The Dexter Leader
A Heritage Newspaper
Weekly Publication
Letters to the Editor
PUBLISHED: February 21, 2008
To the Editor: I am heart sick about a recent article I read in the Dexter Leader ("Dexter student suspended for creating kill list"). While the article was accurate and well written, it only told one side of the story. Every parent who has a child at Creekside Elementary deserves to know the rest of the story because the only way to keep our schools safe is by teaching our children to have compassion and to be kind to everyone, not just their friends and the people they like.
Advertisement
The part of the story you do not know is that the child who was suspended has been the target of relentless bullying by other students at the school. This child was only emotionally protecting themselves from the incredible pain they were feeling by lashing out at their tormentors.
This child could have been any one of our children saying or doing something inappropriate in a moment of pain. By suspending this student, we have not made our schools safer. The bulling behavior will continue with the next child that is selected to be tormented.
I hope that as a community, we can show our strength by letting our children know the other side of the story and by supporting this child because no one deserves to be treated unkind.
Donette Brooks
Whitmore Lake
To the Editor: I was already angry over the debacle known as Michigan's Democratic primary election, and yet it is possible that this infuriating situation could get worse.
On Feb. 8, the Michigan Democratic Party apportioned delegates based the fatally-flawed January 15th primary, and it is still a possibility that the national party will change course and seat this flawed delegation.† If that occurs, my 24-year affiliation with the Democratic Party will be over.†
The Michigan primary is one part of a larger, national issue of how the Democratic Party is representing the will of the electorate.† The national Democratic primary process is looking less principled and more rigged by the day.†† It has been weeks since any news service could agree on the actual, current apportionment of delegates - due to the influence of the "super delegate."† This category of delegate, specifically created to give the party more control over the nomination process, makes up 20 percent of the national 2008 delegation and has no accountability to either local voters or caucus participants.
First, let's be clear: Michigan's January primary election was flawed.† Even, the legislation creating election was flawed as public, tax payer funds were allocated to create a confidential database of voter-party declaration to be distributed only to the two major political parties.† It was no surprise to anyone knowledgeable in constitutional law to see the primary initially disallowed.† The on-again and off-again primary was the just one element confounding the process.† Add to this the following: (1) no Democratic candidates actively campaigned in the state depriving voters of critical contact and exposure, (2) many leading Democratic candidates had their name removed from the ballot, and (3) the national party had stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention prior to the election.† All meaningful reasons to participate were eliminated, and any election carried out under this context cannot be considered an accurate accounting of voter preference.
Moreover, write-in candidates were not allowed, and there was insufficient notification that any ballot using this option would be disqualified.† The Lansing State Journal reported on January 17th that 3 percent of all Lansing ballots were disqualified due to write-ins of which 98 percent were Democratic ballots.† In effect, 6 percent of the Democratic vote was thrown away (assuming that 50 percent of ballots issued were Democratic).† Clearly, this is not the same party of 2000 fighting to county every presidential vote in Florida.† Or alternatively, the Democratic Party supports counting every single vote only on a situational basis.†
Lastly, prior to the election, there was announcement on some popular liberal blogs (e.g., Daily Kos) recommending that Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney in the "meaningless" Democratic primary as keeping this specific candidate alive on the Republican side would do more to ensure the ultimate success of Democrats in November.† This recommendation was picked up by Associated Press and reported in multiple Michigan newspapers.† Its impact on the election is unknown, but I do know anecdotally that this occurred to some degree.††
The Michigan Democratic primary election result is - at its core - a flawed sample of Democratic voters in this state.††
In moving forward, two courses of action are currently being considered given that the Democratic nominee is still unknown.† The February 10th Ann Arbor News reported the "do-over" option of holding a future caucus to determine the Michigan Democratic delegation - requiring that a second election be paid for.† At the same time, the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (February 9th-10th), presenting a more complete picture, described both the do-over caucus option as well as the alternate option of actually seating the delegation based on the January primary results.† This latter option was stated in the Journal as preferred by some party insiders and the Clinton campaign.
Of the two options being considered, my hunch is that the delegation allotment based on the January primary will be reinstated and attend the national convention.† I believe this choice will be made simply as a matter of finance, as the party would have to foot the bill for the caucus.† However, my strong preference is for a caucus to allow participation in a real election; otherwise these flawed January primary results have no place in a vitally important national election.† Had it been known during the January primary that the votes would have ultimately been used to apportion delegates, the entire dynamic of the election would have changed - significantly impacting the final results.
Yes, I was already angry about this election, but ultimately what difference does it make how the Michigan Democratic Party assigns its 128 "pledged delegates" if the national party is allowed 796 independently-operating, super delegates?†† And whatever happened to the fundamental principle of count every vote when it appears that 6 percent of our vote was tossed out without a significant mention in the national press?†† Right now we have a situation where the January Michigan election is being used as a political football by the remaining active presidential campaigns, and there is no mention in the reporting media of how fatally-flawed the completed election was.†
Ultimately, as a member of this party, I need to understand that the Democratic Party supports a popular nomination process, as long as the margin of victory exceeds 20 percent.† Otherwise, the party insiders will select the presidential nominee.† I will accept this or support a different party.
Jeremy Gorgas-Heiken
Full-time environmental consultant and part-time political junkie from Dexter, Michigan.
Not all stories are guaranteed to appear
online. The Web edition contains a reasonable
sampling of the print edition stories.
For the most complete news coverage, we invite you to
subscribe
to the print edition of the paper.
Expanded
Web
Coverage
TOP JOBS
