RepMoeller
12-07-2006, 11:10 AM
Well, interestingly enough Chief you are proving to seldom surprise me either. Here I thought your invitation to join this blog was to begin to discuss these important issues like adults. No useless finger pointing, hand wringing and labeling. I recognize that personal attacks are easier than real topical debate and my purpose in these posts is to try to stay on task and topic to comply with the spirit of your original invitation.
"One of the reasons the Clarkblog.org Principals set this site up was to try and find a way to attract some real discussions about real issues here in the County. But during this election cycle, the only two politicians I could round up to comment on anything here were Jim Moeller and Pat Campbell. Pat at least posted here once, and I have heard from him a couple of times via e-mail. Moeller has had no problem tooting his own liberal horn here, completely unchallenged in an election year. I specifically e-mailed his Republican opponent twice, asking her to come and comment about anything that Moeller said. No response."
Perhaps your party's candidate knew better than I what to expect from these forums and she chose not to to be lured in to a name-calling match. When you refer to your own party's candidate and to me as an "unchallenged" incumbent in the same sentence it becomes understandable that you took quite a thumpin[g].
You claim to know how these civic problems arise and yet you offer no convincing evidence, only rehashed Limbaugh-esque throw-a-way lines. I must presume this is because of an inherent lack of ability to define and promote a framed argument.
I agree with the majority of your points including that we ought to be harsh on repeat offenders. Currently that's all we as a public have. My "squishy liberal" self only wished to remind you that in Washington State, as elsewhere, it takes money to lock people up for a long time. You have to pay for it as you go. We see it is not working. So, any reasonable person would continue to search for new solutions to combat crime and criminals rather than just keep doing what we are doing.
Do you want to debate waste and abuse within government? Good. You frame the debate. Try not to hide behind mere complaining. After reading a sample of your posts it starts to appear that you use it as an excuse to not come up with solid arguments to solve problems.
So - Is there waste in government? Duh!
Is there enough waste in the state budget to build and staff two new prisons while hiring new police *and* building new roads *and* schools *and* parks and...and... and...? NO. Identifying where waste and abuse of tax dollars occurs is an ongoing process in government as in any organization. However, when it is identified, "found money" should not be considered a funding stream for solving long term problems that require big investments of tax dollars. The simple approach from a previous post of "just cut the waste" is not only not helpful but really naive.
Here's an actual piece of information for you to chew on. Let's see what response you formulate.
One of the best ways to fight crime was proven by former New York Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's proposal to focus on the small stuff and the small-time crooks BEFORE they become big-time crooks and commit big time crimes. People who broke widows or stole purses in New York were all of a sudden were being arrested convicted and jailed. This cost a lot of money for New York to do but the Mayor made it a priority and *funded* it. He believed that more cops on the beat + more arrests = less crime. Who woulda thunk! The spin-off from that was neighbors and neighborhoods started taking pride again in their communities. Windows were being repaired, graffiti was being painted over and the streets returned to the citizens who lived there.
This idea was picked up by police departments all around the country and with the help of federal COP (Community Oriented Policing) grants from the Clinton Administration that paid for the salaries and equipment of new officers. Thousands of new police officers hit the American streets during the 1990's including right here in Vancouver. As a result, the past 12 years have seen the most precipitous decrease of violent crime in US history since statistics were collected. That is until these last two years. This year violent crime is up all over America. A cogent, informed and interesting post would ask WHY?
Is it due to "...creeping, incremental. squishy liberalism..." (your thoughtful and solution-minded declaration)?
Or is it, like an earlier post asserts, that the lack of "family values" makes criminals?
Or is it because the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has drained our police ranks (many officers also serve in the Guard and reserve) and the small-time crooks are no longer arrested, convicted and jailed before they become big-time repeat offenders? Less cops on the beat + less arrests = more crime?
Each is an interesting theory.
Well, at least one is. I'm willing to debate them all with credible information, reason, a little humor and a "liberal" sprinkling of political philosophy but I'm not willing to waste my time any longer with an endless and fruitless Karl Rove right-wing political strategy of "Call 'em stupid, un-American, traitors whose liberal, commie, pinko policies have lead us into this mess and call it a day".
If that's your preferred style, then perhaps you should retreat to your happy place, surfing for things to complain about again & again > then call it a day. I've got budgets to wrangle, bills to read and people to represent.
If that's *not * your preferred style - We can work together, we can reason together. Write something we can really use our community effort for that I can take to Olympia for positive change.
Your call.
ADMIN MODERATOR NOTE: Title changed by request. Old title no longer applies. Louis Wu
"One of the reasons the Clarkblog.org Principals set this site up was to try and find a way to attract some real discussions about real issues here in the County. But during this election cycle, the only two politicians I could round up to comment on anything here were Jim Moeller and Pat Campbell. Pat at least posted here once, and I have heard from him a couple of times via e-mail. Moeller has had no problem tooting his own liberal horn here, completely unchallenged in an election year. I specifically e-mailed his Republican opponent twice, asking her to come and comment about anything that Moeller said. No response."
Perhaps your party's candidate knew better than I what to expect from these forums and she chose not to to be lured in to a name-calling match. When you refer to your own party's candidate and to me as an "unchallenged" incumbent in the same sentence it becomes understandable that you took quite a thumpin[g].
You claim to know how these civic problems arise and yet you offer no convincing evidence, only rehashed Limbaugh-esque throw-a-way lines. I must presume this is because of an inherent lack of ability to define and promote a framed argument.
I agree with the majority of your points including that we ought to be harsh on repeat offenders. Currently that's all we as a public have. My "squishy liberal" self only wished to remind you that in Washington State, as elsewhere, it takes money to lock people up for a long time. You have to pay for it as you go. We see it is not working. So, any reasonable person would continue to search for new solutions to combat crime and criminals rather than just keep doing what we are doing.
Do you want to debate waste and abuse within government? Good. You frame the debate. Try not to hide behind mere complaining. After reading a sample of your posts it starts to appear that you use it as an excuse to not come up with solid arguments to solve problems.
So - Is there waste in government? Duh!
Is there enough waste in the state budget to build and staff two new prisons while hiring new police *and* building new roads *and* schools *and* parks and...and... and...? NO. Identifying where waste and abuse of tax dollars occurs is an ongoing process in government as in any organization. However, when it is identified, "found money" should not be considered a funding stream for solving long term problems that require big investments of tax dollars. The simple approach from a previous post of "just cut the waste" is not only not helpful but really naive.
Here's an actual piece of information for you to chew on. Let's see what response you formulate.
One of the best ways to fight crime was proven by former New York Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's proposal to focus on the small stuff and the small-time crooks BEFORE they become big-time crooks and commit big time crimes. People who broke widows or stole purses in New York were all of a sudden were being arrested convicted and jailed. This cost a lot of money for New York to do but the Mayor made it a priority and *funded* it. He believed that more cops on the beat + more arrests = less crime. Who woulda thunk! The spin-off from that was neighbors and neighborhoods started taking pride again in their communities. Windows were being repaired, graffiti was being painted over and the streets returned to the citizens who lived there.
This idea was picked up by police departments all around the country and with the help of federal COP (Community Oriented Policing) grants from the Clinton Administration that paid for the salaries and equipment of new officers. Thousands of new police officers hit the American streets during the 1990's including right here in Vancouver. As a result, the past 12 years have seen the most precipitous decrease of violent crime in US history since statistics were collected. That is until these last two years. This year violent crime is up all over America. A cogent, informed and interesting post would ask WHY?
Is it due to "...creeping, incremental. squishy liberalism..." (your thoughtful and solution-minded declaration)?
Or is it, like an earlier post asserts, that the lack of "family values" makes criminals?
Or is it because the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has drained our police ranks (many officers also serve in the Guard and reserve) and the small-time crooks are no longer arrested, convicted and jailed before they become big-time repeat offenders? Less cops on the beat + less arrests = more crime?
Each is an interesting theory.
Well, at least one is. I'm willing to debate them all with credible information, reason, a little humor and a "liberal" sprinkling of political philosophy but I'm not willing to waste my time any longer with an endless and fruitless Karl Rove right-wing political strategy of "Call 'em stupid, un-American, traitors whose liberal, commie, pinko policies have lead us into this mess and call it a day".
If that's your preferred style, then perhaps you should retreat to your happy place, surfing for things to complain about again & again > then call it a day. I've got budgets to wrangle, bills to read and people to represent.
If that's *not * your preferred style - We can work together, we can reason together. Write something we can really use our community effort for that I can take to Olympia for positive change.
Your call.
ADMIN MODERATOR NOTE: Title changed by request. Old title no longer applies. Louis Wu