Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Local Politics #132

Here's a letter I'm sending the local paper. The original letter writer may, may, have a good heart. But this blame everybody but me thing is getting old. Here's the letter:

26 April, 2005


I wish to respond to a letter written by a Mr. Joel M. Langholz that appeared in the Daily Press. First, I wish to applaud Mr. Langholz for his description of Mr. Peterson. He is spot on. Secondly, he analyzes the recent election in Ward 4 correctly. But the rest of the letter, including its goofy fraternity subplot, leaves much to be desired.

If we follow Mr. Langholz’s logic of individual, independent thinkers to its fullest extension, we wind up with an anarchic system, where things get done only for & by the strongest or richest. The whole point of “belonging”, & I am sorry Mr. Langholz was unable to find a fraternal home while at college, is to be able to have some collective effect on the existential conditions that either plague or nurture us.

Another problem with Mr. Langholz’s argument is that he gives both sides equal status. He assumes that both sides of this argument are equally true. This is absurd. This notion references certain cable TV shows that “balance” a news story at the expense of the truth. As an example, it is obvious to any thinking person that the vast majority of climate scientists believe we have a huge problem with global warming. Just because the anti-global warming folks can flush one, just one, scientist out to deny it, doesn’t mean that they should have equal footing, or equal time, during discussion involving global warming. Mr. Langholz seems to think that the agenda of Mr. Peterson & his five cohorts on the city council, is somehow equal to the progressive agenda of the Mayor & his supporters on the council. Sure, the numbers are close, but if you honestly read the results of the last election, 60% of the city wards involved in the election wanted a big change & the city got a big change.

Mr. Langholz also makes this factual error: he says the mayor is a Teflon mayor. I suppose the lawsuit filed by Martinson & Linton didn’t stick?

The last error Mr. Langholz makes concerns the mayor’s popularity. The reason the mayor is building support, instead of losing it, is that his policies for the city are right. Mr. Langholz never even considers that option.

In closing I wish to paraphrase a wise statement made by a wise friend today at the Black Cat: when you write a “pox on both houses manifesto” you ought to stop for a moment & realize that one house probably needs a lot more pox than the other. I know where my pox goes. Mr. Langholz ought to step up & tell us where his pox should go.



We need to make clear that the progressives are the right choice. & as a final note, I believe that the 4th Ward could have easily been won. In fact, I surprised that Mr. Peterson won as easily as he did. More on that later.

No comments: