More from The People's Republic...of California

[Wrath of Dagon]

Caltrans won't allow words "United States" and "E Pluribus Unum" on a Veteran's memorial.

 

 

Having learned that CalTrans had sanctioned — as a Transportation Art Program project — the building of Chicano Park in San Diego, where murals feature portraits of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, LeBard decided to reclassify his intended memorial as an art project. He called it, “A Tribute to the Protectors of Freedom.”

At first, CalTrans encouraged the idea. But then, perhaps inevitably, it determined that the words “United States” and “E Pluribus Unum” aren’t nearly so benign as the likenesses of communist revolutionaries; that, unlike such likenesses, the name of our country and the motto on our Great Seal — like our flag itself — have no place on our public lands.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-dept-transportation-be-sure-black-out-united-states-and-motto_703014.html?page=1

[Hurlshort]

While this sounds like a bureaucratic mess, bringing up the Chicano park has no relevancy to the situation.  Is he trying to build this memorial in a park, because it is unclear where this is?  It mentions a highway ramp at one point but then it sounds like they gave that up.

 

Anyways, it sounds less like a conspiracy theory and more like a sign that Caltrans is a mess of an organization.  Anyone who has driven on CA freeways or used public transportation can tell you that much is true.  

[Calax]

While this sounds like a bureaucratic mess, bringing up the Chicano park has no relevancy to the situation.  Is he trying to build this memorial in a park, because it is unclear where this is?  It mentions a highway ramp at one point but then it sounds like they gave that up.

 

Anyways, it sounds less like a conspiracy theory and more like a sign that Caltrans is a mess of an organization.  Anyone who has driven on CA freeways or used public transportation can tell you that much is true.  

California has non-city funded public transit?

 

WHAT MADDNESS IS THIS!?

 

Also, I think the reason they brought up Chicano Park is because Chicano Park features those "dirty commies" that the right hate so much, so this private citizen decided he was going to build the antethesis.

 

And from the first  paragraph, I get the feeling that it's not just a case of "woe is me" but more a case of "the guy who's setting this up is a complete jerk, and feels Caltrans should jump to his fiddle". They appear to be relatively cheap, wanting caltrans to pay for everything they ask except the actual monuments. I mean the whole thing with the flag pole? These guys practically demanded that it be put in place, and used a law that said that flagpoles can be placed next to streets to get it done.

 

 

CalTrans also won’t provide access to the park-and-ride’s existing power feed to light the flag — even at OTORA’s expense — so the flag will have to be raised every day and taken down every night. CalTrans would, however, “gladly consider allowing” OTORA to provide its own electrical feed, so long as it complies with a long list of regulations that CalTrans outlines.

That's from an article specifically about the flag. And if you look at it from another view "OTORA" is asking if they can have the park and ride pay for their electricity, and then are whining that they actually have to do work for the flag.

 

Gives me the feeling this is less "A patriotic citizen can't do something patriotic" and more "A jerk doesn't want to follow the rules".

[Wrath of Dagon]

@ Hurl No, he's still trying to build it in the same place. The Chicano park is entirely relevant, since it was sanctioned by Caltrans with its images of Castro and Guevara, while they refuse to sanction the name of our own country. I'm afraid calling it just a bureaucratic mess isn't going to cut it, there's obviously a lot more to it than that.

 

@Calax Way to miss the point as usual. The guy was trying to build the memorial for a while now, it had nothing to do with any Chicano park until they wouldn't even let him put up the American flag at his memorial. It's Caltrans who's not following the rules, if you had any reading comprehension.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

@ Hurl No, he's still trying to build it in the same place. The Chicano park is entirely relevant, since it was sanctioned by Caltrans with its images of Castro and Guevara, while they refuse to sanction the name of our own country. I'm afraid calling it just a bureaucratic mess isn't going to cut it, there's obviously a lot more to it than that.

 

@Calax Way to miss the point as usual. The guy was trying to build the memorial for a while now, it had nothing to do with any Chicano park until they wouldn't even let him put up the American flag at his memorial. It's Caltrans who's not following the rules, if you had any reading comprehension.

Yes he was, and I'm saying that the reason CalTrans was saying "No" to various things (although they're obviously getting pettier) was because the guy didn't want to follow the rules.

 

He wanted to have lights for an American flag plugged into another property.

He wanted to be able to put that American flag where he chose (Which he can't, particularly on public land).

He put the flag where the Law said he could. And whined when they wouldn't let him change the sidewalk so it let him do what it wanted.

He wanted Caltrans to sell him extra land so he could do his initial plan, but refused to pay for an appraisal (basically).

Even when you sell your house, you HAVE TO get an appraisal dude.

And now he's switched it from a memorial to an art project. An art project which falls under different guidelines with CalTrans. 

 

And on the flag thing

 

Caltrans disagrees. The denial apparently stems from post-9/11 actions when American flags and Afghanistan war protest signs were hung from freeway overpasses throughout the state. In response to the rash of protest signs, Caltrans removed all political signs along freeways, but left the flags flying.

Following a First Amendment-based lawsuit — Brown v. California Department of Transportation — both state and federal courts found that Caltrans needed to remove all political speech — including American flags — from the state’s highways.

 

And persuant to that, they consider that the monument would end up falling under that. The Chicano park was built in... wait for it... 19 bloody 70. Before the Brown ruling existed, and when racial tensions were peaking with Chicanos trying to find their racial identity again.

 

Here's the mural they're complaining about

[Hurlshort]

That mural is in a park, right?  This flag display is next to a park and ride?  They are entirely different things.  There are plenty of flags and memorials in parks all over the place in California.

 

The electricity is a big beef, I agree with Caltrans that they shouldn't have to pay to light this display.  I am sure he can find a better spot to create a monument, it sounds like he's creating a stir for attention.

 

edit:  Hah, they are complaining about a mural put up 40 years ago?  Geez, let it go.  It bears zero relevancy to the flag display.  

 

edit:  Just looked it up, that mural is actually a few years older than Caltrans

Edited February 24, 2013 by Hurlshot

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

@ Hurl No, he's still trying to build it in the same place. The Chicano park is entirely relevant, since it was sanctioned by Caltrans with its images of Castro and Guevara, while they refuse to sanction the name of our own country. I'm afraid calling it just a bureaucratic mess isn't going to cut it, there's obviously a lot more to it than that.

 

@Calax Way to miss the point as usual. The guy was trying to build the memorial for a while now, it had nothing to do with any Chicano park until they wouldn't even let him put up the American flag at his memorial. It's Caltrans who's not following the rules, if you had any reading comprehension.

Yes he was, and I'm saying that the reason CalTrans was saying "No" to various things (although they're obviously getting pettier) was because the guy didn't want to follow the rules.

 

He wanted to have lights for an American flag plugged into another property.

 

 

Source? That was the closest electrical service to there, probably bringing it in from elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive. And does it say anywhere he was unwilling to compensate them for the cost of electricity? Plus the usage of one light would be miniscule compared to an entire park-and-ride.

 

 

He wanted to be able to put that American flag where he chose (Which he can't, particularly on public land).

He put the flag where the Law said he could. And whined when they wouldn't let him change the sidewalk so it let him do what it wanted.

He wanted to put in the middle of the memorial,  not right by the sidewalk. What law tells you you can't put your country's flag in a memorial, that's insane.

>>

 

He wanted Caltrans to sell him extra land so he could do his initial plan, but refused to pay for an appraisal (basically).

Even when you sell your house, you HAVE TO get an appraisal dude.

Everyone agreed intiailly to sell the very tiny parcel of land that Caltrans didn't have any use for to the county, not to him. It was just a way to try to avoid all the ridiculous bureaucratic requirements. The sale was supposed to be at a nominal fee, your house appraisal doesn't cost $10000 .

 

And now he's switched it from a memorial to an art project. An art project which falls under different guidelines with CalTrans. 

Yes, guidelines where you can't use the name of your own country.

 

And on the flag thing

 

Caltrans disagrees. The denial apparently stems from post-9/11 actions when American flags and Afghanistan war protest signs were hung from freeway overpasses throughout the state. In response to the rash of protest signs, Caltrans removed all political signs along freeways, but left the flags flying.

Following a First Amendment-based lawsuit — Brown v. California Department of Transportation — both state and federal courts found that Caltrans needed to remove all political speech — including American flags — from the state’s highways.

 

And persuant to that, they consider that the monument would end up falling under that.

 

Hanging the American flag from an overpass (something that's not normally done) is very different than wanting to fly the flag over a veteran's memorial. No one in their right mind can claim it's some kind of a political statement. That's to say nothing about the usual leftist lunacy of the Ninth Court.

 

The Chicano park was built in... wait for it... 19 bloody 70. Before the Brown ruling existed, and when racial tensions were peaking with Chicanos trying to find their racial identity again.

 

Here's the mural they're complaining about

 

Source? When was the mural painted? There is a date of 2005 in your picture.

 

 

 

That mural is in a park, right?  This flag display is next to a park and ride?  They are entirely different things.  There are plenty of flags and memorials in parks all over the place in California.

 

The electricity is a big beef, I agree with Caltrans that they shouldn't have to pay to light this display.  I am sure he can find a better spot to create a monument, it sounds like he's creating a stir for attention.

 

edit:  Hah, they are complaining about a mural put up 40 years ago?  Geez, let it go.  It bears zero relevancy to the flag display.  

 

edit:  Just looked it up, that mural is actually a few years older than Caltrans

 

Then why is the park a Transportation Art project? And why did Caltrans have to sanction it? And what better place? He wants to put it by a miltiary base where it'll be visible and accessible to the public. Is a memorial to people who died for their country something to hide and keep off public land? I can't believe we're even having this argument, you guys have been completely brainwashed by the left.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

This isn't a political issue, it's one guy arguing with Caltrans.  There are tons of veteran's memorials all over the state of California, so trying to turn this one situation into some anti-American conspiracy is ridiculous.  

 

Do you really think that Caltrans is trying to push some socialist agenda here?  Come on, that's just not reasonable.

 

I'm not sure if you realize this WoD, but I'm not a liberal.  I vote for the best candidates available for the job, which means I typically split my votes between republicans and democrats.  I look at all media outlets skeptically.  You could really help yourself by being just as critical with the conservative news sources as you are with the liberal.  Both sides have an agenda and spin news to meet it.     

[AGX-17]

Caltrans won't allow words "United States" and "E Pluribus Unum" on a Veteran's memorial.

 

 

 

Having learned that CalTrans had sanctioned — as a Transportation Art Program project — the building of Chicano Park in San Diego, where murals feature portraits of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, LeBard decided to reclassify his intended memorial as an art project. He called it, “A Tribute to the Protectors of Freedom.”

At first, CalTrans encouraged the idea. But then, perhaps inevitably, it determined that the words “United States” and “E Pluribus Unum” aren’t nearly so benign as the likenesses of communist revolutionaries; that, unlike such likenesses, the name of our country and the motto on our Great Seal — like our flag itself — have no place on our public lands.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-dept-transportation-be-sure-black-out-united-states-and-motto_703014.html?page=1

 

 

So do you have any actual journalistic evidence of this flagrant violation of the federal government's right to slap its emblems on a state or local public artwork? A right-wing political opinion rag isn't journalism. If they were instead banning depictions of Che Guevara I don't think the Weekly Standard would be up in arms over this. Assuming the contents of the article are accurate. Which they cannot be, given the inherent anti-evidentiary nature of the source.

 

 

Besides, if you want to be the Republic of Texas, who are you to infringe on the rights of another sovereign state? Oh right, conservative. Question answered.

Edited February 24, 2013 by AGX-17

[Wrath of Dagon]

This isn't a political issue, it's one guy arguing with Caltrans.  There are tons of veteran's memorials all over the state of California, so trying to turn this one situation into some anti-American conspiracy is ridiculous.  

 

Do you really think that Caltrans is trying to push some socialist agenda here?  Come on, that's just not reasonable.

 

I'm not sure if you realize this WoD, but I'm not a liberal.  I vote for the best candidates available for the job, which means I typically split my votes between republicans and democrats.  I look at all media outlets skeptically.  You could really help yourself by being just as critical with the conservative news sources as you are with the liberal.  Both sides have an agenda and spin news to meet it.     

Banning the American flag, the words United States and  E Pluribus Unum, no there can't possible be a political agenda here. I know you don't consider yourself a liberal, but I do find your political views a bit puzzling.

 

 

Caltrans won't allow words "United States" and "E Pluribus Unum" on a Veteran's memorial.

 

 

Having learned that CalTrans had sanctioned — as a Transportation Art Program project — the building of Chicano Park in San Diego, where murals feature portraits of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, LeBard decided to reclassify his intended memorial as an art project. He called it, “A Tribute to the Protectors of Freedom.”

At first, CalTrans encouraged the idea. But then, perhaps inevitably, it determined that the words “United States” and “E Pluribus Unum” aren’t nearly so benign as the likenesses of communist revolutionaries; that, unlike such likenesses, the name of our country and the motto on our Great Seal — like our flag itself — have no place on our public lands.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-dept-transportation-be-sure-black-out-united-states-and-motto_703014.html?page=1

 

So do you have any actual journalistic evidence of this flagrant violation of the federal government's right to slap its emblems on a state or local public artwork? A right-wing political opinion rag isn't journalism. If they were instead banning depictions of Che Guevara I don't think the Weekly Standard would be up in arms over this. Assuming the contents of the article are accurate. Which they cannot be, given the inherent anti-evidentiary nature of the source.

 

 

Besides, if you want to be the Republic of Texas, who are you to infringe on the rights of another sovereign state? Oh right, conservative. Question answered.

 

Don't expect any mainstream media to cover a story like this, it goes against their narrative. Besides they're too busy being a propaganda organ for the Obama administration. If you have any evidence to the contrary, let's see it. And I'm not infringing on anything, just stating my opinion.

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

@ Hurl No, he's still trying to build it in the same place. The Chicano park is entirely relevant, since it was sanctioned by Caltrans with its images of Castro and Guevara, while they refuse to sanction the name of our own country. I'm afraid calling it just a bureaucratic mess isn't going to cut it, there's obviously a lot more to it than that.

 

@Calax Way to miss the point as usual. The guy was trying to build the memorial for a while now, it had nothing to do with any Chicano park until they wouldn't even let him put up the American flag at his memorial. It's Caltrans who's not following the rules, if you had any reading comprehension.

Yes he was, and I'm saying that the reason CalTrans was saying "No" to various things (although they're obviously getting pettier) was because the guy didn't want to follow the rules.

 

He wanted to have lights for an American flag plugged into another property.

 

 

 

 

Source? That was the closest electrical service to there, probably bringing it in from elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive. And does it say anywhere he was unwilling to compensate them for the cost of electricity? Plus the usage of one light would be miniscule compared to an entire park-and-ride.

 

 

He wanted to be able to put that American flag where he chose (Which he can't, particularly on public land).

He put the flag where the Law said he could. And whined when they wouldn't let him change the sidewalk so it let him do what it wanted.

He wanted to put in the middle of the memorial,  not right by the sidewalk. What law tells you you can't put your country's flag in a memorial, that's insane.

 

 

It wasn't a memorial yet (you're acting like everything is said and done), and thus was governed by the same laws as your jackoff neighbor who wants to run up the flag of the USSR.

And to the Electricity, true, the lightbulbs required might not have cost that much overall to power, but it's still him and his memorial using the energy, not the park-and-ride. And if they allow a precedent to be set, they're SOL when another memorial that's built like a christmas tree shows up and asks to be put on a CalTrans meter.  I mean, would you let your neighbor steal your cable? It's not like it costs you anything in the long run...

 

 

>>

 

He wanted Caltrans to sell him extra land so he could do his initial plan, but refused to pay for an appraisal (basically).

Even when you sell your house, you HAVE TO get an appraisal dude.

Everyone agreed intiailly to sell the very tiny parcel of land that Caltrans didn't have any use for to the county, not to him. It was just a way to try to avoid all the ridiculous bureaucratic requirements. The sale was supposed to be at a nominal fee, your house appraisal doesn't cost $10000 .

 

 

True, but my house isn't directly next to a freeway, and considered public land. To steal from the article

"“In order to sell its property, Caltrans is required to review and approve metes and bounds, draft property descriptions for fair market appraisal, and obtain review and approval by the Right of Way Division, the Environmental Division, the Project Development Division, and Maintenance and Operations Division of Caltrans to ensure that no other public projects require the property and that there are no archaeological or environmental impediments to the relinquishing of the property.

“This process requires extensive public labor and other resources.  A conservative estimate to cover the cost of these resources is $10,000.” "

To get that one process done it had to go through everyone that'd possibly want to use it at CalTrans, then had to be appraised, and then checked to see if anything would be damaged if they did sell it. All of that costs money and time, which they were asking him to pay for.

Hanging the American flag from an overpass (something that's not normally done) is very different than wanting to fly the flag over a veteran's memorial. No one in their right mind can claim it's some kind of a political statement. That's to say nothing about the usual leftist lunacy of the Ninth Court.

They're pretty specific about the flags not being near the state highways. And initially, CalTrans probably didn't care WHAT the land was being used for, all they cared about was that they wouldn't get in legal hot water over it.  For the purposes of the law, it doesn't matter if it's flying over the freeway, or held by a giant statue of Uncle Sam stomping on the enemy of the decade, All that matters to them is that it conforms to zoning laws and ordinances about public displays.

 

 

The Chicano park was built in... wait for it... 19 bloody 70. Before the Brown ruling existed, and when racial tensions were peaking with Chicanos trying to find their racial identity again.

 

Here's the mural they're complaining about

 

Source? When was the mural painted? There is a date of 2005 in your picture.

 

Then why is the park a Transportation Art project? And why did Caltrans have to sanction it? And what better place? He wants to put it by a miltiary base where it'll be visible and accessible to the public. Is a memorial to people who died for their country something to hide and keep off public land? I can't believe we're even having this argument, you guys have been completely brainwashed by the left.

 

 

http://www.chicanoparksandiego.com/history/page2.html

So CalTrans might not even have to do anything on upkeep. And the mural was painted in the 1970's by Chicano's who were expressing their cultural identity.

[Hurlshort]

WoD, this fairly deep into conspiracy theory territory.  I know you are conservative and I appreciate your input on many of these debates we have, but this one seems a bit out of the realm of reason.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

He wanted to put in the middle of the memorial,  not right by the sidewalk. What law tells you you can't put your country's flag in a memorial, that's insane.

It wasn't a memorial yet (you're acting like everything is said and done), and thus was governed by the same laws as your jackoff neighbor who wants to run up the flag of the USSR.

And to the Electricity, true, the lightbulbs required might not have cost that much overall to power, but it's still him and his memorial using the energy, not the park-and-ride. And if they allow a precedent to be set, they're SOL when another memorial that's built like a christmas tree shows up and asks to be put on a CalTrans meter.  I mean, would you let your neighbor steal your cable? It's not like it costs you anything in the long run...

From the article, he got the permission to build the memorial, it's the flag they were refusing to permit. The rules for the American flag are not the same as that of the USSR, it's ridiculous to claim that. And the memorial was for public good, it's not the same as your neighbor stealing cable, plus he wasn't stealing anything, it's a completely phony issue you came up with as Caltran's excuse, and again where does it say he refused to pay for electricity, and what does it have to do with the memorial itself, he was willing to do it without electricity. That was just to point out the pettiness and obstructionism of Caltran's position.

 

 

True, but my house isn't directly next to a freeway, and considered public land. To steal from the article

"“In order to sell its property, Caltrans is required to review and approve metes and bounds, draft property descriptions for fair market appraisal, and obtain review and approval by the Right of Way Division, the Environmental Division, the Project Development Division, and Maintenance and Operations Division of Caltrans to ensure that no other public projects require the property and that there are no archaeological or environmental impediments to the relinquishing of the property.

“This process requires extensive public labor and other resources.  A conservative estimate to cover the cost of these resources is $10,000.” "

To get that one process done it had to go through everyone that'd possibly want to use it at CalTrans, then had to be appraised, and then checked to see if anything would be damaged if they did sell it. All of that costs money and time, which they were asking him to pay for.

It's a sign of an out of control bureaucracy than even transferring a small parcel of land to another governmental body requires so many permits and legalisms. Of course you can always shut down anything by citing endless rules, that's what governments excel at.

 

anging the American flag from an overpass (something that's not normally done) is very different than wanting to fly the flag over a veteran's memorial. No one in their right mind can claim it's some kind of a political statement. That's to say nothing about the usual leftist lunacy of the Ninth Court.

They're pretty specific about the flags not being near the state highways. And initially, CalTrans probably didn't care WHAT the land was being used for, all they cared about was that they wouldn't get in legal hot water over it.  For the purposes of the law, it doesn't matter if it's flying over the freeway, or held by a giant statue of Uncle Sam stomping on the enemy of the decade, All that matters to them is that it conforms to zoning laws and ordinances about public displays.

Again, the if you read the case it was an entirely different situation. Caltran's stupidity in equating the two can't be an excuse. There's nothing in the law which prohibits a flag at a memorial, and to claim otherwise is irrational.

 

 

http://www.chicanoparksandiego.com/history/page2.html

So CalTrans might not even have to do anything on upkeep. And the mural was painted in the 1970's by Chicano's who were expressing their cultural identity.

OK, so the mural was restored in 92 with Caltran's permission. So it's not really fair to compare the situations as the article does in its conclusion. This hasn't nothing to do with memorial builder though since he only used that case as precedent. There's bitter irony here though, Azatlan is OK but United States is not. Edited February 25, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Wrath of Dagon]

WoD, this fairly deep into conspiracy theory territory.  I know you are conservative and I appreciate your input on many of these debates we have, but this one seems a bit out of the realm of reason.

What conspiracy theory? The facts here are clear. Which facts do you disagree with?

[Calax]

From the article, he got the permission to build the memorial, it's the flag they were refusing to permit. The rules for the American flag are not the same as that of the USSR, it's ridiculous to claim that. And the memorial was for public good, it's not the same as your neighbor stealing cable, plus he wasn't stealing anything, it's a completely phony issue you came up with as Caltran's excuse, and again where does it say he refused to pay for electricity, and what does it have to do with the memorial itself, he was willing to do it without electricity. That was just to point out the pettiness and obstructionism of Caltran's position.

Well, that depends. I mean ideally the eyes of the law don't care about the fact that it's an American flag vs a USSR flag. Similarly, a memorial for the "Public Good" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't think that another memorial for the soldiers is going to be "Public Good" in the long run because those suckers are becoming very very very populated over the US. I think that revitalizing other local monuments and historic sites would be better, but to each their own.

 

As to the flag itself, the specific law he's fighting with “The Flag of the United States of America and the Flag of the State of California may be displayed on a sidewalk located in or abutting on a state highway situated within a city…." States that the flag can't be on a little walkway 50 feet away from the highway, and the memorial would just end up creating more of an issue for the public walking than be a "memorial".

 

And you're right, I can't say that CalTrans would have to foot the bill for the power. But then the power that he wanted for his flag pole would still be coming from the CalTrans Park And Ride. And they didn't want to foot have him drawing off their power.

 

It's a sign of an out of control bureaucracy than even transferring a small parcel of land to another governmental body requires so many permits and legalisms. Of course you can always shut down anything by citing endless rules, that's what governments excel at.

 Except that each of those things has a point. If one arm of the government is planning to slam down a water pump on that land, CalTrans can't just up and sell it. That's kinda the point that CalTrans is trying to make, they aren't so monolithic that the same guys selling that parcel of land to the City would know what each different branch of CalTrans would want that particular part for. Have you ever tried to run an organization? Like, at ALL? In my McD's you have to check with three people to make sure you can trade shifts, because each of those people is involved in the hours you work and the shift you work. CalTrans is that taken to a different magnitude of organization. And to say that much less bureaucracy would be magically better is asinine and short sighted.

Again, the if you read the case it was an entirely different situation. Caltran's stupidity in equating the two can't be an excuse. There's nothing in the law which prohibits a flag at a memorial, and to claim otherwise is irrational.

Again, it's not a memorial yet. I don't know what it's classified as, but a hole in the ground is not a memorial. There's nothing in the law that explicitly says that I can't scream "GUN" at an airport. It's stupid to do, but technically I've still got the legal ability to do it. BUT due to legal precedent, I can't and would be jailed for endangering public safety due to the panic and hysteria. This is CalTrans property, and they've been burned for allowing flags to remain up before, so they are trying to play it safe. There's a legal precedent that they cannot display a flag on their highways, particularly as political "speech". And whether you like it or not, a flag and memorial have become a form of political speech becuase of the people that push for them to be some sort of magically untouchable thing. In El Dorado Hills, there was a rock that sat on a hill side that the kids could paint and write little messages on. After 9/11 and the wars started, it got painted with "we support our troops" and the entire thing became a battleground because one camp said it was now sacred and that message should never be taken down as a monument to the troops, while the other side said "No, it's something for the kids to mess around with!". Eventually somebody got a second giant rock and things got even more insane.

 

THAT is why CalTrans is attempting to freeze this issue. Because no matter what they do, some pea brained idiot like you, or the reporter at the standard, will turn the entire situation into a political row if they don't get their way.

 

OK, so the mural was restored in 92 with Caltran's permission. So it's not really fair to compare the situations as the article does in its conclusion. This hasn't nothing to do with memorial builder though since he only used that case as precedent. There's bitter irony here though, Azatlan is OK but United States is not.

There's a vast difference between a restoration, and just building something new. Generally the first requires much less money than the second, particularly in situations like this, and can be used as a community outreach program.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

[BruceVC]

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

Honestly that interview with Piers Morgan was the worst display, from Alex Jones, of childishness and inarticulateness I have ever seen from a person in my life. I would have cringed looking at my behavior if I was him and studied the interview.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

Honestly that interview with Piers Morgan was the worst display, from Alex Jones, of childishness and inarticulateness I have ever seen from a person in my life. I would have cringed looking at my behavior if I was him and studied the interview.

 

I don't think Alex Jones is capable of shame. Or rational thought for that matter.

 

I would be surprised that people actually believe in what he says, but I grew up in Texas(not too far from Ron Paul's district) so I have been exposed to some of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Fear porn addicts that believe in these conspiracy theories. 

[NOK222]

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

Well, I hope my new mexican husband treats me right

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

Honestly that interview with Piers Morgan was the worst display, from Alex Jones, of childishness and inarticulateness I have ever seen from a person in my life. I would have cringed looking at my behavior if I was him and studied the interview.

 

I don't think Alex Jones is capable of shame. Or rational thought for that matter.

 

I would be surprised that people actually believe in what he says, but I grew up in Texas(not too far from Ron Paul's district) so I have been exposed to some of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Fear porn addicts that believe in these conspiracy theories. 

 

Which conspiracy theories? Some conspiracy theories have quite a lot of fact to them. Some conspiracy theories are complete fantasy. Some conspiracy theories are propaganda. Some things that are called conspiracy theories aren't theories at all but 100% based in provable reality, but are called that to convince those that have been brainwashed that all 'conspiracy theories' are fantasy that what is being discussed is somehow a lie when it is anything but.

 

While Alex is a bit off the wall at times, he's also very lucid at others. He, like most other people, is capable of rational thought. Most people don't realize that potential though often and let others do the thinking for them. I'm no great fan of the guy but I'd say Alex thinks quite a bit more (not always rationally, but not near as often irrationally as you accuse) than your average Joe.

 

Ron Paul supporters and someone who listens to an agrees with Alex Jones are not one and the same. Of course there's crossover. There's crossover with just about everything. But the crossover between Ron Paul and Alex Jones fans is the exception and not the norm. A lot of Alex fans may support Ron Paul, but the reverse isn't as true.

 

Saying a Ron Paul supporter is a fear pron addict or that's what Ron peddles is a gross misinterpretation of about everything the guy's ever talked about. Alex on the other hand does occasionally engage in 'fear pron', but no more so than your average politician. The type of fear mongering that Alex engages in however, generally is a bit closer to reality than the type of fear mongering most politicians will engage in.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

Well, I hope my new mexican husband treats me right

 

 

I'm afraid you will be marrying a "Kanadian". His name is Volorun. Have fun.

[Volourn]

No. Go troll someone else you piece of crap. I marry noone. EVAR.

[kirottu]

No. Go troll someone else you piece of crap. I marry noone. EVAR.

My hopes and dreams... Crushed.

[NOK222]

You know you're gay for me

[Meshugger]

^av/post