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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
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!"
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!"
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2012
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.
Friday, November 9, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
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
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
Monday, November 5, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)