May 9, 2012 – Daily Brief

The eye-rolling for me came when he introduced his item on the date change for the mayorship. His tone and side comments were dripping with contempt, as though he were trying just to prove some point and not actually pass the item. I don’t know if the council was persuadable, but it’s not a ridiculous idea. He should have been optimistic and offered just good affirmative reasons for making the change. But he had to throw in digs about Bob being passed over or of the council gaming the selection to coincide with elections. He also missed the most salient point, which is that the tradition places a mayor that, for the months after an election, was not necessarily selected by the sitting council. Kellar’s change fixes that. He should have seized on that from the very beginning in a direct manner so it could be the catalyst for what he wanted to do. Instead Bob identified saliency more acutely and used it to diffuse TBB’s item. It was some council chambers jiujitsu was pretty impressive to watch, though nearly invisible. Bob was like Yoda to TBB’s young Luke. Much to learn, he has. The good news is, we can stop talking about the near-meaningless position of mayor, at least for a while.

While I understood that Bob Kellar’s fix does put the city in a better position relative to compliance with the Government Code, it did not mitigate the systemic issue of eliminating the possibility that a sitting Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tem’s seat could be vacated by election results. Maintaining tradition has its merits, but in this case, it got in the way of a guaranteed repeatable process.

While I can’t argue with Bob that it’s not *that* big of a deal, I agree with you and TBB that the more sensible thing would be to just change it so it’s never an issue. While Bob’s motion brings us in better compliance, TBB’s item would have brought us in certain compliance. No one would have been harmed in the process. I’m a sucker for government reform. I named my sons McCain and Feingold, after all*. With reform like this, you do it because you should. It’s always better to be more right than more wrong. If the outcome is neutral, it’s good enough. *not actually true

Mike, your statement about the tone of TBB’s comments are absolutely incorrect. If he had said anything in a disrespectful manner, he would have been called on it right away in Chambers or immediately following the meeting. After all, treating people with respect was a major platform of his election campaign. You, and others here, are myth-building. That would be the nice term for it.

Of course, if he wasn’t called on it, it didn’t happen. He can carry that delusion to a long string of 1-4 votes, if he pleases. I hope he doesn’t, because he has a lot of great ideas and I’d rather see them pass.

Ray I mean Rocky, lobbing barbs and innuendoes at your peers is not what I consider respectful behavior. At some point, the others will have enough of it and stop trying to cooperate with TBB and simply concentrate on doing the city’s business without involving him any more than is necessary, he is the loser in a 4 to 1 showdown. Especially as new kid on the block, TBB needs to show he wants to work with the others as a peer, or he runs the risk of being treated like a petulant kid who pouts and throws hissy fits. He will need to work with other entities too and if he comes off as aggressive and abrasive, he will not get the cooperation he will need in order to accomplish positive things for our city. TBB also runs the risk of making the City of Santa Clarita look bad since he will represent us on many regional committees and boards. Going out of your way to alienate folks or pick a fight is not respectful or leadership like. I agree with Mike, TBB has some good ideas but they will go nowhere unless he learns to present his ideas in a manner which does not put others off. I would suggest a team building retreat to get things off on a better tone. Make your case TBB but with convincing arguments presented in an amicable manner. I know as a resident I want to work with you and I am sure others do to since the goal is a better Santa Clarita for all of us. Quit the sniping. Unfortunately, you have some negative baggage with me and others and you are not doing anything to change those perceptions. Your supporters may want you to stir things up and create chaos, but I think the rest of us want our council to work together as elected officials for the betterment of the community.

to beat the soon-to-be-dead horse further… The mayor date didn’t change, at the end, because of some mix of sentimentality and conservatism, two things that went hand-in-hand at the council in the pre-G&L days and it’s Kellar’s sweet spot. Sweet Lord, it is. They are sentimental because they like the way it’s been done and they like that it coincides with the end of the year and the city’s anniversary. But in being conservative, I mean conservative in the basic sense of the word. In the sense that conservatives favor stability, establishment and tradition, as opposed to liberalism favoring change, newness and open-mindedness. sidenote: Today, those basic tendencies don’t explain our political divide in the way they used to. Today, it’s more of a cultural divide. I know plenty of “liberal-minded” people who by virtue of their religion vote Republican. I know people who are temperamentally conservative who vote Democratic because they are turned off by the theocratic leanings of the Republican party. I say all of this to identify what is going to be at the core of future Kellar/Boydston splits. In that basic sense, Kellar is a conservative and Boydston is a liberal – despite their politics. Kellar personifies William F. Buckley’s definition of a conservative as someone standing athwart history, yelling “Stop!” Boydston displays the temperament, if not the ideology, of a liberal: a rabble-rouser, agent of change, fighter of the establishment. The cop and the thespian, a generation apart. There is plenty they’ll agree on, and they may become best of friends, but they don’t “see” things the same way.

Hammer, meet nail. It’s part of the reason I endorsed him, even though he’s a Republican. Ferry, meanwhile, strikes me as the practical, old-school Republican who’s willing to cut deals, which is certainly something I’m keen to see in our fractured political system where it’s become fashionable to say compromise is for the other guy.

Yeah, Ferry is more Republican than conservative. Eisenhower, Rockefeller and what not. A moderate pragmatist. I should say, and I didn’t see the whole meeting (and as much as it might pain me to say it), but Ferry really shined last night. I thought the way he directed the item on public comments was awesome. He got everyone involved and the final motion reflected the consensus that formed in the discussion. He made it clear that this change is a result of Boydston’s effort and implicitly, the election results. I also liked the way he handled the matter of Robert’s Rules of Order. Boydston was looking to scold the council for not using it and Ferry made it clear that he prefers Robert’s Rules too, but the rest of the council isn’t comfortable with it. I agree with them that it’s the better way to go, but Frank explained the concerns of the rest of the council better than they could. Sorry for the pun, but I was taken by his frankness last night. I just wish he would cut it out about the “the blogs”. It’s singular. Mention us by name, or perhaps just “The Blog” (title caps). (I’m kidding, Dave. Sorta) Funny line last night about him being discussed more often this election than last election. Probably true.

I disagree! The people who voted for TBB wanted him to throw “paperweights” and discomfit the City staff, so he is doing EXACTLY what he was elected to do.

Tim, I did NOT work to get TimBen elected to “throw paperweights” I worked to get TimBen elected to get transparency on our council, plain and simple!

Tim Myers said: “The people who voted for TBB wanted him to throw “paperweights” and discomfit the City staff, so he is doing EXACTLY what he was elected to do.” I completely agree. Councilman Boydston is likely to be the continuing source of “information the City staff doesn’t want the public to know”. Case in point, Agenda Item #15 from last night, which everyone should look at, in terms of the text of the map of where the 50+ year old pipeline runs through the City and in terms of the text of the Ordinance adopted by the Council on a 4-1 vote, over Boydston’s objection. See: http://apps.santa-clarita.com/agendas/CouncilItemPrint.aspx?ID=6190 This morning I was reading the online news accounts of the Council Meeting, and looked up that Agenda Item #15, which granted a “franchise” to operate an 8″ diameter oil pipeline under City-owned land to Crimson California Pipeline L.P. My first question after reading the Staff Report was “Why did it take the staff of the City of Santa Clarita 7 YEARS to realize that Shell Oil no longer owned and operated that oil pipeline running on City property?” My second question was a general wondering about the physical condition of the 50 year old oil pipeline, given that Santa Clarita’s soils are classified as “corrosive soils” which eat through metal, concrete and clay pipelines. (That info comes from a multitude of soils reports for big projects throught the City which I’ve read over the years.) If it were Shell Oil operating the pipeline, I would not be giving the matter any further thought, because they have a huge net worth and are clearly economically capable of paying for remediation of oil leaking into “dirt” owned by the City or for any harm to people arising if the oil pipeline breaks, spills oil which catches on fire, and burns/kills someone. Should that 50+ year old pipeline leak into one of Santa Clarita’s essential drinking water wells, in theory the local water agencies could shut down yet another drinking water well and then take legal action against Shell Oil and the City as property owner for contaminating the ground water aquifer. However, Shell Oil doesn’t own the oil pipeline anymore, Crimson California Pipeline L.P. does. Who the heck are they? Given that this oil pipeline franchise was being mysteriously granted to a limited partnership, 7 YEARS after the 50+ year old pipeline was “sold” to the limited partnership, I became very curious about what the heck is going on. So I started looking at the “public record” about the City’s new franchisee, Crimson California Pipeline L.P., a California limited partnership managed by Crimson Pipeline Management, Inc. of Long Beach. Here is their website: http://www.crimsonpl.com/index.htm The risk of giving an oil pipeline franchise for use of the public right of way to any private, probably thinly capitalized limited partnership, where none of the investors are “personally liable for oil spill remediation costs or other tort claims” was greater than I had expected. The people managing this new oil pipeline franchisee were indicted by the City Attorney of Los Angeles for 61 misdemeanor counts of failing to prevent, stop and clean up leaks from another one of their pipelines: First, read this news story: http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_19640101 and then read the Los Angeles City Attorney’s press release: http://atty.lacity.org/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@atty_contributor/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_019368.pdf After diligent internet searches I can find no evidence that the criminal case was dropped or settled. The main defendant in that serious pipeline leakage/spill case, Crimson Pipeline Management, Inc. is registered with the California Secretary of State at the same California address as the party the City of Santa Clarita gave the new pipeline franchise to, Crimson California Pipeline L.P. and from the Secretary of State’s records it looks like the City’s franchisee and the defendant companies share joint human management, a Mr. Larry Alexander who is one of the defendants in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s case described in the news story and press release above. See the California Secretary of State’s records at: http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx and http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx The Long Beach Press Telegram article says it cost a joint powers agency $1.7 Million to temporarily abate and remediate the pipeline leakage and spill involved in the criminal case, which Crimson’s inattentiveness caused. My suspicion is that the Crimson organizations are undercapitalized, and that’s why they didn’t stop their pipeline from leaking to the extent described in the Long Beach Press Telegram article. No oil company employee in their right mind would want to face 61 misdemeanor counts because their employer failed to promptly come up with the money to stop the pipeline leaks and make things right in terms of clean up of the oil spill. According to the Agenda item from last night, Crimson California Pipeline L.P. would have to post a $100,000 bond with the City and carry $2 Million in liability insurance. Those amounts are clearly barely enough given the $1.7 cost of partial remediation of Crimson Management’s pipeline leak in the South Bay. Most private, interrelated business ventures have one blanket insurance policy, naming all of the companies as insureds, with one policy limit covering many companies. Crimson’s entire existing insurance policy may already be “exhausted” by the leakage clean-up liability claims in that case filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney, and it’s unclear from the City’s agenda item whether the Santa Clarita franchisee, Crimson California Pipeline, L.P. has obtained or can obtain its own separate liability insurance policy, given that the City’s franchisee is managed by one human and one corporate defendant in the City of Los Angeles lawsuit mentioned above. The City of Santa Clarita has already been down the road of trying to enforce insurance/indemnity agreements like those in the Franchise Ordinance before. Despite former City Attorney Carl Newton’s sincere efforts the City was completely stiffed by the owners of the contaminated Bermite property, Santa Clarita LLC and Bermite Recovery LLC, in their Phoenix Chapter 11 bankruptcies, on those companies obligation to name the City as an additional insured on those companies’ liability insurance policies. The City ended up “settling” with Bermite’s owners without the insurance coverage or an enforceable indemnity like are required in the Crimson Pipeline Franchise Ordinance. In this case, if the Crimson pipeline leaked, they could blow off their obligations to the City through a bankruptcy and the City would be stuck litigating or paying all of the claims of private property owners along the pipeline’s route whose land had been contaminated by leaks in the pipeline. If one of Santa Clarita’s drinking water wells was contaminated by the oil pipeline leak, the dollar figure for the City’s liability under that scenario would be huge. A leak into the storm drains or sewers along Magic Mountain Parkway or McBean (as shown on the map attached to the agenda item) would not be particularly unexpected or uncommon, and would be all the worse for the City, economically, if Crimson California Pipeline, L.P.’s insurance had been exhausted or cancelled. (See list of pipeline breaks, leaks, explosions, fires at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents The list is consistent, but more detailed, than that provided by the barely-staffed Federal agency which is supposed to be inspecting and regulating oil and gas pipelines.) In this case, under the Crimson Pipeline Franchise Ordinance, the the City is acknowledging ownership of the road and sidewalk right-of-way under which this pipeline is buried and the City is allowing these hazardous substances to be used on their property. Back around 2000 the-City Attorney Carl Newton

Yeah, all these yahoos posting on this blog slamming Boydston should wake up and smell the coffee. A bunch of freaking carpetbaggers and frauds pretending to be stand up city employee professionals, if you ask me. They are very much paid the big bucks down there at City Hall, why the frack can’t they do their jobs??? It’s all about the public interest, and if they can’t measure up they should get out. And while I’m at it, the flippin’ blowhards can shut their pieholes about TBB asking questions… he’s the only one doing his homework on this stuff. Sorry for the honest assessment, but the character assassins out here just sicken me.

Tell the kid to get some Bahjah Fresh.

This is huge – it deserves a blog post of its own. Hell, the post is already here – just needs to be copied from the comments section to its own page.

Really? Should be fairly easy to find out. Take all the Deputies on patrol on a given night and their salaries and divide it by how many DUI drivers are arrested. Now you have a rough cost per DUI arrest. Now do the same for a DUI checkpoint. How many DUI arrests? Seems to me the LASD is admitting in the article that regular cops on patrol are more effective at catching impaired drivers than checkpoints are. That’s why they’re changing their tune; it’s an educational effort, you see.

It’s a fact that officers on patrol are far more effective at catching drunks than these checkpoints. Some states and municipalities have done away with them for this reason. The checkpoints are resource intensive. But the city/state and the LASD views the funding as free money because funding for these checkpoints comes from the feds. So they might take a drunk or two off the street, they cite a handful of unlicensed drivers and the deputies get some OT. Why rock the boat on this? It’s easier for them to go along with the feds than it is to fight them to allow this funding to be used for more effective DUI enforcement. It’s just taxpayer money after all.

They are resource intensive. However, since this is funded through a grant and is done on overtime, these sheriffs would not be on duty patrolling the streets. LarMcc does bring up a good point of seeing if there is something that is more effective in DUI enforcement. But at this time, the grant only allows the checkpoint style. So is the consensus is that the city/sheriff should not do checkpoints at all even though they are receiving funding to pay for it? Three people were arrested for DUIs from the past three checkpoints. Those three people could have been involved in fatal accidents with others. Is the potential of saving lives not worth it? Why have airport security? 99.9% of people do not travel with the intent of causing harm but it is very resource intensive and invasive as well. Should we do away with airport security?

thing is, if you intend to carry a bomb on to an airplane, you are going through security every time. Checkpoints are easily avoided (heck, they’re advertised in advance!) and occur so rarely that I’ve only been through one in my life. It’s a public policy issue, not a tactical issue, because of those grants. But however nicely funded, they seem more like blanket sweeps that allow police to get up in people’s business in a way they wouldn’t ordinarily have reason to. I also agree with Petz, and I’d like to see the bar-tending (as it were) done far more aggressively.

Not only are they advertised in advance mike, but thanks to Facebook, many ‘friends’ warn other ‘friends’ of checkpoints. I was just behind a driver last week that was swerving into other lanes and wondered if they were impaired due to alcohol or another substance; nope, just texting! I’d rather see our law enforcement on the street keeping their eyes open for yahoo’s like the one I encountered.

I think you’re on to something….how about texting checkpoints….”Have you been texting tonight ma’am?” “Well, maybe just one or two officer.” “Looks like you sent 25 texts in the last hour.” “OMG, oficr, I hd no idea it was that mny”

Or they could hire Lucy to do smell tests on all drivers. Much cheaper (milkbone?)

She just wants one more shot at the Prop 8 sign stealers…well both of us do.

That lil dog ain’t stopping nada

Yeehaw… http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1336586335533_8400137.png

29 states still let you marry your cousin.

That’s great! LMAO

I found it really frustrating too, but the city atty. is in a tough spot. He needs to move the council towards the legal way of doing things, but he can’t exactly rat them out in public, either, since he’s the city’s advocate. I think that the new way of doing things, which would include a re-afrimation of the mayor in that first meeting, gets the City in the clear. I still think it’s silly.

Per TBB, he sought information prior to the council meeting and I’m assuming that he didn’t receive it…Mr. Montes should have provided him with the information requested or informed him that there wasn’t enough time to get the information he requested. I appreciate TBB questioning the city attorney, he requested information to make an informed decisions, without the information it’s tough to make an informed decision.

Well you must appreciate his willingness to “take on” McKeon and CEMEX while ignoring the fact that Victorville and San Bernadiono do not like the deal.

Petz, I think it is high time folks take Congressman McKeon to task for his lack of leadership regarding the CEMEX pronounced Ce (as in celery) mex as in Mexico) issue, so yes TBB has my support on that issue as do the rest of us opposed to this proposed mega mine catastrophe.

Berta, not only did I read this entire post, but I think I agree with all of it. I’d only inject that I think a lot of this will shed away as he puts more time on the council. For better and worse, council members tend to get with the program as time goes on. I think they lose too much skepticism and wind up defending the institution when they should be refining it, but they also get a better sense of when and how to pick a fight. I always think back to Kellar’s dissent on the library vote. It wasn’t as maverick-y as popular lore suggests. It seems to me that he went into that meeting leaning yes. The near-unanimous opposition that night persuaded him – not to stop or pick up arms with the crowd, but to ask that the council slow things down. In explaining his no vote, there was an almost apologetic tone and manner directed towards the staff, if not the rest of the council. In other words, “Hey baby, it’s not that I don’t want to. I do. Just not tonight. We’ve never done it before, let’s do it right. Let’s get to know each other first. Like Janet said, let’s wait a while.”

Thanks Mike and I hope you are correct that future council interactions will have the goal of accomplishing important city business, not one up manship grandstanding.

Yes, and Kellar approved every other subsequent library item brought to the council for vote after 8/10.

Are the cracks still showing at the library? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VLaXoRRdk

TBB brought his concerns about Crimson Pipeline directly to City Attorney Joe Montes days before the council meeting, and the City Atty dropped the ball on due diligence on insurance coverage and the background of the company as regards management practices. It would appear that there is substantial liability undercoverage with this aging high capaacity oil and petrochemical pipeline that runs rights through Valencia and Newhall. TBB did his homework, notified the City Attorney well before it came up in public session at the City Council meeting, and at all times was obviously intending to protect the City and the residents against loss. That is what City Councilmembers are supposed to do, not rubber stamp whatever the City Manager and staff runs past them. More info on Crimson at http://www.isssource.com/ca-pipeline-execs-charged-in-spill/ I’m glad that Boydston is there to ask the tough and intelligent questions, and goes to the trouble to do it in a way that is understandable to the average Santa Clarita citizen. It’s no longer a go along to get along City Council. Staff is going to have to step up their game, and other Council members are going to have to ditch their personal antimosities and try to keep up.

sorry for the typos

I would agree that it was evident that TBB did his due diligence. I also like the tough questions. I just think there is a better delivery tactic to be had.

The guy is in the arena asking the tough questions in the public interest. What more can you ask? People… you people have gotten way too used to the pablum.

Ms. Berta, I did meet with the City Attorney well before the meeting. As there appeared to be very little support for an increase in liability insurance, I felt that it was, (and still is) important to protect the public in case of a spill or explosion. If the Council approves the item with no changes I will of course support the Council decision.

TBB I want you to ask the important questions, I just want you to do it in a manner that does not put folks on the defensive or appear as though you are intentionally picking a fight with council or staff. Pick your fights carefully. I want you, and the rest of the council, to accomplish good things and I do not believe that is possible within a contentious and adversarial relationship, which appears be what you are setting up the last two meetings. Prove me wrong, I want you to.

Berta- what’s up w/ you and facebook?

Sue I am just not interested in Facebook. I have friends and family throughout the globe and I talk with, in person or via telephone, and email my family and friends regularly. I also prefer to keep my private life private and am very selective on who I call friend.

hey- I’m very selective too! I only click add friend on Tuesdays and Thursdays. My 1,687 fb friends and I are real tight. not much different than posting here- ‘cept my fb profile pic is way better than this one Jeff gave me.

sadface. I’d be proud to add you as a friend on Facebook.

Jeff how very kind of you, thank you.

Berta Again, you are incorrect on all counts. On agenda item 6 (Newhall Building Demolition) I introduced myself as a “47 year resident of Canyon Country”.

Ok Al minutes are not available to either corroborate or dispel your contention that you identified yourself as an individual resident on that particular agenda item. So which of the other items that you identified yourself as Chair did we committee members agree to have you represent OUR views? As usual NONE, Al.

Berta – “our Views”? U got a mouse in your pocket? What a self inflated view of yourself!!! U throw accusations before U know the facts and then act like a spoiled brat when caught. U owe Al an apology.

Jerry as usual you have a comprehension problem in your haste to make negative comment regarding me. The OUR views refers to Al, by inference if nothing else, claiming to represent OUR (CCAC or Canyon Country residents, your choice) and not to me individually as I clearly state my name and community without referencing any affiliation with the CCAC or any of the other groups which I belong to. I owe Al nothing. Al needs to stop misrepresenting his personal views as OURS (CCAC or Canyon Country residents, your choice) without our permission or asking us and hearing what our collective views are.

Berta-Hurts when U get caught? I read Ur inaccurate post on TBB also. Looks like U owe both Al and TBB an apology.

Jerry caught at what, calling out Al for falsely presenting yet again his personal views as supported and approved by an entire committee or community when they are not? Alternatively, stating my observations regarding the council meeting last night? I do not apologize for telling the truth, not now, not ever. You continue to be a good little soldier…

Berta-U made up the stories and misrepresented what happened. I did not expect U to admit your mistake. U never do. U just keep typing.

I am sending Dana White an email today requesting he bring a UFC fight to Santa Clarita and put you and Al as the top fight on the card.

In other words, when you often vote against the views of your constituents, you do not get reelected.

There’s false dilemmas, then there’s this. Bipartisanship is what it sounds like; compromise, too. It’s a thing people do in order to get things done, it isn’t an ideology. There are plenty of Democrats in Congress who aren’t keen on bipartisanship or compromise, either. Don’t forget that Joe Lieberman met the same fate as Dick Lugar. It’s a risky, but honorable place to be. It’s the case in this race as it has been in others around the country that basic courtesy or friendship with someone on the other side is being used against incumbents in primaries. I think we’re losing something very important and it’s clear that our legislative branch is at or near a modern low in effectiveness.

I attended a lecture by Dr. Richard Beeman at the Reagan Library, and Beeman made this very point, citing how the Constitution was written (those Founding Fathers put in their time at the pub together!), up to Reagan and Tip O’Neal, who would often meet outside of official business, under the pretense of a social gathering (meal together, share a drink), while they were, of course, building bridges, compromises, etc., for a smoother working relationship.

That is a popular myth.

Okay, well, I’m referencing a 43-year American history professor at Penn State, a top Constitutional scholar, member of the board of trustees for the National Constitution Center, winner of numerous awards, and his work is peer reviewed. Plus, I heard him as a speaker with the “Searching for Democracy” series, sponsored by the California Council for Humanities. So, if you’ve got evidence that counters what Dr. Beeman has spent his life studying, perhaps you should let him know. Unless you are quoting Barton, in which case, don’t bother, because Barton has exactly zero credentials, nor does he submit his work for peer review, and is admittedly and blatantly rewriting history for political and religious purposes.

You know what, Petz, I regret how snarky I sound in this post. I apologize. It was rude, and I should have engaged without the attitude. Must have made you angry, or turned you away from discussion. Please forgive me. If I were to post again, I would ask, what is the popular myth? The Reagan part, or the writers of the Constitution part?

Mark Levin, who was in the administration often talks about this relationship being misconstrued by liberals. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/02/the-reagan-years-not-as-civil-as-we-think/

Ah. I see. Beeman asked aloud to the Reagan library folks if this was not correct – the Reagan/O’Neal thing – and no one corrected him. It was said during the Q and A, a more informal part of the lecture.

When Petz dies, he does not want anyone talking about how CC used to meet him at King Chef or Hometown Buffet (where my son Sam works) to cordially solve the world’s problems. LR are your kids ready for the solar eclipse (5/20) and Venus transit (6/5)? Old Petz will spot you some solar glasses if you need some.

You are very kind to offer. No, I didn’t know of the upcoming sky events. And we will be camping at the beach during the first week of June, so who knows if we’d see it, anyway.

The solar eclipse is May 20, the Venus Transit is June 5. If you want some solar safe glasses let me know. 661-609-1739

But in this case, I think people ought to chill out. It’s neither a travesty nor a vindication. He hasn’t lived in Indiana since the 70s, and for a while, billed taxpayers for his lodging costs when he visited the state. For that alone, he was asking for it.

I like wikipeadias definition below. We need to get away from both extremism and the negative connotation. A “good” settlement in legal issues is often described as one that is disliked by both parties. To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance, tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a “surrender” of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships “compromise” is frequently said to be an agreement that no party is happy with, this is because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little.

agreed!

Mark is a stud! He catches a lot of details and has a lot of energy.

I preferred Pitfall and Smurfs on Colecovision…

Finally! A practical use for the high speeed rail system! Get that trash outta here fast!

Berta……Berta

Petz ?????