Free Beer AND Free Chocolates?!

Some bloggers get all the love - Drunk Monkey pens a favorable review of his free Boulevard Dark Truth Stout, acknowledging he got the beer and a box of Christopher Elbow Chocolates from the Brewery.

My agent is in negotiations with the Brewery, and it looks like we'll have to go into arbitration. So far, all they're offering is an out-of-date aluminum bottle of their wheat beer, and a fun-size bag of Skittles left over from Halloween.

Drunk Monkey does convince me, however, that the beer is good enough to buy.

Decorating with Books

Books have lost their prominent position in my life.

Books continue to fill shelves throughout my house, they crowd my nightstand, and a trip to the bookstore is an expensive outing, but the ones on the shelves are decorations, the ones on my nightstand are a 2 minute distraction before sleep, and my purchases are mere good intentions. I don't read books anymore.

Of course, that is a bit of an exaggeration. I read the informative parts of cookbooks, and a new book on brewing will be devoured in days. I browse poetry books to give me something to write about on Sundays. But I cannot recall the last time I picked up a meaty work of fiction and read myself into a new world.

Last week, a younger friend told me she had finished reading "A Soldier of the Great War", possibly my favorite novel. She loved it. I was flattered she had invested the time to read such a lengthy book on my recommendation, but, internally, it struck me that I had read the book more than a decade ago, and, if she were to ask me for a recommendation from the vast store of great books written in the past 5 years, I would be a dry well. I was a little jealous of the reading experience she had just been through. I don't really read books anymore.

I read lots of other things, and a lot of it has real quality. Much of the blog world amounts to an elaborate melding of created personae, real world events and selected fiction. Real creativity can be found on the pages of Frighteningly Uncommon Sense, Observant Bystander, and most of the other blogs on the left side of this page. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

But it's not a substitute for really sinking into a great novel. I want to spend the time inside a character's skin, and experience life in a way I haven't yet imagined. I want to ride on a raft down the Mississippi; I want to be honestly human in World War II; I want to pursue Fermina until she deems me worthy.

Over the next several months, I may miss a few more blog posts, and I might fall behind on Facebook updates. I hope to be a bit more absent. I've got plenty of decorations to choose from in this house.

If You're in the Mood to Think Deeply About the Internet . . .

McKay over at State of the Line puts into words a lot of the thoughts that have been going through my own mind. Here are a few excerpts, to give you the flavor, but the whole essay is well-crafted, thoughtful, and thought-provoking.

"What we don’t often discuss is whether or not a culture of instant satisfaction is even a desirable state of living. I’ll admit I’m as guilty of this mindset as anyone else: I feel lost without my phone, become anxious when I cannot check my email for several hours, and become consumed by news and market alerts from the Times and Journal — and that’s before I even start to revel in the abundance of information in my Google Reader feeds. But why do we need this? It’s hard to imagine that just ten years ago, we often had to place a call from a land line to a land line, leave a message, and wait for a response."
. . .
"The mantra of Web 2.0 is always based around the supposed wisdom of crowds: if you let the aggregated genius of the assembled masses decide it, then you’re bound to get the best and most efficient result. Have we really taken the myth of the rational market this far?"
. . .

"But the releasing of the keys to the free-information demands of the online marketplace is not even the most troubling aspect of the internet’s total cultural penetration. That, I suggest, is the culture of hatred bred by anonymity. What’s most baffling about the trend toward online anonymity is exactly where it came from. When I watch the evening news, I’m not allowed — nor do I feel entitled — to appear in a picture-in-picture window offering sarcastic remarks, thinly veiled insults, and outright sadistic language about the anchors and the stories. So why do we feel this is a fundamental right online? Yes, the web is supposed to be a democratizing tool of great egalitarianism — I understand that. But just because one could say anything he wants doesn’t mean one should. There is something deeply troubling about citizens being able to hide behind online handles and lob verbal grenades toward anything they deem disagreeable, lame, or pointless. Aside from contributing nothing to our conversation, it weakens the intellectual capital of this allegedly revolutionary tool. Why should people bother posting information online when one commenter, emboldened by the freedom of anonymity and feeling empowered to voice his darkest thoughts because it will never be traced to him, can simply make a hateful or racist remark?"
. . .
"
On Human Connections & The Social Utility Of The Internet

January 22, 2010 by McKay

Since our denunciation of snark in late November, we’ve made an effort around here to post thoughtful, reflective pieces that take a step back from the hyperactive and hyperbolic mood of the blogosphere. I’ve been thinking quite a bit, though, about the very essence of that particular arena, and about the entire networked world that supports it. The internet (the noun seems to have reached a non-capitalization age, no?) is widely heralded by everyone from sociologists to Apple stockholders as the salvation of humanity — the thing that will bring everyone together, result in a technological Age of Aquarius, and connect open-minded people everywhere in a panoply of new ideas and information-sharing mechanisms. To see just how deeply this assumption has become ingrained in our society, just note the Luddite accusations that follow anyone who dares suggest the following: what if the internet’s deleterious effects outweigh its benefits?

The internet, I’d contend, is a technological success — nay, a marvel — but an undeniable failure as a tool of emotional connectivity. I take pains to say it’s not a failure as a tool of human connectivity; its power in allowing me to speak instantly to someone in Malaysia, or email a friend in Britain, is unsurpassed and unlike anything we’ve ever known. Its capability in the arena of communication is not here disputed. As a communication tool, it has revolutionized the way we operate — so much so that it becomes difficult for us to comprehend that letters and conversations once had to wait days while mail was delivered, or months while ships crossed the ocean. (Honestly, can we comprehend that? Or have we become so accustomed to instant responses that our brains can’t quite wrap themselves around it? Paleontologists often speak of the difficulty in communicating the sheer magnitude of time’s passage between dinosaurs and humans; our existences are so short that we truly cannot fathom a span like “millions of years” — is this sort of like that?) It has likewise reshaped the way we do business: the online market connects us to a marketplace of goods and services we never would’ve foreseen, all capable of being delivered in minimal time. All of this has created a culture of instant satisfaction, in which most of our communication and capitalist desires can be satisfied in ever-shorter durations.

What we don’t often discuss is whether or not a culture of instant satisfaction is even a desirable state of living. I’ll admit I’m as guilty of this mindset as anyone else: I feel lost without my phone, become anxious when I cannot check my email for several hours, and become consumed by news and market alerts from the Times and Journal — and that’s before I even start to revel in the abundance of information in my Google Reader feeds. But why do we need this? It’s hard to imagine that just ten years ago, we often had to place a call from a land line to a land line, leave a message, and wait for a response. Today it’s difficult to envision waiting for anything; most news and information is accessible by the click of a mouse or swipe of a touchscreen. However, this seems to have weakened our collective resolve. When everyone can access everything all of the time, the ill effects are two-pronged: first, it makes us spoiled and expectant, assuming that we can get anything as soon as we want it. Second, it weakens the inherent worth of pure waiting, which in turn depreciates the value of patience and appreciation of the final product or idea delivered. The reason patience is said to be a character-building virtue is because it helps us place more context and appreciation on the thing we finally receive; if I’ve not had to endure any kind of wait for something that’s important to me, how do I know to appreciate it? Especially when I can, presumably, receive another just like it in an equally short time span?

The problem spawned by a culture of instant satisfaction is that it somehow convinces us that we deserve things for free. Think about that for a second: the Times employs hundreds of reporters in its newsroom. Those people work to create what’s largely considered to be some of the best journalism in the country (not to mention agenda-setting; it’s often joked that if you want to know what NPR will talk about on Thursday, you should just read the Times on Wednesday). Where on earth did we get the notion that we deserve every ounce of that product completely free? The internet was supposed to connect us to the product, not deliver the product free of charge and render the cost of the effort worthless. Newspapers made a strategic blunder when they imagined they could provide free content and use advertising to support it, and now we’ve all become horribly accustomed to receiving things for free.

The mantra from the supposed gurus of the Web 2.0 revolution, of course, is that information wants to be free. This is patently absurd. The only people who want information to be free are those who can bank a profit from that information’s use: advertisers, online vendors, et al. If I’m the one paying a staff of hundreds to produce that information, what message am I sending to my employees by giving away the product of their work? It’s akin to Honda giving away cars and relying on rear-window advertising to make a profit — how would the legions of assembly line workers feel about placing a value of $0.00 on each car they produce? The mantra of Web 2.0 is always based around the supposed wisdom of crowds: if you let the aggregated genius of the assembled masses decide it, then you’re bound to get the best and most efficient result. Have we really taken the myth of the rational market this far? (There is, in the recession’s wake, a pretty serious backlash against that myth. Can we really assume that a stock’s price reflects all pieces of known information and is adjusted to meet that information? Are we really supposed to believe that human emotion, artificial inflation, and pure market chicanery never plays a role?) As web pioneer Jaron Lanier notes in his new book, crowdsourcing in pursuit of free information can be not just an ill-advised strategy, but a pernicious one; he notes that it leads content-producers “to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind.” While the tone is slightly alarmist, Lanier’s point is solid: when we assume we can get anything we want — news articles, images, digital music — for free online, we hurt, and perhaps destroy, the innate worth of what people are producing and sharing. Why should a musician who writes and produces a song, presumably at some expense, be expected to bestow it as a gift upon the world?

But the releasing of the keys to the free-information demands of the online marketplace is not even the most troubling aspect of the internet’s total cultural penetration. That, I suggest, is the culture of hatred bred by anonymity. What’s most baffling about the trend toward online anonymity is exactly where it came from. When I watch the evening news, I’m not allowed — nor do I feel entitled — to appear in a picture-in-picture window offering sarcastic remarks, thinly veiled insults, and outright sadistic language about the anchors and the stories. So why do we feel this is a fundamental right online? Yes, the web is supposed to be a democratizing tool of great egalitarianism — I understand that. But just because one could say anything he wants doesn’t mean one should. There is something deeply troubling about citizens being able to hide behind online handles and lob verbal grenades toward anything they deem disagreeable, lame, or pointless. Aside from contributing nothing to our conversation, it weakens the intellectual capital of this allegedly revolutionary tool. Why should people bother posting information online when one commenter, emboldened by the freedom of anonymity and feeling empowered to voice his darkest thoughts because it will never be traced to him, can simply make a hateful or racist remark?

The problem is that it doesn’t take any talent or creativity to make one of these remarks. All it takes is a detached aloofness, or a hatred of a certain political figure, and one can immediately take a reductio ad absurdum approach to online discussion. By insulting the author, or suggesting that the article or work is boring, or denigrating a particular race, one reduces the discussion to its most base and troubling elements. No talent is required to do this. And for what? So you can appear more world-weary than the next commenter? So you can hold yourself out as more sophisticated than the other readers, and thus more difficult to impress?

In case it’s not obvious by now, this post is a mea culpa of sorts. For the first nine months of this site’s existence, we committed some of the sins I’ve just listed. As anonymous writers, we felt a perverse freedom to say whatever we pleased without fear of repercussion. With no fear of exposure, we could mock, insult, and generally torment people like Mike Hendricks, Mayor Funkhouser, Jack Cashill, and various users of Ink’s web site. Why did we do this? Well, in some cases criticism was more than warranted. . . . But in most cases there was no point to this. . . . We poked fun at Star columnists — and indeed at the entire publication — because it was easy for us; we were not reporters caught up in the dwindling world of media, and so never had to worry about the actual work it took to produce a newspaper. Far easier it was for us to simply wait for them to do the work, and then sit back and comment anonymously. For a time, this worked marvelously. Our page views reached heights greater than anything we’d ever imagined, and we routinely received emails from people congratulating us on our snarky ascension. But it wasn’t right. It wasn’t the kind of thing that would make our parents beam with pride. Most importantly, it didn’t contribute anything of value to our citywide conversation. Being able to make someone laugh, or merely pointing out the absurdity of a column, doesn’t make you cultural critic. That takes analysis, reasoning, and reflection. For a distressingly long time, we lost sight of that."
. . .
"Removing ourselves from the self-absorption of Web 2.0 is paramount if we are to recapture a reality based on tangible connections to nature and to each other. This starts with several actions. First, the scourge of web anonymity must end. For whatever reason, the nature of anonymity prompts us to give voice and life to our darkest sides. Second, we must understand that just because we are enabled to say something doesn’t mean we are compelled to say something. There may very well be a rumor swirling about a City Hall politico, but to give life to that rumor is to act irresponsibly. When one writes a post insulting that person or implying untoward things about him, it’s important to remember that people will read it and be affected by it. These are not mere words leaking out into an online ether where people are unaffected by harsh statements — they are mean-spirited and unnecessarily cruel aspersions that will no doubt alter the mood and spirit of the subject."
. . .
"Jaded, world-weary affectation is a vacuous intellectual pursuit. It challenges nothing, contributes nothing, learns nothing. There is something larger, and that thing is a stroll on the lawn of the Nelson, or a sunset over a comically flat Kansas horizon, or a chat with a friend under the Plaza lights. These are not things to be blogged about or posted as status updates in 140 characters or fewer; they are things to be lived, to be experienced, and to be savored, all with an attitude of appreciation and civility toward your fellow citizen because it’s simply the right thing to do."

I apologize to McKay for copying so much of what he wrote, but, trust me, the real essay goes deeper and further.

My post about Henry Rizzo appointing James Tindall to be chair of the Jackson County Legislature's Justice and Law Committee needs to be rewritten.

Boulevard Brewery - Is the Emperor Wearing Clothes?

John over at the Wort Hog posted a provocative piece raising questions about Boulevard Brewery's adhesion to craft beer ethos, prompted by a review of the Brewery's FAQ. While you may occasionally stumble across a negative review of a specific beer, rarely do you see a respected Kansas City beer writer like John pen something so critical of the state's largest craft brewery itself.

Specifically, he points out that earlier versions of the FAQ forswore the use of aluminum cans, citing "tradition" as the reason, only to delete that entry after adopting aluminum bottles. He also identifies two "shockingly" false claims that remain in the FAQ; one is that Boulevard will never make fruit beer, and the second is that Boulevard will only be distributed in the Midwest.

Most damningly and provocatively, the discrepancies cause John to raise 5 questions:

1. Did Boulevard ever truly hold the snooty values communicated on its FAQ?
2. If they did, why are these values so easy to abandon?
3. Does Boulevard truly value the craft beer ethos many see in its Smokestack series?
4. If so, how easily will Boulevard abandon that apparent value?
. . .
5. Is the Emperor wearing any clothes?

Those are some serious questions to raise based upon sloppy FAQ writing.

While I admire John's willingness to ask hard questions about a brewery many of us tend to treat as a regional treasure, I think he's going way overboard in seriously questioning the values of Boulevard Brewing.

First off, let's tackle the aluminum can question. The now-deleted section on aluminum cans was wrong-headed in the first place, but it was never a "value" of the brewery to be wedded to brown glass bottles. I'm not privy to their formal values statement, if they have one, but their "value" is tied to producing a high-quality beer experience, not favoring one container over another. A dismissive statement about aluminum cans on an early FAQ is not a value, and it's neither shocking nor unethical to abandon it when environmental and market reasons bring a reason to rethink the prejudice. (Aluminum cans are drawing more and more advocates within the craft brew industry, and I'm working on a post about the topic for the near future.)

As for the "fruit beer" issue, I think John is a bit mistaken when he acts like the statement is contradicted by his point that "Boulevard has been making a seasonal beer with fruit added for over a year now". I assume that John is referring to the orange peel used in making Zon beer, and there is a world of difference between a witbier like Zon and a "fruit beer", which is intended to be a "harmonious marriage of fruit and beer".

(I was surprised to see Boulevard eliminate an entire category of beers from its intended repertoire when I saw John's quotation. In context, though the statement comes in the form of a terse "nope" to the question "Will Boulevard ever make fruit beer, 'light' beer or non-alcoholic beer?". I think they should clarify that statement now, and reclaim the potential of entering into the wonderful craft-brew world of cherry stouts, raspberry ales, and Magic Hat #9.)

Finally, about the distribution issue. A few bottles of the Smokestack series found on the coasts does not demonstrate an abandonment of fundamental values. Indeed, the FAQ makes that point clear when it states that the limited distribution area helps them remain "dedicated to bringing back fresh, flavorful beers in a variety of styles". In the case of the Smokestack series, a narrowly focused niche beer like Two Jokers or Seeyoulator might well require a broader network of adventurous beer drinkers to allow for those styles to sell. There's no conflict with a value; there's an adaptation of strategy.

In sum, John at The Wort Hog is wrong when he attempts to spin some sloppy editing in a FAQ into a question of values. The loose language John excavates from old FAQs does not represent "snooty values", and the editing of that language does not reflect any abandonment of values. I see nothing to justify an accusation that Boulevard is prone to abandon the "craft beer ethos" represented in its Smokestack series.

On the other hand, it's refreshing to see someone step out and raise these questions. Boulevard Brewery is a dominant force in the regional beer scene, and beer bloggers ought to be stepping up and questioning on a regular basis whether our emperor is wearing clothes. Local beer bloggers have already been accused of "Homerism" and the claim is not entirely without justification.

I'm confident that, in this case, the emperor is wearing clothes. As beer-lovers, we owe it to ourselves and to Boulevard to make sure it remains fully clothed.

Hostility Toward Beer Snobs?

Over at Fat City, Jonathan Bender decides that he's a beer snob in a posting describing the attributes of beer snobs in less-than-flattering terms. It's a good-natured, well-written post, but it raises some interesting issues for those of us who take our beer seriously.

The meat of the post is the description of beer snobs:

Beer snobs will bring their own six-packs to parties not as gifts for the host but to ensure they'll have something they actually want to drink. A beer snob is likely to care as much about the glassware as the beverage, making sure the right glass is available in order to get the most out of a brew. A beer snob will not only have a well-developed palate for beer, but also insist on finding notes and flavors that nobody else can detect.

There's a grain of truth in what he writes, but I think I can explain.

About bringing beer to parties: I cannot count the number of parties that feature very good wines and crappy beers. On the other hand, I can't recall ever being at a party that served great beer and crappy boxed wine. That's just the truth. If I'm in the mood for a good beer at a party hosted by non-beer-appreciators, I cannot expect the host to have a good beer on hand. If the wine market place were 95% dominated by makers of sweet riesling and white zinfandel, wine drinkers might understand. So, yes, I have brought good beeer to parties with the hope that the host will toss them into the cooler, and I notice that they always disappear before I get a third beer.

Another reason to bring your own beer is that the world of beer is larger than the world of wine. If you go to a party, you can count on a red and a white, and if they're of reasonable quality, it's all the same to you. With beer, though, even if the host does have a nice amber ale available, you might be in the mood for a dark, rich, chocolaty porter. Or, if they have a porter, you might be yearning for a hoppy, crisp Imperial pilsner. Honestly, it's unfair to expect a party host to serve good examples of the broad range of craft beer styles. At my parties, I only have one or two good beers on tap, and I love it when people bring great examples of other styles to share.

About the Glassware thing: It's not so much that we insist on the "right" glassware, since the art of matching beer to proper glasses is wildly complex when you move into the world of Belgians. We just don't want the wrong glass. Pulling a dusty plastic tumbler off the shelf truly diminishes the beer experience.

All I ask is that the glass be clean, but super-clean - no soap residue or other head-destroying surprises. Ideally, the glass should be clear glass, too, so I can see the beer, but I've enjoyed plenty of good beers out of cheap plastic cups. At my parties, there are usually those ubiquitous cheap red plastic glasses by the kegs, but my friends know that they can wander into the kitchen and grab a real glass if they prefer. Those who care, do so, and those who don't, don't. Everyone is happy, and I don't have 80 glasses to handwash.

About the flavor nuances: If you serve me a great beer, chances are than I can wax eloquent about the flavor nuances because I know what to look for, and I can really concentrate on a great beer. BUT - I only talk about the flavor to those who ask, and, Jonathan, if you're seeing people interrupt a conversation to talk about the "biscuity" notes in a pale ale, or the "dark fruit" nuances in a baltic porter, the problem is not that you're hanging out with beer snobs. The problem is you're hanging out with losers.

Around the BLOCK Puts Food Review in Context

Not long ago, I stumbled upon Around the BLOCK, a nicely done local food blog. The author presents thoughtful reviews of well-chosen restaurants, and excels at providing vivid descriptions without lapsing into strident superlatives of praise or denunciation. Intelligence and grace abound.

In the temptingly positive review she posted yesterday about 1924 Main, one paragraph stands out as a must-read for those of us who believe that a thriving restaurant culture is an important and reliable sign of a city's vibrancy:

At 2 courses for $20 or 3 for $25 (all dishes are also offered a la carte), it’s hard to beat the price for an upscale, quality experience. All restaurants are struggling to survive in the sluggish economy, and owner Rob Dalzell has responded by making dinner more affordable without taking away the glamour of dining out. And, he is one of Kansas City’s independent restaurateurs, all of whom should be supported. If we don’t patronize these local treasures, they will not survive and we will be forced to spend our money in chain operations, which typically are less creative, more cookie-cutter, and don’t utilize local farmers. And what fun would that be?

Where will you spend your restaurant dollars in 2010?

Blogger Appreciation - BlogKC

BlogKC is the bass player of the Kansas City Blogosphere, standing way in back, head down, plunking out a rhythm that is essential to the song but almost unnoticeable behind the screaming guitars, dramatic vocalists and hard-blowing brass. Low-key and dependable are the two words that come to mind when I think of BlogKC - two words that rarely come to mind when blogs are the topic.

Low-key is not a kind synonym for bland, though. Attentive readers of BlogKC know that William Rockhill Nelson, the pseudonymous author, has a strong agenda and clear interests. WRN generally tends to focus on the positive, drawing attention to those doing good, and he has a bias for the environment. Who else, in a 2-paragraph piece on the Plaza Lighting Ceremony, devotes more than half the space to highlighting public transportation to the event?

Dating back to 2003, BlogKC has been at this game longer than any other active Kansas City news blog. His first archived post is about Mayor Barnes discussing when the downtown arena would be completed (she was wrong on this, too), and another early post discusses speculation that Claire McCaskill would challenge Bob Holden in a Democratic primary for Governor.

BlogKC does not evoke a lot of superlatives - it doesn't set its sights on that. But when BlogKC speaks, people listen. A recent post about a proposed annexation of 300 acres of urban sprawl in Platte County raised issues that had been completely missed by the undependable and incompetent Star, and people in City Hall were talking about it.

BlogKC is informative, informed, thoughtful, insightful, and fun to read. We've been lucky to have it for a little over 7 years, and I hope we will have its steady, measured voice long into the future.

Got a Soccer Player in the Family?

When I grew up, it was fuzz ball and street hockey in the alley behind Bobby Parres' and Tom Toczylowski's house. Home when the streetlights came on.

Nowadays, it's paid coaches and specialization. Supervision is multi-layered and intrusive.

Thank goodness a blog has found the humor in it all. "FullRideSoon" chronicles the world of a soccer mom supporting her little athletes on their quest for the glory. If only my parents were more like her, I may have become a successful athlete (at some sport that does not require speed or coordination).

Blogger Appreciation - Midtown Miscreant

The best writing going on in Kansas City right now is being published at Midtown Miscreant's blog, and it's there for free.

Specifically, go read this post. Then, read this post. If you're a fan of brilliant writing, you'll find yourself impatiently waiting for the third part of this 3-part series.

You may not believe this, but years and years ago, this kind of thing might show up in the KC Star, written by a columnist. Check out the archives of the Kansas City Star columnists, and see if you can find anything approaching Midtown Miscreant's level of skill in bringing a fresh angle to a compelling story. Heck, go ahead and check the New York Times or any other newspaper. If you find it, please let me know.

Midtown Miscreant is not writing this for money (though I wish he would put a paypal link up). He's not going to win a Pulitzer, and I doubt anybody asks him to come speak to their Rotary Club. On the other hand, he's not trying to please a mercurial editor, and he's not worried about getting fired.

Midtown Miscreant is gutsy, honest, compelling and talented. Those of us who read him are lucky that he gives us his stories.

Outrage Addicts and Zero Tolerance

"Outrage Addicts" are a peculiar set of amateur commenters, quick to express their shock and dismay about the latest offense against "common sense", and eager to decry the bureaucrats or activists who wander into their crossfire. They thrive on disgruntlement and tend to view themselves as homespun geniuses of horse sense - if only the world would check in with them before acting, it would be a better, if less outrageous, place.

(As an aside, this group tends to be the absolute worst at fact-checking, though the very outrages they speak against tend to be those that cry out for suspicion. Thus, they send out their OMG via emails and blog posts on "controversies" that are almost always fictional or exaggerated. Thus, a suit about a religious symbol on public land mysteriously becomes an attempt to remove the crosses from Arlington Cemetery, and a product liability lawsuit filed becomes a multi-million dollar award for a misspelled word in a warning label. Snopes is their buzz-kill.)

All of which is a lengthy introduction to the latest "outrage" circulating through the community of Outrage Addicts, and their long-suffering email companions. A 6 year-old Cub Scout in Delaware brought a camp eating utensil to school, and was suspended under a post-Columbine zero-tolerance policy against bringing weapons to school. Under the policy, he could conceivably be sent to the District's reform school for 45 days, and so that is the exaggerated threat being reported by the Outrage Addicts.

In this instance, the Outrage Addicts have the facts mostly right, partially because they are relying on a report by the New York Times. (More commonly, the outrage of the week comes from less credible sources, like AM radio or World Net Daily.) Of course, the threat is exaggerated and the slanted facts are picked like ripe red cherries, and the fact that the School District has already resolved the problem in favor of the little boy has not caught up (and never will catch up) to the exaggerated story of his peril, but that's part and parcel of stories like this one.

While this particular anecdote is being circulated as an attack on zero tolerance policies, the same facts could be used as an instance of outrage if the official response had been to ignore the tiny knife-wielder.

"Troubled child from a broken home, in defiance of well-publicized policy to protect his tiny classmates from injury and death, brandishes a knife in the classroom. Upon being stopped before the blade 'accidentally' removed some little girl's eye, he claimed he only brought it to use on his lunch. His irresponsible single mother, who sent her child to school armed with a knife even though she knew of the policy, is seeking to get the policy changed so that 6 year-olds can carry weapons to school when they or their parents see fit."

Outrageous, isn't it? If the story had included a few other facts, such as a child being accidentally hurt or, God forbid, if the child had been poor and a minority, these same circumstances could be circulated among the Outrage Addicts as a shining example of why common sense requires that we need a strong policy of zero-tolerance to protect our children from these knife-wielding barbarians.

So, in that context, what does the outrage du jour teach us about the impact of zero-tolerance policies? Sadly, it teaches us almost nothing, except for the fact that they can, in some instances, result in penalties for those who choose to ignore them. But acts portrayed as outrageous can have a disproportionate impact on public policy.

Long before the Delaware Dagger case made headlines in the Times, serious people have been struggling with the issue of the impact of zero-tolerance policies. Some argue that they over-criminalize, and others argue that more discretionary policies result in discrimination against minorities and ignoring dangerous behavior. A quick search can turn up dozens of studies supporting either view.

Honestly, I have no spectacular wisdom on the subject of zero-tolerance policies (surprised, aren't you?). Having glanced at a few of the studies and given it a bit of thought, I probably lean against them, and certainly acknowledge that, for them to be fair and effective, they need to be drafted with incredible care and forethought - more of both than one typically finds in policy manuals.

But I insist that my knowingly-uninformed indecisiveness is superior to the knee-jerk "common sense" being spread by the Outrage Addicts. I know what I don't know, and I would not want to form public policy on the basis of a cherubic 6 year-old Cub Scout who wanted to eat lunch with his new toy. My critical faculties make me realize that I could just as easily be forming public policy on the basis of a thuggish 6 year-old crack baby sent to school with a blade by an unemployed drug-dealing mom.

Reaction to outrageous anecdotes is a poor substitute for careful thought. If we're going to engage in a rational discussion of zero-tolerance - and I think that's a great discussion to have - then let's be careful to look at both the angels and the demons.

Scooping Playboy

I try to keep a high level of dignity on this blog, and my respect for women is boundless, but, as a citizen-journalist, I feel the need to run with an EXCLUSIVE SCOOP of a widely-read (for the articles) magazine.

Before the new issue of Playboy hits the stands, featuring Marge Simpson, I can offer a sneak preview of what that lucky Homer lives with every day.

( . ) ( . )

Blogging is Dying

The FTC has issued new guidelines requiring that bloggers disclose conflicts of interest clearly and conspicuously, such as when they receive freebies for product endorsements.

Does that mean that I'm actually going to have to pay for all those restaurant meals when I write my posts?! I can't imagine how that would work - do they really mean that I'm going to have to reach for my wallet and pay, rather than standing up at the end of my meal, telling the wait staff "I'm going to blog about this", and walking out, as I always do now?

And what about beer? Do they really expect me to pay for the bottles of beer I write about, rather than simply browsing through various retailers, pulling interesting selections off the shelves, and walking out?

Of course, those benefits of blogging are minor in comparison to the lucre I bring in through my writing on poetry. The compensation packages I have worked out with various publishers of poetry have made this blog into the economic engine that it is. The estates of Frost and Yeats have made me a wealthy man, and I resent having to disclose every time I cash one of their six-figure checks, or they send me on a junket to Tahiti.

If not for the profit motive, why would I even write this thing?

Fortunately, the guidelines don't become effective until December 1. Until then, it's business as usual. If you want me to mention your business on this blog, just email bigdollarendorsements@gonemild.com. We'll work something mutually beneficial out, just like we always have.

Not A Restaurant Review - Mezzaluna on Gregory

I had lunch at the freshly opened Mezzaluna now occupying the former Papa Keno's space at Gregory and Rockhill (formerly Waldeaux Wines and Liquors, and Circle K when we moved into the neighborhood 20+ years ago). Before I get started describing the experience, I want to make a quick acknowledgment that I am not a real restaurant reviewer. I fear that sometimes we bloggers get a little full of ourselves, and think we're the equivalent of a legitimate restaurant reviewer, because we go to restaurants and write about our experiences.

That's kind of like claiming you're a football player after tossing the ball around on the lawn, or claiming you're a golfer after a round at Cool Crest. Just because you go through some of the motions doesn't mean you've played the whole game. Tiger Woods does more than putt on felt, and there are a lot of Xs and Os in a real football game.

Real reviewers know a lot more than I do, and work a lot harder. I'm about to spout off on a restaurant I have visited once, by myself, for lunch, during their "soft" opening. I have no experience in opening a restaurant, and I don't have any advanced culinary training. I haven't written a ton of reviews, and I haven't studied the work of the great restaurant reviewers.

A proper restaurant reviewer would approach his or her task with a wealth of experience in the restaurant and journalism businesses, and would visit several times with multiple friends to get a sense of the breadth of the menu and the skill of the service. It's easy to laud or lambast a restaurant for one meal, but it's not a fair assessment, nor is it particularly helpful to the reader. Your praise of a lamb chop doesn't give a vegetarian much of a guess about what to expect.

I write all this not to belittle those of us who happen to publish on a blog - there are some top-notch true restaurant reviewers on blogs who have the skills and put in the effort to do first-rate reviews. I write all this simply to pay proper homage to those who work while I play, and to heighten the readers' awareness of the rigor required of real restaurant reviewers.

Now that all that is out of the way, I'm happy to be welcoming Mezzaluna to the neighborhood. It's a small Italian restaurant with a menu full of the basics, a good wine list and a nicely-done beer list, enhanced by a few craft brews on tap. The downstairs space is nice but a little utilitarian, with floor-to-ceiling retail coolers covering one entire wall, left over from the space's days as a liquor store. The upstairs space is surprisingly elegant, though, with cloth-covered chairs, white tablecloths and a pleasant breeze when the garage-door walls are opened. The guys at the table next to me ordered a bottle of wine (well-served by the waiter who swore it was the first time he had ever, in his life, opened a bottle of wine), and I envied the prospect of staying there for the afternoon, sipping wine with friends at tree-level.

The menu included several tempting options, all within the $8-12 range, including all the classics like ravioli, chicken parmesan, caesar salads, etc. I sought and accepted the waiter's advice in choosing between the Pizza Mezzaluna (a carnivore's concoction with garlic) and the lasagna. He recommended the lasagna, and it was a generous serving of well-prepared meat, cheese and pasta. It stood out for its restraint - some lasagna beats you over the head with dark red marinara sauce and spicy sausage, but this one was more elegant. The meat featured ground veal and a delicate hand with the spices, and the sauce was tamed with cream. I'd recommend it highly.

I visited the restaurant on its third day, and there were the expected kinks in service. The credit card machine was not working, and the waiter was stretched too thin serving both upstairs and downstairs. Given his apparent lack of experience (never having opened a bottle of wine), he did a fantastic job, with a friendly, relaxed style while running up and down the stairs.

I look forward to returning sometime soon for dinner, and sharing wine with friends in the upstairs space. Mezzaluna should thrive as an elegant addition to the neighborhood.

A Hoppy Shade of Pale

I've been neglecting the blog writing this week - it's tough to get caught up after a week away.

For a better-spent week, Gary Street at the under-appreciated Muddy Mo provides a report on his week tasting 7 pale ales and looking forward to his next homebrew project.

"Pale ale" is a term that applies to a broad swath of beers, and Gary's sequential approach is a great way to learn about different beers and your own tastes. You can get a lot more nuance out of a beer if you taste it in comparison with another of the same or similar style, and that helps you decide what to be looking for in your brewing and buying.

Missing Links

As I've been remaking this blog, I've been reading a lot of sites that had somehow never made it onto my blogroll. There's a ton of great writing out there to pay attention to - if you don't use Google Reader or some other aggregator, you're missing a lot.

Help me fill in the missing links on my blogroll. Here are a few I'm adding today:

Average Jane: I can't believe I haven't had Average Jane on my blogroll! I've known her in the real world for at least a couple years, and read her blog faithfully. She is anything but average - a smart ad person who also sings in rock bands. Her blog covers everything from recipes to relationship musings, in a friendly, thoughtful manner.

Kansas Sity Sinic: A Johnson County Republican woman who posts frequently and briefly. She keeps things light and amusing, and probably provokes more thought that way than she would if she posted long annotated diatribes about policy matters. And she's funny 9 times out of 10.

Absolutely Feisty: Young single mother battles her way through battles internal and external with a good heart and a sassy attitude. A must-read, but pay attention. Some of her best posts get deleted within 24 hours, when she gets her temper back!

Hot Blog on a Stick: Part of the Bull E. Vard and Chimpotle media empire, this blog focuses on the food you don't want to admit you've eaten. Unabashedly lowbrow, their two-voiced takedown of the Domino's bread bowl was one of the most descriptive pieces of writing on bad food I have ever read.

KC Hop Head: The guy's a new homebrewer and he's already putting raisins in his porter. That sort of creativity makes me suspect he's going to be brewing some of the best beer in the region soon. His writing is sharp and intelligent.

Keep on Truckin': "Some call it making new mistakes. I say I’m having new adventures." This woman is in the process of changing her life after a divorce, and her breezy wit leaves you only wishing that she would post more often. (Hint, hint.)

May's Machete: I won't even try to sum up what you'll find here. She describes it as "A cutting-edge view of lifestyle, culture and society", but that sounds like a pretentious literary magazine to me. May writes challenging, though-provoking, intimate stuff that makes you think a little harder and a little more clearly. A new favorite.

Show Me Eats: Food reviews from small town Missouri. Next time you're headed to the hinterlands, check this place out for thoughts on where to eat that doesn't involve a corporate drive-through.

Show-Me Beer: If you're a beer enthusiast, it's a great time to be alive. Show-Me Beer helps you sort through the wonderful array of options showing up on the shelves. Easy to read and well-informed, this blog is a free course in beer tasting, without the snobbery.

The Wort Hog Beer Blog: Another new brewer, now branching into the world of mead, too. ("Wort" is the word for beer before it ferments. Brewers make wort, yeast makes beer.) Her posts are well-researched and informative.

Shane Life: Another personal-musings blog. As a genre, these are the best or the worst of the blog world - it depends on whether you are engaged by the writing and the topics. Shane is deep without being "heavy", and has a knack for coming up with topics that have been kicking around in the back of my own mind.
________________

Alright, friends, what have I missed? Comment or email with suggestions about what else I should have in my blogroll.

Princess Garden: BEST Chinese Restaurant in Kansas City

The presumption encompassed in that title is staggering. Here I am, a middle-aged guy who's lived most of his life in Kansas City, has never set foot in Asia, much less China, and never studied Chinese cuisine.

The absurdity is heightened by the very title I want to award. Best Chinese Restaurant?? Is there a best American restaurant? Is it a cajun seafood steakhouse with Philly cheese-steaks and funnel cakes? We can't even agree on a best Kansas City-style barbecue restaurant, but I'm blithely going to choose one restaurant to represent the cuisine of a billion-plus people in 8 Great Traditions?

You betcha! The significance of a writer's proclamations lies in the eyes of the beholder. It's not whether you agree or disagree with me - it's whether you read it and give it a second thought.

All that philosophizing aside, the indisputable winner (even though I've only visited probably a dozen or so of the options here in KC) is Princess Garden on Wornall.

Princess Garden is a classic of the genre. Carved Chinese marble lions greet you from the parking lot at 8906 Wornall, and the decor of red and gold looks exactly like a typical restaurant in Beijing, Shanghai or Xi'an - at least to me it does. The carpet, the paintings, even the darkened, empty bar off to the right of the pay stand all scream real China, at least as imagined by Kansas Citians.


The drink menu is a hoot. Fresh from the early 70s, it features My Tais, Fog Cutters and a wide range of elaborate concoctions, with a page titled "Strong, for those who enjoy drinking." The alcoholic fantasyland is heightened by descriptions like "Shark's Tooth - the bite of this drink is so sharp and quick that you won't feel a thing" and "Princess Garden Express - You will feel the hit by this extraordinary drink - try it and experience yourself." Alas, I'm a beer drinker, so I haven't experienced myself yet.

But the food is the attraction, and the food is great. In our most recent trip (when the kids were in town - this is a nostalgic favorite for them, even though Sam gets to eat in NYC's Chinatown), we had the crab rangoon and the steamed dumplings. Both are exactly what you would expect from a good Chinese restaurant - nothing super fancy, nothing to elevate the genre to a whole new level with challenging and intriguing tastes and textures - simply solid, competent examples of what you would expect.

As always, we got the Crunchy Beef as an entree. I haven't seen this on other menus, but it is pieces of beef the size of shoe-string potatoes, fried to a crispy exterior and served with mu shu pancakes in a sticky sauce. Rich, decadent and wonderful.

We also had a dish with an impossibly long title, including words such as "sizzling", "yellow noodles" and "double faced" - it was spectacular. The noodles are both tender and crispy, depending on how soaked they are in the light sauce, and covered with chicken, shrimp and vegetables.

As I hope I made clear in the first paragraphs, I have no business offering superlatives about Chinese restaurants. And I can say with legitimacy and integrity is that Princess Garden is a family favorite, with food that satisfies and always meets or exceeds our midwestern expectations. The staff is friendly, and the service is good. I don't know if it is authentic or not. I just know that our family has had many, many happy meals there, and I recommend it to anyone who is wants food that is as far from chic as it is from Beijing.

Out of the Kitchen

It's been a month now since I've done a political post. Friends have wondered what the heck is going on. In a nutshell, the kitchen got hot enough that I couldn't stand the heat. More importantly, I don't want to keep adding to the heat.

I'm focusing on things less hateful.

Untold Stories

Today's issue of the Writer's Almanac is brilliant, thought-provoking and free. I have resolved to avoid describing people harshly on this blog, but if you don't subscribe, you're a . . . - ahh, well, let's just say you're depriving yourself of a daily read that educates, enlightens, and inspires.

What happens to stories that don't get told? What does the deprivation of a tale do to the fabric of the world?

A week ago yesterday, a friend I had never met died. (The story of our friendship is an odd one, but unimportant to anyone but me. We became close friends very quickly, and I grew to greatly admire her. We planned to meet on Monday, but my email suggesting a lunch location went unanswered, lost in a dead woman's email.) She went off the road on a quiet highway in Texas, struck a telephone pole and her car burned. I have chatted with her sister on Facebook, and we have decided that she must have been unconscious or dead immediately after the accident, before she could suffer and before the flames touched her. Some stories are almost necessary for the living, and it makes the most sense.

But what could it have been that put her on that highway at that time, when she was so exhausted that she probably fell asleep? Her sister and I figured it out from our separate bits of information. It changed a useless and simply sad death into something noble and inspirational. She was on that road at that time to help someone - when she died, she was doing something kind and selfless. At the hour of her death, she had chosen to go above and beyond what any reasonable person would do to accomplish something good in this world rather than take care of her own comfort and convenience.

That story, which would have died in the car with my friend had her sister and I not blundered into it, brought a dram of peace and goodness to a death which remains sharply painful.

In the context of all that happens in the world, how do stories gain importance and value? Everything that happens is a potential story, but 99.99% of what happens is unworthy of remembrance. Nobody wants to hear the story of how you chose what to eat for dinner (though some Twitter fans don't yet realize that).

Amidst the fire-hose rush of information coming at us every day, great stories pass over us without notice. Today is the birthday of Randy Shilts, who was the first major journalist to notice and cover the rise of AIDS. He paid attention. He got the story. He once said, "I view my role in life as writing stories that wouldn't get written unless I [write] them."

How many laid-off journalists are missing their opportunity - their calling - to find and write those stories today? How many working journalists are too busy filing their 3-paragraph blog entries to focus on, or even notice, important stories in our world? Can a thousand bloggers equal one Randy Shilts? We appear to have rolled the societal dice; may it please be so.

Also on this date, in 1946, Harold Ross, a New Yorker editor wrote a memo to John Hersey about his soon-to-be-published story on Hiroshima. He asked that Hersey tell not just the big story of what happened, but to tell the smaller, literal stories of how 100,000 people died. He asked for a description of the victims' vomiting. He wanted to know "how many were killed by being hit by hard objects, how many by burns, how many by concussion, or shock, or whatever it was?"

The result of that editor's insistence on memorable details was world-changing. The author later wrote, "What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima."

Had Harold Ross not sought the story, and had John Hersey not recorded it so vividly, that story would have been lost in the rush of other details. The New Yorker could have filled its pages with stories of celebrity deaths and fashion trends, and nobody would have been the wiser.

Nobody would have been the wiser.

Sophia Jumps from Comments to Her Own Blog

One of my favorite commentators on this blog has been Sophia. We don't always agree; we don't always disagree. She's calm, insightful, informed and logical.

Finally, she's started her own blog, League of Extraordinary Nobodies. I'm expecting great things.

Has Journalism Reached a Tipping Point?

Something really interesting and perhaps troubling happened last week. A local blog, Tony's Kansas City, made the Kansas City Star tumble into irrelevance regarding a major local story.

It all surrounded the turmoil involving the Citadel and spending city money on a project that has been festering for years. But the merits of that particular project matter less to me than the way it got handled.

In a nutshell, the KC Star was, once again, falling down on the job. While backroom manipulations were going on, the Star remained essentially silent while Tony roared to life. It was Tony, not the Star, that drew public attention to the story. It was Tony, not the Star, that got tongues wagging. I've been watching local politics for decades, and, for the first time I can recall, the backroom shenanigans of the insider aristocracy got stopped in its tracks without the Star's involvement.

Tony derailed a process that the Star was too lazy, incompetent or uncaring to write about.

Sadly, Star reporter Lynn Horsley is stamping her foot and claiming that she didn't drop the ball, rather than acknowledging that Tony did a better job than she did, and promising to be more responsive and courageous in her work.

Will this be the wave of the future? Will smart tipsters, who want to see their information have an impact, eschew the blase' and insider-cozy attitude demonstrated by the Star's fading political coverage?

I think it would be best for all concerned if the Star would show more of Tony's willingness to stick his nose into backroom business and gore a few sacred cows, so Tony could go back to being a joke blog.

Wrestling with Pigs - Advice for Local Politicians

The political season is warming up again, and new candidates are jumping into the pool. And, happily, there are some great ones - Jay Swearingen in the 31st District and Kevin McManus in the 46th District stand out as fresh faces ready to run great campaigns. Both have kicked off their efforts with successful fundraising and meeting lots of people.

As a blogger, I have a few words of advice for Jay, Kevin, and any other first-time candidates. Ignore us.

Here's a true story of why. A couple election cycles ago, I had chosen to support a primary candidate in a hard-fought state rep race. As is often the case, the partisans on both sides were getting kind of nasty in blog comments, while the candidates themselves were staying above it all.

One fine Saturday morning, when the weather was picture-perfect for door-to-door campaigning, the candidate I was supporting was out meeting people and asking for their votes. Around noon, though, the other candidate posted a long, passionate comment on my blog, way at the bottom of 80 or so comments. The candidate had obviously spent the morning on a computer instead of a sidewalk.

I knew the race was over right then. Shaking hands, asking for donations, putting yard-signs up - that's the way for a candidate to spend a sunny Saturday morning during campaign season. Worrying about what a few, mostly anonymous, commenters are saying is not. A few of that candidate's supporters told me after the election that they lost their optimism when they saw the comment, because they knew the candidate was not disciplined enough to stick to priorities. When the votes were counted, the candidate who spent Saturday morning going door-to-door clobbered the one who spent Saturday morning writing a comment on Gone Mild.

You will not win or lost your campaign by what is written on blogs. Another anecdote - back in 2006, another local candidate ran the most effective blog-based campaign I had ever imagined. He ran a first-class blog, participated in conversations in other blogs, and basically won the hearts and minds of everyone in the blogosphere. I sincerely thought he was going to win. He got crushed.

My point is that the blogosphere in local politics is a raucous scene populated by anonymous agitators who will say just about anything under their cloak of anonymity. Don't confuse them with the people you need to persuade.

If a blogger posts something factually inaccurate about you, go ahead and email the person and politely explain where he or she is mistaken. Most bloggers I know do try to stick to the truth, and the majority of us will print a correction. But ignore the comments, and don't try to win a battle in the comment section of a blog.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." While there are some tremendously thoughtful and fair blog commenters out there, the analogy fits.

Parental Controls Don't Work - Video Games Try Parental Fear-Mongering

Go read about the new racing game's "No Seat Belt" option at Hardcasual.net.

Blogger Appreciation: Logtar's Blog

Logtar's Blog breaks all the rules of blogging success. He hasn't chosen a narrow focus - his posts range from what he named his Wii to Democracy vs. Capitalism. He doesn't post all that often - he averages around 5 or 6 posts a month. He isn't an awe-inspiring wordsmith - English is his second language, and his posts are written in the simple and direct language of everyday life.

Most shocking, however, is his honesty. He writes about being bullied in High School, and does so in a way that reminds those of us who weren't "tough" of the frustration and humiliation. He writes about family problems, and family support. Every day that I write, I make choices about what I will reveal about myself and what I will not speak of; Logtar shares more deeply than most, without swerving into the genre of self-psychoanalyzing navel-gazing. He lets down his barriers enough to make you think, but not so much that you squirm.

Reading Logtar's Blog is like sitting down with an old friend for a beer. You don't know if the conversation is going to be raucous and funny, like challenging Twitters to a Whirlyball match, or if he has something heavier on his mind, and you're going to wind up talking about the real meaning of the Golden Rule in today's society.

I've had the pleasure of chatting with Logtar, and his wonderful wife, Bea (who also has a fantastic blog). When you meet him, you can see that the blog is pure Logtar. He's funny, compassionate, thoughtful, and madly in love with his wife. He's one of those great guys you look forward to seeing, because his directness and honesty makes the world seem a little easier to understand.

6 Years of Blogging

I missed my own anniversary of blogging. 6 years on Monday. Thanks for reading.

Shake Up at Pitch's Fat City??

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but my BS meter is on high alert. Last week, CJ Janovy posted an item on Fat City claiming to be looking to hire "another" Fat City blogger. Now, I think the world of CJ, but methinks she's stretching the truth here. No way, in the newspaper business, in this economy, is the paid staff expanding at Fat City.

I think either Charles Ferruzza or Owen Morris is on the way out.

Owen Morris has brought us fresh stories about all kinds of topics from drinking blood to what it's like to go through culinary classes, while Charles Ferruzza has fallen back on photographs of icons and reworded press releases. While Morris is out exploring the world of Christopher Elbow's sweet-corn ice cream, Ferruzza is appearing with Walt Bodine and grumbling about how you just can't find a good meat loaf sandwich these days.

Fat City just isn't big enough for two such divergent voices.

So who's going to win?

I'm putting my money on the old guy. Surely, hanging around with Walt Bodine has to give some insight on endurance.

Kraske Loses Chance at Redemption

(Kraske's latest effort inspired me to offer a similar analysis.)

Steve Kraske, a writer for the Kansas City Star, has survived the rounds of lay-offs that have claimed better, more useful writers in those hallowed halls.

Steve Kraske, there went your best chance.

One final shot to start all over again and give this writing thing a fresh start.

It's an enormous irony. You've held onto a job at a paper with dwindling circulation and influence approaching zero. A significant victory, this is not.

This coup was staged by a rag-tag group of bloggers with little money, toiling away on folding chairs, in basements, living rooms and kitchens throughout the region. And they've bested you. When you've made off-base predictions, they've been correct. When you've asked foolish questions, they've asked insightful ones. When he has failed to produce any news worthy of publications, they have scooped him time and time again. When they have predicted a rising Democratic Party, he saw the Democrats as "doomed in November".

So, you survived, but in a strange way, you still lose.

Because getting fired from the Star offered you that last chance.

Here's my thinking: If the Star fired you, you had an opportunity to start up your own blog, and have one more time to face the naysayers and beat them into the ground. You could have tried to form an audience based on merit, rather than proximity to the sports page or comics.

You could have showed 'em, Missouri-style. You could have built traffic and been a real part of the thriving part of the media world. You could have rubbed the bloggers' noses in it when you were right. You could have built a monumental readership that would have demonstrated that you're a worthy commentator.

Now?

Now we have more of the same. The Big Muddle, I call it.

That is, just more of the same at the Star: More turmoil. More uncertainty. More off-base analysis and more discord. More aimless drift out of your column, just as things have been since virtually the day you took over.

Don't breathe too easy yet. The newspaper industry continues to suffer, and a columnist who continually produces analysis that is weaker than that produced by at least a half-dozen local bloggers is not in a safe position. Day after day, week after week, smart, informed analysts are publishing better stuff than you. Meanwhile, McClatchy continues to look at ways to cut costs.

Maybe you'll get that shot at redemption after all.

Roy Blunt a Tax Cheat? Give Me a Break . . .

It turns out that Roy Blunt, one of my least favorite Missouri politicians, owes $6,820 in taxes on the house he owns in DC with his second wife, as a result of a mistake by the DC tax assessors.

Making hay while the sun shines, one of the big national progressive blogs has used the confusing little snafu as an opportunity to label him as follows: "Roy Blunt (R-MO): Congressman, GOP leader, Senate Candidate and Tax Cheat". He is also described as a "typical Republican" for "trying to cheat on his taxes."

There are plenty of good, solid, legitimate reasons to oppose Blunt's candidacy for Senate, just as there are plenty of good, solid, legitimate reasons to support Robin Carnahan's. Roy Blunt being a tax cheat because of a mistake on an exemption for DC real estate is not one of those reasons.

There are real human beings involved

As a blogger, I'm a little aghast tonight. A fellow Kansas City blogger - not a fringe blogger, but someone with a significant readership - posted something vile today that gleefully attacked the appearance of a person's wife and celebrated a crime scene photo of the same person's murdered father.

Where is the humanity?

In what hate-filled, depraved world is that exercise of protected free speech the right thing to do?

Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in the demonization of public figures. It's easy to forget that the person in your bomb sights has emotions, and that, at the end of the day, making fun of a photo of a dead father is a pretty heartless and pointless thing to do.

I've written a few things I've regretted in hindsight, and I worry about the legitimacy of the criticism I've directed toward the people who have devoted themselves toward serving the public. The people I have met who have chosen to get involved in public policy, even those I disagree with, are generally very caring people, however misguided I may think they are.

Cruelty may be legal, but it's ugly, and disturbing to see.

Are Bloggers the Same as Journalists in Court?

I tend to be cynical when bloggers claim to be journalists. Many of those who claim to be "citizen journalists" are not, in fact, doing the sort of thoughtful, detailed, original research that is the backbone of true journalism. Where I, as a blogger, may feel justified in posting a story based upon a rumor or an anonymous source with questionable reliability, a true journalist would insist on finding reliable, dependable sources for the information s/he prints. I've witnessed the difference between good journalism and good blogging.

My theoretical distinction is being destroyed, however, by a race to the middle. "Journalists" publish unsourced speculation, while some bloggers do actual, in-depth, factual investigation. What I consider to be journalism can appear in blogs, and what I consider to be blogging appears regularly in print. Midtown Miscreant's examination of blight had more journalistic integrity than the emotional drivel published by some people cashing McClatchy checks.

A court in New Jersey is now facing the challenge of deciding whether a blogger is entitled to protect her sources under a Journalist Shield Law. She published some criticism about a software company, and the company has sued her for libel. In the discovery phase of the case, the company has sought to find out who her sources were. She's refusing, claiming that she should be entitled to protection under the New Jersey shield law.

This is all interesting stuff. Do bloggers have the legal right to withhold identifying information about their anonymous tipsters? Should journalists be entitled to greater rights than bloggers when they are publishing material that does not meet the traditional standards of journalistic integrity?

More globally, in a world where good journalism is showing up on blogs and crappy bias is being published in newspapers, how do we decide what qualifies as real journalism? And if the courts find that to be a tough issue, how will the average citizen handle it? Does the medium matter more than the substance?

Neck of State

A friend forwarded this link to me - a website devoted to the analysis of Obama's neckwear. As a sartorially-challenged person, I have to admire the President for managing to wear a tie more than once without staining it . . .

Missouri Free Market Failure

Those of us who keep a close eye on free market extremists have been watching for the launch of "The Missouri Record", a lobbyist-run "independent" site promoting deregulation at the state and local levels. For a while now, the Missourians for Responsible Government have maintained a web address promising the launch of a "A Journal of Politics and Policy" in April.

Now that April has passed into history, those who purport to insist on responsibility for government have failed to live up to their self-imposed responsibility to launch a website on time. Now they claim they will launch it in May . . .

So far, the "Missouri Record" is simply yet another amusing example of those who like to talk about responsibility for others tending not to practice it themselves.

Perverse Incentives

Yesterday I made a provocative accusation, got some attention, learned I was wrong, and got further attention when I announced my error. The result was the highest visitor count of the month.

See why I don't want to make money off this blog?

Mea Culpa on Recall Petition

Classic boneheaded blogging here this morning. I was in full froth denouncing the Funkhouser Recall campaign, raising the specter of perjury because of their failure to attach the grounds for recall to the petition I was presented with yesterday evening. It was good work - a direct response to a personal experience I had, with big implications for the Recall Effort.

It would have been a great post, if only I knew what I was talking about.

Michael Hart from the campaign to recall Funkhouser sent me an email this morning, patiently and respectfully explaining that the information I sought was printed on the back of the petition, and that I might not have seen the information if I was presented with the petition on a clipboard.

In other words, I was wrong and off base.

No defense here, either. I didn't examine the document carefully enough, I didn't specifically ask the signature-gatherer for a written explanation of the grounds, and I didn't contact the campaign before launching my accusation. Sloppy and excuseless.

I continue to oppose the recall effort, but I don't want anyone to look askance at the effort because of what I wrote.

Neglecting the Blog

I try to produce at least one post six days a week, but the past week has seen three missed days, and the next couple days are looking kind of tough. I can't claim that the decrease in quantity has resulted in an increase in quality, either. Just lots of stuff going on.

Big stuff is coming soon, though. A few developments regarding the County and its Ethics Blackout are on the way. I'll get back to my more regular schedule. Thanks for those who continue to check in.

Backing Away from Beer Wars

Back in March, I enthusiastically promoted the release of Beer Wars, a movie about the craft beer industry.

Never mind.

Not only does it turn out that they are bribing bloggers to post a press release by offering them free tickets to the movie, but they also had the gall not to offer me the same deal. Despite my high-minded refusal to "monetize" this blog, that's just insulting.

On top of that, early indications are that the movie isn't going to be very good, and it will be followed by a panel discussion led by a creationist.

Blogger Appreciation: Tony's Kansas City

Like it or not, Tony's Kansas City is the 800 pound gorilla of the Kansas City blogosphere. Just as local politicians assure me that they never read my blog (even as they discuss what I've written), local bloggers often claim not to read Tony. It's a subtle attempt to deny the oversized impact Tony carries.

A list of legitimate complaints against Tony could consume a lot of pixels before exhaustion. He's sexist. He's racist, while frequently resorting to the race card. He's often wrong on the facts, and he's unapologetic about it. He's wildly unfair to some, and he has been cruel to good people. He's an abrasive braggart. And so on.

I'm not here to explain all that away. There's no big "but" that I can add on to that prior paragraph to explain how those things don't matter, or that they are overshadowed by a greater good.

Tony has, however, created a space for the rest of us, and democratized the local internet presence. Nobody is quicker to recognize and draw attention to new blogs, and direct the attention of his readers to the work of a beginner.

More importantly, he's created a freedom to be your own voice. By being as obnoxious as he is, Tony has deflated the pomposity of local bloggers before they get too full of themselves. By being rude and insulting, he inoculates us from the deadening weight of being on our best behavior at all times.

On a deeper level, Tony's work approaches performance art. What does it say about Kansas City that serious people in polite company have mentioned the alleged lack of footwear on the Mayor's wife? Similarly, can anybody deny that the Star's editorial board yearns for Tony's ability to recognize and generate interest in a story? Who knows how many journalists might still be drawing a paycheck if the Star had Tony's ability to predict what stories will capture attention?

Finally, let's not forget the incredible amount of work that goes into putting a blog out. Tony produces more links, more commentary, and more entertainment than any other local online presence. And he does it on days when he's tired. He does it on days when he just wants a break. He does it when he's down in the dumps, and on days when his mind is simply empty. His consistency is astounding - all by one guy.

I disagree with Tony on many things, but no other blogger has had as big an impact on Kansas City. More than any individual in town, he has stood up for the average Joe's right to be heard, and he has poked pretense in the eye. He has done it with mind-boggling persistence and occasional hilarity. He is an amplifier for the local blog scene, and, without him, we might still be heard, but the tone might be too mellow to notice.

Not Gonna Fight It, and I Hope Funk Doesn't, Either . . .

Like our Mayor, I disagree with portions of the budget passed by a 12-1 margin yesterday. Most of the disagreements are relatively minor, but a few of them (deep cuts to the police, $1.7M donation to the County) might be worth screaming about. And I know how to carry the fight to them, too. Call on Funkhouser to veto their scandalous budget and force them to cast their votes twice in favor of hurting our City. Divide the $1.7 million by the 12 votes in favor and ask whether any one of them is worth the $142,000 they are giving to the County, and maybe even try to tie them into the Jackson County Ethics Blackout. Scream about the "Marcason-Hermann Police Cuts" and set up a weekly report on which crimes get assigned to which Council members.

Yeah, when it comes to being a screaming ass, I could write the book. But I'm not going to play that game, though some say I'm pretty good at it.

Fact is, our Council has put in a lot of effort on this budget. I can sit here on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback all I like, but they are the ones who had to jump into the mudpit and wrestle the beast. If I really, really, really, think I'm absolutely, clairvoyantly right about how to set up a budget and balance the priorities to lead our city forward, I should have either run for office back when they put their reputations and wallets on the line, or I should have been at every public budget meeting and forum offering them my spectacular wisdom.

Instead, I stayed home.

That doesn't mean they're above criticism for foolish decisions (ahem, extending Cauthen) or that I won't complain when they use hard cases to make bad law (ahem, anti-Volunteer ordinance), but there comes a time when a good citizen knows when to shut up. This is one of them. They managed to unify behind a budget that may be imperfect, but it's a sober document reflecting hard choices and deep thought. If I thought they were supporting an insane, irresponsible, ill-thought-out budget, I would be screaming, but nobody can seriously claim their budget is not a realistic attempt to wrestle with our problems.

Funkhouser voted against it, and I can respect his vote. Like him, I personally think the police cuts are too deep, and that when it comes to basic services for all, public safety is job one. Politically, the vote might have been wise, too, since he can now point to that vote as having stood up for citizens and police when the council gave money away to the county and stadiums.

But it's a pretty weak point, and it's been made now. Vetoing the budget will change absolutely nothing, practically or politically.

It's time to move on.

The time for fighting about the budget is over. Ultimately, neither Funkhouser, the City Manager nor any of the Council members won or lost the battle, because it's really about US. As citizens, we have elected representatives that have decided on a budget by a 12-1 margin, and any further fighting about it is game-playing that can only distract our representatives from getting on with the business of overseeing the implementation of that budget.

So, instead of screaming or personal attacks or any other pushback on this budget, I want to thank our City Council. You've worked hard on a budget, and come up with a document that united twelve of you. That's impressive work, and my admiration is sincere. Each of the twelve who voted for the budget worked hard to arrive at something that you think represents Kansas City's best interests, and my points of disagreement are incapable of overshadowing my appreciation.

Fine work, City Council. I hope our Mayor signs on now that the time for fighting is past.

Dave Helling - Daily Revisions

Dave Helling claims he needs a translator to understand my criticism of his column entitled "End of $2 million stadium subsidy could let JoCo off the hook for ballparks". Now he's claiming that his column was an attempt to offer a history lesson about a long-gone politician's version of a backroom deal done decades ago.

Sure, Dave.

If it's a history lesson, why the budget analysis (faulty again, but math has always been a weakness for Helling) based on today's dollars?

As for your claims that you weren't saying what you thought of the proposal to end the tax dollar give-away (even though you trotted out every BS argument opposed to it, and neglected to mention that the City has no legal obligation to make the donation), they are as weak as your argument that $2,000,000 dollars is not a lot of money because it shows up in a larger budget (much of which is non-discretionary).

It's not surprising he can't understand my point - he even whines that I misspelled his name when I merely misplaced an apostrophe. Helling's inability to understand what is going on around him is a hallmark of his writing. Whether it's worrying about the collapse of the Democratic party in 2008 or low voter turnout in a record setting year, Helling never seems to need a translator for current events.

But, until yesterday, I had no idea the poor guy doesn't even understand what he himself has written. His post on Monday was a defense of the status quo for stadium donations, and his post on Tuesday was a poor attempt to redefine his current argument as an irrelevant history lesson.

SHUT UP! County Blocks Gone Mild? - Day 92 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

A funny thing happened with my hit counter yesterday. I had my highest count in a month, thanks to links from Tony's Kansas City and the Prime Buzz Blog Watch, but there were no hits at all from the Jackson County Courthouse. It seems I've been blocked!

I've always had my fans at the Jackson County Courthouse, and I have never NOT had hits from there on a workday since - heck, I don't know. 2005?

I must have gotten under somebody's skin, I suppose. Fortunately, they haven't blocked me from access to their site, so I can still get access to their agendas and keep an eye on who's lying about what committee he's not chairing. For the moment, they are free of local ethical oversight, and heaven knows the Star refuses to do an adequate job of covering County issues, but others are starting to pay attention.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to block websites. When City Hall blocked Tony's site, they used the excuse of his penchant for pictures of scantily clad women as an excuse, but everyone knows it was a ham-handed and failed attempt to reduce his influence. I don't know what excuse the County may be using to block Gone Mild, but it can't be bikini models . . .

Retraction Regarding Criminal Dominance and Influence on the Jackson County Legislature - Day 86 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

A couple days ago, I referred to the Jackson County legislature as "dominated by criminals". A commenter questioned my description, and, to be completely fair (as always), the legislature is not necessarily, in fact, dominated by criminals. It is, however, influenced by criminals. And, in its infinite wisdom, the legislature has chosen to appoint two of its legislators with rap sheets to a three person committee handling every nickel of the COMBAT Fund, which gives those individuals unusually strong influence over the disbursements of the Legislature.

So, I'd like to retract my previous statement about the Jackson County legislature. I am not sure it is 100% fair to claim that it is dominated by criminals. Instead, I would prefer to make the 100% accurate claim that "In boom times or tight times, though, one thing remains constant - the Jackson County Legislature is scandalously under-regulated, influenced by criminals and defying local ethics oversight."

My apologies for any confusion.

Government in the Dark - Day 64 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Knowledge is power, and it appears that Jackson County Government doesn't want to spread the power very widely. Unlike the City of Kansas City and the State of Missouri, Jackson County does not maintain a searchable database of its laws. Instead, Jackson County tells you to contact the County Clerk if you want to know what the law is, or download the chapters you want in pdf form.

And, in case you're looking for the famous Jackson County Ethics Code, which the Legislature imposed on everyone else but still refuses to bring itself under, don't bother looking on the Code page. Instead, you need to go back through the journals of the legislative meetings and track it down that way.

Personally, I think that's a shame, and that the citizens of Jackson County ought to have easier access to the law that the Jackson County Legislature fears. So, here is a pdf version of the law. And, if you want to see how the legislature's refusal to allow the Jackson County Ethics Commission violates the Charter, here's a pdf of the Jackson County Charter. Look at pages 25 and 26 for the provisions that the Jackson County Legislator is violating.

Why is it that a mere blogger makes these laws more available to the public than the Jackson County Government?

Who's benefiting from the secrecy? In 2010, we can have a solid slate of candidates who accept the Charter and support ethics to run against each incumbent on the Jackson County legislature.

Is "Sometime Soon" Good Enough? - Day 60 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

Rumors are swirling in the Jackson County Courthouse that the majority of the Legislators know they're in deep trouble with their exclusion from the Ethics Code, and that they will fix the problem in a few months after a new Ethics Commission is appointed. Then, they believe, everything will be fine and dandy, and they won't get clobbered with the ethics issue on the campaign trail. I've heard that from 4 sources with good connections to the legislators.

If I can get a handshake on that from someone in a position to make it happen, should I drop this "Day XX of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis" series?

After a good deal of reflection, the answer is not just "No", but "Hell No". I'm going to keep digging and posting until the Legislators accept enforcement of the Ethics Code, or they are driven from office. I intend to help recruit candidates and expose the misdeeds of incumbents until this thing is resolved.

Here are my reasons for refusing such a handshake deal:

1. I don't trust the legislature enough to rely on a handshake. There are 3 people I truly admire out of the group of 9, and that's not a majority. When it comes to dirty political dealing, I know I'm in way over my head, so I don't think it's safe to stop the heat until the problem is solved. Even if one of the legislators I admire promises to fix this problem, I won't believe that Henry Rizzo will allow it to happen until I see it with my own eyes.

2. Good people are already getting misled. Right now, as we speak, good, ethical people are submitting applications to the Jackson County Ethics Selection Committee under the impression that they won't be dragged into the public eye unless they are finalists. The Selection Committee's website promises "Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of applications, but the applications of those selected as finalists may become public. Finalists will be notified prior to their information being made public." However, under the Sunshine Law, those applications are public, and anybody can go look at them. Promising to make "every effort" to keep something secret when you know you are legally barred from making any effort to do so is simply dishonest, and far beneath the standard of ethics we should expect from anyone connected in any way to the Ethics Commission.

3. I don't want to foster the backroom atmosphere of Jackson County Government. Simply stated, if I reach a secret agreement to accomplish what I want, I would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

4. There's so much to write about! Every day I post something about the Jackson County Legislature, I get more information sent to me. There are a lot of people in the Jackson County Courthouse with information they want to share, and they know I can be trusted to keep them confidential. (If you're one of them, email me at dan(at symbol)gonemild.com.)

5. We need some turnover on the legislature, and this effort is going to help. The ethics crisis WILL be a millstone around the neck of each and every incumbent legislator in 2010. If the Ethics Crisis is still going on, it will be the dominant theme of the race. Even if they vote in mid-2009 to reverse themselves, I've already talked to at least one consultant who assures me that we can "rebrand" this "Jackson County Ethics Crisis" into the "Jackson County Ethics Blackout" and force the legislators to explain why they supported a 6 month blackout on their own ethical oversight. There's no good way out of this issue for them. There are three legislators I would truly hate to see lose their next race, but I'm confident that at least two of those three will survive the election.

All the News that's Comfortable to Print

In case anyone was wondering whether the Prime Buzz Blog Watch column would mention the massive blind spot in the Star's coverage of Jackson County, don't be silly. Instead, they found space for a piece about being a careful pedestrian in Kansas City.

As Elvis Costello wrote, "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused . . .".