Aaron Ochs · @razoronline
9th Jan 2011 from Twitlonger
You have to have a thick skin when you're a blogger and you express certain opinions on the Internet. You're going to get a wide array of attention and responses. Some people will agree with you. Others will disagree. And then some people will, you know, will completely misunderstand the opinion and misconstrue it as something more insidious than it really is.
Yesterday, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot by what happened to be a "lone gunman," carrying out an assassination attempt on the Democratic lawmaker. She ended up surviving, but the shooter killed six people. Curiously, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was also the target of Sarah Palin's "lock 'n load" list and she was the target of several threats after voting for Obama's health care reform.
It really serves as a teachable moment for everyone to take a step back, and let the better angels of ourselves preside over political discourse -- especially in local communities like Los Osos, California, where the 30-year wastewater project saga has become the linchpin of divisiveness.
See? What I just said was my opinion. It's a rather docile opinion. Some may call it "milquetoast," but it's definitely a far cry from advocating that someone should be shot.
Sadly, that's what Ann Calhoun actually thinks.
Yesterday, I went on Calhoun's Cannon(s) to discuss the tragic news yesterday as it runs parallel to the bubbling rage that is found in Los Osos, and I mentioned Lynette Tornatzky, who posts as herself on the blogs, and "Mike," who is known for his diatribes that thrive on the pain and suffering of others. Both of these individuals, amongst others, have taken to the message boards since early 2006 to anonymously broadcast their incendiary views about people they disagree with. While disagreement is part of our democratic value system, there is a difference between disagreement and callously isolating individuals and casting them in a libelous light. It sets a dangerous precedent in such a close-knit community to anonymously attack their neighbors.
As an example, I posted a screenshot of a comment made by someone named "Violence_of_Action" (on SanLuisObispo.com) who posted local realtor Richard Margetson's mailing address and license information as a means of using his "freedom of choice" to go after his business. And why did "Violence_of_Action" do that? Because Margetson was mentioned in The Tribune on Friday by Bob Cuddy. Margetson rebutted Hill's contentions involving Los Osos residents. That was his only crime. Instead of addressing what Margetson said, this person chose to devalue his disagreement by calling to boycott his business.
Meanwhile, a few critics of mine have stated that I do the same thing: going after people merely because I "disagree" with their points of view. Without context, of course, it's quite a simple assessment to make. It's also a very lazy assessment to make. Calhoun made a similar assessment, which went as far as to imply that I'm advocating violence against Margetson and Tornatzky, who I identified as being part of the problem in the downfall of discourse.
I'm shocked and appalled by these implications. I personally condemn any and all acts and threats of violence, and it truly is shameful when people -- like Calhoun -- twist and exaggerate the meaning of my expressed opinion to make it seem like I'm encouraging violence of any kind. That is inexcusable, and it really speaks to what's happening in the community now.
Los Osos is on the cusp of actual progress. The unincorporated town of Los Osos is going to finally get a wastewater project, but it's not the project that everyone wanted. One of the reasons why the project has never been this close to being fully achieved is that many of the dissenters of the project could not comprehend the mechanics, the documents and the principles behind the project. These dissenters have comfortably lived their lives in a state of discombobulation that doesn't allow anyone to stop the flow of chaos to assess the damage done and the damage they've done to their own cause.
In what appears to be a serious lapse of competence on her end, Calhoun has tried to paint a troubling illustration of Razor Online, the blog and the author as being the problem without once addressing the concerns or points made by the author. The distraction from what's happening -- "in the now" -- is obvious.
PZLDF, the McPherson-led organization, lost in the Dec. 28 ruling by Judge Crandall. The lawsuit by PZLDF aimed to invalidate Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board enforcement by addressing alleged due process violations and inconsistencies in enforcement action. The suit sought to invalidate the Cease and Desist Order presented by the water board. Interestingly, in her support of the lawsuit, she misinterpreted the clear language shown in the Cease and Desist Order itself: the very epicenter of the litigation. It's clear that she cannot -- and it appears that she will not -- elevate her level of reading comprehension to objectively view the circumstances.
Instead, she will attack and attack and attack because she wants to keep her political narrative on life support, even though it's in a debilitating, irrecoverable coma. It is delusional to preserve the weakest arguments and defend them maliciously by calling critics like me "irrelevant" and "ankle-chewing." She does this effortlessly while condoning offensive irrelevance and falsehoods -- on her own site -- about her friends, neighbors and even her supporters. Calhoun's negligence to ascertain the facts and moderate the "laissez faire" environment of bigotry shows an unconscionable lacking of moral character. Her callous ignorance represents a serious character flaw of the dissenters as a whole.
Stop the fragmentation of our community and talk about what really matters.