🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10/2/01 12:42 PM, Ray Ubinger stuffed this in a bottle and set it adrift:

> For y'all's infotainment:
> 
> http://heraldsun.com/votebook/candpage.cfm?NameID=287&RaceID=95&County=Durham

Ray,

(1) Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts? Is that why
you refer to the incumbent(s) as 'they' over and over in the question about
incumbent(s)?

(2) Do you expect to be taken as anything other than a perennial kook when
you use terms such as "Mayor Thought-Control" to refer to the current
administration?

(3) What does this text: "None that are municipal or nonpartisan. All other
tallies get falsified, so with them we can't be sure. Four Durham
officials--like D.A. Jim Hardin--were even declared winners before a single
vote was cast in their races. The tally actually claims that they won
unanimously. This fraudulent situation comes from an unconstitutional ban on
write-in voting, passed by the G.A. in 1987." have to do with the subject
header it is found under - "Offices Held"?

-- 
Susan Hogarth
WEEKLY AUCTION to benefit beagle rescue!
http://www.tribeagles.org/cgi-bin/Auction.pl

Susan Hogarth asks:

 > Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts?

It has one.  It *is* one seven-member district.

 > Is that why you refer to the incumbent(s) as 'they' over and over in 
 > the question about incumbent(s)?

Yes.  Jackie Wagstaff is not the only one of them who could win this 
seat (Ward 1).

 > Do you expect to be taken as anything other than a perennial kook when 
 > you use terms such as "Mayor Thought-Control" to refer to the 
 > current administration?

Hey he called me a criminal first.  And at least my name-calling purports 
a reason.

Sometimes my big mouth is funny, sometimes it's embarrassing.  I feel 
fine about shooting it off this way this time.  Mayors who try to 
forcibly dictate what peaceful honest people can and can't say in 
public deserve nothing but rebuke for it.

 > What does this text: "None that are municipal or nonpartisan. All 
 > other tallies get falsified, so with them we can't be sure. [etc.]" have 
 > to do with the subject header it is found under - "Offices Held"?

It's an explanation of why I think an enlightened answer depends on what 
kind of office is being asked about.  For instance if I was the 
people's favorite citizen eligible for the office of County Commission 
'98 (they were never asked), I think that's tantamount to having earned 
it enough to say I held it.  

Your opinion may vary.  If so, you can even make it count in this 
race.  Presuming you become a registered Durham voter in time.


Ray U.

 >http://heraldsun.com/votebook/candpage.cfm?NameID=287&RaceID=95&County=Durham
 >
 >The hard copy is to run this Sunday (in the Herald-Sun).  There's 
 >also supposed to be an N&O article on my race, and the N&O 
 >questionnaire responses (hard copy), but I don't know exactly when.

Speak of the devil.  The N&O coverage is in today's hard copy.  I can't find 
a URL for it.  I'm guessing it's only in the Durham edition and that 
they don't post such articles to their website.

On 10/2/01 3:02 PM, Ray Ubinger stuffed this in a bottle and set it adrift:

> Susan Hogarth asks:
> 
>> Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts?
> 
> It has one.  It *is* one seven-member district.

I thought it was a six-member council, with three at-large positions and
three Wards, and this race was for Ward 1....

>> Is that why you refer to the incumbent(s) as 'they' over and over in
>> the question about incumbent(s)?
> 
> Yes.  Jackie Wagstaff is not the only one of them who could win this
> seat (Ward 1).

She's the only *incumbent* in this race; isn't she? The question was about
the *incumbent* in the race you were running.

>> Do you expect to be taken as anything other than a perennial kook when
>> you use terms such as "Mayor Thought-Control" to refer to the
>> current administration?
> 
> Hey he called me a criminal first.  And at least my name-calling purports
> a reason.
> 
> Sometimes my big mouth is funny, sometimes it's embarrassing.  I feel
> fine about shooting it off this way this time.  Mayors who try to
> forcibly dictate what peaceful honest people can and can't say in
> public deserve nothing but rebuke for it.

And the answer to my question...?  ;-)
 
>> What does this text: "None that are municipal or nonpartisan. All
>> other tallies get falsified, so with them we can't be sure. [etc.]" have
>> to do with the subject header it is found under - "Offices Held"?
> 
> It's an explanation of why I think an enlightened answer depends on what
> kind of office is being asked about.

Eh? Jeezus; it's a simple question, Ray. Can't you give a simple answer?
Have you held any offices?

> For instance if I was the
> people's favorite citizen eligible for the office of County Commission
> '98 (they were never asked), I think that's tantamount to having earned
> it enough to say I held it.

???? Really? Doesn't reality have some bearing here?

> Your opinion may vary.  If so, you can even make it count in this
> race.  Presuming you become a registered Durham voter in time.

Not bloody likely. Too settled in Wake, sorry. The _Independent_ gave you a
nice clause in their writeup, I thought (right after they dismissed you as a
reasonable candidate).

-- 
Susan Hogarth
WEEKLY AUCTION to benefit beagle rescue!
http://www.tribeagles.org/cgi-bin/Auction.pl

Susan Hogarth writes:

>>> Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts?
>> 
>> It has one.  It *is* one seven-member district.
>
> I thought it was a six-member council, with three at-large positions 
> and three Wards, and this race was for Ward 1.

Also true.  That's even the usual wording (plus the at-large mayoral 
slot).  But it acts like one big 7-member district.  EVERY registered 
city voter gets one vote for EVERY seat.  The only thing the Ward 
boundaries do is limit where (within the city) three of the MEMBERS have 
to reside.  

Again:  ALL seven members answer to ALL city voters at the polls.  ALL 
city voters get to vote in ALL seven races.  ALL seven members 
therefore represent ALL city voters.
ps
Actually it's still 13 right now, not 7 yet, but this is the year it's 
getting halved.

>> Jackie Wagstaff is not the only one of [the incumbents] who could win 
>> this seat (Ward 1).
>
> She's the only *incumbent* in this race; isn't she? The question was 
> about the *incumbent* in the race you were running.

In a sense which may not be common usage, yet which is completely 
valid constitutionally, anyone the voters can elect is in the race.  
Incumbent Brenda Burnette (for one) lives in Ward 1, therefore the voters 
will be just as able to elect her to the Ward 1 slot as they will be able 
to elect Jackie or me.  Brenda herself might even start pointing this out 
if she "loses" the "primary" in "her" race (Mayor).  

Likewise "my" race could validly be thought of as being "for the Ward 1 
seat or an At-Large seat or the Mayor seat."  I'm electable to any of the 
7 seats except the Ward 2 seat and the Ward 3 seat.  I'm electable to any 
of five different seats.

If I picked a "wrong" one of those five seats in which to buy the 
govt-run advertising (the $122 filing fee)  --  i.e., if the people 
really think I should become mayor or an at-large seat holder and not the 
Ward 1 seat holder  --  they can actually say so in November.  And 
hey, believe it or not, I would take it. :)  Nothing can stop Y'All the 
Bosses from making such a decision.  

The fact that I purchased govt-run advertising for the Ward 1 seat has 
no control over it.  Some influence, probably, but zero control.  Every 
>21 voter in the race, in good (non-felony) standing, is a full-
fledged candidate--for being chosen to office by the people--as far as our 
Law is concerned.  We won't KNOW, until Nov. 6, whether or not the people 
want EVEN ONE of the people who makes it onto the Nov. ballot to proceed
to become (or stay) a Councilman.

Give me all the raspberries you want for talking like this.  This is 
my campaign and I think it's interesting to focus on.  I think it could 
have important implications in certain situations.  And it keeps attention 
on my main issue of the write-in ban, even in this "off season" of an 
odd-#'d year, when the ban goes dormant.  

I'm also proud of coming up with a money-saving spin on it -- do away with 
the nonpartisan primaries entirely!  They really do decide nothing and 
really do cost money.  If that idea succeeded, I think it could 
possibly become a wedge in people's minds that would one day split the log 
of govt-subsidized PARTISAN primaries.

IIRC, as recently as '95, a guy in Greensboro, the _Rhino Times_ 
editor, actually pulled down something like a third of the vote for 
Mayor, after waiting 'til THREE WEEKS before the general election (one 
week AFTER the "primary") to START talking himself up as a (write-
in) candidate.  It ain't over 'til it's over.

> Doesn't reality have some bearing here?

Yes, and my attempted point (re: Votebook's office-holding question) was 
to bring people's attention to the aspect of reality which reveals that 
the whole list of partisan nonmunicipal office-holders since 1987 is, at 
root, a lie.

I have _constitutionally_ held _elective_ office with the people's 
_consent_, if and only if the people wanted me to.  
Did the people want me to or not?  Beats me.  And I figure if the 
Herald-Sun really wants to report only who has held non-constitutional, 
pseudo-elective office, fraudulently, without the people's consent, then 
they can look it up themselves at the Board of Rigged Elections, and fill 
in that blank themselves on the questionnaires.

Now that I mention it, that reminds me.  As a "perennial candidate" I am in 
a position to let you in on the little secret:  the N&O this year has in 
fact changed their questionnaire wordings, due (I'm confident) to my 
answers in past years.  For them, it's now "political experience" instead 
of "offices held."  And "political hero" instead of "most admired 
political figure" (to which I used to have fun saying the Statue of Liberty).  
And "last book read" instead of "favorite book" (to which I tried to have 
fun last year (they refused to print it) saying "How the Grinch Stole 
the Election").

But I happen to know that the Herald-Sun is in fact rather sympathetic to 
my de-rigging propaganda.  And boy are they generous with their Votebook 
space (online and printed).

>> Your opinion may vary.  If so, you can even make it count in this
>> race.  Presuming you become a registered Durham voter in time.
>
> Not bloody likely. Too settled in Wake, sorry.

Oh, that's fine, but then you should stop beating me up <*sniff*> for 
spending my $122 advertising as my oddball strategizing sees fit, and 
instead figure out whom you're gonna vote for at your own polls. :-)  

You've been reading my incessant focus on the fraudulent elections so 
much that it really is tiring to you.  Realize that the people I was 
AIMING for, with my admittedly unconventional response to that 
Votebook question, are the many folks who have never heard of the 
issue before. 

 > The _Independent_ gave you a
 >nice clause in their writeup, I thought (right after they dismissed you as a
 >reasonable candidate).

Hey now, they didn't insinuate I was non-reasonable.  They dismissed me 
(and Jeffrey White) as being not -knowledeable- enough.  That clarified, 
I definitely agree they were kind to close with, ..."though Ubinger 
has successfully brought attention to civil liberties issues."  

All in all I think my campaigns are doing all right at keeping people aware 
of my and my party's names and positions.

Barbara Howe got a similar "honorable mention" from the Independent last 
year (in the Goob race).  They endorsed Easley, but remarked that for 
single-issue anti-death-penalty voters Barbara was definitely the name 
to pick.


Ray U.