Putin for Mayor

(click to enlarge)

And in Closing ...

Since evil prevails when good people wait for others to act, no one of conscience abandons a struggle when the cause is just.

Solving the Parking Crisis

Why not limit who can attend the council spectacles to those who actually influence the perennially present governance? And since those are special interest groups, they can be readily represented by a few people that can effortlessly park in the city-only parking spaces.

For example, the realtors’ association would send one flipper, the restaurant association would send some “restaurateur”, MICA their usual suspect, the syndicate would send their predictable characters (two for these folks since they are ultra-special), the Marriott, Hyatt and QE each get their one rep, the lawyers representing “clients” with matters in front of the council naturally get in, Chamber of Commerce members actually get valet parking and the enforcers must attend (you know, these seemingly imaginary people that vandalize the property of those who disagree with the council and are never identified by the localized policia) just in case some regular citizen walks over, sneaks in and has the temerity to disagree publicly.

The rest of us brave enough can simply watch on the cable channel and yell at the TV as catharsis – with the same results as if we were speaking to the council in person.

And besides, you must do you part by not driving in order to save the earth from the global warming caused by the plethora of mid-sized American cars made in Mexico and the whale-sized “flex fuel” SUVs that are nothing more than Panzer tanks running on the ethanol that requires nearly twice as much energy to produce as it takes to produce an equivalent amount of gasoline and does far more serious damage to the atmosphere notwithstanding that third-world countries are suffering from the dearth of food being diverted to manufacturing the sham biofuel and therefore enabling the owners of these “environmentally friendly” Madison Avenue abominations to feel good about themselves, for after all it is about them, as they careen down the roads at 100MPH while ranting on their new cell phones about the stupid moron that volunteers his time to coach their spoiled progeny while making their customary and obligatory visit to the confectionery and pay $12 for a super-sized organic recycled paper cup filled with the low-calorie triple-lard cinnamon-almond artificially flavored latte with shaved chocolate sprinkled on top of the foamed cream that is just below the bulbous lid that supports the straw with the girth of a garden hose.

This approach will avoid yet another confrontation with yet another alienated citizen that made the mistake of offering/giving/attempting to help THIS “community”. And we can all save the earth.

Top 12 Reasons the Incumbency Won By a Landslide

10. Hydrogen Sulfide poisoning is known to create dementia hence the 2/3 majority though they were actually voting for the "other" people.

9. The FBI rigged the election because they had been so entertained with the stream of fantastically comical complaints that they did not want the circus to change and hence be deprived of the amusement.

8. The FDEP rigged the election for fear that a real new council would actually have them indicted for sanctioning the historically catastrophic pollution that occurred on Marco Island.

7. The saturation of misaligned and unnecessarily costly street lights on Collier Blvd. caused a form of blindness that destroys the ability to read ballots correctly.

6. Given the dearth of "newspapers" anywhere near Marco Island, the majority read in whatever they had lying around the house that they were actually voting for Bill Clinton, Spiro Agnew, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon.

5. The Syndicate was so effective at intimidating a "newspaper" into having two reporters fired for reporting the truth that they (the syndicate) accomplished the same maneuver ... on the Collier County Board of Elections.

4. Why change? The real estate economy was in great shape, the tourist traps were booming, one "special" food place had more seating capacity than allowed by law, the city was awash in cash, the asbestos dump not a mile from a school was no big deal and the Marriott was happy.

3. To get rid of those pestilent 3,500 "other" people who are nothing but obnoxious obstructionists for not wanting yet another failing vacuous South Florida community.

2. Because of the guy who dictated the zany campaign for the slate of losing candidates ... what was his name?

1. The Syndicate.

0. Because the losing slate's seemingly sole mantra of "STOP STRP" was interpreted by the citizenry to mean "STOP Sending The Republicans Prayers" and with 90% registered Republicans on the island ... what a blunder.

-1. The mob rant of "Shoot Them" at a Klan-like rally was taken seriously, hence many people voted for the "right" slate ... just in case.

Sustainable development': Freedom's foe

By Henry Lamb

Add the word "sustainable" to almost any project, and immediately the project becomes politically correct and therefore acceptable. The surge of "sustainability" or "sustainable development" in recent years is phenomenal. Americans have been awed by the sales pitch and have bought into the idea of "sustainable development" – without looking under the hood to examine the engine. Nor have Americans realized that "sustainable development" is a self-directing vehicle that is transforming a once-free society into "sustainable communities" where nearly every human activity requires the permission of government.

The principle of private property rights is an early victim. Private property rights cannot exist in a sustainable community. In a sustainable community, a property owner's rights are limited to whatever government decides is appropriate.

Freedom rests upon the principle of private property ownership. Ownership of property is the right to use the property and to exclude others from it. When the right to use one's property is restricted or diminished by government, so then is the owner's freedom diminished.

The concept of private property is incompatible with the concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development is, by definition, a function of government that uses the force of law to balance resource use (the environment) with economic development to achieve social equity.


Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution require government to balance resource use or economic development to achieve social equity. This idea arises from a socialist philosophy that dominates the United Nations, which spawned the concept of sustainable development. As early as 1976, the U.S. government signed a U.N. document that declared:

Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice;

A-1. Redistribute population in accord with available resources;

D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources;

D-2. Control land use through zoning and land-use planning;

D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government;

D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform;

D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights, which should be held by a public authority.

This document was signed on behalf of the U.S. by Carla A. Hills, then secretary of housing and urban development, and William K. Reilly, then head of the Conservation Fund, who later became the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

These land-use control ideas found their way into the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, "Our Common Future," which first defined the term "sustainable development." The meaning of sustainable development here defined was codified in another U.N. document called "Agenda 21," which was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. This document recommended that every nation create a national sustainable development initiative.

President Clinton eagerly followed this recommendation with the creation – by Executive Order – of the President's Council on Sustainable Development. This group of Cabinet-level appointees and heads of major environmental organizations quickly translated "Agenda 21" into "Sustainable America: A New Consensus." This document "Americanized" "Agenda 21" and set forth hundreds of policy recommendations to bring the nation into compliance with what the international community defined as "sustainable." Most of these policies have been implemented administratively. In fact, Congress has never debated, nor approved, either of these documents.

In communities across the nation, individuals are discovering that their property rights have evaporated. Government now routinely dictates such things as how tall grass may be allowed to grow, what color houses may be painted, where they may – and may not – be located, and what kind of landscape vegetation may be planted. And this is just the beginning of sustainable development.

The more people learn about sustainable development, the more they realize that it is a tidal wave washing away their freedom.

Boycott

This great experiment called America affords all people two venues by which to effect change.

One method is through the democratic voting process. The problem here is that the majority rules, and often times the majority is wrong. This assertion has been proven repeatedly, at times to the great detriment of society as a whole. So in this method, the will of the some is forced on the will of others. There are winners and there are losers.

The other method is through the market voting process. You buy what you want, irrespective of what the majority wants. Hence you vote by choosing where to spend your money. Interestingly, in this system you can also vote by choosing where not to spend your money. Here everyone is a winner.

There are quite a number of residents that voted in the election to stop unbridled commercialization running amok over the island. We lost.

But now we can vote in the marketplace to thwart that very same special interest avalanche.

What would happen if the year-round residents stopped patronizing local businesses? You know, mostly the same interests that want unrestrained growth, that were instrumental through their political tentacles in throwing the non-commercial residents under the proverbial bus through suffocating taxation and picking up the tab for unneeded infrastructure projects and their consequences? Maybe we missed it, but did ANY business say NO to the STRP, or NO to the raiding of the massive reserves, or NO to those blustering lights or NO to having the residents pick up the tab for asbestos cleanup or NO to … ? Well?

With practically zero effort, limit on-island purchases to health care (except for the defrauding practitioner noted on this blog), to Publix/Walgreens and the two gas stations. Businesses that are anti-syndicate can claim so publicly (that would be a first), and therefore immune from the boycott. For everything else, go off island … heck, there is a super Walmart 5 minutes from the Jolley Bridge, there is KGB pizza 5 minutes further up (really run by former KGB operatives) and a bodega with near-Miami quality/price/tasting pan con bistec, and many more interesting and palatable non-turista enterprises.

Would this boycott work? Of course – if only it were to be carried out by more than one person. Follow the money to ascertain how such an action would bring forth the needed market pressures and thereby effect political change.

Will this boycott work? Of course not, simply because it will take more than one person boycotting for there to be any effect. Recent history has shown that it is just easier to complain, or accept defeat, or find doing something (in this case doing nothing) inconvenient, or leaving it up to someone else to do something.

So let’s end this sanguine idea with a true story. For years a resident had been patronizing a local business. Every week this good citizen spent approximately $20 entirely on discretionary goods. After all, it was the community thing to do. During the “heat” of the election – as if there was every any doubt as to the outcome, right? – very polite discussions ensued between the now boycotter and the now boycotted. “But the sewer is unneeded, it’s costly even well beyond the estimates, and will do more harm to the environment!” decried the former. “But the sewer program is good for business, and that is what counts because what is good for business is good for America!” replied the latter. So it went for weeks until the landslide. The boycotter stopped going to the establishment but did return one day to cash in some gift certificates. “Hey, haven’t seen you around for a long time” complained the boycotted, going on to ask “What’s wrong?” “Can’t afford to come here anymore, I have to start saving for that $25,000 charge coming soon thanks to you and your colleagues” retorted the boycotter. And with his usual elitism, the boycotted replied, “Don’t worry, your property value will go up!”

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" dear old Dr. Einstein was fond of repeating.

Perhaps a boycott would curtail the infinite so as to prevent STRP II (toll on bridge), STRP III (creating a fire district not subjected to the cap as foretold pre-election by the loosing side and poo-pooed pre-election by the winners) and STRP IV (underground power lines).

If anyone needs anything from Walmart send an email.