Transparency: A Word They Like To Use

You hear it all the time. "We're committed to transparency." Our current lesson in transparent-not-transparent revolves around the officer who has been placed on administrative leave because he divulged to media a situation that is, perforce, a matter of public record. Of the "police blotter" kind (it is worth noting that none of local rags with a police blotter have mentioned Parsons' DUI in that format). Sounds a lot like the bloke on leave was simply being "transparent." 

But that is not what this city actually wants nor is what they're committed to. The police chief released a statement that it would be "inappropriate" for him to comment on an active investigation. For what it is worth that investigation is by an outside authority, sadly not a higher authority like the GBI. This "we have nothing to say" statement was followed up by Truth Botcher claiming the city will continue to be transparent in future incidents. Just not this one.

Be Approved

In the village of tickee-tackee we get treats like this.

Because some nameless, faceless bureaucrat thinks that's just what we need. 

Barkbox And Chewy

Got pet? Need supplies? Two good options are Barkbox and Chewy. A good place to avoid is the one below.

You know, a company that just can't get over the urge to show the utmost disrespect to our community. We should return the favor in equal measure.

Where WERE You?

Where were you AJC? Where were you when WE needed you?

Someone in Buckhead institutes a Cityhood drive and you're all over it. Pen an exposé suggesting that something shady might be going on behind the curtains. Nothing concrete more like some hints that yet another carpetbagger, recently arrived, has come to the land of opportunists for his own benefit rather than that of the community at large. Especially when YOU decide how large a community is under discussion. When we had opaque non-profits making backroom deals and beneficiaries at least as obvious as what you now see in Buckhead, where were you? Where the hell were you? And why are you so lazy? Is it because you think voters are too stupid to understand what the faux cities really are? That if they vote for approval, then according to the very charter they are approving they will never have another meaningful vote? That they will be voting to hand their future over to bureaucrats who without any reason to pay attention to voters? It shouldn't be that hard for your fine investigative journalists to explain. They certainly have enough examples to learn from.

Then there is the whole "police sex scandal" kerfuffle. Not the porn operation in the Dunwoody Police Department. Not the self-investigation factually and actually indistinguishable from a cover-up. Not the whistleblowers. Nadda. With smoke pouring out of every orifice of city hall not one of your investigative reporters thought there might be something there. You know, like fire. Instead you sent at least three (given the article byline) right past Dunwoody city hall all the way out to Lawrenceville. Lawrenceville? Really? You have a raging dumpster fire in your backyard and instead of investigating you act like you're working for Jennifer "Truth Butcher" Boettcher as a PR press printing puff pieces. Are you guys playing on some stage where Dunwoody is a teacher's union and the AJC is in the role of the CDC? Or is this a case of when agendas align then everyone is a team player?

So...where the hell were you, where are you now, where are you going and when are you ever going to serve our community?

We Can Roll All Night

Everyone knows there is an unwritten code Blue protecting Blue but the blue-bag-rag is reporting this was recently taken to an all-new level. Apparently a two-time DUI arrestee and DPD's (former?) much-awarded spokesperson got some very special treatment by the officers called to the scene. He sat, comfortable and uncuffed, in the back of the trooper's car "as a courtesy to stay out of the cold" also noting that the wrecked vehicle as disabled. Then the red carpet was rolled out. The smell of brain bleach was so strong the trooper could not abide and therefore decided to drive him around for a couple of hours looking for a hospital to get him medically cleared. Unpack that. Is there any part of Dunwoody that is a couple of hours away from a hospital? Then, and only then, after these sobering hours did the trooper decide it might be time for a blood test. WTF?

Suppose you, what the PD would call a "civilian," were in this same circumstance do you think you would receive this treatment? No, it would be more like you just committed the Great Filling Station Holdup.

Cars, Votes And Guns

Hot on the heals of their ambitions to use the First Amendment as a platform for self-serving legislation they put on a full court press against the Second Amendment, specifically in a well-curated assault against the Constitutional Carry law wending its way through the Gold Dome. 

We get a hand-selected letter to the editor, reportedly from a former member of law enforcement that poses questions that are either rhetorical or founded in ignorance. Does the letter writer really not know how reciprocity works? Then we have the inevitable "cars require a license, why not a gun?" which definitely originates in the depths of ignorance. Continuing that line of thought you should need a First Amendment license from the government to operate a newspaper, right? More importantly, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the first and inarguably most important of all the amendments. Why? Because they fulfill two goals: they define inalienable rights; and they explicitly prohibit government infringement of those rights. This is why anyone, even non-citizens and illegal aliens enjoy those rights and protections but not the vote. Which comes to the last front in their assault against the Constitution: a false analogy suggesting that voting and Second Amendment rights are somehow equivalent. That author either knows that is not true and is intentionally misleading or might need to spend a little time on history or perhaps reading the Federalist Papers. 

Is this really a media outlet or a propaganda engine? Does it really deserve a legal carve-out?

Save The Dinosaurs

Traditional media (they like to call themselves "journalists") is fossilized, but wants the government to jump to their aid even invoking the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

No law abridging the freedom of the press is a far, far cry from "there oughta be a law that protects us from our vendors" in, what did Pelosi call it, a "free market economy." What the AJC  neglected to point out in there "save our asses" rant against online advertising is that there is competition in that market, with the top two being Google vs Adobe. They could choose either one but this would require that they come into the 21st century and embrace the business models of the information age. Unfortunately their thinking is mired in the past. 

Their model is to sell adverts in a "market" without regard to whether or not anyone actually pays attention to that ad. Sometimes they pump up the prices based on the overall size of the market claiming to dominate high value metro regions. Yet, hypocritically, they have the chutzpah to rail against what they incorrectly claim to be monopolistic characteristics of the online ad vendors. Really? What exactly is the competitive newspaper in the Atlanta metro region? And doesn't the AJC's monopoly empower them to spout whatever agenda-driven propaganda they wish? Isn't that what they do?

Just Say No

It appears that East Cobb voters are going to be put to the test. But they're not going to get much time to think about it because they want the vote held ASAP. As "during the primary" rather than "during the general election" when the turnout would be greater with more time to analyze the proposal and the likely consequences. Because...well...that would probably not go in favor of a "yes" outcome. 

And the text of the referendum, available in the bill, suggests a bit of a snow job is actually going to appear on the ballot. Not uncommon. Very often the text on the ballot provides less than a fair representation of the consequences of the actual vote. No different here.

But, as predicted, this bill is to create a city where your elected officials are virtually powerless. Surprisingly this appears in the very first paragraph but is detailed on pages 23-24. Look it up. Page 22 hints at the incredible job protection, baked in from the very start, for the city manager. Keep in mind his contract and those of other city bureaucrats will be written by those very same bureaucrats. 

The more difficult job is what is not there. Sure, it is clear that this bill is the foundation for uncontrollable authorities that will enrich developers and destroy your community. Notably absent in this not-built-for-the-people bill is that you'll not only elect powerless representation there is no provision for Citizens' Review Board. Seems like a very large oversight on the part of the gold-domers now doesn't it?

So if you vote for this, you'll be voting to hand over your community, your life, to a bureaucrat, one who isn't concerned about your life and where you live and who probably will never live there. It will be the last time you will have a vote on your own quality of life.