Way to Go, Gottstein

Councilwoman Beth Gottstein has heard enoough constituents complaining about smoking in bar and restaurants, and she's going to do something about it. She has introduced a measure to allow Kansas City to vote on a real smoking ban on February 5, 2008. The Barnes-led council back in '04 handled the matter the way it did most things - ignored the will of the people, buckled to a few influential business owners, and changed nothing, all through backroom deals. Beth's taking it to the streets - let the more persuasive side win.

Prepare to hear lots and lots of whining. "It interferes with my freedom," some will complain, ignoring the fact that the freedom to pollute my space is not enumerated in the Constitution, and, if it were, it would end where my lungs begin. "It's bad for business," some will cry, as if New York and Minneapolis and Lawrence had become dry territory after their successful smoking bans were instituted. "Let the market decide," some will counter, ignoring the fact that bars and restaurants are (thank goodness) already heavily regulated for the health and benefit of the public, and they have no more free market right to serve tainted air than they do to allow tainted meat.

I admire Beth for getting out in front of undoing the damage done by the prior council. She has exposed herself to a nasty and vituperative group of people who will attack her personally, and she's probably cost herself a few donations in the next campaign cycle. But she's doing the right thing, and she's allowing the people of Kansas City to be heard. We'll have four months to discuss this issue, and then we get to vote. I'm going to vote in favor of the ban, and I know plenty who will vote against it. On February 6, we will know what the majority decided.

Journalism, Blogging, and David Martin in the Middle

I am frequently amused by bloggers who get full of themselves and start to think of themselves as journalists. (I won't link to any examples - my most frequent critic [the one I live with] says I've been too mean lately.) Simply stated, journalism is similar to much of blogging in that it normally consists of timely writing on current events. But journalism has the added burden of carefully checking facts and getting reliable and verifiable sources, whereas bloggers can, and do, let a story fly based on an email or a suspicion. It's a huge difference, and an important one - I wrote about it here when Dan Margolies of the Star called me to try to find sources on a (true) story I had published based upon an email and a suspicion. We both wound up writing about the same thing, but I did it as a blogger and he did it as a journalist (only after he had confirmation of the facts). Journalists don't publish stories based on rumors and conjecture.

That is, unless you are David Martin of the Pitch. You see, David seems a little worked up that the Wall Street Journal (a source of real journalism, at least until Murdoch gains control) wrote about a small demonstration of Minutemen outside Beth Gottstein's place. David missed the story when it happened (even though he claims he's been "reading about" the Minutemen since someone else at the Pitch wrote about them), and now, egg all over his face, he wants to get to the bottom of this tiny facet of the whole Semler story.

Humorously, he seems surprised that Beth didn't want to talk to him when he shows up, flash photographer in tow, and insists on grilling Gottstein about the demonstration outside a meeting. Ambush journalism has its place, but not when the topic is a 5 week old demonstration consisting of a few Minutemen waving signs outside a plaza condo. In that context, it's just another form of harassment, and Beth treated the jerk like a jerk. Good job, Beth. Too bad you didn't have some mace for him.

Gottstein showed a lot more class than she needed to, and called him up to give him the interview he wanted. In it, he accuses her of making up the demonstration, and demands to know where the Wall Street Journal got its story. Beth, having moved past this 5 week old story, refuses to play his game, and rebuffs his attempts to stir up another fight between herself and the Minutemen crazies. She, like everyone else, knows that if she gives him a quote about the demonstration, he'll use it to provoke another one, and nobody except a failing "journalist" would benefit from that.

In other words, David Martin just got outscooped by the Wall Street Journal and outsmarted by Beth Gottstein. It's been a bad week, and he's feeling fussy about it. He's forced a photographer to invest time in this fool's errand, and he has no story. People must be kind of chuckling at him around the office.

Instead of being a journalist and sticking to the verified facts, David Martin attacks. He actually publishes an article based on his unverified suspicion that the demonstration didn't happen. Angry that real journalists found a facet of the story that he had totally missed, he assumes it must be false, because he would have known about it if it had happened.

What's his best piece of evidence? That someone with the Minutemen denies that he knew about it. Note - nothing in Martin's article says the Minutemen denied it happened, but a person who was not tied to the demonstration denies that his nutcase organization harassed a city councilperson. There's a shocker! That's enough to run the presses for David Martin, though.

Oh, there's one more bit of evidence, but it contradicts Martin's position. The Minutemen were gathering for a protest in Topeka later that day, so the thought that they decided to raise two kinds of hell on their trip, when they already had their signs painted, makes a fair amount of sense.

Laughably, Martin ends his article with an accusation that Gottstein is not telling the truth, and that she is stirring things up by embellishing the truth to make herself a victim.

David Martin, you have no facts. All you have is a suspicion, and a large dose of frustration. A blogger might run with that, but a journalist most definitely would not. Talk to some of the journalists in your office, and maybe they'll take the time to explain the difference. They pay attention to the difference, and publish their non-journalism on their blog, where it belongs, instead of in print. On the other hand, they might refuse to talk to you, just like Beth Gottstein did, because you cannot be trusted to act like a journalist.

If You're on the Gottstein-Gamble Fence . . .

This has been the most awful race of the year, but, despite many friends who support Gamble, I have to stick with my initial choice of Gottstein. It seems many, many people have their minds made up so strongly in this race that they are beginning to lose those minds.

If you're on the fence, though, let me offer one last piece of persuasion. The blogs are full of frothing Gamble supporters whining about a third-party piece exaggerating the extent to which he benefitted from his TIF tax give-away. They ignore the fact it was a third party piece, and that the Gottstein campaign BY LAW could not control it.

Contrast that with the piece below that comes DIRECTLY FROM THE GAMBLE CAMPAIGN. It highlights Beth's Jewishness, and relies on the ugliest photo they could doctor up.

I understand that the desire to win runs strong in a political campaign, but this is a direct call for the KKK vote, and it comes from Gamble. Maybe that kind of thing was okay in the Pendergast era, but I don't like it. If you're on the fence, I hope you'll look at the level to which the Gamble campaign has sunk, and ask yourself if you want people like that around City Hall.
(For a larger, more readable version, click on the picture.)
Sadly, this is not the race I care about the most. I hate to get distracted from the race I truly am passionate about - FUNK for MAYOR! But my sense of right and wrong just can't sit in silence when I see things like this.

Gottstein vs. Gamble - A Few Thoughts

There are several interesting races to be decided on March 27, but the one that is going to be drawing the pyrotechnics, probably even moreso that the mayoral race, is the race for the 4th District At-Large. The Gottstein vs. Gamble race appears to have all makings of an ugly, ugly donnybrook - which is sad, because I doubt the truth is going to be well-served, and the candidates are both going to come out of it damaged. Maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevails, but I'm not feeling really optimistic. If anyone cares, here are a few thoughts about the race . . .

1. Go Roe or No Roe? Rumor has it that Jeff Roe is helping out the Gamble campaign, and when I say "rumor", I mean rumor. I have no idea whether it is true or not, or whether he's being paid in cash, or promises, or not at all. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were true, because even a political newcomer like Gamble can see that Roe is the kiss of death in Kansas City - ineffective and divisive.

I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it. Could this be a case of falsely-claimed victim-hood being used as a political tool by Gamble? Wow, that would be so slimey it almosts sounds like something Roe would do . . .

In short, until somebody comes forward with proof that Roe is working for one of the candidates, both sides ought to drop it entirely - kind of a Gamble/Gottstein/Godwin's Law.

2. Debates or Forums? Gamble is trying to make hay by claiming that Gottstein is refusing to participate in "one on one debates". This is silliness - they are both at so many forums, etc., that anyone who hasn't seen them together just doesn't care. Which is most of us - sorry, but this is a kind of sleazy attempt to make it look like Gottstein, who has been all around town and met just about anyone who cares to vote, is somehow dodging Gamble.

Why would Gamble do this? Because he was a late-decider - he didn't decide that the City Council race was worth his while until January. So now, in an attempt to make up for his own lack of effort, he's trying to make it seem like Gottstein is trying some kind of stealth campaign. I gotta call "bullsh#t" on this one.

3. Small Business vs. Non-Profits? The Star thinks that Gamble is a small-business voice. Everyone admires small businesses - scrappy providers of jobs in the face of economic challenge. Count me in - I think it's great that Gamble employs lots of people in the "service industries", cleaning rooms and making food. But let's not go overboard with the small business rhetoric - this is a guy who is tied into a TIF Tax-give-away to the tune of a few million tax dollars taken from schools and potholes and pumped into profit margins.

Gottstein's experience comes from the nonprofit sector - a large and growing segment of our economy, but not one that has the reputation of financial sophistication. On the other hand, she has a Master of Public Administration from one of the best MPA programs in the country, and is well-equipped to participate in running a city government.

In a nutshell, neither should be claiming that experience gives them an edge. Both would be rookies on the city council, and both would need to learn on the job.

4. Jew vs. Catholic If there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, it is the potential tension between the two communities. So far, with the exception of Tony's site, anti-Semitism has been silent, as has anti-Catholicism. Let's all hope it stays that way.

5. Clean Campaigns. I know Gottstein is committed to running a clean campaign, and I've heard that Gamble is similarly committed. On the other hand, both have lots of volunteers who want victory much more than they want a clean campaign. Also, exactly what is a "clean campaign"? Is discussing Gamble's TIF plan clean? Where should the line be drawn, and where will it be drawn in this race? What is responsible reporting of the truth, and what is smearing? And what of the "S/he started it" phenomenon, where one candidate engages in smear campaigning in response to a perceived smear from the other? Given the number of emails and outreaches I've already received in this race, I'm not optimistic that it will be a positive campaign focused on important issues. And that's disappointing, because what I know of both candidates is that they both deserve better, and are capable of better.