Last Friday’s Star was an amazing historical document.
On page A-1 was a story slugged “Semler vows to stay in post,” about how she was refusing to cave in to pressure from La Raza and the NAACP. And about how a group of protesters had frightened her by going to her house to request her resignation. (Protesting tip: Keep it public. Go to the parks board meetings instead of someone’s house.)
That story was bookended by a front-page story in the business section about how the local convention industry is worried about threats by La Raza and the NAACP to cancel future conventions in Kansas City if the mayor doesn’t remove Semler. Main point: “Publicly, local visitor industry officials are steering clear of the racially and politically charged debate. But privately some are fuming over what one termed Funkhouser’s ‘political tone-deafness’ and refusal to ease Semler out of the public eye.” It was a long story and a must-read that showed just how much we have to lose if the two conventions do pull out.
Here’s what made me the crankiest reading last Friday’s paper: columnists Mike Hendricks and Barbara Shelly. Hendricks argued that the mayor was winning fans by standing strong and refusing to remove the ol’ Minutewoman; Shelly argued that it didn’t really matter whether La Raza and NAACP came. Hendricks and Shelly both said something that creeped me out. Hendricks: “[Funkhouser] deserves credit for not giving in to pressure from out-of-town organizations…” Shelly: “Funkhouser would be wrong to tie his actions to the wishes of an out-of-town group.”
Those were the exact kind of arguments that Southern segregationists made about outside interference during the civil rights movement. In places like Selma and Montgomery, whities bemoaned the influx of outside agitators. We can handle our own problems, they said. I was mortified to see that same argument from a couple of columnists who otherwise tend to add decent points to citywide discussions.
Also weighing in: Ci Ci Rojas, a former KC parks commissioner and Hispanic Chamber CEO, now working in Dallas, in an “As I See It” column urging the removal of Semler. And Lee Judge with a cartoon showing Funkhouser having painted himself into a corner.
The day before, we’d heard from Semler herself, also in an “As I See It” (which the Star doesn’t seem to have archived on its site) explaining her reason for joining the Minutemen. “Because our government seemed to be consciously neglecting the enforcement of immigration laws, I felt the need to join with others and selected the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps led by Chris Simcox,” she wrote. “Their mission statement said: To see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.”
And the day after, the Star editorialized that enough is enough, and Funkhouser should dump Semler. News flash: As of the moment, there's still no chance of that.
What’s the point of this noisy roundup? All I know is this: It just proves how hard it is for this city to deal with its racial issues. We could use some rational, respectful and true dialogue these days, but so far I’m not hearing much of it.
Except for Mary Sanchez’s column in the Star today. It’s the best thing I’ve read on these issues so far in this town, if only because it’s calm and thoughtful. – C.J. Janovy









I don't know why people in this town think that the opposition to the MCDC automatically equates being a supporter of illegal immigration. I beleive that people should enter this country the right way, and Americans have a right to demand that we know who comes in and what they are bringing. I also beleive the MCDC is an ineffective polarizing force in America, and if you truly are against illegal immigration and want a viable solution found and our leaders to actually act on it, you should not support the MCDC either. I've been reading all the blogs on KC Star and elsewhere, and people should also stop calling this blackmail. Leveraging economic power to do harm to your political opponents is not blackmail, it's par for the course in today's politics, grow up people. The financial company I work for is currently active in what's called divesting, which is pulling out funds from companies, however profitable they may be, because of their involvement in the Sudanese genocide. Would you also call this blackmail? Nope, it's using dollars to send a message and get a point across, and no message resonates clearer than dollar bills in our great country. Is the message of NLCR that they support illegal immigration? Hardly. Their message is they oppose a group that would have every brown person in every city dragged out into the streets and checked for papers, because this is basically how the MCDC would "enforce immigration laws" if they could. I don't think they are nessecarily a racist organiztion per se, but they are a lighting rod for racists, and thats says a lot about how they go about gaining support. If anybody comes out with a good solution to our "illegal immigration problem" then let me know, till then tell MCDC to shut up and let the smart people deal with this one.
Posted at: September 11, 2007 4:24 PM