As moderator, I came away with another revelation, one that counts me out of your future events: that those who oppose the City fathers and mothers with such rage had best beware they don't become the same thing they despise the most in our pols--belligerent and rude.

You, Marilyn, tend to be invariably polite: I would urge you to urge a similar civility upon those in your camp, lest they continue to alienate those who want to help you.

Best, Michael!

Indeed, "ultimute freedom" is shouting from the roof tops one's truth, regardless of what others may think or say. And it is liberating.

Anyone who claims that but for "retribution" he would show up to own and express his truth (as he understands it) is lying. He is hiding behind "reasons" to excuse his weenie-ing out. What really is happening is he just doesn't have the character to withstand disapproval. He is, in short, an approval suck, and his "reason" for not owning his truth is all made- up, gutless jive.

And, oh ,yes, he will wisper over the back fence to the neighbor. And he might send anonomous
emails with bounce-back hotmail addressess. But he will never, ever expose himself to any real or imagined disapproval--nope! (Oh, my god, what if people don't like me for my expressing my truth!)

It is foolish and self-decieving to thing these wimps will ever out themselves. They are a combination of weenie and Svengali: They want others do do there bidding, because, well, they might be the object of "retribution." (OH-MY-GOD!)

Never think that were it not for their made-up excuses, these weenie/Svengalis would show up to own and express their truths, because they never-ever will. Their defensive approval sucking is chronic, terminal, obvious and non-remediable.

I'm not optimistic, but if the likes of Marilyn and her Lady In Waiting can Stop The Bond, than anything's possible.

Best, Michael!

The emails I got last night and today were all about the chance to break that fear through public forums such as we had last night. I didn’t get a single email about Burlingame, the actual subject of the town meeting. The response was overwhelming on the surprising theme of the freedom to speak without fear in a town meeting.

But I write to correct a couple of points in your blog.
First, the event was sponsored by Dr. Jerry Bovino; Allen, Wertz & Feldman, LLP, Roger and Ginny Aaron, Gaston Alciatore, Penney Carruth, Don Davidson, Scott Davidson, Tom Kosich, Barbara and Jon Lee, Marilyn Marks, Elizabeth Milias, Charley Podolak, Catherine Anne and John Provine, Shellie Roy, John Simpson, Craig Ward, Working Solutions, LLC, and Anonymous Contributors as was noted in the program. Those individuals did a great community service by paying for this opportunity for us to come together as a community.
The incorrect implication in your blog was the sponsor was the yet unnamed Committee which has had publicity, being organized to delay the bond issue on Burlingame. It appears that that work was successful, even before the committee efforts had begun in earnest, although I believe that you were very critical of our efforts and the way I was attempting to organize it, as well as our chances of success.

Also, I believe that Jerry’s question was not whether the people at the meeting were afraid to speak without fear of intimidation or retribution, but whether either they or their friends and acquaintances felt that way. This is an important distinction because, for example, I raised my hand---not because I’m afraid---obviously---but because I know so many who are. While some may have spoken for themselves, others they were speaking for were at home, still fearful of even being present during such a meeting. That includes some city employees who tell me that they feared retribution if they were seen at the meeting.

Your general point is well taken. I just feel that the facts need to be pure on such a sensitive matter.

My July 4th response to the Aspen Times question: Do you feel free in Aspen?
Freedom is why I’m here. Liberty from a quarter-century of corporate life. Moving to Aspen was the ultimate freeing experience — recreation, intellectual stimulus and access to everything I could want. I was told “everyone is welcome here, no matter your background, your profession, or your politics — in Aspen, we live and let live.”

But Aspen is a dichotomy, representing ultimate freedom to those of us who are retired, but with a concerning element of fear-based constraints for those who work here, or are otherwise beholden to the city government.

This concern has been addressed by people I’ve heard from on the recent matter of challenging the city on Burlingame [affordable housing development] and taping public meetings [of the Aspen City Council]. Scores of people report that they want to stand beside me, but they fear retribution — retribution delivered by withholding permissions or privileges or business that the city controls. Others fear verbal attacks, intimidation or scorn. Some vow never to enter Council Chambers again after disparaging treatment in the past.

There is little tolerance for differing views on certain sacrosanct topics. At times, our local government uses its considerable power to quash public process or inquiry, and to discourage any challenge to their sometimes arbitrary rulings. For a year now, we have tolerated the unfair consequences of arbitrary Ordinance 30 dictated overnight without public input, using erroneous data, which the council attempted to withhold from the public. People trapped by the resulting law are not free in Aspen. It is but one example.

The good news is that those of us who have little to lose can still access the fundamental tenets of democracy and the free press to bring focus and change. We, the people, have the power to return Aspen to the tolerant, intelligent and free community it once was. Choose liberty.

Marilyn Marks