'Tis the weekend before elections
and all through the county
stealth candidates hunker down
anticipating their bounty.
There's Frazier up in One,
created just for her return;
'hide and keep silent,' say handlers,
so you won't get burned.
If voters really know her
they'd go another way
and she'd have to get a real job
instead of the public pay
And Rothschild down in Four,
who scared the clientele
into thinking boogy government
is sending us to Hell.
His public image is phony
and his politics extreme,
full of statistical baloney
so he can live out his dream
And Shoemaker paces District Two
hoping others do not see
the other side of dark ambition
and the depths of political greed.
How appropriate that the holiday
is not Christmas like it seems;
No, it's just a scary scenario
at this time of Halloween.....
Friday, October 29, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Definition of patriotism (a vocabulary lesson)
There are those among us who would take it upon themselves to decide who is worthy of being called a patriot.
So let us dust off the Random House College Dictionary and set down some rules for rhetoric.
Patriotism: Devoted love, support and defense of one's country. Loyalty. (No mention of immigration status, ethnic or racial background, gender or sexual orientation, nor of religion or lack thereof).
Jingoism: Professing patriotism loundly and excessively; chauvinistic (zealous and belligerent, prejudiced), bellicose (inclined to fight, pugnatious.)
Guess which definition best describes those who claim to be the best patriots.
Conservative: Disposed to preserve what is established and resist change.
Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform; favoring representational government rather than aristocracies. Open minded or tolerant.
Guess which definition the so-called Tea-party advocates claim as their own. Just for giggles, ask one to explain how the original tea-party crowd could be called conservative if they wanted to change the government.
Democracy: A system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic: A state in which the supreme power rests in the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen by them.
Subtle difference between the two; "republicans" are less inclined to have everybody vote on every issue. They like the idea of electing folks to make the complicated choices necessary to form policy. Guess the party affiliation of the most vociferous critics of government at any level today. Hint: Democrats and moderates are accused of being "leftist" or socialist. The other direction, uh, that would be Right, can in extreme circumstances become totalitarian, or absolutist, or -- under state control.
Socialism: A theory or system that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc. by the community as a whole.
Zealotry: Undue or excessive, fanaticism.
Bigotry: Stubborn . . . intolerance of any belief, creed, race or opinion that differs with one's own.
Guess who today is most .... Oh, well, you get the idea.
So let us dust off the Random House College Dictionary and set down some rules for rhetoric.
Patriotism: Devoted love, support and defense of one's country. Loyalty. (No mention of immigration status, ethnic or racial background, gender or sexual orientation, nor of religion or lack thereof).
Jingoism: Professing patriotism loundly and excessively; chauvinistic (zealous and belligerent, prejudiced), bellicose (inclined to fight, pugnatious.)
Guess which definition best describes those who claim to be the best patriots.
Conservative: Disposed to preserve what is established and resist change.
Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform; favoring representational government rather than aristocracies. Open minded or tolerant.
Guess which definition the so-called Tea-party advocates claim as their own. Just for giggles, ask one to explain how the original tea-party crowd could be called conservative if they wanted to change the government.
Democracy: A system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic: A state in which the supreme power rests in the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen by them.
Subtle difference between the two; "republicans" are less inclined to have everybody vote on every issue. They like the idea of electing folks to make the complicated choices necessary to form policy. Guess the party affiliation of the most vociferous critics of government at any level today. Hint: Democrats and moderates are accused of being "leftist" or socialist. The other direction, uh, that would be Right, can in extreme circumstances become totalitarian, or absolutist, or -- under state control.
Socialism: A theory or system that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc. by the community as a whole.
Zealotry: Undue or excessive, fanaticism.
Bigotry: Stubborn . . . intolerance of any belief, creed, race or opinion that differs with one's own.
Guess who today is most .... Oh, well, you get the idea.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Not yet ready for prime time club
Overheard assessment of commissioner candidates: "It's alarming how ignorant of the realities they all are."
The specific reference was to the statement by District Three candidate Doug Mathias that the airport renovations are a drain on the county taxpayers; some of the most damning criticism over the months has been that they only reason the commissioners were moving ahead was because it was such a good financial deal for the county. Maybe Mr. Mathias only recently started paying attention.
But there were other comments made that showed more astute observers of local issues just how much of a learning curve any combination of the five candidates will have before they are up to speed with the facts on waste to energy, the airport, taxes and spending, and even the powers -- or lack of them -- of the commission form of government.
To my eye and ear, many of the statements by even the better qualified candidates are charitably defined as campaign rhetoric. Some comments are silly, like the one about the county's participation in sustainability planning being some part of an international conspiracy to bring socialism down on us.
This is the truth: There will be an election, and none of the candidates to lead this county are qualified to make any serious decisions just yet. So it can only be hoped that the survivors -- I can't bring myself to use the word, 'winners' -- of the vote have enough collective wisdom to contain the hubris of the moment and take some time to make sure their next moves are constructive improvements, and not just demolition work.
The specific reference was to the statement by District Three candidate Doug Mathias that the airport renovations are a drain on the county taxpayers; some of the most damning criticism over the months has been that they only reason the commissioners were moving ahead was because it was such a good financial deal for the county. Maybe Mr. Mathias only recently started paying attention.
But there were other comments made that showed more astute observers of local issues just how much of a learning curve any combination of the five candidates will have before they are up to speed with the facts on waste to energy, the airport, taxes and spending, and even the powers -- or lack of them -- of the commission form of government.
To my eye and ear, many of the statements by even the better qualified candidates are charitably defined as campaign rhetoric. Some comments are silly, like the one about the county's participation in sustainability planning being some part of an international conspiracy to bring socialism down on us.
This is the truth: There will be an election, and none of the candidates to lead this county are qualified to make any serious decisions just yet. So it can only be hoped that the survivors -- I can't bring myself to use the word, 'winners' -- of the vote have enough collective wisdom to contain the hubris of the moment and take some time to make sure their next moves are constructive improvements, and not just demolition work.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Support your fire department? or Tea party? You choose
You can be supportive of your local volunteer fire company, or your recreation council, or you can help so-called patriots and tea party types take over local and national government.
But you can't have it both ways.
Example: This past week, the county commissioners refinanced a loan to a local fire company that had been backed by county bonds. The action saved that fire company $259,000 in interest payments, a significant amount.
The initial loans to fire companies help them provide services to their communities at lower interest rates, and do things that they may never be able to do in a timely manner on their own. The loans are paid back, over time, at no cost to taxpayers, but that fact is often overlooked, conveniently, by ultra conservatives. Absolutist types, like the majority of Libertarians -- many posing as Republicans -- tea-party advocates and Constitution-quoting populists, maintain that community organizations should not be supported in any way by governments. They would refuse grants from the federal and state governments on that principle, even though such grants are really just our share of tax dollars being returned to us. Their point is that refusing to use such funds will someday result in such programs drying up and going away.
In essence, what they are saying is, if you want to support the fire companies, do it with your donations. If you want youth sports, let the parents pay full costs of fields, maintenance, equipment, referees, etc.
Their agenda would have deleterious impacts on public safety, the courts, schools, health, roads -- just about every quality of life issue that makes this country a great place to live.
So you have a choice: Support local government loans and grants in the form of the tax dollars that come back to us, or be willing to live in communities that do not have the quality of life that we now enjoy.
It's a choice, and there may be arguments for either side, but you can't have it both ways.
But you can't have it both ways.
Example: This past week, the county commissioners refinanced a loan to a local fire company that had been backed by county bonds. The action saved that fire company $259,000 in interest payments, a significant amount.
The initial loans to fire companies help them provide services to their communities at lower interest rates, and do things that they may never be able to do in a timely manner on their own. The loans are paid back, over time, at no cost to taxpayers, but that fact is often overlooked, conveniently, by ultra conservatives. Absolutist types, like the majority of Libertarians -- many posing as Republicans -- tea-party advocates and Constitution-quoting populists, maintain that community organizations should not be supported in any way by governments. They would refuse grants from the federal and state governments on that principle, even though such grants are really just our share of tax dollars being returned to us. Their point is that refusing to use such funds will someday result in such programs drying up and going away.
In essence, what they are saying is, if you want to support the fire companies, do it with your donations. If you want youth sports, let the parents pay full costs of fields, maintenance, equipment, referees, etc.
Their agenda would have deleterious impacts on public safety, the courts, schools, health, roads -- just about every quality of life issue that makes this country a great place to live.
So you have a choice: Support local government loans and grants in the form of the tax dollars that come back to us, or be willing to live in communities that do not have the quality of life that we now enjoy.
It's a choice, and there may be arguments for either side, but you can't have it both ways.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Rothschild represents a costly fringe element
Richard Rothschild's comments at Wednesday night's forum confirm what I have come to believe from reading his comments in the voters guides and one the web: He is an absolutist, whose extreme thinking is out of sync with even the mainstream Carroll County conservative.
Oh, he sounds good. And he dresses well. But intelligence and the ability to articulate do not always mean one knows what he's talking about. He puts out numbers as if he has a complete command of the facts, but his figures on the Waste to Energy plan are out of thin air. No substance, but if you don't know, you have to be impressed with the way he talks. I can see a crowd falling under the trance of a false prophet, or a snake oil salesman.
Rothschild can be impressive to one who knows even less than he does.
Not to say that Rothschild does not get it. Maybe he does. But it's not what Rothschild knows that matters to him -- or to his more ardent supporters. It's what he BELIEVES that matters.
It's apparent to me that he is more interested in forwarding his ideology than dealing with facts. He is one of those to whom truth is reserved for the True Believers, the kool-aid drinkers of a particular demagoguery devoted to an extreme Right Wing way of thinking.
Not conservative; extreme. I am reminded of Sen. Joe McCarthy and the anti-communist panic in America half a century ago. The roots of extreme right rantings are found there, unknown to several generations, forgotten by others, but the damage that McCarthy did to America is one of the darker chapters of our past. At one time, he had a lot of people agreeing with him.
Most Americans opposed communism, but McCarthy's extreme witch-hunting put communists under every bed, in every closet. He manipulated the populace with fear.
In time, most Americans, even the most patriotic, came to see McCarthy as too reminiscent of another extremist, Adolph Hitler. His extreme thinking and flaming rhetoric became a national embarrassment.
Carroll County is a conservative county, and has, despite the campaign rhetoric of various aspirants to the powers of public office, been run in a conservative way. You don't survive the economy with a reserve intact, as we have, without conservative, sound, financial practices.
But the True Believers -- the extreme conservatives -- would refuse to take back the taxes you have paid to the federal and state governments, money we get as part of our share of paying for schools, parks, public facilities. The True Believers would end all participation in grants, spend no money on parks and recreation, for example, and take on the entire burden for those expenses out of a demagogic dedication to smaller government.
Smart is not what smarties say. Smart is what smart people do. Smart people will not be voting for candidates like Rothschild. Which is not to say he will not be elected. Just be aware.
Oh, he sounds good. And he dresses well. But intelligence and the ability to articulate do not always mean one knows what he's talking about. He puts out numbers as if he has a complete command of the facts, but his figures on the Waste to Energy plan are out of thin air. No substance, but if you don't know, you have to be impressed with the way he talks. I can see a crowd falling under the trance of a false prophet, or a snake oil salesman.
Rothschild can be impressive to one who knows even less than he does.
Not to say that Rothschild does not get it. Maybe he does. But it's not what Rothschild knows that matters to him -- or to his more ardent supporters. It's what he BELIEVES that matters.
It's apparent to me that he is more interested in forwarding his ideology than dealing with facts. He is one of those to whom truth is reserved for the True Believers, the kool-aid drinkers of a particular demagoguery devoted to an extreme Right Wing way of thinking.
Not conservative; extreme. I am reminded of Sen. Joe McCarthy and the anti-communist panic in America half a century ago. The roots of extreme right rantings are found there, unknown to several generations, forgotten by others, but the damage that McCarthy did to America is one of the darker chapters of our past. At one time, he had a lot of people agreeing with him.
Most Americans opposed communism, but McCarthy's extreme witch-hunting put communists under every bed, in every closet. He manipulated the populace with fear.
In time, most Americans, even the most patriotic, came to see McCarthy as too reminiscent of another extremist, Adolph Hitler. His extreme thinking and flaming rhetoric became a national embarrassment.
Carroll County is a conservative county, and has, despite the campaign rhetoric of various aspirants to the powers of public office, been run in a conservative way. You don't survive the economy with a reserve intact, as we have, without conservative, sound, financial practices.
But the True Believers -- the extreme conservatives -- would refuse to take back the taxes you have paid to the federal and state governments, money we get as part of our share of paying for schools, parks, public facilities. The True Believers would end all participation in grants, spend no money on parks and recreation, for example, and take on the entire burden for those expenses out of a demagogic dedication to smaller government.
Smart is not what smarties say. Smart is what smart people do. Smart people will not be voting for candidates like Rothschild. Which is not to say he will not be elected. Just be aware.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Questions for the candidates at the forum -- or any time....
Wednesday night at the Carroll County community media center, the usual questions will be put to the various candidates for county commissioner. Everyone will assert that they will be brave, clean, kind and reverent and maybe even truthful, once the campaigning is over.
Here are a couple of questions I'd like to ask.
For Robin Frazier: There is an allegation going around that she told former county public works director Doug Myers that while she was working for a bank, she gained access to bank records of commissioner Julia Gouge, and found damaging information that "we're just waiting for the right time to bring up"? Is that true? (I have my doubts that they found anything, or we'd have seen it all over the place by now.)
Follow up question would be, if she did access bank records of a customer for political reasons, can we trust her to serve all the citizens in public office?
For Richard Rothschild: Did he really tell a group of supporters that he believes people have a right to live in communities of people "like themselves." What does that mean? What does he really do -- specifically -- to earn money? Is he a landlord in depressed neighborhoods?
Does he believe in the Maryland Constitution, or does he consider it null and void? Does he believe in zoning (ask Frazier that one, too)? If not, what protections do homeowners have against land uses next to them that would destroy or damage the value of their homes?
For all candidates, but particularly Haven Shoemaker: Is it your intention to turn back the progress that has been made on residential growth controls? How will that serve the best interests of taxpayers, when it was the uncontrolled growth of housing and a lack of planning for industrial and economic revenues that has caused county taxpayers to pay a disproportionate share of the bills for schools, public safety and parks and recreation?
Here are a couple of questions I'd like to ask.
For Robin Frazier: There is an allegation going around that she told former county public works director Doug Myers that while she was working for a bank, she gained access to bank records of commissioner Julia Gouge, and found damaging information that "we're just waiting for the right time to bring up"? Is that true? (I have my doubts that they found anything, or we'd have seen it all over the place by now.)
Follow up question would be, if she did access bank records of a customer for political reasons, can we trust her to serve all the citizens in public office?
For Richard Rothschild: Did he really tell a group of supporters that he believes people have a right to live in communities of people "like themselves." What does that mean? What does he really do -- specifically -- to earn money? Is he a landlord in depressed neighborhoods?
Does he believe in the Maryland Constitution, or does he consider it null and void? Does he believe in zoning (ask Frazier that one, too)? If not, what protections do homeowners have against land uses next to them that would destroy or damage the value of their homes?
For all candidates, but particularly Haven Shoemaker: Is it your intention to turn back the progress that has been made on residential growth controls? How will that serve the best interests of taxpayers, when it was the uncontrolled growth of housing and a lack of planning for industrial and economic revenues that has caused county taxpayers to pay a disproportionate share of the bills for schools, public safety and parks and recreation?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Bang, you're dead. No I'm not, you missed. Did not. Did so. Did...
Watching political debates, or even the attack ads on television during this interminable political season, I am reminded of the games we played as children.
"Bang, you're dead!" said the cowboy. "No I'm not. You missed me," replied the Indian. "I shot you, so fall down," screams the soldier. "I ducked!"
And so on, and so on.
Somehow, we remained friends. No one ever won the war, and even if one did, finally, concede that they were vanquished by an imaginary barrage of lead, we returned to the ramparts, resurrected, the following day.
So O'Malley coolly destroys Ehrlich with reason in a debate, but the insouciant Ehrlich rallies with a scowl and an irreverent, "Oh, c'mon, Guv, you're not sellin' that to voters."
It's part of the game. Like kids on the playground, political players can say anything, tell outrageous lies about their own accomplishments, slander their opponents and it's all good, because, as I have heard all too often, "Hey, if you want to win in politics, you have to play the game."
I have to remember that adults did not bother to watch as we slaughtered each other in childhood games of war. Maybe as adults we should not watch the slander ads on TV. Hit the mute button, or just fast forward to real life, which will go on no matter who wins the political brawl.
"Bang, you're dead!" said the cowboy. "No I'm not. You missed me," replied the Indian. "I shot you, so fall down," screams the soldier. "I ducked!"
And so on, and so on.
Somehow, we remained friends. No one ever won the war, and even if one did, finally, concede that they were vanquished by an imaginary barrage of lead, we returned to the ramparts, resurrected, the following day.
So O'Malley coolly destroys Ehrlich with reason in a debate, but the insouciant Ehrlich rallies with a scowl and an irreverent, "Oh, c'mon, Guv, you're not sellin' that to voters."
It's part of the game. Like kids on the playground, political players can say anything, tell outrageous lies about their own accomplishments, slander their opponents and it's all good, because, as I have heard all too often, "Hey, if you want to win in politics, you have to play the game."
I have to remember that adults did not bother to watch as we slaughtered each other in childhood games of war. Maybe as adults we should not watch the slander ads on TV. Hit the mute button, or just fast forward to real life, which will go on no matter who wins the political brawl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)