Anonymous said...
Qualities of people on the blog who attack Meyer:1. Stupid2. Liars3. Greedy4. Named Kenady5. Con artists6. Drug users
January 21, 2008 1:52 PM
Well, Keith’s blog seems to have taken a sabbatical, but I’m not convinced Keith has. Keith, or one of his minions, are making some fun accusations. It seems that everyone that disagrees with him aggravate him to no end, quite frankly I think I am no longer dealing with an adult. This is simply elementary behavior and really the main reason I don’t have any respect for Keith as a leader or representative. Keith did well at making issue of wasteful behavior in the city, but has seemed to have lost it as of late. I considered deleting this comment, since it has no foundation and violates my rules one through three.
My thoughts are simple. If Keith didn’t want to be what he terms “attacked” he probably wouldn’t be throwing comments out like this one. I can assure everyone that I am not a liar, greedy, a con artist and I do not do drugs. Since stupid is a pretty vague term most everyone that has met me do not categorize me in that way, nor would anyone say that I come close to that assessment. Lastly, I don’t know who Kenady is. I haven’t seen a login like that on the blogs or on the Times. Maybe someone can fill me in as to who that is or point out a screen name or comments.
Keith has to realize that most people that actually do research and think before they speak are likely not going to agree with him. I do disagree with most of what he has to say and recognize that most of what he says is not supported by facts or any reasonability whatsoever. For example, we saw on his blog the accusation of a problem in the sixth ward and nothing came of it. In addition I am being accused of being Craig, which is totally wrong... I don’t even work for the city. I was totally lost on a post he made about the riverboats in reference to racing and gaming, then he posted something about trash that in itself was a confusing pile of rubbish. Someone has posted that the poor Keith days are over, and I agree. Whether the above post was Keith or not, I will delete anything else that makes it in the comments that has no foundation, and is quite frankly trash. If you cannot make a logical argument, and resort to name calling or other elementary behavior, it only shows me that you want to be oppositional for the sake of opposition.
Showing posts with label Meyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meyer. Show all posts
Monday, January 21, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hip Shots...
Though I have been busy lately, I am paying attention. There are just a few things I would like to throw out there...
1. Will the Iowa Legislature consideration of moving the local option sales tax to a statewide tax affect promise? My initial thought is that it might. From what I understand, each initiative must be approved by voters. I am leery of a project that would come up for vote possibly on an annual basis and lose finding all together with one election. I am still on the fence about promise anyway with the lack of private funding.
2. Though Keith Meyer has managed to post Craig Malin's resume on his blog under Blues Clues headings, I assure everyone that this is another delusion and that I am not Craig Malin. If I found that Craig was blogging like me, I would consider it unprofessional and would be happy to go after him like anyone else in government making bad decisions.
3. I think the open forum in relation to the police chief position was a very good thing. I hope this shows that this council isn't just BS'ing us in relation to the openness of government. I also hope this is the start of many items that can be referenced to point at when the crybabies (see last post about meeting changes) start saying there is no public input. I am confident that wont be the case with this group.
4. More aldermen are coming up with blogs. I think this is a great communication tool. I just hope that people use the alderman's blogs constructively and use it for information and genuine comments, instead of psychotic entries. If you want to see a psychotic entry on a blog, read Keith's question about how many D1 businesses are laundering drug money. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse. Does anyone know why nobody comments on Keith's blog? Oh wait, we are sane... Opinionated, but sane.
I'm verclempt, talk amongst yourselves.
1. Will the Iowa Legislature consideration of moving the local option sales tax to a statewide tax affect promise? My initial thought is that it might. From what I understand, each initiative must be approved by voters. I am leery of a project that would come up for vote possibly on an annual basis and lose finding all together with one election. I am still on the fence about promise anyway with the lack of private funding.
2. Though Keith Meyer has managed to post Craig Malin's resume on his blog under Blues Clues headings, I assure everyone that this is another delusion and that I am not Craig Malin. If I found that Craig was blogging like me, I would consider it unprofessional and would be happy to go after him like anyone else in government making bad decisions.
3. I think the open forum in relation to the police chief position was a very good thing. I hope this shows that this council isn't just BS'ing us in relation to the openness of government. I also hope this is the start of many items that can be referenced to point at when the crybabies (see last post about meeting changes) start saying there is no public input. I am confident that wont be the case with this group.
4. More aldermen are coming up with blogs. I think this is a great communication tool. I just hope that people use the alderman's blogs constructively and use it for information and genuine comments, instead of psychotic entries. If you want to see a psychotic entry on a blog, read Keith's question about how many D1 businesses are laundering drug money. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse. Does anyone know why nobody comments on Keith's blog? Oh wait, we are sane... Opinionated, but sane.
I'm verclempt, talk amongst yourselves.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Change... Not the kind that jingles...
I wanted to let this one simmer for a few days and take in the comments to see where this headed. As usual, most of the spouting off without thinking occurred on the Times site (and Keith’s blog, even though it is assumed at this point).
The best justification of the changes seems to be from Alderman Frink’s blog. I think the Times wrote a pretty fair article here, and they point out all angles of the issue. But is this really news? Changing the schedule of meetings seems like a relatively mundane act. The article does flag one issue for me anyway, that Hamerlinck and Ambrose are probably going to be the aldermen this round that don’t think before they speak. Can someone explain to me why the public should set the dates and times of the city council meetings? I think the 8th Ward Alderman Mike Matson is right, the previous scheduling was confusing.
Every Wednesday there are meetings, one day a week. This schedule to me makes sense, and the comment about the fact that there is more time between the committee meetings and the council meetings, might actually help aldermen that don’t do their homework. Meyer was a good example of this, constantly asking questions that could have been answered before the meetings, and Hamerlinck is right behind him evidenced by falsely claiming that the council knew little to nothing about the Promise. Since Hamerlinck and Ambrose don’t seem to have much time to do any homework, one would think that they would be happy to have more time to get things done.
Now on to the bulls**t about eliminating the public’s voice. For the illiterate people that cannot read an entire article, it only says that it’s being moved to the end of the meeting. This is certainly smarter than anything concerning the schedule. For anyone that has had to sit through a rant by Suzie Bell, it makes going to a meeting for an actual purpose actually tolerable. The council can actually tend to business, get comments on actual action items, then move on to the open mic night. As far as televising it or not, I see Gluba’s point, that removing it from the TV may slow some open mic night people who may just want to see themselves talk, however, if the Times quotes a citizen during that or the comments actually contain something that is valid and reasonable, I would want to be able to watch it and listen to what was said.
Keith has managed to rear his schizophrenic head and post a comment on his blog: Move "to a recess" is a fancy expression for eliminate. Dictatorships always move to restrict public input rather than deal with its own incompetence.” Since Gluba has managed to appoint people to the committees, I’m not sure where the delusion of eliminate comes from, and since public input is not being eliminated, just moved, I’m again not sure how there is a move to restrict it. Keith again is reading between the lines, or reading hallucinations, along with a bunch of other complainers that apparently have nothing better to do. In addition to that, what are these people going to do on Thursdays now? I heard rumor there may be a game of Blues Clues at Keith’s.
The best justification of the changes seems to be from Alderman Frink’s blog. I think the Times wrote a pretty fair article here, and they point out all angles of the issue. But is this really news? Changing the schedule of meetings seems like a relatively mundane act. The article does flag one issue for me anyway, that Hamerlinck and Ambrose are probably going to be the aldermen this round that don’t think before they speak. Can someone explain to me why the public should set the dates and times of the city council meetings? I think the 8th Ward Alderman Mike Matson is right, the previous scheduling was confusing.
Every Wednesday there are meetings, one day a week. This schedule to me makes sense, and the comment about the fact that there is more time between the committee meetings and the council meetings, might actually help aldermen that don’t do their homework. Meyer was a good example of this, constantly asking questions that could have been answered before the meetings, and Hamerlinck is right behind him evidenced by falsely claiming that the council knew little to nothing about the Promise. Since Hamerlinck and Ambrose don’t seem to have much time to do any homework, one would think that they would be happy to have more time to get things done.
Now on to the bulls**t about eliminating the public’s voice. For the illiterate people that cannot read an entire article, it only says that it’s being moved to the end of the meeting. This is certainly smarter than anything concerning the schedule. For anyone that has had to sit through a rant by Suzie Bell, it makes going to a meeting for an actual purpose actually tolerable. The council can actually tend to business, get comments on actual action items, then move on to the open mic night. As far as televising it or not, I see Gluba’s point, that removing it from the TV may slow some open mic night people who may just want to see themselves talk, however, if the Times quotes a citizen during that or the comments actually contain something that is valid and reasonable, I would want to be able to watch it and listen to what was said.
Keith has managed to rear his schizophrenic head and post a comment on his blog: Move "to a recess" is a fancy expression for eliminate. Dictatorships always move to restrict public input rather than deal with its own incompetence.” Since Gluba has managed to appoint people to the committees, I’m not sure where the delusion of eliminate comes from, and since public input is not being eliminated, just moved, I’m again not sure how there is a move to restrict it. Keith again is reading between the lines, or reading hallucinations, along with a bunch of other complainers that apparently have nothing better to do. In addition to that, what are these people going to do on Thursdays now? I heard rumor there may be a game of Blues Clues at Keith’s.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sticks and Stones...
If you’ve read the last post comments, Keith Meyer has managed to declare that I am a jerk.
Jerk –noun
1. a quick, sharp pull, thrust, twist, throw, or the like; a sudden movement: The train started with a jerk.
2. a spasmodic, usually involuntary, muscular movement, as the reflex action of pulling the hand away from a flame.
3. any sudden, quick movement of the body, as in dodging something.
4. Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.
There are other definitions, but that is a start, and I ended the list with the one that he likely was referring to. He made this profound conclusion after I responded to a question that I am not going to answer in the same typing format that he did; a reversal of lower case and capital letters. Now if he was going to resort to name calling, and has an IQ over 75 as he claims to in another blog, he could have certainly selected a more accurate term.
In Mr. Meyer’s current state of mind, whatever that may be, it seems he is showing true colors, and to recognize that would not describe someone that is a jerk… foolish and inconsequential. As a matter of fact, in an effort not to be fatuous, I resisted posting anything about Mr. Meyer in the blog since he was not re-elected and does get my respect for his years of public service. I am not naïve in the fact that his behavior should predictably change to lashing out and name-calling since he seems to need to vent his frustration in public forum, for example, at churches being remodeled, at the skate park, from the city council chamber, etc. When I compare his foolish behavior both pre and post election to the president it makes sense when psychological principles are attached to it. Here is an excerpt from a psychiatrist in reference to President Bush:
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions. Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now. – John Briggs, M.D.
So not only is it explained that Keith doesn’t like not making any progress, it explains why anyone ever voted for him in the first place. When the uncertainty mounts and Keith just wasn’t pulling it off with his antics, he got voted out. Now that he is voted out, he is lashing out in an attempt to not become an inconsequential person which may be inevitable. So after being provoked, I think I have vented in the most prudent and politically correct manner possible. Not only did I submit that I am likely not a jerk, I think that I can justify saying that Keith Meyer is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, and inconsequential person. A jerk.
Cited Work: Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
Jerk –noun
1. a quick, sharp pull, thrust, twist, throw, or the like; a sudden movement: The train started with a jerk.
2. a spasmodic, usually involuntary, muscular movement, as the reflex action of pulling the hand away from a flame.
3. any sudden, quick movement of the body, as in dodging something.
4. Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.
There are other definitions, but that is a start, and I ended the list with the one that he likely was referring to. He made this profound conclusion after I responded to a question that I am not going to answer in the same typing format that he did; a reversal of lower case and capital letters. Now if he was going to resort to name calling, and has an IQ over 75 as he claims to in another blog, he could have certainly selected a more accurate term.
In Mr. Meyer’s current state of mind, whatever that may be, it seems he is showing true colors, and to recognize that would not describe someone that is a jerk… foolish and inconsequential. As a matter of fact, in an effort not to be fatuous, I resisted posting anything about Mr. Meyer in the blog since he was not re-elected and does get my respect for his years of public service. I am not naïve in the fact that his behavior should predictably change to lashing out and name-calling since he seems to need to vent his frustration in public forum, for example, at churches being remodeled, at the skate park, from the city council chamber, etc. When I compare his foolish behavior both pre and post election to the president it makes sense when psychological principles are attached to it. Here is an excerpt from a psychiatrist in reference to President Bush:
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions. Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now. – John Briggs, M.D.
So not only is it explained that Keith doesn’t like not making any progress, it explains why anyone ever voted for him in the first place. When the uncertainty mounts and Keith just wasn’t pulling it off with his antics, he got voted out. Now that he is voted out, he is lashing out in an attempt to not become an inconsequential person which may be inevitable. So after being provoked, I think I have vented in the most prudent and politically correct manner possible. Not only did I submit that I am likely not a jerk, I think that I can justify saying that Keith Meyer is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, and inconsequential person. A jerk.
Cited Work: Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Will the Real Shawn Hamerlinck Please Stand Up?
I am confused as to what the last election did to Shawn. It seems the “outspoken critic” of Malin on a regular basis is now giving him a positive review. If you haven’t seen the initial article that just tickled a little here it is…
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/local/doc473d39efd720b997719139.txt
Essentially, Shawn has been browbeating Malin, along with his buddies Lynn, Ambrose and Meyer, and is now blaming it on himself and the council. At least, that is how I read the passage in that article, that the council gives Malin no direction, and it is their fault.
So what is Shawn really saying? He likes Malin and the job he’s doing, even though he voted to fire the guy? In an April 17th article in the QCT, Shawn says: “I will grant that Craig Malin offers institutional knowledge,” he said. “It’s amazing the ability he has to get stuff done. The problem is sometimes in what that stuff is and what direction he wants to move.” Huh? So where does Shawn get this magical “he’s doing a good job” gameface?
It seems to me that Shawn might be a little frustrated. In my view, and I don’t think I’m alone, he is attempting to micromanage the city from his ward. Charlie Brooke tried to explain to Shawn why this was a bad thing when Shawn was fired up about taking responsibilities away from Malin. Here is a snip from the same April 17th article referenced above:
Alderman Charlie Brooke, 6th Ward, said a city with a $180 million budget and 900 employees would be a nightmare to run by a micromanaging elected body.“It needs a professional, a CEO, to run it, not 10 politicians elected every two years,” he said. “Nine of the 10 aldermen of Davenport have no experience running a business. Eight of the 10 have no real job at all. One is in jail. No other city in Iowa runs without an administrator.”Hamerlinck said his idea would be to keep an administrator but give the power to hire and fire department heads to the council and mayor.
Now back to the latest article where Shawn is quoted as saying:
“The biggest issue affecting the city administrator is a City Council that has refused to give him direct policy direction,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to tell him exactly what we want him to do, and too often, we haven’t.” Is that it? Is that the issue? Shawn, remember wanting to eliminate the position all together?? Here’s a clip from an April 14th article from the QCT:
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, who attended Hamerlinck’s meeting, told the Quad-City Times late last week that he will support the alderman’s (Hamerlinck's) efforts to eliminate the position. Aldermen Ray Ambrose, 4th Ward, and Bill Lynn, 5th Ward, also have positioned themselves in support of Hamerlinck.
So what do you want Shawn? Do you want the council to do everything, or do you want to just tell Malin what to do? It seems to me you should leave a significant amount of decision making in the hands of the person, whom you give glowing approval of that has “institutional knowledge” and not in the hands of 9 of 10 aldermen who “have no experience running a business.”
Links to the other cited articles:
April 14, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc462197afb7bf0094213189.txt
April 17, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local/doc4624548342483807602860.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/local/doc473d39efd720b997719139.txt
Essentially, Shawn has been browbeating Malin, along with his buddies Lynn, Ambrose and Meyer, and is now blaming it on himself and the council. At least, that is how I read the passage in that article, that the council gives Malin no direction, and it is their fault.
So what is Shawn really saying? He likes Malin and the job he’s doing, even though he voted to fire the guy? In an April 17th article in the QCT, Shawn says: “I will grant that Craig Malin offers institutional knowledge,” he said. “It’s amazing the ability he has to get stuff done. The problem is sometimes in what that stuff is and what direction he wants to move.” Huh? So where does Shawn get this magical “he’s doing a good job” gameface?
It seems to me that Shawn might be a little frustrated. In my view, and I don’t think I’m alone, he is attempting to micromanage the city from his ward. Charlie Brooke tried to explain to Shawn why this was a bad thing when Shawn was fired up about taking responsibilities away from Malin. Here is a snip from the same April 17th article referenced above:
Alderman Charlie Brooke, 6th Ward, said a city with a $180 million budget and 900 employees would be a nightmare to run by a micromanaging elected body.“It needs a professional, a CEO, to run it, not 10 politicians elected every two years,” he said. “Nine of the 10 aldermen of Davenport have no experience running a business. Eight of the 10 have no real job at all. One is in jail. No other city in Iowa runs without an administrator.”Hamerlinck said his idea would be to keep an administrator but give the power to hire and fire department heads to the council and mayor.
Now back to the latest article where Shawn is quoted as saying:
“The biggest issue affecting the city administrator is a City Council that has refused to give him direct policy direction,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to tell him exactly what we want him to do, and too often, we haven’t.” Is that it? Is that the issue? Shawn, remember wanting to eliminate the position all together?? Here’s a clip from an April 14th article from the QCT:
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, who attended Hamerlinck’s meeting, told the Quad-City Times late last week that he will support the alderman’s (Hamerlinck's) efforts to eliminate the position. Aldermen Ray Ambrose, 4th Ward, and Bill Lynn, 5th Ward, also have positioned themselves in support of Hamerlinck.
So what do you want Shawn? Do you want the council to do everything, or do you want to just tell Malin what to do? It seems to me you should leave a significant amount of decision making in the hands of the person, whom you give glowing approval of that has “institutional knowledge” and not in the hands of 9 of 10 aldermen who “have no experience running a business.”
Links to the other cited articles:
April 14, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc462197afb7bf0094213189.txt
April 17, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local/doc4624548342483807602860.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)