August 6, 2009 
64 Comments
This is who we are rooting for in the Spokane City Council primary races. Please take a moment to read about and support these excellent candidates.
District 1: Amber Waldref
District 2: Jon Snyder
District 3: John Waite
[...] to those who answer to special interests.” (From a comment by “Voice of Reason” here. Scroll down to comment [...]
[...] There I was, sitting on the sunny steps of the Spokane Convention Center, listening as my friend John Waite (who lost in the primary race for City Council against Nancy McLaughlin last year) got booed for [...]
About the Author
The Spokanite© 2012 The Spovangelist. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
I didn’t vote for John Waite either, as he is not in my district. I DID, however, vote for Jon Snyder.
You stated who you voted for, but who is going to win and in what order (1,2,3)?
Chairman of Spotucky -
Your point about having a bureaucrat vs. a genuine person if action is really quite salient. It is the professional politicians and bureaucrats who have driven this country into the ground. It’s important to begin at the city level and clean this mess up, and people who really give a damn, like Waite, Snyder and Waldref are the kind of people we need.
We need to give government back to the people, and not to those who answer to special interests. The cancer in our system will never go away until we do that.
That’s why I’m The Chairman.
Incidentally I voted for myself.
Voice of Reason said,
“We need to give government back to the people, and not to those who answer to special interests. The cancer in our system will never go away until we do that.”
Well, you get to be the foil, VoR. You have just recited another verse in the catechism of the Left — one trotted out in virtually every political discussion.
As I mentioned a few posts back in this thread, a “catechism” is list of canned answers to frequently-asked questions or responses to frequently-raised points which adherents to some dogmatic ideology are taught to recite by rote, and whose coherence or validity they have never questioned.
Your distinction between “the people” and “special interests” is an ubiquitous one. It reflects one of the foundational planks in the Left’s ideology — indeed, its central principle. It is also the most absurd.
The underlying assumption is that there is some kind of abstract (even mystical) collective entity, “the people,” which occupies a higher moral plane than individuals and whose goals and interests therefore override and transcend those of mere individuals. But the noble and sacred goals of this superior being are constantly thwarted by selfish, morally stunted, impious reprobates indifferent or hostile to this “Greater Good” and driven only by their own narrow, material and corporeal interests.
This social ontology is ancient, of course. It derives from *homo sapiens*’ tribal heritage (a heritage we share with all primates), which held the tribe to be the immortal and sovereign entity, the enduring reality, the wise and imperious Mother and Protector of all, and mortal individuals to be merely its temporary vassals and servants. Those born within the embrace of this exalted entity, who adhered to its ways and submitted to its imperatives were “the people;” all other humans were “barbarians,” or “enemies,” and later, once montheistic religions had adopted this ontology, “heathens.”
And that ontology is nonsense, from start to finish. There is no abstract, transcendent entity “the people;” there are only individuals. There are no transcendental goals and interests which override the interests and goals of individuals; the goals and interests of individuals are the only goals and interests there are.
Every tribe has some version of a priesthood — a witch doctor, a priestly class, a Council of Elders or Sages — who profess to have a channel to the Divine, the Eternal, and can therefore speak for The People, the tribe, for God. In modern societies politicians and ideologues play this role. They also claim to know what is in the interests of The People, what The People desires, and what is for the Greater Good. But of course, since there is no such transcendental entity or interests, they will inevitably be speaking only for the “special interests” of some particular individual or individuals, those being the only interests there are.
All interests are “special interests,” special to the persons interested in them. The interests of land developers, investors in corporations, persons in business, “the rich” are all indeed “special interests.” So are the interests of “greenies,” wage laborers, consumers, and welfare recipients. (The most dangerous “special interest” of all is the intense interest some persons have in obtaining sufficient power over others to force them to serve their own idiosyncratic “special interests”).
What is needed in a social setting is a set of rules which allow everyone to satisfy his or her own “special” interests, whatever they may be, insofar as he or she is able to do so without inflicting harms or losses on others in the process. An approach based on a flawed ontology, on myth and superstition, which sanctifies the interests of some persons as universal and transcendental and dismisses those of others as “special” and parochial — merely the base desires of heathens and non-persons — cannot possibly lead to those rules. It can lead only to intensified hostility and perpetual conflict.
Contrarian – Forgive me that I don’t have time for long winded, pseudo-intellectual answers where I parse all the subtleties known to man. You may feel that my response is “canned” or cliché, but the reason something becomes a cliché is because of the truth held within.
I wish I had the time to go into more detail, but this is only a blog with a few reasonably intelligent people involved and I can’t stay here and bang my head up against a wall of your dogma. I have far, far better things to do.
I wish you all the best and good luck in the elections folks!
Gee Voice of Reason what is it with you? When someone has a good argument, you care not to address, you just either call him or her names or you state you don’t have time. Why can’t we be blessed with this supposed wisdom you imply exist between your mastoid regions? I’m still waiting for an answer from you why a publisher would make up an ad that didn’t have a Paid for by Statement
You stated:
“As a graphic artist at a newspaper, I can assure you that many candidates forget their “Paid For” statements at the bottom of their ads. I’m constantly putting it on the ads for them.”
It is a reasonable question to ask why a publisher and editor in chief wouldn’t place the all-important statement in ads in his own publication! As you state so succinctly, “In fact, the publications that ran John’s ads this way bear some responsibility, as do the salespeople who handled the account.” That of course would be Jon Synder Publisher of Out There Monthly.
You gave no response because there is no reason that is not damaging to Synder. It is much easier to ignore or silence as inquisitor than it is to face the fact that either Synder did not follow the basic instructions of the Public Disclosure Commission or as a Publisher, ignored the law.
Either way, there is no answer you had the heart or grey matter to handle.
Instead you take the big fat coward’s way out; insult and run away.
You remind me of Eric Cartman “Screw you guys, I’m going home.
You called me a ”Feeb” which might be true, we shall see. If it is true however, this “Feeb” just routed you in argument and outed you as a coward. Does that make you a “Dekafeeb”?
“Voice of Reason”
My prediction was was mostly right.
I said: District #2: Jon Synder for the win and Mike Allen second. Eugster for third.
Well I blew it on Eugster but get this, Kristina Sabestinas could overtake Allen in the next two days and I would be really wrong…It is very close and GOP folks do better after the election than DNC.
I said:
District #3: Nancy McLaughlin for the win by a wide lead; Karen Kearny comes in at a distant second.
Waite and Lampert duke it out for third.
Lampert was not a factor but Waite was indeed third.
Waite has very little chance to beat Kearney and she should distance her lead on Wed and never look back.
McLaughlin is going to win the race in Nov anyway, by a big margin.
No one is perfect…
VOReason, Contrarian has done a near perfect job of defining precisely the terms so important to any biological, scientific, political, etc discussion. If the issues, terms, etc cannot be defined, there’s no point in continuing because each particpant will be speaking in on-specific terms when specificity is exactly what’s needed. Makes for “squishy” talk with no firm conclusions….and it’s stiffling when trying to communicate.
I don’t know anyone on this bog. I do know a quality, trained mind when I see one though. Contrarian isn’t just some overblown windbag. He’s very exact when he dissects an issue. Most in politics/science/philosophy aren’t. “Pseudo-intellectual” is what people frequently charge when they’re out of bullets in a discussion……or just too lazy or disinclined to continue.
“Cliches” might have some truth in them but that’s not why they’re called “cliche”. A better, more apt idea might be this: it’s what most people say so frequently, the verbage is stale without lots of thought required. ie …it’s just a canned statement heard so often, it’s “cliche”…..basically adds nothing.
Well, when I began the comment section on Spov’s blog, it went far afield when what was supposed to be a discussion of the candiates and each’s potential for leadship in growth. Well done everyone. Some commentors fell by the wayside and did that early. SOme had some thoughts suitable for the “peanut gallery”. I hope there’s some growth in the candidates who prevail come Novermber. It’s the best we can hope for. In the world, there’s no sitting still or stasis,…it’s the rule these days that a city grows or gradually dies off. Best wishes.
Daisy
Without Elected officials with diligence and integrity it is only a matter of time before we will be into another River Park Square (which BTW we will be paying just under 3 million per year until 2027. In 2027 we will have NOTHING TO SHOW FOR the money spent. Not a square inch of ground, not a retail outlet or even a garage.)
Without citizens willing to hold elected officials accountable, it is only a matter of time before we elect another majority on city council or on the county commissioners that will sell us out in order to appease the powerful. Power tends to corrupt unchecked power corrupts absolutely.
I could not have been more disappointed in some of the responses. I presented valid, verifiable, concerns about three candidates. Only one person agreed with my concerns. Everyone else opted to ignore or dismiss the evidence and attack me.
Until Spokane voters are willing to look at the facts and ignore candidate charisma or familiarity, we are doomed to repeat the same pattern of rule by the powerful at the expense of the many.
Research, reason then vote as if your children’s future depends on it; it does.
SpoWind
Mr. SpoWind. It looks like your predictions were fairly accurate and left you with 2 candidates you would not want in the 2nd district. As you may know by now, Mike Allen is nearly a week late in filing his C-4 (report detailing expenses and contributions for 9/1-10/12) with the PDC. Any comments?
Sure. Any person who can’t handle the simple rules of the PDC can not hanlde the complex rules of the RCW. He is not fit for public office; at least not yet.
A great deal of other candidates got it right; why not Mike Allen?
The rule applies across the board in my book.