A "comment" that I think rates a front page answer.

The comment: Don't Be Cruel said... Remember the old Elvis song? "Don't Be Cruel"? Man, I know it is your blog, but can you give the rancor and vindictiveness a little rest this year? Might there be other ways to communicate other than harvesting the head off a chicken each time you hit the keyboard! Frequently, my analysis of a situation would lead me to a similar approach or an attempt to provide a solution that might parallel that of yours. As well, I rather like your updates and insight from time to time, but regarding your contemplation of entering the political arena, I can't see how your approach to "head-loping" those who happen to disagree with your approach will bring progress or improvements to the CCBOC. My answer: Well, I'm glad you brought that up. Had you been there at last Tuesdays' CCBOC meeting, or, to be more precise, during the break between the 5:00 PM workshop and the 6:00 meeting, you would have seen me rolled up to the dais and having a protracted and very convivial conversation with both Commissioners Zell and Keene as I've done before. Believe it or not, David Rainer and I unfailingly observe the social amenities when I run into him. Ditto for his wife who is one of the librarians where I did my student teaching. I see them quite regularly at Aunt B's. I speak to Steve Berry whenever I see him. Sometimes, he speaks back, but that's just Steve. Now, I have been harsh on Charlene Sears - and deservedly so when she was under the evil, Svengali sway of BTW. Of late, I've lightened up on her. In fact, after the meeting where she stood up to Berry and voted for the jail expansion, I shook her hand and said "Good job! I appreciate your vote." She was too shocked to respond and I'm sure is still plenty angry with me. However, the good news is that if I am on the CCBOC, she will not be, ergo our relationship would be a moot point. Now, how would I deal with other board members? While not in session and within the strictures of the Georgia Open Meetings Act, I would observe the usual social amenities - as I do now. However, and more importantly, once a meeting would be gavelled to order, I would explain my position on each and every agenda item which was not on the consent agenda, (By the way, I'm not really crazy about the whole consent agenda concept.) During the discussion period, if it appeared that my position was not shared by the majority, I would argue (and I use that in the non-angry, debating sense of the word) my position as effectively as possible, just as Steve Berry does so well. Then, when the vote was taken, if the other four were sufficiently intelligent to vote as I did, so much the better. If not, I would accept the error of their ways and move on to the next item. There is even the off chance that on rare occasions, during the discussion period, I might have my mind changed by the reasoning of another commissioner. I think you forget that on the board, I would not be dealing with the same class of cowardly, hate-filled, anonymous, ignorant, low-lifes I joust with here. February 1, 2010 4:13 PM