Letters to the editor (Sept. 19, 2018)

Old allegations

I am no fan of Trump and am worried what is happening to the Supreme Court and how worse it may get under Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Though he may surprise us by being fair once he gets there. But that said, are we really going to start going back to high school for untoward behavior and using that against everyone in public life? If we held every hormone-induced, alcohol-infused episode in a guy’s young life as a litmus test to any job, three-fourths of American men would be unemployed. I mean what’s next, allegations of “he pulled my pony tail” in first grade? This is ridiculous.

Ok, the alleged activity goes beyond pulled ponytails, but the fact it supposedly happened 37 years ago and Professor Ford brings this forward now does not pass the smell test. He’s been a judge since 2006, why not say something before?

I am no fan of women who bring up bad behavior from decades ago and am tired of seeing good men lives ruined behind what amounts to allegations and no more. If she was really assaulted say something then, not four decades later.

‘Both-sideism’

Regarding the Eagles Friday September 14 Op-Ed by Leonard Pitts on “both-sideism” in journalism.

During the McCarthy Era of the 1950’s Edward R. Murrow said that there are not always two equal and logical sides to an argument, so BBC reporters shunning climate change deniers is hardly a novel idea.

While Mr. Pitts may well be correct in assuming that climate change deniers have questionable scientific credibility, if surrendering truth in misguided deference to the principle of fair impartiality is his concern, I would argue that there is a far greater and more pressing dark-side to mainstream American journalism where seeking balance and truthism isn’t even an afterthought.

I’m talking of course about journalistic self-censorship and cowardice in kow-towing to the social blackmail of political correctness due to fears of economic boycotts in retaliation for the audacity of raising unpopular opinions where entire points of view are entirely banned by managerial editorial fiat.

If Mr. Pitts is worried about how future historians will judge today’s media, I would hope that outright censorship of unpopular opinions being institutionally excluded across the board from any and all open public debate would rank of considerably greater ethical concern.

Kobach is right

Elected representatives, academics and even former governors are inundating us with the message that Kris Kobach is wrong for Kansas. Could all of these people really be wrong? Yes.

Furthermore their tactics reveal a “stampede the sheep” strategy. Why? Because when “first things” are debated then the elitists lose by wide margins. Take education. Are most Kansans in support of more highly paid bureaucrats or fewer? Only Kobach promises to stop feeding this bottomless pit. How about constitutional carry and concealed carry? Only Kobach pledges “from my cold, dead hands.” Consider opposition to the abortion industry. Only Kobach promises to stand firm for life.

The popular vote is with Kobach on all of these issues, yet outside of the alternative media these policy debates simply are not had -- character assignation is rather the go-to strategy. By refusing to openly debate these paramount issues the “progressives” hope to lull Kansans away from their most deeply cherished beliefs.