Several years back, if you wanted to bring down your opponent, all you had to do was call him a "racist" for anything he said or did or believed that was counter to your beliefs. Now the buzz word is "revisionist." It's used as a derogatory adjective and the progressives are in full swing.
I personally have always tried to be very cautious and try to concentrate on the issues when I write and not give the appearance of attacking a fellow blogger. When you disagree with someone often times it is difficult to keep personalities out of it but it is a goal worth following or striving towards. Blogger Mary Lindsey does a good job of this. She makes her points and the hell with anyone else's--they don't matter. Focus on the issues. Make the point. I think it only fair to respond to the "other blogger" as he has no compunction about denigrating me and continues to do so.
What he wrote: Ms. Anderson is a leftover of the myth-making apparatus of the previous dais majority. Her specialty seems to be the creation of revisionist history to support her favorites on the dais.
Whatever he meant by referring to me as a "revisionist historian," it is safe to say that he did not mean it favorably. I am a left-over of all commission majorities over many years. He is saying that I distort facts and turn them into something other than the truth. Revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. He made a statement that sounded like a good slap down but what did he mean? He gives no clear examples. This is why we have different political Parties. People look at the same issue differently.
History is a continuing dialog between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. I have always said and even have it in my disclaimer that I have the right to alter/change my opinion based on new information. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning, so says the American Historical Association.
Mr. Blackman won't give up on the casino issue. As he has been on the opposite side of this from the very moment the City decided to "save" it and rebuild, his reporting is his own personal opinion and one-side of the facts at hand. He gives opinion as do I and so did the forensic engineer. So did those on the dais who had the foresight and intelligence to understand that building it where it stands is the only logical and economically feasible place for it.
Rick Gonzales, architect, is an expert on coastal design as is Morganti, the contractor, and both ensured its success in that spot. That was where we wanted it to be and we got there thanks to many, especially Commissioner Mulvehill. Thanks is given to the former assistant city manager who took over the details in mid-stream, not an easy task especially when the beach redevelopment portion and costs were already a tsunami about to happen. Building the Casino new was the most economical construction approach and saved the city money. By "saving" the footprint, we essentially and metaphorically "saved" the building.
I have seen good commissions and have seen bad. None have been perfect. The last commission was not self-serving nor is the present Planning & Zoning Board. I have lived here since the 50's. Time doesn't make me an historian, far from it, but I have learned a thing or three along the way. I don't know how long the other blogger has lived in Lake Worth, but he likes to tell you that he has the answers and implies that he is the only one to turn to when truth matters.
I admire Wes for his knowledge and his tenacity for standing up for what he believes. Often times there are two perspectives to issues and events, to planning and heights, to our casino and beach redevelopment, to hiring good management to oversee our assets, to out-sourcing or even in a city manager. Sometimes adhering and championing for your belief is for the betterment of all concerned; sometimes it is not and divides the city; sometimes it is simply elevated in the spirit of the issue or altruistic. It doesn't necessarily make an opposite opinion wrong--it's just based on different observations and points of consideration, where you've been and what you've experienced. What I see as sincere, someone else might see as self-serving and vice versa. We all have our opinions based on a myriad of circumstances.
More of the public should attend city commission meetings in order to get the meat of the story and to understand it all. You will never really know your commissioners until you actually see them in action and how they inter-act with fellow commissioners and staff and hear their opinions in order to get a good understanding of their knowledge of the issues. Their decisions, past and present, are why we are where we are today. It's a lot of power to place in the hands of essentially three people.
And so, perhaps my blogger friend read Sir Thomas More's quote: "What matters is not that it's true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it." A Man For All Seasons.