Saturday, December 19, 2009

George S. please contact me

I've been very impressed with some of the comments I've read at the Times-Call. One poster who calls himself 'George S.' had this to say:

What this thread is revealing to me above all else is this community's startling lack of adult reading comprehension. Let's see if I can sort all this out. ... One poster accuses me of trying to "intimidate" others out of their freedom of speech because I spoke out about robo-calls which came from a Virginia area code and which were "anti-family" bvecause they came at the dinner hour, the only time of the day when my family can sit down together. I wouldn't dream of stifling those calls, because they, and the obvious cost of making them (which the Times-Call interestingly did not report) are quite revealing about the interests behind an issue or candidate. Or revealing, anyway, to citizens who are curious and don't just drink the Kool-Aid. ... Another poster accused me of being against businesses and churches. Say what? He must have missed the sentence where I praised my own church for focusing on Jesus instead of profits, and to that I'll add 90 percent of the town's other fine churches. I specificially stated that LifeBridge's focus was far more on making tax-sheltered profits than on religion. It is a business designed to enrich a few, much like Jim Bakker's "Heritage USA" near Charlotte. It's a business that evades taxes (that's stealing from you and me!) by claiming a religious exemption. And am I anti-business? No, I own a business! What I object to are governmental bodies that favor their friends' business ventures over those other business people who have not greased the politicians' palms with money or favors, as is happening with the tract east of the museum. That kind of corruption is non-partisan. Sure, in the case of Longmont, favoritism and bought-and-paid-for decisions are being engineered by Republican office-holders, but in my native Chicago it was done by Daley's Democratic machine. Right or left, it's wrong. I have also been a member of some fine Chambers of Commerce in other cities where I have owned businesses, but not here, for the same "favoritism" reason. ... A poster stated that the LifeBridge development would generate lots of tax revenue. Wrong. If you had actually read the plan, you would know that most of the development would be LEASED instead of SOLD. Those renters would not be paying property taxes, and the "religious" LifeBridge landlord would be sheltered from taxes on the huge profit from those rents as well as that from property it did sell. Sure, businesses within the development would generate some sales tax revenue, but much of that would be competing for the same retail dollar as are existing businesses, so the net result would be an "ebbing tide" for everyone. ... And finally, because I dared to speak out against religion-industry profiteers and a developer-purchased City Council, I am branded a "liberal" or a "progressive." I am neither. I demand little from government other than to defend my property and country. Locally, I want it to ensure orderly growth which pays for itself and doesn't use more resources than we have, not rubber-stamped sprawl that rapes our quality of life and thus diminishes everybody's property values INCLUDING MINE, and that in turn diminishes the revenue available to provide city services (including police and fire protection) for all this runaway growth! And if I launch a business venture, I don't want to have to buy a politician to keep him from favoring his friends and donors over me. What the heck is partisan about that? What we really have to get over in this country is excusing wrongs just because they're done by members of our own political party; that's why I don't belong to one. ... I am a fiscal conservative. And though it's not going to be politically correct to say it in this thread, council members Benker and McCoy are fiscal conservatives too. Unfortunately, they were looking out for taxpayers in the long term, and that's pretty hard to explain in this era of Americans' short attention spans, desire for instant gratification and inability to see past the ends of their noses

George S., Longmont, 12/3/2009 9:25 AM

Friday, December 18, 2009

Not puzzling at all

From the Letters to the Editor at the Longmont Ledger:

Council’s board appointments puzzling

I find two recent city board appointments rather puzzling.

The first was Councilman Gabe Santos’ appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council members were asked to list their top five choices for board appointments weeks ago and Santos gave no indication that he was the least bit interested in Planning and Zoning. Yet when board appointments were being voted on, he announced that he wanted to be onto this board.

It seemed strange that he would change his mind at the last minute but what seemed really strange was that Mayor Bryan Baum and council members Katie Witt and Alex Sammoury would support this apparently hasty decision. This despite the fact that councilwoman Sarah Levison was already serving on the board, had previously indicated that it was her top choice for board appointments and was much more qualified for the position than was Santos.

It seemed a rather harsh rebuke and left me wondering: Why didn’t Councilman Santos declare his intention to seek the position on the Planning and Zoning Commission when he was originally given the opportunity to?

How did each of the supporting council members come to the same last-minute conclusion that the best thing for Longmont would be to ignore the hard work and devotion of one council member in favor of the whim of another?

Was this actually not a spontaneous decision at all, but rather one the four of them agreed upon, in private, before the public meeting?

The other appointment I found puzzling was Chris Rodriguez to the Airport Advisory Board. Baum, Witt, Sammoury and Santos voted Against the vice chair of the committee — a well-qualified and highly respected committee member, in favor of someone who didn’t even show up for his committee interview but who is a vocal supporter of the new council.

Fair and open? You decide.

Paula Burr


Paula, Paula, Paula... clearly you don't understand politics. Here, let me 'splain it to you:

Gabe Santos is what is known as a 'machine politician' - he worked as office manager for Tom Delay, arguably one of the most corrupt politicians of this decade. He changed his mind because he was, in all likelihood, told to. He's what's referred to in the Soviet Republic as an 'apparatchik': "It is also frequently used to describe individuals, appointed to positions in any government, on the basis of ideological or political loyalty rather than competence."

You've no doubt heard the endless howling of right-wing apparatchiks condemning the Progressives on Council in round terms for incompetence - this was carefully orchestrated to make their subsequent appointees seem competent by comparison (which they are not). It's the GOP formula - blame your opponent for what you, yourself are doing and demonize anyone that argues with you. It's a time-tested method backed up with tons of experience and oodles of money.

As for Chris Rodriguez, why, Paula, he did 'show up' - he's been blogging his little heart out (assuming he actually has one) - and helped run Katie Witt's campaign and was (still is) the loudest and most vitriol-laced voice on the Times-Call comment streams, his multiple blogs and pretty much anywhere else he can get published. He won't ever have to submit to interviews or any of that tiresome 'little people' stuff - he's paid for his apparatchik-ness with a political bodycount - an election won and a majority on the council. Why, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him make a run for council himself - with the kind of backing he's obviously got, we'll be hearing his loud, angry voice for years to come (barring karmic intervention). Be prepared for endless harrassment though - it's not politically correct in Longmont to criticize the 'apparatus' but it is quintessentially American.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Snow to be Declared Terrorist Threat

This article on the TC:
City will evaluate tire-shredding curbs Traffic-calming structure blamed for tire troubles

had this hilarious comment:
This morning I drove by the area reported on and can confirm that the narrowing of the road there is dangerous. The curb sticks out into the lane farther than is normal and it is too narrow for the Suburban that I was driving. I drove through slowly, of course. There are traffic cones all around now but there are other areas like that one in Longmont. A few comments regarding cell phone usage or "tghe curb jumped out of the snow" do not asknowledge the reality of this snow on our roads. It masked the danger. For the record, the caption on the photo incorrectly states that this is WEST of Hover. It is east as the main article states.

DavidDinosaur, Longmont, CO, 12/17/2009 9:51 AM
(clasps hands to face, eyes wide and mouth a round 'O' of horror)

Narrow Streets! Oh My!
Snow!!!! OH MY!

Quick! Everyone wet your pants and start screaming in terror! Let's spend several thousand dollars moving curbs around so those folks too self-absorbed to pay attention don't damage their Escalades or Ford Exploders. Better yet let's declare snow illegal (because you know they have snow in BOULDER and only Socialist Commies like snow!) We need to make the roads SAFE for our gas-guzzling SUVs RIGHT NOW!!!!!!! It's a PLOT by OBAMA!

You jackasses have the nerve to hijack our city council using basketfulls of out of state money, then complain publicly about CURBS that are too wide for your bloated urban assault vehicles?

Fucking hang up and drive, you idiots.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Grow a Pair and Grow the Fuck UP

Just FYI, at no time have I ever used an anonymous pseudonym - my identity on all boards/comment streams I've published on has been quite clear - and the winger attack machine has been relentless - all the while using pseudonyms themselves and crying about why they think they must (for fear of being attacked - how ironic).

Anyone using a fake name isn't me.

It's that simple.

The fact that I've simply been too busy to scream back at the assholes on line lately makes them sure I'm using a pseudonym -

- because that's what they do.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Ghosts of Cheney Past

It's funny, but the bodies always seem to float to the top.

It would be the best Christmas present of all to see Bush and Cheney tried for REAL WAR CRIMES.

Some people think that backups only work FOR YOU.


Boy Whores

Well, they've gone and done it.

Created every sixteen-year-old's dream job.

I wonder how long till GOP scandals start swirling around this.

Courtesy of the Drudge Retort.