Comments by myshortpencil
Posted on August 15 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted on August 14 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jim Tedisco has been a Member of the New York State Assembly for over 13 years. Yet, we have had the worse corruption in Albany for decades. I'm not saying it's Tedisco's fault. I'm not saying Jim doesn't say the right things, or that he's not a nice guy. He's simply ineffective. His overall record is more accurately interpreted as being a loyal opponent rather than a stalworth of virtuous government. He's meh, but what are you going to do?
Posted on August 11 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When is the last time the legislature expanded our liberties? The purpose of government in the United States isn't to tell us how to live, it's to optimize our freedom. People who run for office don't even know the mission of this country.
Posted on August 8 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I don’t think the founders who drew up the Second Amendment for their own protection envisioned 49 people stacked up like firewood lying dead on a dance floor because a terrorist got loose with an assault rifle."
I imagine they envisioned far worse. They kept their guns. Give me liberty or give me death.
But let's play along. If you don't like the Second Amendment, gather the votes needed to repeal it. The idea that constitutional rights can be regulated out of existence has been flatly rejected by SCOTUS. Just recently, TX couldn't require fire extinguishers and hallways wide enough for emergency gurneys because these safety initiatives made it too hard for women to get abortions -- a "right" not even mentioned in the constitution.
As Justice Thomas observed,
"The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created
rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional
rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually
enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution
renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are
more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the
constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the
judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so
that others can assert rights that seem especially important
to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional
right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to
invent tolerable degrees of encroachment."
The invention of tolerable degrees of encroachment is exactly what all the "rethinking" about the Second Amendment is about. Many thousands more unborn babies die every year in abortion clinics than people who die from firearms. Yet we can't even require routine safety measures inside abortion clinics to promote safety.
The burden of exercising the right to bear arms is already many times more onerous than exercising the right to an abortion. The rethinking of how to increase the numerous and burdensome existing infringements of the Second Amendment has gone quite far enough.
Posted on August 8 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steven P. Goldberg, I assume you do nothing that could possibly shorten your life. You want other people telling you what you can and can't do?
Posted on August 7 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Parking is the perfect example of a public good that ought to be free, which means build the cost into the taxes government collects. Why? Because almost everyone has a car, and everyone who has a car needs a parking space. Why should people be priced out of visiting places because they can't afford the parking? This is not just a ploy to raise revenues, but a policy that sorts the wealthy from the poor.
So, what should be done when parking demand exceeds supply? It's up to the localities to solve their own zoning failures that resulted in too few parking spaces. One thing is certain, charging for parking is the lazy way out.
Posted on August 7 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The argument that we bring in jobs is NOT a reason to exempt organizations from paying taxes. Every job-creating organization would then be exempt.
As for hospitals, they have abused the non-profit status. They simply keep all the profits and pay them to themselves. But even if they paid taxes, they would simply raise their prices because who isn't going to pay whatever it costs to keep their health?
Posted on July 30 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is government pettiness at its finest. How much are we paying DEC to ensure the lobsters are 1/8th of an inch bigger than other states require. Supreme idiocy.
Posted on July 30 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the reply. Cisterns are very economical for solving water shortages. Our family used them on every farm we had and have.
If the new and newer homes within a mile of Cellini's property don't sell for $400k, I'd be amazed. The point still stands regardless of their value. They are intrusions into the rural character of the area. They are even bigger intrusions than the adventure park because they destroy the flora and fauna while Cellini is preserving it and making it accessible to the public.
The trade-offs between preservation and public use are always in conflict. I believe the adventure park is a perfect fit with the land and with rural values.
Posted on July 30 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a Never Hillary and Never Trumper. My preferred integrity-saving solution to date has been to look to a third party. You have given me new hope, Betty Pieper. I will consider your recommendation. Thanks.