As if the sitting Town Council needed another black eye, those of us observing yesterday’s proceedings were greeted with yet another installment of the three-ring circus of adolescent behavior that has become its hallmark. Chairman Henrick’s inability to maintain decorum was outshined only by a Democratic show of divisiveness and petty affront that once again reduced our political process to the laughingstock of Connecticut.
Remember when we used to get to laugh at Bridgeport’s political missteps? Those days are long gone, replaced by the childish temper tantrums that have come to define our town.
As Bill Hanney attempted to explain his plans to renovate and the Shakespeare Theater, Gavin Forrester engaged him in a spirited debate over why his estimate was so much less than others. In typical fashion, a good question went unanswered as the fragile egos of our representatives became more important than town business. Before Hanney could fully answer as to where his business plan was, the Town Council Players (thanks, Calvin) raised the roof themselves.
What followed included a grade-school argument between Forrester and Miron over whether Miron’s finger was too close to Forrester’s face, although I saw NO instance of a physical confrontation from my vantage (unlike what was reported in the Connecticut Post). Regardless, calling the mayor a “nut” in public council sets a questionable example.
In another instance of childlike petulance, Emma Brooks topped them both by storming out of the chambers rather than staying to try and restore order herself. What better metaphor for the actions of this Town Council the last few years: running away from the table because you’re too embarrassed to stay.
The upshot? As a result of the infantile behavior displayed by our elected officials, another night’s work was left incomplete. Another delay. Another round of “pass the buck.”
Another failure.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



8 comments:
I read the correction in the Connecticut Post yesterday (09/10) page 2).
In the correction the Connecticut Post admits they made a mistake in their original story in that there was no physical contact or altercation at the Town Council meeting between anyone.
The Post even acknowledges that the Mayor was trying to calm the situation (overheated egos and raised voices it appears) and Coucilman Forrester misinterprested his intent.
Typical Connecticut Post sensational story.
The Stratford Star confirms that the report was overblown and much about nothing.
My take is that we are closing in on an election season and people are posturing for the upcoming mayoral race.
Can the Stratford Observer confirm that this site is not run, controlled or affiliated by or with the Mayor or the Democratic Party?
Can the Stratford Observer promise that IP addresses will remain confidential?
Word from my friends on the other site is that they are afraid this site is intended to "out" the people on the other site.
A little far flung for my tastes...but you never know.
I for one like this site better. The analysis from Stratford Observer seems fair and balanced and not one sided.
Maybe others will come if they feel "safe".
when this site was first opened the site meter was "unlocked", why not leave it open so we can all see the IP adresses of all those who post.
clear and transparent will gain creditability.
bust that.
Jane,
I think you're dead right about the posturing, unfortunately.
As far as confirming that I'm not the sinister creation of the Miron bunker, or Linda, or the Mayor himself? Yes, i do confirm that. However, that will never suffice. People I respect, like Joe DeCaro who is one of the editors at Topix, seems convinced I'm lying and that I exist solely as a p.r. spin machine for Mayor Miron. I don't know Joe personally, and I'm not all that fond of revealing myself simply because things get very ugly on those boards. Why would I subject my kids and grandkids to that venom? I learned a long time ago that you can't prove what never happened, so i just have to throw up my hands and hope that people focus on the issues again.
I am also not affiliated with either party. As I have made clear, the party system has been a disappointment to me. They take up too much energy in carving out positions and hammering anyone that opposes their party lines.
As for IP addresses, I can certainly promise that IP addresses will ALWAYS be confidential. Why? Because there is no way I'd ever be able to figure them out!! It takes far more free time and effort than I am ever willing to commit. I did not know they thought i was trying to "out" people, but again, I will leave folks to believe what they will. I can say that my track record has been pretty consistent and every piece I've posted very fair in lambasting both sides of issues. Some folks think supporting the Mayor is an automatic sign that you must be getting paid. I'm pretty sure he wasn't happy with the fire truck cartoon or my statements about his party or about his behavior the other night, but that stuff doesn't seem to register.
I can say this (and I always have): I really respect jezebel282 and her blog. I gave her the props for allowing me to think about starting one of my own. She has built up a great collection of folks that care about the town (the size of her readership puts this one to shame) even if i don't always agree. She also manages to get the principals themselves to discuss issues, like Gavin Forrester. As I've said all along, that is incredibly valuable to this town and fosters the communication from our elected representatives that we deserve. I'm not sure, but I think she agrees with Joe that I am someone in Town Hall. It's not pleasant seeing these things written about the blog (it's like Santa coming down the chimney and calling you a jerk), but it's all part of the process, I guess.
I'm new, and people should be skeptical. That seems reasonable to me, so I don't take it personally. Thanks for the comment, Jane!
Sincerely,
Jim
KIDDING! I meant,
Linda
;)
Anonymous,
Someone pointed out that having the counter public was a concern because people don't want to have their IPs made public. I initially made it public thinking the opposite was true.
So, in short, I "closed" it so people don't think their IPs are on display.
Greetings Stratford Observer!
We have to disagree about Jezebel and her or his site. It is entertaining, I suppose but I do not respect it one bit.
I have friends who have posted over at the National Enquirer of sites.
They were called "Mironista" and ridiculed merely because they blogged that things were not all bad in town and that Mayor Miron had done some good things and other threeads that were not anti-Miron.
Jezebel him or herself calls the Mayor: "Mayor Moron". Talk about third grade behaviour! A base level of respect, even if you do not like a person, is MY personal standard. Obviously, as has been speculated, Jezebel is someone who feels personally wronged by thge Mayor and the blog is meant to take out that frustration and help sully his reputation.
Anyone can create a blog and as such they have the right to espouse whatever opinion they want although I think that the normal rules of etiquette and slander/defamation need to be applied to blogs too.
I just think the cloak of pseudonyms emboldens people to say things they would never say if we knew their real name for fear of a defamation lawsuit or public rebuke.
In any event, as I have said before, THIS site is fair and balanced. Jezebel claims that site is, it is not.
You can put lipstick on a pig....but it is still a pig.
thor,
I think the place where we disagree is one of expectation: I accept Jez's site for what she openly declares it is. The reason I like it is that I don't expect it to be journalism (any more than i expect this site to be). I appreciate the passion of interested folks posting there. You certainly can't argue that you don't get a clear vision of what one side believes about the mayor, and I believe that is valuable information.
While I don't agree that consistently calling people morons is going to build any bridges or get people to work together, I don't think that's the point of the blog. Maybe I'm simplifying too much, but the blogs are just places where people can discuss issues. The obligation to move this town and get people to agree is really up to our elected officials. No one can afford to ignore voters who are "up" on the issues, and Jez's site has many of those voters. I am proud to say this site does as well.
I guess that's a long way to say that I understand your view of that blog, but I can't help but continue to think it serves a valuable service to town discussion.
As Bill Hanney attempted to explain his plans to renovate and the Shakespeare Theater, Gavin Forrester engaged him in a spirited debate over why his estimate was so much less than others. In typical fashion, a good question went unanswered as the fragile egos of our representatives became more important than town business.
----------------------------
jnnywllms
Impression
Post a Comment