08 August 2007

KingCast sees Governor Lynch go to North Country.... but not to help out on the Franconia shooting tragedy.

Yepper, here he is grippin' and grinnin' with babies and talking about mental health issues while doing absolutely nothing about the mental health of the traumatized LE and civilians in the post-traumatic stress conditions that exist out there right now. A few weeks ago his office hung up on me when I asked him to accompany me to the area for a fact-finding tour.

He probably did not ride a motorcycle out there because he still doesn't know how to. And he didn't know how to respond to this KingCast letter either but that's okay because a copy of it will be placed in the Court file for the Motion for Declaratory Judgment. It's ALL GOOD Mr. Governor because we've got something for you and Kelly coming that's going to smack you broadside right across that phony smile of yours.

Anyway, here is a press release from the Franconia Collective and a link to a related Concord Monitor opinion letter on mental health for the region.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Methinks he'll be making another trip here soon to apologize to us and try and save his political career.

Just a hunch. Too bad, he had ample opportunity to change course.

Christopher King said...

I just want to see what the emails say about this.

And I'll win on that.

Anonymous said...

I agree that it would be great to have the governor be a part of solving the issues raised by the tragedy in Franconia. I guess demanding that the Governor do exactly what tell him to, when you tell him to do it, is one way to approach the chief executive of the state. Alas, thinking that a 2nd term governor with 70%+ approval ratings is going to ever come here begging for forgiveness may demonstrate the gap between reality and the thinking stated above.

As someone with some minor experience in this area, could I suggest a strategy that, while it wouldn't have the rhetorical benefits of the strategy above, might actually be more effective towards achieving the stated goal of getting justice for New Hampshire's citizens?

The first step would have been to establish a contact in his office that could be depended to get news of the evidence uncovered here to the governor; it could be an aide or an assistant, or even another elected official that had his ear. Then, instead of insulting and demeaning that person the second they didn't do exactly what you told them to do, you would offer them the FACTS (NOT the speculation) that the investigation here has revealed.
Those facts are significant, have revealed serious errors on the AG and Franconia police chief's and selectmen's part. They would act as powerful evidence.

Then, as the evidence truly begins to suggest that the state is going to get their ass kicked and embarrassed in court, guess what happens? The governor's office starts exerting pressure on the AG's office to get their shit straight, possibly reopen the investigation (if that's possible), and to release all the information around the case. That would lead to the goals I've seen stated here.

Now, as theatre, it doesn't measure up to constantly threatening to continually kick everyone's ass (which, I agree, may happen anyway on the basis of the evidence revealed). But ultimately, is style or substance more important than getting this information out? Does it make sense to bet everything on a court decision when it could have been "coerced" my working the available channels before resorting to legislation.

Based on what I've seen, the answer will be something like, "We told so-and-so that they needed to do this, and the media whores and officials are evil and satanic and they never would have done the right thing." No, they don't always do the right thing which is why the first step is to try to coerce them and show them why it's in their best interests to do the right thing. It's an approach that does acknowledge that the world is not as perfect as the hoped for idealism here, but it often works. And then, if it doesn't work, there's always the option for litigation.

Litigation has one disadvantage; if a particular judge has their robe in a wad on a particular day, it could mean a negative ruling. There are appeals, but they take time and can be expensive I would imagine. Why not use all strategies instead of putting all the eggs in one basket?

Style vs. Substance...

Anonymous said...

If Lynch learns to ride, and buy a Harley, will you be happy?

Anonymous said...

celidh

I see you prefer the "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" approach, versus the "squeeky wheel gets the grease" mentality.

I think the approach to be taken depends upon the mentality of the group you seek action from. I haven't seen CK make demands directly of Gov. Lynch, although he did try and organize a fact-finding mission that was rebuffed by his press secretary gate-keeper. If there has been such demands made directly to Gov Lynch and the executive branch please point them out, I may be mistaken.

I have seen plenty of demands to the players who withhold information (AG's office, town selectboard, FPD) and their lawyers. I think this approach is completely in line given the fact they won't respond unless life is made uncomfortable for them (hence the reason for a right to know law). It's part of the "game" and I think Chris plays well within the rules and is effective.

I think your suggested approach has merit with the Governor. I can say it has already been tried with State Rep McCleod with little success. Perhaps you can move forward from attacking the messenger and put some of your own good suggestions into practice using the information presented on this blog as part of your getting to Lynch's ear. If you can't do it maybe some other caring and connected individual can.

As for the media, I would love to wake up to WMUR running a story that accurately portrays the facts as delineated here. Alas, this mornings "news" was Windham's school colors controversy:

http://www.wmur.com/news/
13844343/detail.html

So who can blame CK for being frustrated with a press that is afraid to present controversy?

Soon I suspect they'll have to listen and they'll wish they had come when invited, instead of having to beg forgiveness.

Anonymous said...

bullshit controversy sells papers.

Christopher King said...

celidh:

Style versus substance?

Oh, we've got PLENTY of substance or have you not been reading the published cases I've been setting forth?

Did you read the letters I sent to Governor Lynch?

Did you see the pictures from when Oliver and I went to his office?

It's more than his gatekeeper who "doesn't do exactly what I asked......"

They HUNG UP, dude.

And they HUNG UP again when I went IN PERSON with a lobbyist, for Pete's sake.

**********

Lastly, if you knew what I knew you probably wouldn't have written this:

"Alas, thinking that a 2nd term governor with 70%+ approval ratings is going to ever come here begging for forgiveness may demonstrate the gap between reality and the thinking stated above."

You will know what I know in the next week or so.

Namaste.

Anonymous said...

11:25

Advertising $ pay the bills. Advertisers shun contraversy.

Also, are you aware of the backlash the Concord Monitor took from subscibers when they were the first to openly question the rush to judgement the AG took?

No, in this day and age, being safe satisfies the stockholders, and that is what matters.

celidh,

You say that the Governor would be so arrogant as to not seek the good will of the North Country? Even in light of the fact you later state:

Then, as the evidence truly begins to suggest that the state is going to get their ass kicked and embarrassed in court, guess what happens? The governor's office starts exerting pressure on the AG's office to get their shit straight, possibly reopen the investigation (if that's possible), and to release all the information around the case. That would lead to the goals I've seen stated here.

I'm confused as to your agenda here.

Anonymous said...

10:30

excellent, substantive post -

i offer, respectfully, that celidh might consider a commitment of time and resources to supplement the effort to achieve his desired outcome?

Anonymous said...

Chris:

You're right, I should go back and read the letters. I was just assuming from the tone and approach used with other entities (and the fact that you got hung up on) that you likely made what they might have seen as presumptious and unrealistic demands on them (as I've seen happen with others, i.e. D.S.).

And you're right, there's lots of substance (especially lately). I just think the "style" element trumps common sense here at times, that's all.

And, regarding the fact that I wouldn't write what I wrote because I don't know what you know? OK, until I know that info I will have to trust you on that. I look forward to hearing such blockbuster news that it threatens the political future of a 70%+ approval rating governor; you're promising a ground-shaking bomb right there though, I'm not sure if the general public is going to see it as you do, but let's let time tell...



10:00AM:

No, I don't prefer the "honey" method over "squeaky wheel"; in fact, by nature I'm much more comfortable with the, "Do it now or you're a jerk" method that seems to be used quite often here. I had to learn, over time, not to try to smash through a wall when there's an open door right down the hall. Sometimes, without knowing it, people just like to smash walls more than look for open doors (hint-hint). The wall-smashing is much more cinematic (hint). My own struggle with that tendency can be seen by my somewhat strident tone at times here.

Yes, Chris was rebuffed. He also states he was they hung up the phone on him. Now, you say:

" If there has been such demands made directly to Gov Lynch and the executive branch please point them out"

Well, when they were asking for a fact-finding mission from the Gov's press secretary, sending the Governor letters, and going into the Governor's office, exactly what branch of government and who do you think they've been asking?

And as for the critical nature of the post, it just comes the tendency on this blog to make demands for others to get on the same page as the people here, and when they don't, to slap them in the face as traitors, cowards, fascists, etc.

And this line regarding the media:

"Soon I suspect they'll have to listen and they'll wish they had come when invited, instead of having to beg forgiveness."

Well, that seems to be the pervasive "fantasy" here; that others may ignore us, but they'll pay and be begging on their knees for forgiveness soon enough.

No they won't; they'll be driven by profit AFTER this case, exactly as they were driven by profit BEFORE this case. Sorry folks, even if everything goes as hoped here, it's not going to change the world in one swoop; there's still going to be as much need for this type of advocacy as there was before this case.

11:42:

I can't figure out what your question is. Sorry.

Regarding my agenda: it's to make sure that the overheated rhetoric and unrealistic approaches to media, gov't, etc., don't ruin the good work here.

I'm old enough to see some of the ramifications of the sometime negative approaches here, and I'm raising my voice in an effort to point out that there are times for the hammer, and there are times for the honey. As I said before, the use of a hammer makes for good "copy", but at times it can cause more damage than it's worth. It's knowing when to use which tool, and at times I think the "cinematic" and dramatic gesture here trumps the sensible approach occassionally. Too much jalepeno, not enough tomato, dig? It's about balance...

10:30:

I already do work on two major causes that take a lot of my time and resources, including volunteering hundred(s) of hours a year, but thanks. Do you?

If I had specific connections to help here I would use them in this case. If an occassion arises that I judge could be helpful, I will do something.

My post above, trying to warn about the dangers of idealist crusading without regards to the real life concerns of others IS my way of contributing. Believe it or not, it's less a critical attack than a warning about methods that are often used here that COULD be conterproductive to the cause of justice.

A critique is not the same as an attack, and if you don't think there are style and theatrics here that occassionally trump the mission, "open thine eyes." I'm realistic enough in life to know that it happens sometimes, so it's cool, but that doesn't mean I can't point it out.

Anonymous said...

2:21
ok, fine, "critiques", not "attacks". CK's philosophical approach differs from yours. chris is mind and hands on right now, and you're the observer. it's getting crowded in here?!
your endless comments, hammering away at the same ideas, albeit some important, day after day, have surely been heard and considered by now.
perhaps you are parroting guidance from the governor's office? .... highly doubtful, but if so, that might present yet another reason to move in a different direction! much has already been explained, point by point. i regret the nagging is becoming loud and tiresome.
your critiques have a quality of doomsday foreboding in them which will only be crystal clear in retrospect.
cheers!

Christopher King said...

celidh said...
Chris:

You're right, I should go back and read the letters. I was just assuming from the tone and approach used with other entities (and the fact that you got hung up on) that you likely made what they might have seen as presumptious and unrealistic demands on them (as I've seen happen with others, i.e. D.S.).

......what other entities?? You are aware that several members of the School Board thanked me for my professionalism, including a licensed atttorney with whom I still interact.

And you're right, there's lots of substance (especially lately). I just think the "style" element trumps common sense here at times, that's all.

......nah, all things in due course, my brother. Sure I have a different sorta' style, more West Coast and beyond but obviously it has nothing to do with how I write a brief or how I present before a public body or in Court. You got apples (a blawg) and oranges (the Court).

And, regarding the fact that I wouldn't write what I wrote because I don't know what you know? OK, until I know that info I will have to trust you on that. I look forward to hearing such blockbuster news that it threatens the political future of a 70%+ approval rating governor; you're promising a ground-shaking bomb right there though, I'm not sure if the general public is going to see it as you do, but let's let time tell...

.........yes it will, and with that I am fully confident.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Dear Maddison:

The have been two constants in the blog I guess.

1) My "endless comments" and...

2) Your tendency to create incredibly unlikely scenarios to explain the motives to anyone that dares point out the negative aspects of the strategies used here; your latest being...

"perhaps you are parroting guidance from the governor's office?"

So, lets see; the only way anyone could possibly dissagree with anything here is if there's a grand conspiracy, i.e. the Governor's office is feeding me lines!! Wake up Sparky, please, some of us actually think for ourselves, and have lived in the world long enough to see how it actually works sometimes...

While you're sharing, anything you want to let us know about 9/11 being an inside job?... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Dear Maddison:

The have been two constants in the blog I guess.

1) My "endless comments" and...

2) Your tendency to create incredibly unlikely scenarios to explain the motives to anyone that dares point out the negative aspects of the strategies used here; your latest being...

"perhaps you are parroting guidance from the governor's office?"

So, lets see; the only way anyone could possibly dissagree with anything here is if there's a grand conspiracy, i.e. the Governor's office is feeding me lines!! Wake up Sparky, please, some of us actually think for ourselves, and have lived in the world long enough to see how it actually works...

BTW, you forgot to answer the question about whether you actually volunteer any substantial amount of your time or resources to any worth cause other than your own benefit; I'm sure it was just an innocent oversite on your part. Salud!

Anonymous said...

Chris:

Sounds good, I look forward to hearing the info....

Anonymous said...

6:32
great to hear about your two major causes...hope you're on your way to a third.
i haven't offered to share personal info, but thanks for asking.

Anonymous said...

I didn't ask what the causes were; I asked if you did devote your time and resources to causes other than yourself after you attempted to "call me out" on helping with this cause.

I think you answered it.

In the future, be careful trying to call people out on things that you yourself aren't willing to do my friend. Salud!

Anonymous said...

hey, celidah - "sparky", here!

i see you can't resist interjecting some name-calling. nor can i.

i am less concerned about the details of your volunteer commitment. rather, my well-intended suggestion was that the strategies and influence you insist upon being applied to this cause may be worked and more fully implemented by your personal efforts, here or elsewhere.

the post at 10:30 wisely suggests the following:

Perhaps you can move forward from attacking the messenger and put some of your own good suggestions into practice using the information presented on this blog as part of your getting to Lynch's ear. If you can't do it maybe some other caring and connected individual can.

i do not predict a negative outcome resulting from the manner by which CK has chosen to pursue certain avenues of remedy, bright boy.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Maddison.

"....this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon,....the masking of criticism...."


I will not mask my criticism to you. It is the way that you relentlessly criticize Chris that is highly annoying. You are truly taking away from the important information regarding the case. If you care as much as you say you do then please take the action that you deem necessary for YOU to be successful. If you don't like how Chris is doing it then do it your way - take action steps as opposed to posting several times a day your displeasure as to how it is being done by someone else. Again, I will say that it is the constant hammering of the same thing that seems inappropriate at this point. Pretend all you want but what you are doing is negative not positive.


criticism - disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings; "the senator received severe criticism from his opponent"
unfavorable judgment
attack - strong criticism; "he published an unexpected attack on my work"
disapproval - the expression of disapproval
brickbat - blunt criticism
carping, faultfinding - persistent petty and unjustified criticism
flack, flak, attack, blast, fire - intense adverse criticism; "Clinton directed his fire at the Republican Party"; "the government has come under attack"; "don't give me any flak"
thrust - verbal criticism; "he enlivened his editorials with barbed thrusts at politicians"
potshot - criticism aimed at an easy target and made without careful consideration; "reporters took potshots at the mayor"
rebuke, reprehension, reprimand, reproof, reproval - an act or expression of criticism and censure; "he had to take the rebuke with a smile on his face"
slating - a severely critical attack; "the reviewers gave his book a sound slating"
static - angry criticism; "they will probably give you a lot of static about your editorial"
stricture - severe criticism

Anonymous said...

OK, so if I had a sibling who was going to take his family (including my young nieces and nephews) on a roadtrip, and one of the tires on the vehicle looked like it was unsafe, perhaps about to show the tread...

According to your logic, I would be acting in a NEGATIVE way if I were to urge him to change the tire before the trip, because I was very concerned about the well-being of my brother, his wife, and my neices and nephews? I would be acting in a "loud...nagging...tiresome" way "...with a quality of doomsday", right?

Here's the analogy, spelt out for you...

It is very UNLIKELY that the tire would actually fail; even if the tire failed, it would be unlikely that anyone in the family would be hurt. Still, my duty as someone who cares about my family would be to put pressure on my brother to change the tire before the trip, even if it is HIS family.

There you go, for those who have difficulty discerning between constructive criticism and attacks. Sorry you couldn't find that in the dictionary, but maybe you can try looking under "common sense".

And Maddison, after avoiding the question of whether you do any volunteer work yourself (with the hilarious "I haven't offered to share personal information", which reads as "no, you caught me being a complete hypocrite..."), please don't be so delicate to be offended by being called "sparky". Especially after using the words "loud...tiring..." in a post. Your apparent hurt at being called "Sparky" is a bit disingenuous.

It is BECAUSE I support the ultimate goals of Chris' efforts that I chime in with observations of things that are happening that needlessly jeopardize the goals he's put forth. It's not really that complicated to understand now, is it?

Anonymous said...

Buy your brother a tire, or offer a ride in your vessel. If he's unwilling at least proceed alongside and offer support and security in case it blows...or nag him to death, then say I told you so. ;)

Anonymous said...

10:12
ministering to you is a massive volunteer effort...the persistence you demonstrate and the attention you demand is limitless.

no doubt you realize your suggestions and ideas have been heard and considered, but you continue to badger. your negative emotional presence speaks volumes to the lack of sincerity in moving toward the positive outcome you/we desire.

it's like slapping mosquitoes; they buzz, and whine, and are immensely annoying...nothing positive about them. you, too, might consider a different approach, as you've recommended to others.

you have assumed a self-appointed role of righteous, almighty and powerful critic, having come here to "save" chris from himself....and, by analogy, your family from a faulty tire, and potentially, an accident.

noted. many times noted.

as i've said before, and we apparently agree, you are an observer... and i might add, this is not your blawg or mine.

as you say:

It is BECAUSE I support the ultimate goals of Chris' efforts that I chime in with observations of things that are happening that needlessly jeopardize the goals he's put forth.

your observation about potential jeopardy is, simply, your opinion.

Anonymous said...

Maddison! I thought you weren't going to offer personal information?

Turns out I've given you an opportunity to put your "money where your mouth is!" Look what it did for you...

Maddison said >> "ministering to you is a massive volunteer effort..."

Hey, you've actually volunteered for something outside your own interests!!! Now, I don't think you're near to being qualified to "minister" to me, but I appreciate the effort.

I would suggest, since you're such a fan of the work here, and you don't work for any causes besides yourself, that you do less ministering here and volunteer with some cause in your own community. Then, you can have a little legitimacy when you try to call out others to volunteer in the future. Cheers mate!

Anonymous said...

celidh,

Right back where you started from but just going for a different person. Guess, she couldn't meet your standards either. No ever does. Gave up trying.

Anonymous said...

12:56
hey, celidh, know what? i'm starting to like you! you're so....ummmm....present. have you seen our friend F*O*R*O? gosh, i miss him!!
vty,
the church lady

Anonymous said...

11:00
who are you? great! and much needed comic relief ;-)

sistah sparky

Anonymous said...

It's all about keeping a smile on the little one's faces, just remember, it's all about the kids...

;-)

Anonymous said...

Irony:

It just struck me that all I'm doing is acting to this blog as this blog acts to the system. Think about that for a sec.

Soooo, if that's true, does that mean that the rabid response my MILD dissenting view receives makes my more rabid critics the equivalent of Kelly Ayotte and Bruce Mckay?

There are those here that don't give much slack to anyone that thinks differently than the party line; even if you think Chris is talented, that thet work is important, but you question aspects of the approaches that are used at times. You are attacked if you don't fit into the thinking of the majority of people here (kind of like Liko being unique and not quite fitting with the "system" in Franconia.

I think the worst thing I've ever said is that there was some "childish" name calling done here, things on that level (besides taking a few people to task for incoherent arguments, "ad hominem" attacks run rampant here). I've backed up anything I've said with reasoned argument. But the quality of an argument is less important here most of the time than daring to think differently. Hmm, stepping out of lockstep attacked on a blog defending the idea of people like Liko...

Wow, that blows my mind, and I wrote it...

Anonymous said...

Soooo, if that's true, does that mean that the rabid response my MILD dissenting view receives makes my more rabid critics the equivalent of Kelly Ayotte and Bruce Mckay?

At times your reasoning defies logic and there is not even a palatable answer, as I cannot even make it to your universe.

You are not seeing yourself clearly if you think you occasionally question aspects of Chris' methods. If that were the case then it would be reasonable and healthy but your behavior does not fit into this category. What you do is more like a vulture pecking at someone's flesh on a daily basis.

I do hope you have the capacity to grasp this, as your view is not the only one and if you feel comfortable giving constant advice to others then you should have big enough shoulders to bear a bit of advice yourself. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

the tire story is also a very poor analogy to what you are referencing. you might want to try for a more sufficient one that has more relativity to the behavior. i am not sure this one works very well. just my thoughts but wanted to help you out so you will succeed in communicating more effectively with others.

Anonymous said...

Nah, the analogy will work for people with adequate abstract reasoning skills, but thanks for your analysis. Keep working on those capital letters though, and remember; 2 spaces at the end of a sentence...

Anonymous said...

10:50,

Your head must be full of rocks.

Maybe oatmeal.

Anonymous said...

ZZZ...