Friday, December 7, 2007

Mike Quits Carnegie Board

Last night at the Carnegie Center Board meeting, a decision was made to remove Grant Chancy from the Board as he has not shown up at a meeting for some time. This means that a by-election to fill Chancy's seat will have to be held.

Michael Read, Secretary, did not want the Board to remove Chancy as it would increase his stress level. Read announced that if the Board did this, he would have to resign too. And he did.

The Carnegie Board is having trouble keeping seats filled. Two weeks after a homeless man, William Simpson, was elected to the Board last June, Carnegie Executive Director Ethel Whitty delivered him a letter from the City barring him indefinitely. He was accused of operating a website which "features links" to a blog which criticizes Carnegie staff. Simpson stands on the sidewalk out front during Board meetings. The incident lead to international news coverage of Vancouver's "blog burning" City staff.

Board member Sophie Friegang wanted a review of the barring of her fellow Board member, Simpson, saying a "terrible mistake" had been made. No luck though. So she resigned too. She submitted a letter stating something to the effect that she couldn't work with a people who did not respect human rights.

1 comment:

dag said...

The "Board" is meant to be a puppet gang of compliant community center users who give the impression of community residents' involvement in their own lives and the doings of the center itself. The people on the board are tinsel. That is, those who are "community members." It turns out there are two levels of board members: there are those like Simpson, a genuine community member and frequent (past)-user of the center, and there are those who come to be seen and to show the colours of the management clique, i.e. the professional povertarians who make a living by involving themselves in the lives and doings of others as a career. With the last resignation from the board, one might well expect to see more outside faces on the board next so the management class can maintain control of the board itself but more importantly the public image of the center's control. If Ethanol is letting the board fall to pieces like this, she is going to be perceived, at least, as incompetent in running the Center itself. Therefore, unless she genuinely is incompetent, she'll stack the board with friends and those who owe favors or those given favor. All these resignations make the management class look foolish and incapable of doing their jobs, which is little more than baby-sitting those who have no employment. If Ethanol can't even keep unemployed people quiet for a day at a time, she might consider finding another job at $104.000.00 per year (that we know of) that doesn't require the skills of a manager of the sort needed to herd people such as frequent the Carnegie Centre.

It would be a mistake to assume another can do the job well that Ethanol is failing at. The job itself is changing, and Ethanol's replacement won't necessarily be ny better than she. The job will attract the same kind of person to it, be filled by the same kind of person as Ethanol, and will be a failure for the same kind of person as Ethanol: The days of doling out food stamps to the poor and dysfunctional to keep them from wandering the streets causing eye-sores in the better neighborhoods are over. The days of a lucrative career in the poverty business run by a clique of family and friends posing as socialist missionaries doing Good Deeds are gone. Those people re no longer the kinds of people the job requires.

With the advent of the Internet people have a chance, and one taken, to freely exchange information and opinion regarding their own lives in comparison to that of others, to seek and find answers to contradictions previously left unquestioned, and in the quietude of poverty, to no longer remain oppressed by minders making decisions against the best interests of the people, adults infantalized by the socialist careerists who pretend any cliched gimmick of the day: sharing, caring, communitarian, et cetera. Those jigs are up.

Ethanol's replacement, and the replacement of the Taylorite social fascist clique, to be successful, will not be a mere change of faces without a change of mind and intention. Community Centre users, regardless of their private and personal natures, will and are now, demanding recognition as adults. The entire ethos of the povertarian narrative is that the "poor" are victims and must be infantalized and minded because they are incapable of living their own lives to any but the most minimal extent if that. And it became a self-fulfilling prophesy, one that led to deaths on the streets, in hotel rooms, in alleyways. Taking away peoples' rights and responsibilities and replacing them with Left fascist cliches dehumanised and destroyed the lives of countless people, and continues to this day. Ethanol's replace, may he or she arrive soonest, must have the mind of a person able to see people as adults. The current lot by training and personality are Gnostic minders, missionaries who seemingly hate the people, disregard their adulthood and humanness to the point they feel the right to actually feed the poor, the latter being incapable of doing so themselves; and the Gnostic minders, in feeding the poor, do a piss poor job of it-- $0.80 per hour in food stamps! Who would treat an adult that way?

Good that some many are resigning in disgust from such a shameful mockery of adulthood and personal responsibility. But watch now as Ethanol and her clique try to stack the board with those they know they can count on to play the game as they need it played. Look for yes-men and lackies and toadies. Look for those joining up who will sell-out anyone and anything for dubious favors and praise from above. but things will change when Ethanol and her lot find themselves on the stoop, suitcases in hand, awaiting taxis to take them to some new adventure in the land of menacing the people from the castles of control, from offices lined floor to ceiling with bureaus, from ramparts above all others pleading for a pardon from the strictures of the state. Ethanol will be there with her lot, you can be sure, because it is the nature of such people to control and to mind, regardless of whom. But perhaps soon the Carnegie Centre will find itself ruled by a different kind of ruler after-all, someone who dares not openly destroy the lives of those so far degraded by povertarianism as now. Look for those who will fill boardroom seats with an eye to a better future for all concerned, not simply hacks at union rates per hour smirking at the stupid and the gullible and the vulnerable.

How about you? Are you willing to run for the board? Dear reader, are you an adult capable of thinking and contributing to a discussion of your life among others to the mutual benefit of those around you? If you are, then you will likely be shoved out by the clique now running the Carnegie show. But your time will come, friend.