AGAINST LONG ODDS, GARCIA GUARANTEES: ‘ARMORY PARK IS GOING TO HAPPEN’
By Dave Wielenga
“Armory Park is going to happen,” proclaimed Robert Garcia about a minute into his Monday morning press conference, and just like that Long Beach’s 1st District council member had come through on his promise that the event would feature a “major announcement.” Let’s hear it for accountability—not that Garcia really needed to go so far out on a limb to qualify in this case.
It’s been four years since the high-flying proposal for Armory Park had its wings clipped by a collapsing economy, a city that’s amputating its way through a budget deficit and the veto of the city traffic engineer. The blueprints that showed how the accident-prone intersections near 7th Street and Alamitos Avenue and the 1930s-era Armory Building might be transformed into parkland … well, they seemed about as realistic as a treasure map. Nobody was even talking about Armory Park, anymore.
Were they?
“Well, yeah, they were,” said Brian Ulaszewski, a 34-year-old project design director for Studio One Eleven architectural firm in downtown Long Beach, who was only 26 years old when he came up with the concept of Armory Park. “I had taken my proposal to so many neighborhood meetings, and so many people had truly bought in, that the community simply would not let this idea die.”
But as the lousy economy lingered, the odds against Armory Park seemed to be getting steadily longer, and somewhere along the line the $1million dollars that was once set aside as seed money for the project was reallocated to something else. And perhaps the biggest obstacle—traffic conditions that produced a couple-dozen accidents a year at the site—never got any better, no matter what improvements were installed.
Nonetheless, on Monday Garcia stood behind a podium flanked by oversized traffic schematics and meetings schedules—all of them labeled “Armory Park”—and declared it “a very special day for Long Beach and this neighborhood.” Apparently, Armory Park suddenly has its mojo back … uhhh, “mojo” means “money,” right?
“Nine months ago we applied for a major grant,” Garcia revealed during the press conference, “and we just learned that we will receive about $900,000 dollars to fix the traffic problem.
“Now we are preparing to apply for another grant (through the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program) to apply to the creation of Armory Park, itself—and Armory Park qualifies for the grant in every single category. I’m confident we’re going to be able to receive the money.”
In other words, the eventual existence of Armory Park is no more guaranteed than it was eight years ago, when current Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal was the 1st District council member who was carrying the water to float Ulaszewski’s dreamboat—and whose name was not mentioned during the portion of the press conference dedicated to handing out thank-yous.
The $900,000 grant Long Beach has already received doesn’t guarantee the traffic issues in the area will be fixed, or even substantially improved.
“We’ve tried so many safety strategies over the years,” sighed Dave Roseman, Long Beach’s chief traffic engineer for a decade. “But the accident rate at that intersection has stayed high. Honestly, it has been a big disappointment to me.”
The $1.82 million grant Long Beach will apply for next month—after a series of community planning meetings—doesn’t guarantee that Armory Park will be built, either.
But Garcia does. “Armory Park is going to be a special place for Long Beach,” he says matter-of-factly. And all his “Go Long Beach” cheerleading notwithstanding, Garcia is a careful politician with ambitions for offices far beyond the Long Beach City Council. He’s not the kind of guy to place a risky bet so early in his career, yet he says it one more time: “We are going to build this park.”
















36 Comments
I think much can be said for vision, tenacity and determination. Private sector visionaries like Mr. Ulaszewski can be *priceless* in a community that seems to have lost its way on a good many fronts.
I think much can also be said for energy, drive and a willingness to move initiatives forward that a true majority in our community or, in this case, a policital district within our community desire to see come to fruition. Perhaps that is what Dr. Garcia is set on doing here…moving forward a majority-desired initiative.
Perhaps he just wants to see something constructive happen with one of the few unused properties in his district. It seems difficult to fault that motivation as well.
I sincerely hope Mr. Ulaszewski’s vision becomes reality. If not, I doubt many people will recall that Dr. Garcia said it would and proved incorrect. I think our collective attention span has grown far too short to support that level of accountability.
So what’s the Magic Bullet to solve traffic problems? Give the traffic engineer a $900,000 retirement fund? Buy a bigger liability insurance policy for an increase in accidents at that location if the park is built? and is there any truth to this traffic change being accompanied by a zoning change that would dramatically increase density in the areas that will use this intersection?
I’m also curious — was Roseman a welcome guest at the event, Dave, or did you have to locate him afterwards?
I’m all for park space and traffic safety — I once witnessed a “T-bone” accident two cars in front of me one morning coming through that intersection that forever changed the way I drive — but is this really more than just a councilman trying to put some heat under the traffic engineer?
[...] Long Beach Removing Dangerous Intersection, Adding 1 Acre Park (Greater Long Beach) [...]
Brian was ONLY 26 when he thought up this idea?!
It’s amazing what full-grown adults with college degrees are capable of these days.
“Dr.” Garcia???? Is that supposed to be sarcastic, or did he suddenly grow a Ph.D. when we weren’t looking?
And why is it that he is GUARANTEEING that the Park will come through? If we don’t get the 2nd grant, where will the money come from? Ever heard of don’t count your eggs until they hatch??????????
“Robert’s passion for education led him to pursue a Doctorate in Higher Education, which he was awarded in 2010 after publishing his dissertation on California’s Mater Plan for Education.”
http://www.longbeach.gov/district1/roberts_bio.asp
This park has been a goal of Brian’s for years. Garcia has been public about his support for years. Roseman has expressed traffic concerns for years. This intersection has been known as the City’s worst for years. Parks, Public Works, Traffic, Brian, Garcia, and people in the community who PAY ATTENTION have been trying to solve the traffic problem for years, both so fewer accidents will happen AND so the park can be built. The plans for how the grant will solve the traffic issues are all over the internet and have been shown at public meetings. Garcia’s “guarantee”, based on 2-year record when it comes to parks, is a pretty good indication the park will be built, but if he somehow can’t manage to make it happen, and his guarantee was wrong, that will be his problem, won’t it? Meanwhile: a new park! Less traffic accidents! This is good news, but some people will complain when the sun shines. Oh well.
Confused and Bewildered, me too! A classic example of the idea there are too many PhDs granted yearly. It’s up to 80,000/year. As john Wooden said, “Don’t mistake activity for achievement.”
John B. Greet, you are either a toady, confused, or an idiot. You are proud to point out a “private sector visionary” for a public good, and you use phrases like, “majority-desired initiative.” That’s not representational. That’s democracy – a majority tyranny. And trust me, we do not have a “collective attention span.” Relearn the US Constitution, please.
Brad, to give you some background. John Greet has NO formal education. He is a recently retired Long Beach Police Officer who got run off because his superiors grew tired of his second guessing.
Greet falsely believes his lack of a formal education is the reason he has been held back from GREET GREATNESS. That’s why he places soooo much emphasis and frequently undeserved respect upon people’s titles and education level.
Greet fails to realize he was not held back because of his lack of formal education. Many people have risen to greatness without a formal education. Greet was consistently held back because was, as you say, a “toady” for the wrong people. He consistently aligns himself with people of low character who he perceives as “going somewhere”
Rather than espousing his circular Civics 101 arguments and scouring the dictionary for big words in his failed attempt to demonstrate how “smart” he is, I have repeatedly advised Greet to seek a formal education to relieve himself and the rest of us of his education inferiority complex. Since he is no longer a cop, one would think he has the time to do so.
@ Brad Downing: The offering of insults is entirely unnecessary and serves no constructive purpose. “Confused and Bewildered” asked a reasonable question about the manner in which I choose to address Dr. Garcia. I provided a direct answer and supported it with a credible source. I have a great deal of respect for *anyone* who earns a doctoral degree, of any sort, and whenever it comes to my attention that someone has done so, I prefer to address them according to the title I believe they have earned.
Your offered insults notwithstanding, I believe that Mr. Ulaszewski is, indeed, a visionary and is, indeed, employed in the private sector. I think there are many examples throughout history in which private sector visionaries have helped to bring about very great public good. You seem to disagree. That’s fine. I think reasonable people should be able to disagree with one another absent the offering of personal insults.
Likewise I think there are many examples throughout history of majority-desired initiatives. Some have proven representational, and some have not. I do not know, of a certainty, whether this Armory Park project is either a “majority-desired initiative” *or* representational. This is why I chose to employ the adverb “perhaps.”
I disagree with you that decisions arrived at in a democratic fashion necessarily characterize the tyranny of the majority popularized by de Tocqueville and others. A majority can be just as often right as it can wrong. Fortunately we do not have a democracy in the purest sense here but, rather, a constitutional republic, wherein we elect representatives by democratic means and then hold those representatives (and ourselves) accountable to the rule of law.
I disagree with your contention that we do not have a collective attention span. When we produce political sound-bytes in time durations specifically aligned with the average attention span of an audience, or when we produce news stories according to specific news “cycles” that are also intended to align with how often a majority of a given audience seems to need new information to remain interested or engaged (or buying the products their sponsors are selling), or when we elect the same sorts of politicians over, and over, and over, despite that the manner in which they represent us fails again, and again, and again, I feel very strongly that we most certainly *do* have a collective attention span, and that it has grown very short indeed!
I study our US Constitution constantly and repeatedly. I hope you do as well. This is the best way I know of to better understand all of its contents and, perhaps more importantly, how very far we, as a nation, have strayed from them.
In the future, sir, if you would like to have a debate or a discussion with me, you will find it far more constructive and productive to set aside the Ruehle-esque pettiness and offerings of insult and approach me from a position of mutual respect and courtesy…just as I have done with with you.
Mr. Ruehle seems to believe that a person who has earned a doctoral degree is undeserving of respect. That’s fine. He is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. The difference between us is that I do not feel the need to offer insult to him for believing as he chooses.
Mr. Ruehle holds many misperceptions about me and that’s fine too. He is as entitled to his ignorance as anyone else.
Mr. Ruehle does not seem to like the vocabulary I use. That too, is fine. I’ll continue to speak as I choose and to approach people in a courteous, honest and mutually respectful manner until they demonstrate -as Mr. Ruehle has time after time- that they are no longer deserving of that treatment.
Mr. Ruehle, in turn, can use whatever words *he* prefers while continuing to post his habitually false, fraudulent and blatantly misleading comments here and elsewhere. He can continue to employ his deceptions and his insults and his hyperbole.
Reasonable people can decide for themselves who, between us, seeks to discuss and debate issues in a reasonable, constructive and courteous manner, and who seeks only to dismiss, to denigrate, to mislead and to deceive.
Mike Ruehle, you are a sad, sad man. Your negative and delusional rhetoric spews its way into so many comment boards for articles about Long Beach. I have yet to hear something from you that is either remotely positive or not entirely based on crazy and almost always false accusations of people who disagree with you. You think by unraveling lies about someone’s personal life, he can discount that person’s views. I have never met John B. Greet, but you have discounted almost every single comment he has made based on your claim that he has not been ‘formally educated’ and that he was fired from his police job because “his superiors grew tired of his second guessing. Where and how do you make this crap up, Mike? Why do you hate on anything or anyone that tries to make this city better? Why is anyone attributed to making change in this city always a ‘corrupt, up-to-no-good scoundrel’? Why are you SO SAD AND UNHAPPY? Mike Ruehle, your a miserable, stubborn thorn in this great city. Luckily, your crazy views only represent a small minority and your endless hours spent bickering online like a a coward will never amount to anything…..perhaps you should move to somewhere like Riverside, where your anti-everything, Tea Party-esque views are more commonplace.
That being said, I think that this park will provide much needed green space to a part of town lacking in parks. Not only that, this will create a more attractive gateway into downtown and better anchor that cultural institutions in the area (MOLAA, pieAM, Armory building, St. Anthony’s). I see nothing wrong with visionaries like Brian Ulaszewski trying to fuse a private and public partnership to make a better Long Beach.
“If Mike [Ruehle] would only work with the rest of the community, we could move mountains. But too often, he creates conspiracies and drama out of rumors that are unfounded. As a result, it unleashes an environment of distrust and lack of commitment on all sides to work together.” Kurt Schneiter, chairman of the city parking commission
Thanks Mike Ruehle. It seems that John Greet and Baktaah Sorkhabi are both Happy Fascists on their trail of good intentions and “progess,” which they fail to recognize is a “Road to Serfdom,” as F.A. Hayek put it.
Brad Downing, your claiming I am a Fascist because I want a park built in our city and I believe that not every single person in Long Beach is evil with intentions to conspire against the greater good of the city? You must have a very simple mind to think that supporting a park somehow equates to a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.
I don’t blindly support anything that our government proposes; I instead try to rationalize the situation and draw a conlusion based on my values and perspective on the matter. Sad conspiracists like you and Mike Ruehle, however, seem to jump to a negative conclusion every time and attempt to denounce and vilify any action done by our city government. It’s easy to be a critic of everything; coming up with a solution is the difficult part (which is something I have yet to see Mike Ruehle, or you, attempt)
Baktaah Sorkhabi, you don’t get it. Your blind confidence that the government will fare better than its record makes you a useful idiot. Don’t take that personally. I used to be one, until I realized the government and big corporations are not to be trusted with our money.
Your comment to Mike Ruehle that “[his] crazy views only represent a small minority and [his] endless hours spent bickering online like a a coward will never amount to anything…..perhaps you should move to somewhere like Riverside, where your anti-everything, Tea Party-esque views are more commonplace.”
That suggests to me that you and John Greet are intolerant leftists who abhor pluralism. You probably think pluralism means multiculturalism. What if I suggested the small minority of Jews should move away, or Muslims, or LGBTs, or Pacific Islanders. You support a majority tyranny, hence the accusation – Happy Fascist!
Ok, Brad Downing, how do you conclude that I have blind confidence? I can just as easily say that you have blind confidence in your ideology that a small to non-existent government as well as no large corporations will far better. Being an ideologist, on either end of the spectrum, is what I would define as a ‘useful idiot’. And to me it sounds like you are so convinced of the libertarian/ultra-conservative banter coming from the Tea Party movement that, like a ‘useful idiot’, you blindly follow and support it.
I never stated, suggested, or implied that I am 100% behind what our government says or does. I, too, am very skeptical of the intentions of corporate America, and believe that large corporations should not be trusted with our money. But Brad, please tell me how StudioOneEleven, the LOCAL architecture and urban design firm that supports this park, is anywhere near a ‘big corporation?’ Is any group of people seeking to get paid for work under a roof considered a big, evil, corporation to you? And how does supporting a park being built make me a fascist? To you, is the only right track for America one that eliminates any possibility of enhancing the public realm in which we all encounter every day?
As to my remarks that Mike Ruehle should move to Riverside was a light-hearted (albeit not the most tasteful) joke meant to suggest that Mike would find himself more comfortable and agreeable somewhere like Riverside, where there are more people who hold such conservative views. He, like you and I, has every right to live wherever and hold whatever views we wish (however close-minded and false those views may be). Mike Ruehle has time and time again made false accusations, and I have lost any ounce of respect for him that I would normally give someone. He has committed the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem Abusive countless times-bringing up irrelevant information in a way to discount that person. He on multiple occasions claimed that I was working for a particular company (which I don’t), said that company was related to the 2nd+PCH project (which it isn’t), and that my view are worthless because I am just a young renter (renter, no, young homeOWNER, yes).
Brad, maybe you should revisit the meaning of Pluralism, as your inability to tolerate anything the government or a corporation says or does makes you an extreme ideologist that “abhors” multiple views. You support a close-minded, short-sided, illogical ideology, hence the accusation-Useful Idiot for the Equally Idiotic Tea Party!
Baktaah Sorkhabi, I congratulate you on your home ownership. You have completed the American Dream – Life, Liberty, and Personal Property. I wish you all the luck.
I admit I am a libertarian, but I speak for myself and I never mentioned the Tea Party. Why you keep bringing that up, I am not sure. Why do you feel threatened by them? Are they violent? Are they taking more of your taxes or your freedoms? I think you are misinformed.
Sorkhabi, the economy is trashed, especially in California, and therefore now is not the time to be “enhancing the public realm.” Also, how is it a noble stance to spend other people’s money for local pet projects? Do you know the term “bread and circuses?”
Don’t mistake libertarianism for anarchism. Without laws we cannot experience freedom (Ben Franklin, I think), and just as we have an implied separation of church and state, I think it should include the relationship of government and business. It only promotes a conflict in the taxpayers interests. This park proposal seems forced by a small group and one connected man.
@ Brad: Please review anything I have said here or elsewhere and explain, if you can, how it has lead you to the mistaken belief that I am…how did you put it?…yes, a “happy fascist” and an “intolerant leftist.” I do not think you fully understand either concept which, to a certain degree, can be considered to be mutually exclusive.
You might consider reviewing fascism as a political ideology. While certainly influenced by primarily leftist ideas such as authoritarianism and totalitarianism; fascism is generally considered to be somewhere out on the extreme *right* on the spectrum of political views.
Rather than offering insults and trying to apply entirely confused and fallacious labels to my beliefs in apparent efforts to deflect attention from the discussion at hand, how about you simply try to respond, directly and with factual support, to the responses I initially offered to you?
As a polite reminder:
Rebut, if you can, my assertion that there are many examples throughout history in which private sector visionaries have helped to bring about very great public good.
Refute, if you are able, my contention that there are many examples throughout history of majority-desired initiatives and that some of these have proven representational, and some have not.
Dispute, in a rational and respectful manner, my suggestions that decisions arrived at in a democratic fashion do not necessarily characterize the tyranny of the majority popularized by de Tocqueville and others and that a majority can be just as often right as it can wrong.
Try *these* responses and let’s see if we can make some headway in our discussion.
Offering personal insults during a debate or discussion is virtually always counter-productive. Unless it is your intent to be counter-productive, why not set aside your propensity for insult and fallacious labeling, and try to meet me in the arena of ideas in an intellectually honest manner?
Greet, I don’t know you. Why would you take any of this personally? I am merely attacking your political ignorance, but I can see how a small man may not like condescension. Mea culpa. You think winning a debate means filibustering and somehow proving your opponent wrong, but it is the loser that wins, because he has learned something new.
In my opinion, you are a typical leftist. Leftism is not a political ideology. It is not being a free thinker. It is a belief system, like a religion. Being liberal should mean you support freedom and oppose authoritarianism, yet most modern liberals think a gov’t mandate to purchase something equals freedom. A synonym for liberal is open-minded, but in their attempts at being tolerant they become intolerant of pluralism (i.e. the views of Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party people, or even one who might claim to include Fox News as a news source). Leftism is not based on cohesive principles and values, or the US Constitution. It is a fragmented organization of special interest groups collaborating for one purpose only: working against the political right wing while feeding off the gov’t; or, redemptive liberals seeking a collective salvation.
Speaking of which, it is a common misconception that fascism is of the American right wing, but until now we haven’t seen fascism here. The European spectrum of political ideology has been historically and exclusively totalitarian. They do not have a history of choosing a free government. It has always been a choice on the scale of socialism, with communism on the left and fascism on the right. The only difference is the delusion of freedom through private property. Under fascism you may own your own home or business, but the government will tell you how and when to maintain it. Don’t think for a second that Hitler’s “conservatism” and loathing communism puts him on the American right wing.
I challenge any modern liberal to define 3 principles common to Liberalism, and you must include all your special interests groups, which makes this challenge virtually impossible. Any knowledgeable libertarian and/or conservative can answer that. Can you?
@ Brad: When you accuse me of being “either a toady, confused, or an idiot,” you are offering a personal insult. Since, as you affirm, you do not know me, your offerings of insult are all the more unnecessary and presumptuous. When you characterize another as a “small man,” because he does not happen to appreciate your condescension, you are offering a personal insult.
Don’t worry. You have not managed to succeed in insulting me, you have only succeeding in offering insults which have not been accepted. Your offerings of insult are counter-productive and all the more so because they are entirely unnecessary.
I do not seek to win in a debate, but to exchange ideas in a respectful and intellectually honest manner and, in that way, to learn something I may not have known before. If both parties are approaching one another from positions of mutual respect, courtesy and intellectual honesty, both parties are more like to learn something of value, rather than simply what one’s capacity for offering insults to another might be.
I’m still waiting for you to review anything I have said here or elsewhere and explain, if you can, how it has lead you to the mistaken belief that I am a “happy fascist” and an “intolerant leftist.” Don’t preach, just point out anything I have said, specifically, that has led you to these absurd notions where I am concerned. Anything, Brad. I’ll make it even easier for you…quote just one specific thing I have said and why you feel it represents either happy fascism or intolerant leftism.
This is the part where you get to try to back up what you have said with something even remotely resembling a fact.
I’ll be waiting…
Greet, the comment board police……..creepy.
Greet, language is everything. You attempt to control the language with your verbosity. I’m tired of responding to your insolence, your refusal to hear our points while whining over semantics with false or thin-skinned accusations of hostility. Oh, the noble and eloquent Greet. Janis has pretty much put you in your place, yet you can’t recognize it. There is no more valuable discussion here. Reread everything Janis has said.
What about my challenge? Isn’t that more interesting?
@ Brad: As suspected, you prove unable to support your specified offerings of insult with any direct evidence whatsoever. This is the typical tactic of those who either cannot or will not meet others in the arena of ideas in an intellectually honest and mutually respectful manner.
Here’s the formula that commenters like you, Mr. Ruehle, and some others follow time after time on sites such as these:
-Post false, fraudulent and/or misleading comments on a given topic.
-When someone asks a reasonable question, asks for sources or evidence, or otherwise challenges your position, offer unnecessary and counter-productive insults and lace your responses with open hostility and dismissiveness.
-When the challenger takes exception and repeats the original challenge, continue to ignore the challenge, offer additional insults, lodge baseless accusations of “whining”, or being the “comment board police,” or trying to “control the language,” and then call them “thin-skinned” for objecting to the originally-offered insults.
-Rarely, if ever, answer the original challenge in any substantive manner.
-When the challenger responds, in turn, to your grudging responses, sincerely trying to follow the thread of the debate, you accuse him of verbosity.
-Move on to the next topic, and start the process all over again.
Man, no wonder no one can ever achieve any real understanding of your positions or hope to provide some small counter-point to your own views. In your view, you are right, people who disagree are wrong and worthy of insult…end of story.
What a shame. What a shame and a waste.
I heard all janis (and you and Mr.Ruehle) has said here. I understood her points very well, once she finally got around to stating them. I happen to agree with some of her points but disagree with some others, and I also made that quite clear.
Some, however, just cannot seem to abide a reasonable challenge to their thinking or their cherished positions. They seem to see these challenges as somehow insulting in their own right and, so, somehow unworthy of reasonable consideration or discussion.
Because of this, what should be a mature and well-reasoned discussion among adults often quickly devolves into a shallow and juvenile insult-fest where little can be understood and even less acomplished. Just as this one now has.
This happens time after time after time on public comment sites like these. Small cliques of vocal advocates comment and support one anothers positions and rhetorically pile on to anyone who dares to challenge their thinking.
I sincerley apologize if my occasional challenges to the prevailing “wisdom” sometimes lead me to be verbose. I do not apologize, at all, for the challenges themselves, because they are offered, in every case, in an intellectually honest manner, with respect and with courtesy toward the person I am trying to engage with, and in the true spirit of trying to elevate the dialog and increase understanding.
Commenters who follow the previously mentioned formula, however, appear to have another agenda entirely.
So be it.
BARF BAG ALERT… Greet responding to Councilman O’Donnell’s facebook posting:
Patrick O’Donnell: Not going to be at tonight’s Council meeting: I’ve been called up to Sac’to to fight for local teachers’ jobs and wages.
John B. Greet: Safe trip, sir.
As I said, another agenda entirely…
Mr. Ruehle appears to have difficulty with someone wishing someone else a safe trip or, perhaps, with calling someone “sir” as a traditional demonstration of respect.
Funny, Mr. Ruehle doesn’t seem to mind that I also afford him the same sort of courtesy and respect whenever I address or refer to him.
Weird…
Greet….Is it just your noze……or is your entire head brown?
Mr. Ruehle, Are you truly as childish, petulant, insulting. and ignorant as you seem…or do you simply write that way?
Mr. Ruehle, You should consider that there may be a very good reason that the editor of The Patch chose to delete your same most-recent comment after you unsuccessfully tried to post it there, then saw fit to issue a blanket warning against “personal insults and vulgarity,” stating that she has “had complaints,” and that “Readers fear being a target if they comment…”
Given your current propensity for desparagement, I cannot help but wonder if it is a source of pride for you to know that you have had comments edited from a local, public, news and information website because the site determined that they constituted “personal insults and vulgarity”?
Mike, leave the poor man alone. Greet wears a pin tie suit and a fedora and adulates over a lost time when people treated each other like Ward and June Cleaver. He has faith the moral high ground will grace him respect and a legacy. This makes him brown from head to toe.
@ Brad, Like most reasonable adults, I believe in approaching most other adults from a position of mutual respect and courtesy whenever possible. That’s why I use terms like Ma’am, Sir, Mr. Mrs. and Ms. because that is quitely simply the respectful manner in which my parents raised me.
I believe in recognizing educational achievement and demonstrating respect for those who have earned it. That’s why I believe it is respectful and appropriate to refer to anyone who has earned a Doctoral degree by the title they have earned.
I believe in seeking and remaining on the moral high ground whenever possible, because that is what my faith and my principles lead me to do.
I do not knowingly employ false or fraudulent arguments to support my positions in efforts to convince others of my point of view and whenever another points out an error I have made, I acknowledge it, do my best to correct the record, thank the person who corrected me, and move on.
I do not offer gratuitous insults to others simply because they do not happen top share my views and when others ask me reasonable and direct questions in a courteous manner, I do my best to answer them sincerely and without sarcasm.
I do not know everything, nor do I believe that I do. My purpose for engaging with others in the arena of ideas is to challenge others, intellectually, and to, in turn, be challenged by them.
If all of these things make me somehow worthy of scorn and the offering of insults…
…so be it.
Greet, you sound like a robot programmed by Emily Post. Your verbose, self-righteous indignation over basic etiquette is pathetically reactionary, which is merely a symptom of your leftism, and why we deride your comments. Learn to be succinct and pithy, and then do your own homework, as Janis has suggested.
John B. Greet – “I believe in seeking and remaining on the moral high ground whenever possible, because that is what my faith and my principles lead me to do.”
Greet, what faith is that? And, I challenge you again on listing 3 principles that you do not share with Republicans or Libertarians? Remember, you must include all the special interest groups of the socialist left.
Mike Ruehle, formal education may not allow people like Greet to understand. I fear he may be the type that will never get it. I have known people like him, and have devolved myself because so. Greet should be dismissed until he can learn to associate responsibly.
Greet, I think you are old enough to remember Joe Friday, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
@ Brad: I have read and understood your comments. Thank you for sharing them.
Comprehend……….possibly.
Understand……..doubtful.
Sincere……….No way.
Able to comment without offering insult?
Amost never.