Character doesn't matter if you don't have any...

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, then we had better let a lot of people out of prison.

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, we had better stop giving out diplomas.

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, we had better stop asking for references for jobs, teaching and coaching positions.

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, we had better stop doing child abuse background checks.

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, we have no right to track sex offenders.

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why do we celebrate families?

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why do we use credit reports?

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why do we have bank accounts, pensions and stocks?

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why do we have alcoholics and narcotics anonymous and about fifty other 12 step programs?

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why do we say someone is a "former," ie: "former" prostitute, "former" thief, "former" car thief but old politicians are still politicians, old lawyers are still lawyers and old insurance salesmen are still insurance salesmen?

(Is that an acknowlegement that prostitutes, thieves and car thieves can turn a blank page but politicians, lawyers and insurance salesmen can't shake the history of professions that, in my ever comedic opinion, have a different name but similar roles?)

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why have Veterans homes, Veteran's Day, a flag and pride in our heritage?

If what someone did when they were younger doesn't mean jack when they are older, why do the majority of us believe in heaven and hell and what is the purpose of being a good person when you would wake up every day with a clean record?

What someone does when they are younger is all to frequently what someone does when they are older. We learn from our mistakes and we improve our performance. But if a person's been down an easy road, very seldom will they take the road less travelled on the next trip.

People change their actions. People change their behaviors. People who, however, have had lapses in judgement in the past are prone to the same lapses again, even if the lapses are subtly or profoundly different in results.

If you believe the past doesn't matter, I suggest you spend a day with Manson, Wright or Kemper. Then ask one of the Enron gang to manage your savings. Perhaps you'd like to sign up to live your dotage with one of the many fine characters charged with letting their elderly clients rot while they collect their "guest's" pensions. After all, history doesn't matter, does it?

The past matters and people who ignore history pay the price when history repeats itself.

Any doubts now?

Your opinions, carefully crafted by a PR consultant you paid for!

Does council really matter when it's an extension of the Mayor's office?

The budget currently in front of council will pass regardless of public comment because the three council people in the majority belong to Doherty and a fourth is open to discussion.

However, it's the public's attention, cooperation and continued votes that Doherty needs. To that end, Doherty and his PR consultant know the average taxpayer doesn't understand or care what Nelson, Gervasi or Krake say. They don't hear them.

I have a friend who said it succinctly: "Nelson gives too many figures. I tune him out and haven't got a clue what the duck he's talkin' about."

What Nelson has to say is both important and relevant but the public hears what the carefully crafted PR says because the carefully crafted PR tells them what they want to hear in small snippets, with all negative, annoying details removed.

The result is a blissfully misinformed public that can go about its daily routine, ignorant of the growing debt, failing Public Safety departments and its future impact on them.

Our culture bombards us with news, advertising and information. The public's attention is captured by certain words, phrases and ideas. I would venture most of the controversy at council is carefully considered and orchestrated by the PR consultant before it ever hits chambers.

The public hears about the smoking ban, for example and the kids used to promote it. Nice fluffy story guaranteed to be attacked by smokers, who are considered evil. When the ban was shot down, it was a "terrible thing" because the council was only trying to protect the citizens from themselves. The businesses and workers who lost money became the bad guys and council wore white hats.

Nice diversion, if you didn't lose money or your rights because of it and the ban looked so good in print.

The PR around the Gatelli tearjerkers and Fanucci tangents are designed for one purpose- to discredit the speakers. Then, when speakers like Nelson, Gervasi and Krake take to the podium, their comments are ignored or simply thrown aside because of the reputation carefully constructed for them.

Dan Hubbard is another example. Make the man out to be a crazy and a spokesman with a very important message and the ability to deliver it is neutralized as a threat. Neutralization is very important. Neutralization is control and control is what this whole bag of rocks is about.

Add in Ray Lyman and you see the process is ongoing and effective. Lyman was a good choice, in my opinion, because his reputation for erratic behavior allows the message to be delivered and any admittance that he was "encouraged" to speak feeds his reputation.

Add in the deliberately shortened time speakers have to make their point, the arrests and threats of arrest for simply attempting to talk to council and you have a picture of a council with an agenda- to follow the mayor's agenda. No mere citizen will interfere with this agenda, because, as a person who speaks before council, that person is automatically "One of them."

Most frustrating is we were told the mayor was hiring a PR person to "drive" the news and "drive" he does. We have the wool pulled over our eyes and we accept it like the sheep we are and paying for the service, to boot. As one poster said, "You can't make this $hit up!"

There is one bright sign in this whole, sad calamity. Gatelli, in my opinion, is a loose canon and Tuesday night's performance was not what I would have expected from the PR professional. I believe the performance was ego-driven and delivered by a speaker who knows she doesn't matter any more but won't admit it and the show cost Gatelli more than she realized.

Understanding the PR game is the first step in benefiting from it. Hell, the people pay for a PR consultant, shouldn't We gain from it for a change?

A destination or a business welfare state?

On the topic of more people coming downtown, I think it illustrates the idea of "If you build it, they will come" gone wrong.

The past thirty years or more of urban planning, both here and across the country, prove you cannot spend the downtown into success. Additionally, without vibrant, viable neighborhoods, you just don't have the people to support the downtown.

Further, without a reason to go downtown, people will go elsewhere. Why? free, close parking, easy access, both in and out and a relatively safe, well lit environment, among a litany of reasons.

What works in the downtown? Destination businesses. Doctor's offices, government offices, lawyer's offices, service businesses to support destination businesses.

If we maintain and improve the neighborhoods, all of the neighborhoods, we will have a strong city. If we maintain the downtown, destination businesses will need space to work and the population will be large enough to support a finite number of these businesses.

By their definition, people will be drawn from farther distances to frequent these businesses. These businesses would not be found in the local strip mall, necessitating a trip to the destination to fill a need. The fact that they cull customers from a regional area greatly increases their primary demographic numbers, something a chain restaurant or a generic mall clothing store cannot do.

We've relied for far too long on supporting business plans that rely on governmental welfare to be viable. When will we learn that self-serving politicians who dump money into downtown to support their cronies under the guise of economic development are robbing Peter (the neighborhoods) to pay Paul (the crony businesses) and it only does more damage.

The right path is to maintain the infrastructure in the city. Pave the roads. maintain the government buildings. But don't literally give away the store to businesses that demand or require government support as an integral part of their business plan money because when the gravy ends, so does the business.

Businesses that need seed money should be in incubators, not independent, functioning businesses sponging off the largess of government. Incubators should help new businesses with viable plans for a set number of years until they are established and then they should fly or falter on their own.

When we start with the assumption that people should frequent any business because it's good for the local econonmy, we have a recipe for failure. People do what works best for them, financially and in terms of accessability. You can't shame people into a business. They have to make that decision themselves.

Businesses grow and prosper because they fill a need. As a bedroom community, we would fill a need. When and if the long-rumored train comes through, the most important goal we can have is strong neighborhoods. Starting off with anything less, given the changes the train would entail, will leave us fighting to regain control that we will never have again.

When the first train whistle sounds, we have to be ready. I honestly don't expect that will be the case. We're already behind and we don't have the leadership to catch up. But it can be done. All we need is a leader with the foresight to realize a coordinated effort will make us all better in the end. That thought process does not currently exist.

We reap what we sow and the only thing the fields have going for them right now is a choking abundance of fertilizer.

Welcome to the Un-Scrantonian activities hearing...

Editor's note:

A lawsuit has been filed by Council President Judy Gatelli alleging posts on the message board at DohertyDeceit by Nobody, amongst others, were "threatening" to her. The lawsuit, commonly referred to as a SLAPP lawsuit, has as a goal, the silencing of critics of council's actions.

This is Nobody's response:

We're back in the 1950s, a black list has been printed and the hearings are scheduled. Playing the part of Senator McCarthy is... Judy Gatelli.

I like the part about a conspiracy in the lawsuit. If what we have here is a conspiracy, then every political party would be considered a conspiracy (Excepting my own party, the Scranton republican party- to have a conspiracy, there has to be activity and that body is currently in a coma, circling the drain, waiting for death to finish its cameo on "The Family Guy.")

The founding fathers knew the death of a republic lies in the ability of the government to control speech, assembly and the right to question the government.

In their incredible understanding of the challenges our democracy would face, they wrote these words: "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We assemble here electronically, peaceably, passionatly exercising our freedom of speech to petition the government for a redress of our grievances.

Gatelli and her co-conspirators, Fanucci and McGoff have tried to remove redress of grievances from the council meetings, as Jefferson feared government might try to do more than 230 years ago. My respect for Jefferson and the other founding fathers grows as my disgust with Gatelli multiplies.

I, for one, have a passion for this country and the ideals it stands for that was instilled in me by my ancestors who gave their all for this country. From the coal miners who helped fuel this country to the marine who trained untold other marines who, in turn, protected this country to the man who sat at the same dias as our current "leaders," to the women who raised their families, supported their husbands and let their opinions be known.

I'll be damned if a politician, an incompetent, bumbling one at that, will shut me up.

I'm on the list and I'm damn proud of it. We had enough of this Doherty**** in the McCarthy hearings. If it takes a lawsuit to expose Judy "McCarthy" Gatelli for what she is, I'll join the suit.

Good night and Good Luck.

Tell ya what, I'll do it as a favor (and favors have to be repaid!).

When Mr. Bingham asked DPW union head Sam Vitrus about paving an alley, Vitrus allegedly told him he might do it as a "Favor". Bingham said he didn't need favors and Vitrus then allegedly told him to "Complain to council." Bingham did just that.

Just a reminder... Hollowgate... When you're a leader, by default, appointment or annointment, you set the tone of your reign. George Parker set the tone of his "reign" and apparently, Vitris' alleged comments show he's not stepping up to fill the moral and ethical chasm the DPW leader has created.

My only editorial comment on this is "What part of this surprises anyone?"

Where was Mr. Bingham when people on east mountain needed rights-of-way cleared but were told "No" while another citizen received the service?

Where was Mr. Bingham when George Parker left accumulated debris sit below the Albright Street bridge after disparaging comments were made in the July 4th, 2006 TT?

Point here is, the people who speak in council are a bunch of crazies to the other citizens until the administration's antics affect them personally. Then they're surprised by the actions of their government.

Folks, this is nothing new and yet, we don't have to put up with it unless we are, in fact, willing to accept it. Thus far, we've been more than willing, we've been accomodating.

Pastor Martin Niemöller said, "When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out." Mr. Bingham, they've come for you and all you have left to speak out for you are Nobodys.

Welcome to the club.

Chick's fights a ban to save their business...

A city official cited Chick's Diner for ignoring the no-smoking ordinance today, 24 April, 2007. The battle lines are drawn. At the center of the controversy is a city government ignoring state law and overreaching its authority simply because it can...

What happened at Chick's today is a result of Joe Pilchesky and his creation, the DohertyDeceit.com website. Taking the cue from Pilchesky, a business owner, a taxpayer, a Nobody, stood up and said, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it."

Seeing Joe Pilchesky stand up for what is right, no matter how many times he's been smacked by the machine, has to have an effect on the populace. That is the danger in letting a Joe Pilchesky loose in the city. People realize just because "That's the way it's always been done" doesn't mean it can't be changed.

The realization, not the multitude of suits, the website, the constant beating on the anti-corruption drum, the realization that things can be changed is the single most dangerous threat to TeamDoh!, its subsidiaries and its parent corporation.

Joe Pilchesky doesn't have to win suits. All he has to do is shock the people's minds into understanding they control their destiny. Convince the people they don't need to depend on politicians and the people will take it from there.

Chick's forced the issue to take it to court. Now we'll see what happens when the citizens don't just roll over on command. Our government has for too long believed the citizens should fear it. The biggest change we can make is to have our politicians fear the people.

Who's going to believe a crazy man? That's the theory...

Somebody asked where the big story was on Pilchesky. Remember, I said it would appear on a Sunday, Monday or Tuesday. It's Sunday and the TT blew its shot on their biggest circulation day.

Here's another tip: The TT has nothing on Pilchesky that we haven't already seen. Their primary means of attack is a campaign, begun over a year ago, to make him appear to be the biggest wackjob in the county. It's not going well, because they've just made a full court press and it fell flat.

If they can't fight him with facts or by questioning his veracity, they'll attempt to destroy his credibility by claiming he's unbalanced. That hasn't and won't be by paper only. Every quote, comment, etc., you hear by anyone who has something to lose if the parties named lose, has and will discredit him based on TeamDoh's "assesment" of Pilchesky's mental health.

It's been going on for some time. Judge for yourself by mentioning Pilchesky in conversation. At first, people make the face. Then, when you ask them about the issues, the face dissappears into frustration and anger over what is going on in our county and suddenly, Pilchesky doesn't seem so far off the mark.

It's an old trick used by lawyers, often seen in rape trials. If you discredit the victim, whatever said by the victim becomes questionable, even if backed up by witnesses and documentation. A woman with a background made questionable by a defense attorney with dirt in his briefcase can make a solid rape seem like a mutual tryst rather than a viscious attack against an unwilling participant.

Secondly, TeamDoh! is expert in the use of deception. They're not hanging their hats on Joe's mental condition or his veracity. They have other issues that are far more complex to bring to the battle field.

As I have said before, TeamDoh! its subsidiaries and parent companies all have different timelines and perspectives than the average citizens. They've already divided this case into segments- what has merrit, what can be argued and, most importantly, a timeline laying out when each event within this case will occur.

Consider this: Judas, The Fanucci and Bobbin' McGoff will be long out of office when this is decided. It will be a "Oh, remember them?" when the final decisions are handed down. The next band of characters will be in place. I'll bet their ties to the Tweedesque machine will be hidden much more carefully.

With School Board Directors and council members in his court, Christopher Doherty doesn't have to be Mayor to wield power. He merely needs his lackeys, access to phones and connections to campaign cash. The other players have bit parts and can be changed out at will. Doherty's time in office will pay him dividends for life, provided we vote in his lackeys.

This case will take a while to wind down the hallways of the courts. If I were a betting nobody, I'd put more money on the argument of whether Joe is a public figure. Do his activities, being a political activist, running a political website and speaking out on corruption make him a public figure, open to the same criticisms and attacks that elected officials are open to?

The TT article is a diversion but it obviously is not a well-thought out diversion. The one success Joe apparently had was to pressure their timelines. I think Joe has an opportunity for a change of venue, based on the comments of the judiciary in Lackawanna County.

I am at a loss as to why a sitting judge would make comments on a case active within his jurisdiction. There's quite a few cracks in this wall and no little dutch boy is going to plug 'em all. The secret to breaking the dam is to upset their timeline and bring pressure before they've set their defenses.

This mess took years to develop and it'll take years to deconstruct. That's what they're counting on. One win by Pilchesky in the right case and the demolition will begin. The only question is "Where will that win be?"