Tea baggers are all the rage with the news media. And why not. They can usually be worked up into some juicy quotes for the camera. It's all great TV. Visually interesting, lots of volume, and pathos all at the same time.
Pathos? One comment from a tea bagger struck me as defining their real issue. He said "They just aren't listening to us."
He is wrong. Washington is listening to them. How could politicians in Washington avoid the constant news stories, the constant bleating of the Republican Party faithful, the ever moving mouths of Palin and her ilk? The problem, at least from the tea bagger perspective, is that Washington listens to them and then acts on the voice of a different constituency.
Therein lies the pathos. The tea baggers have had their concerns held on high for some time now. They are concerned and alarmed that their voice is no longer the defining voice of American government. In truth, their signs could as easily read "What Happened?"
Are they nut jobs because they are following the tea bagger movement? No. They have their point of view and are entitled to voice it. Are there some extremists and half wits involved? Sure. The Democrats have extremists and half wits aplenty as well. Life is just like that.
Do I think they are wrong on health care reform? Yes. It's not a perfect measure by any means. Nor is it hideous. We have to do something and a small step is better than nothing at all. Because we all pay for health care for those who cannot afford it, whether directly, or indirectly. Hospital emergency rooms can't just magically absorb the costs of treating indigent patients. They pass the costs on to patients who can pay, or to insurance companies that do pay. The doctors pass their costs on to other patients as well. Municipal governments who support those hospitals raise taxes, or lower other services to absorb the cost. Insurance companies simply raise their premiums, or find even more ways to deny coverage for those who pay policy premiums. We pay even more for care because hospital emergency rooms are designed for emergencies, not day to day internal medicine.
Is health care reform a refutation of the American entrepreneurial spirit as David Brooks suggests? Maybe. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that health insurance companies exemplify the American entrepreneurial spirit either.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Obviously, this is an important case to the community
The evidence is in. Everyone has had their say. The press, with few exceptions, has managed to avoid telling the public anything they don't want them to know. And the judge has - instead of making a decision - told the attorneys to get together tomorrow and try to settle things.
Excuse me. That is why the judge gets a salary - to make decisions. Not to put off the inevitable of actually saying the NAACP is wrong about something. Because they are wrong. There was no racism in the decision. There was a lot of betrayal of the fine people who gave up a good bit of their lives to study and make the best decision they could. But, there was no racial intent.
The judge asked early on if someone understood the word patronizing. Jeff Woods, who is so enchanted with the plaintiffs that he must have choked when he was told to try and act like a real reporter for a change, actually thought it meant the judge thought the Board was patronizing. Perhaps, but which is patronizing: Telling families they have a choice, or telling families their children have to be bussed for two hours each school day to prove a point about how Nashville was twenty years ago? Or worse, to keep poor children out of Pearl Cohn?
Mr. Woods cites studies at Vanderbilt that schools containing more than 38% poverty are bad learning environments. No kidding. Hold the presses. Did he mention that according to the latest figures from the State Metro Schools are at 75.6% poverty. Did he, or the other plaintiffs (because he acts like he is one) explain how it is that 75.6% can be spread around so that no school has more than 38%? Did he even mention that fact, knowing it as he does? He quit being a reporter some time ago and has settled for being a demagogue.
Now, the judge has said that the outcome is important to Nashville. Gosh, really? How did he know? Yes, it is important to Nashville. If the NAACP wins this, if the schools must make the NAACP happy every time they make a decision, the judge will have taken the political process away from the voters and given it to a group of people who do not even represent the majority of the people they claim to represent. Because guess what. The majority of the families who were given a choice chose to go to schools close to home. They do not want their kids bussed to prove someone else's point.
If the NAACP wins they will set the agenda for how schools will be run in the future. But, they do not purport to speak for the community, only for a part of the community.
It is just sickening.
Excuse me. That is why the judge gets a salary - to make decisions. Not to put off the inevitable of actually saying the NAACP is wrong about something. Because they are wrong. There was no racism in the decision. There was a lot of betrayal of the fine people who gave up a good bit of their lives to study and make the best decision they could. But, there was no racial intent.
The judge asked early on if someone understood the word patronizing. Jeff Woods, who is so enchanted with the plaintiffs that he must have choked when he was told to try and act like a real reporter for a change, actually thought it meant the judge thought the Board was patronizing. Perhaps, but which is patronizing: Telling families they have a choice, or telling families their children have to be bussed for two hours each school day to prove a point about how Nashville was twenty years ago? Or worse, to keep poor children out of Pearl Cohn?
Mr. Woods cites studies at Vanderbilt that schools containing more than 38% poverty are bad learning environments. No kidding. Hold the presses. Did he mention that according to the latest figures from the State Metro Schools are at 75.6% poverty. Did he, or the other plaintiffs (because he acts like he is one) explain how it is that 75.6% can be spread around so that no school has more than 38%? Did he even mention that fact, knowing it as he does? He quit being a reporter some time ago and has settled for being a demagogue.
Now, the judge has said that the outcome is important to Nashville. Gosh, really? How did he know? Yes, it is important to Nashville. If the NAACP wins this, if the schools must make the NAACP happy every time they make a decision, the judge will have taken the political process away from the voters and given it to a group of people who do not even represent the majority of the people they claim to represent. Because guess what. The majority of the families who were given a choice chose to go to schools close to home. They do not want their kids bussed to prove someone else's point.
If the NAACP wins they will set the agenda for how schools will be run in the future. But, they do not purport to speak for the community, only for a part of the community.
It is just sickening.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Standing
There is a federal lawsuit, filed at the behest of the NAACP in Nashville, alleging that the school rezoning program is racially motivated and that it makes black schools blacker and white schools whiter. Central to the suit is a letter from the former director of schools to a school board member alleging that he got fired because Marsha Warden wanted him to use the rezoning plan to get the black kids out of Hillwood High School and he refused to do so.
To paraphrase from a favorite movie of mine: "Cough . . . Bullshit . . .Cough."
I know quite a lot about Marsha Warden, being married to her and all. I knew her when she quit a job because one of her bosses treated African American people differently than Anglo people. I have known her to boil with fury and chew out idiots who told racist jokes. I know that her most often repeated phrase while on the school board was "It's about the kids." It was not, nor has she ever uttered, "It's all about the white kids."
Charges of racism are easy to make and impossible to prove wrong. So, it is a shame that this person who spent so many hours earning much less than she would have earned nursing to help ALL the children of Nashville is stuck with the ugly sobriquet of racist.
Nonetheless, that is the one she has; not because she is a racist, but because of the political ambition of a few and the lazy "journalism" of a few more.
The school rezoning plan came to pass in part because of money. Taxpayers naturally do not want their tax dollars wasted. Schools that sit at 35% capacity waste money. Every school has to have a principal, a library, janitorial services, a cafeteria, teachers, and so on. Small schools cannot cost effectively offer a wide variety of courses.
More importantly, the school rezoning plan came to pass because the most vulnerable children - poor children - were being bussed past several schools on a 45+ minute trip to go to their school. Parent involvement is a critical factor in student success. And, once again, poor children were getting the short end of the stick, because their parents have significant logistical issues getting to a school that is across town.
So, a panel of citizens from all parts of Nashville gathered to give their time to study the issue. They had hearings. They looked at statistics. They brought their own unique points of view to the issue. They were not told what to do, nor would anyone think they could tell the panel members what to do. And the citizens panel unanimously recommended the plan that was put in place.
Oh yes, school books. Metro is deliberately mistreating its African American children by not having school books for them. Gliding past the interesting fact that the beginning of the academic year book shortage affects all students regardless of race, that dog won't hunt. Over 60% of Metro public school students move one or more times during an academic year. So, with the exception of magnet schools, principals and teachers have only a vague idea of how many students will be enrolling until the end of the first day. Books have to be gathered up, distributed, replaced, repaired, etc. It takes a while and teachers know to teach around the issue for the first little bit of school. As I say, that dog won't hunt.
Now, a suit is brought. And the parents are outraged that their children have been so poorly treated. Let's look and see about that. From filings in the federal lawsuit:
"Ms. Lewis is suing on behalf of her grandchild who currently attends John Early Middle School. Docket no. 34 at ¶ 105; Deposition of Carroll Lewis at 14-15, 25. Even if the assignment to John Early was a distinct and palpable injury (a point that Defendants zealously dispute), the Lewis child’s assignment to John Early is insufficient to confer standing on Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis controlled whether her grandchild attended Bellevue or John Early and Ms. Lewis chose John Early. Ms. Lewis received a school selection form in the Winter of 2009 that offered a choice between John Early and Bellevue. Id. at 37-38, Ex. 2 at pg. 2. Ms. Lewis and her daughter (the Lewis child’s biological mother) selected John Early. Id. It was not until August of 2009 that Ms. Lewis had change of heart and filed a request for a hardship transfer to reassign the Lewis child to Bellevue. Id. at 23-24, Ex. 2 at pg. 5-7.
Respectfully, if Ms. Lewis wanted her granddaughter to attend Bellevue, she should have selected Bellevue on the school selection form. Any distinct and palpable injury suffered by the Lewis child is “fairly traceable” to the conduct of Ms. Lewis, not Defendants."
"With regard to the Lawsons, it is not completely clear whether they even claim to be aggrieved by the school assignment plan at all because the Lawson’s allegations in the amended complaint only relate to the alleged shortage of books at John Early. Docket no. 34 at ¶ 55. To the extent that the Lawsons are also challenging the rezoning plan in this lawsuit, they lack standing to do so.
The Lawson child was not enrolled in Metro Nashville Schools at the time the school selection letters went out and thus did not receive a school selection letter. Deposition of Rigena Lawson at 66-67. After they returned to Nashville, Ms. Lawson did not contact MNPS to determine what school choices were available for her daughter but, instead, simply enrolled her daughter at John Early. Lawson dep. at 69-70. Had Ms. Lawson contacted MNPS, she would have learned that Bellevue was also an option under the plan."
"Finally, the Spurlock’s also lack standing to challenge their child’s assignment to John Early in this lawsuit because the decision to send the Spurlock child to John Early was made by the Spurlock’s. The Spurlock’s were given the choice to send their child to either John Early or H.G. Hill Middle School. Deposition of Francis Spurlock at 88, Ex. 27. Like the other Plaintiffs, the Spurlock’s chose John Early."
Funny how that stuff didn't make it into the papers. Actually, its not funny. It is an indictment of the news media around here. Truth apparently does not make as a good a headline as reckless accusations of racism.
As to why Dr. Garcia wrote the letter. You will just have to wait to see why he would do such a thing.
To paraphrase from a favorite movie of mine: "Cough . . . Bullshit . . .Cough."
I know quite a lot about Marsha Warden, being married to her and all. I knew her when she quit a job because one of her bosses treated African American people differently than Anglo people. I have known her to boil with fury and chew out idiots who told racist jokes. I know that her most often repeated phrase while on the school board was "It's about the kids." It was not, nor has she ever uttered, "It's all about the white kids."
Charges of racism are easy to make and impossible to prove wrong. So, it is a shame that this person who spent so many hours earning much less than she would have earned nursing to help ALL the children of Nashville is stuck with the ugly sobriquet of racist.
Nonetheless, that is the one she has; not because she is a racist, but because of the political ambition of a few and the lazy "journalism" of a few more.
The school rezoning plan came to pass in part because of money. Taxpayers naturally do not want their tax dollars wasted. Schools that sit at 35% capacity waste money. Every school has to have a principal, a library, janitorial services, a cafeteria, teachers, and so on. Small schools cannot cost effectively offer a wide variety of courses.
More importantly, the school rezoning plan came to pass because the most vulnerable children - poor children - were being bussed past several schools on a 45+ minute trip to go to their school. Parent involvement is a critical factor in student success. And, once again, poor children were getting the short end of the stick, because their parents have significant logistical issues getting to a school that is across town.
So, a panel of citizens from all parts of Nashville gathered to give their time to study the issue. They had hearings. They looked at statistics. They brought their own unique points of view to the issue. They were not told what to do, nor would anyone think they could tell the panel members what to do. And the citizens panel unanimously recommended the plan that was put in place.
Oh yes, school books. Metro is deliberately mistreating its African American children by not having school books for them. Gliding past the interesting fact that the beginning of the academic year book shortage affects all students regardless of race, that dog won't hunt. Over 60% of Metro public school students move one or more times during an academic year. So, with the exception of magnet schools, principals and teachers have only a vague idea of how many students will be enrolling until the end of the first day. Books have to be gathered up, distributed, replaced, repaired, etc. It takes a while and teachers know to teach around the issue for the first little bit of school. As I say, that dog won't hunt.
Now, a suit is brought. And the parents are outraged that their children have been so poorly treated. Let's look and see about that. From filings in the federal lawsuit:
"Ms. Lewis is suing on behalf of her grandchild who currently attends John Early Middle School. Docket no. 34 at ¶ 105; Deposition of Carroll Lewis at 14-15, 25. Even if the assignment to John Early was a distinct and palpable injury (a point that Defendants zealously dispute), the Lewis child’s assignment to John Early is insufficient to confer standing on Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis controlled whether her grandchild attended Bellevue or John Early and Ms. Lewis chose John Early. Ms. Lewis received a school selection form in the Winter of 2009 that offered a choice between John Early and Bellevue. Id. at 37-38, Ex. 2 at pg. 2. Ms. Lewis and her daughter (the Lewis child’s biological mother) selected John Early. Id. It was not until August of 2009 that Ms. Lewis had change of heart and filed a request for a hardship transfer to reassign the Lewis child to Bellevue. Id. at 23-24, Ex. 2 at pg. 5-7.
Respectfully, if Ms. Lewis wanted her granddaughter to attend Bellevue, she should have selected Bellevue on the school selection form. Any distinct and palpable injury suffered by the Lewis child is “fairly traceable” to the conduct of Ms. Lewis, not Defendants."
"With regard to the Lawsons, it is not completely clear whether they even claim to be aggrieved by the school assignment plan at all because the Lawson’s allegations in the amended complaint only relate to the alleged shortage of books at John Early. Docket no. 34 at ¶ 55. To the extent that the Lawsons are also challenging the rezoning plan in this lawsuit, they lack standing to do so.
The Lawson child was not enrolled in Metro Nashville Schools at the time the school selection letters went out and thus did not receive a school selection letter. Deposition of Rigena Lawson at 66-67. After they returned to Nashville, Ms. Lawson did not contact MNPS to determine what school choices were available for her daughter but, instead, simply enrolled her daughter at John Early. Lawson dep. at 69-70. Had Ms. Lawson contacted MNPS, she would have learned that Bellevue was also an option under the plan."
"Finally, the Spurlock’s also lack standing to challenge their child’s assignment to John Early in this lawsuit because the decision to send the Spurlock child to John Early was made by the Spurlock’s. The Spurlock’s were given the choice to send their child to either John Early or H.G. Hill Middle School. Deposition of Francis Spurlock at 88, Ex. 27. Like the other Plaintiffs, the Spurlock’s chose John Early."
Funny how that stuff didn't make it into the papers. Actually, its not funny. It is an indictment of the news media around here. Truth apparently does not make as a good a headline as reckless accusations of racism.
As to why Dr. Garcia wrote the letter. You will just have to wait to see why he would do such a thing.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Blinders
David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, has a lot of walking around sense. He recently wrote a column taking on the ultra conservative talk show hosts and their spittle-flecked furor. His point was that these guys summon up great sound and fury signifying nothing. They tried to throw McCain out of the Republican presidential nomination by summoning their troops, only to find that the real world is not as enthused with them as they seem to be with themselves.
Here in Tennessee we seem to have a group that thinks they are all powerful as well. The Tennessee Right to Life organization not only broke ranks with the Republican Party, they are actively dissing the Republican candidate as a way of supporting the Democrat they endorsed. They asked "questions" as a way of showing how bad the Republican really is:
Here in Tennessee we seem to have a group that thinks they are all powerful as well. The Tennessee Right to Life organization not only broke ranks with the Republican Party, they are actively dissing the Republican candidate as a way of supporting the Democrat they endorsed. They asked "questions" as a way of showing how bad the Republican really is:
Why did the candidate initially refuse to meet with Right to Life while every other major candidate did?
Why did the candidate publicly endorse destructive embryo stem cell research at the final candidate forum during the primary?
Why is the protection of life not on the candidate’s palm card or web site?
Nobody knows how the election will end. My bet is that the right to life folks will find themselves in much the same position as the spittle flecked crowd; making great sound and fury, signifying nothing. People who are stridently committed to a single cause and point of view end up with only themselves as a reference point to the rest of the world. They are surrounded only with like minded people because no one else is worthy. As a result, they slip the surly bonds of reality and revel in the certainty that they are right and that they must appear that way to everyone else.
The right to life folks are not the only ones susceptible to this syndrome. Liberals have a long tradition of such carrying on. While - at least to my memory - such behavior used to the be exception, it now seems to be the norm. No one can compromise on issues anymore because their loyal troops are entrenched to the point that any deviation means betrayal.
At least that is they way it might seem to be. As Mr. Brooks pointed out in his column, appearances may well be deceiving. It might well be that the majority of us are tired unto death of hearing invective instead of constructive conversation. I know I am anyway.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Supremacy
Sometimes the level of ignorance in our state legislature reaches alarming proportions. My guess is that idiots get elected on the principal of "How much harm can they really do? After all, it is just the Tennessee Legislature. It's not like it is Congress or anything." At least I hope that is the case instead of a deliberate choice to elect a moron to wreak havoc.
Unfortunately, whatever the motivation, our legislature has turned out some "interesting" legislation recently. The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is about as interesting as laws get. Senator Mae Beavers introduced the law which essentially says that guns made and sold entirely within the borders of the State of Tennessee are not subject to federal regulation. She said":
"An effort by the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce under the guise of powers implied by the interstate commerce clause could only result in encroachment of the state's power to regulate commerce within its borders."
Now, Representative Susan Lynn is learning more about state sovereignty and has been told "there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to override state laws."
So, Mae Beavers is defending the Sovereign State of Tennessee against attacks by the Federal Government. And Representative Lynn has been told there is nothing in the Constitution which allows federal law to override state laws. We are so proud.
The last time Tennessee defended its sovereignty against the federal government things didn't turn out so well. But, they are sure to turn out better this time . . . or not. It seems that the ATF does not smile benignly upon the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. They seem to think that federal law and regulation trump state law. And, they are right. There is a clause in the Constitution called the supremacy clause that provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Senator Beavers and the rest of the geniuses who passed the act, are basing their actions upon base pandering to the far Right. No, no. Sorry. They base their position upon another part of the Constitution known as the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We are just so lucky that this band of brothers in our state legislature is willing and able to beard the federal government and raise high the banner of state sovereignty. After all, there are so many gunsmiths in Tennessee who craft their guns out of materials coming solely from Tennessee and who sell their guns solely within the borders of Tennessee to customers who swear a mighty oath that they will never take their guns across state lines. And the principal is so gosh darned important.
No, wait a moment. Perhaps that is wrong. I know of at least one gun maker who wants to sell to the feds. At least there aren't that many buyers for 50 caliber sniper rifles in just Tennessee. Try as I might I only found one company in Tennessee that might fit the bill, Freeman Ford Fabricators. But, they seem to want to co-operate with the feds. Possibly because they want to be able to do business outside of Tennessee; who knows. As to the mighty oath part. That is not actually in the bill.
So, our mighty warriors are fighting a battle over a straw man they set up for purposes of battle. The straw man is not even plausible, and yet they trumpet their patriotism to Tennessee with the legislation.
It kinda makes you want to cry.
Unfortunately, whatever the motivation, our legislature has turned out some "interesting" legislation recently. The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is about as interesting as laws get. Senator Mae Beavers introduced the law which essentially says that guns made and sold entirely within the borders of the State of Tennessee are not subject to federal regulation. She said":
"An effort by the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce under the guise of powers implied by the interstate commerce clause could only result in encroachment of the state's power to regulate commerce within its borders."
Now, Representative Susan Lynn is learning more about state sovereignty and has been told "there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to override state laws."
So, Mae Beavers is defending the Sovereign State of Tennessee against attacks by the Federal Government. And Representative Lynn has been told there is nothing in the Constitution which allows federal law to override state laws. We are so proud.
The last time Tennessee defended its sovereignty against the federal government things didn't turn out so well. But, they are sure to turn out better this time . . . or not. It seems that the ATF does not smile benignly upon the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. They seem to think that federal law and regulation trump state law. And, they are right. There is a clause in the Constitution called the supremacy clause that provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Senator Beavers and the rest of the geniuses who passed the act, are basing their actions upon base pandering to the far Right. No, no. Sorry. They base their position upon another part of the Constitution known as the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We are just so lucky that this band of brothers in our state legislature is willing and able to beard the federal government and raise high the banner of state sovereignty. After all, there are so many gunsmiths in Tennessee who craft their guns out of materials coming solely from Tennessee and who sell their guns solely within the borders of Tennessee to customers who swear a mighty oath that they will never take their guns across state lines. And the principal is so gosh darned important.
No, wait a moment. Perhaps that is wrong. I know of at least one gun maker who wants to sell to the feds. At least there aren't that many buyers for 50 caliber sniper rifles in just Tennessee. Try as I might I only found one company in Tennessee that might fit the bill, Freeman Ford Fabricators. But, they seem to want to co-operate with the feds. Possibly because they want to be able to do business outside of Tennessee; who knows. As to the mighty oath part. That is not actually in the bill.
So, our mighty warriors are fighting a battle over a straw man they set up for purposes of battle. The straw man is not even plausible, and yet they trumpet their patriotism to Tennessee with the legislation.
It kinda makes you want to cry.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
End of the World
Well, wouldn't you know it, the end of the world is coming. And Jesus is coming with it. You see, the Book of Daniel tells us that all the recent foreclosures and such truck are a sure sign of the imminent end of Earth, the Universe, and everything in it. Son of a gun. Everybody look busy and innocent.
I read every word of Daniel. There were a bunch of them BTW. Let me assure you. There were many words about kings, furnaces, lions, rams. goats and Chaldeans. There was not one word about foreclosures. Not even one.
Jesus may well be coming at any moment now. Certainly Paul thought so. When Jesus comes, I am willing to bet it will not be over foreclosures.
I read every word of Daniel. There were a bunch of them BTW. Let me assure you. There were many words about kings, furnaces, lions, rams. goats and Chaldeans. There was not one word about foreclosures. Not even one.
Jesus may well be coming at any moment now. Certainly Paul thought so. When Jesus comes, I am willing to bet it will not be over foreclosures.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Total Recall
Yesterday voters in the Fifth Council District submitted a petition to recall Councilwoman Pam Murray. There have been complaints about her in the past. If I recall correctly, most of the complaints have to do with exactly where she lives. She says she lives in Nashville, in the Fifth District. Others say she lives in Detroit, where she works part time in a methadone clinic. Why she lives in Nashville and works in Detroit is just beyond my ability to understand. Nevertheless, she at least maintains a residence in Nashville and does actually work in Detroit. You have to admire someone willing to go to such lengths to earn a living.
Looking at the interviews of the folks leading the petition drive it seems to be attorneys and realtors. They say Ms. Murray is unresponsive. Unfortunately, the story does not go into detail about the requests to which she did not respond. So, who knows. She might fail to respond to a request to push a rezoning of a historic home into multi-family housing. Or, she might not be responding to issues about potholes. Maybe both. Or, maybe not. I didn't see any quantification.
What I did see was a lot of self indulgent statements that seemed out of touch with reality. I quote: "It has become an embarrassment to live in the Fifth District with everyone in the county laughing at us." Everyone? Trust me, no one knows or even cares all that much. She was elected twice. Somebody there must like her.
What bothers me more than what seems like some degree of self indulgence is the paucity of any positive outcome. Council members can only serve two terms. Ms. Murray was elected in 2003 and 2007, meaning she will be out of office in 2011 no matter what. So, this recall election which will cost @ $12,000 will shorten her term by roughly two years if it succeeds. And, it might not, she can run to retain office and she did win before.
Can anyone explain the emergency? Is it really worth $12,000 of our money?
Looking at the interviews of the folks leading the petition drive it seems to be attorneys and realtors. They say Ms. Murray is unresponsive. Unfortunately, the story does not go into detail about the requests to which she did not respond. So, who knows. She might fail to respond to a request to push a rezoning of a historic home into multi-family housing. Or, she might not be responding to issues about potholes. Maybe both. Or, maybe not. I didn't see any quantification.
What I did see was a lot of self indulgent statements that seemed out of touch with reality. I quote: "It has become an embarrassment to live in the Fifth District with everyone in the county laughing at us." Everyone? Trust me, no one knows or even cares all that much. She was elected twice. Somebody there must like her.
What bothers me more than what seems like some degree of self indulgence is the paucity of any positive outcome. Council members can only serve two terms. Ms. Murray was elected in 2003 and 2007, meaning she will be out of office in 2011 no matter what. So, this recall election which will cost @ $12,000 will shorten her term by roughly two years if it succeeds. And, it might not, she can run to retain office and she did win before.
Can anyone explain the emergency? Is it really worth $12,000 of our money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)