The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.
James A. Garfield
James A. Garfield Quotes
1831-81
Although we'd originally planned to feature a nice reader-submitted Sunday sermon this morning, we'll put that project on the back burner until next Sunday, and instead shine the spotlight on three interesting items appearing in this morning's Standard-Examiner.
The first is this pro-Godfrey rah-rah letter, from dyed-in-the wool Godfreyite Jim Stavrakakis. Mr. Stavrakakis advances an odd and unique theory, likening the diverse folks of Emerald City who are fed up with Boss Godfrey's demonstrated incompetence, financial recklessness, and disdain for the citizens he was elected to represent -- to a single Ogden City street gang, united in purpose and tactics -- and motivated by a "mean-spirited" "gang mentality."
That's right, lumpencitizens who have the temerity to oppose Boss Godfrey in our 2007 municipal election: Jim Stavrakakis says you're no better than street thugs.
Secondly, we're delighted to highlight this Std-Ex letter to the editor, in which Robert Becker gently chastises the Standard-Examiner and Councilman Safsten, for their two nasty and hate-filled opinion articles published earlier in the week. Notably Mr. Becker's piece is both civil and rational, of course, unlike the "twin" Std-Ex pieces. Not bad (for a street thug), Mr. Becker.
Speaking of civility and rationality, we'll highlight this morning's "Viewpoints" article, in which Std-Ex editor Andy Howell bemoans the purported absence of either of these virtues in the ongoing 2007 election campaign.
Up until this morning the Standard-Examiner has never mentioned Weber County Forum by name; and we thank them for the nice plug.
Accordingly, we also welcome the anticipated flood of readers who will visit Weber County Forum, thanks to the Std-Ex's gracious referral. And in that connection we invite all newcomers to prowl this site, and determine for yourselves whether we're civil and rational enough for your tastes.
Be sure to peruse the articles in the right sidebar, as well as those on the main page. We have confidence that a fair proportion of our new readers will be amazed at the wealth of information that's available on this site. And don't forget to read our reader comments, which are by far the best part of this blog. We hope many of you will bookmark Weber County Forum, and come back often.
Update 10/15/07 8:47 a.m. MT: We would like to again extend our thanks to the Standard-Examiner, for yesterday's free publicity. We logged 192 first time visitors yesterday, the highest number of new readers since the September 11 primary election.
60 comments:
I thought in some measure Mr. Howell's commentary was a cheap shot.
It's a fairly simple thing to cherry-pick (dung-pick?) puerile and worthless comments from an online blog such as this one, and use it to support one's argument that civility and balance are sorely lacking in the discussion of the mayoral campaign.
I would only invite Mr. Howell to examine the beam in the Standard-Examiner's eye before screaming about the mote in the WCF's eye.
You must admit, Mr. Howell, that the S-E does things that give one the impression of bias. (No, I'm not implying that actual bias exists.)
Two recent examples would be the recent refusal to run an Op-Ed piece by Dan Schroeder by giving the Mayor de facto veto power over its publication, and the debate sidebar highlighting the Mayor's plans but not his opponent's.
I wouldn't accuse the S-E of bias. Rather, I think the S-E's mistakes are timidity, a hyper-responsiveness to criticism from the Mayor's Loyal and Well-Compensated "Friends", and a lack of intellectual curiousity that borders on laziness.
It's a newspaper's job to occasionally question its readers' assumptions, not coddle them with rah-rah OpEd pieces and whiny missives of the "he won't stay on his side of the back seat" variety.
Coincidentally, this paragraph from today's New York Times caught my eye. The parallels to our current situation are striking.
"But local officials in China [substitute 'Ogden' here and try reading out loud -- M.] get ahead mainly by generating high rates of economic growth and ensuring social order. They have wide latitude to achieve those goals, including nearly complete control over the police and the courts in their domains. They have little enthusiasm for environmentalists who appeal over their heads to higher-ups in the capital."
Nice quote, Rudi. I have two of my own.
Cause he lied and he lied, and he lied and he lied
He lied like a salesman selling flies -- Beth Hart
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.
-- Justice Learned Hand [emphasis mine]
Andy Howell's "Viewpoints" commentary this morning did make a valid point that some residents have taken politics to a new low. His comment (couldn't be anyone but our favorite, immature Marine whose initials are Bobby Geiger): "Some of Ogden's 'upstanding citizens' have been involved in antics that could be considered juvenile and petty, at best, mean and even bizarre at worst. Such as: 1) Lurking about stealing campaign signs," (Bobby was caught by both Hansen and Wicks, and I understand charges have been filed in both cases), "2) Calling and harassing people who write letters to the editor if they disagee with them. 3) Posting vicious comments and character assassinations anonymously on blogs," (we know that one of monikers is "Anonymous" on this blog site), "4) Sending out mass e-mails from lists that include out-of-town visitors attacking individuals and the newspaper," (we have been the recipient of some of these emails which are nothing but lies and innuendos against the Council and some Ogden anti-Godfrey activists because they have a different opinion than his), "5) Spying, and intecepting e-mails" (We are aware that Bobby Geiger intercepted an email sent to Councilwoman Jeske and on a circumstantial assumption, sent a "hateful," deceptive lie in the form of a headline to hundreds of people discrediting her and accusing her of filing the infamous lawsuit against Godfrey with Littrell. We're sure if that were the case, the Standard would have reported it.) "7) Confronting and harassing reportersand editors in restaurants and other public settings." This is the only item that we know of that cannot be tied directly to BG, but it fits his arrogant, obnoxious and immature personality and it is something we can see him doing because we have seen him display such behavior with citizens and elected leaders who disagree with him.
We agree with Andy Howell that "this type of conduct does not reflect well on Ogden." We will be glad when this very dirty and unethical election year is over. Hopefully the majority of residents will see through the smoke screens and lies of Godfrey and his cohorts with their unethical, bullying, lying and stealing campaign antics. And hopefully integrity and transparency will be the hallmark of the new council and administration.
REMEMBER VOTE FOR THE WOMEN!!
I thought Howell's commentary was right on target, as far as it went. There's been plenty of incivility from both supporters and opponents of Mayor Godfrey, and I wish both sides would tone it down.
But we shouldn't judge any politician by the behavior of the worst of his (or her) supporters. The more important question, I think, is whether the poltician himself (or herself) sets a good example by treating those who hold differing views with civility and respect.
In this regard, I could cite example after example of Godfrey's inappropriate remarks over the years. Here are just a few off the top of my head: His commentary in March 2006 calling gondola opponents "naysayers"; his remarks at WSU last April attacking unnamed WSU geographers and calling the university's decision process a "farce"; his insinuations in the newspaper that Van Hooser might be behind the the recent lawsuit; and his calling her a "wanna-be politician" in Friday's debate. You would think that after 8 years in office he would have the maturity to avoid such remarks, or at least the tactical judgment to realize that they don't make him look good.
On the other hand, I don't think I've ever heard these kinds of personal attacks from Van Hooser. Of course, she's been in office only a year and doesn't get quoted as much in the paper, so perhaps I just haven't seen a large enough sample of her remarks. I don't recall hearing anything from her in the debate that was on the level of "wanna-be politician".
I got a kick out of Andy musing that "I've always maintained that as long as people are talking about us, then they are reading us."
Right on, Andy! You are talking about us...the bloggers on WCF, and we know you posted here under your own name recently.
Therefore, we know you 'are reading us."
Don Porter told me that he never reads the WCF, tho his daughter does, and 'tells me what's on there".
LOL
I, along with Rudi, thank you for the mention in your column today.
Perhaps you will explain why Godfrey had an inset recapping his debate points, and Ms VanHooser was not accorded that courtesy? You do see, don't you, Andy, that this slight could be perceived as bias FOR Godfrey?
Headlining his pitiful attempt at cleaning up the mean streets of Ogden the day before the Primary could be perceived as bias FOR Godfrey.
There are many more instances that someone outside the mean-spirited 'gang' mentality could also perceive that the SE is pro-Godfrey.
Inserting into a story, more than once, that VanHooser could be involved in Littrell's lawsuit was just plain dirty politics.
Anyway, Andy, at least you used your own name when you came on the blog. Have you been on other times under a different moniker?
I didn't see any of the "Whiny" and paranoid quotes from Allen that he sent everywhere with copies to the SE and Schwebke.
I concur with {wants integrety in mayor}, but I must add that potato nose, his father, has been the worst, when it come to calling those that express differing opinions thru the paper.
These two, marching to the direction of lying little matty gondola godfrey, have contributed more to the division of this communty than anyone else. But let us not forget the orchestrator and their leader, that's been calling the shots, lying little matty gondola godfrey.
Just another example that comes to mind, when WSU won their conference basketball tournament. A WSU banner was hung at the rec center construction site, tied to one of those city purchased gondola cars. Mr. Howells' paper had the photo, complete with potato nose, right on the cover.
The body of the story never questioned the safety concerns or permissions that allowed two construction cranes, cables and a gondola car to be suspended in an active construction zone nor the disrespectful self importance of them,(lying little matty and potato nose) trying to capitalize and piggy back on the teams accomplishment.
This should have been a day the whole community could come together and feel unified in their support of the team. These guy's are visionary?
This bunch supporting lying little matty has been nothing but a virus to our community, we must stop the spread of this deadly pathogen immediately. The cure is a vote for Van Hooser.
If Godfrey were a true leader and visionary, he would have told his entourage to cool their obnoxious behavior years ago. The fact that they continue implies that he supports it. If he can't stop them, they how can he run a city?
Guess Godfrey didn't study history or was absent the day Harry Truman's "The buck stops here." was discussed.
Dear Mr. Howell, I would also like to inquire about what Mono has attributed to laziness, on behalf of your reporters and editors.
Is it just plain laziness, bias or wost of all, dishonesty on your part?
There are many occassions that lying little matty throws out figures, as staements of fact, all could be quite easily verified with a little checking. You, (the paper) just seem to report as a "he said" style, printing the statement accurately but leading the casual reader believing what he just read is truth. You and I both know many are complete fabrications, yet you never provide the reader with the real facts. Crime and debt come immediately to mind, as do gondola figures and transportation numbers.
Just from this recent debate, crime, debt and job creation all provided you with an opportunity to set the record straight and inform the public. Is that not the function of the press, in a free society? Is that not your duty?
Many of the critisms aimed at you are quite valid. For you to hide behind laziness or any other excuse destroys your own journalistic integrety.
"It's a fairly simple thing to cherry-pick (dung-pick?) puerile and worthless comments from an online blog such as this one, and use it to support one's argument that civility and balance are sorely lacking in the discussion of the mayoral campaign."
Exactly right, mono. And out of curiosity, we did a couple of blog searches, but couldn't find the "post" in question either, at least not with our "enhanced" or our "blogbar" search engines.
As it turned out we did finally manage to locate it, in our blogger.com comments log. As it turned out this "post," (one of Jason's "comments" actually) was buried in the comments section of an August 17 article.
Indeed, Andy had to "dig deep" to find it.
Hoooo, boy. Lots of stuff to respond to today.
First, to Sharon, who wrote:
Headlining his pitiful attempt at cleaning up the mean streets of Ogden the day before the Primary could be perceived as bias FOR Godfrey.
Sharon, Matt Godfrey is the duly elected Mayor of Ogden. The voters put him in that office, however unhappy that may make you or anyone else. As such, he gets to announce programs, public initiatives, etc. and when he does, it's news. And as news, the paper has to print it, and print it prominently. With gang violence all across the front pages lately [the SE did a good long series on the problem a while ago as I recall], Godfrey's announcement was news. And front page news. I'd have put it there too.
To Bill C, who wrote: Just another example that comes to mind, when WSU won their conference basketball tournament. A WSU banner was hung at the rec center construction site, tied to one of those city purchased gondola cars. Mr. Howells' paper had the photo, complete with potato nose, right on the cover.
The body of the story never questioned the safety concerns or permissions that allowed two construction cranes, cables and a gondola car to be suspended in an active construction zone nor the disrespectful self importance of them,(lying little matty and potato nose) trying to capitalize and piggy back on the teams accomplishment.
Aw, c'mon, Bill. Nothing wrong with hoisting that banner. Nothing wrong with businesses, individuals, groups, political parties --- who ever --- hoisting celebratory banners when the home team wins a big one, celebrating both the victory and associating themselves with it [or trying too]. That's why presidents invite Olympic gold medalists to the White House and call the locker room of the team that wins a national championship football game minutes after the final whistle. It's as American as apple pie. Reaching pretty far to try to make this into an issue. And yes, if that banner hoisted atop the crane made a good picture, I'd have run it my paper too. And prominently.
And to Bill C. again, who wrote: There are many occasions that lying little matty throws out figures, as statements of fact, all could be quite easily verified with a little checking. You, (the paper) just seem to report as a "he said" style, printing the statement accurately but leading the casual reader believing what he just read is truth.
I've been a frequent critic here of the SE's lapses into "he said/she said" journalism, and of its reporters all-too-frequent frustrating willingness to accept the statements of public officials at face value, without asking the key follow-up questions, or without fact checking office-holders' claims that can easily be checked on the public record. I'm hard put to understand how you can be a reporter, particularly a political reporter, without an urge to dig, to ferret out, to check and double check and check again, whatever any politician or public office holder tells you... an urge so compelling as to approach instinct.
But I think the point of Mr. Howell's piece was not to head off criticism of his paper or to respond to its merits [or lack thereof]... you can't be in the publications business, any facet of it, and not expect public criticism as a matter of course. It comes with the territory. What his point was, I thought, was that some of the comments leave the realm of legitimate criticism far behind and slip over the line into unreasoning invective and foaming at the mouth irrational rants. And on that, I think he's right. I think Dan S. above pretty much "hit the nail on the head" (being a paid professional pedant, I always have a boring cliche' at the ready].
A lot of what has Mr. Howell concerned, I think, can be traced back to the growth of right wing "talk radio" and now "talk TV" though it has spread far beyond its beginnings now. When you attack those who disagree with you on matters of public policy as not merely wrong, but as evil; not merely misguided but traitors or communists or satanists --- or worse --- you make significant public discussion nearly impossible. That, pretty much, was the gist of Mr. Howell's column, I thought. And on that point, he was "right on target." [I known, I know, another painfully banal cliche'. I'm off to my CA (Cliche's Anonymous) meeting as soon as I post this.]
Curm, it wasn't the banner that offended, it was the gondola car. The banner certainly would have been appropriate and not been a safety risk. Also, at the time you may recall our community was drawing battle lines over this gondola scheme, one which I need to point out, the mayor lost. He with the aid of the paper have tried to flip all rational and project himself as the savior of our golf course. Unbelievable.
Bill:
You wrote: "He with the aid of the paper have tried to flip all rational and project himself as the savior of our golf course. Unbelievable."
Not unbelievable at all. The man's in an election. He has realized, gazing at the primary results, that his two year attempt to sell the golf course and adjacent city owned park lands is one humongous loser of an issue for him. So of course he's taking it off the table, and spinning like mad now to present himself as the savior of the golf course [while hoping against hope that the voters forget that the person he now wants to save the golf course from his himself.] It's up to the voters not to let such bald-faced election hypocrisy work. And yes, there was an unfortunately, and in-accurately headlined story a couple of weeks ago that reflected the Mayor's spin.
However, I don't think anyone who's been reading the SE Ogden coverage with any consistency at all over the past two years, or even one year, can have any doubt about whose plan it was to sell the golf course to a gated community real estate developer --- it was Godfrey's. Nor could any such person be confused about why he wanted to do that: to benefit one of his cronies and several of his campaign contributors [developers, construction companies, realtors] and to raise some of the money needed to build his flatland gondola obsession.
The park sale / gondola scheme may yet cost him his office. He knows that, and so is backpeddling frantically. While he has not specifically given up on the gondola, notice he does not mention it on the campaign trail much. Not at all unless he's backed into a corner and asked specifically.
So yes, the SE blew the headline some weeks ago. But it's been pretty plain all along about who was behind the park sale/gondola scheme. And who, in fear of the voters' legitimate anger that he wanted to sell the city's biggest park to his developer cronies, is running now as fast as he can from his own idea.
And the SE did cover the Mt. Ogden Community Plan meeting some weeks ago, and as I recall, reported the Mayor's astonishing statement there to the crowd in the audience that, because so many people did not believe him when he said he was taking sale of the golf course and adjacent city owned open space off the table, he had city attorneys working on a way to make it impossible for him to go back on his own word. [That has to be one of the most astonishing admissions from an incumbent politician running for re-election I think I've ever heard. Maybe the most astonishing admission.] And people not there read about it in the Standard Examiner.
The essence of Andy Howell's editorial is none of the things he mentions. If he was really concerned about nastiness, he would have mentioned the Geiger boys specifically.
The real issue that is bothering him, is that people like him are no longer the gatekeepers of information, all in the name of "civility" or whatever other faux reasons they used to proffer. It is the whining of someone who sees his ability to control the debate slipping away.
So, three cheers to Rudi.
And yes, Ogden is ODDen, i.e. it is unusual. Anywhere else and Godfrey's horrendous schemes would all be underway by now. Ogden is special, because people have the courage to say what they think, and stand up to the would-be, self appointed and self serving rulers like Godfrey, Geiger, Peterson, Eccles, and Blain Johnson, and other dark creatures from Hell.
Oops. I expressed my opinion and Don Porter didn't get to edit it.
Sorry Andy.
Don Porter doesn't verify statement made by fav. Godfreyite letter writers. And they throw out some whoppers.
But, Porter will take to task one of us when we supply the name and # of the person being quoted!'' And then not do his follow-up either. Fair and balanced?
And, Curm, mygawsh, man! How assinine can you be? Right wing talk radio and tv.....you think those influenced Howell?
Howell wrote to scold us.
But, he did mention WCF...so maybe we'll get some folks on here who will be educated and then chime in.
Everything is life is a matter of perspective.
For Andy Howell to state that the Standard Examiner takes the high road in reporting makes me want to throw up.
What a truckload of sanctimonious crap.
Sharon:
You wrote: And, Curm, my gawsh, man! How asinine can you be? Right wing talk radio and tv.....you think those influenced Howell?
No, Sharon, nor did I say it did. What I said was the current decline in civility in public discussion first began to accelerate with success of right wing "talk radio" and has spread far beyond it now. I think that statement is defensible on the evidence. It was a statement about how the current --- what, climate of opinion? --- about what is acceptable in discussing public matters got to be the way it is. That's all.
where did Stavrakakis earn his credentials for knowing what serves as a street gang mentality
Nice post Danny, I think I need to add that we should be reminded of one of Mr. Howell's recent pieces as well. The one in which he offer's insight into the SE's future plans to be a multimedia giant.
In particular he suggested using channel 17 for all these righteous civic purposes. I wonder if he and
lying little matty's GANG haven't had a pow-wow where among things discussed would have been the damage this blog has done to their mutual efforts.
It's a known fact that potato nose and short deck have passed around printed copies of selected comments from this site, in their efforts to "promote hate speach and violence,"(I borrowed that line from one of short deck's impassioned e-mails decrying certain opponents of the mayors actions, naming Rudi as the ring-leader) As Jason verified in his above post, the SE has been the reciepient of this material.
The SE has made efforts to host some blogs, none of which can compete with the free exchange of ideas and opinion offered here.
We can ENVISION a combination of two panicked entities that have lost the one thing they both hold so dear, control.
Lying little matty facing ouster, and the institutionally ego damaged Standard Examiner that has lost their ability to control the dialogue and the facts.
The SE should never be allowed to participate in the city programing, they have squandered their position of public trust.
Speaking of which, this week the editorial board is conducting their closed door interviews of all the candidates for the squirrel patroller lee carter's first ever candidate endorsements.
I hope the ask lying little matty how many police officers we have and what percent violent crime has risen in the last 10 months.
The sad part about old Jim Stavrakakis is that he has been a sycophant to the rich and powerful for many years around Ogden. He has served them and waited on them and bar tended for them. A servant with the self delusion that he is a part of the "power" class in Ogden. He is a good old boy but he is a bit of a simpleton and is doing his best to curry favor with the big boys who we wants to be part of. He certainly doesn't have the knowledge, intelligence or experience to speak with any authority on any of this of which he writes. He may pass for a business guru in the bizzar Godfreyite kingdom but he is otherwise clueless, and harmless to boot.
You guys are so mean....
Stop picking on us....
Who's the weiiiinnnnneeeerrr now.
my fave Howell line? "Like U.S. troops patrolling the streets of Baghdad, we find ourselves in between these warring factions." Amazing. If only the situation for the U.S. troops in Baghdad were remotely like the SE's here in Ogden.
Howell:
Stop acting like Bill O’ Riley and Shaun Hannity. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them wieners, it shows you another prospective.
It's petty and deceitful to call them wieners.
The gentleman (Howell) doth protest too much, methinks.
It seems that Godfrey, and the SE want to keep the lawsuit alive. The City Recorder received an e-mail from Ms. Littrell on October 5th stating
"I am prepared to consider dropping my suit against you and the City Attorney and Matthew Godfrey after you do an inspection of his records to my satisfaction."
Apparently, the Mayor doesn't want to turn over his financials and therefore make the suit go away. He would rather fight in court and file pleadings, etc., than simply put this to rest. Makes me wonder why? Is it the, I am God and do not have to answer to anyone, mentality? Or simply arrogance.
By the way, Schwebke received a copy of the e-mail also. Guess it isn't newsworthy.
People also need to understand that the issue isn't about the registration of a name for his committee, but about proper financial reporting.
Be forthright, Mayor, and put this all behind.
As the pounding of Mr. Howell's op-ed piece in the SE continues, I pulled it up again from Rudi's link, just to make sure I'd read it right the first time. Some of the posts so far have treated Mr. Howell's piece as targeted assault on the Weber County Forum and opponents of the Mayor's re-election. So I went back to read it again.
And found that Howell's piece contains two, count 'em two, posts from WCF offered as an example of an over-the-top attack on the paper's coverage of Ogden politics. There is also in his list of activities he thinks are beyond the pale lately in Ogden politics this generic item: "• Posting vicious comments and character assassinations anonymously on blogs."
That pretty much is it. Hard put to make the essay an assault on WCF out of that. Rest of the examples are voice mails left on the SE phone, and emails etc. And Mr. Howell's list of what he considers raving vicious personal attacks on his paper and his staff seems to have selected examples liberally from both sides of the Godfrey/Anti-Godfrey political perspective.
The piece has flaws, of course. Sadly, Mr. Howell too succumbs to a [relatively] mild version of the derision he complains of in others when he characterizes complaints about the SE's coverage of Ogden politics [from both sides] as "whining." Wish he could have resisted that. "Complaining" would have accomplished his point without the overlay of derision with a tinge of contempt added in. But that's hard to do, keeping your prose on an even keel when replying to screaming accusatory rants. Still, Mr. Howell is the managing editor of the SE, a "pro" in the business, and he should have kept his reply within the bounds --- well within --- of respectful disagreement he was urging on his critics.
Would also have been nice... and maybe tactically more effective... had Mr. Howell included something besides a circle-the-wagons defense of the SE's professionalism and staff. A a pledge that the SE takes, and will always take responsible criticism from its readers seriously, and will work always to improve the paper's reporting and editorial content for example. He could have then noted too that critiques of the SE's work that don't begin with "Now look here, you f.....g moron" are likely to be taken more seriously by him and his staff.
But on re-reading, the assumption that some here seem to make... that the piece was largely an attack on WCF and on those who oppose the Mayor's re-election --- cannot, I think, be sustained when examined in light of what Mr. Howell's piece actually said.
Oh, I just can't let this crime thing go.
Van Hooser actually brought to light one specific example of lying little matty's misplaced priorities. One that displays cronyism and lack of concern fo the residents of the city.
With all the gunfire in Ogden, lying little matty has been spending $40,000.00 a month on around the clock police patrol at the rec center and movie theatre.
My question here is why aren't the beneficiaries of all this public investment suppling their own resources for security? Has there been a problem in that regard?
If we add that amount to the $145,000.00 BDO money required monthly to service the leasing shortfall, that's a whopping $185,000.00 a month gym subsidy. And with so many of our residents affraid to venture out in their neighborhoods after dark.
The police are no longer patrolling the junction 24/7 (on overtime). It has been contracted out to a security company out of SLC (I guess that means the city is spending city money outside, well, the city??). I hear that the officers are working the weekends, but only limited.
If these flakey journalists from the Standard-Examiner step out of line even once...
They'll be Fired and Blacklisted by the NeoCON Newspaper Publishers' Organization.
Watch your step, Andy. Our committee is taking a close look at you ever since you posted on the Weber County Forum Blog.
Ever hear of the Danites? Well that's us.
Waterboy: Does this mean the taxpayers' are still picking up the security tab for the "Salomon Center," Mayor Godfrey's tacky monument to his botched self?
Who, exactly is paying the bill for the private security?
Speaking of lying little matty's tacky monument to his botched self, why don't they just put that stupid holographic ice tower in the rec center with all the other over-priced bling and up Neilson's lease to pay for it.
Inside the center it would be much more cost effective to maintain ice during the summer months. And as silly, expensive and stupid as it is, it would fit quite well with the I-FLY and their current phony climbing wall.
Frankly, I can't even see how this thing ever got thru, those folks in Colorado must have really enjoyed a big sigh of relief, finding someone dumb enough to pay them and take it off their hands.
I would imagine it is city money paying for the security. The police were patrolling the parking terrace which is city property. I understand that the junction businesses are not (city), but the parking terrace is. Be interesting to see the contract on that. There would have to be one would there not be. If so is it available for public scrutiny?
A'm confused:
Welcome to the "confused" club. Since the city owns the Salomon Center, not the businesses that lease space in it, security center-wide may be a city responsibility. Which raises, of course, the question of whether the taxpayers should be building, owning and paying for business venues for private businesses. I can think of circumstances in which the answer to that might well be "yes" --- for example, cities lease space in public Ferry Terminals to private businesses [think San Francisco] or in airports. I don't see a problem with that. City-owned public markets are another example.
But a city-built and city-owned stand-alone rec-center providing leased space for private ventures [fitness clubs, restaurants, arcades and other entertainment venues and wind-tunnel rides]... well, that I have some doubts about, particularly since these by-the-public subsidized venues are competing with other non-subsidized business in the immediate vicinity food and entertainment dollars. A city-built and owned mall would be another problem, seems to me.
And yes, I know, the question arises "what's the difference, then, between a city-owned market building [think Pike Place Market in Seattle] which you think is OK, and a city-owned mall, which you don't?"
Good question. And I'd have to labor some to explain the difference, which is I think not a trivial one. But also a good illustration of the fact that nearly nothing about city governance is a starkly black and white as impassioned advocates on one side or the other often seem to think it is.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
WB:
Seems to me merchants [and customers] in the Rec Center and Junction development are as entitled to police protection on the public's dime as businesses and customers and citizens anywhere else in the city are. They pay taxes too.
Now, if it can be shown that businesses in the Junction, and their customers, are receiving a level of police protection significantly in excess of what is being provided elsewhere, then there may well be a problem Chief Greiner, the City Council, and the voters [and the Standard Examiner] need to look into.
curm-While the Junction was being protected by 2 officers there are only 5 or 6 officers on patrol, trying to cover the entire city. The officer on duty at the city council meetings is pulled off of the streets during the meetings.
union goon:
Unless the City can show, then, that the Junction area is an especially high-crime area [justifying the extra coverage], it does seem the project and its business are getting red carpet special treatment in re: police protection while the rest of Ogden is getting short-changed.
As for the gendarme at Council meetings: I wonder how many times over the past year he's been needed to escort someone from the premises... or even be used as a threat. If it's only a handful of times over a year, seems to me it's an inefficient use of police resources. [Wonder how long it would take if a call came from the Council chamber for a policeman to respond?] Seems it needs a little rethinking... unless, of course, the Chamber cop has had a lot of work to do at the Council sessions.
Someone on the Council staff should have the numbers, que no?
I didn't see the Howell piece as an attack on the WCF. He did mention aggressive and unfounded attacks being lodged by people anonymously on blogs, but he didn't specifically mention the WCF. And besides, lets face it we do have a group of flamers herein. Hey, I've lobbed a few grenades myself!
But over all I think Howell's piece was pretty good and on point. It seemed to me that when he listed the transgressions that the Godfreyite gangsters were responsible for most of his examples.
So just as some might see the article as an attack on the WCF, there are just as many folks from the "G" side of life that saying "why those dirty prejudiced bastards at the Standard are doing it again"
Which of course is what his point seemed to be to begin with.
So - Hats off to Howell on this one.
PS - I still think they slant their news and some of their editorial toward the Godfrey camp...
Curm, the cop at the Council meeting came in quite handy one night this summer.
Both geigers, potato nose and short deck were accosting good ol' Rulon, they had him backed against a wall and the officer had to intervene, some of the Council said he almost had to use the armbar takedown on short deck.
That poor Jim, the Greek bartender, apparently thinks that all political descent is "gossip".
I have lived in this town for three years. I've been around people from both sides. At the risk of sounding like your mother,I must say that I agree with Andy Howell about things getting out of hand. To say it is only one sided is a bunch of crap.
I have been amazed at the things that people say and write about others who disagree with them. If I believed everything I've heard I would think both sides are a bunch of manipulating monsters. Politics, especially local politics is not about emotional mudslinging, but about working together to run a city.
Why don't you just grow up and have a real conversation.
A cop told me yesterday that the cop is at the council meetings to protect godfrey! But, he came in handy in rulon's case. does anyone know of a cop(s) at other council meetings? I don't.
I don't think Howell's piece was against the WCF....but he does excuse the SE's bias for Godfrey....really by not admitting they do it.
Tetris makes some good points. Why didn't the SE and Schwebke, in particular, make public Littrell's email to Mansell?
Because it shows Littrell to be reasonable, perhaps?
Alk:
As Howell would say...
Stop wining.....
Remarks may be colorful on here, ALK, but you'll find truth and facts expounded here more than you will in the SE.
I agree with alk!
Honestly, I think we should just trust mayor Godfree in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.
Speaking of being reasonable -
The nonsense that Utah attorneys play to increase their billings is incredible.
When a Plaintiff files a suit the Defendant's attorney immediately files a Motion to Dismiss even though the suit is justifiable.
At a billing fee of $200.00 or $250.00 per hour minimum a Plaintiff can easily pay several thousand in fees that really have nothing to do with determining the credibility of the suit or who is right or who is wrong in their position.
Very few citizens care enough about principle to take a politician to court to take a stand regarding abuse of our political system.
I think Dorothy Littrell deserves credit for putting her money on the line to take a stand about what she considers to be such abuse.
I wager that the hot shots taking pot shots at her for her tenacity to prove what is wrong don't care enough either way to put any of their dough on the line for what they believe in.
Have you noticed that it is the older citizens in Ogden who take a public stand for their beliefs regardless of the flack that they may receive?
May be we could all take a page from the seniors.
When have you last put your money and reputation on the line to take a public stand regardless of the outcome because you believed in something so strongly.....
Long live the king and kiss his ring!
The police man is at the Council meetings to make sure that no one speaks longer than their 3 minutes.
In Godfrey Land, if a citizen speaks for more than 3 minutes the cop escorts them out.
I am Impressed:
I have said here before that I think the lawsuit was ill advised, and that I think it will fail, and that I think it should fail [because Ogden's Mayors should be selected at the ballot box]. That said, the piling on against Ms. Littrell that some have done seems to me way off the mark.
Ms. Littrell thinks the law has been broken, and filed a suit seeking to force the issue into court. That is pretty much the way we decide matters in legal dispute in this country. In Bosnia and Afghanistan and Sudan, they settle such disputes with AK-47s. Here we do it with lawsuits. I like our way better. While I question her judgment in filing the suit and I doubt she will prevail on the merits, much of the piling on that has gone on against her --- some of it, sadly, in the editorial columns of the SE --- seems way over the to to me. She hasn't committed a violent act in the throes of what the SE calls her "hate." She hasn't called for armed revolution. She isn't building barricades in the streets and hurling bricks at teh Mayor. She's just filed a lawsuit to have judicially adjudicated her claim that the election ordinances have been violated, and seeking the relief she thinks is provided for in the law [i.e. removal of the Mayor from the ballot]. That's all. The piling on seems to me to be uncalled for. But all she did was file a suit, on her own nickel. Seems to me an entirely peaceful and unremarkable way to resolve a legal question she has about a candidate's compliance with the election ordinances.
Land of the Free:
The three minute public comment limit is a Council rule. It is not imposed on Council meetings by the Mayor. The Council can waive the rule whenever it pleases. There are many criticism that can justly be laid at Godfrey's door, but the three-minute public comment limit at Council meetings is not one of them.
curmudgeon -
I didn't see anyone say that the 3-minute rule is Godfrey's rule.
Don't be so defensive about the Mayor.
Gotcha:
Several posts above, "land of the free" posted this:
"The police man is at the Council meetings to make sure that no one speaks longer than their 3 minutes. In Godfrey Land, if a citizen speaks for more than 3 minutes the cop escorts them out."
Seemed like blaming the Mayor for the rule to me.
Is It Time for an SE Ombudsman?
Thinking more on Mr. Howell's recent op-ed piece, and on the questions that have been raised here about SE coverage and reporting [and the many questions similarly raised by others from other political points of view, referenced in Mr. Howell's piece], I wonder if the time is now ripe for the SE to appoint an Ombudsman: someone of recognized independence whose job it is to field complaints and questions about the SE's news and op-ed columns, look into them, and reply to the public in a periodic column.
Probably the most visible press Ombudsman is the NY Time's one. The SL Trib has someone designated as a "readers' advocate" or some such, who does a Saturday column answering reader questions and complaints. Unfortunately, her column occasionally slips over into a puff piece announcing up-coming features, and such. Such in-house promotion seriously undercuts the presumption of her independence.
Mr. Howell himself intermittently acts as an in-house Ombudsman for the SE in his usually twice-monthly "Behind the Headlines" column that runs, I think, on alternate Saturdays. Occasionally there he answers reader complaints about headlines and reporting and pitures and [to his credit] identifies things he think the SE handled poorly. But he's the paper's managing editor and so the independence of his judgment on such matters naturally and fairly occasions at least a side-long doubtful glance.
Perhaps, then, it's time for a true SE Ombudsman... say a J-School prof with a strong background in print journalism, appointed to do a twice monthly column responding to reader complaints, the content of which will not be under management review. Perhaps passing the column around to a new Ombudsman every twelve months [again, more or less the NY Times pattern] would be a good idea. This would provide a regular venue for such complaints to be dealt with, and it would provide a relatively independent opinion about how the SE handled matters that come under reader questioning. Seems to be working for other papers. Would it work for the SE? I don't see why not. Perhaps the Ombudsman could do his or her column only on line for starters, a toe dipped gingerly into the Ombudsman waters, so to speak.
But in general, providing readers an independent Ombudsman with whom to raise questions about the SE's reporting and performance seems to me both a wise idea and likely to result in a much-read column [either the inky kind, or the digital kind... or both.]
Something to think about, anyway.
Someone else asked if any others had cops at their council meetings?
Riverdale sometimes has a cop or 2 at the council meeting. The chief attends as a department head usually but sometimes there is also a lt. presenting and other times a sgt. or other uniformed officer in attendance, though not always.
Curm
Are you volunteering to be the ombudsman?
After all, it would have to be someone who sees both sides of an issue.
That is your main claim to fame and notoriety on here! Fairness to a fault
Now don't put athat in italics and tell us how your fairness is not a fault. (An expression, Curm, just an expression).
I wouldn't trust any ombudsman that Greiling or Howell put forward.
And, why have an ombud anyway? Wouldn't need a third party to sort out grievances if the SE just put on a political reporter who is curious, asks questions, digs for info and editors who don't play favorites.
If the editors did some digging and left their arrogance at home, the readers would be well informed abut the administration, crime, police personnel, Matt Jones' railroading off the force, Godfrey's cronyism, Bootjack hijacking that Wall Ave property......and so much more.
I wonder if Schwebke has gone to the mayor IN FRONT OF WITNESSES and asked if it's true that he wants a WalMart on Wall? Is it true that he and Peterson are still planning a takeover of our open space and golf course?
An ombudsman isn't going to dig either. He/she will just listen and hem and haw.
Good job for you, Curmudgeon, with all due respect, of course.
Observer:
Nope. I couldn't be. Too partisan. It has to be someone with strong print journalism creds. A J-School professor for example, and someone with no long-term employment arrangement with the SE [hence the one-year appointment] to avoid even the suspicion of kissing up. That's why no regular employee of the paper can be a truly independent ombudsman. That the flaw in the SL Trib's arrangement.
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm way to partisan on a variety of matters to be convincing as an impartial or independent ombudsman.
But it would be a good idea to get someone to do it.
SE Bias:
And here's the kind of thing the ombudsman might want to look into. When the SE did its story on the recent Van Hooser/Godfrey debate, it included a boxed sidebar summarizing Godfrey's main points. But no boxed sidebar for Van Hooser's main points.
I am informed that the SE ran a correction on the 14th, saying the box for Van Hooser's points had be mistakenly omitted from the debate story. It ran the Van Hooser points as a "correction" some days later. Didn't you all see in the "corrections" place on the inside front page? No? Well, neither did I.
The Godfrey summary was placed, boxed in color, in the debate story. Anyone interested in the race reading the story saw the Godfrey talking points box. Ms. Van Hooser's points ran as a correction, a day later, isolated in the corrections spot, not next to any campaign story, where people reading campaign coverage were not likely to see it. I read all the SE's political and campaign coverage and I didn't learn that the correction existed until someone told me about it this morning.
So, the correction of a major campaign reporting omission ran in a place where those seeking campaign news were not likely to find it. Andy Howell knows this. Don Porter knows this. The entire editorial staff knows this.
Does anyone believe that if the Van Hooser talking points had accompanied the debate story, and the Godfrey points had been " inadvertantly " omitted, that they would have appeared only in the corrections box a day later? I don't. And if you do, I just happen to have sole ownership of this bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for a very reasonable price. Cash only. Small unmarked bills please.
There is a way to partially fix this particular bit of SE Godfrey partisanship. There is another debate coming up. The SE can run next to its coverage of that a boxed highlighted summary of Van Hooser's points and --- inadvertently of course --- omit to run one next to the story for the Mayor's main points. Won't be a problem, really. The paper can correct it all by running the Mayor's talking points a day later. In the corrections box.
Ony thing is "Said", the SE would give a big headline and article apologing to the little man. HIS correction won't be in the corrections box.
About the only time anyone thinks to look there for any news is when you might have two more bites of cornflakes left in the bowl, and you still want something to read!
Curmudgeon
I hereby nominate our very own Jason W. as the new Standard Ombudsman.
Jason has proven over and over again here on the WCF that he is completely impartial toward all sides of the Ogden issues. He has demonstrated his level headedness to us on practically every post he has made. I am sure positive that he would treat the Standard, the Gondolistas and the Naysayers with equal fairness and respect and would be the perfect level headed arbiter of rightousness here in the land of Oz.
Oz:
Hmmmmm.... has the sun dipped below the yardarm on your side of town already? [grin]
Ozboy:
I take umbrage with your ... what?
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger...
Just four days ago the Standard-Examiner's Managing editor andy Howell was snarkily griping thusly:
"Every story we do on Ogden politics and government is dissected and criticized..."
Today's Schwebke story illustrates why we do this Andy.
Can the Std-Ex editors comprehend this?
Post a Comment