My Photo

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

BlogStats


« Systemic unemployment – what the future holds (addended) | Main | Sandbox - 12jul14 »

12 July 2014

Comments

Gregory

"People of both stripes on the Left are overwhelmingly against free speech as witnessed by their impact on the institutions of the academe, entertainment, and governments at all levels. They proscribe ideas that counter their religion whenever and wherever they are found in the public realm."

That might be a nice segue into Pelline's latest rant about a conservative group daring to openly use Western Gateway Park, demanding the local governing body (which includes Barry Pruett) create a policy that insures the right of Pelline to use the park without having to see tea partiers doing the same.

No Jeff, your freedom of speech does not include a right to not hear someone else's speech as they enjoy hot dogs at the next table.

Russ Steele

Jeff's ideas of free speech is to make sure there are no conservative thoughts or ideas, which are contrary to his progressive religion, to ever appear on his highly moderated blog. His mind to too small to hold contrary ideas that are in conflict with his progressive religious beliefs, his small mind threatens to short circuit. The only cure is to eliminate any contrary conservative ideas before they modify any of his brain cells. Swoosh!

fish

As a park director, you ought to worry just as much about the rights of park visitors, not just the “God-given right of free speech.” As the National Park Service policy states: “If you feel harassed or impeded from enjoying the park by a person exercising their First Amendment right of free speech, please notify a park ranger.”


What do you consider "harassment"? Have you been subject to any act meeting your definition of harassment while at the park?

RL Crabb

Just a note to let any interested party know that I will also be peddling books at The Union's open house in September. (Not sure of the day and time but will update later.)
Thanks for the plug, George.

Barry Pruett

Party at McGee's! I will buy a beer for the next six people that comment that they are going to be there! Crabb...you will be lucky number seven!

Joe Koyote

" The charge was “child endangerment” because his son skipped Sunday school and went to play with his pals instead." -- Would the charge been the same had the child skipped regular school? This sounds more like over zealous religion than over zealous government. At sometime there must have been a law passed by some elected body that allowed this to happen. What were the demographics of the people who voted in the law in the first place? I would be willing to bet they weren't atheists.

George Rebane

JoeK 401pm - That is not even remotely a connection that anyone could draw from that incident which was instigated by secular police pursuant to a general purpose (and politically correct) child endangerment law like one of thousands on the books of local jurisdictions across an increasingly progressive landscape. Your deflection of the argument into an implied rightwing religious impropriety is duly noted ;-)

Barry Pruett

Steve: I call bullshit. Jeff added his "conclusion" after his grossly unconstitutional proposal was exposed.

Barry Pruett

Oops. Sorry George wrong post.

Jeff Pelline

Barry,
My conclusion summed up my comments in the thread, which you misrepresented on this blog.

Scott Obermuller

A good way to see what a sham (and scam) the California budget is, is a perusal of the 2014 OHV annual report.
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/25010/files/ohmvr-commission-2014report.pdf
Start on page 11 and by page 12 the BS is flying.
"Throughout the history of the Program, monies from the OHV Trust Fund have been borrowed or redirected for purposes outside the intent and mission of the Program."
The 'history' of banking includes monies being 'redirected' outside the 'intent and mission' of the bank. In other words - folks steal money from banks. It's historic - it's been done a lot. So, no big deal.
The courts ordered the money to be paid back and by golly, some day the legislature really intends to do just that. Meanwhile they 'extend' the time period and continue to 'redirect' the money.
If you or I did this, we would be in prison. The OHV funds are not in any way to be co-mingled with the general fund. By law. Whatever that is. Once again, we get the govt we deserve. The California govt budget is a joke. The amount of money in this instance is not the point. It shows the general disregard for law the legislature shows and gets away with. In the case of the HSR project, the amount of money is enormous and the total disregard for the law continues.

fish

Steve: I call bullshit. Jeff added his "conclusion" after his grossly unconstitutional proposal was exposed.

Technical point Barry....jeffy never explicitly called for those on the.....wait for it...."HARD-RIGHT" who use the park to be denied access. He wanted somebody else to establish a policy that made him not feel harassed when he was there. It was only after the fact when his pseudo-attorney showed up because the master rhetorician was flailing so ineptly that they moved the goalposts and made it a "scheduling issue". It makes him a chickenshit....to use an administrative mechanism to stifle his political foes....but it's jeffy so I'm sure you aren't surprised.

Joe Koyote

George 4:37 -- your deflection of the issue I brought up is duly noted. Turning the discussion into a political football always works to avoid answering questions. Again for those who miss the general conclusions of my post -- someone passed the law that allowed a parent to be arrested for their kid missing Sunday school. Police just enforce the law, they don't make the laws they enforce. Therefore, to label this event as some kind of "progressive" plot is absurd without knowing who passed the law and why the law was enacted in the first place. Forcing a kid to go to Sunday school and arresting the parent when the kid doesn't go, doesn't really ring true as a tenet of progressive politics. Progressives would be more likely to call out the ACLU to defend the kid's religious freedom to not go if they so chose. You are grasping at straws to make your usual "progressives are bad" point.

Kathleen Jones

Russ Steele, I have to agree with you about Jeff's idea of "free speech" on his blog. He will not let me post because I guess he doesn't like my posting AND he doubts what my name REALLY is. He only seems to like his choir (which is very small) singing in unison with him. This is PAR for the progressives. It really is too bad, a waste of a blog, and shows what thin skin his brand of posters have. I won't bother to read his stuff, since he censors who can post comments! Freedom of the press....pshaw!

fish

JoKe,

That somehow "church" became your focal point is revealing. The gist of the regulation under which the father was arrested is here:

Child endangerment is prohibited in Ohio under R.C. 2919.22(A), which states: “No person, who is the parent of a child under eighteen years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of thechild, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.” This means that if Williamson created or ignored a situation where a substantial risk of danger existed for his son, he would be liable under the code provision.

Under this type of language....largely an outgrowth of the progressive "for the children" legislation of the 90's and early 2000's my parents would have been in cuffs each and every day for about a decade.

You want legislation to cover each and every contingency and this is eventually how it will be misused.

Own it Joe....progressives in ascendancy...are responsible for this sort of thing.

George Rebane

JoeK 905am - On the contrary, as Mr fish 957am points out, the charge of a Christian factor came from you, and thereafter all deflections. In my post I make the point that such mindless reactions to normal human behavior and blind application of new nanny state laws are constant reminders of how far we have progressed into a centrally planned police state prescribed ONLY by progressive dogma. Neither the dispatcher nor the cop on the beat have any latitude to judge and adjudicate the situation on the ground using common sense and culture for resolution. Political correctness dictated by a rapacious legal system and litigious society is now the unbending rule applied in all situations to continue the promised fundamental transformation.

Bill Tozer

Speaking of regressive policies of Liberals/Progressive/Socialists/Flavor of the Month, I found this article enlightening, albeit our Founding Father's already knew this. Can't guarantee outcomes. Time for our fellow lower primates on the left side of the political universe get a clue.

http://www.thewestsidestory.net/2014/07/13/14212/chimpanzee-intelligence-passed-genes/

George Rebane

BillT 1216pm - Don't know where you want to go with this Mr Tozer, but the genetic basis for what we are and what differentiates us was introduced in Nicholas Wade's 'Troublesome Inheritance', the contents of which is guaranteed to get most progressive undies in a bundle.

Bill Tozer

Self evident, good Doc. Plain as the tail on our libbies' behind. Kind of a catch all for shaking the sand fountains of their core beliefs. If you really want to shake up the Liberal/Socialist//Big Brother/Progressive/Academia Elitism Flavor of the Month club, have them read this. Caution: may evoke smiles from the knuckle dragging members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/156463-15-women-share-reasons-dont-need-empowered-feminist-movement/#PrettyPhoto[156463]/0/

Joe Koyote

george 10:36 and Carp 9:57 -- the charge of a Christian factor came from you, "" wrong. -- no where did I use the term "christian". and once again you all have failed to consider the FACT the laws are passed by people not governments. So the broad charges of a progressive conspiracy to create and enforce "nanny laws" is total bunk.. WITHOUT knowing how those laws came into being and what the demographics were of those who voted for such laws. You could be correct in your assumptions (though I doubt it), but until you can prove these laws were voted on and enacted by "progressives", then your statements are without merit and you are simply passing on right wing propaganda, or as we lefties like to call it, bullshit.

Todd Juvinall

JoeK, you are incorrect. Regulations are made and entered ointo the system by the government agencies. Go read the world record 80,000 pages of them in last years Federal Register.

George Rebane

JoeK 843am - I stand corrected, you did not specify 'Christian' and instead used "over zealous religion" in your 401pm. It being a small Ohio town, I took the natural next step to Christianity since that is the almost certain preponderant religion in such a community, and the religion that progressives most like to hate. However, your contention that the child endangerment law was passed specifically by local (yes, Christian) religionists, especially to ensure church and/or Sunday school attendance, is more than all wet. There is no evidence that the law was local; it most likely is a state law like so many other 'child endangerment' laws that have been passed in other states by distinctly secularist legislatures. After all, it is a sign of the times, and one that definitely was not erected by conservatives.

fish

george 10:36 and Carp 9:57 -- the charge of a Christian factor came from you, "" wrong. -- no where did I use the term "christian".

No but you did work "Sunday School" into the discussion in two separate comments (Sunday school typically a product of christian sects....Judaism to a lesser degree).....and implied that missing church was the reason for the arrest. Missing church might have been the reason the call to the authorities was placed but it just good ol secular administrative law that got the kids father locked up.


...and once again you all have failed to consider the FACT the laws are passed by people not governments.

Sometimes...usually bureaucrats craft the bulk of the language though! Those would be your secular religious authorities JoKe.


So the broad charges of a progressive conspiracy to create and enforce "nanny laws" is total bunk....

Hardly JoKe.....as I mentioned I actually had something approximating "freedom" when I was a kid. In all probability I would have been placed into foster care under the set of laws that parents are forced to live under today.

You really hate it that we are so skeptical of your faith at RR JoKe. A profound failure to genuflect in the direction of holy legislation.

WITHOUT knowing how those laws came into being and what the demographics were of those who voted for such laws. You could be correct in your assumptions (though I doubt it), but until you can prove these laws were voted on and enacted by "progressives", then your statements are without merit and you are simply passing on right wing propaganda, or as we lefties like to call it, bullshit.

Well some good has come from this exchange...the admission that you're a "lefty". The problem with your argument is that it clearly is the "catch all" type legislation that progressive politicians endorse.....vague yet all encompassing.....I bet 75% of Ohio parents could be prosecuted under this law on any given day.

So "bullshit".... not so much JoKe.

Bill Tozer

Concerning 'readers are beginning to recognize the regressive nature of the Progressive policies of governance', lets use our current 3 year drought. A National Main Stream newscast recently blamed it all on Global Warming. The libbies solution? Why, just fine people who let water run wastefully in their yard $500.00. Yep, fine water users 500 clams and send the check to the Water Agency. That's the progressive solution? Beam me up, Scottie.

Every time I hear anything about this or that is caused by Climate Change, i.e., Global Warming, I know it is time to get out the checkbook and send some hard earned buckaroos off to the government. Nothing changes, my check does not change the weather nor alter historical climate patterns, but I get fined or even if I am a good boy, I pay more for less. Somebody better be watching the referee cause if it ain't government pounding on me then else somebody is. Government says its here to help so it must be that darn referee in the ring who is kicking the daylights out of us little people.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2014/07/10/californias-low-on-water-time-to-fine-the-water-resources-board-not-its-citizens/

Todd Juvinall

I watched a "science" show this morning on the "progression pine caterpillar" devastating the forsets of Europe. The caterpillar survives the winters by making a nest of silk and when it comes out during the warmer periods it eats the needles. Anyway, they waited until the end of the hour to blame "climate change", meaning warming on this infestation. Even though it is the "cold" that enables these critters to make it. It never ends.

Regarding the issue of water. It is always a no win for the end user of the water regarding costs. Get fined for using what they determine to be too much so you don't use as much. When you on't use as much they get less revenue so they raise the taxes. More stroage and transport is needed of course. I have proposed many years ago a pipeline from the Columbia to Lake Shasta since the Northwest always has an overabundance.

Now we see the EPA back to regulating roadside ditches as "important waters" of the USA. Some nut wrote a letter this morning praising this federal usurpation of private property right. I have personal experience in these "regulations" which are totally unconstitutional in my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad