For the next six months (seven?)

Shadowna5 declares as an "England" supporter.

Gullible? Perhaps. Skeptical? Indeed.

But given the representations given (and I'll admit to an affinity for the higher angels) to this blogger, we'll "sign on" until at least June 1, 2008.

The smackdown handed to D1 council member Daniel (J.) Coffey at Monday's council meeting was classic, with the possible exception of the the inexplicable Gahan-Coffey twinship in creating the remarkably novel sewer jurisdiction. Against all counsel, that pair risk all to rein in an unaccountable sewer board by putting forward an incredibly risky power play. What, we ask, is the hurry? Are lame-duck votes so unattainable in the 2008 iteration of an 8-1 Democratic Party hegemony?

Granted, anyone who opposes King Larry earns, at least, my first-blush approval. But Mr. Gahan's votes and public statements indicate to this writer that a deal has been cut. I've yet to find anyone who can adequately explain the adhesive effect between D1 and D6. Did Gahan cut a deal with the least accomplished member of council?

I'm told that a remarkable victory was achieved in Federal District Court on Tuesday afternoon by the plaintiffs in the litigation to protect the Constitutional rights of NA's residents. I, for one, am eager to see how Eric Scott Campbell (The Tribune) and Dick Kaukus (the Courier-Journal) report this long-running story.

We note with amusement, in this season of NCAA football courtships, the ongoing recruitment of that worthy who styles him/herself as iamhoosier on the "Internets." Yours truly claims first bid in the war to acquire I AM (portentously heretical, if you ask me) as a contributor, but apparently the bidding has escalated, given the traditionally fence-straddling blog denizen's flirtation with blogs of all persuasions - progressive and insane.

May we insist that all who follow the legislative branch of the Scribner Brothers' dream metropolis consult http://highwayview.blogspot.com for coverage of December's "first of many" council meetings. Thanks, Highwayman, for preserving the record of discovery.

And while we're online, whaddayathink about that National Intelligence Estimate that indicates that the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate has been playing us all for suckers?

I'll report that we've been severely diminished by acute, but not chronic, health problems, which I hope explains our recent absence from the blogosphere.

News that emerged from 121 East Spring Street late on Tuesday, December 4th, in the YOOL 2007 is most heartening. Congratulations to the citizens and their counsel who finally petitioned for justice to be done. From all reports, that ideal was achieved in the ruling of the presiding judge for the Southern District of Indiana.

Will the defendants in Vogt v. City of New Albany dare to come back in 60 days with the very same boundary-drawing? Is Anna Schmidt that compelling an authority that the legislative body of this city would risk even more expense in trying to defend a patently unlawful apportionment?

Who, in fact, has made the greatest effort to save the taxpayers of New Albany greater expense? The Coward Karry Ling, or the selfless plaintiffs in the referenced case?

Finally, shadowna5 asks, for the second time in two days, why Mr. Kochert, the ever-diminishing presiding officer of the the "Common Council for the second-class city of New Albany," continues to blame Floyd County Circuit Court Clerk Linda Moeller for the despicably irresponsible stewardship of Mr. Kochert's body during the past six years?

Larry-boy, why do you continue to hide behind Linda's skirts? shadowna5 counts Mrs. Moeller as one of the heroes in this saga. Linda and her closest associates have tried to avoid this showdown since over the past five years. Where were you and your cohort? Why were 20 admirable citizens required to file a suit at law to enforce long-established constitutional principles of equal representation?

In shadowna5's view, LK and his confederates are fully responsible for the unnecessary expenses of the extant lawsuit. No one other than Mr. Kochert is more to blame for the irresponsible squandering of the common purse. Is there any more established principle than equal representaion? Why, then, does Mr. Kochert continue, in his vastly-diminished and diminishing legislative authority continue to perjure himself to protect a discredited regime?

No less an authority than the Federal District Court rejected Mr. Kochert's stance on Tuesday. Equal protection was, again, reaffirmed as a Constitutional principle. Mr. Vogt and his co-plaintiffs deserve our commendation. Discerning readers (like IAH) and contributors (ditto) would be well-advised to expand their approbation and approval to a greater audience (i.e. the readership of The Tribune) and to broadcast their agreement with the principals in Vogt by means of a letter to the editor.

King Larry and your court, quit hiding behind the skirts of Linda Moeller. Shadowna5 counts the estimable Mrs. Moeller among its greatest friends. Mrs. Moeller has, for more than five years, advocated an equitable redistricting within the boundaries of New Albany. There is no more cowardly an act than to pretend that Mrs. Moeller is your supporter. Mrs. Moeller and her associates have tried for more than five years to induce the council to correct its un-Constitutional act. Don't pretend that she is the reason that you continue to express contempt for the Constitution of the United States.