Watching events in Niagara County is like watching someone slowly die of cancer. And many more of us may well be doing that given recent revelations. Yes, the State sneaks tons of toxic waste into BWM under the cover of darkness. But it wouldn’t matter if they did do it in the light of day preceded by a mariachi band. Most people in Niagara County still wouldn’t know about it, especially the politicians and the press. The secret is out. Niagara county doesn’t have the guts or will or leadership to stop it.
As I wrote a few weeks back nothing was going to stop the further vile and slimily surreptitious abuse of Niagara County short of street demonstrations blocking the path of those trucks crossing the state and our county. But the press was asleep. The politicians were asleep or as all too often working with their heads in the sand if not up their asses. The representatives of these two institutions are a joke if not cowardly, stupid or actually complicit in the sacrifice of our area to “waste management.” After all, lest anyone forget we are also “managing” tons of nuclear waste which isn’t going anywhere soon, except maybe to pave more roads in the county. Besides, I hear glowing roads at night reduce accidents.
Niagara County politicians are cowards, deeply in denial, playing at politics but not willing to take the risks to get anything meaningful done for our people. The Niagara press and politicians are impotent chumps, pretenders at leading and informing the public. Buffoons, clowns, poseurs. Ludicrous bumbling fools. Things would be no different here if they didn’t exist at all. In fact things would probably be much better. We would have more money. We might take responsibility for finding out what is happening to us. We might begin to form social organizations that actually inform, protect and represent us. We might grow the balls necessary to start thinking though secession from the vampires and parasites that run the state of NY.
So there it is. Now we all know Niagara County will do nothing to live with self-respect and integrity. Anyone can dump on us from Hillary Clinton with her false promises, to the state DEC with its thousands of tons of waste with nowhere to go, to the downstate elitists such as Senator Kevin Parker who believe they should get all the Homeland Security money since there is nothing in upstate worth securing.
But even the Niagara County Legislature seems to agree with Parker. The Legislature has yet to answer my questions, presented a few months back during a formal session of that august body, as to why the Lewiston-Queenston bridge which could obviously be blown up by a deaf, dumb and blind terrorist in a mini-van, still remains by all obvious appearances unprotected. The Legislator too does not really believe we are worth saving. They seem to implicity agree with Parker. They accept the crumbs from the table of the State. And Maziarz’s long food chain of supporters seem to act as if those crumbs taste like steaks.
And the cheerleaders over at Niagara Times, some of which feel that after all somebody has to be the waste dump of the Eastern seaboard, falsely bemoan our fate as the dump trucks keep on coming. They in the end seem to shrug their shoulders in a comfortable victim mentality, and say “why not us?” But that profound think tank concludes that “The county needs to let it go” even though they say that what the state has done is absolutely wrong. Then they go on to argue that since the dumping doesn’t incur additional costs we should shut up, worry about the state deficit and not try to levy any selfish fees just to try to stop further shipments. The crowd at Niagara Times is despicably stupid and dangerous. With that kind of cheap pop-psychological reasoning (and I use that term oh so very loosely), which undoubtedly now in fact reflects the “thinking” of our supposed state leadership, we are doomed.
Our state representatives are de facto paid collaborators in securing and reducing Niagara County to the World Class Toxic Toilet of the Eastern Seaboard. And Hobbes, mouthpiece for the Republican “crumbs off the table” machine, certainly knows who butters his white bread. After all he lives in radioactive Lockport and trusts that the PCB’s won’t touch his community. And if it did the radioactivity might dissolve the PCB’s anyhow. So he’s safe.
So when driving in the area anywhere between the Whirlpool Bridge to Wheatfield to Wilson to the hallowed cess pool that is BWM, watch out for fast moving trucks and hold your breath. Otherwise, begin planning to move as far away as possible.
The good news here is that when you’ve reached rock bottom, there is no where to go but up, assuming you choose to live like human beings. But the county just doesn’t seem to know how to act like human beings in a unifed political manner. The eastern crowd would prefer to think that the western crowd doesn’t exist with their failing city and waste management dump. Apparently they don’t like the smell and probably the color of that area. The rest of the divisions are too painfully numerous to detail and also to embarrassingly provincial.
So tonight as I write this I have little hope for Niagara County. And of course why should I then have any hope I’ll ever hear from Greg Lewis or any of the other Legislators as to what it is that prevents the Lewiston bridge and the power plant from being easily blown up other than the fact that the terrorists just have chosen not to do it. Why should they condescend to take me seriously? They are small-town, small minded elitists coveting their own little piece of a pitifully small pie. And why should I expect news coverage to be competent and legislators to be informed let alone real leaders? This is a crisis of competence, conscience, courage, integrity and self-respect. Not just a political crisis, but a human, cultural, educational and communicative crisis.
So call me pessimistic if you like. The accurate appellation is ‘realistic’ at this stage of the game. Any fool could see as much. Pretend if you like but, face it, we are in the shitter, literally and figuratively. And most around here have accepted this seemingly as normal and they maybe even kind of like it. Hopefully the bus loads of Japanese won’t find out.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
VOTING: The Weakest, Most Passive Form of Political Participation
The following is an except from an article by Adolph Reed, Jr. in this weeks "Black Agenda Report" obtained through Jodi Dean's 'I cite' blog.
Reed writes:
"Obama represents a class politics, one that promises to cement an alliance anchored in the professional-managerial class (including, perhaps especially, the interchangeable elements of which now increasingly set the policy agendas for what remains of the women's, environmentalist, public interest, civil rights and even labor movements) and the 'progressive' wing of the investor class. (See, for example, Tom Geoghagen, All the Young Bankers, The American Prospect, June 23, 2008.) From this perspective, it is ironic in the short term -- i.e., considering that he pushed HRC out of the way -- that Obama would be the one to complete Clintonism's redefinition of liberalism as conservatism. So there's no way I'm going to ratify this bullshit with my participation, and I'm ready to tell all those liberals who will hector me about the importance of voting that it's the weakest, most passive and least consequential form of political participation, and I'm no longer going to pretend it's any more than that, or that the differences between the Dem and GOP candidates are greater than they are, just to help them feel good about not doing anything more demanding and perhaps more consequential....
To be clear, I'm not arguing that it's wrong to vote for Obama, though I do say it's wrong-headed to vote for him with any lofty expectations. I would also suggest that it's not an open and shut case that - all things considered - he's that much better than McCain. In some ways Obama would be better for us in the short run, just as Clinton was better than the elder Bush. In some ways his presidency could be much worse in the longer term, again like Clinton…." ....
"But here's the catch-22: The left version of the lesser evilist argument stresses that it's unrealistic and maybe unfair to expect anything of the Dems in the absence of a movement that could push them, and no such movement exists. True enough, but where is such a movement to come from if we accept the premise that the horizon of our political expectation has to be whatever the Dems are willing to do because demanding more will only put/keep the other guys in power, and they're worse? I remember Paul Wellstone saying already in the early ‘90s that they'd gotten into a horrible situation in Congress, where the Republicans would propose a really, really hideous bill, and the Dems would respond with a slightly less hideous one and mobilize feverishly around it. If it passed, they and all their interest-group allies would hold press conferences to celebrate the victory, when what had passed actually made things worse than they were before. That's also an element of the logic we've been trapped in for 30 years, and it's one reason that things have gotten progressively worse, and that the bar of liberal expectations has been progressively lowered....
Frankly, I've begun to suspect that the election year version of the 'now is not the time' argument and its sibling, the 'get him elected first then hold him accountable' line, as well as their first cousin, 'Well, that's what they all have to do to get elected,' reflect nothing better than denial of the grim reality that we can't expect anything from them or make any demands of them. After all, how can we hold them accountable once they're in office if we can't do it when they're running, when we technically have something we can withhold or deliver?"....
"The fact is that they know we don't have the power to make them do or not do anything and treat us accordingly, and they will until we develop the capacity to force them to do otherwise. I know this is a difficult message for those who like to believe that politics is about good people and bad people, or that writing really smart position papers that demonstrate the formal plausibility of a win/win agenda that satisfies everyone's concerns should be enough to counter the influence of those $30,000 per head corporate and hedge fund contributors, but that's just not the way the deal goes down."
Reed writes:
"Obama represents a class politics, one that promises to cement an alliance anchored in the professional-managerial class (including, perhaps especially, the interchangeable elements of which now increasingly set the policy agendas for what remains of the women's, environmentalist, public interest, civil rights and even labor movements) and the 'progressive' wing of the investor class. (See, for example, Tom Geoghagen, All the Young Bankers, The American Prospect, June 23, 2008.) From this perspective, it is ironic in the short term -- i.e., considering that he pushed HRC out of the way -- that Obama would be the one to complete Clintonism's redefinition of liberalism as conservatism. So there's no way I'm going to ratify this bullshit with my participation, and I'm ready to tell all those liberals who will hector me about the importance of voting that it's the weakest, most passive and least consequential form of political participation, and I'm no longer going to pretend it's any more than that, or that the differences between the Dem and GOP candidates are greater than they are, just to help them feel good about not doing anything more demanding and perhaps more consequential....
To be clear, I'm not arguing that it's wrong to vote for Obama, though I do say it's wrong-headed to vote for him with any lofty expectations. I would also suggest that it's not an open and shut case that - all things considered - he's that much better than McCain. In some ways Obama would be better for us in the short run, just as Clinton was better than the elder Bush. In some ways his presidency could be much worse in the longer term, again like Clinton…." ....
"But here's the catch-22: The left version of the lesser evilist argument stresses that it's unrealistic and maybe unfair to expect anything of the Dems in the absence of a movement that could push them, and no such movement exists. True enough, but where is such a movement to come from if we accept the premise that the horizon of our political expectation has to be whatever the Dems are willing to do because demanding more will only put/keep the other guys in power, and they're worse? I remember Paul Wellstone saying already in the early ‘90s that they'd gotten into a horrible situation in Congress, where the Republicans would propose a really, really hideous bill, and the Dems would respond with a slightly less hideous one and mobilize feverishly around it. If it passed, they and all their interest-group allies would hold press conferences to celebrate the victory, when what had passed actually made things worse than they were before. That's also an element of the logic we've been trapped in for 30 years, and it's one reason that things have gotten progressively worse, and that the bar of liberal expectations has been progressively lowered....
Frankly, I've begun to suspect that the election year version of the 'now is not the time' argument and its sibling, the 'get him elected first then hold him accountable' line, as well as their first cousin, 'Well, that's what they all have to do to get elected,' reflect nothing better than denial of the grim reality that we can't expect anything from them or make any demands of them. After all, how can we hold them accountable once they're in office if we can't do it when they're running, when we technically have something we can withhold or deliver?"....
"The fact is that they know we don't have the power to make them do or not do anything and treat us accordingly, and they will until we develop the capacity to force them to do otherwise. I know this is a difficult message for those who like to believe that politics is about good people and bad people, or that writing really smart position papers that demonstrate the formal plausibility of a win/win agenda that satisfies everyone's concerns should be enough to counter the influence of those $30,000 per head corporate and hedge fund contributors, but that's just not the way the deal goes down."
Friday, September 12, 2008
NATURE ON THE RUN
It’s nothing new to suggest that nature is in a state of siege. From polar bears to coral reefs, tigers, rain forests and glaciers, the loss of natural forms are taking place. How this state of affairs is evaluated is varied such that nature may be seen as endangered, on the one hand, and, on the other, as safe and secure as it’s ever been.
I would take neither position although both have some considerable truth to them. What man’s relation is to nature is a burgeoning philosophical question and is solvable by neither the Luddites and environmental extremists nor by the business/industrial crowd that sees nature as mere raw material for manufacturing. Whereas the former extremists see nature romantically, the latter see it in terms of use and exchange value. They are both equally abstract if not parasitic.
I don’t presume to have a sanguine, salutary solution to the problem, the conflict let’s say between primordial nature and putatively civilized society. Possibly the answer lay in our recognition of our dependency upon a nature with limits. On the other hand it may lie as much in the recognition that we are of the “nature” of that primordial nature. To use it without acknowledging and taking into account both its qualitative and quantitative limits, is to deny our own nature and our own limits technologically and spiritually.
In my own town of North Tonawanda, there are a few stretches of nature remaining, several patches of wood and wetland and of course the waterfronts, Gratwick Park being the most undeveloped. When I spoke to my Legislators, Paul Wojtaszek and Andrea McNulty, regarding the preservation of Gratwick, recently on LCTV’s Access to Government, I was left feeling as I usually am after talking to most politicians: unheard, reduced and dismissed. Apparently, McNulty thought I was saying that Gratwick was a “waste” because I suggested that I couldn’t imagine what $11,000,000, presumably slated for Gratwick in the future if all works out well, could be spent on. It seems that they feel that because at one time Gratwick was a Brownfield, a toxic dump site, that all additions after the clean-up are now an improvement.
The clean-up was of course a good thing, be it as it may. A proposed new fisherman’s dock seems not to be too intrusive to the natural beauty, wildlife and water, even though many seem to fish there now without much difficulty. But it seems that eventually, Wojtaszek, indicated that restaurants were in the works for the Park.
Apparently, kite flying, fishing from shore, bike riding, various sports being played in the open fields such as toy plane flying, golf, soccer, frisbee, etc. does not sufficiently ring their bells. It seems they believe some restaurants are required for people to be “attracted” to and enjoy the Park. Why that is so, I’ll never know. Apparently enjoying nature must be mediated by food and/or alcohol served in a restaurant. Possibly people don’t know that the Park is there without ‘bells and whistles’ to remind them that they live within minutes of a beautiful river with wonderful birds, sunsets, relative peace and quite, serenity and solitude (that is, when the speed boat races aren’t in town). Of course they also obviously still fantasize the immediate area a “tourist destination”: ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching!
When commercialism enters the scene, in my opinion we have gone too far and nature becomes merely another attraction, not to enjoy, but to facilitate selling and consuming, all of which is of course handily justified by an endlessly bad economy.
I guess anyone such as myself who believes “enjoying nature” is a matter of being in and with nature itself rather than its being an accompanying adornment to the experience of consumption, buying and selling, is too weird to be taken seriously. There must be something about an unexploited space, a field without infrastructure, pavilions, parking lots and of course something being bought and sold that suggests that it’s a waste. In short to our Legislators “nature itself and being with and in nature itself” is a waste.
So in fact it is not myself who thinks that Gratwick as it is, is a waste. I love, enjoy and respect it as it is without any further "improvements." It seems that McNulty is the one who really sees it, as it is, as a waste. Wojtaszek also seemed to be bemoaning the fact that the water could not be seen from the road given the buildup of ground which is actually, as I understand, the cap on the pollutants that were not removed during the clean-up and restoration. Wojtaszek I believe was saying that the “improvements” would make the Park even more enjoyable, supposedly partly because somehow they would enable the water being seen from the road. I don’t see how that is possible and it sounds like double talk to me. I’m sure packing in several pavilions and restaurants is going to make the river more visible from the road. It just doesn’t make sense. Sports fields and restaurants can be put anywhere. Why in the middle of a bird sanctuary and in front of an incomparable river view? It seems to Wojtaszek people now only drive by Gratwick. He wants them all driving through! Why? Possibly he could put a detour sign on River Road and have everyone redirected through the Park. Or, maybe he or one of his friends in the business/legal crowd will be a future proud owner of one or two of the new restaurants. If the people can't be aware of and appreciate the beauty of Gratwick now in its relatively pristine state, when it's filled up with "civilization," they still won't be enjoying it. They'll be enjoying the distractions and Gratwick as nature will be gone. It will be a tool to make money, per usual.
The other feeling I was left with after my call-in to Access to Government is that they’ve really already got their mind made up as to what they want there: the blind progress of business as usual. I felt patronized, placated and merely an obstacle to their idea of progress. It seems making the Park look like every other part of town is unquestionably considered development and economic progress. Hopefully, maybe by the grace of God, they at least won’t put another pizza and wings joint there. Surely we have enough of those around town to satisfy any number of junk food addicts and overweight denizens of the fast food frenzy. If they put a McDonald’s there I promise to move out of town.
But at the root of such economic myopia or even blindness, I believe, is really the fear of our own nature. It is a fear of being with primordial nature, the nature which, if we manage to destroy ourselves thru ecological neglect, will remain in the end. To be with nature is to feel and know our own serenity and solitude, our own timelessness and purposeless presence in physical space. It’s much easier to obliterate our own natural primordiality, by filling nature up, covering it over, exploiting its inherent attractiveness to avoid being with that which we are minimally and eternally and will eventually return to. If we could be with such nature, independent of the trappings of supposed civilized community, we may discover that very sacred part of ourselves that technological toys and commodities cannot fill up nor satisfy. We may in fact discover it is more sacred than any of the institutions or practices of religion.
Somehow I don’t think the technocrats of progress will hear this plea. If they could, they would hear the plea of nature itself, the reality which in the end of it all will have the last word by restoring its place, its primacy and priority as the eternal Edenic garden, that is the sacred primordiality to be found even in relatively unspoiled places like Gratwick.
I would take neither position although both have some considerable truth to them. What man’s relation is to nature is a burgeoning philosophical question and is solvable by neither the Luddites and environmental extremists nor by the business/industrial crowd that sees nature as mere raw material for manufacturing. Whereas the former extremists see nature romantically, the latter see it in terms of use and exchange value. They are both equally abstract if not parasitic.
I don’t presume to have a sanguine, salutary solution to the problem, the conflict let’s say between primordial nature and putatively civilized society. Possibly the answer lay in our recognition of our dependency upon a nature with limits. On the other hand it may lie as much in the recognition that we are of the “nature” of that primordial nature. To use it without acknowledging and taking into account both its qualitative and quantitative limits, is to deny our own nature and our own limits technologically and spiritually.
In my own town of North Tonawanda, there are a few stretches of nature remaining, several patches of wood and wetland and of course the waterfronts, Gratwick Park being the most undeveloped. When I spoke to my Legislators, Paul Wojtaszek and Andrea McNulty, regarding the preservation of Gratwick, recently on LCTV’s Access to Government, I was left feeling as I usually am after talking to most politicians: unheard, reduced and dismissed. Apparently, McNulty thought I was saying that Gratwick was a “waste” because I suggested that I couldn’t imagine what $11,000,000, presumably slated for Gratwick in the future if all works out well, could be spent on. It seems that they feel that because at one time Gratwick was a Brownfield, a toxic dump site, that all additions after the clean-up are now an improvement.
The clean-up was of course a good thing, be it as it may. A proposed new fisherman’s dock seems not to be too intrusive to the natural beauty, wildlife and water, even though many seem to fish there now without much difficulty. But it seems that eventually, Wojtaszek, indicated that restaurants were in the works for the Park.
Apparently, kite flying, fishing from shore, bike riding, various sports being played in the open fields such as toy plane flying, golf, soccer, frisbee, etc. does not sufficiently ring their bells. It seems they believe some restaurants are required for people to be “attracted” to and enjoy the Park. Why that is so, I’ll never know. Apparently enjoying nature must be mediated by food and/or alcohol served in a restaurant. Possibly people don’t know that the Park is there without ‘bells and whistles’ to remind them that they live within minutes of a beautiful river with wonderful birds, sunsets, relative peace and quite, serenity and solitude (that is, when the speed boat races aren’t in town). Of course they also obviously still fantasize the immediate area a “tourist destination”: ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching!
When commercialism enters the scene, in my opinion we have gone too far and nature becomes merely another attraction, not to enjoy, but to facilitate selling and consuming, all of which is of course handily justified by an endlessly bad economy.
I guess anyone such as myself who believes “enjoying nature” is a matter of being in and with nature itself rather than its being an accompanying adornment to the experience of consumption, buying and selling, is too weird to be taken seriously. There must be something about an unexploited space, a field without infrastructure, pavilions, parking lots and of course something being bought and sold that suggests that it’s a waste. In short to our Legislators “nature itself and being with and in nature itself” is a waste.
So in fact it is not myself who thinks that Gratwick as it is, is a waste. I love, enjoy and respect it as it is without any further "improvements." It seems that McNulty is the one who really sees it, as it is, as a waste. Wojtaszek also seemed to be bemoaning the fact that the water could not be seen from the road given the buildup of ground which is actually, as I understand, the cap on the pollutants that were not removed during the clean-up and restoration. Wojtaszek I believe was saying that the “improvements” would make the Park even more enjoyable, supposedly partly because somehow they would enable the water being seen from the road. I don’t see how that is possible and it sounds like double talk to me. I’m sure packing in several pavilions and restaurants is going to make the river more visible from the road. It just doesn’t make sense. Sports fields and restaurants can be put anywhere. Why in the middle of a bird sanctuary and in front of an incomparable river view? It seems to Wojtaszek people now only drive by Gratwick. He wants them all driving through! Why? Possibly he could put a detour sign on River Road and have everyone redirected through the Park. Or, maybe he or one of his friends in the business/legal crowd will be a future proud owner of one or two of the new restaurants. If the people can't be aware of and appreciate the beauty of Gratwick now in its relatively pristine state, when it's filled up with "civilization," they still won't be enjoying it. They'll be enjoying the distractions and Gratwick as nature will be gone. It will be a tool to make money, per usual.
The other feeling I was left with after my call-in to Access to Government is that they’ve really already got their mind made up as to what they want there: the blind progress of business as usual. I felt patronized, placated and merely an obstacle to their idea of progress. It seems making the Park look like every other part of town is unquestionably considered development and economic progress. Hopefully, maybe by the grace of God, they at least won’t put another pizza and wings joint there. Surely we have enough of those around town to satisfy any number of junk food addicts and overweight denizens of the fast food frenzy. If they put a McDonald’s there I promise to move out of town.
But at the root of such economic myopia or even blindness, I believe, is really the fear of our own nature. It is a fear of being with primordial nature, the nature which, if we manage to destroy ourselves thru ecological neglect, will remain in the end. To be with nature is to feel and know our own serenity and solitude, our own timelessness and purposeless presence in physical space. It’s much easier to obliterate our own natural primordiality, by filling nature up, covering it over, exploiting its inherent attractiveness to avoid being with that which we are minimally and eternally and will eventually return to. If we could be with such nature, independent of the trappings of supposed civilized community, we may discover that very sacred part of ourselves that technological toys and commodities cannot fill up nor satisfy. We may in fact discover it is more sacred than any of the institutions or practices of religion.
Somehow I don’t think the technocrats of progress will hear this plea. If they could, they would hear the plea of nature itself, the reality which in the end of it all will have the last word by restoring its place, its primacy and priority as the eternal Edenic garden, that is the sacred primordiality to be found even in relatively unspoiled places like Gratwick.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
IDIOCRACY DOMINATES NIAGARA LEGISLATURE
The Niagara County idocracy is in strong and secure hands in the Niagara County Legislature. Recent reports indicate that the ball is in play to downsize the ranks of the Niagara County Legislature by none other than the Legislature itself. But as far as I know, no good reasons, arguments, justifications or explanations for the need to considerably downsize the Legislature in NC have been given.
Idiocracy is a good name for this ethos of unreason. I really don’t mean to call or imply that any of the Legislators are idiots. They are not. However they are participating in issues and actions seemingly with their minds made up regarding both what is at issue and what the solutions are. In such an idiocracy, democracy is either dead or as Tom Christy likes to say: “being held hostage.” Nevertheless, meaningful discourse, dialogue, discussion, rational reflection, debate or self-accounting is absent. In the purging of Tom Christy from the now thoroughly exploited and instrumentalized LCTV; in the non-renewal of Joan Wolfgang to the NCCC Board of Directors; and now in the predilection to downsize the Legislature from 19 members to possibly as few as 11, again no requisite explanation or sustained rational debate is forthcoming. There is much talk that it will and should happen but as of yet it just doesn't seem to be happening. It's kind of like "Waiting for Godot." Though democracy may not be dead, the dialogue with the people surely is.
Maybe that’s why they hired a Public Information Officer. By the way whatever happened to Mr. Peck? Did I miss something here? I have not seen hide nor hair of him. Did he quit already? Get fired? If he is around somewhere, probably with his own show on LCTV, maybe he could explain this “downsizing” mania. Hellllooooooo, Mr.Peck! Where are you? Come out, come out wherever you are! Explain what's going on here. Or was I right the first time when I questioned whether he really isn't at all a Public Information Officer working to inform the public politically? That is, he is just going to be a marketing publicist for Niagara County, an arm of the IDA and Economic Development. "Public Information Officer" is a misnomer if not a euphemism for what the Legislature possibly didn't want to tell the public explicitly.
Nevertheless, back to the issue at hand: the age of unreason or a-rationality if not irrationality in NC. Chairman Ross has indicated to the media that with respect to the talk about “downsizing” our local Legislature, “its going around.”
What’s going around, I ask, Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross also shared with the Tonawanda News “It’s the principle.”
Mr. Ross, what principle is that? Is “downsizing” of government a principle?
“It sets the example and you move on from there,” Chairman Ross says.
Mr. Ross, what are we setting an example for or about? And what is this compulsion to keep “moving on?” Could it be that if anyone for any reasonable length of time examined what passes as “legislative action” we would realize that a-rational, robotic inertia has possessed the local government?
As far as I know there is no formulation forthcoming as to what the Legislature thinks it’s doing politically in its downsizing surge. But Mr. Ross hadn’t stopped there. After all why should he stop there? Why should one unsubstantiated opinion, assumption, act of conformity not lead to another. When you’re on a roll you keep going, no? And so Mr. Ross continues: “With this going around and being very visible you’ll likely get a county legislator to step up and get the process going.”
As I’ve asked before: Mr. Ross, Sir, what process is that??? Is it a process that’s “going around,” kind of like a disease or a fad or a fashion or a craze or what? What is it that’s visible? Is it Kevin Gaughan writing a bad article for the ArtVoice about downsizing? Is that what’s visible and going around? The fact is that there are more people who “think” that downsizing is a very bad idea than those who “think” it is a good idea. So what’s going around? The Pro’s or the Con’s? The Legislature seems to selectively “think”
That the Pro’s are “going around.”
Mr. Updegrove, majority Republican Legislative Leader says his caucus supports downsizing. Of course is he going to tell us why? He says its something we should explore and consider. Well that’s sounds promising but don’t forget that his “caucus” already supports downsizing; so if you’re a betting man put your money on them already having their collective mind made up. And so far only God and the caucus know why, if in fact they really even even have any idea why they “think” what they do. I become even more skeptical when Mr. Updegrove adds that we need to “determine how we should implement a reduction.” UH, OH! Sound like the “machine” has started to build momentum, despite that the cart may be well before the horse here.
Mr. Updegrove was reported to have said that “The question is what level of representation is optimum.” And he’s right. Now let’s have a meaningful discourse about this and begin the INQUIRY as to what is best for our county governmentally if not politically. But in the same interview Mr. Updegrove says, “We are committed to reducing the size of government in Niagara County.” UH OH! Sounds like commitment precedes justifiability here doesn’t it?
We all know that reducing costs is driving this. But this is another example of pennywise and pound foolish. Democracy is the heart and soul of the Republic. If representation is not optimized, then we move toward “managerial government in toto” not just “county manager government.” Then again maybe we should just dump all the Legislators and let Mr. Lewis run things. He seems to have a decent business sense. That should make the business crowd all warm and fuzzy. If his ‘business sense’ is not sensible enough then for the government-based-on-a-business-model ideologists, then just hire a better manager. Who needs government after all?
But given that desperate attempts to save money is behind this, could we be slightly be confusing downsizing with consolidation. It seems to me that there may be an overlap here, but the merging of auto bureaus and eliminating 8 Legislators lay in different domains of significance.
Given that several weeks have passed since the first reports came out about downsizing, one would like to believe that some real discussion has taken place. Possibly it did at the September legislative meeting. I don’t know. I missed it. But once again why isn’t Peck informing me about this. The least I could get is an e-mail from the guy.
What we have gotten as far as I know is a recent Tonawanda News article claiming that the Legislature does “believe the time has come to at least start talking about reducing the Legislature’s ranks.” And I ask again, what “time” is that? What “time” has come? Sounds dramatic but I’d really like to know what “time” that is? It seems like somebody thinks this has been brewing for some time and now it’s “time” to shit or get off the pot. Personally other than the Gaughan project I don’t know of any other brew on the political stove. Is Kevin Gaughan that influential? When I read his uncritical, unreflective article, I just didn’t see the “pied piper” quality shining forth.
Nevertheless as Mr. Ross predicted Ceretto, Farnham and Sklarski are expected to “step up” and present a resolution “that calls for the Legislature to support a plan to reduce its own membership once the 2010 Census has been completed. So I guess “they” really are “committed.” Still no justification. When does Updegrove’s “exploring and considering” come in? Or was that just for public consumption to make them sound like they really think about what they plan to do no matter what YOU the citizen think about it? Yet, given that such a decision depends upon “future census numbers, redistricting and input from lawmakers themselves,” according to the News, I should suspect the “input” should begin, considering how slow and tedious such “input” can be in coming forth and how much getting such input out to the public is like pulling teeth from a rhinocerous, especially when it requires some convincing justification.
The News reports that Cerreto says the resolution “is intended to spur debate over how best to approach downsizing so that the Legislature is prepared to do what it needs to do when the time comes.” God, there’s that “when the time comes” thing again. Sounds like something out of Dicken’s “Christmas Carole.” When the “time comes” you get your comeuppance kind of like ol’ Scrooge.
Cerreto “thinks” that 220,000 citizens would best be served by “reducing the number of elected leaders in the county, and, perhaps at other levels as well.” But why? Why? Why? Please give me some decent reason or even some indecent reason.
What we got was “the county has been moving in a direction to reduce government,” Ceretto said. It has. Since when. And who/what exactly is “the county?” “The county” is moving? What the hell does this mean, please pray tell!
“As legislators, we need to take the first step. We have to be the leaders. We have to set the example.” Where is the “need” in all this, the necessity to reduce government? Why now? Who are you leading and do you really care whether they want to be led in this direction?
Apparently Sklarski claimed that the resolution will not bind the Legislature but provide a “benchmark” from which Legislators can work. Please, again, I really hate to be repetitious, bu somebody tell me what that benchmark is! I wait with bated breath. Sklarski says he THINKS 11 is an appropriate number for the county. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Take your time because even though the “time has come,” for “considering,” the “time to do what it NEEDS to do” has not come.
Sklarski we hear is also leading by “example,”even though, with him also, we still don’t know what his lead is an example of. Sklarski says you just have to be “willing to lead by example.” So now some sort of “will” is involved. Maybe the Legislature has secretly been reading Friedrich Nietzsche and has bought into some political “will to power.” So far there has been no "leadership" at all. There has only been conformist "followership," their fingers to the wind ready to do what "seems" to be acceptable and politically useful.
So maybe the Legislature has developed the will-to-power to lead by example to do what needs to be done when the time comes given that we need to do what has been going around and is in the air and since the county has been moving in this direction anyhow. Go figure!
Idiocracy? Please prove me wrong, very, very wrong.
Idiocracy is a good name for this ethos of unreason. I really don’t mean to call or imply that any of the Legislators are idiots. They are not. However they are participating in issues and actions seemingly with their minds made up regarding both what is at issue and what the solutions are. In such an idiocracy, democracy is either dead or as Tom Christy likes to say: “being held hostage.” Nevertheless, meaningful discourse, dialogue, discussion, rational reflection, debate or self-accounting is absent. In the purging of Tom Christy from the now thoroughly exploited and instrumentalized LCTV; in the non-renewal of Joan Wolfgang to the NCCC Board of Directors; and now in the predilection to downsize the Legislature from 19 members to possibly as few as 11, again no requisite explanation or sustained rational debate is forthcoming. There is much talk that it will and should happen but as of yet it just doesn't seem to be happening. It's kind of like "Waiting for Godot." Though democracy may not be dead, the dialogue with the people surely is.
Maybe that’s why they hired a Public Information Officer. By the way whatever happened to Mr. Peck? Did I miss something here? I have not seen hide nor hair of him. Did he quit already? Get fired? If he is around somewhere, probably with his own show on LCTV, maybe he could explain this “downsizing” mania. Hellllooooooo, Mr.Peck! Where are you? Come out, come out wherever you are! Explain what's going on here. Or was I right the first time when I questioned whether he really isn't at all a Public Information Officer working to inform the public politically? That is, he is just going to be a marketing publicist for Niagara County, an arm of the IDA and Economic Development. "Public Information Officer" is a misnomer if not a euphemism for what the Legislature possibly didn't want to tell the public explicitly.
Nevertheless, back to the issue at hand: the age of unreason or a-rationality if not irrationality in NC. Chairman Ross has indicated to the media that with respect to the talk about “downsizing” our local Legislature, “its going around.”
What’s going around, I ask, Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross also shared with the Tonawanda News “It’s the principle.”
Mr. Ross, what principle is that? Is “downsizing” of government a principle?
“It sets the example and you move on from there,” Chairman Ross says.
Mr. Ross, what are we setting an example for or about? And what is this compulsion to keep “moving on?” Could it be that if anyone for any reasonable length of time examined what passes as “legislative action” we would realize that a-rational, robotic inertia has possessed the local government?
As far as I know there is no formulation forthcoming as to what the Legislature thinks it’s doing politically in its downsizing surge. But Mr. Ross hadn’t stopped there. After all why should he stop there? Why should one unsubstantiated opinion, assumption, act of conformity not lead to another. When you’re on a roll you keep going, no? And so Mr. Ross continues: “With this going around and being very visible you’ll likely get a county legislator to step up and get the process going.”
As I’ve asked before: Mr. Ross, Sir, what process is that??? Is it a process that’s “going around,” kind of like a disease or a fad or a fashion or a craze or what? What is it that’s visible? Is it Kevin Gaughan writing a bad article for the ArtVoice about downsizing? Is that what’s visible and going around? The fact is that there are more people who “think” that downsizing is a very bad idea than those who “think” it is a good idea. So what’s going around? The Pro’s or the Con’s? The Legislature seems to selectively “think”
That the Pro’s are “going around.”
Mr. Updegrove, majority Republican Legislative Leader says his caucus supports downsizing. Of course is he going to tell us why? He says its something we should explore and consider. Well that’s sounds promising but don’t forget that his “caucus” already supports downsizing; so if you’re a betting man put your money on them already having their collective mind made up. And so far only God and the caucus know why, if in fact they really even even have any idea why they “think” what they do. I become even more skeptical when Mr. Updegrove adds that we need to “determine how we should implement a reduction.” UH, OH! Sound like the “machine” has started to build momentum, despite that the cart may be well before the horse here.
Mr. Updegrove was reported to have said that “The question is what level of representation is optimum.” And he’s right. Now let’s have a meaningful discourse about this and begin the INQUIRY as to what is best for our county governmentally if not politically. But in the same interview Mr. Updegrove says, “We are committed to reducing the size of government in Niagara County.” UH OH! Sounds like commitment precedes justifiability here doesn’t it?
We all know that reducing costs is driving this. But this is another example of pennywise and pound foolish. Democracy is the heart and soul of the Republic. If representation is not optimized, then we move toward “managerial government in toto” not just “county manager government.” Then again maybe we should just dump all the Legislators and let Mr. Lewis run things. He seems to have a decent business sense. That should make the business crowd all warm and fuzzy. If his ‘business sense’ is not sensible enough then for the government-based-on-a-business-model ideologists, then just hire a better manager. Who needs government after all?
But given that desperate attempts to save money is behind this, could we be slightly be confusing downsizing with consolidation. It seems to me that there may be an overlap here, but the merging of auto bureaus and eliminating 8 Legislators lay in different domains of significance.
Given that several weeks have passed since the first reports came out about downsizing, one would like to believe that some real discussion has taken place. Possibly it did at the September legislative meeting. I don’t know. I missed it. But once again why isn’t Peck informing me about this. The least I could get is an e-mail from the guy.
What we have gotten as far as I know is a recent Tonawanda News article claiming that the Legislature does “believe the time has come to at least start talking about reducing the Legislature’s ranks.” And I ask again, what “time” is that? What “time” has come? Sounds dramatic but I’d really like to know what “time” that is? It seems like somebody thinks this has been brewing for some time and now it’s “time” to shit or get off the pot. Personally other than the Gaughan project I don’t know of any other brew on the political stove. Is Kevin Gaughan that influential? When I read his uncritical, unreflective article, I just didn’t see the “pied piper” quality shining forth.
Nevertheless as Mr. Ross predicted Ceretto, Farnham and Sklarski are expected to “step up” and present a resolution “that calls for the Legislature to support a plan to reduce its own membership once the 2010 Census has been completed. So I guess “they” really are “committed.” Still no justification. When does Updegrove’s “exploring and considering” come in? Or was that just for public consumption to make them sound like they really think about what they plan to do no matter what YOU the citizen think about it? Yet, given that such a decision depends upon “future census numbers, redistricting and input from lawmakers themselves,” according to the News, I should suspect the “input” should begin, considering how slow and tedious such “input” can be in coming forth and how much getting such input out to the public is like pulling teeth from a rhinocerous, especially when it requires some convincing justification.
The News reports that Cerreto says the resolution “is intended to spur debate over how best to approach downsizing so that the Legislature is prepared to do what it needs to do when the time comes.” God, there’s that “when the time comes” thing again. Sounds like something out of Dicken’s “Christmas Carole.” When the “time comes” you get your comeuppance kind of like ol’ Scrooge.
Cerreto “thinks” that 220,000 citizens would best be served by “reducing the number of elected leaders in the county, and, perhaps at other levels as well.” But why? Why? Why? Please give me some decent reason or even some indecent reason.
What we got was “the county has been moving in a direction to reduce government,” Ceretto said. It has. Since when. And who/what exactly is “the county?” “The county” is moving? What the hell does this mean, please pray tell!
“As legislators, we need to take the first step. We have to be the leaders. We have to set the example.” Where is the “need” in all this, the necessity to reduce government? Why now? Who are you leading and do you really care whether they want to be led in this direction?
Apparently Sklarski claimed that the resolution will not bind the Legislature but provide a “benchmark” from which Legislators can work. Please, again, I really hate to be repetitious, bu somebody tell me what that benchmark is! I wait with bated breath. Sklarski says he THINKS 11 is an appropriate number for the county. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Take your time because even though the “time has come,” for “considering,” the “time to do what it NEEDS to do” has not come.
Sklarski we hear is also leading by “example,”even though, with him also, we still don’t know what his lead is an example of. Sklarski says you just have to be “willing to lead by example.” So now some sort of “will” is involved. Maybe the Legislature has secretly been reading Friedrich Nietzsche and has bought into some political “will to power.” So far there has been no "leadership" at all. There has only been conformist "followership," their fingers to the wind ready to do what "seems" to be acceptable and politically useful.
So maybe the Legislature has developed the will-to-power to lead by example to do what needs to be done when the time comes given that we need to do what has been going around and is in the air and since the county has been moving in this direction anyhow. Go figure!
Idiocracy? Please prove me wrong, very, very wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)