Recent Kansas editorials

The Topeka Capital-Journal, Aug. 26

Hello there, Mike Pompeo. It’s time for us to talk again, because once again it seems like you can’t keep your private political ambitions separate from your public duties as Secretary of State.

We talked to you about this back in May. That was when we heard mutterings about your possible use of government employees to do personal chores, and about the exclusive dinner parties you threw with your wife. Apparently you hired a harpist, Mike. Remember?

But now you’ve gone and done something even more problematic. On Tuesday, you gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. That’s a partisan political event, you know, and your job as secretary of state is to represent the entire United States of America - not just the Grand Old Party.

Politico put it this way (we expect you’ve seen the article, but we’ll repeat part of it here): “Pompeo’s pre-recorded appearance at the partly virtual convention is a break with decades of norms in which the chief U.S. diplomat has avoided participating in explicitly partisan events. The argument for avoiding such gatherings has been that the United States needs to speak with one voice overseas, and that the Secretary of State needs to be seen as representing the country, not a political party.”

Yet, get this, Mike. Your own State Department issued guidance earlier this year saying that “Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees may not even attend a political party convention or convention-related event.”

Does that mean there’s one set of rules for you and another set of rules for everyone else?

Yes, yes, we know. Your aides have told the news media that you’re appearing as an individual, not in your official capacity. And the fact you delivered your remarks from Israel? We guess that was just a lucky coincidence, then.

Let’s get down to brass tacks, Mike. We’ve known you here in Kansas for quite a few years now. Folks here elected you as a congressman, and you always struck us as a straightforward kind of guy. But you’re really disappointing us these days. The harpist was bad enough, but trading on your office for the president’s re-election campaign? You can do better.

Think of it this way. How would you have reacted if Hillary Clinton appeared at the Democratic National Convention hailing Barack Obama when she was serving as Secretary of State? But guess what? She didn’t do it.

Shouldn’t you at least try to match the ethical example of Hillary Clinton?

____

The Kansas City Star, Aug. 28

Despite what he says, horridly marred Kansas legislative candidate Aaron Coleman hasn’t changed all that much since he bullied and blackmailed girls in middle school some five years ago.

That’s according to ex-girlfriend Taylor Passow, who told The Star that the 19-year-old Coleman choked her, slapped her three times and encouraged her to commit suicide only last December.

That would definitively indicate that the Kansas House District 37 Democratic nominee’s admitted bad behavior toward girls in middle school - including revenge porn and blackmail - isn’t completely confined to years past, as he has maintained.

“Air out the clip into your head,” is the inducement to suicide Passow says Coleman texted her last New Year’s Eve after having choked and slapped her in a hot tub a few days prior. “Mag dump yourself. Do that midnight tonight. If I never hear from you again then I’ll know what happened.”

Voters in Wyandotte County have to be asking themselves what happened Aug. 4, when Coleman won the Democratic primary by 14 votes against respected incumbent Rep. Stan Frownfelter. Coleman is Democratic voters’ choice for the Legislature? Really? Will he be the people’s choice in November, now that all this is known about him?

Since Coleman first offered to withdraw, then withdrew his withdrawal, it appears his name will be the only one on the November ballot. No Republican filed in the primary.

It now comes down to Coleman vs. Frownfelter again, with the latter planning a write-in campaign, as well as Republican Kristina Smith waging her own write-in effort in the heavily Democratic district.

It’s difficult to understand why even one informed voter would back Coleman in the general election. But he has one win under his belt, and his is the only name on the ballot. And Americans are a forgiving lot, even when it’s utterly unwarranted. Oddly enough, that makes Coleman the one to beat in November.

This is a ton to forgive, however. And Passow’s allegations are fairly recent, therefore certainly inexcusable by the mere passage of time. Moreover, one can forgive someone without elevating him to a position of power.

Coleman’s acknowledged and alleged behaviors are abominable. Should he be so easily absolved for his admitted middle school abuses, which drove one girl to attempted suicide? We sure don’t think so, and neither does the Democratic Party, which has pledged its support to Frownfelter.

In addition, Coleman’s odd and arguably manipulative about-face to stay in the race this week, despite mounting testimony against his character, shows a bizarre and troubling lack of self-awareness. It might be in his own best interest to seek help rather than stature.

Moreover, his alleged battery of Passow in December involves criminal conduct - conduct unbecoming a public servant of any kind, much less one who writes laws.

Forces rightly continue to rally against Coleman. Despite his left-wing views, groups such as Our Revolution Kansas and the Kansas City Democratic Socialists of America have disavowed him, joining Kansas House Minority Leader Tom Sawyer, a Democrat from Wichita.

The Kansas House Democratic Caucus tweeted late Wednesday, “KS House Dems have repeatedly condemned Coleman. These further, even more horrific details prove him to be a disturbed, dangerous person, a threat to women everywhere, and should be barred from ANY position of power. He is absolutely unfit for office.”

Meanwhile, the girl who says she attempted suicide after Coleman’s middle-school bullying says of Passow, “I’m glad she has spoken out, and is now sharing her truth.”

Will it matter?

It’s up to the district’s voters in November. What say you? Will you reward this kind of hideous behavior - and insult girls and women in the process?

_____

The Lawrence Journal-World, Aug. 30

America basically has turned into an outrage machine, which makes it odd to say that there is one topic that is not producing enough outrage in American discourse.

It is Facebook. The enormously profitable company has evolved from a dumpster fire to an all-out blaze with flames that are creeping up the country’s foundations.

This should be a sentiment that both Republicans and Democrats can agree upon. Take, for instance, what has happened in the small city of Weatherford, Texas, about 60 miles west of Dallas. President Donald Trump won Weatherford’s home county of Parker with more than 80% of the vote in 2016, so it seems unlikely that the police chief of Weatherford is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

That town’s police chief, Lance Arnold, recently told the Washington Post that Facebook was helping create real violence in his community of about 25,000 people. Heavily armed groups are showing up in the community to confront protesters. The groups have been larger and better armed than the town’s police force.

“It’s extremely worrisome, because it creates a level of fear,” Arnold told the Post. “And it creates an environment that is rife for violence between various groups.”

Arnold said it was clear what was stoking the fear. He said there have been numerous “fake social media accounts.” They spread false reports about how a particular community is facing imminent danger, complete with false photos showing such violence. Some falsely claim that the police are asking residents to “come assist us,” Arnold told the newspaper.

If a police chief in one of the reddest counties in America can see the recklessness of Facebook and its cohorts, why can’t more of us?

Friends, this is the equivalent of a print newspaper publishing an anonymous letter to the editor advocating lynchings or destroying people’s property. Why aren’t we as mad as hell about this? The fact it shows up on a computer screen rather than on a piece of pulp makes some sort of difference?

If that doesn’t raise your anger enough, perhaps Facebook’s most recent statement on the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., will. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly acknowledged on Friday that his company should have removed a page for the “Kenosha Guard,” which had been promoting an event listing for “Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property.”

Come to find out, that page promoted violence. Facebook ultimately recognized that and took the page down, but by the time that happened two protesters had been killed in Kenosha. Zuckerberg called Facebook’s failure to remove the page earlier an “operational mistake.”

That is one way to describe a system that monitors content for violent and hateful material after the content already has been published. There is a reason in the newspaper business we edit our articles and letters before we publish them.

Yes, you would be correct in noting that many newspapers, however, take the same backward approach with their online comment sections. There certainly have been hateful and violent statements published in those comment sections too. That should change as well.

The reasons it doesn’t are varied, but can be summarized by stating that companies and individuals often find it difficult to change, even when such change would be good for the country.

That’s where government can help. Let’s not overthink this. We simply need to pass a law that makes Facebook and its ilk - including online comment sections of newspapers - legally responsible for any content that shows up on their sites. Newspapers have lived with that law for their print editions for generations.

Whether Facebook could remains to be seen. Its business model is based on a high volume of garbage. It makes its money off of numbers, not quality, and such a new standard would reduce the amount of content on its site. Facebook’s actual financial value would decline.

That could be financially painful for the entire U.S. economy. Facebook and similar entities make up a very large part of the stock market’s success. But that financial pain likely only gets larger the longer we wait to address this issue. It would have been better to address this problem yesterday. It will be worse to address it tomorrow.

It would be a radical change for the internet. But letting monetized rumor machines operate unregulated seems a bit radical too. Some might even say it is an “operational mistake.”