First off Pol thanks for trying to become a part of a discussion here at agnosticrat.
Although I have no tracking software to prove it I fear that it may be the least responded to blog, ever. That is ok, the stuff I have written thus far is more musing on events, and my personal philosophy and I understand that neither of these lend themselves well to counterpoint.
Secondly I must admit that I felt a little let down at first that your questions were the only ones that Wade felt compelled to respond to. Wades response as I have said before left me flat.
You see, I don't think he has taken me seriously for whatever reason when I have stated that I truly intend on voting republican in his race. Maybe it is the fact that I have a short history (on these blogs, anyway) of cracking wise in some discussions. It sometimes gets me into trouble, and leads others to believe I am only a lurker, not to be taken seriously. Maybe it is the fact that I am a liberal that is willing, for now to overlook some positions he has taken that are obvious hot spots for many of the conservative republican persuasion.
When I wrote my letter I wanted to see whether Mr. Trombley was really a candidate for change or just another spinmeister looking to get his name in the paper. I really believed that if I engaged him one on one that he would step up and give real answers. That was my mistake.
When presented with a choice of clarifying his agenda or bashing the other candidate he took the latter, and more political route. This is when I realized counter to all he has said that Wade Trombley is a politician.
As for why I first took on Mr. Trombley over Mr. Reynolds the answer is simple, he was there. He had been lurking your blog for sometime giving updates as to the hours he had been out on the road campaigning. He was accessible to me and I found that compelling.
Although from what you have written, you seem to have the stuff it takes to ask questions of public figures, go to public forums and play a more public role. It would never occur to me to go out of my way to ask the editor of a paper, local or otherwise what his opinion is of anything. But with my trusty computer and a beer or two I can be Agnosticrat. Yeah the wack job that at least in his own mind just wrote off the candidacy of Mr. Trombley as nothing but a posers dream. Too bad he seems like a really nice guy.
Don't suppose Mr. Reynolds has a spare five dollars and computer access do ya? I still need some kind of sign in my yard. If you see him send him my way. I would love to ask him a couple of questions.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
An open letter to Wade Trombley
O.K. Wade I think we can work something out!
First thing is first, I have finally been afforded an opportunity to read your plaform and have a few things I think you could fine tune. If we can work these things out I believe I can forego the five dollars!
point by point from your website:
As far as Gay marriage goes I can take it or leave it for now. It is not a sticking point. I am a liberal that hopes for equal justice for all, but I am not gay, and I'm going to beat you up on this. I also believe that the rest of the state may have just as much apathy on either side of this issue for the moment, so as you have said let's "not change a thing" (please pass this on to the home office).
Another fine idea of yours would be that you will reduce the amount of red tape in Lansing. Eliminating the SBT is a fine goal as long as a poor working schmuck like me doesn't end up footing the bill. If we are in agreement, I believe you have found common ground with the present governor also.
I am confused by your next point and hope you can clear this up.
You claim that our schools are still based on an agrarian society, and that would lead many to believe you would like a more modern approach, then you lead the reader back to the three R's?! Why? and isn't the curriculum a choice made by local school boards? How are you going to effect change in local school districts, if you are in Lansing? As a small government republican, I would hope you see the pitfall before you. If you were to legislate what children in differing backgrounds and opposite areas of the state were to be taught, wouldn't that be more government on the backs of the people? You mean well, but I fear this is a negative in your column.
The casino!, What a great stance! I like it. More stuff like this will get me to the polling place with a smile on my face! I hate the 3 hour drive, and I can't afford to blow $30 in gas to lose $100 in Illinois. God bless you!
Here we go with the fire the senate thing.
It will likely fail this time and that is not because it is a bad idea. Just that it sells anger in lieu of constructive change.
I am not sure however that all of the proponents of the fire the senate campaign are going to wild about cutting 20% from the Legislature's budget. Not to mention this would likely cause problems for what I see as an eventual passage of Fire the Senate 2.0! One that I hope incorporates funding for our states future endeavors. Maybe something like a healthcare bill, or more likely alternative fuel implementation. Others use the word research, but I believe we have the answers already, and must implement them. The movement also lacks a prize show pig! As Pol once mentioned the name LaFollette, who never became president as his ideas were stolen and became Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. If you were to carry the torch to lansing with such a message as one of those I have laid out, you too could be a Roosevelt for Michigan! (sorry for the pig reference..and um... the Roosevelt thing).
Cutting funds from the legislature would have been a sure fire way to get voters 8 years ago, but right now the people of this great state want to know they are going to have roads, to waste overpriced gasoline on. We need to know that there will be stability, and infrastructure. "Remember Engler?" Please don't let this be the cry from your opposition.
As far as special interests are concerned, I must ask if you have accepted any money from the NRA? If you have please explain how you don't believe they are a special interest group? Do you accept any funding from other interest groups? If you have not, and would not , say so. Please understand I am looking for someone who is not beholding to anyone but the voter.
Although I am a liberal and generally vote democrat, I have decided for now to forego voting on the democratic ticket at least during the primary, provided I found an acceptable republican to vote for. You could be that republican!
On a more personal note:
I know a couple of Lutherans and find them pleasant to me personally. I have had the occasion to be present at a Lutheran wedding , and although I felt sorry for the sinners that were being wed that day that they were not worthy of gods love, I made sure they understood that mine was unconditional.
I have friends that are also small business owners, and feel their pain and would like to be sure and send someone will represent them, as much as me
You seem like a nice guy, and lets face it there will likely be a republican in Lansing representing my district. I am tired of voting democratic, and finding that either they are really republicans in disguise, or losers that have no chance. The word Agnosticrat should have a little more meaning with that sentence. I have not found any republican that comes as close to what I envision my representative as being as you do at this moment. You want term limits, GOOD!, You dislike the amount of money being spent by special interest groups that steal the voice from the average citizen, GOOD! I hope we can work together on these, and other points, so I can say I have a man in Lansing that truly comes as close to representing me as any republican could!
First thing is first, I have finally been afforded an opportunity to read your plaform and have a few things I think you could fine tune. If we can work these things out I believe I can forego the five dollars!
point by point from your website:
As far as Gay marriage goes I can take it or leave it for now. It is not a sticking point. I am a liberal that hopes for equal justice for all, but I am not gay, and I'm going to beat you up on this. I also believe that the rest of the state may have just as much apathy on either side of this issue for the moment, so as you have said let's "not change a thing" (please pass this on to the home office).
Another fine idea of yours would be that you will reduce the amount of red tape in Lansing. Eliminating the SBT is a fine goal as long as a poor working schmuck like me doesn't end up footing the bill. If we are in agreement, I believe you have found common ground with the present governor also.
I am confused by your next point and hope you can clear this up.
You claim that our schools are still based on an agrarian society, and that would lead many to believe you would like a more modern approach, then you lead the reader back to the three R's?! Why? and isn't the curriculum a choice made by local school boards? How are you going to effect change in local school districts, if you are in Lansing? As a small government republican, I would hope you see the pitfall before you. If you were to legislate what children in differing backgrounds and opposite areas of the state were to be taught, wouldn't that be more government on the backs of the people? You mean well, but I fear this is a negative in your column.
The casino!, What a great stance! I like it. More stuff like this will get me to the polling place with a smile on my face! I hate the 3 hour drive, and I can't afford to blow $30 in gas to lose $100 in Illinois. God bless you!
Here we go with the fire the senate thing.
It will likely fail this time and that is not because it is a bad idea. Just that it sells anger in lieu of constructive change.
I am not sure however that all of the proponents of the fire the senate campaign are going to wild about cutting 20% from the Legislature's budget. Not to mention this would likely cause problems for what I see as an eventual passage of Fire the Senate 2.0! One that I hope incorporates funding for our states future endeavors. Maybe something like a healthcare bill, or more likely alternative fuel implementation. Others use the word research, but I believe we have the answers already, and must implement them. The movement also lacks a prize show pig! As Pol once mentioned the name LaFollette, who never became president as his ideas were stolen and became Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. If you were to carry the torch to lansing with such a message as one of those I have laid out, you too could be a Roosevelt for Michigan! (sorry for the pig reference..and um... the Roosevelt thing).
Cutting funds from the legislature would have been a sure fire way to get voters 8 years ago, but right now the people of this great state want to know they are going to have roads, to waste overpriced gasoline on. We need to know that there will be stability, and infrastructure. "Remember Engler?" Please don't let this be the cry from your opposition.
As far as special interests are concerned, I must ask if you have accepted any money from the NRA? If you have please explain how you don't believe they are a special interest group? Do you accept any funding from other interest groups? If you have not, and would not , say so. Please understand I am looking for someone who is not beholding to anyone but the voter.
Although I am a liberal and generally vote democrat, I have decided for now to forego voting on the democratic ticket at least during the primary, provided I found an acceptable republican to vote for. You could be that republican!
On a more personal note:
I know a couple of Lutherans and find them pleasant to me personally. I have had the occasion to be present at a Lutheran wedding , and although I felt sorry for the sinners that were being wed that day that they were not worthy of gods love, I made sure they understood that mine was unconditional.
I have friends that are also small business owners, and feel their pain and would like to be sure and send someone will represent them, as much as me
You seem like a nice guy, and lets face it there will likely be a republican in Lansing representing my district. I am tired of voting democratic, and finding that either they are really republicans in disguise, or losers that have no chance. The word Agnosticrat should have a little more meaning with that sentence. I have not found any republican that comes as close to what I envision my representative as being as you do at this moment. You want term limits, GOOD!, You dislike the amount of money being spent by special interest groups that steal the voice from the average citizen, GOOD! I hope we can work together on these, and other points, so I can say I have a man in Lansing that truly comes as close to representing me as any republican could!
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Saturday, June 10, 2006
I am not a produce inspector, but I have seen them on TV!
"Okay! Everybody, give me ten laps!"
That is how "Coach" handled my gym class when one or two ne'er-do-wells would tamper with the conformist nature of his class. Being of a larger non-atheletic nature than most others in the class this would be nothing short of being condemned to hell for the next 30 minutes of my life.
The thought behind such a punishment was never in dispute. It is one I have seen in many a war movie. (the encyclopedia I use when dissecting the traditions of military service) Divide and conquer! Make the rest of the unit force the bad actors to conform. As my eighth grade teacher (or all of my elementary teachers for that matter) would say "It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch" I hated that saying, and whatever undeserved punishment was about to follow it.
But it seemed to work! Generally in the fifth, (the most painful and side splitting) lap, as much as I dreamed of a more relaxing endeavor in far left field of a game of softball, there were others among us that looked forward to playing a game of "watch the fat kid try to catch a ball with the sun in his eyes". So with unspoken agreement our unlikely alliance would proceed to ostracize the perpetrator to conformity.
Such punishments my well have to employed today. In recent verbal debacles we have seen on the national scene, there are two ne'er-do-wells, I feel would be worthy of being publicly ostracized.
Ann Coulter a hateful right-wing pundit , who spews her money driven assmossity, and John Hostettler, of the House of Representatives, who insists on making up issues in order to further his isolationist agenda.
They are bad apples, and should be put on notice!
Now give me ten laps!
That is how "Coach" handled my gym class when one or two ne'er-do-wells would tamper with the conformist nature of his class. Being of a larger non-atheletic nature than most others in the class this would be nothing short of being condemned to hell for the next 30 minutes of my life.
The thought behind such a punishment was never in dispute. It is one I have seen in many a war movie. (the encyclopedia I use when dissecting the traditions of military service) Divide and conquer! Make the rest of the unit force the bad actors to conform. As my eighth grade teacher (or all of my elementary teachers for that matter) would say "It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch" I hated that saying, and whatever undeserved punishment was about to follow it.
But it seemed to work! Generally in the fifth, (the most painful and side splitting) lap, as much as I dreamed of a more relaxing endeavor in far left field of a game of softball, there were others among us that looked forward to playing a game of "watch the fat kid try to catch a ball with the sun in his eyes". So with unspoken agreement our unlikely alliance would proceed to ostracize the perpetrator to conformity.
Such punishments my well have to employed today. In recent verbal debacles we have seen on the national scene, there are two ne'er-do-wells, I feel would be worthy of being publicly ostracized.
Ann Coulter a hateful right-wing pundit , who spews her money driven assmossity, and John Hostettler, of the House of Representatives, who insists on making up issues in order to further his isolationist agenda.
They are bad apples, and should be put on notice!
Now give me ten laps!
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Apathy, thy name is Agnosticrat!
Recently there has been (what could only be described as) an unplanned discussion at Westmichiganpolitics about legalization of drugs. I for the purpose of this post have decided to take that as legalization of, specifically, marijuana.
While I have heard the evidence, and read many allegories as to the disadvantages, or advantages that such a move may produce, I have as of yet not come to a conclusion either way.
It seems as though, once I fell away from daily use, I have become more apathetic toward the need for legalization.
Beyond the scientific evidence there is a more moral argument that I have not yet come to grips with. I will do away with the scientific reasoning for now. They are so wishy-washy anyway! For instance, Fish! Can you give me the definitive conclusion? Can I eat one helping? Two? They change it every three months it seems.
On moral arguments I generally go with the opinion of the people who have gotten me where I am today! No, not my parents, they don't know anything about this stuff. Besides they would have me in rehab before I could explain why I asked their opinion.
For this kind of question, one needs to go no further than his friends. What? You don't want me to pick this kind of information up on the street do you? My friends are conservative, and from what I can see somewhat retarded (hand in hand), but they sometimes give me insight as to what "the common man" as they would say believes.
The question I asked is simple. "Should marijuana be legalized?" The answers as you will see were somewhat eye opening.
friend #1: "It should be decriminalized! I really think if you just have enough for personal use you should be fined and that is it!"
friend #2: "Yeah, as long as you are over 18!"
friend #1: "Really, they should just legalize it and put a heavy tax on it!"
friend #3 "yeah!"
Pretty amazing stuff considering ten minutes ago they were bragging about how they buy their cigarettes on line from Indians in New York because they didn't want to pay the high taxes.
This brings me to a point I would like to make.
Republicans, or conservative for that matter, can justify anything as long as there is a tax on it!
Really! I am not kidding. The very people who rage against taxes every two years come November, find themselves giddy with excitement with the idea of legalization of pot, if it is taxed! Same with prostitution, and gambling. It's enough to send a poor liberal like me into a panic attack.
As far as it falling into the wrong hands? Children!
Yes, by all means keep it from them! People under the age of 18 are not equipped to handle the responsibility of drug use. They have to get jobs, and pay taxes if they are to partake in such frivolous ventures.
The truth is it is unlikely to happen. But, just because I like to be contrary, if we do legalize it, I for one would not like it to be taxed.
I don't like the idea of Indians in New York getting Michigan's pot tax dollars!
While I have heard the evidence, and read many allegories as to the disadvantages, or advantages that such a move may produce, I have as of yet not come to a conclusion either way.
It seems as though, once I fell away from daily use, I have become more apathetic toward the need for legalization.
Beyond the scientific evidence there is a more moral argument that I have not yet come to grips with. I will do away with the scientific reasoning for now. They are so wishy-washy anyway! For instance, Fish! Can you give me the definitive conclusion? Can I eat one helping? Two? They change it every three months it seems.
On moral arguments I generally go with the opinion of the people who have gotten me where I am today! No, not my parents, they don't know anything about this stuff. Besides they would have me in rehab before I could explain why I asked their opinion.
For this kind of question, one needs to go no further than his friends. What? You don't want me to pick this kind of information up on the street do you? My friends are conservative, and from what I can see somewhat retarded (hand in hand), but they sometimes give me insight as to what "the common man" as they would say believes.
The question I asked is simple. "Should marijuana be legalized?" The answers as you will see were somewhat eye opening.
friend #1: "It should be decriminalized! I really think if you just have enough for personal use you should be fined and that is it!"
friend #2: "Yeah, as long as you are over 18!"
friend #1: "Really, they should just legalize it and put a heavy tax on it!"
friend #3 "yeah!"
Pretty amazing stuff considering ten minutes ago they were bragging about how they buy their cigarettes on line from Indians in New York because they didn't want to pay the high taxes.
This brings me to a point I would like to make.
Republicans, or conservative for that matter, can justify anything as long as there is a tax on it!
Really! I am not kidding. The very people who rage against taxes every two years come November, find themselves giddy with excitement with the idea of legalization of pot, if it is taxed! Same with prostitution, and gambling. It's enough to send a poor liberal like me into a panic attack.
As far as it falling into the wrong hands? Children!
Yes, by all means keep it from them! People under the age of 18 are not equipped to handle the responsibility of drug use. They have to get jobs, and pay taxes if they are to partake in such frivolous ventures.
The truth is it is unlikely to happen. But, just because I like to be contrary, if we do legalize it, I for one would not like it to be taxed.
I don't like the idea of Indians in New York getting Michigan's pot tax dollars!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
They
I have a friend that constantly questions any assertion I make that begins with the phrase "they said .....". His usual question in such an instance is "who is they?", I often find myself without an answer. Merely because I did not take the time to learn their name, or relevance to the issue at hand. "They" may have been someone on television, or radio, talking about any given subject that interests me. Unfortunately, I found myself so caught up in what "they" were saying that I did not catch their name, and subsequently what if any position "they" may have been in to make any statement about which "they" were speaking about.
More recently I have been making an effort to actually gather more information about who "they" is. While doing so I have made some startling discoveries!
* "they" sometimes are not even associated with whom, or what they are speaking about.
* "they" are sometimes also repeating only things that "un-named sources" have said.
* "they" may make one assertion on one day, and take an opposite stance on the very next day.
* "they" are often politicians, but more than likely are people who speak for politicians.
My study, while ongoing is slowly coming to the conclusion that "they" are less likely to know what "they" are talking about , than I am to remember who "they" are, and why I should take "their" word for it!
There may be more on this subject later, as I am now expanding my investigation into such memorable folk as "them" , "those others" and eventually "him-her", and "we".
I am afraid this is bigger than "all of us"
More recently I have been making an effort to actually gather more information about who "they" is. While doing so I have made some startling discoveries!
* "they" sometimes are not even associated with whom, or what they are speaking about.
* "they" are sometimes also repeating only things that "un-named sources" have said.
* "they" may make one assertion on one day, and take an opposite stance on the very next day.
* "they" are often politicians, but more than likely are people who speak for politicians.
My study, while ongoing is slowly coming to the conclusion that "they" are less likely to know what "they" are talking about , than I am to remember who "they" are, and why I should take "their" word for it!
There may be more on this subject later, as I am now expanding my investigation into such memorable folk as "them" , "those others" and eventually "him-her", and "we".
I am afraid this is bigger than "all of us"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)