“…he fails to recognize that NO Towns in Eastern Connecticut have a Prop 46 except for Woodstock.�
Mr. Bird, Editor of the Villager, spoke about “loosening of the reigns (sic)� in his editorial this Friday (Apr 21st) in telling Woodstockians that they should “Keep Prop. 46 as it is in Woodstock.� He says, “…loosening the reigns would spell financial disaster.� Was he trying to tell us that we should or should not eliminate the reigning clique that has controlled Woodstock for the last decade? It’s never clear what is actually being said in the Villager articles because its articles are filled with inaccuracies, mis-spellings, and grammatical errors…not to mention ignorance of the issues facing Woodstock managers.
For example, he goes on to talk about Prop 46 as a “safeguard for wild spending� as though wild spending was a sure thing – this is the straw man for his argument that Woodstock should “Keep Prop. 46 as it is in Woodstock.� Does he even know what IS is? Stating a premise that does not exist and is not possible, then knocking it down is a downright stupid exercise, given the fact that the Woodstock electorate ultimately approves the budget.
He touts the importance of Prop 46 and the Massachusetts Prop 2 ½ as safeguards against “wild spending.� He is apparently ignorant of the fact that Mass Prop 2 ½ has an annual escape clause, or annual over-ride, that can be approved by the electorate whereas Prop 46 does not. He apparently does not understand that no annual over-ride exists so it’s pointless when he asserts that, “displeasure with the (inadequate) school budget can be registered.� The only way possible that I can think of expressing displeasure is to take a leak on the side city hall.
Mr. Bird seems to have a fetish for “Pandora’s Boxâ€? because he mentions it twice – he must have been forced to read Prometheus in high school – it obviously left an indelible mark on him. It’s obvious that he is quite fearful of opening Pandora’s Box perhaps because of some unfortunate childhood experience. I wonder if he actually loses sleep over Woodstock’s affairs?
Finally, Mr. Bird invokes an anthropomorphism when he talks about “…towns feeling the pinch� but he fails to recognize that NO Towns in Eastern Connecticut have a Prop 46 except for Woodstock. I wonder how all of these other town’s have survived with all of the “wild spending� that he predicts if Prop 46 is amended.
Articles at this site are full of examples of slanted reporting and illiterate writing by the Villager (see Renews articles). The Villager has been like a newspaper without without a brain. It is obvious that articles are hastily written and then slapped into the boxes without adequate proofing. You would think that they would get better with time. By contrast, the articles contributed by readers are well done even if I don’t agree with their statements. Hurrah for the amateurs!
I noticed that the article on Prop 46 by Chuck Endenburn was co-written by Blaine Moffa (acknowledgment at end). Perhaps this an attempt toward improving the output. And, thanks for saying what YES and NO stand for in the referendum this time.
I also have been surprised at the bad writing in the Villager but the Prop 46 editorial went quite a bit further with its demonstrated lack of analysis or understanding of the issues. I hope enough Woodstock residents educate themselves on the facts and aren’t influenced by poorly thought through or inaccurate arguments like this.