Showing posts with label 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2007. Show all posts

Monday, October 22, 2007

The Future is Now

It has apparently become acceptable to treat politics as trivia, or its equivalent, sports. What a revolting development.

In sports it is reasonable to think that each team is giving its best, and that all the competitors are working toward a singular goal - victory. While we might be critical of a team's performance, or a single player's ability to execute the play, we never question their intention and desire to win.

In politics, it is a mistake to think that when issues and personalities clash, everyone is acting with the same basic set of good intentions.

And when a neighbor or relative tells us they simply don't care about sports, we rarely make an issue of it. As much as we might enjoy playing or watching amateur, college, or professional sports, we would never demand or expect that everyone share our enthusiasms.

Far too many of us treat government in the same way we treat sports. Too many of us consider politics and government as irrelevant to our lives in much the same way that curling or rugby are to the vast majority on this planet.

A friend of mine insists that a refusal to get involved in "politics" is both immoral and illogical. He says it's immoral to sit on the sidelines and watch while harm is done and illogical to blissfully pay taxes without demanding accountability and responsible government.

Cattle farmers rarely give money to PETA. 21st Century conservatives rarely donate to the ACLU. Jews don't support the Klan, and Tony Stewart fans don't buy Jeff Gordon merchandise.

So why do ordinarily sensible people abdicate their rights to self-government out of boredom or disgust while still sending in their tax payments?

The mission of this blog is to assert the lunacy of such a stance. Government, in particular city government, is not sports. It is not trivia. It is not a TV show. It is important and it is critical that we each become involved.

We are about to experience a city election that is shaping up to have the lowest level of participation in history. A good argument can be made that this is hunky-dory with the candidates. It certainly makes it easier to keep the good old boys club closed when most of the people couldn't care less who gets elected.

Over the next few years, in whatever small way we can rid New Albany of the attitude that politics is for "sleazy people," we will. By shadowing the votes of the incoming city council, we hope to demonstrate how "who" we elect affects our lives.

At a time when buffoons range all around us declaring that our property tax levies are too high - when those buffoons know that there is no objective reality to their claim - it is more important than ever to speak the truth. For so long as the buffoons believe they can get away with their diversionary and divisive untruths, we're in the drink. An educated voting public won't fall for such flim-flammery. It's our job to educate that voting public in time for the 2011 elections.

Don't give up on 2007. It will be important to elect the best in order to offset the damage we are sure to suffer during the next four years. We surely don't want to spend the better part of the next decade repairing that damage. Think of the few bright lights running for city council this year as our preventive maintenance. It will take a strong majority in 2011 to right the ship, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recruit (elect) some people to keep bailing.

Friday, October 12, 2007

District 1: It's Simple

We should be discussing the the impending ascension of Theresa Timberlake. At this point, there is no question but that the margin of the incumbent's "victory" in the Democratic Party primary (or as even self-professed D's might phrase it, "Democrat" party) consisted of fraudulent voters and others coerced or defrauded into casting their votes under the compulsion of the corrupt D1/D2 "machine."

Instead, we gaze into a grotesquely gerrymandered Westendia district where no one steps up to challenge the "grease-my-palm" incumbent, Dan Coffey. Not a write-in, not a Republican...no one steps up to challenge.

Considering that Mr. Coffey has never topped 1,000 votes in his two previous elections, why wouldn't someone challenge him? There is a palpable vulnerability and evident fear that emanates from the man, and yet, his re-election is a foregone conclusion. Were Coffey in any way formidable, it might be explainable. But he is palpably weak.

So, again overstepping the stated charge, shadowna5 opines on the election in another district.

Our recommendation: Abstain! It's a treasured tactic of the cowardly "Gang of Four" mentality. Why shouldn't the electors in District 1 adopt it? For those Republicans and Democrats completely dissatisfied with the choice, vote for the mayoral and at-large candidates of your choice, but leave the ballot blank on District 1. It's a foregone conclusion that Coffey will be the next councilman. A pending felony investigation may prevent him from taking office, but the only way for the voters to send a message is to suppress the vote totals for Coffey.

We'll be watching closely to see how many D1 voters leave that slot blank. As a man with no shame, Coffey can be counted on to ignore the clear import of the sum of those who reject him (after all, even one vote puts him back into office). A write-in is ineffective in that no one has stepped forward to file for acceptance of a write-in election. Coffey WILL be back. But the city will know that his only legitimacy comes from a tainted primary and a gerrymandered district.

If Coffey can avoid a felony conviction by pleading out to a lesser charge, he will have "earned" a state pension when he completes his tenth year as a councilman. That gives Keith Henderson two years to deprive him of it, and nothing we can do can make Henderson do his job. But, in all honesty, if the city, at the cost of a nominal pension, can rid itself of the stench of Coffey, it will be worth it.

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, this is the guy who promised to file suit against citizens seeking to enforce YOUR constitutional rights to equal protection. D1 voters, express your disgust with such intimidation tactics, such efforts to suppress the constitutional rights of all New Albanians. Leave your ballot blank when it comes to the District 1 race.

BONUS QUESTION: Did Brenda Scharlow (R), the GOP candidate for the District 3 seat, really say she supports a Greenway that despoils Silver Creek, rapes the Loop Island wetlands, and requires 4-wheel vehicular passage along the Floyd County portions of the federally-funded Greenway? Did no one ask her about the GOP platform that insists that the city remain in the city-county building, paying rent, when it is clear that a "City Hall" would be more cost-effective? And are my lying ears deceiving me when I hear that no one at the recent forum challenged Scharlow on the Republican platform plank that "Democrats have 'saddled' us with public investment in Scribner Place?" Aren't those pretty important issues that Mrs. Scharlow has failed to address?

BONUS QUESTION 2: Can any readers verify that Mr. Coffey abused his position to disrupt the community event put on by Destinations Booksellers on Thursday? Rumor has it that Coffey caused the C-SPAN bus visit to be "rousted" by city officials, even though all proper permits had been issued. Was this a retaliation against one of the owners of the store because he is a plaintiff in the redistricting lawsuit?