I’m writing in this fashion because when I’ve tried to address the issue TWICE, you’ve been unresponsive, brittle, resentful, and unrealistic about the matter. i.e. The health of the public and our children when it comes to toxins forced down our throats by the
likes of Adage AND Simpson.
For some reason, you distinguish between the two because (you say) one proposes a BioMassacre facility on public property while the other plans on installing one on private property. But air knows nothing of property boundaries, nor do our lungs. And the dead don’t care.
While Jerry Lingle has taken campaign contributions from the Devil himself (Hupp and Wallitner among others), YOU are the one folks are relying upon to protect us. You’ve failed in your responsibility to look at this issue with critical reasoning. You’ve been more
concerned about getting elected than on how YOU can make a difference as to sustaining our community and its health. It certainly isn’t going to be by dent of trading ‘jobs’ for our health and future. You are 40 years behind the times if you think Simpson is the soul/spine of this community. The casino, Walmart, the correction center and our schools provide the majority of jobs, not Simpson, et al. Simpson (or its proxies) has fired most of its employees and provides relatively little employment in contrast to the damage they do.
Simpson is (in fact) a dirty filthy anachronism that’s got to go. The community would be much better off without them. They’ve wiped out the trees in the ‘sustained steal’ plan through which they were given so much land. And now they, along with Adage, want to ‘privatize’ the very air we breathe while you rattle on about ‘The Budget’?? What’s with that?
The families planning to sell their homes to preserve their lives care little about Mason County budgets/politics when they’ve lost their home here! What are YOU going to do to help preserve those families and their homes without them having to leave to keep BREATHING??
I’m throwing down the gauntlet NOW–before you’re elected, asking you to do your homework to understand that Simpson’s proposal is as damaging as that made by Adage. If you don’t grasp that, I or others can help bring you up to speed on the material facts. But your tone when approached about the matter has been distinctly defensive and
unappreciative. You are already ignoring residents concerned about this crisis before you’re even elected! I suppose I can understand that if you’re truly as confused as you sound about Simpson.
Simpson is NOT a friend of local residents and they (and YOU) owe it no ‘loyalty’ for the years it has remained to devastate the local environment. It is a rapacious corporation with holdings in other areas of the nation who can attest to this fact. But you’re so busy
getting elected you won’t take the time to address these issues in a meaningful way. I doubt you’ll find time after getting elected either.
So while Jerry Lingle is clueless about standing with the community on this point, you’re not exactly on the side of the angels either. I’m very tired of having to decide between the lessor of two evils when you have the education and ability to grasp this if only you’d quit being all about Brenda Hirschi for even a small while.
You’ve repeatedly called this (BREATHING!) *my* issue. Yes, I admit being fond of it. But so are almost all of my neighbors. Just when did it become ‘incidental’ to you? Do you think the ‘budget’ trumps it? I’d like to see you hold your breath for 1.5 minutes and then see how quick you are to rattle on about the ‘budget’? Once our right to BREATHE is secured, we can take the leisure to discuss important budget issues.
But the budget hardly matters to those who cannot breathe or must move to do so. And if you don’t GET the importance of BREATHING coming before all else, then you’ve got no business representing the people.
And what’s this CRAP about, “Well, it’d be different if we lived in a *perfect* world”? -B. Hirschi- Does the fact the world isn’t ‘perfect’ justify murder and mayhem? What’s the difference between shooting someone and poisoning the air they breathe except the length of time to kill the victim? This isn’t about the world being ‘perfect’, it’s about stopping criminally minded corporations from destroying residents and their children’s health, our forests, our air quality, our streams, forest based cottage industries, bays, estuaries, aquatic species, biodiversity, forest soils, homes, our future, our quality of life.
Much of what forest based material we have left is on steep slopes vulnerable to erosion and flooding when stripped bare of their last vestige of organic material.
Again, a bullet fired from public or private property is just as deadly. Acknowledge that fact and accept your responsibility to protect the community. Remember, like money, air is fungible. It belongs to all of us and you are justly criticized/condemned for turning a blind eye to this fact based on a bias in favor of Simpson.
Sincerely, -John Smith- (goatherd, paralegal, collections)
ps: Tim Sheldon, Jay Hupp, and Tom Wallitner will forever be personas non grata for betraying the community that elected them in the belief they would protect the people. Ross Gallagher foolishly developed a tin ear, following Tim Sheldon’s lead before being voted out of office. Representative Kathy Haigh got it wrong and stated the e-mail
her office has been getting regarding these bioincinerators was running about 100:1 against it. What do you need to understand how affected residents feel about Simpson? Is it simply that you live outside of town that makes the issue incidental or allows you to be biased in favor of Simpson?
pps: This open letter was censored by Shawnie Whelan/Vedder responding to pressure from supporters of Ms. Hirschi. Shawnie wimped out and squelched this viewpoint because she feared it would “hurt the cause”. My own view is censorship always hurts the greater cause of transparency in government and open discussion of ideas: critical elements in a true functioning democracy. Discussion of the issues is MORE vital than any single candidate including (and perhaps especially) Ms. Hirschi.
Shawnie’s take?: “While I agree with you, just don’t put it on *my* blog, so I don’t get ‘blamed’ for it!”
My take?: I concur with Laura Lewis who refused to endorse Brenda Hirschi (after losing in the primary) because Brenda was not resolute in condemning Simpson’s plans to poison the community via its toxic air pollutants/emissions.
Brenda’s take? Well, take a look at what Brenda posted on her own blog some while back and then removed…but not before some of us copied and archived it. Read the following, courtesy of Brenda herself:
She deleted this and it is no longer in the google cache.. This link
is not good.. –Shawnie Vedder–
It is no longer in the google cache but I have an email copy of it.
This was posted to Brenda’s blog on July 2010.. but we don’t want to
publicize this unless we want Jerry to win and we don’t want Jerry to
win… –Shawnie Vedder–
ADAGE versus Simpson
Some are saying it’s inconsistent to be for the Simpson facility while
being against ADAGE coming to John’s Prairie. Here are my reasons for
taking this position.
Simpson has been in Mason County for decades and currently provides
employment for hundreds of our family, friends and neighbors. ADAGE is
a multinational corporation with no ties to this community and claims
that it will bring 24 permanent jobs.
Simpson already has the infrastructure in place. Conversely, ADAGE
will require major infrastructure improvements which must be paid for
by our tax dollars. Some of our elected officials consider federal and
state tax dollars as other than our money. But we know regardless of
the funding source, in the end the taxes come from the taxpayers –
that would be you and me, unfortunately.
If Simpson installs modern air control technology then we could
actually see an improvement in our air quality here in Shelton and
Mason County. The proposed ADAGE facility is merely a computer model
having never actually been built.
Simpson owns two thirds of the designated forest land in Mason County
and will be able to supply it’s own fuel keeping the revenue within
the county. ADAGE doesn’t have this advantage and will be forced to go
outside the county for their fuel supply.
Consequently, Simpson will more likely hire truckers within Mason
County while ADAGE will be hiring truckers from Grays Harbor and
As I’ve knocked on doors and visited with District 3 voters, I’ve
repeatedly been told that people don’t want ADAGE in Shelton and Mason
County. I wish our elected representatives could hear what the voters
are saying as I go around door belling. The voters desperately want to
be heard on this topic. We need elected officials representing the
Mason County deserves competent and informed elected officials working
in an open and transparent manner.
So there you have it, direct, from Brenda’s own hand. It’s Still ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! Brenda is running on a basic platform that she’s a better money (budget) manager than Jerry Lingle, which is probably true. Never mind that she’s more difficult to talk to. She SAYS citizens don’t want Adage. But she won’t listen when they tell her they don’t want Simpson polluting the air either. Not only won’t she listen, but then her supporters try to squelch the inconvenient truth of the matter or insist that the issues not be discussed until AFTER the election!
Well, I was born in this country on the 4th of July and I’m a Yankee Doodle through and through. I believe in America, its Constitution and ESPECIALLY the 1st Amendment. You should too. Shame on you who don’t…not really. When you try to silence your neighbor from speaking the truth, even when you find it inconvenient, you undermine the principles upon which this nation was founded and for which it stands. When you salute the flag, what do you believe you’re honoring–a piece of cloth? No! It’s the principles for which our fathers fought and died.
My liberty to speak does not begin and end with Brenda Hirschi. Nor will I allow her supporters to quash that inalienable right. For to do so would be to repudiate life and it’s very meaning. Our fight to BREATHE is so fundamental, no other issue is greater. But we will prevail in that fight WITH or WITHOUT Brenda Hirschi! And so, too, with or without Jerry Lingle, make no mistake. I will not compromise my principles, especially these, for Brenda Hirschi or ANY OTHER CANDIDATE! Don’t even *think* of asking. The answer will always be NO!
Asking a politician, AFTER they’re elected, what they’ll do is a fool’s errand. Mark my words: In the end, Brenda Hirschi will stab you in the back just as Linda Ring Erickson has done, Ross Gallagher, Jay Hupp, and Tom Wallitner…yes, and Tim Sheldon too. Why? Because officials like Tim no longer NEED community support. Look at who his contributors are–4 times as many wealthy corporate contributors as real people. Now that’s appalling but offers an explanation of why he and the Port of Shelton Commissioners feel free to insult their constituents, stone wall, marginalize, and conspire against them. Again, why?…BECAUSE WE LET THEM by not holding them accountable early on just as some of you aren’t holding Brenda accountable NOW! Try doing it later and she’ll laugh at you as easily as Tim Sheldon (see the pics, folks) sneers at residents now.
Brenda isn’t alone. I’ve seen this pattern so often, it’s predictable. But voters seem to have short memories. For your own sakes, for all our sakes, HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE NOW. Don’t let her weasel (or Jerry either) out of or put it off until later.
BRENDA…why are you willing to let Simpson poison the community? Because they’re already here? Because you think ‘jobs’ are worth the sickness and death that comes with perennial poisoning? Because it isn’t a *perfect’ world?? Because you live further away from the incinerator than many others? Because the poisons will be disseminated from private property? This kind of thinking would justify child molesters being given the key to the city so long as they’ve resided here a long time. Tell me yet again how you distinguish between what Adage plans and Simpson wants? And then tell me how you sleep at night?
Pingback: BioCensorship | Amicus Curia
You are violating Brenda’s copyrights by posting that on your blog.
Well, sweetie, Brenda will have to speak to me directly regarding that assertion. Why? Are you her lawyer?!
The following is an example of hate mail I received for taking a principled position on the toxification of the air we must breath and attempting to hold Brenda Hirschi (and some of her supporters) accountable for failing to take it seriously: (and this from an activist who frequently posts pics of her children breathing the downtown Shelton visibly polluted air Simpson emits every day!)
You’re an asshole and I’m sorry I ever met you. DO NOT SENT ME ANY
MORE EMAIL OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO YOUR ISP.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Amicus Curia
had this to say:
For those who cannot get their arms, noses, or lungs around EITHER
Brenda Hirschi OR Jerry Lingle (both proponents for Simpson pollution),
then write in Laura Lewis. I and my spouse will. Think of her as the
‘Justin Stang’ candidate for County Commissioner. A vote for Laura is
a vote for CLEAN AIR and against the destruction of our air quality
regardless of what corporate name is involved or whether the toxins
come from public or private property.
Early on, Laura Lewis was who I trusted most on this issue. She
continued to be resolute after failing to be one of the top two primary
candidates. Yet she refused to throw her support to Brenda Hirschi for
some of the same reasons I’m criticizing Brenda…Laura didn’t like what
she heard when she questioned Brenda about Simpson. Neither do I.
Write in Laura Lewis as a vote for CLEAN AIR.
John Smith, goatherd (360)427-3599
DBA: Amicus Curia, paralegal (“We help you help yourself”)
DBA: Amicus Curia Collections, Inc. (“Debt Redemption”)
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We
ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands
which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
—– Forwarded Message —-
To: Roslynne Reed
From: Amicus Curia
Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 11:09:53 PM
Subject: united we stand – divided we fall arguments
I read your post on John Cox’s blog with interest.
See Ms. Reed’s (President of the League of Women Voters)
I believe I already posted an effective rebuttal before you even
wrote the above piece:
I don’t know who you’re thinking of when you state, “For example,
what good are the attempts to help Lingle win?” It certainly isn’t
me although that appears to be the big fear of those supporting
Brenda Hirschi. I *do*, however, question the difference between
them. Brenda has publicly stated she’s satisfied to allow Simpson
to poison downtown residents in Shelton. Brenda says she actually
believes (against all the evidence) that Simpson is going to CLEAN
the air downtown. Her supporters, me thinks, protesteth too much
and make much of her supposed virtue, which *I* question! John
Cox speaks of being a ‘heretic’ for thinking outside of the
anti-Republican/TEA party box…appropriately enough for an example
of what I call the ‘religion of politics’. And while I document the
contradiction displayed by those who grouse about having THEIR
political free speech abrogated (the ill fated attempt to censure Jack
Miles, the Port of Shelton using public facilities and equipment
to confound political speech contained on a sign addressing local
initiatives 1 & 2 regarding said Port on my blog listed above, the
acrimonious discontent continues because *I* (apparently alone)
have justly criticized Brenda Hirschi on this issue. Well, I’m not
‘married’ to Brenda and you shouldn’t be either.
Hold her accountable NOW! Demand she take and rationally
defend her position on the poisoning of the air by Simpson. Are
you going to ACCEPT her arguments when they’re just retreads of
the same arguments made by ADAGE??? Are you paying attention
to where you’re going and what you see out the front windshield
instead of the sideview mirror?
Shawnie Whelan/Vedder, argues (also documented above) that
we don’t DARE tell the unvarnished truth because we “don’t want
Jerry Lingle” (and associates) “to win”. When supporters of a given
political candidate attempt to suppress the truth (as has happened
here) to gain political advantage, I believe the democratic process
(needing a fully informed electorate) itself is harmed. As President
of the League of Women Voters, I thought you, yourself, stood
4-square for this principle? Injury to one person’s free speech and
efforts to discuss ALL the ramifications (letting the chips fall where
they may) is injury to all.
I have repeatedly had my efforts to cover this issue restricted or
interfered with by the very group of residents with whom I find
common cause than opponents themselves. And while I detest
the position of those who equivocate on vital issues of public health
and safety (including and especially the likes of Tim Sheldon, Jay
Hupp, Tom Wallitner, et ux) I find they have not (so far) interfered
with my covering and reporting on these points. Alarmingly, some
of those who count themselves as ‘compassionate’ on their scale
of -10 to +10, are the biggest offenders to notions of open dialog,
transparency, and holding political candidates accountable. Are
*you* among them?…arguing such candidates shouldn’t be expected
to “fall on their sword”? What’s self destructive about insisting
Brenda Hirschi (et ux) take a CONSISTENT position against air
pollution regardless of its source? I find her publicly stated reasons
for giving Simpson a ‘pass’ to be vacuous in the extreme. If that
revelation of her vacuous reasoning, her refusal to address the issue
NOW…BEFORE she is elected (when queried), and cynical challenge
of, “Well, you’ve ONLY got a choice between me and Jerry Lingle,”
isn’t enough to cause thoughtful voters to carefully consider who
they vote for, including the probability Brenda will be as hard of
hearing as our current County Commissioners given she already
evidences a loss of ‘hearing’ ability/responsiveness, then I suppose
a teachable moment has arrived.
What is the difference between Jerry Lingle shooting residents with a
gun labeled Adage, and Brenda shooting us with a gun labeled Simpson?
They’re equally deadly. And, FYI, *I* almost died as a child from
exposure to air pollution. Does that give me any more credibility?
I’m also vulnerable because of some chronic illness including a heart
condition that makes exposure to this kind of pollution exceptionally
dangerous, even in the short run. Now you’re asking me, et ux, to
look at the ‘bigger’ picture?…what?…Brenda’s fabled ability to balance
the budget? What if I and others don’t live to see the benefits of her
extraordinarily sharp pencil? What if some of us have to move to
other regions where they never heard of Brenda Hirschi? What if
some of us, in the spirit you urge, see our property values marching
backward, imprisoning us in upside down mortgages?
Under the circumstances, irrefutable as they are by Brenda’s own
words and public statements (see links above) comparing her to
Jerry Lingle is damning her with faint praise…and justly so! Jerry is
easy to talk to, Brenda isn’t. Jerry takes contributions from some of
the most hated officials (Jay Hupp and Tom Wallitner) in Mason County.
Brenda doesn’t. In fact, Brenda has much broader and deeper support
from the people judging from her campaign contributions. Personally,
I think she’s going to mop the floor with Jerry come election night. I’ll
be there to film it when the ballot results are tallied and announced.
And, if Jerry wins, I won’t be ‘crushed’, because at least he doesn’t
become defensive and irritable when asked about his position. For
the downtown residents of Shelton, there’s effectively no difference
between the two candidates at all when it comes to air pollution.
Simpson will be in their lives, in their lungs, in their children, and in
their obituaries. Who they thank for that, Jerry or Brenda, is a bit
moot, don’t you think?
From what I can see, Brenda has already stabbed residents in the
back…at least downtown Shelton residents. Some of them (like
Shawnie and John Cox) are too naive to even recognize they’re
stuck on a train track with the locomotive hurtling toward them while
Brenda sleeps at the throttle and raises contributions in her march to
the sea. BOTH she and Jerry spend the majority of their time, in one
form or another, talking about the MONEY. Neither evidences much
concern about the impact on people’s HEALTH! As to the $?…is it
just possible Adage gets the limelight because THAT is where the
money is? i.e. The more valuable homes are near the proposed
Adage site, while the poor live in downtown Shelton near Simpson.
Yeah, Brenda Hirschi for social justice! The same folks who attack
Nancy Williams, a compassionate person/foster mom, for being a
fiscal conservative are happy to ignore Brenda’s equally conservative
fiscal views. But then Brenda calls herself a ‘Democrat’. So does Tim
I’m sorry, but unlike some of the rest of you, i’m getting too old and
tired of the reruns. While every ‘liberal’ in this County is screaming
like stuck pigs, NOT ONE HAD THE SPINE to throw their own hat in
the ring for 35th District Senate. Only Nancy Williams did that in a
And while scurrilous attacks on her as “inhuman” are made on local
blogs supporting Brenda Hirschi, heaven forbid *I* should speak the
unmitigated truth about Brenda Hirschi or hold her accountable
BEFORE THE ELECTION! Remember this when you see her and Tim
Sheldon sneering at you in tandem from the Commissioners’ podium
along with Linda Ring Erickson. Then take a DEEP breath…yeah,
breathe deep. Air is everywhere. But don’t pay too much attention
to it because the BUDGET and other issues are more important? We
wouldn’t want Brenda to “fall on her sword”. No. WE should fall on
*our* swords to make sure Brenda gets elected to balance the budget.
*sigh* Bon Apeti’t!
John Smith, goatherd (360)427-3599
DBA: Amicus Curia, paralegal (“We help you help yourself”)
DBA: Amicus Curia Collections, Inc. (“Debt Redemption”)
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than
the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not
your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that you were our countrymen!”
There seems, more times than not, a tendency by those whose instincts have been proven wrong, to rush forward, oblivious to the lessons that might have been learned. While there is no shortage of pithy phrases to define such hubris, I prefer to employ my own: From experience we learn nothing.
If humans lived each in their own environmental vacuum, little would be gained by waxing self righteous. Indeed, being right is no different than being wrong; they are merely opposites, and neither, in and of itself, has any possibility of invoking change.
It is reasonable, therefore, if change, is, indeed, the goal, then constructive action toward the desired end is far more effective than negative rhetoric.
So the question begs: What is your objective?
“If humans lived each in their own environmental vacuum…”
Transparency, unfettered dialog, synthesis, freedom of association and assembly, the open exchange of ideas…all would be hamstrung or impossible without the most liberal construction of the letter and spirit of the 1st Amendment. The very discussions, their credibility, and peaceful protests against the destruction of the air we breathe and our environment would be impossible without it. Ultimately, the means DO become the ends. And, sir, THAT is ‘my’ objective!
Pingback: WASTED in Mason County | Amicus Curia
One of us is obviously missing the point. The implication that your 1st Amendment rights are somehow compromised by my suggestion you employ those rights in a manner that would best facilitate our common goal makes little sense.
Although said rights can be used as an argumentative club to browbeat those who question your methods, that particular usage was likely not the author’s original intent.
As to your objective, I remain unclear.
P.S. And stop being so high-handed, it’s annoying.
I’m unclear as to precisely what is unclear. And it isn’t just ‘my’ 1st Amendment Rights, it’s OUR 1st Amendment Rights…inalienable rights endowed on each/all of us by our Creator.
I think what you’re questioning is whether the unfettered exercise of that right has a constructive impact in the context of such a vital principle as breathing. I’ve struggled with this question and concluded that not exercising it won’t improve the chances of prevailing when it comes to breathing…in fact, most likely the opposite. I’ve been asked to keep quiet about my legal insights, about speaking out regarding political candidates, or to refrain from criticizing those with whom I have common cause (actually ALL of us–breathing!). But I always come back to the equally valid question: How does stifling advance that common cause? I don’t think it does.
My objective ALWAYS includes breathing…absolutely. But I believe that objective can be (and is best) pursued in an OPEN dialog without censoring others. Doing so, I feel, allows for a ‘synthesis’ and new equilibrium to be reached. Failing to do so prevents a dialog necessary for such a synthesis. In fact, I argue that SPEAKING follows immediately after/with breathing. With each breath comes the potential to speak. To breathe and to speak is to live! Squelching others is to virtually ‘kill’ them…to put out their light, their breath.
One of my heroes made the same argument, but in a different, more torrid context:
“Peace…Peace! Men cry ‘peace’…but there IS no peace! Is peace so sweet and life so dear that we would purchase it at ANY cost? I know not what course others may take, but as for me…give me LIBERTY–or give me death!”
And if such men were willing to reconcile with death for those principles, why would I not take advantage of their sacrifice for the mere cost of a little social opprobrium? Moreover, I believe this can be a teachable moment. One need not kill the messenger to prevail in the battle. Open dialog benefits everyone. As I’ve urged, those who oppose it for the convenience of the moment err and should reconsider their position.
ps: I consider dialog to be a ‘positive’ activity so long as it focuses on the material issues. ‘Negative’ rhetoric is most keenly observed in no rhetoric at all. I know myself well enough to say when I stop talking is the time to be concerned. When I’m talking, I’m still listening. I suspect that’s equally true for others. To silence a dissident is to invite action. Mr. Hupp is a classic example of how that mechanism works in practice.
I think your argument is best reserved for the opposition, where it will do the most GOOD. I invite you to attend Port meetings, and to speak as eloquently as you write. A single candle burning in an empty room may be an effective means by which to combat the darkness, but does little to enlighten those who need it most.
Perhaps you’re right. Although I’ve had over 2,000 visitors since starting this Blog only 3 months or so ago. Fran tells me the ‘opposition’ *does* read it. I was surprised, but she said copies of portions have been entered into the court records of the 2 lawsuits. But when I attend Port meetings, I’m always severely constrained in what I can say. There’s little room for ‘eloquence’. And, I’m outside the Port’s district boundaries. Still, I’m considering announcing to Mr. Hupp at the next Port meeting the fact he *did* break the law when he voted on his own proposal to benefit from public funds. In law, that’s not permitted…no eloquence required. Search for ‘self dealing’ on this Blog for the legal reasoning.
Thanks for hangin’ in there.
Pingback: Dr. Yu Who? | Amicus Curia
Yours truly still gets harsh reproach at this late date from taking a principled position on these issues. Best take comfort in the truth unless you welcome accusations of ‘hurting the movement’, being a pariah, and being hung up on by Barbara Parsloe. Grass roots movements aren’t for the feint of heart or thin skinned. The disingenuous e-mail response feigning feminine restraint in light of her venomous personal remarks during the actual phone conversation is a bit galling. But one measure of weight is the arc of the pendulum. Barbara’s perfidy suggests it must be the right track. Diplomacy/Chutzpah? You decide.
I don’t object to differences of opinions. I do object to deliberate insults…like your hanging up when I attempted to reason with you and address your concerns about my ‘hurting the movement’. I don’t agree and I reject the criticism. In fact, I’m pleased you put that criticism in the context of Brenda Hirschi’s recent candidacy…someone who expressed the idea that pollution can be distinguished by where it originates.
At any rate, I would suggest your obtuse approach to my overture is the kind of failure that more likely leads to the defeat of grass-root movements than anything I’ve done. And given your own quarrels with others in this same debate, it’s a bit like hearing the pot calling the kettle black.
I didn’t get involved with this issue to increase my ‘popularity’, Barbara…and that includes you! I embarked on it in a search for the truth regardless of who that discomforted…Brenda Hirschi, you, or whoever. I’m very familiar with how some think they’re above reproach. If I’ve offended or irritated them, so much the better. It would appear we have more in common than you’re willing to admit.
John Smith, goatherd (360)427-3599
DBA: Amicus Curia, paralegal (“We help you help yourself”)
DBA: Amicus Curia Collections, Inc. (“Debt Redemption”)
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
I did not deliberately insult you. You called me. [Reminder: Don’t call Barbara!]
I talked to you politely until you got to the “watch each other’s backs” point and then I needed to clarify that wasn’t going to happen.
I hung up because I talked at you at length about Brenda previously and didn’t have the patience to go through it again.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I wish you well.
I do hope that you will take your letter to Brenda off your blog now that the campaign is over. (Maybe you have. Last I looked, it was still up.) I thought it was needlessly personal and hurtful and certainly isn’t helpful to anyone at this point.