The Charlotte News
Wednesday, May 6, 1959
ONE EDITORIAL
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the belief was growing among Democrats that Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson was quietly making himself available for the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination. Party members who had rallied around former President Truman during his current visit to Washington had been talking in terms of four principal candidates, Senator Johnson, Senator John F. Kennedy, Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri and Adlai Stevenson, the 1952 and 1956 nominee. President Truman, whose influence on the outcome of the nomination might not be great, had kept the situation cloudy insofar as he was concerned. He had suggested that as the likely favorite-son of Missouri, Senator Symington would be his initial choice, but he indicated he would be prepared to support someone else if he felt he was picking a winner. Senator Symington had told friends that he had learned long earlier not to try to gauge another man's thinking and for that reason he was sitting tight, awaiting developments, not placing reliance on the former President's endorsement. By every criterion, Senator Kennedy was running hard. Mr. Stevenson apparently was not running at all but remained the sentimental favorite of many Democrats. Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota was interested but seem to have some difficulty getting underway, at least among the Democratic leaders in Washington. For someone who said he was not a candidate, Senator Johnson was making a lot of moves which politicians found familiar. He was looked on as a middle-of-the-road Democrat who might have an appeal for all party factions, especially if he succeeded in getting the Senate to pass a moderate civil rights bill. He had attended a luncheon honoring Mr. Truman on Tuesday and praised the former President warmly. After a quick check on the Senate to see that everything was in order, Senator Johnson took off for Harrisburg, Pa., to speak at a Democratic victory dinner. Possibly to offset the contention that he was not partisan enough often enough, he aimed some haymakers at the Republicans.
In Dallas, Tex., it was reported that an 18-month old baby boy, kidnaped on Monday in Albuquerque, N.M., had been found abandoned in a Dallas drugstore. A short time later, the FBI had arrested a girl in another part of Dallas, saying that she had admitted the kidnaping. The finding of the child had climaxed a widespread search for a babysitter who had disappeared with the child. Police said that the baby was in good condition. New Mexico police said that the 17-year old babysitter and the baby had last been seen on Monday in New Mexico getting into a black truck loaded with cartons near Edgewood, 30 miles east of Albuquerque.
In York, S.C., it was reported that the attorney for two accused bank robbers had said this date that he had written Federal authorities that they would be glad to cooperate and enter guilty pleas. He said he had written to the U.S. Attorney in Spartanburg asking for a waiver of a bill of indictment by the grand jury. The two men were accused of robbing the First National Bank of Sharon of $6,376 on April 28, having been arrested in Charlotte a few hours after the robbery. On April 30, the older of the two, the uncle of the younger, had taken FBI and local officers to woods where $6,271 of the loot had been recovered. The two men were being held in county jail in York in lieu of $25,000 bond.
Julian Scheer of The News reports that the new City Council had gotten together during the morning on the City Hall front stoop, all smiling for a group photograph. He provides quotes from each of the seven members.
Mr. Scheer also separately reports that voters had turned out only in fair numbers the previous day for the municipal election and that the strange campaign had left a lot of interesting political questions up in the air, for instance that two opposing forces in labor had made the Council, veteran Councilman Claude Albea, a longtime labor leader, and Randolph Babcock, a manufacturer who was not always disposed to talk kindly about labor and who had won for the first time. Both candidates had received the support of both of the newspapers in the city. The fall of Mayor pro tem Herman Brown could have been predicted, but with not such a resounding crash. He had led the ticket in 1957 and failed to make the top 7 two years later. Most observers believed that his opposition to controversial Police Chief Frank Littlejohn had hurt him. He had spearheaded the drive on the Council to get rid of the former chief who had been popular in some quarters. The Democratic organization in the city was expected to launch some partisan opposition in the nonpartisan race, particularly against the Republican member of the Better Government ticket, but no such opposition had developed. Wallace Gibbs, who had helped the Democratic campaign of David Clark against Republican Representative Charles Jonas the prior November, had worked hard for the Better Government group, causing some unhappiness in Democratic circles. There was some money spent in the precinct boxes, but opposing forces had tried to get together on how much money to spend or to call off spending completely. Money, however, had already been committed and it did little good in the so-called "money boxes". The vote did not turn out. One estimate was that votes "cost" between three and four dollars each in the primary in one box where money had been used to hire drivers to carry voters to the polls. The defeat of former Mayor Herbert Baxter had raised some eyebrows. He had received the support of both newspapers and was an acknowledged authority on local government. The incumbent member of the Council, however, had sought to run a campaign of his own in addition to the "experience" ticket, on which he had teamed with the other three incumbent members of the Council, causing some resentment among his colleagues. The campaign had failed. A question had arisen as to whether Councilwoman Martha Evans would have won re-election to the Council had she not run for mayor unsuccessfully. Her strong showing in the mayoralty primary race indicated that she might have been able to be re-elected to the Council. Jim Whittington had run the most interesting campaign, having been urged to run before and had run in 1947, withdrawing after making the ticket. He had gained great support from parents of Little League and Babe Ruth League for his youth work and his efforts on behalf of a number of civic organizations. He worked in the county's Democratic circles and a number of friends had lined up with him.
Mr. Scheer also reports on the specific results of the election.
Bob Slough of The News reports of a mother of two, a grandmother of 11 and great grandmother of 14 who drove her own car to work, spending eight full hours on a job which began at 5:00 a.m. She said she liked to work. The people around Jim Elliott's Greenland Restaurant on South Boulevard knew her best as "Granny Brown", where the 75-year old woman worked as a waitress. Her employer said that she was a good waitress. She had been born in Johnstown, Pa., had been married at 18, the mother of two children at 22, and a widow at 23. She said she had never given up working because it was good for her to keep her body and mind occupied. She said that she worked hard, ate and slept "good" and loved everybody. She said she had not been sick in 25 years, that she had been sick when she was younger, but not lately. She said she never was lonely or felt depressed, that there were too many good books to read and so many things to do, with not enough time in which to do them. On the six days she worked, she got off work at 2:00 p.m. In the afternoons, she crocheted, read and relaxed. She had only missed four Charlotte Hornets home baseball games the previous year, as some of the players ate at the restaurant and knew her. Recently, the catcher for the Hornets had hit a home run and when he came into the restaurant the next morning, he had given her a big kiss. She took baseball to heart. On Monday night, she had watched the Hornets fall victim to Macon by a score of 10 to 6 and said she did not know what was wrong with the manager of the Hornets, that he had left the pitcher in too long and they otherwise would have had a chance to win the game. Regarding remarriage, she said that an old man her age would not be good for her, that she did not associate with people her own age as they were too old, and a young one would not have her. She said she would just keep working as a waitress as that was what she liked to do best.
In the Senate Office Building this date was held a mock hearing on a question of what should be the national flower. Three Senators and a member of the House had taken part in the debate. Carnations were pinned on observers when they entered the hearing whether they liked it or not. Popcorn, symbol of the corn tassel, was also given out. Carnations were the most practical for corsages, contended Representative William Ayres of Ohio. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a diehard supporter of the corn tassel, called it "distinctively American in origin." The Senator conceded that the marigold, another contender, was a "good-looking bath sponge". Senator Thruston Morton of Kentucky, who was committed to plain grass, preferably Kentucky bluegrass, found the corn tassel to be "a purely male plant. What are we going to do—lose the women's vote?" Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, who would not hear a word against the rose, said that Senator Morton should not be so "cud-happy". He said of the corn tassel that the "amount of corn on Capitol Hill is already sufficient." It had all come about because a garden club in suburban Falls Church, Va., had heard about the national flower debate and had gotten into the act. It borrowed the Senate caucus room and invited the legislators to hold forth on the merits of their choices.
In Hollywood, it was reported that singer Eddie Fisher said that he and actress Elizabeth Taylor would marry in Las Vegas the following Tuesday with Michael Todd, Jr., her stepson by her deceased former husband, serving as best man. Mr. Fisher said that he did not finish at the Tropicana in Las Vegas until the 12th and that he would never marry on the 13th of the month, and so they had planned to marry on the 14th until Michael had cabled that he had to be back in Spain by the 14th where he was shooting a movie. There would be two ceremonies, a civil one and a Jewish rite. The latter would be performed by a rabbi who had recently converted Ms. Taylor to Judaism, the same faith as Mr. Fisher. The actor said that both rites would be private, with only the families and a few close friends present. Ms. Taylor added that there would be no press or photo coverage. Mr. Fisher's six-week legal residence in Nevada would be concluded on May 11, at which point he could get a quick Nevada decree of divorce from his former wife, actress Debbie Reynolds, who had divorced him several months earlier in Los Angeles. The California decree, however, did not become final until the following February, meaning that Mr. Fisher and Ms. Taylor could not live as man and wife in California until that point. Who cares? We don't.
Speaking of Hollywood, as reported in the tv section, this night was the Emmy Awards
On the editorial page, "The New City Council Must Retool Municipal Government for Progress" indicates that the City Council, elected the previous day, would face so much so soon. They had to launch a whole new era of municipal government with the status quo no longer having status.
First, they had to find a successor to City Manager Henry Yancey to lead the city into a new era. Ideally, he would have a graduate degree in public administration and a number of years of practical experience.
They had to appoint or reappoint key department heads and needed a sturdier respect than past Councils for the talents of the men and women it hired for the specialized tasks of public administration.
The fiscal area would require all of the ingenuity at the Council's command, as Charlotte was perilously close to prudent limits of bonded indebtedness set by the Legislature.
Closely associated to the fiscal woes was the problem of the perimeter area, the annexation of which would become accomplished the following January 1. It meant that the final half of the budget which the Council would prepare for fiscal 1959-60 had to take into account the immediate extension of important services to an area of roughly 30 square miles. While money had already been authorized for water and sewer services for that area, money was yet to be allocated for such essentials as police, fire protection and garbage service.
There would also be the challenge of opportunities for new consolidation of City and County services to perfect local government as an instrument of positive and coordinated action.
The Council needed to resolve problems brought about by obsolescence, congestion and swift growth, including the development of an effective urban renewal program for the city's blighted areas, and positive action on a master roads plan which was to be completed the following July. Urban renewal was a social and economic requirement and certain preliminary steps had already been made, but the Council had to assume the burden of leadership to make certain that the entire program was implemented.
Likewise, a solution to the city's traffic problems was still in the early planning stage. The same conditions which would give Charlotte's traffic situation new urgency would create other woes, in public safety, parking and the decay of the central business district.
It finds that in short, Charlotte would have to stop acting like a village floating aimlessly in North Carolina's great, green hinterland and begin acting like a well-managed metropolitan community.
A piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled "Where Lilacs Bloom", indicates that Walt Whitman had sung of the lilac bush tall-growing, "with many a pointed blossom rising delicate, with the perfume strong I love, with every leaf a miracle." Amy Lowell had drawn word pictures of the "great puffs" of lilacs, "candid and clear-cut, standing beside clean doorways," just everywhere "in this my New England." They had decorated Ralph Waldo Emerson's yard at Concord and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's yard in Cambridge and framed the windows at the house of the Alcotts. That had been a way of saying that the lilac, now in such generous bloom, seemed to belong to the United States, along with Plymouth Rock, Johnny Appleseed and the Oregon Trail.
It finds that it would thus come as a shock to American travelers behind the Iron Curtain just about a month hence when they found lilac bushes in full flower along the Kremlin's pink brick walls. On seeing his first Communist lilac bush, the American tourist could hardly believe his eyes. Then he saw dozens more and had no choice but to accept the fact that they were there. The Soviets had not claimed that they had originated the lilac and on that score their restraint was well advised.
The common variety of lilac, Syringa vulgarisa, was a native of Southwestern Asia and had first been imported to Vienna in the 1500's to give it a start in Europe. Then there had been the poetic command of Alfred Noyes to "go down to Kew in lilac-time, in lilac-time, in lilac-time (it isn't far from London)" which rolled on barrel-organ notes every spring and often in other seasons.
It indicates that if Nikita Khrushchev sensed the lilac's fragrance, so did Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox. It had helped Abraham Lincoln get through the Civil War springs and Henry Shaw had cut bouquets from his garden in Tower Grove. "In a word, lilacs in bloom, 'false blue, white, purple,' are one of those common denominators that make all the world kin, regardless of ideologies."
Drew Pearson finds that Washington had been getting a greater kick out of the conflict arising between Clare Boothe Luce and Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon than the revolt in Panama, the crisis regarding Berlin, or even the fact that the President had been barred from the Gettysburg golf course unless he walked.
It got down to the question of how well women served as diplomats or in Congress or might serve someday in the White House. It was no secret that some politicians had considered Mrs. Luce's brief Brazilian service, to be barely more than a year, as a steppingstone for her vice-presidential nomination. As a Catholic, it had been believed that she could counteract the vote-drawing powers of Senator John F. Kennedy. He finds that the fact had been that she had served competently and courageously in the House and her voting record, ironically, had been pretty much the same as that of Senator Morse. She had been a fighting, intelligent liberal.
Whether Senator Homer Capehart of Indiana liked it or not, the temperament, emotions and mental condition of a prospective diplomat, male or female, had to be a right of Senatorial scrutiny. Both Senator Capehart and Senator Morse could have discovered that Mrs. Luce had been under psychiatric care by reading her own authorized biography, written by Alden Hatch and published serially in Woman's Home Companion in November through January, 1955-56, at the height of her career as Ambassador to Italy.
At the time of her divorce from George Brokaw and during the Wall Street crash of the Hoover Administration, four of her friends had committed suicide and "she became so despondent that she sought the help of a psychoanalyst," according to the biography. Other emotional periods were frankly reported. Mr. Hatch had recounted that she was terrified that she was losing her mind regarding a "black shaft of despair" she encountered in late 1945, at which point she returned to her original faith of Catholicism.
He indicates that in Italy she had done a brilliant job after serious mistakes at the start, but had been so emotional, so intense and so engrossed in her work that again she suffered embarrassing incidents which, had she been a man, might have led to her recall. Most notable had been her opposition to the election of President Gronchi and her public tears in the diplomatic galleries of Parliament when he was elected.
He suggests that brilliance was frequently wrapped up in emotion and when, after three years in Italy, the Embassy staff had presented Mrs. Luce with a gold medallion, she had broken into tears. Try as she could, she had not been able to stop weeping and so her husband had suggested that the time had come for her to return to New York for a physical checkup, leading to her retirement from diplomacy.
Joseph Alsop, in London, finds that Britain at present presented a picture of vigorous recovery, contrasting remarkably with the confusion and defeatism which had prevailed for so long after the Suez disaster of late 1956. In the main, he says, the British recovery was economic, with its indices rising in terms of hard currency reserves, declining unemployment, a stable price index, exports which competed successfully even with West Germany's and a living standard which began to compare even with the standard of the U.S.
The recovery was important news for two different reasons, on the one hand there being few people who realized how near Britain had come after Suez to public bankruptcy, with there having been comments when the runs on sterling and the drop in the reserves seemed likely to leave the British treasury powerless to meet its obligations. Though Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had inherited cards which were about as poor as they could be, he and his quietly effective Chancellor of the Exchequer, Derick Amory, had played their bad cards with great coolness, verve and success and thus Britain's recovery was noteworthy simply as an important feat of political-economic leadership.
On the other hand, however, it was also noteworthy for another, more fundamental reason, as the British recovery looked much more solid and enduring than the other postwar recoveries. In the earlier cases, the flush of seeming prosperity had always turned into the fever of a currency crisis. Except for 1953, Britain had a currency crisis in every odd-numbered year from 1949 onward. In 1959, in contrast, confidence in the currency was high. More important, almost all of the costly, over-straining postwar tasks in industry had been completed and paid for. With those domestic tasks out of the way, the desperately precarious time of hand-to-mouth planning seemed over.
He indicates that he did not mean that Britain was now invulnerable to the shocks of economic fortune. As one high official had ruefully remarked, "In the country, it's politically disastrous to have more than 500,000 unemployed, and it's economically disastrous to have less than 250,000." Britain remained particularly vulnerable because of its continuing dependence on profits from old investments in raw material sources in former colonial areas such as the Middle East, which were now in full nationalist ferment. The oil investments, bringing in about a billion dollars per year, were the largest single item. If all the profits from such investments in all politically insecure areas were totaled, it would come close to 1.5 billion dollars per year, about 14 percent of Britain's total earnings overseas. That was an enormous percentage in the politically insecure category.
It meant, for instance, that if the Kremlin's agents could ever get a grip on Middle Eastern oil, they could use their control of it as a powerful instrument of political-economic blackmail in London. The passivity and division after the defeat of council in London, the revolution in Iraq, had been the main causes of the sense of impending defeat which had been strong only a little more than a year earlier. In the interval, the situation in the Middle East had worsened and the situations in Africa and other former colonial areas had also grown more threatening. But the picture had changed for the better in other respects. Although heavy British losses in the former colonial areas seemed no less likely, it now seemed likely that those losses would occur piecemeal in a gradual manner, and thus adjustment would be easier.
Doris Fleeson indicates that the attempt to chart a comeback trail for the Republican Party had gotten underway the previous weekend in Highland Park, Ill. It was in the hands of a 43-member committee on program and progress, the chairman of which was Charles Percy, president of the Bell and Howell Co.—the future Senator from Illinois. The committee had become acquainted with the new national chairman, Senator Thruston Morton of Kentucky, and listened to more college professors than most of them had heard since their college days. The only professional touch had come from Governor William Stratton, who dined with them on Saturday night at the Percy residence.
The scuttlebutt emanating from the occasion was that in the interest of his candidacy for the vice-presidency in 1960, Governor Stratton might seek to break the jinx on a third term for Governor. It had been expected that he would face Senator Paul Douglas in 1960, whom the Democrats expected to renominate and re-elect as Senator. The motives attributed to Governor Stratton were his desire to remain in command of the large Illinois delegation to the national convention and his realization that Senator Douglas would be hard to beat.
Illinois Democrats referred to their potential candidates for governor as "worthy" rather than "formidable", which in politics meant a big difference. Democrats also were eyeing Mr. Percy's activities with the suspicion that he might like to replace Senator Douglas. The latter had defeated two extreme right-wing Republicans, and the vigorous young Mr. Percy would be an Eisenhower Republican whose internationalist and domestic views, while less liberal than his own, would to some degree blur the issues.
Senator Morton had described the Highland Park meeting as preliminary. The committee target date for reporting to the President and the party was September 1. Senator Morton appeared encouraged by the fact that it represented all factions in the party and had gotten underway with energy and good spirits. The chairman's own problems would begin with the report. He would be largely responsible for finding ways and means of handling it. It was now assumed that the Republican candidate for the presidency would be either Vice-President Nixon or Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York. The new credo had to be cleared with both, as well as with the President. Republicans in Congress would want to be consulted and they represented all types of opinion. It would be helpful if they were represented on the committee by their own leaders, Senator Everett Dirksen, the Minority Leader in the Senate, and Representative Charles Halleck of Indiana, the Minority Leader in the House.
One of the major differences between the Republican group and the Democratic advisory council with which it was being compared, especially now that it had so notably embraced the egghead influence, was that House Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson had refused to join the Democratic group and their distaste for its free advice in party matters was extreme.
A letter writer from Southern Pines writes regarding a report by the Associated Press on April 29 quoting State Representative C. Waylan Spruill of Bertie County as having said that the 1947 automobile mechanical inspection law had probably saved a few lives, but had killed about 100 politicians. He finds the statement to have laid it on the line, that the political life of a politician was superior in value to the physical life of a human being. He believes that the Representative and other members of the General Assembly who agreed with him ought be impeached and that he should be given a one-way ticket out of the Legislature.
A letter writer from Gaffney, S.C., comments on the April 28 editorial, "Fortune Picks a Man at Poplarville", finding that he was witnessing another chapter in the NAACP-sponsored hate campaign against the South and Southerners. After rereading the editorial, his initial impression had continued. He says that what the editors had indicated in the editorial was essentially true but wonders why they had implied that such things could not happen outside the South, as there had been racial clashes in many states outside the region, with the worst in the country's history having occurred in Chicago, and yet those had not been given the "exclusively Northern" label. He wonders why racial tensions were played up in the South but hushed up in other parts of the country. He finds mob law as displayed in the Mississippi incident to have been shameful, almost as shameful as the rape of which the abducted man had been accused. But, he continues, the fact that it had happened in the South did not mean that it could not also happen in New York or Detroit. "The NAACP, with the willing help of its tool, the U.S. Supreme Court, has done just as much to create racial hatred in the northern states as it has in the South." He suggests that the next time there were clashes between black and white teenagers in Buffalo or Philadelphia, or rocks thrown through windows of a black dwelling in Vermont, an editorial about it should be written and such things stated as not capable of occurrence outside the Northern states.
The editors reply that the editorial had not implied anything of the sort and indicates that they had commented recently on racial hatred and violence in the North, the South and in England. It suggests that the reader had missed its discussion of the very problem in an editorial titled "Seeds of Violence Grow Everywhere".
A letter writer from Clinton, S.C., indicates that the President's and former Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey's "twaddle" to American businessmen on how to stop Communism had won the "celluloid frying pan for asininity." The American businessman would not invest anything where he could not get something for the investment. "Profit. The bitch goddess of all businessmen. American businessmen care nothing about the condition of the people of underdeveloped countries. American businessmen are not concerned about the condition of the have-nots in the United States. And I am sure they are not concerned about the condition of people elsewhere."
A letter writer from Salisbury indicates that there was a piece of advice which he had given to thousands of young people who had gone to school when he taught, that being: "Anyone who asks you to do a wrong thing is not your friend. He may swear by all that is holy that he is your friend but that does not make it true." He finds that trying to get control of others seemed to be a game which many moderns loved to play. "All of us know that it is not right for one person to control another person. Of course, in a democracy we elect our rulers and that is permissible, but such rulers should have the good of those they represent at heart more than they do themselves. Unselfish rulers will never become tyrants."
Speaking of selfish tyrants, we should issue a legal caveat to Jack Sprat, or whatever his name is, the former reality tv guy in some series of which we have never previously heard, let alone never having seen, whose house burned down last year in the widespread Los Angeles fires, along with the houses of thousands of people, the known and unknown, the wealthy and unwealthy alike, prompting him, unlike most of those fire victims, to demagogue the issue and attempt to use it against the incumbent Mayor and the City Council member, both Democrats, to run in the mayoral race against the two officials as a person lacking any experience in governance of anything, a la Trump, and who came in third in the primary behind them, now charging, in no uncertain terms, that the election was rigged against him by the two "communists" against whom he ran.
We warn him because his video rant which he released yesterday in that regard comes very close to, if not crosses the line into criminal misconduct, that of attempted extortion, under longstanding California statutory and case law. We offer the unsolicited, free advice to the inexperienced young man for his own good, so that he might consider withdrawing his corrupt video, full of baseless, unsupported claims and obvious slander for which he could also be held liable civilly by the two candidates, so that he does not wind up traveling the same criminal and civil paths into which his unschooled mentor in Washington has apparently tragically led him, as we would hate to see him sent to jail for up to a year or even, if charged as a felony, 16 months, two or three years in the pen, for his very public rant, which seems to have gathered a lot of mileage in the media, especially among the right-wing nuts who seem to be drawn to that type of vitriolic, divisive rhetoric which they seem to see as speaking "truth to power" rather than being in fact the old, old Machiavellian tactic of using fiery flourishes to mask false claims and gin up heated enthusiasm in the process from those given to being on the edge of their seats whenever theatrical performance intrudes on reality with some apparent probity based on the ostensible confidence of the speaker engaged in the old, old confidence game of keeping the audience transfixed while the trickery transpires behind the arras, as the nut moves stealthily beneath the shells.
He needs to apologize publicly, eat his humble pie and denounce his ill-conceived video, and admit the hollowness of his threatened release of some undefined audio of one of the two candidates which "will force that candidate to resign" when revealed, as it is plainly a threat of the type criminalized by Penal Code Section 519 and, though only becoming complete as a crime when the person to whom the threat is directed delivers some "consideration" to the person making the threat, can be charged as an attempted extortion notwithstanding the inchoate nature of the act, under Section 524, provided there is specific criminal intent and a "direct ineffectual act done toward its commission", both of which appear to be the case in the video Jack Sprat released yesterday, in which there appears no doubt of his intent to release some damning information contained on the tape he claims to possess which will have the effect of causing one of the candidates for mayor to resign, thus providing the consideration or "thing of value" to him of further promoting his candidacy for public office at least in the future or even, perhaps, enabling him to slip back into the race for the general mayoral election in November by virtue of the disqualification of one of the top two vote-getters, even though that appears to be in the realm of pure fantasy at this point. The "consideration" contemplated by the statute and the cases does not necessarily have to be something which could be actually achievable, especially in the attempted crime, as the criminal mind bent on such a crime will often manufacture such wishful thinking to achieve the ends of expediency, as Jack Sprat appears of the bent of mind to do in his video, again emulating the man in Washington he seems to admire, though not appearing to endorse him.
It's just some friendly advice, Jack, lest you wind up for a few months in an orange jumpsuit, a reality show in which you probably do not wish to act, whether as a tough jerk, as in the video released yesterday, or the nice-guy victim persona you projected in several media interviews during the mayoral race. You seem like a nice enough guy, who has fallen down the rabbit hole into Magaville since the fire which destroyed your home and that of your mother last year, for which we have genuine empathy and do not at all mock. Perhaps, redirect your adverse experience and resulting outrage for something you could not control into more productive thinking and crystallize a different approach which truly embodies the Christian values you claim to hold, rather than striking out disingenuously and blindly at public officials who had nothing whatsoever to do with that fire, either its origin or its destructiveness. Fires have occurred before in and around Los Angeles, spanning back to the large fire of 1958 in Malibu and Corral Canyons, and 20 years before that in the same area. You live, unfortunately, in a zone naturally prone to both wildfires and earthquakes and when fires get started, because of the terrain full of uncontrollable underbrush and the favored style of construction throughout California, generally eschewing masonry structures precisely because of the earthquake risk, other fire-resistant materials because of the prohibitive expense for non-millionaires, the destruction can become rampant very quickly.
We strongly recommend moving somewhere else if you don't like it, and meanwhile directing your political energy toward such long-range, visionary remedial, if politically less advantageous vis-à-vis the disputatious booby, measures as fighting the current policies of the Trump Administration which favor big oil and "drill-baby-drill" in Long Beach and other California venues, offshore and onshore alike, while trying to disfavor existing alternative energy resources such as wind and solar, those outmoded billionaire-buddy oily industries, as we know, continuing to increase climate change, feeding both the hurricanoes plaguing the Eastern Seaboard, the tornadoes and flooding affecting the Midwest and Southwest, and the increasing intensity of the wildfires impacting the Pacific Coast for the parched land deriving from hotter mean temperatures occurring each dry season. In short, use your rants against real causes of the fires, not those manufactured in your mind for political expediency from nuts living in Magaville, U.S.A., who wish to hold onto their gasaholic trucks and remain somewhere over the rainbow, stuck in the 1930's or 1950's or some other time than the present, some earlier time which they fancy in their imaginations and incomplete understanding of the full context of those times, replete with many treacherous things, naturally occurring, such as conquered diseases once plaguing mankind, as well as manmade, such as the gangsterism and bootlegging of the Twenties and Thirties and the two world wars, was somehow significantly better than the times presently extant.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.