And the Winners Are ...
The Chestnut Hill Community Association election results: It's easier to go to the "Coach wants to see you. Bring your playbook" call. They were Nancy Hutter and Jim Foster. John Ingersoll of the Chestnut Hill Cheese Shop was the top vote getter.
Now, let's go off on a tangent - Anonymous raises issues of the text of the constitution versus case law; this in response to a comment in "Rules handed down .... " In true Cheney-speak, it is said "perhaps you should extend your reading beyond the text of the US Constitution itself, to the caselaw that interprets same, as well as other law that is applicable to the issue at hand." Shakespeare had something to say about lawyers in Henry VI (Part 2). But I digress. The train wreck that the Chestnut Hill Community Asociation board of directors has become continues to be that awful thing no one wants to see, but is the kind of crash everyone slows to look at when they drive by.
Back to the kangaroo court justices and ballot takers of this past year. My belief is the current president of CHCA is more comfortable with the Greek-style military dictatorships of the sixties than a town hall democracy. And the operations chief would have fit in quite comfortably as a hit woman in Cheney's office of the VPUS. What this next board will bring (another attempt to ramrod a faulty and anti-labor personnel policy down employees throats, for one) will soon be unveiled.
Ed Feldman promises to post excerpts from the personnel policy proposal. These may prove enlightening.
Labels: Blue Dog Democrats, CHBA, CHCA Board, Chestnut Hill, Chestnut Hill Local
posted by Anonymous at 4/25/2009 11:26:00 AM
11 Comments:
Waylaid, Waylaid, Waylaid, your use of the term "versus" is curious, and perhaps telling. However, your incorporation of the term into my comment to "Rules" entirely changes the meaning of my comment; I assume innocence, of course, and attribute the use of the term to a good faith misreading of my comment. In the interests of clarity, and an abundance of caution to prevent further misinterpretation, I specify that the caselaw to which I referred is to be read in concert with the Constitution, not versus the Constitution, hence my use of the term “beyond,” i.e., “in addition.” You see, Waylaid, the Constitution should not be read in a vacuum. As the ultimate arbiter of what that very significant document means, the US Supreme Court has in its cases rendered over time ascribed meanings to the text and intent of the Constitution. Unfortunately and inconveniently perhaps, for some, the actual body of Constitutional law often does not provide the blanket protection that some assume. Therefore, Waylaid, though it is quaint, if not cute, to use isolated text of the Constitution as a rallying cry for a particular cause, it may be dangerous to one’s interests to predicate one’s courses of action and assumed defenses upon an understanding of the Constitution that is incomplete, if not entirely erroneous. There are also other bodies of law that have evolved over time that are not considered Constitutional law, but actually do govern conduct that a misinformed reader of the Constitution might consider constitutionally protected in any context, under any circumstances. Well, Waylaid, it has been an amusing interlude, but I am off to the outdoors to enjoy the wonderful weather, I dare hope that you are able to enjoy it, as well.
And the winners are?
Now that this blog has been advertised, other people are reading this "conversation." Some of us may not have been at the dinner. Some of us may have given up our memberships long ago. Instead of arguing, with "Anonymous," why not tell us who won?
Vegas sets the odds on the obtuse pile of shit two entries above as being the work of Walter Sullivan at 3to 2. Any takers?
Fast Eddie
Ed, possibly yes on the first entry but not on the second. Just because there are lots of words with zero content does not automatically make it Walter's work. He does not have a monopoly on that.
Truth, accuracy, and reason ... the wooden stakes to the heart of demagoguery ...
Ah, Edward, so nice of you to weigh in to lend support to our friends, Waylaid and Jeremiade. Of course, those as skilled in argument as you, Waylaid, and Jeremiade must surely realize that an ad hominem attack is non-substantive, in its entirety. In fact, it is fairly well established that individuals with propensities toward demagoguery tend to use ad hominem attacks as their tool of first, middle, and last resort, when confronted with a fact or idea that is inconveniently at odds with their own actual sense of reality, or the woven version of reality they are inclined to portray to others.
As the late, great NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts.” The point is, Edward, Waylaid, and Jeremiade, that opinion detached from facts has more in common with propaganda than argument. When one disagrees with a fact or idea proffered by one’s opponent, it is a far more persuasive and civil form of discourse to offer one’s own contrary assertions and the factual basis therefor. To rely instead on an ad hominem attack betrays the weakness of one’s position with respect to the substance of the issue at hand, and/or the limitations of one’s ability to understand the substance of the particular issue, leaving the classic ad hominem attack one’s only recourse.
These concepts are respectfully submitted not only to assist you in comparing and contrasting effective discourse with your “responses” to the above comments by Anonymous, but also to similarly styled offerings on other issues. Remember, Edward, Waylaid, and Jeremiade, righteousness manifests itself in reason, not vitriol and volume.
I pray that these comments pass the muster of the blog author(s) and make it to publication; whatever that result, I shall consider my points made to those blog author(s), at least. To my friends, Edward, Waylaid, and Jeremiade, I bid you blue skies and calm seas on your intellectual journeys, and dare hope that my humble offerings will provide but a small measure of wind beneath your sails.
Anonymous Walter, the comments by Ed and I were about obtusity and verbosity. Your verbosity is proved by your comment.
I lost interest around "non-substantive". Could someone lend me the Cliff Notes in Home Room?
Ed(when shit gets boring,I stop reading) Feldman
Well said, my dear Jeremiade. Of course, I say that under the assumption that you intended to use the term obtuseness, and that you meant "comments by Ed and me," and not "comments by Ed and I." By your comment to Shylock under the CHNU post, I assume you are quite the stickler on grammar, vocabulary, and usage. I thought I’d render an assist because anyone would agree that the tap of a stray key or transposition of letters in preparation of a comment utterly destroys the merits of any idea or point of view that is included therein. Perhaps one day, my dear, dear friends, Jeremiade and Edward, a comment will be submitted to this venerated forum that is worthy enough by virtue of pristine sentence structure, vocabulary and usage, such that you and our mutual friends Edward and Waylaid will deign to engage on its substance. You see, Jeremiade, I am but a novice at the arts of language, logic, and persuasion. As one who aspires to be a great artist may travel to Vienna, I come humbly to this forum to bear witness to you, Edward, and Waylaid, as you flawlessly execute the aforesaid arts. I am flattered beyond words that you and Edward should take the time to mentor me, and I shall take to heart the constructive criticism that you and he so warmly offered.
You are so very welcome but brevity please.
Seriously, I can't wade through that shit. If you want me to read any of it, you've got to dump the filagree. It went out with Mrs. Fisk.
PS You're not impressing me
Ed (Spillane) Feldman
Post a Comment
<< Home