[Vision2020] Vision2020 Digest, Vol 16, Issue 4

Mon Oct 1 17:11:07 PDT 2007

Kai,  That is AWESOME!  I'm particularly fond of the sound my 383 stroker made when fired up un-corked.  I'm sure a few neighbors could have lived without those short bursts,too.

Now I definately want to come check out the drag bike, jam some Metal guitar with Garrett, get my (2) 15's installed in my trunk (always turned down when entering my own neighborhood-don't want to advertise!) and blast out some 50 caliber rounds through a Desert Eagle.  

All noise is someone else's art or passion, there's always a way to compromise and live harmoniously when folks are willing to work together and see eachother's viewpoint.Don   > From: vision2020-request at moscow.com> Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 16, Issue 4> To: vision2020 at moscow.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:07:28 -0700> > Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to> vision2020 at moscow.com> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> vision2020-request at moscow.com> > You can reach the person managing the list at> vision2020-owner at moscow.com> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: Oppose Proposed Noise Ordinance Modifications> (Kai Eiselein, editor)> 2. Re: Are you enabling extremism? (lfalen)> 3. Oppose Proposed Noise Ordinance Modifications (Garrett Clevenger)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:09:22 -0700> From: "Kai Eiselein, editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Oppose Proposed Noise Ordinance> Modifications> To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>,> <vision2020 at moscow.com>> Message-ID: <45B1714AC44C41EC8CB5F67D14511F66 at KaiPC>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Sorry Garrett, but a dozen drunken kids standing outside and screaming at the top of their lungs at 3 a.m. in a residential neighborhood is a bit beyond a "free speech" issue.> I called the police several times on my college student neighbors and they weren't ticketed because I didn't have to call back within the timeframe required, 48 hours. They have since moved, a young family has moved in and things have been peaceful since.> While living in Spokane, we had a new neighbor move in next door, including their 16 year old son. Soon, we had all sorts of cars rolling down the block with their boom-boom stereos cranked up.> When I asked the kids' father to tell his son and his sons' friends to turn down the volume, I got the "They are kids being kids" answer.> The police wouldn't do anything, despite repeated complaints from many of us on the block.> I finally had had enough and went around to all of my neighbors to tell them what I was going to do. They all agreed with my plan.> One summer Sunday morning, about 5:30 a.m., I rolled my dragbike out of the shop and moved onto my lawn about 25 feet away from my neighbors' open bedroom window.> Then I lit 'er up: Unmuffled motorcycle exhaust at 9,000 to 10,000 rpm makes a LOT of noise.> The dad came screaming out of his house, wanting to know what the hell I was doing.> "Racers will be racers, just getting ready to head to the track".> We never had another problem, the kids turned down their steroes before they got on our block. I even got to know some of them and, on occasion, would fix their cars when they broke down.> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Garrett Clevenger > To: vision2020 at moscow.com > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:53 PM> Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Proposed Noise Ordinance Modifications> > > Moscow's City Council is currently considering modifying Moscow's Noise Ordinance to allow police officers to issue citations without warning and without civilian complaint. The justification is because there is an increase in noise complaints and police should be able to ticket people immediately to bring harmony to the community.> There is a City Council meeting tonight, Oct 1 at 7 pm to discuss it.> > Being a college town, we should expect a bit of noise. But if you are bothered, you can call the police and they will intervene. The noisy people are given a warning and if not heeded, are ticketed.> The proposal seems too extreme for our college town. It skirts too close to our constitutional rights of free speech and right to assembly and is a distraction to police work.> It seems unnecessary to grant the police this power and responsibility. Do we really want them to be spending their time trying to find noisy citizens? Isn't it adequate that they intervene when neighbors complain? If there has been a rise in complaints, shouldn't that be enough work for the police? Why would they want to increase their workload actively finding violators? Isn't there a better way to address repeat offenders than passing such a sweeping law?> History is full of examples of police states gone bad. The recent incident of 5 police officers tackling and tasering a college student at a John Kerry speech highlights the fine line between respect for authority and distrust of giving specific people such power.> There is a reason our progressive Constitution has guaranteed citizens certain rights and limits the power of the State. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be have consistently been chipping away at those rights, giving more power to the state.> > The job of the City Council is to protect and defend the constitution and the well being of citizens. Admittedly, that is a fine line.> As a cynic, I am skeptical of laws that effectively reduce the responsibilities of citizens. Currently, it is up to neighbors to notify police when others in the neighborhood are disturbing the peace. With the proposed modifications, people will begin to believe the responsibility lies with law enforcement. This is not a way to build community. It is a slow progression of giving away our power to police our community and giving it to those who, frankly, have more important things to deal with.> The proposed amendment also takes away the warning noisy people now receive before being issued a citation. This, too, seems extreme. Many people don't know they are disturbing the peace and thus deserve a warning before being fined for something they didn't know was a problem.> I play in a band and we practice at my house. None of my neighbors have complained. My next door neighbor has said we should open the window when we play. I try to be considerate so wouldn't do that, but at the same time, I don't want to feel intimidated by the police when I am not disturbing the neighborhood if for some reason we play louder than the police desire. Psychologically, this repression of freedom of expression inherent in this proposed modification damages the principle of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. This proposal is un-American.> My cousin is a police officer in Boise. He thought the proposal was extreme and potentially ripe for abuse. He worked in Long Beach, CA when a similar law was passed and said it was overturned when police began abusing it.> I have no reason to believe our current police force will abuse the changes made, but laws aren't about any particular person. There may come a day when this added police power has corrupted those responsible for overseeing it.> I don't find it hard to image a similar scenario to this: > Joe Moscow has unpopular political beliefs. The powers-that-be are looking for ways to harass him. Joe is out mowing his lawn, violating the noise ordinance. Unlucky Joe, not disturbing his neighbors, now faces a fine or jail time simply because he was targeted.> How are the police going to enforce such an open-ended law? Are they going to enforce it evenly, or are they going to be selective and discriminating? Are they going to target certain neighborhoods or people, or are we all going to be subject to police intrusion for making a little bit of noise?> I hope our elected officials see that this proposal is about more than some noisy college students. It is about the principle that makes up our nation and community. Do we want laws that uphold the Constitution and individual rights, or are we, law by law, slipping into the realm of the police state? > As educated people, I hope we have learned from history and won't let fear of the noisy neighbor affect our good sense. Please contact our City Council members or attend the City Council meeting and ask them to vote against this proposal. > > Thank you,> > Garrett Clevenger> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > =======================================================> List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071001/0bcf1c0c/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:02:15 -0700> From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?> To: "Kai Eiselein, editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>, "Andreas Schou"> <ophite at gmail.com>, "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>> Cc: Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>> Message-ID: <e8d7a6bfb0d08175c118fe36d0c1315d at turbonet.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"> > Good statement. Dawkins make some good points, but is too extreme. Let every one believe what thet will as long as no harm is done to anyone.> Roger> -----Original message-----> From: "Kai Eiselein, editor" editor at lataheagle.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:13:22 -0700> To: "Andreas Schou" ophite at gmail.com, "Paul Rumelhart" godshatter at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?> > > I think Dawkins is focusing his energy on just one point rather than looking > > at human nature as a whole.> > Whenever dogma, be it religious or political, is taken to the extreme, it is > > a dangerous thing.> > There are polical groups on both the left and right that are willing to > > kill, yet have no religious motivation. Most notably on the left are > > extremist environmental groups that engage in eco-terrorism. Using Dawkins > > line of reasoning, anyone who is environmentaly friendly could be seen as > > supportive of eco-terrorism.> > Any belief, taken too far, can result in fanatical zealots willing to kill > > anyone opposed to their viewpoint.> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>> > To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>> > Cc: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>> > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:13 PM> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?> > > > > > >> So by treating faith as if it was a good ideal, it enables extremists to> > >> use it for almost any purpose they care to name. So, are you enabling> > >> extremism?> > >> > > In terms of what I actually believe to be objectively true, I'm more> > > in line with Dawkins than I am, for instance, with Keely. However, in> > > terms of what I believe to be *correct*, in terms of ethics, I'm far> > > more in line with Keely than I am with Dawkins.> > >> > > Dawkins doesn't believe he has to prove that reasonable ethics are> > > better than unreasonable ethics. That may seem like a flip> > > observation, but I've seen no indication that it's better to construct> > > your ethical system based on reasonable, rather than unreasonable> > > principles. Either way, most people seem to get to roughly the same> > > answers.> > >> > > If ethics were a function of reason, rather than some deeper, more> > > automatic function of the human mind, then one would expect that a> > > greater capacity for reason would correlate strongly with a greater> > > capacity for ethical behavior. I haven't ever seen that to be the> > > case.> > >> > > -- ACS> > >> > > =======================================================> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.> > > http://www.fsr.net> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> > > =======================================================> > > > > > > =======================================================> > List services made available by First Step Internet, > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > > http://www.fsr.net > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> > =======================================================> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:07:29 -0700 (PDT)> From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>> Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Proposed Noise Ordinance Modifications> To: vision2020 at moscow.com> Message-ID: <990434.26839.qm at web84102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Kai,> > If the police aren't responding when you call to complain, then it doesn't seem like they have time to patrol for such violators on their own. This proposal won't solve that problem, unless they plan to hire more police for that purpose!> > There are inconsiderate neighbors out there that may not understand your frustrations. I'm glad taking the law into your hands worked for your neighbor situation. If you do that in Moscow if this law passes, you better hope the police don't cite you on the spot!> > If people are making noise on public property, that is a different question. Police should keep the peace in public.> > Remember, we live in a college town... > > I'd rather hear the occasional party scream then gunshots again.> > Take care,> > Garrett> > > Sorry Garrett, but a dozen drunken kids standing outside and screaming at the top of their lungs at 3 a.m. in a residential neighborhood is a bit beyond a "free speech" issue.> > I called the police several times on my college student neighbors and they weren't ticketed because I didn't have to call back within the timeframe required, 48 hours. They have since moved, a young family has moved in and things have been peaceful since.> > While living in Spokane, we had a new neighbor move in next door, including their 16 year old son. Soon, we had all sorts of cars rolling down the block with their boom-boom stereos cranked up.> > When I asked the kids' father to tell his son and his sons' friends to turn down the volume, I got the "They are kids being kids" answer.> > The police wouldn't do anything, despite repeated complaints from many of us on the block.> > I finally had had enough and went around to all of my neighbors to tell them what I was going to do. They all agreed with my plan.> > One summer Sunday morning, about 5:30 a.m., I rolled my dragbike out of the shop and moved onto my lawn about 25 feet away from my neighbors' open bedroom window.> > Then I lit 'er up: Unmuffled motorcycle exhaust at 9,000 to 10,000 rpm makes a LOT of noise.> > The dad came screaming out of his house, wanting to know what the hell I was doing.> > "Racers will be racers, just getting ready to head to the track".> > We never had another problem, the kids turned down their steroes before they got on our block. I even got to know some of them and, on occasion, would fix their cars when they broke down.> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Garrett Clevenger > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:53 PM> > Subject: [Vision2020] Oppose Proposed Noise Ordinance Modifications> > > Moscow?s City Council is currently considering modifying Moscow?s Noise Ordinance to allow police officers to issue citations without warning and without civilian complaint. The justification is because there is an increase in noise complaints and police should be able to ticket people immediately to bring harmony to the community.> > Being a college town, we should expect a bit of noise. But if you are bothered, you can call the police and they will intervene. The noisy people are given a warning and if not heeded, are ticketed.> > The proposal seems too extreme for our college town. It skirts too close to our constitutional rights of free speech and right to assembly and is a distraction to police work.> > It seems unnecessary to grant the police this power and responsibility. Do we really want them to be spending their time trying to find noisy citizens? Isn?t it adequate that they intervene when neighbors complain? If there has been a rise in complaints, shouldn?t that be enough work for the police? Why would they want to increase their workload actively finding violators? Isn?t there a better way to address repeat offenders than passing such a sweeping law?> > History is full of examples of police states gone bad. The recent incident of 5 police officers tackling and tasering a college student at a John Kerry speech highlights the fine line between respect for authority and distrust of giving specific people such power.> > There is a reason our progressive Constitution has guaranteed citizens certain rights and limits the power of the State. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be have consistently been chipping away at those rights, giving more power to the state.> > The job of the City Council is to protect and defend the constitution and the well being of citizens. Admittedly, that is a fine line.> > As a cynic, I am skeptical of laws that effectively reduce the responsibilities of citizens. Currently, it is up to neighbors to notify police when others in the neighborhood are disturbing the peace. With the proposed modifications, people will begin to believe the responsibility lies with law enforcement. This is not a way to build community. It is a slow progression of giving away our power to police our community and giving it to those who, frankly, have more important things to deal with.> > The proposed amendment also takes away the warning noisy people now receive before being issued a citation. This, too, seems extreme. Many people don?t know they are disturbing the peace and thus deserve a warning before being fined for something they didn?t know was a problem.> > I play in a band and we practice at my house. None of my neighbors have complained. My next door neighbor has said we should open the window when we play. I try to be considerate so wouldn?t do that, but at the same time, I don?t want to feel intimidated by the police when I am not disturbing the neighborhood if for some reason we play louder than the police desire. Psychologically, this repression of freedom of expression inherent in this proposed modification damages the principle of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. This proposal is un-American.> > My cousin is a police officer in Boise. He thought the proposal was extreme and potentially ripe for abuse. He worked in Long Beach, CA when a similar law was passed and said it was overturned when police began abusing it.> > I have no reason to believe our current police force will abuse the changes made, but laws aren?t about any particular person. There may come a day when this added police power has corrupted those responsible for overseeing it.> > I don?t find it hard to image a similar scenario to this: > > Joe Moscow has unpopular political beliefs. The powers-that-be are looking for ways to harass him. Joe is out mowing his lawn, violating the noise ordinance. Unlucky Joe, not disturbing his neighbors, now faces a fine or jail time simply because he was targeted.> > How are the police going to enforce such an open-ended law? Are they going to enforce it evenly, or are they going to be selective and discriminating? Are they going to target certain neighborhoods or people, or are we all going to be subject to police intrusion for making a little bit of noise?> > I hope our elected officials see that this proposal is about more than some noisy college students. It is about the principle that makes up our nation and community. Do we want laws that uphold the Constitution and individual rights, or are we, law by law, slipping into the realm of the police state? > > As educated people, I hope we have learned from history and won?t let fear of the noisy neighbor affect our good sense. Please contact our City Council members or attend the City Council meeting and ask them to vote against this proposal. > > > > > -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071001/6c5f0e56/attachment.html > > ------------------------------> > =======================================================> List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================> > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 16, Issue 4> *****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071001/8355f8aa/attachment-0001.html 