Monday, August 31, 2009
As Biggest Banks Repay Bailout Money, the U.S. Sees a Profit - NYTimes.com
It appears that we are peeking at a silver lining. Taxpayer money is being paid back, with interest.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Lynching victim Till’s casket to go to Smithsonian | Detroit Free Press
Lest We Forget
Selective amnesia is not an option.
We must remember the Holocaust, 911, slavery, and yes, this. We do so so as to never allow its repetition.
God Bless America
Selective amnesia is not an option.
We must remember the Holocaust, 911, slavery, and yes, this. We do so so as to never allow its repetition.
God Bless America
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Rep. Jenkins: GOP looking for 'great white hope'
Isn"t it funng that no matter how much things change, they actually remain the same?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Eastpointe's Parental Responsibility Law Should Be Emulated
Eastpointe parental ordinance must not lead to lawsuits, racial profiling
By Gregory A. Murray
The city of Eastpointe should be applauded for its efforts to reign in inappropriate and anti-social juvenile behavior through its recently adopted parental responsibility ordinance, and I encourage other municipalities such as Mount Clemens, Chesterfield Township, Clinton Township and others to do likewise.
While it will be important to ensure the ordinance is not selectively enforced or adjudicated, the focus on parental
A engagement with youth around issues of destructive behavior is spot on. The ordinance cannot force a parent to parent differently, but it does provide a great incentive for parents to sit down with and establish a set of expectations for their children that include a discussion of specific consequences associated with engaging in unruly or illegal behavior.
Some elements of the ordinance have been in place for quite some time now, such as the city’s curfew. Another aspect of the ordinance involves recognition of a parent’s responsibility to ensure supervision of their children in the parent’s absence. And the presence of drugs, illegal weapons or stolen property in the home has always been a recipe for trouble. The ordinance further provides that violating any and all of the above could warrant a judge ordering a parent to mandatory parenting classes and a hefty $500 fine.
The Eastpointe Police Department, through their on-the-street enforcement of the ordinance will make or break this opportunity to dramatically curtail juvenile rowdiness and lawlessness. All eyes will be on the police department to see if it can be trusted to implement this new tool in a manner which does not lead to lawsuits, claims of racial profiling, or political backlashes to the elected official who unanimously voted to take a courageous stand against what appears to be escalating criminal behavior.
Ideally, the courts should take a nononsense attitude regarding repeat offenders of this ordinance, but that is easy to say, given the current budgetary strain on municipal law enforcement agencies, attendant issues such as lack of jail space and a drop in family income. Yet, if ordinance offenders get the idea that the ordinance is toothless, it’s hard to imagine it having the desired and potential effect of reducing crime.
It is my hope that churches and nonprofit community groups will work with the city of Eastpointe and its police department through a coordinated community education campaign to properly engage and educate residents so that there is a clear and common understanding of what this ordinance means for parents, children and the community at large.
My firm belief is that this ordinance was aimed at destructive and criminal activity, not an ethnic group. Everyone should support uniformly enforced laws which positively impact the quality of life in our various communities. Parents have a special responsibility and opportunity to dramatically affect the social well-being of their children as well as their community. Such a partnership is a win-win for everyone.
It is not everyone else’s job to raise our children. Teachers are supposed to teach, not parent, our children. Society begins at home, and the first true lessons are learned there, or at least they should be. These days, everyone is stressed, dayto-day life is a lot more complicated, and there is never enough time in a day; but those are just facts of life, not excuses to pawn our children off on whomever we can. The police and the courts respond to crime. This ordinance confirms that parents can prevent crime. These children did not ask to be here. From inception to birth to death, we must put aside our own interests for that of our children. We should not be asking government to raise them for us. It is our job to decrease the need for government to punish them.
Gregory Murray is a community activist living in Clinton Township.
Published on the editorial page of the Macomb Daily on Tuesday, August 25, 2009.
The sub-headline is not mine and does not accurately reflect the content or substance of the column---Greg Murray
By Gregory A. Murray
The city of Eastpointe should be applauded for its efforts to reign in inappropriate and anti-social juvenile behavior through its recently adopted parental responsibility ordinance, and I encourage other municipalities such as Mount Clemens, Chesterfield Township, Clinton Township and others to do likewise.
While it will be important to ensure the ordinance is not selectively enforced or adjudicated, the focus on parental
A engagement with youth around issues of destructive behavior is spot on. The ordinance cannot force a parent to parent differently, but it does provide a great incentive for parents to sit down with and establish a set of expectations for their children that include a discussion of specific consequences associated with engaging in unruly or illegal behavior.
Some elements of the ordinance have been in place for quite some time now, such as the city’s curfew. Another aspect of the ordinance involves recognition of a parent’s responsibility to ensure supervision of their children in the parent’s absence. And the presence of drugs, illegal weapons or stolen property in the home has always been a recipe for trouble. The ordinance further provides that violating any and all of the above could warrant a judge ordering a parent to mandatory parenting classes and a hefty $500 fine.
The Eastpointe Police Department, through their on-the-street enforcement of the ordinance will make or break this opportunity to dramatically curtail juvenile rowdiness and lawlessness. All eyes will be on the police department to see if it can be trusted to implement this new tool in a manner which does not lead to lawsuits, claims of racial profiling, or political backlashes to the elected official who unanimously voted to take a courageous stand against what appears to be escalating criminal behavior.
Ideally, the courts should take a nononsense attitude regarding repeat offenders of this ordinance, but that is easy to say, given the current budgetary strain on municipal law enforcement agencies, attendant issues such as lack of jail space and a drop in family income. Yet, if ordinance offenders get the idea that the ordinance is toothless, it’s hard to imagine it having the desired and potential effect of reducing crime.
It is my hope that churches and nonprofit community groups will work with the city of Eastpointe and its police department through a coordinated community education campaign to properly engage and educate residents so that there is a clear and common understanding of what this ordinance means for parents, children and the community at large.
My firm belief is that this ordinance was aimed at destructive and criminal activity, not an ethnic group. Everyone should support uniformly enforced laws which positively impact the quality of life in our various communities. Parents have a special responsibility and opportunity to dramatically affect the social well-being of their children as well as their community. Such a partnership is a win-win for everyone.
It is not everyone else’s job to raise our children. Teachers are supposed to teach, not parent, our children. Society begins at home, and the first true lessons are learned there, or at least they should be. These days, everyone is stressed, dayto-day life is a lot more complicated, and there is never enough time in a day; but those are just facts of life, not excuses to pawn our children off on whomever we can. The police and the courts respond to crime. This ordinance confirms that parents can prevent crime. These children did not ask to be here. From inception to birth to death, we must put aside our own interests for that of our children. We should not be asking government to raise them for us. It is our job to decrease the need for government to punish them.
Gregory Murray is a community activist living in Clinton Township.
Published on the editorial page of the Macomb Daily on Tuesday, August 25, 2009.
The sub-headline is not mine and does not accurately reflect the content or substance of the column---Greg Murray
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Commentary: Slavery needs more than an apology - CNN.com
Commentary: Slavery needs more than an apology - CNN.com
This commentary is written by a descendant of a family that profitted from the slave trade. Her family, arguably one of the largest Northern slave traders, conducted their business from....Rhode Island, which, when I last checked, was not in the south.
This commentary is written by a descendant of a family that profitted from the slave trade. Her family, arguably one of the largest Northern slave traders, conducted their business from....Rhode Island, which, when I last checked, was not in the south.
Parents could pay for their kids' crimes in Eastpointe | detnews.com | The Detroit News
This is a great idea and should be expanded throughout Macomb County and Wayne County. The ordinance gives parents several opportunities to address their children's behavior.
There are some un-attended issues relative to enforcement, though, and these issues should be thoroughly explored so that parents of children who are out of control despite their parents' demonstrated efforts to rein them in will not be unduly sanctioned.
We all know of parents who give parenting their best shot, just to have their children rebel against all authority.
Is it fair to sanction those genuinely good parents?
What do you think?
There are some un-attended issues relative to enforcement, though, and these issues should be thoroughly explored so that parents of children who are out of control despite their parents' demonstrated efforts to rein them in will not be unduly sanctioned.
We all know of parents who give parenting their best shot, just to have their children rebel against all authority.
Is it fair to sanction those genuinely good parents?
What do you think?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Will new health bill cover illegal immigrants?
CNN Truth Squad: Will new health bill cover illegal immigrants?
No, it won't....in fact, it specifically bars illegal immigrants. Please click on the link.
No, it won't....in fact, it specifically bars illegal immigrants. Please click on the link.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Truth About the Health Care
FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.
Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:
Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?
A: No.
Q: Then what's all the fuss about?
A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.
Q: Is anything required?
Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.
"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini — then let me go."
Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?
A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions — decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?
A: It already is.
The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.
Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?
A: A living will — also called an advance directive — spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.
A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.
There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.
Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.
Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?
A: It very well could.
Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.
"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."
The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.
"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."
Q: So why are some people upset?
Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.
The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.
"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the group. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person — perhaps unwittingly — to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."
The White House says it is countering false claims with a "reality check" page on its Web site, http://www.whitehouse.gov.
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.
Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:
Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?
A: No.
Q: Then what's all the fuss about?
A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.
Q: Is anything required?
Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.
"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini — then let me go."
Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?
A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions — decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?
A: It already is.
The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.
Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?
A: A living will — also called an advance directive — spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.
A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.
There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.
Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.
Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?
A: It very well could.
Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.
"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."
The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.
"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."
Q: So why are some people upset?
Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.
The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.
"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the group. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person — perhaps unwittingly — to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."
The White House says it is countering false claims with a "reality check" page on its Web site, http://www.whitehouse.gov.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
President Obam's Speech on HealthReform
Please check on the link in the caption to read the entire address, which dispels the vicious rumors about how elderly people will be euthanized, that you can't keep your current healthcare plan, that you will be forced to switch to government health care, etc.
Friday, August 7, 2009
LEAVEY CASE DEMANDS JUSTICE
LEAVEY A VICTIM OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION
Former interim City of Detroit Corporate Counsel Kathleen Leavey did more than catch a bad break when, during a conference call earlier this year, she shared a viewpoint regarding how some perceive Detroit’s 36th District Court. Her demanded resignation and return to her previous civil servant position within Detroit’s law department arguably was nothing short of reverse discrimination against a white employee for exercising her First Amendment rights.
Leavey, during the conference call, indicated that some view 36th District Court as a “ghetto court”. Her use of the term has been attacked as “racist” by 36th District Court Chief Judge Marilyn Atkins, who was on the conference call. Atkins fired off a letter to Leavey in mid-January, and shortly afterward, Detroit officials asked her to resign her appointed position as the city’s top legal officer. For the record, all appointed persons serve at the pleasure of the appointer and may be “un-appointed” without cause. But this is where the Leavey situation goes bad.
Leavey, who filed a lawsuit against the city of Detroit on April 7th alleging discrimination, retaliatory defamation and First Amendment retaliation, maintains that she was forced to resign, revert back to civil servant status and take a 30 percent pay cut because she made a statement reflecting the sentiment of others that city officials then viewed as racist. Leavey is asking for damages, asserting that she is a victim of reverse discrimination. I agree with her.
Atkins and others have alleged that, given that the majority of 36th District Court judges are black, and a black president was on the verge of taking office, Leavey’s choice of words were insulting, inappropriate, and racist. Racist? I don’t think so.
When a certain Mount Clemens city official used the term “boatnxxxxx” in a downtown bar, that was racist. When a certain Armada official called a white female “nxxxxx”, that was racist. When a black Mount Clemens School District teacher engaged in a rant against white people, that was racist (I advocated for her termination, but was over-ruled by district administrators and fellow school board members). When Kathleen Leavey used the term to describe what others were categorizing as the quality of services received at 36th District Court, well, that was freedom of speech, plain and simple.
This issue brings to mind the ridiculous contention that blacks can use the word “nxxxxx” with reckless abandon and somehow that’s ok, even endearing. But when whites use the term, it takes on a much more offensive and sinister meaning. The term is offensive, no matter who uses it, and no one, black or white, should use the term without consequence. But in this instance, if Leavey had been black and actually directly used the word “ghetto” to describe her personal assessment of the court, it is highly likely nothing like forced resignation would have happened to her.
According to informed sources, Leavey’s contract specified that she was an at-will employee, serving at the pleasure of the mayor. Further, it indicated that she could be replaced “without cause:. If Leavey had been “un-appointed” and no reason given, the city perhaps would have no legal vulnerability. Once a “reason” (her statement) was attached to it, it became a potential “causative” or litigatible issue.
Can everyone please say “ghetto fabulous?”
Can I speak for all blacks? No. But I have been black for 55 years and I do know that blacks use the term “ghetto” to describe the quality, or lack of quality, of a thing. In the Leavey case, the term was not being used as a racial identifier, but rather being used as an adjective to describe a perceived lack of professionalism on the part of court employees when providing customer services. And she was talking about other people’s viewpoint, not her personal one. There is a huge difference, and, sadly, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow now will have to define what that is.
Former interim City of Detroit Corporate Counsel Kathleen Leavey did more than catch a bad break when, during a conference call earlier this year, she shared a viewpoint regarding how some perceive Detroit’s 36th District Court. Her demanded resignation and return to her previous civil servant position within Detroit’s law department arguably was nothing short of reverse discrimination against a white employee for exercising her First Amendment rights.
Leavey, during the conference call, indicated that some view 36th District Court as a “ghetto court”. Her use of the term has been attacked as “racist” by 36th District Court Chief Judge Marilyn Atkins, who was on the conference call. Atkins fired off a letter to Leavey in mid-January, and shortly afterward, Detroit officials asked her to resign her appointed position as the city’s top legal officer. For the record, all appointed persons serve at the pleasure of the appointer and may be “un-appointed” without cause. But this is where the Leavey situation goes bad.
Leavey, who filed a lawsuit against the city of Detroit on April 7th alleging discrimination, retaliatory defamation and First Amendment retaliation, maintains that she was forced to resign, revert back to civil servant status and take a 30 percent pay cut because she made a statement reflecting the sentiment of others that city officials then viewed as racist. Leavey is asking for damages, asserting that she is a victim of reverse discrimination. I agree with her.
Atkins and others have alleged that, given that the majority of 36th District Court judges are black, and a black president was on the verge of taking office, Leavey’s choice of words were insulting, inappropriate, and racist. Racist? I don’t think so.
When a certain Mount Clemens city official used the term “boatnxxxxx” in a downtown bar, that was racist. When a certain Armada official called a white female “nxxxxx”, that was racist. When a black Mount Clemens School District teacher engaged in a rant against white people, that was racist (I advocated for her termination, but was over-ruled by district administrators and fellow school board members). When Kathleen Leavey used the term to describe what others were categorizing as the quality of services received at 36th District Court, well, that was freedom of speech, plain and simple.
This issue brings to mind the ridiculous contention that blacks can use the word “nxxxxx” with reckless abandon and somehow that’s ok, even endearing. But when whites use the term, it takes on a much more offensive and sinister meaning. The term is offensive, no matter who uses it, and no one, black or white, should use the term without consequence. But in this instance, if Leavey had been black and actually directly used the word “ghetto” to describe her personal assessment of the court, it is highly likely nothing like forced resignation would have happened to her.
According to informed sources, Leavey’s contract specified that she was an at-will employee, serving at the pleasure of the mayor. Further, it indicated that she could be replaced “without cause:. If Leavey had been “un-appointed” and no reason given, the city perhaps would have no legal vulnerability. Once a “reason” (her statement) was attached to it, it became a potential “causative” or litigatible issue.
Can everyone please say “ghetto fabulous?”
Can I speak for all blacks? No. But I have been black for 55 years and I do know that blacks use the term “ghetto” to describe the quality, or lack of quality, of a thing. In the Leavey case, the term was not being used as a racial identifier, but rather being used as an adjective to describe a perceived lack of professionalism on the part of court employees when providing customer services. And she was talking about other people’s viewpoint, not her personal one. There is a huge difference, and, sadly, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow now will have to define what that is.
Blogs to Follow
I recommend fellow bloggers read "On the Right" by Brian Pannebecker and "From the Left" by Bruce Fealk. Between the three of us, you will receive a blend of perspectives that may help you navigate through the complicated isssues we face as citizens of this great country.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Matt on the Mat?
Mount Clemens City Commissioner Matt Dreger may be on the ropes.
His advocacy for the restricted breed-only pit bull ordinance passed by the Mount Clemens Commission on August 3rd may come back to bite him.
The word on the street is that opponents of the ordinance may ban together to encourage other voters to look elsewhere for leadership.
Dreger is the newest member of Ed Bruley's darling democrats.
Stay Tuned
His advocacy for the restricted breed-only pit bull ordinance passed by the Mount Clemens Commission on August 3rd may come back to bite him.
The word on the street is that opponents of the ordinance may ban together to encourage other voters to look elsewhere for leadership.
Dreger is the newest member of Ed Bruley's darling democrats.
Stay Tuned
Barb Dempey's Clowing Around
While the elections In Macomb County on August 4th reveal that Macomb County is hesitant to change the status quo, the results give hope that there may be a change on the horizon in select municipalities.
Mount Clemens Mayor Barb "Bring In the Clowns" Dempsey may have a real fight on her hands. Some say she is a broken link to the good old boys network that has ruled Mount Clemens for decades. Others say her penchant for ignoring segments of the community will now come back to haunt her.
Two issues come to mind. Mayor Dempsey was astonishingly passive when the Michigan Department of Corrections snuck three parolee boarding houses into the River Acres community. That was compounded by her limited support and commitment to actually help the Cairns Community Center.
Neither issue in itself was enough to rile the city's black communities, but now that voters have a fresh option in the candidacy of Steve Ferdig, who does not carry the same baggage as that of Dempsey.
Mount Clemens Mayor Barb "Bring In the Clowns" Dempsey may have a real fight on her hands. Some say she is a broken link to the good old boys network that has ruled Mount Clemens for decades. Others say her penchant for ignoring segments of the community will now come back to haunt her.
Two issues come to mind. Mayor Dempsey was astonishingly passive when the Michigan Department of Corrections snuck three parolee boarding houses into the River Acres community. That was compounded by her limited support and commitment to actually help the Cairns Community Center.
Neither issue in itself was enough to rile the city's black communities, but now that voters have a fresh option in the candidacy of Steve Ferdig, who does not carry the same baggage as that of Dempsey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)