There are so many thoughts competing to be shared in this column these days that, as I write this first sentence, I don't know if I'm going to end up ranting about the UN, raging against the New York Times, or being irritated with KAIT's insipid [That means dumb, empty, and gushy, boys] recent feel-good "series" on "Islam in Region 8," or, ending closer to home, examining the idea that the voters of Kennett can't be trusted with voting directly for a police chief. You know what I mean? One gets the impression that only by being elected to the Kennett City Council, does a citizen become smart enough to vote on certain issues. One gets the feeling that the ordinary voters of Kennett can't be trusted to be objective in their voting, because, presumably, rank and file voters haven't been suitably baptized with the IQ enhancing wisdom-of- the-gods political waters of City Hall?

To be evenhanded, the city council and mayor, all honorable men, are only trying to protect us from ourselves, lest we fall prey to our emotions and opinions and vote for someone that the council and the mayor don't like, and can't "control." It's not a new idea, this ruling by the "Divine Right of Kings," it was that kind of basic idea our forefathers were fleeing when they left Europe. (We'll be having a seminar over at the barbershop on the "Divine Right of Kings vs. American Democracy," but for now, just know that in Old Europe the kings were thought to have been given their absolute control of the people by God from the Old Testament, but America was founded on the "radical" idea that all political power arises from God's ordinary people, who in turn loan an elected government the power to govern us, only as long as "We the People" agree to that arrangement.) However, one understands the council's thinking. They, apparently, maintain that their more enlightened members appointing a chief of police would create a more efficient government, and relieve the chief of police from the implied danger of being influenced in his decisions by a future looming election: never mind the quaint idea of our "Founding Fathers" that elections make our officials responsible to the will of the people.

One might ask why not strive for even more efficiency? Why not elect just three council members, who will appoint the mayor and everybody else? Having three members (preferably one hopelessly stupid, one exceedingly brilliant and one functionally deaf and blind) would ensure the perpetual comic aspect one yearns for from our politicians. Or to be serious for a moment, why not have a dictator, the most "efficient" form of government possible? Or, why not hire a city manager? Now there's an idea!

City managers are very handy, especially when the people have elected some of the smartest and most competent individuals in the community who too often don't have the time to serve well. Heave-ho-able city managers are also handy to have around when the mayor and council's ideas don't pan out. A city manager is blameworthy. A good executive secretary could do the same work well, but it would be her/his boss who would be ultimately culpable, thus an executive secretary would not provide the kind of protection (CYA) a city nanager would give an overburdened mayor or city council.

Currently, we have a remarkably competent city government. I don't have a quarrel with our present mayor or council. And, I applaud the chief of police and his officers for taking back the city's parking lots and streets at night. When they started, they had about 42 night time "parking lots" that had become public nuisances and dope peddling sites. One of those sites was across the street from Cotton Boll Commons, I was a frequent caller to the police department, on behalf of the residents here, and myself, because of the noise and traffic hazard. Working with property owners, the Kennett Police Department developed and executed a successful plan to keep those lots under control. For the record, I have no relatives nor close friends working in the police department, and I've met the chief but one time, so my views are meant to be objective. Next week I might write about police cruisers speeding without warning "lights," or parking in the middle of the street in front of the police station. I write today about the fine job they have done in reducing speeding on St. Francis street, and removing dope fiends from street corners. I admire our police department. They are hardworking and brave men and women who never know if some "crazy" is going to maim or kill them as casually and remorselessly as drug addicts/sociopaths regularly do on the streets and highways of our nation, and even in peaceful county seat towns like Kennett. Remember that this is only an "opinion" column. I'm not trying to be "political," and I'm not attempting to do anything more here than to discomfort the politically comfortable, and to give a little credit where credit (to law enforcement) is due. I'm certainly not trying to get you to agree with me. Anyway, let's move on, to something that really grinds my guts.

The other day I saw a group of out-to-pasture bigwig journalism "weenies" on C-SPAN mewling about large corporations taking over newspapers. At the same time, they were trying to persuade each other that they (the miserable lefty-weenies that they are) never took a buck in salary from a rich owner of a newspaper. At that very moment, they were prostituting themselves as mouthpieces for very wealthy left wing, tax-dodging, family fortune"foundations." Hypocrites! OK, so there's nothing new about that, but what got me agitated was how each of them called the New York Times "the world's foremost newspaper!" Let me ask you this? Have you ever held a copy of the New York Times in your hands? Well then, have you ever read the New York Times online? If the New York Times disappeared overnight, would it affect your life in any concrete way? Would its demise negatively affect you "spiritually?" No? Thought so. Millions upon millions of Americans are not readers of the New York Times. The so-called newspaper of record is a failure as an impartial reporter of the news, except for East and West coasts illiberal lusters for the discredited (failed world communism) politics of Fidel Castro or Jane Fonda or "decafe" One World Government socialists like the aging hippy, Senator Clinton, of New York, who would move to Nairobi, if it would get her elected. The New York Times is for me now a political entertainment "rag." I'd rather trust the National Enquirer.

There's no doubt about it, the New York Times putting front page pictures of any president of the United States, in a vicious infantile attempt to make him appear dumb, is more about the contempt the "Times" has for the ordinary people of the United States of America than about trying to shame a president of this great suffering and sacrificing nation. The publisher of the New York Times has never in its history pulled such a front page trick on Stalin, Hitler, Gorbachev, Castro, or Saddam Hussein.

A word about presidential candidates' intelligence: John McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U. S. Naval Academy, Al Gore scored lower on his entrance exams than Bush did on his, and John Kerry's entrance exam scores were lower than those of Bush, and higher than Gore's, but you won't read that in the New York Times! None of them, President Bush included, would have been admitted to their Ivy League schools, except for their family legacies. Finally, Jimmy Carter had a much higher IQ, and was much better educated than LBJ. Jimmy Carter was the dangerously weak president who taught Islamic savages that the USA was too cowardly to fight, thus largely responsible for the subsequent deaths of thousands of Americans. Lyndon Johnson, with his markedly lower IQ, was the president who pulled millions of Americans out of soul and body killing poverty. For whom would you vote?

Kenneth Kinchen is an independent writer with a background in international business and foreign service contracting.