Seen the latest issue of The New Yorker? The July 11 – 18 issue just
came out, and Kansas took yet another hit. It seems The New Yorker
ripped off my cartoon caption contest idea and has been running
captionless toons on its back page for a few months now, inviting
readers to submit their own punchlines. Yeah, I know. We weren’t really
the first ones to do such a contest. I just enjoy thinking The New
Yorker would ever bother to look at and steal from The Wichita Eagle.
Anyhow, take a look at the caption that won this time. Click
to enlarge. See what wonderful national attention our beloved state
school board is garnering for Kansas? It’s not going to stop. Once
again, one is led to wonder: When will business leadership wake up and
realize the degree of eco-devo damage that our foolish school board is
inflicting on us? We can "brand" our state with futile slogans all we
want. The truth is we’re already branded. We’re branded as a bunch of
backwards anti-science hayseeds. That brand was seared into our hide by
a red-hot iron wielded by Connie Morris, Steve Abrams and their ilk on
the board. Made it all the way into The New Yorker. Read it and weep.
Posted by Richard Crowson
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
34 Comments
Oh no! They don’t like me in the New Yorker! They REALLY don’t like me!
Oh my heavens! The New Yorker in making fun of our school board!
Oh, wait a minute, how much is New York spending per student per annum? What is their high school graduation rate?
Why do we care?
Hank
Ahem. Guys, maybe you don’t mind being made to look foolish. But I guess if you never get out of Kansas, it makes no difference.
But, but does this mean the 17 people in Wichita that read the New Yorker (including my Dad) won’t like me, too? Oh my goodness gracious!
Dagett, I’ll put my passport and frequent flier miles up against yours any day of the week. Typical liberal attitude.
I am positive that even as we speak, wealthy businessmen everywhere have nothing else better to do than make fun of Kansas…
I wouldn’t even give our state that much credit.
Besides, we have a long way to go to overcome the reputation of states like Arkansas and Mississippi.
When it comes to teaching our kids the truth about evolution perhaps we should lead the way instead of simply brainwashing them like you worshippers of evolution want to do.
Read that and weep Richard.
You ever read the ads in The New Yorker? They’re for Phillippe Patek, Mercedes, Neimann-Marcus, etc. In other words, they’re targeted at the same people who read the Wall Street Journal.
In fact, I’d swear both publications share a significant number of advertisers.
Point being, if WSJ investors also read TNY, then it ain’t good for Kansas. Especially if they’re bio-tech investors.
And hasn’t Douglas County in general, Lawrence in particular, been trying to lure bio-tech players for a decade or more now? Lawrence would be a prime locale, too: close to KCMO, med school in town, university, etc.
Sheesh.
Wholly discounting bio-tech entrants to Kansas’s economy solely on the basis of our geography (or lack thereof) makes as much sense as wholly discounting the effects of the KBE’s creationism follies on the decisions of new industry to locate here.
If you’re keeping track, my point is neither attitude seems to be a healthy one.
And you know what? There’s only one of those two factors that we Kansans can control.
Folks, get real. We’re also trying to bring technology to the state. I’m not going to mention company names, but our image isn’t good, and a lot of it has to do with what’s going on with the state BOE. We need good jobs in Kansas. It’s not helpful if we present an image as a bunch of dumb hick hayseeds. and Nathan, in my opinion, we don’t have as far to go as you might think to catch up to Mississippi and Arkansas.
Oh…Bisoni….I just got back from Singapore. I can see why you’re down on evolution. You never evolved. Typical conservative.
Hawaii, here I come. Sreeeeee!
Seriously though, the whole “I don’t care if they like us or not” sounds good in, like, after school specials and seminars on self esteem.
But in terms of attracting businesses and JOBS to the sunflower state, it’s definitely not a good idea. You have brilliant young minds who graduate college here, and take their tax dollars elsewhere…somewhere with more potential for growth.
Sorry, I either don’t get the point of the cartoon, or else it’s incredibly lame and sophomoric.
As a person who arrived here from the east late in life, I can assure you that only the New Yorker and the kind of elitists who read it care anything about the issue or have enough familiarity with it to make anything of the cartoon.
So they sneer. Why should we care about people like that? They wouldn’t ever come here. This is what they call “fly-over country”. They are beneath the dignity of the fine people of Kansas.
It’s a non-issue anyway. The very notion of Kansas has been indelibly set by the dust bowl, tornados, and the Wizard of Oz. Until Kansas has some enormous reason to be considered a destination (like skiing in Colorado), making the state more attractive is an uphill battle on the prairie.
Gander Mountain and the Hyatt probably aren’t going to turn Wichita into another San Antonio, probably because San Antonio was larger than Wichita is now, when San Antonio started to get serious about its River Walk. Also, private investment in San Antonio was much broader. Still, it took years. I guess we’ll have to wait, too.
Tricia, we’re trying to sell a product here, our state.
“So they sneer. Why should we care about people like that? They wouldn’t ever come here.”
We should care because we need to represent ourselves in the best light possible. Making ourselves out to be a bunch of backward hicks doesn’t do that. I personally like it here in Wichita. I have an excellent job in technology, but if something happened to that job, I’d leave Kansas because the “good” job oportunities are elsewhere. Some of us would like to change that and bring good jobs to Kansas.
Bring good jobs to Kansas? Lower taxes. From a Singapore gov’t website:The fundamental tenet of Singapore’s tax policy is to keep tax rates low, both for corporations as well as individuals. Keeping our corporate rate low will help us to continue to attract a good share of foreign investment. Keeping our individual rates low will encourage our people to work hard. It will also make risk-taking worthwhile and encourage entrepreneurship.:-)
So Jimmy, in the competitive world of securing new business and jobs for our state, you don’t think image is important?
I’m saying that our tax rates have far more to do with bringing good jobs to Kansas than the supposed image of our state school board.
I’m not sure that’s all there is to it, although you’re right about taxes. Kansas ranks #32 on the list of business-friendly states from the tax standpoint: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/e7ed0dcfb442edeaa3d35c1c4f89a7b0.pdfStill, Image has a lot to do with it, and we aren’t doing ourselves any good in that area.
Jimmy, what if you’re the brash young owner of a great, young, bright bio-tech company looking to expand. In the model you’ve built to choose the new location you have factored labor wage rates, work ethic, the level of education held by the local labor pool, and the quality of life – as well as tax rates. In this model I have no doubt Kansas would score fairly well.
Further suppose your company, because it employs some of the very, very brightest minds in its segment of the bio-tech industry – and because it relies fundamentally on these bright minds for its success, its innovation – needs to make sure those bright employees follow it to its new location.
Now further suppose that your top scientist’s wife opposes the move to Kansas because, in her studied opinion, the best colleges and universities in the US will discriminate against applicants whose educational backgrounds lie in schools who deemphasize evolution.
Would you, as the leader of such a company, choose to relocate to Lawrence, Kansas?
Now suppose tax rates for state XYZ are a higher but the state board of education fully, unequivocally, and publicly (in the mind of top-flight American universities, that is) supports the teaching of evolution in its public schools. Your wife couldn’t care less about the additional $100,000 per year in taxes as long as the quality of life is good – and your children can attend MIT some day.
In this case, do you think the most important issue is tax rates?
For the married bio-tech entrepreneur who must choose, do you really think that decreasing the perceived quality of education available is outweighed by a few more tax dollars? How many tax dollars would make the difference to your family in this case?
Any entrepreneur I know is concerned about taxes above almost all else. It’s why they’re an entrepreneur, not an employee.
Most of the entrepreneurs I know are concerned about their new product/service above all else.
If you mean “franchise owners,” then, well, I’m not sure those people really look at state tax rates over local ones. In most cases franchise owners are going to sell their version of ABC whether state taxes are 10% or 20%, and whether the state teaches evolution correctly or chooses to teach its children about adaptation of species through only one version of ancient creationism myths.
Taxes are usually way down the line (April, anyway).
I doubt very much if entrepreneurs consider tax rates above “almost all else.” Unless, of course, they’re CPA’s or estate lawyers!
I am amazed at the logic regarding support of evolution. Based on information presented we should teach it as a fact, not because it is a fact, but because what others may think if we don’t. It would seem to me that our children would receive a better education if we taught them to think. It is my understanding that the BOE does not want to eliminate the teaching of evolution, but wants to present both views. Wouldn’t this allow the students to think rather than being forced to accept one idea?
Here we go again! The conservatives of this state have been driving the social and economic policies of this state for over a generation and yet they still complain about not enough growth, shrinking population, the demise of rural communities, high taxes, and on and on.
When will they be held accountable for all of these outcomes?
Zoom,
If you followed politics much you would know there are 2 parties in the Republican party here in Kansas.
There are the Consrvatives and the almost Democrats.
The “republicans” might be in the majority, but I would hardly even begin to say that the Conservatives have.
If that was the case Tim would be our Governer right now, concealed carry would be passed, and many many other things too.
Or you could say that there are the Republicans and the Tim-led “conservatives*,” and both groups usually vote together.
Your “many many other things” is certainly a scary thought.
;)
*–Tim’s group are most certainly classic prairie populists, not Conservatives.
NathanWhen do we get to the accountable part? Is it all the fault of moderate Repubicans and Democrates? When does the majority party take ownership of our problems?
There are a bunch of problems, which cant so easily be blamed on any one party in particular.
Darrell, are there any credible teachers who teach evolution as anything other than a theory? An unproven theory?
I don’t think any exist. And I’d bet you a dollar to a donut that, even within the hallowed ivory walls of the leftist-ist Ivy League academy you can name (even during the dead of night, when you sleep but the liberals all get together, light candles, and pray to lucifer – this is just before the orgy breaks out), even in that environment any scientist who says s/he can prove the theory of evolution will face the utmost skepticism.
Not only skepticism, but s/he’ll have to PROVE the assertion, using precisely the same rational philosophy or logic that recently allowed NASA’s Deep Impact to launch a probe so precisely that it was placed perfectly in the path of an ancient comet traveling tens of thousands of miles per hour.
You mentioned “both theories” above. I’m sure one of the theories you referred to was evolution, but what was the other? Do you think it can stand up to such rigorous (read rational) examination?
By the way, in business first impressions are, sadly yet primely, important. Such first impressions most surely include first impressions of both State Boards of Education and their policies.
I suggest reading the letters section of the Sunday Eagle to see what kind of image we have in the rest of the country.
“If Kansans choose to make a mockery of science and turn your state into a laughingstock as you move backward into the Dark Ages, that’s your business. But please keep your missionaries and their un-Christian, hate-filled message at home. They’re not welcome here among the civilized.”
Isn’t it wonderful that out of staters use words like “Mockery”, and “laughingstock”, and “Dark Ages” to describe us?No wonder businesses don’t want to relocate here. I’d say we have a lot of work to do on our image.
Yeah, I’d say the creationists are finding their efforts tarred by the big stinking black brush of the Phelps family.
I think it’s pretty easy for New Yorker or Wall Street Journal readers to group the young-earth creationists, the Phelps family, and the IDers all in the same bucket.
And let’s face it, IDer Connie Morris’s actions and words make the casual conclusion that she just might agree with Fred and his ilk (but is too savvy to publicly admit it) real easy.
This is not good for economic development in Kansas, period.
flike,Being an out of stater myself, I’ll tell you that Kansas really gets a bad rap, whether deserved or not. What you get laughed at for always has a conservative fundimentalist signature. You never hear something stupid coming out of Kansas liberals that makes national news. Most of my connections are afraid to go to Kansas; we’re not convinced that lynchings, burning at the stake, and Witch-hunting aren’t still acceptable in Kansas. You have an image problem.
I was born and raised in Kansas. Somehow, against all odds I managed to become a thinking person. That said:Avoid Kansas at all costs! The people here by a clear majority are somewhere around the middle ages in their thinking.
I second what JR says. Liberals should avoid Kansas at all costs.
But what about us Liberals who are already here?If all us liberals left Kansas, would there be any need to turn off the lights?
If Kansas is soooo bad and sooo backward, why do you live here? Why not move to where Hammer is – the enlightened, progressive paradise where “It’s all good”.
NoJoCo,Do you have any idea where I live?
It is my sad misfortune to have been born here. I have dealt with small mindedness( conservatives) all my life. I was once a conservative myself (voted Reagan in 1984). then I got into the real world.The liberal educates and enlightens. The liberal asks “how can I help people?”The conservative exploits ignorance in order to further greed. The conservative ponders “how can I use this to my advantage?”It is ironic indeed that the very thing conservatives fight against (evolution and survival of the fittest in biology) is the very thing they fight for in policy (those who have the gold make the rules)Of course the difference in nature is that those organisms not favored by nature had no choice in their fate. The same is not true in forced social evolution.In humanity, those at least advantage can fight back. For in social evolution, nature is not the arbitrary destroyer. In social evolution the destroyer is greed. Social evolution is of man and man’s greed. It can be stopped by attacking and destroying the men promulgating it.And as to intelligent design?HmmmWhat intelligent design promotes the destruction of creation and the subjugation of the created that SOME may profit at the expense of others?Maybe I missed it, maybe Bush is god