Meet & Greet the Candidates
Reynolds Fire Department
October, 27, 2006, 5:30 PM
Friday, October 27, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Goforth v. Gorny
As it happens, Ken Bagwell forgot to record the on air debate between Goforth and Gorny.
This un-rehearsed debate clearly showed Goforth to be an out-of-touch, bumbling angry boob. Publicity on this debate could have been a great advantage to Gorny. In fact, I could write pages of refutation based on his comments. Now, with no record of the comments, no one can refer to them with any force or credibility.
After the debate, Goforth called AC-T to chastise a reporter for reporting on him. That shows that he is vulnerable in the points made in the report and referred to by Gorny on air. This is where the Gorny campaign can strike and make some gains.
One key point:
Goforth argued that the law he signed in committee does not explicitly state that male teachers can come to work dressed as women without consequence. He is correct. That scenario is not contained in the law.
But Mr. Goforth seems not to understand the difference between crafting legislation and applying the law. The laws against murder do not detail every possible method of carrying out that crime, nor should it. It does not specify poison, knife, gun, rock, paper or scissors. The law should be broad enough to cover those possible cases. And the law that Goforth promoted and signed disallowing discrimination in the school system based on "transgender orientation or expression" is broad enough to cover just the scenario Gorny suggested. The scenario that Goforth denied the law could possibly affect.
Point two:
For an elected representative, Goforth, to argue in a hostile manner with constituents in a public forum is unseemly, rude and defensive. It demonstrates that his position has weaknesses he'd rather not address. I recommend that Goforth's opponent go for the kill after clearly smelling blood.
Point three:
Goforth cannot decide if Jim Black is good or bad. He continually defers to the legal process as the determining factor. That is, if Black gets caught, then he's guilty. If Black does not get caught, then he is innocent.
In these cases, Goforth has telegraphed where he is vulnerable: Intellectual rigor, respect and civility, and common moral discrimination.
This un-rehearsed debate clearly showed Goforth to be an out-of-touch, bumbling angry boob. Publicity on this debate could have been a great advantage to Gorny. In fact, I could write pages of refutation based on his comments. Now, with no record of the comments, no one can refer to them with any force or credibility.
After the debate, Goforth called AC-T to chastise a reporter for reporting on him. That shows that he is vulnerable in the points made in the report and referred to by Gorny on air. This is where the Gorny campaign can strike and make some gains.
One key point:
Goforth argued that the law he signed in committee does not explicitly state that male teachers can come to work dressed as women without consequence. He is correct. That scenario is not contained in the law.
But Mr. Goforth seems not to understand the difference between crafting legislation and applying the law. The laws against murder do not detail every possible method of carrying out that crime, nor should it. It does not specify poison, knife, gun, rock, paper or scissors. The law should be broad enough to cover those possible cases. And the law that Goforth promoted and signed disallowing discrimination in the school system based on "transgender orientation or expression" is broad enough to cover just the scenario Gorny suggested. The scenario that Goforth denied the law could possibly affect.
Point two:
For an elected representative, Goforth, to argue in a hostile manner with constituents in a public forum is unseemly, rude and defensive. It demonstrates that his position has weaknesses he'd rather not address. I recommend that Goforth's opponent go for the kill after clearly smelling blood.
Point three:
Goforth cannot decide if Jim Black is good or bad. He continually defers to the legal process as the determining factor. That is, if Black gets caught, then he's guilty. If Black does not get caught, then he is innocent.
In these cases, Goforth has telegraphed where he is vulnerable: Intellectual rigor, respect and civility, and common moral discrimination.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Mountian Xpress
Excerpt from:
Right on target, Conservative activists decry big government, high taxes
by David Forbes
Mountain Xpress
Oct 11, 2006 / vol 13 iss 11
[...] Club member Tim Peck is a libertarian blogger who was an associate editor and webmaster for the Mountain Guardian. His long political life, he says, has led him to believe "that the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights – and little else."
Peck feels the difference between liberals and conservatives lies in their responses to "issues we all agree are problems ... such as affordable housing, education and homelessness. The left usually runs to government first to solve those problems. Conservatives first look towards liberty-oriented solutions."
Liberals, says Peck, favor "subsidized housing, demanding that the government take money and distribute it to people to whom it doesn't belong. Conservatives want to stimulate economic growth, bring in jobs and raise wages. Either way, you get more affordable housing. But one is liberty-oriented, and that's a key difference."
The club's billboards sparked a fierce outcry. Vandals spray-painted accusations of racism on several of them, and some residents condemned the billboard campaign at the Aug. 22 City Council meeting. Council member Bryan Freeborn charged that the Republican Party was "rolling this out to pit citizen against citizen in an election year" (see "A Heaping Helping," Aug. 30 Xpress).
But Peck maintains that "conservatives have been addressing this issue for more than a decade. If conservatives were swept out of power, this would still be the most pressing crisis facing this country."
Lack concurs. Freeborn, she says, "implied it was just because of the election. That's ridiculous; it just happened that the election's here." She favors "closing the border and enforcing our laws" to curtail illegal immigration. "We can also vote with our dollars and boycott businesses that are contributing to this."
Both Lack and Peck condemn the attacks on their billboards, which they say indicate a general lack of tolerance on the part of their political opponents.
"Before I got involved, I thought people who were more liberal were more open-minded. I'm finding quite the opposite," says Lack. "When you're in the minority and you express an opinion that is not popular, they'll do everything in their power to shut you down. ... There's very little interest in free and open expression."
Peck agrees. "Asheville is plainly intolerant of diversity," he says. "I also work with the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods, with Democracy for America; I mingle with all sorts to find solutions for difficult problems. I'm seeing those [solutions] coming from the conservatives and libertarians in town. But we're in the minority, and on top of that we've got a left-leaning media here. We do what we can."
Right on target, Conservative activists decry big government, high taxes
by David Forbes
Mountain Xpress
Oct 11, 2006 / vol 13 iss 11
[...] Club member Tim Peck is a libertarian blogger who was an associate editor and webmaster for the Mountain Guardian. His long political life, he says, has led him to believe "that the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights – and little else."
Peck feels the difference between liberals and conservatives lies in their responses to "issues we all agree are problems ... such as affordable housing, education and homelessness. The left usually runs to government first to solve those problems. Conservatives first look towards liberty-oriented solutions."
Liberals, says Peck, favor "subsidized housing, demanding that the government take money and distribute it to people to whom it doesn't belong. Conservatives want to stimulate economic growth, bring in jobs and raise wages. Either way, you get more affordable housing. But one is liberty-oriented, and that's a key difference."
The club's billboards sparked a fierce outcry. Vandals spray-painted accusations of racism on several of them, and some residents condemned the billboard campaign at the Aug. 22 City Council meeting. Council member Bryan Freeborn charged that the Republican Party was "rolling this out to pit citizen against citizen in an election year" (see "A Heaping Helping," Aug. 30 Xpress).
But Peck maintains that "conservatives have been addressing this issue for more than a decade. If conservatives were swept out of power, this would still be the most pressing crisis facing this country."
Lack concurs. Freeborn, she says, "implied it was just because of the election. That's ridiculous; it just happened that the election's here." She favors "closing the border and enforcing our laws" to curtail illegal immigration. "We can also vote with our dollars and boycott businesses that are contributing to this."
Both Lack and Peck condemn the attacks on their billboards, which they say indicate a general lack of tolerance on the part of their political opponents.
"Before I got involved, I thought people who were more liberal were more open-minded. I'm finding quite the opposite," says Lack. "When you're in the minority and you express an opinion that is not popular, they'll do everything in their power to shut you down. ... There's very little interest in free and open expression."
Peck agrees. "Asheville is plainly intolerant of diversity," he says. "I also work with the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods, with Democracy for America; I mingle with all sorts to find solutions for difficult problems. I'm seeing those [solutions] coming from the conservatives and libertarians in town. But we're in the minority, and on top of that we've got a left-leaning media here. We do what we can."
Friday, October 06, 2006
More Guns, Less Crime
Whenever I hear about a shooting incident at a school or hospital or the workplace, I always ask, "Why didn't they shoot back?"
The answer is usually that the people are prohibited by law from carrying weapons in those places. Which, to me, means that the government is responsible for those deaths.
***
Don't you find it strange that when people who are anti-gun get in trouble they always call somebody who has one. Teachers and students under seige call the police. Hollywood stars claim to be against guns but they have three bodyguards who have them.
This is pure self-deception. The fact is, the world can be a dangerous place and to pretend that it isn't and that you can get through it unarmed is a denial of reality.
***
USA Today: Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers
A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent...
The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea. Pochowski said, "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."
-- "Arm" = "to defend the life and safety of children."
-- "To the point" = "matter of degree." He acknowledges that there IS a point where we might need to arm our teachers and principals, but we simply have not reached that point yet.
So, I guess he's waiting until we reach that point. I am wondering how many more children will have to die to placate this Director of School Safety's pacifism in the face of violence.
Now what could be more barbaric than someone who is willing to sacrifice the lives of children for the sake of their own moral preening.
The answer is usually that the people are prohibited by law from carrying weapons in those places. Which, to me, means that the government is responsible for those deaths.
***
Don't you find it strange that when people who are anti-gun get in trouble they always call somebody who has one. Teachers and students under seige call the police. Hollywood stars claim to be against guns but they have three bodyguards who have them.
This is pure self-deception. The fact is, the world can be a dangerous place and to pretend that it isn't and that you can get through it unarmed is a denial of reality.
***
USA Today: Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers
A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent...
The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea. Pochowski said, "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."
-- "Arm" = "to defend the life and safety of children."
-- "To the point" = "matter of degree." He acknowledges that there IS a point where we might need to arm our teachers and principals, but we simply have not reached that point yet.
So, I guess he's waiting until we reach that point. I am wondering how many more children will have to die to placate this Director of School Safety's pacifism in the face of violence.
Now what could be more barbaric than someone who is willing to sacrifice the lives of children for the sake of their own moral preening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)