Recommended reading in today’s New Albany Tribune comes in the form of a letter to the editor by a member of New Albany’s police department, which Volunteer Hoosier's Randy Smith transcribes in Hie Thee to the Tribune:
Officer Todd Bailey, who works diligently as a neighborhood association liaison, takes the Gang of Four to task in a letter of frustration with their ongoing obstructionism.
In his forceful letter, Officer Bailey focuses on the tendency of certain councilmen to grandstand on the “take home car issue”:
I am ashamed and embarrassed for members of the New Albany City Council such as Larry Kochert (4th District) who have served for so long and have accomplished so little. Why are Kochert and other council members dwelling on this fuel matter that has already been solved? A personal agenda? Incompetence? Who knows. What is known is that Kochert is a large part of the problem. But with all problems, we have the ability to solve them. When it comes time to vote again, (2007) please exercise your right and vote Kochert back to a non-public life.
Recalling that in 2003, CM Kochert narrowly escaped a Democratic primary challenge by only four percentage points, perhaps an overdue generational and philosophical change in the 4th District can be expected to occur in the next two years. Officer Bailey’s thoughts are much appreciated, and NA Confidential heartily seconds Volunteer Hoosier’s closing words: “We support the cops.”
Meanwhile …
There’s always hope that the “new and improved” Tribune will take the long delayed step of consigning the foam-flecked inanity of syndicated right-wing columnist William Rusher to the “discard” pile.
Until then, at least we can continue to count on Indiana’s own Morton Marcus to supply insightful and entertaining columns on issues pertaining primarily to economic development and governmental policy in the Hoosier state.
Here are two recent gems.
White Sox, Cubs, Halloween and Hurricanes
There is an order to the world. For Hoosiers, people from Kentucky generally rank lower than folks from Pennsylvania. Yet we know that Hoosiers don’t rank very well in the eyes of people elsewhere in the U.S. Why don’t we rank well? It must be the time confusion. Hence, we make ourselves seem like even greater fools by changing from one stupidity to another. That’s Hoosier progress.
The governor’s office, seeing a disaster, declares itself neutral. That’s Hoosier statesmanship.
Writer blamed for promoting guilt
“Only my sincere view,” I (Marcus) replied, “that those who have the opportunity to read my column and do not are the people in our state who are indifferent to improvement and progress.”
“See,” he (the caller) raised his voice, “that’s the snobbery, making other people feel guilty if they don’t value what you value. You do it all the time.”
Don't forget to visit the Tribune's redesigned web site, and let them know what you think about it. In case you were wondering, NA Confidential's happy with the web site changes to date.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Here's a new twist to the free speech debate, courtesy of the patrons of the Luddite Bar & Grill (7:54 PM, November 05, 2005):
Anonymous said...
How can Police Officer Bailey be allowed to write such letters to the Tribune when he is not a resident of the City of New Albany and does not pay any of the City of New Albany property taxes that we pay?
Ironic that a masked no-name has the chutzpah to apply conditions to free speech -- you must live in the city limits, and pay property taxes.
We, the taxpayers of City of New Albany pay property taxes in addition to fireplug fees, communication fees on our telephone bill, sewer bills, recycle fees, garbage fees and in addition, Mr. Bailey, we are paying your salary.
Ah, that adds a third condition to free speech; now one must have the permission of his or her employer to speak freely in the United States.
Now--- are you afraid that you are going to lose your FREE GASOLINE in your take-home police car?
To summarize, yet another anonymous attack mutt, and yet another refusal to consider the arguments set forth in the original letter; instead, the mere advocacy of censorship on the part of a clueless "wee one" who claims to understand and play by the "rules," but seeks to subvert these rules whenever it suits the convenient target of the moment.
How incredibly courageous. And how sadly doltish.
Could it be another disgraced former city employee firing back at his/her oppressors? Congeal Taxpayer, where are you when we need you for cheap laughs?
Silly you Roger! Didn't you know that free speech was a selective right. Wherever did you the idea that it was intended unconditionally for all of us?
As for me I think the officers of the NAPD do a fine job. I've yet to meet any who were anything but professional and courteous. Moreover, when needed they have thus far arrived in a timely manner. Keep up the good work!
I don't have a problem with take-home cars for police living within the city boundaries. I remember when this program was instituted a long time ago, and the chief reason for promoting it was to have greater police visibility in the city, thus reducing crime.
I do think it's a bit much to allow take home cars as far as Mauckport and Corydon, though, and I have heard that several officers live that far away. However, I think Chief Harl and his assistant should be entitled to take their cars, no matter where they live, because they've got to be able to respond 24/7, and I suspect they do that pretty often.
The only fly in the ointment with the policy of police being required to purchase 10-20 gallons of gas is this: does the purchaser have to present just a receipt showing a gas purchase? It would make more sense to have the amount as a payroll deduction. The reason I say this is that some critics of the take-home car policy say that there is no way to prove the receipt presented is for gas put in the police officer's patrol car.
That is a valid point, and it could be addressed by deducting a set amount from salary rather than relying on the honor system.
That last comment veers dangerously close to painting our cops as cheaters. Do you really want to put your name to that charge?
Why "veer dangerously close" when you can imply it all, as in the lastest in a series of classics over at the Luddite Bar & Grill:
East Ender said...
I really shouldn't come down on the officers themselves, as they are only doing what any of us would do.
They are playing by the rules as they have been set down by management and the City Government.
I'm sure all of us would take advantage of opportunities to bring more money home, and to move ourselves up the economic ladder.
This issue really falls square on the shoulders of the MANAGEMENT.
The police officers would be foolish not to partake of the perks of the job. If any of us were offered the free use of a car, we sure wouldn't turn it down! ...
11:08 PM, November 05, 2005
Nice tightrope balancing routineSPLAAAAT.
Obviously, "latest" - I was in a hurry.
My point is that the "honor system", if that is how the system of gas reimbursement operates now, is not the best system, in my view. A payroll deduction would be better, less prone to criticism and potential abuse.
Post a Comment