Ah yes, the “proudly progressive” among us

August 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

Ah yes, the “proudly progressive” among us

27 August 2014

George Rebane

Today’s (27aug14) Union published the bios of its new fifteen-member editorial board that has been penetrated by three, count them, three conservatives – Rachel Helm, Norm Sauer, and Stan Meckler. From what I have seen, the remaining members steer a decidedly leftward course ranging from a few unmistakable degrees to ‘hard a’port!’

Ms Lynn Wenzel, one of the latter, writes that she is “proudly progressive” and, no doubt, will bring her full influence to bear on the resident super-majority. With such shared pride among some of the other members, I wonder what influence the self-declared middle roaders like Brother Bob (and Publisher Jim?) will have on such an obviously balanced editorial board.

Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't change a member on that panel, and only wish that I could have been one of the few conservatives to join in the discussions which promise to be more than entertaining. Oh well 😉

Posted in Nevada County, The Liberal Mind

39 responses to “Ah yes, the “proudly progressive” among us”

Bonnie McGuire

27 August 2014

It’s wonderful that the Union published the information. I couldn’t help but smile that there were only about three conservatives on the Panel, and wonder why anyone would complain. Only someone who enjoys suppressing other viewpoints….Not exactly the meaning of progressive.

LikeLike
Brad Croul

28 August 2014

Lets’ see, Dr. Rebane thinks The Union is a liberal rag, but Mr. Pelline thinks The Union is the Tea Party Gazette. Bias is in the eye of the beholder, it would appear.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

28 August 2014

I am wondering how one could tell from The Union biographies that the new editorial board has ‘a decidedly leftward’ bent?
I read the bio’s and it seems the vast majority of those included assiduously avoided identifying themselves with any particular bent.
This is a classic example of how conservatives view the playing field; if one is not explicitly identifying themselves as a ‘conservative’ they must be a ‘liberal’. Anyone going out of their way to demonstrate a ‘centrist’ philosophy must be an apologist for liberal thinking and akin to Chamberlain at Munich.
I have news for ‘conservatarians’, not everyone hates you, not everyone is out to get you, there is no vast conspiracy to hand the nation over to Cold War communist cabals or collectivist schemes.
Some people actually values ideas for ideas sake, give them a fair hearing, and make decisions on a rational basis, without thought of stale political ideologies. Implying they are a bunch of collectivist fellow travelers if they are not puling your oar merely makes the older ones wonder if they are in Orange County in 1964 and the young wonder how we ever made it this far without self-immolating.

LikeLike
fish

28 August 2014

Posted by: stevenfrisch | 28 August 2014 at 07:55 AM
Given this sentiment I assume that you will be giving a similar speech to your buddy who is falling all over himself after breathlessly announcing to his three readers that Jim Hemig is….horrors….a republican.

LikeLike
George Rebane

28 August 2014

BradC 728am – You are no doubt correct in that assessment Mr Croul. Now I like our local newspaper and am a subscriber, and I don’t think that “The Union is a liberal rag”. But I definitely think its editorial policy leans more Left than Right. I base that on a recent multi-month survey of published items done by the NC Republican Women Federated.
A delegation of these women met recently with the newspaper’s management to present their case. They were well received and given enough consideration so that now the editorial board includes three members who would call themselves conservatives. In these days of rampant liberal bias in the media, this was a welcome turn of events.
For the other interpretation of the paper’s bias, I have found no factual basis nor has any been presented. The cries of the progressives are heard whenever a single piece appears that promotes conservative or libertarian ideas and/or interpretations. The nature of the opposition is always the same – either prohibit the publication of such “extreme rightwing” ideas or ‘balance’ them with yet more progressivism.
Truth be told, the liberals do have an innate advantage with the lightly informed in the public forum. They are the predominant members of groups which pass themselves off as being non- or apolitical, organizations that promote environment regulations, restrict public land use, beautification of parks and streets, homeless ordinances, medical marijuana, …, and, of course, countless NGOs with deceptively neutral names and strong Agenda21 objectives.
Their messages always appear in a vanilla format and constitute a constant and pervasive drizzle of the collectivists’ soft sell. But then, you knew that.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

28 August 2014

I will withhold my judgement on the “editorial board” until I better understand how it is going to work. Are all opinion pieces going to be voted on before publication? Does each person get a column? What are the rules? Did I miss all the “rules”?
Regarding the individuals and their political bent. Most of us are familiar with the output these people have placed into the community and their philosophies. So we know many are predisposed politically. Hemig appears to be trying to placate everyone and in the end he will placate no one. But it is his attempt to bring editorial “peace” to th community. I say give him a chance.
Frisch does not, as usual, take his fellow lefty nuts to task about the “board” members of his ilk. Just the “conservatarians”. So we all know his bias and we disregard him as usual for that. I am going to wait before I decide.

LikeLike
Gregory

28 August 2014

Speaking of vanilla… Frisch’s Other Voices on water policy was officious and dry… not at all like his declaration over at Pelline’s that he really thinks that every home with a well should have a water meter and be charged for every flush of the toilet. Apparently the fact of water rights (a property right, isn’t that correct Steve?) being a right to use, not an actual ownership of the water itself, that gives some government entity to actually charge for use of that water.
Steve, who owns the water? It it collective ownership and some agent of the collective should make a buck off the management of the water commons?
Who owns the air that blows across the property I pretend to own… is that owned in a commons, and I can be charged for that, too?

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

28 August 2014

Actually boys, the entire debate over the composition of the editorial board from here and at Mr. Pelline’s is in my humble opinion derivative nonsense. Much ado about nothing.
The Union, to which I subscribe electronically, is one community outlet, and giving the influence of the editorial board too much weight makes no sense to me. Never fear boys opinions and letters to the editor will continue to roll in from all ‘sides’ of the ridiculous culture debate to titillate western Nevada County and feed the maw of the hungry blogging beasts.
You will not run out of things to write about.

LikeLike
fish

28 August 2014

Posted by: stevenfrisch | 28 August 2014 at 08:45 AM
So hypocrisy is fine as long as it’s from a compadre! Good to know.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

28 August 2014

Greg, since your policy is to selectively cut and paste from other blogs without the full context of the response I will point readers here to the portion of my post from Mr. Pelline’s blog that you chose to leave out.
“This from the California Constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 10 WATER
SEC. 2. It is hereby declared that because of the conditions
prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water
resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent
of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or
unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the
conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the
reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people
and for the public welfare. The right to water or to the use or flow
of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State
is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably
required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not
and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or
unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of
water. Riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, but to
no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used
consistently with this section, for the purposes for which such lands
are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and
beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing herein contained
shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable
use of water of the stream to which the owner’s land is riparian
under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or as depriving any
appropriator of water to which the appropriator is lawfully entitled.
This section shall be self-executing, and the Legislature may also
enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section
contained.
These from the State Water Resources Code:
102. All water within the State is the property of the people of
the State, but the right to the use of water may be acquired by
appropriation in the manner provided by law.
103. In the enactment of this code the Legislature does not intend
thereby to effect any change in the law relating to water rights.
104. It is hereby declared that the people of the State have a
paramount interest in the use of all the water of the State and that
the State shall determine what water of the State, surface and
underground, can be converted to public use or controlled for public
protection.
105. It is hereby declared that the protection of the public
interest in the development of the water resources of the State is of
vital concern to the people of the State and that the State shall
determine in what way the water of the State, both surface and
underground, should be developed for the greatest public benefit.
I have answered your question which you pretend is unanswered in many ways in many places:
The people of California own the water. The state retains the right to decide how people can put that water to ‘beneficial use’. The adjudicated or regulated right to use water can be treated as a property right, but the right is to the use, not to the water itself. I am sure NID would agree with me.
I did not write the Constitution of the State of California, its second version was adopted in
1879, a little before my time.
I did not write the California Water Code, which implements the Constitution, it is a product of our legislature.
I am merely relaying what the law clearly states. I am not attempting to ‘take’ your air, but I am reminding you that indeed you do not own the air over you little slice of heaven either, it is owned in public trust by the people, and you have a right to use it, but not abuse it, consistent with the Clean Air Act.
To deny these things is simply a logical fallacy, it is like denying fact.

LikeLike
George Rebane

28 August 2014

stevenfrisch 845am – Didn’t mean to communicate alarm over the composition of The Union’s editorial board. It’s a private enterprise, and they are free to compose that board as they wish. But it is the sum and stuff of RR to comment on their socio-political tilt, and especially how that tilt is interpreted from various quarters. There never was any “fear” that we would run out of things to talk about here. As most readers know, local affairs coverage here is a bit thin because there are so many other blogs where that is the main focus. At RR we start hyperventilating with ideas and issues arising from Sacramento to inter-galactic space 😉

LikeLike
Gregory

28 August 2014

You need a tank, courtesy my man at Harvard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcvyHMyhpaA
Yes, fish, hypocrisy by Frisch’s comrades is fine by Frisch. Pelline has been apoplectic with his alarm call, the Tea Party is coming, the Tea Party is coming! Even one TP’er gets Jeffie and the Lickspittles in a lather.
There hasn’t been much ado about the striking down of waiting periods in California for guns purchased by folks who already own guns… which always seemed a silly idea in the first place. A “cooling off” period in which they can shoot their existing gun(s) but the one they’ve just paid for is sitting on a shelf at the store? How does that reduce crime. Unconstitutional. Imagine that.
Left-liberal collectivist interpretations of the 2nd has left states like Illinois and California with the 2nd amendment in shreds, and it will take time to tear that down.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

28 August 2014

“I base that on a recent multi-month survey of published items done by the NC Republican Women Federated.” Of course the NCRWF is totally unbiased and a their findings are totally accurate and true. Isn’t there some scientific theorem that states that the mere observation of an event is tainted and biased by the observer? I suppose that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and other academic watchdog groups are liberally biased but the republican women are not. Conservative ideology is like a Chinese restaurant, pick one factoid from column A and one from column B and by virtue of seeing the trees and not the forest a person can construct their own personal reality.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

28 August 2014

So JoeK, if there are say, ten letters favoring abortion and one or none against, would that be any kind of indicator?

LikeLike
Gregory

28 August 2014

You can cut and paste. Very good, Stevie. My quotings of your words have been accurate and in context.
Now, can you walk us through how you get from water being owned collectively by the people (not the government) to putting water meters on wells serving individual homes that have had exercised permitted water rights without further charge (besides the property taxes enabled by the water use) since their homes were built?
The state and county get well over $2K a year from my for my home value, which would be bupkis without the water… so, from another point of view, I’m already paying $2k a year for the water. Why do you need more?
As has been written in the past: whiskey is for drinkin’… water is for fightin’. The bill currently walking through Sacramento using a gutted bill originally something else entirely charges local entities with creating water agencies to “manage” groundwater; sounds like opportunity for rentseekers statewide. A new gold fever.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

28 August 2014

JoeK, could you please point to any AP news story that says global warming is a hoax or is even a debatable issue? Inquiring minds want to know.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

28 August 2014

From the good stevenfrisch –
“I have news for ‘conservatarians’, not everyone hates you, not everyone is out to get you, there is no vast conspiracy to hand the nation over to Cold War communist cabals or collectivist schemes.”
and
“Never fear boys opinions and letters to the editor will continue to roll in from all ‘sides’ of the ridiculous culture debate to titillate western Nevada County and feed the maw of the hungry blogging beasts.
You will not run out of things to write about.”
and
“I am not attempting to ‘take’ your air…”
Well – it seems that no one has advanced these arguments, but if the left didn’t have straw men to attack, they would just run away and hide.
So keep it up, Steve – we await your next posting about what ever you want to fabricate out of thin air. You are also welcome to rebut actual points put forth here by others.

LikeLike
Walt

28 August 2014

Uh,,, Steve,, FEDS trump state water “rights”.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/28/is-the-epa-preparing-for-a-massive-private-land-grab/
The state Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Especially when Progressives have an all access pass to the shredder, and sympathetic judges.
The people of the state have voted to amend said Constitution, just to have all those votes NULIFIED by one to three ” judges”. Seems “their opinion” trumps millions.
One little court fight can wipe away ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 2.
If “the man” wants it, “he” will get it.

LikeLike
Brad Croul

28 August 2014

George 814am – Sorry, I don’t presume to know what you think, but I do think The Union is in a no-win situation when, on the one hand it appears to be an outlet of the lame media streams, and on the other, it is assumed to be a tool of the Tea Party.

LikeLike
fish

28 August 2014

Posted by: Brad Croul | 28 August 2014 at 10:02 AM
…and isn’t that what makes it so much fun!
(Oh and hat tip re, “Stupid is as stupid does” as additional evidence has accumulated it would seem that you were right)

LikeLike
George Rebane

28 August 2014

BradC 1002am – and I am even more sorry that you are ignorant of my thoughts and reasoning, since it is a purpose of RR to make you cognizant of such things about me. There is a long public record of my thoughts, and I have even posted a detailed credo for those still confused.
I believe the Union ‘wins’ when it reports local news, promotes its own editorial line, and allows people from all sides to take the inevitable pot shots at it. Therefore, IMHO the Union is a winning newspaper.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

28 August 2014

I was informed that BradC disses you George and the rest posting here as less than human over on the Pelline blog. He does the Frisch diss dance. Too funny.

LikeLike
fish

28 August 2014

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 28 August 2014 at 10:49 AM
Do we really care Todd?

LikeLike
George Rebane

28 August 2014

JoeK 940am – of course the NCRWF is biased, and so is everyone else – and one has to be especially mindful of those who claim to be ‘fair and balanced’. My manifold biases are here for all to see.
But what many light thinkers miss is the distinction between being biased and being right or correct; and being biased with recourse vs being afflicted with sclerotic biases. For example, I am biased to the extent that I am a child, student, and defender of western civilization. And I, like all others, claim my biases to represent both a correct and useful view of the world. Useful to whom? – why, people who share my western culture, no matter their origin or where they live.
ToddJ 1049am – Perhaps that Janus-like behavior is in their nature.

LikeLike
Brad Croul

28 August 2014

Todd, who was your informant? You listen to gossip much? Can’t you bear to read Pelline’s blog yourself? The diss dance is common practice. Barry Pruett was doing that recently as well.
But, please let me know who I dissed, or whatever else you want to whine about.
Last I heard it was a free country and I have not been kicked off any blogs lately, so I post on Pelline’s and Bob Crabb’s blog, and would probably even comment on the Scooper, except I think the comment section is fake.
I don’t comment on other sites because there is no one there to converse with (and I don’t like Facebook – there, I said it).

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

28 August 2014

My sources remain anonymous. LOL! Brad, you see, to be really defensive. Did you get caught doing the diss dance? Apparently so. I am not allowed to post on Pelline’s blog because he does not like dissent, just like any good fascist. Hooray for you posting there. That alone tells us all where you are coming from. LOL!
Fish, I just get a kick out of the lefty hypocrites. Playing nice one place and dissing on the others the same people. Too funny!

LikeLike
fish

28 August 2014

Posted by: Brad Croul | 28 August 2014 at 11:25 AM
(and I don’t like Facebook – there, I said it).
Well you’re not crazy at least!

LikeLike
Walt

28 August 2014

For those that give a crap, there is a good article in the Territorial Dispatch well worth reading. ” Government VS. Media” by John W. Mistler.
Those that care about what “the Press” represents and what it’s true role was, and should be, should find it and read it.
It should shed some light on why most towns and cities only have one “news paper”, and most of those are Leftist in reporting politics.

LikeLike
Gregory

28 August 2014

Steve did answer one of my questions… yes, water is held by a collective ownership of the people which I knew (not the government, by the way) and some agent of the collective should make a buck off of the water commons.
So, when I flush my toilet, I should pay for 2 gallons… and when the two gallons drains into my leach field… I get the money back? Same with the wash water?
The current groundwater brouhaha is entirely the doing of industrial scale farmers in the Central Valley pumping massive amounts for growing crops, most of which evaporates; never let a crisis go to waste. The rocket scientists in Sacramento are trying to create a multitude of new offices to harass the people and eat out their substance, and the Frisch’s of the state dream of every home with a well with a meter to charge for every flush.
Even before the drought I tended to follow the old Jerry Brown rule… “if it’s yellow let it mellow”. Why? Every gallon flushed is a gallon I have to pay PG&E for, and it becomes another gallon my leach field has to return to the ground and in rainy season, that might not be easy. Most of the people I know are similarly frugal with their well water.
Some people need more water than others, and any water use tax will be regressive but that’s just an opportunity for another rent seeking agency to beg for program money to solve that problem.
Steve, I suggest the state stick with what they do so well already… let them finish the high speed rail and make CalPERS and -STRS solvent before reforming water rights statewide.

LikeLike
Walt

28 August 2014

The State of Jefferson idea is gaining ground on all this ” news”
From the Sac Bee.. “State of Jefferson takes step toward independence” http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/28/6659913/am-alert-state-of-jefferson-takes.html
And the poll at the bottom is well into positive territory.
On a side note, the state is about to vote on our water wells.( OH JOY!!)

LikeLike
Walt

28 August 2014

Yes, WAY off topic. Screw the politics for a moment since a BIG mystery has been solved, and actually on tape.( The “moving rocks” of Death Valley)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/28/scientists-solve-the-mystery-of-death-valleys-wandering-stones/

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

28 August 2014

So JoeK, if there are say, ten letters favoring abortion and one or none against, would that be any kind of indicator?” Not really .. letters to the editor aren’t a statistical measure of anything. Perhaps no one wrote a letter against. Perhaps those in favor conducted a letter writing campaign to give the appearance of support.
“JoeK, could you please point to any AP news story that says global warming is a hoax or is even a debatable issue?” That is because they report the news and there really isn’t that much empirical support (outside of oil industry funded think tanks like Heritage” for the hoax theory, so why report what amounts to a carefully cultivated myth. It would be like giving people who believe the moon is made of green cheese front page news space when in fact they only represent a tiny portion of the population. The BBC recently announced that it would no longer give “equal time” to climate deniers because they didn’t represent the vast majority of scientific opinion and to present them as such would be misleading. In other words to be fair and balanced, since only three percent or so of people actually believe it’s a hoax then they are only entitled to 3% of airtime devoted to the subject.

LikeLike
Gregory

28 August 2014

Regarding the off topic Race Track in Death Valley, that was the best piece in today’s Morning Edition.
The Cover of this edition of California Geology in 2001 is a photo taken by Nevada City’s Phil Kember, who unfortunately stopped working in color… a traditionalist and master of color photography and processing, people just wouldn’t believe such a masterpiece as his Race Track photo wasn’t photoshopped… so he now just works in black and white large formats.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/2001/54_01.pdf
I’ve a full size print of this hanging at our house… a gorgeous photo. Thank goodness for friend pricing.

LikeLike
Bonnie McGuire

28 August 2014

Walt that’s interesting. That’s how nature has carved valleys and moved gigantic boulders using melting glaciers. Yeah the government signs are along the road in the National Parks that tell the stories. Climate change from cold to warm and whatever has been a continual process for millions of years. I guess most people don’t pay attention so they are easy to fool by the scammers making climate change laws to enslave everybody. Our universe and world are fantastic. http://www.mcguiresplace.net/Adventure%202008%206%20Onward%20to%20Glacier%20National%20Park

LikeLike
Bonnie McGuire

28 August 2014

Posted by: Brad Croul | 28 August 2014 at 11:25 AM….A few words about Facebook Brad. It’s popular because it’s a fantastic way of staying in touch with people in our community and those scattered around the world. Bringing lost friends together and sharing experiences. The conversation blogs are great, but enhanced on Facebook with the latest photos, movies, ideas…whatever. Really interesting and amazing. It certainly is social media, and it’s wise to have good manners. Nice for people who don’t have their own website.

LikeLike
Gregory

28 August 2014

JoKe, the empirical support is lacking enough that only half of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society believe as much as half the warming of the last century is caused by man, from all actions, not just greenhouse gases.
That the Todds of the world think it’s a conspiracy is a bookend to your belief that there’d be no skeptics without Big Oil (aka the Koch Bros) spreading walkin’ around money.
There is a steady stream of peer reviewed papers that support skeptic and scoffing views of catastrophic climate projections and if it wasn’t for the major funders of scientific work, governments of the US and Europe, choosing to be much more prolific spenders on alarmist science, there would be even more.
Here’s the old standby site, now up to nearly 1400 papers supporting skeptical views:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Highlights
the 2nd and 3rd papers in the Highlight list are, in fact the two papers that turned me to climate realism in 2007… for the record, the 2×4 upside the head was Figure 8 in the Svensmark paper, which cited the Shaviv & Veizer paper.
What really turned my from skepticism to scoffing was the realization the alarmists were actively ignoring the contrary research, rather than engaging it. Doubling down.
Your view of climate science is dead, JoKe, you just haven’t been told that by the politician-activist scientists you have been trusting.

LikeLike
George Rebane

28 August 2014

JoeK 140pm – Well, I think you’ve put your finger on ‘fair and balanced’ with your 3% of people believing ‘climate change’ is a hoax. 99% of the people don’t know enough about weather, climate change, global warming, and anthropogenic global warming to have any kind of a coherent understanding that supports reasoning about the issues involved. All they can do is emote, and you have even misquoted the statistics of that.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx
But then you have the right to be biased, and contrary to the oft-quoted statement by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you even have right to your own facts as you sail on into the great unknown.
And to the extent that we don’t share the verity of facts, we cannot hope to derive any profit from our communications.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

28 August 2014

I actually don’t think I am a conspiracy type but hey. When I wrote about the AGW in an OPED in 1997 I said it was all about the taxes. I was threatened! The left was not content to debate then, they threatened my physical heath! But, my points in that OPED have come to pass. Cap and Trade, AlGore making millions on ignorant saps, and now CARB’s rules. No, I just know what happens when the liberals grab something like AGW. I saw it with tobacco. Big this, big that, tax and spend, government regulations. No conspiracy, just reality.

LikeLike
George Rebane

28 August 2014

For your pleasure and further discourse on the matter of California’s water and the rights to it, I draw your attention to a dedicated post on the matter.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/08/water-water-everywhere.html
It seems that diverting the topic of Union’s editorial board to California’s water problems – an important issue on its own merits – was a bit of a stretch. Go for it.

LikeLike