For the Love of St. Valentine

Someone wrote as a comment (which I did not post) that this site was a poorly written, vemon-filled pile of crap. I was so stunned and afraid that someone got in touch with my 3rd grade English teacher, I nearly panicked.  After a few doublestuff Oreo cookies and a glass of milk, I was able to regain my composure.
I have made strong statements, especially about the statements Senator Ben Nelson has put out there for the people of Nebraska on health care.  I have opened every topic posted to comment by people who are willing to identify themselves. To date, no one has challenged any posting, backed by any fact. That is fine. We can agree to disagree and be reasonable. You don't have to have my opinion, and in sharing yours in a reasonable and civilized way, you just might change my mind or the minds of others.


Is this site a "pile of crap?" I don't believe it is, but the letter writer is free to his or her opinion and it doesn't offend me in the slightest. We have become so divisive a society since the election results of 2000, that the only way people feel they can make a point is to smear, slander or in the case of other publications, liable people in order to somehow add shine to their own argument.

It is a popular attack mechanism to go after the messenger of an unpopular topic. By attacking the credibility of the speaker, those who do so are potentially able to cast doubt on the message. With all due respect to Julie Young's ability to post whatever she sees fit, there is now, in my opinion, a turn taken for the worse.

It is my opinion that the beholden have become so hard core to keep what they have, they have moved on from Bob Van Vleet to the Mayor. Though implication, they are saying that he is benefiting from his position on the council and somehow got his land excluded from an annexation in 2007, and that he might be reporting bills to the city for services not rendered. Young allowed an anonymous post without a single shred of evidence to back it up. Did he work to circumvent policy, or did one or more members of the council besides the Mayor conspire to reward a member of their own to the detriment of the city population. The inference is that one or more persons did intentionally try to keep the Mayor's business out of the city sales and property tax rolls. Such a statement should be seen for the farce that it is, yet still still finds legs on a site that continues to push farther away from the concepts its author stated in open council recently.

There is a difference between saying and acting in a way that demands open and transparent governmental operations and launching personal attacks at people (while claiming how much you love all they have done for the city). I am of the opinion that the kind of attacks and innuendo being thrown out there today can largely be summed up in two categories: Those who are in favor of the current City Manager/Economic Development Director arrangement, including business owners and others who either derive financial or political benefit from said arrangement. The second group are those who feel that they have lost out financially due to efforts city council took that saved (saved?) the city money by avoiding bloated construction quotes, etc.

It would be nice if those who are seeking all this openness and transparency in the government, were as transparent about all of their motivations. There is more to the story that I know, or Julie Young knows. No matter what she wants you to believe by her statements in the Council room, the tenor of those who are posting on her site shows a very different agenda.

The majority of unique poll voters on this site said that anonymous comments should either never be used, or only under whistle blower type actions. There does not appear to be any crime or unethical conduct being brought forward, to which a person would attach their name and specifics that would lend credence to the allegation. We see charge after charge being lobbed by people under cover of pseudonyms at people who receive little compensation for doing volunteer work, and in many cases, have given more to the city that they will ever receive in return. All to be kicked in the face by a disgruntled few who are rapidly proving through their words and supporters that they are willing to stop at no limit to damage the reputation of those in their way.

Call it love, but what is happening today isn't being done for love of community, it is being done for love of money and power. It is about the efforts of a specific few to affect the outcome for themselves, not the citizens of Sidney.

Michael Rowland