Pages

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, for October 11, 06

Lordy! Lordy! Miz Scarlett, This Here’s No Place Fer A Lady!

Mah, Dear Cousin Emeline,

Yesterday, when ah got home frum mah Ladies Antimacasser Sewin’ Circle, you know, the one where Miz Hooperlilly alus drops her tea cake crumbs onner lap then her little dawg jumps up to git the crumbs ‘n Miz Hooperlilly shrieks an’ flings her teacup inta the air ‘n it crashes ‘n makes a mess, ‘n the chickens run in frum the back yard ta peck the crumbs, so’n’ the dawg starts chasin’ ‘em, ‘n then the whole place woops inta a uproar?

Anyplace, there wuz some papers hangin’ on mah doorknob when ah got down frum the buggy and ol’ Sam, you remember Sam, our family house servant? went to put the horse away.

Well, I grabbed it right quick and started reading a statement from a candidate for the Los Osos CSD who says right out that “Citizens, particularly women, need to feel safe in attending a LOCSD meeting . . .”

Particularly women? Well, now there it is, Emeline. I mean, how many times have ah tole you, us women, particularly us women, jes’ ain’t safe in them meetings? Oh, I know, I know, it wuz a woman who slapped another woman at one of them meetings one time, but she wuz a no-account sort. And O.K. fer purest, blood-chilling vitriol, it’s hard to beat some of them women who git up ta read frum their written ‘n finely honed public comments. Tough customers, they’ll set yer blood ta ice, they will. And, yes, it wuz some old guy who got hit by some young guy, a run amok off-duty sheriff’s officer that one time. But thet happened inna other room where some drinkin’ mighta been going’ on.

But all I can say is, maybe we should re-hire Mr. Watch What You Say & Mind Yer Manners. Remember him? Our CSD Back Of the Room Police Guy hired to scowl at ever’one ‘n call the Sheriff on folks who are being jerks. Then the Sheriff can hawl ‘em out on the front porch n’ beat the livin’ tar outta ‘em.. Then if that doesn’t shut people up, we should eliminate public comment altogether. Better yet, get rid of the meetings! Doan need any public there. Our elected officials know what’s best for us. We doan need to interfere. Thet only makes things messy ‘n noisy ‘n rude. And no Lady, especially a lady, should be mixed up in that sort of thing. .

Yes, Emeline, I know that awful Calhoun woman will carry on ‘bout how she’s attended board meetings all over the place, including some woop-dee-doopers at School Board where she once tole me she wuz sure somebody wuz gonna start hurling chairs, yet she says she never feels unsafe, that woop-dee-dooping and political theatre is what politics and noisy democracy is all about. Thet as a country we’ve gotten so disengaged frum one another thet we don’t know HOW to express strong opinions without soundin’ like jerks and causin’ someone ta scream Terrorist! ‘n faint. Thet we’ve all turned inta passive spectators, not passionate participants. Thet we mistakenly declare any strong disagreement or criticism to be Attack! Bashing! & Hate Speech! in order to deflect and shut any criticism down. Thet we think we are actually livin’ in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood because we’ve turned ourselves inta hand-wringin’ little chil’ren, ‘fraid of our opinions, ‘fraid of our shadows, ‘fraid of one another, ‘fraid to publicly disagree, ‘fraid to publicly criticize, unwilling to publicly own ‘n honor our opinions ‘n beliefs, ‘n unwilling to publicly hear the opinions of others who disagree with us.

In short, Emeline, that awful Calhoun woman thinks we’ve become a childish people who would hang somebody like Patrick Henry for darin’ ta stand up at a town hall meetin’ and pound the lectern like an adult because, Lordy help us, lectern poundin’ might frighten the women. Especially the women.

But then that Calhoun woman is no-account herself. Plus, I heard from ol’ Miz Thistlewaite thet she packs her granddaddy’s ole .44 inside those ridiculous striped socks she allus wears. .

No, Emeline, it’s time fer women, particularly women, to be made to feel safe at our public CSD meetings! Women, particularly women, should let their menfolks deal with all these political matters. I mean, no real lady would be caught dead in a place like that anyway!

Unless, of course, she’s running for a seat on the LOCSD Board herself.

Sincerely,

Elvira Cunningham

20 comments:

Ron said...

Missus Ann sed:

"... that woop-dee-dooping and political theatre is what politics and noisy democracy is all about. Thet as a country we’ve gotten so disengaged frum one another thet we don’t know HOW to express strong opinions without soundin’ like jerks and causin’ someone ta scream Terrorist! ‘n faint. Thet we’ve all turned inta passive spectators, not passionate participants. Thet we mistakenly declare any strong disagreement or criticism to be Attack! Bashing! & Hate Speech! in order to deflect and shut any criticism down."

Why, that's done beautifully put, Missus Ann.

Imma tellin' ya... all these "pot stirrers" makin' things so difficult fer our fine 'lected leaders.

Now, why can't they just take the add-vice of our fine prezdent:

"It's my job to worry about it. It's your job to go about your business."

You done heard da man... just go about yer buzy-ness, and don't cha all, 'specially you ladies, in Los Osos worry 'bout a ting.

Now, I's gots to git back to my still.

Where are my potaetas?

Anonymous said...

Ann - Which candidate said THAT?

Sincerely,

A Frightened Little Woman

Mike Green said...

Well Lordy Be! I sure am for pertectin the wimin! specialy the widders.
VERY FUNNY!!!
Great article Ann, Kudos!

Shark Inlet said...

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry.

It is a funny piece, but somehow it doesn't seem right to make fun of those who feel threatened by the behavior of some at the meetings.


While Ann may not have felt threatened by anyone named Al or Keith or Dave, I dare say that no one should feel threatened.

It may be fair to suggest that a person who feels threatened by at the meetings (or in the parking lot of Miner's) is just making it up. On the other hand, Al's actions in Sam Blakeslee's office could quite reasonably cause great fear.


Citizens who go to meetings should have the right to attend and to express their opinions ... whatever those opinions would be ... without fear for their own safety or fear of ridicule.

Churadogs said...

Ron said," Now, I's gots to git back to my still.

Where are my potaetas?"

Y'all cain't make corn mash wit potaetas, kin ya? Sounds lakhyer a fixin' ta make Roooshin Commie Vodka ta me.

Inlet sez:"Citizens who go to meetings should have the right to attend and to express their opinions ... whatever those opinions would be ... without fear for their own safety or fear of ridicule."

Fear of ridicule? Since when did that become a "right?" In the marketplace of ideas, you have the right to speak your mind. You don't have the right that whatever you said MUST be applauded (Clap or the Approvement Police will come in and drag you out and beat the tar out of you) or NOT be snickered at. Meetings of all sorts can set decorum rules and try as best to follow them, but the Public Comment at public meetings should be reasonably sacred. Also reasonably sacred is the listener's freedom to respond. Eyeball rolling is part and parcel ofpublic discourse. Comes with the territory. Deal with it.

What's happened to us as a nation is we no longer have a culture of Town Hall Meetings. We no longer engage one another in doing the public's business in public. We no longer know HOW to engage one another. Our national role models for this business are appalling -- Yer either with us er against us! If you criticise mah policy yer aidin' the ENEMY! & etc.

The funny (to me) irony of the campaign flyer was the sheer weirdness of a woman candidate stressing that women, particularly women, somehow needed protection . . from what? Some rude jackass in the back of a meeting room muttering disagreements? Pleeeezzzee. It was a Karl Rove moment -- juxtapose a scared soccer mom with babies at her breast image into the mix and therby imply that CSD meetings are DANGEROUS, WOOOO! filled with 9/11 Terrorists! Women and Children must be protected. Ooooo. (This coming from a woman who's running for the very office that runs all those DANGEROUS meetings?)

Ridicule, harumpphing, verbal Mau-Mauing in public until someone asks you to stop acting like a jackass,even going up to a candidates table at Farmers Market and dropping "F-bombs" all over the street until people think you've completely lost your mind and wonder why you're acting like a gross donkey is what bumptious, noisy, lively, face to face democracy is all about. Along with serious discussion, you'll have to take nincompoops whose only danger is the danger that you'll die laughing at their idiocy.

Yet it's something we've lost touch with, sitting at home passively watching things on TV, sitting and typing comments -- anonymous comments since putting ones name to those comments is . . . Ooooo, too scary -- on a computer screen in a weird kind of faux blogger-dialogue (bloggerlogue?) thinking that passes for real communication. . We don't connect face to face, we don't express strong feelings and beliefs to one another, we can't stand anyone disagreeing with us, we don't even want to own our own opinions and put our names on them.

I've heard from a lot of people who said they don't attend CSD meetings because they felt threatened. BY WHAT? Some rude jerk in the back of the room muttering to himself until Lisa pounds the gavel and asks the nattering folks in the back to hush up? Threatened???


No, we've turned into a nation of babies, passive, "politically correct", fearful babies who mistake strong disagreement and public argument over important issues with THREAT! FEAR! RUN AWAY I MIGHT BE SNICKERED AT.

The result is we stay home in our beds with the covers pulled up and do not engage one another or our elected officials. We can't do that . . . it's too . . . scary.

Feh. The result is exactly what happens to babies. They get whatever pap and crap the adults dish out to them.

That is the great lesson and tragedy of this Los Osos Sewer Train Wreck. If only 1,000 people had come down in person (out of a town of 15,000 people, not too much to ask for) and spoke out about which plan they wanted or didn't want or demanded a 218 vote before proceeding, or demanded what the Coastal Commission had asked for -- an intown-out of town evaluation and pricing comparison, so they could choose & etc. and did it in a timely manner, this train wreck could have been avoided.

But they didn't. Couldn't be bothered. Too scary to appear in and/or speak their mind in public to their own elected officials -- wasn't that what local control was suppose to be all about? Instead, they stayed home and let a few others decide for them. Like babies.

Anonymous said...

Churadog says:

"I've heard from a lot of people who said they don't attend CSD meetings because they felt threatened. BY WHAT? Some rude jerk in the back of the room muttering to himself until Lisa pounds the gavel and asks the nattering folks in the back to hush up? Threatened???"

Being a mob leader and only offering 'public comment questions',
HOW TRULY BRAVE YOU ARE!

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:'Being a mob leader and only offering 'public comment questions',
HOW TRULY BRAVE YOU ARE!

7:13 AM, October 13, 2006 "

Huh? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Your point is . . .?

Anonymous said...

I'm over it now, but the first time I saw Al go off I was at a CSD meeting in the row behind him. Lemme tell you, it scared me. The first time I saw Joey go off on a woman sitting table at Ralphs, it scared me. Maybe ONCE was enough for some, if you get my point

Anonymous said...

The behavior of those few who attend CSD meetings now and recycle themselves after every public comment is just very common behavior for fanatics. For these people, their sewer is their religion, and their behavior reflects it. One of my favorites recently was Keith Swanson going off on Julile Tacker at the last meeting. He complained his article in the Bay News was ruined by Julie's "we raided the water reserves" comment. "You ruined everything Julie. WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. And tell us also what you just said privately in a public meeting, 'cause I'm very mad at you. WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA."I swear no one in Hollywood could write entertainment like these people if they tried. You are so right Ann. Like babies.

Shark Inlet said...

Okay Ann, you got me.

I guess that one doesn't have the right to not be afeared of ridicule.

However, my point should be well taken. The CSD meetings should be run in such a way that no one should be reasonably afraid of attending and no one should be insulted for simply voicing their opinion. Do we agree on that?

Ann, in your last two paragraphs you suggest that if the public had been more involved and given more comment that the previous board would have taken different action. Might I suggest you are assuming both that the public wanted a different site and that the board would have been swayed. I actually doubt both.

Mike Green said...

You know, I kind of wonder what would happen if 1000 people actualy showed up at a meeting.
Chaos?
The polite rules would be out the window.
Maybe voice voting with a decibel meter at the top of Pecho road?

Anonymous said...

Churadog writes:

"Huh? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Your point is . . .?"

There is no risk, when no confrontational public comments target your peers(Mob).

Try publicly challenging one of them with your 'have you stopped beating your wife' style of questioning?

Have you ever publicly verbally questioned the actions of any of your peers? I thought not!

Anonymous said...

Ann,
I find it interesting that you do not endorse candidates, (see "Uh-Oh, Where Do We Send The Flowers?" October 8, 7:16PM), yet you appear here to be negatively endorsing (dis-endorsing?) one of the women candidates. Guess it doesn't work both ways.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Ann, in your last two paragraphs you suggest that if the public had been more involved and given more comment that the previous board would have taken different action. Might I suggest you are assuming both that the public wanted a different site and that the board would have been swayed. I actually doubt both."

If 1,000 (or better yet 2,000) people showed up at a CSD meeting and said, for example, "The CC asked for a side-by-side comparison of in-town vs out-of-town. We want to see that, then we want a 218 vote on the options." and the old Board sat there and said, Nuh-huh, then they should have been recalled right then and there as being unresponsive to their community and unresponsive to doing what was asked of them by the CC, for example. Would such a study and such a vote have headed this train wreck off at the pass? I say, Yes, absolutely. It would have truthfully/honestly have completed an important part in The Process that was shoved under the table with unsupported SOCs and claims that, Oh, there are no options, Oh, the out of town site is Waaaayyyy more expensive, You can't cross a creek with sewer pipes, Out of Town can't be done, There ARE NO OPTIONS,THIS IS THE ONLY ONE, & etc.

I say if the CC's request AT THAT POINT had not been shoved under the table (or off the table) and the Process had been properly continued, followed by a 218 vote (whether strictly legally required or not, maybe even call it, as the county plans to, an "advisory vote" on which plan wanted) then this train wreck you're looking at now would not have happened.

Inlet also sez:"However, my point should be well taken. The CSD meetings should be run in such a way that no one should be reasonably afraid of attending and no one should be insulted for simply voicing their opinion. Do we agree on that?"

The CSD meetings have always been run that way. And they've always been difficult to manage. Remember the late Rose Bowker and her Board attempting to forumulate some kind of "Acceptable Speech" rules, which earned a brickbat from the Trib. Then there was the old board's Mr. Back Of The Room Police Guy to try to keep tempers down. And so forth.

It is always a problem in a democracy. Town Hall meetings and our "Sacred" three-minutes of Public Comment always have to be balanced with "order" and "public safety." It's always been tricky.

I have never felt unsafe in any public meeting. And I've been in plenty wehre tempers were flaring. Part of the reason is this: First I REFUSE to allow some jerk to drive ME away from MY public Town Hall. Nosir! Second, I understand that a big part of Town Halls is not only "town characters," but public theatre. You only have to attend a few board meetings anywhere and observe and you'll see the players and the playbook, including the Boardmembers themselves. And, finally, people need to grow up. It's not just about minding your manners, it's about not taking all this personally, like overly sensitive teenagers who burst into tears and run away if you look at them cross-eyed. I think we've lost our ability to bumptiously deal with one another in the rough marketplace of ideas. Schools no longer teach debating techniques. maybe they've also inculcated a whole generation of people who think that the ONLY correct form of communication is to sit quietly with hands folded and never, ever, ever, criticize or disagree with what's been said because that might not be . . . nice and might hurt little Johnny's feelings. Add to that this whole politically correct notion that all opinons deserve respect? No, not all opinions do. An opinion advocating hatred and bigotry and violence not only doesn't deserve respect, it deserves to be actively and openly countered with more speech and or hoots of laughter and open derision for it's evil intent and stupidity. All of which -- God Bless America -- can and should be done in our open marketplace of ideas, the crowning glory of which are our "Town Halls," the last bastion of democracy, yet something we're in danger of losing through passive indifference and childish pique. Not good.

Shark Inlet said...

I would suggest, Ann, that another reason you've never felt threatened is that those who have a history of threatening behavior have tended to be those who agree with your point of view. If your commentaries had been supportive of Stan and Gordon and Richard during the year 2005, you would have had people harass you.

Maybe you aren't one to avoid the meeings because of a little fear. I am the same way. However, I think that when Joey or Al or Keith act in a way which could be reasonably interpreted as threatening by the regular guy or gal, the LOCSD board should take action and stop such actions ... heck, calling the sherrif isn't that hard to do.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez"I would suggest, Ann, that another reason you've never felt threatened is that those who have a history of threatening behavior have tended to be those who agree with your point of view."

sorry, Inlet, but I've had the wonderful experience of having a certain personage noted for his Mau-Mauing techniques stand in the middle of the street and yell at me. Not to mention menace and glower and mutter and behave all rude and jerky at CSD meetings and leave angry phone message & etc. Par for the course. I'm glad you refuse to be intimidated by jerks. Good on you. Every one in town needs to toughen up. We are not, after all, babies. Are we?

Anonymous said...

Fine Ann, we are not babies, as long as you agree that not every woman has to be just like you, or think just like you. Sorry, some women ARE afraid, and asking a 75 year old woman to just "toughen up" is ridiculous and insensitive.

Shark Inlet said...

Yes ...

Considering that courts have determined that poll taxes are an illegal barrier to participation by the poor, it isn't unreasonable to think that treats of violence would be viewed as limiting a person's right to participate.

Growing a spine is a good thing, but I am afraid that asking afeared people to participate even if afraid rather than asking Al and Keith to behave like adults is akin to blaming the victim.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Ask yourself this:

What do you think would happen at a Board of Supervisor's meeting if some public comments were accompanied by jeers, sneers, and people hollering out whatever they wanted?

We both know the answer.

They'd be told to either be quiet or leave.

That is why meetings are conducted using Robert's Rules of Order. The operative word here is, "Order".

To suggest that people should "toughen up" and "stop being a baby" is rediculous.

Anyone should be able to attend a public meeting and speak without ANYONE ridiculing them. If the listeners do not like what one speaker said, they are free to get up to the podium and have their say, also.

If you call the travesty of LOCSD Board meetings, "the last bastion of democracy" you are wrong.

And, saying that in regard to the lack of order that, "The CSD meetings have always been run that way" is to condone actions that would not be tolerated in a Board of Supervisors meeting, or anywhere else.

The only people acting like "babies" are those who jeer, boo and holler out. They have been allowed to get by with bad behavior, and they continue to do so at the meetings. Obviously their parents did a poor job of teaching them respect for others.

Shark Inlet said...

Does the LOCSD have bylaws which say they will be following Robert's Rules?