While it was good news to learn that Congressman Paul Kanjorski is out of the intensive care unit and recovering from his recent surgery, it is also equally good news to learn that his proposed inflatable dam’s condition has been downgraded and it is now on life support.
From the Times Leader:
The Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority also discussed the following matters Tuesday:
• Inflatable dam: The authority is at a crossroads in the proposal to create a seasonal recreational pool on the Susquehanna River in downtown Wilkes-Barre. The authority’s consultant, Gannett Fleming, estimates it will cost another $250,000 and take two more years to answer additional questions posed by the two government agencies that must provide permits to proceed with the project – the state Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Gannett Fleming does not believe this additional work will produce results that “significantly change” the data already presented, said county Engineer Jim Brozena. Therefore, the consultant is advising the authority to ask both agencies once and for all whether they will grant the permit.
Authority members did not vote Tuesday on either option.
The authority has spent $1 million on inflatable dam studies and permit applications. The county will get much of that money back if the project isn’t approved, but not until the regulating bodies make a final decision on the permit.
From the Citizens’ Voice:
The Luzerne County Flood Protecion Authority will not spend another $250,000 on more studies of the proposed inflatable dam in the Susquehanna River, officials said Tuesday.
The authority is having problems getting project approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because of concerns the dam would block the passage of fish and create an accumulation of untreated sewage, water polluted from old mines and environmentally harmful algae.
More studies would take another two years to conduct and would not affect the ultimate decision from the DEP and Army Corps, officials said.
Pull the plug.
You know, nothing annoys me more than being accused of not caring if I happen to disagree with proposed legislation designed to protect our children. While this trick straight out of the national Democrat playbook is used all too often, it seems as if it’s been adopted on a much more local stage. Namely, ours.
WILKES-BARRE — Councilwoman Kathy Kane accused Councilman Jim McCarthy of grandstanding at a city council work session Tuesday night after he again brought up an ordinance to restrict where sex offenders can live in the city.
McCarthy announced Feb. 22 that he would not seek re-election after his proposed ordinance failed. He has pushed for the ordinance’s passage at the two meetings since.
Referring to the recent arrests of four child molesters in the area, he told his fellow council members he wished they would “see the light of day and realize child molesters are out there.”
Jim, we all know they are out there, we’re just not sure your proposed ordinance will help at all. If you feel this passionately about it, by all means, press on. But spare us the insults.
I know all too well about child molesters, as my sister-in-law unknowingly cohabitated with one. And the sum total of that disastrous and oft-tumultuous relationship is three thoroughly adrift kids with absolutely no bright future in sight. As a matter of fact, I sued for custody of the eldest child some years back and won. You see, I got tired of having to pick him up at police headquarters at all hours, and figured if he lived with me I could get him to start flying straight. Turned out, it was too little, too late.
I honestly believe that those who prey upon children for sex should face the “one strike and you’re out” law, wherein after one offense they are locked away in perpetuity, or are forced by law to donate to science that part of their bodies so prone to spontaneous erections. If they can’t be cured of what ails them, they should not be creeping around amongst us.
But, please, spare me the talking down to.
I‘ve helped some locals build Web sites over the years. Sometimes I’ve been compensated for having done so and sometimes I have not been compensated. The way I figure, if I’m helping you to launch a business, I ought to be compensated.
Every site I have put together had the following inserted somewhere near the bottom of the front page: “Web site created by Pogrom Processes,” as does my site. The reasons for adding that are twofold. The first is to nip in the bud any potential controversies about said Web sites. And the second is to provide a clue to those who might want to utilize my services in the future.
With all of that having been said, I contacted Charlotte Raup some weeks ago and volunteered to help her build a campaign Web site. I did as much because, up ‘til now, I think she is the best candidate for the open city council seat up here in District E, formerly known as Nord End. Still, the 6 other Nord End council candidates that are sure to disagree with that assessment should feel free to convince me how wrong am I as I encourage that sort of debate.
One of the interactive features imbedded within her site is a comment box by which you can send your brief comments directly to her e-mail inbox. We thought it’d be a neat addition to the site. Although, being a battle-tested veteran of the internet wars, I warned her not to be put off by the negative and hurtful comments the cretins of the world would most likely send her way. All too often, anonymity makes cretins of damn near every one of us. Sad, but true.
I also told her she ought not respond to those who do not clearly and verifiably identify themselves. While the internet can be utilized as a campaign tool, it too can be a place where anonymous assassins lurk with every click of the mouse. Good advice, as far as I’m concerned.
We’ve covered this many times before. The anonymous assassins have called me fat, bald, bitter, deranged, unhinged, unemployed, naked in the basement, drunk in the basement, and never once did any of the cretins of the world get anything even remotely right. I do have to admit that I’ve enjoyed their off target gibberish over the years, but it has gotten very predictable of late.
But getting back to that direct link to the candidate that we thought was a cool interactive feature, I think it’s completely fair to ask tough questions of the candidates, as well as probing questions that might provide a clue as to how well versed they are with the inner workings of the city’s governmental processes. Although, at this point, I would not expect every political neophyte to possess all of the sometimes tricky answers without delay, but I would expect them to be seriously brushing up on the details in anticipation of an election night victory. Truth be told, some of the answers to questions about the stickiest of issues often need to be run by a city solicitor before an answer ought to be attempted.
But what if I told you that one political neophyte was demanding answers from yet another political neophyte, and doing it from the protective sanctity that anonymity provides them with? What if I told you that one political neophyte wants to enter into one-sided internet debates, but refuses to do it on the up-and-up? What if I told you that one political neophyte was trying to trip up another by posing as somebody that they are not? What if I told you that one political neophyte was employing dirty tricks against another? What if I told you that one political neophyte is so completely anti-social and so completely underhanded, they think absolutely nothing of violating the trust of others by any means possible?
Would you then vote for that political neophyte?
The following is a comment sent along via that interactive comment box that was imbedded in Charlotte Raup’s campaign Web site:
Now, if those questions came from someone who had clearly identified themselves, they would be completely fair questions. But, if those very pointed questions came from a city council/mayoral candidate pretending to be someone they are not, are they then not unfair questions meant only to pigeonhole an unsuspecting candidate?
Remember when I said we do need to have some protocols and some rules of decorum as they apply to governing civilly? Well, do we really want to vote for cutthroat candidates that resort to dirty tricks, as well as do so from that most despicable of places--Anonymity Ville? Do we really want to vote for those that want to control our governing functions, but clearly can’t control themselves? Should we vote for those that see slander and libel as a means to an end, yet seek at every turn seek to disassociate themselves from their own actions and words? Do we need elected officials with devious minds and discorporated souls?
As it turns out, those pointed questions, that e-mail came from none other than Tim Grier. Yes, Mr. Jose Enriquez is an e-mail pseudonym for the know-it-all candidate that demands the very utmost in transparency from all government officials at every level, but reserves the stealthy and unscrupulous tactics for himself. If any of our local elected officials were found to be doing the same treacherous thing, it would turn into a scandal splashed all over Page 1. If our mayor conducted himself in a such an extortionate manner, many of us would be demanding his barren scalp. Oh, but, our self-appointed revolutionary sees nothing wrong with his nefarious ways, or the reprobate manner by which he conducts himself.
As far as I’m concerned, he owes Charlotte Raup a public apology. And he also owes us--the voters of Wilkes-Barre--some measure of accountability. Is he going to conduct a positive campaign based on the pressing issues and this city’s needs for the future, or is he going to continue on with the lowbrow guerrilla warfare campaign? He reminds me at nearly every turn that he is a “veteran,” but he seems to closely identify with the tactics of the Vietcong. I think if has any hopes at all of being seen as a viable candidate, which I seriously doubt, he needs to come out into the light and dispense with trying to fly under the radar.
There’s viable, and then there’s two-faced. There’s Tim, and then there’s Jose. And what he has demonstrated is that he is the only candidate operating with two faces, two names and he has steadfastly refused to give a principled accounting of himself.
Here are some the e-mails I have personally received from “Jose,” that were signed with Tim’s signature “peace” gibberish. Oh, and just in case he wants to add to his long list of frivolous lawsuits, he once gave me written permission to reprint his ramblings.
Oh, and here’s the announcement he sent me of his then new Web site, which was a collection of slanderous and libelous remarks he unceremoniously deleted right before he acquired his nominating positions. A site that I and many others printed out for future reference, and future legal proceedings I’m told.
Buddy? Buddy??? Surely you jest, “Jose.”
So, if you are a candidate for any political office in this city or county trying to wage a positive campaign and trying to keep your fledgling political nose clean, do not allow “Jose” to goad you, trick you or harangue you into making any political mistakes he will then pounce upon. “Jose‘s” antics are anathema to those of us that have grown so weary of dirty politics, and he should be summarily excommunicated back to daddy’s basement.
On election day, send him an unmistakably clear message. Tell him, no way, “Jose.”
The city’s future is too important to entrust to a faker.