Long ago I learned magicians use physical misdirection to divert the audience’s attention briefly from what will be a necessarily unnoticed but critical action vital to the success of the trick.
For example, the magician introduces his beautiful assistant to the audience with an elegant flourish of his right arm and hand. The audience’s eyes follow the smooth movement of the magician’s arm and hand directing them to look stage right to see her walk on. In the meantime with the audience completely captivated by the beautiful assistant, the magician’s left hand is loading up the real deception.
That’s what happened at the Coeur d’Alene City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 4.
It was a marathon Council meeting that started at about 6 p.m. on Tuesday and ended at about 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday. The order of the published meeting agenda was changed after the opening ceremonies, ostensibly for the convenience of the audience, most of whom were there for the anti-discrimination ordinance deliberation and vote. Approximately 25 minutes into the meeting, the Council began deliberating and hearing public comment on Resolution 13-1011, Nondiscrimination Regulations.
Moving this very emotional and time-consuming issue up in the agenda was akin to the magician’s beautiful assistant walking onstage. All eyes and ears were riveted on her. For about the next five hours, both the live and television audiences were subjected to comments and discussions concerning the proposed LGBT ordinance. And while the magician’s right hand was all the time keeping your attention on the beautiful assistant, the magician’s left hand was loading the setup for the trick.
The magician’s real trick was to make sure the audience would not understand how the illusion was done, who was behind and profiting from a later agenda item, Resolution 13-035, Easement Agreement with Blackridge Properties, LLC, for Front Avenue pedestrian tunnel. It was also important that the audience not understand that the magician’s income is from one of the principals of Blackridge Properties, LLC.
After the Council voted and the beautiful assistant walked off stage, the audience lost interest in the act so nearly all of them went home. That was the plan, the misdirection, and that’s when the real deception was revealed. It was an act worthy of illusionist David Copperfield, only in this case, the magician made a parking garage with a tunnel appear at a location where the principal beneficiary was his employer. But there were few there to see it.
Smokescreen. I could not stay up long enough to watch the outcome of the tunnel stuff. I also agree, it completely escaped my mind and I have not read any local news regarding this subject. Who voted for/and against? Obviously, well orchestrated. I think I smell an organizational psychologist – somewhere. P.U.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 6, 2013 @ 8:07 pm
Stebbijo,
Not sure which vote you’re requesting, so…:
It’s interesting how different people have different sensory perceptions. Whereas you smell an organizational psychologist, I smell a racketeer influenced corrupt organization. It’s the differences that make life interesting.
Comment by Bill — June 7, 2013 @ 6:42 am
Insert “corrupt” before organizational psychologist. Thanks, I watched more of the city council meeting last night but still could not get to the vote of the “tunnel”. I think I turned it off on Woody. They were like goofy and rummy at that point of the meeting. It is a huge disservice to the community to allow a meeting to go into the hours it did this last June 4th. People have to work. They need to pass an ordinance or insert their magic wand so major issues can be broken up and if necessary carry the items over to another day. It’s not like they did not expect it – there were comments about it going until 4 a.m.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 7, 2013 @ 8:41 am
Stebbijo,
The tunnel matter could have been rescheduled for the Council meeting on June 18, too. It was no accident that the tunnel easement request was scheduled to follow what was expected to be a marathon discussion about the proposed LGBT ordinance.
Comment by Bill — June 7, 2013 @ 9:37 am
Heard a rumor today. I repeat, rumor, however the source was very good. It seems that Bloem is re-thinking her decision not to run again. My guess, she sees Brannon as splitting the vote for change which would greatly improve her chance of holding onto the office. I said before, Brannon can’t win, he has too much baggage, real and perceived. Mary has a much better chance and would make a better Mayor IMO. As I read him, Brannon is more interested in himself than in the good of CDA. Again, IMO!
Comment by rochereau — June 11, 2013 @ 1:55 pm
rochereau,
As I think I commented a few weeks ago when the Bloemster announced she wasn’t going to run again, let’s wait until the filing period has closed.
Comment by Bill — June 11, 2013 @ 6:53 pm
And speaking of misdirection, perhaps this is exactly what she is waiting for. Let the challengers fight it out while she gains the majority from the split. She wouldn’t run when she knew she would be decimated, however…..I wonder what happened to those “opportunities” that she spoke of. Mr. Brannon, do what is right for CDA and drop out so this becomes a two candidate race. Note to Larry Spencer, do you even live in CDA?
Comment by rochereau — June 11, 2013 @ 7:00 pm
Rocherau, you start this discussion with a rumor. Next, you make a guess. Then you express your opinion. Why don’t you give me a call? Having more of the facts might change your perspective.
Comment by Jim Brannon — June 15, 2013 @ 7:56 pm
Jim, I made it very very clear that this was rumor. However, from a very well placed source. My opinion was formed long before the Bloem rumor was in the wind. Someone will run for the status quo and two candidates for change simply splits the vote. Simple math. IMO, and I’m entitled to an opinion, you carry too much perceived baggage. It is voter perception that dictates their vote. Whether or not that is fair is not the point. The point is to effect change and that cannot be accomplished by divisive measures. Do you really want more Bloem, or even worse Kennedy?
Comment by rochereau — June 16, 2013 @ 9:14 am
And, I do understand that Kennedy did not need an attorney. I think he thought that made him look more like a poor victim, which he was not. To compound that nonsense, the council voted to pay poor little Mikeys attorney fees. The problem arises with the “perception” that you were suing Kennedy and he was forced to hire legal counsel. That it is untrue doesn’t change the fact that too many voters think you cost tax payer money. The status quo will drive that to the max. Fair, no….but it is CDA politics.
Comment by rochereau — June 16, 2013 @ 11:42 am