Hitler had it right? please explane yourself hitler was a total idiot

anonymous....its EXPLAIN

Quoting Hitler  so soon into your "candidacy, Mr. Richard?" Hmmm....
I've missed maybe half a dozen city council meeetings over  the past year or so and the only time I've seen Mr. Richards there is when he's wasting the council and citizen's time making them to rewrite useless ordinances in the name of privacy, security or some other hoopla like not being able to be seen (or see?) over the podium.
He says he wants to serve the people but he made it clear to the council he's afraid to disclose his address when he speaks publicly because he thinks the citizens who attend those meetings will come and rob his home. Nice.
Glad to see you already have a deep respect and fedllowship for your coinstituents.   And god forbid those constituents should be hispanic, need any ESL services...or worse, an interpreter or any social services.  I say go join Mr. Couch in Bakersfield's Gestapo and take your Hitler quotes with you.

My, My! You certainly are harsh...but I respect your right to be so.

Jim Richards

Why was Hitler an idiot?  I'll throw another quote out there "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it".  I wish I could remember who said that. 

Hitler was far from an idiot.  He knew how to inspire the common person to follow him into hell.  He took an entire country of poor, disenfranchised, downcast people and in a decade had them singing in the streets an homage to him and their Fatherland.  He was an egotist with a severely twisted conscience and he was a master at mass manipulation. 

It is easy to disregard those who have committed evil acts and to dismiss their existence with pithy remarks.  It is much more unsettling to study their methods and accomplishments.  If you don't know the enemy, how can you ever hope to defeat him?

I think what Jim is saying is that things are happening, or not happening, in the City Council meetings and the public should be more aware and involved. 

TK, I agree with your point. The quote referenced was by George Santayana's The Life of Reason. 

Santayana was a 19th century Spanish born and Harvard educated poet, who also said, "Advertising is the modern substitute for argument; its function is to make the worse appear better."
False advertising is exactly what Mr. Richards is doing when he makes a flimsy blanket statement chastising citizens for their non-involvement and inferior knowledge of local government, especially in light of the fact that he's been at only a handful of council meetings over the past year or so. 
In general, I believe most Americans are pretty pissed off with all levels of government right now. I truly hope that Tehachapi won't succumb (again — like they did in November) to more campaign "advertising" that only focuses on "ousting the old guard" instead of addressing their take on the issues and their strengths and capabilities. Have any of you heard or seen Mr. Beckham do anything positive for the city lately? Does he even look at these blogs now that he's done using them to further his campaign? By all means, the "poor, disenfranchised, downcast people" of Tehachapi should become more involved in local government so they don't fall for the first modern day mass manipulator who knows how to utilize the internet.   
Here's another famous quote for you:  "We have met the enemy and he is us." —  Walter Kelly, Pogo
As for your comments about Hitler's charismatic leadership, you could also go on to say that Mengele was a medical genius.

...and by the way, I can't imagine it's legal or ethical to use the Homeland Security logo unless you're super secretly in their service...which is just way too scary to even contemplate as I have no desire to become the featured guest of some West Coast version of Gitmo for bloggers. 
 

WOW, Mr. or Ms. "Curly", whoever you are behind your anonymous facade, I only quoted Hitler's statement, not him as a person. And how would you know how many Council meetings I have attended, or not, since you stated you were only present at half a dozen yourself? Methinks thou doth speak out of both sides of the mouth.

I take no personal umbrage to your acidic and personal flack attack remarks. You are entitled, as we all are, to your own opinion(s). And that's just what they are!

Jim Richards

This is my real name. How about yours? And, since you feel that I personally changed a 46 year old ancient City Ordinance to one of a more modern day significance because I was "afraid" to reveal my home address, I will be waiting at the next City Council meeting for you to stand up and state your real name and street address. And state the "handle" you are using here so we know who you really are! There are entirely too many "anonymous" users here and they could also use a dozen or more different "handles". I have only one, my REAL one.

How many do you have?

I've missed maybe half a dozen city council meeetings over  the past year or so...
I hope as a public servant hopeful you learn to read more closely.  If I am wrong about your attendance, please correct me. 
As for revealing my "true identity," I am not the one running for public offfice. Besides my "superpowers" become null and void and I would no longer be able to poke people's eyeballs and do pratfalls without consequence.
Of course it would be foolish for you not to use your "real name" considering your ultimate goal of attaining political fame and recognition, if not fortune. 
I would love to go toe-to-toe with you, but my employer, various family members and the secret identity union would not approve. 
I might point out to you that our forefathers used many a nom de plume in the fight for freedom that ensured the freedom of speech - (see "The Constitution") for all Americans (including those of non-white heritage).
It's funny, nobody seems to mind the anonymity until the anonymous disagree with their viewpoint or agenda.  That's one thing I like about this forum — it's not your ususal polite grocery store conversation.  

 
  

The only persons going to city council meetings that regular is the council themselves. I bet you are one of them, you sound a lot like Hand and what she posted before. 

I find it odd that you complain that people are using this blog for their own personal agendas as if you are not. I have not heard Mr. Richard's publicly announce his intention to run for any position. Did I miss something? You however seem extremely dissatisfied by this possibility and are making very well known.

I've missed maybe half a dozen city council meetings over  the past year or so...

There are only a handful of people who have to attend that many city council meetings. Yes, I mean what I say, HAVE to.

I've seen Mr. Richards there is when he's wasting the council and citizen's time making them to rewrite useless ordinances in the name of privacy, security or some other hoopla like not being able to be seen (or see?) over the podium.

It was this kind of thinking and disrespect for the publics concerns and opinions that lead to the results of the November elections.

I truly hope that Tehachapi won't succumb (again — like they did in November) to more campaign "advertising" that only focuses on "ousting the old guard" instead of addressing their take on the issues and their strengths and capabilities. 

Well we know the strengths and capabilities of our current "old guards" and quite frankly many of us are unimpressed!

LOL! This person is NOT Hand! They are much smarter than her. Hum, let's see who has Mr. Richard's spoken very publicly against and would feel most threatened about his running for city council? Any guesses?

By the way "Curly" I mean no disrespect.

I 100% agree with countygirl on this. Jim has done what is right and no more. He would be a shoe in if he did run. You call it "waisting the time of the council" but what he did was make them follow the Brown Act! 

Let me be perfectly clear: I am not an elected or paid city official or employee relative thereof, and I do not have any such aspirations, unless someone wants to back my bid for the Presidency. I'm strictly about the big time.   
And by the way, the Brown Act has nothing to do with Mr. Richard's previous campaigns to make changes at city hall. I sat through at least 5 or 6 meetings where the council and the public very carefully discussed the rewording of an update to the ordinance that used to require people to state their address when they speak at public meetings. Mr. Richards was in attendance at only two of those meetings as I recall.  Regardless of any "security" concerns, real or perceived, this was a HUGE time suck for those few of us who voluntarily attend meetings. Now most people still state their address, possibly out of respect for the rest of the audience, I don't know. It seemed like big dig at those who do attend since only those at the meetings would pose such a threat to Mr. Richards person or property. Or possibly our local criminal element is doing recon at city council and passing on the intel to their B&E buddies out on the street. I'm not sure, but I do believe he will need to declare that information publicly when he submits an actual petition for candidacy. LOL.     
I'm just a dweeb who pays attention, nothing more. My only "agenda" is to remind people to look beyond the need for "change" at any cost.
Good for Mr. Richards for telling people to get involved. I have nothing against him personally, I just think it's hypocritical to act like you're the epitome of the upstanding and civic-minded when you're notably absent. I really don't care for those candidates who use intimidation or shame tactics to gain followers. Voters should know exactly what they're getting when you support ANY candidate.  Tell me what you are going to do and how you plan to do it. Don't just tell me "they" aren't doing "it" right.     

Correction: the right of public to address a local government agency during a public meeting is set forth in the Ralph M. Brown Act  (Government Code Section 54950 - 54963).  Section 54954.3 states every regular agenda must allow for public comments, even criticisms.  Time constraints may be placed on the public and the local agency does not need to respond to anything said by the public at that time.  54953.3 states no one will be required to give their name or any other information in order to attend a public meeting.  To require people to state their name and other information as a condition of expressing comments is against the spirit and substance of California law.  Jim is correct to challenge it on the local level.