Another local paper (Tom Barnridge) ran an impromptu survey. 700 responses--92% opposed. Reasons included the tracking device, of course. Others raised questions about people from out of state using our roads, whether it was fair for a smaller/lighter car to pay the same as a bigger/heavier car, and do people who volunteer (like meals on wheels or moms/dads driving for field trips) also have to pay. Then there were the questions raised about the number of employees the state would need to hire to track us all.

Best line of the article: "If there's one thing Americans love, it's having the government climb insider their pockets each morning and follow their every move."

My questions are whether simply reporting your mileage each year is sufficient (like at a smog test) and whether the gasoline taxes and other tolls would be eliminated (why would we pay the gas taxes, for the tolls, and a mileage fee?)?

Clear violation of the 4th amendment if it were to ever be enacted.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm guessing that businesses would have to have these taxing GPS devices in their vehicles too. Can you imagine? If I owned a business, I would be so fed up at this point that I would re-locate and seek my living some place else. I think it's time for the people of this state to start voting current legislators out of office and to start over (with just about anyone else - how could it be worse than it is now?). And we should all join in a push to disband the MTA and re-create another agency with none of the same people in it.

This won't fly this time around, but the same elitist bureaucrats will continue to bring up invasive and expensive plans like this until enough liberal fools vote for it. All this because we're doing what they wanted in the first place---driving less and using less fuel, therefore paying less gas taxes. The same result when we were asked to conserve water...then, the jacked the rates up.
P.G. & E. will be next.....

Barnridge's article cited that 8% were in favor (hard to imagine) ...maybe those are the folks who can't afford Priuses, but still feel guilty they are personally incinerating the planet....LOL. Suckers born daily here......

Well, if this is'nt Big BROTHER I dont know what is. Staceleen -- the troll who uses one or another of these names -- is worried about goverment tracking citizens. She's so right. The goverment tracks airplanes in the sky, witch has always bothered me to no end. And goverment has security cameras in goverment buldings, witch allways gets me itching like a dog with fleas. Now they want to put a GPS tracking device in every body's car. Just wait. The liberal deseased do-gooders will claim this will help detect the thousands of kidnappers of children each year. So what??? What does that have to do with freedom? I love kids, but I don't want to have to pay to protect some body elses' children. Thats soooooo 1984. If kids get kidnapped its there parent's fault.

Give me liberty, and give me other people's kids being kidnapped. And like Staceleen says. The cost!!! I care about kids too but not so much that I'm going to throw my money at them.

Roads are supported by a user fee on gallons of gas purchased. When people buy less gas, like Prius and other hybrid and electric vehicle owners, they are paying a lot less in tax yet they produce the same amount of wear and tear on the roads. This proposal sounds like a way to capture the lost tax revenue.

How about taxing mileage only on the hybrid and electric vehicles? Or dump the tax on gas and convert everything to electronic toll roads. No more "freeways".

Beware readers that you can expect a great deal of overlap between Stacy's and Kathleen Reugsinegger's posts. They are one in the same person. Which adds up to troll. She tells you she's concerned about children, but if a child obstructs her ability to save a dime, the dime comes first.

Notice that all these taxes begin with "fixing potholes". But when the fine print comes out, very little is used for street repair. The vast majority is used to fund public transportation, i.e. fund the nation's second highest paid salaries of transit workers.

Also notice that all these new taxes have built in safeguards so that the money is spent wisely. Except when did accountability or fiscal responsibly ever stop a government official in using taxpayers' money to fund pork barrel projects.

Also do you ever see a spend as you go clause? No, because the politicians go after the really big money, the 30 and 40 year bonds that they can buy using the tax as collateral. If our school district can do this on a small scale, just think what a government body could do collecting taxes from the whole bay area.

Its interesting that this idea came about at the same time the legislature passed the High Speed Rail bond initiative. The bay area needs to spend 650 million dollars to build a tunnel that will connect the Caltrain terminus with the Trans Bay Terminal, which will allow the HSR to arrive in downtown San Francisco. What other way can they raise this kind of money. Coincidental...I don't think so.

Always take anything you read on the Internet with a grain of salt.

bsdetector, while you seem to think you are the anti-troll troll, I doubt your accusations will accomplish what you are aiming for---to silence postings you don't agree with or to publicly mock posters personally. Your tactics are right out of the moveon.org playbook.
You are no better than a deviant stalker....can you say 'restraining order'?

Dear Liberalism is a Disease,

Very wise post, Sir. What Detector SHOULD have resorted to was to call Staceleen a nonflattering name -- e.g., deviant stalker -- and then imply that she is doing something illegal that deserves a legal remedy -- e.g., 'restraining order'. Maybe THAT would have shut them up which apparently you believe was the gist of Detector's post. Everyone has a disease, obviously, except yourself. I am very impressed.

My interpretation, viz., that Staceleen is in the grip of an ideology that always favors personal tax savings over children's health or well being, was obviously highly flawed.

BTW, are you also Staceleen?

Oh, you got me there, leland. Us registered users make a habit of posting as others, behind a wall of anonimity.
But, then I'm sure if that were really occurring, the PW coud track my IP address and delete any duplicitous postings, right?

So, what was your point again? That somehow the VMT being proposed is linked to childrens health and well being? Was this part of the original topic or just another hit piece on a specific poster in an attempt to silence them?

Only my detractors could ever interpret the idea that taxing hybrid and electric vehicles by mileage or converting all freeways to toll roads is favoring personal tax savings over children's health or well being. Hate on, detractors.

Trolls steven and Detector, BUT I never said I was against this kind of tax. The tracking, yes. Followed by questions about just how many taxes does it take to drive a vehicle in California for the same purpose . . . . pick one, make it equitable (big cars, little cars; volunteers; etc.), and trust people to report annually--just like income tax.

How about instead of focusing on "lost revenue" we reduce expenses by eliminating the MTC? If you think you will be immune from this tax then you are blissfully unaware that everything in your house at some point was on a truck. For those of us who don't have government pensions or guaranteed wage increases the extra $1,000 - $1,500 per year will sting.

Lets get rid of the MTC all together as it overlaps other oversight committees and only acts as a beureucratic black hole.

"the PW coud track my IP address and delete any duplicitous postings, right?"

Wrong. That isn't true. It is an easy matter to hide a single poster behind multiple IP addresses.

I'm not saying that is what they are doing; I don't think they are. It is simply wrong to claim that IP addresses prove anything of this sort.

I wont comment on the obsessive parenoia that is so uniformally present in Staceleen/liberalismisdesease posts. Nor will I mention how owning multiple computers or use of computers at liberaries or fed-exes come into play.

The point is that this Big Brother goverment wants to track our movements, just like they do on airlines and with security cameras. The thought of how the good this might create -- tracking thousands of child kidnappers -- must NOT be allowed to interfere with adults' freedom to drive anywhere they want to without anyone knowing about it. We adults have way too much to hide. And the kids? Well, heck, kidnapping occurs. Where's there parents? Liberty for all! Except for kids, who, face it, don't count. Staceleen, I trust I've summed up you position nicely. Peace to you and my other sisters in struggle against the tirannical state.

steven, please explain how you would track an unknown vehicle. We could put government monitored cameras inside our homes . . . someone might break in and rob or hurt us. Heck, let's just chip everyone at birth.

Staceleen,
You really dont have to pretend you are dumb. Fact is, there are many different justifications for govt entering your private domicile. Most of them make sense. You'll have to step outside of your rightwing blogsphere "Every home is a man's castle" syndrome and think about this. Might be difficult for you.

Chipping everyone? Oh boy, that's a good one! Ha-Ha. Nobody would want that, right? Irrespective of how many lives it might save. Right? Because that's soooo Big Brother.

Fact is, the technology is available and many parents are now chipping their children. I would have absolutely no problem with the state mandating that all children be chipped. Upon reaching 18 there'd be an option to have the chip removed. I think mandatory chipping of children would save many, many children's lives. Of course, I care about children. You've established time and again that you don't. You're too immersed in a pathetic rightwing fantasy dystopian vision of the state to show genuine human concern for kids; and I think faced with choice between saving someone else's child's life with saving yourself a few tax dollars, you opt for the latter every time. Just call me liberal and diseased.

"We adults have way too much to hide". Speak for yourself, steven. Personally, I wouldn't let my kids anywhere near you.
Your dillusional attacks on the right wing ignores the fact that they are the ones protecting children, promoting family values and trying to stop the left wings murder of unborn children. You have no more concern for children than you do for the economy or your neighbors.

And you are, liberal and diseased.

Yes, OF COURSE you care about children, steven. You care about children only as much as they can forward your agenda. Yep, we ALL see it. From your misanthropic message about the Ruby Hill child who fell down the cliff to your mockery of public pension abuse on the mother-daughter murder-suicide thread; look at how much you care about children!

Drivers with a FasTrak device are already tracked. The data is anonymized and used to report traffic conditions. Building a new system by requiring GPS devices attached to vehicles is kind of dumb when there's an existing system already used in places.

Interesting mantra steven--save us from ourselves. How did we ever get out of the ooze to here without all this oversight for our personal safety?

Justifications to enter my home, sure. 24/7/365 surveillance, no.

Try as you might, I said I'm not against this tax or the parcel tax . . . I do, however, have expectations for how any tax is administered and used.

Stacey, FasTrak is optional. It's coverage is only in certain areas, so while it may know I crossed a bridge, it doesn't know where I am after that or how and when I go back home. Much different than this proposal.

Left gasping without a substantive response, Staceleen resorts to frantic name-calling and hurling wildly irrational accusations at someone who she's unable to match intellectually.

Notice, her reference to FasTrak and mandatory gps device doesn't reference children at all -- only how some minimal replication AND ITS COST is "dumb." Good thinking, Staceleen!

Ah, ideologies are not abandoned easily by those who cling to them!

Kathleen,

Actually your FasTrak device knows more about your location than just the bridge you crossed. Read the fine print. Also, electronic toll systems are only "optional" when you don't need to pay to use. You can't cross that bridge without paying (carpools excluded).

Why would Stacey, liberalism is a disease, or I dumb down to your intellectual level steven?

I'll submit mileage--even go to a smog-type station to have it verified. Just don't also need to pay tolls and gas taxes. One fee, whatever it is deemed to be, is sufficient.

Yes, how have we managed to get to this oppressive, over-regulated state? And how many lives have been saved or improved along the way?

Staceleen has expressed several times her objections to the new tracking device as Big Brother like. Now she's backing away after she's been shown the idiocy of her position.

24/7/365 home surveillance? Didn't know anyone was forwarding that as a real possibility. I guess Staceleen felt compelled to raise stuff from the fantasy world to avoid speaking to the actual proposals on the table.

All said, it's fun watching Staceleen pretending to talk to herself. Or is she pretending? Hope she knows the difference. An inability to differentiate child safety seats or gps tracking devices from 24/7 govt surveillance of households suggests she may NOT know the difference.

My my you are interesting. Keep adding something new--car seats.

No change in my position--think the tax could be a good idea; no to the tracking. Your logic, if followed, would lead to 24/7/365 to keep us safe everywhere, because, of course, that's what the government does best.

Here's something for you to ponder: "Only seven states fare worse than California when it comes to education. Three-quarters of the state's fourth-grade students are not proficient in reading, and 75 percent of eighth-graders are not proficient in math. On average, 68 percent of U.S. fourth-graders are not proficient in reading and 66 percent are not proficient in math." From the SF Chronicle article regarding the Annie E. Casey Foundation report.

Seems the state has other things it should be paying attention to.

Kathleen,

I think toll collection is a reasonable alternative to gas taxes as a means to capture user-based fees for maintaining roads. Not only is it an idea already implemented in other places, it also avoids the privacy intrusion issue because toll is collected at a single pre-planned point, unlike a GPS device which can record any path. For the purpose of collecting a per-mile tax, there's no reason to need to know the path a vehicle takes. The GPS idea sounds more like someone got starry-eyed with a technology and is looking for a problem it solves rather than finding a solution that fits the problem.

But you do bring up another idea, which is to require a fee based on an odometer reading. The drawback I can see with that is a huge bill in a single shot rather than small amounts collected over time.

Kathleen,

BTW, here's info on the FasTrak tags being used for traffic condition reporting: Web Link

Kathleen,

Oh, I get it about the reference to car seats now. It was just pointed out to me that there's another thread about car seat law that got locked. Hehe, I didn't read that thread... What a goof steven is.

Staceleen says: "Your logic, if followed, would lead to 24/7/365 to keep us safe everywhere, because, of course, that's what the government does best." Yes, that's like saying eating an apple will lead to obesity; because, you see, it's a slippery slope as the libertarian goof ideologues like to tell us. And car safety belts, or car tracking devices, put us on a slope to govt surveillance of homes 24/7/365. Anyone else have a sense that Staceleen has no sense of reality? She's like a 14 year-old infatuated Atlas Shrugged.

Then Staceleen states: "Here's something for you to ponder: 'Only seven states fare worse than California when it comes to education. Three-quarters of the state's fourth-grade students are not proficient in reading, and 75 percent of eighth-graders are not proficient in math. On average, 68 percent of U.S. fourth-graders are not proficient in reading and 66 percent are not proficient in math.' From the SF Chronicle article regarding the Annie E. Casey Foundation report."

Naturally she omits mention of how California's money spent per pupil ranks at 49th lowest in the nation. Relevance? No, but she needs to provide some sort of link as substitute for an inability to reason through an issue. Oh, and yes, she really CARES about education. Sorry, all she CARES about is promoting her fictional idol John Galt.

As far as the schizophrenic chatting back and forth between Staceleen and Staceleen, we can assure you that it isn't convincing to anyone (with the exception of the wise and mentally stable one, "Liberalism is a disease.") All it demonstrates is that Staceleen owns two computers. Hurrah!

steven, dear, just call the editor. Save you thousands of words.

This proposed tax isn't going to save schools in California. And you neglect to mention how the cost of education has escalated with no difference in achievement. Web Link

Darn, I missed posting at the same time as Kathleen.

Kathleen,

Even if steven called the PW to verify, there's no reason to believe steven will admit to being wrong and apologize to us. Let that person continue being a goof.

Hey Nurse Shark, this looks fun. Can I get in on the conversation?

Why sure, Nurse Shark! Let's play the talking-to-yourself game, too!

P.S. I LOVE how Staceleen is always ready to volunteer for hypothetical taxes she'll never have to pay and hypothetical systems she would support. As long as it's other people's tax money, that is. Like education:

"Oh, woe!" says Staceleen, "Our children need more education funding! I'll gladly support a parcel tax on only one condition: that I'm given supreme dictatorial power over how it's spent. What? No one will go for that? Too bad, I really wanted to pay my share to help out schools. For reals. Honestly I did... Oh well, I won't let that stop me from claiming to care about education!"

Really, that's what you do, Staceleen? Call and bother the editor to assuage your ego deficiencies?

Staceleen shifts from new taxes and state tracking of autos to education. Beyond what Ayn Rand might say in her novels, all Staceleen has is links, accusations, and mud on the wall.

Quick, Staceleen, call PW editors! Your ego has been threatened by a superior argument! Putting gps systems in cars is soooo Big Brother! Therefore, I support education. I really, really do!

I said you should call the editor, steven. I already know who I am (and who I am not).

As you will recall, NonSense, what I said was I would pay a parcel tax with specific language for the priorities chosen by current parents So, again, be that CSR or ten counselors or Barton reading for the life of the first tax (because it will never go away)--let's say that's four years. Then after four years, when yes, they will re-up for for more years and a higher amount, priorities can be reassessed by the majority of the then current parents. And repeat.

Still no to a Government Prying System in my car.

What argument, steven? You mean like the one where you successfully argue in favor of using the GPS technology over, say, FasTrak? Yea? Where is that one? Forgot to hit the "Submit" button?

...Better yet, disband the MTC and ABAG, two useless agencies formed that do nothing but devour taxpayer money.

Okay, just to sum up Stacey/Lib is Disease/Kathleen Reugsinugger/Staceleen's position.

She ("they" -- hehe) refuses to dumb down. Absolutely refuse, I tell you.

Their primary concern is Big Brother. First overpaid cops think they can stop you for speeding and ask for your driver's license, next they'll have camera monitors set up in your bedrooms. Second, public utilities think they can track our gas and electricity and water usage; do you not realize what a ruse that is? It's just another step to coming into our bedrooms, 24/7. Third, these Amber Alerts: Doesn't everyone realize these are just govt dress rehearsals for when they install GPS devices in our cars for purposes of seeing whether we drive to Raley's or Lucky's? Fourth, all these Big Brother, oppressive, torturous practices, are meant to restrict our personal responsibilities. Without gas co checking our meters, we'd do better simply formulating estimates of our own usage and sending in what we think is fair. Without Amber Alerts, we'd have a freer society and cops could "earn" their overinflated salaries the old fashioned way, by themselves without tyrannizing a public with useless Interstate flashing signs that violate people's privacy.

As far as Staceleen and Liberalism is a Disease being the same person, please, Madam, you protest too much!

Down with Big Brother!

Didn't comment about cops. Actually like the Smart Meters. Amber Alerts do not equate to getting a GPS in your car for tax purposes. There still are a few places left where you read your own meters and mail it in--the utility checks once a year.

Willing to pay the tax without a GPS.

Going to have to improve your summation skills.

Tim Hunt, the illuminous opinion writer for the PW, has jumped aboard the BIG BROTHER band wagon charge with Staceleen/Lib is a disease against new state gps tracking devices.

You see, the real world is soooooo like Ayn Rand fictionalizes it. In fact, Ayn Rand's books are more about reality than reality itself. Why should MY individualism be threatened because someone else's kid needs tax money to pay for some disease or something?

And, yes, the real world is sooooo like George Orwell's 1984. (No, we won't mention that Orwell himself was a socialist of the democratic stripe.) You see, all of us have to worry about memory erasing devices of the state and how it will round you up for speaking against the state and hitch your face to a rat cage.

A la Tim Hunt and Staceleen Disease Reugsinugger, we need to fight against gps tracking devices in cars, and we need to fight against tracking devices of cell phones. Heck, what an imposition on our freedom! What possible benefit have we gained by having cell phones like that?

Want an example of a huge ego that is also an extremely weak ego? Look at how some posters insist on using their own full names on this site, and then watch them construct sentences without explicit use of pronominals that deal with self: Not "I disagree with your proposal." Rather, "Disagree with your proposal." Look back on recent posts. It's very, very funny. Hence the frantic need for identity affirmation. A weak ego needs the affirmation. A weak ego that is big at the same time, really really needs the affirmation.

I can turn off the tracking on my cell phone--making it optional/a choice (discussion about triangulation can be separate).

Regular readers know I started using my full name for a specific purpose during the first attempt at a parcel tax. There has been no reason to stop the practice--as if no one would know who I am if I changed it to just Kathleen.

If you are comfortable with being tracked everywhere you go, by all means, sign up for it.

steven,

If Kathleen has such a weak ego, and you continuously point that out in order to put her down rather than provide any actual arguments on the merits of a per-mile tax using GPS, what does that make you?

Hey Nurse Shark, are we still playing the talk-to-yourself game?

Sure, Nurse Shark, why not? Staceleen's keeping it alive.

Yeah, Nurse Shark, I can see why people think she's the same person.

Agreed, they're like two halves of the same wit.

Do tell how it is other people (yes, they really are other people) can be like minded on a few topics and that makes us one person, but Nurse Shark, fake steve(n), et al can be lemmings to whatever drumbeat you hear on every imaginable topic (even when it is off topic) and that's acceptable, even laudable, in your mind(s).

It's not the tax necessarily, it's the tracking that is a problem.

I see lots of pluses, and I'm sorry to have offended you Staceleen. But why deflect to your alter ego when I clearly was addresing you?

I like the gps idea. People get lost in their cars -- go into snowbanks and such. Govt could find them. People steal cars. Govt could track them. People kidnap kids. Govt could track many of them. GPS tax might likely encourage less driving -- e.g., more carpooling and general use of public transportation. I see these as good things. Less pollution. Better for environment. Less wear and tear on infrastructure; less traffic; less congestion; less road rage.

Downside, as pointed out by Staceleen. If we let govt track our cars like they do airplanes and ships, electricity, water, and gas consumption, next Big Brother will be in our bedrooms 24/7/365, yanking out our fingernails, depriving us of toothpaste, and putting rat cages over our faces. (We saw this with mandatory seat-belts and motorcyle helmets. Immediately after these heinously oppressive impositions, the state then began demanding that everyone have a govt camera in every room of their houses. There was no stopping things at that point. And then the state insisted on mandatory child safety seats, instead of parents letting them make their decisions to use or not on their own. Where will it stop? I ask you?)

It'd a hard choice, admittedly. I guess I'm more concerned with saved lives than I am concerned with Democrats putting rat cages over my face.

Well, I suppose if I had a GPS tracking system, you might find out I left right before Stacey's response (no I didn't go somewhere else to turn into Stacey).

You are mixing up your comparatives to try and make a point. "Winning!" They track flights/ships, not the individuals on board (and while that is discoverable, it is not routine.) Electricity and gas consumption are utilities and one is paying for, well, consumption. I'm pretty sure the government generally doesn't have access to that information without good reason (suspected of growing pot). One generally accepts a "contract" to receive water from Zone 7, for example. You could opt out if you had another source.

They say you need to say something three times for some people to understand. A question was posed asking why not have cameras in the home 24/7/365 so we can be "safe" all the time. Maybe the government could even deliver toothpaste (and everything we need) when we get dangerously close to gingivitis. We wouldn't ever have to worry about being responsible for ourselves and families.

Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and child safety seats do not need to be mandatory. Yes, it's a risk to not have them, but your rights stop in the vicinity of the next person's head, and if it isn't wearing a helmet (you might want to consider moving your safety campaign to Illinois, a blue state with no helmet law), so be it. Personally, I choose to buy all the safety gear available, lane drifting noisemakers, back up and surround vision cameras--it's likely providing a false sense of security, but they are available to me, and I choose to have them.

Rights of individuals trump your rights to tell other individuals what they must do. Sad that you have forgotten it.

Notice the hysterical leaps from reality to fantasy. Last time I looked, the GPS was being proposed to track mileage (priority one) and then, quite secondarily, for nonroutine needs, e.g., track specific autos to find them, say, in snowdrifts in Nevada. But Staceleen intimates that its use will be to track where and when she drives. Quite an imagination; and rather self-centered, as well.

Staceleen says individuals can opt out of specific Water District plans. Doesn't realize that people can opt to take public transportation rather than drive private autos. If people are so crazy paranoid as Staceleen gives evidence of being, maybe they shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Staceleen is against mandatory safety seats for children because, gosh, it's a violation of individual rights. She'd rather have infants making the choice on their own. Or she'd rather have their drugged out or alcoholed out or Ayn Randed out bad parents make the choices for their kids. Because, see, the rights of parents to endanger their kids trumps the kids' right to have a govt working to protect them. Smoking too! Gosh darn it, if I want to smoke a couple of cigars in my closed car with my infant strapped in the back seat, well, as Ayn Rand would say, it's my right!

Regarding Staceleen's concern about govt cams entering her home and exposing her wall of varied computers, each with its specific i.d. number: For what purpose would govt install home detection cams in every room? What would be gained? Yet this is Staceleen's conspiratorial fantasy. She doesn't give two hoots about endangered kids who are at the mercy of their bad parents, but instead wants to fantasize how child safety seats are on a par with home detection cams.

So here we have the nut case again who has stepped outside of her world of links and proceeds with a rigid, formulaic, ideology that has her frantic that mandatory child safety seats will lead us down the steep and slippery slope to govt cams in her home.

Careful everyone! First it's taxes. Then it's mandatory child safety seats. Then it's gps tracking devices. Next it will be Big Brother and rat cages over your faces.

I don't want a government tracking device on my vehicle. You may go right ahead and participate. See, choice, very simple.

Kathleen,

So what if steven/Nurse Shark thinks we're the same person? I find it hilarious. "Staceleen" sounds like one of those made-up mixed names Americans are so fond of naming their kids with. There's nothing to prove. If readers want to believe the claim by some anonymous poster who doesn't want to verify their own identity that we're the same person, that's the readers' problem.

steven,

Clearly you know nothing about air traffic control and draw false analogies between the road network and aviation. Hell, you don't even realize that the US air traffic system is not using GPS flight following system-wide. What will you fictionalize next?!

I think car seat laws are great, but I really do have to laugh at this: "Because, see, the rights of parents to endanger their kids trumps the kids' right to have a govt working to protect them."

That's the same kind of thinking that sent Native American kids to boarding schools where they learned to be ashamed of their languages and cultures.

Let's summarize:

So clingy is Staceleen's embrace of 'personal freedom' that she puts herself in opposition to things like govt gps tracking of autos, mandatory seat belts, and govt mandated child safety car seats. Well, she IS consistent. Like any narrowminded dolt who can't think for themselves, she grasps onto an ideology to think for her, no matter how inhumane, no matter how contrary to common sense and independent judgment, the ideology commands her 'thought'.

The ideology of Staceleen's choice, found in the writings of the fictional horror writer Ayn Rand, allows her to care for HER kids and not give two hoots about the kids of others. Her ideology demands her to opt for 'her personal freedom' over any child's or any thousands of children's general welfare. That, my friends, is a horror show of the worst sort.

We see the rigid defense of Republican positions and policies on the part of the mental midgets who so often twist anything into a criticism of Democrats: Romney, for example, doesn't need to reveal his tax returns because Obama hasn't revealed his law school transcripts, or his birth certificate, or his record of pot purchases when in high school. Here, however, with Staceleen, it goes beyond this. She doesn't want any govt imposition in HER life, even if the imposition saves thousands and thousands of lives. Because, you see, mandated child welfare seats are SOOOOOO oppressive for all of us freedom lovers. This is when embrace of an ideology becomes Staceleen's sickness.

Pushed to defend her sickness, she falls back on I AM KATHLEEN REUSGENUGGER and if you want to improve your child's chances of survival in event of car crash, go ahead; and if parents don't want to so improve their child's chances, well, heck, that's just fine,too. Which is to say: "I don't care about other people's kids, but only me and mine."

And there it is. Little Staceleen, weak ego personified, who needs to cling to an ideology in order to support her own infantile need for what she terms personal freedom. Oh, yeah, and exhausted of ideas, because her ideology only gives her a position to take, and actually disapproves of independent thinking, she tosses out some nonsense about Native Americans. Wow, that's trenchant! No, actually, I'm being sarcastic. What it is is pure narcissistic, small-minded, selfishness, aided and abetted by a pernicious ideology.

So, next time you're in the countryside and you see some yokel parent careening down a dirt road in his pickup with his kids jumping up and down in the back of the truck, be like Staceleen: Give that parent a thumbs-up for exercising their freedom to risk their kids' lives for the sake of opposing govt regulation.

PS We're talking about the same Staceleen who cares soooooo deeply about your child's education. Yeah, right.

steven, before I read and respond to all the blather about who I am, you may want to pay attention to what is happening all around you. In fact, let's just have you start with Sacramento. Web Link State parks, loops $54 million . . . other special funds, $2.3 billion. I can tell you who doesn't care about children, the government (unless it is about legislating your/their behavior).

I don't really care who you are Staceleen. Only a big ego that is simulaneously weak and in need of identity affirmation would reduce this discussion to your ego needs. I only care about what you have WRITTEN. I have responded to it.

My response is instructive, I think, because it reveals your inability -- along with many of your brethren on the right, such as Ayn Rand and Rand Paul -- to THINK through an issue with an independence of judgment and thought. No, instead, you and those of your ilk resort to ideology, expressed as mechanical, reactive platitudes, in defense of your own selfishness.

You now have been reduced to what you do best. Avoiding having to actually think through an issue or your position on it, instead opting for your old standby -- the link to a newspaper article.

I recommend you take a closer look at our sitting president. I disagree with him on several issues, but I very much respect his ability to think independently and judge independently -- what he refers to as his own pragmatism. Our governor isn't in the same class, but he too shows an ability to think on his feet without falling back upon hachneyed platitutes that take one into absurdist platitudes as you have offered above.

Your right wing has no one comparable to offer. Rigid, ideological platitudes are what you and yours currently personify. That is why a very large majority of generally rational people in America cannot support you.

Gosh, I'll have to go back and read your most recent post. Here is the response to the previous blather.

Let's get real (paragraph by paragraph):

This one is too easy, “Like any narrow minded dolt who can’t think for themselves” . . . I already said I buy every safety feature, including all the ones NOT mandated. I, therefore, can think for myself. I also said I would pay the tax by reporting my mileage (with a few caveats about gas taxes and tolls—multiple taxes for the same purpose).

About Ayn Rand, sorry to spoil your day, but I have not personally read her books. I do care about the welfare of all children, of course. You can’t make an argument against me if you believe it, so you choose not to. In fact, as an example, I have donated car seats—yes, many—for other people’s children. I didn’t say, “You MUST take this or else.” Those people, it turns out, wanted them for their child’s safety, not because it was the law.

Not sure where you are going with the Republican/Democrat thing. I vote on issues and for the person who most closely represents me on a given issue of importance. I am not what was once called a “one-armed voter” (used to be you could pull a lever and vote for all one party in one stroke—a Chicago thing at least). True, I do want the government out of my life (and anyone else’s) on many topics—a bedroom, for one. There are many areas where the government has a role—military defense would be one (we can debate individual wars if you like).

Wow, here you are going to throw out a hip with the stretch you are making. I would be more polite and use education (imagine that!). You know, like, say, the anti-smoking campaign. “Here is your kid’s brain in a car seat in a crash; here is your kid’s brain with a car seat.” You see, I don’t automatically assume people are too stupid to think for themselves.

See two paragraphs up—same answer on ideology. Stacey mentioned Native Americans. I know, it’s difficult for you to grasp; we are, in fact, two different people.

And then there you go . . . a judgment about people in the countryside being yokels. That’s showing your true colors.

Yes, yes, Staceleen is bright enough to put her own child in a safety car seat. Congratulations to her! And she gives away safety car seats til it hurts, she really does. Wow! But the question is: What about the children whose parents choose NOT to strap them in? There are (were, until govt mandated safety seats) many out there who show wanton disregard for their children's lives and well being.

Your answer has been clear enough: You care more about allowing parents to endanger their kids' lives than about govt acting to save those kids' lives. Your answer is ridiculous; it is inhumane. But your ideology does not permit common sense or humanistic concern. This is what makes you such a goose. And a dangerous one at that who presumes to know what is best educationally for our children. Please, do stay away!

Maybe you should read Ayn Rand. You're birds of a feather. Or, if you want to read a sophisticated account of classical liberal thought -- what you call libertarianism as you twist yourself into supporting the ridiculous -- take a good look at John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'. Hint: he provides philosophical justification for being AGAINST govt mandated seatbelts and FOR govt mandated child safety seats. But, of course, he requires active, nonideological thought in order to get to that nuanced position.

Mill, though highly flawed, is so refreshing compared to the Big Brother hysteria that you and Lib is a disease and the yokel Steve and the ambitiously shallow Tim Hunt want to resort to as surrogate for actual, active thinking. Ah, but Mill demands so much more from his readers; and readers who already have their ideological imprimateurs stamped upon their own 'thought' processes will only get frustrated and toss the book down.

steven, really, give a girl a chance to catch up. To your previous post:

Again, all the judgment. “Your ilk; your inability; mechanical, reactive platitudes, in defense of your own selfishness; hackneyed platitudes that take one to absurdist platitudes; rigid, ideological platitudes” You are “instructive,” and I have the ego. Embarrassing for you, really.

Your “thinking” isn’t an ideology?

I have given plenty of thought to the issue. We disagree. You make it personal. The link was pertinent to _fill in the blank government agency_ needing more taxes (like the topic of this thread) rather than, hmmmmm, thinking (or checking their budgets).

We did not, as a nation, get to vote on seatbelt laws or car seat mandates. Maybe “generally rational people in America” would have chosen to legislate the increase in the cost of automobiles for the safety of all. Maybe, given the choice, people would have opted to do it on their own anyway. Thank goodness, right?, that in the end the government made the decision and we didn’t have to think about it.

steven, enough of the war on women posters. It's become obvious that your battles with Stacy and Kathleen are less about issues and standing for one's principles, but for you, more about attacking the women directly who are defending their positions. This is the very thing your dem allies blame anyone to the right of Anthony Weiner of doing. Your persecution of women is nothing more than a public display of your insecurity and declining masculinity. You fit right in with your dem allies in the bay area---a true metrosexual.

steven, “Wanton disregard”—judgment again. Any chance those families couldn’t afford them? Maybe, rather than a mandate, we could have found a way to make them available for some small or no fee to those who wanted them and didn’t have the money. Nope, let’s mandate them and see those less fortunate struggle to get them. That’s thoughtful, I’m sure.

Where did I say I know what is best "educationally" for your children?

“You’re birds of a feather,” “what you call libertarianism as you twist yourself into supporting the ridiculous” “hysteria” “yokel” “ambitiously shallow”—more judgment. Familiar with Mill—interesting that you use him and then call him highly flawed (is that more judgment or shall we list that under non-ideological thought?).

I think you are missing the point . . . there is no hysteria. I said I was willing to pay the tax (have I said that three times now?) without a tracking device. It’s entirely possible, so why is it necessary?

Thanks for your intelligent comments, Lib. Psychological testing is right down the hall for you. Remedial reading to the left.

Staceleen can't by her own admission recognize the difference between ideology and critical thinking. It's all the same to her! She hasn't read Mill, of course; for if she had she'd feel compelled to re-evaluate her own straightjacketed views. Rather, she claims 'familiarity' (what a goose!) based upon a quick turn to wikipedia. (And she wonders why so many posters refuse to seriously entertain her "views"?!)

She's unable to grasp how an independent thinker might use his/her reason to critically unpack a philosopher's dense arguments. Nope, because her own thinking is so ideologically straightjacketed, she's unable to recognize her OWN pinched view of things and why she continues to take positions reasonable persons would recognize is laughable, if not dangerous. This is ideology's triumph over independent, critical thinking: The ideologue -- here Staceleen -- is unable to even appreciate being in its restrictive prison.

You have expressed your opposition to govt mandated child safety seats. Because YOU don't need to be mandated (yeah, I bet) OTHERS shouldn't have to be mandated either. So, I ask: What about all those bad parents out there who, without government regulation, would forego child safety seats because (1) they'd rather spend their money on video games (2) they're too drunk to care (3) they're simply bad parents or (4) their hell-bent libertarians, like Staceleen, who believe risking their children's lives is far more valuable than putting them in safety seats because the govt has mandated such. Staceleen obviously wants to live in a society where these sorts of parents are permitted to play Russian roulette with their kids' lives. She's blind to how her ideology encourages her to do the same thing when she argues against parcel taxes to help teachers and children. Her ideological "principle" of selfishness is too exacting for her to give it up for anything like, say, improved education within our community. What a gas, eh?

So, again, what about all the bad parents who are subjecting their children to needless danger? Staceleen offers no response. What she does offer is a lament that some poor people can't afford safety car seats. (I bet she'd be against govt welfare programs to give free safety seats to poor families -- not with HER money.) So, in the end, what response does Staceleen give? Screw the kids! HER right to not be regulated is far more important than thousands of kids dying because of parental stupidity or carelessness.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Staceleen gives us her crude ideology. Consistent as it is; narrow and insistent against thinking outside the box; idiotic and dangerous in its applications. Right wing 'intellectualism', at its 'best' and at its most transparent. She and Lib is a Disease can commiserate at the next Tea Party rally.

Paragraph by paragraph:

Personal attack.

Ditto. Have the book. Who are the “so many posters,” steven?

We have: “unable to grasp, straightjacketed, pinched views, laughable, dangerous, unable to even appreciate, restrictive prison” . . . interlaced with political pyscho-babble to defer from the topic.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Skip to hypothetical questions rather than address the one about mandates for families that cannot afford for you to save them (let ‘em eat ramen!). Can’t speak for Stacey on child restraints (yes, we are two different people). Conversely, steven will spare no expense to save you from yourself, particularly and importantly because s/he knows what’s best for the rest.

I was happy to help teachers and children with a parcel tax (continue to privately do so every year since the first parcel tax failed); even served on the committee for the second attempt (like talking in a wind tunnel, sadly). Let _current parents_ determine the priority(ies) (CSR; Xnumber of counselors, Barton reading, merit pay, four-years off the salary schedule teacher bonuses, whatever); put those exact programs/positions in the language for the parcel tax; I’ll stand at the farmer’s market to support it. And in four years (assumptive length of the parcel tax), go through the process of determining again whether priorities have changed prior to a renewal/increase attempt (because they never go away). You’re sucking gas here steven.

I have answered you, and we established that I did give my money (and the welfare programs also are supported with my money). Let’s again take this one step further. Many teenagers die in needless accidents because they are teenagers—despite seat belts even (where are their parents?)!; despite all the kids who have already died or nearly died on Foothill Road; despite driver’s ed; despite programs like Every 15 Minutes. So let’s close Foothill Rd. to teenagers (maybe freeways too); or we can put devices on cars that won’t let them drive over 35 (and track them and charge them 10 cents a mile for usage, plus tolls, plus gas taxes); or we can give serious consideration to not giving them driver’s licenses at all until they are 21 (oh wait, then they can drink . . . ). After all, kids are dying out there and need us to intervene. We may need to do this for the elderly as well.

Never been to a Tea Party rally, and in this instance, I can’t speak for Lib either (because Kathleen plus Stacey plus Lib = three different people--still).

"I was happy to help teachers and children with a parcel tax (continue to privately do so every year since the first parcel tax failed)"

Wow. That's a stunningly shameless distortion. I've got to give you credit, you sound like you've convinced yourself this is true.

I don't think any teacher believes you were on that committee for any reason other than to sabotage it (and your anti-parcel tax posts right here at the time confirmed it), and no child has been helped by your "support" of the parcel taxes.

Staceleen calls my distinction between ideology and critical thought psychobabble. More evidence that she's so wound up in her own little ideological bubble that she can't even recognize the difference. Chalk this up under: Staceleen is poorly educated.

She's familiar with Mill. After all, she OWNS the book, and that's more important than reading it at the aarrrggghhh PUBLIC library!

Staceleen continues to repeat the platitude: steven's trying to save us from ourselves. So wound up in her own selfish little world, she's unable to grasp that steven wants to save KIDS WHO CAN'T FEND FOR THEMSELVES from bad parents. Staceleen won't go there. If she concedes some kids need govt'l help on account of bad, child-endangering parental practices, then her whole little ideological house of cards will topple. The world is about ME, STACELEEN. Don't ask HER to redefine the world in terms of someone else's kids!

Here, she says, I'll give you some silly, unrealistic examples to chew on because I don't have anything more to say about my lack of concern for other people's kids and how other people's kids are mistreated. Close down Foothill? That's her conclusion? You see, she really is incapable of thinking beyond her little ideological tracks. (Whew! Why am I bothering with this? This is like talking to the scrambled eggs guy who calls himself Liberalism is a Disease.)

I am quite happy to have a govt'l program that offers impoverished families an allowance for safety car seats. But, more to the point, Staceleen couldn't care less whether kids would die at a higher rate without safety seats than with them. "Hey kids," she says "Go ahead and die!" Staceleen would rather see more kids die than have govt impose mandatory child safety seats. Nice. But that's what ideology does to the small minded among us. By gosh, God Bless America. Oh, and she doesn't attend Tea Parties. Whoopeedoo! (Because they serve wrong kind of corn dogs? Who knows? Who cares? She owns J.S. Mill's 'On Liberty'.)

steven, aren't you missing a meeting of the he-man woman haters club?
Time to hike up your skirt and quit playing with the girls. I think you're annoying them.

NonSense, I was invited to participate. I'm realistic enough to understand that it was likely because I opposed the first parcel tax. I spoke my piece, they listened, and I lost the battle. No harm. Despite what you wish to profess as true, at least one classroom (and sometimes more) has benefitted each year.

I understand the distinction. Just not getting wrapped up in your rants.

You have a problem with public libraries? I sure don’t. You stated I used Wiki; hurts to know I didn’t, eh?

Yes, you are trying to legislate everyone’s behavior to save children you deem as having crummy parents. You believe there is no alternative to legislation for all. I don’t agree.

How many teens have been harmed on Foothill? Despite serious harm and many deaths, this isn’t something you need to correct? So your thinking is selective. Little kids must be saved so then, what, they can die in a crash as a teenager?

What I said is it didn’t need to be legislated. How about education and a fund to help those who are unable to purchase something they would likely desire based on the facts. You could set it up at hospitals as moms are taking home their newborns. Nah, let’s make it the law of the land.

Yeah, gave up corn dogs. Tea party doesn’t appeal to me; extremes of any party don’t appeal to me, left or right.

Staceleen calls my distinction between critical thinking and her own ideological thinking as "psychobabble." Then she retreats and says she understands the "psychobabble" but chooses not to address it. Because she can't, being the ideologue that she is. In fact, she doesn't have a clue.

Fact is, her rigid and exacting ideology has no place in it for children. The ideology is premissed on independent individuals; but children, of course, are not independent but _dependent_ on others. Their dependence often results in abuse, bad diets, few educational resources, lack of stimulation in the home, lack of good role models, and the list goes on. Staceleen hates these children; for her ideology doesn't know what to do with them. Her ideology either defines them out of existence -- hey, it's the parents' responsibility or, Staceleen's view, hey, kids die. What do you want to do?????? Shut down Foothill Ave for cripesakes?????? Because her ideology doesn't permit her to actually think about the needs of children, she's unable to arrive at other possible solutions: Reducing the speed limit; putting additional speed traps in place; safety guard rails; additional (yes, mandated) safety features on autos. Oh no!!!!! These are sooooo Big Brother!!!! For, she states, kids should be free to speed and kill themselves if they want to!!!!!! They are independent individuals just like SHE is!!!!! But they aren't.

Neither are kids who are in need of car safety seats. Staceleen thinks a law that mandates good and bad parents alike to safely strap their kids in is an imposition on Staceleen's freedom. First child safety seats, next comes Big Brother. Such is the dystopian fantasy view of the world her ideology demands of her. And it is really the crux of the matter. Kids need help. That's why the govt has produced a number of mandates, ranging from skateboard helmets, safety kid seats in autos, school until the age of 16. "Oh my GAWD, when will these Big Brother impositions ever stop?" Staceleen shrieks.

Her rigidified, fantastic, anti-thinking ideology is fatally flawed. Her views about what is best for children are all channelled through the filter of: What is best for Staceleen? It is, ultimately, an ideology of hatred, and I think Staceleen's comments are indicative enough to any intelligent reader that she's out of touch with the needs of children. Read her above remarks. A bundle of confused thought. How anyone would trust her to have any real input on community educational needs is beyond me.

A final note. Her phoney, transparent posturing on a written text by Mill that she obviously hasn't read points once again to her weak ego, her need for affirmation from others even if she must lie about it. She's not fooling anyone. Not a pretty picture, at all.

Nuts. I really hoped you had tired of this or had pulled a muscle with all your fantastical twists to make points about things you have no way of knowing yet continue to assert.

I have offered alternatives to over legislation and you say I want kids to die. Leap. I suggested better language for a parcel tax and you say I hate teachers and students. Leap. I said there is no need for a GPS to collect this tax and you say I'm afraid of big brother. Leap.
And then you croak out paragraphs full of personal attacks.

Hmmmm. Leap. Leap. Leap. Croak. Must be a toad.

Unable to muster up a substantive response, Staceleen brags about her inability to understand what is being said, and then illustrates her ignorance by spelling out how she misunderstands each point. Hard to have a serious discussion when an other's ego needs prevent her ability to comprehend the most basic of claims.

Her ideology is fatally flawed. This has been demonstrated with precision. All Staceleen is left with is face-saving dissembling of points and wailing the victim's role for being 'personally attacked'. Yes, anytime I or anyone else shows the paucity of her views, she plays the victim card; or this ____ isn't your real name card; or what you've written is toooooo long, too many paragraphs (sometimes even counting another's words); or you're the 'fake steve'; or calling another 'gollum'; or, "You're a toad"; "I'll get back to you later." All strategic retreats meant to mask the obvious: Seriously flawed reasoning, wrapped in rigidified ideology and a very large, weak ego. Isn't fooling anyone at this point.

Expect her to soon go running to the editor for help. Shut down this site! It's making me, the great Staceleen, look bad! These arguments that show how ridiculous my views are are MAKING ME LOOK RIDICULOUS!!! Ergo: it's a personal attack!!!!

I've stated my position clearly on this topic. You have diverted it. I don't ask for topics to be shut down steven. Why do you even believe I have that kind of power? Must be that I'm somehow a threat to you.

It's not about you, Staceleen, despite what you may think. You can deny and play dumb all you want to. Anyone who reads the exchange will draw their own conclusions. I'm pretty confident they'll see the critical failing in your child-hating ideology. Rather than attempt to protect your appearances, maybe you should re-read the exchange and attempt to learn something from it.

BTW, in case you actually want to read J.S. Mill, you don't have to own a copy. PDF versions are widely available on the web, at no charge. Google J.S.Mill 'On Liberty' and you'll be amazed. Happy reading.

steven, the "exchange" . . . I post that I would support the tax without the tracking device and you launch into "child-hating." You cite Mill and point out he is flawed; there is no need to comment.

Interesting that I'm accused of using Wiki but would need your help on where to pick up Mill. Thanks again for being "instructive," but you know I don't need to google it.

Mileage can be attained without a tracking device. Safety gear can be the norm without legislation and without hating kids and with help for those who can't afford it and without calling them yokels.

And people can agree to disagree on an issue. You wish to legislate based on your personal expectations for the rest of us. I do not.

steven, My initial post (not including the Barnridge article reference): "My questions are whether simply reporting your mileage each year is sufficient (like at a smog test) and whether the gasoline taxes and other tolls would be eliminated (why would we pay the gas taxes, for the tolls, and a mileage fee?)?"

Your first response: "Well, if this is'nt Big BROTHER I dont know what is. Staceleen -- the troll who uses one or another of these names -- is worried about goverment tracking citizens. She's so right. The goverment tracks airplanes in the sky, witch has always bothered me to no end. And goverment has security cameras in goverment buldings, witch allways gets me itching like a dog with fleas. Now they want to put a GPS tracking device in every body's car. Just wait. The liberal deseased do-gooders will claim this will help detect the thousands of kidnappers of children each year. So what??? What does that have to do with freedom? I love kids, but I don't want to have to pay to protect some body elses' children. Thats soooooo 1984. If kids get kidnapped its there parent's fault.

"Give me liberty, and give me other people's kids being kidnapped. And like Staceleen says. The cost!!! I care about kids too but not so much that I'm going to throw my money at them."

It's obvious who went off the deep end.

"Thanks again for being "instructive," but you know I don't need to google it."
Of course Steve knows that. We ALL know you're too smart and well-informed by hearsay to look things up. Oh, and by the way, Steve? Those quotes around "instructive" indicate that she's being sarcastic. I don't think she really means it. They're also a subtle reminder that it is Staceleen who is supposed to be the "instructive" one here.

"...and without calling them yokels"
Ouch! Take that, Steve! Why is Staceleen the only one here who understands that calling people yokels is inappropriate, but that calling people gollums or trolls is perfectly justified, so long as you're right. Which she is. At all times. As David St. Hubbins once said, it's a really fine line between stupid and clever.

I apologize for adopting a serious tone with Staceleen. In moving from Sarcastic Steve to Serious Steve, I've once again overestimated Staceleen's ability to carry on an intellectual exchange. In keeping with the intellectual maturity of my interlocutor, I should simply do in Rome as the Romans do, viz., trot out a link or two while prissing myself up as something more than I really am.

I do trust that any curious reader will read the exchange. It shows that Staceleen cares not about the health and well-being of kids when helping them out provokes her paranoia about Big Brother exposing all the different computers she has hooked up in her bedroom. You see, at the end of the day, her paranoia is soooooo much more important than kids' health and safety.

Okay, you've got me now. I am just going to have to admit It is impossible for the self-professed, well-read, intellectual(s) to get their posts to square with reality.

And there we have it. One poster clearly and methodically demonstrates the fatal flaws of a pernicious ideology, and the ideologue professes to have learned nothing and, predictably, falls back on the empty platitudes of her ideology. Govt keep your hands off my seatbelts! Govt keep your hands off of my child car safety seats! It's better that people AND KIDS(!!!) die free than have Big Brother placing onerous mandates upon parents. And what about the kids, you ask? Staceleen says, let 'em die. It's the slippery slope of Big Brother: first he insists on child safety car seats; next he'll try to shut down Foothill Avenue; and, finally, he'll place rat cages over our faces. America! Live free and let our children die! Ridiculous? Yes. Pernicious, yes.

According to steven, we must not be allowed to think or act for ourselves--well except for a few who know better than we what must be done (at our own expense to be sure) and we are certainly are not educable. We will not choose to do what is best for us and our children; we will not choose to help others. And we are to agree that anyone who attempts to think/act for themselves is a killer.

This topic, by the way, is about tracking devices in cars to collect a tax. steven wants to divert the discussion from the obvious--that the mileage information can be reported in other ways not requiring the device. And certainly steven wants to avoid that some agree this tax places the burden on those using the roads. And steven doesn't seem to care how those who can barely afford their cars will likely face making choices (the horror!) about how to pay the new tax (because it's a fair bet gas taxes and tolls won't be eliminated) and also be able to buy a car seat for their newborn (another child killer!) and/or put food on the table and/or pay the utilities and/or may face losing the car in an attempt to keep up with all these taxes. How can anyone not agree that we need steven to make these decisions for us?

According to Staceleen, bad parents should be able to choose whether or not to place their kids in danger. Their freedom of choice is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the kids' lives. Because, you see, Staceleen's ideology only cares about Staceleen's OWN free choice; it doesn't give two hoots about the consequences those choices may have, say, as they impact kids.

Staceleen is the one who claimed, baldly and outright, on this thread and others, that she is against state mandated child safety seats. It restricts parents' choice in the matter, which, again, she states is far more important than saving kids' lives.

Her position is ridiculous, of course, utterly opposed to common sense. But insofar as she states it seriously, it indicates what a menace to society are she and those who share the same unthinking ideology. They are willing to sacrifice childrens' lives on the altar of free choice by parents, even in the domain of protective child car seats.

How can she arrive at such a ridiculous position? Because instead of truly thinking for herself, she falls back on an ideology that has the big meanie democratic govt agents oppressing us -- imposing speed limits on highways, seatbelts, potentially closing Foothill Ave., potential gps tracking devices, and, gasp, car safety car seats for kids. The ideology speaks for her and insists on her taking the ridiculous positions she takes. Worse, she can't even admit as much. Nope, the big weak ego attempts every diversion under the sun. Her most recent: steven has changed topics! As if questioning another's premisses and logical consistency is 'off topic'. She's either dumb or playing dumb. I'm not sure which. Both? Who knows?

When pointed out that steven knows nothing about airplane tracking and laughably compares it to gps used for mileage tracking, steven falls back on predictable misrepresentations for lack of an arguement with any merit. Hey steven, I WIN.

Yes, Staceleen. You sure are a winner.

I know very little about tracking commercial airliners. I thought the analogy of auto gps tracking to tracking of airlines, radar, disclosed passenger manifests, and gps signal in black box was useful. You apparently are unable either to grasp the analogy or to accept its utility.

So, we're talking about putting children's lives at great risk on account of a pernicious rightwing ideology and you want to emphasize how little I know about commercial airlines. Thanks for being relevant and showing a real grasp of proportion.

Shouldn't you be over on the other site, attempting to censor those who put forward arguments that threaten your ego?

No, we were talking about per-mile taxation to support roads. I offered some alternatives to the use of gps. You mostly avoided engaging the topic. You now want me to overlook your argument's lack of merit, concede an irrelevant point? Hahahahahahaha!

Just a quick thing about airplanes and children--you don't have to buy a separate seat for your littlest children. You don't even have to buckle them in, to anything. There's a project for you steven!

"Because, you see, [Kath]leen's ideology only cares about [Kath]leen's OWN free choice; it doesn't give two hoots about the consequences those choices may have, say, as they impact kids." I care that EVERYONE have free choice. Having seat belts or car seats doesn't make someone a better driver. In fact, there is evidence that people drive faster because they feel safer. Having seat belts doesn't prevent the crazed driver from causing the accident either. I do, however, choose to have seat belts, car seats, air bags, lane drifting warning systems, and back up and surround cameras. Nobody made me do it. I have the option; I understand the benefits.

Regarding thinking--your automatic assumption is that you, and perhaps a few legislators, are the only critical thinkers. Certainly not those yokels in the countryside driving on dirt roads. Nosirreebob.

"questioning another's premisses and logical consistency" to make a point, like steven: Where do you stand regarding women and their bodies. Cuz if you aren't for that freedom, aren't you then part of the "unthinking" "pernicious rightwing ideology"? No need to answer.

Trapped in her tiny little world, using her pinched little ideology, the woman with many cats, Staceleen, bounces from one computer to the next, repeating her idiocy despite the chorus of cackles in the background. (Even her rightwing barnyard friends can't bring themselves to defend her, such is the travesty of reason that she has offered us. And the editors are getting too much of a chuckle to intervene.)

Oh course, Staceleen cares about EVERYBODY's free choice ... except the kids'. Which has been my point all along. Her pinched little ideology doesn't know what to do with children except place them at the mercy of their parents' "FREE" decisions. And the ridiculous reasoning continues: It's okay if bad parents refuse to harness their kids in with safety belts. It's their freedom to do so. That means, she assures us, the parents will drive slower, so the unstrapped kids will be safer. All this is so much better than BIG BROTHER protecting kids from irresponsible types like Staceleen.

Then she changes the subject -- of course, because she has nowhere to go except where her ideology permits on the above issue, and it's a deadend road into pure dumb. So, let's talk about taxes!

It's obvious to me why Staceleen didn't get very far in school. Teachers couldn't tell HER anything. That is yet another outcome of mindlessly using a narrow, rightwing ideology: One doesn't learn anything (except that which the ideology permits). Very sad.

Sorry steven, spent the afternoon with hundreds of children. I know, so difficult to imagine if we are to believe you about how much I hate them.

You didn't answer about those kids in tin cans flying at 300+mph at 30,000+ ft. You haven't ever answered about collecting a tax without a government device on people's vehicles. Nor have you commented on which things might be acceptable in regard to freedom of choice--let's try something simple, like voting.

And you have to continue to refuse to face the reality that I said I didn't think seat belts or car seats need to be mandated--never said they were a bad idea or that they shouldn't be used or state that children should die. But then you have to be outrageous.

I attended public schools; pretty immersed in liberal ideas. I don't actually live by rightwing ideology.

Now that you are hearing choruses in the background out here, you many need time for a doctor visit. Peace.

I'm overjoyed that you took a few hours out of your day to visit the children in your sweatshop. However, you really don't need to tell us that you don't live by a right-wing ideology, Staceleen. I doubt that anyone expects that you actually practice what you preach.

I don't fit into the box you and steven have defined for me or any other box for that matter. It's been like watching a couple of very bad mimes.

Oh, and I definitely don't want a government box of any description on my vehicle.

Unable to address the fatal flaw in her reasoning, Staceleen moves on to more relevant issues, like voting.

There are stupid parents out there. Their children are endangered/mistreated and govt needs to intervene. Staceleen is against govt intervention aimed at protecting children, such as car safety seats. Why? Because it infringes on HER freedom. And what about the kids who will die if mandatory car seats are rescinded? On that she is silent, and has continued to be throughout. Why? Probably she doesn't give two hoots for other people's children. And, more importantly: For Staceleen to admit that kids need help from govt to protect them from bad parents would cut a hole through her rightwing ideology and all it stands for. So, instead, she makes a mockery of herself for all to witness.

The facts and reasons have been presented clearly enough. Yet Staceleen's footstamping denials and dissembling persists. Time to bring in the therapists.

I said I do not believe seat belts and car seats needed to be mandated. That statement (A) does not, however, get you to your (Z) summations of not supporting usage of either/both, hating children, believing mistreated children do not need protection, and membership in rightwing ideology--try as you might.

Good reads in the paper today about this proposed tax. "There will be no middle class left;" "government running amok" . . . and I also enjoyed Leonard Pitts' column on political debate.

So, if Staceleen is against mandated car safety seats for children, how would she protect kids of bad parents who choose against using car safety seats for their kids? If not protective safety seats for the kids, how is Staceleen going to protect them? What does her rightwing ideology offer as antidote to big bad govt legislating in order to protect kids' lives?

No answer? Figures. This amounts to abandonment of helpless children to the will of bad parents. Without the mandated safety seats, many kids would be expected to die, as they did in the past, because of their bad parents' bad choices.

What is behind Staceleen's pigheaded defense of an indefensible position? Right wing ideology. Does she care about kids of bad parents? Nope. Silent on this matter. She explicitly denies logical conclusions. And then she concludes by talking about, gasp, higher taxes -- something that interests her far more than other people's kids dying in traffic.

Stay tuned as this ongoing car crash continues.

I doubt there are hordes of bad people having children who then choose to neglect their progeny's safety. It blatantly ignores their circumstances--other than calling them yokels. Without a mandate, education and availability of car seats (at hospitals, remember?) would save those precious lives. The few parents who ignore this small thing in the lives of their children have much bigger issues and need more and different interventions than merely a car seat.

Of course, you also blatantly continue to steer the conversation away from what this is actually about--government monitoring devices on personal vehicles. Blather on.

You doubt there's many parents out there willing to endanger their children's lives, eh? Staceleen, you need to get out more. You appear cocooned in Tea Party la-la land.

Parents need more than a mandated car seat, but heck let's begin by NOT mandating child safety seats. Oh, and hey, parents without child safety seats drive slower, so they're actually safer.

Your words have fooled only one person here, Staceleen. Thanks for the clear demo on how you think matters through. Much appreciated.

Instead of driving slower, let's mandate that the few use buses where car seats aren't required because neither are seat belts.

OR, how about concentrating on more of a holistic care approach (education, job opportunity, free car seats) for the few families rather than mandating things they can't afford?

Better yet, how about staying on topic--is there another way to collect a tax rather than government monitoring devices? Why, yes, yes there is.

Yes, because there are not mandatory safety belts on busses there shouldn't be in cars either. And because there are not mandatory child safety seats on commercial airliners there shouldn't be on cars either. Such is the tortured reasoning of Staceleen.

She can't imagine that some like myself support the idea of mandatory seat belts on busses and child safety seats on commercial airlines. Why can't she imagine it? Because she doesn't give two hoots about kids. She prefers to sacrifice other parents' kids on the altar of Ayn Randism. With Staceleen, it's all about Big Brother paranoia and offering any tortuous argument possible in order to protect her weak ego.

Listen to her squeal with outrage were the state to impose a mandatory child safety class for all new parents. Big Brother again. Wish someone would stick a pin into this mush-minded gasbag.

Interesting thing about planes, most people stay buckled the entire flight unless they are up and moving. And with a couple of dings, everyone buckles up. Very Pavlovian. Yet there is no mandate. Of course I think you want everything to be mandatory! You can't help yourself. I suggested educating new parents. Car seats and seat belts were available before the mandates, and people bought them.

I'm going to put you out of your misery here. You skip the actual topic and your pretzel twisted comments end only in turning in on yourself.

Again: is there another way to collect a tax rather than government monitoring devices? Why, yes, yes there is. And for the magical three times: is there another way to collect a tax rather than government monitoring devices? Why, yes, yes there is.

Many people DO NOT stay buckled, which is why the captain has to come over loud speaker and order people to buckle up. Some people need to be told; when they are putting their KIDS' lives on the line because of bad choices or idiotic behavior, the state needs to step in.

Note that Staceleen again shifts away from CHILD safety, whether it be cars, busses or airplanes. Not even a mention of kids. Why? She only cares about herself and people she thinks are like herself. The hole in her reasoning is gaping. Slavish servitude to a rightwing ideology that hates children renders her incapable of addressing the issue of govt protection of children from bad parents. And so here she goes again: Govt keep your Big Brother hands off of bad parents' endangered kids; it's better to see the kids die than restrict parents' freedom to needlessly subject their kids' to danger. Her reasoning is slavish; her denials are transparent; her unwillingness to concede to irrefutable validity claims points to a real character deficiency (see weak ego combined with big ego). Staceleen provides us with a good laugh; only, it's too bad her ideology is consistent with all other rightwing hate views.

Check the actual topic steven.

Or in other words, Staceleen has no reasoned response beyond some of the laugh-inducing rib-ticklers she's produced above.

She resorts to her old standby persona of defining what is an acceptable topic and what isn't.

Okay, Staceleen, we get it! You've given us much to mull over between laughs. No reader here will ever again hear Staceleen talk about her care for children without breaking into mocking laughter.

Here's how you get "order"ed around on a plane: “Ladies and gentlemen, the Captain has turned on the fasten seat belt sign. We are experiencing turbulence. Please return your seats and keep your seat belts fastened. Thank you.” steven's proposal: "Hey you yokels who didn't bother to bring a car seat for your child. Sit down. Buckle up. Hang onto your baby tightly enough so it doesn't get killed. And as soon as we land, I'm getting these car seats mandated."

More news in the Tri-Valley Times about the MTC failing to create a viable plan to help low-income families find free transportation for their youth (I certainly hope they do figure that out). And a couple more letters to the editor about the proposed mileage tax (not in favor). Happy reading!

The laughs from Staceleen keep coming. Because commercial airlines do not require safety seats for children, she intimates, it should be okay for a society to forego mandated safety car seats for kids, too. The logic? There isn't any. All she's doing is kicking up dirt, hoping to protect that very weak ego of hers.

Someone who cared about kids -- truly cared, and not someone who postures because her identity needs demand it -- would suggest that airlines be required to provide child safety seats. But the laugh-a-minute girl, Staceleen, doesn't care about kids. She doesn't want mandated child safety seats on airlines; she doesn't want mandated safety seats in autos. She becomes increasingly funny with each post. Unfortunately, with this blather also comes her phoney assurances that she cares about kids. Any doubts why she has spent her professional life answering to her superiors? Shows an astonishing inability to think on her own two feet.