Thursday, October 02, 2008

Marcason Rumor False - Responsive Public Service Alive and Well

Yesterday morning, I posted two rumors and compared the amount of play that they received, while contrasting their importance. One of the rumors that Jan Marcason was working to ignore the Economic Development Policy of the City Council and seek approval of wasteful, unnecessary tax abatements for a wealthy developer.

The rumor is false. I emailed Councilmember Marcason before posting the item, but not at a reasonable hour for seeking her input (I do my blogging in the early morning). Even though I labeled it clearly as a rumor, and the point of the post was that unimportant personality-based rumors get more attention than substantive, policy-based rumors, I wanted to find the truth, if any, behind it.

Sure enough, as always, Jan Marcason responded promptly (though after I had left for the day), with a direct and complete response. She even included her cell phone number for me if I had any questions.

It turns out that Marcason's involvement sprang from her following up on a report that the developer had not had a complete opportunity to do their presentation. She also mentioned that the EDC is going to put on an "Economic Development 101" program to explain to developers what incentives are available and when they would be appropriate, and she plans to attend so that she can be more informed.

So, while the 39th Street Giveaway may or may not be dead (keep an eye on the other councilmembers), the rumor is false as far as Jan Marcason is concerned.

I do have to point out, though, as an opinionated citizen in the 4th District, I have seen that my two council members, Jan Marcason and Beth Gottstein, are unfailingly responsive and helpful. Even as I was expressing my strong disagreement with them over the Anti-Volunteerism Ordinance, they were consistently patient and forthright. At one point, when the ordinance had been changed outside of the public eye, Marcason even called me at home and offered to send the latest version, long outside of normal office hours, even when she knew I was most definitely not supporting her on that ordinance. Jan doesn't try to smooth over her differences with me when she has them, but she has a remarkable ability to disagree without being disagreeable.

Labels: , ,

65 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You indicate Councilperson Marcason can disagree without being disagreeable. You don't include Councilperson Gottstein in that sentence. Doesn't that quality apply to both?

10/02/2008 7:02 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

Dan it comes down to this, you are not that bright and you are motivated by an unexplainable attraction to Mark and Gloria.

You were simply taking a cheap shot at Jan and you got called out on it. If you had an ounce of decency you would be embarrassed, so I doubt that you are embarrassed.

You were a "Sarah Palin" before most of us had the displeasure of hearing the annoying voice of Alaska's chief executive. By that I mean that you simply say whatever you have reason to believe will be hurtful without regard for truth or consequences -- all the while trying to sound "cute."

Have a good day "Sarah."

10/02/2008 8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Porchpundit, you are one in a million. Dan takes the high road, and you sit back and call names. Dan heaps praise, and you claim he tries to be hurtful without regard to truth or consequences. What color is the sky in your world?

I know Jan, I know Dan, I know Beth, and I've read your mudslinging nonsense for months. Based on the evidence, all three of them are a lot brighter and have more class than you can even aspire to.

Good for Dan for clearing up the rumor. I wish the Star would correct its many mistakes with half the decency and honesty that Dan just demonstrated.

10/02/2008 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan takes the high road? That's nonsense.

Dan attacked Jan because Jan was involved with the volunteer ordinance and other issues that are opposed by the mayor.

Plain and simple.

No one believes the bullshit, lying rationalizations Dan attempts to make.

10/02/2008 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does that make sense, even to you, anonymous? Dan reports on a rumor that he heard (I heard it too), and clearly labels it as a rumor. He emails to find out that it is wrong, and promptly and visibly proclaims that it is wrong. The net result to Jan is nothing but positive, and Dan shows integrity.

If Roe doesn't replace Wolf, do you think the Star will publish anything half as gracious or prominent as Dan did? Has Tony ever printed a retraction of his bullshit, except when a lawyer threatened to sue his ass?

10/02/2008 8:57 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

Anon 8:18:

Dan took a cheap shot a Jan, which is NOT taking the high road.

On top of that Dan tried to equate Jan's service with Funkhouser's cavorting with Jeff Roe by covering two topics in the same post.

Don't fall for Dan's Nixonian effort to change the subject.

My guess is that Dan got his head handed to him yesterday offline and had to post a correction.

Still, did you happen to notice that Dan even managed to bury the correction by posting a long, lame rant above it. Here is how it works"

"Hmmm what does Dan have to say this morning? I wonder whether he will try to defend Gloria's latest embarrassing public act at that airport? Oh, no such luck, another long lame, rant expressing Dan's views on aging rock stars even listing the songs on an album that makes me scroll down more than I really want to.... Let's move on to Well Hell Michelle."

Bingo - Make the reader work and readership of the correction drops like financial stocks after deregulation.

If he had found out Jan had done something wrong or embarrassing, Dan would not have posted anything for a week to leave it at the top of his blog.

10/02/2008 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Comes Around is Here said...

"China Jan" Marcason deserves every bit of bad press that can be heaped on to her, and I assure you more is coming. Someone send her this link so she knows what is coming to upset her life.

Overseas travel paid for by tyrants who live off the blood spilled by slave laborers is most certainly in play Ms. Marcason.

Campaign finances are in play.

Relationship with former husband who works for a law firm that got rich on Kay Barnes' willingness to put raise the city's debt by 300 percent is in play.

What some people call a politician's personal life is in play. You gotta love cameras.

10/02/2008 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Porchie - Sorry, gotta call bullshit on you here. He posted the Marcason item first on the day. Most people use feeds to read blogs these days, so it gets full attention. He posts at least one item almost every day - care to show some evidence for your crazy claim he would keep an anti-Marcason post at the top for a week? I've never seen him do that - have you?

Also, he says that he emailed her to ask her about it. Why would he do that if he wasn't trying to put the truth out there? Do you think he's lying, because, if so, I'd suggest emailing or calling Marcason and asking her - she seems to be pretty responsive.

Now you're knocking him for supporting breast cancer patients?

How awful and pathetic can you possibly get, porchie?

10/02/2008 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Porchpundit demonstrates that he is most definitely NOT in the loop of Kansas City politics. "My guess is that Dan got his head handed to him yesterday offline and had to post a correction." Jan is many things, as Dan points out. She's prompt, responsive and helpful. One thing she's not, though, is someone who hands people their head.

If Porchpundit thinks Marcason intimidated Dan into posting this clarification, he doesn't know Marcason or Dan.

10/02/2008 10:06 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Most people who read blogs don't use RSS feeds. It's only ultra engaged commenters, blog and news addicts that use them. Most readers of this and other blogs don't bother with RSS feeds.

And I'm quite familiar with the concept of burying posts, and it appears to have happened here.

10/02/2008 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good God, you people are sincerely insane. Dan writes the nicest thing anyone has ever written about Jan Marcason, and then writes a post supporting a fundraising effort for breat cancer, AND YOU ARE GIVING HIM SHIT?!?!?!

I know that Porchpundit and Mainstream are two of the dumbest fucking douchebags in Kansas City, but you should be fucking ashamed of your stupid selves.

Just scroll down the fucking page. Dan "buried" his post about the Council embarrassing KC on All Things considered under a list of KC food experiences?

Dan "buried" his Kinder/Page poll discussion under a feel-good item about Tom Sweeny?

Dan "buried" his post about Squitiro having the last laugh under a beer post, and used the Squitiro post to "bury" his brilliant explanation of the mortgage crisis, on which he obviously spent a lot of effort?

How fucking insane are you two? If Dan were 10% as crazed as the two of you, I wouldn't read him every day. Heck, if he were as fucking idiotic as the two of you, I wouldn't scroll down to his first post, much less his second.

It also looks like his first posts tend to attract more commentary that his first ones, INCLUDING THIS ONE, so it looks like your paranoid delusional theory is nothing but fucking bullshit.

I disagree with Dan on Funkhouser. I was a supporter of Riederer and then Brooks, and I still think either would have been a better Mayor (unless they somehow wound up with Gloria in their offices; she could fuck up anyone).

But I appreciate Dan's constant honesty and the fact that he plays it straight all the time. He doesn't try to act like he's impartial, he lets you know why he supports who he supports, and he admits when he's wrong. His piece about wishing he had backed Donnelly was the best "mea culpa" I've ever read by a pundit.

I'm not claiming Dan is above criticism - I argue with his perspectives much of the time. But I take sincere offense at your personal attacks and false inuendos about someone who delivers better and more thoughtful commentary than the entire Star editorial staff day in and day out.

You guys are so fucked in the head you don't even recognize integrity when you're posting on a site that demonstrates it.

10/02/2008 11:00 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Anon at 11:00 am, you're calling us insane, with the comment you just made?

Your post says it all.

(note to Porchie, let's go in on some group therapy together - and let's start tonight, it's import night at Hoopers)

10/02/2008 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan takes the high road,

Wasn't it Dan that refered to Jan as a member of the "nasty nine"? Yeah, that is certainly the high road.

10/02/2008 11:21 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

I will say it again. Dan took a cheap shot in the original post and had to back peddle because he was just dead wrong.

Whistle, if he emailed Jan, why didn't he wait for a response before he posted lies and innuendo? What was the big rush? Was he trying to scoop the New York Times?

Of course, Dan has been known for lies and innuendo for quite some time now.

For that reason, I am sure Dan will enjoy working on the Axiom Team once it completes its take over at City Hall.

10/02/2008 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Porchie - I have read Dan for a long time, back probably 4 years now, and I've never seen him tell a lie. I've seen him be mistaken once or twice, but he's always corrected his mistakes. Even here, he never said the rumor was true, and said he hoped it wasn't.

Where are the lies you're claiming?

10/02/2008 11:36 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

You can start with every line he has written in defense of Funkhouser going back the early scandals regarding free cars and raising money for inaugural parties.

Dan consider yourself a "bottom" when Jeff Roe or a woman closely tied to Jeff Roe moves in at City Hall.

10/02/2008 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan,

When you call both Jan and Beth "extremely responsive", please keep in mind that you are NOT an average citizen of the district. You have insider connections at city hall, and you write a very well-read blog in the city. You even pushed hard for one of them to get in office -- including calling a competitive mailer anti-semetic -- even though you later found out it was created by someone who is Jewish and likely influenced more than a few votes along the way.

Please don't assume that their responsiveness to you is the same responsiveness that the average citizen in the city gets from them. And their pandoring to those who can influence votes and financing vs the citizens in their district is certainly a problem that everyone should be concerned about.

10/02/2008 11:54 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

If Roe doesn't replace Wolf, do you think the Star will publish anything half as gracious or prominent as Dan did?

Perhaps I missed a story, but I haven't seen the Star report that Roe would replace Wolf.

Sources report that the mayor and Roe are talking "about a paid advisory role in the mayor's office." Kendrick Blackwood confirms that the two talk, will neither confirm nor deny that they are engaged in talks to formalize the relationship. And, this is my favorite part, "He did say if an agreement is signed, the amount Roe would be paid would eventually be public record."

So, I guess if the mayor and Roe come out and say that they never had discussions about the mayor hiring Roe as an advisor the Star might feel the need to print a correction. I'm quite certain they would publish the denial.

And, again, maybe I missed it, but the Star didn't run with this story until they had a comment from the mayor's office. Something Dan can't claim.

For those of us whose inboxes aren't full of insider gossip, it's not difficult at all to distinguish between these two "rumors" and see that Dan's original post was a false equivalence.

And for all of Dan's graciousness in this post, I'm still bothered that he did the original post before getting a comment back from Marcason. Precisely because he knows full well that she's responsive.

and the point of the post was that unimportant personality-based rumors get more attention than substantive, policy-based rumors,

Eh... this is where I sympathize with porchpundit and mainstream's call of bullshit (if not their follow up arguments). Jeff "most despised political consultant in KC" Roe going to work for the mayor has plenty of policy implications. And how would the post have been different if Dan waited for Marcason's response? Perhaps it would have illustrated that rumors that are easily shot down get less attention than rumors that are half confirmed by the involved parties?

Good arguments don't need lies to support them. And Dan's argument relied on, at the very least, unnecessary ambiguity.

Lastly, a defense of "fucking." With all due respect to Dan, I doubt gonemild is a favored destination for readers who are unfamiliar with dirty words. Spare me the reach for the smelling salts.

10/02/2008 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roe would never take the pay cut to work for city hall but he would put a person under his control in the so-called chief of staff position. Either way Roe would call the shots. Since Dan seems to be a mouthpiece for city hall i guess he will be working for Roe.

10/02/2008 12:17 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

Please don't assume that their responsiveness to you is the same responsiveness that the average citizen in the city gets from them.

It's been 24 hours, so I think I can safely enter the data point that Marcason's office does not respond to email queries from gmail accounts without real last names (e.g. Sophia X). I didn't identify as a constituent either. I don't blame them for not responding, I just would have thought it was pretty damn cool if they had. So there's my little experiment.

10/02/2008 12:21 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

There's a big difference here between the Roe rumor and the "Marcason" rumor. The Roe rumor was way more than a rumor, AND DAN MADE UP THE MARCASON RUMOR HIMSELF.

Everybody clear on that? Dan made up the Marcason rumor as a vindictive move against Marcason (remember when Dan established Marcason as the leader of, in his terms, "the nasty nine"?

First, the Roe Rumor
----------------------
The Star ASKED Funk if it was true (about Roe) and Funk, very notably, did not deny it, and even went further to say "he couldn't comment on it."

Big difference.

as a matter of fact, per the Star Funk said "He did say if an agreement is signed, the amount Roe would be paid would eventually be public record."

It's WAY more than a rumor, especially given Funk's direct comments.

The Made-up Marcason Rumor
-------------------------
Who else was talking about this but Dan? Nobody, and I mean nobody. Read about it in another blog? Primebuzz? here about it from a well-connected friend?

how many eoiple did Dan hear this "rumor" from, if he heard it all? One person?

This wasn't even a rumor, and the two are not even comparable.

Primebuzz interviewed Funkhouser when they broke the story, and Funkhouser half-validated it. What did Dan do? He made stuff up and through it up on his blog in a desperate, vindictive move.

Let's compare the two again:

On the one hand:

Funk gets interviewed and lends credence to the speculation by saying "He did say if an agreement is signed, the amount Roe would be paid would eventually be public record."

On the other hand:

Dan makes stuff up.

Nice.

And. btw, Funk is going to hire Roe.

10/02/2008 1:25 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

AND DAN MADE UP THE MARCASON RUMOR HIMSELF.

You're over-selling. You can't prove that Dan made it up, and it isn't necessary that Dan made it up to differentiate between the two. I'd be pretty stunned if Dan made it up.

10/02/2008 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the thing about 39th & State Line from an attorney at Lathrop & Gage, who would be in a position to know, and a council member at the table nodded, though I won't claim that proves he or she agreed, or even necessarily heard the comment. And it wasn't attributed to any specific council member. At least one other commenter here says he or she heard the rumor.

I don't think Dan made up the rumor, but you seem willing to jump to the conclusion that he did, Mainstream. How come you don't point to any proven lies that Dan has spread?

Porchie - What lie did Dan tell about the party or the car? You're making serious allegations, and the proof ought to be at your finger tips. Come on, deliver.

10/02/2008 2:10 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I would be stunned as well. And Sophia, I am overselling and prone to dramatics.

However, the point remains that I'm 99% certain that Dan heard the Marcason rumor from only one person, while the Star had corroboration from Funk himself, plus others.

Big difference, and somehwat telling.

There. See? I can make a point without overselling sometimes.

10/02/2008 2:14 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Dan didn't validate the Marcason rumor -- after talking with one person he made his post, because the purpose of his post was to attack Jan Marcason, a perceived enemy of Funkhouser.

As Dan tries to smear other perceived enemies of Funkhouser, we'll be watching as well.

Dan stretchies ethical boundaries in ways that provide him plausible deniability.

And the Roe rumor? Corroborated by Funk, and it is true. This is going to get very ugly.

10/02/2008 2:21 PM  
Anonymous The League said...

Lay off of Jeff Roe, at least he defends the rights of the unborn. You liberal blasphemers who support Barak Obama shall be looking for mercy when you are condemned to Hell for Eternity.

Take a look in your conscience and pray after you consider the following statement issued by Catholic League President Bill Donohue:

“On May 2, I issued a news release calling on Sen. Obama to dissolve his Catholic National Advisory Council. My principal reason for doing so was his selection of dissident Catholics to advise him: for example, most of the public officials are so pro-abortion that they had a 100 percent NARAL record. On May 8, most members of the Advisory Council faxed me a letter defending themselves; I answered the same day taking them to task for their lame defense. But it now appears that my initial recommendation—to dissolve the group—may have been accepted.

“There is no mention anywhere on the Obama website of the Catholic National Advisory Council. On Friday, we placed three phone calls to his campaign: two to media relations and one to Mark Linton, Obama’s National Catholic Outreach Coordinator. We were told each time that someone would get back to us, but no one did. I then personally e-mailed Linton informing him of the three phone calls, requesting that he respond to my question: ‘I would like to know whether the Catholic National Advisory Council for Sen. Obama is still operative.’ He has not replied.

“It would appear, then, that the group no longer exists. It is not hard to understand why. After being criticized by the Catholic League, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City rebuked one of Obama’s Catholic advisors, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius: she was instructed not to present herself for Holy Communion (she is a rabid defender of abortion). At about the same time, radical Chicago priest Rev. Michael Pfleger bailed on Obama by withdrawing his name from the Advisory Council. Now we find that there is no listing for the group on the Obama website.

“Looks like the Obama campaign’s decision to quietly drop its Advisory Council didn’t work. We found out, and we’ve never been accused of being quiet.”

10/02/2008 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man you really cannot find a kook like a right wing Catholic kook. I can say that as a product of Catholic education.

10/02/2008 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Jayhoax said...

Dan takes the high road

Had Dan "taken the high road" he would have tried to confirm the "rumor" before he wrote about it, not after....

10/02/2008 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You did not answer Anon 10/2/08 7:02 a.m.

10/03/2008 6:48 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow, who would have thought we would have such a spirited debate on a posting I had "buried"?

It really is kind of odd to read the attempts to delve deeply into my morass of evil intents and means. Believe it or not, I'm a guy in his living room who doesn't get paid by anyone for this, or take orders from anyone, or participate in any masterful schemes.

I heard a rumor from two different attorneys about the 39th Street deal, and I know other people heard the same rumor. Ironically, two sources is exactly the same number that the Star heard on their "Roe in Funk's office" rumor. It struck me that of the two rumors, one is an important reversal of a crucial policy, and one is a personality issue, worthy of Hearne Christopher, but only the Roe rumor made it onto the Star's site.

Sophia seems to think I was trying to make them equivalent - quite the opposite.

Regardless of your opinion of my opinion, it blows my mind to see the reaction that some people come up with. Porchpundit starts psychoanalyzing and judging me, while announcing my motives. Seriously, as any regular reader knows, I like Jan Marcason a lot, though I strongly disagree with her Cauthen mistake and her volunteer ordinance mistake. (Both are mistakes, I realize, filtered through my own lenses - others are free to view them as triumphs.) But, even there, I've written about how I acknowledge that the City Councilmembers have the right to make mistakes, and that what I claim to be mistakes may not be.

But I get seriously frustrated with people like Porchpundit and Mainstream. They can come here and make all kind of crazy accusations, but never post a frontpage clarification. Porchpundit accused me of lying, and I take that seriously. He or she, though, just blithely makes the accusation and refuses to show where I have ever lied, even though, if I had, it would be available to find and post.

People falsely accuse me of taking a cheap shot at Jan, while ignoring the fact that I posted a nice piece praising her within 24 hours - if I wanted to slander Jan Marcason, I would be fully capable of sticking to my purpose for longer than a day, don't you think? As for confirming the rumor before I posted it, I clearly labeled my story as a rumor - what I said was entirely, 100% accurate, and then I went the extra step to find out whether the rumor was true, and published the truth.

That's pretty upstanding work for a volunteer blogger. And, if you don't like my work, my 100% money back guarantee is available anytime you want it.

It sincerely surprises me when people go off on bizarre tangents and accuse me of working for Roe or being out to "smear perceived enemies of Funkhouser". Sorry guys, that's just a fascinating fantasy you have in your mind.

The truth is much more dull. I'm not really interested in participating in elaborate backroom schemes. I'm playing checkers here, and you're trying to interpret it as chess. I won't claim that I have never lied in my life, but I will assure you that I have never lied on this blog (not counting honest mistakes, of course). It's just not worth it to me. Even if I were intellectually capable of spinning a masterful lie that would accomplish some wonderful political goal of mine, the cost would be too high. In all sincerity, truth is a higher calling to me than politics is.

Perhaps that is why a few of my more vociferous commenters have such difficulty understanding where I'm coming from.

10/03/2008 8:37 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Dan, in your statement above, repeated below, states that both the Marcason and Roe rumors were based upon two sources, and therefore somehow equivavlent:

"Ironically, two sources is exactly the same number that the Star heard on their "Roe in Funk's office" rumor. It struck me that of the two rumors, one is an important reversal of a crucial policy, and one is a personality issue, worthy of Hearne Christopher, but only the Roe rumor made it onto the Star's site."

You intentionally omit the most important point - the star talked with Funkhouser prior to publishing the story, and Funkhouser CORROBORATED THE RUMOR.

Per the Star Funk said "...if an agreement is signed, the amount Roe would be paid would eventually be public record."

What Funk did is provide direct information to give credibility to that rumor that concerned himself.

Now, Dan, you intentionally omit that critical point in your argument.

And I call that dishonest.

Intentionally omitting critically impornat data essential to a truth-based understanding of an issue is dishonet behavior.

People will continue to shine a light on your chronic, dishonest behavior.

10/03/2008 2:19 PM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

Mainstream - Funkhouser did NOT say any amount would be made public. It is typical of your "overselling" that you are lying, while accusing Dan of lying.

It's also strange that you think that not including every possible relevant fact, including those that may undercut your point, is the equivalent of lying. It simply is not. You didn't include the fact that Dan has not been shown to have ever actually lied in your claim that he engages in chronic dishonest behavior. You didn't mention that Porchie was challenged to show a lie, and has, instead, slunk from the comment section, like the lying skunk Porchie is. By your standing, both omissions are lies.

Meanwhile, you claimed that Dan either made up the Marcason rumor, or only had one source, and now you are shown to have been lying. You omit that fact in your comment, too.

Do you honestly believe that every one who writes has the obligation to include every single relevant fact? If so, do you claim to live up to your own claimed standard?

10/03/2008 3:31 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I did not represent as fact Dan was was making it up, it was clearly my speculation.

And it still is.

Dan backhanded Gottstein and now he backhanded Marcason. who's next?

I will take a minute to correct myself, however. The person corroborating the rumor was Funk's press secretary. Here is the full context of the primebuzz article and Blackwood's statement:

----------------------
"They have met. They have talked. Advice has been exchanged," said Funkhouser spokesman Kendrick Blackwood. But whether the two are close to signing a contract "is really something for Mark to talk about," Blackwood said.

He would not confirm or deny talks about the status of any formal arrangement. He did say if an agreement is signed, the amount Roe would be paid would eventually be public record."

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14722

---------------

Primebuzz contacted a representative for the mayor, and that representative not only DID NOT DENY the rumor, when confronted, Blackwood pointed a trail right at the mayor for confirmation, and then speculated about the rumor being true.

The absence of the denial is what gives the rumor credibility, and Dan "forgot" to mention it.

Dan words himself carefully, which is the esence of his dishonesty. The Primebuzz/Gonemild rumors are not even remotely comparable in credibility.

Here's another example:

Dan said above "I heard a rumor from two different attorneys about the 39th Street deal, and I know other people heard the same rumor."

Note did not actually describe the rumor, or mention specifically the rumor he is talking about involved Jan Marcason - did it simply involve a city council member and did Dan guess? we can't tell because Dan has not mentioned Jan Marcason or the exact nature of the rumor.

Again, what else is Dan leaving out?

Oh, and given the fact that the Roe deal will probably come about, let's remember this statement for a few more years:


"It struck me that of the two rumors, one is an important reversal of a crucial policy, and one is a personality issue, worthy of Hearne Christopher, but only the Roe rumor made it onto the Star's site."

So, Jeff Roe, in Dan's exact words, is a minor "personality issue" only worthy of Hearne Christopher.

That's interesting, Dan doesn't seem to have a problem at all with Jeff Roe working in the mayor's office.

In other words, is Dan being honest with us when he says it's not a big deal that Roe is on the payroll of the Mayor?

Dan, are you being honest with us?

10/03/2008 4:09 PM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

Whistleblowme: 1
Mainstream: 0

So I caught Mainstream in a factual lie. It's not that big a deal - he lies all the time.

Now, for my second trick, let's see if I can get him to answer 2 questions:

1. Do you believe that every one who writes about a topic has the obligation to include every single relevant fact?

2. If so, do you claim to live up to your own claimed standard?

10/03/2008 4:15 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Hey whistleblowme?

Blow me. And stfu.

(1) Dan carefully worded his excuse on the 39th street rumor, omitting an actual description of what rumor he was refering to.

This leads me to beleive he is leaving something important out, and that most or part of the rumor he made up, or heard different versions from two people and combined the two for his own convenience.

(2) Dan omitted the fact that the mayor has conspicously NOT denied the rumor, - the mayor's office proactively said they did not deny it - and the mayor's office has even speculated about a future hire of Roe.

That's the biggest news that confirms the rumor, and Dan left it out. It was the first item discussed in the PrimeBuzz article, for Christ sakes.

(3) Dan, now, says that the potential Roe hire isn't a big deal.

In an earlier comment, Dan made the statement that the Roe hire would give him cause to consider abandoning support of the mayor. Which one is it? he wasn't being honest when he said one or the other. ButI'll go with his latest comment which effectively supports the hring of Roe in the mayor's office.

Anyways, most reasonable people have very good reasons to believe that Dan took a cheap shot because he was in a hurry to smear another one of the - in his words - "nasty nine".

Dan words himself very carefully to provide himself plausible deniability. I just provided two examples above.

Oh and Dan - I don't think the people who are the target of your cheap shots buy your doubletalk.

And he's defending the placement of Jeff Roe in the mayor's office, that is, if he WAS BEING HONEST.

Dan says the potential Roe hire is simply a personality issue worthy of a gossip columnist.

Really Dan?

We're going to get down to brass tacks here - Dan's going to learn that that if he takes cheap shots at decent city council people, like Beth, Jan, Cindy Circo, Cathy Jolly, Melba Curls he damn well better have his shit together.

His mean-spirited, cleverly worded attacks and cheap shots are going to get scutinzed.

10/03/2008 5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When do we get to have a post defending Gloria's harassment of airport security?

10/03/2008 5:15 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow, Mainstream, you'd better calm down a little. You got caught in a lie, but don't get so hostile! Are you caught up in one of your famous "emotional phases" again?

As for the substance of your comments, wrong again! No, I did not parse my words like you claim. I heard the rumor that Marcason was planning to seek approval of the 39th and State Line project at the council level. I heard the rumor from two attorneys. Satisfied?

Truly, I don't play the games you think I play. Why would I? For that matter, why would I fear the scrutiny that you claim? I only write the truth. Your complaint that I pay attention to the words I choose is just silly. Especially coming from someone who just got caught in a lie.

It apparently bothers you that I say what I mean and mean what I say. That's the way that grown-ups use words. I don't lie, and I don't (often) say things I don't mean. Facts matter, and words matter. Long ago, I had to talk to you about truthiness, and, for a while, you seemed to catch on. Maybe you should go back and think about what we said.

As for including every possible fact, it's neither appropriate nor reasonable. You claim that I am dishonest, but you don't point to the thousands of times I have posted the absolute truth, even as you see it. By your strange standard, shouldn't you have mentioned the times that I have told the truth, even as you are (without evidence) claiming that I have been dishonest?

I think you're "overselling" your point again. I try not to take cheap shots (though I acknowledge I have failed in my resolution sometimes). Discussing a rumor while identifying it as a rumor and seeking the truth and then clarifying the truth is not really a cheap shot. I understand that you get emotional, and it upsets you that somebody says something counter to what you like to think, but the undeniable fact is that I stuck strictly to the truth, and didn't even parse words like you claim. I said there was a rumor, there was a rumor, and that's been confirmed by several people here. If it's truth you're after, you're in the right place.

Perhaps you're a little confused about what this blog is supposed to be. I use this blog to talk about my opinions and things that interest me. I attempt to persuade people on the merits of my opinions, but I work strictly within the bounds of the truth. I very rarely rely on rumors, and, when I do, I am scrupulous about identifying them as rumors.

But I am not, do not aspire to be, and never have claimed to be an encyclopedic source for every single fact relating to every single topic I tackle. Sorry, but that's not my job. I've written a lot about Funkhouser, but I haven't written my opinion on every possible issue (though I have written about some important areas where I disagree with him).

You seem to think that I ought to be your one-stop shop for all facts related to all topics, but I'm afraid you're being a little lazy. If you think that's possible and a worthy goal, I'll be happy to post a link to your blog when you start it up.

Anyhow, let's hear your answers to Whistleblower's questions - they're good ones.

1. Do you believe that every one who writes about a topic has the obligation to include every single relevant fact?

2. If so, do you claim to live up to your own claimed standard?

10/03/2008 6:36 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Geez this wears me out. Just got home and noooooooo, I can't just go to bed and have a good night's sleep, just let things lie, because "SOME ONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET" and for some reason I feel the need to reply.

I will answer your two questions honestly, and in return I ask for your honest answer to just one question.

Dan, Primebuzz spent most of their time on the Roe rumor discussing the mayor's response to the rumor. The mayor's response is front and center, in front of God and everybody.

It's not a small detail and afterthought as some characterize it. Well, as you and the 'blowme guy characterizes it.

So to answer question #1:

"Do you believe that every one who writes about a topic has the obligation to include every single relevant fact?"

My answer: my short answer is NO, because relevance is always a relative definition. However, there is such a thing as an overwhelmingly relevant consideration that when it is presented, would inform and persuade the vast majority of people who were presented with that information.

I believe the mayor's response -conspicuously avoiding denial -falls in to that category of important, necessary information. Primebuzz thought so as well, as demonstrated by their post.

To answer question #2:

"If so, do you claim to live up to your own claimed standard?"

The short answer to question #2 is NO. First and foremost I argue issues to be persuasive. However, when faced with an obvious error of ommission or fact I am honest enough to recognize the relevance of other information, and carry on my argument from there.

Do you know why?

To continue to argue in the face of what is persuasive evidence against me hurts my ability to be persuasive. It hurts my credibility. So I adapt and move forward, because my aspiration is to always be on the side of Right, and at some point I along with a lot of other people fall short. But we recognize that, change and move forward.

And by making this statement I am not saying that I made a mistake in THIS particular argument, because I continue to believe that the mayor's conspicuous avoidance of denial is a piece of information that is essential to understanding this issue. It's not just a little factiod for further background.

Are my answers to those two questions clear enough? I meant them to be.

Now, my question for you, Dan, is, do you really believe what you wrote - that Roe being on the payroll of the mayor's office is only a personality issue - an issue to be relegated only to a gossip columnist?

[Note to Sophia, I will never forgive you for your accusation of overselling.]

10/04/2008 1:18 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

The reason I used the term "over-selling" is because mainstream has a decent argument and he is cluttering it with unnecessary speculation (I'll leave it to you gentlemen to bicker about whether or not it was a "lie"). Dan just has a shitty argument.

And that's why it's funny to watch blowme and Dan pursue an apparently personality based (mainstream sucks!) argument rather than discuss the substance - just how crappy and uncompelling Dan's comparison/point was. It's why I wish mainstream hadn't gone that way. Because now we have words words words arguing about very little. Mainstream keeps trying to bring it back to the point, but gets distracted by drama and speculation about cheap shots.


I use this blog to talk about my opinions and things that interest me. I attempt to persuade people on the merits of my opinions, but I work strictly within the bounds of the truth.

You have failed to convince me of the merits of your opinion in this case. I don't think you're under any obligation to respond to my comments. But your willingness to engage in lengthy personal exchanges with mainstream while ignoring my substantive arguments, in the context of complaining about people valuing personality issues over policy, is, to put it kindly, funny.

I think you're a smart guy, Dan. I don't think you're lying here, but I do think you're kidding yourself. Your comparison of the two "rumors" was so off it really does invite speculation as to your motivation in writing the post.

As I commented in the original post, the linked article was very informative, highlighting how the economic policy is playing out. Mainstream sees you taking cheap shots, I see you missing an opportunity to detail how the city has changed under Funkhouser and draw attention to a citizen opportunity to support those changes. It's kind of in there, but it's buried under your apparent desire to minimize the Roe situation. (I know... get my own blog.) I guess I think you're not keeping your eye on the ball here.

[Note to Sophia, I will never forgive you for your accusation of overselling.]

It's my understanding that you're no one in this town until you're on mainstream's shit list, so I gladly accept my place on it. :)

10/04/2008 9:49 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

As is frequently the case, Sophia attempts to bring light where heat is being generated.

That said, I think you're being mildly unfair to me here. I did my post, and you are justified in questioning whether it was persuasive or not. That's fine. Porchpundit, though, started off with a personal attack on my intelligence, motivation and decency. And continued on through several more comments in the same vein.

As for Mainstream, he started off with an accusation of me "burying" the complimentary post - a false attack on me, not on the issues. Next, Mainstream falsely accused me of making up the rumor. Then he expanded that to claim that I make stuff up. Simply stated, I do not lie on this blog, and his accusation that I do so is a lie in itself, and one that really gets under my skin, because Mainstream frequently operates in a truth-free zone. (I know I'm getting close to a personal tit for tat there, but it's difficult to express the frustration I feel when someone lies to accuse me of lying.) Then Mainstream falsely claimed that Funk corroborated the rumor, while accusing me of stretching ethical boundaries. Understand my frustration? He then repeats his
Funk falsehood while accusing me of chronic dishonest behavior. Is my frustration getting clearer? Then he weaves a strange argument that I didn't claim that the rumors I heard were about the 39th Street project, while accusing me again of dishonesty. The frequent combination of Mainstream's falsehoods with accusations of my own dishonesty frankly make me angry.

Now, Sophia, on to your other points. I don't really think the rumors are equivalent in many ways. The 39th street project rumor was, in my opinion, far more important than the Roe rumor. But, as rumors, they're simply rumors, and both are worthy of gossip columnist Hearne Christopher treatment. The Star's political blog, though, ran with the less fiscally important one but more inflammatory personality-based one. I think that's a worthy point to make, though I understand if you disagree.

As for my failure to mention Kendrick's "no comment" in the context of the rumor discussion, that gets to the crux of my interest in the whole story, and why I wrote it how I wrote it. I was discussing rumors as rumors, and comparing the attention that rumors get. My point didn't really depend on the likelihood of either rumor coming true. As I stated in my original post, I hope they are both false. I viewed them both as rumors, as they truly were. That point may be a little subtle for some people, but it's an important one.

Which gets me to Mainstream's comments. I would agree with Mainstream, if I thought the issue were the truth of the rumors. But that was never the focus of my concern. It was the strangeness of the Star writing about one fiscally unimportant rumor while ignoring the more fiscally important one. So, the Blackwood comments were tangential to the facts I was presenting.

Now, for the big finale - what do I think about Jeff Roe going to work for the Mayor. First off, what rumor are we talking about? I've heard several rumors, and it's tough to respond to all the various rumors with the same statement. IF the rumor is that Roe is taking Wolf's place, and the rumor is true, then I am appalled. (I'd also be shocked, but we're assuming the rumor is true here.) IF the rumor is that Roe is going to go to work as a regular employee in the Mayor's office, then I am again appalled. (I think that's pretty much the rumor that the Star reported, and, again, I would be shocked if it's true.) IF the rumor is that Funk has talked to Roe about stuff, I don't like it very much, but I'm not really upset. I know Funk has spoken with tons of people from all political persuasions, and received advice from them. He's talked to minority leaders, he's talked to business leaders, he's talked to that Coyote Wisdom dude, he's talked to Cleaver, he's talked to Bond, he's talked to Blunt - it's part of being an informed leader. Heck, even I have exchanged emails with Roe on the Missouri Plan, so I would have a hard time throwing stones at Funk for conversing with him.

I hope that clarifies my position well enough, and I've striven to be honest.

But, before hitting "post", I note that I didn't actually answer Mainstream's specific question, so here goes.

"do you really believe what you wrote - that Roe being on the payroll of the mayor's office is only a personality issue - an issue to be relegated only to a gossip columnist?"

Yes, I really think the rumor is gossip. If it happens, though - if Roe really does wind up on the payroll of the Mayor's office as a regular employee, then that's a huge, seismic event (I mean, more than paying for a bit of advice or something, which I would still dislike, but not freak out about).

10/04/2008 11:09 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

I can see how it's more difficult for you to ignore mainstream's rhetorical flourishes than it is for me (as they're not directed at me). I could just speak for myself, but I'm going to go further and state that any regular reader with at least average intelligence and an ounce of good faith doesn't take mainstream seriously when he calls you a liar. He just looks silly.


And I don't think his misattribution of the quote to Funkhouser rather than Blackwood was a lie as much as a simple error. An amusing error to make when he's wailing on you for making things up, but I'd wager an error due to sloppiness rather than malice.

"do you really believe what you wrote - that Roe being on the payroll of the mayor's office is only a personality issue - an issue to be relegated only to a gossip columnist?"

Yes, I really think the rumor is gossip.


That's non-responsive. Do you think it's merely a personality issue? Would the "huge, seismic event" of Roe joining the mayor's office be a personality issue event?

10/04/2008 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, what is your opinion of political leaders (and their family) using their position of power to try and intimidate people?

Here we had the mayor's wife trying trying to intimidate airport security and threatening them. We have eye witness accounts of this happening (from both the security officers and others).

So what do you think of elected officials that try and use their power to get away with minor crimes?

10/04/2008 12:25 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sophia - The fact that a rumor exists is merely gossip, a personality piece worthy of Hearne Christopher. If it becomes reality - if Jeff Roe becomes an employee of the Mayor's office, then that is huge news, and worthy of everyone's attention. Is that clear? I'm not trying to be clever or anything, but it's the difference between a rumor and news.

I suppose that to answer Mainstream's question as stated, I'd have to point out that it assumes a fact - that Jeff Roe is on the payroll of the Mayor's office. If we assume that fact, and I most definitely do not, then absolutely not, that is not merely a personality issue to be discussed by gossip columnists.

The huge seismic event (and no, I don't mean that as a weight joke) of Jeff Roe becoming a regular employee of the Mayor's office would be legitimate news.

10/04/2008 3:13 PM  
Anonymous inafunakaboutthefunk said...

Let us keep our perspective. Big Jeff Roe becoming an employee of the Mayor's Office is not a seismic event. It would simply be another stupid and desperate choice by one of the Stupidest Guys In The Room... Mayor Smart With Nothinghouser.

And if this does come to pass, your position will be not seismic either... but it will be interesting to see your spin.

10/04/2008 3:26 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

Porchpundit, though, started off with a personal attack on my intelligence, motivation and decency.
--------

Considering your being known as a pro-funk advocate, it should go without saying that your motivation concerning any position, any post and any rumor you choose to pass on is going to be suspect.

Why you act this way is your business and it is your Blog. But don't think you are clever enough to fool any but the most intellectually feeble about the spin attached to what you post. Actually, think what you want...

10/04/2008 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The test is not only whether Jeff Roe joins the staff as "an employee" but rather Jeff Roe is a paid consultant to the Mayor and/or a person connected to Roe joins the mayor's staff. Roe is a slime ball without ethics. We did not vote for that.

Dan your tortured phrasing which limits the problem to Roe being an employee is very telling.

What do you know?

10/05/2008 12:24 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

No, anonymous, the test is whether Roe "joins". If he has served as an occasional consultant to help Funk or the city deal with Northland stuff, or Liberty, or whatever, that's entirely different from joining the staff as an employee - or even as a weekly consultant.

At the risk of sounding like Colonel Klink, I know nothing, except for the fact that Mayors have always consulted widely, and I chose my words intelligently so that nobody can come back here and accuse me of being wrong if it turns out that Funk paid a couple hundred bucks for some particular thing. The Star spoke of him joining the office, and that, I think, is a false rumor. If I'm wrong, as I said, I'll be appalled. But I'm not going to get appalled over a small invoice, if one exists.

I don't think that the Funkhouser administration's deepest flaw has been that he is too open to listening to outside voices, do you?

10/05/2008 7:15 AM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

The fact that the Funk has met with and consulted with a person so vile as Big Jeff Roe is alone reason to cut him loose. Certainly, and without any possibility of doubt, if the Leader of what once was the Orange Revolution would employ such a putrid cretin in his administration, then the Orange Revolution would be officially dead and I would expect even such a Funkee Supporter such as your have proved yourself to be to cut him loose and renounce him. Not on the basis of a rumor but if he really goes thorugh with this...

10/05/2008 7:35 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sorry, Ina, I can't track your ugly language.

10/05/2008 11:32 AM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthe funk said...

A nifty dodge of the truth Dante. But hecl, it's your show.

I will still be waiting and watching to see how you deal with Big Jeff Roe should he be lucky enough to get a government job.

Viva the Orange Revolution, the Orange Revolution is no more.

10/05/2008 11:41 AM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

spelling error... but heck

10/05/2008 11:42 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Is that all you're asking, ina? You didn't really have to launch into the full-court press of hateful language, then.

As I've said throughout the attention paid to this rumor, I will be appalled if Roe becomes employed by the Mayor's office. Have I somehow been unclear?

But I don't believe it will happen.

10/05/2008 1:08 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

You're flailing away again Dante... if you think the use of the words "putrid" and "cretin" are "ugly" what did we not ever see you like a rhetorical match to Gloria's Christmas Card? Oops...

Also, are you saying that if BJR winds up as an employee of the City, you will cut the Funk loose?
Also, I continue to wonder how you can possibly rationalize BJR getting hired on to Team Funkhouser as a consultant... he may be the next best thing to sliced bread and perhaps even out Glorioso Steve Glorioso himself but to me even the mere act of associating with such a fellow is total repudiation of the Orange Revolution, a betrayal of whatever trust I put into the Funk and slide down to the sewer by the Funk which I can't imagine such an ardent supporter of the Orange Revolution and one who has publicly denounced a detested BJR would tolerate, condone or support for a country second. But that's just me and you make up the rules of your blog.

10/05/2008 3:07 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

Full court press of hateful languauge? You're kidding, right? I am not really even worked up over this because I too can't imagine it will happen but then again the characters I referred to are all what I posted and more... at least the way I look at the world.

10/05/2008 3:09 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Ina -

I don't know what you mean by asking if I will "cut the Funk loose" if Roe becomes an employee. What does that mean?

I'm not playing some sort of team sport here. I've criticized Funk in the past, so I guess I have already "cut him loose". I would be horrified if he hired Roe, but that would not blind me to accomplishments he could have. If it turns out, as we agree it probably will, to be just a bogus rumor, that would not blind me to future failings, either.

I'm not a blind Funkhouser advocate. It's disturbing, though, to think that people like you view the world as divided between advocates and detractors. Perhaps that is just the nature of the blogosphere. I suspect, though, that the vast majority of Kansas Citians are like me - not in anybody's camp, but appreciative of Funk when he does good, and critical on those relatively rare occasions when he screws up.

Even if Funk had Roe working in his office (a disquieting thought), the Council would have made a horrible mistake in passing the volunteer ordinance, and in extending Cauthen's contract.

If he hires Roe, look for a double-barreled blast of criticism from me. But my disappointment in him won't change who I am. I'm just an honest blogger calling them the way I see them, and offering wisdom almost every day of the week.

10/05/2008 3:26 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

Either call for him to be recalled or renounce your support for anything he stands for and does.

There is a theory behind this but I will leave it out until I see if and how you respond.

10/05/2008 4:06 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

My approach to politics is very different than yours, Ina.

10/05/2008 4:13 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10/05/2008 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Dan, did you expect a more mature or reasoned response from someone who has created an internet identity based solely on complaining about Funkhouser?

10/05/2008 4:20 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Fair point, 'Blowme.

(That was weird - Whistleblowme's comment showed up in my email box before it showed up online. This could foreshadow blogger problems . . .)

10/05/2008 4:22 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

Hey Dante, How come no harsh rejoinder to WBM (above)? His screen name seems to qualify as "ugly." And see, WBM, things other than the life and times of Mayor Smart With Nothinghouser sometimes attract my attention and bother me (slightly) as well.

10/05/2008 5:42 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Because I like Whistleblowme.

10/05/2008 5:46 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

The name (heaven forbid) or the person?

10/05/2008 5:58 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

The commenter. I've never met him or her.

Just in case you're wondering, the name comes from a commenter named Whistleblower who used to post here pretty frequently. The guy had some theory about how the judges of Missouri are some kind of secret dictatorship - real tinfoil hat stuff. He would get all worked up and start attacking people, and then Whistleblowme would jump in and poke holes in his arguments. It was a wild sideshow . . .

10/05/2008 6:09 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

Luckily for me, most if not all of what I post is supported by common sense, logoc and facts. It may not be what you like to hear and my reach is seldom beyond a Funk related item but your thinking and comments aside, the Funk and his Matador have provided fertile grounds from which to call them to account for their misdeeds, uncivil behaviour, stupidity, greed, arrogance and the like.

I am, though, surprised that you don't mind the WBM screen name. It's just rude. But it's your blog and that, I suppose, gives you the lattitude to act like, oh let's say, a Mark Funkhouser :)

10/05/2008 6:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home