Let's start with the obvious: Ms. Moncrief - like virtually all of the Town Board's supporters during the past month and a half - attributes all opposition to the vile manner in which the Board treated our neighbors to the Republican Club. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to Club members, there were many people from my own Party (the Conservatives), non-Club Republicans, Independence Party members, non-enrolleds and even some Democrats who have been critical of the manner in which the Board rode roughshod over civil rights on February 1 and during subsequent meetings. This coordinated attack on the Club is nothing more than an attempt to split the opposition. Whether one agrees with the Club or not, all persons of good will must remain united against a Town Government which has become a blight upon the community instead of a representative governmental body serving our needs."In their effort to rally support for their cause, they have passed from legitimately voicing concern to inciting hatred. One only needs to visit the Club website to view how they have vilified our town officers and anyone else whose opinion differs."
Righteous indignation and even anger at the patrician manner with which the Board disposed of the opinions of those who raised their voices in protest is NOT "inciting hatred". Furthermore, while anyone who reads this blog knows that it is not my own personal style to do so, "vilification" of public officials is a legitimate form of criticism, especially when they have obviously forgotten their roles and responsibilities towards those whom they (purport to) represent. Does this Town Board fit into that mold? That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Those who believe that they do have a perfectly acceptable right to criticize the Board in the strongest possible terms. This, again, is an attempt at censorship of those who oppose this Town's new Monarchy and it is beneath the dignity of a supposedly democratic community.
"The postcard itself was offensive and filled with indignation and rage. "
Again, the postcard was not my own style of criticism, but it was well within the rights of those who published it. I read the postcard several times. Rage was nowhere to be found. Indignation, however, was present in abundance. Righteous indignation, well justified, well expressed. Certainly no harsher than the words used by many of our Founding Fathers to express their own feelings towards those opposed to basic freedoms in the 18th Century.
"The strategy seems to be: be offensive, don’t compromise, don’t think, compromise your opponent, just lash out. "
Not a particularly accurate statement, but one which could be quite effective if only the people of our Town were not already aware of what the facts of the case are. "Offensive" is a subjective term that means different things to different people. To the Lib-Dem elite which has invaded our Town, it means criticism of the Town Government, the exercise of our civil rights, and the refusal to walk lock step with their brass band playing the Socialist Oom-Pa-Pa. To us, being offensive means showing (or even discussing!) porn to a woman without informing her that she might want to consider bringing an attorney or her husband, limiting the number of participants at a Town Board Meeting, locking our neighbors out into the cold, and censoring the criticism of the people of the Town of Rochester.
"Don't compromise" is, however, probably fairly accurate. What is questionable, however, is the idea that not compromising one's principles is to be viewed as negative. The pseudo-intellectual Liberal Elite has, in its Church of Anything Goes (As Long As You Agree With Us), made a sacrament of moral relativism. Liberals believe that there is no fixed moral standard by which to navigate one's life or one's community. Therefore, they think nothing of compromising when it is to their advantage to do so. We, on the other hand, believe that morality is a natural law, akin to gravity. What goes up, inevitably comes down. Of course, compromise requires the other side to be willing to give somewhat. Despite their criticism of our community for not compromising, compromise is not even possible in this situation as the Town Board refuses to budge, to recognize even infinitesimally, that their behavior may have been wrong.
"We’ve already witnessed a taste of violence in our town: blown up mailboxes, nails in driveways, the humiliating signs, a mysterious fire, and more recently, the threatening, menacing tone at our February town board meeting."
A masterful application of Karl Marx's dialectic. You take a thesis (the violence in our Town) and an antithesis (the vocal criticism of our Town Board) and you end up with the synthesis that states that the two things are morally equivalent. Upon hearing of the acts perpetrated against the Supervisor, a Town Councilman and others last year, I called Supervisor Duke and Councilman Miller to express my shock that such a thing could happen in our Town as well as my personal condemnation of such acts. NEVER was their any evidence whatsoever that any political organization or its leaders were behind these acts. More than likely, they were committed by a citizen who was upset at the Board's disregard for Public Opinion (even back then) and who did not know how to express his or her negative feelings in an acceptable manner. To lump our protest (again, not the Club's protests, but our neighbors') in with acts of force which no decent person can support, is reprehensible and patently false.
"Past behavior is unacceptable to many of the Town of Rochester citizens."
Although this sentence was not addressed to the Supervisor and her Board, it should have been. Their behavior and attitudes are the sole cause of the recent problems we have all experienced. To criticize those who point out this behavior is akin to shooting the messenger.
"Pam Duke’s administration has been the first in my short history here (10 years) to open the door to controversy and conversation"
Supervisor Duke has not only opened the door to controversy, she has, in fact, caused it on several occasions. Her supporters then promptly used it to pummel the people of this Town whenever we point out the Board's habitual disregard for our rights as Americans. As to "opening the door" to "conversation" that's about as laughable a statement as one could make, in light of recent events. Supervisor Duke and her Board not only figuratively but literally locked the door to any kind of conversation on February 1, leaving a hundred of our townsfolk out in the cold. The rest of us were censored and the meeting adjourned. Open the door to conversation? You cannot possibly be serious!
"You must enter into the conversation with respect for elected officials and the democratic process."
Respect is neither a right nor is it endowed through the electoral process. A public official must strive to earn respect every single day of his or her service. The people have a right to withdraw their respect for those who refuse to do so and they have withdrawn it from this Town Board. As to the democratic process, when a Town Board does away with centuries of accepted Parliamentary procedure and capriciously decides that certain topics will not be discussed, that the Presiding Officer of the Meeting can just allow and outsider to take over the Meeting, that the public can be censored and muzzled, it is that Town Board which has blatantly rejected any semblance of respect for the democratic process.
All in all, the letter was well crafted and written to the extent that one looks only at its grammar and style. Unfortunately for Ms. Moncrief, the Board gave her lousy material with which to work. The old saying goes "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." How much more difficult it must be when all you're given to work with is cow chips.
No comments:
Post a Comment