Josh Siegel is running to move Lehigh County forward. Phil Armstrong did a great job the last eight years. Now it’s time to look forward. Unfortunately, Siegel has to run against Roger Maclean, a failed police chief who has no idea what government does, or how to do it. In their recent debate, Maclean’s solution to lost money from the federal government was “we’ll get our money.” Maclean lead a police department that raped and robbed people they arrested, now he downplays the death of Capitol Police on January 6th. He’s a disaster and he would end up either raising taxes or cutting all services he possibly could.
I’ll show their debate at the bottom of this post, but more immediately, Siegel has put forward his plan to move Lehigh County forward. From his Facebook:
We’re 41 days out from Election Day. Here’s what our One Lehigh platform is about. Pete Buttigieg has said “our salvation will really come from the local”.
I believe that! I believe in these dark and divisive times, local government is the building block for showing a better way, our chance to show what a better world can and should be in our own backyard:
Here’s what One Lehigh means:
A robust and strong local democracy where every resident has as many legal and lawful ways to cast a ballot and make their voice heard, no matter who you vote for or what party you are, it’s your civic duty and most basic right. I want you to exercise it. We need to protect the ballot box from efforts to undermine it.
Attainable housing for seniors, first-time homebuyers and working class families. We have a housing shortage, we need to build more of it, and everyone is a partner in that. Public, private and non-profit, it’s an all of the above approach. It’s the only way to lower costs.
Investing in and expanding public safety services from regional police and fire to prevention strategies like focused deterrence to ensure that every neighborhood and community is safe and secure. Public safety requires comprehensive, collaborative strategies.
Protecitng and preserving Cedarbrook for future generations of Lehigh County seniors and ensuring that our county keeps our promise that patients and residents come first-not profits. Federal funding cuts put these services in jeopardy and we need a county that’s prepared to step up to maintain that commitment.
Smart, sustainable and strategic local development that protects farmland and open space and builds the walkable, dense and mixed-use communities people want. We have to accommodate future growth and find a way to house folks who come here for good jobs and schools.
Standing up for our public employees and the critical services they provide, county government provides vital human services, mental health and addiction services, children and youth, courts and corrections. It’s a safety net for our most vulnerable and it’ll be under tremendous pressure in light of the disaster federal funding cuts. We need to protect and defend these services and have the backs of the men and women who provide them.
Investing in our quality of life from county assets like the Velodrome and Coca-Cola Park to our parks and trails. We need to make Lehigh County a place families want to stay for generations and continue to choose. Amenities and attractions are vital, it’s what anchors and keeps people here in the valley.
Tackling the epidemic of isolation and silos on the internet. We’ve never been more connected and disconnected at the same time. We need to get people back outside and build community, talk to our neighbors and build relationships. We have to rediscover our common identity and purpose.
Whether it’s protecting Cedar Brook, defending voting rights, funding the government, or protecting the safety net, Josh Siegel is easily the right choice. We don’t need to DOGE Lehigh County.
But you can watch the debate and make up your mind below.
The tough thing early in the season with trying to rank the NFL’s teams in order is how much to weigh your gut takes on each team against their records. Do I think that there are 2-1 teams better than 3-0 teams, or even 1-2 teams better than 3-0 teams? Yeah, I do. Do I think beating the Giants 22-9 is a sign your team might not be good? Yes. Sorry, but some things just have to be quantified by your gut instinct. On the other hand, your record is who you are. Sure, there are still some frauds going into week four, but a few weeks down the road, those things will take care of themselves. For now, record is the #1 criteria. Then it’s opinion. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s personnel decisions that dictate order, like the Giants putting Jaxson Dart in to start the rest of the season. That feels to me like a team who is done already for the year.
Last week I wrote about Charlie Kirk at length. My message was simple- this was a horrible tragedy, this is not a right-left political violence problem, and we’re being over force-fed “us vs. them” info. I went on to talk about how Kirk’s death and the hyper-partisan reactions were playing out locally, and how Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Kirk fit into the larger war on liberal comedy. For those of you who read me regularly, you know this is a lot of typing for me about Charlie Kirk, who had never once been mentioned on my blog before his death. I don’t talk about really any of the MAGA podcast/influencer folks- not Laura Loomer, Nick Fuentes, not even Tucker Carlson. It’s not so much that they are insignificant to me, I acknowledge they have large audiences and a good deal of influence with MAGA leaders all the way up to Donald Trump. I think talking about them is complicated and takes a lot of nuance that you can’t really have in every post. They are not elected officials or government officials who have direct powers to help or hurt us as a society or individuals. I don’t listen to or read any of them, other than when I come across their tweets and other posts, most of which I don’t agree with (occasionally I do, but even a broken clock is right twice a day). On the other hand, and definitely in part because they are not empowered government officials, I absolutely support their first amendment right to speak whatever they wish, free from any government censorship. On the other hand, if they lie or defame people, they should have to deal with their employers, funders, and civil lawsuits from individuals for their actions. I just kind of think their world is largely none of my business, I’m not one of their consumers.
So all the writing about Kirk does kind of prove a right-wing talking point- Kirk is larger in death than he ever was in life. I didn’t give a shit about him a month ago. Now I’m writing about him. But are my writing about the actual person Charlie Kirk, or whitewashed character that has only marginal ties to the actual person? David A. Graham of the Atlantic writes about this, and concludes that this is literally an affront to the actual person Charlie Kirk was. He writes beautifully about the irony in this mythological version of Charlie Kirk:
Kirk’s commitment to debate was inextricable from his political views; he wasn’t a value-neutral advocate for free speech. Kirk arose as a countercultural figure and deployed the First Amendment as a crucial tool for spreading his ideas: In an environment where they were not welcome, he pointed out that they were protected. Now that Kirk’s political allies hold power, however, many appear eager to suppress ideas they dislike. The Trump administration is vowing to use Kirk’s death as an excuse to crack down on dissent even as it lionizes him for defending it.
Kirk began his career planting Turning Point USA chapters on college campuses. As many conservatives were writing off academia, Kirk was evangelizing, creating a beachhead for right-wing views in traditionally liberal environments. Free speech was an important shield for him, because some of his ideas were bigoted, or articulated abrasively.
Some people now praising Kirk are conflating a commitment to argument with a devotion to civility. Kirk succeeded, in part, by eschewing civility in favor of conflict. He said, for example, that “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled—Alzheimer’s—corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.” (In the same radio show, he questioned whether Kamala Harris is Black.) He bused supporters to Washington on January 6, 2021; invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about the insurrection; and campaigned for pardons for the perpetrators.
Kirk railed against transgender and gay rights. He called George Floyd a “scumbag,” declared the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “mistake,” and claimed that many influential Black figures were in their roles only because of affirmative action. “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” he said. He said that if Donald Trump lost in 2024, hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants would be brought to Alabama, where they would “become your masters.” Comparisons to King are especially ironic because King, Kirk said, was “awful. He’s not a good person.”
I hold some inconvenient beliefs sometimes, but central to them is authenticity. Charlie Kirk said exactly what he said, and simply replaying or reprinting his words is not an attack on him, it is an honest rendering. I don’t agree with virtually any of Kirk’s beliefs about civil rights, Joe Biden, women voting, LGBTQIA rights, “DEI,” George Floyd, January 6th, Donald Trump, the 2020 Election, or really anything I can think of, besides his belief that he had a right to say it. I don’t think that people I deem as bad should be shot, ever. I don’t believe the government should try to cancel a television show, ever. Hell, I’ll just be honest and say I don’t think employers should have any absolute right to view your social media, or censor it, even as I acknowledge that isn’t covered by the First Amendment. I think people should have the ability to be their authentic selves, and in fact I think morally it is an imperative. Yes, if you are out in public (I at least on some level don’t consider social media public, particularly if you are protecting your posts from the entire public), saying something really crazy can get you fired. I typically do not think it should.
The truth of the matter is that even dangerously stupid and ignorant speech should be policed through the court of public opinion, and if your response is that this is failing in our current society, my response to that is this is who we actually, truly are. Trying to censor who we are because this “Trump era” makes you uncomfortable, or because you thought these kinds of opinions were supposed to be gone by 2025, is UnAmerican and morally reprehensible. If it bothers you that Charlie Kirk was amassing followers saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, or that he hated Barack Obama and Joe Biden, or that he thinks Kamala Harris is a moron, or that Martin Luther King Jr. was a bad man, or that women didn’t vote, or whatever it is you think- just understand that the people listening and agreeing with Kirk also agreed with what he was saying before he had a job saying it. These opinions and thoughts, they always existed in the world, and it’s not society’s formal job to silence people for saying them. You silence these opinions by not listening and not buying from the advertisers. Charlie Kirk should be able to speak to the audience that believes these things, just as Jimmy Kimmel should be allowed to do the same. There is a market of millions of people who agree with them. As long as that exists, they should exist, and we should make authentic judgments about how we feel about them. It’s pretty simple.
Of course, there is only one logical conclusion to this though- I didn’t like Charlie Kirk. I did not listen to him when he was alive, and I wouldn’t now. He told us how he feels about the role of women in our society, how he feels about Civil Rights in our society, that he thinks most Black Americans in the work place are of lower quality and that they are there because of DEI, that he thinks Donald Trump is a good man and Joe Biden is not, that LGBTQIA people are predators, and lots of other things. Charlie Kirk lived authentically and told us who he is. I did not approve of it. While I would not describe myself as a “Jasmine Crockett Stan,” but I think she’s right to question why any Democrats were voting to honor Kirk in the Congress. Do these Democrats agree with him on his beliefs? Did they agree when he was live? Or are they being inauthentic and cowardly, in hopes that this conversation will go away?
Charlie Kirk’s death has been weaponized to do things that some conservatives wanted to do anyway, like cancel Jimmy Kimmel. The conservatives doing it are being as dishonest as the Democrats in Congress voting to honor Kirk. This is all mythology. It’s creating a martyr of a person who was just a person. It’s gross and antithetical to being a health nation with a vibrant First Amendment. It’s creating a false narrative about who we actually are and who we actually want to be as a society.
“Crooksy” is running the Fetterman handbook for how to campaign though. He’s collecting endorsements, just none of them are from here. Democrat hating lunatic Bernie Sanders enthusiastically supports “Crooksy.” I doubt any local unions will support him after he had better things to do than come see them though. The truth is, the guy is awful and shouldn’t have run, and everyone around here knows it. If you don’t live in the Lehigh Valley though, there’s not too much harm in endorsing a guy that Ryan Mackenzie would crush. This is why state legislators from other parts of Pennsylvania love Crooksy. He’s probably not taking money from their constituents.
“Crooksy” is racking up the endorsements from leftists from other parts of the country though. In addition to the geriatric socialist from Vermont, he got the guy who got to be Bernie’s warm up act when he came to the Valley back in the Spring. I guess he figures no one in Pittsburgh will ever know. In case that’s not enough, he got the endorsement of California “Bernie Bro” Ro Khanna, who he wants you to know is a Pennsylvania native. He lives in Silicon Valley now, because you know, Bobby is a real working class icon here. Crooksy has lots of support from California and Vermont politicians. He has none from any working folks here.
Bob “Crooksy” Brooks looks great if you get to stay ten thousand feet away from him. If the Democratic Party is stupid enough to nominate this clown, Ryan Mackenzie won’t let any voters in the Lehigh Valley stay ten thousand feet away though. The racism, the violent political rhetoric, the stealing from his mother-in-law- Mackenzie will put it on our televisions, on our computer screens, and in our mailboxes. To be honest, we kind of deserve it if we’re dumb enough to allow it. None of the people who know Crooksy all that well want anything to do with him.
Well it’s the final week. All hell has broken lose. The Reds begin this week in the playoffs. So do the Guardians. I guess we’re in an Ohio State of Mind. Meanwhile, the Astros could miss. Things are insane. Here’s my last regular season rankings. Here’s last week’s for reference.
The Democratic Party should absolutely shut down the federal government, it’s not doing anything of value right now. If you need a specific reason to shut it down, the GOP is trying to strip away subsidies for people to buy the Affordable Care Act. This should simply be a red line. There is no good reason to strip health care away from more people. Of course our useless DEMOCRATIC U.S. Senator John Fetterman says he will fund the government anyway. In 2028, we need to be done with this bum. We can get a better trust fund baby Democrat, if not an actual good Democrat. Kick him to the curb.
Every candidate in the PA-7 Democratic Primary should be answering though. I’ve seen posts from McClure and Obando-Derstine so far. I hope the rest let us know if they’re with us or against us.
This week’s winner- Dolphins Head Coach (for now) Mike McDaniel, with some incredible wisdom here. He’s so insightful and cutting edge. What do the analytics say?
Ok, I have to admit that when I first heard about Kamala Harris new book, I was annoyed. All of the early descriptions made it sound like she was ripping President Biden for running. She did go further than I liked, but she clearly wasn’t actually criticizing him.
Harris described Shapiro, one of three finalists for the post, as “poised, polished and personable.” But she was put off by his ambition — and his request to be in the room for every major decision — and worried he would not settle for the number-two job.
Harris twice describes Shapiro as “peppering” her and staff with questions, not just about details of the job but also life as vice president. He asked the residence manager a number of questions about the home, ranging from the number of bedrooms to “how he might arrange to get Pennsylvania artists’ work on loan from the Smithsonian.”
She also accused Shapiro of exhibiting a “lack of discretion” in the veepstakes, recalling that his official vehicles with Pennsylvania plates were filmed by CNN in front of the vice president’s residence, despite efforts by her staff to arrange for less attention-getting transportation.
Manuel Bonder, a spokesperson for Shapiro, pushed back on the governor’s portrayal.
“It’s simply ridiculous to suggest that Governor Shapiro was focused on anything other than defeating Donald Trump and protecting Pennsylvania from the chaos we are living through now,” Bonder said in a statement. “The Governor campaigned tirelessly for the Harris-Walz ticket — and as he has made clear, the conclusion of this process was a deeply personal decision for both him and the Vice President.”
I could’ve called this in like 2008. The Deputy Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in 2007-2008 hasn’t changed a bit. Which doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be President, by the way. It just gave me a good laugh.
You cannot negotiate with a hostage taker. Zohran Mamdani is that proverbial hostage taker here. This man supported uncommitted over Kamala Harris in last year’s Presidential campaign. He literally said Governor Hochul “justified genocide” for asserting that nations are allowed to respond to being attacked with force. He’s done nothing in Albany as a legislator. He basically beat an extremely flawed candidate in a June primary for local office, and now is demanding that Democrats support him because he has the nomination. A smart Democratic Party would tell him “no thanks.”
Kathy Hochul is not that smart Democratic Party I’m talking about though, apparently.
Ms. Hochul said in her essay that she had been talking to Mr. Mamdani for months and that they had some disagreements.
“But in our conversations, I heard a leader who shares my commitment to a New York where children can grow up safe in their neighborhoods and where opportunity is within reach for every family,” she wrote. “I heard a leader who is focused on making New York City affordable — a goal I enthusiastically support.”
Mr. Mamdani thanked Ms. Hochul for her support and said she had “made affordability the centerpiece of her work.”
“There’s so much work left to do, and our movement is only growing stronger,” he said.
Ms. Hochul and Mr. Mamdani are both focused on addressing the affordability crisis in the state and the city and could each benefit from their new alliance. Ms. Hochul is up for re-election next year, and she is facing a primary challenge from her lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado.
If Mr. Mamdani is elected, he could help protect her left flank, but also prove a liability in the general election, where she could face Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican and a strong supporter of President Trump.
See, here’s the thing about this- Hochul is going to basically gain nothing. Even if Mamdani is elected with a majority, his endorsing Hochul won’t appease the kind of people who think she is a “genocider” in the Democratic Primary for Governor. Then in the general election, his positions on “defunding the police” and “free stuff” will be painted on her. Mandani will be a major liability on Long Island, in Outer Borough Queens, and in the Hudson Valley. She already will struggle upstate.
Both of these two will probably win, because it’s New York. In Hochul, Democrats will have a major state Governor who underperforms in her state though, and she will continue to be used against other Democrats (as she was in 2022). Would Hochul benefit from endorsing Cuomo, Adams, or Sliwa? No, all of them are flawed enough that it’s not worth the headache. Endorsing Mamdani isn’t any better though. Hochul, and really any major Democrat, should simply stay out of this race. New York City is unique, and their mayoral race is unique. It tells us nothing about nothing. Kathy Hochul created problems she didn’t need here.
A robust and strong local democracy where every resident has as many legal and lawful ways to cast a ballot and make their voice heard, no matter who you vote for or what party you are, it’s your civic duty and most basic right. I want you to exercise it. We need to protect the ballot box from efforts to undermine it.
Apocalypse Vibes 