Now, there is an error in the News-Leader story...the 20% of the income figure was for my ex-wife's total income and not mine.  (She tells me it's actually closer to 30% of her total income.)  Chad from the N-L had me wound up and going on about the financial difficulties on the families of autistic children so it's possible I said ex-wife so fast he didn't catch it.

We'll be talking about the issue with City Clerk Brenda Cirtin and the News-Leader, the City Utilities issue I mentioned last night and other city related issues.

GUEST UPDATE:

Sometime before 7:30 we'll be joined by Springfield City Councilman Doug Burlison and then at 7:30 we'll be joined by Springfield Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver.   We'll talk about issues impacting Springfield and take your calls.

If you're not in the city of Springfield, your opinions are still valued!  Any idea can be considered if it can help improve the city and the quality of life in Greene County.

If you have a subject you'd like covered, e-mail me, comment here or call in tomorrow morning.

Click this link to go to the KWTO website where you can listen live.

This is comparing the Spring 2007 ratings to the Fall 2007 ratings. KTTS remained number one again (they're like the 800 lb. gorilla of Springfield radio) and while they didn't double the ratings of the #2 station KGBX they came close. KGBX is the only music station other than KTTS to show significant gain although KKLH (104.7 The Cave) showed a slight gain.

The largest three talk radio signals all showed significant gains. 560AM KWTO, Jock 98.7 and KSGF all had much stronger showings with Jock 98.7 more than doubling their previous rating.

KTOZ (Alice 95.5) took a huge dive. Power 96.5, KZRQ, KOSP (Star 105.1) and KXUS (US 97) all showed significant decreases.

Now, if you want to compare Fall 2006 to Fall 2007, it's a little different. KTTS is still way up. KOMG (Bass Country), US 97, The Cave and Jock 98.7 show good increases. KZRQ is significantly down (more than half their Fall 2006 rating.) KXTR and Q102 took a significant drops as well from Fall 2006 to Fall 2007.

Chuck's funny on the air but twice as funny behind the scenes.  I'll have to try and catch his stand-up comedy act the next time he does a show in the area.  Well, if I can get past his obsession with George Michael and Wham!

I think I ticked him off when I stumped him on a trivia question about George Michael's Wham! partner Andrew Ridgeley (as to whom Andrew was married to...and I have to admit I had the wrong one on the show this morning.  He's really married to Keren Woodward and not Siobhan Fahey.)

We covered a wide range of topics but one that has kind of stuck with me is what Hillary Clinton tried to do to Barack Obama.   She slammed her opponent with a Nevada mailing:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is accusing rival Barack Obama of proposing a $1 trillion tax increase with a plan to require high income earners to pay more Social Security taxes.

Clinton outlines the charge, which she previously has made, in a mailing to voters ahead of Saturday's presidential caucus."

Obama said he would consider keeping the exemption for up to around $200,000, but anyone earning more than that should have to contribute more. He was not specific about what he would do.

"There might be some exemptions, but once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax," Obama said.

(That's courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.)

In and of itself that would be fine but it turns out Hillary advocated the same thing in Iowa:

"Three months ago, Clinton told an Iowa voter privately that she would consider raising the income limit as long as there was a "gap," with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. An Associated Press reporter overheard the conversation."

Why is Hillary Clinton being given a free pass for this?  Why aren't her supporters standing up and saying it's hypocritical to try and get people to look negatively on your opponent when you said you would consider the same thing if you were elected?

I know how politics work but this is an example of why people who despise the Clintons and say that Hillary would be horrible for America find such easy rhetoric.  This goes beyond typical political gamesmanship into flat out deception.  It's like a sorority slamming college athletes for drinking and hazing students while doing it themselves.  It just doesn't wash.

I find it hard to believe the Clintons can't come up with something more than this.  There has to be something Obama stands for that Hillary can stand against where she's not in league with his thinking on the matter.

Anyway, thank you those who called, e-mailed, text messages and left comments this morning during the show.  I had a great time and again thanks to Booms and Tom Ladd.

Click here to listen live. 560 AM or 99.9 FM if you're in the Springfield area.

The Jewish faculty told Lorene Stone that they were declining an opportunity to put up a menorah because they were "afraid it would be stolen."

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a Christmas tree is NOT a Christian religious symbol and that it can be displayed on public and government property. (Here's a case where if the tree doesn't go back up that we should see the ACLU come in with guns blazing to have the tree restored to it's previous position. Will they?)

This "Diversity Commission" co-chair, Chris Craig, said "this is not about legal issues. It's about being more inclusive." So if Chris wants to willingly ignore the ruling of the US Supreme Court...which he is saying he is doing by ignoring the legal issue here...then he is openly endorsing the discrimination against Christians expressing their religious rights. I know that some will try to spin it and claim that's not what he is doing here but rather just trying to "include everyone." Look again at his quote. The issue was settled by the Supreme Court. He knows that this issue was settled by the court and that it's not a religious symbol. Instead of saying "the courts have decided this issue and while someone may be offended it's legally entitled to be there" he is putting a Christian religious attachment on the tree and endorsing the discrimination against Christians endorsing the removal of that tree and thereby in his mind squelching the free speech rights of a Christian. This is Chris Craig endorsing an attack on Christian speech.

Daniel Kaufman, allegedly the faculty member who complained about the tree, is now claiming that did not complain about the tree but rather that the university would schedule events during Jewish holidays like Passover and Yom Kippur. Over the last 20 years of my life working various jobs I can think of maybe one or two Good Fridays that I did not have to work for my job. I've had to work on Christmas. I've had to work on Easter. Sometimes if you have a job you're going to have to work on those days or your employer is going to schedule something for your job on that day and if you choose to stand on your faith and not be there then that is the choice you make. Mr. Kaufman, I understand your frustration but there are more religions than just yours who have been inconvenienced by events on religious holidays.

And let's not forget here...if it's not Kaufman who made the statement then we need to find out which member of the staff is showing this religious intolerance and have them explain themselves OR someone was lying to Ms. Stone about a complaint about the tree being made by a faculty member of the Jewish faith.

Why does this faculty member need to be exposed and made to explain for their actions? They need to have their religious intolerance displayed the same that would happen if a professor prohibited a Muslim student from wearing a head covering in their class. They need to have it displayed in the same way a professor who refuses to let a Jewish student miss a class for Passover without penalty. We know full well if this deliberate endorsement of religious discrimination was happening against a religion other than Christianity we would see all kinds of outrage from left wing activists and the professor or staff member in question would find their job in serious jeopardy.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the religion upon whom it is happening and it's disingenuous to claim one religion celebrating a holiday (like Ramadan or Yom Kippur) is infringing and insulting another religion. I have spoken with many on the far-left who claim that anything that happens against Christianity is not discrimination because "the majority of Americans are Christians." Is that not the most absurd thing you've ever heard? Just because something or someone is in the majority (like basing on skin color, for example) it doesn't mean that you have the right to take away their rights to free expression when it does not infringe in any way upon other people. I know that many on the left are going to look at this and even if they despise Christianity will at least say "the court ruled on this and the tree is legal."

If you want to get down to it, diversity is about inclusion of everyone INCLUDING Christians. If Missouri State wants to say they're inclusive and promote diversity then they need to not only allow this tree to go up but allow Christian members of the faculty to put a manger scene around the base of this tree. Christian students at Missouri State University need to go this meeting that is being held at MSU and demand that not only is the tree returned because it's legally permitted but if the University is truly endorsing diversity then overtly Christian symbols like a manger scene need to be allowed as well. If Chris Craig is really interested in inclusiveness then let's see him actually stand up for it.

Earle Doman, Dean of Students, called Morningline with Chuck Booms this morning (and I was happy to get off the phone with Chuck to let him on.) Chuck asked about the quote in the newspaper attributed to Mr. Doman was accurate. He said the quote, "It's not a big issue. Some people raised the question about the tree and the best way to approach it was to take it down to discuss it," was not entirely accurate. Booms really put Doman under the microscope and I give Doman a ton of credit for calling and squaring off against Mr. Booms.

Mr. Doman continued to insist that it wasn't a big deal. If Mr. Doman had stepped in and said that the tree was legal and allowed to stand then I agree that it would not have been a big deal. Instead, by allowing Mr. Craig's campaign against Christianity, it becomes a much larger deal where Missouri State's stance on religious intolerance has to be called into question. The administration did not step in when legally permitted speech was squelched by someone with an anti-religious agenda. Why was it allowed to happen? That, Mr. Doman, is a big deal.

(On a side note, it was very nice to hear a local political talk show host who was allowing the opposition to have a chance to express their position and is open to opposing views. Chuck Booms may have grilled Earle Doman hard on this situation but he did allow him to express his view and Chuck didn't warp what Mr. Doman said to fit what Chuck was trying to accomplish but rather just challenged Mr. Doman on what he actually said on the air. That's refreshing and something much needed on the air in Springfield.)

Regardless of what happens in tomorrow's meeting, this incident shows the hostility toward Christians at Missouri State University that was also brought to the surface in the Emily Brooker situation (that the University legally settled with her.) It's time that a hard look was given to Missouri State to see if religious freedom is truly being allowed for all students on the campus or only selected groups.

I tuned in Monday and was planning a "first impressions" post here about the show but the Chuck Booms I heard that morning wasn't Chuck Booms.  He sounded tentative, he sounded retrained and he sounded like a guy doing his first show in a new town.  I hoped this wasn't the "new" Chuck Booms and decided to wait a day or two before I sat down with a critical ear to the program.

This morning it sounded like Chuck Booms was hosting a radio show.

I came away with the impression that this show will at least be more entertaining than the other morning local political talk show alternative.  Booms' quick wit and obvious comedic training gives him the ability to snap off a one-liner that leaves you smiling and shaking your head in agreement at the same time.   There's no question that Chuck Booms is going to elevate the level of that show to something more listenable than anything we've had since I've moved to Springfield in 2005.   (I would say it's the best since I moved here in 2000 but he's not quite above the level of the Ron Davis days yet.  It sounds like he can get there quickly, though.)

The only thing that disappointed me is that I expected from the buzz to see the show take a less Republican partisan direction and be more open to actual discussion of the issues without the RNC talking points.  Perhaps that's too much to ask in a market as conservative and far-right wing friendly as Springfield but it seemed like the opportunity was there if someone was closer to the middle than the far-right wing political show further up the dial they could steal a significant chunk of the audience.   If it's the same content then there's no real reason for someone to stay once the "new radio host" smell wears off Chuck.  (Now, a lot of that will depend how versed Chuck Booms gets on local issues quickly.)

Here's an example of what I'm talking about when it comes to his trumpeting the talking points.  This morning Chuck was calling out liberals who "support the troops but don't support the mission."   He went on to crow the usual Republican party lines about how you can't support the troops without supporting the mission.  He went on to bring up the old chestnut about spitting on soldiers when they returned from Vietnam and said that "at least in the 60s and 70s you were honest about your hate for the troops."  The extreme far-right feelings of Chuck were very clear and painted with a wide, intellectually dishonest brush.

Any reasonable person knows you can support the troops without supporting the mission as stated by President Bush.  It would be the same, for example, of being a fan of the Cleveland Browns and rooting for the players to succeed while being critical of the plays called by the coach or the players signed by the general manager.  This routine of "you hate the troops because you're critical of the war" is doing nothing but continuing to make conservatives and Republicans look badly in the eyes of many independent and moderate voters who realize that while the surge is working that the overall plan before the war was faulty and based on incorrect intelligence information.  At the beginning the "you hate the troops" routine might have been effective in silencing some critics and firming up some of the more moderate Republican base but those times are long past.

It can certainly still get you guest spots on Fox News Channel and it will rally the extreme right so perhaps it can work in this market to a point.   The vast majority of the listeners to Booms' competition would easily be on the far right in the political spectrum.  However, that host already has a trust level built with that hard core audience that really won't be broken by a series of Clinton jokes regardless of how funny the joke.

Then again, it IS a talk show so intellectual honesty in debate isn't an imperative item for success.  Hopefully this won't be the standard for debate on the new Morningline because otherwise it's just the same old local talk radio in a shiny new package.  It may be better than KWTO has had for a while but it's not anything that is going to really shatter the market.

Right now, I can't go either way on the show.  I wouldn't tell someone not to listen to it but it's not something that I would tell someone to wake up early to hear.  I'll probably go back in a week or so and sample again to see if what I heard today was more settling in by Chuck Booms or if this is the way it's going to be from this point forward.  Hopefully, the debate will be more real and we'll get Chuck's wit mixed in with solid common sense wisdom.  I would give it a "C" but I can't not acknowledge Booms' quick wit.  If the show's the same as today in a few weeks, that wit won't earn as many points.

Grade: B 

The problem is that Chuck Booms coming to KWTO is only the second most important personnel move that has happened recently.  The biggest move was bringing back someone to lead their programming team who is not only well versed in his field but also someone that garners respect among his peers, his employees and even among his competition.

That man is Tom Ladd.

Ladd left a few years ago to take a job with the Springfield Cardinals and my sources confirmed to me that he is returning to head up programming for Meyer Communications.  Ken Meyer needs to be commended for the very smart move to bring Tom back into the fold.  Other stations in town that saw the combined ratings of Meyer Communications properties over the last 12-18 months suddenly have to consider that Mr. Meyer has a programmer in the building who can stop the bleeding and turn things around programming wise.

There are very few men that I have worked with during my twenty years in radio for whom I would walk through a wall for but Tom Ladd is one of them.   Tom is one of those guys who has earned by respect to the point that if he made an emergency call to me at 3 am one day because he needed someone to cover a sporting event and his only staff member called off I would drag myself out of bed and go help him even though I wouldn't be employed by Meyer Communications.  Heck, I probably wouldn't even ask to be paid for the time.  (Gas money, maybe.)

I'm really looking forward to seeing what Tom does with the stations.  The difficulty rating of the radio game in Springfield just went significantly higher.