Ken O’Brien
At the end of last month TheO’Zone published a copy of a letter from a former assistant principalseverely criticizing her former superior.Shortly thereafter I publishedan article pointing out that, despite his shortcomings, Scott Lazo had beenoverly-vilified in some quarters, overlooking the many contributions he hasmade to the community.
The very next day Ifell victim to the outrage of the blubbering blogger for breaching thesanctity of the letter, concealing the identity of the addressee and forsupposedly siding with Scott Lazo in current school committee squabbles. Coincidence?
Shortly thereafter Iresponded to his misguided missive rebutting every one of hisaccusations.
If I had expected an apology, I certainly hadforgotten the history of the man whoonce had the temerity to write, “I can say with all honesty that I nevertruly hated anyone. I have always tried to see the good in people; this wastrue of students I taught and any adults with which I came into contact. Ittook until the last two or so years of my teaching career to realize that I wascapable of hating anyone. I worked among and for some of the most evil people Ihave ever known.”
For the next two weeks I endured a relentlessbarrage of petty insults from the preening pundit referring to, as he put it, “thatother blog” or “the tabloid blog”. Also came accusations of spin or awillingness to publish even the most spurious anonymous comments.
Finally I responded by relegatingmy reply to my weekly cartoon segment, feeling that The Massachusetts “Disserver”had earned the distinction of being nothing more than the butt of a joke.
Rather than addressing this gnat seriously for thefollowing week I again added him as a subject in the latest set of lampoons.
He immediately responded with threats and amischaracterization of the ‘toons as an attack on his former profession. Nothingcould be further from the truth, insofar as I have the highest regard for theteaching vocation. Rather the first cartoon was making fun of his incessantwhining.
The second cartoon addressed his pompouspronouncements on public policy without ever having made even the effort to bemore than a bomb throwing critic.
In retrospect, the prince of posturing has a recordof throwing stones and then portraying himself as a victim when the volley isreturned. This is accompanied by a willingness to shift positions on any issuewhen it suits his purpose to a degree that would make even Mitt Romney blush.All of this is accompanied by a freewheeling willingness to rewrite history inthe process.
Take for instance his current taglines promoting themerits of the local newspaper.
It wasn’t that long ago that he wrote a regularcolumn for that paper. Someone asked him about his departure from that role on yetanother blog.
“Brent, Why did your column in the SouthbridgeEvening News end? I remember there was some sort of disagreement between youand the paper, but not the details. Also, what became of Walter Bird? He alsowrote a good column but I haven't noticed if he is writing anywhere now.Thanks. – Commenter”
He responded by saying, “Commenter, I chose to endmy column with the Southbridge Evening News due to my disagreement with theeditorial policy of the newspaper at the time. It does not seem necessary torevisit that. I have written for the Southbridge News since ending my weeklycolumn, and I have no doubt that my contributions would be welcome. I do notwish to commit to a weekly schedule however. As for Walter Bird, I'm sure hewould be happy to hear that you enjoyed his column. You can continue to readWalter's work at Examiner dot com Boston. I would provide the link for you, butthis comment section doesn't allow for it. Let's try it this way: Click thelink for my web site, The Massachusetts Observer. When you get there, you willsee a link called, Southbridge and Vicinity Web sites and Blogs. Click on thatlink. Once you are at that web site, look at the links on the right side. Thelink for Walter's column is the last one on the right. Be sure to bookmark sothat you can get back to his site easily. I hope this helps. - Brent Abrahamson”
The reality is that the split was significantly morecontentious than that remark would imply.
He wrote a column in the Southbridge Evening News ofApril 14, 2010 titled “A HateFilled Column” responding to an editorial by Walter Bird. In concludingthat piece he wrote, “. Indeed, my own column about bullying spurred by thePhoebe Prince tragedy was rejected at the prerogative of Editor Bird. Friday’spiece by Columnist Bird should have been rejected by Editor Bird as well.”
The Editor appended a comment to the column thatread, “Editor’s Note: The column referenced by Mr. Abrahamson had previouslyrun on his blog and he offered the editor the choice of not running it since ithad already been published. Mr. Abrahamson’s columns on a variety of issues haveappeared regularly on the pages of this newspaper and are all solid examples ofdiversity of opinion. None of Mr. Abrahamson’s columns have ever been rejectedbecause of content, nor have any contributed columns ever been rejected by theeditor because of content.
Incapable of letting the matter go, just as in thecurrent situation, B.A. pushed on with three additional articles on his ownblog, Justthe facts, Ma’am on April 23, SouthbridgeEvening News RIP on April30, and UPDATE:Hardly anonymous on May 1.
He was still bashing the paper a year later in Whereis the Southbridge News? On March 4, 2011
His tendency to bite the hand that once fed his egowas no less the case when it came to denouncing The Worcester Telegram afterhis blog there ended. See his denunciation of that paper in Whythe T&G is not for me.
But, beyond this victimizer turned victim meme, ishis willingness to change his stance on issues when they no longer suit his currentagenda.
Take for instance his criticism of TheO’Zone . “I will give you some time to switch back to that very comfortableforum where you can post anything you wish to your heart's content.”
That’s a far cry from his earlierbluster. “Don't worry about comments. You don't need to display them, oryou can display the ones you want. In fact, my blogs are the only ones in townthat do not require prior approval before you can post. Now that's free speech!”
Then there’s the matter of his political astutenesson matters of town government. OnTuesday, June 22, 2010, he wrote, “Southbridge should adopt aRepresentative Town Meeting form of government. There should be a 3-memberelected and paid Board of Selectmen. The pay for each should be one-third ofthe present Town Manager’s salary. This pay is significant enough to attractqualified, intelligent candidates. A number of representatives (perhaps 8 to10?) would be elected from each precinct to vote on behalf of their precinctsat the annual Town Meeting. This vital role would not require a greatcommitment of time and perhaps some of the otherwise busier professionals inthe community would choose to engage in this type of public service.”
Just over four months later he wrote,on October 27, “Finally, in the long run, we must work toward the popularelection of a strong mayor. It is the only way to assure that the will of theelectorate trumps the power-driven agenda of a politically aggressive few.”
Finally, there’s the whirling dervish behavior onthe matter of unions when it comes to his current crusade. He has longportrayed himself as a supporter of unions, goingback as far as 2008 when he wrote, “Some of the comments I have readinclude: The unions ruined the country. The unions represent socialism. Theunions are anti-American.
But so much for the value of unions and theirmembership when they get in the way of a new agenda. In his view we need thestate to take over the school district, so theunion goes under the bus. “The Southbridge Public Schools need to comeunder complete and total control of the State before any further damageoccurs. The state must take the power tomake all decisions, including the power to hire and fire regardless ofcollective bargaining agreements. Theymust make all decisions that would normally be those of the School Committee.”
I am sure that I will be accused of takingstatements out of context, and that’s why I’ve provided the links to allow thereader to judge for themselves. More likely, I will be attacked on a personallevel, although I’ve been careful to characterize my detractor in terms of hisown writings.
In closing, if you want to take this clown seriouslykeep in mind that he is, in my opinion, as treacherous and devious a harlequin as Stephen King’sPennywise. If you choose to agree with him you will rue the day when you decideto disagree. If you are in accord with his view on any given day you willalmost certainly find yourself having to reverse positions before long to stayin sync.
I did not start this nonsense. I can only hope,contrary to all experience and precedent, that this will be the end of it.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder