Sandbox – 12jul14

About

July 2014
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

Sandbox – 12jul14

12 July 2014

[No doubt some comment threads will continue from Sandbox – 7jul14. Onward!]

Posted in Comment Sandbox

150 responses to “Sandbox – 12jul14”

George Boardman

12 July 2014

Right wing park? Jeffy’s definitely gone over the edge this time. But it is amusing to see somebody take a ridiculous position and then refuse to back down because he might have to admit he isn’t perfect.
His paranoia may result from sleep deprivation because of the neighborhood he lives in: Drugs, drinking, late-night rowdiness, a bank robbery, and now alleged prostitution.
Jeffy better speed-up his departure to Italy because he definitely needs the rest. Addio!

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

Cross Post: I am speaking for myself and not behalf of the rest of the board. In your comment, July 12, 2014 at 6:49 am, you (Pelline) clearly and unequivocally advocate censorship by time, place, and manner restrictions on speech based its content (in this case political speech). You (Pelline) regularly censor speech based upon content on your blog – and that is your choice and you are free to continue to do it. As a director fo the park and having taken an oath to defend the Constitution, I will vigorously defend the God-given right of free speech from unreasonable restriction and from bulliyng and intimidation by a recalcitrant blogger. Clearly, I am not a politician (and never intend to be), as I actually say what I think. I will continue to mock those who seek to censor free speech in our society. As you (Pelline)must always have the last word, you may have it…let free speech continue to reign in America.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

12 July 2014

Again I ask Pelline. Why did you choose to support the OWS takeover of the public park in NYC?

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

jeffpelline says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:49 am
Barry,
There’s no need to strike an insulting tone in your appointed role as a Western Gateway Park director. As someone who is politically active yourself, you should know the law: Parks cannot regulate the content of the speech, but they can regulate the time, manner and place in which the speech is delivered. Here’s the National Parks’ policy: http://www.nps.gov/dewa/planyourvisit/first-amendment.htm
Western Gateway Park’s mission is supposed to be “filled with fun for individuals, families and groups.” For whatever reason, the park is hosting more events from political activists, so perhaps the board ought to think more deeply about its policy for handing this. I know of no other park in the county, or region, where this is occurring with any regularity: Pioneer Park, Condon Park, Truckee River Regional Park, just to name a few.
How do you know that taking to the en masse to discuss political alternatives to the standard lefty drivel isn’t just, “filled with fun for individuals, families and groups.”
I’m not really that political but when I think deeply about it it sorta sounds like fun to me!

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

…taking to the en masse…
…taking to the park en masse…
Sigh…..

LikeLike
RL Crabb

12 July 2014

What he implies is that if someone visiting the park is offended by the beliefs of a gathering he or she does not agree with, then the park should be able to bar them. What utter bullshit.

LikeLike
Gregory

12 July 2014

Earl, I think Jeff Pelline isn’t being that general in his criticism… it’s more that if he is offended (or pretends to be offended) by the beliefs of the gathering, then the park should bar them.
After all, all proper-thinking people recognize “hard-right” (as defined by Jeff) rhetoric as hate speech… don’t they?

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2014

It is interesting to me that events at parks and our fairground hosting events that celebrate various politically biased leftwing causes like ‘earth day’, ‘environmental celebrations’, ‘LGBT pride’, ‘one world workshops’, ‘stopping gun violence’, etc are not seen by liberals and their lamestream as advocating a polarized and polarizing ideology, and therefore are excused from such criticism.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

Perhaps better in the “sandbox”.
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 or behavior meeting your definition of harassment while at the park?

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

From the suggested protocol:
Freedom of Speech & the First Amendment
National Park Service Statement on Free Speech
Call (570) 426-2440 for information about Free Speech permits
The Right of Free Speech
In conformity with the rights that are guaranteed in the United States Constitution, the National Park Service allows people to exercise freedom of speech, and groups to assemble peacefully on park land. However, to carry out its mission of preserving the cultural and natural resources of the parks, and to protect the rights and safety of visitors, the National Park Service does manage these activities through a permit system. Permits regulate aspects of activity such as location, dates and times, and number of participants.
Your right to a permit for the Exercise of Free Speech
There is no fee for a permit to exercise one’s first amendment right of free speech. However, a permit is still required for first amendment activity in the park; those without a permit may be asked to leave. Content is not regulated.
To apply, please download and complete this application.
Application for General Use (short form)
Your Rights as a Park Visitor
The content of what permit-holders have to say is not regulated, and the opinions expressed by permit-holders may not conform to the vision and policy of the National Park Service. Indeed, the permit-holders may have requested a specific location in a park to speak out because they are specifically opposed to National Park Service policy or plans. As a visitor to the park, you are welcome to consider the point of view of those who are exercising their right of free speech in the park. Please also avail yourself of the opportunity to learn the National Park Service’s answer to such opposing views.
You may contact the park’s superintendent of the park with your questions and opinions at:
Superintendent
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
1978 River Road
Bushkill PA 18324.
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.
Again….have you been harassed or impeded from using the park when political activities were occurring?

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

….and now the predictable complaints about tone.
Now Rebane weighs in with his jaded view: “It is interesting to me that events at parks and our fairground hosting events that celebrate various politically biased leftwing causes like ‘earth day’, ‘environmental celebrations’, ‘LGBT pride’, ‘one world workshops’, ‘stopping gun violence’, etc are not seen by liberals and their lamestream as advocating a polarized and polarizing ideology, and therefore are excused from such criticism.”
My point is the same: Come up with a policy that balances the right of free speech (for any group) versus your rights a park visitor.
But I’m not talking about a “theory”: I’m talking about two events that are coming up right now at Western Gateway Park.
Have you complained about activities such as these occurring in the park?
“Come up with a policy….”
…and then you suggest one. The policy implemented by the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Which leads me back to my earlier question….have you been harassed or impeded by those holding political get togethers at the Western Gateway Park?

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

There have never been any instances that I know of when a park visitor was hararssed by a permitted user exercising her free speech. Jeff has created a hypothetical in order to backtrack from his assertion that the park should restrict free speech. We should not be surprised that Jeff would advocate censorship at the park, as he is already on record censoring his blog and advocating for censorship by The Union of letters to the editor. One would think that a person with a degree in Journalism would be an ardent supporter of the first amendment. Northwestern should ask for the certificate back.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

It’s his blog to censor…and it shows. I would really like him to answer the question though.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

There have never been any instances that I know of when a park visitor was hararssed by a permitted user exercising her free speech.
So these things that he complains about were indeed permitted activities? And they give you a description about what will occur during the permitting process?
No saying we’re going to talk politics and then conduct human sacrifices?

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

Yes. He was complaining about the Park failing to restrict the speech of permitted users. Then Pelline backtracked to the natioanl park policy which is if you feel harassed talk to the park ranger. The national park does not say what they will do then. I have not now or ever will advocate restricting free speech based on content…only radical progressives like Pelline do that.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2014

Gentlemen – the FUE’s assertions are even less defendable here than they are in their native puff-ball lined lair. The usual response to such counters as you have offered is from their cricket corps that is dispatched regularly to answer points that expose their reasoning and argument.
Expect nothing more here from the Left, but do rejoice should perchance a brave soul from that dismal side emerge to do battle with you in our arena. And if we be so lucky, dispense no gratuitous abuse upon them. Instead, coax them gently to remain as long as possible in the dialogue, and in doing so reveal to one and all the substance in their argument. Send them away with some vestige of triumph so that they will be more likely to return the next time. The intelligent bystanders monitoring your dialogue will judge you both on the merits of your argument, and that should content all participants.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

You guys are so on a wild goose chase.
Pelline never said anyone should be barred or banned or restricted based on the content of speech. I agree with you on the point that the Parks should be open for free speech, as Greg noted, but you diminish your case when you intentionally misrepresent (or perhaps I should just say bold-facedly lie about) what someone said.
I love the Barry line, “I have not now or ever will advocate restricting free speech based on content…only radical progressives like Pelline do that.”
Well, Pelline did not do that, but you are happy to leave the impression he did. That is commonly known as the “false premise’ fallacy.
Barry you may say you are speaking on behalf of yourself and not on behalf of the other board members, but you are talking about a subject that is directly relevant to the management of the Park that you are elected to represent, so you are not speaking in your capacity as a private citizen you are speaking as a representative of the Park.
With all of that said, parks should be open to all users, regardless of point of view, to exercise their free speech, and the only restriction to their use should be conflicts with other permitted uses, health, safety or nuisance concerns, or the rare instance when the speech meets the legal standard for incitement to violence.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2014

stevenfrisch 317pm – if it was not the proscription of excessive rightwing speech, then what was the purpose of the FUE’s criticisms of the Tea Party and Jefferson events being held in the park? Why did they even deserve mention since they provide none of the objectionable aspects that were itemized, or actually charged, in his posts? Your rebuttal is welcome on two counts – addressing the question at hand, and once more exposing the widely different interpretations of the content of someone’s speech. Thank you.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

Well jeffy is evading the question as should be expected and he’s exhibiting the time tested method of not responding to my half of the exchange with Barry by metaphorically sticking his fingers in his ears and going….. lalalalala…I can’t hear you.
This is doubly interesting because just this morning at 9:27 he was incensed that we couldn’t, … debate an issue on its merits. Precious little mockery on this thread and we still have a “no show” from the perpetually aggrieved FUE.
jeffpelline says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:52 am
Steve,
We’re in agreement that the goal isn’t to “trump free speech.” The goal is to manage it: just like all parks do. No other park in our county that I know of has become such a venue for political activism, so the Western Gateway Park board has a duty to address it — not blame the messenger.
I’m quite sure your goal is to “manage” free speech…..just like you do on your blog. Suppress anything that makes jeffy uncomfortable.

LikeLike
Jeff Pelline

12 July 2014

The purpose, as I said all along, was to weigh the rights of “free speech” versus the rights of a park visitor. It is not unusual for parks to have such a policy, because it is respectful to all the “customers.”

LikeLike
RL Crabb

12 July 2014

What planet are you talking about, Steve? He specifically mentions the tea party and the Jefferson people. The whole point of his argument is aimed at those groups. I’ve attended many events at Western Gateway, and never seen a problem, or even a mention of a problem from an event hosted by either ideology. Pelline is just looking to create controversy where none exists, except in his own fevered imagination.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

You guys are so on a wild goose chase.
Not if the intent is to show that Nevada Citys crusader for truth and transparency is a hypocritical wanker.
Well, Pelline did not do that, but you are happy to leave the impression he did.
No but he greasily implies that political activities at the park make him feel harassed and that gosh darn it something should be done! We need a policy that makes me the evidently overly sensitive Former Union Editor not feel uncomfortable….even when he can’t seem to explain why he feels so.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

Here is Mr. Pelline’s full original post:

“Editor’s note: We enjoy Western Gateway Park, and my nephew likes its disc golf course. But it also has become a home to hard-right political activism — hosting a “Nevada County Tea Party” and “State of Jefferson Town Hall meeting” in less than a two-week period. This is from the tea party website:
* July 23 BBQ – Happy Birthday, Nevada County Tea Party!
Location: Western Gateway Park In Penn Valley
Come on by after work and enjoy visiting with your fellow patriots, the founders of the Nevada County Tea Party and your present and past board members.
Hamburgers and hot dogs provided.
Bring your service, sides and beverage of choice.
Lazy Dog Ice Cream available for purchase!
Mark Meckler, co-founder of the national tea party movement, will be our guest speaker at 6:30pm
* Aug 2, 3:30 PM – State of Jefferson – Town Hall Meeting
Location: Western Gateway Park in Penn Valley
– Free Admission — Bring chairs & blankets. Live band, food available from 3:30 to 5 PM.
Speakers: Terry Rapoza and Mark Baird (spokespersons for the movement)
Hear the reasons it is: TIME FOR 51
http://www.jeffersondeclaration.net
My conclusion: The Park needs to come up with a policy that weighs the rights of political activism with the rights of the park visitors. The park is supposed to be “filled with fun for individuals, families and groups,” and the presence of political activism undermines that. An example of weighing the two rights is here.

Absolutely now where in here does Mr. Pelline say there should be a ‘proscription on excessive right wing speech”. From the very beginning he was saying that considering the increase in popularity of the Western Gateway Park as a venue for political speech the Governors should consider a policy dealing with managing use.
There is no “widely different interpretations of the content of someone’s speech”, their speech stands for itself. It right there in black and white. Jeff did not say speech should be proscribed based on content.
What you guys are saying Jeff said it utter fantasy (or bullshit).
You guys must be really bored today why don’t you go out and cut your grass?

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

The purpose, as I said all along, was to weigh the rights of “free speech” versus the rights of a park visitor. It is not unusual for parks to have such a policy, because it is respectful to all the “customers.”
HOW HAVE YOU FELT HARASSED, OR IMPEDED, OR DISRESPECTED, OR THREATENED BY THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN WESTERN GATEWAY PARK?

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

Argh…George I just responded to your requested response and it failed to show up after initially appearing.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

Thanks for picking that post up George.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2014

stevenfrisch 339pm – To reasonable people reading Pelline’s post, the conclusion is clear, his requirement of the “weighing of two rights” stands only on the assumption that there is an imbalance in the expression of such rights that aggrieves one side, and therefore should be set aright. Your argument that no such conclusion is obvious to the intelligent reader simply boggles the mind.
Again, if there is no implied infraction, impropriety, or inequality, then why even raise the issue of what events are scheduled in that or any other public park?

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

Steve: I call bullshit. Jeff added his “conclusion” only after his grossly unconstitutional proposal was exposed. Clearly, Jeff advocates censorship of speech. His radical progressive views of censorship have no place in this community or elsewhere in America.

LikeLike
Jeff Pelline

12 July 2014

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

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

Posted by: Barry Pruett | 12 July 2014 at 04:53 PM
What “clearly unconstitutional proposal” was proposed Barry? He said that considering the increasing political events at the Park the Park should consider a policy on such events. That is SOP for parks in areas where political events are hosted.
That ain’t unconstitutional buddy, it is good pro-active governance.
You say, “Clearly, Jeff advocates censorship of speech.” I challenge you to point to one of his statements that states that the content of speech should be censored. I just re-read the entire thread and it is not there.
The fact that you responded to his suggestion with hyperbole and implied he suggested proscribing free speech is a lie, he never did.
You are a member of the Board of Governors of that Park and you should know better than to respond to public suggestion the way you did.
It may “boggle {George’s] mind” to have policies to address free speech rights……but it’s SOP.
If you guys were not so busy engaging in false premises as a way of life you would see the error of your ways.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

Hahahahahahahahahaha!
That’s all you got? Weak sauce Steve……
You guys must be really bored today why don’t you go out and cut your grass?
Too hot…maybe tomorrow!

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

No. Jeff suggested that the political speech was bad for the park and he personally did not support it. I informed him that restrictions based on content are unconstitutional. His reply was that we could regulate the political speech through time, place, and manner restrictions. Content cannot be regulated. Jeff only came up with the natioanl park nonsense when his advocacy went sideways. He is certainly advocating for restricting political speech. No other logical conclusion can be reached.

LikeLike
Jeff Pelline

12 July 2014

Barry,
I challenge you to point to one of my statements in that thread that states that the content of speech should be censored. It’s not there, which is why you are backtracking and unable to point to such a statement.
Here’s what I said: considering the increasing political events at the Park the Park should consider a policy on such events. That is standard operating procedure for parks in areas where political events are hosted. And it is good pro-active governance.
You are lying.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

I wrote it above. You just do not like what you said.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

No other logical conclusion can be reached.
Sure it can Barry…after all who are you going to believe….Steves client or your own lyin eyes?!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!
Enjoy Italy Associate Bob….don’t forget your custom pasta killin fork!

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

Also…you still have not answered the question from fish. As a user of the park, have you been intimidated by free speech at Gateway Park? Your non-answer speaks volumes as to the make-believe scenario you are attempting to create.

LikeLike
JeffPelline

12 July 2014

Barry,
No you didn’t; you summarized your own view. Please point to a direct quote from me in the thread that proves your point. It’s not there, which is why you are backtracking.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

Your post at 7:05am states that the park should regulate political activism. If that is not regulating content, I do not know what is. You still have not answered the question from Fish. Tick tock. Tick tock.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2014

The chasm between us is highlighted again. A conservetarian sees no need for government intervention while a common resource is not unequally denied to its franchised users. Were the resource to become scarce, then there must be some coming together to figure out how to equitably allocate it. No such scarcity exists nor is it anticipated. Yet the progressive sees government intervention required just on the basis of their own arbitrary perception of some inequity, even if it be only in a schedule that they somehow deem to be one-sided.
BTW, let me add something more to these progressive pyrotechnics – there is a third event at that park that would raise the ire of collectivists. The county Republicans are holding their annual BBQ there on 17 August. My goodness, have those rightwingers not even a smidgeon of propriety?!
For the record, my 324pm and 424pm questions stand unanswered.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

12 July 2014

George: I love how you have the ability to summarize in such a succinct and logical manner. We would not even be having this discussion absent the radical progressive censorship tactics through (1) bullying and intimidation or (2) suggested outright regulation of the content of speech. Not a single commenter here (save Pelline) would dream of regulating free speech. Our society cannot function without it. We (conservatarians) may not agree with one’s speech, but each would fight to the dying breath to defend it.

LikeLike
JeffPelline

12 July 2014

Barry,
No it doesn’t. It specifically states “the content of the speech is not the issue.” The phrase “time, manner and place” is used by the National Park Service to manage the rights of free speech vs. the rights of park visitors. It is a common legal term: “Limits that government can impose on the occasion, location, and type of individual expression in some circumstances.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions
“Hi Steve,
You are correct: The content of the speech is not the issue, as I stated above. But if the park is becoming a venue for political activism, the Western Gateway Park board might revisit its policies for “time, manner and place.” The park is supposed to be “filled with fun for individuals, families and groups,” and the presence of political activism undermines that.”
Throughout the thread I repeatedly state that the issue is not about censorship.
Yes, I noticed the GOPers are going to the Park too. Nowadays the leadership is more in line with the hard right, so that’s no surprise. Like I said the park is becoming a home to hard-right political activism. And on top of that, one of its directors is defending it tooth-and-nail. It sounds like a conflict to me.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

Posted by: Barry Pruett | 12 July 2014 at 05:15 PM
He can personally not support the ‘speech’ as much as he wants. I personally don;t support it either. I think the entire State of Jefferson nonsense is nothing but a naked political ploy to rile people up so they go to the polls like a bunch of zombies and pull the Tea Party candidate level.
But what we support is irrelevant. Jeff did not propose limiting free speech.
And WTF kind of statement is this, “Your post at 7:05am states that the park should regulate political activism. If that is not regulating content, I do not know what is. ” You are an attorney Barry, you know there is a difference between regulating an activity and regulating content. I assume they had to get a permit or permission for their event, that is regulating an activity. My guess is you already regulate activities am I right? Otherwise what would you do when two parties show up for an event at the same place at the same time?
What total nonsensical jabberwocky your position appears to be.

LikeLike
George Rebane

12 July 2014

re Pelline and Frisch arguments – To contest the use of a venue where some one-sidedly offensive speech may occur, usage that does not deny or circumscribe unintended and potentially opposing speech at the venue just on the basis of its scheduled frequency is downright scary in a constitutional republic such as ours. And especially so since there is no extant rule, regulation, or law that has been violated. Only that one side attempts to gratuitously paint the other as somehow denying equal access to non-applying thinkers of different thoughts.
Don’t Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts go through similar and constant attacks to silence them on the weight of the same arguments?
re stevenfrisch 609pm – your logic is really impenetrable, but expected. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to know that you can constructively regulate the expression of content by regulating access to venues where such expression may effectively occur. The same as you can exert constructive control over guns by regulating (as recently) the access to ammunition, or magazine capacity, or storage, or transport, or usage, or … . Or as did the IRS, you constructively regulate expression by intimidating “scrutiny”, “delay”, and “denial” of an organization’s tax status.

LikeLike
RL Crabb

12 July 2014

It’s no use arguing with the Pelline spin machine. It’s not about censorship, even though the headline is directed at the “hard right” activists. I’m sure he would be just as perturbed if it was the League of Swimmin’ Voters or Rural Turtle Coalition. Let’s chalk it up to the super full moon.

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

Dance monkey…..dance!

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

It’s no use arguing with the Pelline spin machine.
Yeah…don’t stand next to it either!

LikeLike
fish

12 July 2014

What total nonsensical jabberwocky your position appears to be.
More “Pot meet Kettle”…..well I’m off to KFC…..be thinking bout you jeffy!

LikeLike
Russ Steele

12 July 2014

Does anyone know where the Lefties are holding their parties this year? Were do they hold their conservative hate rallies ? Behind the Vets Hall in Nevada City? On the Banks of the Yuba? Safeway parking Lot in Grass Valley? Dog run in Condon Park in Grass Valley? Why not schedule them at Western Gateway Park in PV also, then we would have the balance the Pelline is looking for. My goodness, it seem to me the people falling down on the job are the Lefties for not providing the proper balance and using the Park also.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

12 July 2014

Posted by: George Rebane | 12 July 2014 at 06:15 PM
What a ridiculous point you are making George…..when Chicago was faced with the impending march of the Nazi’s in Rogers Park, a neighborhood where thousands of survivors of the Holocaust lived, many people and groups, like the ACLU, supported their free speech rights. They had every right to march through Rogers Park, but the City restricted them from marching past the Synagogue during the times of traditional prayer services, because it was likely to incite a riot. The idea that we don’t ‘regulate’ speech as an activity is ridiculous. We do it every day. Do Cathedrals play their organs at 3 am? No. Why not? Because it is against the noise ordinance.
There is a clear difference between regulating activity and regulating content.
Would the Western Gateway Park regulate the activities of NAMBLA if they wanted to do a rally in the Park? You bet your ass they would…they would firewall every other activity around it and they would monitor content to ensure it was not obscene.
This is another classic example of you guys not really understanding law. It is funny really.

LikeLike
RL Crabb

12 July 2014

It’s odd that he bemoans “too much politics” at the Thursday market in GV and the Constitution Day parade in NC, and then wonders why no one is paying attention on election day. There is much in the right wing agenda (or the left wing agenda) that offends my sensibilities, but hiding it behind the bushes is no way to operate a democracy. It’s one thing if people are waving signs in your face, but I’ve never seen anyone confront people who just want to enjoy the parks.

LikeLike