From the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
Start a rumor. Rumor blows up in your face. Point a finger at someone else and blame them.
Bob Beckel, a DEM, had spent a great deal of time cleaning up his image. He used to yell gibberish to confuse the listener. He found that such nonsense really was unbelievable so he changed. He still has the same beliefs but he tells us about them in a kinder way.
Apparently Beckel fell off the logical bandwagon and said some crazy things about Mrs. Obama. On its face the comments were purely unacceptable.
What has happened in politics is a movement away from campaigning on the issues and into the smear merchant arena. Smear merchants live by putting out their distorted “facts” and hoping that some of it sticks on the opposition. I am sorry that Beckel joined this group.
In Lassen County, where about half of our voting population arrived in the past 10 years, we don’t have these “smear campaigns.” On occasion they do pop up but the voter quickly lets the folks know that these activities are unacceptable.
NBC will replace Mr. Russert but they will likely never fill his shoes.
I heard Mr. Russet described at the “gold standard”. Very appropriate. Mr. Russert performed his job at the highest levels. He wasn’t into name-calling, he simply dealt with the facts. I believe that his time with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan probably rounded out his impressive personal background.
Mr. Russert, the consummate professional, will be missed.
Tell Congress to stop talking, which will help global warming, and start doing their job…
Every two years we in Lassen County have a November election. Contained within that election is a vote for our local electric utility Board of Directors.
That is about the time that our local “Committee” website goes on its rant about illegal elections and provides wild ideas about how the election should be conducted. This year is no different.
LMUD Elections on November Ballot
Ward 1, 2, 4 & 5 will be on the November Ballot
We must note that Ward 3 is not up for election. That means that the “Committee” will rant that the holder of that office is there illegally. Never mind that every relevant government agency has ruled this position of the “Committee” to be, being nice here, WRONG!! Here is their obligatory rant on this issue:
FACT: Wayne Langston, the Nagels son-in-law, lived in the Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative when he was appointed and continued not to live within Ward 3 through the next LMUD election. Langston has NEVER been on a LMUD Ballot and has never received one single vote…..EVER.
It is time for the “Committee” to get over what they think happened 7 years ago. It really is time to get over this obsessive compulsive behavior. The “Committee” even tried to recruit opposition for Mr. Langston.
Obviously they failed to get any takers.
The “Committee” insists that the utility waste money by putting the incumbent on the ballot when he has run unopposed. The “Committee” has never explained how this would change the outcome of the election except to cost the ratepayer money! They don’t mind spending ratepayer money for their folly do they?
This group is always trying to come up with new ways to restrict voter participation. Here is the latest:
WILL THE COUNTY CLERK REQUIRE LMUD CANDIDATES TO BRING THEIR CURRENT LMUD BILL BEFORE THEY CAN SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATIONS?
It is obvious that the group is not on the distribution list for the DEM talking-points. We aren’t supposed to ask folks to prove who they are when they vote. By extension of this logic, the voter would have to show their utility bill to vote in this race.
Here is the logic, I think:
LMUD Ratepayers will have until August 8 to file for one of the four seats that will be on the November ballot.
According to the new County Clerk, only registered voters that live within the LMUD Wards will be allowed to file for these seats. LMUD is required, as all Special Districts, to submit a list of their ratepayers to the County Clerk in order to prepare the ballots.
This process prevents a PSREC or PGE customer from running for the LMUD Board
Registered voters? That is correct. Live within the LMUD Wards? That is correct. Be a ratepayer? I can’t find that reference. The code talks about voters and land owners.
The idea of who votes or not in the LMUD election was adjudicated by LAFCo years ago. In 2003, a member of the “Committee” stated that she was going to file an application for LAFCo to review LMUD “boundaries”. No application has been filed to date…makes one think that the “Committee” know their position is pure puff.
If the “Committee” wants to change how things are done on the LMUD Board then they should simply run for election. All of this other nonsense is simply, yep, NONSENSE!
Like Mr. Langston, the “Committee” has never received a vote in any LMUD election. Yet, Mr. Langston is legally a member of the board.
Like Mr. Langston, the “Committee” has never been on the ballot. Yet, Mr. Lanston is legally a member of the board.
Mr. Langston has run unopposed. The “Committee” has never put their name into the hat to run for election. I don’t know why the “Committee” is afraid to run as their “polls” indicate that thousands of people support them.
It is easy to sit on the outside and second guess every decision. The “Committee” should step into the ring, make the decisions that could be second guessed by others, and follow the rules required of elected officials.
It is sad to see a group of people continually perpetuate myths that they know are wrong in hopes that the readers of their website will take the bait and cause problems for the community. This will only serve to divert attention away from the “Committee” but it accomplishes nothing.
I will try to keep you up to date on this continuing saga but I would prefer that it be put to bed as a waste of time and bandwidth.
Who said this?
October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
On June 4 the Susanville City Council approved a $5.775 million budget. The vote was 4 – 1.
Under the leadership of Mayor Callegari, city staff has made significant changes. The most important is intangible. During the budget workshops, the Management Team presented an open and candid discussion of their departments. The old “protectionist” theme was gone.
Not that long ago, department heads were simply handed their budget and were told to implement it. That budget was prepared by the City Administrator and tacitly reviewed by the City Council.
Enter Rob Hill as the new City Administrator. Transparency and cooperation was born. The City Council didn’t just sit there during the discussion. All 5 members provided input. This means that I have reasonably accomplished my two stated campaign goals – transparency and the Council asking questions.
We have had a financial problem in the city. That problem was compounded by the use of mitigation funds to pay for day-to-day activities. This will be addressed with a City Council Policy before the next budget cycle.
We also have issues with the natural gas refinance. I will admit that my numbers may differ with staff’s numbers. Yet, after making some significant adjustments to our overhead allocation methodology the natural gas budget still expends about $100,000 more than it should to meet the criteria for re-financing. This is just a budget and actual costs could rise wildly over the next 12 months.
There isn’t a lot of fat in city spending. Any negative that impacts revenue or increases expenses could present some important challenges during the next fiscal year.
More Lassen County election comments.
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion on politics. Sometimes the opinion is valid and sometimes the opinion, well, is kind of out on the fringe.
763 votes is hardly a mandate when three other candidates run against you.
That is how Supervisor Bob Pyle’s win is being depicted by our local Committee Bulletin Board website. That is a real head shaker. What does that mean? The 763 votes represents 56.6% of the votes cast in this election. Let’s follow the “thought” process…
That states only constituents were not happy with Pyles’ performance during his time on the Lassen County Board of Supervisors. Pyle received 56% of votes cast. Yes, that’s enough votes to stave off a run-off election in November, but more people would be voting in November.
Okay, I got it. 4 people running and the winner receiving 56% of the vote is not a mandate. Would 60% do? The other 3 candidates received 15.1%, 14.6% and 13.6%. So 56% of the vote in a 4 person race is not a mandate and a 41% margin of victory over second place is not a mandate! Would the Committee kindly explain why this isn’t a mandate? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I actually thought that the 14.6% would have been higher but I missed on that one.
It’s pretty sad that seats for the Board of Supervisors and Susanville City Council are held in June. Everyone stays home for this election. Lassen County voters can’t even find the time to send a “mail-in” ballot.
Let me get this right. About half of the voters turned out and by a 56% to 44% (a margin that anyone considers a mandate) Mr. Pyle won. So the theory of the Committee is that the half that did not turnout was the half that would have voted in mass against Mr. Pyle. If they felt so strongly on this issue, why did they not vote?
No doubt the turnout was bad for this election. I wouldn’t blame it on the voter. Remember that our esteemed Legislature wanted to spend more time in Sacramento so they could continue to create problems for local government. They moved the traditional Presidential Primary from June (this month) to February so that they could tinker with term limits and be important in the Prez election.
Both of these backfired. Term limits was not adjusted and many in the Legislature are heading “home”. Our opportunity to be important in the Democratic Presidential Race was eliminated. How many folks would have shown up on June 3rd if we held our Prez primary on that date? And the Committee blames the voter!!!
To put this into perspective I submit the following. In November 2004 the turnout was 81.56%. In 2004 we had a June Primary turnout of 52.2% while this election was 42.84% (I like the 42.84% because I won the pool with a 43% prediction). In the 1st District race in 2004, 1,367 voters cast ballots. In this race 1,349 cast ballots. Therefore, a 10% increase in county-wide voter participation resulted in a net 18 additional votes. Is there any valid rationale to think that an additional 30% in voter turnout would have significantly changed this election? As you go down the ballott we find fewer votes being cast. That is ballot creep or an undervote. Many voters simply don’t know who their local elected officials are and don’t vote in down-ballot races.
I would suggest to the Committee that they don’t have a mandate on ideas as no member has received a single vote in an election – at least none that would state that they are a part of the Committee. I would suspect with a big turnout in November that the leaders of the Committee will throw their names into the hat for a seat on LMUD.
The votes are in on eminent domain in California.
Proposition 98 used eminent domain to cover up its real intent – chaos in the housing market. For not being honest the Proposition only received 1,343,037 votes in favor while more than 2 million folks saw through the commercials.
Proposition 99, a tad better than 98, garnered 2,129,620 votes in favor and only 1,283,050 votes against.
I doubt seriously that this puts the debate to rest but it is a good start.
These results are penultimate final numbers.
In the 1st Supervisor District we have 4 running for 1 seat
Robert Pyle (i) – 763 (56.56%)
Claud Neely – 204
Kay White - 197
Virginia Wilson - 184
This is a significant win for Bob Pyle. Maybe we can put Claud’s Mayberry song to bed.
In the 2nd Supervisor District we have 2 candidates for 1 seat
Jim Chapman (i) – 699 (74.28%)
Ronald Wood - 228
Jim is an easy winner. He will soon become the longest serving Supervisor in Lassen County history - 8 terms in office, plus the City Council, and Lassen College.
The City Council has 4 candidates for 3 seats.
Lino Callegari (i) – 1,075
Douglas Sayers (i) – 947
Joe Franco – 911
Rod De Boer (i) – 858
The 2006 election was the start of the change in direction of the City Council. I defeated Mary Fahlen, Rocky Joy resigned last year, and now Joe Franco is elected to replace Rod De Boer. Rob Hill was hired to replace Mrs. Rainey and Peter Talia was hired as City Attorney to replace Mrs. Lazard. We hired a new police chief in early 2007.
The future, as we all well know, is uncertain. The voters have spoken and the City Council must now produce results that are tangible to the citizens of Susanville. This is no small task but I think one that is within the ability of this City Council.