(Note: We are not suggesting anything about those attending the Anaheim Golf Course event with this photo. It’s just a movie reference, OK?)
NOTE: SEE UPDATE AT THE END!
As most readers know, CATER is holding a serious, significant public event tonight where we have a man who is arguably the preeminent “climate skeptic” from within the scientific community taking on a rag-tag tag-team composed a climate change activist, another scientist with relevant expertise — and me. It will also be fun — and there may be dancing. We can’t rule it out, anyway. OK, we’d probably go elsewhere to dance.
But we are nothing if not sporting! And so when he heard that what seemed to us like a hastily assembled bit of counter-programming by the Kleptocratic forces to keep people away from our event, we said: “hey, we are nothing if not sporting!” And so we planned to promote their event too.
Here’s what we were going to run:
Anaheim Hills Golf Course
6501 E Nohl Ranch Rd.
Anaheim, California 92807Created for Kash for K9s — a Tribute to Bruno and his K9 Friends
Please purchase your presale Bingo Package and be in a drawing for a Suite for four tickets to an upcoming Angels game.
www.AnaheimDogParks.org. Two opportunities to win!
Join us for a fun evening of Bingo, food, drinks, prizes and celebrate the new Dog Parks for the City of Anaheim while honoring the active and fallen K9 officers heroes. The Friends of Anaheim PD K9 Association will be also sponsored the event. Special invite to the APD K9’s, I heard they wanted to swing by and say thank you personally.
The package includes three game cards, one dabber, one drink ticket and Hors d’oeuvres. (FYI early sign up helps get a head count for the food and beverage). At the door price will be $45 and include the same except for the drawing. To purchase your presale Bingo Package please go www.AnaheimDogParks.org. If you can not make and would like to donate you make do so on the website.
Stay cool and have a fun and enjoy the summer party with the other dog lovers in the community. Mixer will start at 5:30 pm prior to the Bingo at 6:00 pm.
Volunteers always welcome to help. Thank you!
Well, WE love dogs too — in fact, we love them enough to wish for a serious investigation if they were ever wounded in circumstances that suggest that it might have been by “friendly fire.” (Because, in that case, you’d want training to avoid further needless canine deaths, you know? And we care about that!) So we were already to say — GO! IF YOU DON’T WANT TO COME TO OUR SERIOUS EVENT THAT ALSO RAISES FUNDS FOR CATER’S WATCHDOG ACTIVITIES, BY ALL MEANS GO TO THE GOLF COURSE AND HOBNOB WITH THE PEOPLE DOING WHATEVER THEY CAN TO STOP US! — but now we’re afraid that we can’t do that in good faith.
You see, we received this email.
We don’t know if it’s true, but it says that the Anaheim City Code requires that anyone who puts on a BINGO game must first have a City-granted permit. It only costs $67, but it takes a while to process. (CATER is considering getting a license for one ourselves.)
Anyway, we’re concerned that this group may not have the required license to put on a legal BINGO game. And so we can’t tell you to go be an accessory to a crime, if that’s what it would be, because we know how aggressive Anaheim’s City Attorney’s office can be when it comes to prosecuting misdemeanors! (You’re our readers! We don’t want you to get hurt!)
So look: you have been warned that the game may not be legal if a permit is required and if it hasn’t been obtained, which we don’t know is the case — but it sure is keeping all of US away from it! So if you take the risk, that’s on you.
If you want to be perfectly safe, you do have the alternative of coming to the Servite High School Auditorium tomorrow night (we plan to start promptly at 7:00, and if you want in on the VIP reception beforehand you should let us know now! and then come by 6:00). We promise that, if you are arrested for anything there, it will NOT be for playing BINGO!
(Note: all right, there’s some possibility that we may play Bingo, in which event the preceding statement may not be operative. But don’t let that keep you away!)
UPDATE
Anaheim Insider here, the less satirical, but bitter one. Word is, two Anaheim troublemakers ventured into City Hall this morning to determine if the Chamber was violating two sections of City Code 7.34.020 – first, not having a permit, which they don’t; second, having the event on city property – the Anaheim Hills Golf Course – rather than their own property.
And the folks in charge of okaying such bingo events told these troublemakers that the event was being put on by not only the Chamber but also the Anaheim Police Association (the police union) and some special new charity for Anaheim Dog Parks (anaheimdogparks.org) and SO it was a city-sponsored event which got special dispensation from obtaining a permit, and was also copacetic to happen on city property.
But wait a second. The Chamber is not the city. The police union is not the city, in fact in a healthy world a police union should have at least a somewhat adversarial relationship with its city. And this new dog-park charity is also not the city. This seems ripe for some dispute – can any old charity now become a city-sponsored cause, be able to use city property and not bother with a permit? This is worth looking into.
Not to mention, I thought the Chamber’s mission was to help promote Anaheim businesses. The purpose of this fundraiser is to build a GRAVEN IMAGE OF BRUNO. Remember, Bruno was the police dog shot non-fatally by a fleeing suspect who himself was later shot fatally, and is now a hero and symbol to the law and order crowd (which somehow seems to be identical to the Klepto crowd.) Wouldn’t dog park aficionados prefer a fountain their own dogs could drink from, rather than some looming shrine to police power?
Perhaps if water could be made to squirt out of some part of the Bruno Idol’s body, all parties could be happy – regular folks whose dogs are thirsty and panting, and angry citizens who want to send the message to young poor brown men, “We will chase your asses down!”
I had been told if the Servite event by a friend. Seriously considered going as environmental issues are near and dear to my heart.
However, after reading some of the back and forth here, I think I’ll pass. I can not in all reality believe that the leadership of one of Californias largest city crafted a competing event to yours. Really, that is pretty far-fetched. If true. Those folks should be run out of town for sheer stupidity. But, I feel like you are trying to corner the market on that.
Good luck with your fundraiser.
Have you MET the Anaheim City Council majority? (We don’t know when their event was scheduled and frankly we don’t really care. It’s could just be an odd coincidence.)
Thank you for cushioning that last insult; we’ll see you sometime other than tonight! (If then.)
Anaheim Insider here, the less satirical, but bitter one. Word is, two Anaheim troublemakers ventured into City Hall this morning to determine if the Chamber was violating two sections of City Code 7.34.020 – first, not having a permit, which they don’t; second, having the event on city property – the Anaheim Hills Golf Course – rather than their own property.
And the folks in charge of okaying such bingo events told these troublemakers that the event was being put on by not only the Chamber but also the Anaheim Police Association (the police union) and some special new charity for Anaheim Dog Parks (anaheimdogparks.org) and SO it was a city-sponsored event which got special dispensation from obtaining a permit, and was also copacetic to happen on city property.
But wait a second. The Chamber is not the city. The police union is not the city, in fact in a healthy world a police union should have at least a somewhat adversarial relationship with its city. And this new dog-park charity is also not the city. This seems ripe for some dispute – can any old charity now become a city-sponsored cause, be able to use city property and not bother with a permit? This is worth looking into.
Not to mention, I thought the Chamber’s mission was to help promote Anaheim businesses. The purpose of this fundraiser is to build a GRAVEN IMAGE OF BRUNO. Remember, Bruno was the police dog shot non-fatally by a fleeing suspect who himself was later shot fatally, and is now a hero and symbol to the law and order crowd (which somehow seems to be identical to the Klepto crowd.) Wouldn’t dog park aficionados prefer a fountain their own dogs could drink from, rather than some looming shrine to police power?
Perhaps if water could be made to squirt out of some part of the Bruno Idol’s body, all parties could be happy – regular folks whose dogs are thirsty and panting, and angry citizens who want to send the message to young poor brown men, “We will chase your asses down!”
Didn’t the bullet get stuck in poor Bruno?
I hope they put his metallic likeness in the new, unbudgeted dog park. You know, where the homeless used to be.
Yes it did, which is why I’m not certain that the official story of Moreno shooting Bruno from behind the dumpster and then getting shot by police is true. It certainly could be — but it’s also entirely plausible that Bruno was shot by “friendly fire” as police opened up a fusillade of shots once Bruno had located Moreno’s hiding place.
This matters: if the latter scenario is true, then the justification that Moreno was shot because he had just shot an officer is no longer compelling. Instead we would have evidence of a summary execution, without giving a cornered fugitive a chance to surrender. We’d have a situation where one or more cops went loco with his or her gun in violation of police policy and of general principles of command and control.
We’d have a hot-headed cop, in other words, who probably shouldn’t be on the street. And we’d have a bunch of other cops who would have acquiesced in a false report.
Why bring this up now? Because physical evidence does exist as to how Bruno was shot: that bullet inside of him. We could obtain it now, but we’re told that it would threaten his life — and one has to yield to that claim. But Bruno will die someday — and the evidence of whether that bullet came from Moreno’s gun or from a police weapon will then be able to be obtained without endangering him.
I wonder if all sides would agree that when Bruno dies he will have the bullet removed from his body? I also wonder if, if everyone does agree, that bullet will ever actually be removed and tested. I suspect that the answer to the second question is “no” — because the City doesn’t really want to know if one of its cops just panicked or went full Rambo and shot a fellow officer.
Word on the street is that Moreno’s head was blown off – that’s how much of a “fusillade” it was. (And explains why he wasn’t left to lie around like a trophy, the way they frequently do.)
Not farfetched to think Bruno could be caught in that crossfire.
Though debuted in Newport Beach, Anaheim continues to provide more appropriate installation possibilities for this modern art opus! Sadly, too small to reach the 7th floor.
Another stupid comment from an “Anonymous Coward” Big Box Of Red Whine.
Why would you not put your name to this? This anonyminity is polluting the discourse. IMO
Joah? Jubal? What won’t they think of next?
Yeah, the desperation is getting pretty ripe.
Thanks for your example of ‘unpolluted discourse’. Henceforth, I’ll certainly give your admonishment the consideration it deserv- OH! LOOK! A SQUIRREL!
Allow me to explain, Big Box. “Anonymous Coward” is a term long used in Internet discourse for people who don pseudonyms to attack people. I use it often on Anaheimblog and LiberalOC, among other sites, to refer to people who attack me and others, sometimes under pseudonyms of long standing and sometimes under a dizzying and ever-changing variety of pseudonyms bound together by certain themes and stylistic tics.
One thing that Matt and Chumley and their Anonymous Coward buddies (or pseudonyms — don’t know which, doesn’t matter much) like to do is to accuse me and Vern of hypocrisy because we have our own smattering of people posting under pseudonyms. I think of “truck drivin’ mike” and “Dan D. Stalker” as our prime examples of this, but of course you are too.
Here’s the difference: the problem is not writing under a pseudonym, the problem is attacking people under a pseudonym that allows one to lie and defame without consequence while the host of a blog says “it’s not my problem, I’M not the one who said it.” That’s what’s cowardly. And that, on these other blogs, is what’s prevalent.
You do sometimes attack — but rarely on the basis of personality or scandal. You attack ideas and you do it with evidence and argument. You could face some reprisal for doing so, which is why you shield your identity, but what you say is entirely within the bounds of normal polite civil discourse. One can compare that to what is said on other sites, which involves vicious lies.
I don’t have any problems defending what you do. I would have problems — and have, when the likes of junior/skallywag were here — with defending what actual Anonymous Cowards (and granted that Mike Tardif wasn’t truly “anonymous”) do.
That brings us to the question of satire — in which both Dan D. Stalker and truck drivin’ mike truck. They will sometimes make up tall tales that are quite literally “not to be believed” — hell, even the names that they use scream out their overtly acknowledged lack of credibility. It’s like how “The Onion” takes measures — sometimes unsuccessful — to ensure that its statements are not accepted at face value.
“Dan D. Stalker” harks back to the days when Chumley was extremely exercised about the sort of anonymous cowardice his blog now embraces, because someone was accusing him of some stalkerish activities near his home in Northwood, Irvine. I don’t recall the details; I recall their being plausible sounding but untrue. When he, writing in Chumley’s persona, claims to be fetching coffee and regularly delivering old mattresses to Lorri Galloway, no one thinks (or should think) that it’s real. It’s just revealing his slavering nature through exaggeration. Likewise, “tdm” is not a name that demands to be taken seriously, although he does seem to possess some of the “Newport Coastish” attitudes that he usually exaggerates to comic effect.
There’s a difference between saying that sort of thing and anonymously accusing someone of stealing, molesting, sexual deviance, etc. Likewise there’s a difference between writing under a cartoonish name and writing as “Anaheim Insider” or “Proud Colonist” or “One Who Knows,” where one is professing actual true knowledge about people or things — but is absolved from taking responsibility for anything one says. Some people truly seem unable (although they’re probably just unwilling) to distinguish between a story that is horrific but plausible and one that would be horrific if it were not so ludicrous as to be implausible.
In short: you should brush this off. They’re aiming at me, not at you, and — as usual — they’re not doing it very well. And keep up the good work!
“Northwood Night Stalker” refers to when Irvine (then-)councilman (now Mayor) Steven Choi was faking a residence to run for Assembly, and Dan was following him around to try and prove that. I don’t defend much of what Dan does and writes, but that was legitimate reporting.
Who was tossing that attack at him — someone anonymous, right? I agree that that reporting was fair — although Steve Young’s pursuit of Mimi Walters for doing the same thing was a lot more entertaining. What’s interesting is that Chumley was upset at the anonymity of those attacking him (“and his children,” I vaguely remember him saying) and yet how he seems to luxuriate in support from similar commenters (going way further than what you describe) like it’s a relaxing bubble bath.
The guy who started that nickname for Dan was someone we both know, someone from Irvine, a real hothead who used to blog for us as “Guy Fawkes” until he got mad at both of us. He used to attack Dan C and Matt equally but I never thought he went over the line. (The former kenlaysnotdead used to call Dan that nickname too, but he got it from Guy Fawkes.)
And this is bullshit when Dan or Matt cries “attacking my children,” just cuz someone might say something like “This is how you support your kids?” The only person whose kids I’ve heard attacked is you.
[See note in reply to Vern’s post.]
Duh. He suggested both are POSSIBILITIES. Not even probabilities, but possibilities.
Vern, I’m taking this one down.
I have no trouble with someone expressing those sentiments or raising those questions; that’s fair. But I do have a problem with its coming from one of these cowards who can do it without personal consequence to their reputations.
If someone wants to argue that the two contentions in question are beyond imagining, let it be said by someone using their real name. I’m tired of arguing with ghosts. You and I both have that comment in email, and if anyone wants to put their name on it — I suggest seeking out Lucille Kring — then it can go back up. But enough of this letting people representing the Kleptocrats bring a knife (or a gun) to a fistfight.
People tossing around crap like this — and that goes for the earlier vicious attack on Lou Correa and his staffers, too — can be expected to be contacted at the email addresses they provide to ensure that, if they’re attacking under a human name, it’s really coming from a human with that name. You and I follow those rules; so should they.
Can we get back to the subject? How does the City’s game of ” the rules don’t apply to our friends” devolve into a blame game of “who shot Bruno?”
I love dogs, love them to the point my friends mock me for the FB posts of my fur kids, but it is not anti-dog to expect the City to have the same set of rules for all. In fact, if the whole point is to celebrate the service of canines engaged in….gee, LAW ENFORCEMENT, how does blowing off the basics of Anaheim Municipal Code set a standard for law enforcement?
The arrogance of it pisses me off even though I theoretically support the cause.
Do you know what is missing from the whole “celebrate Bruno” crap invented by Kris Murray to boost her popularity? How about genuine community engagement? The ONLY “public” event I have seen (may be incorrect, reporting only the one I have received advert for) requires one to attend a CHAMBER mixer. Not for all the four legged buddies on earth am I doing that.
And yet….our family USES La Palma dog park several times a week. Just this morning I promised The Ladies a good long perambulation of puppins, (yes spell check that is a word at my house, deal with it) complete,with running and jumping and sniffing (and the dogs may enjoy it too. Oh, get a sense of humor, it’s Saturday)
There is not one single word there AT THE DOG PARK about “coming soon, here is where it will be located, here is what it looks like, artist concept sketch, etc” and maybe…gee…I dunno how about “here is how you can use that mobile device in your hand causing you to pretend you didn’t just see your dog drop a load so you don’t have to clean it, and at least use your hand held distraction to log into this here ‘app’ thing and donate to the statue going into the park you are clearly using at this moment and may have a stake in improving.”
So, is this a community project or is this yet another use of Kris Murray’s Contact list to get the job done while maintaining her refusal to have anyone near her with a viewpoint other than hers? Just asking….