MSNBC's Chris Matthews problem

Update from Media Matters, January 18, 2008
by David Brock

Last night on MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews addressed the firestorm sparked by his comment that "the reason [Hillary Clinton is] a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit."

>> Watch Matthews' comments, click here.

He addressed the controversy after more than a week of intense pressure from Media Matters, several major national women's organizations, and thousands of people just like you.

Matthews has admitted that his comments about Sen. Clinton have been unfair, "inappropriate," and "callous." He went on to make the following assurance:

"On those occasions when I have not taken the time to say things right or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I'll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women - of all people - of full equality and respect for their ambitions."

That is what this effort has been about from the very beginning -- Matthews' treatment of women. Over the years, his commentary has shown a clear pattern of sexism directed at prominent women such as Sen. Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Michelle Obama, our nation's female governors, and so many others.

Matthews' claim that going forward he will try to be more supportive of the right of women to full equality and respect for their ambitions is a pledge that MSNBC has a responsibility to hold him to. Media Matters certainly will, and I hope you will as well.

Without the overwhelming response from progressive leaders, advocacy groups, bloggers, and dedicated activists like you, Matthews' commitment to change would never have happened.

This is a victory for the progressive community and women everywhere.

I want to thank everyone for contacting Matthews and MSNBC over the past week to express your concerns over his continued sexist commentary. I also want to thank all the bloggers who have posted on the Matthews controversy and/or linked to contact information that helped people to take action and make their voices heard.


Original Media Matter Alert concerning Chris Matthews' comments:
Posted 11 January 2008

by Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America

I do not care which person is your candidate. I don't care what you think of Hillary Clinton as a potential president. What is being done in the press is akin to a pack of rabid 7th graders trying to haze the nerdy girl in school simply because they can. It has nothing to do with her qualifications -- it has to do with gender, and these lemming pundits think that it's perfectly acceptable because everyone is doing it, including women like Andrea Mitchell and Anne Kornblut.
-- Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake

"OK, let's put the gender thing in here. I love gender politics, guys."
-- Chris Matthews

The behavior Christy Hardin Smith describes has its epicenter on MSNBC's Hardball, where rarely a day goes by without host Chris Matthews sputtering and shouting about Hillary Clinton, often in terms that would give Bobby Riggs pause.

Put simply, Matthews behaves as though he is obsessed with Hillary Clinton. And not "obsessed" in a charming, mostly harmless, Lloyd-Dobler-with-a-boom-box kind of way. "Obsessed" in a this-person-needs-help kind of way.

More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

Even before that, Matthews told the January 20, 2000, Hardball audience, "Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people like maybe me on occasion. I'm not going to take a firm position here, because the election is not coming up yet. But let me just say this, she drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Not that there was much chance his feelings would go unnoticed by even the most casual Hardball viewer.

Matthews has referred to Clinton as "She devil." He has repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," referring to the "scheming, manipulative" character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who "asserts arbitrary control simply because she can." He has called her "Madame Defarge." And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."

Matthews has compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is "a convincing mom." He refers to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a "scolding manner" and is "going to tell us what to do."

Matthews frequently obsesses over Clinton's "clapping" -- which he describes as "Chinese." He describes Clinton's laugh as a "cackle" -- which led to the Politico's Mike Allen telling him, "Chris, first of all, 'cackle' is a very sexist term." (Worth remembering: When John McCain was asked by a GOP voter referring to Clinton, "How do we beat the bitch?" Allen reacted by wondering, "What voter in general hasn't thought that?" So Allen isn't exactly hypersensitive to people describing Clinton in sexist terms.)

Matthews repeatedly suggests Clinton is a "fraud" for claiming to be a Yankees fan, despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that Clinton has been a Yankees fan since childhood. In April of 2007, former Washington Post reporter John Harris, who has written a book about Bill Clinton, told Matthews to his face that the attacks on Clinton over her history of being a Yankees fan were false. Harris said: "Hillary Clinton got hazed over saying she was a New York Yankees fan. It turned out, actually, that was right. She had been a lifelong Yankees fan. But people were all over [her] for supposedly embroidering her past." But Matthews doesn't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of his efforts to take cheap shots at Clinton: At least twice since Harris set him straight, Matthews has attacked Clinton over the Yankees fan nonsense, once calling her a "fraud."

Matthews has described Clinton as "witchy" and -- in what appears to be a classic case of projection -- claimed that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard." In what appears to be an even more classic case of projection, Matthews has speculated that there is "out there in the country ... some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender."

Matthews has suggested that Hillary Clinton "being surrounded by women" might "make a case against" her being "commander in chief." He once asked a guest if "the troops out there" would "take the orders" from "Hillary Clinton, commander in chief." When his guest responded, "Why wouldn't they listen to a [female] commander in chief? Sure," Matthews responded: "You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?" When his guest responded "No," Matthews couldn't quite believe it, sputtering: "No problem? No problem? No problem?"

Matthews has wondered if she is unable "to admit a mistake" because doing so would lead people to call her a "fickle woman." He has said that Clinton is on a "short ... leash" as a presidential candidate, lacking "latitude in her husband's absence" to answer a question. He has, at least twice, called Hillary Clinton an "uppity" woman -- both times, pretending to attribute the phrase to Bill Clinton. But, as Bob Somerby has explained, there is no evidence Clinton has ever used the term.

One of Matthews' favorite topics is Clinton's marriage. After The New York Times ran an article purporting to count the number of nights the Clintons spend together, Matthews' imagination ran wild, and the MSNBC host couldn't get the Clintons' marital life out of his mind. At one point, Media Matters counted 90 separate questions Matthews asked guests about the topic during seven separate programs; the number undoubtedly grew after we stopped counting. In the middle of one of Matthews' bouts of obsessive speculation about how often the Clintons are "together in the same roof overnight, if you will," Washington Post reporter Lois Romano asked him, "[W]hat is your obsession with logistics here?" In response, Matthews snapped at her: "Because I'm talking to three reporters, and I'm trying to get three straight answers, so I don't want attitude about this. It's a point of view -- I want facts. Tell me what the facts are, Lois, if you know them. If you don't, I don't know what you're arguing about."

Matthews has claimed: "[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." John McCain's political career got started after he left his first wife for a wealthy and politically connected heiress, married her, and ran for Congress. But Chris Matthews doesn't suggest that the reason McCain is a "U.S. senator ... a candidate for president ... a front-runner" is that he "messed around." Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Matthews' comments about Clinton went too far: "I mean, it's rough business what these people over there [at MSNBC] are doing. We don't do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband messed around. I mean, that is -- that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not."

Matthews periodically gets it into his head that the most important question in the world is whether Bill Clinton will be a "distraction" or whether he will "behave himself." He badgers Clinton aides about the question and warns that Bill Clinton "better watch it." He asks if Clinton will be a "good boy" or be guilty of "misbehavior." Matthews is not so subtly referring to Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But curiously, he doesn't have the same concerns about McCain or about Rudy Giuliani, as I wrote nearly a year ago.

Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn't hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs -- and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless.

And then there's Matthews' fixation on Hillary Clinton's "ambition." In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton's Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was "ambitious." Finally, Matthews said, "People who seek political power are ambitious by definition," leading Wolfson to tell him: "if you say so. If it will make you happy, I'll agree." If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the "ambition" of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private.

And, in the midst of his years-long assault on Hillary Clinton, much of it either directly based on her gender or on a sexist double standard, Matthews has the audacity to accuse Clinton of being "anti-male" and to insist that "she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine."

None of this should surprise us. Chris Matthews acknowledged his feelings about Hillary Clinton long ago: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." And "she drives some of us [guys] absolutely nuts."

But Matthews' questionable treatment of women extends beyond Hillary Clinton.

Matthews has described House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as "scary" and suggested she would "castrate" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. And he has wondered how she could disagree with President Bush "without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?"

Just this week, Matthews claimed there isn't a plausible female presidential candidate "on the horizon" because there aren't any "big-state women governors" -- but Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius all run states with populations comparable to male governors who have recently run for president, including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Bill Richardson. How large a state does a woman have to run before she qualifies as a plausible presidential candidate to Chris Matthews? One that is twice as large as Mitt Romney's Massachusetts? Three times as large?

Last October, Matthews mused aloud about a hypothetical couple trying to decide who to support for president. In Matthews' mind, the wife just wants to see "the first woman president." According to Matthews, the husband has to explain the math to his wife: "[T]he husband says, 'You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can't do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money.' "

After the Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary Clinton earlier this year, Matthews suggested that the paper's "female editors and publisher" succumbed to "lobbying" by Bill Clinton.

Matthews has repeatedly focused on the physical characteristics of his female guests. He recently began an interview with conservative radio host and author Laura Ingraham by telling her, "I'm not allowed to say this, but I'll say it -- you're beautiful and you're smart." He ended the interview by saying: "I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country. But also, you are a hell of a writer." Note that Matthews said Ingraham is also a good writer -- apparently, to Chris Matthews, there is no reason for men to care about whether a woman can write, only about how she looks.

Matthews' comments about Ingraham came only a month after he told CNBC anchor Erin Burnett, "You're a knockout," adding: "It's all right getting bad news from you." Matthews also told Burnett: "Come on in closer. No, come in -- come in further -- come in closer. Really close." Matthews made such a spectacle of himself during the exchange that The New York Post said "it sure looked" like Matthews had been "perving on CNBC hottie Erin Burnett on live TV the other night." Matthews explained that he had merely been "kidding around."

During MSNBC's April 26, 2007, coverage of the first Democratic presidential debate, Matthews discussed the "cosmetics" of the evening. In doing so, he complimented Michelle Obama's pearl necklace and declared that she "looked perfect," "well-turned out ... attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, 'classy.' "

Matthews also appeared to argue that many viewers would be basing their decisions about the candidates on how, in Clinton's case, the candidate was dressed, or, in the case of the male candidates, how their spouses were dressed: "Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle -- and they said, 'I like the fact he's [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that.' They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance." When NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell interjected, noting "You're talking about two ... lawyers," who went to "Harvard and Yale," Matthews defended himself, saying, "Cosmetics are a part of this game."

Nor is any of this new: In August 1999, Matthews hosted notorious liar Gennifer Flowers, during which he told her: "I gotta pay a little tribute here. You're a very beautiful woman, and I -- and I have to tell you, he knows that, you know that, and everybody watching knows that; Hillary Clinton knows that. How can a woman put up with a relationship between her husband and somebody, anybody, but especially somebody like you that's a knockout?" After Flowers told him "Gosh, you make me blush here," Matthews replied, "[I]t's an objective statement, Gennifer. I'm not flirting."

In 2000, Matthews responded to linguist Deborah Tannen's explanation of then-presidential candidate George W. Bush's efforts to appeal to women voters by saying, "So is this like the political equivalent of Spanish fly? That these seductive number of words you just drop out there and women just swoon." That led another Hardball guest, Lynn Martin -- a Republican -- to point out, "You wouldn't suggest he's seducing men."

Chris Matthews has been treating female guests as sexual objects for years. He has been judging women -- senators, presidential candidates, the speaker of the House -- on their clothes and their voices and their appearance for years. He has been referring to women as "castrating" for years. He has been applying double standards to male and female candidates for years.

This is who Chris Matthews is. He is a man who thinks that men who support women politicians are "eunuchs."

He isn't going to stop unless you make him stop. Chris Matthews uses his voice to marginalize women. Use yours to tell MSNBC you've had enough.

It's time to play a little "hardball." Please contact MSNBC and Chris Matthews today and let them know what you think.

Marting Luther King Jr. Day Activities

Friday January 18, 2008, 7:00PM
MLK Commemoration Service
I Have a Dream
Speaker: Dr. Juanita McGowan
Manhattan Christian Fellowship Church
17th and Yuma

Saturday January 19, 2008, 6:30 PM
Community Celebration
Music, Presentations, Speakers
Manhattan High School East Campus Auditorium
9th and Poyntz Ave

Candlelight Walk, 8:30PM
MHS East Campus to First Lutheran Church
Immediately following, refreshments will be served

Monday, January 21, 8:00 AM
Prayer Breakfast
Clarion Hotel
NW Corner of Ft. Riely Blvd and Richards Drive

A Day of Service - 10:00 AM - Noon; Noon - 2:00PM; 2:00Pm - 4:00PM
Community Service Projects
Manhattan Town Center Mall
Contact: Kim Frazier (785) 532-3670

21st Annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration
Manhattan Town Center

10:00 MC- Rev. Jim Spencer, Founding Member MLK, Jr. Committee
10:15 Billie & Lynetta Hill- “Lift Every Voice” & “God Bless America”
10:30 Mall Organizing Committee
10:45 Manhattan Christian Fellowship Church Choir
11:15 OUTLAUD Dancers
11:30 MHS Spirit of MLK Service Award - Dr. Jim Hardy
11:45 Dr. Bob Shannon, Superintendant USD 383
12:00 MHS Art & Essay Contest Winners - Mayor Tom Phillips
1:00 MC- Ms. Tiffany Powell, Diversity Coordinator USD 383
1:30 MHS BSU Step Team
1:45 Job Corps Singers
2:00 Yokasoi Dance group
2:30 Aleah Stephens
2:45 Mr. Atchison’s Ogden Choir
3:00 Randi Dale Dancers
3:30 CA United Methodist Praise Team
4:00 Gymnastics Bratz
4:30 Cake and Closing Comments


Regional AIDS Project/MLK Committee Dinner - 7:00PM
Rep. Nancy Boyda, Guest Speaker
College Avenue Methodist Church
1609 College Ave
Reservations REQUIRED; Cost: $25.00
Contact: Isaac Madison (785)587-1999

Tuesday, January 22, 12:30 - 130PM
Making A Positive Difference
Judge Tommy B. Webb
K-State Student Union Cottonwood Room

Wednesday, January 23 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM
The Civil Rights Matinee featuring “February One: the Story of the Greensboro Four”
K-State Student Union Ballroom
Reservations require: $5.00 in advance.
Contact: 785-532-6276 by January 16.

MLK Candlelight Vigil, 7:00 - 8:15 PM
K-State Student Union Ballroom
Contact: Brandon Clark, 532-6276

Hot Chocolate Social immediately following.

Thursday, January 24, Noon - 5:00PM
Bring Forty to Celebrate Dr. King
Fund raising campaign to help build the Coretta Scott King Gardens of Engagement.
Contribution amount: a minimum of $40.00 is asked.
Donation Site: Outside the KSDB 91.9 studio in the K-State Student Union.

Friday, January 25 10:30 - 11:20 AM
9th Annual College of Business Diversity lecture
Forum Hall, K-State Student Union

Who is Killing the Women of Basra?

By Yifat Susskind

In Basra, Iraq's second largest city, 2008 was ushered in with an announcement of the 2007 death toll of women targeted by Islamist militias. City officials reported on December 31 that 133 women were killed and mutilated last year, their bodies dumped in trash bins with notes warning others against "violating Islamic teachings…" But ambulance drivers who are hired to troll the city streets in the early mornings to collect the bodies confirm what most residents believe: the actual numbers are much higher.

The killers' leaflets are not very original. They usually accuse the women of being prostitutes or adulterers. But those murdered are more likely to be doctors, professors, or journalists. We know this because activists from the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) have taken on the gruesome task of visiting city morgues to try and determine the scale and pattern of the killings. According to OWFI, most of the women who have been murdered "are PhD holders, professionals, activists, and office workers."

Their crime is not "promiscuity," but rather opposition to the transformation of Iraq into an Islamist state. That bloody transition has been the main political trend under US occupation. It's no secret who is killing the women of Basra. Shiite political forces empowered by the US invasion have been terrorizing women there since 2003. Within weeks of the invasion, these groups established "Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" squads, which many Iraqis refer to simply as "misery gangs." They began by patrolling the streets, harassing and sometimes beating women who did not dress or behave to their liking. Coalition forces did nothing to stop them, and soon the militias escalated their violence to torturing and assassinating anyone who they saw as an obstacle to turning Iraq into an Islamist state.

The Culture Card

Despite the clearly political nature of these killings, US media generally portray violence against Iraqi women as an unfortunate part of Arab or Muslim "culture." For instance, journalist Kay S. Hymowitz has catalogued the "inventory of brutality" committed by men in the "Muslim world," railing against "the savage fundamentalist Muslim oppression of women." Hymowitz echoes a commonly held assumption, namely that gender-based violence, when committed in the Middle East, derives from Islam.

Of course, pinning violence against women on Islam is politically useful: it helps to dehumanize Muslims and justify US intervention in their countries. It also deflects attention from the many ways that US policy has ignored and enabled violence against the women of Iraq (like championing political leaders with an openly-stated intent to unravel women's legal rights). But in fact, culture alone explains very little. All human behavior has cultural dimensions, but culture is merely a context, not a cause or a useful explanation for violence, whether in Iraq or anywhere else.

It makes much more sense to examine gender—a system of power relations whose number one enforcement mechanism is recourse to violence against women. There is nothing "Muslim" about that system, except that its Muslim proponents, like their Jewish, Christian, and Hindu counterparts, use culture and religion to rationalize women's subjugation.

In fact, shifting the focus from culture to gender reveals a system of power that is nearly universal. Yanar Mohammed, the founder of OWFI, describes this year's killings of women in Basra as a campaign "to restrain women into the domestic domain and end all female participation in the social and political scene." Compare her comment to Amnesty International's conclusion about the ongoing mass killings of women in Guatemala. According to Amnesty, that wave of violence, "carries with it a perverse message: women should abandon the public space they have won at much personal and social effort and shut themselves back up in the private world, abandoning their essential role in national development." This certainly captures the intent of Iraq's Islamists, who have little in common with the killers of women in Guatemala, other than a rigid adherence to a gendered system of power.

Instead of lamenting the "brutality" of Islam, the US media should start connecting the dots between the US occupation and the empowerment of people who use violence against women as a strategy to pursue their political agenda. We can start with the fact that the Pentagon has trained, armed, and funded the very militias that are killing the women of Basra.

Yifat Susskind is the MADRE Communications Director.

AT&T ‘Ready to Filter’ the Web

From SavetheInternet.com, January 9, 2008

By Timothy Karr

During a panel discussion at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show, AT&T’s top lobbyist said the company was ready to implement new technologies that would allow it to inspect and filter Web traffic.

James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president for external and legal affairs, said that the time was right to start filtering for content at the network level. “We think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this,” Cicconi said, according to a New York Times reporter who attended the panel.

It’s no secret that major ISPs have been working with technology companies such as Cisco to filter content with deep-packet-inspection software. Last year, AT&T revealed its plans to work with MPAA, RIAA and broadcasters to use and deploy “digital fingerprinting techniques.

According to public statements, their rationale for playing traffic cop is to ferret out pirated content: sniffing through our digital packets for material that infringe on copyright.

Can You Trust the Filter?

But the technology can be used for other purposes, and the phone giant has shown that it has no qualms invading our communications to hand over our private records to government, or censor speech or block service “without prior notice and for any reason or no reason.”

AT&T has also touted plans to become gatekeepers to the Web with public relations bromides about “shaping” Web traffic to better serve the needs of an evolving Internet.

In reality, Cicconi and his cohorts within the entertainment industry are waging a quiet campaign to control how video and other rich content gets distributed via the Web. The popular trend in video, however, is streaming in the opposite direction. More and more people are becoming their own creators and distributors of homespun video content. YouTube now boasts more than 100 million views each day, but it is just the beginning of this revolution.

Peer-to-peer traffic is spreading via popular technologies like BitTorrent and Gnutella, which allow users to upload and share videos, music and other rich media without a middleman or content gatekeeper. The bulk of this traffic is legal.

Peer-to-Peer Traffic ‘Not Acceptable’

Also at the Las Vegas panel was NBC Universal’s general counsel Rick Cotton, who told the Times that the volume of peer-to-peer traffic online was “overwhelming.”

“That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status,” Cotton said, and AT&T seems more than happy to step in.

These executives’ vision of a better Internet �” AT&T’s “Your World Delivered” �” is not one that is shared by the more than 1.5 million people who have spoken out in favor of a neutral, open and free-flowing Internet.

For us, the Internet isn’t about one company delivering our world or filtering our content. It’s about simply offering a high-speed connection at reasonable rates �” and then getting out of our way.

This article is from SavetheInternet.com. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their Web site and register an account, if necessary, to view all their articles on the Web. Support quality journalism.

Wichita should establish citywide minimum wage

By the Rev. David Hansen and Kirbly Clark
Wichita Eagle, 23 Decemebr 2007

The Kansas minimum wage is $2.65 an hour. Do we have your attention?

To any rational thinker, this figure would appear absurd, almost silly. But nothing is funny about trying to get by on $2.65 an hour: For a full-time worker, that amounts to just $5,512 per year. Some people think that no one in Kansas could possibly make such a low hourly wage, but a new study sheds some light on this seemingly invisible category of workers.

The nonpartisan Ad Astra Institute, based in Lawrence, reports that 17,000 Kansas workers made less than the old $5.15 minimum wage in 2006. Since the federal minimum wage increased in July to $5.85, Kansans are falling even further behind, and that 17,000 figure is now higher.

To be clear: The Kansas minimum wage applies to workers in job categories not protected by the federal minimum, such as child care workers, companions to the elderly and infirm, and employees of private businesses grossing less than $500,000 per year and not engaged in interstate commerce.

As members of the Kansas Action Network's Raise the Wage Wichita campaign, we believe that an honest day's work deserves fair pay. A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it.

But there's good news for businesses and the local economy, too.

To remain competitive, businesses need not choose between paying higher wages and keeping costs down. The study found that a minimum-wage increase "would have no substantial long-term effects on output, employment or profits." Further, it found that "short-run adjustments in prices, made by businesses reliant on low-wage workers, are likely to be much too small to have significant impacts on the overall price levels, and will not cause an ongoing inflationary spiral."

It makes sense that paying higher wages enables a more productive work force, increased consumer purchasing power, higher sales tax revenue and less turnover (an expensive cost for businesses). Perhaps more important, higher wages mean greater dignity for the lowest-paid workers in the Kansas economy.

Therefore, we urge the Wichita City Council to establish a citywide minimum wage that at least matches the federal wage level. Wichita can and must ensure that it pays to live and work in our city. As the rest of the state remains bogged down by an outdated $2.65 minimum wage, Wichita should take the moral and economic high road, ensuring that none of its workers slips through the cracks, that fairness and reason prevail.

If you know someone who is covered by the Kansas minimum-wage law -- or if you are that person -- we encourage you to join our campaign.

For more information, visit the Web site www.raisethewagekansas.org or call 316-941-4061.

The Rev. David Hansen of Wichita is conference minister for the Kansas-Oklahoma Conference, United Church of Christ. Kirby Clark is business manager for the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 29, in Wichita.

Let’s Toast to Ten Good Things About 2007

Published on Monday, December 31, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

by Medea Benjamin

As we close this year on the low of Congress giving Bush more billions for war, and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, let’s remember some of the year’s gains that can revive our spirits for the New Year. Here are just ten.

1. With the exception of the White House, this has been a banner year for environmental consciousness and action. Al Gore and the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace Prize. Green building and renewable energy have exploded. Congress passed the Green Jobs Act of 2007, authorizing $125 million for green job training. Over 700 U.S. mayors, representing 25 percent of the U.S. population, have signed a pledge to reduce greenhouse gases by 2012. Illinois became the 26th state to require that some of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources and Kansas became the first state to refuse a permit for a new coal-fired power plant for health and environmental reasons. That’s progress!

2. On the global environmental scene, the Bush dinosaurs were tackled head on. When the US delegation at the UN climate change conference in Bali tried to sabotage the negotiations, the delegate from tiny Papua New Guinea threw diplomatic niceties to the wind and said that if the U.S. couldn’t lead, it should get out of the way. Embarrassed by international and domestic outrage, the U.S. delegation buckled, and the way was cleared for adopting the “Bali road map.” Although it is a weak mandate, it lays the groundwork for a stronger climate agreement post-2012 when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocols ends.

3. Imagine living in a waste-free urban society? Well, it’s no longer a utopian dream but a well-thought-out plan for India’s state of Kerala. The plan to be “waste-free” within five years includes waste prevention, intensive re-use and recycling, composting, replacing unsustainable materials with sustainable ones, training people to produce these materials, and providing funds for setting up sustainably run businesses. The ground-breaking plan, spearheaded by a local grassroots movement, demonstrates how citizen groups can advance pioneering policies to heal the planet.

4. While the war in Iraq rages on, a new war was stopped. The specter of war with Iran loomed large throughout the year, with Washington accusing Iran of killing U.S . soldiers in Iraq and being a nuclear threat. Then in December came the National Intelligence Estimate showing that the Bush administration knew all along that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons program in 2003. It exposed the Administration claims of an Iranian threat as unjustifiably inflated, and the winds of war were suddenly subdued. Nothing is guaranteed, but a U.S. military attack on Iran is less likely now than it was earlier in the year.

5. This year also brought a decrease in tensions with North Korea. Hostilities flared after North Korea successfully conducted a nuclear test in 2006. But the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq and pushed by international pressure, agreed to negotiate. Following a series of six-party talks involving North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S, on March 17, 2007, an historic agreement was reached. North Korea agreed to shut down its main nuclear facility and submit a list of its nuclear programs in exchange for fuel and normalization talks with the U.S. and Japan. During this age of raw aggression, it is a welcome example of putting diplomacy first.

6. The Iraqi people have little to celebrate, but there was one important victory for the people this year. Remember how the Bush administration and Congress were insisting that the Iraqi Parliament pass a new oil law? Touted as a way to “share oil revenue among all Iraqis”, the oil law was really designed to transform the country’s currently nationalized oil system to one open to foreign corporate control. But opposition was fierce inside Iraq, especially from the nation’s oil worker unions. In a rare sign of independence from Washington and concern for domestic opinion, the Iraqi Parliament withstood intense U.S. pressure and refused to pass the oil law.

7. In early 2007, few Americans had heard of the private security company Blackwater. By year’s end, Blackwater had become infamous for the killing of civilians in Iraq. The radical privatization of our military to corporations like Blackwater that are accountable to no one was exposed for all to see. This frightening process is still well under way, with more private contractors in Iraq than soldiers, but at least the issue has now entered the public dialogue. And Blackwater has received such a black eye that it’s unlikely to get a new Iraq contract when the present one expires in May.

8. One victory on both the war and environmental fronts came in Australia, where Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd beat conservative John Howard to become Prime Minister. Howard was an enthusiastic backer of George Bush’s disastrous war on terror, from defending the Guantánamo prison and extraordinary rendition to sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Howard also joined Bush in refusing to ratify the Kyoto Agreement, arguing it would cost Australians jobs. After assuming office on December 3, Kevin Rudd immediately signed the Kyoto agreement and he has promised to remove Australia’s combat troops from Iraq by mid-2008.

9. Sometimes a loss is a win. Hugo Chavez had initiated a constitutional referendum that would have, among other changes, scrapped term limits. His immediate acceptance of a razor-thin margin of defeat before all the votes were even counted showed his democratic colors and made it a lot harder for Bush and the corporate media to label him a dictator. Despite the loss, Chavez remains extremely popular, especially among the poor and working class in Venezuela. And throughout Latin America, the historic transformation led by progressive leaders like Chavez continues to blossom.

10. Last but not least, this year saw the resignation of some of Bush’s closest allies in government - Donald Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense, Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, and Karl Rove as Deputy Chief of Staff. Best of all, we can give thanks that we only have ONE YEAR left of the criminal, war-mongering, constitution-shredding, rights-violating, torture-sanctioning Bush Administration! It’s just GOT to get better than this!

So here’s a toast to a green future, diplomacy, and surviving the last throes of the Bush regime. Que viva 2008!

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org).

Commissioner Sherow's Comments at the Dec 18 City Commission Meeting

By Way of Introduction,

Let me be clear about a few things right from the get go.

First, I was elected to represent the citizens of this community, and I thank you all for being here and working to make our participatory democracy function. I also want to thank all who have written to me, called me, or visited with me about this issue. And whether I agree or disagree with my fellow commissioners, I accord each one good faith in his actions, thoughts, motives and ultimately their votes.

I, too, have watched the planning board meetings regarding this proposed amended PUD, and have taken careful note of what was said and presented in each meeting. From the first proposed amended PUD to the second, it is obvious DIAL has made some strides to address community concerns. Moreover, HyVee is a fine company, and may make a valuable contribution to the retailing in our community. It’s important for DIAL to understand that the issue here is one of design and accommodating the community vision.

PUDs require a higher standard of execution than do conventional zoning applications. The non-amended PUD represented the very minimum standard in terms of design acceptable to the community.

More importantly, while the City resources may be deeply invested in this redevelopment effort, the City needs to follow the same zoning procedures applicable to any applicant. In fact, the City should be a model applicant in every respect.

A Little Background on my involvement in Downtown Redevelopment and some history of how redevelopment has unfolded up to this point.

For several years I have been involved in historic preservation and traditional neighborhood revitalization efforts.

I first became aware of efforts toward Downtown redevelopment with Brent Bowman’s and the Chamber’s neighborhood presentations that sought community feedback. Across the board, people, including me, were excited about the prospects. Understand clearly that I want to see this Downtown redevelopment project work; I even wrote an editorial to that effect. I want to see this work – to meet high standards in urban design.

Then in 2003-04 I was appointed to serve on the Citizens Steering Committee for Downtown Redevelopment, and chaired its sub-committee on environment, design, and historic preservation. That committee, comprised of Gwyn Riffle (now president of DMI), Dave Colburn (member of the school board and manager of The Pathfinder), then mayor-elect Brad Everett, and Brend Foreoster (a former board member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and former dean of the School of Architecture at KSU), carefully studied, and debated the site design. We were all disappointed with the final concept reported out of committee in the spring of 2004.

We reported that we were concerned about too much surface parking for a legitimate urban development. We thought it looked too much like a strip mall than urban infill. We underscored the importance of housing, and while we accepted a projected 400 units of mix levels of housing, we asked that room be created for as many as 600. We asked if housing was key to the redevelopment, and the representatives from DIAL, RTKL, the Chamber, City Staff, all agreed that it was. We were also told that a good faith effort would be made to move about 5 serviceable bungalows and that the 4 square at the corner of Laramie and 4th along with the Strasser House would be integrated into the Redevelopment. What a rough road we have all traveled to end up where we are tonight.

In January 2005, at the Chamber Leadership Retreat in Kansas City, here’s what the plan for Downtown Redevelopment looked like at that time. (Show the site plan on the overhead.) Not one retail space exceeded 40,000 square feet, and there was a heavy emphasis on landscaping. The four square at the corner of Laramie and 4th Street, and Strasser House next to it were both slated for retention.

At the same retreat, Mr. Bob Welstead made a presentation in which he reported the following about acquiring leases for the north end.

33% of the square footage was under negotiation

32% of the square footage was under contract

13% of the square footage had contracts pending

22% of the square footage was under no obligations

Consider now Downtown Redevelopment News, Feb. 2005, and what it presented to the community as the goals for the project.

(Show the newsletter on the overhead)

1. Small Shop Retail

Specialty retail reflecting a local flavor serving both visitors and residents. Buildings are focal points of the project and shall be high quality signature designs.

2. Existing Buildings Remaining

Existing structures/uses that remain shall be integrated into the vehicle and pedestrian flow; will compliment the overall design of the district.

3. Restaurant Locations

Mix of National, Regional, and Local Dining experience that attracts visitor and locals to Downtown to serve new and existing downtown residents.

4. Major Retail

A mix of national and regional retailers that complement and enhance the Downtown shopping experience, while providing a pedestrian oriented environment with public spaces.

5. Townhomes

Old fashioned Row-houses and Townhomes set close to the sidewalk with raised first floors and distictive designs that are sensitive to existing residential communities to the west side of 4th St. Predominantly "For Sale" units.

6. Apartments/Condominiums

A mix of "Owner Occupied" and "For Lease"; unites with a variety of price points creating a mixed-income, diverse neighborhood that truly reflects the Manhattan community. There will also be ground floor office/retail options along 3rd Street.

This was the community expectations for the north end redevelopment.

Things got worse considerably worse after that.

By the end of summer 2005, RTKL was gone with no explanation why, and the DMI board began having some serious concerns about the direction of the project. RTKL was the main reason why anyone had faith in that the design would reflect community-wide expectations.

Soon afterward I began working with Downtown Manhattan, Incorporated, and served as chair of its economic development committee. DMI is a Main Street Program certified by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. DMI was and continues to be concerned about the design for redevelopment not meeting community expectations and purported public goals.

In August, several recommendations were made among which were:

1. Review the redevelopment economic feasibility analyses

2. Review the financing scenarios

3. Select a redevelopment oversight committee

4. Selection of an experienced real estate development coordinator

5. Update the 2002 Community of Manhattan Market Analysis

None of the above was acted upon except for the market analysis.

The Canyon Report, which was released this year, noted among its findings that:

1. Current Manhattan market reach had a gap of $20 m annually in grocery sales

2. Current Manhattan market reach had a gap of $22 m annually in higher end restaurant sales

3. Current Manhattan market reach could accommodate an additional 400,000 square feet of retail

Now, Real Estate Research Consultants findings report that our current market reach can support an additional 46,000 square feet of grocery while HyVee , depending upon how one wants to measure these things, wants at minimum 78,000 square feet with the possibility of expanding to well over 90,000 sq. feet. Even if the grocery portion were to be only 53,000 square feet, the store would still exceed current market capacity by at minimum 7,000 square feet.

Moreover, Real Estate Research Consultants did not factor into its calculations the effects of military purchases at the Fort Riley post commissionaire, sales at People’s Groceries or the International Grocery. Moreover, the grocery purchasing habits of university students were also excluded from its calculations. Obviously, something, somewhere has to give in our current grocery markets if HyVee is going to reach its full potential in this proposed location as a 90,000 plus square foot facility.

Also, Ray’s Supermarket has made it clear that a HyVee store of 64,000 square feet, which is what the PUD calls for, would be welcomed by it.

So, we do we stand now in terms of contracted square footage in the North End? Not much further along than we were in 2005. Why? Especially if, according to the Canyon Report, the city’s current market reach can accommodate an additional 400,000 sq. feet of retail?

Why is it that the core Downtown has no problem filling its retail sites when they come open? Why does the Mall have no difficulty filling spaces when they come open? Why does Seth Childs Commons and Heritage East have no problems filling their open retail spaces?

WHY DOES DIAL HAVE TROUBLE FILLING WHAT IS CALLED FOR IN THE PUD? AND WHY IS IT THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY TO BAIL THEM OUT WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD?

This current PUD, approved in June 2006, was a considerable step down, in my opinion, to what was proposed in 2005, a plan which many throughout the community had concerns about even back then.

But the community was assured that DIAL was well underway in securing its leases. By the summer of 2007, it was apparent that wasn’t the case, and Commission had to decide whether or to proceed with property acquisitions in the South End. I voted for that given that many property owners had already relocated and would be later waiting for their payments.

The city has a moral and ethical obligation to pay all the property owners in the South Side what is due them. No matter how it is done, whether through the STAR bonds or not, my vote will be to pay them what their contracts call for.

It is important that the South Side Redevelopment get done right regardless by which method the current property owners are paid. The conference center, hotel and theater makes the South End a viable development regardless what else is added to it including whether or not the discovery center becomes a part of it.

Why do so many in the community have a lack of trust in DIAL? One example amply illustrates this for me. At the end of the Summer 2007, Mike Mecseri, representing the preservation alliance, and myself met with Rick Kiolbasa to discuss the Strasser House. Besides lame promises for moving this stone house intact, I asked Rick about the housing that was to built in the North End.

I remember the conversation like this:

(JIM) Rick, will you have the housing built by December 2007

(RICK) Jim, that’s not part of the contract. (Reminded by city staff that indeed this was part of the North End Redevelopment agreement)

(RICK) Jim, those are simply guidelines.

Is this how DIAL treats its contractual obligations – as simply guidelines?

(JIM) This (moving the Strasser House and substantially changing the North End design) is going to get really hot!

(MIKE) There is considerable concern with North End design as it now stands. Changing it will raise a public outcry.

(RICK) I haven’t heard this.

Was DIAL officials listening at all before? And were we listen to then? No, not at all.

No surprise, then, that the planning board rejected out of hand by a 7 to 0 vote the first proposed amendment to the PUD.

Then DIAL submits a plan coming closer to the original PUD, but still DIAL isn’t meeting community expectations, and again, it’s rejected by a 4 to 2 vote.

As the City memo notes, a 64,000 square foot store could go in immediately without being reviewed by either the Planning Board, or the City Commission. So why are DIAL and HyVee pushing so hard for this larger version when a 64,000 square foot store would end the controversy. Why is HyVee so set on this larger design when it is building several 60,000 square foot stores in other locations? Obviously, it’s not a lack of ability to build a store of this size. So why hasn’t, and isn’t DIAL listening to the community?

DIAL and HyVee’s lack of concern for community expectations, fitting into the PUD, and meeting redevelopment goals shakes to the core my trust in them.

And now, here we are.

Let’s also consider what PUDs are suppose to accomplish, and what amending a PUD entails. Then, let’s see if DIAL has made a legitimate case for amending this PUD.

PUDs require a higher standard of execution than do conventional zoning applications.

Now is it true, as Rick Kiolbasa stated during the December 3, Planning Board meeting that:

"We’re providing an urban solution to a suburban problem."

I find this a disingenuous argument:

1. The district was never a suburban part of the city.

2. This plan has the distinct feel and look of a suburban strip mall

Does this proposed amendment truly meet the objectives in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan?

According to the staff it stated:

"7.Conformance with Comprehensive Plan.

The Manhattan Urban Area Comprehensive Plan shows the site as Central Core District (CCD), which is a special purpose designation for the Downtown Core. The amendment site is also designated as a primary redevelopment area for expansion of the Central Business District, in Downtown Tomorrow – A Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Manhattan, Kansas, adopted in May 2000. The proposed amendment conforms to the Comprehensive Plan."

Are there other aspects of the CLUP where the staff overlooked where conformance is lacking? Let’s review some other provisions of the CLUP beginnning with Chapter 4: Land Use and Growth Management. It states:

". . . to promote an urban development pattern that represents the sustainable use of land, energy and other resources by encouraging orderly, contiguous growth and minimizing single-use or low-density, dispersed development."

Goal #1: "Promote land use and development practices that consider current and future economic, social, and environmental impacts, ensuring the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

One of the Guiding Principles: "Promote land use and development that protects investments and provides opportunities for individual initiative and choice."

Land Use Policies: Residential:

"The Comprehensive Plan encourages that new neighborhoods in the Manhattan Urban Area be designed as walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. They are intended to be a setting for a variety of housing types combined with complementary and supporting non-residential uses that serv the neighborhood and are designed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood . . . They shall be designed to include a network of direct and interconnected streets, pedestrian, and bicycle connections."

Commercial: Central Core District (CCD)

The CCD "consist of a variety of civic, cultural, retail, commercial, business and professional offices and financial institutions, as well as residential uses in a compact, vibrant setting enhanced by a large inventory of older, and in some cases historic, structures and a pedestrian-friendly scale. ‘Superstore’ and big box centers could be incorporated into identified redevelopment areas in the downtown core, if they are designed as part of a master planned development that is compatible with and complimentary to the traditional downtown urban fabric by maintaining a pedestrian oriented streetscape, and are of exceptional design quality."

This plan does not tie into the neighborhood to the west. The wall, street parking design, lack of pedestrian circulation patterns, poor design of the smaller apartments at the north end are all a poor fit and match to the neighborhood to the west. The residents there have a much better handle on this than does DIAL. Moreover, the housing is a poor economic development given that the units are over-priced by nearly 100% given current rates of around $300 per bedroom. This is not my vision, nor that of a majority in our community, of what a walkable, mix-use neighborhood is.

This amendment also does not promote practices that consider current and future economic . . . impacts. The market studies clearly show that something will have to give in our grocery markets if a store the size that HyVee wants goes in. Ray’s investment of $1 million and a 20 year lease at its eastside location is vulnerable as is the operations of Dillons. Also, there will be a loss to city property and sales tax revenues if this amendment is approved. What the final amount will be is a matter of informed debate, but a loss of some sizable amount will be felt.

So, this amendment fails to consider fully current and future economic . . . impacts.

DIAL insists that C4 Zoning doesn’t require off-street parking, and C4 Zoning allows for all of uses that DIAL proposes.

While this is true regarding C4 zoning, a PUD is intended to go far beyond in terms of quality design than what would have been required under the initial zoning designation, in this case C4. In other words, a PUD should supercede regular zoning classifications. So, providing adequate off street parking for the residential units is an important consideration for this

design.

Are Zoning Regulations adopted on October 3, 2006 duly considered? I think not.

Article IX, PUDs: Purpose and Objectives (IX-1)

1. A maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of housing and building types

2. A more useful pattern of open spaces and recreation areas

3. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities

4. An environment . . . which will afford greater opportunities for better housing, recreation, shops and industrial plants for all citizens of the community

5. A development plan [that] . . . results in a project that provides greater public benefit than would be provided under conventional zoning

6. A mixture of compatible uses which might not otherwise be permitted in a single district, or which may restrict the range of land uses more than in a single district.

(F)Character of the Neighborhood

The development should take into account the character of the area in which the development will be located and assure that proposed structures, signs and other improvements are compatible to both the proposed sit and surrounding neighborhood. (IX-5)

Again, the adjacent neighborhood is going to be adversely effected given how traffic is routed through the neighborhood, along 4th Street, and the parking is situated along 4th Street. Fourth Street is effectively working as a barrier to the neighborhood.

Consider this:

During an initial neighborhood meeting when redevelopment was first being proposed, I made one recommendation that relates to the importance of connecting redevelopment to existing neighborhoods. Brent’s initial plans called for cutting off Pierre Street at Fourth Street to "protect" the residential neighborhood. I made the argument that doing so would destroy the neighborhood. The neighborhood needed to tie into the redevelopment seamlessly, and had it been cut off then I think that the Boys and Girls Club would not be building at 5th and Pierre, nor would Big Brothers and Big Sisters have located their new office in the same neighborhood.

9-108 Amendments and Modifications

1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with intent and purpose of the approved PUD, and will promote the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD;

2. Whether the proposed amendment is made necessary because of changed or changing conditions in or around the PUD, and the nature of such conditions; and

Tonight Mr. Welstead said that the amendment was necessary because:

"We need to amend the existing PUD to further the revitalization effort."

In the first place, I don’t see how this constitutes in any manner a changed or changing conditions in or around the PUD. If this amendment is arising from the needs of meeting the obligations of The North End Redevelopment Agreement, then it is very important to understand that the agreement is not part of the PUD. The PUD stands apart from the agreement, and the agreement itself, recognizes this as such. I quote from the FINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: "In the event there is a conflict between the requirements of the PUD and the Design Guidelines, or between the PUD and this Agreement, the requirements of the PUD shall control." p. 11

In a recent memo, city administration wrote that: "the proposed amendment to the Manhattan Market Place PUD is not a conventional rezoning from the City government perspective.

This raises some serious questions about what is the City government’s perspective: is it that of the staff, or the commission from whom nothing has been voiced until tonight? And who does the commission represent if but not the City, and is not the City the comprised of the people who live in it?

Again, I reiterate what I said earlier: While the City resources may be deeply invested in this redevelopment effort, the City needs to follow the same zoning procedures applicable to any applicant. In fact, the City should be a model applicant.

The memo goes on to state: "This particular PUD is part of a larger project in which the City is an active participant. It is a redevelopment project that not only has been approved by action of the City Commission but in which the City is a financial partner."

I take a different view of this. DIAL is supposed to be the economic tool whereby the community achieves its vision for redevelopment. What we have here is DIAL’s vision of redevelopment, one that does not conform to the wishes and aspirations of the community.

3. Whether the proposed amendment will result in a relative gain to the public health, safety, convenience or general welfare, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. (IX-21)

I don’t see a relative gain to the public health, safety, convenience or general welfare, but I do see granting a special benefit to DIAL as it has not made a case that conditions have changed in or around the PUD. Moreover, the tax revenue implications means that City revenues will suffer and thereby place a higher than warranted burden on taxpayers.

In conclusion, the ordinances establishing the Redevelopment Plans make it clear that, and I quote:

"The Project Plan permits the community, through its elected and appointed officials, as well as through input from its citizenry, to control the redevelopment of the City’s central business district in such a way that the design of the development is compatible with the desires of the community."

In this light, this amendment does not meet this objective at all.

What we have here, is DIAL’s plan for redevelopment, not that of the community’s as represented in the PUD.

In Summary:

1. In keeping with the stated goals of the ordinances that created this PUD in the first place, this proposed amendment does not represent the "input from the citizenry to control the redevelopment in a way compatible with the desires of the community."

2. The City is more than the opinion of its staff. The City embraces all of the citizens who live within its boundaries. Therefore, to meet the stated goals of the ordinances creating the PUD it is incumbent for the Planning Board and the City Commission to represent the will of the City writ large, which has expressed its overwhelming opposition to this proposed amendment.

3. The City staff has not made a case for this being an exceptional zoning request.

4. The proposed amendment to this PUD is not in conformance with the City Land Use Plan.

A. The amendment does not fit with the adjacent neighborhood

B. The apartments are a poor fit for the community in terms of design and economic viability

C. The amendment does not take into consideration current & future economic impacts on existing and future investments

5. The amendment is unnecessary because the applicant has not demonstrated any changed conditions in the environment of the current PUD – "to further revitalization efforts" is not a changed condition.

6. The current PUD meets only the minimum of community expectations and goals for the North End Redevelopment, and the proposed amendment reduces, not enhances, the quality of the current PUD.

7. Does the denial of this proposed amendment force an abandonment of the South End Project? Absolutely not!

There are viable options, which are beyond the responsibility of the Planning Board to devise. These are political questions suitable for the community to undertake and the Commission to implement.

A denial of this proposed will force DIAL to conform to the community expectations and goals as expressed in the original PUD.

There is less harm in admitting to making past mistakes, and in formulating a different way toward doing the South End than there is in approving an amendment that is unimaginative and produces low quality results.

Only a lack of will and imagination will force an abandonment of the South End Redevelopment, and not the denial of this proposed amendment to the PUD.

8. Most importantly, the financing of the South End Redevelopment, including the acquisition of STAR bonds, must not be the driving factor in the acceptance or denial of this PUD amendment. The standards for PUDs in the city of Manhattan should not be treated as inconvenient obstacles in the pursuit of a downtown redevelopment plan that has fallen far below the expectations of the original PUD and the general public.

The Final Development Agreement affirms this position:

"In the event there is a conflict between the requirements of the PUD and the Design Guidelines, or between the PUD and this Agreement, the requirements of the PUD shall control." p. 11

For the reasons that I have stated above, I will not support DIAL’s request to amend the PUD.

It's still not just Imus

From Media Matters. Visit them at: http://mediamatters.org/index

Media Matters for America usually takes the opportunity at the end of the year to name a Misinformer of the Year, an individual or media entity who in that year has made a noteworthy "contribution" to the advancement of conservative misinformation. This year -- a year in which Don Imus was removed from his decades-long radio program following a reference to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" (Imus returned to the air in December) -- Media Matters has decided to change the focus of the year-end item. The Imus controversy resulted in intense media attention to the subject of speech concerning race and gender. At the time, Media Matters thought it necessary to remind the media that "It's not just Imus" -- that speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity permeates the airwaves, through personalities including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage. But offensive and degrading speech is not limited to conservative media personalities and "shock jocks," although they are, of course, well-represented on any such list. As Media Matters has documented throughout this year, speech that targets or casts in a negative light race, gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, and sexual orientation can be found throughout the media, and it often bears directly on politics and policy. That speech has earned the title of Misinformation of the Year 2007.

Race or national origin

• Fox News host John Gibson, discussing events surrounding the so-called Jena Six during the September 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated Fox News Radio show, asserted that the demonstrators who had gathered the previous week in Jena, Louisiana, "wanna fight the white devil." Gibson aired news coverage of the Jena 6 protests and challenged protestors' claims that the incidents in Jena were representative of ongoing racism in this country. He said: "[W]hat they're worried about is a mirage of 1950s-style American segregation, racism from the South. They wanna fight the white devil. ... [T]here's no -- can't go fight the black devil. Black devils stalking their streets every night gunning down their own people -- can't go fight that. That would be snitchin'."
  
  Gibson also stated during the October 10 broadcast of his radio show, while discussing an incident in which a student shot four people at his Cleveland high school before killing himself, that "I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again."
• Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage claimed on Martin Luther King Day (January 15) that "civil rights" has become a "con" and asserted, "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it."
• On the February 7 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's 700 Club, host Pat Robertson said that people who have received too much plastic surgery "got the eyes like they're Oriental" while he put his fingers up to the side of his face.
• Discussing a dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, during the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Bill O'Reilly stated that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly said: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all." O'Reilly also stated: "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.'"
• On the June 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz advocated building a "double fence along the Mexican border, and stop the damn invasion." Boortz continued: "I don't care if Mexicans pile up against that fence like tumbleweeds in the Santa Ana winds in Southern California. Let 'em. You know, then just run a couple of taco trucks up and down the line, and somebody's gonna be a millionaire out of that."
  
  On the June 11 edition of his show, a caller asked, "Why can't we just load them on planes and keep on loading them until they're back?" Boortz later responded, "We're not gonna throw these people out of airplanes with taco-shaped parachutes."
  
  During his June 21 show, Boortz offered a suggestion he said he got from a listener's email: "When we defeat this illegal alien amnesty bill, and when we yank out the welcome mat, and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going away gift let's all give them a box of nuclear waste." Boortz continued: "Give 'em all a little nuclear waste and let 'em take it on down there to Mexico. Tell 'em it can -- it'll heat tortillas."
• In his book Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart (Thomas Dunne Books, November 2007), MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan writes that America is "on a path to national suicide" and later asks: "How is America committing suicide?" answering: "Every way a nation can." He proceeds to claim that "[t]he American majority is not reproducing itself. ... Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see." On the November 26 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Buchanan asserted: "You've got a wholesale invasion, the greatest invasion in human history, coming across your southern border, changing the composition and character of your country. You've got the melting pot that once welded us all together, which has broken down."
• On the May 17 edition of his radio program, Savage labeled Hispanic advocacy group the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) "the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people." Savage also said of NCLR, "This is the most stone racist group I've ever seen in this country!" despite noting, "It's true they haven't hung anybody."
• During his July 5 radio show, Savage discussed a hunger strike organized by five students in the San Francisco area to show their support for The DREAM Act, a provision of the 2007 comprehensive immigration bill that was blocked in the Senate on June 28 (S.1639). The DREAM (or Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act would provide a pathway to citizenship and other benefits for certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before the age of 16 if they graduate from high school and enroll in either college or the military. In discussing the students, Savage stated: "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death then that solves the problem. Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens, they don't belong here to begin with." The DREAM Act was later brought up in the Senate as a stand-alone bill (S.2205). That bill was also blocked.
• On the January 16 broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly agreed with a caller's assertion that illegal immigrants "bring corrupting influences" to the United States, including "a third-world value system" that "can corrupt the education system." O'Reilly replied: "Absolutely. And that's why the dropout rate is so high."

Gender

• During the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while discussing endorsements Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) received for her presidential campaign, host Chris Matthews claimed: "Every day I pick up the paper and there's another quote out there from somebody who's a wannabe, saying whatever the Clinton people told them to say apparently." Moments later, Matthews asked Financial Times U.S. managing editor Chrystia Freeland: "[A]ren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are?"
• On the March 20 edition of MSNBC show, Tucker Carlson said of Hillary Clinton: "[T]here's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary." Carlson has also said: "[W]hen she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs."
• Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly used the expression "testicle lockbox," suggesting that Clinton has one.
• On the March 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck said: "Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because ... there's something about her vocal range." He went on to say, "There's something about her voice that just drives me -- it's not what she says, it's how she says it," adding, "She is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?" Beck also asked: "[A]fter four years, don't you think every man in America will go insane?" and pleaded, "I'm sorry for being such a pig. But please, America. Please. I don't think I could do it for four years. I mean, sure the country is going to go to hell in a handbasket, but could we make this about me for a second? I just don't think I could take it from her." He also said that "there is a range in women's voices that experts say is just the chalk, I mean, the fingernails on the blackboard."
• On November 12, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) fielded a question from a woman who asked, "How do we beat the bitch?" On the November 14 edition of CNN's American Morning, during a discussion with co-anchor Kiran Chetry about McCain's response to the question, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen said, "[W]hat Republican voter hasn't thought that? What voter in general hasn't thought that?"
• On the October 15 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, Carlson asserted that "the Clinton campaign says: 'Hillary isn't running as a woman.' ...Well, that's actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign -- and I get their emails -- relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. 'You should vote for her because she's a woman.' They say that all the time." Guest Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, responded: "At least call her a Vaginal-American."
• Discussing Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) speech following her election as the nation's first female Speaker of the House, Limbaugh noted on the January 5 broadcast of his show that Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) said that, in Limbaugh's words, "his 2-year-old daughter ... is inspired by Nancy Pelosi's ascension to the speakership." Limbaugh then commented, "His 2-year-old can't possibly know who Pelosi is other than as a cartoon figure on television. Maybe Pelosi breastfed him, I don't know, when the kid was pregnant. Who knows? She's capable of doing everything else." Limbaugh later added: "[L]ook at Ms. Pelosi. Why, she can multitask. She can breastfeed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House, all while the kids are sitting on her lap at the same time."
• On the December 12 broadcast of his radio show, Savage referred to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Pelosi as "yentas," said Harman should "[g]o home and cook verenikis," and suggested that the three were in office because they "have rich husbands who put them in power with their money, so they could have a little hobby in between getting their nails done." Savage later asked his "board operator" if he would rather "be waterboarded for 30 seconds or eat Jane Harman's ravioli" and whether he'd rather "be waterboarded or eat Nancy Pelosi's tortellini."

Religion

False attacks on Obama

• On January 17, the conservative online news magazine InsightMag.com published an article headlined "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background." The article alleged that "researchers" connected to Clinton's campaign had "discovered" that Obama "was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia," and "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The article cited only unnamed "[s]ources close to the background check" on Obama. The story was quickly debunked by CNN and others, who found that the Indonesian school Obama attended as a child was not a "madrassa," and that claims of Obama's "Muslim background" were based largely on incomplete and inaccurate reporting. After investigating these claims, the Chicago Tribune reported that "Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia." Moreover, as ABC News chief political correspondent Jake Tapper noted in a January 25 ABCNews.com post, the allegation that the Clinton campaign was behind the Obama smear was a "charge that remains unproven and unsubstantiated." Despite the Insight article's thin sourcing and the fact that it was quickly debunked, the article became a flash point for a smear against Obama that has persisted in the media.
• On January 23, KSFO Morning Show hosts Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers repeated the accusation that "researchers connected to" Clinton have said that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." Rodgers stated that Obama "went to a Muslim school, a madrassa they call it ... those things are funded by Saudi Arabia," adding, "It's basically a school for terrorists." Morgan noted that there was "controversy" surrounding the InsightMag.com story, but that "Insight magazine is standing by its story," and also charged that the story came from the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).
• On the June 25 broadcast of his radio show, Savage said that Obama was "indoctrinated" by a "Muslim madrassa in Indonesia."
• In the April 12 edition of her "Notebook" video blog, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric asked, "Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?" and proceeded to repeat debunked rumors surrounding Obama's childhood years in Indonesia. Couric claimed that Obama's "background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school -- rumors his campaign denied, declaring that Obama is now a practicing Christian." But Couric did not note in her initial posting that the rumors had been debunked. Couric's "Notebook" was later updated to note that the madrassa "rumors [were] later disproved" and that the source for the claim that Obama "grew up praying in a mosque" later backed off that assertion.

Smearing Obama's church

• During the "Obameter" segment on the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, Carlson claimed the church "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss." Carlson pointed to the "disavowal of the pursuit of 'middleclassness' " in the church's tenets, calling the church's mission a "racially exclusive theology" and "a theology that ministers to one group of people, based on race." Carlson claimed that Trinity's theology is "racially exclusive" and "wrong," adding that "it's hard to call that Christianity."
• On the February 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity stated that "many" call Trinity "separatist," adding that "in some cases, even drawing comparisons to a cult." Guest Erik Rush, a columnist for the conservative website WorldNetDaily, said that the church's "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like a cult or an Aryan Brethren Church or something like that." Hannity has also repeatedly accused Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright -- Trinity's pastor -- of holding "these black-separatist views, about the Black Value System" without mentioning Wright's explicit denial on the March 1 edition of Hannity & Colmes that his church embraces separatism. And on the December 19 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity said: "You know, Barack Obama's pastor... has this whole list of the Black Value System. It seems like he's supporting a segregated church."

Coulter's comments about Jews

• During the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea, host Donny Deutsch asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?" Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like." She described the convention as follows: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America." Deutsch then asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" to which Coulter responded, "Yes." Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," and Coulter again replied, "Yes." When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
  
  After a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?" Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament." Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."

Attacks on Islam or Muslims

• On the March 14 edition of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto, Richard "Bo" Dietl, a private investigator and former New York City Police Department detective, discussed a lawsuit filed by six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight in 2006 and suggested that instead of flying, passengers such as the aforementioned imams should "call their cousin up there, Ali Baba Boo, and go by cab."
• On the June 12 edition of The 700 Club, following a report on Muslims in Minneapolis seeking religious accommodations at school and work, Robertson stated, "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law." He characterized the American Muslim community as "Islam light" and went on to say Muslims "want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth."
• On the October 4 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck hosted Sharida McKenzie, a Muslim American who had recently organized the Muslim Peace March, to discuss a report that a Toronto mosque's website "says that Muslims should stay completely away from Halloween, Christmas, New Year's, anniversaries, birthdays, and Earth Day." During the discussion, Beck asked: "But how do we know the difference -- I mean, you're reasonable. How do we know the difference between you and those that are trying to kill us?"

Sexual identity or orientation

• During a March 2 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter said she "can't really talk about" Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot' " -- a comment that drew loud applause from the CPAC audience. Then on the March 6 broadcast of Hannity's nationally syndicated radio show, Coulter defended her comment, explaining: "I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It's a schoolyard taunt. It means -- it means wussy." She went on to conclude that "faggot" is a "totally excellent word."
• In 2007, Savage claimed that same-sex marriage "makes me want to puke" and that same-sex parenting is "child abuse"; blamed sexual reassignment surgery for the Columbine massacre; pointed to sexual reassignment surgery and lesbian fertility clinics in claiming that the September 11 terrorist attacks "was God speaking"; referred to Media Matters as "a gay smear sheet," the "homosexual mafia," and the "gay Mafioso"; and declared that a "loving, kind lesbian" is "the type that stuffed ovens in Hitler's concentration camps."
• On the July 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly objected to the San Diego Padres' decision to host a gay pride night and a children's hat giveaway promotion during the same July 8 baseball game, claiming that "cluster[ing]" gays near children is "insane" and "inappropriate." After a viewer challenged him by noting that "kids are around gays every day, O'Reilly elaborated on his position on the July 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, saying that "thousands" of gays in one place "can be confusing to children."
• In an August 21 post on his CBNnews.com blog, Christian Broadcasting Network senior national correspondent David Brody addressed a federal complaint filed against then-presumptive Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson by blogger Lane Hudson, writing: "Well, now Fred Thompson has an angry girlfriend. His name (don't go there) is Lane Hudson." Since then, Brody had appeared three times on NBC's Meet the Press and four times on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss the 2008 presidential race. Despite referring to a male blogger as Thompson's "angry girlfriend," Brody was invited to appear on the September 9 broadcast of Meet the Press to discuss the election.