Our former mayor
Kasia September 4th, 2008
Ooh, does that modifier look good!!!
For anyone who has happened to miss it, Detroit’s national embarrassment seems to be concluding. Kwame Kilpatrick has signed plea deals that should wrap up the legal circus that has been running for the past several months.
I’m more than a little biased. I’ve thought he should get out since sometime in his first term, when the now-legendary red Navigator story broke, and his re-election was one of the main reasons I finally said “Enough is enough” and moved out to the suburbs. I figured if the citizens of Detroit were that eager to have their pockets picked by someone who’s supposed to be in office to serve them, then I wasn’t going to stick around and continue to fund it. (Detroit is one of the few municipalities in Michigan that has an income tax; and while I still have to pay about 1.5% of my income to them for the privilege of working within the city limits, at least it’s not the 3% it was when I lived AND worked in the city.)
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t hate the man. I just think he’s got a sense of entitlement the size of Alaska and a sense of honor and decency the size of, oh, Hamtramck. (For you non-Detroiters, Hamtramck is a 2.1 square mile city that is completely surrounded by Detroit and has great Polish food. That last bit isn’t really relevant, but I happen to love Polish food, so you got it anyway.)
By the way, that link above may cover a fair bit of ground, but it cannot possibly do justice to the absolute freakin’ soap opera that Detroiters have been living for the better part of a year. Perhaps TBS will consent to do one of her inimitable comprehensive summaries of what’s happened?
In any event, I can only breathe a huge sigh of relief and thank the good Lord that the soap opera seems to be winding down at last (though there are no guarantees of that). But I’m not going to rest easy until I see who gets elected to replace him. Considering that the city has an adult rate of functional illiteracy of oh, around 50%, I’m not overly optimistic.
Good riddens Kilpatrick!
Did you see Sarah Palin last night? She ROCKS!!!!
When is the wedding?
Haha.
It’s not over, sweetie. I guarantee it. There’s still the 2 murders being investigated. There’s still the Synagro investigation. And I guarantee when they move the desk in his office, they will find a sizeable rat’s nest containing other choice items, as yet unknown.
I don’t think I could possibly write a concise enough plot summary of As the City Turns. I don’t think SHAKESPEARE could do it in less than 500 pages.
Besides, there’s now a dozen out of work lawyers who are looking for an income stream for themselves and the Kwamster. (He has a biiiig debt to pay.) I don’t need a libel lawsuit.
But I will say this. It wasn’t about the nookie.
TBS
And then there’s this:
“This city always gets up. I want to tell you, Detroit, that you done set me up for a comeback.”
Exerpt from his speech tonight.
(Source: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/NEW S01/309050001)
Aaaaaaaaand he’s STILL acting like he did nothing wrong!!! Unbelievable! Comeback??? HA! Detroit would be less than intelligent if they do re-elect him after his, what…5 years, that he’s not allowed to run…he should have manned up and stepped down AT LEAST after the second thing they caught him doing wrong…
Oh well, he’s out of office for now. Michigan can work on rebuilding the image he has completely destroyed over the last…6 years???
Just my $.02…I’m done with my rant.
The good (sic) lord (sic) (and incidentally by setting something up as a lord you are by necessity subjecting yourself as a slave) had nothing to do with it. It was the rule of law and the power of people.
Stacy,
Of course he’s still acting like he has done nothing wrong - his speech last night was in a small room surrounded by family and friends. I don’t think he knows or cares what most people in this city think about him. That would be too close to holding up a mirror to himself. So in his mind, he’s a giant. That’s why realy friends tell you the truth instead of what you want to hear. (Once again, the similarities between himself and Idi Amin are mind-boggling.)
The really sad part is: he may run again and win. There were a lot of people in the city who felt really bad for him and who thought he was being treated unfairly.
It’s incredibly irritating to work and pay taxes in a city where you are not able to cast a vote. I have been saying for months that it is taxation without representation.
TBS
and incidentally by setting something up as a lord you are by necessity subjecting yourself as a slave
Subjecting myself to a just authority (whether the Creator of the Universe or the rule of law) is a right and prudent thing to do. I have no problem with serving a just authority.
But you’re right insofar as I tend to give God the credit for anything good that happens, since He is the source of all good things; but in this case there was a more direct, proximate cause. So I’ll admit of your point there.
Joie - I did see Sarah Palin, and she’s likely to be the subject of my next post…
The wedding is January 24.
TBS - Fair point re: the possibility of a lawsuit. I retract my request.
Stacy - Of course he should have manned up and stepped down. And of course he didn’t. See my statements above about the relative proportions of his senses of entitlement vs. honor and decency.
I will say that he, like anyone else, is entitled under our system to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But as things stacked up and it became clear that he was not going to be able to effectively manage city business while still dealing with his legal issues (for example, going to Windsor without notifying the court, to name only one instance), I think he should have stepped down, or at the very least taken a leave of absence. It would have been the decent thing to do.
and incidentally by setting something up as a lord you are by necessity subjecting yourself as a slave
Questioning this sentence fragment here for a second, and I don’t know who the original quote came from, but…do we not call Jesus, our God, Lord? And, since we were NOT made so as to be slaves — I would think that this is an invalid statement.
Sorry, too much St. Augustine this week, perhaps….
Going back and reading the quote, I believe from Joseph W., let me revise, perhaps my response, and give some support for my answer and, perhaps his.
From dictionary.com, they have this as a definition of “lord”:
lord –noun
1. a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.
2. a person who exercises authority from property rights; an owner of land, houses, etc.
3. a person who is a leader or has great influence in a chosen profession: the great lords of banking.
4. a feudal superior; the proprietor of a manor.
5. a titled nobleman or peer; a person whose ordinary appellation contains by courtesy the title Lord or some higher title.
6. Lords, the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal comprising the House of Lords.
7. (initial capital letter) (in Britain) a. the title of certain high officials (used with some other title, name, or the like): Lord Mayor of London.
b. the formally polite title of a bishop: Lord Bishop of Durham.
c. the title informally substituted for marquis, earl, viscount, etc., as in the use of Lord Kitchener for Earl Kitchener.
8. (initial capital letter) the Supreme Being; God; Jehovah.
9. (initial capital letter) the Savior, Jesus Christ.
10. Astrology. a planet having dominating influence.
–interjection
11. (often initial capital letter) (used in exclamatory phrases to express surprise, elation, etc.): Lord, what a beautiful day!
—Idiom
12. lord it, to assume airs of importance and authority; behave arrogantly or dictatorially; domineer: to lord it over the menial workers.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: bef. 900; ME lord, loverd, OE hlāford, hlāfweard lit., loaf-keeper. See loaf1, ward]
Okay, so there are multiple usages for “lord” — not all being equal. In the first definition alone, they define it using “authority,” “control” and “power” and these are not interchangeable words themselves. If one is “lord” in a position of authority, then he is lord over subjects and has a responsibility toward those subjects. If one is “lord” in a situation where there is an abuse of control or power, then in that situation, the people under this “lord” could be considered to be “slaves,” but I think this comes more from the abuse-aspect of the relationship, rather than the lordship aspect of the relationship.
So, while it can be the case that a person who has a lord is a slave, it does not have to be the case that a person who has a lord is a slave.
“It was the rule of law and the power of people.”
I take it that particular poster isn’t a Michiganian or he’d know that “rule of law” is often suspended in Detroit and that “the power of the people” is usually used to put the same crooks back in office.
My father commented long ago that Detroiters had become blind to the fact that people would enter Detroit politics without two dimes to rub together but leave office as mulitimillionaires. Consistently. Blatantly.
BTW, Kasia, where did you live when you were a Detroiter?
Jean, I grew up in the University District (Seven Mile and Livernois), and after my parents divorced my mother moved to Six and Telegraph while my father kept the house they’d just purchased in the ‘burbs. Quite a few years later my mother moved to North Rosedale Park (Six and Southfield), where I stayed while I was going to WSU. Right after graduation I had a couple of apartments right down by WSU, both right around Cass and Forest, and I moved myself to St. Clair Shores in 2006.
“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.”
John 15:15
The New Testament, such an inspiring work of fiction. No, really. There’s some great stuff in Revelation and wotnot. But it’s all fantasy.
J.W. while I can respect your opinion, having been atheist for most of my life, I think that you did not read Kasia’s comment policy too closely, for in it is stated that we are to refrain from making comments which are intentionally designed to rile up other visitors to the blog. And, since this is a Catholic blog, you may be unaware that that statement could be taken quite negatively by the general readership.
I’m not sure that Kasia wants to have a big debate here on her blog over the fictional or non-fictional status of the New Testament; however, if you are going to make statements like “…it’s all fantasy,” then I would appreciate some solid evidence (or as much as you have), and logical thought supporting your statement, instead of just a bald claim meant to incite the masses.
The Revelation of St. John is allegory, Joe. It’s not meant to be taken word for word literally.
Perhaps you ought to do a little research (other than on the internet, where anything and everything is “fact”).
If you are interesting in reading and learning about any of this, I have some books I could recommend. At least then you could accurately debate others about Christianity, rather than throwing spaghetti on the wall and hoping it sticks.
Unless your only intent is to cheese people off, in which case you are a troll and not a participant in a meaningful dialog.
TBS
Congratulations, Kasia! Joe’s your first troll! You’re officially famous. You’ll know you’re really big time when there are whole websites dedicated to you, and not in a nice way.
/sarc
Or is he the reason for your new comments policy?
I mean, you blog about being Catholic, your wedding, and local issues, Kasia. I care because I’ve met you in person. But Joe W.? How cosmopolitan of Great Thinker Joe to interest himself in provincial you, and how generous of him to educate you on the finer points of history, philosophy, and religion. After all, Jesus is an historical figure written about outside the Bible (start with Josephus, Joe–the spelling shouldn’t be hard to remember). We just take it that extra step and actually believe some of what people chose to die for instead of renounce.