The Bishops, Mr. Blotter, Mr. Brown, Mr. Corrado, the Duvalls, Mr. McShay, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thomasson, and friends, share an orthodoxy.
A little background is in order for any of the 3000+ daily hitters here who may not know Elbert County, Colorado. The above individuals fuel and publish the counter culture press in Elbert County at New-Plains.com and Prairietimes.com with weekly writings promoting their shared orthodoxy, and trashing any who might contemplate a dissent. [Read more…]
One can get balled up in Christopher Hitchens’ atheism, for he’s an equal opportunity offender of all the faithful. [Read more…]
Planners attempt to imitate reality through regulatory law. You could call it modelling reality.
Private sector businesses make all sorts of models for controlling their businesses. These models accept data, they associate data elements through defined relationships, they produce performance metrics for their businesses, and they attempt to predict, at least for the near term, future business requirements for the firms.
Public sector modelling in regulatory law aspires to reach the standards of modelling success seen in the private sector. But regulators aren’t private sector operators. They don’t run the businesses that their regulatory models attempt to control. They don’t have a survival motivation to make a correct model. [Read more…]
Many generations of Americans have taken our founding principles for granted, [Read more…]
Polite debate is no longer the accepted norm in our society. The liberal left is not tolerating divergent opinions, they want them eliminated. Outrageous labels, personal threats, and even violence have escalated during what used to be polite discourse and disagreements of opinion. [Read more…]
To summarize, the BOCC appointed a Water Advisory Committee [WAC]. The WAC helped write the new Special District Regulations scheduled to be approved by the BOCC. The WAC wrote themselves into the regulatory process for approving new or modified Special Districts, and gave themselves the power to hold up the process indefinitely.
Here’s how they did it:
3. Incomplete Applications. If / when either a pre- or final application is found to be incomplete, Community & Development Services shall inform the Applicant, return the Application, and restart the timeline clock only after a completed application has been received.
6. Pre-Application Review. Referral agencies shall include any service district within three miles of the proposed Special District. The consultants and referral agencies will have 21 days to respond with comments to CDS in writing. A Referral Agency may request an additional ten  days if needed. Comments that require a written response from the Applicant will be forwarded when received. Such written responses shall be submitted to CDS and forwarded to the referral party for verification
b. The Pre-Application Service District Plan shall be reviewed by the Elbert County Review Committee as follows:
- Elbert County Water Advisory Committee & Water consultant as required
c. Review Committee professionals shall be expected to review the information relative to their professional expertise and respond in writing to CDS about:
- Professional experience / opinion related to project feasibility for the greater good of Elbert County citizens.
9. Requests for Additional Details. Elbert County may request additional detail about the project. When additional detail is requested, the project timeline will be suspended and will not restart until the additional detail is received in writing.
To conclude: an unelected board wrote the law, and will enforce the law, without any limitations beyond what they consider to be the greater good of Elbert County citizens.
This is the face of tyranny.
- In the first snip we get an f-bomb and a great expression of dogmatic superiority.
- In the second segment, we see a regulator’s frustration and real disappointment over having to accommodate reality.
- In the third segment, we get an outright dismissal of industry knowledge. . .What do they know anyway? – They just do this for a living. – We know what’s best for Elbert County!
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Would it be too much to expect an objective administrator who writes laws from founded science, rather than according to his predetermined personal agenda?
“It is time for facts to replace rhetoric; Science to replace faith. . . .Critical thinking needs to become the basis for moving this county forward. Bigotry and ignorance will not change the culture of Elbert and will not lead us to a better future for the next generations. We need to move forward with a coalition of concerned citizens that who are neither ideology nor political party biased.”
- Tony Corrado,
Monday, November 12, 2012 1:19:38 AM
All of the Democrat Party leadership turned out for this non-ideological, non-political-party-biased process:
And on Mr. Crisan’s comment, would it be too much to expect more than lip service to private property rights when those rights exist at the “surface” where we all live, rather than a naked assertion that private property at the surface is the county’s to control?
When the Democrat-controlled Colorado Legislature gets through imposing restrictive gun laws upon law-abiding citizens, will we be any safer? No, we won’t, because none of the prescriptions contained in any of these new bills address any element of the crimes committed with guns that will have motivated the bills’ passage.
In the instant case, losers will be law-abiding citizens. Winners will be Democrat politicians, their adoring liberal media, their captive voters, and the criminals who will have an easier time of it going up against a less-armed law abiding citizenry. But that’s only in the instant case. There’s also winners and losers in the larger scheme of things.
The country’s Founders designed a system they hoped would protect minority rights under the governance of a majority. They contemplated that with all the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, the 4th estate of the press, and the people, that enough pauses to consider would exist in the public discourse over new law, that the best argument, the best philosophy, the best solution, the mostly soundly reasoned answer, would tend to carry the day.
They did not anticipate ruthless progressivism with its will to win at all costs, and notwithstanding the soundness of their argument. They did not expect that all of the checks and balances in our country would fail in their primary function and become the captive organs of a single cult mythology.
Wherever progressives get a political majority, they ram through their agenda. Sound arguments to the contrary are not rebutted, nor debated. Opposed parties are procedurally silenced, crowded out, shouted down, ridiculed, overwhelmed, and ignored.
Sure, we have instant winners and losers as each issue comes up under the progressive agenda. But the bigger loser is our system, the one that brought us to this point of social evolution, the one responsible for our success.
And perhaps the biggest losers of all are the progressives themselves. The ones who have no idea what they’ve lost by damaging their fellow American minorities, whom they take such joy in suppressing. The ones dancing in the streets after each victory, the ones shouting in the streets when they’re not dancing.
They’ve lost their minds.
Oops. . .that was the Borg Game.
Power structures create gaming constructs that enable winners to impose their will upon losers. Often this involves the transfer of wealth and power from losers through a quasi-judicial process.
Constitutional and Common Law principles get used in a manner that creates a manipulable game domain where winners and losers sort out according to rules of the game. So long as rules and judgments follow objective rules of law and ethics, justice may be served.
But when rules and judgments become self-referential to the game’s purpose, the game departs from the pursuit of objective justice and turns toward satisfying its’ own pre-determined objectives. When this happens, outsiders see a veneer of legitimate justice, while savvy players and empowered game operators prey upon the less powerful with impunity.
The existence of self-referential, non-objective rules, in a separate domain, suggest the existence of a game.
Games would not exist unless they served the ostensible purpose of their subject, a purpose we can assume is not served absent the game. Therefore, games tilt the playing field in a way it would not otherwise tilt. In other words, games serve the interests of a minority without requiring the minority to openly persuade the majority.
Reconsider the Borg.
Analysis for each game:
- Who structures a game and sets rules for the board?
- What powers do game designers possess and how did they get those powers?
- What authorities created the powers that enabled a game to be formed?
- Were the circumstances that enabled a game to form intentional or accidental?
- What balancing powers exist outside of a game to moderate that game?
- What cost and benefit potentials accrue to those who avoid a game?
Performances inside a game:
- Rights that all players share.
- Rights granted to winners.
- Obligations forced upon losers.
- Who judges the execution of a game?
- What constructs exist for game judges to decide outcomes?
- What rewards flow back to game management as overhead costs of a game?
How are players brought into a game?
- Voluntary players.
- Involuntary players.
Example playing fields:
- Consumer – Healthcare, Food and Drugs
- Industrial – Mining, Energy, Agriculture, Transportation, Communications, Labor relations
- Land use – Commercial, Private
- Federal agenda agencies, EPA, FDA, HHS, NLRB, Etc.
- Quasi-judicial public governing boards.
Pierce the veil of the game. Broadcast them.
A Lawyer by Training, Obama Ignores Rules of Law
Thursday, October 11, 2012
“The Illegal-Donor Loophole” is the headline of a Daily Beast story by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Government Accountability Institute and Peter Boyer, former reporter at The New Yorker and The New York Times.
The article tells how Obama.com, a website owned by an Obama fundraiser who lives in China but has visited the Obama White House 11 times, sends solicitations mostly to foreign email addresses and links to the Obama campaign website’s donation page.
The Obama website, unlike those of most campaigns, doesn’t ask for the three- or four-digit credit card verification number. That makes it easier for donors to use fictitious names and addresses to send money in.
Campaigns aren’t allowed to accept donations from foreigners. But it looks like the Obama campaign has made it easier for them to slip money in. How much foreign money has come into the Obama campaign? Schweizer and Boyer say there’s no way to know.
The campaign — as my former boss, pollster Peter Hart, likes to say — always reflects the candidate. A campaign willing to skirt the law or abet violations of it reflects a candidate who, as president, has been doing the same thing. [Read more…]