Jump to content
"I understand how a PR manager can take some workload off city staff and let them concentrate on their jobs rather than putting together press releases."
I don't have a problem with that. Provided the PR manager is actually quoting someone other than himself (or Ski Corp, even if it isn't technically plagiarism in this case I suppose, but did the City get copyright permission from Ski Corp to re-use their marketing materials in its official press releases, I wonder -- I've produced copyrighted material for clients but that was never my copy to re-use as I saw fit for others, seeing as how I was duly paid for my work), when quoting someone else -- those quotes can be edited, presented in a favorable light, or whatever without rankling me. Which is really a sad commentary on the state of American politics in this day & age, that my expectations of government are so much lower as an adult, than they were as a child.
Unfortunately, it isn't so much as I'm getting older, as it is government (at all levels, now) getting shadier.
When words are put into the mouths of elected representatives by some PR-flak spinmeister, I think a bright & clear line has obviously (and notoriously) been crossed. Seems like stealing his paycheck, when the PR guy can't be bothered to actually ask that official for an actual quote, or is too lazy to take notes, or doesn't think it could possibly matter to the citizenry that quotes of our elected representatives embody actual words which come out of their mouths. Quotation marks have unambiguous meaning, making up "quotes" is simply LYING and we deserve better from our federal/state/county/local governments.
Political spinmeistering is hardly the most honest profession out there, but the best spin contains a modicum of truth, i.e. it's at least BASED on verbatim quotes rather than being manufactured out of whole cloth, or outdated Ski Corp. marketing material. Goes beyond "spin" straight into the realm of "outright lying" which sounds like malfeasance to me. Clear & bright line! C'mon Council, your electorate's highly educated, so please quit treating them like they're stupid enough to accept this kinda crap. Over & over again!!!
What Steamboat Springs needs to do, is use Mike Lane's salary to bring in some consultants to hold retreats/workshops/whatever until its elected & appointed officials understand the concept of AVOIDING EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
Sorry, once again, to keep harping on this like a skipping record -- I should probably stop because I'm obviously tilting at windmills. Which hardly means I'm wrong!
Spewing out more appearances of impropriety on a monthly basis isn't going to repair that particular PR problem, so I'd argue Mike Lane's just proven incompetent to the task he was allegedly hired for. Or maybe nobody can do that job for City officials who JUST DON'T GET IT!?!? :(
Yeah, but that averages out during spring break when those four pillows are sleeping 16-20. ;)
Statistical estimates are just that, estimates. Apples & oranges, comparing it to whether a verbatim quote was actually ever uttered by an elected representative -- those quote marks are supposed to relieve any ambiguity surrounding who said what.
Once again, I will point out how elected representatives are supposed to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Spending taxpayer dollars to have a spinmeister manufacture quotes on behalf of elected representatives... well...
That certainly rises to the level of ACTUAL impropriety, which with this council and its history on the issue, is once again supremely and remarkably tone-deaf.
For the record, every post I make here, for better or worse, contains my own thoughts and wording.
Good grief, this issue has actually caused me to begrudgingly find a tiny shred of respect for Trump's twitter proclivities. At least you know no paid PR professional is tweeting on his behalf, no? ;)
How about if we agree that this country has more pressing concerns than a 0.000002% rate of voter fraud (since those votes weren't counted, it's actually ZERO, period), and quit wasting our time trying to solve, let alone even debate, a non-problem which fails to rise above the level of absurdly shameful partisan propaganda?
Fact: Voter fraud is too statistically insignificant to have any bearing on election results in America.
Alternate fact: 3,000,000 dead people voted for Hillary.
With no evidence of the latter, "alternate fact," shouldn't you be agreeing with the majority of citizens that this is a non-problem, so we can get back to debating the real problems faced by our nation? If at some point in time voter fraud does materialize as an actual concern, then we have Voter ID tabled as a solution to what's currently a NON-PROBLEM, so we'd actually be ahead of the curve.
Until then, please stop beating a dead horse based on "alternative facts" OK?
You're completely overlooking that it's required to have a valid ID to register to vote, Ken, just like getting married, renting, etc. etc. that you mention. What's unreasonable is claiming this system doesn't work, in the absence of any evidence supporting such a position.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it... folks will just question your motivations. For example, if there isn't any actual voter fraud in this country to speak of (Trump's claims of 3m dead people voting Hillary notwithstanding, as he lives in his own fantasy world), then there must be something else to it... like vote suppression.
Which is hardly a far-fetched notion, considering there exist what, four examples of voter fraud in Election 2016? All of whom voted for Trump twice! None of which counted, but even if they had, the election was 99.999998% free of voter fraud.
So tell me again, what's up with all the insistence that this is some sort of problem which needs to be urgently addressed in ways which disenfranchise American citizens from their right to vote? At some point, most of us will apply common sense and realize this is a non-problem, and become very suspicious of the motivations of anyone who says otherwise... again, in the absence of any proof!
Funny Dick Curtis story, is he had two CO detectors in 115 Oak despite all the heat, cooking, and hot water was electric! :D
Yes, yes, I know more than most that CO has no smell. What I think saved tenants' lives in this situation, was the slime molds which had adapted to living in those furnaces for years. Normal operating conditions, that stuff thrives. Abnormal operating conditions giving off CO, that stuff dies and starts burning up -- alerting the residents in time to call the ambulance, when they shoulda been alerted earlier by a CO detector, but whatevs.
Unless someone else has a better idea, this is the first time I've ever heard of a nasty odor saving people from a furnace malfunction in time to not die from CO (Carbon Monoxide) poisoning. Another irony -- the less you maintain your furnace, the safer it is???
Doesn't really matter who's who at Town Hall when a landlord's blatantly flouting every sensible building code known to man for over a century and even the county has to step in. Sometimes, things are so bad that no responsible elected or even appointed official could possibly look the other way without fear of being removed from their position for dereliction of duty, even if Scott did try to bribe 'em (and I'm not suggesting that happened).
All personalities, Scott's and mine included, aside. No responsible official of any town/county government in any of the 50 states could be righteously accused of a vendetta for failing to look the other way because of how important a VIP the landlord-in-question thinks he is, given the state of the property in question.
Let's not overlook the hospitalizations, here. Do you have rental units? If so, aren't you the least bit concerned about your tenants, so as to have functional CO detectors around, say, your 25-year-old propane furnace that's been flooded/frozen/thawed-out twice in the past five years?
Aside from everything else, no CO detectors? Srsly? Ironically, if Scott had invested in those, they'd have beeped and he'd have been the first one called to deal with the situation, not the ambulance!
I know. It's all the gummint's fault for not giving you enough money to actually not run a historic building into the ground within five years of starting to rent it out, so it's incumbent upon somebody else to build Cynthia another access ramp without the benefit of the federal subsidies you've already taken advantage of to build the one she'd still have, without living up to your end of the deal, or she wouldn't be on the edge of homelessness when all I wanted her to have for Christmas was a new puppy, or you'll just whine that the community won't bail you out on this?
I could care less about your quotes in the paper or secondhand, or the accuracy of same. I'll judge you by your actions, in not making a tenant homeless during the holidays through your own negligent property management decisions, even if you insist on passing that buck back to the rest of us in the community-at-large. Not buying it. Not for a second.
Plenty of folks, myself included, would be willing to open our homes to Cynthia if only those were accessible to her, or we'd ever dealt with Section 8 or whatevs. By taking rent money, whether it was from Cynthia directly or the gummint via Section 8, are you saying Scott has no obligation to keep that unit habitable in exchange?
I love Cynthia, but as much as she believes Scott was doing her a favor for "allowing" installation of that ramp, was it not required of him to accept Section 8 vouchers?
"Anyone who cleans a loaded gun deserves to shoot themselves and receive a Darwin Award."
Only if they die. Otherwise, it's the Aqib Talib Award, particularly if blackout-drunk at the time. ;)
Last login: Thursday, February 16, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |