That being the case, supposedly liberal young crusader Mark Ozias is perfectly free to favor fluoridating the water supply of the entire county - even if that position doesn't seem to jibe with how he presents himself in other areas.
You might think long-haired, tie dyed hippies would be against fluoride, man.
You might think tie dyed hippies would be in favor of openness, man.
But you would be wrong on both counts, man.
But...I do have to wonder and worry about someone who behaves like Mark Ozias has on this issue. He has expressed his support for fluoridating the county's water supply, yet he ducked out of the Board of Health meeting before having to vote and go on the record as supporting the idea. And he does so in the context of his handlers - Steve Tharinger and Kevin Van De Wege - having received the maximum amount of Dental Dollars as campaign contributions. And in the context of the ongoing fluoride fight in the City of Port Angeles. (Oh, and let's not forget that the fluoride issue never even made it on to the agenda for that Board of Health meeting, either.) All of which, to put it plainly, stinks. It doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't look right. It looks like someone who's trying to have it both ways: "I may have said I was for it, but I didn't vote for it."
Which is to say, it sure does seem like Mark Ozias is acting like another Clallam County politician who lies (literally) somewhere on the continuum between "typical," "lacking in vision" and "easy to manipulate."
And, it should be noted, for further context, that he does this with the full aid and comfort of the snoozing, toothless "watchdog" called the PDN, where they still haven't published anything about this latest battleground in the Fluoride War. After all, it's only public officials making decisions that affect the water supply for everyone. Why bother with such a nothing story, right PDN?
Or am I wrong to find this set of circumstances alarming?