See, now were talking! The anonymous poster is being bumped up to the front page. We'll comment and let you read the post below for reference.
Let me start by saying this - The question is not over alcohol - I agree - It is about one fundamental Americanism. We, the citizens have the right to live in the kind of community we want to create. This was the point I was trying to make to city council.
John Logan - political dissident - you're cracking me up...b Yes, not only did John Logan admit that he has an occasional beer - he admitted to drinking Colorado swill.
I would like to render my personal apologizes to the fine folks at Anheuser Bush - who have been kind enough to contribute substantially to the YMCA and the political coffers of many of our regional residents. We're about making friends too! May you one day create a beer as fine as Guinness.
Back to the topic at hand. This is my criticism of Seagull. I love the guy. The man is a great writer, philosopher and pundit. Fairness, balance and "the fullness of the political gospel" are attributes I believe he has the potential to acquire.
Last week the extremities of bias were plastered on the pages of the Branson Independent. Four articles were written involving a short spat with one alderman and the administrator. Most of the details were left out and several other topics of great importance to the community weren't addressed. Great setup for an opinion column.
When a political lynching occurs - we'll write the obituary along with a dozen other media organizations. Bringing the stool, tying the rope and slicing the victim with a samurai sword isn't the job of a reporter (though darn fun for an opinion columnist).
On the topic of legal counsel. The shear number of attorneys the city of Branson has burned through doesn't reflect well on our political culture (though darn fun for a journalist).
As for the point I argued to our city leaders, we already regulate alcohol - which I point out in a July 10th post titled. "Branson and the Politics of Alcohol".
Ward II Alderwoman Sandra Williams motioned for special counsel to help us address alcohol legislation. The council was elected to lead the city. In a sense, if the citizen survey is done correctly - they're giving it back to us.
By the way, while I was writing this post - the soon-to-be-Hilton-beer-garden - is being roped off. The beer garden encompasses the walkway - small fountain, stage and highly-subsidized-fire-and-water show.
The opinion that the State has exclusive authority over matters pertaining to liqueor licenses has been stated by not just the current city attorney, but in fact, the last three (3) city attorneys: Paul Link (current), Dan Wichmer (former Branson city attorney and current Springfield city attorney) and Deborah Duester (former Branson city attorney) were all of the same opinion.
When you consider the fact that 3 straight attorneys for a given client all had the same opinion, that the state officials have informed individuals the same opinion together with the State's own admission that it's permit which was granted to the subject "kiosk" is vague and unenforceable, then how one continue to blame the current city attorney and administrator in this so-called "liqueur-gate"? The answer: because those who are complaining the loudest are those who either (1) made a campaign pledge as a candidate to, when elected, fire the city administrator and attorney or (2) citizens who supported candidates who promised to do the "firing" if elected. Ultimately, the alcohol issue is not important to the "new slate" of aldermen and mayor, who are not driven by a Carrie Nation type of prohibition frenzy. They are just looking for a supposed reason to fire Terry Doty and Paul Link. Local occasional "political dissident" John Logan has basically admitted in his blog entries that alcohol is not the issue but rather the alcohol inquiry is part of the criticism of the job performance of Terry Doty.