That’s a technically correct headline, but it leaves out that, since there was no other Democratic candidate, his “win” was by default. Many Republican candidates in Glynn County, Geeorgia had the same experience. Michael Browning, the County Commissioner, and almost all of the Republican judges. Of the Democratic candidates on the primary ballots, “Puddy” got the second highest number of votes. Only the Democratic candidate for coroner got more.
Competitions for public office seem to bring out a preference for personalities, prognostication and prejudice. Presumably, those proclivities are always present and the competition just brings them to the fore. Maybe that’s true of close observers of any competition. If one is interested in the outcome of a competition/contest/conflict, then those responses are a given. For the disinterested observer, they’re not.
Interest is a funny word. Haven’t thought about it much.
Is that what competitions are for, to generate interest?
I quite agree that the law should be directed at countering injurious behavior, especially towards other people. So, in addition to outright prohibitions of assault and physical attack, it is appropriate to have environmental (land use) regulations that promote health and safety and public welfare. And, in that context, it is important that the rules be enforceable — even to the extent of reclaiming the land/water/air for the public if, in the past, private ownership had been sanctioned. In other words, private property rights are not sacrosanct. Indeed, I’d almost argue that they’re not rights, but obligations–that, in exchange for having exclusive use of the land, there’s an obligation to treat it well.
In the hard copy, the editors titled it “Something’s rotten in our legislative bodies.” Also appropriate. The original, for the record, follows:
If the only way public agencies can get rid of rights they’re not using is to abandon them, then it seems reasonable to suggest that the people who deployed that term intended to send a negative message — i.e. failing to take care of public property is not a good idea.
Dear Friends of SLEAT:
It did not occur to me until recently that the pejorative “poor white trash,” might be used to make a distinction from “rich white trash.” But, given the evidence, it’s hard not to conclude that, whatever the income level, trashy behavior is a constant. Here in the Golden Isles, it’s not just the causeways and roadways and beaches that are regularly trashed by visitors and transients. While paper mills and power plants pollute air and water, our stellar tourist industry turns the land, marshes and beaches into dumps, albeit behind Potemkin-like fences, screens and walls.
Today is May 18, 2016. See, it says so on the public notice page of the Brunswick News
So, what do we find under the miscellaneous heading? Two invitations from the DNR to submit public comments BY APRIL 9, 2016.