presents the
Ashlandia Gazette
All editorial — All social commentary —
All for the common good
T.G. Buckley-Dockter – Founder; Publisher; Editor-in-Chief; Distribution Manager; Intrepid Reporter; IT Guy; Coffee Girl
MOTTO: We are dedicated to the proposition that “We the People” is what matters most in a democratic society.
Issue No. 4 February 26, 2018
**************************************
Once again the guest opinion column by Niccòlo Machiavelli about government rulers has been delayed. While in town to observe Ashlandia’s civic culture, he has been lodging at the Ashland Hills Hotel. Currently Signore Machiavelli won’t budge out of the Luna Cafe. Apparently he’s enthralled with the grilled flatbread pizza—a culinary treat not found in his city of Florence. According to the restaurant manager (who called to verify that the Gazette is picking up his tab), “Our buddy Nic is having a delightful time organizing a taste-testing buffet with other hotel patrons, including an assortment of wines from the Willamette and Rogue Valleys.” No word on when the bacchanalia might end. However, Nic said to inform our readers that Julius Caesar never ate salad, no matter what the Cafe Luna menu states.
Speaking of which, the phrase: “Citizens of Ashland, hear me out” sounds suspiciously like what Caesar (according to Mr. Shakespeare) said to his countrymen: “Lend me your ears.” The former, uttered by Ashland’s Mayor BuBu (Bumbling Bureaucrat) in the Daily Tidings 0n 2/23/18 is perhaps because he has a man crush on the latter? Sure would explain the similarities of governing styles—which ironically Caesar’s can be classified as Machiavellian (cunning duplicity in statecraft or general conduct).
Let’s explore that issue—with our expert weighing in whenever he’s good and ready—which historically will be when it’s in his best interest to do so.
************************************
Following is a dissection of Mayor BuBu’s guest opinion, which in our opinion is the perfect example of bureaucratic buffonery (and worse). And so much blathering it will require two editions to debunk the bunk slung at the readers. Here’s a start:
1. “The recall is a drastic but necessary component…”
Definition of ‘drastic’ – severe or radical; taking effect violently
Recall elections date back to ancient Athens—birthplace of democracy in the fifth century BC. If they were that radical or severe of a bad idea, doubt they would have lasted this long.
2. “It is the ‘death sentence’ of electoral politics…” Says who? Many recalls have taken place in the US over the years. Our political system has not died. Perfect example of hyperbolic nonsense.
3. “…used only when absolutely necessary with clearly stated and truthful justification…” Bogus argument for two reasons: Tries to impeach the whole idea of a recall by implying it isn’t necessary: Says who? And that it might not be truthful: Says who?
4. “Recalls are risky business because emotionally charged issues, fanned by demagoguery, can swing an off-season low-turnout election in favor of impulsive action.”
Wow. This stuns us (jaded professionals who have pretty much seen it all) because of the carefully-crafted audacious crappery.
First of all: Risky? Says who?
Second: Mayor BuBu, who are you calling a demagogue? Your constituents? The label applies to you with this piece of propaganda.
Third: Where do you get your stats equating an off-season election low-turnout election with impulsive actions?
Fourth: Who are you calling impulsive? Your constituents? Do you think your constituents aren’t able to make a level-headed decision about how to vote?
Fifth: Perhaps your arrogant and condescending attitude has tainted your viewpoint on what makes a democratic government? It’s not the politicians telling people what they want. In fact it’s the opposite: people telling politicians that BuBu’s work for them; for their wants/needs/agendas. It’s what President Abraham Lincoln called a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’
5. “It’s a felony to knowingly place false information in the justification statement…” Another example of a cunning insertion of inflammatory buzzwords into the blah-blah-blah stuff. To purposely correlate ‘recall’ with ‘felony’ is a Machiavellian tactic. It corrupts an honest assessment of the recall process.
6. “While serious doubts have been raised about the veracity of the petition justification statements…” By who? Must be the NO people? Why not mention that the YES people have no doubts about the veracity of the statements? Wouldn’t that be a more fair characterization of the situation?
7. “…proving such statements are intentionally false is difficult and almost impossible before the election takes place.” Which statements are false? You are spewing innuendos. Not facts.
8. “I want to call on each of you, my fellow citizens, to live up to that implicit contract you signed when you registered to vote in our fair city.” Over-the-top cringe worthy rhetoric. When is the last time the mayor used the term “fair city?” When trying to snag votes to support his case or re-election?
The emphasis on “fellow” will be noted in Part 2—as well as the mayor’s concern for the three male commissioners without one mention or ounce of concern for the five female employees tossed out in the Senior Center Debacle—one cause of the recall in the first place.
Part 2 will continue the dissection of the second half of the mayor’s column. Because let’s get real: the recall is really a referendum on Stromberg’s administration. (Hence his pleading to vote to keep his minions in place.) We have done a thorough evaluation on the performance audit in its entirety—not just the portion the mayor referenced. We take issue with the mayor’s interpretation.
In addition, we have watched online the entire City Council Meeting (2/06/18); took copious notes, analyzed every speaker’s words, body language, motives, and shifty eyes. We will present the facts and fallacies in Part 2.
So stay tuned…your readership is appreciated.
###