In law school you learn that the English language can be used to construct a persuasive case for ANY position whatsoever. Leaving aside the philosophical question this raises about the existence of objective truth, it at least leads one to a healthy skepticism about political statements. The fact is, most aren’t worth the paper – or pixels – they’re printed on.
But when purveyors of political statements. . .
- get mad and insult the people they disagree with
- are narcissistic bullies
- overwhelm the public spaces with ad nauseum arguments
- appeal to people who have a vested interest for support
- use highly speculative projections about the likely outcomes of the position they support
- ignore alternative, often cheaper, solutions for achieving the same ends
. . .my skeptical “spidey” sense wakes up.
The tax and debt arguments raised in the C-1 (3B), Elbert County (1B), and Elbert County (1C) measures, have all triggered multiple hits in my matrix above. “NO” to them all.
And, with apologies to Ms. Hinds and Ms. Spenceley, their reliance on an empowered narcissistic bully to carry water for their C-1 director campaigns totally put me off their candidacies. Bullies should never be rewarded especially in a K-12 context. It just sets a terrible example for the kids.
“YES” to Richardson, Heckman and Willams.