Todd and I were also invited to come in and be part of a smaller gathering at Koinonia on Saturday mornings (8:30 or 9 a.m.?) fairly recently that is organized by Dr. Cooley and others. Jonathan was there for that one. People who have attended have told us that this gathering can get more political and be hard on the mayor, but I can't attest to that first hand. But it's not sponsored by anyone official as far as I know. It's much more casual.

I think the more forums, the better. But I can also see why the Chamber doesn't want to be seen as taking sides in the mayor's race if it is perceived that the Forum is a way to help Jonathan's campaign. And these days, Jonathan does play a prominent role in the forums although he didn't seem to in earlier years. And he's running for mayor. So their announcement is logical (even as I'm surprised to hear that David Watkins didn't know Jonathan was running for mayor until he saw it in the JFP!) Most people I know have known it for months.

I have also heard some people who attended the Friday Forum (who I don't know to support a particular candidate yet) say that it has seemed to get more political in the months that it's been known that Jonathan planned to run against the mayor, but I really can't say if that is true first hand. I would hope that the Forum organizers would openly invite the mayor and city officials in to talk to the group without it feeling like a political thing, per se. I don't remember the mayor speaking there, but I may just be blanking it, or he could have been invited and not gone. I really don't know. I can't imagine that he hasn't been invited. That would just be weird.

So that's about all I've got on the Friday Forum.

As for "what it's worth": The above is obviously an unconfirmed blog posting without attribution or a real name attached to it so I suggest taking it with a grain of salt until a journalist with a name attached has a chance to actually talk to people confirm it. That sounds like a spin from someone with an ax to grind.

I don't know the ins and outs beyond what we have reported using sources with real names who aren't afraid to use them (including Jonathan Lee). I said above that I find it odd that Jonathan didn't just step aside for the duration of the campaign to keep this great event controversy-free, and it seems like an odd political strategy for him to allow his refusal to not introduce speakers make it look like he and the chamber are at loggerheads--it's not like it's a major role to be an organizer of a forum. He could be visible there, shake hands, kiss babies, etc., without sitting at the front. But I don't really care either way. ;-) I'm merely an observer and found his response odd. It feels a bit like a tempest in a teapot from where I sit considering that it's just over who organizes a forum.

As for the Friday Forum, I've been a good number of times. Todd and I were early guests back when it was Dr. Cooley hosting it in the small side room and about 10 or 15 people regularly came. Since then, I've been the speaker along with Sandy Middleton a couple of different times, including a few weeks ago when I couldn't believe how packed it was. It certainly has grown.

It feels like it's been longer than two years that the Chamber has been a sponsor, but I'm not sure. I'd have to look through old email to see for sure, and as I said, I only care so much, and I have more important research to do right now.

In the early year or more, Dr. Cooley's assistant arranged guests and sent out all the invitations every week. Then Nicole McNamee of the Chamber was doing it for a long time. I hadn't realized that Jonathan was considered an "organizer" until a year or so ago. We communicated with him about our guest spot last year and this year a few weeks before we appeared, so he certainly may have been in an organizing role in recent years.

I love the forum and would come more often but I really don't have the luxury of getting out of the office on Friday mornings very often. But we've had a reporter at nearly every Friday forum for years now. Almost every Friday one of our Daily stories is about the talk. So we're well acquainted with it, and I'm well represented there. ;-)

Considering the forum's role in the community, it does make sense that the chamber didn't want to appear as if they were endorsing a mayoral candidate. What I don't get is why he didn't just step aside for a few months and keep the forum from losing a valuable sponsor. Why would it matter? He could still attend all of them and shake hands. Very odd choice, IMHO.

No, BRJackson. The smarter thing to do is to read what we actually wrote. Assuming is for fools.

Here's the report:

http://www.publiceye.org/Reports/Coloni…

All, with the accusations that the Cathy family of Chick Fil A are against effort to *stop* persecution of gays in Uganda -- which I have not personally confirmed yet -- take a look at the above AP article that we ran last week about the U.S. religious right's efforts against gays in Africa.

I know: "unfortunate" doesn't sound like a word you use for abject bigotry, does it?

I'd choose "disgusting," "tragic," "unconscionable," "abhorrent," perhaps. But getting Bryant to go that far is probably something. I'm sure he has a supporter or two that thinks he shouldn't have been so hard on them.

Bubba, BR, Scrappy: While y'all gun boyz are whipping out your rifles and weapons to do these uber-important side-by-side comparisons, I'm a bit more concerned about the point of the editorial: families dying due to gun violence. So I'll continue to ignore the trivia and let y'all figure out what you want your toys to be called.

I don't give a damn.

A good place to start is making sure these law-abiding citizens who are about to explode into murderous rampages can't walk into a big-box outlet and buy an assault weapon.

We definitely do not do that, Kdavis. We also don't insert multiple copies of the same national big-box outlet flyer in to thicken the paper up. ;-)