Gun banner at work
What mentality believes it is safe for government employees to bear arms but not ordinary citizens that, but for their employment status, are one of the same? What spark of wisdom encourages a person to be afraid that his neighbor carrying a concealed weapon in a park in some way puts people in mortal danger? Who would be so mentally confused? The answer is no one. The real reason for the concern is not public safety but a desire to thwart the guarantees afforded by the US Constitution and ban ordinary people from bearing arms; owning, carrying and using guns in a lawful way. On the Cleveland City Council there appears to be an individual of this persuasion, a gun banner that would rival the likes of Rosie O'Donnell and Robert Redford. He is Lee University Professor Bill Estes, who not surprisingly would also like to ban your right of free speech and equal opportunity and everything else he doesn't agree with.
Recently, The Tennessee State Legislature (reasoning that it is a radical liberal hoax to label gun owners dangerous, and considering that Tennessee citizens in general do not conceive firearms as evil) passed a law allowing people with a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm the right to do so in a public park, with the proviso that cities and counties could opt out and continue the ban with a majority vote. At first glance, this opt-out provision seems unpopular and stupid, but it does provide a useful service in that it baits gun banners to show their true colors. Estes took the bait and made a motion to ban guns in all City of Cleveland parks, which failed through lack of support. I will say no more about Estes because you know what I think.
Sometimes wisdom peeks through the malaise of self-centered back scratching the Cleveland City Council calls public service. Richard Banks, who once tried to close down this paper because he considered it too outspoken, showed a rare glimpse of common sense when he recommended Johnston park be handed back to its original owners if they would not lift unreasonable use restrictions. Apparently, when the park property was given to the city in the 1930's as a memorial to Joe Stuart's parents, it was on condition that Clyde Johnston Hardwick heirs retain some control of its usage. Over the years the descendants of Hardwick have demanded restrictive use be enforced. After last month's Singing in the Park hosted by State Representative Eric Watson, an order was sent banning further gatherings on the property which Banks rightly was offended by. The park's use is now administered by the Johnston Memorial Park Advisory Board who, according to Cleveland City Parks and Recreation Director Patti Petitt, the board wrote Watson a nice letter (what a suck-up) telling him he could not have the gathering there in the future. It seems among the restrictions the Hardwick heirs enforce is that there should be no politicians or preaching, no playground equipment, picnicking or public speaking.
The Stuart, Johnston, Hardwick families are spoken of in hushed tones and reverence by Cleveland's elite as though they were the keepers of the city. Streets and monuments abound glorifying their names, yet the truth is exposed that they are from the same petty mold that Cleveland's other privileged families evolve. For once Banks is absolutely right. Dump this no-good park. Let them pay for the memorial's up-keep themselves. Charge them the same taxes ordinary folk pay. Remove the honor of pubic benefactor and treat them for what they are.
That's what I think. What do you think?
Worth a thought
Word has it that the Cleveland City Council's outspoken criticism of the Cleveland Board of Education's handling of the contractor bid process was not about fairness more about Cleveland's exalted contractor supreme Tri-Con being eliminated. If that is so, Tri-Con will be the place to start job hunting before they are awarded the contract. I wonder what other wonders Cleveland's democratic and unbiased processes have in store for us? The plot thickens.
That's what I think. What do you think?