Gmail. Holy S**t!

Don't you hate that?  Propriety these days requires me not to print certain words.  I can suggest them, by using asterisks for some of the letters, but I'm not supposed to print the whole words.  But the pseudocamouflage only works if you read the word I didn't type.  You must be thinking the word I'm not supposed to say.  How utterly silly and childish.  But in order not to offend, I'm not to type the word.  But if you have to read the word I didn't type, didn't I offend anyway?  Never mind.

I was writing an e-mail to my cousin.  We were talking about scotch whisky.  And unrelatedly, we were also talking about money.  So gmail has ads, along the top, the sides, and the bottom.  I suddenly noticed, while I was looking away from the letter I was typing, that one of the ads was for whisky glasses, and another was for a guide to stock trading.

My daughter forwarded to me an e-mail JetBlue confirmation of her trip to Miami this coming March.  The ads?  Plane fares.

I got an e-confirmation of a book purchase from alibris.com.  Ads this time?  Online shopping.

And personal e-mails without catchwords in the content?  No ads.

This seems very bad.  It's clear gmail is reading my mail.  It may be 28 years late, but 1984 is here.  It's "Big Brother" all over.  I find this very disheartening.  So that's why I paid Bill Gates $20 a year for a hotmail account.

CrimeWatch/Police Lunch 12/21/12

I wasn't going to post this report, on the chance that the world would end yesterday, and it wouldn't be necessary.  But it seems we're all back in business, and back to the grind, so let me tell you about yesterday's event.

We have an annual CrimeWatch lunch, and our police have an annual lunch for themselves.  This year we (Chuck Ross, Ray Atesiano, and Ana Garcia) decided to combine the events.  So we had a nice lunch that included representatives of CrimeWatch, the police, and the administration.  It was catered by PizzaFiore at NE 2nd and 96th in Miami Shores, and the food was very good.

We had about equal numbers residents, police, and administration/employees.  The focus of our time together was awards.  Lots of awards, and more than enough cause for them.  Our police have done a breathtaking job, moreso every year and every month.  Three kinds of indicators were presented.  One is arrests, for anything.  This sounds like bad news, but if you remember my explanation in "They Don't Call it CrimeWatch for Nothing," you'll remember that lots of arrests is a good thing.  We are off the charts in terms of arrest statistics.  I think Chuck or Ray said we're now over 800 for the year.  This number is unthinkable, except it's true.  The point here is that arrests are made for an identifiable cause, and we have intimidated a lot of mischief makers, who will now not want to come anywhere near us the next time they're in the mood to make mischief.  This is the operative dynamic.

The second indicator is arrest "clearance," or the rate at which crimes are solved.  I'm going to quote you the number from yesterday, though it's hard to believe it.  It's over 80% for this year.  To remind you, 30% is a very impressive number for most municipalities.  Nobody, ever, clears 80% of arrests.  Nobody except Ray Atesiano and his officers.  Here's what's going to happen to us.  Our police will realize what they're doing, they'll form a coalition, and they'll demand that we triple their salaries, or they'll jump ship.  And we won't have any choice but to give them whatever they want.  I told this to Nick Wollschlager, and he told me no, it's their pleasure to do what they can for us, who employ them.  You think I'm making this up, right?  Nope.  And I'll tell you now, Nick won the Officer of the Year Award.

The third indicator of the job our police are doing is the proof of the pudding.  Two years ago, there were about 60 burglaries in Biscayne Park.  Last year, there were about 40.  This year, there have been about 20.  Ray says his goal for next year is 10.  Do you want to live in a really safe community?  Done.  It's not gated, there are no security cameras, and it's not swarming with police.  The result of solid, persistent police work is a place where criminals don't bother to go, and the residents live in peace.  If it gets better than that, I'd like to know how.

The awards.  The shorter list is who didn't get one.  Nick did.  Guillermo Ravelo is the Rookie of the year.  Jason Santiago is the Reserve Officer of the Year.  Most Improved, or something, is Carlos Meza.  Charlie Dayoub got an award, as did Mark Tarr, Roy Camara, and Rafael Del Villar .  The latter two are also BP residents.  Larry Churchman got an award.  So did Ray Atesiano, who has the abundant support and appreciation of his troops.  And the growing gratitude of this community.

Chuck got an award from the police, and Rosemary Wais got an award from Chuck.  It was the first ever CrimeWatch award given to a member of Citizens' CrimeWatch, and Rosemary got it for general participation, enthusiasm, and helpfulness.  She was taken completely off guard, and I won't say there wasn't a bit of choking up and loss for some words.

Our police gave an award to their boss, Ana Garcia.  They figured out exactly how girlie she is, and what a tough guy she is.  They managed both to get some tears from her, and present her with a statue of an eagle.  She could not have been more appreciative and moved.  And the way had been paved earlier by Candido Sosa, her Assistant, who reportedly told her how "bad-ass" she looked, which she did.  The perfect combination of girlie and tough guy.

Not enough of "us" were there, but those who were enjoyed ourselves, got even closer and more personal with our guys, had a nice meal, and felt the love.  Of which there was plenty.  And it would be an omission not to give props to our two stalwart, reliable, dedicated Commissioners, who are always there, always contributing, and never flinch.  Thanks Rox, and thanks, Bob.  That's the kind of day it was.  Next year, come.  It's free, it's fun, and we're all welcome.

Let Me Tell You Whom You're Dealing With, Sucka.

I could have called this post "Hizzoner."  But what we witness month after month, and meeting after meeting, is something more imperious, and more provocative, and more threatening than that.  I didn't want to let this seem cute, because it isn't cute at all.

I don't just mean the symbolism concretized in the ending of discussions.  Where most chairpeople would make a casual, and certainly courteous, observation that there seemed to be no more discussion, or would ask if there was any more, Noah Jacobs likes to close consideration of topics by his own personal, and personalized, declaration, "I'm calling for the question."  He leaves no doubt, and wants no doubt, about who's in charge here.  He even customizes the phrase "calling the question," so you know this is Noah, and we'll do it Noah's way.

No, it's not just that.  It's the way Noah tries to exercise his sense of power.  It's the frequency with which he says, as he did again last night, that if you do this or that, or you don't do this or that, you won't get his vote.  It's different from Bryan Cooper, who rarely agrees with anything, and says almost by way of explanation that he "can't vote for" whatever it is, for whatever is his excuse of the moment.  He isn't bargaining.  He's just telling you why the answer is no, as the answer is almost always no.

Jacobs' approach is different.  It has a dynamic to it.  He tells you what you can have, and what it will cost you to get it.  Is this a nice way to deal with people?  No, it is most assuredly not nice.  But Noah isn't about nice, or cooperative.  He's about his own little sense of power.  And importantly, it's not about the issue.  It's not about the Village.  It's only about Noah.  Last night, the issue was so minor that you could have overlooked it.  It was insignificant.  It was nothing more than where in the Village paperwork to put the requirement that the Code Officer work however many hours, or have whatever credential.  Should this requirement be in the description of the Code Compliance Board, or should it be in the job description of the Code Compliance Officer?  No one disagreed that the requirement was important.

So it's an oddity that sticks out like a sore thumb when Noah makes such a big deal about it, and uses it as the latest setting for his standard, and seemingly adored, ultimatum: if you move it to the job description, instead of the Code Compliance Board, you won't get my vote.  It's bizarre.  It's embarrassing.  Though seemingly not to Noah.  He treats a simple matter like a fight, as if it were consequential and important.

Now truth be told, there appeared to be an undercurrent dynamic at work.  As it happens, Barbara Watts had the identical concern.  Bob Anderson said he thought the Officer's job description was better placed under the personnel section of Village regulation, but it was OK with him if it was left in the Code Board's regulations.  Roxy Ross didn't care, as long as the matter was moved along.  Only Jacobs and Watts said they saw this as important.  Critically important.  How these two people, one of whom has no familiarity with the workings of the Village, and the other of whom has only a spotty little, came both to feel this seemingly minor and nominal matter was so critically important is perhaps anyone's guess.  If you think about it, there is only one difference created by where you put the description.  If you put the description in the personnel regulations, it's the Manager who monitors and controls it.  If you put it in the Code Board regulations, it's the Code Board that monitors and controls it.  Considering that it's the Manager who hires and fires, and the Manager who is a trained expert in municipal management, you would pretty much have to be at war with the position of the manager to want to make a battlefield of such a small issue.  Is there anyone in the Village who seems persistently to be at war with the position of the manager, apparently no matter who fills that position?  I don't know.  I'll have to think about it.  And if I could think of any such person, it would apparently have to be someone with influence over Jacobs and Watts.  That's a pretty specific requirement.

But it doesn't change the issue about Jacobs' style.  We're talking about someone who has gotten way ahead of himself.  Who has no sense of proportion.  Frankly, I wasn't fully expecting it last night, and not only because the issue was a non-issue.  Jacobs made special mention of last week's tragedy in Connecticut, and he suggested that such an event should make clear what's really important in life.  It seems Noah's conclusion is that he is.



PS: If it appears I left Bryan Cooper out of the discussion of last night's meeting, it's because he wasn't there.  He left himself out.  Some of us complained about it, again.  After the meeting, Dan Samaria approached us and said there was a reason Bryan wasn't there, Dan could not reveal what that reason was, and that if we knew about it, perhaps we would be a bit more forgiving of Bryan's absence.  We agreed that things do happen, and that if anyone in any capacity could no longer meet his or her responsibilities to an organization, it was appropriate to resign.  And noting, of course, that Bryan isn't just occasionally absent.  He's absent more than anyone else, and he invariably neglects a whole class of Commissioner responsibilities.  At this point, Dan became muddled about his excuses for Bryan.

Correction to "I Should Have to Work Harder..."

Roxy Ross contacted me after I posted "I Should Have to Work Harder..."  She let me know that it was not Jacobs' idea to delay starting the meeting last time.  It was her own idea.  She said Jacobs asked her if he should start without Watts and Cooper, and she told him he should wait.  She also told me that Watts showed up, breathless and frazzled, put her stuff down, then wanted to go back to the lobby to get a cup of coffee.  Again, Ross felt it was appropriate to wait for her to come back.

So my apologies to Jacobs for my assumption, based on what I took to be an observation, that he chose not to start the meeting without Watts and Cooper.  It was certainly his decision to make, but according to Ross, it was not he who made it.

If we assume that he proceeds the same way all the time, we would then have to imagine that the month before, he asked Watts and Cooper what to do in Ross' and Anderson's absence, and they told him to forge ahead without these colleagues.  If this is the case, it is made to appear that Ross, and persumably Anderson, are considerate of their colleagues, and Watts and Cooper are not.  And of course Jacobs comes out looking either like he can't make decisions on his own, doesn't know what he's doing, or couldn't care less.

Anyway, I did want to be fair.  I said something, and assumed something, that was technically incorrect.

Winterfest, 2012

What a nice day.  There were enough minor threats, though, to keep us honest.  There was significant rain early this morning, but the clouds broke well before the planned start.  There was very minor drizzling during the event, but not enough to change anyone's behavior, except mine and Gary Kuhl's.  We kept bringing the Parks and Parkways fundraising table in, then bringing it back out.  Ultimately, out is where it stayed.

We started off with a small, but interesting, car show.  The organizer was Joe Chao, who has done these before, and he has them down to a science.  He brought in friends from other parts of the county, but most of the cars were from the Dezer car museum in North Miami, and BP residents.  Some were old, some newer, several exotic.  And all pristine.  Many of us, some who I would not have imagined were interested in cars, enjoyed looking and touching.  The car and motorcycle, and bicycle, show was appealing and satisfying.

The rest of Winterfest was a mixture of pleasures.  There were inflatable funhouses for the kids, a small merry-go-round, and lots of music.  There were just a few tables of fundraisers and vendors.  Not as many as in recent years, though.   Actually, I miss the vendors who used to line the whole southeast edge of the park.  There were food trucks, at least one of which made very good food.  I didn't try the other two.

The other thing I ate was Barbara Kuhl's cupcakes and brownies.  They were the reward for a donation to P&P, which is raising money to finish the planting outside the recreation center.  The finish is plaques identifying the plants (what else would P&P want to do?), and Barbara raised more than enough money.  She's quite a baker, Barbara is.  And it should be acknowledged, with pleasure and special gratitude, that we have some very generous neighbors here.  These are people who are devoted to BP and clearly happy to live here and be a part of things.  There were some people who had to be asked to be slightly less generous.  One of them asked Barbara how much money P&P needed to raise ($150), and when she told him, he said he'd cover it himself.  She thanked him, but wouldn't let him do that, and he made a sizable donation anyway.  That's a hell of a thing, isn't it?  Those are the kinds of neighbors, and friends, you want.

The turnout was distinctly gratifying.  The usuals were there, of course, but we also had the car crowd.  And there were loads of kids.  Probably five or six of our police were there, including Charlie Dayoub and his new friend, Melody, the canine.  It looks like Charlie is still trying to train Melody, who is quite overactive.  Ana Garcia was there, as were four of our Commissioners.  Too bad that's worth mentioning, right?  We're not getting the fifth, so it was as good as it was going to get.

The usual police-escorted Santacade happened.  I'm told Jim Reeder is not well enough to be Santa any more, so it was reportedly Richard Ederr.  I didn't see him, if he was there.

But everyone seemed to have had a nice time.  The kids played with each other, the parents talked to each other, people enjoyed the music, and everyone seemed pleased to have a community day.

They Make You an Offer it Seems You Can't Refuse. So Try Harder. Refuse.

Some years back, I switched to propane for my stove/oven, hot water, and clothes dryer.  I signed up with Suburban Propane, just several blocks from here.  Things went well, after an initial glitch, but the price kept jumping up.  It seemed that every time I would get a delivery, I would have to call the office, speak to the manager (Steve Watson), and get a readjustment.  It was a certain amount of trouble.  So I started scouting around for a possible change to another supplier, and I found Dolphin Gas.  They're up in Miami Gardens, they're a small local company, and they made me just the offer I wanted.  They weren't one of those big corporates, like Suburban, with middle managers to pay, they could easily undercut Suburban's price, and they could turn on a dime.  I could call any time, and I'd be speaking with the owner.  How satisfying is that!  Done.

The trouble started almost immediately.  The price to rent the tank was higher, but that was going to be OK, because I'd save on the price of gas.  I'd come out ahead, they reassured.  I agreed to rent the tank, as opposed to buying it, as I rented with Suburban, but what I didn't find out until after the tank was installed was that I had to buy the regulator.  It cost $195.  And I had no use in the world for this piece, except to connect to the gas tank.  If I'm renting the tank, and I can only use the regulator as an attachment for the tank, why isn't it part of what I'm renting?  It was part of the rented tank with Suburban.  That's just the way we do it, they explained, as if the explanation was satisfactory.  Or rational.

Then, the deliveries started.  The price was as advertised at first, but it didn't stay that way.  This led to the same quarterly argument I used to have with Suburban, except now I was resentful.  And Dolphin would come by when they wanted, and threaten to charge me a "trip fee" if I wasn't there to take delivery.  They always reversed the penalty, but it was a waste of my time, and it left me even more resentful.  Finally, I got a bill that was higher than I expected, and I called to inquire.  It seems I didn't use as much gas as I used to, and they didn't have to replace as much.  So they applied the minimum charge, which was very high per gallon.  I asked the owner, Linda, about this, and she asked me if there were less people living in the house since last November.  Yes, in fact, there were.  Apparently, this is the standard result of a kid going off to college, or a couple who are no longer a couple.  But instead of calling to readjust the schedule of delivery, they just kept up the quarterly deliveries, and charged me more.  So now, I'm going back to Suburban, who are much easier to deal with, and I have no further complaints.

About three years ago, I had gotten one too many mailings from ATT/Uverse, and decided it didn't make sense not to save the money.  I agreed to switch.  On three conditions.  One, I must have a wired line.  I depend on my phone system.  Two, Uverse must save me money.  And three, my wife likes to watch TV, and she has favorite shows.  She must have her shows.  One, no problem.  We're fully wired.  Two, no problem.  You will save money.  Three, we can't look it up right now, to check your wife's preferences, but we have loads of contracts with networks, and we keep getting more.  So assume no problem.  OK, I switched.  How long will my phone be out of commission for the switch?  Maybe 20 minutes.  Done.

The first bill was artificially high, with the usual initial smoke and mirrors, but I knew to expect it.  The second bill, the real charge, was only a few dollars more than my regular ATT bill was.  Um, really?  I know it's not much, but it's more.  It was supposed to be less.  And while we're discussing this, let me just be completely sure.  The system is 100% wired, just like regular ATT, right?  Right.  Until the line gets to the outside of your house, where it ends in a box with a transmitter and a battery.  Battery?  How long does that last, when the power goes off?  Four hours.  Then you're done, with no phone.  And by the way, my wife can't find one of her favorite shows.  Can you look for it for me, so I can tell her what channel it is?  Ah, we don't yet have a contract with that network.

OK, we're done.  I want to go back to ATT.  Switch it.  No problem, but you'll be without internet for two weeks.  What?  It didn't take two hours to switch it from ATT.  Why does it take two weeks to switch to ATT?  It just does.  Fine, we'll do it in August.  My wife and I will be away for two weeks.

So the switch occurred.  And for one week of the time, there was no voicemail, either, and ATT chose to replace my voicemail with a computer recording saying the number was no longer in service.  This is what callers, including business schedulers, heard.  I was, shall we say, not happy?  Do you want to know if ATT offered me a year's free telephone, or a month's, or a week's?  No, they did not.  It's really too bad I'm so dependent on a wired landline.  Otherwise, I'd be done with the whole scam.

A Close Call: Slices

Did you ever get to Slices?  I did tell you to go eat there.  And I wasn't the only one.  Victor Romano and Steve Taylor were the ones who told me.

I got myself all in the mood on a recent Sunday evening, only to find them closed.  Someone else found them closed on a Sunday, too.  I thought the worst, but it turns out it was just logistics.  They're still open, and I was there last night.  Whew!

The owner/manager is a French guy named Alexandre.  His son cooked there for a while last year, until he went off to cooking school in France.  There were other cooks, who had interesting resumes.  What they had in common was that they had never done this before, until they came to Slices.  Alex taught them everything.  The head waiter was Sylvain (he's been transferred to a different restaurant).  Terrific guy, who turned out to be a magnificent cook when he took over for a spell.  There have been a few different waitresses, and my favorite is Felissa.  She's there now.

The signature menu entry is the Rodizio dinner.  It's patterned after Brazilian churrasco (Alex's wife is Brazilian), and it's all-you-can-eat carbohydrates and fat, a mix of pizza, pasta, and risotto.  If you want to know which one isn't great, the answer is none of them.  It's true they love cheese at Slices, but it really isn't overdone.  And the range of pizzas, pastas, and risottos (risotti) are endlessly interesting.  And always delicious.  If you want a pizza with a certain topping, or a pasta or risotto with certain ingredients, they'll just make it for you. 

The food comes along without stopping.  Sometimes, they bring it faster than I can eat it.  It isn't over until it's over for you.  And when you say it's over, they offer their dessert pizza, which is pizza dough with Nutella and fruit on top.  A very interesting concept, that's more interesting than it is spectacular food.  Not bad, though.

Two things happen if you get there before 7:00.  One is the "early bird" price of $13 for all you can eat, of remarkably good food.  After 7:00, the same menu is $16.  And that's just the Rodizio.  They have a full, normal menu of Italian food, including salad, veggies, and other dishes if you don't have a Rodizio appetite.

The second thing that happens if you get there before 7:00 is the "happy hour."  Two beers, or two glasses of wine, for the price of one.  They have some terrific beers, and excellent wines, and the prices are not high to start.  I get Shock Top, a Belgian-style beer, which is on tap for only $4 a glass.  So that's $2 a glass before 7.

Slices is a wonderful, satisfying, friendly place to eat.  They have to deal with a slightly problematic location at about 138th and Biscayne, and prices that seem unsustainably low, but boy, do they provide a magnificent dining experience.  Go there, or be square.  And although they advertise a super low Rodizio price for lunch, they're actually only open for dinner.


Addendum:  Je suis desole.  Il n'y a plus de happy hour, ni de early bird special.

Planning and Zoning

I was appointed to the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board in 2006.  I was on that Board for about 3-4 years, and because of P&Z, I was also on the Code Review Committee for about two years.  These were tremendously valuable experiences, and I really have Gage Hartung, Andrew Olis, Elizabeth Piotrowski, and Mario Rumiano to thank for many lessons learned.  I think I wasn't always easy to deal with on that Board.

Being on P&Z was hard.  It wasn't so much that I didn't know the first thing about design, or the Village Codes.  I could learn that, and over time, I think I did.  I had excellent teachers in the people mentioned.  The hard part of being on that Board was learning to balance the needs and wishes of homeowners against the needs and wishes of the greater community.  It would have been easier to have advocated for homeowners, and declared the Codes intrusive and faulty, or to have advocated for the Codes, and declared independent-minded homeowners self-centered and irresponsible.  What was hard was finding a fair and reasonable middle ground.  It was helping homeowners find alternatives to the one idea they had in mind, which was either prohibited by a Code or would have caused too much unease among their neighbors, or finding ways to massage interpretation of one or another Code, to allow the rest of us to be a bit more permissive of things we might reflexly have refused.

When you represent the Village, at any level, you can't simply take sides.  You can't just advocate for the "little guy," and rail at the Village, the "government," "the man," or "the powers that be."  And you can't advocate for the Village at the expense of the people who comprise and support it.  There is never complete agreement, about anything, and you have to find some sort of satisfying compromise.  You have to come as close as you can to a win-win.  You have to work hard not to let people feel as if they've lost, or been overpowered.  And you have to preserve critical relationships with your colleagues, with whom you have to work, but also who are, "at the end of the day," your neighbors.

I'm not still on P&Z, or Code Review.  But I can count all the people with whom I worked as friends at some level.  We didn't always agree, not at all sometimes, but we maintained respect for each other.  I hope it's not just wishful thinking, but I would like to think I represented at least a small part of the value to them that they did to me.

All in the Family (A True Story)

This morning, I took myself to breakfast at Guns and Bagels and Co.  A woman ambled in and sat on the counter stool next to me.  She took out her cell phone, and made a call.  She also ordered her breakfast (and four slices of sable to go, for her mother's lunch).  She says she never knows what to make her mother for lunch.

There's no way I could have helped overhearing.  It was 8:30, and she was calling her doctor's office.  The conversation sounded like the kind you have with the office, not the answering service.  She wanted to cancel her appointment for today.

The reason she gave (it sounded like they must have asked) was what she called a "family emergency."  She then talked some more, and seemed to be scheduling an alternate appointment.

The conversation I imagined was this:

     Receptionist: I hope everything is OK.  It sounds noisy where you are.
     Patient:  I'm at a restaurant having breakfast.
     Rec:  I thought you said you had a family emergency.
     Pat:  Yes, but that's not scheduled until later.

She then made some other calls, to what sounded either like friends or other family members.  There was no mention of a family emergency, and no urgency in the calls.  The waitress was talking to her about how she would be spending the rest of her day.  Again, no mention of a family emergency.

I guess it was gesture enough that she didn't tell the doctor's office she simply wasn't in the mood to have an appointment, or that she had better things to do with her time.  It was too bad, though, that she was wasting the doctor's time, and maybe depriving someone else of an appointment they could have had today (Friday).  Maybe the office can call one of the people who might have been put off until Monday, to let them know there's now an opening today.  I hope so.  With things to be done, it seems so disrespectful, and arrogant, to treat other people and their time and agendas this way.

Heads Up, Bryan

Bryan, just a request for you.  Please try to be careful when you decide to shoot your mouth off.  The last time you did it, when you accused Sira Ramos of packing heat while she was accosting (threatening?) BP residents, it cost us about $500 of attorney time the next day, to clean up the mess you made.  And the unfortunate part of it is that your accusation was false, so we can't say it was money well spent.

And that adventure was nothing compared to the one a couple of years ago, when you made allegations against the Manager, then insisted the Village spend $5000 on an investigation that pointed to you as the miscreant.  And again, you then challenged the conclusion of the investigation on which you insisted, you never apologized to anyone, and you even slithered away without consequence, so that money wasn't exactly well spent, either.

So please be a bit more careful and judicious when you get into your mode of imagining bogeymen and criminals, and you start launching accusations of people.  It's poor form, it's very untidy, and it costs the Village money.

Thanks, Bryan.

PS, Bryan:  I hope everything is OK with your family.  You missed this week's Commission meeting, due to a "family emergency."  You seem to have an unnerving amount of family emergencies.  They seem to cause you to miss lots of things.

I Should Have to Work Harder to Talk About a Commission Meeting Than the Commissioners Do?

I have to admit, I was pretty concerned about tonight's meeting once I saw the agenda.  There was lots of stuff, and some of it was legitimately worth some conversation.  I was trying to imagine how much of it would be continued to a subsequent meeting once we reached 11:00.

And we started about 10-15 minutes late.  Watts and Cooper were late.  The only ones there on time were Anderson, Ross, and Jacobs.  Only that majority.  You see where I'm going?  No?  Here's the relevant frame of reference.  Last month, we started exactly on time, causing Anderson and Ross, who were two minutes late, to scurry to the dais.  You get it now?  Jacobs can start on time if only Watts and Cooper are there, but he has to wait if only Anderson and Ross are there.  I think you get it.  Of course it's silly and childish, but it's how it is.

And then, stuff starts getting pulled.  Big stuff.  Enough stuff to give the impression of a meeting we could breeze through.  There wasn't much initial public comment, either.  So this is beginning to look smooth.

Until we got to Board/Committee reports.  It wasn't the reports themselves.  Only two Boards/Committees reported, and both reports were brief.  The issue was that we ended the six-month trial of moving Board/Committee reports from the end of Commission meetings to the beginning.  I promise you there was not 5-10 minutes worth of discussion anyone could reasonably have about whether to move these reports back where they were.  But 5-10 minutes of this, pretending it made any difference, were spent.  Are we headed back to a four hour meeting?

The next issue was very big: Annexation.  Apparently, it wasn't big enough to attract any more than the usual eight of us, but it should have been.  We were to hear the results of a study of annexing whatever we're supposed to consider annexing, but our planners revealed they did not complete the study, so there was no report, and an imminent workshop was therefore not scheduled.  Next.

The Consent Agenda was passed, except for the minutes.  Frankly, I'm tired of writing about the minutes.  The whole topic is breathtakingly foolish.  It's nothing but empty posturing.  Here was tonight's version:  Roxy Ross had very, very many amendments to the minutes in question.  But Jacobs, who is still on a crusade against Roxy, for some ancient and imagined reasons, and Watts, who seems to have gone back to doing what her handlers tell her, didn't want to accommodate Roxy.  I'll tell you now, to spare you the suspense, that Cooper never showed up.  He never picked up his packet in advance anyway, as he never does, so it's unlikely he would have had anything intelligent or substantial to add.  Jacobs' initial snide crack was that the minutes didn't need amending, since they were wonderful.  But since Jacobs isn't about anything, and simply reacts contrarily to whatever Ross says, he found himself a minute later saying he found "numerous errors" in the minutes he just said were wonderful.  It seems he doesn't listen to himself, or he gets himself confused.  Watts also argued against correcting the minutes, saying she didn't want to make the Clerk spend inordinate time fixing them.  It seemed to her like such a nice and thoughtful argument that she forgot it was on the strength of her vote more than anyone else's that the Clerk was charged with this silly "expanded minutes" exercise to begin with.  So the minutes did not get amended.  Jacobs and Watts won.  Or they lost.  Depending on what they want to portray as their interest du jour, or du moment.

A discussion about property taxes, and providing relief for disadvantaged "seniors," was similarly silly.  It was all about populist pandering, and it failed to take into account a major error in the State regulations.  Chuck Ross tried to explain this to the Commission and the Village Attorney, but he was probably explaining it in Chinese.  They didn't get it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was it.  There were just a couple of public comments/swipes at the end, and we were out of there in two hours.  Just like in the old days of competent and goal-directed Commissions.


PS: It's possible I made a mistake and should stand corrected.  One reader, who was looking at her watch, instead of estimating in retrospect, as I did, says the meeting started at 7:05.  The underlying contrast to last month, and the underlying point, remain, however.  In fact, Jacobs would not start last night's meeting, even though he, Anderson, and Ross were there.  Watts came along at some point, went to the dais, then walked back out of the room.  Jacobs still wouldn't start the meeting.  When she came back, he started.  So was the actual start 7:05, and not 7:10 or so, as my reader says?  Could be.  It seemed later, but it could have been the annoyance, resentment, and impatience talking.  After all, at that point, I was still anticipating a very long meeting.

I'm Probably the Wrong Person to Ask.

Two people have asked me about the CrimeWatch meeting on Saturday.  Specifically, each asked about, or wanted to discuss, the attendance.  Very specifically, they wanted to know which Commissioners attended, and why those who didn't didn't.

I'm not what you could call unbiased about this.  The featured guests were our police officers, including the Chief, and the host, so to speak, was the CrimeWatch Chairman.  So to begin with, I think lots of VP residents should have attended.  We all should have been interested in the topic, and we should have shown respect to Chuck Ross, Ray Atesiano, Nick Wollschlager, and Charlie Dayoub.  So the 15-20 people who were there were not what the doctor ordered.  Not this doctor, anyway.

As to the question and the topic at hand, two of our five Commissioners were there.  They were the two who come to everything, all the time, who get their hands dirty, who participate, who work at their municipal jobs, and who care.  (Did I mention my lack of neutrality?  I will not, however, confess to a lack of honesty.  I'm telling it like it is.  If you don't like how it is, I don't like it, either.)

Ah, yes, the question of who wasn't there, and why they weren't there.  Well, one Commissioner who wasn't there is never there.  Bryan Cooper has been explicit in letting us know he isn't coming to Village events of any kind, and the reason is that he's punishing the Village, because a prior Commission, and an ad hoc committee, voted against the lines he wanted painted in the street.  I wish I could dress this up, but I have to be as clear about it as Bryan was.  There's just no good alternative way to spin it.

Barbara Watts tells us she's very busy with her day job.  I don't know if that's why she wasn't there.  If I recall correctly, she wasn't at the last CrimeWatch event, either.  She's also announced in the past that she actually never wanted to be a Commissioner, but she couldn't find someone else to run.  Why she thought she should do something she didn't want to do, and for which she is clearly unprepared, is beyond me.  It's as if it's someone else who makes her decisions for her.  As if someone said to her, if you don't want to run, you'll have to find someone else.  If you can't find someone else, you'll have to run yourself, whether you want to or not.  So maybe her heart isn't really fully in this gig.  If I thought someone of her chronological maturity and successful station is life would be a bit more independent-minded, I was apparently wrong.

Noah Jacobs sometimes shows up for things, but often enough not.  In the past, he's made noises suggesting it may be a matter of his religious observance, but his rare appearance at events that occur on a Friday night or a Saturday give the impression it's not necessarily that.  What else would prevent the Mayor from attending Village events?  Beats me.

Here's my thinking, though.  Maybe some Commissioners didn't come, because the host was Chuck Ross, and they have something against him personally.  Or maybe none of these three is much interested in the Village at all.  Or maybe they're busy with other parts of their lives, and the Village just isn't a high priority for them.

These three people ran for office, whether they wanted the office or not.  And when they won their elections, they accepted the office.  They all cash the checks they receive from all of us.  One of these people, the one with not a moment's relevant experience or familiarity with the Village, agreed to be Mayor.  And none of them can be relied upon to attend Village events.  There's something very wrong with this.  If any of them had appropriate respect for the residents of the Park, they would resign.  I quit holding my breath a long time ago.

They Don't Call it Crime "Watch" for Nothing.

Once again, Chuck Ross put on a Crime Watch meeting/breakfast this AM.  His guests were Ray Atesiano, our interim Chief, Nick Wollschlager, and Charlie Dayoub.  And Charlie's guest was Melody, the dog.  Not the "Take a Bite Out of Crime" dog, but a real dog that Charlie is training to sniff out real drugs.

It turns out this is not the first time Charlie has trained a crime dog.  He learned the trade somewhere else.  And it's sort of a funny story how and why we got the dog.  As you know, we rely on the kindness of other municipalities, as Blanche Dubois might have said, when it comes to equipment, like police cruisers.  Ray now, and Mitch Glansberg before him, are tight with some of the better off municipalities, and we get some pretty nice hand-me-downs.  One of them was a cruiser already outfitted for a dog, or, as they say in police parlance, a canine.  So we had Charlie, we got the car, and all we needed was a canine.  Charlie says the usual cost for such a beast and the training it requires is about $8-9K.  Apparently, we got the whole show for $3000.  So now, Charlie is training the dog, I mean canine, to sniff out marijuana, heroin, cocaine, Ecstacy, and methamphetamine. 

We got to meet Ray "up close and personal[ly]," too, this morning.  He's a very interesting guy.  He trained as a corrections officer, then got into police work, then got himself an impressive gig in LA as a detective for three and a half years, then got "homesick" and came back here, to Hialeah, for 10 years, then reshaped crime prevention/intervention and detective work in Sunny Isles Beach, then started his own detective business, and did that until the economy crashed.  For as long as it lasts (he sounds quite ambitious), we have his remarkable services.  And it became clear how advantageous to us those services have been already.

Ray's favorite word is proactive.  Charlie says you can't train just any dog to be a productive police canine.  The dog has to be energetic and goal-directed.  That's Ray.  He knows the business, of criminals and apprehending them, very well, and he takes the long view.  He told us several times that an arrest is a very valuable thing, not so much because of the immediate result it produces, but even more because it inhibits further crime.  A person who is arrested somewhere is not coming back to that location.  So he told us it may sound like bad news, but it's really good news, that our department had 653 arrests this year, not counting the 23 from last night along the FEC track.  The second highest number in BP history is less than 200 in a year.  It's not that those arrested were committing major crimes here at the time of the arrest.  It's that it's too much trouble, and too dangerous, to commit even minor mischief here, and these mischief-makers won't come back.  And when our department makes an arrest, for anything, they are very effective.  "Clearance rates," the percent of arrests that result in solid charges, is now flirting with 80% for BP.  Typical rates for other municipalities often crack 10%, but not often 30%.

And the enterprise rests, as we've been told so many times before, on us.  It's our awareness and attentiveness to the neighborhood, and, Ray and Chuck say ad nauseum, our readiness to call in if we see anything that doesn't look right.  Or anything that doesn't look familiar, or expected.  Ray insists that we call.  "Tips" like this are what the police thrive on.  The worst possible result of calling is that the police go investigate, and they find out nothing is wrong.  This does not count as a bad result.

We had 15-20 BP residents at this morning's event.  Nobody was disappointed.  Turnout like this is better than nothing, but it's not good.  Chuck says over 400 people are "members" of CrimeWatch, and he'd like to make it 600 or more.  It would have been great to have loaded the room with interested neighbors.  Please come next time, if you didn't come this time, and tell your neighbors to come.  In fact, pass this blog post along.  And make sure Chuck knows about you.  Contact him at CrimeWatch, and get on the list.  You'll get e-mails of anything to do with CrimeWatch and related Village events.  Not that it matters, but it's free.

Don't Stand Your Ground

It appears that Rex Ryan refuses to play Tim Tebow.  The NY Jets must have paid a lot of money for Tebow, and Ryan had to have been part of the decision to acquire him, so why won't he play him?  It's certainly not for lack of fan desire and clammoring.  My theory is that Ryan has somehow wound up putting his own personal pride on the line, and he resents others, like fans, trying to tell him what to do.  This posture is compounded every week the Jets lose, where Ryan runs a greater risk of appearing to have been wrong in not playing Tebow.  So he throws good money after bad, and continues to sideline Tebow.

Similarly, Republicans began with a theory about taxes.  Setting aside the obvious self-serving component, they argue that it's better all around when taxes are low.  They hold themselves, or Grover Norquist holds them, to a "pledge" not to raise taxes, come what may.  What if they want to go to war?  Every government in history rasied taxes to go to war, right?  Nope, not reason enough.  What about if there's a crushing and growing deficit, of which even Republicans complain?  And we not only didn't raise taxes to go to war, we lowered them.  It's really time to raise them, at least on some higher level earners, right?  No way!  It's the same corner into which Rex Ryan painted himself.  You adopt a posture, and you won't give it up, no matter how bad things get, and no matter how foolish you look.  It's not about the issue any more.  It's barely about a philosophy.  It comes to be about personal pride, which becomes bigger than anything else.  Bigger than reality.

Could this happen to anyone?  Could it happen here?   Could people get so stubborn, and so presbyopic, that they would allow the Village to suffer, or flirt with failure, just because they don't want to surrender, or adjust, a posture?

At the last Commission meeting, Gary Kuhl got up to make a comment.  He said, half joking, but actually genuinely, that Bryan Cooper shouldn't have a heart attack, but it happened Gary agreed with him about something.  Gary didn't have to bring attention to the fact that he agreed with Bryan about something.  It was a gentlemanly and graceful statement.

And on election day, Chuck Ross spent much of the day talking to Elizabeth and Noah Jacobs.  They chit-chatted about the things they could chit-chat about, and Chuck came away thinking there was something real, friendly, and smart about the Jacobses.  He didn't have to reach out to them, and he didn't have to tell me about it.  Again, gentlemanly and graceful.

Some of the same could be said for the Jacobses.  They were able to rise to the occasion, and set aside gripes, in the interest of having a nice and long conversation with Chuck.

It would be nice to see people emerge from bunkers in the broader interest.  The fact is, some of Rex Ryan's comments after Sunday's drubbing could be interpreted as meaning he might play Tebow after all.  Some prominent Republicans have been making almost concilatory noises lately.  At least they're finding reasons, perhaps until Grover Norquist reads them the riot act, to look at solutions that might increase revenues, whatever term they're comfortable using for it.  And maybe some of the more entrenched elements around here, present company included, will find ways to cooperate for the good of the Village.  Let's hope so.

Do the Math

Suppose you're part of a group of, let's say, five people who have to vote on things.  And suppose you find yourself on the losing side of every vote that is 4-1 or 3-2.

Suppose further that your arguments in support of your losing positions are quirky, or counter-intuitive.  And suppose you have to be so inconsistent as to be hypocritical in making your range of contrary arguments.  To make matters worse, suppose you couldn't fully articulate those arguments, or you relied on input from other people whose identities could not be revealed.  Worst of all, suppose that you wanted to make an argument, but there was no identifiable support for it, and you had to resort to inventing the alleged input of others, or even inventing the "facts" that would underpin your position.

If you're a partially rational and passably intelligent person, and if you have at least a rudimentary capacity for self-reflection, how do you explain this to yourself?

Do you tell yourself that you are right, and everyone else is wrong?  Repeatedly and seemingly invariably?  If your ideas and inspirations come only from you, do you conclude that you are ingenious, and everyone else is dimwitted?  If you have to invent support, or tell frank lies, do you reassure yourself that you are simply right, and the ends justify the means?

I have to confess to a struggle.  When Roxy Ross was Mayor of the Village, she opened every meeting with the same request.  She asked Commissioners and other residents to assume "the purity of each others' motives."  I could see that in a humanistic sense, Roxy was right.  Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No," and the well-known "Do the Right Thing" are in the same vein.  Before long, you're just "turning the other cheek."  But even Roxy couldn't endlessly do that.

Ultimately, try as I might, I couldn't do it.  I couldn't make that assumption of pure and honest motives.  And if I can't do that, then I have to look at those regular 4-1s and 3-2s with some skepticism.  I can't assume bad luck, or just happening to have a different view, or being ahead of one's time.  Or even being behind the times.  I found myself assuming a "method to the madness."  I had to assume something of which the loser was conscious, and something deliberate.  In that the invariable losing posture was too much for coincidence, I had to assume the loser was being contrary, or even sabotaging.

Chuck Ross says these losers are anarchists.  I think more in terms of terrorists.  After all, there isn't just something obstructive about the positions they take.  There's something destructive about them.  There seems to be a deliberate, concerted, insistent attempt to undermine, and injure.  And to "prove," in a sense, this conclusion, sometimes the miscreants will actually acknowledge that this is what they're doing.  One of them might say, for example, that unwavering repudiation of whatever others in the Village want is intended as a punishment for that person's having been outvoted on something once.  Or another might persistently act in grossly disrespectful ways to a supposed colleague, then appear to seek to rub the colleague's nose in the fact that the newcomer displaced the colleague as Mayor.  "I'm doing this, because you outvoted me once."  "I'm doing this, because I'm devoted to humiliating you."  Wouldn't it be a relief if I was just making this up?   (At least the Fagin character among these delinquents was smart enough not to announce openly what he was doing.  It was obvious, but he didn't actually say it.)

As a spectator, adding it up this way seems inescapable.  What I don't know, however, is how these losers themselves would explain the position they so often experience.  It wasn't long ago that a reliable losing pair trumpeted to the world that the majority were devils and brutes, and were presumably out to get them.  So they worked hard to create a new majority out of their minority.  Who knows if they ever thought they were "right," but at least now, they could win.  But even that is slipping away, as one of the new troops appears to be seeing some version of what I am seeing and describing, and is too often finding herself backing away from the terrorists.  Or anarchists.  Or geniuses, free-thinkers, and clairvoyants.  Or whatever they are.

Don't Be a Prude. (I'm Sorry. This Has Nothing To Do With Biscayne Park.)

It's all over the news. Generals David Petraeus and Joe Allen. Important and powerful men in serious, maybe career-ending, trouble, for what? Cheating on their wives. Sure there's talk of breaches of national security, but that wasn't the problem. If it had been, these men would be under arrest and charged with treason. They would not have resigned, and there would not be ominous discussion of maybe not promoting them.

Although the consequences were not as great, the same thing happened with Bill Clinton. He had an affair with some girl. His wife was probably disappointed and angry, but she got over it and decided to keep him. Not Congress, though. They worked to escalate his misbehavior into lying to them (He was asked if he cheated on his wife, and he said no. How completely unexpected.) and impeached him.

At least Dominique Strauss-Kahn imposed himself on someone. He may have "attacked" her. An act like that deserves attention.

You could write a book, apparently, about JFK's adventures in the embraces of other women. You could write the book if you wanted to. If you really cared. And let's not get started with Franklin and Eleanor, the reportedly long-suffering, or at least long cheated on, Eleanor.

And the tragic-comical Gary Hart. He lost, but at least it could be said he agreed to play the game.

Larry Craig is sort of another matter. Generally speaking, who cares what adolescent stunts he pulls with other big-enough boys in public bathrooms? The problem was that he held himself out as some sort of paragon of straight and strict morality, like "Senator Jackson" in The Birdcage. If he got what he was asking for, the demonstration of his hypocrisy is what he was asking for.

And the televangelists! Jim and Tammy Fay. And Jimmy Swaggart. I googled “preachers who get in trouble regarding sex“ and ran out of interest long before I ran out of time, which was long before I would have run out of material.

The fundamental facts are that "men think with their dicks," and that some women are what Pete Townsend calls "starfuckers." Oh, right, I forgot the caprices involved in "falling in love." Yeah, that, too.

But really, who does care? And if anyone thinks they do, why do they? Because they're stuck-up, thin-lipped, over-anxious moralists? Or somehow self-conscious about their caricaturish “religiosity?“ Or secretly ashamed hypocrites? Or nothing more than yentas with way too much time on their hands? Not our problem! There is, of course, “the media,” which typically has nothing more honorable or substantive to do than to scare up meaningless and irrelevant stories for the purpose of having stories to tell. But if we weren't willing to hear them, they wouldn’t bother to tell them.

We need to regain some sense of perspective, and proportion, and social decency. Men who cheat on their wives are disrespectful to those wives. And they're answerable to those wives, not to me. People who need to deprive such men of their reputations and careers and separate values to society are disrespectful to everyone. They are answerable to me. And my answer to them is “No.” "Get a life!"

　

How Big Are Our Britches, Anyway? And How Small Are the Pockets They Contain?

It's bad enough that annexation is a difficult and complicated decision.  It's made unreasonable if we're not given accurate information about what this prospect is all about.

Let's start at the beginning: annex what?  There was early talk of "Peachtree," a somewhat stark, partially run down, densely-populated-mostly-by-renters area that we believe is likely the home to mischief-makers who literally cross the tracks to invade the Village to commit crimes.  Maybe "Peachtree" was a real intention, and maybe it wasn't, but Sally Heyman made a brief presentation at last week's Commission meeting, and spoke with authority about what she wanted us to annex.  She seemed to describe it clearly as the commercial area north of "Peachtree," which she described as an area that contained only warehouses and office buildings.  No skanky apartment buildings.  I can't remember if it was she or someone else who specified that the area under consideration runs from 121st to 116th, and from the track to Biscayne Boulevard.

The area in question contains many modest single family homes and duplexes, much like parts of North Miami and like some parts of Biscayne Park.  The upkeep of the grounds is mostly modest and unimpressive, as it is in NM and some parts of the Park.  There are some small and larger apartment buildings, mostly not run down or embattled-looking.  Those grounds tend to be a bit nicer than the smaller homes.  There is commerce, both of the warehouse variety and office buildings.  And there are some stores and storefront arrangements.

Then, there's question #2A: why should we annex?  There are sort of two reasons.  One is money.  We can, as Sally charmingly put it, tax the hell out of those properties.  How much we can balance our fiscal tenuousness on the backs of those people "over there" depends on how much of the property is homesteaded.  The apartment buildings and businesses are not.  I have no idea how many of the homes and duplexes are inhabited by the property owners.

The other putative reason to annex is to control.  I'm very proud to say we have a remarkable police force.  They're astute, committed, vigilant, and they do an award-winning job for us.  The County, which is the "municipality" of default for the area in question, does not patrol and control as our police force does.  So if we "owned" this area, we could expand our force, and we could patrol and control that area as we do our little Village.  In theory, maybe this reduces crime, since we patrol and control the area that we believe is the source of at least some of the crime.  And the theory further has it that we can make so much money from our new tax source that we make more than it costs us to police the area.  This reason to annex has to be considered theoretical.

Question #2B is why shouldn't we annex.  And let me say right here that the reasons are no more than subjective and intangible.  They have to do with the "Village," what it feels like to us, and how we feel about it.  We chose to live in the Village because it is what it is.  It doesn't have stores, or a school, or an expanse of warehouses and office buildings.  Or more than two or three apartment buildings.  And we concern ourselves with codes and their enforcement, because we want a style and a standard for this municipality.  We don't have to want what we want, and what we have, but that's what we chose.  It's no small matter to change that, even if we pretend it's all something "over there," across the tracks, and out of sight.

And renters can be a tricky business.  They don't necessarily want what property owners want.  Just last week, the Commission took the step, which I consider completely appropriate, of limiting members of the Code Compliance Board to people who own their homes in Biscayne Park.  Frankly, I think members of the Commission should be held to the same standard.  We should want that level of investment in this community from the people who serve us at the most consequential levels.  They should have a full stake.  It's certainly not that we don't have neighbors who rent the homes they live in.  But it's a minor proportion.  If we annex an area with a larger proportion of renters, who do not even rent properties that are of the standard of those in the Park proper, it changes the dynamic of who votes, and what's important to them.  Is it the same as what's important to "us?"  I wouldn't assume so.

So before we spread ourselves around, we need a careful consideration and discussion of what's at stake, and how we feel about it.  The matter will not progress without a formal presentation at Commission meetings.  Watch for it, tell your friends and neighbors, and "be there."  Really.  It's serious, and it's important.

PS: It is not quick and easy to get from the Park proper to the area we are asked to consider annexing.  If police were needed, and they weren't there, it's a big problem.  And the problem is that railroad track.  It's an imposing and defining physical divider.  If we erected a wall along the track, to separate us from whatever is over there, to solve invasion and noise problems, we're not having this conversation.  Go check it out.  The area in question has nothing to do with us.  Unless all we want is the money, and we're willing to reinvent ourselves to get it.

USP"S"

"How can there be any 'sin' in sincere?

Where is the 'good' in good-bye?"

Meredith Willson, The Music Man

And what, exactly, is the "Service" rendered by the United States Postal Service? 

Two or three years ago, some Village residents complained bitterly about the removal from the Village of a public mail box. The box, one of those large blue ones, was in the perimeter around the park, and it was for anyone to use to deposit mail to be sent.  What we were told from USPS is that the box was very minimally used, and USPS was having to make cutbacks in various services, for financial reasons.  But some around here felt underserved by the USPS.

I've been compiling a list of observations about the "service" the USPS "provides." Some of the observations are mine directly, and some are observations told to me by others.

The basic service the USPS is supposed to provide is delivering mail. My best estimate is that that usually happens. But not always. From time to time, I am asked about a piece of mail I never received.

I can't say I know what ever becomes of these phantoms, but I do know I sometimes get mail addressed to someone else. Maybe that's where some of my mail goes: to someone else.

Some pieces of mail are considered so important to the sender that the sender pays extra to have me sign for the mail, and the green card I have to sign is then sent back to the sender. I have a small collection of these green cards that the mail carrier never asked me to sign, and that were simply left on the mail I received. Thus far, no sender has complained to me that they never got the green card back. Of course, if I have the card, then I got the mail, so "no harm, no foul."

Often enough, I have a piece of mail to send, and I just leave it sticking out from behind the mail box on the wall next to my front door. The mail carrier, who couldn't really miss this piece, or these pieces, of mail usually takes them. But again, not always. Sometimes, it appears he's so busy talking on his cell phone that he can't really do three things at once. He can deliver my mail, and talk on the cell phone. But he can't simultaneously see and take the mail I want to send.

What is supposed to happen to these pieces of mail I leave is that the carrier is supposed to put them in his truck, take them back to the post office, and turn them in for processing. As best I can tell, that's what happens to most of them. But one of my friends told me he occasionally receives mail the carrier apparently just picked up from someone else's house. So the carrier picks up outgoing mail from one house, then, absent-mindedly, and maybe busy on the cell phone, simply "delivers" it to the next house.

The last two times I was out of town, I set up a hold for my mail. I want it held starting the day I leave, then delivered en masse on the day I get back, which is maybe 1-2 weeks later. The last time I was away, the mail was delivered to my house every day. Fortunately, one of my friends came by every day to pick up FedExes, so he took the mail, too. The time before that, the mail was delivered on some days, but not others, during my time away. Rhyme? Reason?

This was a bit much, since the mail is not only exposed if it builds up in the box, but it also signals I'm not home. So I decided to complain to the supervisor of our post office: 33161, at 140th and Biscayne. I waited as long as I could after the supervisor was called to come out and talk to me. Coffee break? Too busy? Not that interested? Busy telling jokes, or looking at pornography? Anyone's guess.  But I have a life to live, and it does not include camping out at the post office for who knows how long, waiting for an audience with the supervisor.

And one reason it costs me as much as it does to send mail is that others get a deep discount to send me mail I don't want. It's "junk." I don't want it, and I'm subsidizing someone else to send it to me?

I never really cared that the large blue mail box was taken out of the Village. If it wasn't used, there was no need to "empty" it. But frankly, I wonder if we need the USPS at all. If they do a poor job, and companies like FedEx and UPS do better, should the government "privatize" the postal system? Generally, I'm very opposed to privatization of public functions, but if the government isn't assuring us of good service, for which we pay, maybe it's worth a thought.

For Steve Bernard's Eyes Only. All Others, Do Not Read.

Steve,

You're becoming habitual.  Your habit is to call me a liar, as publicly as you can.  I confess to being mildly intrigued, even though the accusation is coming from someone with no credibility.  So I have a request, or an invitation.

Please remind me of three lies I have told.  I'm sure you can think of dozens, or maybe hundreds, but I don't want to waste that much of your time.  Three will more than illustrate your point.  And if the pressure to spew them is too great, and you can't possibly confine yourself to three, go ahead with 10, or even 25.  "Knock yourself out," as they say.

As a frame of reference, let me suggest that the fact that you might disagree with me about something does not mean I lied in saying it.  I realize that you so treasure your own thought process that whatever you think seems overpoweringly "true" to you, and you probably can't imagine that anyone wouldn't accept it.  But in the real world, that sometimes happens.  We each think things with which not everyone agrees.  And most of us have enough perspective to understand that the fact that someone disagrees with us doesn't mean they are liars, or stupid, or criminals.  Frighteningly, it doesn't even mean they're wrong!  So try to set that impulse aside.

Also, you might want to keep in mind one of the questions on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, or WAIS, which is the commonly used IQ test.  The question is, "What's the difference between a lie and a mistake?"  And before you blurt out your answer, let me tell you that "there is no difference; they're the same thing" is an incorrect answer.  Intelligent people, including children, are supposed to know that.  So if you could, let's say, demonstrate that something I said was not correct, that doesn't mean I lied.  I hate to give away too much about the WAIS question, but the correct answer is that a mistake is when you say something that is not correct, and a lie is when you intentionally say something that you know is not correct.

So see what you can do.  Flip me a few off the top of the list.  And have full confidence that this is strictly between you and me.  I have clearly instructed all blog readers not to read this very private letter from me to you.  Because you have complete privacy, and so do I, you can respond right into the "Comment" opportunity at the end of this post.

I await.

Fred

PS: Chuck told me about a conversation he had with you recently, when he told you you lie.  As Chuck reported it, you challenged him to tell you any lie he thinks you told.  So if that conversation occurred as reported, it seems to demonstrate that you are familiar with and accepting of the concept of asking someone who accuses you of something to specify what they're talking about.  Go for it.

Now Just a Minute

That's two days in a row I waited three hours to accomplish something that should have taken very little time.

Yesterday, it was voting.  After three attempts to get in and vote, I finally had the right materials and enough time.  Filling out the ballot took maybe three minutes.  Waiting on line to deposit it in the counting machine took three hours.  And it would have taken longer had someone not delivered a second machine after the first 2 1/2 hours I was there.  The bottom line is that I voted, which is all I wanted to do.  It's just too bad it took so much longer than was necessary.

Tonight was the Commission meeting.  The original agenda was pretty large, with two topics which could each have taken up a good deal of time in themselves.  One was a presentation about annexation, but the reality was that County Commissioner Sally Heyman gave a brief, focused, and informative presentation, then she left, and no one asked any questions or made any comments.  She just told the Commission to think it over, don't take too long, and get back to her.

The other loaded topic was the school/church.  Ms Busta, the school Mar'm, was there, and so was Fr Cutie.  Jeane Bergeron and the guy she's married to were there, and so were some new faces, including tikes.  When the matter was pulled from the agenda, because of technical problems with the matter's having been placed on the agenda tonight, the crowd left.  Our planners were there, too, and they bugged out with the rest of the school-related crew.

Now, we could cruise.  The Consent Agenda underwent minor scrutiny, and it would have passed without worthwhile comment, except for a telling dynamic about some of the minutes.  Roxy Ross said she spent 10 hours over the weekend reviewing meeting recordings, and she wanted a few words placed in the minutes to reflect something Bryan Cooper said.  Bryan protested.  He said that whatever Roxy wanted added was not what he "intended."

Now this is rich.  We used to do action minutes, which simply stated what actions and votes were taken (what the matter was, who made the motion, who seconded, that there was discussion, and what the vote was).  But because Bryan, and his junior partners Jacobs and Watts, all under the tutelage of Steve Bernard, wanted more demonstrative minutes, the Village Clerk was charged with producing expanded minutes. The expansion was to be the inclusion of the Clerk's guess as to which comments made by Commissioners the Commissioners in question considered "salient points."  It eats her time the way reviewing minutes eats Roxy's time.  But now, Bryan has a new standard.  He doesn't want what he said to be included.  Rather, he wants the Clerk to describe what he intended, what he meant, what he really had in mind, what he might have said if he hadn't said what he did say.  Chuck Ross tried to explain to Bryan that this isn't really possible, but Bryan didn't get it.

Then, there was the matter of the erst named Code Enforcement Board.  The name seemed too harsh for some, so the name was changed to Code Compliance Board.  It appears the some liked that better.  The main issues, though, were who can be a member of this Board, and what infractions they can cite.  The latter matter was actually related to a different Ordinance, which was about the Village Public Works staff curing ills, and how and when the Village could get reimbursed for the treatment.

The Code Compliance Board is one of the two "quasi-judicial" Boards, in that it has the power to limit or control what residents do, and it has the power to exact fees and penalties.  So Barbara Kuhl suggested that, in line with what other municipalities do, and what is apparently current standard practice, members of this Board should be "qualified electors."  What this basically means is that Code Compliance Board members should be US citizens, and they should be registered to vote.  The idea was that we may not want to have marginal people and criminals as part of a Board that concerns itself with money, even though the Board doesn't touch money.  Yeah, OK, fine, let them be qualified electors, right?  Did I mention that Bryan Cooper is a member of the Commission?  So not so fast.  Bryan could accept the idea that criminals should not be on civic Boards, but it wasn't clear to him why non-citizens, or people who didn't register to vote, shouldn't be in positions of such authority over their neighbors.  (For myself, I would want someone with that level of authority over me and my residency in BP to have a very high degree of devotion and commitment to the place.  I would absolutely want to know they were interested enough in this country to bother to be a citizen, and interested and committed enough to the municipality, County, State, and country at least to register to vote.  So "yes" on qualified elector for me.)  Bryan smells abuse of power everywhere, and he got a good whiff of it here.  Noah Jacobs tried a compromise, which was the possibility of limiting membership to people who "could qualify as electors," which would have suited Bryan, but no one could figure out what Noah meant.  It appears Noah didn't know what he meant, either, because he couldn't really explain it.

A compromise was reached.  The Commission didn't require Code Compliance Board members to be qualified electors, but it did require them to be residents of Biscayne Park and property owners here.  Noah was kind of dazed tonight, and it didn't seem to dawn on him that this excluded him.  But at this point, anything that brings this protracted and meaningless discussion to an end is a good thing.

As for our collections, Bob Anderson has pointed out repeatedly that the Village is exerting a notable amount of time and trouble attending to the lapses in people's properties, and thus far, it can do no more than to place a lien against the property, so we might get paid back when the property eventually sells.  But the work is now, and it would be good if the reimbursement was now, or at least this calendar year.  Bryan was grudgingly OK with this, but he found a major sticking point.  Matters representing "imminent danger" could include an overgrowth of grass, weeds, and brush.  Bryan didn't like this one bit.  First of all, what makes this kind of overgrowth representative of "immenent danger?"  And to whom?  Rosemary Wais tried to illustrate it for him, but he wasn't buying it.  And here's the underlying reason.  Remember, this is Bryan Cooper we're talking about.  Couldn't a Village Manager, or Code Officer, with a mean streak or a grudge simply declare an emergency overgrowth of grass or brush, have the Village mow it, and stick the homeowner with the bill?  This all rests on Bryan's favorite paranoid fantasy: that powerful government agents, often rogue Village Managers, will act out on residents, to harass and torment them.  It's essentially impossible to talk Bryan out of this.  No one succeeded tonight, either.

Between one nonsensical and protracted discussion and another, this meeting consumed another three hours.  Last night, I finally got to vote.  Tonight was more of a pure waste of time.  I guess this is not a good time for me to remind you to come to Commission meetings.

Please, Steve, I Beg of You

Steve,

Let's agree to disagree.  I don't share your views of much, and you don't share mine.  I don't know you well enough to know if I would personally like you, and it's a reasonable bet you wouldn't personally like me.  No problem.  You can't be friends with everyone.

This morning, you and I happened to be interacting with our neighbors, who were in a long line waiting to vote.  We were talking to them about the same thing: whether or not to move the BP election.  I think we should, and I have my reasons.  You think we shouldn't, and you have yours.  Again, no problem.

The fact is, this difference of opinion could have made a nice discussion.  We could have worked together to try to convince them, each of our own view.  Interesting.  Maybe fun.

But Steve, the fact is that you don't personally know most of the people on line, and neither do I.  So if you disagree with what I'm saying, say you disagree.  Don't stand in front of all these people, these strangers, and say to me "You lie, we already know that."

This seems to be a favored tactic of yours.  You unleashed it a year or two ago in your angry rant about me in the Biscayne Times, and you tell it to our neighbors.

Really, Steve?  Is this how you behave?  You deal with people who don't agree with you by calling them liars, and you announce this to the world?  Don't you think this is unseemly?  Don't you think it says more about you, who openly behave this way, than it does about me, whose positions, with which you don't agree and which you believe not to be true, are unknown to these people?  They don't know if I'm a liar, but they can see you're ill-tempered and reduced to calling people names.

I offered an open debate.  Barbara Watts tried to broker it.  You weren't interested.  If you think you have something to say, I don't know why you wouldn't have wanted to say it, in the open.  But that's OK.  Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to defend your positions, either.  But don't act like an angry child, calling people names, and in public.  Grow up, Steve.

Fred

Little Monsters, Indeed

It's five nights after Hallowe'en, and the gremlins are out again.  If you watch carefully, you can see them scurrying around the Village, with their own special treats for you.  The little mischief-makers want to toy with you, to confuse you.  Their goodies are packets which they hang on your door.  Inside are funny pieces of paper.

The issue is the election tomorrow, and the special vote for Biscayne Park.  The question is whether to combine the BP election, so it happens during the general election.

The issues are pretty clear.  The reasons to move the election are a doubling of voter turnout, and a savings of Village money.  The reasons not to are tradition and a quainter and quieter Village election.

The problem is that yellow piece of paper.  (Hmm, yellow.)  It's very similar, almost identical, to a letter Steve Bernard wrote to the Biscayne Times.  It's very smoke-and-mirrors, song-and-dance.  It's rambling and incoherent, and it includes lots of questions.  It's unclear whether the questions are meant to be rhetorical, but they might be, because they are sometimes followed by the answers. 

If it appears that the author of this funny piece of paper is toying with readers, getting them to twirl around and chase nothing, as a child might do with a new kitten, he (the paper appears to be attributed to Steve Bernard, Barbara Watts, or both, but it's really very suspiciously like Steve's BT letter) seems to admit to just that.  He clearly imagines his audience to be of limited intelligence.  In a companion e-mail he sent out earlier today, he suggested that BP residents perhaps didn't even know who their Commissioners are.  If he thinks BP residents are that out of touch, or that stupid, perhaps he doesn't even think they should vote.  Ah, I get ahead of myself.  He comes to that later.

Our author starts us off in best Nancy Reagan style.  "Just Say No," he reassures.  Life is simple.  Especially for the weak-minded.

Then, he gets spooky.  If BP elections are no longer quarantined from the big, scary general election,  they will become "tainted by divisive, partisan State and National elections."  (BOO!)  This is where we see what a dim view he takes of his neighbors.

And if frightened readers are not under the covers yet, we are told that this subversive move is only a harbinger of horrors to come.  "Biscayne Park will take its first step upon the 'slippery slope' that leads to partisanship and divisiveness-- everything abhorrent in State and National governance and politics.  Why open the door to such contention in our Village?"  Now truth be told, this sounds much more like Cooper than Bernard, and do I understand that either of these saboteurs is complaining about divisiveness and contention?  I thought they invented divisiveness and contention.  Anyway, don't forget: "slippery slope," gateway to perdition.  Somebody's been watching "The Music Man."  "You got trouble, my friends."  First it's a pool table or a combined election, then it's rolling up your knickerbockers and smoking after school.

Another sure sign that our author is writing for the, um, less adept thinkers in the neighborhood is the liberal use of bold print, underlining, and bold print with underlining.  These screamers are necessary when our author is about to reveal complicated details, even including numbers.  But first he tells us that this arrogant action of letting BP voters make a decision about something was not predigested by a Charter Review Committee.  How can voters decide on something, if a Committee has not first told them what the right decision is?

And there's been "no broad public discussion!"  Well, there was discussion, but our author wasn't there, so he acts as if the discussion didn't happen.  If a tree falls in the forest, and Steve Bernard wasn't there to hear it, did it make any noise? 

There was, however, another opportunity for "broad public discussion via a group of residents."  As it happens, I wanted very much to have such a discussion.  I even imagined something like a debate.  Funny enough, Barbara Watts told me that Steve Bernard consented to such a debate or discussion with me.  But he didn't follow through.  It turns out that was a pretty clever dive he took.  It allowed him to say there hadn't been such a discussion.  I re-read his funny little yellow piece of paper, and I see he forgot to mention that the offer had been made but that it was he who couldn't step up to the plate.

We are then treated to numbers, which Steve says were concealed.  These numbers claim to show what proportion of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe municipalities hold their elections during the general election.  We're not told why this is relevant, but we're given numbers.  One caution Steve does alert us to is that a minority of municipalities in these three Counties combine elections with the general election, and that we would make a mistake to join a minority.  But then... Steve says BP voter turnout has "consistently...been among the highest" of Miami-Dade municipalities.  So we're already in a minority.  Maybe that's Steve's point.  We just have too darn many people voting.  Try as we might, by keeping stand-alone elections, we're just drawing too many of those pesky voters.  Here's what I'm thinking.  What if we have elections during the summer, when our snow birds are away, and hold them on the Fourth of July.  Could we knock turnout down to a more respectable level?

And here's where Steve tells us what he really wants to say.  We just don't want people voting.  And the reason, Steve is no doubt sorry to say, is that the residents of Biscayne Park are idiots and losers.  We need to find a way to make them stay away from the polls, where they frankly don't belong.  Here's how Steve puts it: "Quality Over Quantity."  If we can have just a few select voters, and they see things the way Steve tells them to see things, or they just do what Steve tells them to do, that's what we're looking for.  And Steve's not the only one.  Bryan Cooper feels just the same way.  He doesn't want those people voting.  He told us that at a Commission meeting a few months ago.  His exact words were, "I don't want them voting."

Look, voting for things is a tricky business.  It's complicated.  You need composure and peace of mind.  You can't function as a voter when you have to contend with "the din of the partisan Election Season."  (I have no idea why Steve capitalized election and season.  It's one of those emphases that's probably supposed to suggest portent.)  "Local candidates and concerns can't hope to compete [?] with the vast number of State and National issues that confront voters."  (If I had underlined "can't hope to compete," and capitalized state and national, I would definitely have accentuated "vast."  But I'm not the one telling the story.)

And finally.  "Incumbents are even more favored when municipal elections coincide with National ones, so it will be all the more difficult to dislodge an incumbent and elect a new candidate."  This is a new theme for team Bernard/Cooper.  It's got to be about Anderson.  What else could it be?  But Steve didn't make this up.  I think.  Maybe.  Hmm, maybe he did make it up.

Well, OK, here's the final, final convincer.  Keeping the election stand-alone only costs us $1.48 per resident per year.  The kids were using $4 per household per year, but they figured the point was even more forcefully made if they reduced it to the cost per resident.  I think they missed a good opportunity here.  If it's $1.48 per household per year, then it's only 12 cents per household per month.  And you can get almost three days of stand-alone elections for only a penny a person.  Kind of like it's free, no?

So if you get any sleep tonight, and aren't too scared to vote tomorrow, please do go vote.  Unless Steve Bernard and Bryan Cooper think you're a moron, which is what they think of most of us, in which case you should stay home and watch cartoons.

Gmail Creeps Me Out.

I finally got around to switching from hotmail to gmail a couple of months or so ago.  The layout is different, and you have to learn gmail's way of navigating.  It took me a long time to find my contact list, and even to figure out how to log off.  My kids used to play a video game called "Super Mario Brothers."  Yeah, OK, I played it, too.  It was a good game.  There were ways you could get points, but you had to know where the hidden sources were.  Gmail is like that.  They hide stuff, and you have to find it.

So here was my first really unnerving experience with gmail.  I was sending someone an e-mail about something, and I guess I sort of waxed a bit existential in describing my emotional investment in whatever it was.  I said "I have attached myself to..."  When I finished the e-mail, and pressed "Send," a notice appeared advising me that I had said "I have attached...," but there was no attachment.  Wasn't there something I wanted to attach?  WTF!  Get out of my business!  Really?  Gmail is "reading" my e-mail and making paternalistic suggestions for how and what I communicate?

Then, there was the time I sent Janey Anderson an e-mail, and I went to include Bob.  But apparently, the cursor was slightly off center, and instead of adding Bob, I added Barbara Kuhl, whose name is next to Bob's on my list of Bs.  I think the list, again a gross intrusion, is in order of frequency that I send, not normal and expected alphabetical order.  So a note popped up, asking me if I meant Bob instead of Barbara.  Shut up!  It appears gmail also tracks the frequency of combinations of recipients?

Well of course I meant Bob instead of Barbara, though I could have been arranging a crochet circle with the girls, and meant Barbara and not Bob.  I was not one bit appreciative.  This is an offense.  And when I admitted the mistake, which gmail corrected automatically when I clicked yes (!!!), it then asked me if I would like to add Gary Kuhl, Supreme Dorvil, and Chuck Ross.

This is essentially criminal.  It's true that I write a certain kind of e-mail that goes to that configuration of people, but this wasn't it, dammit!  And since I agreed not to include Barbara, who is also part of that configuration, why am I then offered Gary, Supreme, and Chuck anyway?

Can't gmail mind its own business? 

A friend of mine recently got a Mac laptop.  She happens to be a published author and a one-time college English professor.  When she recently sent me an e-mail which included the word "brake," her program, which is not gmail, took the liberty of "correcting" the spelling to break.  But she meant brake.  It was about her car.  And another e-mail from her included the word naivete.  Look, she happens to speak French, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with naivete.  But her program liked naivety better, so it imposed that instead.  I told her it was a good thing they didn't insist on nativity.

This is very demoralizing.  I can't bring myself to go back to hotmail, but I won't say I haven't had passing thoughts about it.

Term Limits? Well, Something Here is Limited.

In a recent discussion about the election, which devolved, as they sometimes do, into a dodge about the Charter in general, Bryan Cooper sort of offered a suggestion.  I say "sort of," because Bryan seemed to say it was someone else's idea, not his.  As is typical for him, however, he never says who the someone else is, so we never know where he gets his material.

As a frame of reference for this discussion, Bryan gives every indication that he does not think we should move the election.  He's gone so far as to say that he thinks it's of great value to have elections in which abnormally few people vote, because these elections attract, according to Bryan's argument, a specialized class of voter. Bryan thinks these voters are the really devoted and presumably knowledgeable ones.  He announced in a Commission meeting that he actually doesn't want the rest of us voting.  (Oh yes, he did.)

Bryan's suggestion, or the suggestion from whoever provides Bryan's material, is that we should have term limits for Commissioners.  Now I have to say, I don't know what Bryan, or his handlers, or the brains of the operation, meant by this suggestion, since as far as I could tell, Bryan was looking directly at Bob Anderson when he said it.  So it's an open question whether Bryan, or whoever, just thought no Commissioner should serve for a very long time, or if he/they meant this personally about Bob.  But since Bryan, etc, proposed this as a possible Charter change, it's clear he/they are OK with applying it to everyone.

But here's the problem.  If Bryan (+?) wants to impose term limits, then what he/they is/are saying is that the voters are too timid, brain dead, sheepish, or whatever, to impose limits them/ourselves,  simply by voting out people who are no longer doing the Village a service.  Bryan, and whoever props him up, evidently think the voters need to be saved from them/ourselves.

I guess you can see the flaw in the "logic."  If Bryan and his thinkers think we attract such knowledgeable voters, and so much so that their brilliant efforts should not be "diluted" (yup, that's the word Bryan used) by the dimwits of the neighborhood, which is most of us, according to Bryan, then why does he think we're so stupid that we don't know enough to vote out someone who is no good?

And what about the people the voters seem perfectly capable of not re-electing?  How is it we're smart enough to bounce those, but too moronic to refuse to re-elect others?

I think Bryan's suggestion needs some serious work, and Bryan should probably go back to the people who filled his head with this idiotic nonsense, and ask them for something a little more coherent.  And Bryan should care what I think.  I'm one of the geniuses who come out to vote in BP elections.

Kebab

Hi, My name is Fred, and I eat too much.  To enable my addiction, I find places that let me eat as much as I want, and don't charge too much.  The only other thing I ask is that the food, which I want plentiful and relatively cheap, be good.  That's not too much to ask, is it?

I already told you about Kebab ("Eats").  It's an Indian restaurant at the corner of 167th and NE 6th (just west of the southwest corner), and it's been there, in one incarnation or another, for decades.  (Get it?  Indian restaurant, incarnation?  Never mind.)  And the reason I know it's been there for decades is that I have been eating there for decades.  When I used to live on Miami Beach, when I was home visiting during the time I lived in Massachusetts, and since I came back in 2005.  I used to eat dinner there, and I almost always got the vegetarian dinner in "thali."  (A round metal tray with compartments, and it contained the whole dinner.)  It wasn't easy to finish, and it was exceptionally good.  Now, I go there for lunch.  They're open Tuesday through Sunday, and they serve the all-you-can-eat (ah, my specialty) buffet lunch on weekdays: Tuesday through Friday.

I'm a little ashamed to tell you how much it costs, but not much more ashamed than to think about how much I eat.  Let's just say that their charge, and my appetite, are a crime.  It costs just under $10.

So that's requirement #1 and requirement #2.  The satisfaction of requirement #3 is something like this.  The range of dishes is about standard for Indian restaurants, especially for lunch buffets.  The soup is usually either mulligatawny or lentil.  Occasionally, it's vegetable.  I suppose it depends on the chef's mood, or who knows what else, but the quality is not the same every time.  It ranges anywhere from very good to spectacular.  Today, the soup happened to be lentil, and it was spectacular.  For me, a detectable amount of heat (spiciness) pushes it up to spectacular.

Then, there's the main event.  They have many different veggie dishes, including simple basmati rice, cabbage with peas, mixed vegetables, okra today (excellent; one of my all time favorites), and a couple of others I can't remember off hand.  Oh, spinach sometimes.  There's also regular salad, of the lettuce, tomato, and cucumber variety.  They don't have conventional salad dressing, but they do have tamarind sauce and mint sauce, which make great salad dressing.  They always have appetizers, which are either samosas or pakoras.  Either one is good, but the samosas are better.  There's excellent onion chutney for those.

The special veggie dish is pumpkin.  It's served only Tuesdays and Fridays, and it is not to be missed.  It is why I typically aim myself preferentially to be there on a Tuesday or a Friday.

Then, they have meat dishes.  There's chicken curry and sometimes tilapia with vegetables.  The latter is magnificent.  Of course they have tandoori chicken, which is as good as can be.  The killer meat dish, though, and worth the price of admission all by itself, is the goat curry.  I don't know if they do this for the West Indians in the neighborhood, or they just like it, but it's wonderful.

I didn't tell you about the nan (essentially pita bread), but you figured that out for yourself.  They don't have the specialty breads on the lunch buffet.

Finally, there's dessert.  You're stuffed already, and I'm still eating.  Sorry.  They have two desserts.  It's either rice pudding or gulab jamun.  I can never figure out which day is which one, or maybe it's just whatever they feel like.  Anyway, you can't miss.  The gulab jamun is as good as gulab jamun ever is (and nice and soft, not gritty, on the inside), and the rice pudding is better than most anywhere else.

I hope I have a few more decades, because I've become somewhat reliant on Kebab.  I'm addicted to them.