text:
I know a lot of my friends are real angry with her since she was once a slow-growth environmentalist and now she has flipped-flopped and is approving these developments that are cutting our hills down. She seems to be working real closely with Tom Pico, once a slow-growth official and now a consultant to the developers. One of my friends think they work together as a team as she is now the insider. So far she is two for two in approving Mr. Pico's developments that cut down hills and cut down many oak trees.
Town Square
Recall Jennifer Hosterman?
Original post made by Jimmy, Country Fair, on Jun 20, 2008
I know a lot of my friends are real angry with her since she was once a slow-growth environmentalist and now she has flipped-flopped and is approving these developments that are cutting our hills down. She seems to be working real closely with Tom Pico, once a slow-growth official and now a consultant to the developers. One of my friends think they work together as a team as she is now the insider. So far she is two for two in approving Mr. Pico's developments that cut down hills and cut down many oak trees.
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm
There should be. She has lost her way. Home Depot in the middle of town? A SECOND Home Depot? She is seriously a tool of the big money developers and Thorne and Cook-Callio should be recalled with her.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 22, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Interesting that there were some good posts on this, and some other topics, but the weekly staff did not agree with the comments so they were deleted. None of the posts I saw seemed inappropriate. Unless inappropriate means "contrary to the views of the weekly."
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 23, 2008 at 9:30 am
It is the same reason that this blog does not appear on the home page. If you think Jennifer Hosterman is in the pocket of the developers, try the weekly.
It was great to see Jennifer opposed the petitition because it does not protect the southeast hills. I see...and putting million dollars homes up there does? Politics...gotta love 'em.
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 23, 2008 at 11:05 am
Typical weekly...not on the home page...until you complain...let's see how long this lasts.
The council has clearly drifted pro growth. With Cheryl, Jerry and surprisingly Jennifer. Why is it a surprise? In her first campaign, she ran as the slow growth candidate and condemmed Kay for her vote on the waterslides. But now, with her ambition for higher office being fueled by developer money, she has little choice.
We need to balance out the council. Not necessarily a 'no growth' person but a moderate or slow growth person. Rumors abound that the COC will be sponsoring a candidate to take on Matt. No one wants to challenge Cindy but who will challenge Jennifer if she doesn't get recalled first? Should be a very interesting campaign season.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I see that all the posts about Angela Ramirez being Jennifer's Campaign Consultant, and Cheryl Cook-Kallio's Campaign Manager, and Jim Tong's Consultant have been removed. When a paid political consultant works for two elected officials and a major hilltop developer in town, you know something is up. Being that Jerry Thorne is heavily involved in the Chamber of Commerce pro-development camp, we should assume that he is pro-development also.
Did the Weekly remove the posts about Angela because possibly Angela has a financial connection for the Weekly also?
president of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Jun 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Gina Channell-Allen is a registered user.
No posts have been removed from this thread.
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Angela Ramirez's involvement in anyone's campaign would be enough reason to vote against that candidate; she is manipulative and underhanded. How ironic that she was a Government teacher at Dublin High School until her disruptive behaivor and unfair treatment of "selected" students caused the Administration to release her and not renew her contract for the following year. I am truly surprised that any candidate would want her negative energy on their team!
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Read this above thread and tell me if I'm wrong.
All this Ayala group does is attack everybody and denigrate them. Even the PW must defend itself from time to time, like above.
These folks must be graduates of Republican attack machine school. Spread all kinds of accusations about certain people and demonfy them at every opportunity. Repeat this often enough and people come to believe. After all, they will say to themselves, "where there is smoke, there must be fire".
I see this going on as clear as day. Since Hillary bowed out and Barack became the fixed target, all I get is these "attack machine" emails that my naive friends and relatives forward to me believing the content describing how Barack is a Muslim and is ready to do nasty to America if elected. It reminds me of Ayala's group!
It's so laughable to read how straight shooting Jerry Thorne and teacher mom Cook-Callio are now sinister politicians, as well as the evil Hostermann with the evil Ramirez actually being the "(wo)man behind the curtain". Wow!
(I am the real frank of Pleasanton Heights. To confirm go to Web Link and there you will see a copy of this post. This IP address is mine. Any other IP address is a counterfeit.)
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 23, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Frank, you are just as guilty of attacking people. You, and the Weekly, call the Save Pleasanton Hills Initiative the "Ayala Initiative". It is not the Ayala Initiative. There are several people who are proponents of the initiative, many people collected signatures, and 5,000 people signed it. You, and the Weekly, go ahead and attack a single person trying to discredit her. It is the "if you cannot find a better message, attack the messenger."
When Jerry Thorne worked on a sport field initiative, it was not called "The Thorne Initiative". When Brozosky and Arkin worked on the bernal park initiative, it was not called "The Brozosky and/or Arkin Initiative". Why now is the Save Pleasanton Hills Initiative called the "Ayala Initiative"? You are are guilty of attacking and trying to discredit an individual. Your first line of your post shows this.
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 25, 2008 at 5:58 am
Recall Jennifer Hosterman? Why don't we just hold an election for mayor in November?
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02 am
Frank you have been spanked....Gwen is right on this.
I like most of your posts but to attack others for attacking is disingenuous when you often attack others.
Sorry I did not mean to attack you, please don't attack me.
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 26, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Betty and Gwen:
I just checked in and found that you say things about me that I suppose you cannot support. Show me wrong.
Where did I say:
"You, and the Weekly, call the Save Pleasanton Hills Initiative the "Ayala Initiative"."
I talked about the "Ayala group". That's my only reference in my blog.
Please explain your accusations that I am attacking someone. Explain why you say what you say. Simply because I don't agree with your viewpoint does not mean I am attacking anyone personally. Is Ayala not supported by a group of supporters?
Yet the earlier posts specifically accuse Hostermann, Kallio, Thorne, and Ramirez of consorting with your enemies, by innuendo or otherwise direct reference. And the PW corrected untrue statements that were made about removing posts. All of these accusations are unsubstantiated and are slanderous and potentially libelous. But, they are normally protected under free speech rights, so these people get away with it.
On the other hand I mentioned Ayala's name. And then I am attacked by you. Please quote something I wrote that is equivalent to the items I pointed out.
I am open to accepting apologizes, but don't accept BS about unsubstantiated accusations.
(I am the real frank of Pleasanton Heights. To confirm go to Web Link and there you will see a copy of this post. This IP address is mine. Any other IP address is a counterfeit.)
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 26, 2008 at 10:54 pm
web link is
Web Link
Unwieldy web site to prove who you are.............
and you can be anything.... even the neighbor's dog with a paw on the keyboard...
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 26, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Gwen is right. It isn't the Ayala initiative. It's the Ayala, Resnick, and Brown initiative.
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 28, 2008 at 9:47 am
Why would you ever do a recall for Mayor in this town when we vote for a new one every 2 years? Which is about how long a recall takes to organize.
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 28, 2008 at 11:53 am
The actions of Jennifer, Jerry and Cheryl are so transparently on the side of deep-pocketed developers who make big campaign donations, it is unbelieveable. How can they think we all can't see this. All three need to be be voted out of office. They show total contempt for the efforts of the citizens. An initiative with the support of over 5000 voters was undermined by the vote of 3 council members. Our City Manager suggested they leave the initiaive on the ballet with no further action, but these three trump up lame excuses to put a competing ballot on the measure.
The intitiative's ordinance was simple and to the point. No need to allow the developer's to weaken a alternative measure that will not give the same protection to our few remaining pristine ridgelines.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Disgusted Pleasantonian,
Have you forgotten that the largest single checks to ever be accepted from a developer were accepted by Brian Arkin and Steve Brozosky? In fact, Brian accepted a $10,000 check from someone who had a project before the Planning Commission. Interesting that he resigned from the Planning Commission shortly after.
And let's not forget that Steve raised more money from developers that anyone else has ever raised. He raised $80,000 mostly from the business community and developers.
If you oppose the Initiative that the Council puts on the ballot, campaign against it on the merits and stop this Karl Rove style of character assasination politics. It can backfire on you.
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 28, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I hope for our sakes that there is a recall. She needs to do Pleasanton business and not promote her liberal agenda. Remember her sanctuary city idea for illegals; now the latest anti american policies and short sighted energy plan and her signing on to the liberal agenda at the Mayors conference. She believes she is above the laws; what about her bird of prey in city limits?
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 28, 2008 at 4:51 pm
The proponents of the initiative would have everyone believe that their opponents are all pro-growth and pro-developer, but when one looks closely, the people involved on both sides are all slow-growth to no-growth people. Is it expected of everyone to honestly believe that Dolores Bengston is suddenly a pro-growth, pro-developer person because she publicly stated that she is against this initiative? It is amazing how people who have the same goal are so unwilling to work together. I think Thorne put it best during the Council meeting on Thursday when he said this issue is only as divisive as people want to make it. One of the proponents invoked the "you're either with us or against us" meme at the Council meeting. It seems to me like the initiative proponents want to be as divisive as possible!
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 28, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The proponents of the initiative show total contempt for the spirit of the US Constitution. They want to use the power of the fourth branch of government in order to create laws that impose upon the rights of property owners. The Save Pleasanton Hills and Housing Cap Initiative is nothing short of a thinly disguised attempt to prevent development in Oak Grove. Protecting the ridgelines and tightening up the housing unit definition was always secondary to the primary goal of the Save Pleasanton Hills group. Trying to take away the Lins' land through legislation without just compensation is called Communism. It is unbelievable how the proponents think we can't all see this.
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Jun 28, 2008 at 6:52 pm
How can the nearly successful attempt to put a SECOND Home Depot in the center of town be seen as anything but pro developer? Thank goodness we have citizens like Nancy Allen and Kay Ayala watching this bunch and holding their feet to the fire. There are also many others who have selflessly supported the efforts of Allen and Alaya whom I thank. I can understand Thorne but how Hosterman and Pico turned so shamelessly pro-developer I will never understand. Actually, I understand it - money talks.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 28, 2008 at 7:32 pm
The Stop Pleasanton Gridlock group was highly successful in doing the research to find the facts that showed that the Home Depot project was NOT beneficial to Pleasanton. Additionally, all that was done WITHOUT clipboard politics nor with false accusations and character assassination.
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Jun 28, 2008 at 8:01 pm
What you call "clipboard politics" is acually called the referendum process, a legal and necessary part of our democracy and State Constitution. I can't believe anyone could be against this most basic form of democracy just because you disagree with the subject matter. You and frank from Pleasanton Heights can just vote against it. As far as character assasantion, Hosterman and Pico have taken care of that themselves with their own shamelessly pro-developer actions which are part of the public record for anyone to see.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 28, 2008 at 8:15 pm
To City of Planned Progress is supposed to mean something,
The character assassination comment wasn't directed at you.
Also, I'm not against the process because I disagree with the subject matter. I'm against the process because it is a form of "tyranny of the majority". The Founding Fathers were highly concerned with "majority rules" considering that all Greek democracies failed because of it.
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 1, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Stacey, Dolores Bengston has actually been pretty consistantly in the pro-growth side of things in Pleasanton. I remember her campaigning strongly against the initiative that would not allow houses in the Bernal Park and she has sided on the pro-growth side of Oak Grove and the Initiative.
As somebody who talked with the Stop Pleasanton Gridlock team, the only reason the Council did not approve the second Home Depot (Actually they approved it but put off the vote of the required second reading) was the people against Home Depot already had a referendum drawn up and were going to circulate that. This was during the time that this initiative and the Oak Grove referendum was being circulated so the Council decided to not vote on Home Depot since they did not want yet another referendum out there. Two referendums at the same time would surely be seen as a referendum on the Council.
I can't wait to be able to see all the campaign contributions online. I picked up a copy of the 2004 Election financing documens when Hosterman ran against Ayala and was surprised to see that Hosterman had half of her donations from developers. I guess this is the price we pay. Elections cost a lot of money now. The biggest special interest we have in Pleasanton now is the Chamber of Commerce PAC. Their donations are a who's who of developers. A developer donating to the Chamber PAC gets a double-benefit. They can somewhat hide that they gave to a candidate (even if the Chamber gives money to a candidate), plus that donation entitles them to have the Chamber lobby for their projects. So they have the candidate in their bag and the Chamber. Both entities want more money and would not want to tick off a major campaign contributor.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Did anyone check to see where Brozosky got his money? Also check to see how many people gave to all the candidates running for office. That is very typical because all contributors want access.
One council candidate last time (Arkin) received $10,000 from ONE developer and then resigned from the planning commission so that there would be NO CONFLICT if he happened to be elected to the City Council when the project was advanced. Oh yes, he was the one talking about council members taking developer contributions during the last council meeting.
Does anyone really think that people can be bought that cheaply, that people would put themselves through this kind of scrutiny for what? Power? Greed? Really?
Maybe there are people out there who want to serve. Wouldn't we be lucky if that was the case?
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 1, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I highly doubt that the threat of referendum is the sole reason why the Council turned down the Home Depot project! After City staff came back with better data, any citizen with remedial math skills could figure out that the project was bad for the City!
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 1, 2008 at 11:47 pm
FYI: Jennifer Hosterman has never been endorsed by the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce PAC and they have never given her money. Maybe this election?
Mary: Why did you skip the 2006 Mayoral Election of Hosterman vs. Brozosky? Inconvenient? Proof that in fact most developer money went to Brozosky...a campaign of $80,000.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:46 am
Based on the critical thinking patterns of our Mayor, the lack of experience,communication and perhaps just not knowing or trusting persons with information that might lead to better solutions/outcomes for our City is lacking. There was not critical thinking associated with the Home Depot process. Only those persons, outside City government, cultivated a thought process worth pursuing. Kottinger Park wasn't as bad but the lack of critical thinking was present. Catching deer in my headlights driving down Kottinger Ave. leads me to believe that we may get more than we bargained for somewhere down the road. How many student classes participated in understanding how and why Kottinger was being transformed?
Stacey, what original data was used to receive a 4-1 vote approval on the Home Depot project? The City and the Council lacked any critical thinking prior to citizen group. Like the Mayor said, It looks good!
I need to find Dennis, always getting in trouble. Later
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jul 2, 2008 at 8:56 am
When Steve Brozosky raised $80,000 mostly from developers, not one dime came from the Chamber of Commerce. Your theory does not hold water.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2008 at 11:18 am
If Jennifer Hosterman and Cheryl Cook-Kallio should be recalled for being influenced by Angela(whoever she is) then
how about Cindy McGovern who gets her marching orders from Ayala/Brozosky, et al.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:40 pm
If the proponents of the initiative really wanted to protect the hills they would do what Cook-Kallio suggested at the meeting, join in a council sponsored measure that would make clear the protection, not create more problems than it solved with this unclear initiative language. That is, if their intention is to really protect the hills.
Why be defensive if the goal is the same? Thorne was right on, too.
Really if community is what we are about then all should be moving in the same direction.
However, if the motivation is something different. . .?????
editor of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Jul 6, 2008 at 11:27 am
Jeb Bing is a registered user.
These comments have run their course. Thanks for posting.


text:
Pass by the cardboard boxes full of puppies and kittens and go to the Russellville Animal Shelter where your new friend is waiting. If animal shelters are usually avoided due to the price, have no fear. The shelter has waived adoption fees.
The typical adoption fees of $40 for a dog and $20 for a cat are being waived until Aug. 13. Any pet adopted during this time will be vaccinated with all shots but rabies, and will be spayed or neutered.
Mike Vernon, director of the shelter, said they do this periodically when the shelter gets full.
"There's a lot of dogs needing homes. We've got a wide selection and people just need to come and see what we've got," Vernon said.
Vernon said the shelter currently has 51 dogs. The free pet adoption started last Friday and Vernon said many people have come out to see what they have. Two pets have been adopted since the waiver of fees began.
Vernon said the shelter is low on cats right now but any cat available is also free for adoption. "Come by and take a look and hopefully take one home," Vernon said.
For any information about the pets or adoption process, contact the shelter at 968-1944.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Questions About the Boeing Black
Boeing filed plans this week with the Federal Communications Commission for a high-security smartphone dubbed Boeing Black. The phone is based on a modified version of Google's Android operating system, and looks like an older, chunkier iPhone. As demand for secure communications grows, and a number of companies not traditionally known for making smartphones jump into the space, some questions remain about Boeing's plans and the still-forming "secure phone" industry. By Will Connors and Jon Ostrower
Android is notoriously easy to hack, but Boeing contends that because it is building the Black phone from scratch – and not layering on secure software after it's been built – the phone will be impervious to attacks. And just in case some enterprising hackers out there want to take on the challenge, Boeing is keeping most of the technical details of the phone secret, including what kind of screws it uses. Boeing's phone is designed to effectively self-destruct if it is tampered with. Google didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
A small handful but the number is growing. Last month, a joint venture between two software firms launched the $629 Blackphone, which it touts as a highly secure device that doesn't run on any traditional telecom carriers or operating systems. Defense contractor General Dynamics makes a keyboard-equipped, BlackBerry-like secure phone called the Sectera Edge that is certified by the National Security Agency. Motorola Solutions makes a secure phone running on Android called the AME 2000. Motorola says its phone is already being used by federal agencies.
BlackBerry would argue that they've been there all along. President Obama still uses a BlackBerry, after all (with special encryption software), as do most Defense Department staffers. But as BlackBerry lost its once-dominant market share in the overall smartphone space, and its balance sheet took knock after knock, other companies saw an opening. Some federal agencies already have switched over to iPhones or Android phones. Now, with a new CEO in place, BlackBerry is working to win back Washington-based customers. Later this year it plans to open a technology center there to remind officials that it never left.
Boeing isn't saying what the Black will cost, but the competing Blackphone's $629 price tag could be a guide. Boeing also won't say who its technology partners are, though it says it developed the phone in part through a series of acquisitions of companies such as Argon ST, Digital Receiver Technology and RavenWing.
The 5.2-inch tall Black, which will be assembled in the U.S., is about 50% heavier than an iPhone 5S and about twice as thick. Its 4.3-inch screen features a resolution of 540 x 960 pixels—well shy of the high-definition displays that have become standard on high-end smartphones. Samsung's new Galaxy S5, for example, features a 5.1-inch screen with 1920 x 1080 pixels. Black uses dual 1.2 GHz ARM Cortex-A9 processors with dual SIM cards for LTE, WCDMA and GSM networks, Bluetooth and internal slots for microSD card memory expansion. Boeing's marketing shows a forward-facing camera, but the company hasn't offered more information about the phone's eyes.
BlackBerry users who can't live without a physical keyboard to pound their thumbs on will have to look elsewhere for an alternative. Boeing Black, like the majority of modern smartphones, is all touchscreen. The brief marketing video hidden on Boeing's website shows a familiar gray-on-black Android-style touchscreen keyboard.


text:
Soriano added to AL All-Star team
Rays closer, second in league in saves, replaces Rivera
By Bill Chastain / MLB.com
The Rays will now have four players at this year's game in Anaheim, as Soriano joins Evan Longoria, Carl Crawford and David Price.
Because Rivera, who has a left oblique injury and right knee inflammation, was elected via the player ballot, his replacement was the next-highest-ranking relief pitcher. Soriano ranked fourth among relief pitchers on the AL player ballot with 67 votes.
"I'm very happy for Soriano," Rays manager Joe Maddon said. "He deserved to be there in the first place. I know it's tough to pick an All-Star team. I've done it. But he definitely deserves to be there. ... He's basically been perfect all season.
"We would not have 50 wins without him. We would not be in this position without him. And furthermore, this entire bullpen would not be pitching this well without him. So that's what he's meant to us to this point."
Soriano said he got the news from his agent early in the afternoon.
"To me, I'm not here for trying to make the All-Star team, I'm here to try [and help the Rays] win," Soriano said. "At the same time, I get the opportunity to be there, I'm happy with that and my family, too."
The 81st Major League Baseball All-Star Game will be televised nationally by FOX Sports, in Canada by Rogers Sportsnet and Sportsnet HD and Le Reseau des Sports, and around the world by Major League Baseball International, with pregame ceremonies beginning at 8 p.m. ET. ESPN Radio will provide exclusive national radio coverage. MLB Network, MLB.com and Sirius XM also will provide comprehensive All-Star Game coverage.
Soriano, who came to the Rays in a December trade with the Braves, picked up his 23rd save of the season Tuesday night against the Red Sox, which was his fourth save in as many days. The right-hander has converted 23 of 24 saves this season for a Major-League best 95.8 save percentage.
Soriano is 2-0 with a 1.65 ERA and has 29 strikeouts and just seven walks in 32 2/3 innings.
Bill Chastain is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


text:
CHARLESTON, S.C. — After disputes over doctrine led the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina to leave the national church, now comes a lawsuit over an estimated half-billion dollars of church property and a debate over what comprises the Episcopal church in the eastern half of the state.
One expert likens what is happening to the final days of the Civil War: a lingering skirmish after years of controversy over the ordination of gays and other issues that will have little effect on the national church.
"At Appomattox, Grant and Lee signed the final surrender but there were places where the fighting went on for months. The news didn't reach Arkansas and Texas the war was over. I think in South Carolina you are seeking something like that," said Frank Kirkpatrick a professor of religion at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., and author of "The Episcopal Church in Crisis: How Sex, the Bible and Authority are Dividing the Faithful."
He estimates perhaps 5 percent of Episcopalians nationally may have left the church in recent years because of the theological disputes. He says that figure is likely less than 8 percent if one includes those who simply stopped attending services, but didn't formally leave.
"It's definitely not a major schism in the Episcopal Church. It's gotten a lot of press and rightfully so because it raises questions of authority across the whole Anglican Communion," he said.
"Most people have gotten on with their lives. I really don't think there will be any long-term damage to the Episcopal Church as a result – except for the time, the money and the exhaustion fighting the lawsuits."
The 2 million-member Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion, which has 77 million members worldwide. In October, after years of controversy, the conservative Diocese of South Carolina finally split from the national church in a dispute over ordination of gays and other issues. The diocese in the eastern and lower part of the state had 70 congregations with about 29,000 parishioners.
The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina sued the national church last week in state court in Dorchester County, asking a judge to declare that the national church has no right to either the identity of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina nor its property.
"The Episcopal Church has the right to have a presence in the area served by our Diocese – but it does not have a right to use our identity. The Episcopal Church must create a new entity," the Rev. Jim Lewis said in a statement.
Lewis, the canon to the ordinary, or assistant to the bishop of diocese, said the diocese wants to protect its property.
"We seek to protect more than $500 million in real property, including churches, rectories and other buildings that South Carolinians built, paid for, maintained and expanded – and in some cases died to protect – without any support from The Episcopal Church," he said.
Fourteen South Carolina churches have decided not to leave the national church. There are also five worship groups with congregants forming new churches after their home congregations decided to leave.
The church's national bishop has said the diocese can't leave the mother church of its own accord and Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori plans to visit later this month for a convention to elect a temporary bishop for parishes remaining with the national church.
But breakaway Bishop Mark Lawrence contends that the diocese is no longer a part of the church and Jefferts Schori has no authority to call a convention. He said the name of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is a registered South Carolina corporation.
He added that, under state law, only the diocesan bishop and the Standing Committee that governs the diocese can call a convention and "we have not called a convention for January 2013."
In other states where dioceses have left the national church there have been lawsuits over who owns church property. In most cases, the courts have found for the national church, Kirkpatrick said.
A year ago, a judge ruled that the national church is the owner of several historic Virginia churches where the national denomination earlier was essentially evicted by local congregations.
However, when All Saints Church in Pawleys Island left the national church more than eight years ago, the South Carolina Supreme Court eventually ruled the parish owned its property.
Kirkpatrick says any lawsuits over church property in the diocese could take years to sort out.


text:
San Antonio, TX (SportsNetwork.com) - San Antonio Spurs forward Kawhi Leonard suffered a fractured right finger during Wednesday's game against Oklahoma City.
The Spurs said Leonard has a non-displaced fracture of the fourth metacarpal on his shooting hand. A timetable for his return has not yet been determined.
Leonard is averaging 11.6 points and 6.1 rebounds in 41 games this season.


text:
Holiday Inn Express & Suites Stamford
Smart Card
Holiday Inn Express & Suites Stamford
2703 Summer Street
Stamford, Connecticut 06905
United States
Check In: 3:00 PM
Check Out: 12:00 PM
Check-in Age: 21
More Details
- Daily Parking: 10 USD
- Complimentary Local Area Shuttle
- Hours Of Operation From 7:00 AM-To 11:00 AM
- Complimentary Shuttle to/from Convention Center
- Public Entrance
- Guest Rooms
- Elevators
- Public Restrooms
- Registration Desk
- Business Center
- Number of Accessible Meeting Rooms: 1
Accessible Hotel Areas
- Registration Area
- Accessible Guest Rooms
- Business Center
- Meeting Room
Hotel Areas with Accessible Routes from Accessible Public Entrance
- Accessible Self Parking
- Ramp Access
- Closed Caption TVs
- Telephone with TDD
- Visual Alarm/Alert in Guest Rooms
- Communication Kits with Visual Alarms
Provided by Hotel
Pet Policy
- Service Animals Allowed
- Smoke-Free Facility
- Number of Floors: 5
- Total Number of Rooms: 100
- Number of Suites: 16
- Number of Non-Smoking Rooms: 100
- Number of Accessible Rooms: 5
- Connecting Rooms Available
- Public Spaces Renovated in: 2012
- Guest Rooms Renovated in: 2012
- Arabic
- English
- Hebrew
- Spanish
Credit Cards
- American Express
- Visa
- MasterCard
- Diners Club
- Carte Blanche
- Discover
- Kids ages 19 and under stay for free when sharing their parents' room.*
- Up to four kids ages 12 and under eat free any time of the day in any Holiday Inn® on-site restaurant.*
About Our Hotel
Stay Smart® at the Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites® Stamford.
Just 45 minutes outside NYC, our hotel is centrally located between I-95 and Merritt Parkway and only two miles from the Metro North Stamford & Amtrak station.
Situated near corporate offices including Fortune 500 companies such as Phillips, Gartner, Gen Re, Pitney Bowes, Synchrony Financial, Oracle, Nestle and Purdue Pharma.
Come unwind at local attractions such as Stamford Museum and Nature Center, Palace Theater, Stamford Forum, Maritime Aquarium, Cove Beach on the Long Island Sound or shopping at The Stamford Town Center.
Our renovated, 100% smoke free rooms features stylish decor along with modern conveniences such as in room refrigerator, microwave & safe deposit boxes.
Stay cozy by our fireplace in our contemporary hotel lobby or stay connected with our 24 hour Business Center and complimentary Wi-Fi throughout the hotel.
Our 1750 sq. ft. of meeting space can accommodate up to 160 people and is ideal for small meetings.
Whether it is work or play, we are sure you will find us the perfect medium at the Holiday Inn Express & Suites® Stamford!
- Black-out Shades
- Rollaway Bed/Cot Available
- Crib Available
- Iron/Ironing Board
- In-room Safe
- Separate Hanging Closet
- In-Room Heating and A/C Controls
- Extra Bedding Available
- Sofa Bed/Sleeper Couch
Bathroom/Personal Care
- Private Bathroom
- Bathroom Amenities Available
- Hair Dryer
- Bathtub
- Separate Vanity Area
In-Room Features
- Mini Refrigerator
- Microwave
- Coffee Maker
- Flat-screen TV
- iPod Docking Station with Clock Radio
- Work Desk with Lamp
- Desk-level Electrical Outlet
- Cable/Satellite
- Premium Channels
- Stereo/Radio
- Direct-dial Phone
- Phone with Voicemail
- Separate Phone Bills for Separate Lines
- Complimentary Morning Newspaper
Added Value
- Connecting Suites Available
- Complimentary Coffee/Tea Supplies
Full Breakfast Included
Breakfast Buffet Included
Continental Breakfast Included
Kids Eat Free
Off-site Restaurant Delivery Available
Business Services
- 1 Meeting Room(s) Available
- On-Site Business Center
- Printer
Internet Access
- Free High-Speed Internet in all Rooms
- Wireless Internet service is free for all IHG® Rewards Club members
Housekeeping & Laundry
- Daily Housekeeping
Added Value
- Concierge Services
- Wake Up Calls
- ATM/Cash Machine
- Ice Machine


text:
Product details
Non-cushioned running socks - for uncompromising performance. 1. Immediate shoe contact and direct feedback. 2. 3-layer construction for quickest moisture management. 3. Perfectly adapted for lightweight and racing shoes.
- Maximum protection and best shock absorption
- 3-layer construction for quickest moisture management
- Perfectly adapted for lightweight and racing shoes
Item number: 16843
Material and care instructions
- 55% Polypropylene
- 45% Nylon
Machine wash, gentle or delicate cycle or wool setting at 40°C
Do not bleach
Do not tumble dry
Do not iron
Dry clean using only perchlorethylene (PCE) or hydrocarbon (HCS)


text:
So it's no surprise Lyon College in Batesville, whose football program has been defunct since 1951, would look into the Arkansas River Valley and Hector High School when attempting to restart a football program in 2015.
Proctor, McGowan and Poole all signed National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) scholarships to play football with the Lyon College Scots earlier this season.
"I'm pretty excited because we will always be remembered as the team that brought football back to Lyon College," Hector's Jeff Proctor said.
"In a way, it'll be just like playing at Hector," McGowan said. "We went from being not very good to building ourselves into a good program. It'll be like starting from scratch."
Proctor, who plays offensive guard and led the Wildcats in pancake blocks his senior year, signed with the college on Oct. 1.
"I had a couple of other offers," Proctor said. "But Lyon was probably the most serious one. It was definitely on the top of my list. When I went and visited the school, I just loved it. It reminded me of my high school, and I loved the town of Batesville.
Poole, McGowan and Proctor have an opportunity granted to few — to play football at the collegiate level — but they also have the opportunity to continue playing with the teammates they've lined up with before high school.
Poole and McGowan, a center and a guard, respectively, have lined up beside each other since the eighth grade — when Poole first began playing football.
"Proctor going to Lyon College made me more interested in signing there in a small way," Poole said. "When I started playing football, he helped me out a lot. He taught me a lot about football and how to work out and things like that."
"I'm real excited," Proctor added. "I've got my center, Poole, and we've literally played right beside each other since eighth grade. We have a brotherhood formed, and I'm excited he's going to be right there beside me for five more years."
The three Wildcats will be considered redshirts for the 2014 season while the team takes a year to practice and build team chemistry. McGowan, who was recruited as a wide receiver, said the Hector seniors will be key in building that chemistry.
"We already have good chemistry as teammates and we'll help each other grow even more," he said. "We know how we play and how to encourage each other. That chemistry will spread to the other players, too."


text:
Multiple sclerosis is a central nervous system disorder marked by decreased nerve function with initial inflammation of the protective myelin nerve covering and eventual scarring. Symptoms and severity of symptoms vary widely and may progress into episodes of crisis alternating with episodes of remission.
A.D.A.M., Inc. is accredited by URAC, also known as the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (www.urac.org). URAC's accreditation program is an independent audit to verify that A.D.A.M. follows rigorous standards of quality and accountability. A.D.A.M. is among the first to achieve this important distinction for online health information and services. Learn more about A.D.A.M.'s editorial policy, editorial process and privacy policy. A.D.A.M. is also a founding member of Hi-Ethics and subscribes to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (www.hon.ch)
The information provided herein should not be used during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A licensed medical professional should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical conditions. Call 911 for all medical emergencies. Links to other sites are provided for information only -- they do not constitute endorsements of those other sites. © 1997- 2013 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.


text:
Skip to comments.What Libertarianism Isn't
Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777
The notion that the political alliance between libertarians and conservatives is contingent and inherently unstable has become a cliché, and a tiresome one at that, usually made by persons who have little understanding of either libertarianism or conservatism. And despite appearances, the recent testy exchanges between the conservative National Reviews Jonah Goldberg and the libertarian Reason magazines Nick Gillespie and Virginia Postrel do nothing to confirm the cliché.
It is not that the idea of a fusion of libertarianism and conservatism does not raise important and difficult philosophical issues; it does. The emphasis within traditional conservative thinking on authority, including the authority of a strong (though limited) state,on an organic conception of society, and on obligations between human beings that do not rest on contract, do appear at least on the surface to sit uneasily with the individualism usually taken to be essential to libertarianism. Those of us sympathetic to fusionism Frank Meyers well known label for libertarian conservatism) believe that this appearance is misleading, but we wouldnt deny that it takes some doing to show that it is.
The recent debate barely begins to address these substantial questions, though, and focuses instead on the status of another essential, and far less problematic, feature of conservative thinking: the preservation of traditional morality particularly traditional sexual morality, with its idealization of marriage and its insistence that sexual activity be confined within the bounds of that institution, but also a general emphasis on dignity and temperance over self-indulgence and dissolute living. The scorn for these values (or at least for those who speak up for them) shown by the likes of Gillespie and Postrel has led Goldberg to denounce what he calls their cultural libertarianism.
The trouble is, there just is nothing particularly libertarian about this cultural libertarianism. There is, in particular, nothing in libertarianism that entails that one ought to be in the least bit hostile to or even suspicious of traditional morality or traditional moralists. There is thus no reason whatsoever why libertarians and onservatives ought to be divided over the question of traditional morality. And ironically enough, while Goldberg himself realizes this he does qualify his attack as one on cultural libertarianism, not libertarianism full stop the libertarians Gillespie and Postrel seem not to. For them, it appears, traditionalists constitute a force on the political Right that libertarians ought to oppose as staunchly as they do the socialists to their Left. This, at least, is the inference one naturally draws from their tendency to bifurcate between (on the one hand) those who want to impose, through force of law, their moral views on others, and (on the other hand) those, like themselves, who refuse to offer the faintest criticism of anything and everything done between consenting adults as if there were no third position, viz. that of those who reject the use of state power to enforce traditional morality, but are nevertheless critical of those who flaunt it. (It is also the inference one naturally draws from Gillespies preoccupation with drugs and pornography, not only as political issues, but cultural ones. Why waste precious space in a libertarian magazine waxing rhapsodic about the freedom to read dirty magazines, or regale readers with tales of personal drug use, if such things were not seen somehow to be relevant to libertarianism? Why not merely say Dont criminalize these practices and be done with it? After all, Gillespie would presumably never tax his audiences patience with effusive descriptions of automotive repair manuals or accounts of his personal experiences with Tylenol, even if these products were in imminent danger of being banned by the state.)
Gillespie and Postrel are, of course, not alone in failing clearly to understand, or at least clearly to articulate, the position they represent. One hears constantly in the popular media of self-styled libertarian celebrities whose libertarianism amounts to little more than an enthusiasm for legalized abortion and homosexual chic think Bill Maher, Camille Paglia, or William Weld. But as one soon realizes upon learning of some of the other enthusiasms of such people gun control, the Clinton health care plan, the extension of anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals, etc. their understanding of libertarianism (and that of the media types who propagate this abuse of the label) is pretty shallow in the first place. Gillespie and Postrel are another story though, being, as they are, representatives of one of the most important and influential journals of libertarian opinion. It matters when they mischaracterize (even if, as we can charitably assume, inadvertently) the libertarian position. It is worthwhile, then, to set the record straight and understand why, Gillespie and Postrel notwithstanding, libertarianism is by no means hostile to traditional morality and indeed, why it ought to be solidly supportive of it.
There are, to my knowledge, five sorts of argument for libertarianism. They are:
1.The utilitarian argument, the suggestion that a free market and free society best fulfill the goals prosperity, alleviation of poverty, technological innovation, and so forth which libertarians and their opponents share in common. This is the sort of argument free market economists like Milton Friedman put the most stress on.
2.The natural rights argument, which emphasizes the idea that individuals have inviolable rights to life, liberty, and property that it is morally wrong for anyone, including the state, to violate even for allegedly good reasons (such as taxation for the sake of helping the needy). This approach has been favored by libertarian philosophers from John Locke to Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard, and also has an intuitive appeal to the libertarian in the street who resents the suggestion that the government has any business telling him what to do in his personal life, or with his money or personal property.
3.The argument from cultural evolution, associated with F.A. Hayek, who held that societies embody cultural traditions which compete with one another in a kind of evolutionary process, the most fit traditions those most conducive to human well-being being the ones that survive and thrive, driving their rivals into extinction, or at least onto the historical sidelines: hence capitalisms victory over communism, a culture which respects private property, contract, and the rule of law being superior in cultural evolutionary terms to one which does not.
4.The contractarian argument, which (greatly to oversimplify) argues in general that all moral claims rest on a (hypothetical) social contract between the individuals comprising society, and in particular that a libertarian society is what rational individuals would contract for. This sort of argument is represented by such libertarian theorists as Jan Narveson and James Buchanan.
5.The argument from liberty, which claims that freedom per se is intrinsically valuable valuable for its own sake and that the best political system is therefore the one that maximizes freedom.
None of these arguments plausibly supports the idea that libertarianism is incompatible with a strongly traditionalist moral outlook.
One might find this a surprising claim to make about argument 5 an argument one might assume to be the paradigmatic libertarian argument, and one that frequently crops up in popular discussions of libertarianism. But in fact the argument from liberty (as Ive called it) is, paradoxically, probably the worst argument anyone has ever given for libertarianism and is, in any case, not the sort of argument given by the best known libertarian writers. The reason why is not hard to see: Freedom is a notoriously vague term, and all sorts of things libertarians would reject can be, and have been, defended in the name of freedom redistribution of wealth (to give the poor and middle class greater freedom from want), an interventionist foreign policy (to help increase the freedom from fear of oppressed peoples throughout the globe), public education (to maximize freedom from ignorance), etc. Libertarians are indeed interested in freedom, but when one examines their arguments especially when those arguments try to show that libertarianism does not entail maximizing a quasi-socialist freedom from want etc. it is clear that what is fundamental to libertarian thinking is not freedom per se, but something else, such as natural rights: I ought to have the freedom to use my earnings as I see fit, the libertarian says, but not because freedom per se is a good thing after all, the thief would also benefit from the freedom to use my earnings but rather because they are my earnings, because I have a moral right to them.
It is thus really irrelevant whether the argument from liberty is one that would support a rejection of traditional morality which it undoubtedly would on some interpretations (just as it would also support an embrace of traditional morality: freedom from sin). For the argument isnt a good argument for libertarianism in the first place.
Argument 4 (the contractarian argument) is a much better argument for libertarianism. But radically different political philosophies have also been defended in contractarian terms the philosopher John Rawls, famous for his liberal egalitarian theory of justice, is a contractarian of sorts and while defenders of this approach would (plausibly) argue that a libertarian social contract is the most rationally defensible one, most libertarian theorists have vied away from this approach in favor of one of the remaining three alternatives. In any case, there is nothing about this sort of libertarianism that requires hostility to traditional morality. Whether or not traditional morality can be defended on a social contract approach is an interesting and important question, but it is an entirely distinct question from that of whether libertarianism can be so defended.
The same is true of argument 1, the utilitarian argument. Whether or not one thinks the free market best delivers the goods that libertarians and non-libertarians alike value is an entirely distinct question from whether one thinks that traditional morality is also justifiable in such utilitarian terms. Some utilitarian libertarians might think it is, others that it isnt; in either case, their libertarianism per se is irrelevant.
The natural rights argument (argument 2) gives us the same result, though it is a little easier to see why some libertarians might think this one stands in tension with traditional morality. If I have an absolute right to my property and to my own body, it follows that the government cannot stop me, say, from fornicating or using drugs thus says the libertarian, and thus the appearance of tension between libertarianism and conservatism. But as (almost) all libertarians know, the tension is only apparent, and only to those not used to making rather obvious distinctions (journalists, political hacks, television personalities whove just discovered the word libertarian, etc.). Libertarianism entails that the state must not impose traditional scruples through force of law; it does not entail that that such scruples are not valid. What is not legally binding on us may nevertheless be morally binding on us. Some libertarians may, of course, dislike and disagree with traditional moral rules; but others might believe strongly in them, even though they would not advocate imposing them on others through the power of the state, and they do not cease being libertarians for that.
That, as I say, is obvious. It is nevertheless not surprising that so many people seem not to see it. With some people the celebrity libertarians, television commentators and other journalists garden variety muddle-headedness is no doubt the primary culprit. With journalists (most of whom are on the Left), there is the extra element of a political motive, viz. scaring unwary voters into thinking that anyone who disapproves of homosexuality (or whatever) simply must be in favor of sending the police into your bedroom (and perhaps scaring unwary and untutored libertarians into believing the same nonsense, thus hoping to splinter the Right).
It is, however, surprising that high-profile libertarians like Gillespie and Postrel do not see it, or at least do not seem too much in a hurry to acknowledge it. And it is even more surprising that they seem to see some justification for their reticence in argument 5, Hayeks defense of the free society in terms of cultural evolution. Both writers have appealed to Hayek in support of their advocacy of openness to the cultural changes decried by traditionalists, Postrel in her book The Future and Its Enemies, Gillespie in defending himself against Goldberg; and they have, in particular, made much of Hayeks famous claim not to have been a conservative. But such an appeal evinces a rather tendentious and selective reading of Hayek.
For starters, it cuts no ice breathlessly to refer to Hayeks essay Why I Am Not a Conservative and wave it like a talisman against the embrace of the dreaded traditionalists. For (as Goldberg has wearily had to point out again and again) Hayeks target in that essay was essentially the statist conservatism of the European tradition, not the Whiggish and liberty-oriented conservatism of the Anglo-American tradition; and his attack had more to do with the use of the state to prop up decaying social institutions than with the question of the value of those institutions themselves. More to the point though, is the substance of Hayeks position, not the label he wanted to give it; and it is a commonplace among Hayek scholars that, no sooner had Hayek rejected the conservative label than his thought took a turn in a decidedly conservative direction. (In scouring Holy Writ for proof-texts they can use against their opponents, without regard for context or the niceties of sophisticated exegesis, Gillespie and Postrel thus rather resemble the Fundamentalists they wouldnt be caught dead in the same political movement with.)
Hayeks theory of cultural evolution spelled out in The Fatal Conceit and elsewhere was a defense of tradition, rather than an attack upon it, a defense inspired by the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, himself. (Hayek took to describing himself late in life as a Burkean Whig.) Hayeks view was that those fundamental moral and cultural institutions which have survived through the centuries are, for the very reason that they have survived, very likely to serve some important social function, so that we ought to be wary of tampering with them even if we do not always know precisely what function they serve. Changes to such institutions are not to be ruled out absolutely, but they are always to be carried out tentatively and carefully, in piecemeal fashion; and the burden of proof is in any case always on the innovator, not on the conservers of tradition. Some changes may indeed turn out to be beneficial, and the society in which they take place will thrive as a result and outdo its competitors; but others may well be harmful and dysfunctional, with the result that the society which abandons the old ways may suffer damaging effects and even, in the worst case, ultimate dissolution or collapse.
Hayek applied this defense of tradition not only to the institutions of private property and contract which underlie market society, but also to the family and religion, which he as much as Burke considered bulwarks against the power of the state over the individual, and sources of the moral education without which the individual cannot develop the fortitude and self-reliance to resist the lure of state dependency. And he condemned the notion that liberty ought to be conceived of as freedom from moral restraints as (in Bertrand Russells words) the absence of obstacles to the realization of our desires as a naïve and dangerous rationalist fantasy, an instance of what he called the abuse and decline of reason in modern intellectual life. (And, we might now be tempted sadly to add, an instance of the abuse and decline of Reason.)
It is baffling, then, why anyone should think Hayeks philosophy a club with which to beat off traditionalism. Indeed, where traditional moral scruples are concerned, the Hayekian libertarian ought to regard change with as much caution as he would changes to the institutions of property and contract. Nor is it hard to see why this is so, not just at the level of abstract theory, but at the level of everyday social and political reality. The family, as weve said, is one of the main barriers standing between the individual and the state, for it (rather than the state) is the primary focus of a persons sense of allegiance to something beyond himself, and is also the arena within which a person learns (or should learn) how to become a responsible and self - supporting citizen of the community. When the family is absent in the life of the individual, the state especially if such other intermediate institutions as the church are themselves weakened tends inevitably to fill the void. Hence the tendency of single mothers, seeking in government assistance a surrogate to absent husbands and fathers, to be among the Democratic Partys most loyal voters; hence the listlessness and waywardness of so many of the children of those mothers, giving rise to further social problems to which the same party is only too willing to offer state-empowering solutions; and hence the self-accelerating cycle of moral decline leading to state intervention leading to dependency and further moral decline which has characterized social life in the Western world since at least the sixties. For such reasons, maintaining the stability and health of the family must be a chief concern of libertarians as much as of conservatives.
But a libertine ethos is manifestly incompatible with this concern. For the health of the family depends essentially on the willingness of its members to make sacrifices for its sake, and this means, first and foremost, a subordination of the fulfillment of parents immediate desires to the long-term project of building a stable and loving home for their children. That, of course, calls for marriage, and also for precisely the opposite of the frivolous attitude with which marriage is currently treated in the Western world as primarily a vehicle for personal fulfillment which one can enter and exit at will. A society in which the family is strong is thus a society in which adultery is abominated (even in presidents) and in which divorce, even if occasionally permitted, is frowned upon. Since so stringent (to the modern mind, anyway) a conception of marriage might make it less likely that men especially will enter into it if (as our mothers used to say) they can get the milk for free without buying the cow, it follows that taboos against pre-marital sexual relations, pornography, etc. will be almost as strong as the taboos against adultery and divorce in a society in which the family is taken seriously.
Of course, theres nothing terribly original in this mini-defense of traditional sexual morality; but then, the sociological case for that morality is not very difficult to make. Moreover, I would dare say that everyone knows this (except perhaps Postrel, who absurdly challenges Goldberg to prove that pornography is more damaging to society than religious literature); and everyone knows it whether or not he happens to live in accordance with that morality. But it is no doubt because so very many today do not live in accordance with it that certain libertarians are loath to associate themselves with its defense. Such an association is, they fear, a political loser a chaining of oneself to the sinking ship of social conservatism, certain doom if one seeks to appeal to hipsters and the hormonally-unchallenged college crowd.
Now one might have hoped that anyone serious about the long-term fortunes of our civilization would want to aim at something higher than what immediate political expediency and magazine marketing strategies might call for higher, that is, than an alliance of those who want freedom from high taxation and regulation with those who demand, say, the freedom to fornicate and abort the consequences. To be sure, aiming higher is a very tall order for any citizen of the society of foul-mouthed, oversexed, and thuggish louts that is now slowly but relentlessly displacing Western Civilization. But it must be done, nonetheless, if the free society is to survive, and libertarians who think otherwise are deluded.
As deluded, it should be added, as those conservatives who think there can be such a thing as a conservative welfare state or that the state ought to involve itself in funding faith-based organizations; for I by no means would suggest that so-called cultural libertarians alone are to blame for any rift that exists between libertarians and conservatives. It is understandable why some conservatives might fear that the war against Big Government is lost, and that they thus ought to turn their efforts to taming the beast rather than slaying it. But theyre fooling themselves if they think they will succeed, and badly need a refresher course in Public Choice economics. If the war against Big Government really is lost, then everything else conservatives hope to preserve is lost as well, for the apparatus of the modern secular state is, and for structural reasons inevitably will be, in the hands of those hostile to traditional morality. If it is in the states self-interest continually to increase its citizens dependence on it, it follows that it is in its self-interest to undermine any obstacles to that dependence and thus if, as all conservatives believe, the independence of the individual depends on the sanctity and stability of the family and on a strong and substantial religious belief, it follows that it is in the states self-interest to undermine the family and religion. So it is no surprise that, as conservatives have so often argued, state policy has in fact had precisely this result. Ergo, expanding the states tendrils into private schools (via vouchers) and religious organizations (via federal funding) will hardly reverse these effects in fact in the long run this is liable only to exacerbate them, as the state gradually imposes its will and the Leftism that is its operational ideology on those private institutions.
But most conservatives who delude themselves into making peace with the legacy of Leftism at least have the good taste to do so reluctantly; Gillespie, on the other hand, seems positively giddy over the prospect of a libertarian political alliance with the Left. Yet it is, I would suggest, no less a delusion to suppose that there is even any short-term political gain to be had by making an appeal to the socially liberal segment of the electorate. Part of the reason this is a dubious strategy is that the vast majority of politicians and voters with any free-market sympathies at all also tend to be culturally and morally conservative, and are thus likely to be put off by a movement that thumbs its nose at the things they hold most dear, leaving the pro-market house unnecessarily divided against itself. But another reason is that those who are not morally and culturally conservative are, generally speaking, resolutely hostile to the ideals of the free market and limited government, and are thus simply poor recruits for any non-conservative libertarian third way. For the most part, Hollywood producers and starlets are not both pro-gay rights and pro-growth, lesbian Wiccans are not yearning for a pro-choice but anti-affirmative action candidate, and college students were not drawn to the anarchist barricades in Seattle merely because they thought it might be a good place to get high and get laid.
This, as the Marxists would say, is no accident. Nor is it an accident that there is a strong correlation between a societys level of secularization and libertinism on the one hand, and the size and scope of its welfare state on the other. (Compare the USA, which may be going to hell in a hand basket on both counts but still has a ways to go to Sweden, which has been there for decades.) For the truth is that it is libertarianism and conservatism that naturally go together, just like well, just like love and marriage (if youll pardon so quaint a notion) and that libertinism and Leftism also go together (like illegitimacy and state dependency, you might say). This is clear not only from the Burkean-Hayekian considerations adduced earlier, but also from the facts that so many libertarian natural rights theorists ground those rights in concepts drawn from the Aristotelian and Natural Law traditions in moral philosophy traditions famously conservative in their moral implications and that, from Friedrich Engels to Betty Friedan, the chief proponents of socialism and chief opponents of the family have tended to be the same people. For the same fundamental moral vision and the same sorts of arguments ultimately underlie respect for both the free society and traditional morality; and hostility toward both also has the same psychological and philosophical roots.
If I had to sum up the common moral vision of libertarians and conservatives, I would say it is a commitment to the idea of the the dignity of man. On this vision, a human being is not a mere animal, but a rational being with the power of free moral choice, a person a creature made, as religious conservatives would put it, in the image of God. And because he is this, he (a) cannot legitimately be used as a resource for others, a source of labor and property which may be appropriated by the state for its purposes without his consent, and (b) is subject to the demands of a moral law which require him to live in a way which accords with his unique dignity, rather than in thrall to his every fleeting inclination. Libertarians stress (a) and conservatives (b), but both are united in their insistence that a man ought not to be a slave, either to anothers desires or to his own. And it is this insistence that separates them from the Left, which in its various factions tends to portray human beings in dehumanizing terms, as little more than clever animals, or as cogs in a vast social machine, helpless victims of forces beyond their control and thus neither fit to rule themselves nor capable of living up to any morality that would require putting chains on their appetites.
Spelling out the common moral vision of libertarianism and conservatism in a complete and philosophically adequate way is not something I pretend to have accomplished here. But hopefully I have said enough to indicate why libertarians and conservatives ought to make the articulation and development of this common vision a chief concern, and why they must shore up the alliance between them that flows naturally from this vision but has been needlessly under strain of late. Libertarians in particular ought to stop chasing the mirage of a third way between Left and Right and recognize in traditionalist conservatives their natural allies. True libertarianism isnt cultural libertarianism. It is instead a profound vision of human beings as free, not properly subject to the arbitrary will of any man or any government and if it is to succeed, and deserve to succeed, it ought to be committed also to the promotion of an ennobling and inspiring use of that freedom.
December 22, 2001
Edward Feser teaches philosophy at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
True. See http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html
Sorry, but there's a big conflict between libertarian principles and people who want to enforce religiously-based "morality" on who people who don't share their religious beliefs, and to use the power of the state to do this via legal discrimination against the non-"traditionalists". And how do you suppose those "traditions" came to be traditional? Via the imposition of force by government authorities and by ecclesiastical authorities who had obtained government-like authority in theocratic societies. Nope, can't support that. If the social practices they advocate don't remain predominant without government coercion, then they weren't "traditional" in the first place, just vestiges of tyranny.
preoccupation with drugs and pornography
Pornography, to the extent that its production does not involve coercion of real people, should be protected by the First Amendment, though subject to the same sort of "time, place, and manner" test as other types of speech (I don't think libertarians are advocating highway billboard displays of hard-core porn). Of course, most of the situations in which conservatives get upset about pornography would go away if half the country wasn't being run by the government. Blocking access to Internet porn in public schools and public libraries? Sure it's wrong when those institutions are run with taxpayer funds, but why are they being run with taxpayer funds?
As for drugs, I part company with the extremist libertarians on this subject. Obviously, many aspects of the "War on Drugs" have been ill-advised and infringed on basic liberties, but I don't think this is a reason to make all drugs legal -- just rein in the War where it steps over the line.
Now I have no problem with making marijuana legal (simply makes no sense to have alcohol legal and marijuana not, and Prohibition was already tried and is just inneffective when it lacks widespread support and the substance in question is easily produced in any home or dorm room).
However, most "hard" drugs have an extraordinary capacity to do harm, not just to the user, but also to innocent bystanders. Just imagine if it were perfectly legal to walk around with a pocket full of OxyContin or Rohypnol. Rapes of unconscious women would be epidemic, and no one would be safe from having these substances surreptitiously dropped in their food or drink in any public place. For the highly addictive substances, dealers would have plenty of incentive to involuntarily addict people by means of repeated surreptitious placement of the drug in food or drink, and would then profit handsomely when the new addicts exercised their "freedom" to purchase and use these drugs. I disagree with the premise that the high cost of drugs, and crime induced by addicts trying to get money for drugs, are products of illegality. They are products of addiction, which is very severe for many street drugs. As long as the users are inherently desperate for the drugs, the normal supply and demand effect on pricing is inoperative. Dealers have huge incentive to undertake violent, illegal measures to prevent the market from being flooded with inexpensive drugs, because the users will buy them no matter how high the cost. This is not the case with non-drug commodities or with non-addictive or very mildly addictive drugs like marijuana -- note how still-illegal marijuana is not expensive and is not associated with high crime rates.
Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.
The other big argument against legalizing hard drugs at the present time is that, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc. The growing numbers of them would all be entitled to taxpayer-funded treatment and living expenses. Nor are employers free to randomly screen employees for hard drug use, and even when an employer manages to confirm that an employee has become a heroin or crack addict, it would be virtually impossible to fire the employee, who will claim the "disability" of addiction, and be entitled to treatment, accommodation, etc. At least now, the employer can usually make sure that the offender gets in legal trouble, and then fire them for that.
I'm shocked I tell ya! Shocked! This describes me almost to the letter! Yet somehow, speaking highly of traditionalist values (authoritatively, even) raises the ire of some of the most vocal libertarians here at FR. It is as if they believe my disapproval, say, of the homosexual lifestyle is somehow an endorsement of the state outlawing these activities.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If a man desires to have sex with another consenting adult man, they have the right to engage in their desire. However, I will voice my belief in the immorality of that desire and practice.
The same goes for drug use. I've witnessed the absolute destruction that hard drug use brings within both a family and a community as a whole. But this is another subject.
From reading this column about what libertarianism "isn't," the most glaring theme within the libertarian sector appears to be a failure to properly pin down just what libertarianism truly means. It apparently means different things to different people. And if this is the case, the lack of a truly unifying theme hurts the libertarian movement severely.
Yup ... we are pretty damned small as a contemporary political party. But keep in mind, way back in America's beginning, whicj created the Revolution: there were few patriots, as well.
As I will discuss in my upcoming health care commentary- libertarianism is a philosophical foundation. For example, when both sides of Congress have differing education bills- the libertarian will say "Government should not be involved in education". Simplistic, yes, when compared to the hundreds of pages in each competing proposal.
It is important to point out the invalid comparison. Because the legislation is simply a product of a Marx, collective, and utilitarian philosophy- which is itself "simplistic". THe proper comparison on would be the neverending pages of education law from the Dem-Reps and the regulations, standards, and operating procedures from a body of private schools.
Yes I think that's the problem. Taxpayers are forced to pay the costs of hospitalizations and feeding their families. Once that happens, then they feel they should be able to control their drug use too. If the government would get completely out of it all, it would be better. The government shouldn't make laws against homosexuals but it shouldn't pay for their AIDS medicines either or force businesses to hire them.
They do. It's the stars and bars. 50 white stars on a field of blue in the upper left corner with 13 red and white bars running horizontally.
Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.
The world is full of inherently dangerous substances & objects. We have decided, in the constitution, to give states the power to regulate [with due process] public use/possession of such property - and - to criminalize their misuse.
We cannot allow the state to have the absolute power to prohibit, as it is absolutely corrupting.
The problem conservatives fail to see in the Moral Questions left unresolved by libertarians- is how big government has made these political issues.
School prayer is the biggest example, since tax dollars forced to pay for education, everyone wants their agenda in the curriculum. In privitization, Christians can support their schools, without the support of non-christians. And those few who are offended by religion in education- can support their own school- or school themselves at home.
I'm a Christian, but I don't want the government enforcing my version of my lifestyle on everyone else. I respect their right to decide what is right for them, so long as it doesn't interfere with my right (or the right of anyone else) to do the same.
It's not the place of the government to engineer society. That's up to us, through our personal power of persuasion and the truths of our messages.
I'm sure you find yourself quite hillarious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
http://www.live-wetten.net/Basketbal...ando-magic.jpg @ http://www.live-wetten.net/Basketbal...ork-knicks.jpg
Friday, 7:30pm
The Day Before Cotto killls Mosley
vs. Magic
At: Madison Square Garden
Orlando NotesQuote:
The Orlando Magic look to build upon the best road start in team history as they head to Madison Square Garden on Friday night to face the New York Knicks.
The Magic (4-1) split their first two games of the season at home before starting a four-game road swing. They've gone 3-0 so far, including a 105-96 victory in Toronto on Wednesday night, but to finish the trip without a loss, they'll have to hand the Knicks their first loss in three home games.
"I like the way our team is responding," first-year Magic coach Stan Van Gundy said. "Of course, I'd like it better if we'd just win by 15, but I like the way our team is responding. That's the way you're going to have to play to win games on the road in this league. I'm very, very pleased with them right now."
The scoring of Hedo Turkoglu and Rashard Lewis has been the primary reason for the Magic's fast start. Each player had 24 points on Wednesday, and Turkoglu added a career-high 15 rebounds.
Lewis, who signed a $118 million contract in the offseason to join the Magic, is hitting 58.3 percent from the field to rank among the league leaders -- surprising for a player who does much of his work on the perimeter. He's averaging a team-leading 23.2 points and has made a team-high 17 3-pointers in 29 attempts (58.6 percent).
Many thought Turkoglu's role would decrease somewhat considering, like Lewis, he's also a 6-foot-10 small forward who spends most of his time on the outside. But the Turkish star is off to the best start of his career, averaging 20.8 points, 7.6 rebounds and 4.6 assists -- numbers that are considerably better than his previous season highs.
That duo along with center Dwight Howard's consistency (18.8 ppg, 13.0 rpg) closer to the hoop has given Orlando one of the most productive front lines in the league.
New York (2-1) lost its season opener at Cleveland, but has rebounded with home wins over Minnesota and Denver.
Offseason acquisition Zach Randolph has helped boost the team's middle-of-the-pack scoring numbers from last season, averaging 19.3 points and 13.7 rebounds. Along with center Eddy Curry (18.7 ppg), New York is not having trouble scoring points, which was very evident in its 119-112 win over Denver on Wednesday.
"I think that's what (coach) Isiah (Thomas) had in mind when he brought Zach in here," Curry said after scoring 24 points on 11-of-16 shooting. "I had a lot of fun (against Denver). This is probably the most fun I had in a basketball game."
A revived Jamal Crawford also has helped the Knicks improve offensively. The career 40-percent shooter, known for taking a high volume of shots, is still shooting the ball quite a bit - but is hitting more often. Crawford is averaging 24.7 points while shooting 47 percent from the field.
The Knicks have transformed from the league's 16th-best scoring team last season (97.5 ppg) to one of the best in the NBA (107.3 ppg).
"We don't care about who scores," Crawford said. "We just want to make it a team effort and it is hard for teams to defend us that way."
New York won two of three meetings with Orlando last season, but the Magic have won seven of their last 11 visits to Madison Square Garden.
All five of Orlando's starters recorded double figures in scoring. ... After missing Tuesday's game vs. Minnesota with a slight concussion, G Jameer Nelson was given clearance to play by team doctors just before game time. ... Orlando recorded a season-high 38 goals. ... F Hedo Turkoglu played a season-high 44 minutes and recorded his first double-double of the season and just the sixth of his career. ... G Keith Bogans had season highs of 17 points and 11 rebounds to record his first double-double since the 2003-04 season
New York Notes
During the morning shootaround, F Carmelo Anthony said that he spoke with Isiah Thomas and did not disclose the contents of their conversation. Thomas was also quiet about the chat when asked about it during his pregame media briefing. ... F Zach Randolph is the first Knick to record three doubles-doubles to start a season since Patrick Ewing in 1992-93. ... F Quentin Richardson played just 22 seconds in the fourth quarter while second-year F Renaldo Balkman played 11:56, most of it shadowing Anthony. "I thought Renaldo came in and changed the game for us," Thomas said after the game. "He's a special athlete and he played with intelligence and poise." ... G Nate Robinson played despite being questionable with a mild right hamstring sprain and was scoreless in 15 minutes. ... The Knicks can move two games over .500 for the first time since January 1, 2005 with a win over Orlando on Friday.
[Only registered and activated users can see images. Click Here To Register...]
This should be a winnable game. Orlando's bench is garbage except for Arroyo who's inconsistent.
We need to defend the perimeter!


text: Academic Convocation is the official kick-off to the academic year. Every September, members of the Emmanuel community come together to celebrate with an address from College President Sister Janet Eisner, SND and a keynote speaker. Academic Convocation also offers the current senior class the opportunity to don their caps and gowns, recognizing their senior status for the first time.


text:
[lastfm link_type="artist_info"]Joe Jonas[/lastfm] visited "Lopez Tonight" last night, and had one of his screaming fans come up on stage and give him a big hug before he even began chatting with George. Exactly 5 years ago, the Jonas Brothers released their first album ever.
(Joe Jonas on Lopez Tonight – Part 1)
Did you know that Joe and his older brother went to babysitting school, just in case the singing thing didn't work out? He also talks about how Olivia Wilde moved into his old "haunted" house, and shows off an interesting Karate move. Hi-yah!
(Joe Jonas on Lopez Tonight Part 2)
After commercial break, Joe and George reminisce about "simpler times."After their hilarious skit, Joe performs his international hit "See No More" live.
Get More Joe Jonas
- Photos: Best Of The 2011 Teen Choice Awards Show
- Photos: 2011 Teen Choice Awards Arrivals
- Guess Who's Joining Britney On Tour?
- B96 Street Mix Premiering Remix Of Joe Jonas' 'Love Slayer' This Friday Night
- Photos: What Has Joe Jonas Been Up To This Summer?
Watch More TV Rewinds


text:
Child Safety: Child Safe Blinds & Shades
- Ensures the safest room for children
- All products have cord-free options
- WCMA approved cordless options
- Cordless operation is easy at low heights
- Add motorization for hard to reach windows
Blindsgalore supports the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) and the Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA) in providing window treatments that meet the highest standards in cord safety to avoid any unwanted injuries or mishaps. The WCMA has created the Certified Best for Kids label to help identify products that are both suitable and strongly recommended in homes with young children. This certification program is the first of its kind and cordless lift options with this label have undergone rigorous third-party testing to ensure they meet stringent safety criteria. Select lift options labeled as Certified Best for Kids for utmost safety. Blindsgalore also recommends upgrading to a motorized blind or shade when available for extra protection and greater accessibility. Window treatment options that have been Certified Best for Kids are the smartest and safest choice for all of your blinds and shades.
Coolaroo® Outdoor Sun Shades - CLOSEOUT
retail $150.74 $101.00 + an extra 10% off
Coolaroo® Outdoor Sun Shades
retail $197.01 $132.00 + an extra 10% off
Coolaroo® Motorized Outdoor Sun Shades
retail $1,399.97 $938.00 + an extra 10% off
15% Openness (2)
Allows in the most light - best for basic glare reduction and maximizing your view
- 15% Openness (2)
- refine
Stripes (1)
Choose subtle tonal variations or multi-colored stripes to spice up your decor
Remote Control / Motorized (2)
Take a look at our wide selection of motorized blinds and window treatments
Black (2)
Try black window treatments for a striking contrast and modern look
Gray (2)
Choose from light gray tones to deep slate colors - everything between white and black
Multi-colored (1)
Choose from our selection of window treatments featuring multi-colored fabrics and materials
Purple (1)
Choose from our selection of window treatments featuring purple fabrics and materials.
Yellow / Cream (2)
Choose from our selection of window treatments featuring yellow and cream colored fabrics and materials.
- Black (2)
- Gray (2)
- Multi-colored (1)
- Purple (1)
- Yellow / Cream (2)
- refine
customer reviews for child safety
"Added privacy and sun protection for patio "
By Dch from Virginia beach
Installed the shades on my outdoor patio and it's like we added a new room to the house. They are awesome!View this product
By Tim from Florida
We love our blind, for a few bucks more we got custom versus off-the-shelf. Highly recommend this productView this product


text:
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 13, 2009, 12:00 AM
Town Square
Original post made on Mar 13, 2009
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 13, 2009, 12:00 AM
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2009 at 8:59 am
Well, Jeb if you feel so strongly go ahead and pay my $233 and my child's $233 who live in Ptown. You are a silly man.
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2009 at 9:01 am
Sorry, but why should I pay some liberal parcel taxes for the spoiled, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, students of our district. What these kids need is an education in pulling up their bootstraps at the Richard Pombo Ranch. So what if they don't get into some fancy college, the Bible is the only book they need to learn about anyway. I didn't have no fancy programs at my school in Amarillo, Texas when I was growing up, but still learned to trust my gut and fight for the dream we call America. Look people, GW Bush came from a poor Texas family with little education and he became the greatest leader this land has ever seen, so maybe these tax loving students should follow his lead. I talkin' bout America!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2009 at 9:06 am
This thread is already started don't continue a new one.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2009 at 9:35 am
Past is Prologue. We are going exactly in the sane direction as the U.S. auto industry with lack of competition and union control in the Education business. Mangaement and local politicians are in for the ride as well as they either cannot or will not stop this rush into disaster. This applies to cities and states as well.
Being against the Parcel tax is like being against motherhood and apple pie. But the system is broken. There have been no givebacks in pay and benefits to bring the compensation in line to where it was a decade ago adjusted for inflation and no. of students.
We cannot compete against rallies. Just vote NO. We only need 1/3rd of the vote. Then we can take on the other public sector unions and management in the city. I think the tax payer has had enough. The tax paying private sector employee has been broken and is ready for his Pleasanton Tea Party.
a resident of Avila
on Mar 13, 2009 at 10:18 am
Concerened, I'm with you - Pleasanton Tea Party time!
Reform first, before asking for another dime of my hard earned tax dollars!
If anyone is offended by my tone, I apologize. I'm just very tired of being asked to pay more without seeing real effort by those on the other side to change from business as usual. Please don't tell me about all the cuts that are on the table - I've heard the scare tactics and I'm not buying them.
Vote No on G unless PUSD really sets a course of real reform.
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:12 am
Oh God, a Tea Party!!! Rush Limbaugh alert! Nothing like rich, selfish, white republicans getting together to whine about a small tax rather than helping students in this district. Oh gee, we wouldn't want to use your money to help students when you can put the money toward your next SUV or a deluxe gas bbq. Have fun being caught up in your own greed.
a resident of Apperson Ridge
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:28 am
"Superintendent John Casey said they estimate the special election to cost $200,000 to $230,000...This money would be taken out of the reserves from the current school year."
Why the bait and switch, Dr. Casey? We were told by you in numerous meetings that the funds used to cover this election would come from community donations. I was going to support your parcel tax but you've just lost my vote with your lies.
I will vote no on Dr. Casey's parcel tax.
a resident of Avila
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:31 am
Ray, I am deeply offended by your snarky, sarcastic, class dividing tone. Yes, you have a right to post, and I have just as much of a right to call you out. Why don't you simply pass your wallet right on down to the PUSD, then send it to Sacramento and then, if there is anything left in it, to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. I'm sure they'll all appreciate it.
By the way, I'm not a republican, I'm not white, I don't listen to Rush, I'm not selfish, we (the four of us in our family) volunteer in our community, I don't own and never have owned an SUV and don't plan to, I don't have or want a deluxe gas BBQ and I'm not greedy. By the way, is holding on to a little bit of my hard earned money now considered greedy? And what will be next, all those who where glasses will be marched off to re-education camps, or worse? From class warfare, to socialism, to totalitarianism, to extermination. The slippery slope is frightening and it is all too possible, since we are but humans, like the humans that did awful things to their fellow humans in Russia, then the Soviet Union, Germany, Soviet satellite states, China, Cambodia, Cuba and North Korea. I've left out hundreds of other repressive states over the past 100 years.
Read history - understand human nature - be very concerned.
a resident of Avila
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:34 am
Can anyone verify what bait and switch is citing? Perhaps B&S can do this. If true, what Dr. Casey has said and is doing is truly shocking! If true, our school board needs to investigate this.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:35 am
Ray . . . It is interesting to me that those who say they work hard, got an education, deserve their job, and deserve their pay are often the same people that say those who work hard, got an education, deserve their job, deserve their pay, BUT make more money than them are somehow rich, selfish, white republicans, and greedy to boot.
Our family does pretty well, is very generous (by choice), happen to be white (accident of birth), and are not republicans (also by choice). We despise Rush too.
We can and do help students and teachers and will continue to do so without giving more of our money to the district first.
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:41 am
The schools don't need more money... they need more accountability!
They're turning out a product which can't make change for a purchase, or balance their own checkbooks. They're washing their hands of the kids and passing them on to the community colleges where they have to take remedial Math and English. The kids can't spell, separate a clause in a sentence, or fill out a job application.
If they were an independent business.. they'd have closed long ago.
When the President of the United States makes $400k a year.. and the Superintendent of Schools in little Pleasanton makes $250k a year.. there's something wrong.
The schools are receiving more money today than they ever have in the past, and they still can't function. They're spending like drunken sailors and then running to the loan stores every time they can't afford another beer! [Sorry USN.. it's to make a point!] If they don't get what they want, they threaten sports, arts and class size!
They don't care what the future costs are.. they just want more money now! It's a never ending cycle.. unless it stops now! This is a great time to stop!
Not one penny more!! Make do with what you have.
a resident of Avila
on Mar 13, 2009 at 11:49 am
Sorry, "wear" instead of "where", in my first post.;)
a resident of Avignon
on Mar 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm
$212,179 - Salary of a governor who manages 239,791 employees in the great state of California
$227,002 - Salary of a small town school Superintendent who manages 1200 employees
You do the math.
Yes on Responsible Spending!
Yes on More Accountability!
No on Parcel Tax!
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 13, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I feel that the community is missing the opportunity for real change at the State level, where it needs to happen.
What was irresponsible about Jeb's commentary isn't that he's advocating the parcel tax, but that he completely ignored the State problems. The parcel tax can only ever be a bandage for a system that's been bleeding for a very long time. Now is a very opportunity to address the shortcomings of that system and get them fixed for the long-term. Why did Jeb not write about that? It can be argued that this is a local issue for a local paper, but the problem is really much bigger than that.
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Please give full disclosure does any member of your family work in this or any school district?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I e theam getting inspired by all the comments. I know the state and federal govts. are broken but we can have the max. impact at the city level. Let us beat this parcel tax and move on to the City's unfunded pension and medical liabilities. These contracts have to be rewritten or the city is going bankrupt.
a resident of Val Vista
on Mar 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm
As a mother of two young children, I am deeply concerned about the state of our school system. I moved to Pleasanton, (paid top dollar for my house) just to be in an OUTSTANDING school system. It is a draw to our city and it must be maintained. I think it's terrible that residents are being asked to decide between their pocket books and education. If we pass the tax our system will move forward, but will it still be a broken system? At what point is enough, enough? So many teachers wanted to take pay cuts or look at other options, but the union wouldn't let them. This system is broken and it needs to be addressed. But we can't allow our school system to suffer. If by paying a small tax, my children get a better education and my property values don't drop further, then it is worth it to me.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 14, 2009 at 9:14 pm
The only way to force a change is by voting NO and putting the ball in the Union's court. Let the union come up with an agreement with administration where everyone takes a cut. Next year there will be bigger cuts as the State budget is dead on arrival. The real deficit is $20 billion or more. Let us get on with some real problem solving. Everyone should share the pain as companies such as HP are doing.
editor of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Mar 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Jeb Bing is a registered user.
We're intentionally giving topics pertaining to the June 2 parcel tax measure and teacher layoffs a rest because the postings have become repetitive and, in some instances, accusatory and hurtful to teachers and other employees of the school district who are unable to respond to postings, most of which are made under the cloak of anonymity. The postings online will remain, but future postings to these threads or new ones dealing with teacher layoffs and the parcel tax can be made only by registered users of the Pleasanton Weekly forum.


text:
Since a few seasons designer Dries Van Noten presents dipped denim pieces in his collections and they have become some of the most successful in the line. Denim jackets, pants and also accessories are dipped into paint, with the majority of the upper of each piece being covered in paint and only small parts of the fabric reminding of the denim below. The outcome is a clean, yet rather unique looking piece, that needs closer inspection to be figured out.
The dipped denim jackets, denim shirts and denim tote bags are now available from SOTO Berlin (Storeguide).
Photography: Highsnobiety