31 December 2010

Assessor Warns Of Higher Taxes On Used Cars, Wants Resident Action

Personal Prefaces:
  1. I extend my condolences to those affected by this morning's violent storms that have killed at least three people in Washington County, Ark., and at least three more in Dent and Phelps counties in Missouri. My thoughts and prayers are with friends who are in the impacted areas.
  2. I relay the following report with full disclosure of my status as a tax-paying resident of Clay County, Missouri, and owner of a used car which may be impacted.


Clay County residents have received a letter along with their personal property statements, warning them of higher taxes if they don't petition Jefferson City.

In a call-to-action (transcribed below), assessor Cathy Rinehart warns that many will see the value of their used car increase when their tax bills arrive in April. She writes that it's because state statute requires her and the state's assessors to use values from the October issue of the NADA's Used Car Guide.

The rise, she adds, is from fewer new cars being manufactures, thus increasing the resale value of used cars.

Rinehart suggests that residents write to lawmakers in Jefferson City, asking that assessments instead come from the Kelley Blue Book or be based on the vehicle's weight.

Missouri residents have until March 1 to submit their updated personal property lists or incur a late penalty.

The entirety of her letter (formatting & misspellings inclusive) is transcribed below:


Jan 1, 2011

Dear Citizens of Clay County,

There is an issue I would like to bring to your attention. All assessors of Missouri are required to use the October NADA to place values on vehicles. [Statue137.115 (9.) The assessor of each county and each city not within a county shall use the trade-in value published in the October issue of the National Automobile Dealers' Official Used Car Guide,]

In 2011, NADA has increased the value of sevewral vehicle models. In April some of you will be receiving an increase value change notice on your vehicle. This is because fewer new cars were manufactured, and used cars are now worth more.

Because I must use NADA trade-in value I believe the taxpayers are entitled to advanced notification. I believe it is my sworn duty to you, as your assessor, to provide a means to correct this situation for everyone in Missouri. There are two solutions, both involving your help:
  1. Change the law to read that the assessor "may" use the Kelly Blue Book for true market value. (Kelly Blue Book is used by car dealers through out the State. Kelly Blue Book historically represents a lower value than NADA.)
  2. Change the Constitution of Missouri to have the DMV charge you by the weight of the vehicle. Thus eliminating personal property being valued by the assessment department. You would still pay personal property taxes but it would be based on weight vs. value
Your help is requested by contacting your newly elected State Representatives and Senator. Please, call, write, e-mail, snail mail, or talk to your State Representative. The law needs to be changed. Just like you got the law changed to waive penalties for a county error. (Thank you again for your help with that.)

For your convenience on the back of this letter, I have included State Representatives' contact information. Please, help me, help you. The only way we can get a different value guide is with your voice.

Also, to avoid any assessment penalties please fill out the 2011 assessment list and return it to the assessment department before March 1, 2011.

As always, it is an honor to be your assessor.

Sincerely:

Cathy Rinehart
My Motto: “I know who I work for, You, the citizens of Clay County.”

20 December 2010

Relegate The Closed-Shop Leagues

Two bits of sporting news yesterday have got me concerned about the way professional leagues run in the U.S.

Yesterday morning, ace pitcher Zack Greinke jumped the perpetually sinking ship known as the Kansas City Royals, taking cash and Yuniesky Betancourt with him to Milwaukee in exchange for pitching prospect Jake Odorozzi, outfielder Lorenzo Cain, shortstop Alcides Escobar, and Jeremy Jeffress, a pitcher who's one doobie away from being banned for life. While it might prove beneficial for the Royals' youth movement, fans are naturally demure at the news, watching yet another bright star leave the bastion of malaise that's become Kauffman Stadium. Fortunately, those Royals fans were wearing red and more focused on their Chief neighbors, who defeated cross-state rivals St. Louis 27-13.

St. Louis fall to 6-8, assuring them of not having a winning season. And yet, because of losses by Seattle, San Francisco and Arizona today, they remain atop the NFC West division. It's very likely that the winner of this division, who could very well host the defending Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints in the first round of the playoffs, will finish the season with a 7-9 record. Meanwhile, as many as two NFC teams could go 10-6 and not make the playoffs, because of the lopsided strength of the other three divisions in the NFC.

And next year (barring a much-hyped players' lockout) the same 16 teams will compete again in arbitrarily defined divisions to determine who gets to play the AFC winners in the Super Bowl. It's lop-sided competition that only rewards the 32 owners who keep the closed-shop system in operation, usually at the expense of football's fans. It's a closed system that, frankly, runs contrary to the free market principles that many in America tout as being our paramount ideal.

How ironic that a better structure for organizing professional sporting teams be found commonplace in "socialist" nations.

It's time for American sport to embrace and incorporate promotion and relegation.

In baseball, the extensive farm system and independent, semi-pro leagues can serve as a launching pad for a successful multi-tiered system. And the inequity in the payroll and fortunes between baseball's current 30 teams provides a merciful reason to implement such a system.

As for football, it's a perfect tempest to explore the idea. 32 teams, none of which call Los Angeles, Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Tulsa, Orlando, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or Guadalajara home. None of which could be playing next season as the gaggle of 32 owners push for an expanded schedule without granting many concessions to their players, all the while pursuing generous tax breaks from state and local governments and charging $8 for a tray of stale nachos. Even if an owner's team goes 0-16, that owner can still sit comfy if the ink remains in the black, especially if the franchise is buoyed by, say, franchises in other sport or a multinational corporation that's their bread and butter. So what if half their roster winds up with permanent brain damage from repeated hits to the head, or they become the most hated entity in their metropolitan?

The current system doesn't put the owner at real risk. So long as they bring in the money and abide by league rules, they're practically safe in their luxury suite on the 50-yard line. On top of that, federal law explicitly grants the NFL, Major League Baseball, and other major sporting leagues exemptions from anti-trust laws in place to prevent monopolies from strangling the free market.

Promotion and relegation will force these owners to the front lines. If their teams don't regularly perform well, their investment is at risk. Americans like to cheer for winners, and if their team's not winning in the top league, their revenue goes down. Owners that regularly let their teams stagnate could easily wind up in bankruptcy court or with a mutiny on their hands, as fans and players flock to teams that will actually give a damn about playing competitively.

Future posts will detail how such a system can come into play for sporting leagues across the nation, from pro football and baseball to the collegiate and even high school.

10 November 2010

Kander endorses Sly James for KCMO Mayor

Another Jackson County Democrat has weighed in on the upcoming elections for Kansas City, this time endorsing a close friend for mayor.

Democrat Jason Kander of the 44th House District issued support for Sly James' bid to become mayor of Kansas City. In an e-mail to supporters, Kander wrote that although James has long been a family friend of his and mentor during his legal career, the endorsement is more than personal friendship.

"Sly’s been a go-to leader in our city’s non-profit sector helping to steer organizations like United Way and Operation Breakthrough. His volunteer service has always been about improving life in Kansas City," Kander wrote. "Moreover, Sly is a small business owner and a professional mediator, experienced in bringing people together and building consensus in tough settings.

"A husband, a father, and a great friend, Sly is one of the best people I know."

Kander added that although he has worked personally with nearly every other candidate that has announced their candidacy for mayor of Missouri's largest city, he believes James is best fit to generate consensus at City Hall.

"In Sly, Kansas City has a rare opportunity to elect a gifted leader who can end the gridlock, produce results and get us back on track," Kander wrote.

The representative, recently elected to his second term in the Missouri House, will appear on behalf of James at a reception in Waldo on Dec. 7.

James is one of at least six candidates who will challenge incumbent Mark Funkhouser for the four-year position. Filing began yesterday and will continue until Jan. 25 in Kansas City as well as in Platte and Clay counties, whose election boards serve the city north of the river.

The primaries for mayor and all 12 city council seats will take place on Feb. 22. The top two vote-getters from each race, regardless of whether one candidate has an outright majority, will advance to the general election on March 22. The March 22 ballot is also expected to ask voters to renew the one percent earnings tax, as promulgated by the passage of Proposition A last week.

09 November 2010

Holsman decides against Kansas City council bid

The depleted ranks of Democrats in the Missouri Legislature will not take another hit.

Jason Holsman, who won re-election to Kansas City's 45th House District last week by a 3-to-2 margin, announced that he will remain in Jefferson City rather than run for Kansas City's city council. In an e-mail to supporters, Holsman admitted that he had seriously considered running for the council seat being vacated by Cathy Jolly.

"I made a pledge to the voters of the 45th district that I would continue to represent them in Jefferson City and that is exactly what I intend to do," Holsman wrote. "I look forward to returning to the General Assembly and working on legislation that benefits the residents of the 45th district and moves Missouri forward."

In commenting about the decision to not run for Kansas City's 6th district at-large, Holsman added that a need for common-sense leadership was needed at the city level.

Holsman's accomplishments in the last session of the General Assembly include House Bill 1848, establishing a task force that will look into the feasibility of building vertical urban farms, and inserting language into House Bill 2178 that allows cities to establish programs encouraging homeowners to make improvements to their homes that increase energy efficiency or generate energy.

Jolly announced in September that she would not seek a second four-year term to the city council. She spent three terms in the Missouri House representing the district that Holsman now represents.

Had Holsman opted instead to run for city council, his departure would have been the second among Democrats from Kansas City. Yvonne Wilson, senator from the 9th District that covers the historic Northeast, announced last week her plans to step down with two years remaining in her final term. Governor Jay Nixon has yet to set a date for a special election to fill the seat. Wilson, 81, said she plans to spend more time with her husband of 58 years, among others in her family.

Following last week's election, Republicans have a 26-8 majority in the Senate and 106-57 in the House, three shy of veto-proof majorities.

28 October 2010

Cornered in the Electoral Paddock

For the first time ever, I might find myself voting no on every statewide issue, all to stay seemingly consistent with my objections to two entities spending roughly $7 per voter coming out to the polls Tuesday.

Already I've expressed issue with Propositions A and B, owing largely to the overwhelming onslaught of campaign material funded largely (in each issue) by a singular interest who would not be directly impacted by its passage. However, there is another singular interest pushing a ballot issue – a change to the state's constitution at that – that hasn't received as much publicity.

Constitutional Amendment Three was engineered largely by the Missouri Association of Realtors to prevent the state from introducing a transfer tax on the sale of homes and property within the state. Missouri, however, is currently one of 13 states that does not have such a tax in place. Proponents frame this as preventing lawmakers from imposing a tax on Missouri homeowners when selling property on which they already pay annual taxes.

Opposition is few and far between, but the majority of the rhetoric against it has emerged from a gaggle of conservative lawmakers who see this as a wrench about to be lodged in their efforts to introduce a "fair tax" in the state. Passing a law prohibiting the imposition of a sales tax on homes would run very much contrary to the desire of these lawmakers to make consumption-based taxed (for all intents and purposed) the only form of tax implemented in the state.

Another concern raised by this statewide group of Realtors muscling this proposed amendment to the state constitution onto the ballot is the glaring ability for narrowly-tailored interest groups to do the same. Already, with the overwhelming support of the General Assembly in 2009, voters can allow two narrow exceptions to become part of our state constitution.

Constitutional Amendment One would require all counties who have a charter form of government to elect their assessor, except those whose population is between 600,000 and 699,999. Right now, the only county that would be in that population donut hole is Jackson County. In Missouri, counties can either operate under a state-prescribed structure (which calls for the election of three commissioners and all county offices, including the assessor, prosecutor, sheriff, county clerk, recorder of deeds, auditor, and even the coroner) or petition the General Assembly to establish a customized, home-rule charter. These charters are crafted by a panel of citizens within the county, with input from other citizens, and then put to a vote of the voters.

When the General Assembly passed SJR5 last year, only St. Louis County would have been affected by the passage of this law. This was as a result of concerns raised about an appointed official in Missouri's largest county determining some of the highest assessments in the state, and thus, higher taxes. However, residents there passed a change to their charter by a 3-1 margin making the assessor elected. So were Amendment One to pass, it would have no immediate effect until either Jackson County exits this population donut hole or another county attempts to pursue a home-rule charter.

While I like the idea of holding all my county-wide officials accountable, this is a terrible way of doing it, and worse that this donut hole is intentionally written into the state constitution to shield certain entities at the expense of others. The state constitution must be a bedrock of proper and stable governance at the state, county, and municipal/township levels. For lawmakers to put through a narrow yet glaring donut hole, and asking voters to also divest their ability to determine for themselves whether they should allow their elected county leaders to appoint other officials as oppose to make them elected, only serves to make this bedrock a twisted knot of special exceptions and conflicting directives.

It is this reason that makes the next amendment challenging to support, yet heart-breaking to oppose. Voters have the opportunity to grant, via Constitutional Amendment 2 an exemption from property taxes for military veterans who, during their service to country, became a prisoner of war and totally disabled. While our military veterans deserve all the accolade they can get, sadly this method is similarly dangerous in its specificity. We do not have an exact number of how many veterans would qualify, and even if we did, the manner in which the exemption is granted is potentially dangerous for the sanctity of the state constitution.

The exemption is to be added into the first clause of Article 6, Section X of the state constitution, grouping this unknown amount of total-disabled veterans alongside the state, counties, municipalities, townships, and non-profit cemeteries. To group a subset of Missourians, no matter how selfless their sacrifice to their country and the price they paid, in with government entities is like grouping a sparrow with a brood of chickens. It's not the intent of the constitution to group specific citizens with these exemptions, even if we're perpetually indebted to them for their service. Further, the fear of those who are daring enough to speak against this amendment is that were voters to overwhelmingly support granting this exception, less-deserving groups could potentially have precedent to push for their own inclusion.

In the General Assembly, all but seven lawmakers voted for HJR15 placing this on the ballot. All seven happened to be absent on the days the measure came up for a final vote in both chambers.

So here we are, in the electoral paddock, staring at the shears that seek to skew the votes we put into the ballot box Tuesday. However you vote, be sure to hold onto all the wool, and keep it out from over your eyes in the process, by researching the facts and arguments, and surveying the long-term impact your vote could have on all Missourians, from Grant City to Granby to Gray Summit.

21 October 2010

Missouri: The Shear-Me State

With just under a fortnight to go until the biennial madness known as US General Election Season subsides, coverage from around the world increases along with the robo-calls and mud-slinging 30-second adverts. Recently, the BBC's Kevin Connolly breezed through Missouri and commented on our election mood, as well as his affinity for our nickname. Unfortunately, he only touched on the sentiment toward Washington and barely touched on state issues that also face Missouri voters.

Had Mr. Connolly done this, he might wind up coming up with a different nickname for the Show-Me State. Were he to comment on all the ads from Robin & Roy and Ike & Vicky, a more appropriate moniker would have been the Smear-Me State. Or, had he wanted to speak in detail on at least two of the five proposed ballot measures, he just might have developed a different, perhaps fitting nickname:

The Shear-Me State.

The two ballot measures in particular are Proposition A, which would effectively eliminate taxes on earnings, and Proposition B, which would establish additional laws covering the treatment and breeding of dogs. Both are changes to Missouri's revised statutes, meaning that lawmakers could, at any point in the future, pass a bill through the General Assembly to countermand their passage.

To explain why these two measures could turn Missouri into The Shear-Me State, I now introduce Rex H. Susa:
Rex H. Susa is not a happy sheep. You see, he's been told repeatedly by singular interests, wooing him by way of millions of dollars of second-rate adverts, to vote yes on Propositions A and B, believing that they're going to help him out, when their backers are instead treating him like the sheep he is so that their agenda can come to fruition at his expense.

Come to think of it, you could write the argument for the opposition of both measures this way:
"Proposition [A/B] is funded singularly by one [outstate arch-conservative billionaire/out-of-state activist organization] driven to single-handedly wreck Missouri's largest [cities' fiscal viability/industry—agriculture—] in the name of [free enterprise/animal rights]. However, it's clear to us that [Rex Sinquefield/the Humane Society of the United States] has no vested interest in [the public safety and infrastructure of/dogs living with loving owners in] Kansas City and St. Louis, and doesn't even put much of [his/their] money toward [developing property/rescuing and caring for dogs] in either city.

"Instead, [he intends/they intend] on duping us to vote to help [him/them] turn Missouri into [an experiment in free enterprise/a vegan paradise] where [cities receive revenue exclusively from a 23% sales tax/stepping on an anthill results in you being arrested for attempted genocide] but they won't have a way to [replace the lost revenue completely/make Missouri meat-free] because we'll travel to neighboring states to [shop/eat Arthur Bryant's Barbecue]. Therefore, we must vote no on Proposition [A/B]."

It may be a dubious argument, were it not for the reality that several opponents of Proposition B, hedging their bets on that argument, also happen to be supporters of Proposition A and chiding Proposition A's opponents who are using the same argument. One proponent of Prop A told The Kansas City Star that opponents relying on that argument were "blowing smoke".

Why must it take two entities, outside Missouri's two largest cities, at least $13 million to convince Missouri voters to vote something in that can easily be overruled, much like how in 2008 the Missouri General Assembly repealed campaign contribution limits voted in by 74 percent of Missourians in 1994? Further, contributions from those two entities amount to only a large amount of cash, with few ideas to back them up. Already a spokeswoman for Sinquefield admitted Sinquefield has no ideas to replace the revenue St. Louis and Kansas City will lose if voters dump the earnings tax in a subsequent vote. And despite many Missourians lining up behind Proposition B, including former Senator Jack Danforth and Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa, Missourians only accounted for $282,000 of contributions to Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, the group campaigning for Proposition B.

I don't take too kindly to Missouri voters like me being treated as sheep by Sinquefield and HSUS, with 30-second adverts trying to pull the wool over my eyes with selective language, pejorative words that start with the letter P, and imagery that makes a deliberate attempt to evoke an emotional knee-jerk reaction. I may come off as a Demon Sheep when I explain my objections to both measures this weekend, but I'm not about to let them turn our bellwether state into the nation's petri dish for their political gambits.

20 October 2010

Estão conspirando com o Qataris?

On the same day the two FIFA executives compromised by a sting reporting job by The Sunday Times were suspended pending a review, another British newspaper has named who they say are the two parties under investigation for vote-trading.

The Telegraph will report Thursday morning that the Qatari committee bidding to host the 2022 World Cup are under investigation for possibly conspiring with the 2018 combined bid of Spain and Portugal, in violation of FIFA's bidding rules. If this proves to be the case, then FIFA could disqualify both bids.

While Qatar remains a longshot for 2022 against the US, Australia, Japan and South Korea, the Iberian bid is considered a rival to England's quest to upend current front-runners Russia. Were the Spanish/Portuguese bid dismissed, England could focus exclusively on the Russians, with the Benelux bid still lurking in the distance.

Fortunately, the date remains 2 December on when we find out whether Egyptian and Peruvian soccer fans will blare their vuvuzelas inbetween bites of Gates' barbecued beef brisket at Arrowhead Stadium in 2022.

18 October 2010

Why Murdoch's Minions Might Muck Up FIFA

We found out Friday that vuvuzelas will not blare en masse from Arrowhead Stadium in 2018. Now we might have to wait a bit longer to see if Lamar's Lair will welcome the world in 2022.

FIFA executives are now saying that they might postpone their vote on who gets to hose the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals, currently scheduled for 2 December, following a sting expose by The Sunday Times. In their article (complete with undercover videos that are only available via a paid subscription), two Sunday Times reporters pose as English-based lobbyists trying to buy votes for the US' 2022 bid. In particular, they entertain offers from the presidents of football federations in Nigeria and Tahiti, both of whom are on FIFA's executive board and wield clout amongst the African and Oceania confederations.

FIFA have vowed to move swiftly with their investigation, and could suspend the impugned executives as early as Wednesday. Additionally, FIFA's ethics committee are reported to also be investigating reports of collusion between bidding committees, likely concerning vote swaps. While it could be another potential embarrassment for England's hopes to host the 2018 finals, there just might be an underlying reason for this. (Please convert your old UHF antennae into tinfoil hats… now.)

The Sunday Times is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation conglomerate, the same conglomerate that owns the Sky network of channels in the UK and the Fox networks in the US and Australia. Despite building much of their sport coverage on association football (namely Fox Soccer and Soccer Plus in the US and Sky Sports' Soccer Saturday), none of these channels have ever broadcast the sporting event that's surpassed even the Summer Olympics in cumulative audience numbers.

Since 1994, coverage rights of the World Cup in the US have been owned by ABC, whose parent company Disney also owns ESPN. In England, broadcast rights are split between ITV and the BBC. However, the current partnership is due to expire after the 2014 finals in Brazil, with no current indication of either the partnership being renewed or the World Cup remaining on a government list of sporting events required to be shown on free-to-air broadcasters. In Australia, semi-public broadcaster SBS have the rights.

While a majority of major US sporting events remain on terrestrial or basic cable/satellite channels, in Britain most anything not on the government's protected list has been picked up by Sky or ESPN (which replaced Setanta Sports when the Irish-based channel collapsed last year) on a pay-to-air basis. This includes all Premier League fixtures and high-profile cricket Test series, namely The Ashes.

Were England to win the 2018 bid and either Australia or the United States to follow in 2022, News Corp. would have home turf for eight years. While their newspapers would generate a large following reporting on preparations and whipping up support by way of nationalistic headlines atop The Sun and New York Post, an even larger chunk of revenue could come to them if they had exclusive rights to broadcast coverage in all three nations. Granted, it might not go down well were Fox to pre-empt habitual coverage of Cardinals baseball and NASCAR with 22 guys in shorts chipping a ball around. But the audiences, ad revenue, and ability to force subscribers to pay to view every game would generate far more revenue and profit for News Corp.

While such an insinuation–that a media conglomerate would conspire against its nations' interests as to prevent their domestic competitors from raking in millions–would need a ton of concrete evidence to support, the circumstances seem to connect (if only within the cosy confines of a tinfoil hat). Why would The Sunday Times pose as agents acting on behalf of the US Soccer Federation to sting and expose two corrupt voters that representatives from England's bid courted early in the process? Is it possible that, knowing that the status quo for broadcasting World Cup games will remain in place, News Corp is seeking to undermine or derail the bidding process as to prevent their competition from milking the home-field advantage?

Such a scenario, even if true, would be preposterous to believe and damning if accurate. But should English-speaking nations prevail come December, I suspect the current broadcasters will quickly ink new deals to extend their coverage rights and secure the eventual windfall from broadcasting the world's biggest single-sport spectacle, much to the dismay of Murdoch's empire.

01 October 2010

I thought Partisan TV News was suppose to be a Yankee thing

With election season at its peak in the U.S., televisions from sea to shining sea are tuned to the channel that emphasizes their viewpoints, be it Fox News for the rabid right, MSNBC for the rabid left, or HLN for the rabidly apathetic who don't care who's leading the U.S. over a cliff.

As this display of entrenched partisan nonsense and the simultaneous degradation of enlightened, sensible discourse and the general concept of centrism continues here, across the pond the greatest chance of it happening was scheduled to take place next week. And not by Murdoch-owned Sky News.

The taxpayer-funded BBC could have found itself the epicentre of a partisan programming debate, thanks to three unions who wanted to go on two 48-hour strikes timed to coincide with Prime Minister David Cameron's speech at the Conservative Party's annual conference in Birmingham and Chancellor George Osborne's speech on budget cuts two weeks later. At issue are concessions the BBC are asking members of the National Union of Journalists, Unite and Becta to grant for pension contributions. The cuts largely stem from a freeze into the rate of the annual television license fee and ongoing austerity measures that the Coalition government are starting to put into place.

The timing of the strikes is essentially aimed at the government, running contrary to the non-partisan objectives of the BBC. The unions have little to gain from the Conservatives being back in power. The last time Britain had a Tory government, Thatcher held out against the National Union of Mineworkers, and the unions' resolve fell flat. So the latest tactic: keep the Prime Minister from speaking on BBC by not having enough staff on hand to cover the speech.

Surely a political tactic like this — one activists would crave to use to stymie Fox News or MSNBC's ability to cover current events — would meet with with the leadership of a party still searching for traction despite a post-conference bump in several polls?

To the benefit of those who cling on to the hope of there being any semblance of objective news sources, it didn't. Shortly after the Labour party conference concluded in Manchester, new party leader Ed Miliband (or as the Tory-loving, Murdoch-owned Sun derisively calls him, "Red Ed") called on the very unions that nudged him past his old brother David to become party leader to not go through with the strike threat. Miliband said that the country had a right to hear what Cameron has to say from the Tory conference because the country heard what Miliband had to say. Additionally, several news presenters with the BBC, among them the venerable Jeremy Paxman and political editor Nick Robinson, warned of the action being seen as "unduly partisan"

As a result, principally because of a new offer on the table from the BBC, the strike's off. For the moment. But this threat just may have been the first blow toward the introduction of yet another American vice into British culture. (If only we could stick with continuing to impress Mountain Dew and Chiefs football on the world.)

28 September 2010

Unnecessary Wheeling and Dealing

We are just over two months away from finding out whether a swarm of blaring vuvuzelas will mix with tomahawk chops in the United States for either the 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup. If England's Football Association have their way, the US shouldn't bother with 2018.

A spokesman for The FA said today he expects the US Soccer Federation to withdraw their bid for the 2018 World Cup and focus on 2022. In response to that England would, to quote the spokesman, "almost certainly withdraw from 2022." (Which is easy for him to say, as the United States remains the only non-UEFA nation still bidding on 2018, and FIFA rules now prohibit a continent from hosting consecutive cups.) However, Go USA Bid executive director David Downs issued assurances that the US remain in the hunt for either cup.

I'm not sure why England would vocally suggest the US opt out of the 2018 matchup, considering the fracas that nearly scuttled their bid four months ago. While FIFA rejected the claims of bribery made by soon-to-be-ousted FA chief Lord Triesman, it was still quite foolish to make such an accusation.

With the FIFA evaluation teams completing their tour of all nine candidate nations (or nation pairings, in the case of Spain/Portugal and Benelux), the decision rests on them. In the meantime, Americans eager to support the bid can continue to make it known by visiting the bid's Web site.

21 September 2010

The Day I Reaffirmed A Belief I've Held Since Eighth Grade

It has taken far too long for me to ruminate about this, with so many angles, aspects, and division among peers as well as various groupings across our diverse nation. But I've finally settled on one angle: the surefire first-person confessional.

The controversy surrounding Park51 (née Cordoba House, née "Mosque" "at" "Ground Zero", née Burlington Coat Factory) has echoed back and forth from media outlets across the U.S. and beyond the past two months, especially with demonstrations (abandoned or not) that coincided with the ninth anniversary of the atrocities of 9/11. And during my trip to New York last month (photos on the blog's fan page on Facebook) I took a walk down Park Place toward the run-down five-story Italian Renaissance building. And there it stood: the flashpoint testing religious tolerance in the U.S., flanked by a 15-story skyscraper to its right with an AT&T store, another 15-story skyscraper that houses an Amish goods shop, all facing south toward a parking garage and even taller building, across the street where taxis advertising adult entertainment venues in the area cruise.

After standing across the street under construction scaffolding, overhearing a couple people also snapping pictures and talking about the proposed project while two demonstrators utilized their First Amendment rights to show support for freedom of religion, I continued my one-man tour of Lower Manhattan with, oddly enough, one of my core political beliefs re-affirmed.

I, for lack of a better term or way to spin this, am a Tenther.

I believe that problems involving the economic and social well-being of a community and its members are best solved at localized levels. Broad-stroke applications like No Child Left Behind, health care reform, Kelo v. New London, and every perverted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause conceivable, are one-size-fits-all attempts to graft a federal solution onto what are really situations that differ from state to state and district to district. I make no qualms about being among the 70 percent of Missouri voters who backed Proposition C last month.

However, unlike most of the newfound Tenthers out there, I accept a critical tangent of this belief: what's best for one state is not necessarily best for another. Which is why I, as a Missourian, really have no tangible reason to weigh in on whether a New York organization should be allowed by a governing body in New York to build a facility that serves Muslims who live in New York. While I may be able to transplant myself with ease in this great country from state to state as the economy and I please, I am no more a resident of Lower Manhattan than the many pundits, preachers, and politicos who have railed against this proposal. Zoning has long been a local issue, and the boards that voted to allow construction of Park51 did not lose or cede jurisdiction of Lower Manhattan, nor did similar boards serving Arlington or Somerset County, Pa., after 19 (insert choice expletives to your heart's content) terrorists committed the most brazen attack on our country.

Now, I must admit that I did have my reservations about this project. It's within a five-minute walk of Ground Zero, ten if you get stopped at every crosswalk signal and you actually abide by them. The previous name for the project, Cordoba House, was criticized by a politico from Georgia, who said the name commemorated the forcible conversion of the Spanish city of Córdoba during the eighth century. But then I find out the inspiration for the project is a Jewish community center that's operated in Manhattan's Upper East Side since the 1920s, and that a mosque has operated in Lower Manhattan since before the twin towers opened forty years ago. And then there's the strip club advertising itself on hundreds of New York taxis, just one block behind the site.

Instead of figuring out a way to spin a baptism story out of my taking swimming lessons at the YMCA on Vivion Road as a kid, it occurred to me the dangerous precedent that could be set by my supposedly fellow Tenthers, were their vehement objections to a project in New York, waged from far-flung corners of the U.S., enough for a local decision to be overturned. Would they be keen to people from outside Alaska or Georgia telling them what their local bodies they can and can't zone? Would they be willing to cede to a federal government, one that they repeatedly call out of touch with the electorate and having too much power already, the right to determine what is appropriate to place 1000 feet away from a site of historical significance?

If (God, Allah and/or any other deity or deities forbid) a harrowing scar were to be delivered onto Kansas City or St. Louis, I would want anything proposed in its place, be it a memorial garden, Methodist chapel, mosque, Mormon temple, mega-screen complex, or museum where visitors can observe the anhydration of decorative mastic epoxies, to be debated on and decided by our local bodies, free from undue influence by political & publicity-craving forces who have no vested interest in our day-to-day lives. This has been, and should remain, a local decision. And as non-residents of that local jurisdiction, we must respect what has been done, lest we prepare ourselves for people from outside our communities to tell us what not to build in our own back yard.

20 August 2010

"Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll!"

Throughout Britain, particularly London and the South East, commemorations have taken place to mark the 70th anniversary of a speech before the House of Commons by Winston Churchill. In that speech, Winston Churchill uttered the famous line: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

The speech, which gave rise to the nickname "The Few" for the RAF personnel who piloted Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters over the skies of Britain to repel the Nazis' aerial assault of Britain, was generally a state of the war report from the Prime Minister. Churchill spends the first third of the speech detailing technological differences between the two world wars, stating that while casualties in the Battle of Britain were one-fifth that of World War I in the first year, the focus had changed from being an exclusively military struggle to total warfare against civilians, aimed at weakening the British resolve.

As Churchill lauded "The Few" he went on to detail the democracies that had fallen under the power of the German blitzkrieg, and assured them that they had a champion in Great Britain and the United States.

The end of the speech, which rarely is discussed in contrast to "The Few", contains a poignant close from Churchill. As he brings up the need for Britain and the United States to come together in common dialogue and defence, he said:

These are important steps. Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organisations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage.

For my own part, looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days.


A year later, with the Battle of Britain won by "The Few" and the Nazi war machine setting its sights east toward Moscow and Stalingrad, Churchill would meet with Franklin D. Roosevelt off the coast of Newfoundland to hammer out the Atlantic Charter. Not only did it provide a foundation on which the United Nations was formed five years later in San Francisco, it also put the final touches onto a special relationship, torn by the Revolution and War of 1812, reunited during World War I, and drawing even closer as two nations divided by common language began to reaffirm their inherent ties.

It was a special relationship that Churchill would grow to appreciate, giving one of his most famous speeches in 1946 on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton. And the United States would pay him back in 1963, as Congress would bestow Churchill with honourary citizenship. (Granted, as Churchill's mother was an American, he could have sought U.S. citizenship outright had he wanted to.)

Indeed today is a day of reflection, not only for the efforts of "The Few" to preserve their country, but their role in helping Churchill defend democracy from a deranged dictatorship and establish the core of the special relationship that continues to ebb and flow through American and British affairs to this day.

19 August 2010

It's a Quarter After One, I'm Tanked At The Red Lion…

I began typing this entry 35,000 feet over Cedar Point, at the same time two lads from Tennessee and their gorgeous lead singer wrapped up a three-day sojourn across the pond, building on the unprecedented chart success they’re achieving.

Lady Antebellum’s trip to Britain may appear fruitless, performing only one concert, and that one to 2000 devoted fans at Shepherd’s Bush Empire in London, but for those pining for the world to embrace the trademark twang of country, that close-knit concert may very well be country music’s equivalent to The Beatles’ landmark 1964 debut concert on The Ed Sullivan Show and at old Shea Stadium.

And Britain may have just warmed up to the format, in particular the three members of Lady Antebellum. In addition to BBC Radio One regularly performing tracks from their newest album Need You Now, the trio of Dave Haywood, Charles Kelley and Hillary Scott appeared on BBC One’s Breakfast Show for a live interview segment lasting just over seven minutes. Need You Now, including the title song and “I Run To You”, have soared on the UK’s charts, echoing the success the trio have registered in the US over the likes of Justin Bieber, Rhianna and fellow country starlet Taylor Swift.

Listing The Beatles as among their influences, and joking that they were once mistaken for Kings of Leon, Lady Antebellum are the epitome of not just the world’s earbuds acclimating to songs about mama, drinking, pickup trucks, and jailhouse blues, but equally of country music evolving from its distinctly rural American roots. Much as the Mississippi delta gave rise to jazz and blues, genres quickly embraced and adapted by legendary British rockers including Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger, country music has now reached a point where it has openly influenced, and been influenced by, the bass beats of classic rock, the somber, soothing tones of adult contemporary, and even the occasional jolt from heavy metal.

Even as The New York Times declared country music dead in 1985, performers rooted in church choirs and old guitar standards began branching out from behind the friendly confines of the WSM microphone at the Grand Ole Opry. Artists, ranging from classic Southern Belles like Reba McEntire to transplants like the Canadian Shania Twain, explored the inclusion of traits from beyond the commonly acceptable bounds of country music. As country music caught on across North America, so too did the outside influences. Shania drew some flack for a song which, for all intents and purposes, could hardly be classified as country. Reba built on her success by way of launching a television series on The WB (and later The CW), running for six seasons. Reba's crossover appeal furthered when she released an album of duets in 2007, featuring Kelly Clarkson, Don Henley, Carole King and Justin Timberlake among her collaborators.

In the past two years alone, country music has reached a point where it is, for all intents and purposes, attached to the mainstream as much as hip-hop and R&B. Taylor Swift’s near-bubble gum pop appeal, with chart success on country and mainstream charts, drew a less than positive response from a certain rapper on a certain live music award broadcast. Soft rock crooners Darius Rucker (of Hootie and the Blowfish fame) and Uncle Kracker have found their ways on the country charts by virtue of including just enough twang for country music stations' programming directors to add them to their playlists.

Many of these artists, though, can also look back to successes achieved by rock-and-roll pioneers such as Elvis and Boddy Holly, or can look to the enduring image of Jim Reeves. Over 45 years after his umtimely passing in a plane crash en route to Nashville, Reeves' booming bass voice against gentle background music continues to resonate in the songbooks of Britain, Ireland, and South Africa, where he spent several months touring in 1963.

Could Lady Antebellum's newfound appeal across the pond result in the potential inclusion of up to 400 million fans, or maybe some Johnny Cash knockoffs in future Eurovision Song Contests? Or has country music morphed into the point where it is now part of the Simon Cowell-fronted-but-really-controlled-by-Sony-investors cookie-cutter music machine, defined only by an artist's preferred training, or what a publicist believes would best market the artist? These are questions that not only tug at the ear of devoted and occasional music fans, but also probe deeper into society.

Whether British fans of Lady Antebellum will delve deeper into the rich history of Country music and find a new genre of their own liking, or start grouping their tracks with Little Boots because both artists play regularly on Heart, will be a test of time. If past results are any indication, though, it will likely be the latter. I've yet to hear Mix 93 or Z100 play anything by Lena or Alexandra Burke.

12 August 2010

Freshmen MPs vulnerable to Foot-In-Mouth Disease

Funny how an outside candidate keen to make himself accessible now, as an elected official, wants to cut off access.

Over the last month Dominic Raab, the Conservative representing Esher and Walton in the House of Commons, has called on a political advocacy blog to pull his e-mail address from their Web site. Raab has told media outlets that his office is being flooded with e-mails from across Britain and that they're unable to handle the volume of correspondence.

The blog in question, 38degrees, bills itself on enabling concerned citizens to sign petitions and pursue group action on various issues, ranging from recalling MPs who may have misused their position to local planning issues including proposed CAFOs and housing developments. For the past month, 38degrees' operators and Raab have exchanged e-mails concerning Raab's request and made those e-mails public.

Raab has taken offence to his inbox being flooded with hundreds of e-mails from concerned citizens across the length and breadth of Britain sending the same form letter advocating for the adoption of the Alternative Vote, the referendum which is slated to occur in May 2011. In the e-mail exchange with 38degrees, Raab has noted that he would welcome responding to individual e-mails from advocates of AV. Both Raab and 38degrees say they have advice from Parliament's Information Commissioner backing their stand on Raab's request.

Now, on the surface, this request appears idiotic. Raab is a public figure now. His e-mails, if they're conducted from a government e-mail account, are subject to opens records laws. (That said, Raab listed a Yahoo! e-mail address on his candidate profile, and if he is still using that Yahoo! account for government business, then that's a slightly different issue here.) And Raab asking people to stop e-mailing him, be it to his Yahoo! or Commons e-mail address, is like asking the Niagara River to stop flowing over Horseshoe Falls.

What his office can do, like what several reps here in Missouri do, is set up a generic auto-reply that acknowledges receipt of an e-mail and explicitly state on there that unless the issue is raised by a resident in his constituency (as verified by post codes) there's a good chance the e-mail won't be replied to or actually be seen by the MP. If an e-mail did not include a post code or did not match those that reside in the constituency (in Raab's situation those would be KT10, KT11 and KT12), then the office staff could label it as low priority. This would be to ensure that the highest priority emails—from constituents and media—would be given top priority.

What concerns me about 38degrees, and what may be distressing Raab, is whether the e-mails he's receiving via 38degrees' mailing system (which is modelled on progressive grassroots sites like MoveOn.org) is mailing the same form letter to all 650 MPs, regardless of the petitioner's given constituency. While it is useful to generate large numbers as to show national opinion on certain issues, an MP's priority must be his/her constituency. If the MP is to be a delegate representing the wishes of his/her residents (as opposed to a trustee), then he/she must be able to discern the voices of his/her neighbours over those of adamant campaigners.

While Web sites like 38degrees, MoveOn.org, (and even Missives from Missouri, to a lesser extent) allow regular citizens to become aware and actively involved in issues affecting their lives, citizens need to be able to think and form opinions for themselves, rather than just fill in a few boxes and go back to watching EastEnders or iCarly. Rather than remaining a sheep under the stewardship of a new shepherd, a truly active citizen needs to be able to articulate their view and personal experiences relating to such issues. Only then will the power of new media reach its optimum.

07 August 2010

Divided Attention, Dog Days of Summer Edition

Just under a fortnight ago I attended the wedding of two college friends. Not only was it the first wedding I attended since things across the pond went the way of Labour when Michael Foot handled the helm, but it was also a mini-reunion of sorts with several peers I hadn't seen since my years at Truman. In particular, I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with the husband of one of those peers. It was a most enjoyable and informative conversation for both of us, and the insight I gained from it has given me a chance to reflect on, well, the general direction of this blog. Or should I say indirection?

But again, my attention is divided. Much like how I'm split between covering the news of home and recent happenings in Blighty, city leaders in KCMO are split between what exactly to ask voters to approve with the public safety sales tax due for renewal before June 2011. The quarter-cent levy currently goes towards improving the police department's facilities and equipment, including the new police academy and Shoal Creek Patrol building just outside Pleasant Valley. Several on the city council, backed by police chief Jim Corwin, want to retain the sales tax for this use.

However, Mayor Mark Funkhouser wants to put more police officers on the streets. Citing citizen concerns raised to him, the mayor would instead like to augment the sales tax to foot the salaries of 100 officers, and extend its duration for 20 years rather than 15.

At first glance, I'm inclined to back more police on the beat. That means more eyes watching out for crime, traffic infractions, and kids in need of Royals baseball cards. Unfortunately, the mayor's desire to hire extra personnel by way of a sales tax generates two major problems.

The first problem, more critically, is proposing a sales tax with a set duration (let alone a sales/use tax) to increase the number of personnel serving a critical need for the city. Say you're one of the 100 officers brought in as a result of a passed sales tax aimed at hiring more officers. When that tax expires and citizens don't renew it, or sales revenue plummets more than it already has, your job probably isn't that secure. Even if the advocacy groups and unions do all they can to make sure you get your salary, generate bad PR for the city, etc., it would still compromise the force's effectiveness the same way dumping 100 officers or slashing a different part of the budget would. And further, this fear could easily be played upon by civic leaders looking to subvert such a tax into a gravy train for pet projects, or rely heavily on this tax as to free up money from other sources for said gravy train pet projects.

The second problem, at the moment, is that in Missouri it's not legal to propose such a tax. Until August 28. That's when Senate Bill 981, sponsored by Democrat Victor Callahan of Independence, becomes law. It would allow Kansas City to pass a sales tax of up to one percent to fund salaries of police officers. Unfortunately, while parts of the bill contain emergency clauses, this particular provision did not. Which is problematic as, for the measure to appear on the November ballot, the city must approve ballot wording by the 19th.

As the city is not on the same page on this critical subject, I suspect that voters will face a desperation-induced ballot measure come April, shortly after KCMO voters are worn out from a municipal election that still operates on the oddest dates for elections in Missouri.

29 July 2010

Strange Bedfellows At The Westminster Motel

The strange bedfellows stemming from Britain's nascent Coalition government continue to develop. This week, it's a pairing of Labour's shadow cabinet with 50 backbencher Tories determined to quash the proposed May 2011 referendum on the alternative vote system. Their reasons, largely based on political dogma, are naturally divergent.

The ballot measure, which will go before voters across the UK on 5 May upon passage of the enabling legislation, will eliminate the first-past-the-post system in favour of ranking candidates in order of preference. The system is already in place for electing the mayor of greater London and in local elections across Wales and Scotland, the latter of which will occur simultaneously.

The 50 Tory backbenchers – principally Eurosceptics and right-wing politicians that could pull off a mass defection to UKIP if they really wanted to – oppose this system, believing that first-past-the-post has been a tried-and-true institution that can keep fringe candidates out of Parliament. But instead of going along with their party's coalition agreement, to let the people decide on what system they want, these stuck-in-the-mud traditionalists have every intention of maintaining the status quo.

It must be noted that Cameron, in spite of his willingness to allow the vote, will campaign against it. However, as part of the Coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative plurality agreed to let there be a vote on electoral reform (as championed by the Liberal Democrats) in exchange for the Tories' desire to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons and ensure an equal number of residents in each constituency.

As a result, Labour's leadership, which championed the Alternative Vote (and even passed the original proposal just six months ago) indicate that they may sign onto a motion to oppose the bill alongside the rebel Tory MPs. They fear that the Lib-Con coalition may gerrymander the new constituencies to divide Labour strongholds and render improbable any chance of a Labour or even LibDem government from forming in the near future. Naturally, it's fodder for generating sound-byte rebuttals, as Cameron was quick to call Labour "backtrackers" and "opportunistic".

With Labour's prospective U-Turn on the proposal, should it pass through Parliament only the Liberal Democrats (among the Westminster Three) will be on board with the Alternative Vote, even as they indicated preference to dumping single-seat constituencies in favour of the Single Transferable Vote system, as used to elect legislators in Northern Ireland.

23 July 2010

The Coalition That Gaffes Together…

Were America's 24-hour newsrooms not so enthralled over LiLo's mug shots or when Mel Gibson gets his next one, they might have picked up on these two nuggets that occurred during Prime Minister David Cameron's trip to Washington this week.

First, the Prime Minister admitted to Sky News' Adam Boulton that Britain, while not a pushover, was the junior partner in the special relationship with the U.S. What really irked British media though was not Cameron's admission of this generally accepted reality, but how he qualified it.

Cameron suggested that the UK was also the junior partner in 1940. While this might play right into the hand of my jingoist compatriots who to this day insist America saved Britain's hide in World War II, there's a slight historical problem with this.

As 'The Few' took to the air to defend Britain's skies against Nazi Germany's Luftwaffe, the States remained on the sidelines, limiting itself to not-so-covert assistance of the Allies by way of the Lend-Lease Act. The resolve of 'The Few' prevailed when Germany formally abandoned the Battle of Britain in December 1940, months before Roosevelt and Churchill would meet off the coast of Newfoundland to promulgate the Atlantic Charter, and a solid year before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Even after America's "day of infamy", the United States only declared on Japan, which resulted in an invitation to the European theatre through Germany and Italy declaring on the U.S. on 11 December 1941.

Doesn't sound like a senior partner to me.

The staffers at 10 Downing, though, were more pressed into action over another gaffe that had occurred 12 hours earlier at the lectern of the House of Commons. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, standing in for Cameron during this week's Prime Minister's Questions, tussled words with Labour's Jack Straw, who served as foreign secretary and Lord Chancellor during Labour's past 13 years at the helm. In an effort to score a political one-up on the opposition amid a charged climate lacking decorum, Clegg declared: "Maybe he one day - perhaps we will have to wait for his memoirs - could account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all, which is the illegal invasion of Iraq."

Slight problem: a majority of Conservatives, including a freshman MP from the constituency of Witney named David Cameron, backed Tony Blair's government in joining the U.S. in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Liberal Democrats, when Clegg was representing Yorkshire in the European Parliament, were the largest party in Britain to oppose the war and declare it illegal.

What followed was a stark lesson for everyone running the Coalition government. 10 Downing attempted in vain to qualify Clegg's comments as his own, and then refused to counter them as Conservatives went on the counter-offensive. This also generated confusion over who exactly will declare whether or not British involvement in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was illegal, as a spokesman for the inquiry looking into the lead up to the conflict said its findings will not include an explicit statement of legality. Further, Clegg's statement from the dispatch box, were it to become a legal reality, could provide grounds to pursue criminal cases against current and former Government officials and even British troops who served in Iraq since March 2003.

While this may not prove too much a dent in the viability of the Cameron-Clegg Coalition, the slip-up in putting party platform over Government position, alongside the repeated yet draining efforts of Commons Speaker John Bercow to maintain order during the first PMQs with a Liberal party member at the lecturn, will give the Coalition reason to re-assess their strategy when dealing with a regrouping Labour opposition and disgruntled backbenchers. For Clegg, it is a stark reminder of the importance to represent the views of the Coalition as a whole when he speaks in place of the Prime Minister. Besides, there now exists a once-monthly session for questions directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, where leeway may occur for where his views as the "junior partner" of the Coalition may differ from the Prime Minister.

21 July 2010

A Brief, Yet Somber Tribute

A typical summer thunderstorm swelled up over the Green Hills of Northern Missouri two nights ago. As it roared its way through my family's long-time stomping grounds, they started giving the Upper Midwest's Doppler radars, storm chasers, and residents concern as they showed signs of dropping a tornado.

As residents and loved ones from afar feared a repeat of the storms that dropped deadly twisters on Milan and Kirksville 14 months ago, NBC Action News assignment editor Nick Dutcher relayed warnings from the National Weather Service by way of his Twitter. When Adair County fell under a tornado warning, I asked him how close it was to Kirksville. He replied with reports of two radar-detected cells in the northern half of the county. Fortunately, the storms didn't produce any tornadoes of significance, if any.

Tragically, our brief exchange of Tweets turned out to be among the last things Nick would do from the assignment desk. Yesterday, police found Nick slain at his home in south Kansas City, and his SUV stolen. Nick was just 30 years old, and friends, colleagues, and media practitioners across the metro are stunned and in disbelief.

I only knew Nick from the many Tweets he posted whilst at the assignment desk: breaking news in the area during the run-up to 10 pm newscasts, extensive severe weather coverage, his love for Celine Dion's repertoire, and the occasional reality TV show. He was one of the few KC-area journalists I followed on Twitter during my eight months in the Kentish Riviera. And as Kansas City media pause to remember the young life taken away from us, I too reflect.

Nick, his family, friends, and the NBC Action News team, will be in my thoughts and prayers.

Meanwhile, KCPD are investigating Nick's death as a homicide, but have no suspects at this moment. Earlier this evening, they located his stolen Ford Escape abandoned just north of Swope Park. Anyone with new information pertaining to Nick's murder should call the KCPD's TIPS hotline at +1 816 474 8477.

14 July 2010

Campaign.Mailers{at}mo.gov

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's "Political Fix" blog reports that Creve Coeur Rep. Jill Schupp, who is running unopposed for re-election to her House district, sent a campaign mailer from her former aide's Capitol e-mail address. Schupp is quoted in Tony Messenger's report as saying that it was her first time personally using the mass mailing client Constant Contact, that she was unaware that it had been set up that way, and that future mailers will come from a different e-mail address.

The missives in question were sent on 11 July and 11 May, from House.Mo.Gov addresses associated with Schupp and her office. As the operator of Missives from Missouri, I've been anticipating a mishap of this nature, as does happen often when politics mingle with new technologies and concepts.

And in this case, it has. To the untrained eye, Schupp's two e-mails did appear to come from her state office. This screenshot (click for full version) shows how I've set up Google Mail to place a label on every e-mail sent from House.Mo.Gov (Maroon) and Senate.Mo.Gov (Pink)

Also, as you can tell, GOP are Red, Dem are Blue, and e-mails sent by someone in a legislator's office is marked "Staffer". (And you can also tell that I've maintained support for the U.S. Soccer and Missouri's wineries, and even developed an interest in cricket. HOWZAT!)

In that screenshot, the mailing from Schupp, dated 11 July, was tagged as being from a House.Mo.Gov address. And this screenshot adds to that argument, but then re-qualifies it.

Here, the address and subject line affirms the source being from Rep. Schupp's office (and the address being a former staffer of the office), but adds that the e-mail itself was mailed through Constant Contact. However, it was signed by an account referring to Schupp's office and not her campaign, and on top of that (well, at the bottom of the mailing):
A re-affirmation of both the campaign nature of the mailer and the sender's address, from House.Mo.Gov.

Now again, I expected something like this to happen, and rather than continue providing screenshots until this is a shark-jumping, muck-racking escapade, I'll state my personal belief that this was an unfortunate oversight by Rep. Schupp. I anticipate the next mailer of this nature from the representative (provided my e-mail address isn't delisted!) to arrive from a different address. I should note, of course, that generally I don't post political mailers on Missives from Missouri, so as a result I opted to not post information on one State Senate candidate's barbecue for veterans in his district, or a discount that's being offered to readers of another campaign's followers for visiting a new restaurant. Both such items were sent from campaign addresses.

Ideally, lawmakers should follow in the example of lawmakers like Rep. Will Kraus of Lee's Summit and Sen. Joseph Keaveny of St. Louis City and maintain separate mailing lists for state and campaign business. Missives from both lawmakers, among others, have arrived from separate accounts. Reference the first screenshot, where the Keaveny Connection (which is providing exceptional publicity for organizations serving the St. Louis area) is tagged as being from Senate.Mo.Gov, but his later e-mail looking for canvassers for his campaign appears with only a DEM tag.

I have kept a close eye on weekly reports from both state and non-state addresses as to ensure that what's being posted is from a state legislator's perspective and not a political candidate. But of course, the line between state legislator and political candidate is often blurry, with caucuses from both parties providing material for their members to send home. Reports become as much an update to residents as they do a refresher of their legislators' values and political allegiances. State law, however, is clear in two areas:
  1. State resources cannot be used, in an official capacity, for political campaigns.
  2. Any e-mail sent from a state e-mail address to at least two people is available for public review through the Sunshine Law by anyone.
As such, any campaign material sent from either House.Mo.Gov or Senate.Mo.Gov will be published on Missives from Missouri, and I'm afraid Schupp's slip-up is not the only one that's been published in the seven months I've operated this site.

13 July 2010

The Special Session That Shouldn't Have Been

The 1st Extraordinary Session of the 95th Missouri General Assembly continues to linger in the vacant halls of the State Capitol, a session that has brought about some of the most desperate twists in principle by some to ensure the state's economic viability, and conversely the most desperate twists in the state's economic viability to ensure others' principles.

As we speak, a gaggle of staunch conservative senators are in the twelfth hour of a filibuster aimed at killing off a bill laden with incentives to convince Ford to retain two production lines at their plant in Claycomo. Their hope is to put to an end the practice of granting tax credits to practically everything that moves an inch in the state, which they believe is a major reason why Missouri continues to face growing revenue shortfalls.

Which won't get any better if 3700 people in Kansas City's Northland are indefinitely furloughed when Ford relocates their Escape & Escape Hybrid lines to another state.

As it stands, these jobs are gone in a year, off to Kentucky, and with it a large chunk of revenue from Clay County's largest private employer. Revenue that goes into maintaining roads in unincorporated areas of the county, North Kansas City and Liberty schools, and practically keep the village of Claycomo on the map. And even if this bill passes, there is no guarantee that Ford will bring a new model to Claycomo to replace the Escape.

There is, however, an even greater chance of 3700 Missourians being out of a job if it doesn't pass, all in the name of the ideal of free enterprise and small government. Now yes, a large chunk of affected workers can and probably will find a replacement job, but it's very unlikely that such jobs will pay the same. And yes, it might show a growing consumer consciousness for fuel-efficient and clean energy vehicles, like electric fleet vehicles now being manufactured by Smith Electric in neighboring Platte County. But in the short term, this loss will all but ensure a double-dip recession in many areas of Northwest Missouri, as the area adapts to find new jobs and revenue.

Jobs, revenue, impact, and critical specifics that has seen nary a mention in any of the three weeks of debate and political pandering. Instead it's been the need to pass it, the political means to do so, and the opposition from those who see the concept of government intervention at any level as the biggest problem to economic growth and not a possible agent of support.

The bill, should this filibuster come to a close, will likely pass, as Senate leaders say they have enough votes to pass it back to the House, where it will likely receive another round of yeas before landing on Governor Nixon's desk. How it got there, though, is another string of arm-wringing disappointment.

To ensure the rapid passage of the bill through the House, Speaker Ron Richard—comfortably on his way to the State Senate with no challenger in his bid to represent Joplin—wasted no time in pulling from committees two house members who did not express vehement support. Speaker Pro Tem Bryan Pratt of Eastern Jackson County was removed from the Rules Committee after he called it a "bail out bill". Within a day, another Jackson County representative, Will Kraus of Lee's Summit, was removed from the Job Creation and Economic Development Committee after he stated he would prefer to hear both sides of the issue before casting his both. Both Pratt & Kraus were among the 19 nay votes on the bill the House advanced to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields of St. Joseph waited until this week to remove Howell County's Senator Chuck Purgason from the Government Oversight and Fiscal Accountability committee. Purgason, under his purview as chairman of the committee, refused to bring the bill up for discussion, also referring to it as a bailout and suggesting that Missouri "sucks at economic development." Purgason suggests that to spur economic development, Missourians should instead dump income taxes and instead charge a higher sales tax to ensure revenue neutrality. Problem with that, though, is that unless it's enacted at the national level, a large chunk of Missourians could drive across the state line and take advantage of what would then be a reasonable sales tax rates in Bentonville, Quincy, and Overland Park, with Missourians nowhere near the border either stuck holding up the bulk of Missouri's revenue burden or renting a U-Haul on a regular basis to hoard up on necessities.

So now we have a filibuster that's stretched into 12 hours, to prevent a bill to possibly save 3700 jobs in the hopes of possibly saving more businesses. Well, one thing's for sure: the bill could have had more teeth. HB2 is a more specific version of House Bill 1675, also sponsored by Gladstone Republican Jerry Nolte. Nolte's original bill would have applied to any industrial manufacturer in the state, be it automotive, chemical, electrical, etc. Because this bill stalled in a Senate committee over the same ideological concerns (on top of issues legislators believed to be more pressing, like changing I-70's name in St. Louis back to the Mark Twain Expressway), Nolte asked the governor to call a special session.

The governor's call specifically addressed the Claycomo plant. As a result, Nolte's bill could technically not be as broad as it was. Thus, the current version on the Senate floor would only apply to manufacturers classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as "Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing". (Interesting enough, according to the Census' 1997 figures, Missouri produced more goods in this category, in terms of dollar value, than all states not named Michigan.) The House attempted to saddle tax credits for senior citizens who own their own home and companies who create information technology jobs, but these were stricken by an earlier Senate committee who said they were outside the Governor's parameters for the special session.

So now, as Ford figures out whether it's still worth it to keep operating the plant they built 60 years ago on land which once was the residence of TWA's Jack Frye and site of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh's honeymoon, state Republicans squabble with other state Republicans and Kansas City area reps squabble with other Kansas City area reps over the future of one of their most critical economic engines, all over ideological principles.

All the while, 3700 families continue to dread next year when they will need to go thumbing through the help wanted section, trying to find anything that will keep food on the table, much-needed medication in the cabinet, and their kids' fragile college savings viable. And this is where the focus should always have been. For that reason, this session has been one colossal farce played out by the General Assembly and the Governor. And it will be the families affected by this line's relocation—Claycomo's assembly workers, employees of suppliers across the state, eating establishments whose core clientele will evaporate, special education students who can't get the specialized attention they need during the school day because of even tighter budget constraints—who will feel the most pain from this farce of a session.

It isn't Ford who needs the bailout; it's these families, and at the end of the day, it's what the bill in question should truly be about. It's giving Missouri a chance to preserve these jobs and retain a sizable economic engine at a time when no one can risk a double-dip recession.

26 June 2010

It's Not Over Yet

OK, so it turns out the best defense is actually having a defense, which means Americans can now return to watching 43 bulky cars & dozens of guys wielding maple bats make left turn after left turn after left turn.

As incredible as it is to have 12,000 people crowd into the Power & Light District and having that shown on ABC, Kansas City's image as a soccer town can improve greatly if enthusiasts of the game, the cup, and most importantly residents interested in presenting the area as a potential hub of global commerce and sport, continue to show up for the remaining games. It would help KC's image, and that of the USA bid for the 2018 and 2022 games, if fans continued to show up to watch the finals even as our side fell short in matching our best performance in World Cup history.

Safe to say I'm looking forward to watching the championship game there, and at the moment I'll hedge my bets on The Netherlands and Argentina playing for the Jules Rimet Trophy, although I'm hoping for the English to upset Argentina & avenge the "Hand of God" incident of '86, provided of course England get past Germany tomorrow.

22 June 2010

Bringing Vuvuzelas To Arrowhead

World Cup fever is nearing its peak as the 32 nations present prepare for their final group game (or in the case of France, affix picket signs to vuvuzelas), and their respective fans are preparing for watch parties complete with their schemes for how their side can advance into the round of 16. And yes, I'm one of them, having scrawled out on the back of a lunch receipt what it'll take for the US to advance to the single-elimination bracket and maybe square off against the seemingly hapless Aussies as opposed to anyone else in Group D.

Come Wednesday morning, I'll be back to where I've watched the two first games: from the Wizards' official watch party at the Power & Light District.

This scene is from last Friday, when hundreds of soccer (er, football) fans from across the Kansas City metro converged in the open-air pavilion just across from Sprint Center to watch our thrilling come-from-behind victory thrown away by an inept Malian. It has been a wonderful experience to come together as a city, as a community of football fans, and to cheer on the Red, White & Blue when other American sport fans remain obsessed with realigning college conferences. In particular, organizers for Kansas City's watch party claim to have the nation's second-most attended watch party. And it's not just for drumming up support for this year's squad or the Wizards as they struggle through their current MLS campaign.

Kansas City, by way of the $375 million renovation project nearing completion at Arrowhead Stadium, is one of 18 finalists to be a host city in the United States' bid to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, beating out cross-state rival St. Louis as well as Chicago, which hosted the opening ceremonies of the 1994 World Cup. The bid committee, on the city's profile, touts KC's "long and storied cultural soccer culture", as well as ease of access via car, complete with references to tailgate parties and our extensive boulevard system. More than 20,000 people have signed USA's petition list supporting the inclusion of Kansas City in the bid, more than Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles and Washington. A successful friendly between the Wizards and the English Premier League's Manchester United on 25 July—the first event to take place in the renovated Arrowhead Stadium—will solidify KC's role in the USA's bid when FIFA vote in December to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals.

Right now, the USA remain the only non-European nation still in the running for 2018, as Australia, Japan, Qatar and South Korea are opting to pursue just for 2022. Should any of the European nations bidding (Belgium & The Netherlands, England, Russia, Spain & Portugal) be awarded the finals for 2018, then the remaining European bids will not be considered for 2022, under a new rule that requires a continent to wait at least eight years before attempting to bid for another World Cup. Despite growing speculation that a European nation will receive the 2018 finals, the growing support for football in the States, on top of solid infrastructure, ample media and advertising revenues, and state governments willing to throw into stadia millions upon millions of tax breaks, makes such a bid hard to ignore.

FIFA officials reviewing each bid will tour the States in early September, then meet in December to award the 2018 and 2022 bids. Hopefully in June 2018, the world will find themselves enjoying some grilled pork ribs and beef kebabs in the parking lots of Arrowhead, just before blaring their vuvuzelas as Guatemala take on Italy in Group D action.

30 May 2010

Divided Attention, Memorial Day Edition

I had a feeling this would occur, that after the UK election was resolved I'd find myself devoid of intriguing comment. Even as the new coalition government is rocked by its first scandal: the resignation (after just under three weeks) of David Laws—the Lib Dem cabinet member tasked with assisting Chancellor George Osborne of identifying £6.3 billion worth of cuts—after it was unveilved that he claimed £40,000 in rent payments to his partner. (And on top of that, his replacement Danny Alexander, who started out as the government's Scottish Secretary, is also under scrutiny for making use of tax loopholes.)

But instead, much as my attention has been the past three weeks, I'm focused elsewhere. And inbetween watching Mizzou softball win convincingly twice this weekend and the typical Memorial Day fare, I watched (or perhaps more accurately, subjected myself) to this year's Eurovision Song Contest. The great combination of Europop, bizarre and retro outfits, cheesy lyrics, and voluptuous performers from the fringes of the European Broadcasting Union (along with the occasional heavy metal band and obligatory performer from the UK that Simon Cowell would have dismissed from The X Factor before blinking) attracted an audience of tens of millions across Europe last weekend, including 8 million on BBC One & BBC Radio Two to hear 19-year-old Josh Dubovie earn a whopping ten points for Britain with "That Sounds Good To Me". (That happened to net the UK last place for the second time in three years, as the winner from Germany, fellow 19-year-old Lena with "Satellites", netted 246 points. You just might hear that song in the States this summer.)

And then, as I was cutting back and forth between my grandparents visiting from the old stomping grounds for the weekend and Dario Franchitti strolling through Indy at 220 mph, I wondered if such a contest could ever play out in the US. Just picture it: performers from all 50 states (plus DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and maybe even the Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands and the three nations with whom we have a Compact of Free Association) competing for other states' votes by singing original songs (as opposed to covers that make up practically all of American Idol). It'd be a mix of every genre under the sun: mainstream pop, R&B, country, rap, adult alternative, hard rock, acoustic, indie, electronica, Latino, Native American, Asian, religious, etc.

Complications and costs, however, would be numerous. Whichever network were to pick this up would have to establish contests in each state (plus DC, PR, etc. etc.), require their affiliates to carry it, organize phone banks and online/SMS voting and keep it to their state's ZIP codes. This would cause issues with markets that reach into multiple states, as in the case of Kansas City you'd have to run the contest on two separate days and alienate half your audience both times, as viewers with 913 & 785 area codes wouldn't be allowed to call during the Missouri qualifier, and 816 & 660 area codes wouldn't be allowed to cast votes during Kansas'.

And then comes the national contest: would the site be selected in accordance with whoever won the previous year, as is the case with Eurovision? That would showcase several cities across the US as the contest develops, but would organizers instead find it easy to stick with a supposedly neutral site like Las Vegas or New York? In terms of the broadcast, what shows would wind up getting pre-empted? Would hit radio stations be allowed to simulcast it? How many cut-ins would be budgeted for idiotic shameless plugs for upcoming movies bound to flop at the box office? How do you stop Canadians from calling in, or factor in out-of-state cell phones?

Simple enough, you'd probably have two semi-finals, with states pooled at random and then only those states would be able to vote that night, with the top five or so advancing to the national finals. (In Eurovision it's ten per semi plus the hose and "Big Four" of Germany, France, Spain and the UK, but they don't break for commercials so we won't have room for 25 acts.)

And two most critical questions: first, how do you score it? Eurovision uses a system where each country, regardless of its size, allocates 12 points to their top vote-getter, 11 to the second, etc. down to one. Would we retain the same, or would we come up with some bizarre take on the electoral college? Would provisions go into place to prevent states from ganging up on each other (say, Kansans intentionally voting for a handful of states to prevent Missouri from getting any of their points.) or pooling their votes behind a random candidate or ring of candidates from their bloc (most like New England in one bloc and Dixie for another)?

And second, are enough songwriters going to be willing to write 55+ original songs? Certainly several performers would be keep to showcase their original songwriting skills, but will that win the votes? Will eccentric and flashy choreography and wardrobe (or lack thereof) wind up winning more votes instead? Would the music industry, or moreso the radio conglomerates Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, Entercom, etc., be keen to playing these songs?

Critically, will the diversity truly be there? Will enough acts from groups that could be classified as minority or multi-ethnic get into the national final that cries of racism or religious persecution not drown out the competition itself? And for this contest to proliferate, certainly there would need to be a Spanish-speaking counterpart broadcasting it, complete with states allowed to submit entries who perform in Spanish.

Aside from those complications, a US song contest would be quite unique and showcase the diverse, amalgamated ethnic culture that continues to develop in this great land. Now if a network were to run with this, get all their stations on board with it (which would wind up eating into local newscasts), line up the advertisers, and get Tom Bergeron, Mario Lopez, and/or Ellen DeGeneres to co-host the finals. It would unite the nation in a contest that explores the uniqueness of each state while at the same time celebrate the common bonds that make this nation great.

Here's to the Show-Me State's first entry getting douze points from several of its peers.

11 May 2010

When Gordo Met Henry Clay

Gordon Brown's announcement to leave 10 Downing and step down from the leadership of the Labour Party makes the atmosphere more tense for the formation of a new government. Especially as, after a weekend of "cordial" and "productive" talks between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, one key hurdle toward the formation of a progressive Lab-Lib government is now surpassed. And what follows will likely set Britain's course in the 21st century. And it could be done by way of a "corrupt bargain".

Since Friday, the LibDems have been in earnest discussions with Tory leaders, hammering out common objectives for a coalition government to pursue in the midst of lingering European national debt crises. All three parties acknowledged that, following the Tories winning the most seats and most votes, they should have the first crack at forming the new government. (Brown remains Prime Minister until he no longer commands the confidence of Parliament, be it by a vote of confidence or their lining up behind a new leader.) However, even with those talks going on, some LibDems have begun reaching out to Labour ministers.

On the political spectrum, the centre-left LibDems, and their core of support, have more in common with the socialists-in-denial Labour than they do the Conservatives. Both want electoral reform, a proposal the Tories will need dragged through a bed of hot coals to agree upon. Both prefer further integration with Europe, while some Tory backbenchers could get away with defecting to UKIP. And unlike the Conservatives, both have sizable clout in Wales and Scotland. However, on the critical issue of the economy, the LibDems and Tories are quick to acknowledge the need to cut the government budget in order to curb a record deficit, and would seek to make such cuts. And both the Tories and LibDems want to revise the tax code, though they will likely have different desires on who benefits from such reforms.

To the core supporters of LibDem and Labour, Brown's lame duck declaration removes a major hurdle from the formation of a Lab-Lib coalition. (Granted, Brown's successor would not be formally selected until September at the latest, meaning he could take his sweet time packing the china while Portugal and Ireland go begging to Germany and Benelux for their bailouts.) And that could very well be a part of a bargain aimed at keeping the Camerons from installing a nursery in 10 Downing.

Supporters of a Lab-Lib coalition argue that Cameron, despite getting 36 percent of the vote and 47 percent of MPs, does not have sufficient backing of the electorate, as more people voted to ensure that he would not become prime minister. Indeed, the combined total for Labour (29 percent) and the LibDems (23.1 percent) would create a majority.

Precedents for such a block are few and far between in UK history, but in the US, one watershed election could fit the bill: that of the 1824 matchup between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. After no candidate received a majority of electors (William H. Crawford and Henry Clay also received votes), the election was replayed in Congress, where Adams, Jackson, and Crawford were on the ballot. Clay, despite coming in last, also happened to be Speaker of the House. As the story goes, Clay convinced his supporting states to back Adams in exchange for Adams appointing him Secretary of State (the post Adams held at the time). Thus Jackson, the war hero from Tennessee, who had the most votes and most electors, was shut out of the White House when a majority of state delegations (13 of 24) backed Adams.

Jackson vociferously alleged that the deal was a corrupt bargain, an allegation that, while never proven nor disproven, would result in Jackson's election to the White House four years later and bring about a sweeping new era in American History, as well as the formation of today's Democratic Party. Adams' supporters, many of whom were more opposed to Jackson and his populist ideals, would form the Whig Party, the front runner to today's Republican Party. (Although the parties were not related, the name is identical in etymology as the UK's Whig Party, who eventually became the Liberals and now the Liberal Democrats.)

If later today a Lab-Lib coalition comes about, Tory supporters and Brown bashers who yesterday celebrated the prime minister's act of political seppuku with an extra pint of Guinness will feel jilted like Old Hickory. And that jilted feeling, along with a sagging economy and what will be decried as a "coalition of losers", will only fuel Tory resentment for as long as such a government stands.

But Lab and Lib together will not surpass the 320ish mark needed for a majority, falling about ten short, and even their Ulster counterparts (SDLP and Alliance, respectively), along with the lone Green, won't put them over the mark. Adding the nationalist parties, with both of whom Labour have partnered in devolved legislatures in the past, will put them over the top, but there lies two issues.

First, a vast coalition of minor partners prone to fracturing, where assuaging one's concerns of support could wind up costing them another party's support. Second, with nationalist parties supporting the government, such parties will ensure that government spending remains the same in their regions, meaning any such cuts either occur in areas of solid Tory support (namely, the Home Counties) or they wind up not happening, setting Britain down the path of Greece.

Add to that the fact that whoever succeeds Brown will wind up being the second straight Prime Minister who never led his/her party at the time his party was elected to government. Voter resentment, although not as nationally uniform with regards to the expenses scandal, will only intensify, bringing about great distrust for all parties involved. Such resentment could manifest in the form of electing fringe parties, most notably the BNP or some far-flung idealist party like the Wessex Independents.

It is very likely that events that transpire in the meeting rooms of Whitehall today will prove incredibly pivotal in the economic viability of Great Britain and political future of all parties involved for this coming century. A Tory-LibDem coalition will set about modest austerity measures, all the while giving Labour a change to retool under new leadership (be it Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, or either the Brothers Milliband). A Lab-Lib-everyone-else-whose-name-doesn't-include-Conservative-or-Unionist-who-will-actually-take-their-seats coalition will inflame Tories, inflame a distrusting electorate, and most critically convey continued insecurity to investors still jittery about the Euro and a colleague's inability to discern a B from an M.

It's trying times like these that bring about historical characters like Old Hickory, those that will shape the destiny of nations for generations to come. Or it may just bring about another election right during the middle of The X Factor, with a few more down the pike.