The Continuing Saga of
Crime and Punishment in America’s Most Beautiful City
Brought to you by Bob, Sam, Mark, and the rest of the COVID Council
The Status Quo
This week’s play is about creating politicized vectors of malevolence that give rise to the acting out of personal psychopathologies within the institutions of governance by city employees; to wit, the City Council’s approach to the Homeless Public Health crisis and some political, as well as possible psychopathological reasons, that Bob, Sam, and Mark take the approach they do to the issue as one ripe for political demagoguery and public division.
Hopefully this essay will also help explain how, by the council’s lack of a humane policy toward the homeless crisis, wherein the homeless are treated as second-class citizens by Mr. Weaver and the CJS, the status quo is failing the most vulnerable in the community right in front of everybody, and why Bob and Sam and Mark and their true believers don’t see this as a failure of public health policy but rather use it as a political football.
The current city council policy, as defined by staff under former manager Jane Brautigam and the City Attorney Tom Carr, outlined an approach to the crisis using illegal statutes and periodic police sweeps of the camps as an articulated ‘dirty hands’ policy which I will contend in this essay is a political rather than a practical solution, intended to appeal by fearmongering to the darker nature of the collective unconscious of the townsfolk, the inherent sense of tribalism in all people.
I will further try to persuade you that these political operatives, Bob, Sam, and Mark, along with Tom and Jane in bureaucratic disguise, have nurtured and enabled chaos and division on the humanitarian nature of this issue by tapping into the rich blood of tribalism, using fraud and deceit as a modality of political policy expediency instead of doing their jobs with intellectual honesty, much less practical commonsense.
These individuals have politicized innate human compassion; it’s stupefying.
My Case is as Follows
For this essay on politically incited institutional malevolence I cite two books:
- Evil Geniuses by Kurt Andersen, in which he details the slow motion coup of the past fifty years by the financial sector of the economy; how it happened and what its consequences have been for the past two generations on the middle class and working poor.
- The Lucifer Effect by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, which details how social vectors of malevolence allow personal psychopathologies to emerge in social and institutional settings.
Kurt Andersen is a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Dr. Zimbardo is the psychologist behind the infamous ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ whose parallels to the now infamous Boulder County Jail ‘spit bag’ incident are uncanny; more about Sheriff Pella and his penchant for condoning what can only be described as sadistic practices within the Boulder County Jail staff, later. I suspect he may be a closet sadist himself.
If there is not sufficient evidence in this essay of pathological institutional malevolence under the current council’s leadership within the institutions of governance in Boulder to convince you that it does exist, I can also cite Dr. Janice Harper’s work on ‘mobbing’ as a criminal act in my own case, and submit the transcript of the kangaroo court I went through, presided over by John Stavley, which was nothing less than a malicious prosecution, alongside the Boulder County Jail House Review Panel’s disingenuous report of the spit-bag incident prior to the lawsuit, as further evidence of the patterns of cover up of malfeasance and criminal behavior within the CJS.
Act One – a Trial in Absentia of Bolder Boulder’s COVID Council
In his recently released book Evil Geniuses, author Kurt Andersen goes to great lengths to show how the realities of neo-liberal economics, the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Reagan Era, right through to the present moment of Goldman Sachs’ vice president Mnuchin’s pillage of the Treasury by the institutional operatives of the top ten percent, has turned the American Dream of economic independence on its head with the help of a cabal of rightwing economists led by Milton Friedman out of the Chicago School of Economics, and conservative rightwing judicial review of labor organizations as strategized in the infamous ‘Powell Memorandum’ and made manifest in the Citizens United case, and the current packing of the bench by the Federalist Society.
In his book he makes the case that these banking and mercantile elites, in league with conservative think tanks and political and judicial operatives, some on the Supreme Court, have in essence overtaken democratic representation with a corporate agenda that has led to the current state of affairs as far as the American Dream of political, as well as, economic empowerment are concerned.
He details how the top ten percent’s agenda was made manifest in an unresponsive Congress, and debt peonage for the middle working class. Not to mention the criminalization of poverty for the working poor, and how this state of affairs has vomited up characters on the national stage like the Clintons and Mr. Trump, and on the local political stage, like good ol’ Bob Yates and Tom Carr and Jane Brautigam, not to mention Sam Weaver, and last but not least mush-mouth Wallach; each of them seemingly without a moral compass or philosophical foundation in regard to those that have stumbled and fallen by the wayside of a predatory capitalist system that is notorious the world over for exploitation of all labor.
In Dr. Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect, he outlines seven critical factors in creating social and institutional vectors of malevolence:
- Mindlessly taking the first step by making the first slander
The first slander of the homeless was by Jane’s staff in labeling most of them as meth addicts and sex offenders, ‘the homeless covet our treasury, want to do drugs all day and rape our women by night’ was the implied subtext of the fraudulent report for which there is no apparent evidence or accountability.
- Creating tribal solidarity
Dehumanizing the victims of the slander is the first step in creating tribal solidarity; seeing them as ‘second-class’ citizens is the antithesis of the individual sovereignty which undergirds our Rule of Law, and thus by stigmatizing the ‘other,’ the homeless, (in this case as sex addicts and meth offenders) is without consequence because it is seen as protecting the interests of the tribe.
- De-individuation of self-responsibility for immoral behavior by the ‘tribal’ council
He, she, or they (the economic victims, the homeless in this instance) are labeled and libeled as ‘bad actors’ in police jargon; or as ‘drug addicts and sex fiends’ as mischaracterized by the city staff’s report on the homeless, who then communicated this libel among the authority figures they speak to, the main institutional actors being the city council, police, judges, and prosecutors.
This was further facilitated by the city council accepting the staff’s despicable report; the report that headlined the ‘homeless’ not as survivors of on-going economic and personal tragedies at the same time, but as meth addicts and sex offenders; kudos Jane and her crack staff of bureaucrats for vilifying that which she and they have no understanding of; namely humanity itself.
- Diffusion of personal responsibility
In this case, by the city staff and the city council doing what they do to the homeless under the mind-numbing slogan of saying ‘it’s best for the community’ to label the homeless as ‘bad actors’ in absentia, rather than as the refugees of economic upheavals beyond their ken that they truly are, and so by bureaucratic fiat the city staff has trumped the real facts and the Rule of Law, i.e. the illegal camping ban that keeps getting overturned, in spite of Tom’s and Sam’s and Bob’s and Mark’s best efforts at criminalizing poor people’s poverty.
This is also called the ‘dirty hands’ problem in political science arenas. But in the richest country in the world, in one of the richest communities in that country, with adequate resources to at least let the homeless into its emergency shelters when it gets below fifty degrees, this doesn’t hold much water; this argument is basically a political fraud.
- Blind obedience to tradition and authority
The normalization of humiliation and cruelty by the Boulder Police Department in maintaining its constant sweeps of the camps, then leaving people to freeze to death if it’s one degree above twenty in temperature speaks to something other than ‘law and order’; perhaps the institutionalization of malevolence by the CJS.
The past policy of ten degrees has led to two frozen people on Jane’s and Tom’s and Sam’s and Bob’s watch in the last three years that I know of, but that won’t be the end of the corpses on their watch as long as there is no opposition to this policy of institutionalized malevolence through the continued criminalization of poverty demonstrated by Tom Carr and the leadership of the council, first and foremost.
- Uncritical conformity to group norms of vilification and dismissal
In this case the former City Council’s approach to the issue is summarized as follows: we have discouraged ‘undesirable’ people from accessing our community chest by the threat of freezing them to death, to wit the latest victim, or through extrajudicial institutional malevolence in illegally ticketing them for camping, a non-crime, or in finding other ways of entraining them into the CJS by way of drugs or ‘weapons’ violations. Or simply by saying ‘things got messy when we tried to help,’ and that apparently being enough of an excuse for not continuing to find better ways to act humanely.
- Passive tolerance of the dehumanizing process through inaction
This is a crime of omission, of indifference, and by turning a blind eye to the cruelty as dispensed by Mark and Sam and Bob in their continuing voting patterns, and their reliance on the ‘dirty hands’ and ‘magnet’ arguments, one becomes a ‘hack’ politician. Mark, like Bob in his grandstanding on George Floyd’s back, has basked in the reflected glory of RBG but apparently learned little in her class; she, unlike he, worked to give the voiceless a place at the table.
A Public Healthcare Model of Malevolence in Action
This last element of Dr. Zimbardo’s schema of the creation of social and institutional vectors of malevolence implicates the entire current city council in the face of not calling out the reprehensibly fraudulent report, the illegal statutes, and the continuing harassment by the police in their ongoing sweeps of the camps. In this way, most obviously by not responding to the citizen review board’s outing of Jane’s report when in session, everyone on the council is now complicit in the crime of covering up Tom and Jane’s malevolently criminal ineptitude. I say criminal because I believe their feigned incompetence and stonewalling is intentional. They’re lawyers, they know how to parse their words and dissemble.
Confidentially, you’re all beginning to look like bumps on a log when Sam asks, each and every time the public comment phase is over, ‘Are there any comments from council?’ and not one of you has had the moral courage to stop this outrage, or the innumerable other fabrications foisted on the city by these political operatives in bureaucratic disguise. The inevitable end of this kind of political conformity without critique is that innocent people are being killed in your names, because as elected representatives even your inaction has life and death consequences, especially on the most vulnerable. Your lack of outrage exemplifies the conformist nature of a public health model of institutionalized malevolence.
With these cited books I do away with credentialing my arguments concerning institutionalized malevolence in this critique, so that I bring a constellation of academic and seemingly obvious conclusions together to counter the current dogma surrounding this issue, and reveal the personal psychopathology behind it. This is warranted in regards to the current city council’s policy on the pernicious public health crises of the so-called homeless ‘problem’ which through this lens appears more and more to be a problem of a multi-decade, calculated white collar crime as stated by Andersen, and bureaucratic malfeasance and incompetence within the institutions of government; both in the staff’s report and in the current culture of the city council in its ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ approach to the issue of institutional malevolence as expressed by the Gang of Five when they collectively said, ‘things got ugly when we tried to play nice with the homeless.’ Thereby, one assumes, they washed their hands of the ‘problem’ without really offering a viable solution for those on the street.
Of course they got ugly; all that the disenfranchised know of the ‘system’ in Boulder has been through their interactions with officers like Lolotai and Smyly, and city attorney Tom Carr. If the city attorney were an elected official he’d be gone, but instead it’s a political office without any voter check on its power, with Sam and Bob and Mark supporting its malfeasance with every vote. Carr’s not an independent arbiter of facts. He, like Bob and Jane, represent the worst types of lawyers, self-serving.
Not to mention Sam’s dismissal of the most vulnerable during the open council meeting’s public comment time, while covering for criminal cops Smyly and Lolotai by bringing out the old trope of heroic loyalty to public service. It’s not the good cops that the public is criticizing Sam, it’s your continued use of them in deploying Tom’s illegal ordinances, and in asking those few good ones left on the force to execute potentially illegal sweeps of the camps when the homeless public health crisis is not a criminal issue but rather a societal one, as in class warfare, as you well know. You pass the legislation and then go home. The homeless go out into the living hell that you and Bob and Mark have created for them, and then the cops dutifully roust them around town while criminalizing their poverty, thereby creating a second-class citizenry. As Vicky exemplified in her report when she said, “the homeless find their way around to the resource centers,” referring to them as a herd of subhuman creatures I suppose; and yet somehow you think this is an adequate and humane approach to the issue.
You’re being supercilious, Sam. You and Bob and Mark act with arrogance in discounting the ‘other,’ either by citing their inarticulate articulation, or subpar income, as if you think Boulder is y’alls personal property and that you can do as you please by criminalizing poor people’s poverty, and then running them off; individual sovereignty and the Rule of Law be damned. Perspective Sam, get yourself some; then pass it around because you weren’t hired to just do justice in the issues you care about, but also the ones that have proven the most intractable. Do your jobs, all of you; and quit acting like you’re being put upon. You asked for the job, do it with grace and maybe a little humility. Ultimately, long after your terms are up, you will have to live with yourselves and your sins of omission; and in Tom’s and Jane’s and Bob’s and Sam’s and Mark’s cases, commission.
During this critique I’ve intentionally used the word malevolence instead of evil because that word is so stigmatized. But make no mistake, I’m talking about how the city staff and the city council is conspiring through political demagoguery, the abuse of office, turning a blind eye to the malfeasance, and outright deception, to infect the culture of the city with the cancer of institutionalized malevolence based on the psychopathologies of its leaders. Which, as it turns out, is ‘evil’ personified; and made manifest in Tom, Jane, Sam, Bob and ol’ mush mouth’s incoherent polemics against the poor.
The city council has become, in Dr. Zimbardo’s words, a vector of institutional malevolence through its lack of political courage in changing course when public feedback and your own lying eyes tell you you’re on the wrong course.
ACT II – How Malevolence becomes Condoned, Normalized, and then Codified
Now I’m going to pivot and use the current deadly policy to pull apart, in psychopathological terms, how social vectors of malevolence, created and condoned by the city council, allow for the personal pathologies of Sam and Bob and Mark and Tom and Jane to emerge in all strata of the community; handed down from thuggish bureaucrats like Jane and Tom, to thuggish councilmen like Bob, Sam and Mark, to a thuggish jail house review panel headed by Pella, down to a thuggish patrolmen like Lolotai on the beat, that abuse homeless, as well as ordinary citizens, indiscriminately and with impunity.
I’ll use their voting records, and the lack of meaningful staff accountability, to explain how the current city council’s stance against most of Boulder’s citizens’ sentiments concerning homelessness, police brutality, and housing are continually and cavalierly brushed aside as proof of the current vectors of malevolence within the institutions of governance that are twisting and damaging the culture of the old republic. In the midst of a crisis of leadership, accountability, and competence in offices held both by elected and appointed officials, I’ll expose the true nature of the demagogue and his demagoguery as seen through the lens of personal psychopathologies given free reign inside institutional decision making processes, and then how this attitude of callous indifference toward the poor is transmitted from the hack politician to the street level cop. I’m going to relate what I see in Sam’s and Bob’s and Wallach’s voting patterns as personal psychopathological tendencies toward sociopathy expressing themselves under the rubric of ‘the good of the community.’
I do this to show how their demagogic rhetoric is just cover for something much darker, collectivism, also known as tribalism in which demonizing the ‘other’ is nothing more then a Durkean and Hobbesian race to the bottom; man against man nihilism which has little to do with creating a sense of community. In other words, I’ll show the reader why these men play politics as a zero sum game for the voiceless citizens of the town, and why that is morally wrong in light of the research available to anyone with an internet connection; except for the council members without internet, who Jane suspiciously couldn’t find the money out of a three hundred and fifty million dollar budget to fund. Jane was a paragon of political pettiness.
All of my research is available at a mouse click, and most of it is on YouTube straight from the writers and researchers’ mouths. No need to count on Jane and staff for the truth because they’ve proven to be unreliable, if not downright deceptive in their report.
The Intellectual Hollowness of Fearmongering, and Scapegoating the Homeless
Let’s go back to the beginning. Bob is both a lawyer and a carpetbagger. Lawyers, by temperament are conscientious people; at least that’s how the majority of them rate on the Big Five personality profile. I would suspect his IQ is in the hundred and thirty range. This part of his personality profile can also be used for both Jane and Tom. These three are not ignorant people, nor I would suggest incompetent in the technical sense of the word, that don’t know what they’re doing or the deeper borderline criminal implications of their actions; here I cite Tom’s ongoing voter suppression by playing the ‘incompetent’ that can’t get his ducks lined up on petitioning, and the illegal camping ban he insists on re-presenting in spite of numerous court defeats, and Jane’s report on the public health homeless crisis that was fraudulent on every level, including its title.
But let’s get back to Bob. He comes from the corporate world, which is very undemocratic; and from that world we get the status-hierarchy career ladder as a modality of access to better goods and rewards within the authoritarian structure of the corporation. From that world he also brings the concept of ‘externalities.’ This is expressed in his ongoing opposition to Bedrooms for Boulder. His idea on how to keep property values high and taxes low is to externalize the costs of Fire, Police, Hospitals, and Education to Denver, and make people commute into Boulder every day for their jobs; a two-hour commute for most people, an intangible burden on the working class.
This is an inversion of his claim that if Boulder offered adequate services to the homeless community that it would become a ‘magnet’ for the homeless, a discredited theory in the literature on the subject, and ironically the opposite of his fearmongering rhetoric that exemplifies the demagoguery of the demagogue. Boulder is a parasite on Denver’s tax structure, and is externalizing not only the homeless health problem, but half of almost everything else, as well. Bob wants Denver to finance his ascendancy to the pinnacle of his carpetbagged fiefdom by way of threatening the city’s wealthy property owners with the fear of higher taxes, and the rest of the citizenry with the fear of unhinged criminal vagrants.
Bob’s attitude towards the homeless resembles the recent discriminatory immigration policy at our borders. And, like his evil genius Republican alter egos, he, along with Tom and Jane and Sam and Mark, have built a wall of illegal statutes based on unproven accusations while failing to hold accountable the incompetence in the staff report, or the city attorney’s offices, or on the police payroll, when it favors tribal discrimination and fearmongering. Thus infusing into a healthy culture a cancer of deception and official obfuscation that has already been thoroughly disseminated as the status quo throughout the body politic by former Mayor Jones, former Police Chief Testa, former DA Garnett, and now DA Dougherty; and these are not even very good arguments that they present to the council for maintaining it. So that the question becomes, do we really need another day of Bobvillian theatrical ‘politics as usual’ informing a policy that is an obvious failure, or can the city council create something better, more interactively responsive to the needs of the People, more just and humane and less Bobvillian misdirection of grandstanding and fearmongering?
The problem for Bob, and lawyers like Jane and Tom and Mark, is that they don’t even know what motivates their own malevolence. They’re not given to critical self-reflection; they’re given to climbing power hierarchies by any means possible, even obvious deception, so it’s not in their temperament to think empathetically about those with lower IQ’s.
Nor are they informed in their perspectives by the four other types of personality profiles or IQ scores, or the weight of generational poverty; much less national labor trends and their local impacts, or the psychological dimensions of abuse and addiction. They are, in a few words, provincial, mercurial, hack politicians, lacking in intellectual curiosity and the moral benefits of pitiless self-reflection.
From Bob’s vote against pay regularization, to his threats to cut off donations to non-profits if they don’t support his goals, his political skullduggery has no bottom; or for that matter, no soaring heights to climb to either. On second thought he’s probably not as smart as I give him credit for being, and so here I turn to William Blakes’ words,
‘The wise man doesn’t see the same tree as the fool.’
Thereby reminding Bob and Sam and Mark that being politically clever and disguising personal pathological malevolence toward the ‘other’ as public policy is not the same as being wise, or even practical in governance. Sam, you couldn’t have picked a worse mentor than Bob Yates.
From Bobvillian Politics to Broadway
I have approached Bob and the rest of the council with the idea of the homeless all being princes and princesses, innocent children when they started life’s perilous journey. I’ve also broached the idea that their concern for the ‘other’ might be religiously based in citing the poetic ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ notion of identification of the ‘other’ in them. Now I’ve turned to pure reason in citing these two books in my vivisection of their obvious political manipulation of the discussion.
The evidence is out there, if any of the council chooses to avail themselves of something other than the staff report on the homeless, but that would take real political courage; and as of yet, except for Ms. Friend, Mr. Swetlik, and Mr. Brocket, I see little. Mr. Swetlik and Mr. Brocket are coming up fast though; I just hope it’s fast enough to stop another man from dying. Both of these gentlemen are asking the right questions and are making some headway, as are Junie and Mary. Meanwhile, real people’s lives hang in the balance. Here I reference a video on YouTube called ‘Emerald Village’ about a tiny house project in Eugene, Oregon started by a church, Mary Young’s idea, and lauded over by all concerned; mayor and council, including those in the neighborhood of the tiny home village who’d initially opposed it. Broaden the discussion, and go beyond the conversation delineated by Sam, Bob, and Mark.
Class Warfare vs. Personal Sociopathic Tendencies
In conclusion I say that the city council has two choices in listening to the demagoguery vomited up by Bob and Sam and Mark concerning the homeless. Do a little research on the ‘magnet’ and ‘dirty hands’ theory concerning the homeless services offered nationwide and you’ll find that much of it’s been debunked by experts in the field, and then remember that the camping bans have been struck down several times in court, both of which point to political contrivance rather than good governance.
The evidence of Jane’s and Tom’s deceptions are easy enough to expose because we all know they’ve both been less than forthcoming with the facts, and proffered less than truthful testimony in the report, in voting, and in promulgating illegal statutes. Bob and Mark and Sam should already know this, so that the research to catch them out is out there and alternatives are out there in the zeitgeist too, and a little research on the rest of council’s part would finally strip naked their self-serving arguments and fearmongering. Don’t be content to rely on staff, which has a proven track record of incompetence and deception by way of your own citizen review boards.
This is where the personal psychopathological nature of these politicians’ subconscious narratives of the ‘other’ comes to the fore, and can be examined in the light of reason for the cancer upon the body politic that their dogma is, in creating a tribalistic, divisive agenda, sans facts. Remember, this essay is about describing institutionalized malevolence in terms of the leadership’s psychopathological tendencies.
You have two choices in assessing these men’s arguments. Either Bob and Sam and Mark are sociopathic, which is not beyond the realm of possibility as the business community CEOs rank among the highest scores, one in five, for sociopathic tendencies, and Bob is a former vice president of a multi-national corporation, and appears to be their philosophical leader. Or, that this policy and these men are the actual faces and hollow arguments of class warfare.
The point is that neither of these options is great because it means these men are pursuing a political ‘dirty hands’ policy, rather than a fact-based policy toward the homeless, or conversely that they’re just carpetbagging idiots, Bob and Tom, and a few local yokels, Sam and Mark and Tom and Jane, in over their heads with Bobvillian Bob in charge; and that can’t be good for anyone, them included, when the public gets wind of what they’re up to.
As competent council members you might want to ask yourselves what’s up with dodging responsibility for the most vulnerable People in the community, as you try to form public policy by way of a fact-based, data-driven framework. I suggest these individuals are psychopathologically driven by subconscious forces within them that they themselves don’t understand, or are even aware of, and therefore don’t care about the Rule of Law, or honest intellectual debate or, not surprisingly, moral turpitude.
These people, Sam, Mark, and Bob, as well as Tom and Jane, are entitled, self-serving, and unable to deal with the truth in a straightforward discussion regarding the philosophical foundation of their political agenda outside of power, loyalty, and fear. With bold faces they deny the failure of the current public health policy that everybody else sees on Pearl Street by demonizing the victims of economic upheaval for things that are beyond the ken, but not the commonsense sensibilities, of the homeless.
The homeless know they’ve been screwed out of their futures by the millionaire and billionaire class; no national healthcare, no welfare net for moms or children, much less the morally wounded men who’ve been pushed out of the labor market by international treaty, and mechanization, and the death of mom and pop stores; hence the anger when they get that final shove by some smug, sanctimonious, reactionary carpetbaggers who really don’t know their own shit from Shinola as far as how good government policy is constructed. In summation, they’re incapable of empathy by temperament, and obviously intellectually incurious by nature; unfit for the office they hold.
Prince Ralphie’s Political Ambitions
Prince Ralphie, by bent of artistic reason discussed in letters like these is going to take the city council meetings from Bobvillian Theatrical Politics to Broadway, not by magic wish-thought of princes and princesses, or by personal acknowledgment of the Transcendent, but rather by demanding a more rigorous intellectual discussion of the real facts, and not the reports and actions vomited up by Jane’s and Tom’s malfeasance.
Obviously Prince Ralphie is an imaginary dragon in love with words and books and ideas, and has no real desire to run for political office, especially in a place in which he can’t establish residency beyond the imagination of its citizens, but he can form political alliances and create a platform with a thicket of named candidates.
In this manner these letters constitute the humble beginnings of a radical political movement; a call to radical social justice for Boulder’s never-named, but so treated, ‘second-class’ citizens; the homeless and forgotten men and women that have been brushed aside and abused by Tom Carr and the CJS, and all the other never-heard of heroes of long forgotten social justice fights. By creating a vision of a more beneficent Republic of Boulder and removing the Scales of Injustice from the eyes of the People, the Ralphie Revolution in the War on Ignorance will attempt to bring about a renaissance of the philosophically enlightened community!
I’m afraid the irate caller was right; council’s decisions do have life and death consequences, and Sam’s flippancy toward public comments that are abrasive betrays contempt for the outraged citizens themselves; which, as it turns out, is politically more irresponsible than any inarticulate comments of those outraged citizens. The contempt you have for public comment time is evident at every meeting as you call into question their issues by pointing to their rough language, which discounts the anger and frustration that is sometimes not as well-spoken as your own eloquent defense of fraudulent staff reports on the homeless, and rogue cops that get sweetheart severance deals when fired.
They’re not talking about the cops that do their jobs, Sam; they’re talking about city leadership that condones institutional malevolence; although they can’t articulate that as well as I can … but that doesn’t matter … because either way, you can’t hear them.
Note also that Sam gives every councilmember a chance to comment on the public comments, so that the problem of speaking up against the intellectually insipid arguments leveled by Bob and Mark and Sam and Tom and Jane is always there; but alas, I see no councilmember hands in the air when time is allocated for council commenting on the public’s comments. The fact is, if the council had spent as much time worrying about how the man that froze to death found himself in that situation in the most beautiful city in America, rather than worrying about Jane’s being told to “fuck off” or Bob’s being called a “creep”; then maybe the last few meetings would have been more productive in the sphere of public engagement. But instead of dealing with the drifter’s death, council decided to spend their valuable time resetting the parameters for polite engagement with the citizens as a diversion to facing the growing anger in the community over council’s increasingly self-serving indifference, and taking that anger seriously.
That wouldn’t have been half as bad as it was to watch, if public engagement were a sincere process of self-reflection. But I’ve been writing the council for over a year, in a very civilized tone, on the record, and have yet to receive a single reply; which means you’re either hypocrites, and won’t mind being called out as such when I return after the pandemic, or outright liars. Take your pick, because the charade of desired community engagement seems, from my perspective, to be a fiction.
In light of the second death of a homeless citizen on the COVID Council’s watch their first year in office, the third for Bob and Sam, that I know of, and in light of their lack of acknowledgement of the death of Demetrius Shankling at the time of the George Floyd protests, or at anytime, and the blinding of Ryan Spalding by Sheriff Pella’s staff through criminal neglect, and the lack of acknowledgement of the work of officer Lolotai in disgracing his colleagues’ uniform, and the reputation of the town, these three men are not fit to continue to serve. They lack both the philosophy that informs a humanitarian vision of community, and the leadership skills of listening to anybody but good ol’ Bob who is poisoning the civil discourse with fearmongering. These men are the problem impeding a full and frank discussion of the public health issue because they lack the intellectual curiosity to find better answers than to lock up the indigent for being in ‘their’ town.
Is that eloquent enough for you Sam? How about you Bob? Mark?