People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out
Rodney King
Spontaneous Utterance
1991
We admit the Junction City mudwrestling that erupts from time to time is diverting, but it’s counter-productive and sullies the reputations of those involved. Being able to negotiate on meaningful issues of importance to the city is what Ogden leaders should be doing as a matter of course.
Standard-Examiner Editorial
Hunkering down, doing the job
March 28, 2008
The Standard-Examiner experiences a true Rodney King moment, and urges the Mayor and Council to just "get along".
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Query: Will Boss Godfrey hear the message, and learn the lyrics to the song, "Kumbaya?"
9 comments:
Rudi:
The key sentence in the editorial is this: "Being able to negotiate on meaningful issues of importance to the city is what Ogden leaders should be doing as a matter of course."
Of that, you asked: "Will Boss Godfrey hear the message, and learn the lyrics to the song, "Kumbaya?""
That is precisely the question. Negotiation... or compromise might have been a better term... implies a willingness to give as well as take; a willingness to accommodate, compromise, horse trade, and find on controversial matters middle ground, when it can be found, that will address much of what each side is most concerned about. Negotiation does not consist of "I tell you what I want, and you tell me you will give it to me." Which is how, sadly, the Administration seems to have approached its relations with the Council from the git-go. I keep recalling the disagreement between the Council of two elections past and the Mayor over whether the City should buy very expensive roll-away bleacher seating for the new Amphitheater downtown. The Council told the mayor the budget wasn't healthy enough at the moment to spend so many thousands on the bleacher seats. The Mayor went ahead and bought them anyway. That seems to be his idea of what constitutes cooperation.
I had hoped the Mayor, having squeeked into a third term, and then only after having to give up, and very publicly, his plan to sell Mt. Ogden Golf Course to Chris Peterson for development as a limited access gated community of vacation villas, would, safely back in office for four years, try to build a bridge or two, try to reach out to those who fought his re-election, try to look for areas in which he and they agreed about a policy or a proposal, and could work together. It would have been good for the city if he had done that. It would have also been good for him. Instead, he chose confrontation [whining to the paper about Councilwoman Wicks' refusal to go behind closed doors with the Mayor one on one], and retaliation --- e.g. purging the Ogden Trails Commission.
The SE's right about what would be best for Ogden. But, based on past performance, and his performance since the election, I don't think the odds that the Mayor is interested in anything other than the Council's meekly endorsing his proposals are very good.
He'll never learn to play well and get along with others. The mayor is nothing more than a spoiled brat who throws a tissy fit if he doesnt get his way. He is devisive, sneakey, and less than honest in his goals for what is best for Ogden.
Four more years of the smae as the last eight.
If the S-E really wants change, they need to stop rewarding bad behavior, on the part of either the city council or the Mayor.
By publishing whatever the administrative staff says without attribution or fact-checking, they are enabling some very childish and unethical behavior on the part of the administration. This deepens the divide.
The thing that frustrates me is the lack of self-awareness on the part of the S-E's editorial board. They cannot see that they have, in large part, contributed to the division that they are deploring with words. Just words.
Kudos to Grondahl, who made me laugh.
As for the windbag editorial, yes, it would be good for council and mayor to work together, and to hold public meetings.
But why write an editorial? An email to Godfrey would have served as well.
Everyone knows his attitude is usually the problem.
We hope his efforts to seek community input on the golf course, and to set goals with the council, are genuine.
But we also know him, and must suspect it is only a tactic.
It may be that the godfreyites, sensing any effort to further screw the public is futile with the present council, is trying the kumbaya to encourage people not to run for council, leaving the field entirely clear for their slate of candidates who, if elected in two years, will execute godfreyism without question, like the notorious Brandon Stephenson and Blaine Johnson do now.
The nice thing about financial collapses, is it purifies the system, like vomiting. Problem is, the rot that is running things doesn’t want to get spewed out. To get a feel for the lengths to which the present ruling class will go to preserve their house of cards,
Click Here
How would it be, to be able to borrow money directly from the Fed at only one-third of one percent??
The people who got us into this mess will not willingly pay the price. And they run the government too.
The Fed has already depleted their book by almost $200 billion propping up their pals. And what happens when the brokers who lost trillions lose the money the Fed is lending them? Well, that’s what taxpayers are for. Paying off Godfrey’s loans isn’t the only thing we will be on the hook for.
But it is keeping the market up, for now.
BTW, great article about where Cheney's money is, the corrupt SOB.
monotreme,
Newspapers thrive on controversy so it's in the interest of the Standard-Examiner to fan the flames all they can. Today's editorial was intended mainly to distract us from this fundamental fact.
Dan:
Well, I think you're attributing a degree of Machiavellian manipulation to the editorial board that I doubt is there. That newspaper sales bump up on controversy, no argument. That the purpose of today's editorial was to "distract us from this... fact" I doubt.
As the SE bashing goes on, let us recall that today's editorial did come down on Councilwoman Wicks' side in the dispute with the Mayor about private versus public meetings.
For those who don't take the paper, and are following the golf course issues, this is good.
Click Here
Apologies if somebody else already mentioned it.
curm,
Perhaps I was a bit harsh on the editorial board. But by refusing to acknowledge the paper's own role in adding to the controversy, I think they're being somewhat deceptive. I also think they routinely slant their editorials to cast the newspaper itself in a better light (as almost anyone in such a position would do).
Post a Comment