Charlie Pierce ravages Anonymous: "May I just say, for the record, to hell with this person."

Getty Images, via Esquire.

The space I inhabit is a remote contrarian corner to the left of the aisle, and too many of my compatriots closer to center are cheering the anonymous op-ed piece in the New York Times far too much.

For one thing, there's this paragraph.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

Charles P. Pierce helpfully translates this 1%-speak.

The monster has fulfilled its purpose: poisoned water, more of the nation's wealth catapulted upwards, and a massive new Navy in case Yamamoto comes back from the dead. Now you all have to help us kill it.

Speaking personally, apart from all other partisan considerations, I've no more patience with this misuse of anonymity as I did during Prof. Erika's excesses of olden local times. Indeed, there are cases when "whistle-blower" exceptions can be made.

This is not one of them, and as usual, Pierce nails it squarely.

Just Shut Up and Quit (Esquire)

Nobody elected the Anonymous Heroes executing a de facto coup against Donald Trump's presidency*.

May I just say, for the record, to hell with this person, whoever it is ...

... Enough of this stuff. Stand up in the light of day and tell your stories. All of them, right from the beginning. Admit that what you're confronting now is the end result of 40 years of conservative politics and all the government-is-the-problem malfeasance you've been imbibing since you were wingnuts in swaddling. The fire's licking at your ankles at last. Come out of the cupboards, you boys and girls. None of you are heroes.

Obama in Flint: "The speech in Boston was a pillow. This was a brick through a window."

Leave it to Charlie Pierce to reach the heart of the matter.

Don't Let Trump's Taco Bowl Distract You From Obama's Speech on Flint, by Charles P. Pierce (Esquire)

The president went to Flint on Wednesday. He should have gone there long before this, and there was something unsettling about his conspicuously taking a drink of water, although I don't think it was as bad as Michael Moore does. But what may have gone unnoticed—especially by Ron Fournier, who went to Flint and filtered what he learned through his special Both Sides Do It filtering mechanism—is that the president took a big old sledgehammer to the philosophical foundation of 40 years of conservative political vandalism.

Just this pull.

But volunteers don't build county water systems and keep lead from leaching into our drinking glasses. We can't rely on faith groups to reinforce bridges and repave runways at the airport. We can't ask second-graders, even ones as patriotic as Isiah Britt who raised all that money, to raise enough money to keep our kids healthy. You hear a lot about government overreach, how Obama—he's for big government. Listen, it's not government overreach to say that our government is responsible for making sure you can wash your hands in your own sink, or shower in your own home, or cook for your family. These are the most basic services. There is no more basic element sustaining human life than water. It's not too much to expect for all Americans that their water is going to be safe.

Just when I needed it most ...

I stopped by Quills this morning for an espresso and continued venting of spleen. As I was preparing to depart, I saw owner Nathan Quillo in back, and sat down to chat. To make an hour's conversation short, it was very encouraging to hear some of his ideas. I feel better, so thanks, Nathan.

In spite of everything, and although it will strike some readers as unusual, I'm truly an optimist at heart. Each day I rise, sure that it'll be the great breakthrough day, when things finally will make sense and begin happening. By mid-afternoon, it usually appears as false hope, but that's okay. There's always tomorrow.

The tone deafness hereabouts sometimes becomes so very frustrating that my optimism is gone by the time I'm finished brushing my teeth. Sometimes we forget what we're fighting for. Sometimes, we run out of time.

But perhaps not yet. Maybe something can be salvaged yet. Thanks, Nathan. I needed that.

ON THE AVENUES: A decapitation, coming tomorrow.

Although the city council has not made its final two appointments to the board of the Urban Enterprise Association, a meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow morning. It is my understanding that the administration has assembled a quorum of its appointees and returning board members; that former city attorney Shane Gibson (not Stan Robison?) has provided legal justification; that "release of funds" implies considerable pressure applied by entities ranging from Landmarks to the Horseshoe Foundation with regard to funds gently eased from the UEA's pocket by the England administration's shotgun wedding philosophy of governance (for use at the 8th and Culbertson building and the farcical "Come to City" campaign with DNA); and that the gist of tomorrow's meeting is the reordering of the UEA to bring its administrative functions into the city's office of economic development, and to relieve director Mike Ladd of his position.

If anyone reading has any information whatever to contradict what I've written here, I will immediately revise this statement.

The public is invited to the meeting tomorrow. I've heard both sides of this story, numerous times, and while I understand the administration's position that irrespective of past misadventures, we must move forward, my appreciation for the very essence of the notion that the past genuinely matters -- if we cannot learn from it, we are condemned to repeat it -- compels me to respectfully disagree.

Merely stating that the UEA owes monies for two past projects, the very composition of which was achieved by (at best) questionable tactics pursued by repellent means, without a public airing of those decision-making processes, strikes me as a trend worth opposing, and oppose it I must. My conscience cannot permit me to do otherwise.

I believe the administration when it tells me that these two occurrences are not to be repeated.

I do not agree that we must ignore the lessons learned from them, and I persist in advocating a public inquiry.

I believe the administration when it assures me it has legal grounds to declare tomorrow's meeting in spite of what the UEA's by-laws say.

I do not agree that such a meeting should be contemplated until the council makes its long overdue appointments. Full disclosure: I'd like to be one of them, having previously served. But this is not particularly relevant to the case at hand.

I believe the administration when it tells me the UEA will remain intact, and that all it seeks is a plan of cooperation among the UEA, DNA and NA First.

I do not agree that whatever has happened (or not happened) during the first two months of the year, when appointments to all bodies have been weirdly and inexplicably delayed, and as the UEA's director has been suffering through health issues (back problems), justifies the draconian nature of what is being contemplated tomorrow.

I believe the administration when it explains its good intentions to me.

I do not agree that pre-determined outcomes are truly representative of what consultative, democratic government should be.

Five or so years ago, Mike came to town, and without warning, stepped immediately into the cesspool of conflicting interests defining this most bizarre collection of egos. Together with a solid UEA board, Mike was forced to withstand veritable siege conditions for almost two years, with the England administration not even attempting to disguise its cavalier attitude of the UEA as a chosen ATM, fit to be emptied at whim. Has Mike been erratic during the first two months of 2012? Perhaps, but he's also been injured ... and not just physically.

The most depressing thing about this is that I am utterly convinced of one fact above all others: The persons who have done the most to bring this situation to its current heated and dysfunctional state will have nothing to do with tomorrow's scheduled meeting.

They remain apart from it all ... until money is needed, of course.

I believe that Mike Ladd, the members of the current administration, and both new and old board members are conscientious and are acting in good faith. So am I. If all this comes off as planned, the ones who need to be answering questions will be silent. The ones who want Mike's head will be silent, and they'll get what they want.

And that's why this is so very wrong.