This is Steven Frisch's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Steven Frisch's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Steven Frisch
Recent Activity
Grrr.....posting problems....
Toggle Commented Feb 21, 2013 on When laws become lawless at Rebane's Ruminations
George, for some reason my recent post is not showing up? I posted it first using the I have it saved
Toggle Commented Feb 21, 2013 on When laws become lawless at Rebane's Ruminations
Jesus H. Christ Todd, the point I am making is that your statement was false. The facts are the facts...they are from the United States census, US Bureau of Labor Statistics and California Department of Finance. They are not "bogus figures". One does not have to be an expert to do research, and discover that you big mouthed morons don;t know WTF you are talking about.
Typical Toddism; one must have fathered a child to to understand the issue. And I notice that you did not address the SOLE point I made; that your statement that "most of the cost [of poor children] is born by the taxpayer" is a lie. It is simply a demonstrably false statement. That is what facts do Todd. They demonstrate IGNORANCE, in this case yours.
And I guess George cannot see that his statement that, "The point is that the globalizing elite are smart enough to let well enough alone when corresponding and corroborating green initiatives by other names are doing the work of Agenda21." is contradictory to his point that it is not a conspiracy? Which is it George, are they organized and "smart enough to let well enough alone", or are people advocating for what they think is right and you just call it a conspiracy when you are at the Board of Supervisors meetings? What a bunch of hogwash. People want livable communities because they are nicer to live in. They simply have a different set of values than you do. But you insist on tying it to the UN. It has nothing to do with the UN. It has to do with millions of people wanting a better life.
I guess Todd just can't see that his statement, "most of the cost is born by the taxpayer" is a crock of sh*#.
6,000,000 of 38,000,000 Californians live below the poverty level. 1,480,000 Californians receive welfare payments, down from 2.670,000 in 1995. Of those 1.48 million 1.143 million are children. Consequently Todd's comment, "If she is poor and wants to keep it most of the cost is born by the taxpayers for the childs birth and life's support." is total bullshyte. 76% of poor people struggle to raise their children with little or no help from the government. Yes, the world is upside down. Those whose code calls for them to care for the sick, the poor and the indigent, wrap their philosophy of leaving them out in the cold in the shroud of morality.
George08:41 OK with Me. Who do I write my check to? SESF?
Hey Dixon, you don't have to read anything.....including the actual source have an opinion. Talk about horse shit.
By the way, I, or SBC, have absolutely no "potential benefit" from the passage of this MOA. The benefit to me personally is a better relationship between local and federal government; a relationship you guys would clearly prefer deteriorate into armed conflict. Your "Great Divide" is a prescription for a second Civil War, or as you would say the "War for Southern Independence".
There is absolutely no "transfer of power from local to higher levels of bureaucracy" in this MOA. It is not being "rushed through" it has been debated and vetted at the state level through CSAC and RCRC, and you can request that the County not take action on it Tuesday in order to discuss it more. That is your right. The double standard actually is an issue. Your suspicion of government when you don't like what they do, coupled with your embrace of government when you do like what they do, is very much at issue here. You like the military industrial complex very much; you spent your entire career benefiting from it, and earning money from government contracts, as Russ is benefiting from contracts from public funds. Yet when others do so you object as if you are somehow different. That is a double standard. You have yet to state what specifically within this MOA "transfers power" to federal agencies. You have yet to show what in this MOA has any connect to A 21. And If your readers are incapable of reading from source material that is no skin off my nose. Finally, to state the our founders found the government 'guilty until proven innocent" is perhaps the most un-nuanced argument of all that you are making here. The Constitutional smoke screen that Mr. Shea is throwing up here is absolute nonsense. We elect representatives (Supervisors) to act on our behalf; that is part of what a Republic is. You regularly disdain direct democracy, yet protest representative democracy when it does not fit your views. What is it exactly that you want? All this MOA does is respond to the local communities request that relations between federal land managers and local governments be improved, by improving communications. To see a conspiracy in that is It is all of OUR land; not the Counties land, or the residents land, or the people of Nevada County's land, or the people of the State of California's land. It is owned by the people of the United States of America; and a resident of new York has as much interest in what happens on it as a resident of Cement Hill. You seem to forget that in all of this hatred and suspicion of the federal government. We all own the land and it is held in the public trust. I suggest you show up on Tuesday with your clique of cranks and protest. You and your clique are becoming a joke to our elected officials. Even your allies on the Board cringe when you guys get up, because they know you are going to just make fools of yourselves. I pity our poor Supervisors having to put up with this obstructionist, ill-informed, fear based crap every week.
George: You are simply being disingenuous to the public here. The MOA does the following: 1. Creates a process whereby rural local governments can have MORE input into federal decision-making about public lands. 2. Commits the county to a shared exchange of information with federal land managers. 3. Commits the county to outlining what its specific issues with federal land management policies may be and provides for early understanding of what those issues are. 4. Commits the federal agencies to additional coordination above and beyond the standards, as they are commonly understood in the Federal Land Management Planning Act. 5. Does not pre-empt ANY county rights 6. Does not establish any standing committees or pre-empt any current responsibilities of federal agencies to notify and confer with appropriate county departments. 7. Does not limit the county from taking any actions currently allowed under federal or state law. You state above: "My own position on regionalism is to consider all parts of such consolidations as not being of equal worth nor packaged in one basket." The net effect of that statement is that regionalism that you like is OK but regionalism that others engage in is evil. Nice way to absolve Russ of any responsibility for engaging in regional transportation planning or regional broadband planning. What a completely hypocritical position. And I notice you completely ignored the point that Russ is being paid by specifically such a regional organization, paid for by the taxpayers, from the same pot of funding that you oppose others tapping to bring local benefit from fees paid. But I would not expect you to oppose a double standard! You further state: "The current MOA with the BLM and the USFS does nothing to simplify any function of government. But it does further diminish our county’s ability to determine areas and conditions of use and access to these federal lands." But the MOA and the staff report specifically state that no such thing would occur; it specific states that ALL existing county authorities would be maintained. The onus is on you, and Mr. Shea to show how this MOA would diminish county authorities. The paper submitted by CABPRO does not such thing. I would implore the readers to read the background documents. This is an expansion of county authority and increases opportunities to coordinate with federal agencies, and thus is the best possible thing that could be happening right now. Here is what Mr. Shea’s submittal says: “Under the MOA, the natural resource planning for all participating counties approving the MOA will be consolidated into one super NGO. Two NGOs working with the federal government agencies are attempting to create a third NGO from the counties that serves the interests of the federal government. Each participating county will be represented by a single person, through whom all future federal government communications will go instead of through the county superintendents, sheriffs, fire departments, and other elected officials.” There are so many falsehoods in this statement that it is almost laughable. First, the MOA does not establish a new NGO. Second, are you seriously contending that California Counties, and Rural Counties have no interest in banding together to advocate their positions through CSAC and RCRC? These organizations have been in existence in the case of CSAC for 100 years, and RCRC more than 40 years. No “super NGO” is being created; the work is being conducted under their auspices, which are exclusively ELECTED COUNTY SUPERVISORS. Finally, the MOA explicitly states that all authorities held by the Counties remain in place. The staff report and the MOA explicitly state that all notifications to both local elected officials and agencies remain in place. In short, this is more right wing, fantasy, conspiracy theory laden, and fear-mongering nonsense. Leading me to believe that what you actually want to do is spread fear and take advantage of that fear to freeze the ability of our local governments to work effectively with federal and managers. This MOA was born of a legitimate desire on the part of Sierra Nevada local governments and federal land management to improve relations, deal with issues earlier in the process to avoid conflict, and ensure more public input in federal land management planning. When you oppose such actions so disingenuously you simply increase tension and lack of coordination possible to local governments. Talk about speeding the decline of western civilization---you guys take the frigging cake.
Correction, the above should read "Sierra Economic Development Corporation".
I am re-reading this and thinking about how absolutely ludicrous these statements by George and Russ are. The idea that any organization that engages in regional activity or advocacy is a stealth A 21 organization, flies in the face of how we organize our activities in a free society. Don't we plan transportation regionally because it is more efficient than each jurisdiction doing its own thing and finding out that their road networks don't line up? As a matter of fact we do this on a lot of infrastructure, because we support more efficient government--and Russ Steele has served on the boards of organizations, like the Nevada County Regional Transportation Commission that participate in just such activities. Is Russ a secret promoter of A21? He must be since he served on a 'regionalist' organization. Russ is also part of the regional broadband consortium effort, implemented by a regional organization, the Sierra Economic Development District, with funding from a state agency, the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by a surcharge on your phone bills. Is Russ feeding at the public trough, a charge he is quick to throw at other people in Nevada County, but which as a consultant to the effort, he is by his definition engaged in as well. Is broadband a commie A21 plot? It must be, because it is regional! This agenda item is about streamlining communications with the USFS in order to make planning by local governments and the USFS more efficient. The activities of the designated county individual is overseen by the individual counties. No sovereignty of the county is lost. In fact IT INCREASES LOCAL INPUT in federal agency planning.....a process which is already governed by law...and creates an additional point of contact early in the process to try to avoid conflict between local jurisdictions and federal agencies. I am at a loss to figure out exactly what you guys really want, other than picking a fight with Nate Beason because he is not ideologically pure enough for the fringe you inhabit. On one hand you say you support the ability of business groups to band together as protected speech; but you oppose a group of largely conservative rural governments banding together and advocating for their interests as a commie plot. The bottom line is that on this one, like many others, your tin foil is showing. I think what you really want is just to obstruct the operations of government in a self fulfilling effort to claim it is inefficient. You guys are just obstructionists--and Chuck Shea and CABPRO are right there with you-- you will actually CREATE the inefficiency then use it as an excuse to 'drown it in the bathtub". I have siad it before and I say it again--you want nothing short of the destruction of our system of governance in the false belief that some libertarian utopian state will be created from the ashes.
I just read the agenda item on this action and I am really trying to figure out how this MOA or signing it would have anything to do with A21. Agreeing to talk to the USFS seems like a pretty far cry from what Russ calls "shifting through the ashes of what was once the Free west." You guys just look silly when you pass along this sort of nonsense...but please, go to the Supervisors and make a scene! I am sure they will appreciate it.
I noticed that there was a big chunk saying "It was a Tie", (although I have to wonder what debate they watched)....we await for Gallup.
I'm not going to win, I think George is. But lets wait until Gallup speaks and George declares a winner.
But I give this one to you guys....I think Romney won by about 8%......
No I'm not saying he cheated, Im saying he shifted his position on several issues.
Of course you guys do realize that Mr. Romney just turned on several of his campaign stances right?
I would still give it to Romney by a solid 5-10% at this point.
I would give it to Romney so far by a solid 5-10%
Just confirming....just the three of us are in (George, Russ & Steve F.)
That the best you have...absolutely nothing wrong in anything he said there.
Toggle Commented Oct 3, 2012 on Ruminations – 2oct12 at Rebane's Ruminations
Ok I am in Obama (289-304) Romney (234-249) Here is my actual single number best bet right now (with the understanding that this does not invalidate the above)