Posted on

Reader says Knudsen and Sedon went through Hades for two years with the Three Amigos insulting them at every turn.

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

file photo by Boyd Loving

Knudsen and Sedon went through Hades for two years with the Three Amigos insulting them at every turn. They do not deserve this kind of treatment from Voigt. It really must grate on them. If you think about it, that must be the desired result — to demoralize them, wear them out, and persuade them not to run for re-election. They are certainly under no obligation to run again but Ridgewood would be very fortunate if they were to do so. We need as many people like them as we can get in elected office. The amount of destructive energy the Three Amigos mustered and expended on a regular basis while in office was prodigious. They were constantly conniving and dissimulating, spewing their duplicitous rhetoric like possessed Energizer Bunnies. How good officeholders can justify dealing with that kind of stuff without resigning on the spot is a mystery but we are lucky here in Ridgewood.

Posted on

Reader Asks , did CBR SELL OUT TO THE THREE AMIGOS.

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It’s not dismissed forever.
What’s the Difference Between Dismissed With Prejudice
https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?…Illinois Legal Aid Organizations

Wonder what positions were promised the some of these members (CBR) in the Village of Ridgewood Hierarchy ?

Posted on

Reader says Rule 12=why anonymous commenting ticks the three amigos off to no end

gwen hauck

file photo by Boyd Loving

Reader says Rule 12=why anonymous commenting ticks the three amigos off to no end. They just can’t get at anonymous commentators in a personal way and it drives them bonkers.

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Posted on

Reader says NO to the Senior Survey

gwenn hauck

Does anybody actually believe the Village’s upcoming senior survey will help seniors? What can the Village possibly do to “help” other than add more lunch sessions to Ms Hauck’s playlist? (She’s only doing her lunches to get votes anyway, although she would be unlikely to win if she ran again…she achieved third place by only a handful of votes in 2012. Did Aronsohn’s P.R. advisers, White Horse Strategies, come up with seniors as her ideal constituency? Please.)

I’d bet dollars to Dunkin’ that the unmentioned goal of the survey, or at least the reason the Amigos support it, is to assemble an email and address list of residents over a certain age so they can assault a targeted audience with materials on those intended new apartments, the assisted-care place, realtor ads, and who-knows-what-all. Somehow something dastardly is being planned. The people who suggested the survey probably don’t know that–I’m not necessarily faulting them.

Well, I have no intention of playing into their hands by responding in any way, and I suggest that others age 60+ do the same, or at least read all the questions before agreeing to supply any answers. And don’t let them have your email address.

Unfortunately, three-fifths of the current Village Council has behaved so selfishly and cynically in ways that will destroy the Village that it has become impossible to attribute motives to them other than egotism, greed, and self-seeking.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/health-news/survey-to-review-needs-of-seniors-1.1406075

Posted on

Thomas Sowell: Misinformed Electorate, Not Trump, Is Real Danger

VOTE_theridgewoodblog

BY THOMAS SOWELL

In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one — Donald Trump.

What is even more remarkable is that, after six years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor.

No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. The fact that the next two biggest vote getters in the polls are also complete outsiders — Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina — reinforces the idea this is a protest.

It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?

No national leader ever aroused more fervent emotions than Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. Watch some old newsreels of German crowds delirious with joy at the sight of him. The only things at all comparable in more recent times were the ecstatic crowds that greeted Barack Obama when he burst upon the political scene in 2008.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: https://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/091415-770937-thomas-sowell-trump-obscures-worthier-candidates-but-only-because-public-is-poorly-informed.htm#ixzz3lqC9ekMW

Posted on

Sound Familiar : The New Totalitarians Are Here

Village _council_meeting_theridgewoodblog

Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining – even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees.
By Tom Nichols
JULY 6, 2015

There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between “authoritarians” and “totalitaritarians.” People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.

Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare.  The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.

Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

Authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion.

This is what George Orwell understood so well in his landmark novel “1984.” His dystopian state doesn’t really care about quotidian obedience; it already knows how to get that. What it demands, and will get by any means, is a belief in the Party’s rectitude and in its leader, Big Brother. If torturing the daylights out of people until they denounce even their loved ones is what it takes, so be it. That’s why the ending of the novel is so terrifying: after the two rebellious lovers of the story are broken and made to turn on each other, the wrecks left by the State are left to sit before the Leader’s face on a screen with only one emotion still alive in the husks of their bodies: they finally, truly love Big Brother.

 

 

https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/the-new-totalitarians-are-here/