Here is the video
At last week's council meeting an interesting interchange of opinions took place. Summarized by others as an exchange between a rude woman delegate and an exasperated councillor. The first video is of the delegation's presentation, which has been judged by some as "rude and sarcastic" others disagree and call it frank and blunt. See it here.
The other video is Councillor MacDonald's response, where he took exception to "allusions of corruption" and other considerations that may only exist in his mind. But he is out of line in his references to a delegation see it here
The other video is Councillor MacDonald's response, where he took exception to "allusions of corruption" and other considerations that may only exist in his mind. But he is out of line in his references to a delegation see it here
20 comments:
This video epitomizes three things.
First - the lack of experience and knowledge that Mutton has. Regardless of McDonald's behaviour, Mutton did ramble on, trying to show herself as the 'rational one' on council. What pains me so much is to see Ms. Mutton, on every presentation and delegation - have to say something so it appears she is on everyone side. What was interesting is that she tried to act like she didn't support the original motion...but did she? If McDonald was going to stand up and interrupt her speaking and say something truly substantial this would be it..."stop trying to pander to every group, if you really thought all this stuff why didn't you say so last week when you yourself voted on the motion?".
Second - Stan Frost outshines Mutton and proves once again he is more rational. The first time he really out-shone Mutton was when Mutton herself was going on and on explaining as to why the rink was bad ... but she didn't actually do anything that could bring the rink to a halt or solve a single problem, other than get to say the same thing she said the week prior. Then, in one of the most brilliant moves Mr. Frost could have done, he stood up and put forth a motion to delay the actual vote on the rink - appeasing the opposing parties for the time being (as we all know, this was ultimately voted down). Again, on Monday night, after all of Mutton's rambling - Mr. Frost simply got up, asked for the clarification (which, to much of our chagrin, is what McDonald had pointed out originally), and sat down ... business taken care of yet again, in 30 seconds flat.
Third - Dilys Robertson. Really insane or really really insane? This is the same person who at one of the rink meetings whispered behind her to a lady saying that the rink would be bad 'because all the kids would bring their boom boxes'. What is this, 1984?!? I'm no young chicken myself, but I have enough kids around me wanting me to buy them iPods that I know Dilys argument is simply a red herring. Its the same with Monday's presentation - she read the motion, interpreted it how she wanted, and decided to try and find a watergate...or cobourggate. She walked into that room not just expecting, but wanting, to get in an argument with council (she even admitted that she expected that early in her speech!). Don't get me wrong, I think grounded criticism and opposition is both healthy and necessary for the democratic process. Dramatization for the purpose self-engrandizement doesn't help.
Ryan.
>> First - the lack of experience
>> and knowledge that Mutton has.
Who on this planet was not a novice at one time or another for one thing or another? Furthermore, those who have experience and knowledge should also have the good grace to extend civil behaviour to those they regard as having less. A hand up, not a shout down.
>> Regardless of McDonald's behaviour,
Absolutely NOT regardless. His behaviour is one of a bloated bully boy, and it may well be telling that you are so cavalierly dismissive of this.
>> Mutton did ramble on, trying to
>> show herself as the 'rational
>> one' on council.
And relative to Councillor MacDonald’s emotional flatulence, Councillor Mutton succeeded in displaying civil dialogue. Her tone of voice was mild and civil, whereas Councillor Macdonald’s dripped with puffed up petulant indignation.
>> What pains me so much is to see
>> Ms. Mutton, on every
>> presentation and delegation -
>> have to say something so it
>> appears she is on everyone side.
Yes, she treats every delegation with respect. She should be complimented for this rather than the condescending disdain that Ryan heaps on her.
>> What was interesting is that
>> she tried to act like she
>> didn't support the original
>> motion...but did she? If
>> McDonald was going to stand up
>> and interrupt her speaking and
>> say something truly substantial
>> this would be it..."stop trying
>> to pander to every group, if
>> you really thought all this
>> stuff why didn't you say so
>> last week when you yourself
>> voted on the motion?".
However, the facts on the ground, clearly show that the blathering bluster from Councillor MacDonald, displayed his own short-wick capabilities.
>> Second - Stan Frost outshines
>> Mutton and proves once again he
>> is more rational.
And it is noteworthy to add that his shine glares in the face of Councillor MacDonald’s uncivil darkness.
>> The first time he really out-
>> shone Mutton was when Mutton
>> herself was going on and on
>> explaining as to why the rink
>> was bad ... but she didn't
>> actually do anything that could
>> bring the rink to a halt
>> or solve a single problem,
>> other than get to say the same
>> thing she said the week prior.
>> Then, in one of the most
>> brilliant moves Mr. Frost could
>> have done, he stood up and put
>> forth a motion to delay the
>> actual vote on the rink -
>> appeasing the opposing
>> parties for the time being (as
>> we all know, this was
>> ultimately voted down).
All of the above lovefest is irrelevant to the issue raised by Councillor MacDonald’s bullyboy behaviour
>> Again, on Monday night, after
>> all of Mutton's rambling - Mr.
>> Frost simply got up, asked for
>> the clarification (which, to
>> much of our chagrin, is what
>> McDonald had pointed out originally),
Councillor MacDonald certainly asked a question of Ms Dilys Robertson, a question that was wrapped with attitude, and then quite gratuitously he added the following, “. . . so the sarcastic and in some cases allusions to perhaps even corruption or whatever . . . the comments that you (Ms Robertson) made earlier this evening directed initially at . . .”
Such a comment was not only uncalled for, it was exceedingly unbecoming from a public official.
Councillor MacDonald’s blathering self-righteousness continued after Councillor Mutton offered a personal apology to the Horticultural Society. He blathered, “Point of order. The councillor is supposed to be asking questions now. If she wants to address a point of view we have time during debate.”
That took all of six seconds to say. It is all that needed to be said.
But Councillor MacDonald’s double standard, aka hypocrisy, took over for the next 23 seconds when he disregarded his own point of order by rattling on with crap that should have been saved in his mental diaper and later served up during debate. “And I also take exception to her [Councillor Mutton] idea of saying we’re dragging the Horticultural Society through it. They came tonight to make a presentation which in my mind and I’m sure in some [unintelligible] other councillor’s minds, was sarcast. . . at the very least, considerably sarcastic. Now I think your Worship would ask if the councillor has a question, she should ask a question. She can put a debate forward later in the evening.”
>> and sat down ... business taken
>> care of yet again, in 30 seconds flat.
Well, yes, why doesn’t Ryan’s shallow critique apply the same standards to Councillor MacDonald? Is that something brown on Ryan’s floppy upper lip or is it just a freckle?
>> Third - Dilys Robertson. Really
>> insane or really really insane?
That is nothing more than a couch potato analysis. Why would Ryan consider insanity as the cause Ms Dilys Robertson’s whispered faux pas? Perhaps because Ryan’s intelligence barely challenges the brilliance of a two-watt diode.
>> This is the same person who at
>> one of the rink meetings
>> whispered behind her to a lady
>> saying that the rink would be
>> bad 'because all the kids would
>> bring their boom boxes'.
>> What is this, 1984?!? I'm no
>> young chicken myself, but I
>> have enough kids around me
>> wanting me to buy them iPods
>> that I know Dilys argument is
>> simply a red herring.
While Ms Robertson’s unpublic argument may appear to be a red herring, Ryan’s argument that this should be diagnosed as a mental illness is nothing more than a strawman shredded by a tsunami of flatulence. It has as much logical substance as Councillor MacDonald’s hallucination that Ms Robertson had made an accusation of “some cases of allusions to perhaps even corruption or whatever...”
And then we have the strange predicament of Councillor MacDonald reading the minds of other councillors when he asserted, “I’m sure in some ... other councillor’s minds was sarcast... at the very least considerably sarcastic.”
Perhaps Ryan would scrape up the remains of his intelligence from the bottom of his bird cage and explain why MacDonald is not to be regarded as “really insane, or really really insane.” Perhaps Ryan is a bird of the same featherbrain.
>> Its the same with Monday's
>> presentation - she read the
>> motion, interpreted it how she wanted,
Just as Councillor MacDonald found sarcasm and accusations of corruption from the dank cellar of his own mind.
>> and decided to try and find a
>> watergate...or cobourggate.
Perhaps Ryan will be able to produce the quotes from the Horticultural Society presentation that supports such a contention.
>> She walked into that room not
>> just expecting, but wanting, to
>> get in an argument with council
>> (she even admitted that she
>> expected that early in her
>> speech!). Don't get me wrong, I
>> think grounded criticism and
>> opposition is both healthy and
>> necessary for the democratic process.
What platitudinous posturing or should I say impostoring!
>> Dramatization for the purpose
>> self-engrandizement doesn't help.
It is a dead-on certainty that Councillor MacDonald’s hrumph hrumph bloated bully boy blathering served no purpose other than to engender bitterness and scare away other observing citizen’s from making appearances before Town Council.
A citizen’s criticism should not have to be perfectly grounded just to avoid incurring the wrath of some petty thin-skinned councillor. The idea as I understand it, is that councillors are paid by the public to serve the citizens. It is not what Ryan and Councillor MacDonald arrogantly presume, that citizens are to serve councillors.
As an interesting exploration of how the mind of a happily dominant old white guy works, why don't you do an extensive interview with Mr. McMurray and tell us all where the gentleman is coming from.
I sure can't figure it out, and it baffles me how someone who is clearly educated and knowledgeable can be so blind on these matters?
That smug confidence, that inner assurance that one is always right, and that the dominant authority figures are always right, amazes me.
Can you enlighten us at all?
What a wonderful idea - interview the readers, so how about it if any readers wish to tell the other readers who they are contact me and I'll publish an interview.
What I cannot understand is why this Mutton woman is such a "Sacred Cow". I mean I have been to a few council meetings I find her pedantic, obstructionist, I just don't see why she is seen as this great white hope that cannot ever be critized even in the sembalance of the same way as any other elected official.
My concern is that as she and more to the point her small cadre of supporters advance their agenda for her future on council I keep wondering what this will mean for Cobourg?
I realize that on this blog the majority of the long serving public officials are despised, but what will Mayor Miriam actually do.
Debate every single infentesimal point to death, drive staff not just crazy but to quit in droves as is predicted with the most micro-managing that has ever taken place in our towns history.
Is this an agenda as I fear for the gentification of Cobourg for the wealthy elites. I mean this woman started attacking a major employer in Cobourg in Zircatec. Zircatec's Cobourg plant to my understanding has nothing radioactive or uranium in its facilities here it manufactures key parts for its parent company.
I mean I'm sorry we need jobs here and industry and she seems to me to be no friend of any industry that would want to locate here or is already here.
I don't want to see paranoid but I am very scared of this woman's either naivete and where that will lead us or her cadre of backroom supporters who do have a definite agenda.
I really am afraid of what will happen to this town if she were mayor under a council that she controlled.
I certainly am glad that for at least three years her ego and agenda are being kept in check, I predict that over 4 years from now if she is Mayor she will try and push this town back into some Currier & Ives ideal that will ultimately be so damaging for this entire town.
I am not being sarcastic having seen her in action 3 times now I really am worried.
You really puzzle me anonymous, the idea of MM being Mayor is a strange one and has only been advanced by her detractors - she is obviously a threat to someone! The idea of slagging a novice councillor by accusing her of wanting to be mayor is amusing. It's as though those who never wanted her in the job wish to keep her down.
As to the despicable opinions that that you say the majority of the commenters have about the long term serving public officials, surely they are well deserved. I have never in my 30 years of participation seen such a bunch treated with such disdain and mockery, by the general public (with three quarters of their terms still to be served), as this bunch.
Besides your fears about MM being Mayor should be allayed by the candidates that will emerge. Cobourg has a history of electing Mayors who have never been on Council. It will happen again in three years. All of the councilors will be judged as lacking and totally unacceptable to the Rotary Club and Probus Club members who think they really run the Town and a newcomer to politics will emerge and want to be Mayor.
The reason that Anonymous feels that Councillors Mutton and Frost are asking all the questions is that the other councillors appear to have taken a vow of silence.
In view of the pathetic and potentially libelous attacks by "anonymous" and other writers using pseudonyms I suggest that it would be more appropriate if the Burd Report only published comments from people who supplied their own name. This would be consistent with the practice of the Cobourg Daily Star and the Northumberland News, and is more in keeping with the relatively small and civilized nature of Cobourg.
Greg Hancock
That would be nice Greg but I like to maintain the element of internet piracy in the comments. I know some bloggers have shut down because of the problems of continually monitoring libelous situations. Hopefully the opinions of the anonymous posters make it obvious why they prefer not sign their names.
Again the level of discourse in regards to Miriam and the clear "Sacred Cow" effect. In my previous post there was nothing libellous saying that I feel she is pedantic and obstructionists in her role on Town Council. I am not sure if that warrants a charge of liable. Again Sacred Cow effect. The fervour in which she is defended I have seldom seen in local politics. Again Mr. Burd and your insights I actually respect, but you made a point of mentioning she is a novice, I am not sure what that means in relation to her actions as a councillor. Does being a novice excuse whatever she does, when does that end it is like the PC's saying Canada's new government. I would feel extremely uncomfortable ever putting my name to a single negativity about Miriam Mutton, as a landscaper I am hardly worried about the woman's influence, she is frankly not even an insect in my world, but as a local business owner I have been warmed on more than one occasion that I would be " Wise to get on board with Miriam". She is suppoported by the small vocal anti-frink people and it has been again frankly disturbing that to say you don't agree with her views on council you will lose business.
Again I appreciate Mr. Hancock's comments, but Mr. Burd actually whether he agrees with me or not allows me to express my concerns and they are concerns as to where this woman and her supporters will take this town and I think it will be as I said to a gentrified Currier & Ives facsimile that leaves working people out in the cold.
I certainly feel a little better with Mr. Burd's insights that she will have a challenge should she try and go for Mayor, I know I will work with anyone no matter who they are that are willing to run against her. Again it is not her it is the people behind her that worry me. Mr. Burd made another astute point in Rotary and Probus in that they feel they run the town. Alot of this anti-frink stuff is really about the same people who support Miriam Mutton not liking that they did not get their own way with their one time hero P. Delanty. Now they want to try and take bck council with Miriam. Again thank you to Mr. Burd for allowing us the chance to say publicly here what we wouldn't dare say in public. I can only hope the bloom comes off the rose and soon. To the degree that Ms. Mutton can be discussed fairly like any other elected official. She is no messiah people.
Interesting point that because I levelled even middling criticism her way all anonymous posts should be stopped here. This is really troubling. Thank goodness we hopefully have the Johanna Loken effect to hopefully set in soon.
From the two postings of Anonymous:
(1) What I cannot understand is why this Mutton woman is such a "Sacred Cow". (2) I mean this woman started attacking a major employer in Cobourg in Zircatec. (3) I am very scared of this woman's either naivete and where that will lead us (4) I am hardly worried about the woman's influence, she is frankly not even an insect in my world, (5) they are concerns as to where this woman and her supporters will take this town.
Question: Why is it that when you refer to men you present them in a respectful manner, Mr Burn, Mr Hancock, etc., but when it comes to a woman, you cannot bring yourself to use their name, let alone refer to her as Ms Mutton? In every case you post the man’s name, but not a woman’s. What does that say about your regard towards women?
Thank you Mr. Keeler for that insight.
As a non male I have found that when I sign my name my comment is ignored by other participants, but when I don't, my comment is much more likely to generate a response.
Could that be the same phenomenon Mr. Keeler speaks of? Ya think?
This comment came in before the last one from W. Keeler but didn't go through the blogspot system.
Wally Keeler wrote:
One of the interesting and collateral things about AnonyMOUSE is that I can slander it to my heart’s content. Whomever it might be, it is impersanal.
I note that neither Ryan nor AnonyMOUSE have directly addressed Councillor MacDonald’s boorish behaviour against the two delegates from the Horticultural Society. Instead, they seem to have a bone to pick with Councillor Mutton.
The issue at hand is the petulant outburst of a seasoned politician; it would appear that Councillor MacDonald is seasoned with something putrid.
If the issue is about Councillor Mutton, then why is it that Councillor MacDonald trashed the delegation from the Horticultural Society?
Councillor MacDonald said at the council meeting, “. . . so the sarcastic and in some cases allusions to perhaps even corruption or whatever . . . the comments that you (Ms Robertson) made earlier this evening directed initially at . . .”
Councillor Macdonald later added, They came tonight to make a presentation which in my mind and I’m sure in some [unintelligible] other councillor’s minds, was sarcast. . . at the very least, considerably sarcastic.
I have yet to see anyone produce anything that would indicate that Councillor MacDonald was in touch with reality when he made those assertions.
Even if Councillor MacDonald was correct in his assertions, he would still remain a boorish buffoonish bully boy. If Councillor Mutton’s newby status is a point of derision by AnonyMOUSE and Ryan, then much more should be expected from the more experienced Councillor MacDonald. However, Councillor MacDonald failed to deliver a modicum of civility.
Councillor MacDonald deliberately chose to take the lower road, the underhanded road. He came off as a fanged hyena, barking indignantly against citizens. The delegates from the Horticultural Society are not paid professionals – they are citizens. Councillor MacDonald is a paid professional, and that is how he should have behaved. He didn’t.
Councillor MacDonald admonished the delegates from the Horticultural Society, “...if you had bothered to ask anyone who had attended the meeting...” What is the arrogant message that Councillor MacDonald is sending to the citizens of Cobourg? He is demonstrating that if any delegation makes a presentation to Cobourg Council, they had better have every i dotted and every t doublecrossed, or else he will behave like a condescending pitbull. His arrogant behaviour certainly puts a chill on any citizen who might dare to approach town council.
Whether Councillor Mutton runs for mayor or not, or even runs for another term as councillor is for the voters of Cobourg to decide. What I have seen of Councillor Mutton’s demeanour at Council is something that is more welcoming to delegations, than the snarling Councillor MacDonald.
I have asserted that Councillor MacDonald’s behaviour towards the Horticultural Society was characteristic of a Boorish Buffoonish Bully Boy. B to the 4th degree. There is a grading system that is most appropoetic for Councillor MacDonald’s behaviour. There is Grade A-plus, A, A-minus, B-plus, B, B-minus. Not even close. I grade his performance as B-anal.
Ms Anonymous gleefully posted: “As a non male I have found that when I sign my name my comment is ignored by other participants, but when I don't, my comment is much more likely to generate a response. Could that be the same phenomenon Mr. Keeler speaks of? Ya think?”
Nice try “non-male” Ms AnonyMouse. Just because some black-skinned men refer to themselves as niggers (on the pretext of some perversion of ownership) does not exonerate them from diminishing themselves with a racist slur. Just because you are a “non-male” does not exempt you from the diminishment of women in general.
Since you are a self-described “non-male”, I am even more interested in your reply to the questions I had posed. I assert that mostpeople (e.e.cummings’ word) would have presumed you to be a male, but I was pegged in CDCI-West as a round peg in a square hole, so unfortunately your thrust missed me. Close, but no reefer.
Please note, that I made no presumption whatsoever of your gender. I’m just a tad more clever at this than yourself Ms AnonyMouse. I’ve played the anonymity/pseudonym/avatar game since the early 70’s when the Security Service of the RCMP insisted on also playing.
For those who might care; I would like to post a line that had been modified/dropped from my letter-to-the-editor in Friday's, October 26 Cobourg Daily Star. It is a zinger that deserves publicity. I do not fault the newspaper for removing it; it is a family newspaper after all.
Below is the line (bolded) that had been considerably retouched.
"Politicians, by the very nature of their profession, should be thick-skinned. In Councillor MacDonald’s case, his skin is as thin as a faulty prophylactic."
Well Mr. Keeler I remember you when you were a round peg in a square hole at CDCI West. I was at CDCI East - one of THOSE people - and one of the contributors to your first book of collected poems.(And your second).
Still a non male, and just as clever as you!
anonymous opined, "As a non male I have found that when I sign my name my comment is ignored by other participants, but when I don't, my comment is much more likely to generate a response."
That is a tiresome old feminist saw. I sometimes found it necessary to have my ex-wife sign some of the letters I had composed because the publication would not accept it from a male. I have also had a Hungarian, Pole and Romanian sign letters that I had drafted because it was the only way they could be published – after all, how would a white anglo-saxon protestant blue-eyed Canadian male (virtual Aryan) know things about those places so intimately. Well, I did.
For example, here is a letter I had written and my X signed:
Power is genderless
Brigitta Bali, Wednesday, March 27, 1991,Globe & Mail
Donna Laframboise’s article was refreshingly intelligent (Would Women Really End All War? March 18). To present the world as it is rather than as an ideological construct is the beginning of wisdom.
Recent history alone presents several examples of women in positions of power who did not behave as some peace/feminist activists would like us to think.
It was under former prime minister of India Indira Gandhi’s rule that India had a bloody shoot up with Pakistan in 1971. It was under her tutelage that India constructed and exploded a nuclear device.
It was under former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto’s rule that Pakistan continued to lob artillery shells into India. It was under her tutelage that Pakistan continued its program to develop nuclear weapons.
It was under former prime minister of Israel Golda Meir’s rule that Israel went to war with the Arab countries in 1973 on Yom Kippur. It was under her tutelage that Israel continued its construction of nuclear weapons.
It was under former prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s rule that Britain went to war with Argentina in 1982. It was under her tutelage that Britain modernized its nuclear forces and invited U.S. nuclear weapons to sit on British soil.
It was under former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s rule that his wife, Jiang Qing, former leader of the Gang of Four, directed the Cultural Revolution, which caused countless deaths and degradation for millions throughout China.
War and preparations for war (a.k.a. defence) is firmly rooted in the maintenance and/or extension of power. Power is genderless. The capacity for evil, as for goodness, belongs equally to both men and women.
=====================
BTW, I knew who you were after your second response to me. You left traces (DJO) behind that a dog with clogged sinuses could sniff out and mark. Not pARTicularly clever. As I said, Deb, I am a tad bit more clever at this than thou, however, I am willing to concede that you are likely much more clever than me concerning a good number of other things, and just as clever as me on a broad range of other things -- housing issues for example.
Wrong Wally, anonymous is not the anonymous you think she is we don't know who she is yet but will, very shortly.
DJO does not own a business
BTW, lets get the record straight. Neither you nor anyone else contributed to any of MY books, first, second or otherwise.
What you are referring to is an anthology of poems by high school students that I had edited with the generous assistance of Mr K.V.Brown, my English teacher. The publication was called Refraction, and continued publication by other fine editors.
It included literature by students from both schools, because I was not one who played any divisional games about THOSE students. After all, my life-long Mistress was a student at CDCI-East, whereas I hung under the heating pipes in the basement at CDCI-West.
Oh I love a guessing game!
There are people in this world who are actually successful, who have reaped the financial rewards for playing the capitalist game so well and there are those who are able to be knowingly knowledgable, personally and by others, without having to say so themselves. If these aforementioned people were to even have a glimpse of the discussion taking place here now, they would perhaps laugh in their head and move onto more important matters very quickly.
However, there are those who feel they need to prove something to themselves and others, whether that be proving their own 'cleverness' or otherwise. Those people need to realize how desperate, sad and weak they really sound.
This discussion has moved far away from its original form to one full of egocentrism.
Ben, I applaud you're ability to keep this blog going - it is the only real active one citizens of Cobourg have. However, I feel that you should steer this discussion back to its original meaning or end it.
PRZT -- the sound of my surmizing balloon deflating.
Then we have
BT,
KM,
PC,
MA,
LK.
Post a Comment