The ongoing circus that is the 82nd District State House representatives race goes on, with another debate this past Tuesday.
Once again, all the Republican candidates showed up, even the elusive Todd Courser, who's made claims more than once that the debate's co-moderator, Jeff Hogan of the County Press, is part of some progressive conspiracy against him. However, this time Margaret Guererro DeLuca wasn't the only Democrat to appear; R.D. Bohm dropped in to do his best Grandpa Simpson impersonation, while I'm not entirely certain that Eric Johnson even actually exists.
Now, I didn't make it to the debate until relatively late in the evening, the audio portion of the Lapeer Tea Party's video of the event cut out pretty badly til about an hour in, and LapeerNow has yet to post the video they took that night, so this will be an unfortunately incomplete breakdown, to (hopefully!) be updated if and when the rest of the video from the evening surfaces.
We start, then, with the fourth question of the evening: Essentially, what would be the candidates' biggest priorities upon getting elected? Guererro stressed operational excellence (more on that later in this post), less regulation on small and home-based businesses. DeLuca's focus was on attracting skilled trade jobs to Lapeer County. Howell's priorities were jobs, education, and roads, emphasizing the Ed-Tech program and utilizing the gas tax specifically for fixing the roads and not MDOT overhead. Kempf touched on bringing business to Lapeer County and over-regulation, particularly on homeowners. Landosky acknowledged that Lapeer has a job problem, but a training problem as well. Peabody spoke of jobs, streamlining government, and veterans. Tuski mentioned the state budget, and a desire to serve on the Appropriations Committee, to find out how much money is being sent to Lansing and how much it's getting back. Adams expressed disappointment in the consolidation of the Department of Human Services with the Department of Community Health, and the loss of jobs and funding in the former, also proposing to solve the employment problem through more education and training in skilled trades. Bohm started by promising to hold Gov. Snyder's feet to the fire, and railed against the Catastrophic Accident Fund, lamenting that there is $57 billion in it that is unaccounted for and that could be used elsewhere, specifically using $3 billion of that for roads. (In what would be a running theme, Bohm went over time quite a bit, with the moderator attempting to cut him off twice on this question alone, to no avail.) Courser spent most of his time lecturing the audience that it's not the government's role to create jobs, and that "you can have all the government you want, but you gotta pay for it." Smith touched on agriculture and skilled trades, citing Ed-Tech in particular: "This building right here is where I decided not to go to college." As for jobs, she pointed out several places in the area that were hiring: "there's jobs out there; look for them." Davison stressed cutting taxes to create a better environment for jobs, pointed out that he has pledged to never vote for a tax increase, and called out Republicans for supporting a gas tax increase. Dewilde mentioned education and infrastructure as two major factors in creating a better climate for businesses to move to Lapeer.
Next, the candidates were asked what they would do "to promote problem solving over politics." Tuski touched on the importance of crossing the aisle to get things done. Adams emphasized the gridlock on a roads bill as a symptom of the problem in Lansing, calling out Courser specifically: "It's easy to be conservative when you say 'no' to everything, but you won't get anything done if you just keep on saying no!" Bohm stressed the lack of voting and attention paid to elections such as these in non-presidential or gubernatorial years. Courser, naturally, rephrased the question altogether as "How are you an effective legislator?" and answered with "I guess you have to define effective" and accused his Republican colleagues of "selling off liberty" while not answering the original question in the slightest. Smith made the point that it's a necessity to value all opinions, regardless of political ideology. Davison spoke of finding those moderates on the other side that would be receptive to supporting his legislation, then went on to remind everyone of his experience working for Jud Gilbert. Dewilde stressed seeking a consensus and working with other sides. Guererro echoed Courser's sentiments, also emphasizing putting the Constitution first; "no negotiating there." DeLuca stressed "common sense decisions" while expressing skepticism that any of her Republican opponents would actually be willing to oppose the more loathsome bills passed by their own party, despite the rhetoric of some that claim they'd do just that. Howell then claimed "I am the Republican who's going to Lansing to repeal the things that Republicans have passed that are not right for our state," specifically the senior pension tax. Kempf cited his experience as a county commissioner and running the Eastern Michigan Fairgrounds as proof that he can work across the board. Landosky was incredulous at the fact that the legislature saw the voters rejected Proposal 1 as an unacceptable fix for the roads, yet still could not put together a better roads bill. Peabody cited her experience in a non-partisan line of work as proof that she can work with others in a political setting, yet made clear she won't compromise her stance on guns, abortion, or fiscal issues.
Then the topic once again turned to gun control, and Sen. Mike Green's bill to allow CPL's in schools. Bohm was against, confused by the fact that "even my dog has to have a license" but most of his opponents feel that handguns shouldn't. Courser once again reiterated his desire to have zero gun restrictions at all, claiming "the Second Amendment is my right to carry." Smith made clear she too was against gun-free zones, though she touched on mental health as an issue. Dewilde said he'd support the bill, as long as those allowed to carry were well-trained, but would still support not allowing guns in bars. Guererro opposes the bill because it eliminates open-carry in schools. DeLuca called BS on the "gun-free zone" narrative, pointing out that the recent Oregon shooting wasn't in a gun-free zone. She went on to say that having talked to teachers, most of them are opposed to such a bill. Kempf again stressed the need for more liason officers in schools, but supports the bill because of the extra training offered, as did Landosky. Peabody supported the bill and Kempf's call for more officers in schools, Adams supported CPL's in schools, and Tuski avoided the question.
The last question before closing statements was also the most interesting one. Candidates were asked which of their opponents would get their vote if they weren't running. Peabody started things off by stammering her way through a non-answer. Tuski chose Smith, whom he voted for in the last primary. Adams absolutely stunned me by throwing his support behind DeLuca: "She actually impresses me!" Naturally, Bohm endorsed his fellow Democrat as well. Courser made sure to start off by pointing out that it wouldn't be DeLuca, then selecting Guererro as the only candidate he could possibly vote for. Davison chose Howell with Kempf as his second choice, adding "that doesn't mean anyone else should, but if you can't stand me, vote for Gary." DeLuca called Courser out for attacking her as "pro-big government," then chose Howell "because he does the research." Not surprisingly, Dewilde narrowed his options to Adams or DeLuca. You could tell Guererro Jr. didn't want to say it, but he finally admitted that he doesn't "believe anybody would support the Constitution like Courser." Landosky backed Howell, Smith supported Adams, and Kempf said he'd endorse Howell because "when he's done running, he would probably endorse me!" Howell surprisingly threw his theoretical support behind Smith, "but ignore my advice and vote for Howell. A few I talked to afterwards thought this somewhat disingenuous, and expected his answer would be Kempf.
Finally, I did get a chance to speak in person to most of the candidates following the debate. (Full disclosure: I'm friends on social media with Davison, Kempf, Adams, DeLuca, Guererro, and inexplicably, Peabody, and have had a few policy debates with a few of them online and in-person.) In no particular order:
-I asked Rick Guererro to follow up on a discussion we'd had on Facebook after my last debate recap, where I stated I felt that he had dodged the MEDC question. He responded by asserting that through implementing "operational excellency" programs the state could eliminate the need for "picking winners and losers" with the MEDC. On Tuesday, he went on to explain to me that by implementing such operational efficiency programs as 6sigma within state government (a point which DeLuca also mentioned during the debate), he believes the need would lessen for what he referred to as "cumbersome" taxes that cause businesses to seek tax relief elsewhere. Might still not agree with him on a lot of things, but I give him quite a bit of credit for being willing to respond to my line of questioning in the first place and putting serious thought into his answers.
-A common theme was disillusionment with the current state of the Republican Party, but not for the reasons that Courser has asserted. Jim Dewilde, one of the most moderate Republicans in the field, indicated to me that "this is no longer the party I first joined years ago," and that he's running in an attempt to change it from within, but not in the direction in which Courser seeks to do so. Russ Adams echoed his sentiments, conceding that he understands why so many are jaded by the GOP, particularly in light of Courser's actions during his tenure.
-My discussion with Kempf was far more informal, as the first time I met him, at the GOP booth at Lapeer Days, I had interrogated him over the roads, economy, and the then-current rep's unwillingness to work with anybody and whether he'd be any different, which he made very clear he would. Same for both DeLuca and Davison, the latter interrupted by a now ex-Facebook friend of his voicing her displeasure with him.
-Bohm was rather interesting post-debate, as much so as you'd expect from a guy who showed up wearing a hardhat with his name spelled out on it; his main point was that we shouldn't be wasting time on things like gay marriage and abortion (neither of which have been addressed in either debate), but rather... the fact that China is trying to set up a land base on the moon, while we're "wasting money" on exploring Mars. You can't make this stuff up.
Most of the candidates came off a lot better than in the prior debate; Chris Tuski had a better showing than the last debate, particularly when asked about his priorities when elected, and Russ Adams did a far better job of staying on point and reined in the fire from the first debate, while still coming across as passionate about the issues he spoke of. Bohm, while he had some interesting answers, probably didn't do much to sway Democratic voters away from DeLuca. Courser, of course, was defiant as ever throughout, and it's hard to see him winning anybody other than the die-hards over with his performances. Peabody once again had trouble at times articulating her points and directly answering questions, and it's no doubt the outside lobbyist support and mailers, and not her public speaking ability, keeping her in this race. Guererro did much better at explaining his positions, though it remains to be seen which candidate will be hurt more his association with Courser. You'd have to imagine that Guererro would siphon votes from those who like Courser's fiscal policy stances, but not the baggage that comes with the man himself. And there's little doubt that's what he's counting on. But as distasteful as many find Courser to be all around, embracing him and his stances is a risky proposition.
There's one more event for the Democratic candidates on Thursday at the County Center Building, which I plan to do my best to attend, if only to find out once and for all if Eric Johnson is a real person, or just how long it takes for somebody to get Bohm to give up the microphone. After that, the results of the County Press questionnaire for the candidates will be published next Sunday, after which I'll do one final pre-election roundup.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Monday, October 12, 2015
Musical Odds and Ends...
With the election a month away and another debate to crash on Wednesday, it's probably about time I take a break for a few days from all the Courser-bashing I do in this space normally. And since the Lions have already killed all hope for the year, I figured I'd touch on another subject rather near and dear to me.
As most of you who've stumbled across my little corner of the internet know by now, when I'm not ranting into my computer for hours on end, I'm a professional musician, in the sense that I subject people to my singing and playing on a regular basis, and occasionally somebody will throw a couple bucks at me for doing so. And I've also worked at a couple different live music venues over the years, one a fairly respectable theatre, and one dive bar that tried to get out of paying anybody they could, band or employee. (Hence why I'm no longer doing either there, and why they are no longer in business.) So I've seen both sides of the coin as far as that goes. Which brings me to a couple "open letters" floating around musician circles that I can't help but comment on.
The first is one originally posted on Craigslist by a Tampa area bar owner. The point of which is basically: you're here to sell booze, and that's it. Some of his advice is pretty basic stuff (respect the venue, engage the crowd, act like you give a damn), and you'd be surprised at how many bands disregard it, but there's also a lot of kvetching about bands being too loud, not dressing 'professionally' enough, not playing the right kind of music, etc. And part of that should be on the venue to book acts that are right for that venue. If your place has more on an acoustic/folk vibe, book bands that fit that style. My main band won't be playing any coffeehouses anytime soon, but my drummer and his wife's acoustic duo might. If you're a country bar, rock bar, whatever, book the kind of music that won't chase your regulars away, but might bring more people in. If we don't fit what you're looking for, look elsewhere instead of getting pissed when we're not what you wanted. Our band's not gonna bust out "Friends In Low Places," no matter how many drunks request it or whose birthday it is. And then there's the condescending bit about "I'm not gonna listen to your demo or check your band out at all, but there's a way to get booked, but I'm not gonna tell you what it is!"
Then there's a musician's rebuttal to said letter, and I can't help but agree with a lot, though not all, of his points, which are bolded as follows.
Upgrade your crappy sound and light gear... or buy some if you don't have any.
I get the feeling that the author is a guy who's not exactly been slogging through the bar circuit. Unless you're playing an established concert venue (as opposed to a bar that just happens to host live music) where you're one of several bands playing that night, I wouldn't count on that. Damn near every band I've ever played with has their own PA and lighting rig, and I can count on two fingers the venues I've played that asked us to supply nothing more than our own amps, mics and instruments. Truth be told, I prefer it that way; those were also the least-paying gigs we did.
Acknowledge that the reason those people are in the bar in the first place is probably to see me play AND drink your booze.
Now, I'm all about promoting alcoholism as much as the next guy. There's a reason the night we played a venue always happened to be "Buy The Band A Shot Night": Because that shit fucking works. And there's a reason I pretty much never play a request without a drink in hand: I'm nothing if not proficient at drinking on some other drunk's dime. But there's a reason I'm a musician and not an alcohol salesman for a living, the Guinness jersey I proudly rep at gigs aside. I'm here to help put asses in your seats so they'll drink your booze or order your food, but I'm not about to go into a damn Fireball commercial on stage.
Pay me better. Failing better pay, don't try to stiff me at 3 a.m.
It's not as though I really expected to pay my bills doing this, but damn, some places can be downright insulting when it comes to paying their talent. We played a gig a good 40 miles out of the city we all live in, that wanted to pay us (a 4-piece) $150 for the evening. We got them to agree to $250, plus "set drinks," which traditionally means one drink per set, which we usually do 3 or 4 sets. Imagine my surprise when I got my tab at the end of the night, and somehow owed damn near all of my pay because not only was their definition of set drink "one for the night," but the band was also getting charged marked up prices for drinks! ($3 for a pint of Natty Light and $6 for Michelob Amber Bock, the closest thing to a drinkable beer here. That says it all.)
Another one that always got under my skin was the venue that expects a band to play for free "for the exposure." Which couldn't possibly be a more asinine statement. Tell ya what: next time you need to order a large quantity of food, call up a restaurant and see if they'll cater your event for free "for the exposure." If you don't get laughed off the phone or hung up on right there, I'll be shocked. We need to make a living as much as you do. Charity events are always an exception, of course. But when the charity is a bar owner who wants to pack his place without spending so much as a dime or a drop of booze to do it (hell, my first gig out of high school, I played for dinner and that was it), that's a different story.
Worse still are the venues and promoters that expect bands to go sell tickets for them, and give them little to nothing in return. I'm thankful that as a band that could always get steady bar gigs, we never had to lower ourselves to that, but too many musician friends of mine who do originals find themselves in these no-win deals, usually staged as a "battle of the bands" with some ridiculous prize that nobody actually wins. One I saw promised a cash prize, studio time, and that a record label A&R guy would be at the venue the night of. Guess how many of those actually happened.
The idea that it's entirely on the band to promote a gig is beyond stale as well. I'm all willing to print up flyers and bomb the hell out of my Facebook page to get asses in the seats, and most of the venues we play are damn good about putting our shows out there ahead of time. Then you have the bar I worked at, which put absolutely zero effort into promoting their venue, much less the bands that played it, and compounding that was the fact that they were located three miles north of town, a good quarter mile off the actual road, with a sign you stood a good chance of not catching until you were passing it by, that usually didn't get updated til the night of a show. Despite all this, the owner regularly bitched that he didn't get any business when bands or DJ's played there, which usually led to him trying to undercut what he promised the entertainment. (No joke, I saw this guy try and hand a karaoke DJ $15 for a 4-hour set, and bitch at him for not bringing a following with him. How many of those guys do you know that have a "following" of any sort?)
Another thing I've noticed is the disdain for the "open mic night" because it's somehow cheapening live music. Now, I got lucky and fell into a well-established gig of this sort, and I'll be honest: that's some of the easiest money I make all week, and I play usually all of two sets a night! Some people seem to think that's the cheap way out for a venue to go, but that's not always the case. For one, someone has to run the damn thing, and provide entertainment when nobody shows up to jam, and that somebody has to get paid. You can't just plug a microphone into an amplifier, leave it there, not tell anybody, and call it an open mic night. (And yes, I've been to one place that did exactly that.) And in my experience, if there isn't a full band hosting (which there usually is), and sometimes even when there is, it's usually on a night that you wouldn't normally expect to see people packing the bar, usually sometime in the middle of the week when most places would otherwise offer karaoke, if anything at all. So in a lot of cases, it's not taking away from what would be somebody else's paying gig, it's a gig that otherwise wouldn't exist at all; in fact, our most recent gig of that sort came at a bar that didn't offer live entertainment of any sort on that particular night until we showed up.
And from a musician's standpoint, I'm a big proponent of the open jam, and not just because my band happens to host one. For one, I found it to be a great place to get better at what I do; nothing builds your chops quite like getting thrown on stage with a bunch of people you've never jammed with before, playing songs you've never heard before. And in my case, it directly led to my meeting my current bandmates, and after jamming a few open mics, we started booking paying gigs from there. If you're treating it as the means to an end, instead of the end itself, open jams can be some productive and valuable stage time, and open a lot of doors that might not have been available before. Sure, you can jam in the basement for hours at a time (and I have), but there's some things you just can't work out til you're actually on stage.
As I said earlier, I'm under no illusion that I'm going to make much of a living doing this, and that isn't why I do what I do. But if there's two things that just irritate me to no end about the music scene (apart from "bands" that sing to backing tracks, but that's another rant for another day), it's the guys who cut down other cats trying to make a few bucks hosting jam nights and open mics, and the venues and promoters that legitimately try to cheap out on live entertainment or screw performers over; if they're bringing in customers, bands should be able to get the money they deserve for what they do, or at the very least, the money they agreed to with the venue; and venues to still make money on drinks. And I'd like to think there's plenty of room for the open mic guys, the cover bands doing 4-hour sets on a Saturday night, and the bands that come out and do an hour of their originals, to all go out and get theirs, and be compensated fairly for it. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition; hell, I do all of the above, depending on the day! As a smarter musician than myself once told me, "Music isn't supposed to be a competition."
As most of you who've stumbled across my little corner of the internet know by now, when I'm not ranting into my computer for hours on end, I'm a professional musician, in the sense that I subject people to my singing and playing on a regular basis, and occasionally somebody will throw a couple bucks at me for doing so. And I've also worked at a couple different live music venues over the years, one a fairly respectable theatre, and one dive bar that tried to get out of paying anybody they could, band or employee. (Hence why I'm no longer doing either there, and why they are no longer in business.) So I've seen both sides of the coin as far as that goes. Which brings me to a couple "open letters" floating around musician circles that I can't help but comment on.
The first is one originally posted on Craigslist by a Tampa area bar owner. The point of which is basically: you're here to sell booze, and that's it. Some of his advice is pretty basic stuff (respect the venue, engage the crowd, act like you give a damn), and you'd be surprised at how many bands disregard it, but there's also a lot of kvetching about bands being too loud, not dressing 'professionally' enough, not playing the right kind of music, etc. And part of that should be on the venue to book acts that are right for that venue. If your place has more on an acoustic/folk vibe, book bands that fit that style. My main band won't be playing any coffeehouses anytime soon, but my drummer and his wife's acoustic duo might. If you're a country bar, rock bar, whatever, book the kind of music that won't chase your regulars away, but might bring more people in. If we don't fit what you're looking for, look elsewhere instead of getting pissed when we're not what you wanted. Our band's not gonna bust out "Friends In Low Places," no matter how many drunks request it or whose birthday it is. And then there's the condescending bit about "I'm not gonna listen to your demo or check your band out at all, but there's a way to get booked, but I'm not gonna tell you what it is!"
Then there's a musician's rebuttal to said letter, and I can't help but agree with a lot, though not all, of his points, which are bolded as follows.
Upgrade your crappy sound and light gear... or buy some if you don't have any.
I get the feeling that the author is a guy who's not exactly been slogging through the bar circuit. Unless you're playing an established concert venue (as opposed to a bar that just happens to host live music) where you're one of several bands playing that night, I wouldn't count on that. Damn near every band I've ever played with has their own PA and lighting rig, and I can count on two fingers the venues I've played that asked us to supply nothing more than our own amps, mics and instruments. Truth be told, I prefer it that way; those were also the least-paying gigs we did.
Acknowledge that the reason those people are in the bar in the first place is probably to see me play AND drink your booze.
Now, I'm all about promoting alcoholism as much as the next guy. There's a reason the night we played a venue always happened to be "Buy The Band A Shot Night": Because that shit fucking works. And there's a reason I pretty much never play a request without a drink in hand: I'm nothing if not proficient at drinking on some other drunk's dime. But there's a reason I'm a musician and not an alcohol salesman for a living, the Guinness jersey I proudly rep at gigs aside. I'm here to help put asses in your seats so they'll drink your booze or order your food, but I'm not about to go into a damn Fireball commercial on stage.
Pay me better. Failing better pay, don't try to stiff me at 3 a.m.
It's not as though I really expected to pay my bills doing this, but damn, some places can be downright insulting when it comes to paying their talent. We played a gig a good 40 miles out of the city we all live in, that wanted to pay us (a 4-piece) $150 for the evening. We got them to agree to $250, plus "set drinks," which traditionally means one drink per set, which we usually do 3 or 4 sets. Imagine my surprise when I got my tab at the end of the night, and somehow owed damn near all of my pay because not only was their definition of set drink "one for the night," but the band was also getting charged marked up prices for drinks! ($3 for a pint of Natty Light and $6 for Michelob Amber Bock, the closest thing to a drinkable beer here. That says it all.)
Another one that always got under my skin was the venue that expects a band to play for free "for the exposure." Which couldn't possibly be a more asinine statement. Tell ya what: next time you need to order a large quantity of food, call up a restaurant and see if they'll cater your event for free "for the exposure." If you don't get laughed off the phone or hung up on right there, I'll be shocked. We need to make a living as much as you do. Charity events are always an exception, of course. But when the charity is a bar owner who wants to pack his place without spending so much as a dime or a drop of booze to do it (hell, my first gig out of high school, I played for dinner and that was it), that's a different story.
Worse still are the venues and promoters that expect bands to go sell tickets for them, and give them little to nothing in return. I'm thankful that as a band that could always get steady bar gigs, we never had to lower ourselves to that, but too many musician friends of mine who do originals find themselves in these no-win deals, usually staged as a "battle of the bands" with some ridiculous prize that nobody actually wins. One I saw promised a cash prize, studio time, and that a record label A&R guy would be at the venue the night of. Guess how many of those actually happened.
The idea that it's entirely on the band to promote a gig is beyond stale as well. I'm all willing to print up flyers and bomb the hell out of my Facebook page to get asses in the seats, and most of the venues we play are damn good about putting our shows out there ahead of time. Then you have the bar I worked at, which put absolutely zero effort into promoting their venue, much less the bands that played it, and compounding that was the fact that they were located three miles north of town, a good quarter mile off the actual road, with a sign you stood a good chance of not catching until you were passing it by, that usually didn't get updated til the night of a show. Despite all this, the owner regularly bitched that he didn't get any business when bands or DJ's played there, which usually led to him trying to undercut what he promised the entertainment. (No joke, I saw this guy try and hand a karaoke DJ $15 for a 4-hour set, and bitch at him for not bringing a following with him. How many of those guys do you know that have a "following" of any sort?)
Another thing I've noticed is the disdain for the "open mic night" because it's somehow cheapening live music. Now, I got lucky and fell into a well-established gig of this sort, and I'll be honest: that's some of the easiest money I make all week, and I play usually all of two sets a night! Some people seem to think that's the cheap way out for a venue to go, but that's not always the case. For one, someone has to run the damn thing, and provide entertainment when nobody shows up to jam, and that somebody has to get paid. You can't just plug a microphone into an amplifier, leave it there, not tell anybody, and call it an open mic night. (And yes, I've been to one place that did exactly that.) And in my experience, if there isn't a full band hosting (which there usually is), and sometimes even when there is, it's usually on a night that you wouldn't normally expect to see people packing the bar, usually sometime in the middle of the week when most places would otherwise offer karaoke, if anything at all. So in a lot of cases, it's not taking away from what would be somebody else's paying gig, it's a gig that otherwise wouldn't exist at all; in fact, our most recent gig of that sort came at a bar that didn't offer live entertainment of any sort on that particular night until we showed up.
And from a musician's standpoint, I'm a big proponent of the open jam, and not just because my band happens to host one. For one, I found it to be a great place to get better at what I do; nothing builds your chops quite like getting thrown on stage with a bunch of people you've never jammed with before, playing songs you've never heard before. And in my case, it directly led to my meeting my current bandmates, and after jamming a few open mics, we started booking paying gigs from there. If you're treating it as the means to an end, instead of the end itself, open jams can be some productive and valuable stage time, and open a lot of doors that might not have been available before. Sure, you can jam in the basement for hours at a time (and I have), but there's some things you just can't work out til you're actually on stage.
As I said earlier, I'm under no illusion that I'm going to make much of a living doing this, and that isn't why I do what I do. But if there's two things that just irritate me to no end about the music scene (apart from "bands" that sing to backing tracks, but that's another rant for another day), it's the guys who cut down other cats trying to make a few bucks hosting jam nights and open mics, and the venues and promoters that legitimately try to cheap out on live entertainment or screw performers over; if they're bringing in customers, bands should be able to get the money they deserve for what they do, or at the very least, the money they agreed to with the venue; and venues to still make money on drinks. And I'd like to think there's plenty of room for the open mic guys, the cover bands doing 4-hour sets on a Saturday night, and the bands that come out and do an hour of their originals, to all go out and get theirs, and be compensated fairly for it. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition; hell, I do all of the above, depending on the day! As a smarter musician than myself once told me, "Music isn't supposed to be a competition."
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Watching the State Rep Debate So You Don't Have To
Finally, all (or at least most) of the candidates vying to be your next state representative were gathered together in one place to take questions from their future constituents over the weekend, and a lot of questions were answered, even from the guy who has a great aversion to taking questions from his constituents.
The debate was put on by the Lapeer County Tea Party, and they let you know it from the second you walked in the door, with a large poster diagramming President Obama's alleged ties to socialism and Marxism on display by the entrance. Not exactly the kind of place I feel particularly welcome, but in the interest of saving you three hours of your Friday night, I ventured out to the Lapeer County Sportsman's Club to see if I could get a question or two in. 12 of the 14 candidates showed up for the debate; all the Republicans, naturally, including disgraced ex-rep Todd Courser, who showed up at the last possible second; and Democrat Margaret Guererro DeLuca. If you missed it, you can watch the whole thing here, but if you don't have three hours to dedicate to that, here's the Cliff Notes version.
The first topic of the evening was gun control, as you'd expect given the shootings in Oregon that had just happened. Courser, of course, wants absolutely zero restrictions on guns whatsoever, while Jake Davison and Rick Guererro blamed the Oregon shooting on gun-free zones, despite the fact that the Oregon shooting didn't take place in one. DeLuca posed an interesting question regarding the bill that expanded open-carry zones: "why did this bill not include the Michigan legislative chambers or courthouses?" She went on to defend her Second Amendement bona-fides: "I'm married to a police officer. We have many guns in our home. I probably have the most guns in my home than anyone on this panel." Jim Dewilde was far more moderate on this than his fellow Republicans: "Close the loopholes at gun shows where they don't require background checks. Let's make sure if we're selling someone a gun, that we're not selling it to a loony toon. Let's make sure we're not selling it to a domestic abuser, or a criminal." Gary Howell touched on getting guns "out of the hands of the nutcases." Ian Kempf proposed that more school liason officers, of which DeLuca's husband is one, would be helpful. Al Landosky proposes enforcing the laws already in place. Jan Peabody mentioned mental illness, but then went on an off-topic tangent about "sanctuary cities." Not to be outdone, Russell Adams went on an odd tangent about drunk driving, going so far as to claim that "we don't legislate that anymore!" That's so wrong on several different levels, I don't even know where to start.
From there, the discussion moved to term limits, which only DeLuca and Landoski came out against. After that, it was on to marijuana. DeLuca's position hasn't changed from the last campaign: put it to the voters to decide. Jim Dewilde supported legalizing medicinal, with mixed feelings towards recreational and the caveat that "I'm not one of those that drinks or smokes marijuana; I'm just naturally this way!" Guererro, as a libertarian, supports it, based in part on the increased tax revenue in other states that have done so, and a decrease in painkiller deaths in those states. Howell, Peabody, and Tuski were completely against legalization. Kempf, Landosky, and Smith are against recreational use, but would be in favor of sentencing reform. Peabody ended up going on an unrelated tangent about heroin; not to be outdone, Adams went on an even more bizarre tangent about banking laws. Then there was the irony of Courser saying "it's not my business to decide what other people do with themselves," when he's done exactly that quite frequently, while riding the fence on the actual issue, though tending towards the libertarian "government shouldn't be involved" stance. Then, Davison came out 100% in support of legalization, likening the issue to Prohibition: "we learned in the 20's, banning it is worse than regulating it."
Then the discussion came to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, or as most know it, the agency behind the "Pure Michigan" campaign, which just laid off 65 staffers and has been a favorite target of Courser and his ilk, claiming that it's no more than political favoritism, For starters, I was rather disappointed that very few of the candidates actually know what the MEDC actually does, or why it might possibly be important to not shut down an agency that attempts to connect startup businesses with capital providers and increase the amount of capital available for business in general, helps to find federal grants for startup tech companies, promotes increased visibility and funding for the arts and arts education, and otherwise offers incentives for business to come to Michigan and stay here.
Courser, of course, supports abolishing it altogether, Dewilde claimed that the MEDC "is an organization that we sorely need", and having served with the Tuscola County Economic Development Corporation, said "it's just not good business sense" to eliminate an organization dedicated to bringing better jobs to the state. Guererro started off with "Not to avoid the question," then proceeded to avoid the question entirely, going off on the film industry and education. Howell also went on about Vo-Tech and didn't even mention the MEDC in his response. Kempf mentioned the lack of communication between the MEDC and similar local organizations. Landoski also admitted to not knowing what the MEDC does. Peabody said it "wasn't a bad thing" that they just laid off 65 people and that she "wasn't upset about it," while Tuski said they "probably weren't value added" and that "this is a good time to actually lose your job." Adams went on yet another digression about DHS layoffs; a fair point, but one that had absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. admit that they do serve a necessary purpose. Davison wants to get rid of most of the MEDC, but concedes that can't be done without losing high-paying jobs to neighboring states willing to give the tax breaks. DeLuca also pointed out that the MEDC needs more transparency, and that much of that money should be passed down to local agencies.
For some reason, mandatory vaccinations were the next topic. Most of the field were completely against, though Davison suggested he'd reconsider that stance if an outbreak were to occur in Michigan, and DeLuca and Dewilde were in favor. Dewilde: "How many of ya'd like to see a repeat of the black plague?"
Next, candidates were asked if they knew what the minimum wage was, and whether it should be raised or lowered. Only DeLuca correctly answered the first part of that question, and the field save for DeLuca and Dewilde were against increasing it, with the usual platitudes of "making minimum wage a lifestyle" and "making a career out of a menial job," while Davison said he'd like to get rid of it entirely. DeLuca made the point that if we want people off state aid, "give them a wage they can live on!" She went on to blow out the "high school jobs" narrative with a few choice stats: 80% of minimum wage earners are over 21, and 70% of those are women with one or more dependents. Dewilde took it even further, claiming it should be raised to "between $11 and $12 an hour by the middle of next year, and by 2020 it should be $15 an hour."
School funding and teacher morale were the next order of business; Landosky's solution was more local control, Peabody claimed Republicans have put more money into schools than Democrats, a point which DeLuca and Howell both challenged. Tuski, Dewilde, and Guererro called out Common Core as a reason for declining teacher morale, and Guererro pointed out expanding class sizes, while both Guererro and Howell railed against forcing teachers to continually take classes themselves. Smith pointed out that federal funding has decreased, and along with Adams called to standardize the per-pupil ratio of funding. Davison questioned why teacher pay is based strictly on seniority as opposed to actual performance.
Unfunded mandates were the next topic, and the field was largely emphatically against, though Smith passed on the question entirely, Kempf pointed out that they're already illegal, though the state has ways around it, and DeLuca pointed out exactly how they affected revenue sharing in Imlay City. From there, a question was asked about attending local meetings and keeping in contact with constituents. Courser, naturally, deflected the question, going on about his conservative voting record and how difficult it is to communicate with his constituents, while Davison called him out: "It's not that difficult if you've done it before." DeLuca put Courser on blast immediately following that: "We all know legislators have an exorbitant amount of time on their hands... We've seen representatives who ignore, delete constituents that don't agree with them, have a difference of opinion; that's not how you represent your constituents!"
Finally, the candidates were asked how they would fund state road repairs. Tuski and Adams didn't give any specifics, other than "there's gotta be money there." Courser blamed the road shortfall on Medicaid, welfare, and the MEDC. Davison had the most curious non-answer of all: If you want your roads fixed, "you have to increase the gas tax, and I'm against increasing the gas tax." Which leads one to assume that he wouldn't fix the roads at all. DeLuca claims the current funding formula is flawed, and more of the road money should be given to local municipalities. Dewilde didn't really have any answers either, apart from blaming the roundabout. Guererro blamed overregulation and prevailing wage, while Howell called out misallocation of the current road money on non-road related items. Kempf pointed out a few particular frivolous expenditures, such as Amtrak, bus transit, and traffic control near Michigan International Speedway, and called for the sales tax applied to gas to be directed specifically to roads. Landosky's plan calls for user taxes would cover up to 90% of all road funding, while 10% would come out of the general fund, and he decried subsidies for hybrid vehicles. Peabody's plan calls for 1.5% of the sales tax on gas to go to the roads, repealing prevailing wage (which she claims will save nearly half a billion dollars), dedicating 1% of use tax revenue, redirecting oil and gas royalty revenues to roads, and competitive bidding for state services. Smith called for raising the gas tax, but only if the money were specifically going to roads.
As for the individual candidates themselves:
Ian Kempf and Jake Davison acquitted themselves fairly well, even if Davison didn't have quite all the answers I would have liked. Both possess the political experience and the confidence that would imply; Kempf trumpeted his County Commission and Eastern Michigan Fair experience quite frequently, while Davison made no apologies whatsoever for his status as a Lansing "insider."
Give credit to Margaret Guererro DeLuca; she went up against 11 Republican candidates in a debate hosted by an organization that is pretty well opposed to everything she stands for (and let you know it the second you walked through the door), and she more than held her own, had the facts and numbers to prove her claims, and backed down from nobody. By that same token, I'm extremely disappointed that Eric Johnson and R.D. Bohm, the other Democratic candidates, didn't show.
It's pretty evident that Gary Howell has not a single fuck left to give; he spent much of the evening calling out both sides of the political spectrum for not getting anything done. In response to a question about seniors, he called out Republicans for eliminating the pension exemption and reducing the homestead tax credit. Agree with his views or not, the man gets points for sincerity, if nothing else; one gets the sense that he's not going to BS anybody.
Russell Adams: A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Couldn't answer a direct question to save his life, but what he lacked in that he made up in volume, bluster and off-topic tangents.
Jan Peabody: The train of thought appears to have derailed at the station. Sorry, but there's just no 'there' there, and this debate confirmed it. She too was prone to not answering questions directly and straying entirely off topic on several occasions, and there was really nothing of substance to much of her responses.
Not overly impressed by Al Landosky and Rick Guererro. Two cases in which a lack of political experience is all too evident, and a lack of preparation even more so.
Chris Tuski: Your standard, inoffensive, boilerplate bland, politician type. No shock that he's the one associated with an actual former state rep. And a quote like "This is a good time to actually lose your job" comes across as tone-deaf at best, and utterly callous at worst. Nothing to see here.
Sharna Smith was... there. Though she had a good line about part-time legislature: "What is considered part-time? Because aren't they in session only three days a week; with, like, three times a year they get a vacation for several weeks? That, to me, is already part-time!"
Jim Dewilde actually kind of impressed me; he had some of the most reasonable and moderate answers of the field, and along with Kempf, made it clear he's willing to work with the other side in Lansing to get things done, something the current state rep refused at all costs.
And speaking of... I did finally get the chance to interrogate our boy Todd in person, and it went as well as you could expect. So well that, in the middle of a question about Elliott-Larsen and his marriage bills, he gave me a "god bless" and walked away. Big surprise; he can't handle a direct question from anybody. It was an odd exchange, for sure:
Really wish I'd had the chance to ask him about the MEDC in detail. Or if he even knows what that organization actually does. Or why he feels he shouldn't have to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of this special election, given that he's running for a seat he resigned from a week prior. Or even the question I actually asked him above. If any of you manage to get those answers out of him, do pass them along..
The debate was put on by the Lapeer County Tea Party, and they let you know it from the second you walked in the door, with a large poster diagramming President Obama's alleged ties to socialism and Marxism on display by the entrance. Not exactly the kind of place I feel particularly welcome, but in the interest of saving you three hours of your Friday night, I ventured out to the Lapeer County Sportsman's Club to see if I could get a question or two in. 12 of the 14 candidates showed up for the debate; all the Republicans, naturally, including disgraced ex-rep Todd Courser, who showed up at the last possible second; and Democrat Margaret Guererro DeLuca. If you missed it, you can watch the whole thing here, but if you don't have three hours to dedicate to that, here's the Cliff Notes version.
The first topic of the evening was gun control, as you'd expect given the shootings in Oregon that had just happened. Courser, of course, wants absolutely zero restrictions on guns whatsoever, while Jake Davison and Rick Guererro blamed the Oregon shooting on gun-free zones, despite the fact that the Oregon shooting didn't take place in one. DeLuca posed an interesting question regarding the bill that expanded open-carry zones: "why did this bill not include the Michigan legislative chambers or courthouses?" She went on to defend her Second Amendement bona-fides: "I'm married to a police officer. We have many guns in our home. I probably have the most guns in my home than anyone on this panel." Jim Dewilde was far more moderate on this than his fellow Republicans: "Close the loopholes at gun shows where they don't require background checks. Let's make sure if we're selling someone a gun, that we're not selling it to a loony toon. Let's make sure we're not selling it to a domestic abuser, or a criminal." Gary Howell touched on getting guns "out of the hands of the nutcases." Ian Kempf proposed that more school liason officers, of which DeLuca's husband is one, would be helpful. Al Landosky proposes enforcing the laws already in place. Jan Peabody mentioned mental illness, but then went on an off-topic tangent about "sanctuary cities." Not to be outdone, Russell Adams went on an odd tangent about drunk driving, going so far as to claim that "we don't legislate that anymore!" That's so wrong on several different levels, I don't even know where to start.
From there, the discussion moved to term limits, which only DeLuca and Landoski came out against. After that, it was on to marijuana. DeLuca's position hasn't changed from the last campaign: put it to the voters to decide. Jim Dewilde supported legalizing medicinal, with mixed feelings towards recreational and the caveat that "I'm not one of those that drinks or smokes marijuana; I'm just naturally this way!" Guererro, as a libertarian, supports it, based in part on the increased tax revenue in other states that have done so, and a decrease in painkiller deaths in those states. Howell, Peabody, and Tuski were completely against legalization. Kempf, Landosky, and Smith are against recreational use, but would be in favor of sentencing reform. Peabody ended up going on an unrelated tangent about heroin; not to be outdone, Adams went on an even more bizarre tangent about banking laws. Then there was the irony of Courser saying "it's not my business to decide what other people do with themselves," when he's done exactly that quite frequently, while riding the fence on the actual issue, though tending towards the libertarian "government shouldn't be involved" stance. Then, Davison came out 100% in support of legalization, likening the issue to Prohibition: "we learned in the 20's, banning it is worse than regulating it."
Then the discussion came to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, or as most know it, the agency behind the "Pure Michigan" campaign, which just laid off 65 staffers and has been a favorite target of Courser and his ilk, claiming that it's no more than political favoritism, For starters, I was rather disappointed that very few of the candidates actually know what the MEDC actually does, or why it might possibly be important to not shut down an agency that attempts to connect startup businesses with capital providers and increase the amount of capital available for business in general, helps to find federal grants for startup tech companies, promotes increased visibility and funding for the arts and arts education, and otherwise offers incentives for business to come to Michigan and stay here.
Courser, of course, supports abolishing it altogether, Dewilde claimed that the MEDC "is an organization that we sorely need", and having served with the Tuscola County Economic Development Corporation, said "it's just not good business sense" to eliminate an organization dedicated to bringing better jobs to the state. Guererro started off with "Not to avoid the question," then proceeded to avoid the question entirely, going off on the film industry and education. Howell also went on about Vo-Tech and didn't even mention the MEDC in his response. Kempf mentioned the lack of communication between the MEDC and similar local organizations. Landoski also admitted to not knowing what the MEDC does. Peabody said it "wasn't a bad thing" that they just laid off 65 people and that she "wasn't upset about it," while Tuski said they "probably weren't value added" and that "this is a good time to actually lose your job." Adams went on yet another digression about DHS layoffs; a fair point, but one that had absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. admit that they do serve a necessary purpose. Davison wants to get rid of most of the MEDC, but concedes that can't be done without losing high-paying jobs to neighboring states willing to give the tax breaks. DeLuca also pointed out that the MEDC needs more transparency, and that much of that money should be passed down to local agencies.
For some reason, mandatory vaccinations were the next topic. Most of the field were completely against, though Davison suggested he'd reconsider that stance if an outbreak were to occur in Michigan, and DeLuca and Dewilde were in favor. Dewilde: "How many of ya'd like to see a repeat of the black plague?"
Next, candidates were asked if they knew what the minimum wage was, and whether it should be raised or lowered. Only DeLuca correctly answered the first part of that question, and the field save for DeLuca and Dewilde were against increasing it, with the usual platitudes of "making minimum wage a lifestyle" and "making a career out of a menial job," while Davison said he'd like to get rid of it entirely. DeLuca made the point that if we want people off state aid, "give them a wage they can live on!" She went on to blow out the "high school jobs" narrative with a few choice stats: 80% of minimum wage earners are over 21, and 70% of those are women with one or more dependents. Dewilde took it even further, claiming it should be raised to "between $11 and $12 an hour by the middle of next year, and by 2020 it should be $15 an hour."
School funding and teacher morale were the next order of business; Landosky's solution was more local control, Peabody claimed Republicans have put more money into schools than Democrats, a point which DeLuca and Howell both challenged. Tuski, Dewilde, and Guererro called out Common Core as a reason for declining teacher morale, and Guererro pointed out expanding class sizes, while both Guererro and Howell railed against forcing teachers to continually take classes themselves. Smith pointed out that federal funding has decreased, and along with Adams called to standardize the per-pupil ratio of funding. Davison questioned why teacher pay is based strictly on seniority as opposed to actual performance.
Unfunded mandates were the next topic, and the field was largely emphatically against, though Smith passed on the question entirely, Kempf pointed out that they're already illegal, though the state has ways around it, and DeLuca pointed out exactly how they affected revenue sharing in Imlay City. From there, a question was asked about attending local meetings and keeping in contact with constituents. Courser, naturally, deflected the question, going on about his conservative voting record and how difficult it is to communicate with his constituents, while Davison called him out: "It's not that difficult if you've done it before." DeLuca put Courser on blast immediately following that: "We all know legislators have an exorbitant amount of time on their hands... We've seen representatives who ignore, delete constituents that don't agree with them, have a difference of opinion; that's not how you represent your constituents!"
Finally, the candidates were asked how they would fund state road repairs. Tuski and Adams didn't give any specifics, other than "there's gotta be money there." Courser blamed the road shortfall on Medicaid, welfare, and the MEDC. Davison had the most curious non-answer of all: If you want your roads fixed, "you have to increase the gas tax, and I'm against increasing the gas tax." Which leads one to assume that he wouldn't fix the roads at all. DeLuca claims the current funding formula is flawed, and more of the road money should be given to local municipalities. Dewilde didn't really have any answers either, apart from blaming the roundabout. Guererro blamed overregulation and prevailing wage, while Howell called out misallocation of the current road money on non-road related items. Kempf pointed out a few particular frivolous expenditures, such as Amtrak, bus transit, and traffic control near Michigan International Speedway, and called for the sales tax applied to gas to be directed specifically to roads. Landosky's plan calls for user taxes would cover up to 90% of all road funding, while 10% would come out of the general fund, and he decried subsidies for hybrid vehicles. Peabody's plan calls for 1.5% of the sales tax on gas to go to the roads, repealing prevailing wage (which she claims will save nearly half a billion dollars), dedicating 1% of use tax revenue, redirecting oil and gas royalty revenues to roads, and competitive bidding for state services. Smith called for raising the gas tax, but only if the money were specifically going to roads.
As for the individual candidates themselves:
Ian Kempf and Jake Davison acquitted themselves fairly well, even if Davison didn't have quite all the answers I would have liked. Both possess the political experience and the confidence that would imply; Kempf trumpeted his County Commission and Eastern Michigan Fair experience quite frequently, while Davison made no apologies whatsoever for his status as a Lansing "insider."
Give credit to Margaret Guererro DeLuca; she went up against 11 Republican candidates in a debate hosted by an organization that is pretty well opposed to everything she stands for (and let you know it the second you walked through the door), and she more than held her own, had the facts and numbers to prove her claims, and backed down from nobody. By that same token, I'm extremely disappointed that Eric Johnson and R.D. Bohm, the other Democratic candidates, didn't show.
It's pretty evident that Gary Howell has not a single fuck left to give; he spent much of the evening calling out both sides of the political spectrum for not getting anything done. In response to a question about seniors, he called out Republicans for eliminating the pension exemption and reducing the homestead tax credit. Agree with his views or not, the man gets points for sincerity, if nothing else; one gets the sense that he's not going to BS anybody.
Russell Adams: A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Couldn't answer a direct question to save his life, but what he lacked in that he made up in volume, bluster and off-topic tangents.
Jan Peabody: The train of thought appears to have derailed at the station. Sorry, but there's just no 'there' there, and this debate confirmed it. She too was prone to not answering questions directly and straying entirely off topic on several occasions, and there was really nothing of substance to much of her responses.
Not overly impressed by Al Landosky and Rick Guererro. Two cases in which a lack of political experience is all too evident, and a lack of preparation even more so.
Chris Tuski: Your standard, inoffensive, boilerplate bland, politician type. No shock that he's the one associated with an actual former state rep. And a quote like "This is a good time to actually lose your job" comes across as tone-deaf at best, and utterly callous at worst. Nothing to see here.
Sharna Smith was... there. Though she had a good line about part-time legislature: "What is considered part-time? Because aren't they in session only three days a week; with, like, three times a year they get a vacation for several weeks? That, to me, is already part-time!"
Jim Dewilde actually kind of impressed me; he had some of the most reasonable and moderate answers of the field, and along with Kempf, made it clear he's willing to work with the other side in Lansing to get things done, something the current state rep refused at all costs.
And speaking of... I did finally get the chance to interrogate our boy Todd in person, and it went as well as you could expect. So well that, in the middle of a question about Elliott-Larsen and his marriage bills, he gave me a "god bless" and walked away. Big surprise; he can't handle a direct question from anybody. It was an odd exchange, for sure:
Me: "So, you support employment and housing discrimination against LGBT individuals?"
Todd: "We agree on one thing: LGBT's shouldn't be a protected class."
Me: "We don't agree on that at all!"
Todd: "God bless you." *walks away.*
Really wish I'd had the chance to ask him about the MEDC in detail. Or if he even knows what that organization actually does. Or why he feels he shouldn't have to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of this special election, given that he's running for a seat he resigned from a week prior. Or even the question I actually asked him above. If any of you manage to get those answers out of him, do pass them along..
Did love this quote from his opening statement, though, presented here without context: "If you want someone in Lansing to continue to expose it, I'm the guy to do it."
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
No, Tigers Fans Still Aren't "Spoiled"
It's that time of the year again, where the Tigers' writers start telling us how to be better fans.
And in this town, it seems that once there's nothing left to root for apart from a change in management, talk always starts to turn to who's a "real fan," and how fans are supposed to think and feel about their team.
Back in the day, these types of articles were left to the Jerry Greens and Chris McCoskys of the world, the ink-stained wretches who would savagely rip the blogosphere a new one for simply existing, in part because the blogs were breaking more stories than the beat writers, and even more so anyone who would dare to boo a sub-par performance from their team. And we dismissed them as the out-of-touch relics we are, and went on with our day. That was the way it was, and it worked! (Now git off my lawn!)
Unfortunately, now the Detroit sports blogosphere itself has picked up the torch of policing the fanbase, and they've stooped to the same level as their print brethren.
It started last year, after Joe Nathan flipped off booing fans following a game at Comerica Park, prompting Kurt Mensching over at fan site Bless You Boys to post this about how spoiled a fan base that hasn't seen a World Series in 30 years is, for which he was soundly ripped, and rightfully so. And that was the last we heard of that for a while.
Until last week, when Victor Martinez decided to remind everybody that he still holds a grudge against Tigers fans for booing last October, which was promptly followed up by Justin Verlander chiming in on the boos raining down on Brad Ausmus when he went out to pull Verlander from Friday night's game with two outs in the 9th, only to have Alex Wilson give up the game-tying run and send them to extra innings. Of course, the booing that night was followed up by a standing ovation for their ace on his walk back to the dugout, so clearly the message was lost on nobody, even Verlander himself.
Of course, none of this stopped a couple of the more prominent Detroit fan sites in town from wagging their fingers at the fans in the stands. Fansided's Tigers site Motor City Bengals posted this, which seems to posit that the reason the Tigers got swept in the playoffs last season is... the fans weren't cheering loud enough. Even though V-Mart has apparently been holding it over our heads ever since, I still find it somewhat difficult to believe that guys who make millions of dollars to play this game decided they were going to go out and suck at their jobs because they weren't getting enough praise from their fans.
That was then followed by a post over at Detroit Sports Nation, which clearly had about as much time and thought put into it as a typical Brad Ausmus decision. That post begins by criticizing the beat writers for not being supportive enough, using a fairly innocuous tweet by Oakland Press writer Matthew Mowery, the guy who's criticized the Tigers less than possibly anybody else covering them.
Our writer then asks this: "Can't we just enjoy the good parts of the team?"
At this point, I'm not convinced this isn't V-Mart himself, trolling us all.
Which good parts, exactly? The part where we're the second-worst team in the American League? The part where Ausmus completely gave up on the team until it was too late to save his job? The part where this team is already eliminated from contention of any sort two weeks before the season is over, and was done for all intents and purposes before the All-Star break?
For your convenience, the dumbest Tigers-related question asked by anyone this year is immediately followed by a link to retweet the article you're currently in the middle of reading, and a pre-written comment so you don't have to go to the trouble of having an opinion of your own on it. How considerate of you, DSN. The writer goes on to list three individual accomplishments, which amount to Ian Kinsler getting some milestone counting stat, Miguel Cabrera doing Miguel Cabrera things, and Verlander no longer being awful like he was earlier this year. Good for them, but none of it means a damn thing if they can't make the playoffs, which wasn't going to happen this year at any rate.
Anybody with a brain could have seen the Tigers set themselves up for trouble in the last offseason. Relief pitching wasn't addressed at all, unless you count signing Tom Gorzelanny, claiming washed-up Neftali Feliz off waivers, and really, really hoping Bruce Rondon (who has instead already been sent home for the year) would finally put it together as addressing the bullpen. And there's no way anybody can possibly argue that replacing Max Scherzer and Rick Porcello with Shane Greene and Alfredo Simon was an upgrade, or even a lateral move. This team needed to upgrade in a few areas to make it further than a first-round sweep this year, and instead managed to get worse at them.
And yet, faced with all of this, the Tigers still tried to sell us on this being the year, up until the day of the trade deadline, and now their apologists are going to turn on us and lecture us for having high expectations? What kind of logic is this?
But apparently we need to lower our expectations, because "It's a team with a rich history, exciting present and compelling future," and it's high time we recognize that. (It should be noted that the 'exciting present' linked to an article from April that proved to be hilariously wrong about this team's playoff prospects.) Try telling Lions fans that they should stop tearing their team a new one because of their 'rich history' and see where that gets you.
Sorry to break it to the Kool-Aid drinkers out there, but sustained success breeds higher expectations. Especially when the team in question also has a championship drought stretching over 30 years. And truthfully, a lot of the fans' frustration would be somewhat placated were it not for that. Case in point: the Red Wings haven't missed the playoffs since I've been alive, and have already won four Stanley Cups in my lifetime, and even though the most recent was seven years ago, damn near every Wings fan out there has watched their team raise the Cup in their lifetime, in relatively recent history to boot. They don't owe anybody a damned thing. Meanwhile, the Tigers have lost two World Series in the last 10 years, and all the Central Division titles in the world can't make up for the fact that they haven't been able to get it done when it really mattered.
Would anybody like to tell Mike Illitch how much his team has spoiled him? I doubt he'd agree with that assessment by a long shot.
Would anybody like to tell Mike Illitch how much his team has spoiled him? I doubt he'd agree with that assessment by a long shot.
You know what else breeds high expectations? Outspending your division competition by $50 million every year, and possessing the talent that the Tigers have. They have possibly the best pure hitter of our generation, and a guy who was among the best pitchers in the league for a long stretch of time, and haven't been able to win a title with them. The fans don't have the right to be upset with that?
Anybody who came up as a Tigers fan in the 90's and early 00's remembers just how miserable it was to be a fan then. Randy Smith was unquestionably the most hated executive in Detroit sports until Matt Millen came along and set a standard for incompetence that hopefully will never be seen in this town again. I sat through countless games in that beyond-abysmal 2003 season, for reasons I still don't understand. Clearly nobody wishes to go through that ever again. And obviously things have changed for the better within the last 10 years, but it's not unreasonable to expect them to contend for a title, which they've yet to win in all of this. And the fact that any Tigers fan is going to tell the rest of us that having any sort of expectation of their team makes them less of a fan is downright insulting.
Plain and simple, fans can't be 'spoiled' by a team that hasn't won a title in over 30 years.
And just because some Tigers fans are willing to settle for mediocrity, doesn't mean the rest of us should.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Toddwatch: The Circus Continues
It can't ever be that damn easy, can it?
Just when you almost had the thought that this saga might finally be over, everybody's favorite disgrace to Lapeer County shows up at the courthouse late Friday afternoon to announce that, for reasons only known to him, he's running again, a week after stepping down from office. And his partner in crime announced earlier in the week that she would be running again as well.
Far be it from either of them to let this go with any shred of dignity.
Unfortunately, I can't sum up my thoughts quite as succinctly as they did in Cindy Gamrat's district, though I agree with the sentiment completely, but if you were looking for that, you probably wouldn't be here.
Todd Courser joins an already-crowded field, with 11 Republicans and 3 Democrats vying for the position he resigned only a week prior, and could still be expelled from if he were to somehow be re-elected. Why, exactly, would he subject us all to another six months of this sideshow? Because, according to the man himself, his wife said "yes run!" Personally, I tend to think he might have misinterpreted that particular remark.
And just in case you think he might have been humbled in the slightest by the proceedings of that last two months... well, there's no way you could think that, considering he's running again for an office he just resigned from last week. But more to the point, his Facebook postings of late prove beyond a doubt that he's learned nothing from all this. Despite having testified under oath that the House Business Office's accusations of misusing taxpayer funds were true, he went on social media today to assert that he essentially lied under oath and that "there was no misuse of taxpayer funds to cover up anything," and "there was no joint office," despite the fact that sharing his entire staff with Gamrat is the exact thing that constitutes a joint office. And apparently, what Todd did is completely acceptable because an employee of the House Business Office had recipes up on their computer.
Have any of you made any sense of this yet? Because I sure haven't.
From there, he sought to remind us of his voting record, and gave us a list of 35 accomplishments of his during his time in office, most of which barely count as accomplishments. Several of these go along with the ridiculous Tea Party assertion that the government doesn't need tax money to fund things the people want done; others towards his bizarre notion that forcing church involvement in marriage while still requiring government approval is somehow taking government involvement out of marriage; his absurd idea that there should be absolutely no restrictions on anybody having a gun at any time, or any sort of record of who owns said guns, because there's no way that could possibly end badly; and his belief that the 97% of services that Planned Parenthood provides so that women won't have to resort to abortion are null and void because they provide abortions at all, because clearly every single embryo ever created is already a living, breathing, human being.
Then there's the actual "orphan bills" he proposed, which include a gas tax increase (not unreasonable, but didn't you just lecture us about how you fought an increase in the gas tax?), the aforementioned marriage bills, more bills to put more guns in the hands of anyone who wants one, and bills to ban Obamacare and eliminate the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, the favorite targets of state Republicans. And in the only time I will ever defend anything he's done, he also proposed to let brewers self-distribute and eliminate straight-ticket voting, a bill which, ironically, likely would have spelled doom for him had it been in place before the last election. Gamrat's were much the same, save for a few extra bills to guilt, force, and cajole women out of abortions.
The worst part of all of this? They stand a fairly decent chance of finding themselves right back in the offices they just vacated. With 10 other Republicans running, the vote might once again split enough for the lunatic fringe to carry Todd to the general election, where the Democratic front-runner lost to him in 2014, in a fairly conservative county, because only in Lapeer could a complete sociopath run for office and win because nobody looked any further than the 'R' next to his name. The candidates from both sides have been invited to a Lapeer County Tea Party-hosted debate this Friday, and I'll be reporting on that shortly thereafter and breaking down all the candidates here.
One can only hope the voters do their homework this time.
Because if he makes it back into office, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
Just when you almost had the thought that this saga might finally be over, everybody's favorite disgrace to Lapeer County shows up at the courthouse late Friday afternoon to announce that, for reasons only known to him, he's running again, a week after stepping down from office. And his partner in crime announced earlier in the week that she would be running again as well.
Far be it from either of them to let this go with any shred of dignity.
Unfortunately, I can't sum up my thoughts quite as succinctly as they did in Cindy Gamrat's district, though I agree with the sentiment completely, but if you were looking for that, you probably wouldn't be here.
Todd Courser joins an already-crowded field, with 11 Republicans and 3 Democrats vying for the position he resigned only a week prior, and could still be expelled from if he were to somehow be re-elected. Why, exactly, would he subject us all to another six months of this sideshow? Because, according to the man himself, his wife said "yes run!" Personally, I tend to think he might have misinterpreted that particular remark.
And just in case you think he might have been humbled in the slightest by the proceedings of that last two months... well, there's no way you could think that, considering he's running again for an office he just resigned from last week. But more to the point, his Facebook postings of late prove beyond a doubt that he's learned nothing from all this. Despite having testified under oath that the House Business Office's accusations of misusing taxpayer funds were true, he went on social media today to assert that he essentially lied under oath and that "there was no misuse of taxpayer funds to cover up anything," and "there was no joint office," despite the fact that sharing his entire staff with Gamrat is the exact thing that constitutes a joint office. And apparently, what Todd did is completely acceptable because an employee of the House Business Office had recipes up on their computer.
Have any of you made any sense of this yet? Because I sure haven't.
From there, he sought to remind us of his voting record, and gave us a list of 35 accomplishments of his during his time in office, most of which barely count as accomplishments. Several of these go along with the ridiculous Tea Party assertion that the government doesn't need tax money to fund things the people want done; others towards his bizarre notion that forcing church involvement in marriage while still requiring government approval is somehow taking government involvement out of marriage; his absurd idea that there should be absolutely no restrictions on anybody having a gun at any time, or any sort of record of who owns said guns, because there's no way that could possibly end badly; and his belief that the 97% of services that Planned Parenthood provides so that women won't have to resort to abortion are null and void because they provide abortions at all, because clearly every single embryo ever created is already a living, breathing, human being.
Then there's the actual "orphan bills" he proposed, which include a gas tax increase (not unreasonable, but didn't you just lecture us about how you fought an increase in the gas tax?), the aforementioned marriage bills, more bills to put more guns in the hands of anyone who wants one, and bills to ban Obamacare and eliminate the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, the favorite targets of state Republicans. And in the only time I will ever defend anything he's done, he also proposed to let brewers self-distribute and eliminate straight-ticket voting, a bill which, ironically, likely would have spelled doom for him had it been in place before the last election. Gamrat's were much the same, save for a few extra bills to guilt, force, and cajole women out of abortions.
The worst part of all of this? They stand a fairly decent chance of finding themselves right back in the offices they just vacated. With 10 other Republicans running, the vote might once again split enough for the lunatic fringe to carry Todd to the general election, where the Democratic front-runner lost to him in 2014, in a fairly conservative county, because only in Lapeer could a complete sociopath run for office and win because nobody looked any further than the 'R' next to his name. The candidates from both sides have been invited to a Lapeer County Tea Party-hosted debate this Friday, and I'll be reporting on that shortly thereafter and breaking down all the candidates here.
One can only hope the voters do their homework this time.
Because if he makes it back into office, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The (Hopeful) Last Of The Toddwatch Fallout
I really hoped I was done with this.
You, no doubt, really hoped I was done with this too.
But sadly, it's never that damned easy.
I've expended more time, energy and vocabulary in covering the various misdeeds of now ex-State Representative Todd Courser over the last year than any sane person should when they aren't drawing a paycheck to do so. I've been banned twice from his public Facebook page in the midst of trying to get answers out of him for his actions, because who needs to listen to their constituents anyway? I've taken part in protests, talked to every media outlet that would have me, and found time to play on a protest song and record the occasional dumb comedy bit. So when he finally resigned in the middle of the night on Friday, it seemed that Toddwatch 2015 had finally come to an end and I could go back to just hating Detroit sports like I normally do.
But then this happened. Stephen Young, chairman of the Allegan County Tea Party, took to his group's Facebook page and posted a rant about the whole situation, and it's more unhinged than you could possibly imagine.
"On 9/11 2015, the terrorist network in Lansing Michigan (sometimes called the Republican Party leadership) has taken down the Twin Towers. It took more than a few box cutters to destroy the foundation, but included well placed explosives in a true conspiracy to cover the truth. Justice has not been served in this matter, but destroyed."
You read that right. He just compared the expulsion of two self-righteous hypocrites who horribly abused their positions of public trust, to the worst terrorist attack ever committed on American soil.
I think I just died a little inside. Courser and Gamrat are "Twin Towers?" Of what; corruption, deception, and hypocrisy? Has the Allegan County Tea Party no decency? No shame? No sense of basic human respect? These people didn't "stand against the terror of the Republican Party"; they were the biggest example of it! They didn't stand for anything other than screwing each other, and occasionally taking rights from gays if they had any time left over. And to compare them to the men and women who died on 9/11 is beyond sickening.
It only gets worse in the comments section: "Only a few thousand died on 9/11/01. In comparison, the Republican leadership in this state is far worse than a few radical religionists from the Middle East."
"Only a few thousand died." But let's continue to harp on Benghazi. Makes sense. I'm sorry, but to compare the men and women who perished that day, not to mention the firefighters and rescue workers who risked their lives to save them, to scum of the earth like Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, dishonors them in a way I never thought an American capable of doing. Young goes on to explain himself with some tortured logic about Republicans paying for "killing children," despite the fact that Planned Parenthood receives no government funding for abortion, and no "children" have been killed; those aborted fetuses aren't living human beings. But none of it has a damn thing to do with Courser and Gamrat, other than their desire to force women to carry every embryo to term regardless of the woman's well being, evidently. And none of it deserves the comparison to lives lost at the hands of terrorists.
As you might imagine, Young has caught more than a little flack for his comments; of the 220 on that original post, all but one were in opposition to his screed. And his response? A post bragging about how many people saw his post, of course! Because if you're going to be a terrible human being, why not double down on it? Only somebody as deranged as this man would go on Facebook and brag about how many people think he's absolutely reprehensible. Even Courser's most vocal defenders have gone all but silent in Lapeer, but in Allegan County, they've just gotten louder and crazier. If ever one needed proof that these people simply do not care about human life once it exits the womb, look no further than Stephen Young's horrific and bizarre rant. One would hope this would make voters think twice before electing another tea-party approved candidate.
On a semi-related note, I have a bone to pick with the local Democratic party. As of today, we have four Republicans running for Courser's vacant seat, five once Jan Peabody finally announces her candidacy, and a socially liberal centrist independent, but not a single Democrat has announced a run. And I've been piled on by the party folks around here for calling them out on this. The deadline is in three days, and... crickets. This party seems to want to shoot themselves in the foot whenever possible; the state rep's seat is as winnable as it has ever been for them, yet they had nearly zero street presence at Lapeer Days this year, haven't had a single candidate get out in public and go on the attack, and basically sat on their hands while several Republicans threw their hats into the ring and got a head start on them. But I've been told by people involved with the Lapeer Democrats that I'm "out of line" for pointing this out, and that this is my fault because I'm not out there campaigning for... nobody. Of course, these are the same people who got pissed that somebody dared challenge their hand-picked candidate in the primary last year, so take that how you will.
Unfortunately for them, there's also a large base of people in the county that are all too willing to let a certified nutjob represent them as long as he's not a Democrat. The amount of non-voters and people who just skipped over that section of the ballot is living proof of that. Good luck getting a win as a liberal when you have so many voters that will be damned if they ever vote for somebody who won't promise to never raise their taxes, much less someone who tells them that taxes aren't high enough, as Margaret DeLuca told the County Press last year in regards to roads and the gas tax. But in Lapeer, it's an uphill battle trying to get people to understand that while what we're sending in taxes to Lansing could be spent a lot more efficiently than it is, money isn't going to fall from the sky to cover the rest. And winning over hearts and minds is all the more difficult when you're letting your opponents do all the talking and control the narrative entirely.
Even now, it seems nobody's exactly learned anything from this. The consensus around here seems to be, "we need to find a more moderate Republican to run so this doesn't happen again!" But you've got five candidates running so far, meaning you might have a situation once again where the vote is split enough to let another fringe guy like Courser take the nomination. What then? Do you let this happen again rather than even consider a Democrat or, god forbid, an independent?
For too many, the answer to that appears to be a resounding "yes."
And that puts us right back where we started.
You, no doubt, really hoped I was done with this too.
But sadly, it's never that damned easy.
I've expended more time, energy and vocabulary in covering the various misdeeds of now ex-State Representative Todd Courser over the last year than any sane person should when they aren't drawing a paycheck to do so. I've been banned twice from his public Facebook page in the midst of trying to get answers out of him for his actions, because who needs to listen to their constituents anyway? I've taken part in protests, talked to every media outlet that would have me, and found time to play on a protest song and record the occasional dumb comedy bit. So when he finally resigned in the middle of the night on Friday, it seemed that Toddwatch 2015 had finally come to an end and I could go back to just hating Detroit sports like I normally do.
But then this happened. Stephen Young, chairman of the Allegan County Tea Party, took to his group's Facebook page and posted a rant about the whole situation, and it's more unhinged than you could possibly imagine.
"On 9/11 2015, the terrorist network in Lansing Michigan (sometimes called the Republican Party leadership) has taken down the Twin Towers. It took more than a few box cutters to destroy the foundation, but included well placed explosives in a true conspiracy to cover the truth. Justice has not been served in this matter, but destroyed."
You read that right. He just compared the expulsion of two self-righteous hypocrites who horribly abused their positions of public trust, to the worst terrorist attack ever committed on American soil.
I think I just died a little inside. Courser and Gamrat are "Twin Towers?" Of what; corruption, deception, and hypocrisy? Has the Allegan County Tea Party no decency? No shame? No sense of basic human respect? These people didn't "stand against the terror of the Republican Party"; they were the biggest example of it! They didn't stand for anything other than screwing each other, and occasionally taking rights from gays if they had any time left over. And to compare them to the men and women who died on 9/11 is beyond sickening.
It only gets worse in the comments section: "Only a few thousand died on 9/11/01. In comparison, the Republican leadership in this state is far worse than a few radical religionists from the Middle East."
"Only a few thousand died." But let's continue to harp on Benghazi. Makes sense. I'm sorry, but to compare the men and women who perished that day, not to mention the firefighters and rescue workers who risked their lives to save them, to scum of the earth like Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, dishonors them in a way I never thought an American capable of doing. Young goes on to explain himself with some tortured logic about Republicans paying for "killing children," despite the fact that Planned Parenthood receives no government funding for abortion, and no "children" have been killed; those aborted fetuses aren't living human beings. But none of it has a damn thing to do with Courser and Gamrat, other than their desire to force women to carry every embryo to term regardless of the woman's well being, evidently. And none of it deserves the comparison to lives lost at the hands of terrorists.
As you might imagine, Young has caught more than a little flack for his comments; of the 220 on that original post, all but one were in opposition to his screed. And his response? A post bragging about how many people saw his post, of course! Because if you're going to be a terrible human being, why not double down on it? Only somebody as deranged as this man would go on Facebook and brag about how many people think he's absolutely reprehensible. Even Courser's most vocal defenders have gone all but silent in Lapeer, but in Allegan County, they've just gotten louder and crazier. If ever one needed proof that these people simply do not care about human life once it exits the womb, look no further than Stephen Young's horrific and bizarre rant. One would hope this would make voters think twice before electing another tea-party approved candidate.
On a semi-related note, I have a bone to pick with the local Democratic party. As of today, we have four Republicans running for Courser's vacant seat, five once Jan Peabody finally announces her candidacy, and a socially liberal centrist independent, but not a single Democrat has announced a run. And I've been piled on by the party folks around here for calling them out on this. The deadline is in three days, and... crickets. This party seems to want to shoot themselves in the foot whenever possible; the state rep's seat is as winnable as it has ever been for them, yet they had nearly zero street presence at Lapeer Days this year, haven't had a single candidate get out in public and go on the attack, and basically sat on their hands while several Republicans threw their hats into the ring and got a head start on them. But I've been told by people involved with the Lapeer Democrats that I'm "out of line" for pointing this out, and that this is my fault because I'm not out there campaigning for... nobody. Of course, these are the same people who got pissed that somebody dared challenge their hand-picked candidate in the primary last year, so take that how you will.
Unfortunately for them, there's also a large base of people in the county that are all too willing to let a certified nutjob represent them as long as he's not a Democrat. The amount of non-voters and people who just skipped over that section of the ballot is living proof of that. Good luck getting a win as a liberal when you have so many voters that will be damned if they ever vote for somebody who won't promise to never raise their taxes, much less someone who tells them that taxes aren't high enough, as Margaret DeLuca told the County Press last year in regards to roads and the gas tax. But in Lapeer, it's an uphill battle trying to get people to understand that while what we're sending in taxes to Lansing could be spent a lot more efficiently than it is, money isn't going to fall from the sky to cover the rest. And winning over hearts and minds is all the more difficult when you're letting your opponents do all the talking and control the narrative entirely.
Even now, it seems nobody's exactly learned anything from this. The consensus around here seems to be, "we need to find a more moderate Republican to run so this doesn't happen again!" But you've got five candidates running so far, meaning you might have a situation once again where the vote is split enough to let another fringe guy like Courser take the nomination. What then? Do you let this happen again rather than even consider a Democrat or, god forbid, an independent?
For too many, the answer to that appears to be a resounding "yes."
And that puts us right back where we started.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Answering Todd Courser's Latest Survey...
For the first time possibly since he's been elected, Todd Courser is soliciting actual feedback from those of us in the 82nd District.
Yet somehow, the man who was elected to represent us, still thinks he and he alone can dictate the terms on which he answers to his constituents.
Tried posting anything other than absolute support on his page lately? You've already been blocked, most likely. Hell, I was blocked before he ever got elected, for questioning his shady campaign tactics during the primary, his slander of Great Lakes Education Project proponent Greg MacNeilly, and his campaign against any representative who supported adding LGBT's as a protected class to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. And I didn't last much longer against his mistress, Cindy Gamrat, nor another backer of theirs, RNC committeeman Dave Agema. Because these people don't want to hear any opinion or argument that doesn't affirm their own. Which isn't any way for an elected official to behave.
That brings us to the Inoculator's latest screed, in which he addresses the accusation that he silences all criticism on his page by... admitting that he silences all criticism on his page, and by blasting said critics as "just plain moronic." He follows that up by asking this:
"So be nice when you respond: 1. voters by vote, or recall, or house by censure, or expulsion, or serve the rest out. 2. then why do you think so? 3. where are you from? If you answer all 3 and do so respectfully I'll try to keep your comment and if not don't be surprised when it gets booted."
Because apparently, if you're going to criticize him, it has to be on his terms, or not at all.
Well, since I can't respond on his page anymore, I suppose I'll just have to do it here. Feel free to print this out and leave it on the doorstep at his law office, or just hit his Facebook wall with it, whichever's easier.
1.) I'll answer this point with a question: Why should you have to be forcibly removed? Why can't you step back, realize what you've done, how you've betrayed the trust of those who actually supported you, and confirmed the suspicions of the rest of us have had about you since you embarked on this boondoggle last year, and step down with some slight shred of dignity instead of having to be dragged out kicking and screaming, like the petulant child you are? You yourself have posted that "there are plenty of good reasons to resign." I have yet to find one for you not to do so. But since doing the right thing has never occurred to you at any point in your political career, I, for one, couldn't care less how you are removed from office, so long as you are.
2.) Where do I start? From the beginning, I suppose... you managed to lose my vote (if ever you really had it) right away, by making your anti-homosexual crusade the focal point, if not the entirety, of your campaign. I'm not certain exactly why, with our roads falling to pieces and Lapeer County's economy not in the greatest shape, you instead chose to make the centerpiece of your campaign about denying rights to a group of people that haven't done a damned thing to wrong you, other than existing. There's your crusade to unseat any politician who'd support adding LGBT protection to Elliott-Larsen, and your marriage bills that you claimed had nothing to do with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, but that you claimed you'd withdraw if that ruling were overturned, as if you really believe your constituents can't put two and two together. Your backwards views on these issues, and the emphasis you've placed on them during your time in office, are something I find to be absolutely repulsive in every sense.
Then, there's your view on public schools; that being that you appear to be completely against them. I see why there's such a large contingent of educators of mine that have stood in vocal opposition to you; you hold that profession in contempt at best. You're the kind of guy that wails on about "liberal indoctrination" in schools, but then whines that schools need to go back to teaching the Bible. You've also stood against any attempt to have oversight on homeschooling parents, because God forbid anyone makes sure they're actually learning anything.
And then, there's the dirty campaigning. Posting the "graphic" video of the wedding of one of your opponent's backers, and attacking his pro-education group for somehow "spreading the homosexual agenda." Posting fake notices on your opponent signs requesting they be removed or their owners will be fined. Posting fake attacks on you during the primary. Having staffers call potential voters and drop racial and gay slurs in regards to his opponent in the general election. And somehow, you got the Republican voters in this county to sign on with all this, and get you elected, despite all odds.
Now personally, I don't care all that much about the affair, other than finding it somewhat comical that the God-appointed defender of traditional values only does so when it suits him. Other than that, who you screw is completely your business, provided it's not the taxpayers you represent. But it's the cover-up, the cover-up of the cover-up, firing your staffers when they wouldn't help you cover it up, and scrambling to throw everyone and everything under the bus when you got caught, all on our dime, and offering up every possible excuse and diversion in the world not to go. And despite all the evidence of your wrongdoing, you still refuse to let this circus end, to the point that you're posting dumb little surveys like these asking what you should do, as long as it doesn't involve personal responsibility.
In all of this, you claim some sort of 'divine providence' allows you to force your view of religious zealotry on the rest of us, while you post that we "should limit free speech and freedom of religion" for religions that aren't Christianity. And despite claiming how humbled you are by all that you've done... absolutely nothing has changed. You still absolutely refuse to take responsibility for your actions; in all the word salad you've spewed forth, you have yet to make a single post that doesn't somehow try and deflect blame onto somebody or something beyond your control. Enough. You did this to yourself. Not your staff, not some phantom blackmailer, not some other political consultant, not your political opponents, not the liberal media, not some preexisting heart condition. You.
3.) Not that it matters at this point, as you publish words of praise from people who've probably never set foot here, but yes, I've been a resident of the city of Lapeer for the last 14 years. I (more-or-less) grew up here, graduated from high school here, and worked most of my adult life here, and much of that downtown, where we rarely ever saw you around unless there was a photo op to be had somewhere. And last I checked, you're supposed to represent all the people in your district, not just the few that feel their religion needs to be legislated into law. And I, for one, am sick and tired of my hometown being a punchline on the late night shows, and the national press, and pretty much everywhere at this point.
You didn't need to take a poll to find out what the people of Lapeer County wanted. They've long since spoken.
The question is, will you actually listen to them for a change?
Yet somehow, the man who was elected to represent us, still thinks he and he alone can dictate the terms on which he answers to his constituents.
Tried posting anything other than absolute support on his page lately? You've already been blocked, most likely. Hell, I was blocked before he ever got elected, for questioning his shady campaign tactics during the primary, his slander of Great Lakes Education Project proponent Greg MacNeilly, and his campaign against any representative who supported adding LGBT's as a protected class to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. And I didn't last much longer against his mistress, Cindy Gamrat, nor another backer of theirs, RNC committeeman Dave Agema. Because these people don't want to hear any opinion or argument that doesn't affirm their own. Which isn't any way for an elected official to behave.
That brings us to the Inoculator's latest screed, in which he addresses the accusation that he silences all criticism on his page by... admitting that he silences all criticism on his page, and by blasting said critics as "just plain moronic." He follows that up by asking this:
"So be nice when you respond: 1. voters by vote, or recall, or house by censure, or expulsion, or serve the rest out. 2. then why do you think so? 3. where are you from? If you answer all 3 and do so respectfully I'll try to keep your comment and if not don't be surprised when it gets booted."
Because apparently, if you're going to criticize him, it has to be on his terms, or not at all.
Well, since I can't respond on his page anymore, I suppose I'll just have to do it here. Feel free to print this out and leave it on the doorstep at his law office, or just hit his Facebook wall with it, whichever's easier.
1.) I'll answer this point with a question: Why should you have to be forcibly removed? Why can't you step back, realize what you've done, how you've betrayed the trust of those who actually supported you, and confirmed the suspicions of the rest of us have had about you since you embarked on this boondoggle last year, and step down with some slight shred of dignity instead of having to be dragged out kicking and screaming, like the petulant child you are? You yourself have posted that "there are plenty of good reasons to resign." I have yet to find one for you not to do so. But since doing the right thing has never occurred to you at any point in your political career, I, for one, couldn't care less how you are removed from office, so long as you are.
2.) Where do I start? From the beginning, I suppose... you managed to lose my vote (if ever you really had it) right away, by making your anti-homosexual crusade the focal point, if not the entirety, of your campaign. I'm not certain exactly why, with our roads falling to pieces and Lapeer County's economy not in the greatest shape, you instead chose to make the centerpiece of your campaign about denying rights to a group of people that haven't done a damned thing to wrong you, other than existing. There's your crusade to unseat any politician who'd support adding LGBT protection to Elliott-Larsen, and your marriage bills that you claimed had nothing to do with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, but that you claimed you'd withdraw if that ruling were overturned, as if you really believe your constituents can't put two and two together. Your backwards views on these issues, and the emphasis you've placed on them during your time in office, are something I find to be absolutely repulsive in every sense.
Then, there's your view on public schools; that being that you appear to be completely against them. I see why there's such a large contingent of educators of mine that have stood in vocal opposition to you; you hold that profession in contempt at best. You're the kind of guy that wails on about "liberal indoctrination" in schools, but then whines that schools need to go back to teaching the Bible. You've also stood against any attempt to have oversight on homeschooling parents, because God forbid anyone makes sure they're actually learning anything.
And then, there's the dirty campaigning. Posting the "graphic" video of the wedding of one of your opponent's backers, and attacking his pro-education group for somehow "spreading the homosexual agenda." Posting fake notices on your opponent signs requesting they be removed or their owners will be fined. Posting fake attacks on you during the primary. Having staffers call potential voters and drop racial and gay slurs in regards to his opponent in the general election. And somehow, you got the Republican voters in this county to sign on with all this, and get you elected, despite all odds.
Now personally, I don't care all that much about the affair, other than finding it somewhat comical that the God-appointed defender of traditional values only does so when it suits him. Other than that, who you screw is completely your business, provided it's not the taxpayers you represent. But it's the cover-up, the cover-up of the cover-up, firing your staffers when they wouldn't help you cover it up, and scrambling to throw everyone and everything under the bus when you got caught, all on our dime, and offering up every possible excuse and diversion in the world not to go. And despite all the evidence of your wrongdoing, you still refuse to let this circus end, to the point that you're posting dumb little surveys like these asking what you should do, as long as it doesn't involve personal responsibility.
In all of this, you claim some sort of 'divine providence' allows you to force your view of religious zealotry on the rest of us, while you post that we "should limit free speech and freedom of religion" for religions that aren't Christianity. And despite claiming how humbled you are by all that you've done... absolutely nothing has changed. You still absolutely refuse to take responsibility for your actions; in all the word salad you've spewed forth, you have yet to make a single post that doesn't somehow try and deflect blame onto somebody or something beyond your control. Enough. You did this to yourself. Not your staff, not some phantom blackmailer, not some other political consultant, not your political opponents, not the liberal media, not some preexisting heart condition. You.
3.) Not that it matters at this point, as you publish words of praise from people who've probably never set foot here, but yes, I've been a resident of the city of Lapeer for the last 14 years. I (more-or-less) grew up here, graduated from high school here, and worked most of my adult life here, and much of that downtown, where we rarely ever saw you around unless there was a photo op to be had somewhere. And last I checked, you're supposed to represent all the people in your district, not just the few that feel their religion needs to be legislated into law. And I, for one, am sick and tired of my hometown being a punchline on the late night shows, and the national press, and pretty much everywhere at this point.
You didn't need to take a poll to find out what the people of Lapeer County wanted. They've long since spoken.
The question is, will you actually listen to them for a change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)