Getting slowly back on track

Well it has been a few days since my last post.  I was toying with the idea of skipping today also.  

I didn't watch the selectmen's meeting lat night, intentionally I might add.  I will get to it when the same hits "on demand".  I just haven't been in the mood as of late.  No real motivation at the present time to jump into the issues.

To show you my present state of mind, on Saturday morning I did a piece on fried chicken (no, you didn't miss it because I didn't publish it).   I wrote it because I couldn't wrap my thoughts around anything else.  Was tempted to do one this morning on pizza, but I was having problems even with that.

Even the article in today's Standard Times about the lawsuit seeking a new election doesn't get me going too much.  The judge will do what the judge will do.  

If there is going to be a new election however let it be because the judge took a look at the two contested ballots and made a determination on at least one of them.

Throw out all this claptrap about the integrity of the process, how do we know, what if.  That pretentious road was worn out long ago.  Everything going on right now is about the "win".

If all of that stuff is applicable, it means every race needs to be tossed.  What this lawsuit should be about is the two challenged ballots, and only the two challenged ballots.  If it is more than that, it affects much more than just one race, and everything affected should be subject to a new election.

And that is why as to any other argument other than the two ballots challenged, I will respectfully submit the town should not remain neutral.  But it will, and that will do more to damage the whole concept of fair election in the long run than anything else.

As to the two ballots contested, absolutely knock your socks off.  That is why you in fact hold recounts. 

But applying the old adage of "be careful what you wish for", if there is a new election, then let it truly be a new election.  Wide open to any and all.

That in fact seems to be the precedent in Massachusetts if the election results end in a tie.  It seems  the law is silent on what to do in a tie.  In the past, Massachusetts courts have ruled a tie to be a failure to elect.

Some states have provisions to draw lots, flip coins, roll dice.

Last tied election in this state I could find is a state rep race in 2011.  The court ruled a new election had to be called, and there were new primaries preceding a general election, i.e. a real do over.  

Whatever happens, let it happen quickly. 

The other interesting tidbit in today's paper, the "search and rescue" on Friday night, where the victim ended up being found by the police, or was it finding the police, on early Saturday morning.  A six figure price tag for the cost of the search.

I have received a few e-mails and telephone calls on this one.  At this point, it is what it is.

So did anyone watch last night's selectmen's meeting by the way?  If so, any interesting event or discussion take place?

Taking a look at the agenda there seemed to be a couple of things that had "potential".  Let me know if anything piqued your interest.

Speaking of interest, if you have any topics you think are worth discussing, let me know.  You don't have to post a comment if you send them in (but you can).  I am not guarantying I will do a piece on them, but some ideas now and then would be nice.

It is either that or you may end up with pieces of fried chicken and pizza.  

Enough idle chatter.  Take care and be safe.