Vincent David Jericho's Radio Show

I still get a lot of "hits" at JackeHammer from people who are looking for Vincent David Jericho.  I didn't know until recently that the link I had previously provided was no longer current.  So, if you're looking for Vince and can't find him there is a new listing under "Links" in the side bar of this blog, just look for Crossing the World.

His new Web site address is:

http://www.crossing-the-world.com/, and he does a show from 7-11pm every week night.  I watched the last thirty minutes or so of his show tonight.  It was nice to see his shiny face and hear the voice of my old friend again.  :)

Galen Chadwick of the Well-Fed Neighbor Alliance is on Vince's show every Wednesday night for those of you who'd like to check that out as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vincent David Jericho Back on the Air

Well, sorta. Jericho to be live on the net

If you'd like to hear/see Vincent David Jericho, click on this Web site and scroll down the page until you see the "Watch/Listen Online" button. It's pretty self explanatory. He'll be "on" from 7 AM - 11 AM beginning Monday March 1.

Good luck and blessings to him and on him.

Note: "Jericho Only" has been added to my list of links in the right hand column.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jericho's Wife Reaches out to Supportive Fans on Facebook

While the dust settles after the departure of Vincent David Jericho, his loyal listeners, friends, and fans are restless.

On Wednesday I received an invitation to join a new Facebook group called, "Defense of Vince." The group, so far, boasts 57 members. There are no upcoming events listed and there have been no discussions started.

Vince's wife Denise Jericho did, however, post a statement on the group's "wall" concerning why Vince was "fired and is silent." This is what she wrote:

"For all out there wanting to understand what has happened an(d) why Vince was fired and is silent. I can tell you that it was for not failings on his part. Understand that right now we are trying to sort out things out. This has been a very difficult month. The goings on did not start on the 28th of December, so there is... much to sort thru. We appreciate all your prayers and words of encouragement. You have no idea what it does for Vince and I to see everyone reaching out like this and I for one am truly grateful."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vincent David Jericho: No Longer Hosting KSGF's Morning Show

My first tip that Vincent David Jericho is no longer going to be hosting the morning show for KSGF came when a friend of mine told me all references to Vince had been wiped clean from KSGF's Web site.

This morning I received an email from another friend telling me Jericho's producer Kortni Williams said that as of yesterday afternoon Vince no longer worked for KSGF.

A few moments ago, Williams confirmed it via email:

Jackie,

Vince is no longer with Journal Broadcast Group and KSGF. It’s a personnel matter and our policy prohibits me from discussing this any further.

Kortni

I inquired as to whether Vince would be contractually prohibited from communicating with me about the circumstances surrounding his departure. Williams was not aware of any contract and stated that she, herself, is not under contract.


I have offered Jericho an opportunity to contact me and discuss what happened to cause his departure from the station. I hope he will take me up on that offer as I know many people would like to know why their favorite local radio talk show host has left.


I believe Jericho paved the way for real dialog about local issues in Springfield. In particular, he opened the door for discussion about our local government and local politics.

Prior to Jericho, many (if not all) residents of Springfield were afraid to publicly question or criticize local government leaders. Whether this was justified or not is not the issue, I believe it is a fact that residents of Springfield feared repercussion if they questioned or exposed policy and behind the scenes action accepted and performed by the Springfield City Council and City staff.


Jericho voraciously and fearlessly questioned and on occasion attacked the actions of City government powers that be and was still standing at the end of the day...that is, until yesterday afternoon...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Simple and True

Finding the center

I was reminded when I read Saul Bellow's Nobel Lecture Thursday night, the center doesn't move, men move away from the center, and there is a need for the simple and true.

People look for the bottom line, people always have. They look to the press and media to research the details for them and tell them what they need to know, what is important and what has the potential to effect their daily lives. They look for the summary of an issue and the simple bottom line.

We must be careful not to live our lives as if they were the summary of a book we didn't care enough about to read, ourselves. If we do not care enough to find our own moral center, we become unbalanced. We become unbalanced as individuals and, as a nation made up of individuals, the collective effect is a morally, unbalanced nation.

One of my favorite poems has long been Mark Strand's "Keeping Things Whole." In a review of Strand and Robert Hass, "The New Yorker" offered its critique that Strand, who was moved from city to city and sometimes country to country as a child, wrote about powerlessness. Strand may have been offering a simpler reason for movement, claimed "The New Yorker," than the practical and serious reasons of his parents, he moved, simply, "to keep things whole." A powerless child looking for a simple and true summary of his being? I wonder if Strand felt he had a moral center?

I moved, Thursday night from Saul Bellow to Vincent David Jericho (a natural transition?) on Friday morning. From Jericho's pod casts (segment 1 and the segment with Glen Beck as a guest) to an article, "Can Free Markets Survive In a Secularized World?" written by Steven Malanga. Jericho read from that article Friday morning to make a point about the effect the moral decline in America is having on our economy today, a point which I believe Saul Bellow might have easily made in his Nobel Lecture 30 plus, years ago. Malanga wrote:

"The 18th Century English cleric and theologian John Wesley was troubled by a paradox that emerged as his teaching spread. He, like other Protestant thinkers stretching back to Calvin, taught that one could honor God through hard work and thrift. The subsequent burst of industry and frugality generated by Wesley’s message improved the lot of many of his working-class followers and helped advance capitalism in England. But, “wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion,” Wesley observed, and subsequently pride and greed are growing more common, he complained.

The emergence of what Max Weber described as the Protestant ethic represented an important point in the evolution of capitalism because it combined a reverence for hard work with an emphasis on thrift and forthrightness in one’s dealings with others. Where those virtues were most ardently practiced markets advanced and societies prospered. And, as Wesley foresaw, what slowly followed was a rise in materialism and a reverence of wealth for its own sake.

Today, we seem to be living out Wesley’s most feared version of the pursuit of affluence unencumbered by virtue. Scam artists perpetrate giant Ponzi schemes against their friends and associates. Executives arrange compensation packages that pay themselves handily for failure. Ordinary people by the hundreds of thousands seek a shortcut to riches by lying on mortgage applications. Heartless phony bailout schemes take the last dollar of people already in distress."

Jericho, in part, said:

"Can free markets survive in a secularized world without some moral ethic, some base line principles?

The free market is just as bad corrupt and useless as socialism and fascism and any other 'ism' you want to throw on the table. Without morals and morality, capitalism collapses and so, my friends, does republican democracy. You're seeing it, you're living it, you may even be, directly or indirectly, responsible for it."

Americans must find a simple, true, moral center. Integrity, morality and virtue must win over greed, lust and envy. For me, I find that moral center inhabited by God and his instruction book, the Bible. One thing, for sure, as Malanga ended his article:

"People instinctively know something is missing, just not what. A religious revival in America seems unlikely. Is it equally as unlikely that our institutions, most especially our schools, would once again promote the virtues that made capitalism thrive and Western societies prosper--not just hard work, but thrift and integrity, or what we once called the Protestant ethic?"

We are individuals. We must find our individual moral centers then, we must stand again for the position of integrity and virtue, for the simple and the true, and against the position of moral decline, greed and materialism.

It occurred to me a few moments ago, I have blogged about America's moral decline and the ramifications of that decline in the past. In my opinion, no one says it better than Watchman Nee in "Love Not the World:"

Nee: Chapter 2:

"Most of the historic university colleges of the West were founded by Christian men with a desire to provide their fellows with a good education under Christian influence. During their founders' lifetimes the tone of those foundations was high, because these men put real spiritual content into them. When, however, the men themselves passed away, the spiritual control passed away too, and education followed its inevitable course toward the world of materialism and away from God. In some cases it may have taken a long time, for religious tradition dies hard; but the tendency has always been obvious, and in most cases the destination has by now been reached. When material things are under spiritual control they fulfill their proper subordinate role. Released from that restraint they manifest very quickly the power that lies behind them. The law of their nature asserts itself, and their worldly character is proved by the course they take."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

KSGF ran the Palin Rally Live

Some are estimating over 15,000 and possibly up to 20,000 people attended Sarah Palin's rally at Bass Pro in Springfield, Missouri this morning, there should be a more firm estimate later.

There was no live, local television coverage of the event.

Vincent David Jericho ran the rally live and is supposed to link a podcast to the Sarah Palin speech later in the day. You can watch the KSGF Web site for that link.

UPDATE: I understand the podcast should be available at about 3:00 p.m. today.

UPDATE II: There are some great pictures of the rally available at the KSGF Web site too!

Shapes Mentoring Seeks 30 Mentors in 30 Days!

Will you help a child in need?

I got a call this morning from Keith Morris. Keith is the office manager for
Shapes Mentoring. He wanted to let me know that Shapes will be trying to recruit 30 mentors in 30 days during the month of September...but, you don't have to wait until September if you would like to mentor the child of an incarcerated parent! These children need us. If you would like to know more about the Shapes mentoring program and think you would be interested in mentoring one of these precious children, visit the Web site linked above. There is a wonderful promotional video at their Web site that I recommend, and call Keith at 864-6139 today!

I am also adding Shapes blog site to my list of blog links and their Web site to my list of links.

Thanks, Vince, for the referral! An awesome organization!

There will be suspicion surrounding the hiring of new City Manager Greg Burris

That's just a fact


Yesterday, the City Council held a press conference announcing their choice for the new City Manager.

I made a note of it here. I also provided information regarding what the City Charter said about the qualifications of the City Manager and what the City's job description identified as the "ideal candidate," here.

From the Charter:

"The city manager shall be chosen by the council on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications with special reference to his experience in, and his knowledge of municipal administrations...."

The job description posted by Arcus Public on behalf of the City said (among other things) the ideal candidate would have:

"Ten years of municipal experience, with prior service as a City Manager, Assistant/Deputy City Manager or the equivalent in a comparable or larger community."

There are going to be complaints and suspicion around this decision in some areas of the community. That's just a fact. Does mentioning those facts mean one doesn't or can't hope for the best?

I hope not.

I'd continue to encourage everyone to give new City Manager Greg Burris a chance before judging him.

If you want to read about and hear discussion about the questions surrounding the decision to hire Greg Burris as the new City Manager, I would refer you to Jericho's Journal: Right...Again! and this mornings pod casts at KSGF.

Clarification on City Manager versus Council's Internal Auditor Searches

Vincent David Jericho of KSGF had Tom Martz and Fred Ellison of the Missouri Liberty Coalition on the program this morning. The gentlemen did a fine job covering the high points of the City Council meeting scheduled for this evening, and it's easy to make a mistake, when sorting through information from past City Council meetings. There was a slight misunderstanding about information given by Interim City Manager Evelyn Honea's comments at the last meeting, on June 2.

Having one "coalition," with limited members who, in many cases, have their own jobs and responsibilities but are tasking themselves with watching and holding our city government accountable is a good thing, but, in some ways, they find themselves in the same position as our City Council, they are unpaid volunteers.

I appreciate the efforts they are making on behalf of other citizens who are not taking the time to pay attention to city issues. In fact, I appreciate them so much that I attend many of their meetings and cover them for the Community Free Press, and, so others don't think I'm looking for a chink here, I once mistakenly said that attendance of a MoLiCo meeting by Representatives Shane Schoeller and Bob Dixon was a surprise. In fact, I found out later, it wasn't a surprise visit, maybe a surprise to me, but not to the MoLiCo. MoLiCo does a lot of good work and I like that they are watching our local government, it gives me good material to report.

In the case of their suggestion that the City Manager Search firm, Arcus Public, has not been receiving adequate applicants for the position and that the advertisement for the position has been expanded, there was a bit of confusion. Honea, when she spoke of advertising expansion, was speaking of the internal auditor search, not the City Manager search.

"The internal auditor, we made a few changes to the job description and expanded the advertisement that we had earlier put out and when we advertised a couple of months ago, we had very few candidates who qualified for the position and we really wanted to bring a larger slate of candidates back to the Finance Committee...." Interim City Manager Evelyn Honea said on June 2. Honea then suggested Gary Deaver, Chairman of the City Manager Search Committee would be better to answer questions regarding the City Manager search.

Deaver did update the City Manager search process:

"I've had conversations with the search firm principals the last two weeks. Actually, in 6 days time they had doubled the number of candidates that qued up for our consideration...."

"One thing that they (Arcus Public) pointed out to me, they said, "Gary, you know, this is going to be an easy search for us," and I was silent because easy wasn't what I'm looking for but they went, "When we say easy, it's because your community has so much to offer. We feel so positively about your community that it's easy to sell the attributes that you have to candidates who have the skills that we feel your community deserves." - Gary Deaver, June 2 City Council meeting.

You can listen to the podcast, here.

Vince, who did mention that "JackeHammer" was challenging that information, in the meantime, is checking with Public Information Director, Louise Whall.

My Opinion on Park Central Square and Other Current Issues

It's a rainy, Saturday morning. There's a robin out in the yard, soaking wet, no doubt finding plenty of worms washed up by the rain. The thunder is getting more and more distant and my day is just beginning. In fact, I've only drank half of my first cup of coffee (heh, this was two hours ago, now).

I've checked out the News-Leader already. I read the story about Randy D. Sloan's nudity and how his Attorney defends (the) case('s) dismissal. This hasn't been a story I had been following very closely. Beyond listening to Vincent David Jericho's Podcast of his interview with Greene County Prosecutor Darrell Moore, and sharing a few emails with a fellow blogger friend about it. I think my blogger friend is probably right in his thinking there is more to the story than the original knee-jerk reaction. In cases like this I prefer to see what the courts decide, but certainly there's no denying that a man should not be nude on his front porch around school children, any school children, elementary or otherwise, in fact, a man just shouldn't be nude on his front porch at all.

I noticed that Ron Paul supporters were characterized as cult followers in the leed of another story:

"Ron Paul, the Texas Republican with a cult-like following, will be in Branson on Friday for a 7 p.m. "freedom rally" at the Tri-Lakes Center, according to the schedule on his campaign Web site."

Some Ron Paul supporters may be cult-like in their following of Paul, just as some Obama supporters seem to be cult-like in their following of Obama, but those who don't follow Paul in a cult-like trance will probably be greatly offended by such a blanket statement. I know a few Paul supporters, and no, I'm not among their number, who will feel mischaracterized by that leed, and rightfully so.

The first story I read this morning, however, was Focus now on square perimeter. It was a fair story, not all of the stories and information about the square have been balanced, offering both sides of the issue. There has been an agenda.

At any rate, after writing my own story regarding the provenance of Park Central Square, Square Sinks into Controversy, for the May 7 issue of CFP Midweek, in which I simply tried to present a balanced article on the issue, and, since I have been following this issue closely,I decided it's an appropriate time to share my opinion, if anyone is interested in reading about it.

The first time I saw Butler Rosenbury & Partners proposed design plan for renovations on Park Central Square was at a City Council luncheon, held at Springfield/Branson National Airport. At the time I thought some of the ideas were very nice but my own concerns were addressed by Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky's query about whether the $1 million promised to be spent on the square renovation would cover all the costs of the many beautiful features Tim Rosenbury had presented. The answer was no, but Rosenbury assured the Council he wouldn't bring something to Council for approval without fleshing out some ideas on how it could be financed and it could be done in phases. So, okay.

Later, I don't even remember the date, Rosenbury showed his presentation at another Council luncheon, you'll find that presentation here. I thought it was great, I really liked it.

Mrs. Ruth Kelley addressed the Council the day Rosenbury presented the final proposed design, at that luncheon. It was shortly after her letter appeared in the News-Leader, (since gone to archive at the News-Leader website, but can still be read here, at The Cultural Landscape Foundation's website).

While I really liked Ruth Kelley's letter, and had even made it a recommended reading at this blog, at that time I was of a mind that if the city just saved Halprin's fountain that would be enough.

Really, at that point, I didn't care that much and thought it was a good idea to renovate the square, I did like the existing square and thought it could have been restored using less money, but I was willing to go along. After all, it was part of the Heer's agreement with McGowan, so it's not like citizens had any choice about whether the money was going to be spent or not and Rosenbury touted there'd been over 750 people to weigh in on the design criteria, on what they'd like to see happen with the square.

By the time the special council meeting was called and the Council approved the design concept I had a little better understanding of who Lawrence Halprin was and I had begun to start having misgivings about the wisdom of paving over (how else would the city level the existing sunken plaza?) Halprin's work. I was thinking, "this could be a great boon to Springfield, this could put us on the map, think of the eclectic, artsy types who might plan their vacations around famous landscape sites, think of how Springfield could promote this! Doesn't Springfield like to think of itself as an artist's mecca? Don't we have First Friday Artwalk Events?"

Yes, I had begun to become a Lawrence Halprin fan and I was also becoming very concerned that the rest of Springfield's citizenry hadn't been properly educated on the provenance of the square and without proper education on what we have, how could an educated decision be made about what we want?

At the February 12, special called, Tuesday morning Council meeting, where the majority of Council approved Rosenbury's design, my opinion is that there was a rush to approve the proposal. I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise. The Council's discussion of an email received from Kevin McGowan of Blue Urban, the developer of the Heer's Tower, indicated McGowan was putting some pressure on Council and the Council was very mindful of the August 1 deadline the City had agreed to under contract with McGowan. The contract gave McGowan the option of forcing the city to buy back the Heer's Tower if construction on renovation of the square wasn't begun by that August 1 deadline.

I've silently noted that there are some who would like to characterize those concerned about the provenance of the square as being "obstructionists" against what the majority of Springfieldians want downtown but believing the citizens of Springfield weren't properly apprised of the provenance of that square and the status of Lawrence Halprin's designs while considering what they wanted on the square, I believe that is an unfair characterization. I also noted that someone cast a bit of aspersion on my identification of Partner for Public Spaces as BRP's programming "partner" at another blog, enclosing "partner" in quotation marks, but, for the sake of clarification on that matter, I got that identifier straight out of the mouth of Tim Rosenbury, himself, so I felt very comfortable in using it. That was how Rosenbury described Partner for Public Spaces at the special February 12 Council meeting.

Now, the question in my mind is how could anyone not be exited and thrilled that our public square, Park Central Square, was designed by a famous landscape architect, a world renowned landscape architect!? How can this be considered a bad thing, an awful development!? Why wouldn't ALL of Springfield celebrate such a thing? It makes no sense to me.

I'm ecstatic, yes, I'm celebrating the fact that Lawrence Halprin designed our square and that it has been deemed eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Now all of Springfield knows it. Now real discussions can begin on how to preserve the wonderful asset Springfield has! This is a good thing, how can it be a bad thing? I would also think that every business owner downtown, including Kevin McGowan, would be ecstatic over this wonderful, fantastic news!

Stuart Soloman began the discussion in the May 21 issue of Community Free Press. Be sure and catch his column, "Looking Back to Move Forward," page 7.

Let's look back at what we have, what was planned by Halprin and not implemented, what was lost over the years of the original design (for instance, originally there were stone benches in the park instead of the ugly multiple coated green ones there now, where are those stone benches today?) and then lets move forward and celebrate this fantastic news. We all want what is best for Springfield. It wasn't in the best interest of Springfield to let Park Central Square run down, what about using some money to maintain what we have instead of building things only to let them deteriorate and run down and then bulldoze them under and start over? That would be a good discussion topic for another blog.

Note: I also meant to include another opinion: I, personally, believe Butler Rosenbury & Partners made every effort to point out to the city of Springfield that Lawrence Halprin was a landscape architect of note. The design firm even showed a film spotlighting another Halprin designed park in Oregon. According to Tim Rosenbury, there just wasn't much interest in the provenance of the square on the part of the city.

I had a lovely discussion with Tim Rosenbury back in February and found him to be very forthcoming, honest and direct in responding to my questions and wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that I feel he played a role in dismissing Halprin's relevance. BRP was contracted by the city to offer a design proposal on Park Central Square and, after informing the city of the potential relevance of Halprin's design, he concluded the city had little interest in it and so, he did his job. The design firm of Butler Rosenbury & Partners presented what the city of Springfield had contracted them to present and their firm simply tried their best to please their client.

Will McGowan Carry the City's Heer's Deal Baton?

Darin Bridges of Springfield had a reader letter in the News-Leader today: Relay incident memorable, in which he recounts dropping the baton (he's writing as though to Coach Vaughan, who was recently honored at the dedication at Shumate Stadium):

"It was the All-City Meet. Our (Hillcrest) mile relay team was favored to take the gold or at least the silver. I was your lead-off guy, and during my fourth stride out of the blocks I dropped the baton. It tumbled all the way to the edge of the track. It was awful....

You called us all together in the middle of the field and we could tell you were fuming. You then yelled for the equipment manager, "Let me see that baton!" It scared the poor kid to death. For a moment I was afraid you might beat me with it. Instead you threw it on the ground and stomped on it. Right there in the middle of JFK. You then picked it up, looked at it, and scolded something like, "I never want to see another one of these NEW batons in the hands of one of my track members again! Do you hear me?" Then you yelled at the other coaches, "Look at how light these aluminum batons are! My boys have been practicing with nothing but steel and on the day of the race we put this #$&! in their hands?!"...

Yeah, the baton was new, lighter aluminum, but we all knew that had nothing to do (with) my dropping it. We knew exactly what you were up to, but no one ever brought the subject up again. We simply moved on to the next race. (Emphasis mine)

The strategy and timing of your demonstration was pure genius. You could have "called-me-out" for such a bone-headed move, but you knew that would hurt our team, and I think you knew what it would do to me...."

I have a purpose for bringing up Mr. Bridges' sports story. I want to apply it to the City of Springfield regarding Park Central Square. Wes Johnson's story in the News-Leader seems a bit like grasping at straws to me, I mean, I'm being honest here.

In Back to square one? Johnson puts forth the challenge of whether Lawrence Halprin can be considered the designer of the square when another architect working in Halprin's firm was responsible for the majority of the architectural drawings. Well, that would be akin to saying that an architect hired by Butler Rosenbury to do work for Butler Rosenbury under the Butler Rosenbury stamp and seal isn't really Butler Rosenbury. It's quite a stretch but I appreciate the sentiment.

I noticed Vincent David Jericho was asking if those who wanted to see Halprin's work preserved could be blamed for a Heer's deal bail out by McGowan's exercise of their put option if the square renovation wasn't on schedule (as specified in their contract on the Heer's with the city) due to the question of the historic value of the square. Well, I don't really think so, these matters should have been considered long ago, before the contract with Kevin McGowan included the stipulation that the square would be remodeled by a certain date, actually, it should have been considered more critically whether it was a good decision for the city to take possession of the Heer's Tower way back when, but we are where we are and sometimes the best thing to do is to take our frustrations out on the aluminum baton rather than the player(s) responsible for the fumble.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to build up the team. I don't disagree with that but I also think that honesty, honesty from the start to the finish, is the best policy. The coach facilitated a "face" save for a young high school team player. It'd be nice if Wes Johnson could facilitate a "face" save through his article, or, if Butler Rosenbury, by stretching to suggest that a signed and sealed Lawrence Halprin design wasn't really a Halprin design because someone else in his firm drew the plans, could pull the city out of this mess but let's not forget that the high school boys on the team, including and especially the young man that dropped the baton knew what the coach was really doing. Our collective intelligence demands it.

We all want to be good team players. We all want the best for Springfield, Missouri and we all understand that we cannot afford to own the Heer's Tower anymore but this bed has been made and it'll be played out and City staff and City Council aren't high school age students dropping a baton at a sporting event. Still...the best thing for Springfield is that Kevin McGowan not exercise his put option even if the play turns out to have been made poorly. We'll just have to see how it comes out and hope that it turns out well in the end. A lot of it depends on Mr. McGowan, will he be a team player? Will he stomp on the baton or will he take his ball and go home? I remember McGowan making comment before the City Council at the public hearing of the Heer's deal on August 27, 2007:

"We're committed to this project and we're committed because we've formed some relationships here in Springfield. We're very much looking forward to get going...."

He said he was committed to renovating the Heer's Tower. Now would be the time to hope he meant it.

The immigration debate

Yes, it's complicated, yes, it's divisive

Some time ago I used to try to make the case that people who are opposed to illegal immigrants receiving amnesty and people who wanted to see the law of the land of America regarding illegal immigration be enforced are not bigots, but you know what? I realized that just as on any issue and just as in any group of people, people band together for different reasons. For that reason, I realized that while I am not bigoted against brown skinned, black skinned, yellow skinned, red skinned, or purple fingered people who come into our country either legally or illegally, and the majority of people against amnesty for immigrants who came here illegally and would like to see our border laws enforced and employers pay a steep penalty for employing those immigrants who have entered our soveriegn nation illegally are not bigoted that some people may be. I have come to the realization that the motivations of some are convoluted and complicated and bigotry against people of different nationalities or skin color may play a part in some people's overall reason for opposing illegal immigrant amnesty, supporting border security and stricter laws against employers who hire such illegal immigrants. So I don't argue anymore that bigotry is not a factor for anyone, I argue that it isn't a factor for me and it shouldn't be a factor for anyone.

What is your definition of rude and uncivil behavior? What is your definition of civility and respect?

If someone throws a pair of tennis balls at a man and says, "Here, this is the only pair of these you'll ever have," a crowd of civil and respectful people might suck in some air and deplete the oxygen in the room. Those people might later issue scathing reviews of such behavior as "disrespectful," as "rude," as "crude" and as "uncivil," and I'll even concede that they would have a point.

The exclamation of tennis balls at the end of the sensationalized sentence could certainly be justified as an act of disrespect accompanied by such a comment coming from a radio talk show host at an immigration debate. But, in fact, he might have done so because he's tired of back-handed newspaper editorials that generalize and oversimply the issue of immigration reform themselves by repeatedly and regularly implying that all those who oppose amnesty, propose secure borders and would like to see the law of the land enforced are either bigoted xenophobes or ill-informed ignoramuses or a combination of the two. That, you see, is civil, in their opinion. That sweeping characterization is respectful. That sentiment is neither rude nor crude in the opinion of such an editorialist.

Let me tell you something, two wrongs don't make a right, but personally, I would much rather see the knife welded by the villan coming at me so that I would have an opportunity to defend myself against it than have it sneak, stealthily and silently from behind, never seeing it before it is slid so back-handly between my shoulder blades.

How many tennis balls does it take when given an opportunity to debate an issue for one to agree repeatedly with one's opponent, for one to offer no research and for one to just talk about how the divisive rhetoric on the part of the country needs to end? Zero.

The one offered the opportunity to debate in a forum in Springfield on last Thursday evening didn't offer any real and tangible reasons to support amnesty, to keep our borders unsecure and open and to continue to allow employers of illegal aliens to hire them with no or a mostly un-enforced penalty. In fact, anything like that, in his mind, would do more good than harm (?) but we don't know why because neither at the debate or in a recent editorial at the Springfield News-Leader does the proponent of those ideas tell us why those sentiments would be more good for our country than bad.

How many tennis balls does it take to slink back to the editorial board to form a consensus view on behalf of the Springfield News-Leader that slyly characterizes those who oppose illegal immigrant amnesty, support border security and tough employer penalty for the hiring of illegals as ill-informed, ignorant bigots?

It doesn't even take two.

I agree with the News-Leader, immigration reform is a complicated issue. The divisive rhetoric needs to stop on the part of those who are sympathetic to the illegal immigrant population. Those who want to talk out of both sides of their mouths, on the one hand stating, "It's complicated," and on the other hand refusing to even entertain the opinions of those who disagree with their sentiment for tangible and legitimate reasons and they need to stop characterizing those who disagree with them with generalized slander and assumption.

No, two wrongs don't make a right but lets at least recognize that there are two wrongs. Let's not pretend that when a debate takes place in the physical world and one party "rises above" disrespect and rudeness in that physical realm when he is face to face with his opponent and has the opportunity to make his case but fails to, then returns to his office, in quiet reflection and takes the hidden knife out of his pocket to carve away the credibility of those who feel so passionately about this issue for legitimate reasons and place in the cavity he has created the infection of generalized slander toward all is somehow more civil and respectful than the other.

MO Liberty Coalition to meet Saturday, January 5, 2008

Members of Springfield's local Libertarian party are the willing catalysts for a non-partisan citizen's group that you are invited to attend. Springfield's Libertarian party worked diligently to see the State audit of the City of Springfield, including the audit of City Utilities.

Originally, the Chief Petitioner of the petition drive to get the City audited was Doug Burlison, now City Councilman Burlison. Burlison passed that baton to Tom Martz after winning his Council seat in April of 2007.

The group, again, a non-partisan group, has been tentatively named "Missouri Liberty Coalition," the name is subject to change.

The first meeting of the MO Liberty Coalition will take place this Saturday, January 5, at the Kansas Expressway Library Station from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. They will meet in the Frisco Room and everyone is invited to attend.

"It's just people who are concerned with where government is going, how our tax dollars are being spent and how we're being represented, not only on City Council but also when the various department heads seem to turn a blind eye to the people here within the city." ~ Tom Martz on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program this morning.

I believe this could be a very interesting meeting and a very interesting "coalition." I plan to attend and observe at least a part of the meeting on Saturday.

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. ;)

"...we believe the city could improve," Spokeswoman for the Missouri State Auditor's Office said

Wes Johnson quoted the spokeswoman for the Missouri State Auditor's Office, Samantha Brewer, in State to unveil Springfield audit:

"The audit has recommendations in areas where we believe the city could improve," Brewer said. "We don't have enforcement powers. We cannot make the city implement the recommendations contained in the audit. That part is up to the citizens who need to go to meetings and make the city respond to them."

Wouldn't it be awesome if more citizens of Springfield would go to meetings and "make the city respond to them?"

I notice there are some in the blogosphere and elsewhere who would have you look to them to disseminate information gathered at meetings. Nah, you don't have to be there, this one or that one will take care of your civic responsibility so you don't have to.

Certainly, it is nice to read news articles and reports about what transpired at this meeting or that meeting. It's nice to read this blogger or that blogger's take on events but if I could do anything through this blog it would be to somehow encourage citizens to show up in person. You don't have to be there? No, no one is going to make you take an interest in getting your information first hand. Someone else will always be happy to tell you the high points from their vantage point if that's what you want. Will you be more sympathetic to the opinion of Tony Messenger, Vincent David Jericho or a smorgasbord of bloggers and reporters who will comment on the report? Will you read everything written and then decide based on what was important to this person or that person from their vantage point? Will you trust others with that information gathering for you?

As a person who has attended many meetings involving City Council I can tell you that you don't get all the information shared at any given meeting. Reporters, journalists, radio talk show hosts and bloggers pick and choose what they will include in the discussion, it isn't necessarily intentional, it's just that space and air time is limited.

Sometimes you miss some of the quirky facts because there simply isn't room or air time to include everything. Those to whom you hand over responsibility to inform you can't possibly tell you every minute detail of every meeting. So, I would encourage people to attend every meeting they can attend, realizing it isn't likely anyone can attend all of them. I don't get to attend every meeting in the city either, but we could all do better with Samantha Brewer's charge to "go to meetings and make the city respond to them."

Reminder: Vincent David Jericho will be interviewing State Auditor Susan Montee tomorrow morning (Friday) on KSGF.

The audit report will be heard at City Council chambers tonight at 7:00 p.m. The address is 830 Boonville Avenue.

City Audit Report ~ don't miss it

Mark your calendar to attend the report on the city audit tomorrow (Thursday) night in City Council chambers, 7:00 p.m., 830 Boonville Avenue.

Also note: State Auditor Susan Montee will be on the Vincent David Jericho Show Friday morning. The show is on KSGF from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. 1260 AM, 104.1 FM. If you cannot listen to the show live, you will be able to download the podcasts at your convenience.

A proud apologist for "the peanut gallery"

All is well in the City of Springfield, Missouri. Rick Baier of BC Development said nothing to embarrass the City and everything to protect BC Development and Rick Baier. He's one of those "very sophisticated people," that Mayor Carlson spoke about, remember?

The fact is, the City got a better deal than they could have gotten (or would get if they reopened the process), just as Carlson said when he spoke at the Council luncheon meeting on October 16:

"...this community is now looking at getting $7 million for something that they could have gotten a heck of a lot less for."

There are members of staff who are celebrating tonight and who will fall into bed later, pull the covers up to their necks and fall off to sleep in blissful peace.

After the flak Mayor Carlson took over his statement about the "peanut gallery," he and Mary Collette made a point to express how pleased they were when a citizen offered critical remarks about the shortfall the city will take in paying off the parking garage that Hammons will soon own and control.

Collette, not long ago, allowed citizens 2 minutes to tell why they opposed the container ordinance and an additional 3 minutes if they had something constructive to say. She told citizens at that special Community Involvement Committee meeting:

"As Chair of this committee, we don’t even always take public comment but I just want you to know that we want to hear from each and every one of you, well, maybe not."

It was nice to see them making an effort to let the public know their comments are welcome. We can hope it was sincere.

But, back to Baier of BC Development, I told my husband over a week ago that I could see two choices for Rick Baier. He could come to the defense of Becky Spence and take on the City of Springfield or he could fire her and throw her under the bus. I didn't understand at the time that Spence was not a partner with BC Development, rather just an associate that BC Development was working with locally on this deal if they should win the bid for land at the former arena site. I'm going to guess that while Baier doesn't need to fire Spence under the circumstances, that he will likely not look to do business with her in the future. I think we should keep in mind that it is in the best interest of Rick Baier to play nice, not simply because he might want to work a future deal with the City of Springfield but because he might like to work future deals with other city governments in Missouri, city governments who have contact at meetings and events with other Missouri state muncipalities. You don't become a "sophisticated person with money to risk" by airing your dirty laundry in public.

Just as in the case of the Heer's deal the city had no choice on this deal and they really SHOULD be thanking their lucky stars they got the deal they got.

David Queen, the Attorney who worked with Mary Lilly Smith in the negotiations of term sheets between Hammons and HCW Evergreen said that the city could go through this process as many times as they wanted to, there was no limit to how many times they could restart the process, but now that all the cards are on the table, now that it is on record that Hammons is the ONLY developer that could make the deal work because of his exclusive right to food and beverage sales, his ownership of the 90' easement and his side deal with Opus to build new offices for BKD on a piece of Hammon's property, the city would NEVER be able to negotiate $7 million if this were reopened for bids again. This is the deal the city has and it's much better than it could have been.

Hammons, in his exclusive interview with KSPR after the luncheon meeting on October 16 made it pretty clear that he didn't much like the idea of building a hotel on the site, that he had concerns about Branson's new airport and the amenities they offer in Branson.

There are a lot of people who will likely be calling on Vincent David Jericho for an apology but I won't be one of them. I think he deserves a big thank you. It's my opinion that Vince has been good for the process. The business of the City of Springfield needs attention and input from its citizens.

If a dull, dry, timid, radio talk show host droned sweetly to his listeners,

"You should go to City Council meetings and stay involved in the process,"

...how many people do you think would have jumped through hoops to attend a Council meeting? How many people would be watching City government and City Council if Vince didn't "go over the wall?"

I don't care if you like Vincent David Jericho or not, I don't care if you like his methods or not, he's made and he's making changes in communications in our city and our community and regardless of whether Becky Spence took him for a ride or not, how many people in this city would be paying attention, be engaged and interested in city government if it weren't for him?

Just like everyone in the opinion business, sometimes you're going to be right and sometimes you're going to be wrong, Vince will be right and Vince will be wrong but even when he's wrong he's still right about one thing, citizens need to pay attention to their government and sometimes, once in a great while (and in the domain of radio talk) maybe the end justifies the means.

So, sure, beat the heck out of Vince if you want to, that's every person's perogative, just be careful, unless you never make a mistake yourself. I'm still a commoner and I still believe in the peanut gallery, my favorite guy is still the little guy and I'd still "bet" on him, not because he's "sophisticated," not because he's got "real money at risk," but because the little guy's opinion matters too. No one should be disparaged unfairly. Everyone deserves respect and if you think Vincent David Jericho hasn't invested his time and put his money where his mouth is in this community then you haven't been paying attention.

If, as a couple of City Council members said tonight, they are happy to hear from the citizens of Springfield, Missouri they should be thanking Vincent David Jericho. They are hearing from many more citizens than they used to hear from and we all know why.

Look, we shouldn't be about the city government vs the citizens of Springfield or the citizens of Springfield vs the city government. When, at all possible, we can give accolades to our city government for doing something right, then we should. Of course we'll always be able to find things that could have been done better. The city is right that they'll never work a deal or pass a bill or resolution that everyone in the city is happy with but if we all pay attention and we all work together then perhaps we can communicate ourselves to a time in the future when we can all celebrate together and isn't that what we all really want? We want good government. The city is saying it wants input from its citizens. Everyone should keep giving that input, not just the people that agree with what the city is doing but also those that disagree, and as Tony Messenger said in a recent column:

"...The best roads laid by government, in my book, are bumpy ones with lots of twists and turns. But we drive there together, like a big family squeezed into a station wagon going on a long summer vacation.

Sure, we'll fight and squirm and lash out at each other every now and then, but that's just part of the fun."

Contention and disagreement are not a bad thing, they are healthy when they are seen through to the end, the end being true communication and understanding.

I think Vincent David Jericho should keep doing his job, city staff should keep doing their jobs, City Council should keep doing theirs and as a citizen of Springfield you need to be doing yours.

Later, we're going to be looking at the statements Baier has made for consistency. I think that'll be interesting too. :)

Ya'll have a good night. Some of you can eat your peanuts now, those that didn't leave them in the seats at City Council Chambers. ;)

In response to Tony Messenger's "Can't we all just get along?"

It seems, to me, that Vincent David Jericho did nothing but break the news of the BC Development letter written by Richard Baier, the principal, and offer Becky Spence a platform to tell her side of the story. Because of very real past actions on the part of the city having to do with other developments that didn't turn out well, the trust level toward City government among some members of the community is not at a high point. Has Vince fed into that by discussing some issues that have come up that haven't been discussed anywhere else? Sure, I think so.

Turns out that Spence may not have been a credible source, this is a discredit to Spence but is it a discredit to Vince that he believed a citizen was telling him the truth and in public, and in an open forum we found out that it wasn't true that city government departments told BC Development it was a done deal?

I suppose the entire media could have been very, very quiet about what Spence had to say, not reported on it at all and then this wouldn't have been an issue? No, it was going to be an issue for the simple reason that BC Development's Richard Baier wrote that letter in the first place and the News-Leader ended up publishing that letter (because it was news) and the HCW Evergreen letter as well, both letters are public records and both letters are news. So, is it better that it all got purged in public and the people know what happened here or would it have been better had it been kept quiet, the BC Development letter left to sit and simmer in the imaginations of the public and Becky Spence to have never been exposed as less than credible, leaving room for gossip, speculation and suspicion?

Sarah Overstreet of the News-Leader fairly reported here:

"As Spence addressed the council and council members then asked her questions and made comments about them, some spectators in the audience started to grumble, and you could hear them talking to each other.

The meeting went on fairly peacefully, until Councilman Ralph Manley decided to issue a scolding."

Sarah went on to give the city's

"statute defining "decorum" in a city council meeting:

"No person shall make personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or otherwise disturb the order and decorum of any council meeting. The sergeant-at-arms, at the direction of the mayor, shall remove any person violating the provisions of this subsection (b)."

So, it is fair to ask that people follow the law, and people could have waited, though frustrated that night, to see what Vincent David Jericho had to say on the radio the next day, they could have waited to see what local bloggers and the News-Leader reported on it later and held their tongues during the Council meeting, but as for Tony Messenger's rant at his blog? It seems disingenuous, it seems he's talking out of both sides of his mouth when he wrote in his blog entry Can't we all just get along?:

"...The topic's been on my mind a lot this week after Monday's show at the city council where Becky Spence and Vincent David Jericho and various followers filled the council chambers and blasted council members and city staff with no grounds whatsoever. Turns out that Spence's allegations were and are totally unfounded, and the show that a group of citizens put on was nothing but a distraction from the real story, and that's what's so disappointing about such displays. There are real issues to discuss, issues that reasonable people will disagree about, but why can't we do so respectfully?"

Why do I say disingenuous and talking out of both sides of his mouth? Because not so long ago Tony wrote Good debates can sometimes get rowdy :

Roger Chance was the editor and publisher of a small town weekly newspaper that had been in his family for decades.

He drank Old Crow whiskey and Pepsi in a white styrofoam cup. You could tell what time of day it was by the whiff of Roger as he walked by. The more Old Crow, the later it was. Roger kept a bottle in his desk, another one in the press room, one in the darkroom, and others, I'm guessing, in hiding places I never found.

Roger is the kind of guy who would have enjoyed the Springfield City Council meeting last week.The council's been getting beaten up a fair amount lately, but Roger would say that's not a bad thing....

"...On Tuesday night, Roger would leave the offices of the Yuma Pioneer as I stayed behind to put the weekly newspaper to bed, leaving room for a council story — and a righteous editorial, if Roger felt, well, righteous. Roger would take his styrofoam cup with him, and walk the couple of blocks down Main Street to City Hall. And then the fun would begin.

As I hear it (remember, I was back at the office), Roger wouldn't so much take notes as he would get into arguments with various council members over the issues of the day. Sometimes he'd be downright belligerent. Then he'd come back to the office, tell me what happened — his version, at least — and direct me to write a story. Occasionally, he'd sit down at his manual Remington typewriter and pound out an indignant editorial, leaving me to guess how drunk he was when editing out the cuss words the next morning. Sometimes they stayed.

The council put up with this not because Roger bought his ink by the barrel, but because he cared. He was as invested as they were. A little fiery debate was good for the process...."

"...This is serious business," Carlson said, "not something like a ballgame where people cheer and boo."

Roger Chance would disagree. Not that the business is serious, but that cheering and booing is uncalled for. (For the record, I wasn't at the meeting, but unlike my days working for Roger, the wonders of technology allowed me to watch it on tape.)...

"...The best roads laid by government, in my book, are bumpy ones with lots of twists and turns. But we drive there together, like a big family squeezed into a station wagon going on a long summer vacation.

Sure, we'll fight and squirm and lash out at each other every now and then, but that's just part of the fun.

Of course, that might just be the whiskey talking."

Apparently, if you are a friend and collegue of Tony Messenger's your "rowdiness" at a Council meeting is to be treated with sympathy and sentimentality, one gets the impression that not only did Roger Chance, his editor and publisher, disagree but the flavor that Tony sprinkled this blog entry with appears to support Roger Chance's disagreement...now, if you are Vincent David Jericho, a local radio talk show host for which Tony seems to have lost no love, then City Council should be a more "serious" affair and the "rowdy" debate is less than acceptable.

Hmmm.

Sarah made a fair point, Tony made a fair point as well, that is if one didn't know the history and hadn't seen him call proponents of tax credits for private or homeschooled children "liars" because they denied the scholarship monies offered by individuals and offset by tax credits were "vouchers." That is if one hadn't taken a ride on "the short bus" with him in the past. So, Tony...I don't know, tell me where you stand on this issue. I'm a bit confused.

My advice would be you take your own:

"Focus on the issues, people. Leave the name-calling to children on the playground."

Oh, Good Golly, Molly ~ Go, Vince, Go!!!

October04_6:00am_What has been promised for 3 ½ years on KSGF

Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 13
*A Must Listen

What is the timeline behind the empty plot of land in Jordan Valley nect to the expo? What does a memo say that was addressed to the city from a developer who was in the running for this land?
Length:11:25

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.