Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Pro-War Favors Democracy for Schools, Fascism for Rest of USA

Sometimes the use of bad language is wholly appropriate. This is one of those times. Today the Pro-War (Glens Falls Post-Star) published an editorial (probably written by Mark Mahoney, as most of them are). It detailed how enamored the management of the paper is with a little thing called ..... democracy! It celebrated all of the fine people who have stood up to run for their local school boards! What the f--ck are they thinking over at the Fascist Daily!

The Pro-War is the LAST PLACE ON EARTH where one should seek advice about freedom, democracy or the political process and they have the nerve to suggest that all of the people running for school board in our various enclaves is a great thing?

If they really think that running for office is such a great thing for all of our children and that it strengthens our democracy, why do they consistently and completely ignore those who run for office who are not two-party? Congress, Governor, Senator, President ... as long as the candidate is not already an entrenched, two-party, corporate prole, they get NO or LITTLE coverage in the Pro-War.

When was the last time you saw a story in the Pro-War about Doug Walters, Malachy McCourt, Sander Hicks or Ralph Nader? Why do these faux news people ignore those who seek to beat the corporate proles and kick them out of office and then write bullshit editorials pretending that they are friends of democracy? Just a tad hypocritical, don't you think?

The Pro-War only covers the two corporate parties and, even then, it only covers those two-party candidates who are "fit for mainstream consumption". Fans of democracy, my ass! They promote fascism, plain and simple. You think that I'm being extreme but this is pretty damn close to how things went in Germany. The free press no longer exists here. The Pro-War is just a very small part of a huge, corporate propaganda machine which is daily working to dumb down our collective psyche.

This idiotic and hypocritical opinion piece says that things are healthier in a democracy when incumbency is challenged. If the Pro-War really feels this to be true, wouldn't they always alert their readership about alternate choices in every political race? When was the last time they did that, exactly? I must have missed it!

Congratulations are in order! I hear that Pulitzer has just come out with a "Two-Faced Hypocrite" Award and that this specific editorial puts the Pro-War squarely at number 6 on the top ten list of nominees. Good work, Pro-War! ;-)

Competitive races help schools
Our view: Controversial issues often bring out candidates, voters
Published on 5/10/2006 Editorials THE POST-STAR

The silver lining in every cloud of controversy is often the community involvement it precipitates. Such is the case in Fort Edward and Warrensburg, where controversy has inspired local community members to come out and challenge incumbent school board members -- and perhaps has inspired more citizens in those communities to get involved in their educational system.

In Fort Edward, the school board's handling of underage drinking allegations prior to this year's state basketball tournament has generated a race in which six candidates are vying for two posts, including one held by the school board chairman. At least two of the candidates cited the board's handling of the incident as prompting their candidacies.

The race has even given rise to a candidates' night tomorrow, in which citizens can become better informed about the candidates by hearing their positions on the issues first-hand. In Warrensburg, one candidate's run this year was inspired by last year's decision by the school board to extend the teachers' contract in secret and with little negotiation.

Even when incumbents are very popular and may be doing a good job, it's always better for the citizens to have candidates running against them. For starters, incumbents running unopposed are unlikely to present their own flaws to voters. So voters only get one side of their story. Any opponent, even one without a prayer of winning, forces the incumbents to defend their positions and potentially makes them more responsive to the citizens' concerns after they're re-elected.

The other reason it's important to have contested races in elections is that unless voters are presented with a choice, they don't feel compelled to get involved. Unopposed races don't draw people into the debate because no debate is being presented to them.

School board races, by nature, tend not to draw a lot of candidate or voter interest unless there's a controversial issue or a huge budget increase. That's too bad, because not only are schools vitally important to the community (whether you have a kid in school or not), but schools also account for the lion's share of your tax bill. Certainly, not everyone in a community is in agreement about how our schools should be run or how millions of dollars in tax revenue should be spent. Yet school board races are usually quiet affairs that draw little interest from the public. That's why anyone who runs for school board -- incumbent or challenger -- should be applauded. And the more the merrier.

The presence of candidates on the ballot generates interest in school issues and entices voters to get involved. The result is a more open government that more closely reflects what the citizens really want and expect. And with a more responsive government, the parents benefit, the taxpayers benefit and most importantly, the children benefit.


Post a Comment

<< Home