JUST THINKING......

     A chivalrous gentleman wrote that the "malcontents" only began to holler after David Israel became rude in his behavior towards me when I opposed him for office. How dare I? I say thank you to that person and all people who supported me then in that run, but not to worry. I am a big girl, all grown up, and the noises of small people do not bother me. Indeed, they amuse me for it is easy to swat them away and down and do provide a degree of amusement.
     You see, the point of running was almost not to win. I came out of nowhere and ran for office only so that the faults and danger of David Israel and Ed Black could be seen openly, brought out  and shown to be how dangerous they were and still are and in that point - I won. Never mind the nastiness and cloudy election process. Just look at the progress in the past two years. We have defeated many of his plans, forced him and his minions to face the wrongs they have done, the ills of their neglect, the financial disasters they are forcing upon us - and by the way, come to the meeting Wednesday at 10 in the Clubhouse and prepare to hear a bunch of hooey so come with good and pointed questions and demand that they be answered and never mind the "come to my office and I will explain." We want explanations NOW. So, yes, we have had victories and the satisfaction meter is running high.
     What was and remains one of the best aspects of the run was showing others that it can be done, that David Israel has no magic power and no matter how much he screams and throws tantrums or tries to intimidate with fancy techie words or out of date Cold War terms, there is nothing to fear. So he calls names. So what. So he sics his henchmen and women on me, as few as they are - so what? At the forum he was shown to be limited and incapable of answering strong questions and we will continue to do that.
     Of course, for me, the best aspect was the friends that I have made from that run, the people I came to meet and how some of them have become my closest and most valued friends, admired by me for their intelligence and courage, for their caring and I would run twenty times over just for this result. I am blessed for this outcome.
     And let's see what has driven them so crazy, to the point of sputtering. Hmmm. Term limits. Yesterday, one of the sweetest persons I met thru the campaign gave me a whole expose on term limits, or rather a good and detailed presentation and explanation. Basically it states that term limits is "rotation of officials'. Now how can that be bad, giving people a chance to come into office and give their all for others and if not, well, there is a time when they will have to go. Fair enough as no one gets a guarantee here on this world. For that - wait till the next and talk with the big CEO.
     This paper delineated how many political entities have term limits, from large to small and the value of it. In fact, some big companies now even insist on having their CEO leave after several years and bring on another, all the better to air the place out, tweak it in another direction, look at things from another viewpoint, meld the two outlooks into a brand new and profitable one. What can be wrong with that? What? Well, some people cannot give up their hold on what they see as power. The synergy of their efforts grows exponentially and they simply see themselves as entitled to remain in that position, no matter how useless, no, dangerous and harmful they have become, how devalued they have become. This is the act and behaviorism of tiny tots in adult bodies. Sad, but true.
     We can also ask the question that you must answer for yourselves. Would you simply stand by and allow our Federal government the option, the ability, to censor our papers, you know, the ones left on your door (despite the doorknob thief gang)? Would you allow Obama to censor the programs on your TV or streaming device? So why then do you stand still for the censorship of those same things here? Why is it okay for our once respectable Village paper to turn into The Rag, a censored, meaningless, ever smaller readership, telling the truth about nothing and becoming a Pennysaver handout? Why is it okay to allow censorship and even destruction of our Channel 63 and why? Because I was the person that Ed Black could not stomach seeing on Channel 63 in an under five minute discussion of a book club. Really and truly. And we had two principled people, the Greggs, who stand by their principles who resigned and now Channel 63 is a bulletin board - and you all out there allowed it by not standing up and shouting about it.
     Why have you all allowed David Israel to decide who can or cannot talk at the Clubhouse, giving marching orders to Eva, head of WPRF here in the Village, who can or cannot use and how they can or cannot use other WPRF facilities.
     Why do we have a very muddy financial outlook and budget with explanations short, unclear and changing daily, sometimes almost hourly? Why have some of the best writers of the Village now become steady columnists in The CV Messenger, the new and vibrant Village paper? Why? Because they are blocked, banned from The Rag. Why is there a rotten system of multiple votes by people who think they can control the Village and whence it goes? Why are there shenanigans with by laws that are desperately needed? Why are helpful people and meetings not called on and in until UCO and David Israel are forced to do it, shamed into it? Why do we have people that evidence serious mental issues running things in UCO and in various committees, people who shout and threaten or talk and mutter to themselves.
     These are a lot of things to think about, to weigh, to find one's own place within the struggle. Remember when we manned the barricades, carried the posters, forced a world to hear and change. Well, we are the same people, just a bit older and perhaps more sophisticated in how we can go about changing things. Bring that person back. Stand up tall and say - no more. Remember - "the whole world is watching' - well, they are now too.