Reader Comments:

Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-31 06:05:23

Best of luck with the newspaper and your cause.

After reading your articles for two years, I am sure you can find ways to get the news via net, internet or gathering places to all 5,000.

Report violation

Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-05-31 08:14:29

Thanks, Jake.  I know this is a nit for people who will never even see this thing but it isn't a newspaper.  It is a quarterly magazine with in-depth articles showing how local issues and conflicts arise as an inevitable consequence of the pursuit of big government and the homogenization of local communities.

We write the local stuff and reprint Ron Paul and Mises.or and Lew Rockwell pieces to tie the big picture and local behavior together.

We started the "Tell Me Please" service.  We cringe at the excuse "Nobody told me."  When people miss important meetings or don't knw how local issues affect their quality of life and they community's economic future.  Now, local residents can sign up for our Tell Me Please service.  We will email every local meeting and last minute changes to those meetings that are designed to discourage participation by causing the meeting times to not be reliable.  If folks do not have email we will call them.  If they don't have a phone, Michelle will go to their house and tell them.  "Nobody told me" will no longer be a valid excuse for not participating in local politics in our county.

Also, Michelle created the Citizen Enabler as a repeatable template that anyone anywhere can implement.  The goal is to remove obstacles to participation and information that affect where we live.  Michelle has done all the framework, all that is necessary now is for individuals in other communities to put in the effort to localize it and fund their printing.

Financially, we hope to break even or at least not go broke.  We want to create a sustainable service that users and sponsors fund.  We will not go into commercial advertising.  Michelle writes personal, half-page, in-depth endorsements of our sponsor's businesses, character and  relationship to the strength of our community.

 This is really a lot of fun.

-Jahfre Fire Eater

Report violation

Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-31 11:17:47

Jahfre -

Sounds really cool!!!  I wouldn't mind a free e-subscription :)   I really hope it goes well for you both, and you probably dont need to be told this, but the ideas you listed above are pretty creative and novel - as I would expect!!

I really like the fact that you are also trying to break even/profit.   I am in contact with a fellow from AOCS - opencurrency.com.  Check it out if you like but its also very locally-based. 

Hey off topic, if you have a spare 30 minutes one day, I wouldn't mind a critique of my campaign platform here http://www.scribd.com/doc/15909415/Jake-Towne-for-US-Congress-PA15-May-2009

because I know you won't spare me any mercy and have a sharp mind.  My email is jaketowne AT gmail, but you could also just drop it into the comment field of any of my articles if you want.  Peace! 

 

 

Report violation

Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-01 12:16:14

Couple of questions.

1. Exactly where is this situation, by that I mean what state as state laws regulating fire districts vary from state to state and likewise fire codes.

2. Given that federal law mandates pretty much that all fire codes must be uniform and to my knowledge all states have enacted similar legislation I'm interested to know what you mean by the term "draconian fire codes." My experience has been those fire codes are designed to save lives so I'd really like to see which ones you object to.

3. You talk about a paid fire department versus volunteers and that some of the county is rural while the rest is urban. Even based on your description it is obvious that much of the district appears to have outgrown the volunteer fire department concept. I'm not knocking that down but at some point the demands on a modern fire department require more than what a volunteer department can provide such as 911 response, fire inspections and so forth. Still, as you say, parts of the district appear not to need such a service yet and parts do which brings me to my last question.

4. Why not either split the district into the obvious sections or have both types of departments, volunteer in the rural and paid professional in the urban? 

Report violation

Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-06-02 07:53:28

Hi Bill,

I covered your questions in my article with this sentence, "Michelle and I have publicly declared this to be a showdown between our rights and choices and those who would force us to give them up for the statistical illusion of increased safety."

There is no such thing as a benevolent, efficient bureaucracy. There is no statistic or "feeling" that is sufficient to over-ride property rights.

Paid mercenaries from outside our community are not the same local heroes that volunteers are.  Instead, they are agents of the state who do not have our rights in mind, only the control they wish to impose.

-Jahfre Fire Eater

Report violation

Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-02 13:53:07

With all due respect this a fire department, not a national government conspiracy. This kind of issue goes on all over this country and it has very little to do with anything except public safety and there is no guise in this.

 Now I asked reasonable questions. What state is this in? What regulations are you objecting to in the fire code and why won't the possible solution I suggested work? 

Come down off Mount Olympus for a minute and realize that not everything is of epic proportions and historic significance. Sometimes all it's about is making sure someone is there to put out the fire, in this case literally. 

So I'll ask again: what state, what specific objections do you have and why won't what I've suggested work in your situation? 

 You wrote about working in the community a while back. Now protest is fine but it sounds like you're making a lot out of nothing since you can't seem to produce a list of facts, which you should have at hand, as to what the problem is, what has been attempted, why it hasn't worked or why it should have and what you propose as a solution. 

Be it Article V or your local fire department, it's all the same bag. People want a solution, not rhetoric.

 

Report violation

Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-06-03 08:47:27

Hi Bill,

No condescending disrespect is required.  The only respect I'd hope to see is repect for individual property owner's rights.

You offer a "solution" without knowing a damn thing about our community; just like a good progressive oppressor should.  Also, your proposed "solution" doesn't address the oppressive progressive trends aimed at eliminating local control of community.  Offer a "solution" that defends communities from such oppression and I'll have to at least, then, give you credit for having finally understood the problem.  So far, I can't give you that.

Just like with your Article V nonsense, you think you know what is best for me and that your ends justify your means.  You are an enemy of liberty and a minion for the State as far as I can tell from your posts to date.

 Do you intend to remove all notion of private property rights from your customized US Constitution also?

Thank you for providing such a typical example of the problem we face in defending against your oppressive nature in our community.

-Jahfre Fire Eater

 

Report violation

Posted By: Drew
Date: 2009-06-03 19:44:22

Jahfre,

 

I'm new to the Site and I enjoy your passion!   I'm also a volunteer firefighter/EMT in a rural portion of Washington state, directly over the mountains from the bastion of All Things Liberal, Seattle.  We have a retired Seattle Firefighter here trying to run his district as though it were manned by pro's and his men are telling him precisely where and how to stuff that idea!

 

Anyway,  I'm very interested in learning more about Michelle's Citizen Enabler!  Tell me more, please.

 

Drew

Report violation

Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: 2009-06-04 00:17:41

Hey Fire,

You say I offered a solution that won't work. Fine. Then you accuse me of not knowing the situation which I admitted when I asked for the details you've still not given. And by the way if you read carefully I simply asked why such a solution would not work. 

 Now you've said that "local control is being taken away." Taken away by whom? After all you've said that this is a single fire district. It sounds to me that what you're saying is that people in one part of it are exercising their numbers and doing things you don't like. 

Fine. Then as I said, create a new fire district and you can run it anyway you want so long as you have the tax base to do whatever it is you want to do. Now you say that won't work. Okay, then I assume you don't have the tax base to do that. 

But again, you don't clarify anything. You speak of progressive efforts to eliminate property ownership. I don't even get what you're referring to unless the district wants to raise your taxes and you're objecting to that. But then if that were the case you'd just say so and you haven't.

In sum you say I haven't understood the problem but you haven't said what the problem is except in terms no body can understand let alone solve. And I have asked for specifics so why not use me for practice? If you're going to win this fight, whatever it is, you're going to have to justify your position and that is best accomplished by giving people the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts and laying out your case in simple, easy to understand terms. 

So, tell me what exactly is your beef? And please in terms anyone can relate to----progressive oppression doesn't mean a thing in this case. Define what that oppression is in exact terms. Raising taxes? Okay, by how much and what is the money to be used for? Oppressive regulations--Okay, exactly what regulations, why were they put in and how do they repress? 

You say you're writing a newspaper. Fine. Then give me the 5 W's. Who, what, when, where and why. 

 

Report violation

Posted By: Mrs. Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-02 14:50:35

It's not a newspaper, it is a quarterly opinion journal with a philanthropic component. Now,

1. I think our department will go the way of suburbia like the rest of our rural communities. Most folks who lived here 30 years ago were community oriented, minded and focused. Now, most of our community are commuters who don't even read the local paper. Because of this, those who wish to wrench control of the department from the taxpayer in favor of making it another government bureaucracy (usually because they want to get paid off the backs of the productive class)  have pretty much an obstacle free takeover. In terms of the changes proposed, I now wonder if they won't be able to get out of their own way. A merger has been proposed but is so fraught with childish backbiting and rumormilling and a complete inability to make a simple to-do list that I don't think it feasable. In theory, I would support a merger as this would save money for our community as a whole, encourage community spirit, provide greater support and flexibility to volunteers, justify a single full-time paid chief and in the long run, reduce costs and therefore taxes, provided one of that paid chief's responsibilities was to encourage/increase voluntarism. But, like I said, this is the finest collection of bumbling boobus control freaks I have ever seen. One board member stated that an inclusion process to merge, which would save the taxpayers about 100K, is unacceptable because they would be under the direction of the other board for 8 months before a regular election took place. 100k to the taxpayer is nothing compared to this territorial pissing match, which explains why that board member's department is on financial thin ice - the underlying reason for the proposed merger.

2. "Draconian fire codes" - one of these codes is for sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems are very effective in urban areas, particularly apartment complexes where loss of life and property and potential for spreading is quite high, while the cost of installing systems in new buildings - or even old ones - is offset by insurance savings, price savings on a larger scale, and other things. For urban and even suburban areas, this makes sense. Unfortunately, a single member of our department wants to have sprinklers required on new buildings and retrofitted to additions at great expense to both new builders and especially those who already live here and maybe just want to add a bedroom or bathroom. These require a separate power source and, in our watertight landscape, an entirely separate water source such as a cistern of trucked in water (because you are not legally allowed to fill them from your well.) The arguments for this code flatly ignore the financial risks to homeowners for FLOODING which is not covered and bears precious little on the overall cost of fire insurance. Besides this not making financial sense and, if our county adopts this portion of the IRC (which is optional), being a total disrespect for individual property rights - since most of this community is opposed to such a measure - the requirement is also based on a SINGLE STUDY done in an URBAN area (Scottsdale, AZ) and commissioned by the NATIONAL SPRINKLER ASSOCIATION. So, in whose best interest is the measure, really? Sprinkler companies and the plumbers and electricians of the home builders associations who pushed it through. The person pushing this measure says "if it saves one firefighter's life" and disregards the fact that no firefighter is required to enter a building they feel is unsafe and ignores the right of property owners to judge risk/value for themselves.  Firefighters who insist on destruction of my property rights and freedom so they can feel proud of firefighting without actually fighting a fire are enemies of my liberty.This person also thinks gunvernment funding is "free" money. 'Nuff said. His other argument revolves around preventing forest fires - and sorry, but far more has been to prevent the spread of fire in our community by simple community activists who have taken it upon themselves to direct tree thinning and good forest management practices by residents. His argument ignores how most forest fires start in this community - idiot campers from the city who have no common sense or sense of responsibility. Draconian fire codes do nothing to promote responsibility, or common sense, or voluntarism for that matter.

3. The strife between our departments has nothing to to with what is reasonable or not, what is good  district management or not, what is proper fire service management or not. It is directly related to whether or not residents of this community wish to live in just another suburb of worker bees and tax leeches or a unique rural area of community support and independence. Chances are they will win out - it is the nature of our political climate and the result of our homogenized culture. The federal funding carrot is just too tasty for these progressives to refuse. But I intend to remain steadfast that I would prefer a community of respectful, independent, self directed and truly giving volunteers than a mob a bureaucratic busy bodies who have nothing better to do than steal my liberty and labor so that their life will be easier.

4. "Make your own department." That's hysterical. The merger proposal is an attempt to do that and has become a joke. We have two districts - one a donut hole in the middle of the other district - and the larger district spans two counties. The push for this merger is coming from a) those in the urban county who want an urban department in our rural area who have aligned themselves with b) the board of the donut hole who have so mismanaged their funds that their only hope for survival is to either raise taxes exorbitantly (good luck) or to latch on to our well managed and flush district. These are personal ploys made on behalf of those who consider these departments their private clubs rather than functions on behalf of the taxpayers. 

5. While everyone is out teabagging, in the most literal sense, progressives are taking over every single aspect of local governments including and especially the fire districts and school boards, along with commissions, committees and everything else. They discourage volutarism and then complain that they need federal funding because no one wants to volunteer, and round and round it goes. That's the kind of garbage we're dealing with. I have no plans on winning as long as conservatives are out galavanting at protests like a bunch of useless hippies. While that's happening it's just me standing there alone and making my case as a single citizen. Those who lie, cheat and spit on taxpayers who aren't there to see it will win, I am nothing but an annoying obstacle. I'm not there to "make my own department" I'm there to see that my tax dollars are being managed ethically and soundly and that these progressives don't get it into their heads that they can steamroll the taxpayer without so much as an objection. My only hope is that they continue to be so underhanded and ineffectual, and that our board continues to demand clarity and fairness on behalf of the taxpayer, that they will continue to be unable to do anything, which is my favorite kind of government.

6. If any/either department wants to raise taxes or insist on paid departments or other increases, they need to show that we are UNDERSERVED. I've asked. They haven't. Because we aren't. End of story.

Report violation