Raise the Hammer

From both sides this looks like a very straightforward case of misunderstanding due to text missing context that cannot be conveyed by text. Don't forget the internet came up with emoticons to mitigate that. :P

In my opinion Mr. Butani raised very valid points. Much of Mr. Butani's discourse, in my opinion, at the very least brings a breath of fresh air and honesty.

First point : A candidate should strengthen their campaign by articulating solutions, not by attacking opponents and playing dirty. If you are rebutting your opponent, it should be rooted in logic and reason with supporting arguments. Using marketing techniques to psychologically influence in your favor with selfish wrong motives is extremely disgusting and harmful to any community/state/country regardless of what type of election it is.

Second point : He is also right that public projects should not be used as a distraction/excuse for continuing to neglect sound policy that is conducive and supportive of community enterprises and initiatives. The outrageous Pearl issue is case in point. The case of the failed coffee shop at King and Sherman is infuriating. There is absolutely a tie in to public projects:

Public projects (properly done) are amazing, community building, and create real assets for the public and private good. But if its positive externalities are strangled - what's the point? It is insane to build LRT and then strangle one of its principle benefits - increased business and investment. I see his point if I interpreted it correctly. Get your house in order - have a sane regulatory framework - so that $public_project (e.g. LRT) will have an environment in which its benefits can actually accrue!

Can you imagine we build LRT and then the resulting influx of businesses faces retarded obstacles such as ongoing examples? Where well meaning but overzealous bylaws and inspectors overlook that they are strangling a community instead of supporting it?

The above is how I interpreted Mr. Butani's honest and cautionary letter. That said ...

This in itself was not as damaging, as was your collective "fan following" - who I can almost with certainty tell you, has less than a quarter of your intellectual skills and rigor for logic and the pursuit of hard evidence.

I think it was intended to compliment Ryan on his abilities, not put the rest of us down. Nevertheless it was phrased poorly. In my opinion this sentence was an error to post. Intelligence is irrelevant where public interaction is concerned. By definition you are speaking to everyone, of all abilities, opinions, experiences, walks of life, and personal circumstances. As soon as a candidate starts vocalizing a group beneath another, that is a HUGE red flag that there is chauvinism in the mind. Even if you don't mean it that way it comes across that way and is very damaging as a result. I second your compliment to Ryan; and agree that I am not nearly as concise and rigorous as Ryan. But say things like that privately if you wish/must. Let me give you an analogy:

I work in IT and one of my jobs is end user support. I think equivalent thoughts more often than not. But I never say it out loud, even if privately, I think a user is actually being a dumbass in a particular instance. I would be rightly fired if I did. Tact and professionalism come with the job; you are dealing with the public. How much more is that true when your profession is public service (politics).

Anyway wow drama queen central in here today. Everyone please have a wonderful day!

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2010-09-22 13:52:42