Harris Wilder Campaigning for Funkhouser?
The first campaign promise of the 2011 mayoral election has been issued, and it comes from somebody not even running. According to Tony's Kansas City, Harris Wilder has promised to leave Kansas City if Mayor Mark Funkhouser wins reelection in 2011.
Close observers will note that this is not the first time that Mr. Wilder has offered crucial support to the Mayor. When this summer's recall effort failed by a few hundred votes to force an election, it was none other than Harris Wilder who delivered essential complacency to the effort, assuring people that the effort was going to be a ringing success.
Demonstrating his wry and subtle sense of humor, Wilder asserted that a vote for Funkhouser would show that "the voters of Kansas City admit that they don't care about the budget". As treasurer of the recall effort, he somehow generated $33,000 of debt while bringing in only $1,175 in contributions. While Kay Barnes and the developer-funded prior city council managed to spend the our city into a fiscal crisis with larger numbers, Wilder wins hands-down when it comes to percentages.
(All joking aside, Mr. Wilder deserves sincere appreciation for both his passion for his causes - however much I may occasionally think them ill-chosen - and for his willingness to freely speak his mind. I wish him and all who read this a fulfilling 2010.)
Labels: 2011 Elections, humor, kansas city budget crisis, Mayor Funkhouser, recall
posted by Dan at 12/31/2009 07:11:00 AM
23 Comments:
Please stay away from all things Funkhouser, Dan. You do better, you feel better, you won't need to be reminded of the gutting you took in Gloria's diary and how foolish many of us thought you were during the years you spent supporting both Gloria and Mark and excusing their absolutely intolerable and disgusting behavior.
Even if you censor me, I wanted to share this thought with you. I was even careful not to include nicknames or anything that a reasonable person would find to be offensive language or tone.
Happy New Year!
By the way, if you choose to let my comment be published, you might want to chime in on Yael T For Censorship Abouhalkah who, on his newspaper blog has decided to censor almost everyone who writes a comment. Ironic and perhaps revolting that a newspaper guy would become a censor of the free flow of ideas... and mostly because he can't stand criticism or allowing anyone to express an idea contrary to his own.
Ina -
No problem publishing your comment. It's amusing, however, to think that refusing to publish your material amounts to censorship. I'd strongly advise you to read up on what censorship really is, so you can avoid needless aggravation and false accusations.
FWIW, I didn't feel "gutted" in Ms. Squitiro's diary - I offered good advice, and she disagreed with it, and seemed hurt by my words. The while incident was unfortunate, but not really painful, at least to me.
As for chiming in on Yael, I haven't read his material for quite some time. I really don't think he's worth reading - he's not insightful, he's not informative, and he's one of the reasons a great newspaper is failing. Why would I bother reading his mediocre recitations of common wisdom?
Which leads me to a question, meant in complete sincerity. Why do you read what I write? I mean, you're more than welcome to do so, and you're welcome to comment politely, but it seems pretty obvious you find my perspective skewed and my logic unpersuasive. Why aggravate yourself by reading what I write?
Dan, I'm glad you let my posts go up :) Since you have not posted my comments in the past (during the height of all of your/our Funkhousermania) your first sentence is really funny. Although I would imagine coming from the source it did, Gloria's diary comments about you may not have been painful although somewhere around that time, you stopped defending both of them. Coincidence? Waking up and smelling the hummus? Calling her comments unfortunate is very Midwestern and passive aggressive... but I suppose you are from here :) Who knows and who cares (other than maybe me and TKC) As to your comment about censorship and me making false comments... let's not go back to that... for your sake. I am always open to the challenge that anything I write is factually in error. I try to write what I believe to be true at all times and always think I am telling it like it is when I write anything. I may not write things as you like them but to say I write things that are not true is just plain wrong (note I am being on my best behavior and not saying just plain stupid). I agree with your comments about Yael T for Censorship Abouhalkah value as a source to read and learn anything from. He's rocketed to oblivion mostly by his own hand. As you very well know, my primary purpose in reading Gone Mild is to make sure that you don't spew what came to be your usual disingenuous, without any connection to reality pro-Funk blather without being challenged... every day on every point. Until he's vanquished and otherwise yanked from the Mayor's Chair, I will never stop... night and day with never a moment off. As we fans of Miami CSI like to say, WE NEVER CLOSE. Alas, I was an original Orange Revolution Supporter and came very quickly to rue the day I met him. Other than this, sometimes your fascination with beer and making making is interesting. But had you never gotten on the pro-Funk bandwagon, I would never have bothered to read Gone Mild no less contribute. Got all this, I think I covered everything you asked and/or commented on.
Funny how you let other people's views work you into such a passion.
As for your falsehood, you're quite mistaken that either Yael or I have engaged in censorship. Refusing to host material is not the same thing as censorship.
Come on Dan... you can't be this clueless or blind. Yael posts on the site of a newspaper which amongst other things was founded to promote democracy and constantly chants about the right to freedom of expression. What are you missing that a KC Star blog doesn't allow for these same freedoms? Additionally, even though a private business, that didn't stop the Star from taking a generous public subsidy... thereby eliminating the specious argument that the Star should be allowed to censor the comments of it's readers.
Speaking of open, unanswered questions, I have one for you. You seem to be big on the idea of politness and eliminating offensive comments from your Blog and society in general. That being the case, do you think the December 2007 Squitiro Christmas card was polite and not offensive to a reasonable person? I fully answered your question, now let's see if you can even up and answer my question.
Ina - you have a strange sense of entitlement. You implied that if I chose not to allow you to post your views on a site I pay the bills for, that it would somehow amount to censorship. It wouldn't be.
Now you argue that because the Star received a tax break, it should somehow be obligated to pay to host your comments. I don't see how that follows.
I will defend your right to say what you want to say. But I will not acknowledge any claimed "right" to say what you want to say on my site, on the Star site, or on a government site. Sorry, buddy, you're a guest.
Ina - Your question has a tremendously faulty premise. I am certainly NOT in favor of eliminating impolite conversation from society in general.
The December 2007 Squitiro Christmas Card. Was the card vulgar and impolite? Simple as that... no premise needed. Now we will see if you will do as you asked me to do.
Ina - Personally, I was more amused than offended, but I knew that the people who seem to exist solely to find fault would have a field day. Some people obviously considered it to be coarse. No big deal.
I'm shocked that anybody considers it to be worthy of discussing so long after the fact.
Now you argue that because the Star received a tax break, it should somehow be obligated to pay to host your comments. I don't see how that follows.
Nice try Dan!
The premise of my argument/assertion was that a newspaper founded on the principles of democracy and free press was obligated to provide the same freedoms for its readers that it takes for itself under the United States Constitution, various court rulings and constantly touts that it and all citizens are entitled too. The comment about the tax break was not only not central to my point but was an attempt to head off the private business argument that you hide behind.
It is good to know the rules on Gone Mild. The only comments that get on are the comments approved by you. That's some deal for your readers...NOT! I am astounded that you would put that rule into writing for all to see. I would be surprised to find out that many if not all of your readers understood that the flow of information on Gone Mild was subject to that rule. Again, I am astounded!
I suppose, however, that anybody who would seek to avoid having her letter issued, or criticize her for writing it, are guilty of "censorship", right? (I wouldn't claim anything so absurd, but it might make sense to someone who believes that those who choose not to host his words is engaged in "censorship".)
During the height of Funkhousermania you refused to address/answer this question. I always wondered why you were unable to condemn the card and acknowledge how vulgar it was. Yes, some of it was humorous (in a perverted way) but in totality the card was JUST PLAIN VULGAR and inappropriate. Time has past and your position in All Things Funkhouser and the Funkhouser Empire got outted and put into clear view when the Squitiro Diary was published and your actions indicate that you concern yourself less with their affairs and defend them either infrequently or not at all and you seem more chatty today. So I thought there might be a chance to get an answer... especially after I answered your question. You really didn't answer my question... and in any event whatever response you gave contained several caveats and was less full than the response I was nice enough to provide to you. And that was after you ducked answering on the first go round.
Meanwhile, I am done with this if you are. Discourse on ALL THINGS FUNKHOUSER has lead us, as your question about the relevance of asking about the Christmas Card would indicate, nowhere.
Ina - this is why people choose not to allow you to post on the sites that they pay for . . .
You've backed away from your premise. You claimed that the Star and I engage in censorship when we elect not to publish whatever rant you spew. I pointed out that it's not censorship, and I was right.
Now, you want to argue that it is somehow hypocritical of the Star to not extend the freedom of THEIR press to you. It sounds a bit like a plausible argument, but it's not.
Supporting freedom of expression does NOT mean that one is obligated to host all expression. I support the right of Larry Flint to publish pictures of nude women, but I would not allow him to post such pictures on my blog. I support the right of anti-Semites to speak vile nonsense, but I will delete their comments here. I imagine the Star feels pretty much the same way.
As for my comment policy, I publish plenty of comments that disagree with my positions, as is obvious. I have found it necessary to move to an approval system, however, to prevent a recent flood of spam comments (a couple dozen a day lately) and to stop a rash of truly upsetting attacks on me and my family.
To compare my All Things Funkhouser to Larry Flint which you just did is rude and disingenuous. Now that you have clearly stated the rule about what posts get put up, I understand your position and will react accordingly. As will other readers. It is clear that your blog will not permit the free exchange of ideas where you don't like what you are reading. You are paying the bills and I agree you are within your own person privilege to do as you wish. It wasn't clear before that you would restrict comments and legitimate discourse (not pink shots from hustler which most would agree are inappropriate in general and everyone would agree would certainly be inappropriate for Gone Mild).
Ina - I didn't see your most recent comment until after I posted my most recent comment. Sorry if I kept you waiting on my response about the card - the question never has interested me. Vulgarity is a question of time and place. Personally, I would not have sent the letter, and I know that some people found it to be vulgar. I hope that's clear enough. If your question is whether I was offended, I was not.
I have no idea what you think the diary meant, or how it "outed me". I have no regrets about what I wrote to Gloria, and it doesn't upset me that it got published.
As for my comment policy, I publish plenty of comments that disagree with my positions, as is obvious.
========
I find this hilarious too! Since most of what you write about after the Squitiro Diary Outting is beer making/drinking and food, I can't imagine anyone posting a comment that you would feel the need to review in advance. As I mentioned before, some of these topics are interesting and informative... none are as proocative and opinion/thought provoking as tghe days you were a part of what I have termed Funkhousermania. And maybe that's for the better.
Again I offer to end this discourse. As usual, when All Things Funkhouser come up, much of one's usual pace of the day goes amok. At the risk of sounding like Tony Botello, King of All Blogs, peace and have a nice night!
Sorry for the poor spelling in my last post... it's my bed time :)
Ina - we keep on overlapping.
Do you really believe anything you write? Do you honestly believe I don't publish things I don't like?
As for the comparison of you to Flynt, the content may be different but the concept is exactly the same. Those of us who believe in free speech are not obligated to host what offends us. Vicious attacks on me and my family offend me. Name-calling offends me. Reasoned discussion does not. Poor spelling doesn't offend me either, and I'm often guilty of the same.
(By the way, you haven't acknowledged that you stated a falsehood when you claimed that the Star censors you.)
And good night to you, too!
Okay no truce! You have the gall to compare my writing about All Things Funkhouser to Hustler? And at the same time you cannot bring yourself to say that the Squitiro Christmas Card which highlighted Gloria's supervision of the Funk getting a finger crammed up his behind and subsequently taking him home to play Matador and Bull to be VULGAR. Don't waste time giving me and your readers a break, GIVE YOURSELF A BREAK!
And the truth is after reading in public what your beloved Gloria had to say about you in her diary, you stopped writing about them. Who are you kidding to suggest otherwise and that you were not offended that, after putting yourself out on a limb, risking your reputation to defend the undefensible (them), you were treated and spoken of like she spoke and wrote about you. I tried to be polite... you refused to end this. It's almost like you have post traumatic stress syndrome on ALL THINGS FUNK. The only way you will prevail in this argument will be to shut me off or drift back to the la la land you where in during the height of Funkhousermania. I suppose you need to live like this... now that is sad!
And don't try to say that I didn't offer you an end to this! The only way you would be able to accomplish that is by erasing all the posts and talking to yourself in front of a mirror.
Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
cen·sored; cen·sor·ing \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
-------------
Nice try Dan... merriam webster dictionary tells us all that you need to awake from the protected dreamworld where you allow your mind to sometimes go. What I said was is and will always ne true and I stand by it.
Other than this... good night to you as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home