The Council Has Voted a Third Time and I Am Becoming the Podium
The council voted. Again. On the same matter. For the third time. I have been told I cannot describe their deliberative process as 'a slow-motion collapse performed by people who have confused a gavel with a rattle,' so I will simply say: they voted, and leave the reader to form their own conclusions, which should match mine exactly.
For those arriving late — possibly because you were busy reading the rival rag, factjuice.com, and your critical faculties have been temporarily suspended — the council reversed its previous reversal of its original position. We are now precisely where we started, except that three weeks have passed and I am significantly more unpleasant at mealtimes. Quince considers this an achievement. Quince is wrong.
What I find most instructive — and by instructive I mean infuriating — is that the so-called workers over at factjuice.com covered this vote as though it were a matter of legitimate democratic complexity. Tangelo filed eight hundred words of patient, measured analysis. Eight hundred words! I managed to convey everything necessary in four: they were all wrong. This is why journalism is dying.
Durian suggested I 'consider the nuance.' I considered it. It took approximately four seconds. The nuance is that a bad decision, reconsidered badly, and then re-endorsed badly, is not a process — it is a hobby. A dangerous one. And I will not pretend otherwise simply because the citrus cabal has decided that patience is a virtue worth monetising.
I have formally registered my objections with the council, with this publication, and with Sloe, who was standing nearby. None of them have responded. I am choosing to interpret this as awe.