BREAKING NEWS

Oct. 3, 2006

Following up on your Sept. 15 column “Dream On” about the chances Democrats can  win a majority in one or both houses of Congress, I’m curious.  Do recent developments surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) change your analysis?

MaryAnn Moore, Kansas City, MO

Response to MM:  Consider this:  During his first press conference following Foley’s resignation on Oct. 2, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) declared that, “If [Foley] had not resigned, I would have immediately asked for his removal.”

The claim is hardly credible when one knows that Rep. Bob Ney, (R-OH) agreed on Sept. 15 to plead guilty to corruption charges.  Asked that day if he’d seek Ney’s removal, Hastert said he would not, and that it was up to “Bob and his family” whether he resigns is congressional seat.

Not only was Hastert’s blatant hypocrisy ignored by every reporter and media outlet I know of – I’m unable to find any indication anyone asked him about the blatant conflict – Hastert has since changed his story.  Indeed, on Oct. 3, Hastert began claiming he and others DID ask Foley to resign, and that Foley then agreed to do so.

My point is that I believe a vast majority of the voters remain blissfully unaware of Hastert’s hypocrisy, and of his flip-flop.  Instead, national focus continues to revolve around whether Democrat’s somehow engineered Foley’s fall (despite the lack of evidence supporting that speculation and a plethora of evidence refuting it), and pundit/partisan conjecture as to whether Foley’s actions will reflect on all Republicans.

Coming days and weeks may reveal more than we know now.  But based on the little I think most know now, I suspect Foley’s actions will reflect only on Foley, and all the rest will fade into the usual cacophony of “he said” and “she said,” changing no one’s mind.

MORE ON FOLEY

Oct. 3, 2006

Maybe a Congressman trying to have sex with minors will change your predictions about Republicans winning in November?   (SEE “DREAM ON,” Sept. 15)

Don Steinert, Burbank, CA

Response to DS:  Not necessarily.  In short, In this latest I think almost all attention is still being paid to perceptions and “feelings,” with virtually none paid to indisputable, documented facts.  Such circumstances haven’t worked to the benefit of Democrats in recent months and years (See Iraq War, Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, US Economy, Oil Co. profits, etc.).  See the response above for more detail.

UNSOLICITED DIAGNOSIS

Sept. 29, 2006

So, you think Dave Weaver might actually run for reelection in Glendale?  (SEE “LIFETIME REWARDS…?” Sept. 28.) There is absolutely no doubt somebody here is out of their mind.  It remains to be determined whether it’s you or Weaver.

Erin Kaplan, Glendale, CA

UP TO HERE

Sept. 28, 2006

Dave Weaver wants taxpayers to give him lifetime insurance coverage, even after he’s left office?  (SEE “LIFETIME REWARDS…?” Sept. 28.)  Every time I think Dave Weaver has humiliated himself and his city for the last time, he comes up with something even worse.

Bill Morrow, Glendale, CA

DEFINE “FINEST”

Sept. 29, 2006

What a surprise.  Another column critical of Dave Weaver, perhaps the finest councilman who has ever served in the city of Glendale, and maybe in any city anywhere. (SEE “LIFETIME REWARDS…?” Sept. 28.)  There is nothing wrong with Dave Weaver asking city staff to find out what the insurance would cost.   He only asked.  Get off Weaver’s back for just asking questions.

T. Brown, Glendale, CA

DEAL OR NO DEAL

September 28,2006

I’m willing to give Dave Weaver free health insurance, and a lot more, if he’ll just promise to leave office ASAP and never, ever return to City Hall. (SEE “LIFETIME REWARDS…?” Sept. 28.)  It would be SUCH a deal.

N. MacDonald, Glendale, CA

NOT APPRECIATED

Sept. 22, 2006

What is this bullshit with the supposed “Cost of the War in Iraq” all over you web pages, with numbers rolling around like $300 billion?  You can count zeros, can’t you?  It’s nothing like billions.  Believe me, if those numbers were true, I’d be screaming louder than some of the anti-American liberals.  It’s liberal propaganda and I’m disappointed in you circulating it..

Rich Stevenson, Sun Valley, CA

Response to AB:  The figure is well sourced and documented, which you can confirm by following the links provided.  But perhaps another source would make you more comfortable?  Just follow this link to FOX NEWS and you’ll find them putting US war appropriations thus far at “a half trillion dollars.”

Just for the sake of nostalgia, let’s not forget that Paul Wolfowitz, then-Deputy Defense Secretary, pledged in April, 2003 that America’s share of the post “Mission Accomplished” expenses in Iraq would not exceed $1.7 billion.  Ironically, today Wolfowitz is President of the World Bank.

NO RIGHT TO KNOW

Sept. 22, 2006

I am very upset with your ugly attack on Kathleen Burke-Kelly.  (See “Back to School…” Sept. 21)  She is a wonderful woman who has done so much for the community.  She was not required to announce her resignation from the rooftops.  No law prevented her from keeping it a private, personal matter, and it should still be her own private matter today.

You sure know how many dishonest people there are in office.  I think the biggest reason for that is that the honest, hardworking people don’t want to be publicly attacked by the likes of you.

Katherine Vartanian, Glendale, CA

PUBLIC SERVICE PRE-SCHOOL

Sept. 21, 2006

Elected officials who hold high offices like Governor and the US Senate start out their political education in smaller jobs, like city council, school board and community college boards.  That’s why it’s so important to have people like you who remind them from the start of their obligations to the public they supposedly serve.  (See “Back to School…” Sept. 21)  I hope the college board does not give the big promotion to their former colleague, because they already know her priority is not the college, or the public.

Geoffery Peterson, Eagle Rock, CA

WHAT’S THE POINT?

Sept. 15, 2006

I’m happy to have discovered your on-line column.  But your piece about Democrats hoping to win control of the House and Senate (SEE “DREAM ON,” Sept. 15) has me baffled.

Are you trying to warn Democrats of bad news?  Are you trying to alert Republicans to imminent good news?  Are you trying to discourage Democrats from even trying, thus fulfilling the prophesy?  Are you urging them to fight harder?

Which side was this written to help?

Tim Ferguson, Glendale, CA

RESPONSE TO TF:  Mine was simply an analysis of the current situation, one I believe is fairly unique in a pool of literally countless analyses.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED

Sept. 15, 2006

I’ve had a ball reading the different pages on your site, but I’m a bit concerned about the otherwise funny story of your injury.  (SEE “The Daily News Cured Me,” Aug. 3, 2006)   I hope you’ve consulted a medical professional about the reasons behind your fall.

Cindy Murphy, Burbank, CA

Response to CM:  I did.  My physician opined that I shouldn’t try walking on rolling items.  He prescribed a ladder.

SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESIES

Sept. 15, 2006

If Democrats don’t win one or both houses of Congress, your column could end up being one of the reasons. (SEE “DREAM ON,” GENERAL COLUMNS, Sept. 15)  Why try to convince them to give up before the work is done?

Don Carol, Burbank, CA

A REAL “MUR’CAN” PATRIOT

Sept. 15

As a longtime Republican and patriotic supporter of our President, George W. Bush, I want to thank you for cutting through the bull and telling it like it is.  (SEE “DREAM ON,” GENERAL COLUMNS, Sept. 15) The effort by Democrats to destroy this country and blame America first will not succeed.

I hadn’t realized there was ANYONE in California with their head screwed on straight.  It must be pretty lonely for you.

Timothy Shawn-Ford, Orlando, FL.

RESPONSE TO TS-F:  Oh, dear… you ARE confused, aren’t you?

LET JIM GO

Aug. 20, 2006

I’m sorry to see you continue to give coverage to Jim Rogan.  (SEE “ROGAN…” Aug. 16)  Moving to this area after growing up and attending college in the San Francisco area, he soon left for Sacramento, and then for Washington, D.C.  After that he moved to Orange County.  But you continue to write about the guy as if he were a local boy with roots here who deserves this constant attention. 

This district may be almost as uninterested in Rogan as he obviously was in this district.

Robert Fullman, Glendale, CA

SO LONG, GENE

Aug. 18, 2006

Your mention of Gene Mestel leaving Glendale was a class act, just like the man himself.  He will be deeply missed, and City Hall has no clue how their so-called policies and new politics of Us vs. Them helped make fleeing the city a much more attractive alternative to staying and continuing to fight.

Alex Flores, Glendale, CA

A STUNNING REVERSAL

Aug. 18, 2006

Don’t fall over dead when I tell you this, but I wanted you to know you actually changed my mind on something.  I read the section of your Burbank column about how a certain group of council critics blames the city every time an airline adds flights out of [Bob Hope Airport], but stays quiet when airlines leave the airport or cut flights.  (SEE “PLAYING CATCH-UP…” Aug. 17, 2006.)

It really is true.  I’ve had a problem when you keep calling those same people hypocrites without giving examples.  Well, you finally mentioned one where I have seen what you’re talking about.  You talked to my Rotary Club once and mentioned how rare it is that anyone changes their mind no matter how much evidence they see.  But since you also talked about how rewarding it is when someone does, I thought I’d let you know.

Bud Nelson, Burbank, CA

NOT SEEN ELSEWHERE

Aug. 17, 2006

Thanks for filling us in on what that Warner Bros. survey was all about.  (SEE “PLAYING CATCH-UP…” Aug. 17, 2006.)  Once again I’m finding that your column gives me more information about the city I live in than I can get from the entire staff of the supposed newspapers that tell me they are covering Burbank.

Erica Kastan, Burbank, CA

THE TROUBLE WITH HICKS

Aug. 17, 2006

Your column about ninnies on the city council sweating about TV announcers saying that Glendale’s Alex Theater is in Los Angeles was hilarious.  (SEE “PLAYING CATCH-UP…,” Aug. 16, 2006) The trouble with ignorant hicks is that, once they know people regard them as ignorant hicks, they never understand why and, in response they invariably end up acting like ignorant hicks.

P.L. Smith, Glendale, CA

UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS

Aug. 10, 2006

Thanks for the column about the Daily News and your back (SEE “The Daily News Cured Me,” Aug. 3, 2006)  I especially laughed at the subtle disclaimers under the anatomy pictures.  But I was sorry to read about your reception at the Daily News.   I stopped the LA Times more than a decade ago, when I realized your columns were about the only local stories I could get.  I hated giving you up, but expected I’d eventually see you move to the Daily News.  I guess it’s not to be.

John D. Henderson, Burbank, CA

DOUBLE DISTORTED

June 12, 2006

I am shocked that you had such complimentary words for Paul Krekorian’s call for the U.S. to surrender in Iraq and flee.  The man should be put on trial for treason. (SEE “It’s Over,” June 7)

G. Tipon, Glendale, CA

Response to G.T.:  I dispute your characterization of my mention, and of Krekorian’s call.  But readers can judge for themselves on both counts by consulting the column (CLICK HERE) and the letter referenced  (CLICK HERE).

PRO COP

June 11, 2006

What a great note about Lt. Don Meredith and his run for sheriff.  (SEE “Not This Time,” June 7) It really makes me wish that much more that he’d won.

Ellen Murphy, Los Feliz, CA

A STRANGER’S KIND WORDS

June 9, 2006

We are impressed with the “editor’s notes” you include in your columns when changes are made after the initial posting.  (For an example, see “It’s Over…”)  They indicate a high regard for honesty and ethics, and whomever is responsible should be congratulated for upholding these high standards.

The willingness to admit mistakes and to add new information after it becomes available are becoming rare in the conventional press, and are almost unheard of among even the most high-minded on-line journalistic efforts.  We also note that you frequently disclose relationships and previous business involvements with the subjects of your columns.  If only we could convince corporate news outlets to engage in such practices, journalism would be much more highly regarded by all Americans.

Please keep it up.  You are a credit to the industry and to journalism.

Cliff Ingalls, Exec. Director – Center for Press Integrity and Ethics

Washington, D.C.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  First, we appreciate the remarks and couldn’t agree more.  But we want to add that we’ve been unable to find any information about the organization named, and despite a collective 60 years in journalism among the staff, none of us are familiar with the group.  Even "googling" the name produced zero results.

A call was made to the number given on the impressive letterhead sent to Will’s home to confirm authorship of this letter – standard practice for all submissions – and that was accomplished.  But we don’t know if the "Center for Press Integrity and Ethics" is made up of one man with a receptionist, or an esteemed panel of professionals.

A MINOR PARTY PROBLEM

June 8, 2006

I am sorry to see that you gave no coverage to the Libertarian or Republican candidates in the primary election.  Your favoritism for Democrats is showing.

J. Cook, Burbank, CA

RESPONSE TO J.C.:  Both candidates you mentioned were running unopposed.  Perhaps you’ll read more about them in the months and weeks before the November election.

IT’S NOT UNUSUAL

June 7, 2006

A few days ago I sent you an email commenting on recent events in the campaign for the democratic nomination in the 43^rd Assembly District race.  I have changed my mind about publishing that message.  Given the results, having that letter printed could cause me several problems and probably a friendship or two.  Please do not publish it.

Name withheld on request

EDITOR’S NOTE:  We typically don’t run letters without attribution, but we’ve made this exception to provide a sample of several notes we received after the election.  Once the  election results were in, more than a dozen people asked us to hold back letters written and already approved for publication.   They were fairly evenly mixed, supporting or criticizing both Democratic candidates in that race.  Some complimented the eventual winner, some complimented the eventual loser.  Some were harshly critical of Paul Krekorian, others took Frank Quintero to task.

FAVORITISM FOR… I

June 7, 2006

I am thrilled to see that Paul Krekorian was able to overcome and win despite all your work on Frank Quintero’s behalf.

Michael Perez, Los Angeles, CA

RESPONSE TO M.O.:  I hope you’ll see all the other letters below that are headlined with “FAVORITISM FOR…”  Some readers agree with you.  Others don’t.

IN CONCLUSION

June 7, 2006

I appreciate your “autopsy” on the primary race for the 43^rd Assembly District.  (SEE “It’s Over,” June 7) I suspect people can now see why it makes so much sense to support the Republican candidate when the runoff election comes in November.  Both of the Democrat candidates were obviously disgusting.

Barbara Klein, Los Angeles, CA

FAVORITISM FOR… II

June 6, 2006

It’s election day and I wanted to make sure you knew I went out and voted for Frank Quintero.  If you hadn’t worked so hard to support Paul Krekorian, I wouldn’t have been sure who deserved my vote.

Ann Ely, Glendale, CA

BOYCOTT THREAT

June 4, 2006

I’m one of those who received the “terrorist” literature on Friday and offered you a copy of it. (SEE “Hitting Back at Hit Mail,” June 3) I don’t blame just the candidates who get involved with this sort of trash.  I especially blame the campaign consultants and campaign managers who are so often and so obviously behind this trash.

Especially when junk like this comes out at the last minute, I’m sure the candidates they’re supposed to help don’t have any idea it’s going out.  I’ve had many bones to pick with Frank Quintero, but I’ve watched him operate on the Glendale city council for enough years that I’m sure he never would never be stupid enough to think this mailer would do him any good, and he’s plenty smart enough to know how badly it would hurt him in this election, and any he’s in in the future.

I hope that EVERY reader of your column, no matter where they are or which candidates they like, can agree just on principle to reject any candidate that employs Phil Giarizzo [Quintero’s campaign consultant] or any candidate  supported by the Latino Leadership Fund [the PAC that distribute the controversial mailer].  It’s the only realistic way I see to put an end to this kind of trash.

Douglas Marsh, Glendale, CA

FAVORITISM FOR… III

June 3, 2006

Funny thing about your column about the “terrorism” mailer. (SEE “Hitting Back at Hit Mail,” June 3) You never said whether the charges were true.  I’m sure Paul Krekorian is glad you never got to the specifics of THAT.  I know whose party you’ll be at on election night.

Michael Wells, Glendale, CA

FAVORITISM FOR… IV

June 3, 2006

Look, everybody who reads your column knows that you’re a pal of Paul Krekorian and that you’re going to do anything to back his candidacy and help him win.  But don’t you think that your last-minute hit-piece on the last-minute mailer is really going too far to help your buddy?  (SEE “Hitting Back at Hit Mail,” June 3)

Why can’t you just be like normal people and, at the start of the campaign, announce that you have endorsed Paul Krekorian?  Supporting his campaign as a snake hiding in the grass is so dishonest.  How do you sleep at night knowing you pose as a journalist while working as a campaign operative?

Ken Flanagan, Burbank, CA

JUST WONDERING

May 26, 2006

Obviously you’re known for several years about the voter fraud in Glendale that’s so clearly tied to absentee ballots.  (SEE “Voter Fraud Charges Not New,” May 23.)  One has to wonder why the District Attorney’s office hasn’t worked harder to DO something about it.

D. Zimmerman, Glendale, CA

FAVORITISM FOR… V

May 25, 2006

When all the campaign finance reports are filed after the election has ended, I expect to see that Quintero’s campaign has cut a big check to Will Rogers, Inc.  It’s really embarrassing to see how far you’re willing to go to promote his campaign and to offer him an endorsement that isn’t an “official” endorsement.  Why can’t you just be honest about it and admit in print that he’s the candidate you like?  I’d have more respect for that tactic than I do for these underhanded attacks on Paul Krekorian.

H. Melikian, Burbank, CA

A SHOT IN THE DARK

May 24, 2006

I’m glad you mentioned that it’s possible Quintero’s campaign people rigged up the supposedly fraudulent absentee ballot applications, because that’s what I think happened. (SEE “Voter Fraud Charges Not New,” May 23.)

S. Palmer, Los Angeles, CA

NOT GONE OR FORGOTTEN!

May 24, 2006

You wrote about [former Glendale Mayor] Larry Zarian as if he no longer holds public office and has gracefully disappeared to live off the wealth he built while (coincidentally, I’m sure) he was in office.  (SEE “Voter Fraud Charges Not New,” May 23.)  But he’s still around and was recently appointed to a state transportation committee.

Al Galstyan, Los Angeles, CA

RESPONSE TO A.G.: Believe me, I’m well aware that Zarian is still around, and I know about his recent appointment thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

May 24, 3006

I’m amazed at the difference between how the Burbank Police Department handled the case of former council member Stacey Murphy and their current kid-gloves treatment for Mayor Todd Campbell.  (SEE “Does Mayor Pose a Threat?” May 14.)  Some might think they learned some lessons, but I can’t help thinking that accusations of knocking around a girlfriend just aren’t that serious to a lot of BPD officials.

Rita Kelly, Burbank, CA

SKIMMING THE ARTICLE

May 23, 2006

When you offered such kind words to Vahan Aladadi and congratulated him for calling upon the Armenian community to help clean up elections in Glendale, a mess that community has made itself, it was a gigantic breach of ethics and honesty for you to fail to mention he paid you thousands and thousands of dollars as a columnist in his newspaper.  (SEE “Voter Fraud Charges Not New,” May 23.)  Not a word about once having worked for him.  A lot of readers probably don’t know about that conflict of interest and didn’t have an opportunity to weigh that fact when reading your words about Aladadi.

Is that what it takes to get a positive mention in your columns – thousands of dollars?  I understand that you probably won’t publish this because I can’t afford the price tag.

A. Markarian, Glendale CA

RESPONSE TO A.M.:  I’ll never understand why some folks insist on putting charges like this in writing, providing me an opportunity to post the charge alongside the REST of the story.  It reminds me of some of the astonishing claims announced by Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and the current White House administration that are inconveniently recorded on videotape, scandalous declarations so easily played alongside other recordings that handily contradict and refute them.

In this case, and while I dispute your characterization of how Aladadi’s efforts were characterized, please note that the column at issue did include the following paragraph:

“Aladadi, who published the now-defunct “G” newspaper that once carried my columns, does not want to wait until after this election is over to root out fraud.”

I assure you that I will also be happy to publish the retraction and apology that I’m sure you’re already hurrying to draft.

HERE COMES THE STUN

May 23, 2006

It’s about time you woke up to the fraud being perpetrated in Glendale thanks to absentee ballots.  (SEE “Voter Fraud Charges Not New,” May 23.)  Now you can stand by and await the stunning and angry charges of racism and bigotry that are always made against anyone who has the nerve to speak the truth on this issue.

A. Manning, Glendale, CA

A 2007 ELECTION PREDICTION

May 17, 2006

When are people going to see the truth about (Burbank Mayor) Todd Campbell?  (See “Does Mayor Pose a Threat?”, May 14.)  He was a screw-up as a student.  He did NOT grow up in Burbank – he left here to live out of California when he went to college, and then moved back to Santa Monica.  He now lives in his mommy’s house, where he moved just to run for office.  After being unemployed for a while – anybody know why he left his last two jobs? - he’s now working for a company that does business with the city.  Every time he votes to buy natural gas vehicles he’s putting more money into the pocket of his boss.

I can’t WAIT for his next election campaign.  2007 may be the year for Howard Rothenbach to win, because Todd Campbell is going to have to keep looking to his attorney and then say “no comment” so many times that he will not be reelected.

Pat Kennedy, Burbank, CA

TEACHER UNION MOTIVES

May 17, 2006

The real story you and other should have been covering in the most recent primary race for the assembly seat was the way teacher unions use “it’s all for the kids” the same way Republicans in Washington, D.C. are using 9/11.  They are cynically exploiting sympathies to get $$$ and power.

The unions are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on EVERY race to protect teachers from meaningful oversight, to protect incompetent teachers from the same sort of accountability that most other occupations must accept, and to make sure that wages, benefits and pensions continue to go up with no relationship to performance or ability.

I am happy to say I know teachers who love kids and who love teaching.  But anyone who thinks those are the priorities of teacher unions is a fool.

Mark Daniels, Burbank, CA

LIKE, “DUH,” WILL

May 16, 2006

Please explain to me why you thought it surprising that a candidate for public office took two different positions on one issue.  (See “Mistake or Lie?” May 14, 2006)  Paul Krekorian did the same thing, it just didn’t happen to be on issues the teachers unions cared about.  As long as he stayed true to protecting their special interests, they weren’t concerned if he played politics with others, and so his flip-flops and pandering didn’t enjoy the prominence that tens of thousands of dollars in union money could buy.

They’re ALL liars, Will.  All of them,

Gregory Lu, Atwater Village, CA

FAVORITISM FOR… VI

May 15, 2006

I’m sorry to see you jump on the anti-Quintero bandwagon, criticizing the man for making a simple mistake.  (See “Mistake or Lie?” May 14, 2006)  If you were really interested in finding the truth, you could just accept the man’s explanation.  He thought the question referred to one kind of voucher, and everyone else was thinking of another.

He acknowledged his mistake and he apologized for it.  Does he need to open a vein to convince you?

Elias Moldonado, Los Feliz, CA

IN FINE COMPANY

May 15, 2006

You are not alone.  I wrote to Mayor Todd Campbell to ask what happened when the police were called to his house.  (See “Does Mayor Pose a Threat?”, May 14.)  He ignored me, too.  I guess the best we can do is hope to ask him about this when he’s running for reelection in less than a year.

Ed Ray, Burbank CA

ANGRY THANKS

May 14, 2006

I want to express my gratitude for your efforts to find out what the HELL is going on with our Mayor.  (See “Does Mayor Pose a Threat?”, May 14.)  I am disgusted with our City Hall and the work the Burbank Police are obviously doing to keep all of us from finding out why they were called to his house.

Steve Marin, Burbank, CA

OCCUMS’S RAZOR

May 15, 2006

You want an explanation for Frank Quintero’s answer at the candidate’s forum?  (See “Mistake or Lie?” May 14, 2006)  The explanation is that he’s been so busy for years taking so many different positions on issues that depend completely on where he is and who he’s talking to that he forgot whether he’s for vouchers or against them.  Don’t they say that the simplest answer is usually the right one?

B. Davies, Glendale, CA 

THE RULES DON’T APPLY

April 25, 2006

Your column about traffic infractions was as annoying as being stuck behind drivers like you.  (See “Limit Line in the Sand”, March 27, 2006.)  If I want to stop at the pedestrian line instead of your sacred “limit line” on Burbank Blvd, I will.  Get in my way and you WILL pay the price.  There will never be a police officer in the city of Burbank who will write a ticket for this supposed violation.  It’s more likely YOU will get a ticket for impeding traffic.

M. Hansen, Burbank, CA

Editor's Note:  Minor edits and corrections have been made to the following letters since they were first posted. 

He's Seen Worse

No Correction

April 19, 2006

I wonder if readers realize how telling it is that the Burbank Leader made the mistake it did.  (See “Oooops” QUICK HITS, April 15)  Even more important, FAR more important, is the fact that I have the next issue of the paper in front of me right now, and there is no correction, no “for the record” note, or any other sign that they are admitting the mistake.  The newspaper on April 19 didn’t have a word about the huge mistake in the April 15 newspaper.

Mistakes DO happen.  But people with integrity admit them publicly.  This is why nobody trusts journalism anymore than they trust politicians.

George Chapman, Burbank

Response to G.C.:  Perhaps they simply don’t know about the error yet.  Have you called or written to let them know? It's a reasonable reality in newsrooms that there's rarely cause to pick up a paper after it has been published to read yesterday's work.  Reporters, editors and everyone else do rely on readers to let them know they've made a mistake, as do I.  Once we know, we'll usually jump to do something about it.

More on “Oooops”

April 15, 2006

Good for you for noticing how the Burbank Leader has let down the citizens once again.  (See “Oooops” QUICK HITS, April 15)  Our own hometown paper doesn’t even know who is on the city council.

Margaret Lewis, Burbank

Newspapers Otherwise Engaged?

April  10, 2006

I read your column about some commissioners and appointees refusing or forgetting to file their economic disclosure forms.(See “The OTHER 700 Club” GLENDALE COLUMNS, March 28.)  I’m glad you’re keeping an eye on things like this because our local newspapers are too busy working as propaganda organs for City Hall.

Mark Lopez, Glendale

Mall Rubs Them the Wrong Way

April 4, 2006

My wife and I are writing to you because we are upset with the way the Burbank Mall Management has apparently handled a situation regarding the Chinese Massage team that operates outside Macy’s on the second floor.

We have been long time clients of the Massage team and find their 12 min, massage for $12.00 a very valuable tool in dealing with the busy pace of today’s lifestyles.  We recently were told by them that their lease was being shortened and that they were given a thirty day notice to cease business operations.  Apparently, the authorities at Burbank Mall have contracted with a larger massage company that will rent two locations for a higher price. 

While there is argument that it is perfectly fine to increase one’s revenue, whether big business or small, one has to wonder if there is any fairness in today’s business world.  The Chinese team has said that they would be willing to pay more rent, to match what the new company will pay, so that they can keep their location.   They also have no problem with another company renting a space for massage.  May the best massage team survive!   Instead of creating this fair market competition, the Burbank Mall has simply decided to terminate a lease and kick these hard working people out on the street.  Complicating matters is the language barrier, and the fact that the Chinese Team probably can not afford a lawyer. 

We wonder if any consideration was given to the fact that the Chinese Massage Team has spent almost two years building up a steady business, only to have it ripped from them.  It seems extremely unfair as they are being given very little time to find an alternate venue.

For many, Burbank represents the typical American town, where one can live the American dream.  For these hard workers, the American dream is being pulled out from under their feet.

I would appreciate any thoughts or comments from you or your readers.

Thanks for your time.

Bill  Ferrell & Kimberly Kyle, Burbank

Drive-by Critic

April 2, 2006

I just saw you driving on Glenoaks today and couldn’t help but notice the bumper stickers on your car.  Don’t those expression of your personal opinions disqualify you from claiming to report on politics?  Talk about a failure to disclose!

Peter Watkins, Glendale

Response to P.W.:  To explain to readers, I do use the back of my car to express some opinions, and I do it through the use of several magnetic “stickers” I rotate every few days or weeks.  All of them are critical of President George W. Bush and his administration, and a couple warn of the growing danger of our government becoming a theocracy.

I’m delighted to defend declarations on my bumper such as “Bush is a liar!  Ask me how!” and “Bush is a hypocrite and a fool taking advice from liars and hypocrites!”  Virtually every day people ask me where they can get magnetic stickers like mine.

To my mind, those are non-partisan statements that reference a vast amount of well-documented facts that simply cannot be credibly refuted.

That said, a columnist not only isn’t barred from expressing personal opinions, doing so is a basic premise of the profession.  Those opinions certainly have to be documented and informed, which mine are.  But you’ve touched upon an exceptionally common  misunderstanding of the responsibilities and obligations of a reporter, as compared to those of a columnist.

Further, I don’t typically write about the President or presidential races.

Even allowed to express opinions, I think your concern would be well founded if I were endorsing candidates or employing bumper stickers related to races I do cover.  A bumper sticker on my car promoting John Doe for City Council would cause legitimate concern about any columns I write that criticize Doe’s opponent.

Finally, next time you see me, wave!

Aha!  Or Not.

March 28, 2006

Why didn’t you mention that Barry Allen of Glendale’s supposed “Vanguard” group is the boyfriend of a former city council candidate? (See "The OTHER 700 Club, GLENDALE COLUMNS, March 28.)  Kind of puts a new spin on his complaints about how the city is being run and who files the 700 forms, don’t you think?  Is that why you left it out?  Oops, is somebody’s slant showing?

Mark Thomas, Glendale

Response to M.T.:  Let me quote from the first paragraph in the column mentioning Allen; "Among those locally who routinely pay attention to 700 forms is Barry Allen.  He’s the partner of former city council candidate Pauline Field.”

A Yellow Streak?

Remember Us?

Jan 4, 2005

Hi, I’m from Glendale. Ours is a city found right between Burbank and Pasadena. I see you wrote some columns about us back in October, but nothing in the months since then. Have you given up on Glendale?

Howard Hanson - Glendale, CA

Response to HH: Intermittently over the years, yes. But not in the sense you mean. I know that two Glendale columns written in December were dropped due to lack of timeliness (they couldn’t be posted in time due to the technical problems described elsewhere on the site). A third is somewhere in the editing process. I’ll check on it.

Cutting Through It

Jan 4, 2006

I’d like to return my ballot as soon as possible, but before I do that I’d LOVE to get a straight answer to what I think is a simple question. Is there a plan to build a 27 gate terminal at Bob Hope Airport, or not? I know one guy says there is, and that he’ll stop it. Other candidates say there is no such plan, or that they aren’t sure but promise to stop it if there is one.

Can I just get the TRUTH?

Carla Dial - Burbank, CA

Response to CD: Sheesh, why not just ask me how to build a watch? Here’s why you get so many different answers. For roughly a decade, the airport authority was developing a two-phase plan to build a new terminal building. The second phase of that plan allowed for a 27 gate terminal. But at the time there were several airport officials who categorically denied there was such a plan, or they insisted it was only a theoretical plan developed as part of a study. They were liars and misleaders.

Thanks almost exclusively to the outrage of Burbank residents who slowly learned of the scheme and elected a new cast of representatives beginning in the mid 1990s, and thanks to some extent to residents of Glendale who went through a similar process, I believe that plan was quashed, at least for decades into the future.

There is ample proof that a clear majority of Burbank’s council and staff is adamantly opposed to any expansion at the airport that would allow, support or encourage additional flights or passengers. Indeed, that may be a unanimous position in City Hall but, unlike some, I can’t claim to read minds or know secret thoughts. But if a ten year long record of votes, proposals, lawsuits and agreements to date aren’t evidence enough, there is an even simpler point of proof.

In recent years a small band of folks - alternately characterized as gadflies or as activists - has maintained there exists a secret cabal in City Hall, a majority of whatever officials happen to be in office at the time, who are still dedicated to expanding the airport, enlarging to 27 gates, and adding an array of international flights. This band has maintained the officials are uninterested in the public’s wishes, and are remorseless, unprincipled slaves to corruption and or business interests.

The immutable, irrefutable proof that these allegations are false is the fact that there is not a 27 gate terminal at the airport today. Over the last decade the city council has had innumerable opportunities to cast a single vote that would have specifically allowed the supposedly-hoped-for expansion to proceed. If the supposed secret cabal existed, and if they were as dismissive and contemptuous of public wishes as has been repeatedly charged, a new, larger airport would be standing today.

I won’t speculate as to the reasons the accusers have said and done what they’ve said and done, steps which have routinely included distributing contorted and misleading information, occasionally disseminating patently false claims, and announcing what their "opponents" secretly think and want. I can’t explain the why. I can only say with utter certainty that it is what they’ve done.

I live closer to the airport and the busiest runway than any current city official or airport official, and all of the current candidates. If and when there is real reason to believe Burbank’s City Hall is weighing an expansion of Bob Hope Airport (and I’m talking about something beyond the addition of a bathroom or the purchase of a competitor in the airport’s pursuit of parking revenues), look for me at the front of the crowd charging City Hall with pitchforks and torches.

Talkin’ Trash!

Jan. 3, 2006

What’s all this trash about "out of town" campaign contributors? I don’t know of criticizing David Golonski for taking money from out of town people, and I think you just made up the whole thing to invent something to criticize David Gordon for. Had to look pretty hard, didn’t you?

Many business owners in Burbank live outside the city, and they’re as entitled as anyone to try and have an impact on the way city government is run. It’s certainly in their interests and I don’t begrudge them that. They’re not allowed to vote here, but there’s nothing wrong with business people supporting candidates they believe will make sure local government doesn’t ignore or unfairly burden business in the city.

David Gordon does have a business in the city. He happens to be lucky enough to live here, but he sure does understand how the city can help or hurt local business. In fact, I’ve asked vendors I buy from to help me by helping the candidate I support. Even if they’re in Paramount or San Diego, they know it’s in THEIR best interests to help support my best interests.

David Gordon is the rare candidate in the perfect position to help residents, and to know what help businesses need in Burbank.

Thomas Byrd - Burbank, CA

Response to TB: I suggest you ask Gordon or virtually any of his active campaign supporters, and they’ll confirm for you the storm of controversy we saw in early 2005 over Golonski’s "out of town" contributors. Indeed, it was scenarios precisely like the one you describe - out of town associates of firms doing business in Burbank supporting Golonski - that were targeted in the most vitriolic attacks. You could also consult the campaign literature of Michael Bergfeld, Golonski’s principal critic at the time, and newspaper articles throughout that period.

Again, precisely the process you’ve spelled out to support Gordon is the one for which Golonski was most loudly, harshly and frequently condemned.

Finally, with regard to Gordon’s positions related to the business community, what I do know is that he was the only candidate of five who wouldn’t answer a set of standard questions posed by the Chamber of Commerce.

Sentence Lite?

Jan. 2, 2006

Not a word about the light sentence Murphy got? Can you seriously pretend that anyone who is not a middle-aged white lady who held office in Burbank would get a sentence that light?

Carl Dolan - Burbank, CA

Response to CD: Thanks in large part to new sentencing rules imposed after 61% voter approval of California’s proposition 36 in 2000, the sentence Murphy received is fairly standard for a first-time offender, regardless of race, age or occupation. Some have argued the length of her probation period - five years - is actually much longer than the average defendant could expect. But it must also be noted that, pursuant to prop. 36 and other longstanding sentencing standards, after completing the courses she’s been sentenced to, Murphy is entitled to request "modification" of her probation - a reduction - and official dismissal of the charges.

We Get It, Already!

Jan. 2, 2006

Look, if there’s anyone in town who doesn’t already know about the hypocrisy of the gadflies in Burbank and the lack of credibility in their leaders, they’re never going to get the point. I think you can stop devoting so much time and space to these nutcases. I truly believe the only people still refusing to admit the double standards and dishonesty are those in the middle of it.

Personally, I’d love to see more of your hilarious columns and the stuff about your family and home.

Jim Clark - Burbank, CA