At the risk of iterating the abundantly obvious, Mayor Richard Berry is the face of his administration. When the discourse surrounds transparency in his administration, it is he who will be held accountable.
His credibility is being undermined, seriously.
It began with a simple and legitimate question asked of the Alb Fire Department pio Melissa Romero;
Who are the gentlemen in this photograph?
Rather than answer that simple and legitimate question, Romero demanded that the question be justified.
The situation was then
brought to the attention
of pio T J Wilhelm,
who is yet to respond.
The next desk upon which the issue landed belongs to Mayor's Office pio Chris Huffman-Ramirez, who, rather that admit that the Fire Department's pio had made a mistake, argued that the question had not been asked by a "real journalist" and began an utterly incredible discourse on who is, and who is not, the "press" and the differential treatment that that premise justified, link.
The issue was then laid, simultaneously on the table of two more pios, Tito Madrid and Ellen Tenenbaum.
Neither of them has chosen to respond.
We are left with Mayor Berry standing up at a news conference and saying;
"... our track record is pretty darn good. People ask us a question and we're pretty good at giving them a straight answer.I call "bullshit". Five pios were handed a legitimate question, and not one of them chose to respond candidly, forthrightly, and honestly. We are five out of five.
We're really making an effort towards that."
Romero, still, has not identified the two public servants photographed within their public service.
When first we practice to deceive”.
Sir Walter Scott
photos Mark Bralley
9 comments:
I would say sir that it is who is undermining what little credibility you may have. I applaud the simple fact that you have registered a BlogSpot to keep the community up to date on what you feel are important issues. Your credibility is amplified a step higher than an average Joe, that is until one gives your blog a read. Your feeble attempt to be a "journalist" falls very short by using acronyms such as OMG, and pursuing personal vendettas at city employees. Your ramblings sound like Glenn Beck on steroids. You clearly show a lack in your understanding of the First Amendment. Nobody has infringed on your right to speak or write whatever you want. The Berry administration is not going to persecute you for bad mouthing them. I can imagine though the reason none of those PIO's have responded to you promptly is that in a city of 500,000+ they have much, much larger fish to fry then to give in to your obsessive queries. Life is short man, I don't know how much of it you have left but do you really want to waste it on this? Especially when your viewership is less than 100 unique visits per week (I ran some analytics on your site, sorry)
I am making no attempt to be a "journalist", whatever you think that means. If you think being a journalist has anything to do with using an acronym, then you opinion of whether I am one, carries no weight whatsoever.
Your understanding of the First Amendment is somewhat lacking, if indeed you think it has only to do with speaking or writing. It has to do with equal treatment under the law (for members of the press) which I have demonstrated is lacking.
You have no idea whether my inquiries are obsessive or not, unless you are one of the pios in question, in which case you clearly are not all that busy, and you are lying about my inquiries being obsessive.
As with regard to whatever analysis you have done, you needn't apologize. If I had any interest in hiding the truth about my readership I would not openly post my hit counter.
Lastly, thank for your ad hominem attacks and the vindication they provide. I notice that you have not found any error in any argument that I have written.
I can't help but notice that you cannot even summon the courage to identify yourself, another clear distinction between your ilk and mine.
Have a great day.
I neglected to address your allegation about my "personal vendettas" against city employees.
There are none, there have been none. I don't even know any of these people; I talked with Huffman-Ramirez briefly; not long enough to form the basis of any "vendetta". I have addressed their conduct, not them. If there were any real vendetta, you could point to one. You didn't, you can't.
Again, be well.
You are clearly threatened by the notion of free speech. If you were not, you would post the comments left on your blog. Predictably, you censor content, especially if it rings true in a way you do not prefer. You have proven this repeatedly.
Additionally, your queries are clearly not only obsessive, they are largely cases of the very type of bullying you claim to abhor. Fundamentally, you are a hypocrite who is too dimwitted to notice the contradictions you present, which are comically obvious.
Have a nice time censoring this message.
I have censored no comments on this post. If you are suggesting that I have, you are a liar.
I post virtually all comments - in particular if they represent a contrary view. I relish the opportunity to specifically address contradictions in fact or conclusion. The few comments that I have actually deleted have nothing to do with being threatened by any rebuttal, they were simply offensive and I am under no obligation to post them.
Similarly, I am under no obligation to publish purely ad hominem attacks from people with so little character and courage that they will not sign their names; folks like you.
You have no frame of reference to label my queries as obsessive or anything else. Unless you are a recipient of one of them, you know nothing about them at all and are in no position to evaluate them.
If there is a contradiction in any of my queries point to it - otherwise you prove my point; you are reduced to ad hominem attacks because you cannot attack my facts or conclusions. Clearly there is nothing you would like more than to be able to contradict me on the basis of fact. If you could point to it, you would. You can't, so you attack the messenger instead.
Thank you for your continued ad hominem attacks and the vindication of my arguments they provide.
I can't help but wonder why, if you think I am so full of shit, you keep reading my blog and wasting your time and mine with your pathetic attacks.
Find another blog to read. Better yet, start one of your own and then you can enjoy reaping what you sow.
One need not be the recipient of queries to judge obsession. My frame of reference is the content of your blog, which clearly reveals a disturbing number of blind and ignorant claims that you will defend despite the truth.
The reason I have perused your blog is the same reason that I watched the Iranian President speak at the UN. You promulgate a uniquely entertaining type of buffoonery. For that I give you credit where credit is due.
Thank you for your ad hominem attack and the vindication it provides
If my blog actually had a disturbing number of blind and ignorant claims, you should be able to point to one. Again you can't. Again you substitute ad hominem attack for a substantial criticism of any fact or claim I have written.
You peruse my blog in the blind hope that you will be able to find something you can actually contradict me on; good luck.
Thank you for your continuing ad hominem attacks and the vindication they continue to provide.
Tell the truth you cowardly pissant, are you Huffman-Ramirez, or one of the other pios I criticized, posting anonymously in the hope of repairing your damaged reputations?
You have already been refuted.
no, I have not.
refute
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.
Post a Comment