If 2015 was the year that the Michigan legislature decided to flip the bird to democracy, then 2016 is shaping up to be the year they double down on that decision.
We've already seen them overturn the vote of the people on emergency management and straight-ticket voting, but all that looks like child's play compared to the mess that is Senate Bill 571.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons on the last night of the House's 2015 session, was initially only twelve pages and wasn't yet the crushing blow to campaign finance reform it would become by the end of that last session. By the end of the night, the now 53-page bill would include provisions that essentially amounted to a gag order on local officials in regards to ballot proposals for the two months before an election, the doubling of the amount of money PAC's are allowed to donate to political campaigns, and the ability to keep independent expenditures secret until after elections.
Who says this legislature can't get things done when they want to?
First, there's the amendment that would forbid local officials from discussing any ballot proposal within 60 days of an election. Its proponents claim this would prevent taxpayer funds from being spent on propaganda. Never mind that there are already laws on the books that prevent taxpayer money from being spent on propaganda of that sort. Seems a little redundant and more than a little unconstitutional, as the scope of the bill would appear to heavily infringe on the free speech rights of public employees, including teachers, librarians and the like.
Even more sinister, however, is the provision that effectively doubles the maximum allowed amount of political donations a PAC can make to a campaign, by allowing campaigns to accept twice the current amount and apply it retroactively to expenses occurred from a prior campaign. While this has been nearly an entirely Republican supported effort, the scenario described above looks an awful lot like the one that occurred with former Democratic State Senator Andy Dillon, as Brian Dickerson over at the Freep points out. In fact, this bill makes it legal to do exactly what Dillon would eventually be fined for. For what it's worth, Dillon eventually ended up with a position in Snyder's administration, and his then-legal counsel, Eric Doster, is believed to have authored parts of SB 571. Coincidence? Doubtful.
What's somehow even more troubling than the fact that Rick Snyder and the legislature just signed over our state to dark money interests, however, is the number of representatives that had no idea what they were even voting on, which ultimately allowed this travesty to occur. In that same Freep article, Dickerson quotes Rep. Dave Pagel, one of the useless stooges that voted for the bill: "It's troubling when you take a vote and later realize you were ignorant of some facts you should have known." Even Sen. Mike Kowall, the original sponsor of the bill, claimed not to know what was in it, not that it stopped him from voting for the amended bill when it came back to the Senate.
Ignorant is an understatement. Completely negligent in your duty as a representative seems more fitting.
And if that's indeed the case, all but three House Republicans, all but three Senate Republicans, and Democratic turncoat, spousal abuser, and all-around scumbag Virgil Smith, have been completely negligent in their duties. The House Reps who voted no were John Bizon, Ed McBroom, and Paul Muxlow; the Senate Reps who voted against were Rick Jones and Tory Rocca, while the Senator for my district, Mike Green, didn't vote at all. (Our Senator before the most recent gerrymandering, Phil Pavlov, predictably voted yes.)
How is it even possible that one whose job it is to write and pass bills into law, can be allowed to vote on said bills when they haven't read the bills they're voting on? The phrase "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it" comes to mind, and while it makes as little sense today as it did when first uttered by Nancy Pelosi, it seems to be standard operating procedure in Lansing.
Naturally, once many of them realized just what they'd sent to Snyder's desk, they fell over themselves trying to distance themselves from it, including, inexplicably, the very representative who introduced the amendments to the bill in the first place. Confused yet? You're not the only one. House Speaker Kevin Cotter and Senate Majority Leader Arlen Meekhof were both quick to deny any claims that any legislator who voted for this bill didn't know exactly what they were getting into, while the aforementioned Rep. Lyons said there might be a need for a "follow-up" bill to clarify the original, though one has to question why there should be a need for that when you're the one that submitted the part of the bill that caused the issue in the first place.
Truthfully, I'm not sure what's more mind-boggling in all of this: The legislators that didn't read the bill they voted for, the ones that knew what was in it and voted for it anyway, or the ones who knew what was in it, voted for it, then claimed they didn't know what was in it!
How can this sort of thing be prevented? Some have suggested limiting the length of any bill submitted for a vote, some want a one issue-per-bill limit, others propose a comprehension test on the content of the bills. Personally, your humble correspondent would like to see these bills presented to the public in their final form before any vote is taken on them, for a sufficient amount of time (say, 24-48 hours) so as to allow both lawmakers and their constituents to read and comprehend what they're voting on, and to allow the represented to make their opinions known to their representatives accordingly.
Is it logistically possible? Perhaps not.
Is it better than the current state of perpetual plausible deniability in Lansing? Absolutely.
Would any of these proposals ever see the light of day? As long as there are still elected officials whose self-interest doesn't include reading legislation until after it's been passed, the answer to that question remains a resounding no.
Of course, as always, that last part is easily remedied. Because while the Michigan legislature can overturn the will of the people all day long with their votes, they have yet to find a way to legislate themselves back into office after being voted out.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Thursday, January 7, 2016
The World's Worst PR Guy, Part 2
At long last, the "truth" starts to come out.
As some of you might remember, last month I wrote about John Pavlish, the reputation management hack hired by Cindy Gamrat to clear her good name (I use that term loosely) and smear everybody else's, making more than a few vague threats along the way. Since late November, he's been threatening to release a report, whose length seems to change by the day (first it was 400 pages, then 500, then 600, then 400 again), that will exonerate the adulterers and destroy her enemies, colleagues, constituents, etc.
Finally, after months and months of alleged investigation, and weeks of threatening to send drones to spy on the critics of his clients, sections of Pavlish's report are finally starting to leak onto his Facebook page. The whole report that was supposed to be released almost a month ago? Well, it still hasn't been. Apparently, Pavlish has decided we're not smart enough to comprehend the entire report, so he's going to release bits and pieces of it via his firm's Facebook page. Seems an odd way to do business, but I suppose that's why he does what he does and why I call him out on it.
The first piece he posted was a takedown of Gamrat's original attorney, Andrew Abood. You may remember him as the guy that accused Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood of being the actual phantom texter, as the actual texter, David Horr, had allegedly registered the phone under his name. The first half of this post is tearing down the alleged awards Abood claims to have in his field, because even when dealing with somebody who legitimately is as hopelessly incompetent at their job as Abood is, Pavlish can't help but add a few meaningless digs aside of the actual substance. From there, the subject turns to Abood's hired investigator, who found that Horr registered the phone as "C. Livingood," but not that it was Horr who bought the phone, or anything that might have been of actual use. He, of course, ran to the media to trumpet his findings, which amounted to less than nothing. It may be shooting fish in a barrel, but it's the first thing Pavlish has posted publicly about the case that's pretty much spot-on, though he seems far more concerned about how Abood's actions hurt the adulterer than the guy who was falsely accused by her lawyer of blackmail.
It becomes clear in Pavlish's next post why that is, as the aforementioned Livengood is the subject of his next piece. It starts off with Pavlish stating that the claim that Gamrat and Courer lied and stole from the taxpayers is "untrue" and "unsubstantiated," despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Next, a few quotes Livengood made on various radio and TV programs around the state. The parts taken from Pavlish's piece are in italics.
Chad Livengood appeared on "Michigan’s Big Show" with Michael Patrick Shiels on the morning of August 7th 2015 and stated this:
“a and um and this audio tape um which the the employee recorded because he had a a at the time sorta feared of uh that Courser was volatile in some way um wha confirms a lot of things that people didn’t a a had no idea was even even not might uh might uh that Representative Courser um might not be able to"
And now for the part Chad Livengood said that I truly can’t understand:
CHAD LIVENGOOD: "There were some events here um that suggest uh that maybe a misuse of taxpayer resources um a in, in an a that to keep this thing going."
All I'm really getting from this is that Chad Livengood's worst journalistic sin is not being a great public speaker. (Seriously, was it really necessary to leave every single "um" or "ah" in the quotes?)
How is Chad Livengood even suggesting that there is a possibility Ms. Gamrat and Mr. Courser used taxpayer resources to conceal a relationship? Where is the proof that this is significant right now? If Chad Livengood had proof to make this accusation, where is it?
Well, the House Business Office report explicitly stated there was misuse of taxpayer resources, so there's that. And it would be significant as it's exactly the basis for throwing these two out of office.
SEEK THE TRUTH AND REPORT IT
1) Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
2) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
3) Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
4) Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
5) Verify information before releasing it.
6) Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
7) Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
8) Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
Well, there weren't any anonymous sources used; the staffers recorded the conversation and sent it to Livengood, and there's never been any question about that, so most of the above doesn't apply. And it's kind of hard to distort the words of the man himself when the audio is out there in public. So, nothing here violates any of the standards set forth. Next...
Chad Livengood and the Detroit News waged a vicious negative media blitz via their printed and online newspaper. They also relentlessly attacked Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser via social media.
"Attacked"= tweeted articles reporting on the situation, and Finley's editorials regarding it. Not sure how that constitutes a "relentless attack" yet the PR guy threatening to spy on people's families isn't, but what do I know.
Please see more of the SPJ code of ethics below listed in their 'MINIMIZE HARM" section
MINIMIZE HARM
Did Chad Livengood follow the SPJ rules of Ethics under their section MINIMIZE HARM when he started his false narrative and then started ruthless attacking Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser daily via negative articles and daily social media posts? See Information below taken from" The SPJ Code of Ethics"
"Ruthless attacking." You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as HUMAN BEINGS deserving of respect.
1) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
2) Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
3) Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
4) Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,
Courser knew exactly what he was getting himself into; he's nothing if not attention-seeking and self-promoting, so it's hard to feel sorry for the guy. Gamrat wasn't as much in the public eye as Courser pre-election, at least not on this side of the state, but to portray her as an innocent victim is a bit patronizing and, quite frankly, more than a bit sexist. Neither are "juveniles, victims of sex crimes," or "inexperienced or unable to give consent." They're both grown adults whose actions have hurt others.
We didn't list his colleagues' negative articles and their social media posts, such as the Detroit News editor/columnist Nolan Finley stating and tweeting this:
"Detroit News Editor Nolan Finley had harsh words for State Rep. Cindy Gamrat after her investigative team appeared to try and implicate Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood( complete nonsense) as the possible blackmailer of State Rep. Todd Courser.
Gamrat; Cheat, hypocrite and now a liar. https://t.co/t9dFMCXXgm
— Nolan Finley (@NolanFinleyDN) August 27, 2015
What Pavlish is assuming you won't click through to, however, is a tweet from right-wing political blogger Brandon Hall that links to a MIRS story about Gamrat and Abood accusing Livengood of being the phantom texter, which, as we've already established, is not the case. So it would appear that Finley is right on the mark here: Gamrat is indeed a liar, cheat, and thief. Let it be noted, by the way, that Finley is the editorial page editor at the DetNews, and that his job is, in fact, to opine. Expressing his opinion is kind of a pretty big part of the job, so the claim that he's unethical because he expresses his opinion is beyond absurd.
The second half of this piece, which Pavlish refers to as Livengood's "non-stop attack," is a collection of tweets sent out by Livengood, which largely consists of links to the articles he's written about the scandal; various quotes from House Speaker Kevin Cotter, Courser himself, and Gamrat's attorneys; and sections quoted from the House Business Office's report on the matter. How, exactly, is his quoting of the actual report "unethical"? Hard to say, as Pavlish never clarifies the issue. Truthfully, most of this section of Pavlish's piece is a bit hard to decipher, as he basically copied and pasted four days' worth of tweets to a single Facebook status, with no spacing to separate individual tweets, nor indicate who is actually speaking in various retweets. If your eyes aren't already sore from rolling back in your head after reading Pavlish's own thoughts, they will be from his awful formatting of the thoughts of others.
Ultimately, there were no earth-shattering revelations here, other than Gamrat's attorney is criminally incompetent, Chad Livengood is unethical because he quotes people and facts, and John Pavlish could really stand to take his own advice on ethics.
Despite the consultant's best (?) attempts, nothing in Livengood's reporting was proven to be false. Because unfortunately for Pavlish, repeatedly calling something false doesn't make it so without proof. And there's none to be found.
If this is the best he's got, he may as well not waste the 400 pages.
As some of you might remember, last month I wrote about John Pavlish, the reputation management hack hired by Cindy Gamrat to clear her good name (I use that term loosely) and smear everybody else's, making more than a few vague threats along the way. Since late November, he's been threatening to release a report, whose length seems to change by the day (first it was 400 pages, then 500, then 600, then 400 again), that will exonerate the adulterers and destroy her enemies, colleagues, constituents, etc.
Finally, after months and months of alleged investigation, and weeks of threatening to send drones to spy on the critics of his clients, sections of Pavlish's report are finally starting to leak onto his Facebook page. The whole report that was supposed to be released almost a month ago? Well, it still hasn't been. Apparently, Pavlish has decided we're not smart enough to comprehend the entire report, so he's going to release bits and pieces of it via his firm's Facebook page. Seems an odd way to do business, but I suppose that's why he does what he does and why I call him out on it.
The first piece he posted was a takedown of Gamrat's original attorney, Andrew Abood. You may remember him as the guy that accused Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood of being the actual phantom texter, as the actual texter, David Horr, had allegedly registered the phone under his name. The first half of this post is tearing down the alleged awards Abood claims to have in his field, because even when dealing with somebody who legitimately is as hopelessly incompetent at their job as Abood is, Pavlish can't help but add a few meaningless digs aside of the actual substance. From there, the subject turns to Abood's hired investigator, who found that Horr registered the phone as "C. Livingood," but not that it was Horr who bought the phone, or anything that might have been of actual use. He, of course, ran to the media to trumpet his findings, which amounted to less than nothing. It may be shooting fish in a barrel, but it's the first thing Pavlish has posted publicly about the case that's pretty much spot-on, though he seems far more concerned about how Abood's actions hurt the adulterer than the guy who was falsely accused by her lawyer of blackmail.
It becomes clear in Pavlish's next post why that is, as the aforementioned Livengood is the subject of his next piece. It starts off with Pavlish stating that the claim that Gamrat and Courer lied and stole from the taxpayers is "untrue" and "unsubstantiated," despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Next, a few quotes Livengood made on various radio and TV programs around the state. The parts taken from Pavlish's piece are in italics.
Chad Livengood appeared on "Michigan’s Big Show" with Michael Patrick Shiels on the morning of August 7th 2015 and stated this:
“a and um and this audio tape um which the the employee recorded because he had a a at the time sorta feared of uh that Courser was volatile in some way um wha confirms a lot of things that people didn’t a a had no idea was even even not might uh might uh that Representative Courser um might not be able to"
And now for the part Chad Livengood said that I truly can’t understand:
CHAD LIVENGOOD: "There were some events here um that suggest uh that maybe a misuse of taxpayer resources um a in, in an a that to keep this thing going."
All I'm really getting from this is that Chad Livengood's worst journalistic sin is not being a great public speaker. (Seriously, was it really necessary to leave every single "um" or "ah" in the quotes?)
How is Chad Livengood even suggesting that there is a possibility Ms. Gamrat and Mr. Courser used taxpayer resources to conceal a relationship? Where is the proof that this is significant right now? If Chad Livengood had proof to make this accusation, where is it?
Well, the House Business Office report explicitly stated there was misuse of taxpayer resources, so there's that. And it would be significant as it's exactly the basis for throwing these two out of office.
SEEK THE TRUTH AND REPORT IT
1) Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
2) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
3) Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
4) Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
5) Verify information before releasing it.
6) Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
7) Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
8) Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
Well, there weren't any anonymous sources used; the staffers recorded the conversation and sent it to Livengood, and there's never been any question about that, so most of the above doesn't apply. And it's kind of hard to distort the words of the man himself when the audio is out there in public. So, nothing here violates any of the standards set forth. Next...
Chad Livengood and the Detroit News waged a vicious negative media blitz via their printed and online newspaper. They also relentlessly attacked Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser via social media.
"Attacked"= tweeted articles reporting on the situation, and Finley's editorials regarding it. Not sure how that constitutes a "relentless attack" yet the PR guy threatening to spy on people's families isn't, but what do I know.
Please see more of the SPJ code of ethics below listed in their 'MINIMIZE HARM" section
MINIMIZE HARM
Did Chad Livengood follow the SPJ rules of Ethics under their section MINIMIZE HARM when he started his false narrative and then started ruthless attacking Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser daily via negative articles and daily social media posts? See Information below taken from" The SPJ Code of Ethics"
"Ruthless attacking." You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as HUMAN BEINGS deserving of respect.
1) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
2) Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
3) Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
4) Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,
Courser knew exactly what he was getting himself into; he's nothing if not attention-seeking and self-promoting, so it's hard to feel sorry for the guy. Gamrat wasn't as much in the public eye as Courser pre-election, at least not on this side of the state, but to portray her as an innocent victim is a bit patronizing and, quite frankly, more than a bit sexist. Neither are "juveniles, victims of sex crimes," or "inexperienced or unable to give consent." They're both grown adults whose actions have hurt others.
We didn't list his colleagues' negative articles and their social media posts, such as the Detroit News editor/columnist Nolan Finley stating and tweeting this:
"Detroit News Editor Nolan Finley had harsh words for State Rep. Cindy Gamrat after her investigative team appeared to try and implicate Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood( complete nonsense) as the possible blackmailer of State Rep. Todd Courser.
Gamrat; Cheat, hypocrite and now a liar. https://t.co/t9dFMCXXgm
— Nolan Finley (@NolanFinleyDN) August 27, 2015
What Pavlish is assuming you won't click through to, however, is a tweet from right-wing political blogger Brandon Hall that links to a MIRS story about Gamrat and Abood accusing Livengood of being the phantom texter, which, as we've already established, is not the case. So it would appear that Finley is right on the mark here: Gamrat is indeed a liar, cheat, and thief. Let it be noted, by the way, that Finley is the editorial page editor at the DetNews, and that his job is, in fact, to opine. Expressing his opinion is kind of a pretty big part of the job, so the claim that he's unethical because he expresses his opinion is beyond absurd.
The second half of this piece, which Pavlish refers to as Livengood's "non-stop attack," is a collection of tweets sent out by Livengood, which largely consists of links to the articles he's written about the scandal; various quotes from House Speaker Kevin Cotter, Courser himself, and Gamrat's attorneys; and sections quoted from the House Business Office's report on the matter. How, exactly, is his quoting of the actual report "unethical"? Hard to say, as Pavlish never clarifies the issue. Truthfully, most of this section of Pavlish's piece is a bit hard to decipher, as he basically copied and pasted four days' worth of tweets to a single Facebook status, with no spacing to separate individual tweets, nor indicate who is actually speaking in various retweets. If your eyes aren't already sore from rolling back in your head after reading Pavlish's own thoughts, they will be from his awful formatting of the thoughts of others.
Ultimately, there were no earth-shattering revelations here, other than Gamrat's attorney is criminally incompetent, Chad Livengood is unethical because he quotes people and facts, and John Pavlish could really stand to take his own advice on ethics.
Despite the consultant's best (?) attempts, nothing in Livengood's reporting was proven to be false. Because unfortunately for Pavlish, repeatedly calling something false doesn't make it so without proof. And there's none to be found.
If this is the best he's got, he may as well not waste the 400 pages.
Friday, December 18, 2015
State Republicans Put Contempt For Voters, Voting On Full Display
At this point, the democratic process hardly means a damn thing in Michigan.
Because no matter what the will of the people might be, the state legislature will find a way around it.
As you may have heard, the State Senate has approved a House bill that would end straight-ticket voting in the state of Michigan. Which isn't exactly the worst thing to happen; 41 other states also eliminated the practice, and it's hard to argue that anything that forces voters to look more closely at who they vote into office is inherently a bad thing.
But in this case, the devil's in the details. Namely in a $5 million appropriation added onto the bill that would render it unable to ever be repealed by voters via referendum. The State House had also tie-barred another bill to it that would have called for no-reason absentee voting, but Sen. Majority Leader Arlen Meekhof made clear that the Senate would remove that tie-bar, which they did by a 20-17 vote. The House has yet to approve the bill without said tie-bar, but most signs would seem to indicate that they will.
Now, I'm not here to argue that eliminating straight-ticket voting is a bad thing in and of itself. Naturally, as most liberals in the state believe that it disenfranchises Democratic voters in more liberal urban areas by causing longer lines at the polls, many of them stand staunchly against the bill. Yet, seeing how GOP lawmakers in Kansas are trying to reintroduce straight-party voting as they feel it will give them the advantage, that point seems hardly a given. And I'm not concerned at all as to which party gains the advantage on this; after all, how else could Todd Courser have won by as much as he did in 2014, if not for straight-ticket voting?
What is rather infuriating about the process, however, is that lawmakers, knowing that similar bills have twice been passed by the legislature and twice been repealed by voters, have made this law essentially democracy-proof. Under the state Constitution, any bill passed containing any sort of financial appropriation is no longer subject to voter referendum, meaning that voters in Michigan can never overturn it if passed. This has been a popular tactic by the Republican legislature when passing bills they know voters will find unfavorable; we saw it earlier this year with the attempt at no-fault "reform," before that with the emergency manager law, and with the right-to-work(-for-less) legislation that was passed.
It's also hard to argue against cries of voter suppression when the Senate goes out of its way to remove the one protection this bill had against vote suppression. No-reason absentee voting would have at least alleviated the wait at the polls for those who, for whatever reason (and quite frankly, the reason shouldn't matter), can't make it to their polling station on election day, and the concerted effort to deny that only gives credence to claims that this is purely a political ploy by the party in power in order to retain that power.
Furthermore, this sort of tactic only proves the point that those currently in charge in Lansing care not in the slightest for the opinions of their constituents. The insistence on ramming through the same road bill that voters soundly rejected earlier this year should have been proof enough in itself that no matter what the people want, it will be soundly ignored by those who claim to represent you.
Despite their best efforts, however, that still doesn't have to be the case. And the voters of this state need to make their voice heard, the only way that any politician seems to understand these days.
Unfortunately, that might mean an extra few minutes out of your day next November.
But that should be a sacrifice worth making to send the message to Lansing about who truly holds the power here.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Starbucks Ruins Christmas For Everyone. Or, Much Ado About A Coffee Cup.
It's the most annoying time of the year.
That time when a coffee cup somehow turns into a cultural battleground.
We're only a week past Halloween, and already the self-righteous culture warrior brigade has found something trivial to be up in arms about. So, in the last possible topic I ever expected to have to write about in a serious manner, and the last possible thing I ever expected anyone could be legitimately upset over, Starbucks recently introduced it's cup design for the holiday season, and people are furious. Why, you ask? Because this year... they're just plain red cups with the company logo on them. While I can't imagine the good people at Solo are enthused about Starbucks encroaching on their territory, there's apparently a far greater outrage in all of this.
As you've come to expect right now, the usual pandering suspects on the right are raising hell about this. I came across a link from a site called Right Wing News, which apparently decided accuracy was no longer a priority two words into their name. One of their writers spews this gem:
I wasn't aware that taking Christmas greetings off cups that never had them was "eradicating" Christmas, nor that snowflakes are the exclusive domain of the Christian religion, but what the hell do I know. So that's why it never snows at my house on Christmas.
Then, there's the reason anybody's talking about this at all. In a video I have no intention of linking to because screw giving any more pageviews to a guy who tagged every conservative news outlet (and, oddly, MSNBC) in the comments to his own video, evangelical something-or-other and noted half-witted troll Josh Feuerstein came up with the brilliant idea of going into Starbucks, ordering coffee, and when asked for a name, telling the server his name was "Merry Christmas." Wow, you really showed those godless liberals, Josh! Because what better way to protest a business than by making it a point to go and patronize that business? I'm sure you'll be shocked by this, but Starbucks employees do typically still wish you a merry Christmas anyway (so I'm told; you'll never catch me paying for their overpriced coffee), and I doubt they care that you think you're somehow getting one over on them by making them write it on your cup. But nobody ever accused Feuerstein of making sense, or backing up his points with logic, or thinking in general. This, mind you, is the same man who screamed about a "Christian holocaust" when Kim Davis was jailed, and recorded a 'take-down' of evolution which really doesn't, though in his defense, it's really unfair to the monkeys to suggest Feuerstein is more intellectually evolved than them.
And then there's Breitbart, the website that continues to carry on its late founder's legacy of being wrong about absolutely everything, often to a libelous extent. One of their writers went so far as to declare this injustice "Emblematic Of The Christian Culture Cleansing Of The West," without a hint of irony to be found. Never mind that Starbucks still prominently sells their "Christmas Blend" and offers gift cards with all the cutesy Christmas drawings you could possibly want. Oh, and Advent calendars. Yes, the godless heathens sell Advent calendars. "Frankly, the only thing that could redeem them from this whitewashing of Christmas is to print Bible verses on their cups next year." Did I miss the year that their cups featured baby Jesus in a manger with a pumpkin spice latte? There's never been any sort of religious display on a Starbucks cup, unless snowmen and ornaments are now religious symbols.
Finally, presidential candidate Biff Tannen, who has yet to find an issue he can't make all about himself, decided to join in the fray, calling for a boycott of Starbucks, presumably by making them build the most luxurious wall ever around each one then kicking them out, despite having one as a tenant at Trump Tower. "If I become president, we're all gonna be saying 'Merry Christmas' again." And while I can see why the President's Committee on Holiday Greetings is being made a top priority here, that really leaves me with more questions than answers. Such as, "how is this schmuck the Republican front-runner?"
It is somewhat refreshing, though, to see that many of the folks that usually perpetuate this culture war nonsense have been silent, if not outright condemning the likes of Feuerstein and Breitbart.
Even Sarah freakin' Palin came out against the uproar, though not without the usual dig at "the Left" as if we're the same kind of monolith that Christians despise being portrayed as (as well they should). When Sarah Palin is on the right side of an issue and you aren't, you're doing something horribly, horribly wrong.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again before all is said and done. Christians: You don't hold exclusive rights to the last two months of the year. If every store you go into doesn't have at least three nativity scenes set up in front of it, or Christmas music blaring from the speakers, it doesn't mean they're trying to oppress you. Look up the actual meaning of that word if you're still confused. Everybody else: Let 'em have their holiday. Do you really need to boycott your kid's band concert and raise unholy hell because they played "Silent Night"? Just take your day off (or your time-and-a-half) and let everyone else enjoy their day.
But honestly, the cynic in me can't help but think this was all part of the plan, and that we're probably all playing into their hands by giving this any coverage at all. Starbucks had to know there'd be some level of scrutiny applied to them over anything that could even possibly been interpreted as anti-Christmas, as tends to happen in these circles when your CEO is unabashedly liberal.
I've gotta believe they're loving every bit of the free publicity this has brought them.
Over something as simple as a cup of coffee.
That time when a coffee cup somehow turns into a cultural battleground.
We're only a week past Halloween, and already the self-righteous culture warrior brigade has found something trivial to be up in arms about. So, in the last possible topic I ever expected to have to write about in a serious manner, and the last possible thing I ever expected anyone could be legitimately upset over, Starbucks recently introduced it's cup design for the holiday season, and people are furious. Why, you ask? Because this year... they're just plain red cups with the company logo on them. While I can't imagine the good people at Solo are enthused about Starbucks encroaching on their territory, there's apparently a far greater outrage in all of this.
As you've come to expect right now, the usual pandering suspects on the right are raising hell about this. I came across a link from a site called Right Wing News, which apparently decided accuracy was no longer a priority two words into their name. One of their writers spews this gem:
Obviously normal people who are offended by the anti-Christmas ratchet tightening each year don’t count. In a country run by cultural Marxists, normal people never count. That they have been systematically eradicating Christmas tells you all you need to know about progressives.
I wasn't aware that taking Christmas greetings off cups that never had them was "eradicating" Christmas, nor that snowflakes are the exclusive domain of the Christian religion, but what the hell do I know. So that's why it never snows at my house on Christmas.
Then, there's the reason anybody's talking about this at all. In a video I have no intention of linking to because screw giving any more pageviews to a guy who tagged every conservative news outlet (and, oddly, MSNBC) in the comments to his own video, evangelical something-or-other and noted half-witted troll Josh Feuerstein came up with the brilliant idea of going into Starbucks, ordering coffee, and when asked for a name, telling the server his name was "Merry Christmas." Wow, you really showed those godless liberals, Josh! Because what better way to protest a business than by making it a point to go and patronize that business? I'm sure you'll be shocked by this, but Starbucks employees do typically still wish you a merry Christmas anyway (so I'm told; you'll never catch me paying for their overpriced coffee), and I doubt they care that you think you're somehow getting one over on them by making them write it on your cup. But nobody ever accused Feuerstein of making sense, or backing up his points with logic, or thinking in general. This, mind you, is the same man who screamed about a "Christian holocaust" when Kim Davis was jailed, and recorded a 'take-down' of evolution which really doesn't, though in his defense, it's really unfair to the monkeys to suggest Feuerstein is more intellectually evolved than them.
And then there's Breitbart, the website that continues to carry on its late founder's legacy of being wrong about absolutely everything, often to a libelous extent. One of their writers went so far as to declare this injustice "Emblematic Of The Christian Culture Cleansing Of The West," without a hint of irony to be found. Never mind that Starbucks still prominently sells their "Christmas Blend" and offers gift cards with all the cutesy Christmas drawings you could possibly want. Oh, and Advent calendars. Yes, the godless heathens sell Advent calendars. "Frankly, the only thing that could redeem them from this whitewashing of Christmas is to print Bible verses on their cups next year." Did I miss the year that their cups featured baby Jesus in a manger with a pumpkin spice latte? There's never been any sort of religious display on a Starbucks cup, unless snowmen and ornaments are now religious symbols.
Finally, presidential candidate Biff Tannen, who has yet to find an issue he can't make all about himself, decided to join in the fray, calling for a boycott of Starbucks, presumably by making them build the most luxurious wall ever around each one then kicking them out, despite having one as a tenant at Trump Tower. "If I become president, we're all gonna be saying 'Merry Christmas' again." And while I can see why the President's Committee on Holiday Greetings is being made a top priority here, that really leaves me with more questions than answers. Such as, "how is this schmuck the Republican front-runner?"
It is somewhat refreshing, though, to see that many of the folks that usually perpetuate this culture war nonsense have been silent, if not outright condemning the likes of Feuerstein and Breitbart.
Even Sarah freakin' Palin came out against the uproar, though not without the usual dig at "the Left" as if we're the same kind of monolith that Christians despise being portrayed as (as well they should). When Sarah Palin is on the right side of an issue and you aren't, you're doing something horribly, horribly wrong.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again before all is said and done. Christians: You don't hold exclusive rights to the last two months of the year. If every store you go into doesn't have at least three nativity scenes set up in front of it, or Christmas music blaring from the speakers, it doesn't mean they're trying to oppress you. Look up the actual meaning of that word if you're still confused. Everybody else: Let 'em have their holiday. Do you really need to boycott your kid's band concert and raise unholy hell because they played "Silent Night"? Just take your day off (or your time-and-a-half) and let everyone else enjoy their day.
But honestly, the cynic in me can't help but think this was all part of the plan, and that we're probably all playing into their hands by giving this any coverage at all. Starbucks had to know there'd be some level of scrutiny applied to them over anything that could even possibly been interpreted as anti-Christmas, as tends to happen in these circles when your CEO is unabashedly liberal.
I've gotta believe they're loving every bit of the free publicity this has brought them.
Over something as simple as a cup of coffee.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Toddwatch 2015: The Aftermath
Finally, the nightmare is over.
At least until he runs again.
Can you really ever discard that as a possibility?
Indeed, it's true: Lapeer County's favorite embarrassment lost his bid for re-election, and it wasn't even close.
The surprising part is the actual victor: not presumptive front-runner Jan Peabody, nor Imlay City favorite Ian Kempf, nor Kevin Daley-approved Chris Tuski, but attorney Gary Howell, who won with 3,076 votes. In second place was Peabody with 2,418 votes; apparently, her most recent mailer featuring the unfortunate endorsement of the unfortunate John Stahl, complete with the two of them standing on the front of it looking completely bewildered, wasn't enough to pull her over her biggest rival. Tuski finished 22 votes behind her, and Kempf finished fourth with 2,069, proving once again that running a clean campaign simply doesn't work. No other candidate cleared 1,000, including Courser himself (415 would be his final tally, good for sixth), and two candidates, Jim DeWilde and Allan Landosky, didn't even clear 100. Combined.
On the Democratic side, Margaret Guererro DeLuca demolished noted moonbat R.D. Bohm and Eric Johnson combined by over 2,000 votes, with Johnson somehow doubling Bohm's total despite not showing up for anything until the Democrat-only debate.
As for the general election, a few things remain to be seen; namely, whether any write-in candidates will take a shot at the seat. And no doubt I'll have plenty of things to say about them, and plenty of questions to ask. But there truly are no losers here. Despite my disappointment in his recent mailers going after Peabody, Howell is still about as straight a shooter and a decent man as they come. Proof that sincerity will get you a long way. Likewise, no one can doubt DeLuca knows that of which she speaks, and she's got all the facts and numbers to back up her stances. Truthfully, I wouldn't be entirely disappointed with either being sent to Lansing, though regular readers can guess which one I'd throw my support behind.
And finally, I'd like to address the guy who started this whole mess. As the old saying goes, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you're a fool if you think you can fool all the people all the time. Thankfully, the voters of Lapeer County were smart enough to realize the mistake made and remove you from office, but not before you wasted $120,000 of our money on an election to replace you, made this county look foolish on a national scale, and left Lapeer unrepresented for the next four months. And sure, it looks like you'll get your "20/20" segment and cry about how badly you were treated, and how the progressive liberal conservatives destroyed your career, and speak up for the millions of families out there suffering from... adulterous husbands screwing their co-workers, then covering it up with taxpayer funds? I'm not really sure where you were going with that one.
But take this as a lesson learned: there's only so much you can screw people over, deny it, cover it up, and then show no remorse for it, before they wise up and stop allowing you to take advantage of them. And it's the lack of repentance for your actions, complete lack of sympathy for the people whose lives you damaged, and continued denial of wrongdoing in the face of all your wrongdoing, that truly eliminates all benefit of the doubt. Know too, should you ever try and run for office again: plugging your ears and ignoring the voice of your constituents is the quickest way to make enemies of them. (Especially if they have a blog and way too much time on their hands.)
I'm sure we'll have to hear about how the world has conspired against you, between those evil liberal progressive Republicans, the biased progressive conservatives at the Detroit News, and about how you were the lone voice of reason at the state House, who simply wanted nothing more than to enact Christian Sharia law in this state while making sure any issues that might be important to your constituents remained completely unattended to. Truly, you were the victim in all this, not the people you threw under the bus or refused to represent. Unfortunately for you, however, the people of Lansing and Lapeer finally saw you for what you really are, and you got exactly what you deserved.
And now, having given Lapeer a black eye on a national stage, I sincerely hope you'll be smart enough to go away for a good long while.
But I sincerely doubt it.
Monday, November 2, 2015
The Authoritative Guide To Tuesday's Election
At long last, our long local nightmare comes to an end.
On Tuesday, Lapeer County voters will head to the polls to determine, among other things, who will next represent them in Lansing. And while I'm somewhat sad for the loss of the seemingly endless source of material that was Todd Courser's political career, somebody has to do the job he was voted in to do. And unless it's the independent that already announced a campaign, it will be one of these 14 folks:
(Note: the links in this next section are to the Facebook pages of each candidate's campaign. I felt this would serve as the easiest method for those who wish to get in direct contact with the candidates. The exceptions: Howell and Dewilde's personal profiles are listed, as they appear to be using them in lieu of a campaign page; Johnson has no link, as he doesn't even appear to have a Facebook account or website; and Bohm has no link, as I'm fairly certain he views the internet as some sort of sorcery.)
Russell Adams- One of three candidates running with zero experience as a politician or business owner, nor any political endorsement. Surprisingly independent for being a Republican in Lapeer County. VOTE IF: Being a "political outsider" is something that's important to you, and you're absolutely serious about this.
R.D. Bohm- Has about as much contempt for Republicans and stories with a point as Courser does to Democrats and... well, most Republicans. VOTE IF: Freeways to nowhere and bases on the moon are your thing; wearing an onion on your belt was the style back in your day.
Todd Courser- Because why wouldn't you run for the same office you just resigned from, a week after you resigned from it? VOTE IF: You wish to finally destroy my faith in my fellow man.
Jake Davison- If you like your politicians experienced, but with the appearance of a high school senior, Jake's your guy. Would like you to know that he is, indeed, King Shit. Would also like you to know that you won't have to worry about him wasting your money covering up a sex scandal, mostly because he's currently single. (Ladies.) Despite being the youngest candidate, actually has the most Lansing experience of anybody running, as a former employee of longtime state rep/senator Jud Gilbert. VOTE IF: You want your experienced politicians to have said experience in the actual office they're running for; you wanna hear him sing "Roundabout" by Yes at his victory celebration. (And trust me, you want this.)
Margaret Guererro DeLuca- Former Imlay City mayor, lost to Courser last time around. Can quote seemingly endless statistics, facts and data to back up her platform, and is not afraid to let you know it. VOTE IF: You're one of maybe five supporters of hers that somehow doesn't think she has the Dem nomination locked up already.
James DeWilde- Also looking to change his party from within, but moving in the opposite direction as the incumbent. Easily the most socially liberal of the Republican candidates, yet fiscally conservative, and one of the few with a background in economic development. Truly a damn shame his campaign got so little traction behind it; he'd have made a fine candidate on either side of the political fence, in a far less crowded field. VOTE IF: You like your Republicans to be not-so-Republican.
Rick Guererro Jr.- Todd Courser Lite. Hasn't done much to downplay that association, either. VOTE IF: You, for some reason, want to vote for Todd Courser, but without all the adultery, fire and brimstone.
Gary Howell- Can't believe this shit. Is getting too old for this shit. Has had enough of this shit. At least that's the image he's projected so far, anyway. But for a guy who's claimed he won't run again after he serves this term, he sure has put a lot of time and money into mailers attacking Jan Peabody, accusing her of being funded by "liberal" billionaire Dick DeVos. If the man who brought you the world's largest somehow-legal pyramid scheme, a man further to the right than even the Koch brothers themselves, is a liberal, then what does that make me? Joseph Stalin? VOTE IF: You've had enough of this shit, but not enough not to support a guy who keeps perpetuating it.
Eric Johnson- He does exist! Johnson came out of hiding for Thursday's debate, just long enough to remind us that he told the County Press that he's running as a Democrat because it's an easier fight. Probably should have stayed in hiding. VOTE IF: ...you want to prove him right about that? I got nothin'.
Ian Kempf- Helped bring back the Eastern Michigan Fair from the brink; has been a county commissioner for a good decade and a half. The one front-runner that hasn't done any negative campaigning whatsoever. Easily the most difficult guy to make jokes about in this whole race. VOTE IF: You're looking for the closest thing to real experience short of actually being in Lansing, or a guy that can stand on his own merit without mudslinging; you want to ensure this blog goes dormant for a good long while.
Allan Landosky- Who? VOTE IF: Seriously, who?
Jan Peabody- If ever there were an establishment-approved Republican in this race, the chair of the Lapeer County Republican Party is it. And there's a reason she keeps getting hammered over the amount of contributions coming from outside lobbying groups. Would almost certainly de-friend me on Facebook if she read literally a single thing I've ever posted. VOTE IF: Communication skills aren't a high priority for you; you really don't care about how much of a role outside lobbyist money plays in local politics.
Sharna Smith- Ran last year, played spoiler to ensure Courser's primary victory. Decent candidate who has served her township well in her current position, but nothing particularly makes her stand out from most of her competition. VOTE IF: ...I'm still trying to answer that from the last election.
Chris Tuski- Not much of note to differentiate him from the field, other than the endorsement of previous state rep Kevin Daley (supposedly in part to keep him from running against Daley for state Senate in the last election, but that's neither here nor there.) VOTE IF: You'd rather have had Kevin Daley serve a fourth term.
All jokes aside, there's several candidates I feel would absolutely be worthy of the job, and at this point, it seems that damn near every candidate has stood in my line of fire at one point or another, whether in-person or via Facebook. And except for the incumbent, every single one engaged me in conversation and attempted to answer the questions I had for them. In particular, Kempf and Davison have taken the most of my interrogation outside of the debates and managed to answer most of my questions in a satisfactory manner; Guererro and I sparred a bit on Facebook over my first debate recap, and Adams let me have it a bit as well! I've spoken in person with all of the above and DeLuca, DeWilde, Peabody, Bohm, and Johnson; other than Courser, all of them have been nothing but gracious and respectful to a guy that has been fairly blunt in sharing his opinions of them all!
I've held off on making endorsements on the Republican side so far in this campaign. The reason for this is fairly simple: as many of you know, I was involved in a primary campaign for this very race last year, for somebody I considered a good friend and a great supporter of my musical endeavors over the last few years. After the election, there was something of a falling out between us, and for this cycle, I'd like to avoid a repeat of that. That said, I did play a fundraiser in this cycle for Davison, whose father I consider a great friend and a stand-up guy. And while there are a few lesser-known candidates whose views align more with my own (in an alternate universe with a smaller field, Jim DeWilde would be getting my vote without a doubt), of the front-runners on the Republican side, Kempf and Davison are the best options to be had. Both have the political experience the job demands, and both have run clean campaigns without the all-too-typical mudslinging and endless bombardment of phone calls. As for the Democratic side, it's been fairly obvious to me for a while that DeLuca is the only logical choice for the nomination.
Then there's the Lapeer City Commissioner's race. Eight candidates are running for four spots: Mike Robinet and the oft-outspoken John Lyons are stepping down, while Catherine Bostick and A. Wayne Bennett are the incumbents running again. Despite the ubiquitous presence of "We Love Lapeer" signs around town (a campaign of his that never went any further than the actual signs), I can't, in good conscience, endorse a man who helped Courser to evade questioning for his actions and has continued to support him, nor a man who publicly referred to homosexuality as an "abomination" immediately following the Supreme Court ruling; as such, A. Wayne Bennett will not be getting my vote. Running against them are Glenn Alverson, Josh Atwood, Deb Marquardt, Mary Miracle, Erik Reinhardt, and Michael Stuart. Marquardt served admirably up until the last election, when a last-minute change of heart about running resulted in her name being left off the ballot. As far as the newcomers go, I've managed to find very little information on most of them, but Atwood has easily done the most campaigning of any candidate, made himself readily accessible to voters, and as a downtown business owner, has put his money where his mouth is. The man came into the most cynical group of people in Lapeer County (Lapeer Sound Off on Facebook) and was grilled about everything from his age, to his business experience, to, for some reason, his beard, and put a great deal of thought into his responses. As such, I have great confidence in his ability to work with residents and business owners alike and bring new ideas to the city commission, and I give him my full endorsement. (Plus, the beard is pretty sweet!)
If ever there were a silver lining to the dark cloud hanging over Lapeer County for the last year, it's the fact that having a national political scandal happening in your hometown does wonders for voter interest and engagement. I haven't seen this many people this invested in what their local elected officials are doing at any point in the 14 years I've lived in Lapeer; you'd be amazed how many couldn't tell you the name of the mayor of this city! (Uh... it's Bill something-or-other, isn't it?)
In keeping with that, if I can ask one thing of everybody reading here, it's this: Vote. And be informed. Read the write-ups of the debates that were held. Hell, watch the videos of the first two. See for yourself what all of the candidates stand for. I've even provided the links to the Facebook pages of each campaign so you can see what they believe in their own words, or pester them for yourselves and ask them whatever questions you feel haven't been satisfactorily answered yet. And if you really want to know the kind of man the incumbent is, read this and follow the links; there's 40 of them in that post alone, which link to either the man's own words, his own actions, or the many instances where the two wildly differ.
Finally, I leave you with this: if ever you should, for even a second, think to yourself that maybe, just maybe, this whole process has humbled our last representative in the slightest, that he might just feel some shame and remorse for what he's done to the people of Lapeer County, remember that the man himself asked us this a few days ago:
On Tuesday, Lapeer County voters will head to the polls to determine, among other things, who will next represent them in Lansing. And while I'm somewhat sad for the loss of the seemingly endless source of material that was Todd Courser's political career, somebody has to do the job he was voted in to do. And unless it's the independent that already announced a campaign, it will be one of these 14 folks:
(Note: the links in this next section are to the Facebook pages of each candidate's campaign. I felt this would serve as the easiest method for those who wish to get in direct contact with the candidates. The exceptions: Howell and Dewilde's personal profiles are listed, as they appear to be using them in lieu of a campaign page; Johnson has no link, as he doesn't even appear to have a Facebook account or website; and Bohm has no link, as I'm fairly certain he views the internet as some sort of sorcery.)
Russell Adams- One of three candidates running with zero experience as a politician or business owner, nor any political endorsement. Surprisingly independent for being a Republican in Lapeer County. VOTE IF: Being a "political outsider" is something that's important to you, and you're absolutely serious about this.
R.D. Bohm- Has about as much contempt for Republicans and stories with a point as Courser does to Democrats and... well, most Republicans. VOTE IF: Freeways to nowhere and bases on the moon are your thing; wearing an onion on your belt was the style back in your day.
Todd Courser- Because why wouldn't you run for the same office you just resigned from, a week after you resigned from it? VOTE IF: You wish to finally destroy my faith in my fellow man.
Jake Davison- If you like your politicians experienced, but with the appearance of a high school senior, Jake's your guy. Would like you to know that he is, indeed, King Shit. Would also like you to know that you won't have to worry about him wasting your money covering up a sex scandal, mostly because he's currently single. (Ladies.) Despite being the youngest candidate, actually has the most Lansing experience of anybody running, as a former employee of longtime state rep/senator Jud Gilbert. VOTE IF: You want your experienced politicians to have said experience in the actual office they're running for; you wanna hear him sing "Roundabout" by Yes at his victory celebration. (And trust me, you want this.)
Margaret Guererro DeLuca- Former Imlay City mayor, lost to Courser last time around. Can quote seemingly endless statistics, facts and data to back up her platform, and is not afraid to let you know it. VOTE IF: You're one of maybe five supporters of hers that somehow doesn't think she has the Dem nomination locked up already.
James DeWilde- Also looking to change his party from within, but moving in the opposite direction as the incumbent. Easily the most socially liberal of the Republican candidates, yet fiscally conservative, and one of the few with a background in economic development. Truly a damn shame his campaign got so little traction behind it; he'd have made a fine candidate on either side of the political fence, in a far less crowded field. VOTE IF: You like your Republicans to be not-so-Republican.
Rick Guererro Jr.- Todd Courser Lite. Hasn't done much to downplay that association, either. VOTE IF: You, for some reason, want to vote for Todd Courser, but without all the adultery, fire and brimstone.
Gary Howell- Can't believe this shit. Is getting too old for this shit. Has had enough of this shit. At least that's the image he's projected so far, anyway. But for a guy who's claimed he won't run again after he serves this term, he sure has put a lot of time and money into mailers attacking Jan Peabody, accusing her of being funded by "liberal" billionaire Dick DeVos. If the man who brought you the world's largest somehow-legal pyramid scheme, a man further to the right than even the Koch brothers themselves, is a liberal, then what does that make me? Joseph Stalin? VOTE IF: You've had enough of this shit, but not enough not to support a guy who keeps perpetuating it.
Eric Johnson- He does exist! Johnson came out of hiding for Thursday's debate, just long enough to remind us that he told the County Press that he's running as a Democrat because it's an easier fight. Probably should have stayed in hiding. VOTE IF: ...you want to prove him right about that? I got nothin'.
Ian Kempf- Helped bring back the Eastern Michigan Fair from the brink; has been a county commissioner for a good decade and a half. The one front-runner that hasn't done any negative campaigning whatsoever. Easily the most difficult guy to make jokes about in this whole race. VOTE IF: You're looking for the closest thing to real experience short of actually being in Lansing, or a guy that can stand on his own merit without mudslinging; you want to ensure this blog goes dormant for a good long while.
Allan Landosky- Who? VOTE IF: Seriously, who?
Jan Peabody- If ever there were an establishment-approved Republican in this race, the chair of the Lapeer County Republican Party is it. And there's a reason she keeps getting hammered over the amount of contributions coming from outside lobbying groups. Would almost certainly de-friend me on Facebook if she read literally a single thing I've ever posted. VOTE IF: Communication skills aren't a high priority for you; you really don't care about how much of a role outside lobbyist money plays in local politics.
Sharna Smith- Ran last year, played spoiler to ensure Courser's primary victory. Decent candidate who has served her township well in her current position, but nothing particularly makes her stand out from most of her competition. VOTE IF: ...I'm still trying to answer that from the last election.
Chris Tuski- Not much of note to differentiate him from the field, other than the endorsement of previous state rep Kevin Daley (supposedly in part to keep him from running against Daley for state Senate in the last election, but that's neither here nor there.) VOTE IF: You'd rather have had Kevin Daley serve a fourth term.
All jokes aside, there's several candidates I feel would absolutely be worthy of the job, and at this point, it seems that damn near every candidate has stood in my line of fire at one point or another, whether in-person or via Facebook. And except for the incumbent, every single one engaged me in conversation and attempted to answer the questions I had for them. In particular, Kempf and Davison have taken the most of my interrogation outside of the debates and managed to answer most of my questions in a satisfactory manner; Guererro and I sparred a bit on Facebook over my first debate recap, and Adams let me have it a bit as well! I've spoken in person with all of the above and DeLuca, DeWilde, Peabody, Bohm, and Johnson; other than Courser, all of them have been nothing but gracious and respectful to a guy that has been fairly blunt in sharing his opinions of them all!
I've held off on making endorsements on the Republican side so far in this campaign. The reason for this is fairly simple: as many of you know, I was involved in a primary campaign for this very race last year, for somebody I considered a good friend and a great supporter of my musical endeavors over the last few years. After the election, there was something of a falling out between us, and for this cycle, I'd like to avoid a repeat of that. That said, I did play a fundraiser in this cycle for Davison, whose father I consider a great friend and a stand-up guy. And while there are a few lesser-known candidates whose views align more with my own (in an alternate universe with a smaller field, Jim DeWilde would be getting my vote without a doubt), of the front-runners on the Republican side, Kempf and Davison are the best options to be had. Both have the political experience the job demands, and both have run clean campaigns without the all-too-typical mudslinging and endless bombardment of phone calls. As for the Democratic side, it's been fairly obvious to me for a while that DeLuca is the only logical choice for the nomination.
Then there's the Lapeer City Commissioner's race. Eight candidates are running for four spots: Mike Robinet and the oft-outspoken John Lyons are stepping down, while Catherine Bostick and A. Wayne Bennett are the incumbents running again. Despite the ubiquitous presence of "We Love Lapeer" signs around town (a campaign of his that never went any further than the actual signs), I can't, in good conscience, endorse a man who helped Courser to evade questioning for his actions and has continued to support him, nor a man who publicly referred to homosexuality as an "abomination" immediately following the Supreme Court ruling; as such, A. Wayne Bennett will not be getting my vote. Running against them are Glenn Alverson, Josh Atwood, Deb Marquardt, Mary Miracle, Erik Reinhardt, and Michael Stuart. Marquardt served admirably up until the last election, when a last-minute change of heart about running resulted in her name being left off the ballot. As far as the newcomers go, I've managed to find very little information on most of them, but Atwood has easily done the most campaigning of any candidate, made himself readily accessible to voters, and as a downtown business owner, has put his money where his mouth is. The man came into the most cynical group of people in Lapeer County (Lapeer Sound Off on Facebook) and was grilled about everything from his age, to his business experience, to, for some reason, his beard, and put a great deal of thought into his responses. As such, I have great confidence in his ability to work with residents and business owners alike and bring new ideas to the city commission, and I give him my full endorsement. (Plus, the beard is pretty sweet!)
If ever there were a silver lining to the dark cloud hanging over Lapeer County for the last year, it's the fact that having a national political scandal happening in your hometown does wonders for voter interest and engagement. I haven't seen this many people this invested in what their local elected officials are doing at any point in the 14 years I've lived in Lapeer; you'd be amazed how many couldn't tell you the name of the mayor of this city! (Uh... it's Bill something-or-other, isn't it?)
In keeping with that, if I can ask one thing of everybody reading here, it's this: Vote. And be informed. Read the write-ups of the debates that were held. Hell, watch the videos of the first two. See for yourself what all of the candidates stand for. I've even provided the links to the Facebook pages of each campaign so you can see what they believe in their own words, or pester them for yourselves and ask them whatever questions you feel haven't been satisfactorily answered yet. And if you really want to know the kind of man the incumbent is, read this and follow the links; there's 40 of them in that post alone, which link to either the man's own words, his own actions, or the many instances where the two wildly differ.
Finally, I leave you with this: if ever you should, for even a second, think to yourself that maybe, just maybe, this whole process has humbled our last representative in the slightest, that he might just feel some shame and remorse for what he's done to the people of Lapeer County, remember that the man himself asked us this a few days ago:
If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Survey Time With Todd Courser... Again.
Well, here's that final outburst of crazy I promised earlier this week.
So, once again, Todd Courser has allegedly sent out a survey to gauge to opinion of his former constituents, and it's an interesting poll to say the least. Now, I've heard of political types sending out surveys that are designed to subconsciously favor certain answers and a certain political viewpoint. But this... this is more badly-written campaign ad than badly-written survey.
(Editor's note: This survey was first brought to my attention by Laura Cline, wife of ex-Courser staffer Joshua Cline. While I can understand the skepticism from some corners, this survey is so identical in tone and phrasing to Courser's own typical rambling, it's hard to imagine it coming from anyone other than the man himself.)
While it's not surprising that Courser can't imagine that anybody could possibly not be as militantly anti-abortion, nor that anyone wouldn't want as many people to have guns as possible regardless of mental or criminal history, it's worth noting that several of the things he has proposed are already illegal. And let it also be noted that no, Courser has not been ruled out as a suspect, and that yes, it's going to take more than 24 hours for prosecutor Tim Turkelson to review the case and formally press charges. Apparently, justice can't move fast enough when it's convenient for Todd.
No political hit, and said "enemies" did testify. Next...
Then why did he admit to wrongdoing, then try and deny it while claiming he "never read the report?" Makes one wonder what other things he didn't read that he voted on...
Another favorite tactic of Todd's seems to be dismissing interaction with his constituents as "pancake/spaghetti dinners." Because why should the people that elected this bozo be able to engage him for any reason or get answers from him? Sorry, Todd, but communication is a two-way street.
So, once again, Todd Courser has allegedly sent out a survey to gauge to opinion of his former constituents, and it's an interesting poll to say the least. Now, I've heard of political types sending out surveys that are designed to subconsciously favor certain answers and a certain political viewpoint. But this... this is more badly-written campaign ad than badly-written survey.
(Editor's note: This survey was first brought to my attention by Laura Cline, wife of ex-Courser staffer Joshua Cline. While I can understand the skepticism from some corners, this survey is so identical in tone and phrasing to Courser's own typical rambling, it's hard to imagine it coming from anyone other than the man himself.)
Big shocker: when all else fails, Todd attacks everyone he's running against. I'm not at all a fan of Jan Peabody, and refuse to support her in any election, but there is absolutely no proof to back up the second claim Courser makes about her here, nor the ones made against Gary Howell. And Davison did work for the Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity at one point, the same group that backed Todd last time around, so take that (and Courser's attacks on Jud Gilbert, another former Davison employer who is ten times the public servant Courser could ever hope to be) how you will. (Also: note that Rick Guererro is the one candidate he has nothing negative to say about.)
While it's not surprising that Courser can't imagine that anybody could possibly not be as militantly anti-abortion, nor that anyone wouldn't want as many people to have guns as possible regardless of mental or criminal history, it's worth noting that several of the things he has proposed are already illegal. And let it also be noted that no, Courser has not been ruled out as a suspect, and that yes, it's going to take more than 24 hours for prosecutor Tim Turkelson to review the case and formally press charges. Apparently, justice can't move fast enough when it's convenient for Todd.
Because there are so many damn communists in Lapeer County, right? And I can't help but feel like question number 5 implies another slam at a group Courser doesn't have the slightest bit of respect for...
Another one of Courser's many logical fallacies, this one implying that a politician who works with the other party and acknowledges the opinions of those he disagrees with is somehow a negative, despite most of his constituents disagreeing with that assessment.
In recent days, Gary Howell has greatly turned me off as a potential voter, but that has nothing to do with the baseless assertions posited here. The idea that independent voters shouldn't have any say in who the candidates are in general elections is positively asinine, and as a guy who has trumpeted his support for eliminating straight-ticket voting, a rather hypocritical stance to take.
Again, GLEP has several knocks against it, but supporting common core isn't one for most actual teachers. And any proof on that abortion claim, either? Not that she'd have any legal right to deny RU486 to anyone (which would be what Todd is referring to here), but there's no proof that she ever prescribed it to anyone.
No political hit, and said "enemies" did testify. Next...
Then why did he admit to wrongdoing, then try and deny it while claiming he "never read the report?" Makes one wonder what other things he didn't read that he voted on...
Another favorite tactic of Todd's seems to be dismissing interaction with his constituents as "pancake/spaghetti dinners." Because why should the people that elected this bozo be able to engage him for any reason or get answers from him? Sorry, Todd, but communication is a two-way street.
Now, obviously I'm not exactly a conservative, but why should Courser expect any majority of support when he's publicly acknowledged that he takes zero consideration for anyone that opposes his agenda, despite there being a sizable amount of voters in town that do oppose him. And of course, there's the usual whining about the "liberal media," despite the fact that the paper that broke the news about his misdeeds, the rather conservative Detroit News, endorsed him and Gamrat in the last election. And the local paper, the County Press, endorsed two other Republicans this time around, Howell and Ian Kempf. Not exactly liberal folk. But clearly anybody to the left of Courser is a flaming liberal...
But sadly, that's not even close to all... two more surveys were sent out to try and boost public opinion, and they're every bit as absurd as this one. Further proof that Todd Courser is simply incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions, and... seriously, the man thinks he could be president?
If ever you needed concrete evidence of just how delusional this man is, here it is.
(Thanks to Laura Cline and Carson Lucas for their help in compiling all of this!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)