We must admit, we were excited when we heard that local Democrats and Republicans had selected Jerry Karr and Jeff Longbine to face off for the 17th District Kansas Senate seat vacated by Emporian Jim Barnett.
Our excitement had little to do with the fact that the seat will remain filled by an Emporian, although that is certainly good news locally.
No, our enthusiasm came because we know that neither Longbine nor Karr really likes to get dirty during campaigns. We anticipate their campaigns will focus on why each believes he is the best person to represent the 17th District.
That would be a breath of fresh air in the current campaign cycle.
So far, we’ve had Tom Holland, Democratic candidate for governor, meet with The Gazette editorial board to tell us why he believes Republican Sam Brownback can be beaten in a predominantly Republican state. In fact, when asked why he decided to run for governor, Holland told us he was recruited by current Gov. Mark Parkinson and former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Why did he run?
“Because I can win,” Holland told us.
Even Democrat Alan Jilka, running for Jerry Moran’s 1st District Congressional seat has decided to attack. During the primary when Jilka faced no opposition, he talked to The Gazette about issues and let the Republican candidates duke it out. Now that Jilka has an opponent, he still talks issues, but also makes a point of focusing on what he calls Huelskamp’s unwillingness to work with others.
With fewer than six weeks left to campaign, the candidates are working hard to get their messages out to voters. We encourage all to voters look beyond the rhetoric of what is wrong with the opponents. Nearly all candidates have Internet sites that outline their positions. Find them, read them and take the opportunity to meet the candidates in person when they come here.
Then, no matter what the outcomes, voters will know they have made informed decisions at the polls.
Gwendolynne Larson
Executive Editor
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Gwendolynne,
I didn't see you at the Holland event at Bruff's the other night. Although you had the chance to meet him earlier at the Gazette, maybe his positions, (or as you put it, rhetoric), has changed? It would have been nice to see at least 1 reporter from a supposed newspaper reporting on the event.
Campaign rhetoric has been with us forever, ("a chicken in every pot") and we do have the internet now so we can check out the rhetoric, or issues on both sides.
We can also check out the past records of those running.
It is something that all people who have no access to unbiased news sources need to do.
A politician running for office can promise you anything to get elected. Do you remember the campaign for change?
And now we have "THE PLEDGE FOR AMERICA"
After studying all the rhetoric and all the promises and all the facts, it all boils down to how you feel about the candidate.
And it is a candidates duty to the voters to point out the differences between themselves and their opponents.
Call it what you want.
Having met both candidates for governor,
This Republican is voting for Holland.
September 24, 2010 at 6:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t...
September 24, 2010 at 6:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Exactly right Steve. It's amazing how your perspective muddies the way you view things. And one thing is real obvious here. There is no doubt where Ms Larson's perspective is aimed.
When one side does it it's called getting the message out. When the other side gets it's message out it's called campaigning against your opponent. I thought that's what campaigns were supposed to do. Holland is a relative newcomer running against a well-known established politician. How else can he get his message out than by comparing himself against his opponent.
Give me a break!
September 24, 2010 at 7:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Sen. Brownback also supports handing school funding back to the local property tax which is nothing more than a back door attempt at local curriculum control.
Good link Steve!
September 24, 2010 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
For more on the local property tax funding of school districts check out the Fowler runs against Mast thread on these boards.
September 24, 2010 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I took Gwens advice on checking around the internet and came upon this NEWSPAPER ARTICLE about the candidate debate at the state fair.
(Was that reported on in the Gazette?)
Anyway it is a news report on the debate.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU who think the posters on the Gazettes site are negative and rude, check out the comments after the story.
September 24, 2010 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/entries/b...
September 24, 2010 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
My problem is not so much that Gwen and the Gazette staff have made up their minds on the election, that is their right.
My problem is that they feel that as they have made up their minds, it is no longer a news story worthy of any reporting.
You were there Monday night, and I am sure that you saw Jeff O'Dell from KVOE there interviewing the candidate.
Now I am sure that Steve Sauder is no Raving liberal Democrat, but his news outlet did have a reporter there didn't they?
Gwens plea for readers to go to the internet and check out the candidates positions, leaves me to wonder;
if we do that for everything in the news, what use is a subscription to the Gazette?
September 24, 2010 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazette
September 24, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
The evolution vs. creationism thing wouldn't be an issue if we could all agree to only teach the kids science that is scientific in the schools. That means leaving out all theories of origin since none of them can be recreated and/or tested and none have any eyewitnesses. Maybe senior year we could tell them about the top three or four most popular theories, what the main points of each are and then say, "Now that you know what we know for sure, scientifically, and now that you know these theories, you can choose the one that you think best fits with what we know or just make up one of your own."
How about just teaching facts?
September 24, 2010 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your right Steve, it is their right to chose the candidate they like.....but as you said....it is also their obligation to cover the news. That's unless they are just another propaganda arm claiming to be news.
September 24, 2010 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
oh4
One problem I see with your idea is the rest of the world (meaning college world) does not think that way. We learned that a few years ago when the creationists tried to pack the State Board of Education.
So if we go through eleven years of public schooling ignoring any meaningful mention of how we are got here (a task I think would be virtually impossible)....then give them a cursory overview of three or four top theory's in the senior year and let them decide which ones they liked......these poor kids are going to walk into Science 101 in college as unprepared as if they came from Mars.
Much of Public Education is college prep work. There are those that don't think it should be, and with some students they have a point. But for those college bound students, I think we would be doing them a terrible disservice allowing them to enter college thinking that a belief in creation science would suffice.
I hope I am not misrepresnting what you were saying. If I am please let me know....and I am sure you will my friend. :-)
September 24, 2010 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
maybe we could withhold information about precreatin' til Senior year too, since that information aint useful til they git in collage
September 24, 2010 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof,
Sure, we may not be able to "recreate" evolution from the beginning to our present state (it takes billions of years, you know), but we have observed in our lifetime how creates evolve. We have also seen evidence (bones and such) that point to how creatures have changed over the years. We're also getting close to creating simple living cells in the lab. You see, the theory of evolution uses scientific methods to deduce the theoretical beginning of life on Earth. That's what we like to call using logic and reason to form an opinion on the subject. Creationism/Religion is just a cop-out. It's like saying, "Well I don't know how that frozen burrito got in my freezer, so I'm just gonna assume some magic dude in the clouds put it there." An evolutionist would see the burrito and observe how other items show up in the fridge after the wife comes home from shopping and theorize that it might be the wife who put the burrito there. See? There was a logic explanation, but if we had never applied the scientific method, we'd never have learned the truth.
You see, we don't want to teach kids to always write-off the unexplainable as the work of a magical imaginary being. If we did, we'd all still think the world was flat, the universe revolved around the Earth, and the moon is swallowed by a dragon during an eclipse. I dare you to use the scientific method to come up with a supporting argument for religion.
Religion has no place in politics and people who write-off every unexplainable thing as the work of a "supernatural" force have no place in politics either. Believing in religion indicates a person's lack of reason and that they possess poor judgment. You don't want these people making decisions that will impact your life.
'enry
September 24, 2010 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Considering the teenage birthrate, I would say information about procreating is being used early and often in the public schools....Unfortunately....:-(
September 24, 2010 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy:
See what I mean about nothing to fear? This one will get a large outcry, but spelling and handwriting, not so much. You are correct that not enough people would change their approach to science as facts (observational science) first and theories (historical science) second to accomplish my proposition. As demonstrated by other posters here as they cover their own eyes and start throwing stones, people hold very tightly to the theory they embrace.
henry & marko,
"If you have two distinguished scientists, and, in fact, you can arrange many more on each side (as you know) say exactly opposite things, that's telling me that the conflict is not between 'Science' and 'belief in God' -- otherwise you'd expect all scientists to be atheists. But it's a worldview conflict and it's between scientists who have different worldviews." ~ John Lennox Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford
You've got two competing explanations of the evidence. One says 'design'. One says 'undirected processes'. Both of them have larger philosophical or religious or anti religious implications. So you can't say that one of those two theories is scientific and the other is unscientific simply because they both have implications. Both have implications." ~ Stephen Meyer PhD History and Philosophy of Science
"People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons." ~ John Polkinghorne Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge
"Admitting our biases is the best way towards rational discussion which I would welcome." ~ John Lennox
September 24, 2010 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
oh4
I am glad that you and I are able to admit our biases and engage in civil discourse. We get so much more done that way than just standing at the parapets hurling stones
September 24, 2010 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your question as to the missing outrage over the public schools failure to do adequate college prep work in language arts and math is a point well taken. My own concern is much more evident when it comes to science curriculum than to the others. Again...my biases are showing.
September 24, 2010 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy:
I appreciate our ability to discuss this stuff also, my friend.
Among other issues I have with the prioritization of science over the basic skill set is that the kids need that basic skill set to even engage in scientific studies of any theory of origin.
Okay, I have more living organisms to go kill off with some household cleaners....and a fly swatter. What's with all the flies??? ☺
A tidbit that came up in establishing a root word (essential to remembering the spelling) in our home spelling lesson: create is the root word of creature. (that'll ruffle some feathers!! ;-D
September 24, 2010 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Velly Velly interesting....and true......
And I do wonder how many youngsters (or oldsters for that matter) have any concept of root words. And I am amazed at how little most people really understand about history.
I happened into a couple of young girls at the Lyon County Historical Society building this summer. They were looking at an aerial photograph of Emporia circa late 1950's. I was answering some of their questions about the identity of building that were no longer there and trying to explain why some of them were gone.
They told me they hated history in school but loved learning things as we were doing that day. I was trying to impress upon them the importance of history by telling them that everything about their life today was not that way by accident. Everything about their life today was shaped and formed by what had happened before and to understand that is to better understand your life. That is history pure and simple.
September 24, 2010 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I agree with you that Gwen (and possibly some of the Gazette staff), have made up their minds about at least a couple of campaigns and are consequently not reporting these as news anymore.
You go on to give kudos to KVOE for Jeff O'Dells reporting of the Holland event and make the assumption KVOE in general does not make political decisions regarding news coverage. I would like to bring it to your attention this is not necessarily the case with every KVOE reporter.
In August, Roger Hartsook, reporting for KVOE, covered a Community Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD) exercise my husband, Mike Dorcey, organized. Even though everyone Roger interviewed told Roger, "You need to speak with Mike Dorcey; he organized this event." Roger refused to do so. His response, "Dorcey is running for political office so I can't talk to him."
Does mean KVOE will stop covering what Jeff Longbine says in city commission meetings? Will Don Hill's community involvement with events such as the Health Center no longer be covered by KVOE because he's running for office?
Doubtful!
Mike didn't organize this event to campaign. He participates all the time in community activities to help others, not for political gain. I believe we are blessed with many people in Lyon County, both Republican and Democrat, who are actively involved in the community but also run for public office who do so to be public servants. Jeff Longbine, Don Hill, Jerry Karr and Mike Dorcey are all examples.
So, my point is, yes, ding Gwen. I think she is making a poor choice as a representative of the Gazette to voice her opinion now and to stop covering the news. I also want people to realize that all news media may have a political private agenda that prejudices their reporting of the news. Gwen demonstrated that this month. Roger demonstrated that two months ago. I wonder who it will be next month...?
September 25, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Point taken Denise,
It is no wonder so many younger people are leaving traditional news outlets behind and are online all the time. And even there you get the bias.
September 25, 2010 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...
Thank you, Steve! I think you make a good point, too.
When I was in college studying journalism in the early 1980s an ugly word emerged that I doubted at the time would come to pass; sensationalism of the news. It seemed to incredible at the time, at least for me. Now I see it has become the modi operandi.
The media says it's reporting the news but if pressed, makes the excuse this is what the public wants. Everyone is doing it to keep up the ratings up and to make more money.
Unfortunately, too many in our society have fallen for the shock and awe factor of information. They have to be entertained to give news programs or publications any time.
I find it very sad and disappointing. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions to improve this.
I will be leaving shortly to go to EHS to judge some of the Debate rounds going on there today. The interest of a new generation in what's going on in the world gives me hope!
September 25, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Everybody that has ever went to work for a news organization brings with them a certain set of biases. I know I certainly did. But back then most all news organizations, whether they be print or broadcast, made a concerted effort to be fair. Stories always went through editors whose jobs it was to make certain you had verified statements, checked sources, and gotten opposing views if applicable.
What passes for news anymore is as much propaganda as anything and that extends beyond the obvious culprits like MSNBC and FOX right down to local papers like the once respected Emporia Gazette. That's why I get most of my news anymore from the Daily Show. At least he is honest about it being for laughs.
September 25, 2010 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
oh4,
I'm glad you're home teaching about root words. If create is a root word of creature, that certainly fits. I am indeed a creature -- of habit, of discourse.
Here's a game page for root words you and your offspring may find interesting and educational.
http://www.funbrain.com/funbrain/root...
September 28, 2010 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Thank you, create. I had heard of this, but hadn't checked it out yet. Direct link make life SO much easier!!! ☺
September 28, 2010 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )