalists' "slacking off" limited to their reporting during the current administration?

"Anti-choice" in headline (oldie)

2005-03-31T09:16:00.000-05:00

The Journal-World on January 29, 2004 included this editor's note following a letter from a woman who wrote that the Journal-World should use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" in its articles: "Like virtually all U.S. newspapers, the Journal-World follows the Associated Press Stylebook, which offers this guidance: 'Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion-rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.'"

The editor's note is exactly right about the AP Stylebook. However, when it comes to the abortion issue, the Journal-World doesn't always follow the stylebook. Here's an example from the January 19, 2004 issue: "Disclaimer upsets anti-choice group."

After The Chicago Tribune published two separate headlines in 2003 that included the term "anti-choice," public editor Don Wycliff in a November 6, 2003 column apologized to readers.

"In either case," wrote Wycliff, "the flaw was the same: The perpective of those who define the issues involved in terms of 'choice' was taken as normative, and the position of those whom disagree with them and define the issues differently was characterized in 'choice' terms. The result was two headlines that couldn't have been more slanted if they had come directly from the public relations office of NARAL Pro-Choice America."

When I talked to a representative of the Journal-World about the headline, I was told that since the article came from the AP, that headline probably came with the article. However, I was unable to find another media outlet in Kansas that used "anti-choice" in the headline. For example, the Topeka Capital-Journal's headline was "GOP flier upsets group."

As far as I know, the only other time a Journal-World staff member used "anti-choice" was in a November 1995 article, so it is not a common practice ("anti-choice" appears frequently in the newspaper's archives, but it is usually found between quotation marks). However, the Journal-World should have followed Wycliff's example and apologized to readers for publishing the slanted headline.

Heckling, standing ovations interrupt right-wing commentator

2005-03-31T09:08:00.000-05:00

The Journal-World's March 30 follow-up article and accompanying cutline on Ann Coulter's lecture at the Lied Center included three mentions of the "right-wing" label, including one reference to Coulter being a "right-wing conservative" (as opposed to a right-wing liberal?).

The article also mentioned that Coulter promised "to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience."

Alex P. Keaton strikes again

2005-03-29T17:58:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I noted that KMBZ morning news host Ellen Schenk compared high school students who are not opposed to government interference in the media to Alex P. Keaton, the young Republican in the 1980s sitcom Family Ties.

Today we have news that 21 members of Congress have sent a letter to ABC News president David Westin, asking ABC to remove Wal-Mart as the sponsor of the "Only in America" series on Good Morning America. All 21 members are Democrats--young and old.

Keep it clean, you draft-dodging miserable failure (oldie)

2005-03-29T17:30:00.000-05:00

During the early months of 2004, Rep. Dick Gephardt called President Bush a "miserable failure," Wesley Clark stood by and smiled while hefty-lefty filmmaker Michael Moore call the president a "deserter," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe echoed Moore and said Bush had been AWOL from his National Guard unit, Al Gore said Bush "betrayed" the American people, and Sen. John Forbes Kerry called Bush an "extremist." In addition, according to a blog on the official Kerry for President web site, Kerry's wife at a MoveOn.org house party in December 2003 handed out buttons that read "Asses of Evil" and featured the names of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft.

Given the harsh rhetoric Democrats have directed towards President Bush, it was nice to see a Kansas City Star editorial on March 4, 2004 with the headline "Kerry vs. Bush: Keep it clean." However, the content of the editorial was not quite what I had excepted. (Okay, it was what I have come to expect from The Star.)"Personal attacks and dubious charges will inevitably appear," The Star noted. "Republicans have relied on these attacks in recent presidential elections, and Democratic voters have made it clear this year they want their champion to fight fire with fire."

Further, "If [Bush] quickly turns to harsh personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, Kerry likely will respond in kind."

Kerry likely will respond in kind?

Ann Coulter is right-wing, right-wing, right-wing...

2005-03-29T11:45:00.000-05:00

According to the headline in the March 29 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, "Lecture to feature right-wing commentator." "Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter has made a career bashing liberals and otherwise pushing political hot buttons," the article noted. The term "right-wing" was used again in a cutline and in a second headline on page 4A. Even the "continued on" line on page 1A invited readers to "Please see RIGHT-WING on page 4A." Coulter merited a total of five mentions of the "right-wing" label.

I wondered if the Journal-World used the "left-wing" label with liberal visitors to Kansas University, so I did a little searching through the archives. When Molly Ivins visited Lawrence in 2001 to accept the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the headline on Feb. 10, 2001 merely read "Texas columnist Ivins receives White award." The word "left" did appear in the article twice, but not as an adjective.

When Ellen Goodman visited KU in 1995 to receive the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the Journal-World's headline read "Columnist to receive award." Goodman joked that she would probably fall into Rush Limbaugh's "femi-nazi" category, but the Journal-World offered no label to characterize Goodman's left-wing viewpoints.

Gay marriage vs. same-sex marriage

2005-03-28T20:42:00.000-05:00

The Lawrence Journal-World on March 28 included two front-page articles concerning the amendment on same-sex marriage that voters will consider on April 5. The first article includes the headline "Gay marriage ban poses unintended consequences ," while the second article begins, "When Bruce Ney of Lawrence was told that the Knights of Columbus dropped $100,000 into the Kansas campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage...."

These articles use the term "gay marriage," while the language of the proposed amendment makes no mention at all concerning sexual orientation. According to the proposed amendment, "The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."

According to this language a gay man could not marry a gay man. However, a straight man would also be prohibited from marrying another straight man. In addition, as Wikipedia notes, "In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."

While many journalists and readers might consider gay marriage and same-sex marriage to be the same thing, they are different. If newspapers want to be as accurate as possible, they should use the latter term when referring to the proposed amendment.

Not all medical records are equal

2005-03-28T20:13:00.000-05:00

In his March 2 Lawrence Journal-World column, Mike Hoeflich, a professor in the Kansas University School of Law, wrote that Attorney General Phill Kline’s “attempt to subpoena the medical records of patients who underwent late-term abortions are [sic] troubling to me on other grounds.” Hoeflich criticized Kline’s action because it puts “doctor-patient confidentiality” at great risk.

An item in the March 4 issue of the Journal-World noted that DNA helped lead police to BTK suspect Dennis Rader. According to the article, “…investigators had obtained DNA before Rader’s arrest from a tissue sample that came from his 26-year-old daughter’s medical records. They took it without her knowledge.”

Thus far, Hoeflich has not used his column to criticize the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality regarding the medical records of Rader’s daughter.

Schenk's left flank

2005-03-28T18:46:00.000-05:00

KMBZ’s morning news host, Ellen Schenk, on February 2 told listeners that a John S. and James L. Knight Foundation poll suggested that high school students “are more conservative today than you might think.” The poll found that only about half of the 100,000 students questioned believe that newspapers should be given free exercise of the press without government interference. Schenk then compared those who are not opposed to government interference to Alex P. Keaton, the young Republican on the sitcom Family Ties.

I e-mailed Schenk and asked her if she really meant to equate government interference in the media with conservatism. "You might be taking me a little too seriously," she replied. " It was just an offhand comment that kids are more conservative today than you might think. That's it, nothing more. "

I guess she did mean it. I'll remember that the next time Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats push the Fairness Doctrine again. Bill Ruder, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s assistant secretary of commerce, declared the following in 1987: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”