Wow!

No creepiness.... I'm not very in tune with politics in town, wasn't sure which way you were heading with comments.  I understand now...and I'm with you on it.  The creepiness comes from the man who seems to hide when asked legitimate questions on his activities.  I can't believe this is a man from Tehachapi, representing us.   CREEPY.  That news shot didn't leave a great impression on my senses.

Dreamkiller - Get over your over-excited sense of offense.  Being a councilmember doesn't mean you don't get to express your opinion of other councilmembers.  And the notion that you have some positive control over what he says because he is "representing you" is just narsicism.  You have control only through the election process, but bad-mouthing someone (even if it represents your lack of understanding about the person you're criticizing, as it did in this case) is not a crime.

As for why Stan hasn't done a bettter job illustrating problems - I dunno - maybe he is incompetent, or maybe the establishment controls the news, or maybe they cover up for each other, or maybe everything's being done great - or maybe there is a combination of all four...whatta asking me for?

Curly - As for evidence you have seen or has been plastered on the TV, I give - enlighten me.  Your nebulous hints about information apparently available only to those on the "right email list" or those who attended unspecified "interviews" or references to unspecified investigations are exactly what I was complaining about.  It spreads mud, not enlightment.

Well, thanks for clearing that up PD. If there were any proof of government screw ups, the councilman has had more than a year to show the people some solid evidence instead of just lobbing empty accusations.

And I'm not making claims, I've seen the evidence and it's been plastered on the TV news for the past week. Perhaps you're not on the right email list or were absent during the interviews, but there is an ongoing investigation that has been confirmed by multiple law enforcement agencies.

I've also seen the evidence of the esteemed councilman dodging the press who are offering him a chance to show his righteous indignation, profess his innocense and clear his name. Sort of like you are attempting to do for him, only with your well-intended/written prose. Which is actually preferable to his own tactics of hiding behind his screen door and playing ring-around-the-rosie with the TV cameras.  

As for "personality issues or proof of official malfeaseance," I'm not sure there's a huge distinction in this particular case, except for the legal penalties of course. Perhaps the stereotype that suggests all politicians and lawyers are expected to be self-centered a$$e$ has become so widely accepted that most Americans will settle apathetically for such a glaring lack of ethics from their elected officials. Not I, PD. Just Say Nay to mudslinging and dishonesty in local politics. These are supposed to be our neighbors looking out for our best interests, not plotting how best to thrust the dagger deeply into the gaping wounds they've opened and left to bleed.  (Sorry Olivia, for the dramatic creepiness again, but it's how I feel)       

Ok PD If Stan Beckham wanted to solve the screw ups of the city council. Why doesn't he talk about the issues without attacking the other council members and anyone that disagrees with him? Why does he have to always say something like "I am right because all the others are stupid?" Have you been to wherestehachapi.com or stanbeckham.com? This is Stan and his group at their best! Talking crap about others to make the other side look bad.

PD- "Surely you don't mean Stan Beckham's famous if inaccurate speculation of Debbie Hand's smoking habits do you?  Election to public office surely doesn't prohibit a person from the freedom to engage in private conversations, even gossipy conversations, does it?  Not in the Land of the Free, I would hope."

When you hand a person your City Council business card and say. "Hey that's crazy for them to require that, The Mayor must by smoking that **** again. Like her and her music buddies like to do." That is no longer a private conversation. He represented the City and us when he did that! 

Gee, I thought my reference was pretty clear.  Beckham is telling us that the City Government is screwing up, and those in charge are opposing him with the means at their disposal.  That's what Debs told the country President Wilson was doing and that's what Wilson did back to him.   If, like Wilson, the City thought it necessary and if, like Congress, they could write a law to shut him up, they would.

Organized "mass-slander attacks"?  Surely you don't mean Stan Beckham's famous if inaccurate speculation of Debbie Hand's smoking habits do you?  Election to public office surely doesn't prohibit a person from the freedom to engage in private conversations, even gossipy conversations, does it?  Not in the Land of the Free, I would hope.

As for other outrages, I've read a lot of allusions to them by you and others, and your postings certainly throw a lot of potentially slanderous charges around.  You should drop or clearly explicate the charges you make against Beckham and allow the reader to judge if they are personality issues or proof of official malfeaseance.  Mostly you provide inneuedo and winking references that serve to widen, cheapen, and obscure whatever underlying charge you have against him. 
 

Thanks PD for the judicial history lesson. But I'm not quite sure where you stand on the issue of organized mass slander campaigns by elected officials.

"...as usual, the powerful and well-connected used the law and media dominance to silence their opponents.  Same as some folks here."

Are you comparing the publication of anti-war materials with anonymous, vicious, unfounded attacks against anyone who unwittingly steps into your (figuratively speaking, of course) political cross-hairs?

The more well known angle on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that if unfounded, sounding such an alarm under those circumstances can cause serious damage and possibly even death. It creates a credible threat where none existed. Granted that death might be someone's career, political or otherwise, but it could also result in a chain reaction of events that could pose no end of physical and emotional harm. Even if it's not "personal," there is such a thing as a community consciousness.  

You can't just rinse, spit and then put the toothpast back in the tube. Such behavior leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.     

The much-used "Fire in a Crowded Theater" analogy was stated by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in his decision upholding the conviction of Eugene Debs for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. 

The Espionage Act was essentially the Patriot Act on steroids, making it against the law to oppose government policy and Debs had been convicted of discouraging army enlistments and of defending draft-law violators in his speeches.

Debs' conviction followed the conviction of Charles Schenck who was prosecuted for distributing 15.000 hand-bills containing such un-American statements as "Assert Your Rights":

http://1stam.umn.edu/archiv...  (see the offending hand-out here)

In other words, Debs and Schenk were trying to convince people that the building WASN'T on fire, and, as usual, the powerful and well-connected used the law and media dominance to silence their opponents.  Same as some folks here.

As a outsider looking in for the last several months it hasn't been to hard to see who is who in our local political arena. After watching the news video link on the emails I have to say that someone looks rather guilty of something. Hiding behind a screen door and briskly walking past a news reporter says it all. Body language doesn't lie and there is a certain councilman that has such body language. I don't have a problem with people posting using different names but when people falsely send emails under someone Else's names and use the type of language that was used even I have a problem with that. If criminal laws where broking Then that person should be held accountable.

I like the way this blog is going. I hope Jim Richards doesn't delete it when he sees it. I also hope this group doesnt take Henry Schaeffer down with it. He is a good guy!

Thanks Gube. I believe it is possible to respect our differences, honor our common bonds and work together for positive change. The system begins to break down without real democratic participation. If justice were truly blind, there would be no need for both prosecutors and defe nders within our legal system (hmmm...no law = no lawyers?!)  The same is true of the checks and balances for governments of any size. The people need to be the eyes and ears and voices that remind our representatives they have the privilidge of speaking and acting for us - and that privilidge can be taken away by the people.   

curlyshirly thanks for the reply.........I am on the same page as you are.

Gube, I along with dozens of others have personally seen the emails (and some short lived blog posts) full of profanity and racial slurs calling various people criminals, stupid, negligent or worse, sugesting drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, extramarital  affairs, along with various pecadilloes and unsavory activities.

Many months ago, I casually started asking questions and making small talk before and after public meetings, just to see what kinds of respones I'd get from our elected officials. It only takes about 10 minutes of listening to the individuals in question to determine the degree of fanatism that is their only political platform. It's never about any "issues" that might help people to decide how these individuals might contribute positively to improving the community, they just go on about how corrupt and stupid any and all of their opponents are. The self-proclaimed campaign manager, "theoneandonlyannonymous" for both the rogue councilman and his 80-something candidate-protege has said publicly that "All's fair in politics." In one of the posts that was deleted yesterday, theoneandonlyslanderer told riceme that she'd continue to say/write what she pleases about whomever she chooses.  

Don't take my word for it. You just have to show up and listen to the horses mouth (actually the polar end) to figure it all out. I'm guessing that blog was deleted because it outed the guilty profile users by name, which is a violation of privacy and the terms of use for this site. Apparrently the 21st Century interpretation of the First Amendment gives everyone the right to express themselves anonymously and with rampant disregard for the personal rights of others. In other words, in 2008 it's apparrently now okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater as long as you do it annonymously. Hence the term "flame wars." A battle that simply cannot be won without a shock and awe plan of no mercy, just ask Hillary. The only defense against such tactics is to tell the truth and subscribe to the "give em enough rope" theory. 

So curlyshirly exactly how has your character and intelligence been insulted ? You talk as if you have a personal stake in all this.