Mar 10, 2017

Allentown's Dignity On The Line


In the last several months I have often referred to my irate women facebook friends, who cannot let go of their rage against Donald Trump.  I have also mentioned that prior to this past national election, I have seen little political interest expressed by most of them.  However, today's revelation is the most disturbing to me.  Despite non-stop Trump criticism, not one of these local women have written one word about the upcoming mayoral election. They are apparently more consumed with this past November than the future.  They are apparently more concerned about things that will probably not affect them, than their own backyard.

As I have previously posted, Pawlowski is courting certain segments of the minority communities with favors and promises.  With such a crowded field, that could well be a winning strategy.  I realize that this is a controversial statement,  but anyone who knowingly votes for a candidate tainted by corruption, in return for a few more city entitlements, gets no respect from me.

If the local women, so distressed by Trump in Washington, would devote a few minutes of their time for an alternative mayoral candidate,  Allentown could emerge from the primary with some dignity.

27 comments:

Monkey Momma said...

I was hoping you had stopped your series of posts about women and their reaction to the Trump presidency. I don't disagree that local politics deserve much more voter attention, but I'd say the problem of voter apathy is an equal opportunity affliction of both genders.

To be perfectly honest, Mr. Molovinsky, I have found your judgement of women and their various responses to Trump to be rather offensive. Even worse are the comments you have hosted with regards to this topic, despite your long history of aggressively moderating comments on other subjects. I'll spare you the post by post analysis of how your overall tone and specific choice of words are condescending and misinformed, but I will simply state that as a long time reader, I'm disappointed.

All voters should be very concerned about this upcoming mayoral election in Allentown. Corruption and cronyism are rampant in this town, and both men and women need to work against it. The re-election of Ed Pawlowski will ruin Allentown's chance at redeeming its reputation and credibility. If you want to engage voters and potential community activists in meaningful conversations on how to combat Pawlowski's re-election efforts, it would be best to abandon your disdain and try a more respectful and less hostile approach.

doug_b said...

I too have questions about these "women's marches". Seems like a small number - very angry (why? I don't think anyone knows), and there is no stated platform. What I find ironic about their demonstrations is they involve "not working". The latest "A Day Without Women". Well a man invented the auto, Henry Ford perfected the manufacturer, men have built the roads, Bell invented the telephone, and don't read a book - Gutenberg invented movable type. Better just sit home. We could have the "Day Without Men" - your heat is out? car won't start? - we'll get to it tomorrow or the day after... I promise not to rant on.

On to the second point: The Democrat party has devolved in to the entitlement party. They are going to make everything fair by confiscating and redistributing more and more of our income. You just have to look at the Dem's latest scam - Philly and their soda tax.

It is a conflict of interest for people who receive unearned entitlements, to vote. The Dem's have devolved in to boldly, but indirectly buying votes, through more and more promised entitlements.

michael molovinsky said...

momma@8:24, sorry that my posts on women/trump have so offended you. that topic was only incidental to the premise of this post; that i would have like some concern to be focused locally. RE: some of the comments; i appreciate non-partisan comments. i concede that lately the right of center comments have dominated. i appreciate your comments and others that provide balance.

Dave said...

The overriding fact is that over the past, almost 50 years, since Allentown changed it's city charter to have an independent Mayor, rather than a city councilman designated as mayor, the city has turned into a one-party town. Right now it's Pawlowski, who has been Mayor for nearly 12 years. Before that it was Daddona, who was mayor for 16 years. And if you count Afflerbach, the Democrats have run Allentown for 32 years.

What really changes? Nothing.

Although Allentown gets a new mayor occasionally, the basic philosophy of how the city is governed is still the same. Really, what difference does it make if one Democrat or another beats Pawlowski? My parents still live in the West End near Muhlenburg, but they're outnumbered by those who have come here over the past 25 years from other places and most are on some kind of public assistance or another. Or work in service-sector jobs that pay much less than the industrial jobs we had here in the past. The biggest industry Allentown has besides the welfare state is the Medical Sector... because the Boomers are now in their 60s and 70s and need medical care. That's what's driving up health costs.. but that's another story for another post..

Corruption and cronyism go hand in hand with government. The only reason Pawlowski is in trouble is because he upset the bureaucrats downtown, But before the FBI went in to city hall two years ago, no one on city council was bitching about him. They supported him.

Now he's a pariah, but I'd bet money if the FBI had gone into City Hall under Daddona, they'd find he played his games with how things got done or didn't get done and only God knows what they would have found out under Afflerbach. He was a politician and later lobbyist in Harrisburg and knew the system well there before becoming Mayor here.

The only real change in Allentown will happen is if and when we become the political Allentown we had in the 1950s when Diefenderfer and Hock kept trading being Mayor every four years. That's when we had Republicans and Democrats essentially keeping Allentown center-based politically and not looking like Philadelphia.

doug_b said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
michael molovinsky said...

doug, although i appreciate your comments, i have deleted the comment submitted at 2:18 about "reason to vote democratic" i can certainly understand that you're a partisan, but this post pertained to allentown's upcoming election. also, when submitting comments please consider that i bill this blog as non-partisan

JoshLCowen said...

Every day's obituary page takes away more old-line Allentown people who built this city and kept it livable for generations. However, their offspring have rightly fled the the suburbs for better schools, safety and lifestyle for their young families. What's left or is coming into the city (I arrived over 40 years ago) are low-skilled people who in many cases have no family history of work of any kind. So the city government is not there to provide services in common to all; rather it has become a virtual social services agency for the underclass. The city fathers (oops, and mothers) seem to think all we need to do is pour more appletinis and $5 cups of coffee for our modern-day YUPPIES and all will be well. We all know the answer is to reduce crime (it is MORE than just 'perceived') and radically improve the schools.
I was amused to see a young woman decide to join the school board because she is so petrified of Trump's new Education Secretary. That says a lot about local government: they are looking to sugar daddy's in DC or H-burg rather than fix the problems locally.

Scott Armstrong said...

Mike,

A big problem with reporting today is that most of it follows a liberal template. So when there is a "Women's March on Washington" or a "Day Without Women" hold a protest the media narrative is one of universal agreement that these activities reflect the thinking of "women" in general. They do the same with other organizations; Black Lives Matters" speaks for African Americans; radical Gay Rights organizations speak of Gays in general; PETA speaks for animal lovers...The truth is even though every sector/minority/demographic shares commonalities their is also diversity of thought within them. The media would be well served to include that in their coverage of events. Why don't they? Answer;they prefer to tailor the news to further their own political agenda.
Americans would be wise to turn a skeptical eye to all media outlets and yes, trust absolutely no reporting as the truth. To be well informed these days, one must cover a lot of media territory if they hope to discover any real truth. Few have the appetite for that.

LVCI said...

"A big problem with reporting today is that most of it follows a liberal template"

There are plenty of other sources which aren't To name some--WAEB, The New York Post, Daily Mail, FOX News, The Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, National Review, Real Clear Politics, Heritage Foundation, Weekly Standard, Redstate, Cato Journal, Jewish World Review, American Spectator, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, The Blaze, Weekly Standard, CNS News, Washington Examiner, Red State, The Spectator, Judicial Watch, NewsMax Magazine, Independent Journal Review, The Daily Wire, The Federalist, WorldNet Daily, Infowars, Washington Free Beacon, New American, Media Research Center, Townhall, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe you're not giving credit or paying enough attention to the "right" ones?

"To be well informed these days, one must cover a lot of media territory if they hope to discover any real truth"

That's the truth. Although I don't think that was the point you were trying to make against liberal bias was it.

LVCI said...

Monkey Momma (8:24 am)--"I don't disagree that local politics deserve much more voter attention, but I'd say the problem of voter apathy is an equal opportunity affliction of both genders."

Many problems result from us being divided by gender, religious, ethnicity and party beliefs. Instead of uniting together focused on real issues many partisans are promoting and counting on us to be distracted by these differences. Whatever and whomever seeks to divide us fails unite us. Not a good thing.

I also wanted to let you know--by commenting here--I've always valued your opinions and your willingness to speak out over these many years. I'm certain MM would agree as he so stated..

Scott Armstrong said...

All three broadcast networks are thoroughly liberal. This includes television and radio news reporting. CNN, MSNBC,CNBC,Bloomberg... are liberal.FOXNEWS reflects Republican establishment thinking. These news outlets are where the majority of Americans get their news. Almost every newspaper in the nation slants hard left, most magazines geared to women, the ones our mothers read, Woman's Day and Redbook for instance are liberal. GQ, Rolling Stone(once a rock and roll publication) are liberal. National Geographic is far left. What is interesting about many of these publications is that they are mistakenly viewed by readers as "objective" and non political. The Weekly Standard, National Review, the Blaze,Rush Limbaugh... are open about their politics.
Add to this mix the reality that Hollywood is uses films and television programs as vehicles for their personal political beliefs, all very left wing. These again as passed off as non political, just entertainment.
Our pop culture has also entered politics as objective, caring, non partisan spokespeople for a variety of left wing causes. Every conservation organization has gone totally left wing, (supporting causes such as trans gender bathrooms) even though most of the countries environmental legislation was the product of Republican administrations.
In sports, athletics who act out publicly on/for left wing causes or protests are made heroes by a now very politicized and very all liberal sports media. Again this sort of reporting is passed off as mainstream/ non political, just by the book reporting. It is anything but that, but those tuning in for their dose of sports news are given plenty of liberal perspective written into the coverage.
The template is that one side is altruistic, the other selfish, stupid, self serving... One is good the other bad. This sort of nuance is a constant in all of the above reporting and entertainment coverage and programing. Again it is presented as politically neutral.
I know where I have to go to get a conservative perspectives, but I must seek it out. It is never woven into films, TV shows, news programing,sports programming or entertainment.

LVCI said...

OMG.. Scott calm down. The sports world, news and entertainment industries aren't united against you.

LVCI said...

Scott Armstrong --"Every conservation organization has gone totally left wing,"
Wow!

LVCI said...

"I know where I have to go to get a conservative perspectives, but I must seek it out. It is never woven into films, TV shows, news programing, sports programming or entertainment."

Where's that?

LVCI said...

Sorry MM but as long as your going to host these kind of comments I'll respond to them. If you so choose to delete mine so should you also those like those others have made in all fairness. It's a tough call I understand... but it comes with the territory when you allow for such controversy. I'll respect your decision If you should decide to disallow my opinions here--but it if so required I'll address them otherwise on my own blog. This is not meant to be interpreted as a threat. Rather a way I intend to respond to those whom I may no longer be allowed to voice against. While I respect whatever decision you may make for your blog I refuse my voice not being heard. My hope is you will continue to be fair minded as you have been in the past in allowing such opinions.

ironpigpen said...

What Mr. Armstrong says about the sports media is 100% correct. Furthermore, look at what NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said right after Trump's election --- that this result would now make it harder for the NFL to curb domestic violence! Meanwhile, it is no secret that the NFL's TV ratings have been in decline for three straight years and at least a part of that, for those willing to accept the truth, is because a lot of people are flat out sick and tired of sportscasters constantly lecturing the public about their clearly leftist beliefs with respect to social issues.

JoshLCowen said...

Blogger LVCI said...
"I know where I have to go to get a conservative perspectives, but I must seek it out. It is never woven into films, TV shows, news programing, sports programming or entertainment."

Where's that?

REALLY, LVCI? YOU CAN'T SEE THE LIBERALISM PERMEATED IN THE POPULAR CULTURE? EVERY LATE NIGHT COMEDY/VARIETY SHOW? 'ALTERNATIVE' LIFESTYLES HIGHLIGHTED IN EVERY SITCOM AND DRAMA? 100% OF THE WHINERS IN THE AWARDS SHOWS ARE LIBERALS. NEED I SAY MORE?

LVCI said...

JoshLCowen: "YOU CAN'T SEE THE LIBERALISM PERMEATED IN THE POPULAR CULTURE?"

Why do you think that is? Why can't producers create entertainment films, award shows and TV programs owned by wealthy conservatives if there were a demand for it? Is there some law against this I'm not aware of?

TRENT HALL said...

I seriously doubt NFL TV viewership is down because of politics.

Rather, it is the soul crushing commercialization. A 60 minute game takes over three hours to watch now, what with all the network mandated time outs for commercials. Factor in the penalties, time outs, and huddle time prior to the snap, and there is about 15 minutes of actual football action. I get that with all the money expended by the broadcasting rights to the NFL that the NFL has to acquiesce to the broadcasting commercial time demands, but, it is killing the golden goose and turning people off.

The political divide on the subject of pro football & basketball is not the viewing public......it is well known the body politic is divided. Rather, it is the stark divide between the hired help...the players, and the owners. The former are mostly progressive, as one would expect from a young, college educated group, and a racially integrated one. The owners, all white senior male billionaires, were in the tank for Trump. In fact, Woody Johnson, owner of the Jets, just was named by Trump ambassador to Britain.

ironpigpen said...

Crushing commercialization is only a part of the story with respect to why the NFL's TV ratings have been in decline for three years in a row. The Lame Stream Media, who were / are in the tank for Hillary Rodham Clinton / 'the Left', want people to believe that there is a specific narrative the easily explains why the NFL's TV ratings are down. But We The American People were/are free to be the ultimate judge of what they think just the same way that people were free to not vote for Clinton if they so desired.

I believe it is laughable to suggest that people are tuning out the NFL because of the no-huddle offense, but that is, of course, only the opinion of one person --- and it was not just the opinion of only one person that got Donald J. Trump elected.

Scott Armstrong said...

See the aggressive response to those who point out the obvious. To those who seem not to notice that the "produced" culture is permeated with politics, consider that may be because you find it agreeable. That does not make it objective. Wiser heads would understand that.
By the way, go to the Sierra Club web site and see pages devoted to the need for Trans gender bathrooms and how the safety concerns of such for women is a red herring. One can find many, many more examples.

Scott Armstrong said...

By the way, "The National Football League waited just a week after the Super Bowl in Houston to warn the state of Texas that a proposal to limit transgender access to bathrooms could impact future decisions about the location of major sporting events." So much for the argument that liberalism hasn't permeated sports. The NBA has already punished North Carolina for similar reasons. I stopped watching it all over this. Great choice.

JoshLCowen said...

LVCI....there hasn't been a Conservative since Walt Disney. And not rich conservatives own media companies....they are owned by millions of millions of individuals through the evil stock markets. To deny liberalism in the popular culture is to deny, well, climate change or some other silliness.

Bernie O'Hare said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
george schaller said...

MM,
LVCI state the media is against one person when the fact locally is they are against any one individual but are against all individuals! They are the nue circus carnival barkerZ and advertiZe one sided news for many years.
Keeping most in the dark about the reel happenings locally and nationally too! Seems to me as a once avid reader of the Call there are only a few non biased local news outlets reporting on reel issues and not trying to sell something nobody wants.

TRENT HALL said...

The three commentators above remind me of the three stooges without the seltzer water.

Only on this blog and the other alt right "news" sources are people/institutions/corporations/sports organizations standing up for civil rights called "liberalism." To the rest of the civilized world, not supporting discrimination is called "truth, justice, and the American way."

Slavery gone in the USA, Apartheid gone in South Africa, women having the vote in the USA, people in the USA having the right to marry whomever they simply love, people having access to health insurance without having to die or declare bankruptcy......sure must be tough for you guys having to put up with this evil liberalism today.....while Trump did promise to make America white again, even he didn't promise it would be 1917 tomorrow.

Suburban Dad said...

Media today is polarized, and biased, in one direction, or the other. It's unfortunate, but it seems polarization drives ratings. We have become consumers of news, only from the red spigot or the blue spigot of media, but very rarely both.

I truly wish that news outlets could become more balanced. I don't think it can happen, as biased pundits, on both sides, can fill a lot of cable and online bandwidth with the blather. That content drives ratings.

Even this blog, is not apolitical, no matter how much it professes to be. The simple truth is that if a media or blog, is going to mention politics, it will be decoded by the reader or listener, through the lens of their bias.

If you want to be completely apolitical, you would have to limit your posts to how much it snowed or how pretty the flowers look in the parkway.