Edwin Drake | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Edwin Drake 
Member since Jul 18, 2011

click to enlarge edwin_drake_jpg-magnum.jpg

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Currently

Shaking my head in shame at the industry I created

Updated on July 18, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Recent Comments

Re: “Gould Council bans citizens group

This has now been picked up by the New York Times, Fox News, and a dozen other huge news outlets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20ark…
http://nation.foxnews.com/first-amendment/…


The Gould City Council is scrambling to cover their butts now.

Part of what really smeared egg onto the faces of the Gould City Council is the STOOOO-PID wording of the ordinance banning the existence of this one group. So not only was this an unabashed snubbing of the US Constitution, but the wording was sophmoric. Put those two liabilities together and the press jumped all over it with glee.

Here's a transcription of that inane ordinance:

http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/…

CITY OF GOULD
ORDINANCE NO.062011-5

BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY OF GOULD AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF LINCOLN, STATE OF ARKANSAS, AN ORDINANCE TO BE ENTITLED:


AN ORDINANCE TO DISALLOW THE GOULD CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL FROM EXISTING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF GOULD

BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Gould City Council:

SECTION 1: GOULD CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCILS ABILITY TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY OF GOULD. The Gould Citizens Advisory Council by passage of this ordinance is hereby banned from doing business in the City of Gould.

Section 2: That the said Council is, in effect, causing confusion and discourse among the citizens of Gould and as a result is contributing to the friction not only between the Mayor and the Council but also among the citizens who deserve a cooperative government. Also no new organiztions shall be allowed to exist in the City of Gould without approval from a majority of the City Council.

SECTION 3: Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall be in full force and effect from and after passage and approval.

Posted by Edwin Drake on 07/20/2011 at 8:52 AM

Re: “Gould Council bans citizens group

To Big Al:

Just now you used the word "arrogance" in reference to a comment made by Norma Bates when she wrote about "flyover hamlets." But, Big Al, you DO realize (at least I hope you realize) she is trying to DEFEND America's "flyover hamlets" don't you? She's trying to stick up for them. She's trying to point out that "flyover hamlets" are too easilly ignored BY THE PEOPLE IN THIS NATION WHO HOLD THE MOST POWER.

The thing she is trying to point out about the kind of folks who constantly fly back and forth between East Coast and the West Coast --and who thus obliviously "fly over" all the little Hamlets of Small Town USA which lie in between-- is that the East Coast/West Coast crowd collectively holds a significant amount of money, power, and influence in all the key arenas of the American socio-political machinery. She's trying to say that a "higher authority" likely needs to be brought into Gould to sort this whole mess out, but that the majority of the people in this nation who hail from the ranks of "higher authority" (the East Coast/West Coast people) probably aren't even aware that Gould even exists, let alone what's going on there. So the East Coast/West Coast crowd very much need to be made aware (thus her plea to the journalist who wrote this piece to keep expanding the scope of her investigation).

As for your reference to some sort of "special band of social control," being dispensed by the East Coast/West Coast crowd into the unwilling "flyover hamlets," Norma is simply trying to assert that ALL of the citizens of the USA --no matter where they live-- have Constitutional rights which need to be protected. Surely, Big Al, surely you have no qualms about the need for Constitutional rights to be protected. There is nothing "special" nor even "controlling" about protecting the Constitution --it's suposed to be normal, Standard Operating Procedure to protect the Constitution. And it's not "control" when a higher power (or a higher court, or SOMEONE from the very powerful East Coast/West Coast crowd) walks up to the governmental officials of a local small town government, calls them on the carpet for messing with the Constitution and then orders that small town government to knock it off.

The Constitution was designed primarilly to LIMIT the powers of government as much as possible. And it seems to me that the government in Gould needs to undergo some limiting. That wouldn't in any way be a "special brand of social control." Instead that would be the Constitutional brand of how a (local) government run amok can and should get rightfully restricted.

When the two sides to this Gould argument get weighed in the balancing scales, it's A) the right of the City Council to do whatever they want that gets pitted against B) the right of the citizens of Gould to peacefully assemble. Guess which right the United States Constitution says is supposed to be given the higher prioroty? (ANSWER: "B" the Right to Peacuful Assembly.) And after you have given the answer, please explain how such a ruling would qualify as a "special brand of social control?"

Posted by Edwin Drake on 07/18/2011 at 4:22 PM

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation