We trust EVERYONE in Emerald City will be celebrating New Year's Eve -- and the arrival of the new year (that'll be 2008 folks) -- in typical Emerald City fashion:
We thank all our gentle readers for their attentive and vigorous support during the year 2007; and we pledge to dive right back into red-meat Emerald City news, just as soon as Ace Reporter Schwebke returns from his holiday vacation.
So... what are your plans tonight?
19 comments:
I plan to eat six red onions, drink copious amounts of vitamin water, comb my bouffant hairdo, put on jeans, loafers and a blazer and attend a rally for GONDOLAs! GONDOLAs and ski hub companies save towns! Hail the conquering hub companies and their terrific ideas for THE GONDOLA! Yea! THE GONDOLA! We'll ring in the new year and toast vitamin water to the arrival of GONDOLAs to GONDOLA TOWN in 2008! I want GONDOLAs!
Jason
Red Onions are for wusses! I think if you are to prove your mettle in Emerald City you should chomp down on yellow or white onions. If you eat six yellow onions you will go down in Geigerian history as a real dude, not some wannabe pretender that eats red onions.
Personally I prefer garlic cloves, with a side of sliced ginger root.
I was also unexpectedly invited to a viewing tonite. Old friend, who could probably out-eat any ONE of us with the onions, peppers, et al.
(Rudi - you remember Peavey?)
Happy new year one and all. Better be a good one, alls I gots to say.
TLJ
I'd just like to say, as a frequent critic of Curm's, that his article from yesterday was very good, I think.
As far as today's Jim Carrey clip, as a fan of his from way back to his "In Living Color" days, he seems to have gone from an over the top satirical genius to an over the top hack.
I've suggested the WCF do betting pools. I'll take death by overdose over death by AIDS for Jim Carrey, within 3 years by 5:4.
Danny:
TY.
Happy New Year, everyone!
I can happily report that the snow on the golf course and the stars above were spectacular last night. Went for a night ski, by headlamp, on waxable wooden skis inherited from the late George Schrader (no relation), a long-time Sierra Club volunteer. Looked down on all the city's twinkling lights, then up at the snowy face of Malan's Peak, illuminated by the city's glow. Watched Mars and Orion rising, then Sirius twinkling over Strong's Peak, while speeding over the icy trails left by dozens of daytime skiers.
I'm not sure if such an outing qualifies as "high adventure" according to those who believe that Ogden was dead and had nothing to offer before the Salomon Center was built. But on behalf of all of us to prefer this kind of outing to something more commercialized, I'd like to thank the many people who have worked over the past two years to preserve this opportunity. That includes Smart Growth Ogden, the Ogden Planning Commission, and the Ogden City Council who developed and adopted the Mt. Ogden Community Plan with language ensuring that the golf course and trails remain in public ownership. And thanks to Susie Van Hooser and Neil Hansen (and all their supporters and campaign volunteers) for scaring the mayor enough to make him promise not to sell most of Mt. Ogden Park.
Dan
Don't get too misty eyed about Godfrey's temporary change of heart about Mt Ogden Park.
The little punk doesn't get scared, but he definitely gets even. Why should he be scared with God sitting on his right shoulder and advising him on all things. His promises are not worth the hot air they are issued upon. He is a lying manipulating and arrogant fool who knows no honor and has no respect for the citizens of Ogden. It is all about him and his God induced dreams for an Ogden rebuilt as a monument to his outsized ego. The Mt. Ogden park is no safer now than it has ever been under his reign on incompetence and deceit.
oz,
For the most part, I don't disagree. Godfrey has broken promises before and if it suited his purposes and he thought he could get away with it, I'm sure he'd break this promise as well. But I don't think he'll break the promise outright and try to sell the golf course. He made the promise to too many people in exchange for their support in the election, and he knows they'll skin him alive if he reneges. Also, it isn't clear that the rest of the Peterson proposal will ever materialize so the opportunity to sell the golf course may not even come up.
I suspect that at this point his tentative plan is to try to work out some kind of long-term lease agreement under which the golf course would stay in place but Peterson would operate it. The clubhouse would be relocated to the top of 36th Street (at taxpayer expense). To make it all happen he'll still need to convince WSU to sell its land to Peterson, and he'll need more support on the city council than he currently has. So right now he is undoubtedly laying plans to put pressure on WSU, and to win a couple more council seats in 2009. Stay tuned!
Meanwhile, everyone should go play in the snow and enjoy our marvelous public park.
Beloved Dan S.:
WSU land is not in play; it will never be again. Never. Don't worry about it. Your theories about all other things OTown, including me being a "liar," you callous cad, are relevant.
Rudi:
As a fellow Ute, how do you feel about Urban Meyer and his impending loss to Michigan and those who fell to 1-AA Appy State? Me, I want him to fail. Is that bad?
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Jason,
Your words about the WSU land are reassuring--and I've heard the same from others. But so far I haven't heard anything that leaves me 100% convinced. (Of course, I'm pretty low on the food chain at WSU and have no direct connections to trustees or regents.) And obviously Godfrey isn't convinced either. Even if I don't worry about the WSU land itself, I continue to worry about what harm Godfrey will do in his attempts to get it.
Beloved Dan S.:
Godfrey's convinced; he's a show pony, and he's a dishonest assclown. Quit calling me a liar! Both a trustee and a regent told me they wouldn't pee in a glass and sell it to Wayne Peterson, leader of his own famed Squirrel Patrol!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Let us return to early 1999 when I came back to OTown, happy as a clam that I could get a job that not only competed with SLC, it paid better, and it was in my home town (unlike Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey, whose precious home town of Harrisville is sucking wind and cannot support such slom lord losers who buy shitholes on credit cards and make a go of it, after they got summarily shitcanned from the OTown Econ Development Department and Iomega).
This was July. Yeah, we had some problems and the mall was dying on the vine but there was no Geigerian panic; Short-deck was happily ensconsed at the academy and his onion-reeking father -- boss -- was in a suburb of Denver.
Nontheless, I was awestruck that my HOME TOWN, born and raised, (OHS, class of 1989) was as beautiful and bucolic as I remembered. I bought a home at much more than reasonable prices, and set about to make a life for me and my wife.
Soon after, Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey decided to run for mayor. Yes, Good Old (?) Curmudgeon, he won fair and square against Robert Hunter, but I can't help but think to this day how different our community would be if that Teeny Weeny Little Loser hadn't prevailed; would we wake up in the middle of the night, drenched in sweat, thinking there might be a circus ride through town?; would be worry that some Lilliputian criminal might have a gay fling in Europe with a vest-addicted douchewad who wants to steal our land and build Ferris wheels instead of proven transit systems? Who would honestly believe that in 2008, we would have to fight the encroachment of a Skee-ball for sidewalk scheme?
Sadly, we all have to face this reality, but I ask you eggheads and SmartGrowth patrons for whom you voted in 1999. Perhap this all would never have happened. Because I just moved back to town, and my dad, Colonel Wood, GS 14, told me: Do not vote for that Little Godfrey Prick.
Jason,
I'll be happy to tell you privately (not here) whom I voted for in 1999. But let's not dwell on the past. The real question is: What now?
By the way, did you see today's editorial in the Standard-Examiner? I should think you would have something entertaining to say about it.
has anyone noticed how few letters to the editor have been posted lately.
the se needs us more than we need them. they are looking more one sided than ever and they want us to help them look balanced. i say let them sweat.
liked the way they say they appreciate criticism. what a bunch of bullshit that comment is. they say their editorials are not to be viewed as indicative of their newsroom circulation advertising or production departments point of view. yet they control all those other departments and those departments only publish what the editors want them to publish and the stories only say what the editors approve for print.
this blog give one more satisfaction and has an ever growing audience. At least here your comments will be published unedited for you and discussed in an open environment.
if the se doesnt like what you say they dont publish or they wait to publish it only when they have a counter opinion or they publish it when the comment is no longer relevant or timely.
open question to the se. why did it take you six months to publish the fire department review report and why havent you metioned the 2007 city financial report and what it points out about the six million dollar writeoff of rda debt against the city general fund.
Disgusted:
You wrote: has anyone noticed how few letters to the editor have been posted lately. the se needs us more than we need them. they are looking more one sided than ever and they want us to help them look balanced. i say let them sweat.
Let me see if I understand: (a)the SE is, you think printing few, too few, letters to the editors, a sign of its bias you think (b) and your recommendation is that people should not submit letters to the editor, because... well, because that'll fix 'em!
Sorry, disgusted. That concedes all the ground in a public forum [free access to its thousands of readers] to the "other" side. You will not the Messers Geiger and other Godfrey tag-alongs are not all reticent about writing letters to the editor. Conceding the letter columns exclusively to the other side does not seem wise policy to me.
I have a suggestion: why don't you write to the news editor --- for publication, or just an email --- and ask why the paper did not print anything about the fire dept. audit, issued four months before the election, until well after it. It's a good question. You could cite today's editorial in your letter or email. Certainly worth a shot.
curm
your comment "Let me see if I understand ...."
no im saying that no one really feels their opinions will be published fairly in that rag. as such no one is writing letters and they need the letters to look more balanced.
i would much rather write and read here on the blog than the se. in fact in the past the se has not published my letters so i have little confidence they would do it in the future.
i am equally sure they will publish messers geiger and other godfrey tag-alongs as they share their views. geiger doesnt like to post here for the same reason i dont like to publish on the se. wrong camp. difference here is that geiger can get published here and with the se its a big maybe whether you or i get published when we get published or if published with what editing that sometimes changes the intent of the letter.
we both know that the se reads the blog so if they want to pick up a news story then they can get it here as easy as they can from a letter to the editor. they just dont have the balls to initiate certain stories or they want to protect their friends.
i don't want to be a part of their justification and id rather support the blog.
disgusted
Two problems with your last post. First and foremost is that the Geigers have been banned for life from this blog for transgressions far beyond Rudi's liberal and forgiving policies herein. Therefore you ainta likely to be seeing posts from them on this site.
Second, Although the SE does have a history of not printing some, and of editing other letters to the editor, I have found in the last six months or so that they will in fact print letters that are very harsh and condemning of the Little Lord and his circle of empty suits.
I would suggest that the lack of letters recently, especially about Ogden City Politics, is due to normal after election burn out. People are just plain tired of hearing about it - and Godfrey's scams.
A lot of people held their noses and voted for the little stinker because they just felt they simply did not have a viable alternative.
Now they would just as soon forget about the whole deal.
Besides, most people don't read the editorial pages anyway, even the dozen or so that subscribe to the worthless rag.
TLJ:
I was saddened to hear of Peavey's passing. I imagine he could out-anything anybody.
I did not know him well but often ran into him in our similar haunts. He was quite a character, full of life, friendly as the day is long, always quick with a joke and a hearty handshake.
He was truly larger than life and will be missed.
All right guys, the SE editorial was a little bit of everything you've mentioned. Maybe a tinge of guilt even, and insight into their motivation for their ringing endorsement of lying little matty.
Despite their knowing full well all the boatload of negatives underlying this lying little pinnoccio look alike, they have benefited financially from his terms in office.
All his endeavors involve controversy, public uproar and in alot of cases lawsuits. Bad news and uglyness sells papers, lying little matty represents an infinate supply of all these things as long as he's around.
Theirs was strickly a self serving monetary decision, predetermined way in advance of the elections. Their behavior points it out clearly.
Look at all the crooked and bad behavior they had to overlook and dismiss to make their endorsement. How about the way they controlled the dialog all the way thru? Remember Porters op ed saying he's heard enough about gondolas and refusing to print anymore letters on the subject? Remember how poorly they implied Van Hooser had acted once in a not so open manner regarding Council applications, thereby excusing all of lying little matty's transgressions?
Well, they got their wish, and in doing so have turned off probably more than half the community, assuming that most that didn't bother to vote despise all government officials and feel powerless to do anything about it. So many people submitted letters and were told no. Many submitted opeds and were subjected to some frivilous excuses why they would not be run.
If they now feel a pinch, they desserve it, and by what I've noticed lately, their papers are boring and lacking public commentary, they brought it on themselves.
This situation is temporary though, Curm, lying little matty will be reving up soon, and we'll have no recourse but to re engage. it's only a matter of time.
Post a Comment