Some folks added some comments to the below post of mine.
Great, and I responded.
Just thought I'd mention part of one of my responses, "up here".
Besides missing votes (another one this week). How much time has Mr Brownback missed on the Senate floor? How much time has he missed in committee and sub-committee hearings?
Would a civilian employer tolerate that much lost time?
Ya wanna run for President Mr Brownback? Go for it. Just resign and let someone else do the job that you are getting paid to do.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Sen Brownback Please Resign
Last weekend the KC Star had an article about how many floor votes various senators who were also Presidential candidates had missed. See info at http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/199738.html
Sam Brownback was up to 104 votes missed.
Ironically, on 4/13 I posted an item here,
http://shawneeray.blogspot.com/2007/04/presidential-politics-too-much-too-soon.html
because I felt that too much time was being spent too early on the next election. It is almost as bad as seeing Christmas decorations going on sale on Labor Day.
Anyway, in my item I suggested that sitting Congressmen and/or Senators who choose to run for their party's nomination need to resign. I even proposed a federal law about that.
Mr Brownback's actions are, in my opinion, unacceptable. He is not working at the job that he is being paid to do. To add insult to injury, his chances of getting the nomination are, again, in my opinion, lower than slim.
Sam Brownback................do what you were elected to do or resign.......please.
Sam Brownback was up to 104 votes missed.
Ironically, on 4/13 I posted an item here,
http://shawneeray.blogspot.com/2007/04/presidential-politics-too-much-too-soon.html
because I felt that too much time was being spent too early on the next election. It is almost as bad as seeing Christmas decorations going on sale on Labor Day.
Anyway, in my item I suggested that sitting Congressmen and/or Senators who choose to run for their party's nomination need to resign. I even proposed a federal law about that.
Mr Brownback's actions are, in my opinion, unacceptable. He is not working at the job that he is being paid to do. To add insult to injury, his chances of getting the nomination are, again, in my opinion, lower than slim.
Sam Brownback................do what you were elected to do or resign.......please.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Mill Levy Question
Attending last night's Shawnee City Council meeting was like many others.
I knew I could count on either Pfrick or Pfrack to provide some entertainment.
Well, one of them didn't let me down.
When the time came to vote on the new budget Dan Pflumm said something that really made me open my eyes. He made a comment that he would vote for this budget but intimated that he would not vote to approve any future budgets unless "....the mill levy was taken back to what it was." To what it was..............when??????????
Now folks (read that as taxpayers) love to hear elected officials talk about reducing taxes.
In this case though, I was wondering how far back he wanted to go. Last year? Two years ago?
Five years ago? Ten years ago? What amount would he like to see the mill levy cut back to? I don't think he mentioned a number.
Let's say the mill levy gets rolled back (with one of those Wal-Mart smiley face posters). What comes out of the budget? What services get reduced or eliminated? Sometimes folks don't like to hear about city services being reduced.
Anyway his initial comment makes for a great political sound byte. Kind of like someone who is running for office (mayor 2008 maybe??).
Let's forget the sound byte though. Give us a number and what would need to be adjusted to accomodate the lower number.
I knew I could count on either Pfrick or Pfrack to provide some entertainment.
Well, one of them didn't let me down.
When the time came to vote on the new budget Dan Pflumm said something that really made me open my eyes. He made a comment that he would vote for this budget but intimated that he would not vote to approve any future budgets unless "....the mill levy was taken back to what it was." To what it was..............when??????????
Now folks (read that as taxpayers) love to hear elected officials talk about reducing taxes.
In this case though, I was wondering how far back he wanted to go. Last year? Two years ago?
Five years ago? Ten years ago? What amount would he like to see the mill levy cut back to? I don't think he mentioned a number.
Let's say the mill levy gets rolled back (with one of those Wal-Mart smiley face posters). What comes out of the budget? What services get reduced or eliminated? Sometimes folks don't like to hear about city services being reduced.
Anyway his initial comment makes for a great political sound byte. Kind of like someone who is running for office (mayor 2008 maybe??).
Let's forget the sound byte though. Give us a number and what would need to be adjusted to accomodate the lower number.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
What Happened?
Some folks have asked me what happened that prompted my apology to the folks that held the reception for the new Shawnee Magazine.
So, here is what happened. I was having a conversation with Sate Sen Jordan and Straub was standing there. Another member of the council came over and wanted Sen Jordan to visit with some other folks. So far so good.
Straub turns to me and says something to the effect that it was terrible what the Lenexa City Council did two weeks earlier. Sarcastic little twit. I asked him how he could say that? When that is exactly what he and his buddy Pflumm tried to do a month or so ago. They tried to slip a smoking ban in at a meeting. The Lenexa Council was almost as bad. They gave the public one day's notice and then it was brought before the council on July 3d, the night before a holiday.
Moving on he asks me if I really feel that Americans would give up their cars. Huh? He was referring to my proposal that if he and his buddy were really concerned about people's health they would support a usage fee for high polluting vehicles (SUVs, pick-ups etc). He says they already pay more (more gas=more taxes, higher registration fees etc). But, they do not pay anything towards a "health fund" which is what I proposed. He just doesn't get it. He doesn't believe that vehicle emissions are a health problem. Hundreds of millions of tons of pollutants being pushed into the atmosphere daily. He just wants to blame everything on smoking. The hypocrisy of his ways.
Then he says to me that I'm in favor of bans on perfumes and after shaves. I said no, that that is not what I said. I said that there are cities that have passed ordinances restricting the use of these items. I never proposed them, I mentioned them as examples of the "what next ?" theory. What will be next on the governmental control list? Again, he just doesn't get it.
Straub constantly would ask a question, then attempt to answer it for me, and then attempt to put words in my mouth. Anyway, that was when I blew, got loud and made some personal vulgar comments about him. And that is why I felt I owed the folks who held the reception, and their other guests an apology. But no apology to Straub.
As a side note, most folks are aware that recently the voters of the De Soto School District voted intelligently and did not give him a seat on the schoold board in the last election. Maybe the Ward III voters will also see the light and make sure he is a one term council member.
So, here is what happened. I was having a conversation with Sate Sen Jordan and Straub was standing there. Another member of the council came over and wanted Sen Jordan to visit with some other folks. So far so good.
Straub turns to me and says something to the effect that it was terrible what the Lenexa City Council did two weeks earlier. Sarcastic little twit. I asked him how he could say that? When that is exactly what he and his buddy Pflumm tried to do a month or so ago. They tried to slip a smoking ban in at a meeting. The Lenexa Council was almost as bad. They gave the public one day's notice and then it was brought before the council on July 3d, the night before a holiday.
Moving on he asks me if I really feel that Americans would give up their cars. Huh? He was referring to my proposal that if he and his buddy were really concerned about people's health they would support a usage fee for high polluting vehicles (SUVs, pick-ups etc). He says they already pay more (more gas=more taxes, higher registration fees etc). But, they do not pay anything towards a "health fund" which is what I proposed. He just doesn't get it. He doesn't believe that vehicle emissions are a health problem. Hundreds of millions of tons of pollutants being pushed into the atmosphere daily. He just wants to blame everything on smoking. The hypocrisy of his ways.
Then he says to me that I'm in favor of bans on perfumes and after shaves. I said no, that that is not what I said. I said that there are cities that have passed ordinances restricting the use of these items. I never proposed them, I mentioned them as examples of the "what next ?" theory. What will be next on the governmental control list? Again, he just doesn't get it.
Straub constantly would ask a question, then attempt to answer it for me, and then attempt to put words in my mouth. Anyway, that was when I blew, got loud and made some personal vulgar comments about him. And that is why I felt I owed the folks who held the reception, and their other guests an apology. But no apology to Straub.
As a side note, most folks are aware that recently the voters of the De Soto School District voted intelligently and did not give him a seat on the schoold board in the last election. Maybe the Ward III voters will also see the light and make sure he is a one term council member.
Star vs Dispatch
Recently I've been critical of some of the editorial comments that appeared in both the Shawnee Dispatch and the Shawnee/Lenexa section of the KC Star.
One thing I'd like to say is that at least Loren Stanton truly has the courage of his convictions. When he writes an opinion piece for the KC Star his byline and picture accompanies it (at least on line). Believe that the print copy just has his byline. Personally, I respect that.
On the other hand, John Beal "hides" who he is. Hey John, it's a small community paper. Be really involved. Tell ya what.......the next time ya take a shower, reach down and see if those certain special items are still there. If they are, start taking credit for your "editorial opinions". The byline would be nice......we don't necessarily need the picture.
One thing I'd like to say is that at least Loren Stanton truly has the courage of his convictions. When he writes an opinion piece for the KC Star his byline and picture accompanies it (at least on line). Believe that the print copy just has his byline. Personally, I respect that.
On the other hand, John Beal "hides" who he is. Hey John, it's a small community paper. Be really involved. Tell ya what.......the next time ya take a shower, reach down and see if those certain special items are still there. If they are, start taking credit for your "editorial opinions". The byline would be nice......we don't necessarily need the picture.
I've Been Blacklisted
Gotta laugh.
I send out an email to the Shawnee City Council and some other folks when there is an update to this blog.
Well, one of the council members has blacklisted my emails. That is his prerogative. Guess he doesn't want to know when someone has an opinion that differs from his.
Whooops, maybe I should clarify the above statements. By using the pronoun "his" that eliminates the three female council reps. To his credit, Straub hasn't blacklisted me..... yet.
So, that leaves only four council members to choose from. We won't say which one, we'll just leave that to the readers' imagination.
I send out an email to the Shawnee City Council and some other folks when there is an update to this blog.
Well, one of the council members has blacklisted my emails. That is his prerogative. Guess he doesn't want to know when someone has an opinion that differs from his.
Whooops, maybe I should clarify the above statements. By using the pronoun "his" that eliminates the three female council reps. To his credit, Straub hasn't blacklisted me..... yet.
So, that leaves only four council members to choose from. We won't say which one, we'll just leave that to the readers' imagination.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Child Safety Restraints
Ahhhhh, child safety seats and restraints.
What I find amazing is that smoking ban advocates use the fact that there are laws on the books mandating the use of these items. Government protecting the health and welfare of our children (in my case grandchildren).
I remember when my sons were young enough to be in car seats. We did not have the ones that are currently being used. They were not designed yet. What did we have? They were clip on seats that hung on the back of the front passenger seat (they couldn't even be used in the back).
Many of these had trays for cookies and drinks and even play dashboards. They had little steering wheels, horns that tooted, an ignition key that made funny noises and other assorted doo dads designed to entertain the child.
Then as time went on, better designed, and more protective seats were built and sold. New concepts were promulgated (like for certain early years the child should be backwards in the rear seat). All of these were the result of scientific analysis, studies, etc etc. All of them striving to protect the lives of our young uns..............
Personally, I am happy that these items were developed. Granted, they came after my sons were old enough to sit normally, but they are great for the children that came after them.
Now, we have government mandates requiring these items. Why? For the health and welfare of the children.
Wow, then the parents of these children have to be:
a. Irresponsible
b. Dumb
c. Have no common sense
Maybe there is another answer? Maybe these folks want the government to assume total control of their lives? They don't want to make these decisions concerning their children. They want to abrogate their parental responsibility. If you need the government to tell you to put that child in a safety seat you are a lousy parent.
So, if you are a smoking ban advocate and you have used the child safety seats as justification for governmental control you are taking one step closer to government control of other lifestyle items.
You can read that as one step closer to communism.
Just like children riding bicycles, using roller blades or other such items, need to be wearing helmets. Right? But the parents need to take control of that, NOT the government.
Oh, BTW, one last thought. How come school buses are exempt from safety belt laws? I smell some hypocrisy here.
What I find amazing is that smoking ban advocates use the fact that there are laws on the books mandating the use of these items. Government protecting the health and welfare of our children (in my case grandchildren).
I remember when my sons were young enough to be in car seats. We did not have the ones that are currently being used. They were not designed yet. What did we have? They were clip on seats that hung on the back of the front passenger seat (they couldn't even be used in the back).
Many of these had trays for cookies and drinks and even play dashboards. They had little steering wheels, horns that tooted, an ignition key that made funny noises and other assorted doo dads designed to entertain the child.
Then as time went on, better designed, and more protective seats were built and sold. New concepts were promulgated (like for certain early years the child should be backwards in the rear seat). All of these were the result of scientific analysis, studies, etc etc. All of them striving to protect the lives of our young uns..............
Personally, I am happy that these items were developed. Granted, they came after my sons were old enough to sit normally, but they are great for the children that came after them.
Now, we have government mandates requiring these items. Why? For the health and welfare of the children.
Wow, then the parents of these children have to be:
a. Irresponsible
b. Dumb
c. Have no common sense
Maybe there is another answer? Maybe these folks want the government to assume total control of their lives? They don't want to make these decisions concerning their children. They want to abrogate their parental responsibility. If you need the government to tell you to put that child in a safety seat you are a lousy parent.
So, if you are a smoking ban advocate and you have used the child safety seats as justification for governmental control you are taking one step closer to government control of other lifestyle items.
You can read that as one step closer to communism.
Just like children riding bicycles, using roller blades or other such items, need to be wearing helmets. Right? But the parents need to take control of that, NOT the government.
Oh, BTW, one last thought. How come school buses are exempt from safety belt laws? I smell some hypocrisy here.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
KC Star - Shawnee/Lenexa Section
In a recent opinion piece in the Shawnee/Lenexa edition of the Kansas City Star, available at:
http://www.kansascity.com/318/story/193918.html
Loren Stanton had various comments about a smoking ban in Shawnee. One thing that was interesting is the extract below:
"A ban tramples on people’s rights: Shawnee council member Michelle Distler is among those who oppose a ban mainly for this reason. She stated in a commentary in this newspaper that our rights "are being eroded daily with a variety of seemingly small encroachments, such as the smoking ban.
Yeah, and evil government forces have taken away our right to use lead-based paints that cause brain damage. And they have destroyed the right to drive ourselves and our young children around without safety belts and safety seats. We could go on and on.
Smoking isn’t a right, it’s an addiction. This isn’t a freedom issue, it’s a public health issue."
I think if he read the item he is referring to, the rights Ms Distler was referring to were the rights of the business owner, to be allowed to run their business. Not the rights of the smoker. Ironically, Ms Distler is correct......our rights are being eroded on a daily basis.........creeping "nanny government" is getting to be more pervasive.
Oh, Mr Stanton, regarding safety belts for children: How come school buses are exempt? Are you going to push for this increased safety feature? How about it? A simple yes or no would do.
http://www.kansascity.com/318/story/193918.html
Loren Stanton had various comments about a smoking ban in Shawnee. One thing that was interesting is the extract below:
"A ban tramples on people’s rights: Shawnee council member Michelle Distler is among those who oppose a ban mainly for this reason. She stated in a commentary in this newspaper that our rights "are being eroded daily with a variety of seemingly small encroachments, such as the smoking ban.
Yeah, and evil government forces have taken away our right to use lead-based paints that cause brain damage. And they have destroyed the right to drive ourselves and our young children around without safety belts and safety seats. We could go on and on.
Smoking isn’t a right, it’s an addiction. This isn’t a freedom issue, it’s a public health issue."
I think if he read the item he is referring to, the rights Ms Distler was referring to were the rights of the business owner, to be allowed to run their business. Not the rights of the smoker. Ironically, Ms Distler is correct......our rights are being eroded on a daily basis.........creeping "nanny government" is getting to be more pervasive.
Oh, Mr Stanton, regarding safety belts for children: How come school buses are exempt? Are you going to push for this increased safety feature? How about it? A simple yes or no would do.
Monday, July 16, 2007
An Apology
I feel like I owe a bunch of people an apology.
Set the scene: The folks who will be publishing the new Shawnee Magazine had a reception. I was lucky enough to get an invite.
While talking with State Sen Nick Jordan, Kevin Straub walked over. When Sen Jordan left to talk to other folks, Straub and I got into it. The arrogant snit that he is, would ask a question, not allow it to be answered and then attempt to put words in my mouth. Besides that, he is one of the most condescending jerks I have ever met.
Well now............why an apology? Well, not to Straub. Seems like I lost my cool and used a few choice words directed to Straub in a loud voice. My apology would be to the folks from the Shawnee Magazine, the Journal World and any of the other invited guests who may have heard my vulgar comments. That I let this individual get to me like that was wrong. I should have just walked away from him.
So again, to the folks that organized this event, and their guests, you have my apology.
Set the scene: The folks who will be publishing the new Shawnee Magazine had a reception. I was lucky enough to get an invite.
While talking with State Sen Nick Jordan, Kevin Straub walked over. When Sen Jordan left to talk to other folks, Straub and I got into it. The arrogant snit that he is, would ask a question, not allow it to be answered and then attempt to put words in my mouth. Besides that, he is one of the most condescending jerks I have ever met.
Well now............why an apology? Well, not to Straub. Seems like I lost my cool and used a few choice words directed to Straub in a loud voice. My apology would be to the folks from the Shawnee Magazine, the Journal World and any of the other invited guests who may have heard my vulgar comments. That I let this individual get to me like that was wrong. I should have just walked away from him.
So again, to the folks that organized this event, and their guests, you have my apology.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Dispatch Just Doesn't Get It
Well, the Shawnee Dispatch has done it again.
In a recent editorial, available at http://www2.shawneedispatch.com/news/2007/jul/10/opinion_time_get_dime/
they again take up the smoking ban cause.
Ironically, and unfortunately, many Americans are falling for much of this rhetoric.
Where do I start? They cite the government studies regarding second-hand smoke. They really don't want to consider the studies that contradict the government. Ironically, over the years the number of smokers has decreased. Yet more folks are coming down with illnesses that are being attributed to second-hand smoke. Golly gee, is it at all possible that these pulmonary and cardio vascular problems can be traced to the increase in the number of vehicles being driven and the junk that is being tossed into the air? Nahhhh, we don't want to take on the auto industry.
Now, let's look at another aspect for a second. There are restaurants in Shawnee that have, voluntarily gone smoke free. I applaud them. Why do the others need a "level playing field"? If there are so many folks who would go out more often (as stated in various behavioral studies) then these restaurant owners would be making the changes on their own. It would be in their financial interests to do it. All of those non-smokers would be flocking to their establishments, more often, making up for the lost business from smokers.
What I take offense to in that editorial is the santimonious drivel when the author says:
"Presumably no one would quibble with laws that restrict businesses’ ability to add harmful substances to our food; why should our air be any different?"
And the author also says: "In its deliberations, the task force needs to consider one overriding factor: public health."
Would the author of that piece support sanctions against SUVs, trucks etc for belching emissions into the air? Maybe by a special pollution permit? How much trash does the average citizen inhale because of auto emissions? How many people have developed health problems because of air pollution that are erroneously attributed to second-hand smoke?
Last but not least. Most folks are not aware of how much money is paid to the state via excise taxes on cigarettes. We won't even talk about sales taxes. As the number of smokers keeps declining, the excise taxes have to go down. Then what happens? Well, those taxes could be raised (again) to increase revenue. But, eventually, the goose that lays the golden egg will be cooked. So, what happens next? Raise other taxes? Tax items not previously taxed? Reduce government services? From 2000 to 2002 excise tax collections dropped. In 2003 the State of Kansas tripled the excise tax rate. Collections spiked, but are again declining because of a substantial decrease in the number of packs sold. In effect, the number of packs from 2000 to 2006 has been dropping each year, to the point where the difference from 2000 to 2006 is over 50 million packs. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue that has to be made up.
As stated previously we won't even touch on the lost sales tax revenues.
In a recent editorial, available at http://www2.shawneedispatch.com/news/2007/jul/10/opinion_time_get_dime/
they again take up the smoking ban cause.
Ironically, and unfortunately, many Americans are falling for much of this rhetoric.
Where do I start? They cite the government studies regarding second-hand smoke. They really don't want to consider the studies that contradict the government. Ironically, over the years the number of smokers has decreased. Yet more folks are coming down with illnesses that are being attributed to second-hand smoke. Golly gee, is it at all possible that these pulmonary and cardio vascular problems can be traced to the increase in the number of vehicles being driven and the junk that is being tossed into the air? Nahhhh, we don't want to take on the auto industry.
Now, let's look at another aspect for a second. There are restaurants in Shawnee that have, voluntarily gone smoke free. I applaud them. Why do the others need a "level playing field"? If there are so many folks who would go out more often (as stated in various behavioral studies) then these restaurant owners would be making the changes on their own. It would be in their financial interests to do it. All of those non-smokers would be flocking to their establishments, more often, making up for the lost business from smokers.
What I take offense to in that editorial is the santimonious drivel when the author says:
"Presumably no one would quibble with laws that restrict businesses’ ability to add harmful substances to our food; why should our air be any different?"
And the author also says: "In its deliberations, the task force needs to consider one overriding factor: public health."
Would the author of that piece support sanctions against SUVs, trucks etc for belching emissions into the air? Maybe by a special pollution permit? How much trash does the average citizen inhale because of auto emissions? How many people have developed health problems because of air pollution that are erroneously attributed to second-hand smoke?
Last but not least. Most folks are not aware of how much money is paid to the state via excise taxes on cigarettes. We won't even talk about sales taxes. As the number of smokers keeps declining, the excise taxes have to go down. Then what happens? Well, those taxes could be raised (again) to increase revenue. But, eventually, the goose that lays the golden egg will be cooked. So, what happens next? Raise other taxes? Tax items not previously taxed? Reduce government services? From 2000 to 2002 excise tax collections dropped. In 2003 the State of Kansas tripled the excise tax rate. Collections spiked, but are again declining because of a substantial decrease in the number of packs sold. In effect, the number of packs from 2000 to 2006 has been dropping each year, to the point where the difference from 2000 to 2006 is over 50 million packs. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue that has to be made up.
As stated previously we won't even touch on the lost sales tax revenues.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Agendas & Special Interests
Ahhhh, politics and public issues.
It never ceases to amaze me how people just throw out the terms "agenda" and "special interests".
Joe Blow does xyz because he has an agenda. Susie Hopscotch is in favor of abc because she is supported by special interests.
OK folks..........I won't be PC here. Cut out the bullshit. Everybody has an agenda. But some folks throw that out like it's a negative. If people didn't have agendas they wouldn't get involved in politics or civic affairs. Whether an agenda is good or bad depends on whether one agrees with it. Folks just have to stop clouding the issues by accusing others of having agendas, when they themselves also have them.
Now, what about the accusations that fly that a person is supported by special interests? The same thing applies here. It is only negative if these special interests aren't the same as yours.
Let's use a hot potato here. Abortion. If a person supports choice they are accused of being backed by special interests. If a person supports right to life, they too are accused of being backed by special interests. Guess what? All sides of a debate have special interests.
Problem is, folks are still going to be tossing out those terms like they are criminal acts.........what a shame.........what bullshit.
It never ceases to amaze me how people just throw out the terms "agenda" and "special interests".
Joe Blow does xyz because he has an agenda. Susie Hopscotch is in favor of abc because she is supported by special interests.
OK folks..........I won't be PC here. Cut out the bullshit. Everybody has an agenda. But some folks throw that out like it's a negative. If people didn't have agendas they wouldn't get involved in politics or civic affairs. Whether an agenda is good or bad depends on whether one agrees with it. Folks just have to stop clouding the issues by accusing others of having agendas, when they themselves also have them.
Now, what about the accusations that fly that a person is supported by special interests? The same thing applies here. It is only negative if these special interests aren't the same as yours.
Let's use a hot potato here. Abortion. If a person supports choice they are accused of being backed by special interests. If a person supports right to life, they too are accused of being backed by special interests. Guess what? All sides of a debate have special interests.
Problem is, folks are still going to be tossing out those terms like they are criminal acts.........what a shame.........what bullshit.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Lenexa Succumbs
On Friday I returned from a wonderful vacation to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan where I spent time with my sons and grandsons. What a great time.
Then I come home and find out that the city council of Lenexa voted to go smoke free. Wow, how much notice did they give the community that this was going to be on the agenda? Or did someone on the council pull a Pfrick and Pfrack like some Shawnee councilmen tried?
Anyway, according to this article:
http://www.kansascity.com/318/story/178716.html the vote was 7-1. It appears that the one negative vote was from a councilman who actually favored the ordinance but wanted an exemption for private businesses. Apparently he didn't get it.
Nanny government at its worst.
If these folks were so concerned about people's health they would have embraced an idea that I presented to the Shawnee City Council regarding pollution from trucks and SUVs.
Apparently a person by the name of Joyce Morrison from Clean Air Kansas was ecstatic. But a question for Ms Morrison: What about it lady? Are you going to go after SUVs and trucks? Are you going to push for Air Pollution Permits for folks that drive these emission spewing monstrosities? How many people have died from the garbage that is in the air? How many folks have contracted pulmonary diseases and/or cardiovascular problems because of air pollution?
Of course these hypocrites won't do anything like that. They don't want to take on the auto industry or change their own personal lifestyles.
Then I come home and find out that the city council of Lenexa voted to go smoke free. Wow, how much notice did they give the community that this was going to be on the agenda? Or did someone on the council pull a Pfrick and Pfrack like some Shawnee councilmen tried?
Anyway, according to this article:
http://www.kansascity.com/318/story/178716.html the vote was 7-1. It appears that the one negative vote was from a councilman who actually favored the ordinance but wanted an exemption for private businesses. Apparently he didn't get it.
Nanny government at its worst.
If these folks were so concerned about people's health they would have embraced an idea that I presented to the Shawnee City Council regarding pollution from trucks and SUVs.
Apparently a person by the name of Joyce Morrison from Clean Air Kansas was ecstatic. But a question for Ms Morrison: What about it lady? Are you going to go after SUVs and trucks? Are you going to push for Air Pollution Permits for folks that drive these emission spewing monstrosities? How many people have died from the garbage that is in the air? How many folks have contracted pulmonary diseases and/or cardiovascular problems because of air pollution?
Of course these hypocrites won't do anything like that. They don't want to take on the auto industry or change their own personal lifestyles.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
