Touche': Murder of the First (Amendment)

I would be remiss if I did not report another event from the 5/7/13 Commission meeting.  A majority of the Commission has applied itself to preventing me from placing an ad in the newsletter, to say that this blog exists, how to access it, and how to participate in it.  Two Commissioners, Anderson and Ross, introduced agenda items intended to address that resistance.  Anderson got cold feet, and he withdrew his item.  Ross persisted.

The item, which was phrased as a reconfirmation of the already established policy that Village residents can post non-commercial messages for free in the newsletter, was pressed by Ross, despite vigorous attempts to deflect or confront from Cooper and Jacobs.  Watts was a silent co-conspirator with those two.

The matter itself was not interesting.  I fully expected a personal vendetta from Cooper and Jacobs, and I had my suspicions that Watts would go along.  Sure, it's a gross misuse of office, but I know them well enough not to have expected anything more.  These are small people with no material of their own.  And they want an opportunity to punish me for speaking ill of them.

What was interesting was the gross hypocrisy, especially from Cooper.  Cooper actually recalled his alleged dedication to civil rights, specifically free speech, and he had spoken earlier in the meeting about his disdain for the intrusion of government.  So it was perversely fun, even though it was at my own expense, to watch him make a fool of himself.  Of course he typically does, as does Jacobs, so it was nothing new.  It was just so blatant, and pathetic.  He remembered his efforts to confront the one-time "Decorum" Ordinance, which he correctly viewed as intended to suppress his bad behavior, and he remembered his similar confrontation of the suppression of his vile rants in the newsletter column.  But he has vastly more tolerance for his flailing attacks on others than he does for any reference, even without content, to this blog.

Come to think of it, in the same meeting he called me a liar for reminding him that an investigation three years ago found him culpable (He must have thought Ross was a liar, too, since she told him the same thing, and Bob Anderson and Barbara Kuhl remembered it the same way I did.  All liars, I guess.), and he further accused me of lying when I told him what the Codes said about management of the rights of way.  But since I read the Code to him, it seems he thinks the Codes lie, too.

Well, what can I say?  When you lose, you lose.  And I lost.  I was beaten.