The time to start planning for the future of Champaign city governance is now.
In the aftermath of the ill-considered smoking ban, it is time for concerned business owners in Champaign to identify and rally around viable candidates who understand that the primary role of city government is not to set social policy, but to efficiently allocate public resources for the benefit of all.
If you haven't had enough of Ken Pirok and his passive-agressive brand of socialism, compare his recent vote on the C-U smoking ban to this quote from (what!?) only 8 months earlier:
"I do see a difference between restaurants and bars," he explained. "One, you eat at a restaurant and, two, children go to restaurants. I was OK at banning smoking in restaurants, but I draw the line at banning smoking at bars."
(News-Gazette, Sept. 19, 2005)
Way to go, Ken! Way to "draw that line".
Well, thankfully Ken explained his change of heart at the council meeting. Except that, he didn't. He didn't say a word. So much for his desire to be on the council to 'debate the issues.' (Feb. 19, 2002 Champaign City Council meeting minutes: "[Pirok] feels the fact that the Council can debate issues is what a democracy is all about."
Let's actively encourage some civic participation by candidates who believe that:
1. Government should support, not destroy, local businesses by getting out of their way.
2. Tax rates CAN and sometimes SHOULD be adjusted downward. (Mayor Jerry thinks that, unless it puts $1,000 in everybody's pocket, let's don't bother to give back a revenue surplus).
I pledge here that I will blanket the local blogosphere raising funds for any qualified candidate who promises to inform city council debate with the concerns of citizens (not carptetbaggers from upstate New York who fancy themselves as grassroots activists).
ALL THE ANSWERS
About Me
Blog Archive
Recommended Links
- Cato: Free Markets, LIberty, Peace
- CBS Sportsline
- FedStats - Federal Agency Stats
- Fightiing Illini Sports
- Freakonomics
- High School of St. Thomas More
- Illini Pundit
- John Stossel - I Love This Guy
- Mayo Clinic
- National Center for Health Statistics
- National Center for Public Policy Research
- National Center for Public Policy Research
- Post Secret
- Real Clear Politics
- Statistical Abstract of the United States
- University of Illinois
- Wikipedia - Online Encyclopedia
9 comments:
Way to go E. Go get 'em.
Truthgiver should no doubt be called Liargiver. The fact that his profile is unavailable and, therefore, anonymous proves this. He should stick to the facts and not the fantasies he invented.
Here's some information on libel for you, Big E and "truthsayer"
http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_news/2005_9_1_liable_blog_comments.htm
A jury in Chicago, Illinois, awarded businessman Robert Crinkley $2.25 million in May 1991 because a Wall Street Journal article falsely linked him to bribery payments made to foreign officials. Crinkley said the newspaper story prevented him from being hired after he left his former employer. The jury agreed that he was a victim of libel even though the newspaper published a correction to its original story.
From: http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=968
My blog has been threatened with legal action by author John Gray
By Gavin Sheridan I received an email last week that looked like spam. So I ignored it, but I left in my inbox and said to myself that I would look at it later - most spams don’t ask for receipts.
A few days later I opened the email, and seen that it was addressed to me but with a PDF attachment, I tried to open the attachment. No luck. “OE removed access to the following unsafe attachments in your mail” it said. So I was left with what looked like a legitimate email, but not able to open it. I then dutifully emailed back, saying that I was unable to open the attachment.
A friend offered to take a look, and asked me to forward to him, by clicking forward it gave me access to the attachment. So I opened it.
To my surprise it was a formal letter from a firm, Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP, Attorneys at Law, with a subject “Cal. Civ. Code 48a Demand for Correction”. I was being told in the letter that I must retract a remark made on my blog last November, and to publish an apology, within three weeks. The remark is considered it said “false, unprivileged, and defamatory”.
My reaction? I think a little shock mixed with surprise that my little blog could be the subject of such an action. And not even from my own jurisdiction, or continent, not even from a US Federal law as such, but from California. From San Francisco.
A copy of the letter is now available on my blog. In PDF format, so get your Adobe reader ready.
The letter refers to this entry. This entry in turn links to Deborah Branscum’s blog, where she talks about the same issue. I have been in touch with Deborah and she has not received any demand for retraction in relation to her blog entry.
The email was sent on the 10th of March so the deadline by which I have to comply with the demands set out in the letter is the 31st of March. Unfortunately I will not be in my own jurisdiction on that day, I will instead be in Canada. So what to do?
I better ask my friends in the blogging community for advice. I am not seeking a campaign for vindication, but I will attempt over the next number of days to detail the story, the ins and outs of internationl legal jurisdiction, the possibility of being sued from another country - and what exactly constitutes defamatory remarks.
What does this mean for blogging? What does this mean for the future of online publishing? And can anyone point to examples where bloggers have been successfully sued, or have been issued with letters such as the one I have received. Answers on a postcard please to this address : gavin at gavinsblog dot com.
you should probably remove truthgiver's comment before legal action forces Google to reveal your names, IP addresses, etc. (already in progress-seriously!) and legal action is taken against you for libel.
Truthgiver, so you're saying that you personally witnessed high school girls going somewhere with Ken Pirok?
Boy, I would hate to be in your shoes when the attorneys start writing to you and the sheriff serves you with the summons.
Do you think Google will track you down? Have they already? Whose computer have you been using to make posts to blogs? Time to worry?
I hope you guys have your facts straight, because your allegations would be pretty easy to verify by very objective measures.
Post a Comment