March 1, 2011 – Daily Brief

Unused parkland at Towsley Canyon? I’ll be leading a wildflower hike at Towsley Canyon on the 26th from 1-3. Why don’t you join me, Navigator, and see for yourself?

Hi Wendy. I’m talking about the City owned property at the entrance to Towsley (Rivendale). Are the lupen and mustard up yet?

Ah….I believe that area was used last summer by the Shakespeare Festival people. I did a quick scope of Towsley last weekend – it’s a bit early for lupine and mustard. I did see some Bush poppy though. You’re still welcome to join me on the hike.

Why would they do that when Stevenson Ranch has 3 parks to choose from?

Because they would have to use up an acre or two of currently used park space and soccer moms don’t like that.

The city council does not approve plans based on “Do I understand it?” They approve plans on “How much of cost gets kicked back to me?”

Another comment providing you have no clue about anything you comment on.

Alan, one time when the Santa Clarita City Council was going to approve a project (I can’t remember which), it’s land use entitlements and its Final Environmental Impact Report, I stood at the dias during public comments and asked each Council member, individually, by name, whether they had read ALL the documents, including the technical appendices. Each one (except Frank) answered “No”. It’s very important to try to get the Planning Commissioners to answer that same question. Please politely but firmly ask each one the question, and try to get them to answer.

Please. “FOX propogandist?” really? And CNN and MSNBC are unbiased, with journalistic integrity?

Are fox unbias? Yes or no? You want to justify your BS by pointing at someone else.

Nate writes, Are fox unbias? Yes or no? You raise a number of fallacies by asking this one question. 1: There is not an unbiased person on the planet, let alone a collective news group. Presenting “both” sides of the story doesn’t qualify as being “unbiased.” It is how both sides are presented. 2: There is nothing wrong with presenting the news with a political bias. In fact this is how journalism was done in it’s infancy. The problem is dishonestly saying you don’t have one. FOX readily admits they are biased. The other cable news and broadcast news groups don’t admit their bias. They essentially lie to the unwashed masses. Unless you like being lied to on a daily basis, who is the one spreading “propaganda?” 3: In this instance of Fox being accused of spreading “propaganda,” the word is subjective. No examples are even provided. It’s lefty new speak for saying “I don’t like the facts FOX is presenting, so it must be propaganda.” 4: Seeing that the commenter, as well as yourself, probably never watch FOX to begin with, any accusation that FOX is engaging in “propaganda” is second or third hand information more than likely from lefty sources who redefine propaganda as outlined under #3.

“FOX readily admits they are biased” Fair and Balanced? We report, you decide? Hardly.

Mike. Do you watch any of the programming? They are reporting from a conservative viewpoint. A person can decide from what ever bias they wish to filter their reporting through.

Fred, I’ve seen plenty of Fox News and yes, it’s obvious that they are reporting from a conservative viewpoint. You asserted that they claim as much, and I pointed out that they, hundreds of times a day, claim something else.

That isn’t a fallacy. It is a question. Of course no one is unbias. The question is are they telling the truth. We have seen hannity show videos from different rally and present them as the same. We have seen the present lies as truth like the amount of daily expenses Obama spend while in India this past year. I don’t want 24 hour news, because it is garbage, 23 hours to long.

Hannity is an opinion show. Opposition on other cable channels do similar things. Are they singled out as spreading “propaganda?” As lying? Of course not. You agree with them.

Most of the teachers I know are too busy grading papers and preparing lesson plans to respond.

It is not about teachers or firefighters, it is simply about whether public employees should be collective bargaining. It is not about unions in the private sector. It is whether we can afford unions in the public sector. We are in the mess we are because when union money elects those in favor of unions in the public sector, they owe those that got them there. They become who they negotiate with. Because of this pensions and benefits for public employees have gotten way out of whack. A private sector union knows that if it asks for too much , the company may not be in business. Not so in the public sector. Public union friendly politicians simply raise taxes — and the unions know this. It becomes a vicious circle and it is the taxpayer that gets screwed. Even FDR was against unions in government for this very reason. 36 percent of public employees are unionized in this nation, yet only 7 percent of the private sector are members of a union. This is the exact reverse of just 50 years ago — and look how bad off our state and local governments are. I am no tea party member, but I have been against public sector collective bargaining for years since I saw up close what they have done to public school districts over the years. Ask your local school board what they think of it. I think finally we will be seeing some change in this area, unfortunately nothing will change in California until democrats get off the public union gravy chain.

I believe the unions started out with the greatest of intentions and purpose. The problem I saw with unions as an outsider were the “leaders” who were paid off the dues of its members. They became fat financially and weren’t truly concerned over what was best for both the worker and those who the service was provided to. On the same note though, I won’t give a pass to corporate America and these greedy CEO’s who are basically doing the same. Of course they don’t want unions involved in their business since it may change how many houses on the beach they own throughout the world.

And I will never be in a union.

Ironic isn’t it that public employee unions who FORCE workers to fork over dues have the nerve to call themselves “freedom-fighters”. Pure crap.

When did they say that? I mean that would have to rank on the wall of “Did You Really Just Say That Dumb $*!&?”

I don’t know about the public employee unions, but nurses at Henry Mayo Hospital are required to join the union and pay dues as a condition of employment.

Apparently Police and Fire unions are still ok in Wisconsin.

I agree the public employee unions are out of control, expecially here in California with the pension abuse. But with the SCOTUS decision that corporations can be like citizens and raise money for political campaigns, what power do people have to organize and fund an opposition candidate other than unions?

So where is the check and balance on a public employee union? They elect those who then negotiate their contracts. Not so with a private union. It is we the tax payer that gets the shaft. Public union collective bargaining is simply wrong. As far as “greedy” CEO’s go, there is still risk in the free market, no so in government.

Risk in the free market? What are you talking about? A Republican president made sure that the reckless greedy fools on Wall Street got bailed out to the tune of $700 billion. Risk? No one even went to jail despite massive fraud. There is no risk if you’re a politically-connected corporation! Meanwhile, instead of being upset about that, your base is upset that teachers make $70k a year and get good benefits.

It’s amazing that unions are allowed to fund the same politicians that will be negotiating their contracts. Essentially, in the case of public employees, the unions occupy both sides of the bargaining table. What could go wrong?

@Samuel Adams, I agree with what you said, except the Tea Party comment and I will add an additional problem issue, teacher tenure.

So, basically what you’re saying is… The Daily Kos is not Jake’s Way?

Best comment of the week!