OtherArea: Colorado U.S.A.
Re: "Young's mishandling of election-related issues in 2011 created embarrassment for the city and hastened her departure last summer; it was obvious she wouldn't fit into Bach's regime."
Kathryn Young retired of her own free will, unlike most others who have retired from city service since Bach took over. I asked Young if Bach had requested her retirement, and she said quite the opposite was true and gave me detailed information to show that she was not asked to retire. In fact, Mayor Bach urged her to stay and asked what it would take for her to stay. When that did not work, Mayor Bach asked his wife to speak with Young in an effort to get her to stay. The three of them had a lengthy lunch in order to discuss options that might get Young to change her mind and stay. Bach expressed disappointment to me about Young's decision and said she would be hard to replace. Young told me she could afford to retire and had decided to spend time with a grandchild while the girls was still little. She is about the only senior city employee who Bach wanted to keep. Bach blamed all of the 2011 election issues on City Attorney Pat Kelly, who he was anxious to fire. He said Kelly consistently gave Young bad legal advice and he hoped that the prospect of getting rid of Kelly would help Young decide to stay. In fact, I remember Bach defended Young after I published a Gazette editorial that wrongly blamed her for the election snafus.
smartestman, you are welcome. I'm so glad you like my constant immigration drumbeat. Perhaps I've converted you. I'll try to provide more of it.
Anyone notice: "over hear at the Indy"
I meant, "over here at the Indy."
To quote that genius governor of Texas: Oops.
Greg... If an atheist professed his views after every game, giving thanks for his lack of godly worship, AND people criticized him for sharing those beliefs, I think it would be fair to call the critics "anti-atheist." I do not care for over-zealous environmentalism, such as the campaign to stop the Keystone Pipeline. So, let's imagine a football player begins every post-game interview with: "First, I'd like to ask you all to help stop global warming..." If I suggested he STFU, it would be reasonable to criticize me for indulging bigoted anti-environmentalism. I would desire to silence this person on a basis of the content of his words, values and beliefs. I would be well within my rights to do so, but I would surely be criticized by those who shared the player's values.
gregfrommancos, Re: "I find it odd that you did everything in your power to avoid the empathy question. For sake of argument, agree that they could say that quote. Would you not agree that they were rude if they said that? Why should Tebow get a pass saying what he does?"
I'm not sure what you're asking here. What "empathy" question? I've searched the word "empathy" on this page and the only mention I find is in your two posts asking me to address it. I also listened to the Bill Press broadcast and didn't find the question. Please explain and I'll try to address it. Thanks.
Re: "agnostics and people who say the principles are good aren't necessarily religious."
Yes, Daytripper, that's what I said. From the post: "Neither man professes a religion, but neither considers himself an atheist."
Re: "lobbying for a job at the indy now wayne?? why aren't you filling the comment section of your own newspaper...."
I have written tens of thousands of posts for my own newspaper. I have never been a zero-sum thinker. One business does not need to suffer for a competing business to succeed. Wealth is not limited. Wealth grows when humans produce it and participate in economic activity. Therefore, it is no loss to me for lots of consumers to read and comment over hear at the Indy, and it is no loss to the Indy when consumers read and comment at gazette.com. All participants have the capability to survive and grow without the need to feel threatened by competition. I am quite capable of commenting at various locations, which I do every day, and one location is never a threat to the other. Zero-sum thinking is the reason we have anti-immigrant hysteria in this country. It's based in a mythological fear that we have a fixed amount of wealth to distribute and each person coming into the country will get something that may otherwise come to me. In truth, each person into the country is likely to produce more than he/she consumes. Think of it like this... If we have a party and each attendee brings a pie, we will have a surplus of pie. One person can bake multiple pies in a day, but few individuals are able to consume even one entire pie in a day. Likewise, I am able to produce far more comments than the world could ever want or need. Make sense, Daytripper?
Source for previous post: http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.p…
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation