Pipe Dream – Candidates’ Full Disclosure Act

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	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

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Pipe Dream – Candidates’ Full Disclosure Act

19 May 2013

George Rebane

Chatting around the dining table the other night, we reviewed all the laws that require sellers to fully disclose to the buyer the condition and relevant history of what is being sold. Such full disclosure provisions as apply to real estate, cars, firearm purchases, medicines, and so on.

But when it comes to politicians who will not only affect our lives, but the future course of a state, or region, or even the whole country (world?), we are pretty much encouraged to buy a pig in a poke. In vetting candidates for office, we rely on a hide-and-go-seek game between the candidate and the press, or the ‘political operatives’ of their opponents. For all too many good reasons, today people think very little of journalism and journalists. According to the Pew Center for the People and the Press, two out of three people think press reporting is “often inaccurate”; four out of five believe the press “tends to favor one side” and is “often influenced by powerful people and organizations”.

So here we go again, voting for some smooth talking, slicked down Sam or Sally, and later we happen to find out that s/he has been fighting clinical depression for years, has a law degree from an online diploma mill, ran two businesses into the ground, smokes pot regularly, or mysteriously lost a spouse whose remains have never been found. You get my drift.

Wouldn’t it be better if there were a Candidates’ Full Disclosure of Material Facts law that requires each candidate to fill out an appropriately revealing questionnaire, and publish its answers online? The questionnaire would also ask if there were any other material factors or incidents in the candidate’s past that would bear on a decision by a reasonable voter to reject the candidate. The law would stipulate that knowingly providing false, incomplete, and/or inaccurate information constitutes perjury, and its subsequent discovery would be prima facie sufficient cause to start impeachment proceedings against the office holder.

Would such full disclosure laws on the books of the several states and in the US Code result in our becoming better informed voters while getting a better slate of candidates, and consequently a better set of politicians in office? Or would there be collateral effects that outweigh any benefits, advising us to just suck it in and be satisfied with being led by sleazebags and morons?

Posted in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, We the iSheeple

69 responses to “Pipe Dream – Candidates’ Full Disclosure Act”

Todd Juvinall

19 May 2013

I guess I will have to disagree with you George on this one. That pains me greatly. I was once a elected official and I had to campaign to get the job. During the campaign, my opponent and her minions went out into the hinterlands with stories they made up about me in an attempt to get people to reject me. It didn’t work but it was very painful for a novice as I was at the time. Anyway, I was a humble contractor then with only my life’s experience to guide me.
America is governed by people and people have flaws. Even Alcee Hastings, the once federal judge convicted of bribery was elected by the people of his Florida district. He is still there. Also the Black Panther from Chicago, who is named Rush, I think, is there. My guess is those two actually do reflect their constituency very well. Look at Elliot Spitzer, he was a Governor and the people of New Yourk elected him twice I believe. He too must reflect the people of New York. Hookers and pimps abound in their legislature and executive mansions.
No, I think we get the people we deserve and when a scofflaw like Weiner or Rangle get elected time after time, and the people know they are crooks, then the people are to blame.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 May 2013

Don’t mean to pile on, but…..
Are you saying you didn’t know what Obama was by election day? He was a small time ward healer from Chi-Town that had parlayed his skin color and fungible background into an election-winning run of election successes. I knew he was lying through his teeth about almost everything except that ‘transforming America’ bit.
How about Ah-noold who ran for Kali-fawnya gov? He would have done just fine at filling out his conservative resume’. And he was fine for a few months. Along came his rejection at the box offi.. oh, excuse me, the voting booth and he started drinking the kool aid with both hands.
Tom McClintock has done rather well and I’ve always been happy that I voted for him.
He was a known quality when he ran in his current district and his record spoke for itself.
Specifics and events can change the world view of folks running for office and I would always want a person of good character that is willing to admit a need to re-assess the facts and change accordingly. At the same time, I want to see a person of strong moral bearing who is willing to apply the Constitution as it was intended no matter what the outcome of their personal fortune. That’s a person that’s hard to find running for office.
We know what kind of low life is in the oval office. Impeach him and convict. He won’t go to prison as he should but at least we’ll be done with him. He can go play golf and hang with his doper buddies the rest of life. Maybe he can write his memoirs. Give him a bong and a legal note pad with plenty of crayons.

LikeLike
George Rebane

19 May 2013

Todd and Scott – All that you both say is correct, but I don’t see either of you really addressing my proposition. Your only point seems to be that people get what they deserve, and that they knew what they were getting before voting. Given my reading of the reports by the National Center for Educational Statistics and the results of countless polls, the larger aggregate of voters are not similar to or possess the minds and intellectual energy of RR readers and commenters. We, after all, are political junkies, while most out there in voterland don’t know the form of our government nor whether Nebraska is a city or a state, or even in the Union. Stick a mic in their faces and they’re liable to start shouting ‘O-bah-maah! O-ba-maah!’ and start talking about his ‘stash’ as an observable measure of their depth.
The point is, would such voters benefit from full disclosure of a candidate’s attributes that would make a reasonable person reflect on his choice of the candidate? After knowing the answers to such a questionnaire, would the voter still “see a person of strong moral bearing who is willing to apply the Constitution as it was intended no matter what the outcome of their personal fortune”? And overall, would the country materially benefit from that?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

19 May 2013

George
Would you include tax returns in this query?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

19 May 2013

Scott
Impeach Obama for what?

LikeLike
George Rebane

19 May 2013

PaulE 653pm – Yes, but I think a tax returns for recent years are already included in a candidate’s disclosure. Do you have a specific period in mind?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

19 May 2013

Probably 8-10 years Long enough to cover someones pre-candidate years. When someone decides to run for office they usually sanitize their returns and behavior from that time forward. At least the same amount of time required for a mortgage application whatever that is.

LikeLike
George Rebane

19 May 2013

PaulE 703pm – I have no problem with that, even though such a long period may keep some good people from running for office, since tax returns also point to the financial activities of family members, etc who, as private citizens, may want to keep their returns a matter between only themselves and the IRS, that non-political icon of governance.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

19 May 2013

Skillful dig George

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

19 May 2013

I don’t agree that tax returns should be disclosed. That is a private matter and I have never liked that at all. My issue is education/civics.
The smartest people in Chicago are running the place and it is all corrupt. The people of their city and in many places in America live by the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” philosophy. All politics is local in my view and he national stage is a different set of circumstances. Maybe local times a thousand.
It is my view, and I think it is shared by other property rights and constitutional “extremists” that people do what they perceive to be in their own best interests. Not many people in America or on this planet have the extravagance of just voting straight philosophy (except maybe college kids). They vote their pocket books mostly.
When I ran CABPRO I invited the man who started and owned “Cigarettes Cheaper” from Sacramento. At the time he was in a huge fight about the placement of his stores in the city. The city decided he was not to be allowed in certain areas. They used the zoning laws to thwart him. When that didn’t work well enough they did some “ex post facto” on him. Anyway, he said something to the people at our meeting I will never forget. He said every time the Planning Commission meets, we lose a piece of our freedom. What has happened to America is there are so many rules and laws for everything that we are almost paralyzed. This breeds corruption. To get a grant for a rent seeker to a zone change to allow a store. So we have come full circle in my view and have created with our desire to regulate, the very corruption we were trying to avoid or stop. People will always figure out who they can elect to get them their goodies. Obama and the democrats have mastered that and we get the candidates and elected officials that will fill that bill.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

19 May 2013

Todd
You must be concerned about the regulations placed on Medical Marijuana cultivation in our county. It’s a civil ordinance, not criminal, that allows county “compliance” inspectors to enter and inspect your property at any time without stated due cause cause. State law allows limited cultivation for medical purposes.
Also, Nevada City, Truckee and Grass Valley do not allow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries although they are permitted by state law. Is this the “loss of freedom” by zoning laws you refer to?

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

19 May 2013

Scott O. wrote: “He was a known quality when he ran in his current district and his record spoke for itself.”
This record?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tom_mcclintock/412295
Republicans are doing very poorly in California, at least as far as the actual voters are concerned. I ask the rhetorical question…is McClintock one of those Republicans responsible?
Scott O. wrote: “We know what kind of low life is in the oval office. Impeach him and convict. He won’t go to prison as he should but at least we’ll be done with him. He can go play golf and hang with his doper buddies the rest of life. Maybe he can write his memoirs. Give him a bong and a legal note pad with plenty of crayons.”
Which, of course, is code for that black man in the White House sure acts uppity.
Lastly, in answer to your posit George…No. A full disclosure statement? Who decides if it is accurate, the law? How will this process not also become political and how will it possibly work?
You wrote: “In vetting candidates for office, we rely on a hide-and-go-seek game between the candidate and the press, or the ‘political operatives’ of their opponents.”
Any why is this not enough? I think you have much better traction with your argument that stupid people shouldn’t vote, but that’s a constitutional issue that will require many more decades to resolve.
Bottom line: smart people on both sides of the aisle have no need for Full Disclosure legislation because they already know everything they need to know about their candidate. I voted for Clinton in ’92, and knew full-well that he was a serial sexual predator, as did everyone else I know who voted for him.
All he needed to say was, “yeah, I banged the intern…any more questions?” and impeachment would have been off the table. Banging legal-age interns is not a high crime, nor is it a misdemeanor.
BTW, the main thing that has soured me on Democrats was Clinton’s unwillingness to own his penis. He’s a stupid-ass prick of the first order, and every time I see him on television I curse him soundly.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

19 May 2013

Obama Scandal Bracket – The Road to Impeachment
Which scandal will take down the president? You make the call: IRS, Benghazi, Obamcare, or the Wild Card, yet to be named scandal.
Bracket is HERE: http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/351/scandalbracket.png

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

19 May 2013

Russ, it ain’t gonna happen. Nixon was the last president to resign, mark my words.
Being president these days is all about silos…didn’t you hear what Obama said the other day? “Yeah, I think I first learned about that on Friday.” Fucking hilarious.
All those White House staff people since Nixon, no matter who’s in office at the time, spend their entire working days making sure the firewalls are functioning properly. These three so-called scandals–AP & IRS & Benghazi–are all tiny little potatoes. They are zero, zip, & nada.
I laugh daily at the clownliness of my gov’t. I recommend that everyone wrap their penises in Saran Wrap, and everything will be fine (and for the ladies, Saran Wrap also makes for a fine dental dam).

LikeLike
George Rebane

19 May 2013

MichaelA 911pm – Good points. Of course such a full disclosure law would become political, as it is now. The only thing that this formalization of disclosure would add is the prima facie evidence and cause for impeachment were there intended errors and/or omissions in the answers.
And don’t get me wrong, all the commenters here have good points against what I chose to call a ‘pipe dream’. I’m not sure either that it would work to produce a better class of electeds. But these are desperate times, and one’s pea brain grasps at many thin straws.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

19 May 2013

According to a CNN/ORC International poll, so far the scandals have yet to affect Obama’s approval ratings, which are the same as they were before the various scandals hit the “lamestream” press.
“yeah, I banged the intern…any more questions?” No one really cared that Clinton got a BJ from Monica, it was the denial that killed him. Duhbya skirted around his alcohol and cocaine addictions by simply admitting it happened and claiming he found Jesus.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

19 May 2013

Michael, I agree is it not likely to happen with the Dems controlling the Senate. What amazes me is how the smartest man in the room is so clueless as to what is going on right under his nose. How can someone so smart be so dumb that he learns every thing from the evening news? One might make the case he is not paying attention, not doing his job. Stay Tuned the wild card is still out there.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 May 2013

“Which, of course, is code for that black man in the White House sure acts uppity.”
Not uppity Michael – just a dishonest scumbag filthy dirty crook. I wish he would act as honorably as the last 2 presidential picks I made. Allen West and Allen Keys. You leftys are sure brave about calling folks names when you can hide behind a keyboard.
When the left has run out of principles and ideas, they just start name calling. And that seems to set in pretty darn fast these days.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

19 May 2013

I just calls ’em as I sees ’em, Scott. Your depiction has President Obama sucking bong hits and playing with crayons. That’s just plain stupid. I know how it must feel good to type it, but you should “monitor yourself,” as Archie Bunker used to say.
Speaking of Archie, here’s a quote for Todd that I just can’t pass up:
“What ya do in the privates of your own room is your own privates.”

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

20 May 2013

He’s an admitted doper – and now associates with the same. Show me something he’s actually ‘penned’ on his own. Hence, crayons. We have nothing the man has written or done on his own. Same with the wife. All hidden. Why? Take away the teleprompter and all you get is stammering and uhs. Did you catch him with Ryan and the R’s trying to discuss taxes? He screwed up right off and they took him to school. He claimed he’d ‘debate’ the point later. Like never. I vote for those that have accomplished something on their own and can stand on their own two feet. You can bend over for the idiot-in-chief if you want. Have fun.
4 dead in Libya and all he can do is fabricate a pack of lies about a video and a non existent demonstration. He can con lots of morons. Big whoop.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

20 May 2013

One should run for state or federal office to better understand why qualified people don’t run now since Watergate. MichaelA, privates would be dutifully inspected by the powers that be if he signed up (He appears to have them placed in a lock box as RushL would say). He would not make it. LOL!

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

20 May 2013

More Archie-isms for my two bestest friends–
For Todd:
“Men gets these here, waddya call, surges, where the chromostones are burlin’ over.”
For Scott:
“You wanna talk that Russian talk, take yourself back over to the USSO.”

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

20 May 2013

Good to know we’re still friends, Michael.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

20 May 2013

Ironically I may be the only one here who actually discloses his businesses tax return.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

20 May 2013

Polite Request for Democrats: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/polite-request-for-democrats/

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

20 May 2013

Passages?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

20 May 2013

On a different but relevant topic I interviewed on KVMR Rosa Koire who is speaking at a CABPRO sponsored event tomorrow night in Grass Valley about Agenda 21. I found her views highly debatable but this was an interview not a debate so I conducted myself appropriately. Here is a link to the Podcast.
http://www.kvmr.org/site-page/kvmr-podcasts

LikeLike
Ben Emery

20 May 2013

Paul,
The more she talked the more I thought her accusations were unprovable. As she described what Agenda 21 was going to do I was hoping you were going to say “sustainable development sounds ok with me, what do you have against it?”. You did a good job letting her tell her story and her position. I didn’t realize CABPRO was a conspiracy organization?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

20 May 2013

Ben
My style of interviewing is not to let my opinion get in the way and let the listeners decide for themselves. Of course every interviewer expresses their viewpoint by their selection of questions. In my view she would not fair well in a debate but I’m sure she’ll give a good Ra Ra for the believers tomorrow night.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

21 May 2013

I think you are correct. I don’t know enough on Agenda 21 to really shape an opinion so more power to her. There are people I respect on both sides of this issue but it seems like truther thing which is not provable because those who know will never tell or those who would tell decide to take a trip in a plane or commit suicide. So I don’t waste my time with it. It is also like the chemtrials. Don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be true.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

21 May 2013

Non profit organizations are businesses, they are officially recognized Public Benefit Corporations, and as such all of the IRS financial data on the organization I work for is a matter of pubic record, thus I believe that I am the only one regularly posting here who has fully disclosed their business tax records.
Really Ben, you did not realize CABPRO was a conspiracy organization….?

LikeLike
Bonnie McGuire

21 May 2013

Bless your heart George. You pretty much described the problem.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

21 May 2013

So Bonnie, the problem is that the vast majority of the American people are too stupid to make an informed choice, and thus we must violate the freedom of speech provisions of the Bill of Rights to ensure an informed electorate? How does that jibe with the Tea Party mantra many here subscribe to that we must support the Bill of Rights?
I happen to agree that a large proportion of the electorate is pretty stupid, and that a disproportionately large number of them are self identified Tea Partiers, but under our system I don’t get to be a philosopher king, I have to answer to the great unwashed American masses.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

21 May 2013

Along with candidate’s full disclosure, there should also be full disclosure from PACs, super PACs, non-profits, and any other organization that either contributes to or produces campaign materials, as to who their donors are and how much they donated. In the age of Citizens United, voters have a right to know.

LikeLike
George Rebane

21 May 2013

SteveF 820am – who here is promoting the violation of any freedom of speech provisions?
BTW, over the years I’ve noticed that you just pull wild accusations, charges, and conclusions having no basis off the wall or out of some dark orifice, and then expect them to be taken seriously. I believe this is another one of those.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

21 May 2013

I agree with Joe, except for the full disclosure by candidates, due to privacy concerns. But in world without full disclosure only a fool would unilaterally disarm.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

21 May 2013

Steve,
Since the organization has become so irrelevant I don’t pay much attention to the communities grumpy old uncle sitting on the porch yelling at kids for laughing and having fun. When grumpy old uncle was 10 he was working in the mines and laughing/ having fun was violation that could get you fired.

LikeLike
George Rebane

21 May 2013

I continue to be amazed at the conspiracy theory self-flagellation that our local Left is suffering under. And PaulE’s 1050pm disparaging use of “believers” re Agenda21 is extremely telling and prompts the question ‘what do they believe that is untrue?’ (BTW, kudos to Paul for that excellent interview with Rosa Koire on KVMR.)
Agenda21 has been expounded and referenced in detail on RR where it enjoys its own topic section. For newcomer or the minimally informed, Agenda21 is a UN supported global initiative with over 120 nations, including the US, as signatories. It prescribes how humans should ideally inhabit this planet by changing their living spaces, transportation corridors, and behaviors both commercial and recreational. In this it summarizes a vast collection of beliefs and shibboleths primarily identified with the Left. There is no conspiracy involved or implied here save by the use of that term by the Left to deny the import and impact of Agenda21 as its ‘sustainable development’ and ‘smart growth’ provisions are adopted into laws and regulations under various banners and sponsors.
And accusing CABPRO of being some kind of conspiracy organization is further proof that the local Left is running on intellectual fumes. They have reduced their arguments down to some form of ‘if you don’t agree with me, then you’re a conspiracy theorist’.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

21 May 2013

Funny how Frisch chooses to work for a misnamed non profit and then pats himself on the back he is required to disclose his $100,000 salary and perks. Aw too bad!
Then we have BenE making statements that he really knows little about many of the topics here yet calls those that really do, conspiracy nuts or grumpy old men. My goodness, we on the right could not ask for more disclosure of ignoramus’s on the left. Their attitudes are in full display in their last two holdouts on planet earth. North Korea and Cuba. I would throw in Zimbabwe as well.
PaulE calls anyone who questions the intent or practices of those who are trying to prevent the implementation of A21 as conspiracy nuts. Well, I would suggest he attend some One Bay Area meetings and do so with an open mind. He will see how “true believers” on the left do their deeds on A21 and property rights (through general plans and zoning laws). But, my guess is he will not do that.
Although I am going to be 63 tomorrow, I would suggest the real “old” men are those on the left. We on the right are invigorated in body and soul and love the fight for freedom.

LikeLike
George Rebane

21 May 2013

JoeK 832am – In the large I want to know more than less about the candidates. Adding the requirement here that their campaign contributors also be identified opens up a pandora’s box due to the implications that come with the required ‘discovery process’ for such contributions. Where does the discovery stop since free people can come together to form an organization that expresses their collective will through its contributed sum?
Maybe it can be simplified by requiring that no aggregated contributions can be made to candidates or causes through the rule that ‘if the agent/agency can’t vote for it, then the agent/agency can’t contribute to it’ But that itself has shortcomings which will launch additional discovery processes – institutions can pay individuals who are then the contributors – that in the end wind up as another facet of the ever expanding Lawyers’ Full Employment Act.
My druthers are that we start with the candidates’ full disclosure measures, and then see where that takes us. Rolling too many requirements into this kind of sunshine initiative guarantees that it goes nowhere – KISS.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

21 May 2013

It has been my experience that if people want to give money to their favorite candidate there is no law on the books that will stop them. Obama is a prime example. Not only were people able to give him money from overseas (via credit cards and under the disclosable amount), he was able to accept “bundled” amounts. Totals, 1 billion buckos per election. And as we see as well, Obama and his minions used disclosure records to audit and intimidate Romney people. So, I am a full fledged beliebver that any amount of money is OK to contribute and anything over the arbitrary amount of say, $1,000 is reportable ithin 24 hours.
Citizen’s United all the way!!!

LikeLike
Walt

21 May 2013

And not a peep out of The Union.
Even the “letters to the editor”
have yet to print any of the scandals.
At least Mark meckler’s story got
a line or two. Other than that,,, silence.

LikeLike
Walt

21 May 2013

Now this didn’t take long,,,
The woman in charge of things at the IRS ( who has since been bumped up to Obummercare implementation is going to take the 5TH, and won’t say a word to the oversight committee.
The ” it’s still under investigation” (LIB speak for ” I stand on the 5TH) just isn’t working anymore.
As with Holder, it’s just a matter of time before “O” gives her “executive privilege” cover.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

Walt
Obama will likely use the Reagan option perfected during Iran Contra of pleading ignorant of proceedings he should have known about (IRS). There will be blood but not his. Hillary will be free and clear for the next election. Benghazi has weak legs and AP is a Patriot Act spinoff that the Pubbers historically support as part of the “war” on terror.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

RE George 21 May 2013 at 09:39 AM re: “disparaging use of “believers” re Agenda21″
I would have said the same thing about an Amy Goodman lecture. I’ve seen dozens of these splats from both sides and they are very entertaining and inspirational to those of similar belief and seldom change anyone’s mind one way or another. Rosa appears to be an effective entertainer and book seller but, in my view, her assumptions are highly debatable as are those of Amy Goodman. As far as “what’ not to believe” as George puts it I say everything and nothing. We can “believe” anything we want. It doesn’t mean it’s true but for ideologues truth isn’t important, AS a self described ideologue George you understand what I’m saying for sure.
A few years ago several hundred Christians gathered in their churches waiting for the rapture to sweep them away because they believed it would happen according to scripture and, of course, are still earth bound. Belief in something doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m sure it will be a roaring good time tonight. I found Rosa to be a talented and friendly advocate who seems to be doing a good job of preaching her Gospel. I wish her well and hope to talk to her again.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

Todd re: “PaulE calls anyone who questions the intent or practices of those who are trying to prevent the implementation of A21 as conspiracy nuts. ”
Can you document that statement please? Did you listen to my interview?

LikeLike
Gregory

21 May 2013

Question to Ben E… Ben, when you write in other blogs that you posted something to “the fascist blog”, are you referring to this one?
If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

LikeLike
George Rebane

21 May 2013

PaulE 157pm – Not sure you answered my ‘believer question’. Listening to your interview, I did not hear her assert anything that required a leap of faith to accept. All of her statements were verifiable as a matter of record. What, in your opinion, could not be verified in the record?
“… but for ideologues truth isn’t important, AS a self described ideologue George you understand what I’m saying for sure.” That’s a pretty low blow in any sense Paul.
First, we have totally different understandings of what is an ideology and an ideologue who holds and promotes an ideology. To you an ideologue is apparently someone who is somewhere between self-deluded and a lying low-life. To me an ideology is a structured, cohesive, and communicable belief system. And an ideologue is a person who seeks to communicate and/or promote his ideology.
I’m not certain whether you are explicitly accusing me of lying in my RR commentaries, but if so, you sure frequent these tawdry pages a lot. FYI, I do my best to convey my opinions about issues and happenings that I consider to be true. People who don’t believe that of me should not subject themselves to what they then must see as devious or deviant drivel.
BTW, to one extent or another every regular RR commenter is an ideologue who seeks to promote their ideology such as they may be. Such conversations don’t take place between people indifferent to or ignorant of variations in worldviews.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

Okay let’s look at it this way’ As an exercise are you able to lend a critical look at Rosa Koire’s view or do you accept it as as described? “All of her statements were verifiable as a matter of record.” Are you sure? I questioned her about parking requirements for downtown developments, citing the Center of the Arts where I served as executive director for example. We were forced to pay for additional parking before we could receive a building permit. This you may recall is part of her core belief that we are being forced into inner city infill housing with no parking to make us give up the automobile and therefore be more easily controlled by the powers that be of Agenda21. AS an example of critical thinking on that point parking requirements for housing in downtown Sacramento are foreboding and require parking garages to be built to accommodate new housing. I know this to be true because when I did news stories about housing for homeless people in downtown Sacramento one of the requirements was parking per unit even though these folks didn’t have cars. The additional costs of providing parking effectively stopped several of the projects because the city wouldn’t grant a waiver.

LikeLike
George Rebane

21 May 2013

PaulE 315pm – Agenda21 is promoted whenever it’s more than less difficult to built housing units that support their residents having private cars vs using alternative (public?) and less congestive, polluting, … means of transportation. So you seem to be confirming Ms Koire’s assertions with your own citations.

LikeLike