No liberal bias?

I think some excellent points re: Palin were raised over at Fat Jack's Erratic Rants.

Regarding how Palin would juggle the responsibilities of being the VP with her family life, Jack wrote:

"It is true that the media did not ask the same questions of Obama, Biden or McCain. The thing that complicates the issue further is that the media did not have to ask Obama or Biden about how they will balance their home lives. Both Obama and Biden freely offered this information in full during the course of their campaign. Palin has not had the opportunity to do so as her pick was sudden and surprising."

Jack goes on to discuss why he believes it's a legitimate question and I don't disagree with him on that point. He also praised Obama's handling of the issue of Palin's daughter being thrown into the fray. Well, okay, but I remember a time when I was much more partisan than I am today. I remember people on the other side of the political divide not letting the Bush campaign off the hook for things said by other people in the party, people who were not part of the campaign. Those people, the very people who wanted to hold Bush and/or his campaign directly responsible for say, the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth's campaign against Kerry, are most likely the very rabid, political animals who are engaged in the attempted character assassination of Sarah Palin. I say this just to make the point that there are people who, from their own partisan positions, will not accept that this isn't a direct part of the Obama "machine." If it was fair for the far left to claim Swift Boat Vets were part of the Bush political machine then, they may have to take a dose of their own medicine.

And, rest assured, I'm not directing this at my good Democrat friends, I actually have some and it's doubtful, to me, they'd be rooting for the continuance of this attempted character assassination of Palin.

Obama shouldn't be held accountable for everything everyone who supports him writes or says about his political opponent(s) anymore than I believed Bush should have been held accountable for everything everyone who supported him ever wrote or said about his political opponent(s).

What I appreciated about Jack's post and where I think this issue is the most saddening is when he wrote the above quoted segment. No one had "to ask Obama or Biden about how they will balance their home lives. Both Obama and Biden freely offered this information in full during the course of their campaign. Palin has not had the opportunity to do so as her pick was sudden and surprising."

Palin didn't have the chance, the vultures descended on her without giving her the opportunity to offer that information freely and voluntarily, as the other candidates have been able to do, and I think I've even heard that some people are proposing that she is unwilling to give that information, when the reality is, she just hasn't had the chance yet.

Certainly, Republicans have every right to complain. Michelle Malkin is doing a bit of complaining today. In Us magazine’s partisan hit job, Malkin pointed out a US magazine headline read: "John McCain's Vice President SARAH PALIN: BABIES, LIES & SCANDAL."

Malkin reminds readers of the June cover of US magazine on Barack Obama: "Michelle Obama, Why Barack Loves Her," further, on the cover, "She shops at Target, loved Sex and the City and never misses the girls' recitals. The untold romance between a down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her 'my rock'"

Precious.

Jason Wert of Life Of Jason, brought up the John Roberts question about Palin's ability to be VP and devote an appropriate amount of time to her special needs child, here. I thought at the time, the level of outrage was a bit over the top but, hmmm, maybe not. I had no idea the media firestorm that was waiting in the wings for Sarah Palin. It would have been nice, as Andy Cline pointed out, if Roberts had asked Palin rather than another reporter the question. Cline agreed, there was a legitimate question that could have been asked of Palin, well, rather than summarize what he wrote, here it is:

"Roberts and Bash are engaging in a practice typical of political reporting on TV today--a practice I object to: reporters talking to each other about issues as if they are experts. They should be reporting news, not engaging each other in speculation.

There is a legitimate question here that ought to be asked of the candidate. I would phrase it this way: What challenges does raising a special needs child present for a vice president?

Palin needs to be ready to respond to this reasonable question. What's unreasonable about the Roberts/Bash conversation is the underlying premise that one might not be able to handle both jobs well."

Certainly, it has provided more fodder for conservatives to declare there is a liberal bias in the media. Andy?

Life of Jason Interviews City Manager Candidates

Jason at Life Of Jason blog is doing email interviews with the City Manager candidates. He has two of them up so far. Good questions and interesting responses.

Excerpts, spotlighting one of the questions he posed to the candidates, with links to the first two email interviews:

Q & A: City Manager Candidate Greg Burris

LoJ Question:

4. How would you make your office accessible to the public and transparent on decision making?

I believe in the chain of command. While I consider myself accessible to the University community in my current position, I try to direct complaints to the lowest level in the organization able to solve the problem. I can’t solve all of the University’s problems myself . . . and if selected to be the City Manager, I won’t be able to personally solve all of the City’s problems, either.

My operating style tends to be transparent in the delivery of the solution, but the staff needs to be able to collect data, evaluate options, and determine the best points along the way to collect public input. I’m a big proponent of citizen advisory groups. In effect, I believe most citizens want the City to run like an efficient service business, and a careful balance must be achieved between operating efficiently and having to explain everything you’re doing to someone looking over your shoulder.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, I invite anyone to contact members of the University that they know and ask them about me. Ask what type of City Manager I would make. Most members of the University community will have an opinion about me, whether positive or negative.*

Q & A : City Manager Candidate Kent A. Myers

LoJ Question:

4. How would you make your office accessible to the public and transparent on decision making?

First of all, I think that it is important that my office create an environment of full accessibility to the public and I want all citizens to feel welcome and comfortable contacting or visiting my office at any time. I have always tried to set a positive example for the entire city organization with regard to public accessibility. I practice an “open door” policy in dealing with the public. I make it a practice to respond to phone calls, e-mails and letters on a timely basis. In contacting my office, I want to hear citizen concerns and complaints but I also want to hear their ideas and suggestions on how the city can progress and do our jobs better.

I have found that the public often times does not want to stop by City Hall to voice their concerns or offer their input. Therefore, in order to be effective in dealing with the public and get them involved with their city government, I have to get out of my office on a regular basis. If I am hired for the City Manager position in Springfield, you will see me out in the community attending meetings and special events and getting involved in a number of civic and professional organizations. In Hot Springs, for example, I have used community coffees and brown bag lunches as efforts to reach out to the community. I want to stay in touch with the needs and interests of the community in any way that I can.

Finally, I commit to working with the Public Information Officer to communicate to the public about any important activity or project involving their city government. I currently utilize such things as monthly radio shows, bi-monthly cable television programs, quarterly citizen newsletter and other ways to get our message out and be as transparent as possible.*

Update: Jason @ Life Of Jason has added Larry Stevens answers to his email interview questions:

Q & A : City Manager Candidate Larry Stevens

LoJ Question:

4. How would you make your office accessible to the public and transparent on decision making?

Transparency and openess is an emphasis of our city government in Edmond. About five years I created a seperate small department to coordinate and enhance our communication with the citizens we exist to serve. Extensive communication in a variety of forms would be a priority.*

Read more.

*"The author (Jason) gives permission for electronic, print or broadcast media to use information from any posting ONLY if a link to this blog site is provided and printed identification of the location of the information provided or the full web address of the site, www.lifeofjason.com, is mentioned as the source of the information."

Bitter cold

Winter sun warms the air in the car

a faux summer in an enclosed space

stepping out, the cold is bitter

like an aspirin dissolving in one's mouth

but not as bitter as the familiar

"fresh"

smell

of a nursing home.

Before

I breakfasted with you

then the familiar task of

cleaning your bedside

commode

I'm realizing that

visiting the nursing home is

like cleaning that commode

After a while even the cleaning solution

meant to freshen it

begins to wear

(This has been my offering in what appears to be a new craze in the blogosphere. The topic of commodes and plungers is catching on and I didn't want to be left "behind." No need to thank me, it was my pleasure.) :)

Thoughts on Jason's interview with the Mayor and the City Audit Report

I started this posting a few days ago and was just too dang busy to go back and finish it. It's kind of a mixed up mess but I'm going to try to make some sense out of it and post it because I'm taking a break for a bit.

The Peanut Gallery

I've been meaning to comment on this:

From The Life of Jason Interview: Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson, when Jason said:

"During the announcement of Mr. Hammons landing the deal for the arena site, you made the statement “I’ll bet any day of the week, I’ll bet on people that have got real money at risk, time, money and effort to spend as opposed to the people from the peanut gallery.” Several of your critics have taken this statement and said this proves you are not betting on the average Springfield resident but only those with money. I wanted to give you the chance to explain that statement and to explain what you meant by the term “peanut gallery.”

Mayor Carlson responded, in part:

"What I was responding to was this: there were people who had real money at risk who had entered into the competitive process to see who would get to build on that land. There were other people who were critics of the city government who said the process was rigged. What I was trying to say was this: Those people who were saying the process was rigged were not trying to acquire the land. The people that had their money at risk and had to decide whether to spend their money here and their resources really do drill down and figure out whether they think the rules are fair. Those people said it was fair..."

Well, yeah, sorta. Here's the timeline of Richard Baier of BC Development's statements. There was a bit of inconsistency there:

October 3 letter to Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith
“There does not seem to be a desire by the TIF Commission or the City to enter into open and fair competition for the development of these projects.”

October 5 interview with Vincent David Jericho on KSGF radio
Baier: “My only reluctance to do business in Springfield would be, if there’s a public bid type process. Maybe I don’t understand all the politics in that type of thing, and I would push away from doing that. But as far as private development, where I go down and look for a site to build a medical project or retail or whatever the case might be or another hotel, I’m all for that because I like Springfield.”
Vince: “So, private development, love to do; dealing with the City of Springfield, you’d have to think twice?”
Baier: “Yeah, I’d have to think a couple of times, there.”

October 22 City Council meeting
“We don’t feel that we’ve been mistreated in any way, shape or fashion on this process. We’re definitely interested in working with the city.”

The Audit Report Fall-out

I don't necessarily disagree with Doug Burlison that it would be counter productive to go on a witch hunt after hearing the audit report and reading what has been written after the report in the News-Leader and on certain blogs but I'm thinking that Councilman Burlison arrived at that position after being privy to the results of the audit for some time (like at least a YEAR). Burlison has had time to process the information from that audit and his end conclusion is that it is better to look ahead and fix the problems rather than look backward and try to place the blame. Burlison might be correct in his decision but, citizens of this city should be allowed that same span of time to process the information contained in the audit report and come to that conclusion after grappling with the facts of the audit report for a while. Citizens of Springfield deserve the same amount of time to fuss, complain and discuss the details of the audit report as, rest assured, the City Council has had and in more than one closed meeting prior to the hearing of the report December 6.

I suspect that these warnings against "witch hunts" and this promise to do better in the future is meant in some small way to placate the citizens, to calm the "Peanut Gallery," if you will. I don't resent the public's anger and frustration over the results of the audit on the City of Springfield. Just as the City and Council have had a good amount of time to come to grips with the state of this City, the citizens of this city deserve at least the same amount of time to process it. AND we deserve to be allowed to process it without being smeared and condemned for it or treated as though we are some second class, low-life "Peanut Gallerians" in the process.

Nationally, there has been an outcry from the American public for government accountability that will extend to local government and no amount of city officials patting citizens on the head will make it all go away.

So, to those citizens who take an interest in their local city government and criticize the way it has been run in past years, there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let anyone suggest you are being counter productive when you need the same amount of time to mentally process the results of the audit report that the city has had in dealing with and responding to the report. It is a natural process and will run it's natural course and citizens deserve to be allowed that process without being told they are "going on a witch hunt" or being counter productive. Don't believe it when you want to have your say in your local government and hold them accountable, it's your job.

The next shoe is going to drop on December 18 when the State Auditor releases and reports on the City Utilities audit. Poor timing for the City, they'll likely still be hearing from the public about the results of the City audit when they are faced with the new report on City Utilities and I suspect it's going to be a really big shoe.

City audit report

Jason, over at Life Of Jason, live blogged the audit report if you were unable to attend. Not exactly like being there but probably more detail than you'll get short of reading the report for yourself (links to the actual report will surely be available soon from more than one source on the internet and keep reading your copy of Community Free Press - Midweek).

It was pretty cold out there and the parking lot at City Hall was a bit icy when I arrived but had dried off a bit by the time we left.

Don't forget Vincent David Jericho's interview with State Auditor Susan Montee in the morning. That's 1260 am. "Johnny outta bed," at 6:00, OR you can listen to the pod casts here.

Jason apparently hung around and got a statement from City Council after I left. I was bitin' on a piece of lemon meringue pie by that time. ;)

Irreconcilable Differences, a repeat...

I don't normally read Roger Ray's From the Left columns at the News-Leader but, because of the marriage analogy, Jason at Life Of Jason perked my interest when he wrote Look Closer At Roger Ray . I wrote a marriage analogy from, at the time, a conservative Republican position back in 2006, at the height of liberal outcry against the war in Iraq.

Since then I have become an independent because I recognize there really isn't much difference between the two parties actions. But I think there is still some validity, though a bit dated, in my past entry from 2006, so for a bit of a different perspective than Roger Ray's on the marriage analogy and polarization of not just political parties, now, but Americans as a whole, here's the link:

Irreconcilable Differences

Here's a tease:

"Today America is polarized, there are clearly some irreconcilable differences between certain political pundits. What is a citizen to do when he or she would like to divorce themselves from the political antics and power plays by one party against the other?

I believe that Republicans, who clearly are more willing to fight for our security and safety in these states should be awarded the home, the car and custody of the kids. I plan to explain why I have come to this conclusion."

Coughing up a hairball

Stuff effects me because I'm human. I try to rise above pettiness but once in a while something just sticks in my "craw." I feel like a cat with a hairball that can't be coughed up and maybe it can't be coughed up because I haven't bothered to cough yet.

Well, such has been the case with some ugliness I've recently experienced in the blogosphere...and I don't want and haven't wanted to be a source of escalation, so I haven't been. I don't want to drag out an argument that seems to go nowhere because short of saying "I was wrong and you were right," there seems to be no solution. Sometimes it isn't that simple. Especially when dealing in impressions and opinions. People generally feel justified in their opinions. They usually have a reason for forming them. There is usually a basis and a foundation and an opinion has been built upon it and I think it is fair to acknowledge that.

I could address this posting at Life of Jason: To Those Visiting This Blog Based On Jackie Melton’s Comments. I could point out all the assumptions Jason has made about my character and listed as though fact and I could argue with him about each and every assumption but I choose to stay with the issue, the topic of the debate.

I've tried to put myself in his shoes, I've tried to consider how it must have felt to be called on an error, in fact, I know what it feels like to be called on an error. I've been called on them before and have been willing to even go to the extent of pulling an entire blog entry because I felt the person was correct when he charged that I had misrepresented him, but in this case I think we have two stubborn people who will not back down and, on my part, it isn't really about the "misrepresentation" that Jason claims I made against him. I understand that he probably didn't mean that Mattera had no right to state his opinion, I understand that he thinks that what Mattera said isn't conducive to civil debate and he even has a point there, however, where my stubbornness won't allow me to flatly state that "I was wrong and you were right," is in the justifiable foundation of the opinion I formed.

If it is justifiable that "any reasonable person" would have thought that Mattera was a reporter, based on impression then it is just as justifiable that based on my impression of Jason's words when he stated here that:

"I really dislike the manner in which Mr. Mattera turned the tone of his confrontation with Rep. Murtha. Mattera could have easily questioned Rep. Murtha and ended it when Rep. Murtha entered the elevator. His point was made when that happened…Rep. Murtha was going to avoid the issue and not apologize to the men he falsely branded murderers. However, Mr. Mattera went further and compared Rep. Murtha’s comments to something said by Al-Jazeera."

and

"Why can’t someone from the right…when they have a legitimate point against a liberal Democrat…just make your point and let it go without dragging up the “just like Al-Jazeera” crap?"

and later stated here that:

"...we cannot let people like Mr. Mattera run around like a right wing Michael Moore...."

...that he felt that Mattera's free speech should have been limited, self-limited perhaps, but limited, nonetheless.

Jason, at Life of Jason claims that Mattera's point had been made, but had it? What if Mattera wanted to make the point that Murtha's condemnation of those Lance Corporals sounded more like something Al-Jazeera would say than a Representative of Congress was a part of his point? Would that point have been made without expressly stating it? And if it would not have been made and it was a point that Mattera wanted to make which he felt had some validity does he have the right to make that statement or not?

All that to say that I understand it might have irritated and aggravated Jason that I pointed out an error in his posting on the Murtha vs Mattera issue, I can't really know if this is a part of Jason's attitude because he hasn't said that. I understand that he disagrees with me about whether Mattera's comment that what Murtha said about Lance Corporals being cold blooded murderers is more like something you'd hear on Al-Jazeera than from a Representative in Washington was a fair thing to say or not. I also feel it should be pointed out that Mattera was not calling Murtha a terrorist sympathizer, he was comparing words Murtha had spoken to something one might hear on Al-Jazeera and that's simply not the same thing.

So, sure, people enage in smear tactics, Jason's own blog piece written about me and full of assumptions is evidence of that, in and of itself. People do it on the left and they do it on the right and they've been doing it for generations.

There isn't much that moderates can do to control the words spoken by other people as they exercise their freedom of speech. It isn't as simple as whether we are going to "let" people run around saying whatever they want to say. If given the choice of "letting" people exercise their right of free speech or not "letting" them exercise their right of free speech, I'd choose to "let" them. On the other hand, I think it is fair to criticize people who make statements that are less than civil. Jason has a right to criticize Mattera, I wouldn't dream of stopping him from doing so. Jason has a right to form opinion based on his impressions and he does so regularly. So do I.

Nothing personal, Jason

Here's what Robert Novak said about The National Journalism Center:

"To any follower of the media, it is obvious that sensationalism rather than facts dominates news coverage today. Some institutions, thankfully, are working against that trend. One of the most renowned is the National Journalism Center."

The National Journalism Center is a program offered by Young America's Foundation. The Foundation also offers other events and programs.

But that doesn't matter.

Jason, over at Life Of Jason, wrote Jack Murtha’s Refusal To Apologize Doesn’t Justify This Reporter. The only problem with that statement is that according to the video I watched at Jason's blog, Mattera is identified as being "OF Young America's Foundation" and at Young America's Foundation's website Mattera is identified as a Spokesman for YAF.

Neither in the video Jason at Life of Jason posted (from HotAir) nor the one at Young America's Foundation identify Mattera as a "reporter" for anyone. You see, while Young America's Foundation has a Journalism program, Mattera didn't identify himself as a journalist or as associated with the National Journalism Center and if he is, I found no evidence of it.

Young America's Foundation's mission is one of:

"...ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values."

Their website boasts:

"The Conservative Movement Starts Here."

Mattera, a young American, is apparently inspired by ideas of individual freedom (translate free speech) and when happening upon Murtha, or even ambushing Murtha if you're more comfortable calling it that, he asked Murtha "if he'd like to issue an apology," to two Lance Corporals whose charges were in the process of being dropped after Murtha had accused them of being cold blooded murderers. The Young America's Spokesman then made a statement:

"You accused them of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood, that's something that would come from Al Jazeera, sir, not a Congressman."

...and then Mattera looked at the camera and smiled! He smiled!

It's just my opinion but I think Young America's Foundation is doing a rather fine job of inspiring freedom among young conservatives. It's a matter of Mattera's opinion that Murtha's statement would be something that would come from Al Jazeera, not a Congressman and he's got a right to his opinion.

I didn't write this to come down on Jason at Life of Jason, I like Jason and find myself agreeing with him more often than not. When I pointed out that Mattera said "Al-Jazeera" rather than "Al-Qaeda," Jason corrected it but he said it made no difference to him. I think there's a bit of difference but that's just my opinion.

I do think Jason was off the mark on this one, however, and wanted to set the record straight. Not to "get" Jason, but to make the point that a spokesman for Young America's Foundation has the same right to his opinion as anyone else, heck, for that matter he'd have that right even if he was a reporter rather than a spokesman. It isn't like journalists with much more experience and credentials haven't made statements rather than ask questions at a press conference or when talking to an interviewee before.

As far as Murtha goes...did he or did he not make the statement that the two Lance Corporals were guilty of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood before they had had their day in court? All of a sudden he seemed concerned, in the video, about whether the trial was still "ongoing" or not. he certainly didn't want to issue a premature apology! But, he wasn't at all concerned about due process when he called them cold blooded murderers. That's simply a statement of truth, sometimes the truth hurts and Murtha will have to deal with the truth just like the rest of us. There ain't no elevator walls thick enough to protect him from that.

Walk Now for Autism

I know I already posted on this yesterday but that was before Jason Wert and Amy Burnett appeared on KSGF. Listen to this pod cast from the Vincent David Jericho Show this morning and try to get out to the Walk Now for Autism event tomorrow.

From Jason's blog, Walk Now This Saturday:

This Saturday is the Walk Now For Autism event at Jordan Valley Park.Registration begins at 9am with the walk starting at 10. Families from all over the Ozarks who have children with autism will gather to raise awareness of autism and to raise money for research to help find a cure for their children.

Walk Now For Autism

Jason, of Life Of Jason, would like your support for Walk Now For Autism and has written a blog entry all about the event which will take place this Saturday, September 8.

Get all the scoop here.

He will also be on the Vincent David Jericho Show, 104.1 FM, 1260 AM, tomorrow morning (Friday) between 7:15 - 7:30.