RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for April 27, 2008
| Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:14 PM
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:30 PM
Reader: I've been watching the Russell Johnson issue play out over the last few days. Wanted to give my two cents to the subject.
It's curious to me why your newspaper is pretty darn near hysterical over this allowable vote to remove this planning commissioner and appoint a different one. Why aren't you even a little bit interested when one of your "favorites" -- County Supervisor Mike Maggard -- does the same stuff? In fact, why doesn't it bother you in the slightest that Russell Johnson is Mr. Maggard's PAID staffer, beholden to the guy who last held the council seat? That's a weird deal, too.
Or how about Mr. Maggard appointing another staffer, Jeff Flores, who works for his ally, Mr. Ashburn, to the county planning commission? You only seem to focus on these other guys, not your pet guys.
And it's very funny to me listening to Ashburn on the radio, all outraged over Ken Weir "'firing' Johnson," when Ashburn fired Johnson from his own staff. Hilarious. And Johnson saying he is "independent" when he works for pay for Maggard? How "independent" is that?
Mr. Weir is someone I have found to be a pretty thoughtful individual and you ought to do a little balanced reporting on this subject.
Thank you.
-- Sam Melton
Jenner: The topic is newsworthy partly because it's so unusual -- the removal of a planning commissioner is very rare -- and partly because of the way it unfolded. Based on the response of the community, it's certainly of high public interest.
It's true that some of our columnists and editorial writers have taken strong positions on Weir and his actions.
We expect our columnists to express their opinions, and we expect the same from our editorials.
And we've reported the relationships of Johnson and Flores to Maggard.
Reader: I am appalled at Roger Moore's review of Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."
It was clearly a hit piece designed to discourage ticket sales, not a coherent assessment of the film. Ironically, Moore used the very same propaganda tools he falsely accused Stein of.
After viewing the movie it was clear to me that Mr. Moore either didn't see the film, deliberately misrepresented it, or was too dense or biased to understand the message.
The point of the film is not the promotion of Creationism, or even Intelligent Design, but the dangers of suppressing the exchange of ideas in a free society -- a skill Roger Moore appears to have mastered, and embraced.
Worse yet is The Californian's decision to print this tripe.
As a syndicated column, it could have easily been canned. Instead, the editors gave their implicit agreement to a review that was not worthy of publishing on an extremist blog, let alone the local newspaper.
Apparently, the only right of free speech they're interested in protecting is their own.
-- Greg Lamb
Jenner: Well that's clearly not the case, since we just gave you space to write your own review and defend the movie.
We publish reviews of films coming to town so readers can get a taste of what to expect. We usually have several to choose from. Because we try to run the reviews before the movies open here, the editors almost never have seen the film when we choose the review.
I did a search of major reviewers to see if Moore's review was out of step with his peers. It wasn't. I couldn't find any reviewer who raved about the film.
Even Christianity Today's review was lukewarm: "The film shows that Intelligent Design should be on the table for discussion. But if you're looking for ammo to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, look elsewhere."
Reader: Jonah Goldberg's description of Barack Obama as a "self-hating yuppie" was completely over the top.
Please rid your paper of this ever-predictable Republican cheerleader. Bring on an intelligent conservative voice in his place.
-- Stafford Betty
Dianne Hardisty responds: Jonah Goldberg is a contemporary conservative voice. The Californian offers the work of other conservatives and liberals. This diversity provides a lively forum for public discussion. While you'd like Goldberg removed from the lineup, others have written praising his work.
Reader: First, let me state I am from Kansas and was there when we won the national championship. Second, there are certainly more important things going on in this world than college basketball. Having said that, your story about the national championship game April 8 was pitiful.
Almost the entire article talked about Memphis freshman Derrick Rose. Wasn't he the one who missed the free throw that would have won the game? By the way, who won this game? Was it Memphis? It might as well have been. Your whole article is about them.
I am very disappointed you found it necessary to write an article like this on such an important night for Kansans. I am going to forward this to the Lawrence, Kan., newspaper so they know how slanted sports reporting is in this part of the country.
I wonder if your article would have been the same if UCLA had won the national championship. I seriously doubt it.
Shame on you. Give credit where credit is due!
-- Allan Grandle
Rock Chalk Jayhawk
Jenner: Sports Editor Tony Lacava and I both agree our story should have dealt more with the game's exciting overtime finish and how Kansas won than with Derrick Rose.
I'm sorry you were disappointed, but we really weren't trying to disrespect Kansas.
And yes, if UCLA had won, we probably would have given the game more coverage. That's not because we're UCLA alums or because we hate Kansas. There's simply more local interest in UCLA, even if the KU-Memphis game was memorable.
Reader: Glitches in grammar and spelling are annoyingly common in The Californian, but the headline for Jonas Goldberg's April 12 column drove me to my computer.
It reads "Democrat candidates may be fatally flawed." The word "Democrat" is a noun; the adjective is "Democratic," as the conservative columnist himself correctly uses it in the column in question.
Using "Democrat" as an adjective is an intentionally disrespectful ploy of talk radio and some conservative politicians such as Roy Ashburn.
One might hope your headline writer would know the difference.
-- Jerome Kleinsasser
Jenner: You're correct regarding the adjectival form of the word. Our style is to say "Democratic candidate."
Reader: Just to clear the record, your article last Sunday proclaimed "hundreds" of people came to the Minter Field Air Museum's air show.
Based on gate receipts, we estimate the crowd at over 5,000. Someone needs new glasses!
As expenses are tallied, it remains to be seen if this fundraiser for the museum will show a profit. Fuel expenses and appearance fees have skyrocketed.
The effort put in by the all-volunteer staff of the museum and community volunteers for the air show was Herculean!
Our sincere thanks to all who contributed time and money to put on a world-class event.
Our appreciation to The Californian and radio and TV media who helped tremendously to get the word out.
If this was our last air show, at least we feel it was a great show.
-- Dean Craun
Vice-Chairman & Director of PR, Minter Field Air Museum