Reverse reasoning


Regarding the lawsuit questioning the Malibu Term Limit Ordinance, let’s suppose that the intention of this failed exercise was to make Malibu a better place (though given the individual who presumably orchestrated it, that assumption is at best moot), what struck me most forcibly as I watched last Monday’s City Council meeting were the losers’ mean-spirited, all-over-the-place rants. Their collective, almost irrational, anger at having lost in court was expressed more-or-less as follows:

Christi Hogin is bad because her good lawyering won the case. It was wrong (one of their even more twisted arguments) for Christi and the city to spend taxpayers’ money to defend the lawsuit these people instigated. Sharon Barovsky is bad because she permitted the city to spend that money.

Now, it’s been my (unfortunate) experience that when someone sues me, I have to pay to defend myself. And, as I understood the lawsuit, Sharon was not a defendant. Moreover (and this is my personal fave), viewing the proceedings, I got the impression that they consider Sharon to be bad – strike that: evil – because she wants to continue serving the city. Even while admiring Sharon’s seemingly limitless capacity for suffering fools, such a desire doesn’t make her evil, though it does raise serious questions about her sanity.

On that note, and in the interest of turning this letter into something constructive, my suggestion to these people who so clearly have the city’s well-being at heart: maybe, with the testimony of a few forensic psychiatrists, you could impeach Ms. Barovsky on those grounds.

Tom Sawyer