So, I went around setting up signs for my dad today. He's running for county controller in McKean county. On the off chance someone googles this race and happens to come across this post, I'm writing to inform the McKean County voter (Pennsylvania) (and everywhere else I can, for that matter).
Basically, we have an election where the incumbant is responsible for the detrimental state of the economy in McKean county. Why? Well, as Tom Ball told my dad before he decided to run against him (to paraphrase), there's no sense in fighting the system because the county court house is a mess. Ahh, yes -- he was attempting to rationalize the fact that he had let tremendous tax hikes pass through the county without so much of a quiver of his lip (and he call's himself Republican). In 10 years, he allowed property tax to rise 260 percent. This from a county that no one wishes to reside in, in the first place. McKean county sees very few of its young people stick around because its more beneficial financially to live elsewhere.
To bring up even more dirt, Tom Ball lacks the credientials that my father posesses: he wasn't even elected to the position which he has resided over virtually unchallenged for the last 14 years!
He found it convenient to hire on a full-time accountant to do his job for him, rather than live up to the fact that he doesn't have a Masters in Business, or a tremendous financial background like residing over controller of a multi-million dollar construction company.
The sad fact of the matter is that Tom Ball is merely part of the "good 'ol boy network". He hasn't done much more than collect a paycheck. He shows no sign of ambition or a need for change.
That's why I say (not speaking for my father), to heck with Tom Ball and his old do-nothing cronies. Elect Randall Turner for county controller! If we don't change, we will continue to watch our county deteriorate, and we will watch as the great days of yesteryear slip forever beyond that faint, glorious horizon.
Bradford, a major city in McKean county, once boasted more millionaires per capita than any town in the NATION. Surely, we can return to age of prosperity, if we will only be so bold as to take chances on new companies, open the doors to free enterprise, and set loose the common small business man to work the land as God intended, free of the tyranny of outrageous tax hikes and petty politicians.
ID:68576
 May 12 2009, 3:29 pm (Edited on May 12 2009, 3:53 pm)
|
|
IcewarriorX wrote:
The question is, what can McKean County politicians do for me as a citizen? No, if we had sheep we'd bicker about their breying, tax the wool that comes into the county, and tax the wool by pound which we export. Next, McKean county politicians would hold a meeting, and four weeks later a meeting about that meeting, to discern what could be done about the sheep problem. Some would want the sheep around to boost the local economy, others would say that dog fur is just as good, and that sheep wool drives out the local dog fur vendors. After the meeting about the meeting concluded, we'd decide that the problem was simply too hard for our meager minds to comprehend, after all, most intelligent folks moved out in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Our politicians would be content to go home and collect their paycheck, which they conveniently derive from the taxes they drove up, but which conveniently forgot to bring up at the last sheep meeting. At the end of the day, Napolean (referencing the pig from Animal Farm), would tell the sheep farmers where to get off, and collect the revenue from their industry for himself, or tax what little profit there was to be had, and redistrubite to the masses of welfare recipients which have been influxing into the area over the last 14 years. That's what McKean county politicians would do for you, were you a citizen. | |
It's amusing because Napoleon was Stalin, and Stalin was most decidedly not a communist in any real sense of the term.
I'm also amused that you managed to squeeze a religious appeal in there, given that the position of 'county controller' appears to be 'accountant for the county governance' rather than anything that religious opinions might be halfway relevant for. EDIT: Also, seriously, redistributing? That's not what Animal Farm was about at all. Snowball and Old Major are both presented as sympathetic figures, and they want a redistributive utopia for the animals. Napoleon comes along and corrupts their vision, then steals power. It's an anti-Stalinist story, not an anti-Communist story, excepting possibly that you might argue it's suggesting communism will always turn into dictatorship. | |
Hahaha, what a silly post.
| |
It's all about the $$$, it seems.
| |
Jp wrote:
It's amusing because Napoleon was Stalin, and Stalin was most decidedly not a communist in any real sense of the term. A communist would of course be anti-religous. Mao was, after all. And you have to be anti-religious if you're pro-Marxist. To think that Animal Farm suggests that communism could work in any sense, or that Napolean wouldn't be in favor of redistributing wealth while at the same time taking the best for himself is equally obvious and apparent. Religion is just as relevant to politics as any other aspect of life. If I like the color blue and you like the color blue, then we could promote the color blue visa vie our governance. Many Presidents and fore-fathers saw fit to reference God in some way, shape, or form. It was befitting for them to do so because their constituents shared similar beliefs. If the constituents do not share similar beliefs, the system will naturally correct itself. Those who fear the Lord, and see it as the beginning of wisdom can choose to follow leaders who fear the Lord too. Those who would hide their faith in shame, or denounce God all together, will have constituents who approve of such ideas. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
To think that Animal Farm suggests that communism could work in any sense, or that Napolean wouldn't be in favor of redistributing wealth while at the same time taking the best for himself is equally obvious and apparent. Uh, maybe you need to read the book again. Snowball is definitely written positively, and as an expy of Trotsky. Until he is overthrown by Napoleon, Stalin's expy, everything is going great. Furthermore, Orwell was an ardant socialist, and 1984 and Animal Farm were attacks on Stalinism, not socialism or communism as a whole. Many Presidents and fore-fathers saw fit to reference God in some way, shape, or form. Many of our fore-fathers and founding fathers were also deists, which is as close you can get to being an atheist or agnostic without actually saying you don't believe there's a god. Hell, it's a well-documented fact that George Washington didn't even consume the eucharist. Many of the religious ideas that are proscribed to those that formed the constitution are very modern ideas, and they would outright laugh at a lot of the conservative and fundamentalist ideas present in many of the modern branches of protestantism. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
Jp wrote: I'm not sure why the general opinion of communism towards religion is relevant at all, but a few points: Mao was not a communist so much as a trumped-up dictator using the excuse of communism to prop up his cult of personality. Communism is much maligned by conservatives without any actual understanding of what it is - it's not just a word for "Dictator who claims power from the workers. Communism is the position that property, industry, etc. should be communally owned, that people should work for their community in the spirit of fostering the common good, and that people should be provided with their needs via the fruits of the people labour. It's even small-government - you don't even /need/ a government, except for legislation, and organising the flow of goods. Whether or not it works or not is another matter - I'm actually of the opinion that communism is unlikely to function properly in groups of >200 people, which is why I'm a socialist - but it's not evil. It's just another utopian ideal that has unfortunately been hijacked by a number of dictators. It's not inherently anti-religious, although as you're aware I certainly am. Marx was opposed to religion because he thought it was a tool used by the rich to keep the poor poor and prevent the onset of communism. To think that Animal Farm suggests that communism could work in any sense, or that Napolean wouldn't be in favor of redistributing wealth while at the same time taking the best for himself is equally obvious and apparent. Napoleon isn't in favour of redistributing wealth according to need - he's in favour of redistributing wealth to himself and his cronies. Snowball and Old Major are in favour of redistributing wealth according to need, with the animals (i.e., workers) running the farm on their own, without the humans (i.e., the rich) exploiting them. Snowball and Old Major are communists and presented sympathetically - Napoleon is a dictator, not a communist, and portrayed as just as exploitive as the humans before him. The book has very little to say on the subject of whether communism works - it's more on the matter of Stalinism betraying and using the utopian ideal to pull the wool over the worker's eyes. Religion is just as relevant to politics as any other aspect of life. That's sort of my point. ;) Less trollishly, I was just noting that the inevitable (and apparently obligatory) reference to the Christian god seems out of place and totally irrelevant to whether or not someone would make a good accountant for a government position. I really don't know how good your father would be at that, I have very little to go on regards making a decision - so don't take this as attacking your father. I was just amused that religion is so omnipresent (ironically enough) in American society that even campaigns to be the accountant for a small government sector call upon divine right. If I like the color blue and you like the color blue, then we could promote the color blue visa vie our governance. Fortunately, there's a well-established part of modern Western democracy, enshrined in your constitution, amongst other things, saying that the government shouldn't support any religious position - including atheism - because it's just asking for religious persecution and theocracy. I'm continually thankful for that. Of course, it's alright for a politician to make a judgement on the basis of what their religion says - Say, "I don't want gay marriage because Christianity says so and I'm a Christian", but it's not okay to promote Christianity because you like Christianity and I like Christianity. Many Presidents and fore-fathers saw fit to reference God in some way, shape, or form. It was befitting for them to do so because their constituents shared similar beliefs. If the constituents do not share similar beliefs, the system will naturally correct itself. Presidents and the like make rather more potentially religiously motivated decisions than accountants. It's a little more important to know what religion they subscribe to. And I doubt you would be so blithe about the potential for tyranny of the majority if you weren't in a majority religious position. But given how much less fundie Obama is compared to Bush, perhaps the system is correcting itself. ;) Those who fear the Lord, and see it as the beginning of wisdom can choose to follow leaders who fear the Lord too. Those who would hide their faith in shame, or denounce God all together, will have constituents who approve of such ideas. Or alternatively you could just not give a damn. Religion has historically been almost unmentioned in Australian politics, and we've got along quite fine (It's come to prominence quite a bit more recently, probably thanks to importing US-style fundies and the creation of a fundy party called, amusingly enough, "Family First"). | |
Will they lower the sheep tax?