Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Replies Elsewhere

I'll post some of my comments put onto other blogs in the comment section below. I do put my $.02 into the comments on the blogs of others.
Posted by at

11 comments:

Mark Rauterkus said...

Jack's place blog on the firefighters ballot question:

In many ways, I disagree.

The self-service in May 2001 with the endorsement was Tom Murphy's blunder. The firefighters didn't miss-manage this city at every turn for the past dozen years. Murphy's blame. Murphy's blunders.

Politics is complicated and full of weidness. But, democracy is simple. One person, one vote. That's easy. At the ballot box, the question is the question. Want 4 minute standard or don't want to follow and insure the standard.

King's quote about wishing the city to go bankrupt -- whatever -- has been twisted. Would you rather die with $1,000 in your pocket or would you rather live and have a penny in your pocket? Point being, we could fix the budget -- but all die in the process. Why get our financial house in order but not have anyone who would live here or who would even visit? That is the gist of the quote and message from Joe King.

Of course there has been no management of the fire breau. Murphy can't manage anyone. The fire breau needs to contribute to the solutions. But, Tom Murphy can't coordinate and listen to what the fire professionals have to say in offering their solutions. Good faith has been changed to ZERO Faith, thanks to Tom Murphy's administration.

Ta.

October 12, 2004 10:21 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

Weird ideas that have NOT been discounted yet:

Why not hold the old Lazarus for the new slots parlor?

Or, why not make the old Lazarus home to the new African American History Center?

If I'm going to play armchair quarterback, I'd put the new gambling parlor within the T-stop at (below) Gateway Center. Then that new construction for the T, minus the turn-around, could be paid for.

October 12, 2004 10:23 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

This year's city budget by Tom Murphy comes after two illegal ones. By charter, budgets need to be in balance. But, this one is "phony" as there are taxes in the budget that the mayor has no intention to deliver.

Meanwhile, the PG gives props to the mayor for finally working with the system and doing his duty by providing a budget that is in balance. Top story, front page, above the fold ink -- all positive.

October 12, 2004 10:24 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

Nader's troubles are not Nader's. Rather, his troubles are everyone's in PA.

Nader had two road blocks. One was that some judge said it was not okay to be candidate elsewhere with different rules and expect those outside rules to impact his rights here in PA.

The other Nader roadblock is the people who think that they know more than everyone else combined.

PA and the Dems who are protesting are going to tell some 50,000 (+/-) that they should depart. People will choose freedom. People don't like slavery -- and when the masters decide what is on the ballot and off -- that is concern enough to most.

IMNSHO, Nader should not have run. I asked him not to do so. But, he should be on the ballot.

October 12, 2004 10:24 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

The Great Race is a political story. We can ignore history and choose to repeat the same mistakes. That's what I'm not interested in doing any longer.

The city's timing was calculated.

The transitional race as you put it was not a transition at all. It was an alternative -- a replacement. There was no transition. And, it was much, much more than "not much."

The city didn't underwrite -- it owned, bullied, managed, exploited, and generally wagged the dog in all things "great race" and all other types and sizes of special events throughout this town.

When a monopoly fumbles -- a total void erupts. That's unhealth.

October 12, 2004 10:25 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

From my comments at Pittsblog.blogspot.com:

The Mayor's Race in 2005 is wide open. However, there are some real challenges. To convice the media that it is not a done deal is a feat. And, to get the election to come in two parts with the spring primary and the fall general election is also a struggle.

Furthermore, the city might see another 20,000 depart before the next election.

The race could be really wide open if the Pitt Law School went to the efforts of hosting three open, community, inclusive debates.

Pitt's School of Public Health, for example, will only invite Tom Murphy into its auditorium, right before the election, and give him a 90-minute pep rally. And, folks at Pitt, there, didn't have any second thoughts.

October 12, 2004 10:38 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

Put into comments at Pittsblog.blogspot.com about community development groups in the various neighborhoods.

You hope so?

In communist China one needs to go through a lot of "red tape" to open a business. In Pittsburgh, there are a lot of road-blocks too.

So, there are some community groups that do have a lot of influences. And, that's generally a very bad thing.

We need to push, pull and clear bigger paths to "free market" efforts here in the city. So, I want to evaluate that influence and often work hard to eliminate it.

Ta.

October 12, 2004 10:40 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

Yes J.P. Often there are duals and polarized community development groups. Hazelwood is another. Once you've been around the block it is painfully obvious where various groups stand. They know who butters their bread and who's soft money (funny money) they live upon. The Mayor has many booster groups throughout the city.

None of which have ever taught a person how to read, for example.

October 12, 2004 10:46 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

We'll never know, now.
The wrench got thrown into the democratic process instead. It knocked a fragile process out of sight.
This ruling STINKKS. It is going to be know, in a generation or so, as one of the worst blows to Pittsburgh, ever.
I'd rather lose US Airways, the Steel Industry, and have annual river and stream flooding -- but preserve (yet alone restore) a vibrant democracy and sense of justice.
Today's assets are leaves that change colors and opportunities to meet ex-Pittsburghers everywhere in the world.

http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2004/10/state-court-tosses-fire-unions.html
Jack, I'd love to debate this point with you at a public meeting or venue. The points I make are more fundamental than your focus on the outcome and reading-between-the-lines opinions.
Politics is complicated. Democracy is messy. Voting is simple.

October 23, 2004 1:57 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

This is one of those times when my favorite slogan, "Think again" fails to resonate. Hard to say, "think again" when they shown that thay failed to think at all at the outset.

The firefighters ballot question put on their referendum was half baked to say the best. We agree.

I would have been happy to tell Joe King and his court that they were about to spit in the wind before they put their muscle behind a really goofy question. But, they have a right put their heads in the sand, repeatedly.
The core question here is all about "rights." Another issue, "trust" as in trust in the firefighters' leadership, mayor's leadership, and capacity of our frail democracy. Justice wasn't served.

October 23, 2004 1:58 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...

At Pott's The Converstation:
I love city life, by they way. Never owned a lawn mower. It is what we choose.

This quote, "the value is in doing it holistically, comprehensively, not in a piecemeal way," Murphy said..." has a miss-use of "holistic," IMHO. Murphy wants "WHOLISTIC" -- as in the whole ball of wax. To be holistic is to be more organic, more of wellness, more of live and let live with vivid starts and spurts.

I have a "holistic" philosophy to swim coaching. We talk about all dimensions with the charges, the program, the efforts. But this is more about planting seeds and less about forced transplants or weed-be-gone.

The irony with you, J.P., is the use of the term, "serious" and how it plays into this conversation too. Murphy has a 'serious approach' in that if he fails, there is no net. Splat! We got that. He is serious about the linkage of every property there. Only a serious developer that wants an all or nothing approach is welcomed.

One who is serious about the free-marketplace, as in "Free Market candidate", is going to move to lots of little deals with a multitude of players, allowing freedom to flow and the marketplace to advance without hurdles (such as the deed transfer tax).

Think again about downtown and what it means to be wholisitic vs. holistic -- and being serious as a candidate!

November 09, 2004 9:16 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)