Hey Tailgunner, YOU explain to President Bush...

By John McDaid | Wednesday, 27 June 2007

Why you fought so hard on Monday night to cut funding for the East Bay Community Action Program, one of whose volunteers President Bush will be honoring when he visits the state this week. Karen Gleason may think we shouldn't support them because they "get millions and millions of dollars," and Pete McIntyre may think the organization is "double dipping," but apparently the news hasn't reached Washington. Check this out...

President Bush to honor Tiverton volunteer

Tiverton resident Sherrill Estes has logged more than 1,800 hours volunteering to stock shelves and package boxes of food for local people in need.

Now, the volunteer with the East Bay Community Action Program and Meals on Wheels of Rhode Island will be honored by President Bush when he arrives in North Kingstown tomorrow. He will present her with the President’s Volunteer Service Award, which he awards to children 14 or younger who have completed 50 hours or more of volunteer service and to people 15 and older who have completed 100 or more hours of volunteer service, according to a statement issued by the White House.
— via ProJo 7to7 News Blog

Okay, I'll admit, I'm not a big fan of the President. But he ain't coming to town to thank the folks organizing the bus trip at Anthony House. Good work, Ms. Gleason.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871

Comments

Delilah

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 5:04am

anything reaches Washington? Haha! Ms. Gleason wanting to cut funding in an area that already DOES get millions,does NOT mean that Ms. Gleason doesn't support the program as a whole. Her point is Valid. Maybe,just maybe, if we put more into where it is, obviously,and very badly needed...we could have better roads,and bridges? Just a thought!
Bush came here to, hug,and kiss babies...it was a sweet gesture, btw...during a time when his ratings are at an all time low,and as a pit stop on his way to the vacation home. He should have stuck around a little longer,he would have gotten a HUGE fireworks display at the Abby! You know what I'm talking about? The ones that rock your house,and vibrate your windows after 11pm?
Maybe YOU can explain why...our taxes keep going up, property tax("waterfront") tripled!...monster houses going up everywhere,more ,and more "revenue" to our,ever growing,ever so luxurious town of Portsmouth,drawing in, and kissing up to the rich... Yet ugly, shitty roads,and bridges?

John McDaid

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 7:42am

Hi, Delilah...
Karen Gleason wanted to cut all funding for East Bay Community Action. That is a fact.

Karen Gleason wanted to cut $200,000 from the schools. That is a fact.

Karen Gleason fought to increase the funding for Anthony House. That is a fact.

Anthony House is owned by Church Community Housing, which is also a recipient of Federal housing monies. That is a fact.

Are subsidized bus trips for a select group of seniors (who happen to live in the facility where the PCC has their monthly meetings) where our tax dollars are "obviously, and very badly needed?"

Cheers.
-j

Delilah

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 12:28pm

for you to answer the real question...where are our tax dollars going? Why do we have,the shitty roads,bridges,not enough cops on the road,and the list goes on....You seem to know where the funds should go,but no answer as to why they aren't going into the very things we need the most,and pay high taxes to do so.
Karen Gleason fights for, in her opinion, what she believes to be the right thing for the town,and the citizens, just as any,and ALL town council members have the right to do. As you know, not 1 town council member can change things alone,and it is taken to a vote, so be it. What problem do you have with Ms. Gleason, and her opinions,and idea's,isn't SHE just as entitled,as the rest are?Isn't that what good debate is all about?

You may not agree with them,but do you agree with ALL of the council members,ALL of the time? Highly doubtful....whether you are willing to admit to that or not.
Mr. Katzman after giving his whole proposal on the budget matter(i believe it was) the other day...ended with saying "If this makes any sense at all, I don't know" ...( huh?)...and Mr. Seveney states that "debt can actually be a GOOD thing"(what???)...While President Canario came back with..."wouldn't it just be easier,and cheaper, to come up with the 75k to fund the PI school ourselves?(aah finally something that made sense), to which people applauded,and laughed at Mr. Katzmans idea.My point here is to show that anyone can pull out bits, and pieces, of whatever they want to say about people they disagree with,or agree with, And believe it, or not ,John ...there are plenty of us out here who believe in Ms. Gleason, as a woman who after serving on the school committee, ran for, and was elected for town council,with flying colors,by the citizens of this good town.That is a fact.
Ms. Gleason stands strong against borrowing more money(as you know), and believes ( I believe from her heart) that this will come back to bite us all. I for one happen to believe that she is right. I feel that this proposal, of borrowing more money...(because of the interest)..etc...is leading down a road to disaster...But...time will tell.
This is not a popularity contest,and I don't say YES, just because YES is the more popular reply, I have to honestly,and truly, believe, in what,and who, I'm voting for. Whether that be Ms. Gleason,or whom ever, on the town council.

John McDaid

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 2:18pm

Hi, Delilah...
I agree with you that our tax dollars appear -- at least in cases like RIDOT -- to be wasted. But that does not mean that *all* our tax dollars are wasted, nor is that evidence that taxes are too high. Too high compared to what. Our taxes went up ten cents this year, and if you have been following the budget process as carefully as you seem to have been, you know exactly where every dollar of that went.

What problem do I have with Karen Gleason? Ideology.

Explain to me why she wanted to cut $200,000 from the schools, but give the Anthony House more money for a bus trip.

Kind Regards.
-j

Delilah

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 3:47pm

I cannot explain to you what goes on in Ms. Gleasons mind,(nor will I spend all day defending her,she does fine on her own), only to say that she does have reason to her thinking,and idea's, and I do know that she is not just some off the wall person,with no experience.
You certainly do not have to agree with her,or her "ideology".
You only have to respect the fact that she was voted in, on two, seperate committies, or maybe you don't. But I just want to make it known that I surely do.As well as greatly appreciate her service.
I can only assume that she wanted to cut the school $200,000,because she didn't feel that it should go there,(duh). As I have stated before...taxpayers are not an unlimited money source,and money has got to be spread around fairly...in order to get what everyone in this town wants,and pays for,and whatever is needed, to make everyone happy,not just certain people.
Regarding the Anthony house bus trip...Who knows...maybe it was... be kind to Grandma day.(giggle)
I agree...not all our tax dollars are wasted,and 10 cents this year is do-able...I hope that this will continue...into the future.

p.s. Can you explain why Lusi cut out the school bus monitors,and sub teachers? Seriously...I cannot understand how going after the little guy,who earns next to nothing a year,would help.Don't you feel that bus monitors play a very important role in the safety of the children? Aren't they required by law?

John McDaid

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 4:02pm

Hi, Delilah...
George Bush was voted in, on two separate occasions. I can respect the process, and will of the people that elected him, and still profoundly disagree with the positions he and his administration take.

You say that you "cannot explain" what goes on in Gleason's mind, but you "assume" that she wanted to cut the money because she "didn't feel that it should go there." Fine. That's what I mean by ideology. Moving to cut $200K from a budget which is already widely viewed to be at its legal minimum is ideology. Moving to give the seniors at Anthony House (and you haven't responded to my observation that the PCC meets there) more money while not sticking up for the American Legion is ideology. Moving to put a moratorium on ALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PORTSMOUTH is ideology.

And I have no idea what you are talking about with bus monitors and subs. There is $270K in this year's budget for substitutes, and $129K for bus monitors.

Best,
-j

Delilah

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 4:20pm

Explain to me ...why,and how, the school budget was already widely viewed to be at its legal minimum. And what is so bad about "it being at its legal minimum"? I mean how bad can it be...with a brand new,beautiful, super, gym?
I heard Lusi with my own ears speaking about cutting monitors,and subs...I guess it didn't fly.I'm sure it is all on tape, as I do not attend meetings, but watch every one of them on television, 2 and sometimes 3 times over,each(i tape them).

Viking

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 10:55pm

I believe that Ms. Gleason's heart is in the right place, and that in her heart she wants what is best for Portsmouth. Unfortunately, she has repeatedly demonstrated that once she makes her mind up (which is usually early on the the process) she will not change her opinion regardless of what new information becomes available or what new circomstances occur or what additional understanding might be achieved. On many occaisions she has said "I'm going to vote this way on this motion because I said I would." That is hardly a rationale, and while I have nothing against her personally, her frequent use of this stance makes me question her fitness for the council. We all must be open to new information and new ideas, and make informed, well-reasoned opinions.

Ms. Gleason also frequently cites her "lack of knowlege" and "inexperience" as the reason for her probing questions. But when the answers to her questions don't fit her conclusions, she just ignores, refuses to understand, or just plain rejects the facts.

Anyone who attends meetings regularly knows that Ms. Gleason holds the record for being the sole "no" vote on either the school committee or town council. She is - literally - a "nay-sayer." I have no idea what she hopes to accomplish by this, or what constituancy she thinks she represents when she takes this stance. Councils work by people working together. Ms. Gleason's frequent accusatory negative and oppositional positions serve only to bog down our town meetings. When a councillor has the record for the most sole "no" votes, its hard to argue that that councillor is having much effect on the council's decision making. Portsmouth can do better.

[P.S. If Delilah is still reading, I suspect that her response will be (a) to not respond at all or (b) give a response that is tangential to what I just said, rather than a response actually addressing the crux of my arguement. She could bring up the number of times/years in a row the schools have had to pay for roof repairs at the Middle School, like Peter McIntyre did when explaining why he would not vote in favor of renewing the technology warrents. He went on: "If we can't trust them to fix the roof how can we trust them with the technology warrent money." This is, or course, comparing "apples and oranges." But it is worse than that - it is deceptive, devisive and despicable. It is foolish and flagrantly false. Its un-American, un-advisable and unwarrented. I could go on...].

Delilah

Fri, 06/29/2007 - 11:50pm

"I believe that Ms. Gleason's heart is in the right place, and that in her heart she wants what is best for Portsmouth."

How could anyone question,or possibly ask for more than someone who is coming from the heart,and wants what is best?That is genuine!
I don't have to say another word about Mrs. Gleason,you just said it all(again) for me. Thank you.

John McDaid

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 6:40am

Hi, Delilah...
The framers of our constitution believed in the Enlightenment ideal that information and rational thought was the linchpin of Democracy.

You can be as "genuine" as you like, and still be unfit to serve.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." — Thomas Jefferson

Best.
-j

Delilah

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 1:21pm

I really wish you would stop quoting everyone and his brother,sheesh!Have you always been such a nerd? Can you just once,or twice, think for yourself,without the help of quotes? And we are now living in 2007,(get out of the dark ages) ,when the world was a very different place to live in.
I believe that Ms. Gleason is VERY fit to serve(as MANY others who voted her into the school committee, and town council now,apparently do), as well as being an,honest,genuine,kind hearted person.
I have never said you should,or have to agree with her, or like her.
Get your blood pressure checked.

Lije

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 2:20pm

That's the highest compliment you've give John so far. Nerds rule the world.

You don't think so?

Before you touch another key on your computer keyboard, who do you think made that computer keyboard possible? Not to mention the seemless connectivity that let's us communicate here in this blog? And need I mention radio, television, satellite communications, cell phones, and even microwave ovens.

I'll tell you who -- scientists, engineers, physicists, mathematicians, in a word, nerds.

Delilah

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 2:30pm

And you know this because? You know that ALL of these people were nerds? How is that possible? Just because someone is a scientist, engineer, physicist, mathematician, does not make them a nerd. I don't know who you hang out with...but this has not been my experience.

Who was talking to you anyway?

and good-bye to you too...nerdess.

Lije

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 2:42pm

I know nerds because, after working for years with the THOUSANDS of scientists and engineers at NUWC, and at the many other high-tech companies that I have had the privilege of working at in my career, I can assure you that most are nerds and most are proud of it. It's one of those insider things. We can call ourselves "nerds" and we're proud of it, but you can't call us nerds because that's an insult. I don't make these social rules, I just relate them.

Who was talking to me? You were, silly. This blog is readable world wide (except China where they censor political talk from the U.S.)

As for "nerdess", and not that this matters at all, but "Lije" is a nickname from "Elijah".

John McDaid

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 7:31am

Hi, Delilah...
The budget resulting from the Caruolo action is, by definition, a legal minimum budget. The budget increase proposed for the coming year was $1.2M, and you may refer to the budget documents themselves to see that it allocates that increase to areas legally required (78% of the budget goes to salary and benefits). Since 78% of the increase, or $993, 111 is required to cover increases in salary and benefits (requirements stipulated by "law, regulation, and contract") any reduction in excess of $280K over the proposed budget would necessarily bring the budget below legal minimum. The Council had already cut $700K in warrant spending; Ms. Gleason's proposal would have made that $900K, almost the entire increase, year on year.

The gym, paid for by bonds, is irrelevant in this discussion.

Kind Regards.
-j

Viking

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 10:12am

Deliah - John is right. Having one's heart in the right place is essential but not enough qualification for those who seek positions in representative govenmernts, or for those who takes the lives and well-being of others into their own hands - like doctors and nurses, for example. Brains and social skills count too.

Being "genuine" isn't always best. George Wallace was "genuine" in his wanting to preserve segregation in the USA, but only bigots would today argue that he would have made a good president. On a more mundane level, one could be "genuine" in telling a lady that a certain dress looked awful on her. But doing so would not neccessarily be kind, thoughtful, appropriate, diplomatic, effective, productive - or conducive to civil discourse.

Viking

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 11:14am

When I am wrong, I will admit it. I was wrong when I speculated that Delilah's response to my specific concerns regarding Ms. Gleason would be either (1) to not respond or (2) to provide a response that was completely unrelated or tangential to the specifics of my concerns. She surprised me (and, I must admit made me laugh) by taking a third path - one I hadn't even considered. Her response: she agreed with the first sentence of my post (in which no concern was stated) - and then did not address my concerns at all.

Curiously, I have seen this same third path taken many times by the leadership of the PCC and their most vocal supporters. I have also seen these same folks misconstrue facts and mislead people by only reading the first sentence or two of a proposal. They even say "One need read no further than the first sentence (paragraph, page) of the proposal to know that (it stinks, its great - what ever)." Try this one: One need read no more than the first few lines of the Constitution of the United States to know everything important there is to know about the United States. Hmm... I wonder - could Delilah be ghost writing for PCC/Supporters and Malcontent Independents? :)

It was also suggested that "There is no need to defend Karen - she does that well enough by herself all the time." This is also responding by not responding. It is no more rational an argument than if you said: The President has lost the faith of the vast majority of the people" and the response was: "I don't need to defend the President - he does that well enough all the time." The fact is, that later statement isn't a lie; it is a true statement. But like telling a lady that her dress looks terrible, its can be reprehensive when an erstwhile intelligent person behaves in that manner.

I enjoy "arguing" though "debating" may be a less charged and more appropriate word. Let's debate about what do about solid waste and waste water management. Lets debate the merits or lack thereof of any specific line item in our school or town budget. Let's debate about what to consent to or fight against wtih regard to the corner of Union Street and West Main Road. But if anyone wants to enter into any debate, only to then proceed to misconstrue facts (a close relative a lying) or ignore all but a selected sentence or two in a document or proposal, then this is not real debating. People who engage in this type of discourse either do not have Portsmouth's needs at heart, are somehow completely ignorant or deluded, or (I guess) are just plain liars. (I can't think of any other possibilities - if anyone else can, I'd be interested to know).

Delilah

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 1:50pm

You,and John will always agree on everything, because frankly you are two of a kind...you both quote constantly. I bet you both sit by your pc with huge stacks of books,and FACT finders,just so that you can "___" everything that has ever been said by anyone.How original,and unique!{YAWN}

Now I realize why I don't belong,or could ever possibly fit into this blog, with the likes of you...because you are both two of the biggest Nerds I have ever seen/heard/read.

I hope i have at least mildly entertained the both of you, since it appears that no one else in town is rushing to be a part of this blog...I'm to assume that it is because they have better things to do, than to go back, and forth, with a couple of nerdy blow hards,quoting all day. Shit...had I known...maybe I would have polished up on some quote books, so we could play fair? ha! then again...I think not.

Viking- you think that because I don't answer/reply...to everything you say it is because you must be right? Please don't flatter yourself so much...I don't always reply to you because ...its like doing battle of the wits...with the mentally unarmed.

So...now I will say good bye John, and good luck. From the looks of this...you will need it.

Lije

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 2:29pm

I guess if you don't care about truth and knowledge, you can just spout out anything you want and it doesn't matter.

Real knowledge demands citation. I refer to the kind of scholarly work that forwards the condition of humanity such as pharmaceutical research and breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments. These require quotes from verifiable sources, called citations in the jargon of science, to substantiate findings.

In my book, quotes are just references to supporting prior works and a lack of quotes is an indicator of baseless assertions.

In medicine, baseless assertions are called quackery. In politics, they are called rhetoric. Both lead to disease.

Delilah

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 2:24pm

Viking - I can assure you,I'm no ghost writer,in fact..as you and John have probably already figured out...I'm not even all that educated.So..as far as smarts(text book wise,that is) you both have me beat by miles, and I'm willing to admit that, Sorry that I'm not a perfect person, but at least I do speak from my own mind,and yes..from the heart. What I lack in text book knowledge, I do make up for in common sense,and life experiences(you can't get that from a book). I also have a very good sense of humor, All my life I have enjoyed making people laugh,and smile, even though my life hasn't been easy. Maybe this has something to do with my reasons for liking,and admiring, Ms. Gleason...she is always friendly,and likes to "keep things simple" so that people such as myself can understand,without having to get the dictionary out, like when the lawyers talk,and use BIG words,most of the time...in order to skirt around the issues.
You can think whatever you wish of me now,"ignorant","liar",...or whatever...I know who I'am.

good-bye.

Lije

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 2:34pm

Ah! Now we agree on something!

There's a million troubling things in this world that need to be dealt with. But, in my philosophy, humor has to be part of the fabric of our life no matter what we are dealing with. Perhaps humor is what most separates us from other animals.

I'll never accept "simple" solutions where those solutions fall short. But I hope we can all laugh along the way.

John McDaid

Sat, 06/30/2007 - 3:08pm

Hi, Delilah...
I find both the notions you advance troubling, this sense that people who read and refer to the things other people have said are somehow not thinking for themselves, and are "nerds."

I really wish you would stop quoting everyone and his brother,sheesh!Have you always been such a nerd? Can you just once,or twice, think for yourself,without the help of quotes?

We stand on the shoulders of giants in America. The people who created this country had some big ideas, and they discussed, argued, and debated big issues. And they quoted each other, and the Enlightenment thinkers, without fear that people would call them nerds. (They were somewhat afraid that they would be shot by the British for treason, but that's not as bad as being called a nerd.)

You can, if you wish, argue against me by saying that quoting Jefferson is an appeal to authority, and raise legitimate rhetorical questions about that. But making the entire idea of quotation inherently suspect? Why on earth would you feel threatened by that? My attempt is to present evidence which you can examine for yourself. Do I think you're smart enough to read what Jefferson said? Absolutely. Will you come to the same conclusion I did? Maybe not, but I'm respecting your intelligence by showing you how I came to my position.

Saying that we should only react from the gut — at the risk of being called a 'nerd' again, I will point out that this is what George Orwell called 'duckspeak' in 1984 — is the antithesis of civilized discourse. The whole idea of books, of reading, of storing information and passing it on to future generations is the creation of a literate population who can use these ideas. Writing is a technology, Delilah, and books are the artifacts of human culture, the tools we use to create, shape, and criticize our civilizations.

I do believe that you can be down to earth and enjoy a good laugh and still throw in the occasional quote from time to time, though I doubt I can convince you of this point. As a wise man once told me, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

See, I can be common-sense, elliptical, and humorous, all while still using those evil "quotations" at the same time. I'm a four-tool nerd.

Good bye.
-j

Viking

Sun, 07/01/2007 - 8:14am

"I don't always reply to you because ...its like doing battle of the wits...with the mentally unarmed." I'm not sure I understand. Who here is "mentally unarmed."? I'm not sure if this is a slur against me, or if Delilah is saying that the battle is "unfair" because she is "mentally unarmed." For that matter I've never heard the expression "mentally unarmed", and I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but I guess it means "without a great deal of formal education and without the tools of master wordsmiths."

As it turns out, we like to elect to office individuals who are educated, informed, and articulate. You might call them "Mentally Armed." It is okay to have "gut" disagreements with any of our elected officials. However, Delilah may be correct if what she means to say is that public debate (or semi-public debate as in this blog) should be left to those who are armed with the capability to sort fact from supposition, and who are willing/able to discuss things in a thoughtful, logical manner. Those not willing or able to do this may have their hearts in the right place, but they do not aide the cause of civic discourse. I try to engage these folks anyway - with the hope that anyone, at any age or stage of life - can learn new things, develop new perspectives, and even change their minds. I guess I'm basically on optimist who hopes for the best in people. Maybe that's why I've taken the time to try to engage Delilah. I'm begining to think, however, that my efforts are unappreciated - though if Delilah really wants me to stop trying to engage in mental discourse with her, perhaps she should stop posting here, or at least consider why it is that she does.