[Rhodes22-list] Robert's careful reply to Ed - was Robert S, David B, Peter L, my comments (Political)

[Robert Skinner]

Ed,

Some of us disagree.  No surprise there.
My responses follow in line.

Tootle wrote:
> ...
> Robert S said, "And Bush's buddies are not into my pockets?
> Again you speak in selected truths. 

Unless you are God, all truths are partial and selective.
I'm glad you agree that those I have cited are valid.

> Are the Spitzer's escapades more acceptable to you
> because he paid from his bank accounts? 

Yes.  Very much so.  Sex is a private matter.
I don't care who does what with a consenting adult.
Misuse of public funds is not a private matter.

> And you are letting your anti war,
> anti Bush demagoguery fail to allow you to separate different concepts.

----------------------------------------------
Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people 
(perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + 
agOgos leading, from agein to lead 
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices 
and false claims and promises in order to gain 
power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common 
people in ancient times
----------------------------------------------

I disagree with your characterization of me, 
as I am not a leader, and once again point 
to the fact that the money comes out 
of the same pocket.  Frankly, I am a fiscal 
conservative, questioning government 
expenditures on all fronts.  

The invasion of Iraq bothers me on several fronts:  

1.  It is a major drain on our economy, and has led 
to the wholesale abandonment of principles of privacy 
and personal freedom.  By that measure, Bin Laden is 
winning.

2.  It is morally questionable on many points.  
That is my opinion, strongly held, and not debatable.

3.  It was initiated on bad information and executed 
by a cadre of politicians with very limited military 
experience and against the advice of many military 
leaders.

4.  It still has the character of a civil war, 
augmented by terrorists drawn to conflict like flies, 
and almost certainly destined to collapse into chaos 
when we leave.

5.  We continue to take unilateral action - the other 
countries in the world are abandoning us, refusing to 
assist us in setting up and transferring power to an 
international force.

At some point we will have to admit that we screwed 
up and accept that the American form of Democracy is 
not as effective as Saddam's methods (repugnant as 
they were) in holding that disparate and artificially
joined population together.  Figures like Stalin, 
Saddam, Putin, Idi Amin, and others of their ilk are 
the result of their political environment.  Dictators 
don't happen by accident.

And if we continue to augment the powers of our 
presidents, allowing them to hurry us into wars, we 
will wind up with our own dictator(s).  "The price of 
liberty is eternal vigilance."  /Barry Goldwater

> David said, “Do you think taking my tax dollars and using them to underwrite
> a war and continue the policies that undermined our currency isn't somehow
> taking property from one group and paying for their selected "programs."  Of
> course it is.

Glad we agree on that.
 
> However, the U. S. Constitution places the President in charge of national
> security. 

Right.  But it does not empower him to use 
"selective truths" to bamboozle the congress 
into granting him virtually unlimited power 
to wage a war forever despite citizen's 
expressed and quantified disapproval.

> Because you do not believe in the Islamic threats...

Right again.  Not all Islamic peoples are terrorists.  
You will note that I have supported direct and 
immediate action against terrorists while decrying 
the poorly planned and inadequately supported invasion 
of a non-terrorist nation and the consequent enabling 
of terrorist invasion.

> does not allow
> you to equate the current anti terrorist war to be put into the same kettle
> as socialized medicine, low income housing, pork barrel projects, etc.  They
> are different facts that cannot be grouped together to bash Bush.

I repeat - same pocket.  And I maintain my right 
to grouse about expenditures that I do not 
approve of, recruit others to the same position,
and ultimately to express it at the ballot box.

> It is the evil people who present special issues.  Bin Laden and his concept
> of Islam allows him to kill those who do not agree with him.  He has
> developed many followers.  As you are aware I like to quote others to
> illustrate my points.  The following quote demonstrates what free people are
> up against, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do
> it from religious conviction."  Blaise Pascal...

So far, the same could be said of Bush, by 
substituting religions.  I sympathize with no 
one who uses religion to support killing.

> Why do I comment against Socialism and those who espouse the diminution of
> American Freedoms?  A little bit here and a little bit there seem
> insignificant.  But many years ago, I read the following:
> 
> In Germany they first came for the Communists...

And in America, they came for the Communists. 
(McCarthy hearings)

> Sure Bush made mistakes in his approach to the Iraq situation.  You are
> using his mistakes to gloss over intentions and actions of evil people.

Not me, Babe.  I hold everyone accountable 
for their actions - including myself and Bush.
I'd strangle Bin Laden if I could get my hands 
around his throat.

> Sure Haliburton has made profits and should be scrutinized. 

Yup.  Big time.

> Sure not all people get the same medical care. 

I never made that argument.  I call for universal
preventative immunization for children (to limit 
the spread of disease) and a dignified and 
pain-controlled end of life (a basic kindness).

> None of these issues validate destroying America
> by going socialist.  Socialism has been tried elsewhere and has
> failed.  Socialism inculcates power in a bureaucracy whose decisions may be
> just a bad as those you complain about.
> 
> Robert Skinner complained about the zoning board in Maine.

I related a situation.  The zoning board is not 
at directly at fault.  The tax assessor failed 
to note the zoning change, and nearby residences 
were constructed on the basis of misinformation.  

There was some question whether a quarry and 
asphalt plant were appropriate uses.  As the 
Planning Board was considering this, the Town 
Council (majority are good Republicans) decided 
to rearrange the playing field after everyone 
was suited up.  See reference material below.

> I contend that is the nature of government bureaucracies and self serving people. 

Note that it was a Republican Town Council that 
subverted the will of the people, acting against
advice and the will of the people.  Guess that 
makes them Socialists?

My wife is secretary of the Planning Board, and
I see most of the meetings and hearings.  I am 
treasurer (a very conservative one) of a 76 
property homeowners association downwind of the 
proposed quarry/asphalt plant, only a quarter 
of a mile away.  I see and hear more than most
about the deliberations.

As it turns out, the Gorham Planning Board is 
doing a good job of walking a tightrope between 
the developer's right to use his land as he sees 
fit and the interests of the adjacent population.  
The process is entering its 20th month, and I am 
anticipating a reasonable outcome.

> Only when power is left to the people at large is there any hope to correct such
> deficiencies.

So we do away with the electoral college?  One of 
the last bastions of federalism?  Without the 
electoral college, Bush would not be president.

And how about the Senate?  That body is a long way 
away from the one-man-one-vote ideal democracy you 
are calling for.

Loosen up, Ed.  Nothing in the real world is so 
black and white as you would make it.  Just like 
the snow in Maine, the world is clothed in shades 
of gray.

/Robert

========================================================
Reference material:
========================================================
Subject: 
            Re: [Rhodes22-list] Political - Now Ark Building, planning boards
       Date: 
            Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:25:05 -0500
      From: 
            Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com>
   Reply-To: 
            The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
        To: 
            The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
 References: 
            1 , 2 , 3




Thanks, Brad.  I don't think the Town Council has ever 
been faced with such persistant and rational opposition.  

I, too, admire the people on the Planning Board, 
volunteers all, who try to find the balance between 
the many and varied interests in Gorham.

/Robert
=======================================================
Subject: 
            Re: [Rhodes22-list] Political - Now Ark Building, planning boards
       Date: 
            Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:38:36 -0500
      From: 
            Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com>
   Reply-To: 
            The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
        To: 
            The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
 References: 
            1




Brad Haslett wrote:
> 
> The Lord spoke to Noah ...

Good one!  My wife is Secretary of the Gorham, Maine 
Planning Board.  She appreciated it.  Right now, even 
as we speak, one businessman is trying to get approval 
for a quarry, rock crusher, and asphalt plant 1500 
feet from a 76-residence subdivision.  

Yup - periodic blasting, significant noise and dust 
from the rock crusher, hydrocarbon fumes from the 
asphault plant, and truck traffic and back-up beepers 
24x7 during the road-building season.

Seems someone screwed up/was bought(?) in the zoning 
office, and the proposed use fits within the uses 
permitted within the zone.  And (Oh my!) somehow the 
new zoning did not show up on plans made available to 
persons who bought property nearby.  

There were many townspeople who objected to the 
proposed use, and the proposed quarry and plant 
conflicted with some ordinances of the town.  The 
Planning Board also expressed some immediate 
reservations about the project.

One week, out of the blue, against reccommendations 
from those who reviewed them, the Town Council (one 
of whom has a son employed at the proposing company) 
rushed through some new ordinances "clarifying" some 
issues AFTER the proposal had been presented to the 
Planning Board and been severly questioned, 
effectively forcing the Planning Board to accept the 
proposal, despite significant opposition.

After a year of such fooling around, the final 
decision (Donneybrook) is due within a few weeks.
The Planning Board (the voice of the people) will 
try to strangle the project with qualifications, 
limits on operating hours, and environmental 
monitoring of noise, toxic emissions, and wind-
carried particulate.

It is expected that whatever the Board puts down, the
follow-on law suits will tie things up for years.  

Given:

1. the questionable operational decisions by town 
staff,

2. the curious and clearly partisan decisions and
ordinance changes by the Town Council during the 
processing of the application by the Planning Board, 
and

3. the clearly expressed preferences of the concerned 
townspeople, 

the delays and obfuscation thrown down in front of 
this planned use are a good thing.

Doncha love small town politics?  Money and the "old 
boy" connections are a very powerful force, often
subverting the best interests of the citizens.  But
there is always hope...

/Robert
________