A hearty welcome to Doug McIntyre’s Red Eye Radio audience. Like you, I’m a big fan of Doug and am honored to be a guest on his show. Check back here for detailed information on the topics we’ve been discussing and feel free to shoot me an email from the contact page . And don’t forget to subscribe to email or RSS updates so you always know when I’ve posted something new.
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
Unless you’ve been off living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan, you’ll remember that last month the L.A. City Council voted to boycott Arizona in protest of their crackdown on illegal immigration. The members of the council were so outraged at the behavior of Arizona’s elected officials that they enacted a ban on doing business with any company based in Arizona and suspended all city-related travel to the state.
Council Member Paul Koretz said that the passage of the Arizona laws was comparable to “the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany” and that he believed that Arizona “needs to be stung in every possible way until they stop this behavior”.
Richard Alarcon was brought to tears and exclaimed that, “We’re fighting to preserve American democracy”.
Jose Huizar felt that, “We have to act strongly and quickly to put out this disease. This boycott will send that strong message. We must deal swiftly and strongly with this ill conceived law before it spreads anywhere else”.
Tony Cardenas declared, “We are standing here for what is right. We got elected to do what is right”. And then went on to say that Arizona was “acting un-American”.
Ed Reyes claimed that if he went to Arizona and met a police officer that was having a bad day, that he could be deported (totally untrue) and that it was “crucial for our great city to take a stand and …manage our assets in a way that upholds the principles of this great country”.
Janice Hahn implored the Council to “stand up today and say yes to what we all believe America should look like and behave like”. She then went on to paraphrase Edmund Burke: “there are few times in our lives when we have the opportunity to stand up and be counted… and we know bad things happen when good people do not stand up and say something.
Eric Garcetti and the rest of the City Hall crew also declared that they, too, wanted to “take a stand”.
…all City Departments, to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no significant additional cost to the City nor conflict with the law, to refrain from entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona.
Pretty powerful stuff. Certainly nothing could make the City Council waiver from this self described principled stance.
Well… not so fast. Apparently the City Council, in enacting their little boycott, didn’t realize that the vendor for one of the LAPD’s pet projects is based in Arizona. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the company that runs Los Angeles’ Automated Photo Red Light Enforcement Program is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and their contract expires on June 30, 2010. Of course, the Board of Police Commissioners wants to continue this program which issues over 40,000 citations per year and extracts around $20 million annually from Los Angeles drivers, 80% of whom were caught simply making a rolling right turn, not running through the intersection. But under the Council’s Arizona boycott, renewing the contract would be a big no no.
So what’s a cash strapped city to do? Why, enact an exemption for the Police Department to be able to extend the contract, of course. It’s that simple. And the proposal to do just that has recently passed the Council’s Safety Committee. Voting “yes” were Council Members Smith, Cardenas, and Perry; Reyes and Zine were absent. Only a passing mention was made of the fact that ATS is an Arizona based company, and that particular issue really didn’t seem to concern any of the three committee members. In fact, the balance of the discussion was over concerns of how the city could “improve the citation issuance rate”.
The proposal now goes before the entire Council this Tuesday, June 22nd. I guess we’ll see if any members of the full council, who were so eager to “take a stand” against a state they believe is “acting un-American” and “needs to be stung in every possible way”, will have any reservations about making this exception and continuing to do business with Arizona based ATS.
For the record, I don’t support this silly boycott, so it’s hard for me to argue that the city shouldn’t renew the contract for that reason. But I do believe that when city council members make such a grand show of their collective outrage against another jurisdiction, it’s ridiculously hypocritical for them to then turn around, less than a month later, and simply make an exemption just because it’s convenient for them to do so. Of course, hypocrisy runs deep in the LA City Council so we shouldn’t be surprised if this passes with a unanimous vote.
So much for “upholding the principles of this great country”.
If you want to let the City Council know your opinion on this. You can look up their contact info here.
Loading ...
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
Since this is a Primary, there are too many different candidates in too many different races to cover every choice, so I’m just going to hit on a couple of the major ones that I have specific opinions on.
Governor Democrats – Vote for anyone but Jerry Brown. Republicans – Meg Whitman is the most likely candidate that could beat Jerry Brown in the general election.
U.S. Senate Democrats – As the incumbent, Barbara Boxer has no serious competition, so it really doesn’t matter who you vote for. Republicans – My pick is Carly Fiorino. She’s a fiscal conservative and somewhat moderate on social issues. She’s also got a chance of beating Barbara Boxer in the general election. Chuck DeVore, while fiscally conservative, is too socially conservative for me.
Lieutenant Governor Very insignificant position here in California, so who you vote for for this position really doesn’t matter all that much. Democrats – Most likely, Gavin Newsome will be the Democratic nominee, but I personally wouldn’t vote for him. I also wouldn’t vote for Janice Hahn who’s been a terrible L.A. City Council member. That leaves Eric Korevaar, who I know nothing about. Republicans – Vote for anyone but Abel Maldonado. This weasel made a pledge not to vote for any new taxes and then promptly broke that pledge in return for being named Lieutenant Governor temporarily till the new term begins. He also got his ballot measure, Prop 14 added to the ballot as part of this backroom deal which included voting for a budget which contained nearly $19 billion in tax increases. Don’t vote for him or Prop 14.
Attorney General
This is actually a fairly important position as the Attorney General determines the State’s legal position on numerous matters and decides what legal resources will be used to advance those positions. Democrats – My pick is Mike Schmier. He supports legalization of cannabis and the right of defendants to use unpublished appellate decisions as a basis for defense. Republicans – Steve Cooley is the least objectionable choice although I don’t like his drug warrior stance on cannabis. The other two candidates, John Eastman and Tom Harman are conservative ideologues who support Prop 8.
Insurance Commissioner Democrats – No choice Republicans – Vote for Brian Fitzgerald, not Mike Villines. Villines, like Abel Maldonado, broke his no tax pledge after publicly declaring numerous times that he would not do so.
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
If you live in California, please remember to vote on Tuesday.
PROP 13 – Seismic Retrofitting – Vote Yes
Provides that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value and an increase in taxes.
This will encourage property owners to retrofit their buildings to make them safer in the event of an earthquake. Vote Yes
PROP 14, Top Two Primaries Act – Vote No
Changes the primary election to allow voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary would then appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
This is a bad idea that would virtually eliminate third party candidates from running in the general election and would likely create a situation where two candidates from the same party would face each other in the general election. We need more competition in elections, not less. Furthermore, this measure was put on the ballot as a political payoff to secure Abel Maldonado’s vote for last year’s state budget. Don’t reward the politicians who make back room deals at voters’ expense. Vote No.
PROP 15, CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT – Vote No
Repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns and creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State for the 2014 and 2018 elections to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Funded by an increase in lobbyist registration fee from $12.50 per year to $350.
The problem with this measure is that it allows candidates to continue to raise funds from special interests and then also provides them with public funds if they limit their spending to a specified amount. Therefore, it really doesn’t do anything to make elections “more fair”. Also, once the ban on public funding of political campaigns is repealed, the Sacramento politicians can extend the use of public funds to candidates for other types of offices as well. While there may be an argument to be made for public financing of campaigns, this is not the way to do it. Vote No.
This initiative was placed on the ballot by PG&E in an effort to reduce competition from local government energy providers. On principle, I vote against any measure put on the ballot to benefit one particular special interest. Vote No.
This initiative was placed on the ballot by Mercury Insurance primarily to allow them to raise the rates of drivers who have not continuously had insurance. This unfairly penalizes drivers who might have a lapse in coverage for valid reasons such as choosing not to own a car for a period of time or those in the military who might be on active duty and not need insurance while they are deployed away from home. It’s misleading because the “discount” is what is being advertised, but not the penalty to other drivers. Again, don’t reward special interests who place measures on the ballot for their own personal gain. Vote No.
MEASURE E, LAUSD PARCEL TAX – Vote No
Authorizes a $100 per year parcel tax, to be levied on every parcel of taxable real property in the Los Angeles Unified School District for a four-year period.
A parcel tax of this nature is unfair, as all property owners, those with modest homes and those with mansions would pay the same amount. And for renters, don’t think this won’t affect you. Landlords may pass this tax on in the form of higher rents. In addition, voters have been very generous to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), approving 5 bond measures in the last 13 years, for a total of $20 billion dollars. Many homeowners are now paying hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in higher taxes to repay these bonds. For example, voters approved LAUSD Measure Q in 2008, a $7 billion construction bond, even though District enrollment has been declining. In these difficult economic times, the District should not ask property owners to pay even more taxes on top of those they are already paying as a result of the passage of Measure Q. The LAUSD should redirect funds from Measure Q rather than ask for even more tax dollars. Also, the measure does not ensure that the money will actually be used for the direct benefit of the students. Vote No.
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
Columnist Doug McIntyre of the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the controversy surrounding Paul Koretz’s use of the Nazi Germany analogy to describe Arizona. In his page one story appearing today, McIntyre further criticizes Koretz not only for his hypocrisy in playing the Nazi card after condemning Pomona Councilwoman Cristina Carrizosa for using the term “Gestapo” in a similar situation, but also for Koretz’s response to McIntyre’s inquiry on the matter. In an email to McIntyre, Koretz wrote:
“I understand that a supporter of the Arizona anti-immigrant laws has complained that my comments in connection with a Pomona incident were somehow inconsistent with my comments in City Council opposing the Arizona anti-immigrant laws. I think the two situations are different. Still, many people took my comments the wrong way and not as intended. Even some of my friends have disagreed with me. In 20-20 hindsight, I wouldn’t have said what I said.”
McIntyre accurately points out that it’s not enough for Koretz to say the “situations are different”, he needs to clearly articulate why he believes that to be so. Without such clarification, Koretz offers only a deflection instead of the forthright and honest explanation we all deserve.
For the record, I too believe the situations to be different – Paul Koretz’s Nazi analogy was far worse than Ms. Carrizosa’s. While I’m not defending the practice, it’s fairly common for lay people to use the word “Gestapo” to describe heavy handed police actions and it’s quite possible that that is all Ms. Carrizosa meant when she used the word. It’s also possible that she lacked the historical perspective to appreciate the weight that the term “Gestapo” carries, especially to the Jewish community. Certainly, Paul Koretz’s 2008 city council meeting lecture on the subject clarified the matter for her.
Koretz, on the other hand, has no such excuse. There’s no question that he fully understands how analogizing lesser offenses to what happened in Nazi Germany cheapens the deaths of millions of innocent people. First, some of his own relatives were murdered by the Nazi regime. Second, his criticism of Ms. Carrizosa’s “Gestapo” reference as “a blood-curling analogy” that was “painful” and “insensitive” clearly reveals how he believes such analogies are to be viewed. Assuming, of course, that back in 2008, he wasn’t just demagoguing on the issue for personal or political gain.
Even more importantly, though, is that Koretz stated that Arizona’s passage of their anti-illegal immigration law made him “think we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany”. There is no mistaking what this phrasing is meant to convey. “What went on” when Hitler came to power in the early 1930’s is that the German government embarked on a series of policies that inexorably lead to the systematic slaughter of a people who’s only crime was that they existed. I’m not sure how anybody else tallies things, but in my book suggesting that we view the actions of Arizona in a similar light is a much greater transgression than anything Cristina Carrizosa did.
Finally, I want to point out another way Paul Koretz has tried to divert the criticism he so rightly deserves. In case you missed it, it’s in the first sentence of his email where he calls me “a supporter of the Arizona anti-immigrant laws”. First, Paul Koretz has no idea whether I support SB 1070. He’s never asked me and I’ve never volunteered the information. But he’s characterizing me this way in an effort to suggest that 1) if I’m criticizing him I must be in favor of the law, 2) that’s the real reason I’m “complaining” and 3) my concerns about how he’s acted should be discounted because I support the law and I’m “anti-immigrant”. Why else would he use the phrase “anti-immigrant laws” rather than the correct term “anti-illegal immigration laws” or the actual name of the law, SB 1070? This is a classic political tactic. Disparage those who disagree with you in an attempt to discredit their opinions. Don’t fall for it. The truth is that I’m not in any way “anti-immigrant”. In fact, in my perfect libertarian utopia, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s natural rights, you would be free to live anywhere you want (and can afford to) and do any job anyone is willing to hire you for. But that’s a discussion for another blog post.
What’s important here is that once again Paul Koretz has failed to definitively retract his original statement or explain why it’s unnecessary for him to do so. Saying, “I wouldn’t have said what I said”, isn’t sufficient. If he really feels that way, he should make a public retraction. Nor is it sufficient to claim that his comments were taken the wrong way without following up with an explanation of exactly what he meant and how his words should be taken. He’s had ample opportunity to do so, and he hasn’t. Finally, when faced with his hypocritical behavior, the only thing he has offered is “it’s different”. Again, this just doesn’t cut it. As Doug McIntyre has asked, “How are these situations different”? Until we get a definitive answer from Paul Koretz, we’re going to keep asking.
Loading ...
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
In this clip, Governor Chris Christie of NJ takes on a disgruntled teacher. What’s the teacher so upset about? Apparently, in order to deal with the current budget crisis, the governor has asked the teachers to forgo a raise for one year and contribute a small amount to their overall benefits package.
I wonder if we could entice Chris Christie to move to California and be our governor?
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
My second interview on the John & Ken Show breaking a major story about the Paul Koretz Nazi controversy is now up in the sidebar. Again, thanks to Papa Giorgio at religiopoliticaltalk.com for creating the embeddable video.
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
If you’ve been following the Paul Koretz saga , you’ll know that last week I confronted this Los Angeles City Council member regarding his Nazi Germany analogy when referring to Arizona’s illegal immigration law. Here’s what he originally said:
“If this was being proposed at the Federal level, I would think we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany. It’s not much different. Fortunately it’s a State, but this State needs to be stung in every possible way until they stop this behavior. We can’t let this advance any further, this is absolutely dangerous.”
Koretz has been extensively criticized for playing the Nazi card, including this rebuke from Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Weisenthal Center. “We don’t need on top of everything else invoking imagery that is inappropriate. This type of language is toxic, is not accurate and makes the whole issue more difficult, not less difficult, to resolve.”
Koretz, aware of this criticism, admitted to me that “I learned something. But that was my gut, from the heart, response, and I probably wouldn’t say it again. I mean even my friends at the Simon Wiesenthal Center… even they took a shot at me – and maybe appropriately so”.
From this, one might believe that Koretz truly didn’t realize how insensitive his words might be and that he was somewhat regretful; that he really didn’t know any better and that he’s now learned his lesson.
However, I’ve uncovered some truly astounding information that I believe casts Paul Koretz’s entire behavior in this matter in a new light. So, as Paul Harvey used to say, here’s the rest of the story:
Two years ago, the City of Pomona, California was embroiled in a similar controversy. The police department had set up a DUI checkpoint near a large Cinco De Mayo celebration. While the department claimed that the location and timing of the checkpoint was entirely based on the fact that Cinco De Mayo is known for large alcohol consumption (and presumably intoxicated driving), they came under fire from Latino citizens who felt they were being unfairly singled out. Specifically, claims were made that illegal immigrants were being targeted, with the subsequent impounding of their vehicles, since illegals cannot obtain driver’s licenses in California (which the Supreme Court has ruled may legally be required to be shown at DUI checkpoints).
The next Monday, at the Pomona City Council meeting, one of the council members who had witnessed the police action stated that it reminded them of movie scenes depicting the Gestapo. (For those of you not up on your WWII history or who’ve never watched “Hogan’s Heroes”, that’s the secret police of Nazi Germany.) Over the next few weeks, a public uproar ensued as this council member was widely criticized for injecting Nazi imagery into the debate. In fact, the head of the Western Region of the Jewish Labor Committee (a group formed in 1934 in response to the rise of Nazism in Germany) attended the July 21st council meeting and lectured this council member on their use of the word, “Gestapo”, proclaiming “This is a blood-curling analogy. I would ask you to consider even some sensitivity training”. He added, “I just thought that what was said was insensitive enough and painful enough that someone needed to say something.”
And now the kicker –
The council member who made the “Gestapo” reference was named Cristina Carrizosa. The representative who found her remarks so painful and insensitive as to require her to consider attending sensitivity training? – Paul Koretz!
That’s right, the same Paul Koretz who just two years later, at a Los Angeles City Council meeting, thought it was perfectly acceptable for him to state that Arizona’s enforcement of Federal immigration law meant that “we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany”.
The only word to describe this behavior is hypocritical.
Did Paul Koretz somehow forget than just two years earlier he drove over an hour out to Pomona to lecture a city official about how the use of the word “Gestapo” is a “blood-curling analogy”? Did something happen in that two years that now makes it ok to invoke the specter of Nazi atrocities when criticizing government actions toward illegal immigrants without drivers licenses? Is it somehow ok only when Paul Koretz does it?
What this new information says to me, is that Paul Koretz knew exactly what he was doing when he compared Arizona to Nazi Germany. How could he not? Just two years earlier he called such language “a blood-curling analogy”. And told Cristina Carrizosa she needed “sensitivity training”.
That’s pretty strong language. You don’t just forget something like that.
After my initial conversation with Mr. Koretz, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. Not with what I know now. I believe he was being disingenuous when speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowner’s Association and to me directly.
Paul Koretz first tried to suggest that he was somehow being misunderstood or misquoted. Later, in response to my criticism of his actions, he said that he’d “learned something from this experience”; that he wouldn’t be repeating those remarks. Which makes it sound as though he didn’t realize that his words might be hurtful.
But this suggestion that he now realizes that maybe he shouldn’t have said it and is somewhat regretful, is impossible to reconcile with the fact that not two years earlier he was the one criticizing the use of Nazi metaphors – in an almost identical situation.
I believe that the only proper interpretation is that Paul Koretz cynically chose to use the deaths of 12 million innocent people to ingratiate himself to a group of constituents that he believed might be able to help him politically.
Paul Koretz owes an apology not only to me, but to the citizens of Los Angeles and to the Jewish community as a whole. I think he also owes an apology to the Latino community for having the nerve to criticize Ms. Carrizosa for daring to use the word “Gestapo” while reserving his right to pander to their community using the same type of hyperbole about the exact same subject matter.
Shame on Paul Koretz.
(The information regarding the Pomona controversy and the quotes attributed to Paul Koretz are from two articles by Monica Rodriguez which appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in May and July of 2008. I have not been able to independently verify these quotes, but Ms. Rodriguez has confirmed with me that they are accurate.)
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
Getting a traffic ticket is no fun. It stings, usually to the tune of hundreds of dollars. What can make the experience even worse, though, is the realization that you’ve just been caught in the latest government scam to separate you from your hard earned cash.
If you want to avoid falling victim to one of the most egregious abuses of government power, you’d best avoid the public parks under the jurisdiction of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, otherwise known as the MRCA. This little known state agency, which administers the lands belonging to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District is out to get your money. And they’ll use every dirty trick possible to do it.
Their latest scheme is the installation of automated ticketing cameras at stop signs within their parks. Anyone who fails to come to a complete stop is hit with a one hundred one hundred and seventy five dollar ticket. Now we can all agree that blowing through a stop sign, especially in a park where pedestrians are likely to be present, is not only dangerous, but deserving of severe punishment as well as the contempt of your fellow citizens. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about what is commonly known as the California Stop, where a driver slows to a crawl but doesn’t quite stop completely before proceeding. Most drivers who engage in the rolling stop only do so when it’s clear that there’s no one around. You know, like in a quiet neighborhood or secluded park. And if there does happen to be another vehicle or pedestrian present, there’s plenty of opportunity to come to a full stop without putting anyone in danger. So, this is what is known as a technical violation. It’s a little like going 5 mph over the speed limit. Everyone does it at some point and no harm comes of it.
But regardless of the fact that this behavior puts no one at risk, the MRCA believes that if you engage in this practice on their turf, you deserve a $100 $175 fine. And to ensure that they can nab you, they’ve flagrantly skirted the state law that forbids the use of this type of automated enforcement. That’s right, this type of enforcement is not permitted under the California Vehicle Code, which is intended to be the law for all vehicles on the state’s roadways. So how can the MRCA get away with this abusive practice? They’ve simply declared that the law doesn’t apply to them. They’re special; they’re above the law. The arguments they make in support of this theory are extensive and I’ll leave that for another post where I’ll rebut them all.
What I want to concentrate on in this post, is their self serving claim that this is not about revenue enhancement, but rather all about safety. In fact, in response to the public outcry against this ticketing scheme, Joe Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, said: “I’m more worried about a law suit from somebody whose child is killed. We’d be sued for millions for not controlling the interface between visitors and cars.” Wow, it sure sounds like there must have been massive carnage on the roadways within these parks. Joe Edmiston just had to implement these automated fines to save the children.
So how many accidents or injuries can be attributed to drivers failing to stop at the stop signs on the roadways within the jurisdiction of the MRCA? Exactly zero. Not one. Not ever. When pressed, Joe Edmiston couldn’t cite even one accident or injury. Yet it was necessary to install these automated cameras which extract tens of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting park visitors yearly all in an effort to save the children. Of course, any reasonable person can see that safety has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, this is clearly about filling the coffers of the MRCA and enhancing their power within their little fiefdom.
But if you’re still not convinced that this isn’t about safety, have a look at one of these stop sign installations enforced with an automated ticketing camera.
In this picture, taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana, you can plainly see that the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here. And since there’s no common sense reason to stop, other than if you don’t, you’ll get a $100 ticket; many motorists only slow down rather than come to a complete stop. Sure, it’s technically a violation, but only because the MRCA arbitrarily criminalized the behavior. What reason could the MRCA have for locating this sign in such a ridiculous and confusing location? Could it be purely in an attempt to collect as many $100 fines as possible? It certainly isn’t to save the children.
And just to drive the point home, the reverse view of this idiotic photo enforced stop sign installation makes it even more obvious that it was placed in such a way as to ensnare the maximum number of park visitors and reap the greatest amount of revenue.
And if you want to express your outrage at how a rogue government agency is engaging in highway robbery, call your city and state representatives. They’ll probably tell you it’s perfectly legal; it’s not. One field deputy for former state senator Sheila Kuehl told me, “Well if the government is doing it, it has to be legal”. Brilliant. But you don’t have to get into any legal debates. Just tell them you abhor this type of blatant revenue enhancement scheme. Tell them you want them to look into it. At the very least, they’ll be on notice that you’re keeping an eye on the actions of our public officials.
And if you happen to have gotten one of these tickets, I want to hear about it. If you’re still fighting it, maybe you can be a test case to get this overturned. If your case is already finished, you should know that there’s a class action lawsuit in the works. I’ll post more about that when I have an update.
Finally, if you suspect that I’m so outraged about this because I’ve gotten one of these bogus tickets, you’d be wrong. I’ve successfully avoided contributing to the MRCA’s stop sign fund, mainly because I refuse to visit and drive in their parks. It’s my own little boycott.
After this article was posted, I found that the citation has recently been increased to $175. Now we can all be doubly outraged.
Loading ...
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
Yesterday I was interviewed on the John & Ken Show about my Paul Koretz blog and encounter. Everyone associated with the show was awesome. Special shout out to Ray Lopez and Misty. And, of course, John & Ken themselves. I’m a long time listener of the show and it was great to be able to contribute to the discussion. Here’s the audio.
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
The Freedom Minute is dedicated to a discussion of all things having
to do with personal freedom and what I see as the steady encroachment by
government on our personal rights. I take a decidedly libertarian point of
view in my analysis of economics and personal freedoms. Note that I
intentionally spell libertarian with a small "l" since I identify more
with the overall philosophy than with any political party. If you're not
familiar with libertarian philosophy or you think you know what it is, it
might be useful to read the short primer which appears in the Philosophy
section. In addition, you might want to grab a copy of Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz or Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland, both excellent books on libertarian thought.
As for this site, I attempt to be as evenhanded in my
approach as possible. There is no question that I have a point of view and
an opinion. I state that up front. Many times I will give both sides to an
argument before stating why I agree or disagree. Under most circumstances,
it should be easy to distinguish between the facts and my personal
opinion. If I think there might be some confusion between the two, I will
try to specifically point out when I'm giving my opinion as opposed to
relating facts that I have researched.
My goal, if there is one
beyond my desire to create a public forum for my personal opinions, is to
get people to think about things in a way they might not have thought
about them before. I don't know if I will change many minds, but one can
hope. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, "If a man is
offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it
closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to
believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even
on the slightest evidence". I hope that even if you disagree, you read
this site with an open mind. I can ask for nothing more.
Loading ...
Since this is a Primary, there are too many different candidates in too many different races to cover every choice, so I’m just going to hit on a couple of the major ones that I have specific opinions on.
by David Boaz or 
by David Bergland, both excellent books on libertarian thought.
