Do you know what a brainstem response is? It's what your body and your nervous system will do if your brain has died. There are some reflexes that do not extinguish, even when you're brain dead.
Whenever someone mentions codes, or rules, Commissioner Dr Cooper exhibits a brainstem response. He cautions, in the most dire ways, about the nefarious incursions of government, and illustrates how government victimizes people. His fantasies sound like they are about particular leaders, or maybe code enforcement officers, who will hound and harass residents whom they have singled out for abuse. His usual examples, and the one he invoked last night, are about compromised people, in this case someone with cancer, and upon whom the cruel code enforcement officer (and Code Review Board?, and Commission?) descends to torment.
But apart from the particular heart-rending horror stories, there is a broader theme. An overarching complaint. Can't people live in peace, wonders the Commissioner Dr? Must their lives be regimented, and their liberties and even freedom of expression be curtailed? What if they like their landscaping, and their home maintenance, like that?
The answer is this, Commissioner Dr Cooper: No, they cannot live in the peace you fantasy. Yes, something in the maintenance of their properties must be regimented. If they can't cut their grass or control their plantings, because they're sick, or poor, or just don't particularly feel like it, someone will do it for them. And as of last night, who does it for them, which is the Village, will be compensated.
We live together in this home we share. We chose it this way. At some level, and in some ways, we are answerable to each other. If we can't be bothered, or make the expense, to do something about chipping paint, or unfinished roofing, that's not OK with our neighbors. It's part of the cost of living with other people, in a municipality.
But there is an answer to this problem. None of us has to live with the rest. Any of us can choose to live out in the country, not in a municipality, where no one will tax us, or make rules. We don't have to cut the grass, or repaint, or do any repairs, unless we feel like it. God created Montana for a reason.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I'm Not Deaf, Blind, and Stupid, You Know.
I know how this looks. So many posts, like so many others. They appear stark, two-dimensional, caricaturish.
Ross and Anderson, reasonable, level-headed, goal-directed, grounded. Watts, out of her element, self-conscious, tangential at first, then growing a perspective, and even an inchoate wisdom, offering sound reasoning and argument. Cooper, in some weird, unfathomable orbit, rarely connecting with anything approaching a reality base, relying mostly on strange and unimaginable, to anyone but him, hypotheses and what-ifs. There is no big picture. There is no forest. Only fantastical trees, growing upside down. And Jacobs, who often appears to think Cooper, and everything else, orbit around him. Stumbling, bumbling, feeling his way very much in the dark, and trying desperately to suppress and control everything around him. Whose favorite refrain, when he has had enough of the meaningless chatter of other people is "I'm calling the question."
I know how this sounds. I know what you're thinking. It's mean-spirited, there is a wretched quality about it, and it's intensely slanted. These people are not like this. Jonas is off on some tired rant. I know. It looks like that when I read it myself.
So please (PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!) come to meetings. See what this really looks like. And when you see how mistaken I am, just let me know, and I will turn this blog over to you, so you can post your own summary. You tell it like it really is.
Look, we were all given an explanation for what has happened to Commission meetings in Biscayne Park. Steve Bernard described it painfully clearly, on many occasions. We were under the influence of suppressing brutes, the majority of the last Commission, and no one could function, or breathe, because the vile beasts were controlling the air. People gave up completely, and even stopped coming to Commission meetings. And it was true. People had, over a few years time, perhaps even before the tenure of the culpable Commissioners, stopped coming. But Bernard explained it as he saw it, and he only wished, on behalf of all of us, that we could have a new, kinder, more open regime. Well now, we have one. And the attendance is more pitiful than ever. The usual suspects were there last night-- Janey Anderson and Chuck Ross, the long-suffering spouses, of course-- and I was there, and so was Barbara Kuhl. Dan Samaria, Linda Dillon. Karen Cohen and Linda Brewer. As I say, the usuals. But we did have one most unusual guest. The First Lady herself, Mme Elizabeth Jacobs. It was never clear what that was all about. But we have never gotten the promised, or at least implied, neighbors back. And no explanation, either.
So please, straighten me out. Straighten out this column. I need some help here.
Ross and Anderson, reasonable, level-headed, goal-directed, grounded. Watts, out of her element, self-conscious, tangential at first, then growing a perspective, and even an inchoate wisdom, offering sound reasoning and argument. Cooper, in some weird, unfathomable orbit, rarely connecting with anything approaching a reality base, relying mostly on strange and unimaginable, to anyone but him, hypotheses and what-ifs. There is no big picture. There is no forest. Only fantastical trees, growing upside down. And Jacobs, who often appears to think Cooper, and everything else, orbit around him. Stumbling, bumbling, feeling his way very much in the dark, and trying desperately to suppress and control everything around him. Whose favorite refrain, when he has had enough of the meaningless chatter of other people is "I'm calling the question."
I know how this sounds. I know what you're thinking. It's mean-spirited, there is a wretched quality about it, and it's intensely slanted. These people are not like this. Jonas is off on some tired rant. I know. It looks like that when I read it myself.
So please (PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!) come to meetings. See what this really looks like. And when you see how mistaken I am, just let me know, and I will turn this blog over to you, so you can post your own summary. You tell it like it really is.
Look, we were all given an explanation for what has happened to Commission meetings in Biscayne Park. Steve Bernard described it painfully clearly, on many occasions. We were under the influence of suppressing brutes, the majority of the last Commission, and no one could function, or breathe, because the vile beasts were controlling the air. People gave up completely, and even stopped coming to Commission meetings. And it was true. People had, over a few years time, perhaps even before the tenure of the culpable Commissioners, stopped coming. But Bernard explained it as he saw it, and he only wished, on behalf of all of us, that we could have a new, kinder, more open regime. Well now, we have one. And the attendance is more pitiful than ever. The usual suspects were there last night-- Janey Anderson and Chuck Ross, the long-suffering spouses, of course-- and I was there, and so was Barbara Kuhl. Dan Samaria, Linda Dillon. Karen Cohen and Linda Brewer. As I say, the usuals. But we did have one most unusual guest. The First Lady herself, Mme Elizabeth Jacobs. It was never clear what that was all about. But we have never gotten the promised, or at least implied, neighbors back. And no explanation, either.
So please, straighten me out. Straighten out this column. I need some help here.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Pissing in the Ocean? Or Spitting into the Wind.
OK, I'm harping. There's a recurring problem, and I want to understand it. My question was this: given that Commissioners say they are responsive to their constituents, but noting that some in particular ignore those voices, or don't even want to hear them, is there some pattern, some way to anticipate, when Commissioners will listen to their constituents, and when they won't? Could we predict when Commissioners, or those Commissioners most prone to the lapse, couldn't care less what Park residents think and want?
The context includes this: last month, our Mayor said he wanted the Commission's blessing to enter into special exploration with CNM about the water, because one family allegedly complained to him. But when a petition signed by over 100 Park residents was presented to the Commission, neither the Mayor nor any other Commissioner bothered even to comment on it. And in the past two months, there was the presentation of an Ordinance to solicit the voice of the residents via a referendum, but the Mayor, and Commissioner Dr Cooper, voted against it. They voted against learning what the residents of Biscayne Park want.
Tonight, the Mayor, that's the one who ignored the petition and voted against the referendum, commented that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease." But he doesn't want to hear the wheel squeak. And when Commissioner Anderson raised the subject of soliciting the opinions of Village residents about which public school they would like their children to attend, he spoke against that, too. He said he didn't want to know opinions, if the Commission might be unable to effect the hypothetically desired action. Not that the Commission would be unable. Just that they might, in theory.
Furthermore, our Mayor ran in part on a platform of openness and precision, explicitly about the minutes. In the interest of accuracy and greater completeness of those minutes, he took a leading role in charging the Village Clerk to change the way she composes the minutes, to reflect "salient points," whatever anyone thinks those are. It has taken her many hours to try to distinguish whatever "salient points" she guesses Commissioners meant with their comments. But when Commissioner Ross introduced a list of amendments to prior minutes, His Honor was the only one to vote against admitting those corrections. If those of us down wind of His Honor's caprices and neglect are supposed to feel better, in that he pulls the same nonsense on his colleagues, I don't think it's working.
Similarly, Commissioner Dr Cooper at one point asked, in a challenging way, if Commissioner Ross would be receptive to public input about something. He's not. He's one of the two who voted not even to have to hear it. And regarding the survey about the schools, he argued against such a survey, by asking the possibly rhetorical question as to whether Commissioner Anderson intended frequently to solicit such opinions. I mean really, Commissioner Anderson, are you intending to make a habit of trying to find out what your constituents want? Commissioner Dr Cooper is mostly uninterested in anyone's opinion, though he seems to have inordinate fondness for his own. He regularly carries on foolish debates and arguments with his colleagues, the Village Manager, the Village Attorney, the Finance Director, and others, based on his firm commitment to his quirky and frequently not reality-based opinions.
So not having received an answer to my opening question, I asked again at the end of the meeting. Ross, Anderson, and Watts were dutiful in spouting the usual reassurances that residents' voices were important to these Commissioners. Commissioner Dr Cooper decided to decline an opportunity to respond. His Honor launched into some kind of discourse, but most of us couldn't figure out what he was saying. The closest we could come was to realize he didn't answer the question.
The context includes this: last month, our Mayor said he wanted the Commission's blessing to enter into special exploration with CNM about the water, because one family allegedly complained to him. But when a petition signed by over 100 Park residents was presented to the Commission, neither the Mayor nor any other Commissioner bothered even to comment on it. And in the past two months, there was the presentation of an Ordinance to solicit the voice of the residents via a referendum, but the Mayor, and Commissioner Dr Cooper, voted against it. They voted against learning what the residents of Biscayne Park want.
Tonight, the Mayor, that's the one who ignored the petition and voted against the referendum, commented that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease." But he doesn't want to hear the wheel squeak. And when Commissioner Anderson raised the subject of soliciting the opinions of Village residents about which public school they would like their children to attend, he spoke against that, too. He said he didn't want to know opinions, if the Commission might be unable to effect the hypothetically desired action. Not that the Commission would be unable. Just that they might, in theory.
Furthermore, our Mayor ran in part on a platform of openness and precision, explicitly about the minutes. In the interest of accuracy and greater completeness of those minutes, he took a leading role in charging the Village Clerk to change the way she composes the minutes, to reflect "salient points," whatever anyone thinks those are. It has taken her many hours to try to distinguish whatever "salient points" she guesses Commissioners meant with their comments. But when Commissioner Ross introduced a list of amendments to prior minutes, His Honor was the only one to vote against admitting those corrections. If those of us down wind of His Honor's caprices and neglect are supposed to feel better, in that he pulls the same nonsense on his colleagues, I don't think it's working.
Similarly, Commissioner Dr Cooper at one point asked, in a challenging way, if Commissioner Ross would be receptive to public input about something. He's not. He's one of the two who voted not even to have to hear it. And regarding the survey about the schools, he argued against such a survey, by asking the possibly rhetorical question as to whether Commissioner Anderson intended frequently to solicit such opinions. I mean really, Commissioner Anderson, are you intending to make a habit of trying to find out what your constituents want? Commissioner Dr Cooper is mostly uninterested in anyone's opinion, though he seems to have inordinate fondness for his own. He regularly carries on foolish debates and arguments with his colleagues, the Village Manager, the Village Attorney, the Finance Director, and others, based on his firm commitment to his quirky and frequently not reality-based opinions.
So not having received an answer to my opening question, I asked again at the end of the meeting. Ross, Anderson, and Watts were dutiful in spouting the usual reassurances that residents' voices were important to these Commissioners. Commissioner Dr Cooper decided to decline an opportunity to respond. His Honor launched into some kind of discourse, but most of us couldn't figure out what he was saying. The closest we could come was to realize he didn't answer the question.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Eats.
I admit I don't go to Revales much, but I decided to take myself to breakfast there today. Gone. The head waiter had made noises in this direction earlier this year, but they hung on until they didn't any more. It was a nice place. Friendlier and a bit more upscale in its presentation than some other cheap, local eateries. Oh, well. I guess Chester and his lads will have to go bestow themselves on someone else.
So I went to Bagel and Co. ("Guns and Bagels"). A good standard, where you run into your neighbors. Today, it was the Chao's. (Spells like chaos, if you don't use the apostrophe, but they seemed sedate to me, so I used one.) The food is good, and it is, in fact, cheap.
I'm not a Jimmy's denizen, for no particular reason. I've eaten there, but I just don't make a habit of it. I also ate at the Gourmet Diner once, and I don't even know why I don't go there. I don't remember disliking it, and I don't remember if it was expensive.
Some people go to Panera, and I've been there. It's not bad, and the coffee is excellent. Who knows how we establish the habits we do?
I pretty much only go one place for lunch. Kebab, on 167th at NE 6th. The buffet lunch is Tuesday to Friday, 11:30-3, the food is great (I love Indian food, and I've eaten it at lots of places), and it's dirt cheap for all you can eat.
For dinner, I make the rounds of just a few places when I go out. Top of the list for me is Ricky Thai on 123rd just west of Biscayne. The best, and cheapest, Thai food I know, and you see your friends there, unless you brought them with you. They only have two problems. The place is so small, that sometimes you can't eat there. And the service is very slow, so it can take a long time to get dinner ordered, served, and eaten. But if you have time, that's the place. Also, you have to be prepared to feel like a thief for paying as little as you do for what you get. Some of us tried to get Giuliano to raise the prices, and he did a little, but it's still too cheap. So we tip bigger.
Victor Romano and Steve Taylor put me onto Slices, on Biscayne and the upper 130s. It's the place that used to be Scorch. Scorch was so-so. Slices is great. The big deal is their "Rodizio" service, which is all you can eat pizza, pasta, and risotto, which they make extremely well. The price before 7 is $12.95, and after 7 it's $15.95. Fabulous. But it's only pizza, pasta, and risotto. If you want salad or something, it's extra. And they use a bit more cheese than I like. But no question, it tastes great. And it's all you can eat. (You get my little problem, right?) They claim to have an even cheaper lunch price, but since they don't open until 5:30, it's sort of a weird loose end.
I think the new/old name is going to be Ouzo. That's what it was on Normandy Isle. Then they tried to get really trendy, by going to South Beach. Then they came up to 78th, just east of Biscayne, and opened as Anise. This was a wonderful place. Great, great Greek food. I don't know what happened, apart from the divorce, but they wound up as RiverShack, which was supposed to suggest road house or something (it was sort of like upscale diner food), and now they're reportedly going back to Greek. They shuffle chefs like nobody's business, so who knows who's going to be cooking. But I'm definitely going back. RiverShack was frankly not a hit. Their Greek is.
Little Havana at Biscayne in the mid-120s is perfectly good, but I'm partial to La Carreta. Speaking of which, a couple of blocks further west on SW 8th Street is Cava. Beautiful place, made up to look like a brick-lined cave, very good Spanish (not Cuban/Caribbean) food, and flamenco at about 8 about three nights a week: Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. It's worth the drive. A most enjoyable venue for the food and the floor show.
Metro, on Biscayne at about 70th, is not cheap, but it is terrific. Their shtick is meat from properly raised animals. I was there once. Wonderful food.
There are lots of other places, and you're welcome to "comment" on them, but these were the few I frequent, and about which I felt like communicating. Oh, one more, because it's interesting. Cane A Sucre used to be a long list of other places. There was a Mexican or two, and it was Dogma north. I'm talking about 125th and NE 9th. Nobody makes it there. I don't know why. Cane A Sucre has really terrific sandwiches and soup. And you would expect to pay more. Check 'em out.
So I went to Bagel and Co. ("Guns and Bagels"). A good standard, where you run into your neighbors. Today, it was the Chao's. (Spells like chaos, if you don't use the apostrophe, but they seemed sedate to me, so I used one.) The food is good, and it is, in fact, cheap.
I'm not a Jimmy's denizen, for no particular reason. I've eaten there, but I just don't make a habit of it. I also ate at the Gourmet Diner once, and I don't even know why I don't go there. I don't remember disliking it, and I don't remember if it was expensive.
Some people go to Panera, and I've been there. It's not bad, and the coffee is excellent. Who knows how we establish the habits we do?
I pretty much only go one place for lunch. Kebab, on 167th at NE 6th. The buffet lunch is Tuesday to Friday, 11:30-3, the food is great (I love Indian food, and I've eaten it at lots of places), and it's dirt cheap for all you can eat.
For dinner, I make the rounds of just a few places when I go out. Top of the list for me is Ricky Thai on 123rd just west of Biscayne. The best, and cheapest, Thai food I know, and you see your friends there, unless you brought them with you. They only have two problems. The place is so small, that sometimes you can't eat there. And the service is very slow, so it can take a long time to get dinner ordered, served, and eaten. But if you have time, that's the place. Also, you have to be prepared to feel like a thief for paying as little as you do for what you get. Some of us tried to get Giuliano to raise the prices, and he did a little, but it's still too cheap. So we tip bigger.
Victor Romano and Steve Taylor put me onto Slices, on Biscayne and the upper 130s. It's the place that used to be Scorch. Scorch was so-so. Slices is great. The big deal is their "Rodizio" service, which is all you can eat pizza, pasta, and risotto, which they make extremely well. The price before 7 is $12.95, and after 7 it's $15.95. Fabulous. But it's only pizza, pasta, and risotto. If you want salad or something, it's extra. And they use a bit more cheese than I like. But no question, it tastes great. And it's all you can eat. (You get my little problem, right?) They claim to have an even cheaper lunch price, but since they don't open until 5:30, it's sort of a weird loose end.
I think the new/old name is going to be Ouzo. That's what it was on Normandy Isle. Then they tried to get really trendy, by going to South Beach. Then they came up to 78th, just east of Biscayne, and opened as Anise. This was a wonderful place. Great, great Greek food. I don't know what happened, apart from the divorce, but they wound up as RiverShack, which was supposed to suggest road house or something (it was sort of like upscale diner food), and now they're reportedly going back to Greek. They shuffle chefs like nobody's business, so who knows who's going to be cooking. But I'm definitely going back. RiverShack was frankly not a hit. Their Greek is.
Little Havana at Biscayne in the mid-120s is perfectly good, but I'm partial to La Carreta. Speaking of which, a couple of blocks further west on SW 8th Street is Cava. Beautiful place, made up to look like a brick-lined cave, very good Spanish (not Cuban/Caribbean) food, and flamenco at about 8 about three nights a week: Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. It's worth the drive. A most enjoyable venue for the food and the floor show.
Metro, on Biscayne at about 70th, is not cheap, but it is terrific. Their shtick is meat from properly raised animals. I was there once. Wonderful food.
There are lots of other places, and you're welcome to "comment" on them, but these were the few I frequent, and about which I felt like communicating. Oh, one more, because it's interesting. Cane A Sucre used to be a long list of other places. There was a Mexican or two, and it was Dogma north. I'm talking about 125th and NE 9th. Nobody makes it there. I don't know why. Cane A Sucre has really terrific sandwiches and soup. And you would expect to pay more. Check 'em out.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Drinking is Done. Time to Pay the Bar Tab.
I got my water bill today. It's for the April through June quarter.
Disclaimers: I live alone. I don't have a pool. I don't water the "grass." (I don't have any.) I bathe every day, sometimes more than once a day, but I use a cut-off valve when I don't need the water actively running. I do my own laundry in a front load washing machine.
My usage was 5000 gallons. I'm not sure if it was less, but I think they have a minimum charge for 5000 gallons. Unless they did away with that in exchange for the meter fee, but it doesn't say there was a meter fee.
My last quarter bill, under the old billing system, was a total of $72.26. This quarter, under what I think is the new system, it is $61.87. The "water charge" is $42.85. The County adds a "Service Fee" (not sure what service the County renders) of $4.02. CNM applies a surcharge of 25% for "delivering" water outside North Miami, so that was an additional $10.71. We, VBP, add a utility tax of 10%, which was $4.29. These charges are all per quarter.
So the total for me is about $20.62 per month. In other parts of the country, people pay water bills of $100 per month.
So that's it, ladies and gentlemen. Drink up.
Disclaimers: I live alone. I don't have a pool. I don't water the "grass." (I don't have any.) I bathe every day, sometimes more than once a day, but I use a cut-off valve when I don't need the water actively running. I do my own laundry in a front load washing machine.
My usage was 5000 gallons. I'm not sure if it was less, but I think they have a minimum charge for 5000 gallons. Unless they did away with that in exchange for the meter fee, but it doesn't say there was a meter fee.
My last quarter bill, under the old billing system, was a total of $72.26. This quarter, under what I think is the new system, it is $61.87. The "water charge" is $42.85. The County adds a "Service Fee" (not sure what service the County renders) of $4.02. CNM applies a surcharge of 25% for "delivering" water outside North Miami, so that was an additional $10.71. We, VBP, add a utility tax of 10%, which was $4.29. These charges are all per quarter.
So the total for me is about $20.62 per month. In other parts of the country, people pay water bills of $100 per month.
So that's it, ladies and gentlemen. Drink up.
Friday, July 20, 2012
RFD (Request for Data)
An interesting question has been posed to me, regarding the post entitled "Send in the Clowns."
I am asked for a graph of attendance at Commission meetings, to illustrate any change in it over the past few years.
This is difficult to produce, impossible, really, since we don't keep attendance.
What I can say is that when I started to come to Commission meetings, in 2005, the room was very full. After Steve Bernard was appointed, then elected, it is my impression that attendance began to deteriorate. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Steve also started to complain about it, though he thought the association, and the cause, were elsewhere. Now, even Bryan Cooper is complaining about poor attendance. And I completely agree with Bryan. Attendance at Commission meetings is terrible.
What's curious is that attendance should have increased beginning in December, when the good guys took the majority, at least according to Steve's theory of why attendance deteriorated in the first place. And Steve, if you read this blog, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Is there some factor you didn't mention or think of? Were you actually wrong about your explanation of poor attendance? What do you now think is the explanation for the poor attendance?
So since we don't keep attendance, no one can provide data as to what the attendance was or is. But does anyone have any impressions as to whether it seems about as it always was, or it decreased at some point, or increased at some point? Steve, Bryan, and I think it dropped off dramatically and disturbingly. What have you noticed?
I'm just asking, because someone asked me. Please use the "Comment" opportunity immediately below, at the end of this particular post, to register your impressions or observations.
Thanks.
I am asked for a graph of attendance at Commission meetings, to illustrate any change in it over the past few years.
This is difficult to produce, impossible, really, since we don't keep attendance.
What I can say is that when I started to come to Commission meetings, in 2005, the room was very full. After Steve Bernard was appointed, then elected, it is my impression that attendance began to deteriorate. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Steve also started to complain about it, though he thought the association, and the cause, were elsewhere. Now, even Bryan Cooper is complaining about poor attendance. And I completely agree with Bryan. Attendance at Commission meetings is terrible.
What's curious is that attendance should have increased beginning in December, when the good guys took the majority, at least according to Steve's theory of why attendance deteriorated in the first place. And Steve, if you read this blog, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Is there some factor you didn't mention or think of? Were you actually wrong about your explanation of poor attendance? What do you now think is the explanation for the poor attendance?
So since we don't keep attendance, no one can provide data as to what the attendance was or is. But does anyone have any impressions as to whether it seems about as it always was, or it decreased at some point, or increased at some point? Steve, Bryan, and I think it dropped off dramatically and disturbingly. What have you noticed?
I'm just asking, because someone asked me. Please use the "Comment" opportunity immediately below, at the end of this particular post, to register your impressions or observations.
Thanks.
Sure, But Grover Norquist is Honest.
To be sure, the dog is loyal. But why, on that account, should we take him as an example? He is loyal to man, not to other dogs. -Karl Kraus, writer (1874-1936)
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
"Send in the Clowns"
Is this what they mean when they talk about something going from bad to worse?
For the past few years, we've been hearing about the embarrassingly diminishing attendance at Commission meetings. It was Steve Bernard who introduced the idea. Not only did he point it out repeatedly (as if it wasn't painfully obvious), but he explained the cause. According to Steve, it was all because of the crushing and suppressing majority on the last Commission. Not only did they dishearten him and Bryan Cooper, they also caused the residents who used to come to meetings to lose heart and give up in frustration. Why bother to come to meetings? The brutes were only going to ignore the public and have their own way. And there were enough 3-2 votes to prove Steve's point. But then...
In December, 2011, a month to remember, Steve succeeded in getting a new majority seated. He sacrificed himself, but he added two protegees to Bryan Cooper, and it was a new majority and a new day. Finally, the people were honestly and lovingly represented, and were more than welcome to venture out of their homes, to the Commission chamber. I don't know if it was supposed to be joyous, or perhaps solemn like the pilgrimages made by Jews and others to visit the old concentration camps in Poland and Germany. But one thing was for sure. There was no longer anything to fear. The beast was killed, and the public could rejoice.
Tonight, there were two meetings. A workshop on renovation of the log cabin started at 6:30, and a special Commission meeting started at 8. There were perhaps 8 people at the workshop. Noah seems to treat workshops as his personal tutorials, and this one was no exception. At about 7:40, he remembered that the few of us were there, and he thought perhaps he might as well invite some comment. He correctly pointed out that the Commission had monopolized the meeting. Some workshop.
At the 8:00 meeting, two more people showed up. I didn't recognize them. Cooper twice commented on the low attendance at the two meetings. But he also recalled a charrette about something about "five years ago," and his memory was that it was well-attended.
So I think I lost the thread of what was supposed to be going on. According to Steve's logic, the people stay away while the brutes are there, then come back when they're defeated. What Steve didn't factor in, though, is that it was shortly after he was elected that attendance dropped off. It was disturbingly low, and now that Steve's majority is in charge, it's even lower. I don't think that's what was supposed to happen.
And Noah, who campaigned in part on the strength of complaints about our immediate past brutalizing Mayor, has been remarkably suppressing on his own. He has dismissed both residents and other Commissioners. The fact is, the immediate past Mayor was frankly quite accommodating, and Noah is suffocating, in that hand around your throat kind of way.
And both Noah and Bryan, who suggested that they were champions of the voice of the people, have invariably suppressed and ignored that voice. Why just tonight, there was a vote to elevate the voice of the residents, by placing a referendum on the November general election ballot. Noah and Bryan were the only two to vote against hearing that voice.
So where is the promised crowd of Village residents? In fact, where is Steve Bernard? If I can't have my neighbors back, at least I'd like to hear an explanation.
For the past few years, we've been hearing about the embarrassingly diminishing attendance at Commission meetings. It was Steve Bernard who introduced the idea. Not only did he point it out repeatedly (as if it wasn't painfully obvious), but he explained the cause. According to Steve, it was all because of the crushing and suppressing majority on the last Commission. Not only did they dishearten him and Bryan Cooper, they also caused the residents who used to come to meetings to lose heart and give up in frustration. Why bother to come to meetings? The brutes were only going to ignore the public and have their own way. And there were enough 3-2 votes to prove Steve's point. But then...
In December, 2011, a month to remember, Steve succeeded in getting a new majority seated. He sacrificed himself, but he added two protegees to Bryan Cooper, and it was a new majority and a new day. Finally, the people were honestly and lovingly represented, and were more than welcome to venture out of their homes, to the Commission chamber. I don't know if it was supposed to be joyous, or perhaps solemn like the pilgrimages made by Jews and others to visit the old concentration camps in Poland and Germany. But one thing was for sure. There was no longer anything to fear. The beast was killed, and the public could rejoice.
Tonight, there were two meetings. A workshop on renovation of the log cabin started at 6:30, and a special Commission meeting started at 8. There were perhaps 8 people at the workshop. Noah seems to treat workshops as his personal tutorials, and this one was no exception. At about 7:40, he remembered that the few of us were there, and he thought perhaps he might as well invite some comment. He correctly pointed out that the Commission had monopolized the meeting. Some workshop.
At the 8:00 meeting, two more people showed up. I didn't recognize them. Cooper twice commented on the low attendance at the two meetings. But he also recalled a charrette about something about "five years ago," and his memory was that it was well-attended.
So I think I lost the thread of what was supposed to be going on. According to Steve's logic, the people stay away while the brutes are there, then come back when they're defeated. What Steve didn't factor in, though, is that it was shortly after he was elected that attendance dropped off. It was disturbingly low, and now that Steve's majority is in charge, it's even lower. I don't think that's what was supposed to happen.
And Noah, who campaigned in part on the strength of complaints about our immediate past brutalizing Mayor, has been remarkably suppressing on his own. He has dismissed both residents and other Commissioners. The fact is, the immediate past Mayor was frankly quite accommodating, and Noah is suffocating, in that hand around your throat kind of way.
And both Noah and Bryan, who suggested that they were champions of the voice of the people, have invariably suppressed and ignored that voice. Why just tonight, there was a vote to elevate the voice of the residents, by placing a referendum on the November general election ballot. Noah and Bryan were the only two to vote against hearing that voice.
So where is the promised crowd of Village residents? In fact, where is Steve Bernard? If I can't have my neighbors back, at least I'd like to hear an explanation.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Sniff, sniff. Hmm.
I received a somewhat convoluted e-mail yesterday. It was sent to me by a resident, who seems to have gotten it from Steve Bernard, who appears to have forwarded the original e-mail, which was from Noah Jacobs, except Steve added his own little pitch, which was for readers to contact Noah if they had anything to say about the matter at hand. Noah appeared to be taking some sort of poll regarding satisfaction, or not, with our water. He appears to be dissatisfied with his.
So the first curiosity is the circuitous route this communication took. Why didn't Noah simply send his request for feedback to everyone whose e-mail address he has? He has mine. If he wanted more addresses, why didn't he just ask Steve for his list? If Steve refused to give it to him (is Steve by any chance controlling what Noah knows?), why didn't he, Steve, simply forward without comment? And why didn't Steve include me? He has my address, too. All, as I say, curious.
Noah's problem: It appears Noah doesn't like the water that comes out of his tap. He referenced the taste, the smell, and the color. He didn't say he called a plumber, to see if there is a problem with his pipes. No, he solicited possible similar complaints from his neighbors. He seemed to say people had come to him with complaints. Or Steve said they came to him. She's my sister and my daughter. This part is much more murky than the water. And frankly, it smells worse.
Being a neighbor and all, and setting aside completely my feelings of offense and neglect that Noah didn't ask me for feedback, I cheerfully and generously gave him some. I'm just that type of guy. I told him I had no problem with my water, none of my friends complain about theirs, I have a purification system anyway, as many people do, and I was especially happy that our water is so cheap. (It is. Even Noah agreed to that.) And I offered that he could come over any time, for a glass of water. He's welcome to check it out.
Do not accuse Noah of not being sharp as a tack. He is. He immediately pointed out the great expense I had gone to to purify my water (great "personal" expense of time and money, he informed me), and further (Aha, Jonas, you conniving and hypocritical rascal), he nailed me on the ultimate discrepancy: if I'm satisfied with the water, why did I expend my considerable financial resources (well, that's how he made it sound) to purify it? I'm telling you, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of Jacobs' kitchen.
What could I say? He had me. I tried to tell him that I did not spend much money on my system, I never said or implied I spent a lot on it, I used a system that was more comprehensive than was necessary (I got a deal on it), there are even cheaper systems at Home Depot, and many people just put a filter on the tap. People do that all over the country. But no, Noah had satisfied himself that he had caught me, and no more interaction was necessary. So I didn't hear back. I picture him blowing the lingering smoke off the end of the barrel of his gun, and twirling it back into the holster. And I imagine a call to his sponsor, saying something like "I think I got him, Sheriff."
Which brings me to the overarching curiosity. No one in Biscayne Park ever heard of Noah Jacobs until Steve Bernard propped him up with a speech and a list of complaints, and trotted him out to a Commission meeting, to articulate Steve's usual laundry list of complaints. Then, Steve got Noah elected, and Steve's other protegees elected Noah Mayor. Noah has dutifully parroted each of Steve's pet gripes, even about things Noah clearly doesn't understand, and requiring Steve to suggest specific phrases Noah should use. Now, Noah seems to be trying to scare up a complaint about the water, another Bernard theme, and Bernard seems to be shepherding it, at least. So is all of this remarkably coincidental, or should we be asking the implied question, Mayor "Jacobs?"
So the first curiosity is the circuitous route this communication took. Why didn't Noah simply send his request for feedback to everyone whose e-mail address he has? He has mine. If he wanted more addresses, why didn't he just ask Steve for his list? If Steve refused to give it to him (is Steve by any chance controlling what Noah knows?), why didn't he, Steve, simply forward without comment? And why didn't Steve include me? He has my address, too. All, as I say, curious.
Noah's problem: It appears Noah doesn't like the water that comes out of his tap. He referenced the taste, the smell, and the color. He didn't say he called a plumber, to see if there is a problem with his pipes. No, he solicited possible similar complaints from his neighbors. He seemed to say people had come to him with complaints. Or Steve said they came to him. She's my sister and my daughter. This part is much more murky than the water. And frankly, it smells worse.
Being a neighbor and all, and setting aside completely my feelings of offense and neglect that Noah didn't ask me for feedback, I cheerfully and generously gave him some. I'm just that type of guy. I told him I had no problem with my water, none of my friends complain about theirs, I have a purification system anyway, as many people do, and I was especially happy that our water is so cheap. (It is. Even Noah agreed to that.) And I offered that he could come over any time, for a glass of water. He's welcome to check it out.
Do not accuse Noah of not being sharp as a tack. He is. He immediately pointed out the great expense I had gone to to purify my water (great "personal" expense of time and money, he informed me), and further (Aha, Jonas, you conniving and hypocritical rascal), he nailed me on the ultimate discrepancy: if I'm satisfied with the water, why did I expend my considerable financial resources (well, that's how he made it sound) to purify it? I'm telling you, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of Jacobs' kitchen.
What could I say? He had me. I tried to tell him that I did not spend much money on my system, I never said or implied I spent a lot on it, I used a system that was more comprehensive than was necessary (I got a deal on it), there are even cheaper systems at Home Depot, and many people just put a filter on the tap. People do that all over the country. But no, Noah had satisfied himself that he had caught me, and no more interaction was necessary. So I didn't hear back. I picture him blowing the lingering smoke off the end of the barrel of his gun, and twirling it back into the holster. And I imagine a call to his sponsor, saying something like "I think I got him, Sheriff."
Which brings me to the overarching curiosity. No one in Biscayne Park ever heard of Noah Jacobs until Steve Bernard propped him up with a speech and a list of complaints, and trotted him out to a Commission meeting, to articulate Steve's usual laundry list of complaints. Then, Steve got Noah elected, and Steve's other protegees elected Noah Mayor. Noah has dutifully parroted each of Steve's pet gripes, even about things Noah clearly doesn't understand, and requiring Steve to suggest specific phrases Noah should use. Now, Noah seems to be trying to scare up a complaint about the water, another Bernard theme, and Bernard seems to be shepherding it, at least. So is all of this remarkably coincidental, or should we be asking the implied question, Mayor "Jacobs?"
Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Berkshire Eagle, Pittsfield, Mass, Wed, 7/11/12
"City Shifts $770K to Cover Deficits" By Dick Lindsay
"The City Council on Tuesday night agreed to shift more than $770K of surplus funds to cover other departments that ended fiscal 2012 in the red.
"The Council, with little discussion, unanimously approved Mayor Daniel Bianchi's request to transfer $773,066.94 from several city accounts and departments to the police, fire, and personnel departments, which incurred a spending deficit in fiscal 2012...
"The Police Department recorded the largest deficit at $455K, erased by using a surplus from the city's health insurance account, [the City Treasurer and Finance Director said]...
"[The police Chief] attributed the shortfall to several factors, including officer pay raises negotiated after fiscal 2012 began, overtime incurred by several major criminal investigations, and a high number of officers on disability leave.
"As for the Fire Department, the Council tapped into the city's workers compensation fund to cover its $270,128.28 deficit. [The Fire Chief] said retroactive pay raises for firefighters led to the shorfall.
"While City Councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont supported the measure, he is worried the public safety service may run out of money again when the current fiscal year ends... 'I thought all along the Fire Department budget was too low to begin with when we had our [fiscal 2013] debate last month.'
"Finally, the Council approved using $110,938.66 from the City's contingency fund to balance the personnel budget.
"Meanwhile, the Maintenance Department didn't have a deficit as previously reported. Three maintenance accounts finished a total of $66,437.85 in the hole, but the department overall had enough unspent money in its utilities account to cover the shorfall, city officials said. The Council also approved the intradepartment transfer.
"[The Public Utilities Commissioner] said higher-than-anticipated gasoline and diesel prices the past 12 months necessitated the shift in funds within the maintenance budget."
Sounds fairly simple. This is what happens when everyone is working toward the same goal: successful management of the municipality. And this is also what happens when everyone understands the dynamics of municipal accounting.
"The City Council on Tuesday night agreed to shift more than $770K of surplus funds to cover other departments that ended fiscal 2012 in the red.
"The Council, with little discussion, unanimously approved Mayor Daniel Bianchi's request to transfer $773,066.94 from several city accounts and departments to the police, fire, and personnel departments, which incurred a spending deficit in fiscal 2012...
"The Police Department recorded the largest deficit at $455K, erased by using a surplus from the city's health insurance account, [the City Treasurer and Finance Director said]...
"[The police Chief] attributed the shortfall to several factors, including officer pay raises negotiated after fiscal 2012 began, overtime incurred by several major criminal investigations, and a high number of officers on disability leave.
"As for the Fire Department, the Council tapped into the city's workers compensation fund to cover its $270,128.28 deficit. [The Fire Chief] said retroactive pay raises for firefighters led to the shorfall.
"While City Councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont supported the measure, he is worried the public safety service may run out of money again when the current fiscal year ends... 'I thought all along the Fire Department budget was too low to begin with when we had our [fiscal 2013] debate last month.'
"Finally, the Council approved using $110,938.66 from the City's contingency fund to balance the personnel budget.
"Meanwhile, the Maintenance Department didn't have a deficit as previously reported. Three maintenance accounts finished a total of $66,437.85 in the hole, but the department overall had enough unspent money in its utilities account to cover the shorfall, city officials said. The Council also approved the intradepartment transfer.
"[The Public Utilities Commissioner] said higher-than-anticipated gasoline and diesel prices the past 12 months necessitated the shift in funds within the maintenance budget."
Sounds fairly simple. This is what happens when everyone is working toward the same goal: successful management of the municipality. And this is also what happens when everyone understands the dynamics of municipal accounting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)