Hogs at the trough
This piece, noticed by an alert commenter, is amazing for many reasons, not the least of which is that Senator Silvertongue is at it again. The guy is truly our own little George Bush. His quote at the end of the piece is simply stunning in it's cluelessness and the swinish attitude it reveals.
The way this annexation and the entire thing has gone really suggests that they're trying to, and may just, put this over on people in the dead of night before they know what hit them. Vague allusions to "significant" help from the state, a mayor who's clearly lying about when he knew about this and ducking for cover, a senator who started blabbing about this a little too soon for the people trying to put this over's tastes, now turns around and says we don't need politicians spilling the beans, and suggesting, incredibly, that people shouldn't have settled in any rural area in America, because if they did, they should pretty much expect an vast hog slaughtering operation to move in next to them and drop their property value down to about zip.Democracy, schemocracy. The politicians cut the deals, and everyone... that is, a few people, make out like bandits. The rest of us? We'll just be stuck with the bills and problems and the smell. Like everything else about this stealth scheme, it really stinks.
Rather than quote the entire article by Barb Ickes, just go read it. Amazing
posted by The Inside Dope @ 12/05/2005
24 comments
24 Comments:
Wow, somebody put a muzzle on our senator. What was he thinking?
He wouldn't buy property in an area where he knew this could happen??? Is there a way to know where this can and cannot happen? Apparently you have to be "in the know" to be made aware of these projects. Do realtors list this stuff on MLS sheets:
Beautiful Cape Code, 2000 finished square feet, new furnace (2003), hardwood floors throughout, potential Hog Lot site 2 blocks away, new roof (2002).
Why don't you just call this the Jacobs Blog. This is the only thing you people love to talk about! Find some other news and quit attacking this poor guy.
My Goodness.
FYI- the hog processing plant pays 80 cent more an hour than John Deere.
Just so you complainers know.
Oh yeah... we'll all be lining up for those jobs... 80 cents/hr more than Deere? I think that says more about Deere than Triumph.
And they offer that high a wage why? Because that's the minimum which they can attract even desperate immigrants to do this sort of filthy and mind-numbing work.
Also, to the whiner who can't stand hearing people call a spade a spade... if you don't want people criticizing your sainted Sen. Jacobs, the solution is easy, ... get him to stop being an idiot and embarrassing the entire area.
Is the extra 80 cents an hour the "smell differential" or what?
Drive by Tyson (IBP) for a preview smell....
Will they have a union? Enquiring minds want to know.
Show me exactly how this will improve real-estate values in the area?
How will building this monstrosity in a flood plain help with flooding?
How many more non-English speakers will it cost our schools to teach?
I'm not saying don't do the project, but don't whore yourself out over it!
It will go through with out questions.
There are no Pat O'Brien's on the East Moline city council.
mrhunt -
Nice effort at a ridiculous character assasination! Mr. Rumler is secretive by appearing in public?! (assuming your story on the photo is even true) And you're worried about his seating...I assume you wanted him to give up his seat to Rosa Parks Jacobs?
Why is it that nobody knows where Rumler stands on this important issue? Is Rumler for "the jobs" or is he for the "residents of Babcock?" Why doesn't Rumler tell us where he stands on this issue? Is Rumler's postion a national secret or something? What gives aon 14:35?
At least we know where Mike Jacobs stands! Where does Rumler stand on this issue or is he content to sit in the back of the bus?
I would be dumbfounded to find out that Sen. Mike gave this matter more than a minutes thought. The developers and investors or Thodos simply told him this corporation wanted to move here and he said, fine, I'm for it.
He doesn't know diddly about these hog operations or what they bring to an area, and he simply doesn't give a damn.
He knows which side of the bread gets the butter, and he simply went with the money, as always.
Constituents? Screw 'em.
Yep, we know where Jacobs stands alright.
He's Bush Jr. Jr!
Dem voter,
What is the big secret?
Why won't Rumler tell us where he stands on this issue?
Is Rumler is "with the money" or do you think he is against "jobs?"
Which is it going to be Dem Voter?
Puzzler,
That sounds like typical bullsh-t Jacobs demagoguery and distortion.
Why can't you get serious for once in your life instead of treating everyone with disrespect like you think they're stupid?
A. Being against the plant is not being against "jobs".
B. Being in favor of the plant doesn't mean that you're tight with the owners. Especially if you're not afraid to debate the merits of a plant out in the open in a democratic way and weight all the pros and cons fully, AFTER listening to all sides with a stake or opinion on the matter.
Jacobs doesn't know squat about these types of factories, doesn't give a rat's ass about any potential pollution, flooding, or any other of the potential downsides to this. All he needs to know is can he claim credit for helping this wealthy corporation and thus get big fat checks from them in the future. And of course, he'll get up and spout the usual bull trying to make it sound like he brought everyone these great jobs and benefits while pocketing the money.
He's just like Bush, Mike doesn't like to think too much. Just tell him which position will put him in a good light with wealthy people, and he's your boy. If it looks fishy, just spout a bunch of platitudes, vague statements and act like you've really accomplished something. Keep saying "jobs" over and over hoping the voter's eyes will glaze over.
The plant goes in, Jacobs hob nobs with the honchos and acts like their hero, pockets their money, and just bullshits his way around the meager opposition by the public. By the time the potential problems rear their head, it will be far enough down the road that most people will forget.
By that time, if it's really so bad it can't be ignored, he'll stand up and bray about how he's going to do something to fix it. And that fix will likely involve giving a few million to some other friendly business to clean up the mess.
You get the idea.
Where's Rumler on this? I don't know, but I would like to.
But don't say being against the plant is being against jobs. That's no better than saying that if you're against the war or Bush, you're against "the troops". Same bullshit, different flavor.
Jacobs and Bush seem to be more and more similar with each passing day. I'd prefer to see a fair and democratic race for the seat. Give us a chance to elect the best candidate, not the person who's the best at throwing mud and creating confusion.
Note to Mike Jacobs--
Quit beating up Rumler on the issues or you may end up having to debate him in public....
And we all know (excet Mike himelf) what a monumental PR disaster that would be for appointee Mike Jacobs.
Once Mike Jacobs starts shooting his mouth off and the cameras roll, Rumler will look wiser than Job in the Old Testament no matter what Mr. Rumler may or may not say!
I'd pay good money to see a debate between Rumler and Jacobs. Hell, they should put it on Pay-per-view.
If ANYONE puts Mike in a spot where he has to actually discuss issues beyond bland platitudes, he'd fold up like a $2 suitcase.
This, of course, is yet another way he's a carbon copy of George W.
Take away his 3x5 cards and he's a loose cannon. Lord help him if anyone asks him any questions about the details of the proposals he so proudly and loudly supports.
Beyond saying "Jobs" like a pull-string doll, he'd be at a loss.
I should add that it would be good to see Rumler in a debate as well. He's truly an unknown, and who knows, he may be even worse than Jacobs, though I can't imagine that. Anyone that gives a damn enough to actually study the issues and listen to all sides would be far ahead of our Senator.
If Rumler "opposes building a $145 million hog plant in East Moline," how can claim he's for "the 1,000 jobs the pork plant would bring to East Moline?" To suggest Rumler can be "against" the plant and "for" the jobs is double-talk!
Simply, is Rumler "for" or "against" the pork plant?
Why Rumler is being so secretive on this issue is beyond me?
Does Rumler's inabilty to respond to this question have anything to do with the photo in last Sunday's QC Times of Rumler and River Stone Vice-President, Bob Imler, sitting together at a recent hog confiment meeting?
One really has to wonder what Rumler is up to here!
Thanks for responding anon above, and thanks for pulling back from your previous disingenous attempt to set up a false choice argument.
The question is indeed whether Rumler supports the hog plant or not. But asking whether he supports "jobs" or not is an attempt to confuse the issues and readers.
And suggesting that Rumler can be against the plant and for jobs is most definitely NOT "double-talk", though your attempts to confuse the issue certainly is.
Rumler can be all for "jobs", he can eat, sleep, and breath, "jobs", but he can also feel that the many downsides and negative effects of this vast hog operation outweighs the jobs it will offer and whether these jobs will go to locals or not.
That's a responsible and honest opinion.
For you to continue to try the old and bullshit tactic all politicians use to hide behind their helping the wealthy despite it's bad impact on the people they're supposed to serve is pretty disappointing.
Hiding behind the smoke-screen of "jobs" without any honest discussion of who would hold these jobs and what the effect of the influx of out of the area and out of the country workers will be on the area is wrong and insults people who care about such things.
Is it responsible leadership to be in favor of ANYTHING that provides jobs, no matter what the business, no matter what the jobs, no matter who fills them, and no matter how many people the business hurts or damage it causes? I think not.
But you're trying like hell to suggest it, and your entire argument assumes just that false premise.
A politician should be for the constituents he represents... ALL of them, not just those that can cut fat checks.
Jacobs obviously doesn't spend a second of his time pondering the many tough issues at hand here. As long as he can get a check or gain favor with the money guys, it's all good for him.
Maybe Rumler will support the plant, maybe he won't.
But I hope that he can demonstrate and convince people that he came to his decision only after careful consideration of all sides.
Jacobs, on the other hand, takes a position and then tries to talk his way out of it only if there's opposition. He then tries to muster up some sort of BS to make it appear he's given the matter thought, which ends up revealing that no, he hasn't.
Rather than automatically supporting the highest bidder and then hiring people to put bullshit in his mouth to then try to justify the decision in hindsight, perhaps he should consider doing his job and doing some homework and becoming thoroughly familiar with the issue before chosing sides?
The fact remains, you can be for or against the plant and still be in favor of "jobs". To suggest that it's one or the other is pure BS.
To be for jobs but feel that, on balance, the jobs created and who would fill them is not worth the negative costs and affects of the plant is a perfectly rational and reasonable position, as is feeling that there needs to be more time to investigate this before jumping the gun.
Where does Rumler stand on this issue? I haven't a clue. But one fact remains. He's not our senator. Jacobs is.
Let us not forget that Imler (and Riverstone) have made deals with Jacobs on more than one occasion; first the Casino, and now the hog lot. So I ask the Jacobs folks, if Imler is sooooo bad, that Rumler shouldn't have even sat next to him (which was most likely a coincidence anyway), than why has Mike made two big dollar deals with Imler???
Considering the fact that Rumler has not (at least to my knowledge) stated an opinion on the hog lot, it's likely that he was at the meeting to gather details before forming an opinion. Sounds like a novel idea I know. Apparently some people actually gather facts before making up their mind.
Why won't Rumler tell us where he stands on the hog plant issue?
What is the big secret?
I think Rumler is telling people on both sides of this issue whatever they want to hear!
How does Pat Vershore feel about it, or Lane Evans, or Barack Obama? If their position hasn't been published then why would you expect Rumler's to be.
My guess is he's not telling anyone anything. Probably waiting for Mikey to spew another idiotic quote for the paper.
For someone who desperately wants to lead our community, Rumler seems to be clueless.
Is Rumler so self-important that he doesn't think the public has the right to know where he stands on the single most important issue in the upcoming Democrat primary?
Is Rumler with the people that own the pork processing plant? Does River Stone have his toungue? Is Rumler against the people who oppose this plant, or with them?
Rumler can end this controversy by stepping forward and telling us where he stands on this key election issue?
All this makes me wonder what else Rumler is hiding? Thus far Rumler seems very secretive!
If Obama, Evans or Veschoore had a primary opponent thier views would be more relevant, but given they do not --- not so much!
Anon above, you're always good for a laugh. And you've got the mark of Jacobs all over you. First, an almost hysterical obsession with some goofy negative you're trying to promote against an opponent. Second, totally ignoring comments which refute it. Third, continuing to hammer the goofy line, with frantic and multiple comments all over the blog ad nauseum until it loses all meaning.
Right out of the smear handbook, and considered good politics by some.
It's fine if you think Rumler should state his opinion on the hog factory issue. That's a valid opinion.
But it's hilarious on another level.
Are you feeling cold and alone out there on the Barstow tundra, stuck holding the bag for these corporate guys?
I take it as Jacobs' whining that since he, as usual, has felt the need to be point man for corporate interests, Rumler should have to share the pain.
Jacobs likely didn't know beans about this operation when he made that decision and didn't care, all he knows is that these people are rich and he better dance when they call the tune.
So now he's out there in support of something that no one but the money guys want, and he's not liking it.
It's down to misery wanting company. Poor Mike wants Rumler to have to take some heat too, damn it! hahaha!
It's understandable that Jacobs would want dearly to force Rumler out of the corner on this issue. Why not?
But it's kind of humorous if you feel that Rumler realizes that he doesn't have to venture an opinion, and why he risk it? If he supports it, the opponents hate him, if he doesn't, the proponents hate him.
So why not let Jacobs twist in the wind on this? Poor Mike.
I think it's funny that this commenter is so strident that Rumler come out on this issue.
But your last point, that Rumler is somehow obligated to stake a position because he's a challenger, though I disagree, is at least a valid point.
But saying that Verschoore and Boland don't have the same obligation to stake a position because they don't have a primary opponent strikes me as nonsense.
Letting your colleagues off the hook is noble, but not smart. Why shouldn't they have an opinion, particularly Boland, who represents the district where this monstrosity is going to be located???!!
Good luck Mike. So far, you're the only one out there, and I'm sure it's a lonely place to be. You'd like some company, but don't count on it.
Hey, what a great sounding proposal!!!! Too bad it's got a snowball's chance in hell.
Actually, I think Jacobs would be the one to suffer from signing such a pact as so far his entire strategy is all about negative inuendo. Take that away and there's not much left.
That said, I too hope that both candidates stick to the TRUTH and refrain from trying to suggest things that aren't there, such as Rumler sitting next to Imler as evidence that there's collusion, or because Mike says so many stupid things that he's as stupid and callous as he sounds.
But what I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see is a Jacobs/Rumler DEBATE!! Not just one, several!!
That would be just fantastic in my view. Not because I think one candidate would do particularly better than the other, but because it would let us see what they're made of.
For Rumler, we could at last HEAR the guy, and see how he handles the spotlight. We could also expect to hear how well he can articulate his views and opinions on various issues of importance to the area. (or if he even has them) In short, we could finally see who the hell he is and what he's about.
For Jacobs, we could finally see if he can back up all his and his supporter's pompous pronouncements about what a great statesman he is.
He'd have a chance to put up or shut up and either confirm or dispell the notion that he's an unqualified rookie who wasn't qualified for the position that he was given.
We've heard all the hype, and what hype it's been... and we've heard the boasts and attempts to claim credit for the sun coming up in the morning. This could be a chance to see if all Jacobs' dumb and insensitive remarks were just flukes or part of who the guy really is.
We could see if he's learned anything from his experience, such as... oh... I don't know... HUMILITY???
(by the way, to those who have bashed this blog for being a forum for people to criticize Jacobs, if it results in his climbing back from the reckless and arrogant attitude he was operating under, it might in hindsight be the best thing that ever happened to him.
Just think if he hadn't gotten batted around here, or if he'd have been sucessful in his effort to harrass and intimidate people and thereby silence his critics, he'd still be out there thinking he was King Sh*t and turning off even MORE voters.)
A debate appearance would be a chance to see if Jacobs is the sort of person who is big enough to acknowledge his faults and smart enough to take criticism in the right spirit and recognize it as a chance to see where there's room for improvement.
I'd like to think the two would be evenly matched... or at least I'd hope so. But it could be that either Jacobs or Rumler, or both, would prove to be embarassingly inept.
(the chance that it could be an utter trainwreck for either or both candidates is, of course, even more reason debates would be such a huge draw.)
They're both rookies at the very difficult art of public speaking, with Jacobs having a slight edge in that he's tried it, though with spectacularly disasterous results. Rumler has no apparent experience with it at all.
I don't know who would be able to pull this off, as either one of the candidates or both would have to want to do it, but boy, would these debates be a good thing for the public. And the more the better.
I hereby issue a call to both candidates to arrange a series of debates. I'd even agree to be a middle-man in the negotiations and would do everything I could to make them happen.
Jacobs has been challenging Rumler to come out and fight, and what better and more appropriate way to do this than debates?
Let's get this ball rolling!
Maybe Headusher can arrange it Dope. He seems to be the spokesman for the Jacobs' family and knows where Sen Jacobs is at all times - he must be strapped to his hip.
Post a Comment
<< Home