Before passage of the Ohio budget in late December, Senate Republicans removed from the bill a provision that would have cut legislative salaries by five percent. This is great news to tax-weary Ohioans, knowing that legislators have so favored themselves because they only make $60,584 a year for part-time jobs with full benefits.
We appreciate their exemplary performance in not only representing their own interests, but for having frittered countless opportunities to do something important - anything important - but have used their time, instead, to bash political opponents as they try to influence the next election.
Thomas Suddes, whose political commentary is reproduced in the Dispatch, wrote on 12/13/09 “The only differences between the Republican-run Ohio Senate and the Ringling Bros. circus is that the Senate doesn't charge admission (unless you lobby), and Ringling clowns are professionals.”
In this essay he reports that of the 219 Senate bills introduced in 2009 three reached the governor’s desk. “That means (a) most Senate bills are just publicity stunts ... or (b) Republican senators ... aren’t dying of overwork.” Read his essay here. I personally favor the (a) option. And the (b) option.
While the solution for school financing has never been more distant in Ohio law books, our lawmakers nevertheless reserve plenty of time to interfere with lives of constituents. Consider wine purchases and auto wipers.
They had time to protect the interests of the Ohio Wine Producers Association with a new law that limits your household to no more than 24 cases of wine in one year. To understand the details, here’s a link to the Dispatch report.
Also, Ohio’s new law that makes little people turn on their lights when they use their auto wipers went into effect recently. That should draw international ridicule for crude and disruptive government interference.
It is, of course, one of those publicity stunts, but one that backfired with people who know in their hearts they are smart enough to figure out when to turn on their lights. Just when you think government has reached the limit for stupidity, along comes something like this.
Remember, on election day, not those politicians’ deprecating proclamations; remember their performance. If your public servants haven’t been part of the solution to your problems then they are a cause of your problems. That will be the only important point of focus when you step in the voting booth.
EDIT 1/5/10
State Rep. Jay Hottinger wasn’t in the crosshairs of this essay because he isn’t a senator. He is, however, among those I’ve indirectly criticized, without naming him, for what I’ve called, politely, “deprecating proclamations.”
I’m glad he called me 1/4/10 to brief me on his position regarding the state budget and other matters. As our representative from the 71st District we should keep up on what he’s thinking and how he’s voting, but unfortunately there is no easy way to do this, given the lack of interest by the Advocate and the Dispatch.
Related to the above essay, Jay said he supports the 5% pay cut for legislators and he voted against the windshield wiper bill.
He also addressed the state of Ohio economics. Most everyone who cares knows he is a loud and frequent critic of Governor Stickland’s budget. He said this is because it allows for a $5-$8 billion short-fall in a few years.
I said, ok, what are your solutions? He rattled off several possibilities, often adding that he wasn’t sure he’d fully support each of them or some such disclaimer. But from my hasty and incomplete notes, here’s what he said:
One source of more income would be a penny added to the sales tax. That would produce a billion dollars a year, he said.
The rest of his ideas were focused on the other side of the balance sheet: savings. Here are areas he would study: 1) Reform government pensions; 2) make cost-saving corrections in the way the state bids and awards construction projects; 3) prison reforms that would provide for fewer inmates; 4) reduced reimbursement to nursing homes by Medicaid; 5) privatization of the Ohio Turnpike; 6) repeal what are or will be non-funded mandates to schools such as the proposals for a) all-day kindergarten; b) adding 20 days to the school year; c) teacher ratio of 15 students per teacher (presently it is 21-1).
Without adding my thoughts about his thoughts at this point, that’s what he said.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, January 4, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Merry politics
Merry politics to whomever wrote this and sent it out as one of those endlessly forwarded e-mails. And apologies to the author, as well, because I changed the salutations from “Democrats” for the first salutation and “Republicans” for the second. I like my version better.
To those who put politics above the meaning and value of Christmas:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish-ee.
To everyone else:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
To those who put politics above the meaning and value of Christmas:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish-ee.
To everyone else:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Zack Space is listening to me
Who is it, exactly, that Zack Space isn’t listening to? The question is germane to Newark because Zack is scheduled to appear at The Works at 10 a.m. today and someone called an acquaintance and asked her to show up and yell at Zack: “You’re not listening to us.”
I really dislike people who cling blindly to either party’s line - in this case the GOP’s - and make their “intellectual” points by yelling inanities. If this demonstration went as planned, it was just another ruffian shout-down at a U.S. Congressman who came to Newark to honor veterans.
The Democrats, particularly before the Obama presidency, were no less ignorant and annoying. In fact, I give them more credit than Fox “News” for instigating piggish behavior, though Fox has improved upon it to the point where I strictly avoid exposure to it. I avoid exposure to those of both parties who preach from behind political-party blinders.
For the record, Zack Space is listening to me and to people like me. Anyone who yells otherwise at him from the street is ignorant and boorish.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Legislators, amputate this taxpayer tit
Now that the editorial clout of newspapers is a thing of the past, maybe Ohio legislators will have the courage to cut off the taxpayer tit defined as “legal advertising.” It was always an overkill in costly verbiage; today it is foolish waste.
It has always been overkill because of the unnecessary requirement to reproduce the lawyer talk which - as anyone who’s ever tried to read this stuff can easily determine - is virtually incomprehensible and, except for the barest summary, is unnecessary. Take, for example, surveyor descriptions in foreclosure ads. Beefcake for newspaper publishers; available by reference to court records to anyone who needs it. That’s a decades-long rip-off by newspapers, paid for by taxes, courtesy of politicians.
These days it’s an abundantly apparent waste because it can and should - for easier access and comprehension - be published at no charge to taxpayers on the web.
USA Today published an article about the trend that will eventually amputate this taxpayer tit. Read it here.
Ohio legislators can now safely support it, because newspaper readers are jumping ship and the ship’s editorialists are passing gas to empty pews.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Columbus Dispatch, your self-righteousness stinks
The Columbus Dispatch today (3/14/09) in an editorial at this link pontificated mightily about Congressional earmarks. “Despite brave words about reform, unexamined earmark spending continues unabated,” it said.
Then quickly (third paragraph) implied one of the bad guys responsible for this “omnibus spending measure” with “more than 8,500 earmarks” was President Obama, a Democrat.
Then the Dispatch burned up several paragraphs about the injustices to be found in this particular pork patch, mentioning the follies of a California representative, a Democrat, and an Iowa Senator, a Democrat. Then, in a flourish of self-righteous anger, says: “The public back home should be telling their Congress members: Enough already. This pork process stinks -- and we already know why.”
What the Dispatch failed to mention was that its favorite son, Ohio Senator Georgie Voinovich, a Republican - who loudly and self-righteously opposed the omnibus spending bill - was among leaders of the congressional porker pack with $13.5 million in earmarks attached to this bill.
This is a textbook example of how media, big and small, fail readers, fail taxpayers, and fail America: they do not, they will not, expose their golden-haired friends to voters, not so long as they belong to the right political party.
The public back home should be telling their newspaper editors - and the Dispatch editor in particular - enough, already. Your newspaper and your lousy self-righteousness and your putrid, slanted reportage stinks - and we have known why for a long time.
Then quickly (third paragraph) implied one of the bad guys responsible for this “omnibus spending measure” with “more than 8,500 earmarks” was President Obama, a Democrat.
Then the Dispatch burned up several paragraphs about the injustices to be found in this particular pork patch, mentioning the follies of a California representative, a Democrat, and an Iowa Senator, a Democrat. Then, in a flourish of self-righteous anger, says: “The public back home should be telling their Congress members: Enough already. This pork process stinks -- and we already know why.”
What the Dispatch failed to mention was that its favorite son, Ohio Senator Georgie Voinovich, a Republican - who loudly and self-righteously opposed the omnibus spending bill - was among leaders of the congressional porker pack with $13.5 million in earmarks attached to this bill.
This is a textbook example of how media, big and small, fail readers, fail taxpayers, and fail America: they do not, they will not, expose their golden-haired friends to voters, not so long as they belong to the right political party.
The public back home should be telling their newspaper editors - and the Dispatch editor in particular - enough, already. Your newspaper and your lousy self-righteousness and your putrid, slanted reportage stinks - and we have known why for a long time.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Solve Newark’s trash problems by enforcing the law
If hot air from politicians could solve problems, Newark’s trash would have long ago melted and our city would by now be pristine.
It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.
And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.
The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.
This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.
Look at 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.
This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?
It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.
And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.
The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.
This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.
Look at 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.
This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Another plan to pick pockets of citizens
Along comes another special interest group to push a dumb idea on local people for the sake of private profit. This time it's the highway engineers who want to make Ohio 16 a toll road. Can you imagine a toll road through the heart of Newark and Licking County? Sheesh.
A representative of the Ohio Engineers Association told a gathering of officials from seven Ohio counties this was the only option for pushing westward on the Columbus-to-Pittsburgh connector; that no other funds are available.
He failed to mention who, exactly, needs such a connector. He failed to mention that, if and when motorists ever need such a connector, the road would be funded exactly as are other highway construction projects.
But the idea for this thing doesn't come from motorists' needs. It comes from profiteers like the engineers and other profiteers up and down the connector.
The engineers' mouthpiece said, according to the Advocate report, that it would be difficult to get support of local officials. He failed to mention that the reason is nobody wants or needs such a monstrosity - expensive to build and expensive and inconvenient to use.
Though he didn't commit himself in the Advocate report, likely the engineers could count on Doug Smith. He's the Licking County commissioner who so far has dodged voter retaliation for his part in placing a sales tax on citizens without their consent. For elected officials to back the idea of the toll road would require they "not think of it as impediment to the next election," he was quoted as saying. Right. They may not be as lucky as Commissioner Smith.
A representative of the Ohio Engineers Association told a gathering of officials from seven Ohio counties this was the only option for pushing westward on the Columbus-to-Pittsburgh connector; that no other funds are available.
He failed to mention who, exactly, needs such a connector. He failed to mention that, if and when motorists ever need such a connector, the road would be funded exactly as are other highway construction projects.
But the idea for this thing doesn't come from motorists' needs. It comes from profiteers like the engineers and other profiteers up and down the connector.
The engineers' mouthpiece said, according to the Advocate report, that it would be difficult to get support of local officials. He failed to mention that the reason is nobody wants or needs such a monstrosity - expensive to build and expensive and inconvenient to use.
Though he didn't commit himself in the Advocate report, likely the engineers could count on Doug Smith. He's the Licking County commissioner who so far has dodged voter retaliation for his part in placing a sales tax on citizens without their consent. For elected officials to back the idea of the toll road would require they "not think of it as impediment to the next election," he was quoted as saying. Right. They may not be as lucky as Commissioner Smith.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama victory is now certain
On December 14, 2007 I announced that Obama would win (You read it here first: Obama will win).
I based that prediction on the fact that Oprah had anointed him with her endorsement.
Today I can confirm that I was right because today I am joined by the kids who vote in the Weekly Reader poll.
They gave Obama 54.7 percent of the vote, McCain 42.9 percent and others 2.5 percent. Obama won 420 electoral college votes from 33 states, including Ohio and McCain's home state of Arizona, and McCain got 118 electoral votes from 17 states.
Weekly Reader kids have accurately predicted winners in 12 of the past 13 presidential elections.
I based that prediction on the fact that Oprah had anointed him with her endorsement.
Today I can confirm that I was right because today I am joined by the kids who vote in the Weekly Reader poll.
They gave Obama 54.7 percent of the vote, McCain 42.9 percent and others 2.5 percent. Obama won 420 electoral college votes from 33 states, including Ohio and McCain's home state of Arizona, and McCain got 118 electoral votes from 17 states.
Weekly Reader kids have accurately predicted winners in 12 of the past 13 presidential elections.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Will Tim Bubb survive in the Political Game of Chicken?
Lest voters failed to pick up on it in yesterday's print edition of the Advocate, two candidates for county commissioner said they would work to remove the 1/2% sales tax imposed without voter approval by Commissioners Bubb and Smith.
Bubb and Smith were playing Political Game of Chicken, in which elected officials bet their careers that voters won't remember instances of insolence. I think they will remember, but we'll see.
Mark Van Buren, running against Brad Feightner, and Doug Moreland, running against Tim Bubb, have pledged to roll back that tax. You can go to the Advocate's on-line voter guide and compare candidates' positions on this tax thanks to the editors, whose first question to all commissioner candidates was: "Do you agree with the decision to increase the sales tax two years ago without voter input? Would you consider eliminating it?."
If voters are smart enough to replace Bubb with Moreland, that will leave only Doug Smith as the commissioner who voted to stuff citizens by giving them an end-run on taxes. (Last commissioner election, Smith did win the Game when voters re-elected him.) And Mark Van Buren over Feightner is a good bet, even if it weren't for the tax issue.
My previous rants on abuse of power by Bubb and Smith are linked here.
Bubb and Smith were playing Political Game of Chicken, in which elected officials bet their careers that voters won't remember instances of insolence. I think they will remember, but we'll see.
Mark Van Buren, running against Brad Feightner, and Doug Moreland, running against Tim Bubb, have pledged to roll back that tax. You can go to the Advocate's on-line voter guide and compare candidates' positions on this tax thanks to the editors, whose first question to all commissioner candidates was: "Do you agree with the decision to increase the sales tax two years ago without voter input? Would you consider eliminating it?."
If voters are smart enough to replace Bubb with Moreland, that will leave only Doug Smith as the commissioner who voted to stuff citizens by giving them an end-run on taxes. (Last commissioner election, Smith did win the Game when voters re-elected him.) And Mark Van Buren over Feightner is a good bet, even if it weren't for the tax issue.
My previous rants on abuse of power by Bubb and Smith are linked here.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Newark leaders looking for a smarter way to do business
What qualification do you need to become a professional manager of Newark's affairs? That single qualification would be the ability to draw votes, though Newark's affairs include the collection and expenditure of millions of dollars and the supervision of many employes, most of them doing very specialized jobs.
This could soon change, thanks to agreement among Newark leaders to study a proposal for the city-manager form of government.
Our present managers include the mayor and the members of city council. They come off the street with widely varied backgrounds but no experience in city management. They are given on-the-job training, all the while taking guidance from political parties, campaign contributors and schmoozing everybody else for next election.
These managers don't get paid much and they work long hours. Thanks to critics like me, their jobs are frequently frustrating and unrewarding. How such jobs attract any candidates - let alone any good candidates - is a mystery.
Compare that to the use of a professional municipal manager. Such a person would know how to run public affairs by virtue of education and experience. Just as important, a manager is insulated from political parties and campaign-contributor influence.
I've pleaded the case for this kind of government before: (5/5/08 Let's spend $54,000 to find out why we spent it) and (5/9/08 Yes, we do need a city manager) for instance.
Yesterday's Advocate report Newark leaders to study city manager form of government came as a welcomed surprise. The promise is only to study the proposal for a city manager, but that proposal has been well-conceived and put on firm foundation. It has the backing of the mayor, two former mayors, the president of council, and council members.
It is the smart way to introduce the proposal to citizens and to study its pros and cons. It is a declaration that Newark's city government is looking for better ways to do business. If it never gets any farther than that, congratulations are still in order.
This could soon change, thanks to agreement among Newark leaders to study a proposal for the city-manager form of government.
Our present managers include the mayor and the members of city council. They come off the street with widely varied backgrounds but no experience in city management. They are given on-the-job training, all the while taking guidance from political parties, campaign contributors and schmoozing everybody else for next election.
These managers don't get paid much and they work long hours. Thanks to critics like me, their jobs are frequently frustrating and unrewarding. How such jobs attract any candidates - let alone any good candidates - is a mystery.
Compare that to the use of a professional municipal manager. Such a person would know how to run public affairs by virtue of education and experience. Just as important, a manager is insulated from political parties and campaign-contributor influence.
I've pleaded the case for this kind of government before: (5/5/08 Let's spend $54,000 to find out why we spent it) and (5/9/08 Yes, we do need a city manager) for instance.
Yesterday's Advocate report Newark leaders to study city manager form of government came as a welcomed surprise. The promise is only to study the proposal for a city manager, but that proposal has been well-conceived and put on firm foundation. It has the backing of the mayor, two former mayors, the president of council, and council members.
It is the smart way to introduce the proposal to citizens and to study its pros and cons. It is a declaration that Newark's city government is looking for better ways to do business. If it never gets any farther than that, congratulations are still in order.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Guess who's not running for vice president today?
No matter how hard we coax him, Governor Strickland is not going to run for vice president.
He denied in a September USA Today story that he would run for vice president; in May, the Columbus Dispatch "reported" (how about parroted?) that he would reject any request by Clinton to be her running mate; and guess what happened yesterday? Strickland "unequivocally ruled out being Barack Obama's running mate," said the Washington Post.
I think it's time for somebody to tell Governor Stickland that nobody is asking him to run for vice president. Nobody.
NO. BODY.
If "reporters" are making a list of who's not going to run for vice president, they can add my name. Quit pestering me. No.
If I have to read one more time that Governor Stickland says he will not run for vice president, even if someone should be stupid enough to ask him to run for vice president, I am going to puke.
He denied in a September USA Today story that he would run for vice president; in May, the Columbus Dispatch "reported" (how about parroted?) that he would reject any request by Clinton to be her running mate; and guess what happened yesterday? Strickland "unequivocally ruled out being Barack Obama's running mate," said the Washington Post.
I think it's time for somebody to tell Governor Stickland that nobody is asking him to run for vice president. Nobody.
NO. BODY.
If "reporters" are making a list of who's not going to run for vice president, they can add my name. Quit pestering me. No.
If I have to read one more time that Governor Stickland says he will not run for vice president, even if someone should be stupid enough to ask him to run for vice president, I am going to puke.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Earmarks: the Washington hog trough
Among the most important freedoms that citizens gave away to government is control over the money they earn. Most is sent to Washington bureaucracy where it is disbursed in ways that would be amusing if it were someone else's money.
"Earmarking" our money for specific projects and political interests is a budgetary end-run which is commonly practiced and evermore expensive.
SourceWatch encyclopedia says earmarks "are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen."
Ohio legislators, as a group, are doing their share at the hog trough - $305 million this year, according to an Associated Press report in yesterday's Advocate.
Another report in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday told how Voinovich, Ohio's own "chief deficit hawk," did his part to balance the budget by making off in the night with $18.7 million for his folks back home in Ohio. He also co-sponsored another $171 million for other states.
Let the meaning of "oink" start to rule Ohio's voting booths.
"Earmarking" our money for specific projects and political interests is a budgetary end-run which is commonly practiced and evermore expensive.
SourceWatch encyclopedia says earmarks "are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen."
Ohio legislators, as a group, are doing their share at the hog trough - $305 million this year, according to an Associated Press report in yesterday's Advocate.
Another report in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday told how Voinovich, Ohio's own "chief deficit hawk," did his part to balance the budget by making off in the night with $18.7 million for his folks back home in Ohio. He also co-sponsored another $171 million for other states.
Let the meaning of "oink" start to rule Ohio's voting booths.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Frank Stare case: An opportunity in vain?
Yesterday I wrote "all's well that ends well," in a tongue-in-cheek essay about the incredible folly surrounding the Frank Stare Hugging Case.
I don't think it ended very well, so it would be a shame had that been the last public comment. It is a serious matter and the least that should come of it is for citizens of Newark to try to learn from it and ask whether our local justice system needs to be improved.
All this not for revenge, not for injustice to Frank Stare, but for our own welfare, since any citizen who lives in Newark could be next.
There probably have been thousands of cases drug through the Newark legal system in which "justice" lost sight of logic and fairness, but not many with this much public attention. I had hoped the case would end with a clearing of the air during which each participant in the decisions leading up to the charges brought against Frank would be fully aired on witness stand under oath.
As I understood the news reports, that was about to happen next and would have if there had not been a plea deal arranged in which Frank had the chance to duck out for the price of $50 with a plea of guilty to a charge of "annoying" someone, which is on about the same level as running a red light.
I have mixed feelings about his decision to do that. I don't know everything that had to be considered, and I don't blame him for wanting to get all this behind him, but by stopping before the finale there seems to have been a missed opportunity to improve our local system of justice, our community, and our own individual freedoms and security.
As it stands there has not been a determination of what, if anything, party politics had to do with this. The perception is, though, had it not been for political influence, the complaint against Frank would have been treated like any other complaint of this ilk, meaning, I guess, that it would have died an early and quiet death among lots of other dying minor complaints.
Someone who knows local politics asked (off the record) "why were the charges brought six days prior to the election?" "how many similar cases have been ignored?" "how many third-degree misdemeanor cases have had three detectives assigned to them in the last year?" "why was no special prosecutor appointed (to avoid the political aspects)?"
Well, consider this: If Frank Stare, a Democrat who was running for city council, had won a seat it would have brought the balance of political power to five Republicans and five Democrats. Thus would Council president, a Democrat, become the tie-breaking voter. As it turned out, Frank didn't even come close to winning.
Maybe all this is mere coincidence. Maybe not, and if not it is an opportunity for improvement of our system that appears, at this point, to have been in vain.
I don't think it ended very well, so it would be a shame had that been the last public comment. It is a serious matter and the least that should come of it is for citizens of Newark to try to learn from it and ask whether our local justice system needs to be improved.
All this not for revenge, not for injustice to Frank Stare, but for our own welfare, since any citizen who lives in Newark could be next.
There probably have been thousands of cases drug through the Newark legal system in which "justice" lost sight of logic and fairness, but not many with this much public attention. I had hoped the case would end with a clearing of the air during which each participant in the decisions leading up to the charges brought against Frank would be fully aired on witness stand under oath.
As I understood the news reports, that was about to happen next and would have if there had not been a plea deal arranged in which Frank had the chance to duck out for the price of $50 with a plea of guilty to a charge of "annoying" someone, which is on about the same level as running a red light.
I have mixed feelings about his decision to do that. I don't know everything that had to be considered, and I don't blame him for wanting to get all this behind him, but by stopping before the finale there seems to have been a missed opportunity to improve our local system of justice, our community, and our own individual freedoms and security.
As it stands there has not been a determination of what, if anything, party politics had to do with this. The perception is, though, had it not been for political influence, the complaint against Frank would have been treated like any other complaint of this ilk, meaning, I guess, that it would have died an early and quiet death among lots of other dying minor complaints.
Someone who knows local politics asked (off the record) "why were the charges brought six days prior to the election?" "how many similar cases have been ignored?" "how many third-degree misdemeanor cases have had three detectives assigned to them in the last year?" "why was no special prosecutor appointed (to avoid the political aspects)?"
Well, consider this: If Frank Stare, a Democrat who was running for city council, had won a seat it would have brought the balance of political power to five Republicans and five Democrats. Thus would Council president, a Democrat, become the tie-breaking voter. As it turned out, Frank didn't even come close to winning.
Maybe all this is mere coincidence. Maybe not, and if not it is an opportunity for improvement of our system that appears, at this point, to have been in vain.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Frank Stare is a recovering hugger, but all's well that ends well
Because of Frank Stare, I'm going to at last get my Advocate delivered to my doorstep and not to the adjoining snow, flowers or grass. Finally I found a law that will resolve this issue!
They used it on Frank Stare during his trial as a hugger. It's Section 2917.11 of the Ohio Code. They nailed Frank with this law for trying to be nice because in doing so he was considered by the hugee to be annoying. He was convicted for being annoying in a city so full of annoying people they can't be counted, one of whom is supposed to put the Advocate on my doorstep.
Nobody on the face of the earth is more annoying than a paper slinger who walks through the neighbor's flowers (though she was twice asked not to do that) and across my yard (instead of the sidewalk) and approaches my house for a distance of maybe 13 paces. Nothing wrong with any of that except for the neighbor's flowers. Nothing except that if she were to walk one single step farther, she could get the paper on my doorstep and not in the crack by the doorstep that can only be seen if I open the doors and walk out on the step. Just one more freakin' step. How annoying can it get?
Certainly a hug is far less annoying. But Frank admitted doing the hugging crime - though likely it was only a sort of a half a crime, as you can visualize when a guy his size tries to reach across a stack of election signs to deliver any sort of full-blown annoying hug. Nevertheless, the lady (who had just been given a free ride and a sympathetic ear regarding her troubles) was annoyed and righteously pursued the case right up to the point where she would have had to publicly testify about her annoyance.
Never mind that Frank's public service career is probably over, and never mind that he also had to go to court and had to be made the subject of a big photo in the Advocate as he sat in court, and he had to screw around with attorneys and legalities and detectives and he ended up having to pay a $50 fine and the hugee never had to testify nor be publicly identified.
This Ohio "gotcha" law lists all sorts of ways in which the legal system can jerk around anyone unfortunate enough to be standing in the wrong place. While "hugging" as such isn't mentioned in the Ohio Revised Code section 2917.11 (which you can read at this link) it does say that you may not cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm ... etc." and so my legal advice is that anyone with hugging in mind better get a written permission slip.
But all's well that ends well. Frank is now a recovering hugger; one less hugger we have running the streets of Newark thanks to a diligent city prosecutor, police detectives, safety director, court system and a gaggle of news reporters.
Even better than this city being rid of a hugger, I now have the legal ammunition to go after that Advocate delivery person. Pretty soon she just might be a recovering miss-the-doorstepper.
They used it on Frank Stare during his trial as a hugger. It's Section 2917.11 of the Ohio Code. They nailed Frank with this law for trying to be nice because in doing so he was considered by the hugee to be annoying. He was convicted for being annoying in a city so full of annoying people they can't be counted, one of whom is supposed to put the Advocate on my doorstep.
Nobody on the face of the earth is more annoying than a paper slinger who walks through the neighbor's flowers (though she was twice asked not to do that) and across my yard (instead of the sidewalk) and approaches my house for a distance of maybe 13 paces. Nothing wrong with any of that except for the neighbor's flowers. Nothing except that if she were to walk one single step farther, she could get the paper on my doorstep and not in the crack by the doorstep that can only be seen if I open the doors and walk out on the step. Just one more freakin' step. How annoying can it get?
Certainly a hug is far less annoying. But Frank admitted doing the hugging crime - though likely it was only a sort of a half a crime, as you can visualize when a guy his size tries to reach across a stack of election signs to deliver any sort of full-blown annoying hug. Nevertheless, the lady (who had just been given a free ride and a sympathetic ear regarding her troubles) was annoyed and righteously pursued the case right up to the point where she would have had to publicly testify about her annoyance.
Never mind that Frank's public service career is probably over, and never mind that he also had to go to court and had to be made the subject of a big photo in the Advocate as he sat in court, and he had to screw around with attorneys and legalities and detectives and he ended up having to pay a $50 fine and the hugee never had to testify nor be publicly identified.
This Ohio "gotcha" law lists all sorts of ways in which the legal system can jerk around anyone unfortunate enough to be standing in the wrong place. While "hugging" as such isn't mentioned in the Ohio Revised Code section 2917.11 (which you can read at this link) it does say that you may not cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm ... etc." and so my legal advice is that anyone with hugging in mind better get a written permission slip.
But all's well that ends well. Frank is now a recovering hugger; one less hugger we have running the streets of Newark thanks to a diligent city prosecutor, police detectives, safety director, court system and a gaggle of news reporters.
Even better than this city being rid of a hugger, I now have the legal ammunition to go after that Advocate delivery person. Pretty soon she just might be a recovering miss-the-doorstepper.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
City Council votes 6-3 to stuff voters again
Newark voters got stuffed again by the Needy Magic Nanny, this time for a $10 bill with every auto license they ever have to buy in Newark for the rest of their lives.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Let's spend $54,000 to find out why we spent it
Should Newark City Deciders hire a city planner? That is the latest among quandaries they face.
This quandary points to the need - not for a planner but for a professional city manager. Thus could Newark replace a group of citizen-politicians thrust into municipal management responsibilities whose qualifications for their jobs consist entirely of their ability to draw votes.
Since Mayor Diebold has assumed the position of first-chair guitarist in the City Hall Ensemble, there have been discussions of reorganization among chiefs and Indians, first believed to be a cost-cutting measure, but later deemed to be the opposite.
Into the mix of considerations for reorganization has been entered a perceived need for a "planner," though what that person is expected to do and for whom is a massive gray area. Only if one carefully reads the latest Advocate report - clear to the last two paragraphs (instead of the first two paragraphs as in Journalism 101) - he'll learn that the mayor and his minions want to spend $54,000 to contract out these undefined duties performed for unspecified people because this way they will "determine exactly what we want that person to do."
There is no more definitive plea for a professional city manager than that.
This quandary points to the need - not for a planner but for a professional city manager. Thus could Newark replace a group of citizen-politicians thrust into municipal management responsibilities whose qualifications for their jobs consist entirely of their ability to draw votes.
Since Mayor Diebold has assumed the position of first-chair guitarist in the City Hall Ensemble, there have been discussions of reorganization among chiefs and Indians, first believed to be a cost-cutting measure, but later deemed to be the opposite.
Into the mix of considerations for reorganization has been entered a perceived need for a "planner," though what that person is expected to do and for whom is a massive gray area. Only if one carefully reads the latest Advocate report - clear to the last two paragraphs (instead of the first two paragraphs as in Journalism 101) - he'll learn that the mayor and his minions want to spend $54,000 to contract out these undefined duties performed for unspecified people because this way they will "determine exactly what we want that person to do."
There is no more definitive plea for a professional city manager than that.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Fallout from Hillary's "monster" victory
Calling Hillary Clinton a monster is being unnecessarily kind. But that is the sin of Obama's former adviser on foreign affairs.
Samantha Power said it in an unguarded moment while being interviewed by a newspaper in Scotland. She immediately told the reporter (Gerri Peev, a female) that the remark should be off the record, but the reporter and her editors determined that such forgiveness wasn't in accordance with pre-established rules; namely, it had been previously agreed that the interview was to be on the record.
Gotcha! The Scotsman published that slip of the tongue and, for good measure, took pains to publicize the aside volunteered by Ms. Power in which she used the f-word.
The fall-out was, as everyone already knows, that Obama feigned shock and fired Ms. Power. That clearly indicates two things: Obama is a weak-ass when it comes to supporting folks on his team and, two, Ms. Power wasn't all that much of an asset anyway.
But the fall-out goes deeper for anyone who cares about media and reportage.
Off-the-record information for the reporter normally is used as backgrounding for better understanding of the subject at issue. It can be specified in the interview agreement, but if not, it is generally understood to be the way of doing business. Only a publication with an agenda or a penchant for making a splash for itself would violate this trust over something so shallow as an unguarded little name-call.
If calling Billary a monster were consequential enough to report, it surely is important enough to follow up with questions about why this term applied to the candidate. It was not that consequential, however. It was a Gotcha! pure and simple. (See the MSNBC report.)
The uproar that followed was loud enough to inspire the editor of the Scotsman to proclaim "we are certain it was right to publish (the monster comment)." Not so certain were folks who read the story and offered their opinions because commenting was suspended "due to repeated abuse of our terms and conditions."
Not so certain, also, are professional journalists who understand that The Scotsman's behavior intensifies distrust of media by news sources and intensifies the perception among consumers that many, if not most, big-media reporters are hypocritical and fraudulent.
Samantha Power said it in an unguarded moment while being interviewed by a newspaper in Scotland. She immediately told the reporter (Gerri Peev, a female) that the remark should be off the record, but the reporter and her editors determined that such forgiveness wasn't in accordance with pre-established rules; namely, it had been previously agreed that the interview was to be on the record.
Gotcha! The Scotsman published that slip of the tongue and, for good measure, took pains to publicize the aside volunteered by Ms. Power in which she used the f-word.
The fall-out was, as everyone already knows, that Obama feigned shock and fired Ms. Power. That clearly indicates two things: Obama is a weak-ass when it comes to supporting folks on his team and, two, Ms. Power wasn't all that much of an asset anyway.
But the fall-out goes deeper for anyone who cares about media and reportage.
Off-the-record information for the reporter normally is used as backgrounding for better understanding of the subject at issue. It can be specified in the interview agreement, but if not, it is generally understood to be the way of doing business. Only a publication with an agenda or a penchant for making a splash for itself would violate this trust over something so shallow as an unguarded little name-call.
If calling Billary a monster were consequential enough to report, it surely is important enough to follow up with questions about why this term applied to the candidate. It was not that consequential, however. It was a Gotcha! pure and simple. (See the MSNBC report.)
The uproar that followed was loud enough to inspire the editor of the Scotsman to proclaim "we are certain it was right to publish (the monster comment)." Not so certain were folks who read the story and offered their opinions because commenting was suspended "due to repeated abuse of our terms and conditions."
Not so certain, also, are professional journalists who understand that The Scotsman's behavior intensifies distrust of media by news sources and intensifies the perception among consumers that many, if not most, big-media reporters are hypocritical and fraudulent.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Obama will win in Ohio
To my mind, and not because I necessarily like him as potential President, Obama has delivered the right stuff to the right places in my neighborhood.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Another "Hill" on the horizon
After all these years, there's still something quite nice about the name "Don Hill," something besides it being part of the name of the County Administration Building.
Don was totally unflappable when he served all those years as Licking County commissioner. His image as Mr. Good Guy still reverberates among long-ago voters who raised him to the level of public keepsake.
So it is with some degree of interest I received the news that his son, Howard, will run for the seat presently held by State Representative Jay Hottinger.
A news release introduces Howard as being employed as a teacher. He promises to make educational funding a priority and work toward relief from "constant taxation and request of levies from the schools," while recognizing the state's unfunded mandates to schools are part of the problem.
He writes that "This is not about Republican or Democrat and my campaign volunteers and staff are proof of this. This campaign is about common people, putting forth uncommon effort in order to do public good."
I like that - a lot.
Don was totally unflappable when he served all those years as Licking County commissioner. His image as Mr. Good Guy still reverberates among long-ago voters who raised him to the level of public keepsake.
So it is with some degree of interest I received the news that his son, Howard, will run for the seat presently held by State Representative Jay Hottinger.
A news release introduces Howard as being employed as a teacher. He promises to make educational funding a priority and work toward relief from "constant taxation and request of levies from the schools," while recognizing the state's unfunded mandates to schools are part of the problem.
He writes that "This is not about Republican or Democrat and my campaign volunteers and staff are proof of this. This campaign is about common people, putting forth uncommon effort in order to do public good."
I like that - a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
