Couple of things
- The non-existent 'A-C Government vs. The UGA Students' debate rages on both here (where Al Davison has chimed in) and over at Athens Politics (where current Athens-Clarke County Commissioner Elton Dodson has offered his two cents). Both are to be commended for their involvement in this discussion, and Dodson even offered an apology for the use of the word 'moron' in referring to former Athens-Clarke County Commission candidate Chuck Jones.
- Regarding the discussion, I thought Dodson's comments were very appropriate, though I felt Chuck's comments here were a stretch. His rationale is that if the commission does anything which impacts how some students live rather than pass an ordinance which explicitly benefits students ... the commission is 'anti-student.' Now, I'm no student of law, but I can tell you that if that's your line of argument in a courtroom, you're not going to get very far.
- Wow. Are you that concerned with The Sierra Club's 'Dirty Dozen' list ... in Georgia that you accuse the organization's agenda of being not, you know, preserving the environment but rather 'anti-jobs' ... whatever the latter means.
- Listen, I'm not anti-raising-the-minimum-wage but Ray MacNair's letter misses the point altogether. If you really want to combat poverty, then you have to provide job training, education, adequate health care, affordable housing, affordable day care and more opportunities for employment. Raising wages, however noble and admittedly needed, is short-sighted. While I don't subscribe to Xon's theory of the minimum wage, I think raising it is merely sticking a band-aid on a much deeper wound. More job opportunities and a better educated workforce means those people won't be working for $7.50 an hour, but competing for better paying jobs. It's as if he's content in letting people work in the service industry.
- The fourth podcast for The Cover Two should be up soon.
- I don't think they're 'waging war' as Jim Cullivan suggests, but he speaks the truth in other areas.
- I think it's kinda lousy you have to move too, but a deadline is a deadline, isn't it? Can't you let folks know of your decision to not move or challenge the move on the actual deadline date?
- Regarding the discussion, I thought Dodson's comments were very appropriate, though I felt Chuck's comments here were a stretch. His rationale is that if the commission does anything which impacts how some students live rather than pass an ordinance which explicitly benefits students ... the commission is 'anti-student.' Now, I'm no student of law, but I can tell you that if that's your line of argument in a courtroom, you're not going to get very far.
- Wow. Are you that concerned with The Sierra Club's 'Dirty Dozen' list ... in Georgia that you accuse the organization's agenda of being not, you know, preserving the environment but rather 'anti-jobs' ... whatever the latter means.
- Listen, I'm not anti-raising-the-minimum-wage but Ray MacNair's letter misses the point altogether. If you really want to combat poverty, then you have to provide job training, education, adequate health care, affordable housing, affordable day care and more opportunities for employment. Raising wages, however noble and admittedly needed, is short-sighted. While I don't subscribe to Xon's theory of the minimum wage, I think raising it is merely sticking a band-aid on a much deeper wound. More job opportunities and a better educated workforce means those people won't be working for $7.50 an hour, but competing for better paying jobs. It's as if he's content in letting people work in the service industry.
- The fourth podcast for The Cover Two should be up soon.
- I don't think they're 'waging war' as Jim Cullivan suggests, but he speaks the truth in other areas.
- I think it's kinda lousy you have to move too, but a deadline is a deadline, isn't it? Can't you let folks know of your decision to not move or challenge the move on the actual deadline date?
posted by Jmac at 7:23 AM
6 Comments:
I agree with what you said about combatting poverty here... just wanted to add, in response to this in particular:
It's as if he's content in letting people work in the service industry.
The thing is, someone is always going to have to work in the service industry. (And I would venture that most of us reading this blog have worked in the service industry at some point. I know I have, anyway.) So I think there should also be a focus on improving working conditions for people who work in the service industry, and making sure they are paid a living wage and eligible for benefits. When lots of "legit" options are so shitty, after all, people are more likely to turn to illegal means of supporting their families.
Thank you F. Lee Jmac for your well informed criticism of my legal abilities. I would accept it from even somebody like Dodson - because among all the many many many many many many many things you could say about him, he is still a trained attorney and member of the Bar. You, on the other hand, are an Internet clown who probably doesn't even have a real job. You will pardon me for ridiculing you when you try to evaluate my legal talents.
Nevertheless, I don't see what is unreasonable about my question. Let's put it in a legal context so that it may be easier for the great legal scholar Sandra Day O'Jmac to understand. Let's say you have a judge in, I don't know, housing court. This judge hears disputes between landlords and tenants all the time. Now, if in 100% of the cases that the judge decides, he decides them in favor of the landlord, then is his reputation for being "anti-tenant" not well earned?
If the judge cannot point to even ONE occasion where he has ruled in favor of a tenant, then I think his reputation for being anti-tenant is well founded. So I would like the Commission, which seems to object to its anti-student reputation, to show me just one instance in which they have sided with the students against the permanent residents.
If the Commission is so fair to students as it claims, then among the ten of them, plus one Mayoress and one First Man, they should be able to come up with at least ONE instance.
What the fuck, Chuck?
Do you take any advice to heart, at all? Ever? Calling Johnathan a jobless Internet clown because he didn't buy your argument is not ridicule. It's lunacy. Johnathan clearly said that if that is your reasoning, then your case is poor. Personally, I'm not sure if Johnathan has your position correct, but as I said elsewhere, I think your position is problematic from the start in demanding the M&C have to prove their anti-student biases by demonstrating at least one occasion where they were pro-student. Life, especially political life, is hardly ever pro- or anti- exclusively, exhaustively. Still, all you would have had to do is express that he may be right about all that, but he was wrong about what he took your position to be.
Instead, you called him a clown and jobless, because he questioned the plausibility of your argument?
If this is how you act when the debate doesn't involve enacting policy, how can you be trusted to not be so unreflective and uncharitable when it does come to policy? Perhaps, then, it is best that you left the running, to pursue your other opportunity. Whatever it is.
As a Christian brother to another who insulted another, I suggest you should take Dodson's example and apologize. You see, he apologized when he didn't even call you a moron but rather called your actions or behavior moronic. What you did was directly insult him, with no humility or charity in assuring him of your legal skills. Now, I don't know if you privately accepted that apology or not, but he put that out there.
You know, Christians at one point adopted from the Greeks the rejection of the vice of hubris. Lately, it seems it's more a talent for some to master it. As if it's just another way to hold an opinion.
Dodson did not apologize. He said he owed an apology, blamed someone else for it (with no proof), and then proceeded to talk about how horrible I am. That is not an apology. I will be glad to accept an apology if one is offered - if anyone on this site actually met me or knew me, they would know that I really am not an unforgiving person. I even offered to sit down for coffee or dinner with one of the Cobbhamites and discuss our differences.
Still, I tend to get annoyed when someone whose legal education consists of Judge Judy tells me that I am not a good lawyer or that I wouldn't be a good lawyer. That's what Jmac said in so many words. And that is why I got offended and reacted as sharply as I did.
Now, to be fair, he probably did not mean to be that rude. It's probably just a wording issue; he does not phrase things as politely as you do. I am the first one to admit I suffer from the same weakness.
Did I react sharply? Yes. I invested a lot of time and money in my legal education and I take it seriously. But looking back at my own strengths and weaknesses I can see how I could have easily made a similar comment. So perhaps I should not have reacted as harshly.
In any case, if a mutual apology between me and Jmac is needed, then so be it. I'd even extend the Cobbham offer to him too; I'd love to have a dinner with him sometime.
I took Johnathan's remark to be about that line, not about your general skills as a lawyer. Look, you're not perfect. I've been doing the whole schooling thing for years and years now and I know I'm not perfect. We make bad arguments from time to time, sometimes too often.
I don't think he intended to say anything more than that your argument was bad. Sometimes, it's not always about us, but the ideas and the thoughts.
As for Elton's apology, if you don't think it is one, I am not sure what you would want as one from him. People can very much disagree and still civilly think one another had behaved inappropriately. That's the whole point behind chivalry: respect for one's enemies means charity even when accusing them of moral wrong. You see this in Jude: you shouldn't even be rude to Satan.
You admit that you are not as polite as you can be. So, what you have with Elton is a disagreement over degree of impoliteness, not over whether or not you are impolite.
As for me, I don't see why we have to say "in real life I am polite and forgiving." Dude, this
is real life, if our only interactions are on the blogs and email.
The thing is, Johnathan is actually a much nicer and much more charitable person than I am. I am, actually, quite patronizing and condescending. But sometimes, people don't realize that.
If you are a good lawyer, then why would the opinion of someone who is obviously not trained in law bother you at all? Shouldn't it be quite the opposite? If Jmac is actually a clown without a real job, then why would anything he says be worth the time to respond?
You might as well walk down the street and take everything a Schizophrenic homeless man utters at you to heart.
I suspect, though, that you are insulted because of some deep psychological fear that you aren't a good lawyer -- or at least some miniscule doubt that might not even keep you up at night. Maybe living in Athens isn't the big time lawyerin' you wanted to do with you life?
Who knows? Not me. Not at all.
All I know is that if you started criticizing my skills as a psychologist, without even knowing me or experiencing me as a therapist, I'd laugh heartily and move on.
This is even more the case as Pol pointed out -- Jmac wasn't even commenting on you as lawyer. He set up an "If...then" statement and concluded that using such a tactic in court wouldn't get you very far -- which, if you were a good lawyer, I'd think you would agree with. But, I'm no lawyer.
Post a Comment
<< Home