Displaying remarkably unattractive personality traits, the angry nags – isn’t that superfluous? – from Culver City Friends of the Animals have modeled the behavior of newborn puppies during the current campaign for City Council seats:
They leave messes everywhere they go.
By their recent conduct, they represent the ugly face of the community.
Surely they have more going on in their lives than dogging the candidates, stalking them from forum to forum. Like their insecure big brother extremists, they disrupt normal evenings to pester candidates with the same dull question that is of little consequence to most of the community:
Will you support retention of an Animal Control Officer?
Candidates only are allowed to answer Yes or No. They are not permitted to attach a caveat, which would be sensible given City Hall’s financial straits and how few people are affected.
If I had behaved in this anti-social way at 5 years old, my parents would have potched me.
The extremists’ single-engine message appears to be to prevent former Councilman Scott Malsin from returning to office.
But since Mr. Malsin has agreed with the Friends’ desires, this seems to have created an ethical pickle for them.
How to solve this unanticipated dilemma?
Treat the truth as if it were putty.
Two weeks ago, the Friends group sent out a blast email that distorted the truth and said:
“Scott Malsin has flip-flopped and made it clear that if elected, he will NOT support our Animal Services Officer.”
I cannot recall a Culver City campaign where a little group has set out to relentlessly pound a single candidate instead of promoting its own choice.
Not by popular demand, the insecure nags showed up at last evening’s Blair Hills Candidates Forum with the same boring question.
Perhaps we can find a charity that will donate hearing aids to the Friends’ leadership in honor of April Fools.
