February 9, 2010 – Daily Brief

55 Responses to February 9, 2010 – Daily Brief

1. Kelly says:

   February 9, 2010 at 7:45 am

   The Waystation as a good place to kiss, really?
2. IHeartSCV says:

   February 9, 2010 at 8:16 am

   RE: “Immigration rights group threatens legal action to force City of Santa Clarita to ‘discipline’ Bob Kellar”

   Ugh, ugh, ugh. I propose the alternative headline: “Illegal immigration group wants attention and threatens baseless, frivolous lawsuit to get it.” Robert Gittelson’s idiocy is surpassed only by that of LA Times writer Ann Simmons, who didn’t even bother to ask on what grounds Gittelson and his group would take “legal action.” It appears that simply having the intention to do something is enough for the LA Times to run a story.
3. IHeartSCV says:

   February 9, 2010 at 8:18 am

   @Kelly:

   Hash browns just do it for some people. Who are we to judge?
4. mike says:

   February 9, 2010 at 9:20 am

   I don’t see where the group would have standing to file the suit, unless they can find a plaintiff in the city limits. It’s seems like a waste of time because there are no penalties built into the ethics code, but the complaint isn’t baseless. He violated the letter of the law.
5. mike says:

   February 9, 2010 at 9:23 am

   STOP THE PRESS: Puchella Winery called off the dogs last night. City decided to play nice. Interesting tie-in: co-owner of Puchella, Nate Hasper, is Rogers brother. Very cool guy and the preeminent expert on Prince in the SCV.
6. navigator says:

   February 9, 2010 at 10:21 am

   I really don’t see a down side to a wine tasting shop in OTN. It sure beats some of the establishments.
7. NickelDime says:

   February 9, 2010 at 10:34 am

   RE: Waystation

   Agree with Kelly, though I can see it in a Drew Barrymore movie sort of way.

   Leah missed out on the trails – granola-rimmed kisses at Placerita or Towsley should be on the list (but not Pico/Mentryville — too spooky).
8. navigator says:

   February 9, 2010 at 10:41 am

   “but not Pico/Mentryville — too spooky”

   What? You never heard of Pico Creek candy kisses?
9. navigator says:

   February 9, 2010 at 10:47 am

   Besides, Mentryville has some of the prettiest pepper trees to sit under on a warm day (in early spring to avoid the bugs) or some hilltops overlooking a beautiful valley (watch out for the snakes) or some teriffic old buildings from the end of an era (careful of falling debris).
10. Berta González-Harper says:

    February 9, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Hi Jeff. Not all of the YouTube videos posted are of TimBen Boydtson addressing the Canyon Country Advisory Committee. I am a founding member of the CCAC and was present the evening TBB made his presentation.
    One in particular, where he does not represent the facts accurately in talking about the Bonelli Tract issue, is held in what appears to be a private residence before supporters.
11. NickelDime says:

    February 9, 2010 at 11:28 am

    navigator:

    I didn’t say I didn’t like it, it’s just… Mentryville (and especially the historic oil well) feels like an undiscovered part of the island on Lost.

    It’s cool, and I love exploring that area, but not one that I’d put on the top 10 list for romance – more intrigue.
12. Berta González-Harper says:

    February 9, 2010 at 11:28 am

    IHeartSCV: I agree with your comments regarding these people from out of our area who are threatening lawsuits regarding the Bob Kellar issue.
    I would add these people have some nerve. They want to sue when an American citizen is exercising his right to free speech guaranteed under the law. The same law that allows them to espouse their garbage, I might add. Yet they want to protect those who violate the laws of this great nation by entering illegally. Hum…Let me see support law-abiding citizens or support lawbreakers. Not a tough choice for me.
    I think they just want the free publicity!
13. NickelDime says:

    February 9, 2010 at 11:52 am

    BGH:

    I seem to know about a certain group of people from out of the area that are using their first ammendment rights to espouse their garbage in my town. They definitely have some nerve.

    Extreme right, meet extreme left.

    And we can thank the former, hailing from the AV, Fillmore, Hesperia, and OC, for bringing it here to our valley (and Mr. Gitlin, who is basking in being the local focalpoint while allowing the extremists to grab the headlines).

    I think you’re going to enjoy the next rally. It will take scapegoating to a whole new level.
14. Spineflower2 says:

    February 9, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Hail in Castaic, really slamming down with gail winds. (noon)

    Grapevine may close soon.
15. Berta González-Harper says:

    February 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    ND: We have already reached the point where extremists on both sides are screaming to be heard because our government at all levels has failed to do anything to resolve this issue. It simply keeps festering until it comes to a boil every few years. That is precisely why it would be a good idea for reasonable people representing both sides of this issue to be able to freely discuss it, without odious labels thrown around.
    All issues come down to being local issues one way or another. How they affect us individually on a daily basis as we go about our lives is what we notice most. We can stand up for what is right or continue to go along with the flow until something terrible happens again: A terrorist attack is successfully carried out by someone who entered illegally and unnoticed. A horrible murder occurs again committed by an illegal criminal. And so on.
    People are angry and frustrated. Otherwise, decent people are reaching their limits of patience and joining the most radical groups who do espouse violence. We will all have to deal with the riots, destruction, etc that may ensue and innocent people will be caught in the crossfire.
    I prefer that reasonable people talk to each other now and push those charged with the duty to enforce immigration law to fulfill those duties as required by law. Whatever that makes me according to you….
16. Vince Hans says:

    February 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Man, it CONTINUES to feel great that I was right since day one on the whole Kellar thing!!!

    Sure wish he would have taken the high road before giving off the impression that the SCV is a Klan nation.

    He is losing votes and business every day. Can you imagine a prospective home buyer googling local Realtors and that scowling down-looking pic of him from the LA Times pops up??
17. Blazingmonk says:

    February 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Nice ND

    BGH can’t say it any better then ND I will add you defended the out of towners you liked and condemned the pedestrian minding his own business.

    Where is your outrage for the profanity and name calling that was spit by frank gore or the threats of violence toward people utiliIng their free speech?

    Care to publically change your position?
18. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    The anti-illegal-immigrationists often cite the violence inflicted upon our nation by those who are here illegally. Several local incidents have been cited as prime examples of why we should all be anxious to get rid of this “element.”

    There was a woman who was cheered wildly by the crowd at the CC meeting after legitimizing her presence by relating her story of the muder of her son by an illegal who was also a drug trafficker etc.

    I don’t know the answer to this question, but I wonder what the relationship (ratio/occurence rate whatever) of, let’s call them “bad illegals,” to “good illegals,” is? Good illegals being the hard working family supporting take the jobs no one else wants type. Because if that ratio is similar to what we already have in our population in general, doesn’t that take the steam out of at least that part of the argument? Wouldn’t that ratio have to be significantly higher than normal to be a legitimate concern?

    Just wondering . . .
19. Spineflower2 says:

    February 9, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Time to wrap up this thread.

    How about kissing at an anti-immigration rally?

    While drinking wine.

    In the rain.
20. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Scott, I’d have to agree with you except for the fact that if the illegal aliens that are actually committing crimes weren’t here a certain amount of crime would not be here as well. Like all bad apples, the few ruin the many.
21. mike says:

    February 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Then people shouldn’t have babies, either, because some babies grow up and do bad things.
22. IHeartSCV says:

    February 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Scott, according to the LA Times,
    (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2) there are about 3M illegal immigrants in California and about 19,000 in prison. Since they make up more than 11% of the prison population but less than 8% of the state population, that means there are disproportionately more illegal immigrants in jail than would be expected.

    Numerically, it’s a small difference, and I’m not sure if it would be statistically significant. However, as the speakers you alluded to have mentioned, there would be people alive today if borders were enforced more securely. The checks done in the legal immigration process would make it a lot more difficult for drug-dealers, those with a criminal record, deported crimnals, and other violence-prone individuals to get (back) into America.

    Of course, illegal immigrants are also 100% more likely to have committed certain crimes (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325) than legal immigrants and citizens.
23. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Nav, the point is (assuming the ratio is similar to the crime rate of US citizens), that, although you may have other reasons for wanting to address the illegal immigrant problem . . the specific complaint of their criminality is not relevant to the discussion.

    I suspect that the ratios are similar and that’s why I brought it up. It indeed that is the case, I think it is disingenuous to make that part of the argument. I think it renders the emotional displays like that of the woman at the CC meeting just that: emotional displays. And don’t get me wrong, I feel for her and for anyone that has had a loved one killed . . by anyone. It just gets my back up when it is thrown in my face with comments like, “i hope this never happens to you!” etc.

    I hope it never happens to me either. I also hope none of my kids gets hit by a US citizen/drunk driver, or that I never get robbed by a US citizen/criminal. Etc.
24. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    I get your point, Scott. My point is that if 10 people were pointing a gun at me and 3 of them were illegals I’d only have 7 idiots shooting at me instead of 10 if the 3 illegals were removed. I’d still be dead but my chances of survival would have been 30% better.

    Mike, if people didn’t have babies because some of them might grow up to be bad the world’s population wiuld go down.
25. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    oops! would
26. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Iheart: I would call that statistically insignificant for purposes of this discussion.

    The second post is a little joke right? 100% more likely to commit the crime that puts them into the category we’re discussing?

    Anyway, it is interesting to note that if Mr. Gitlin’s estimates of illegal immigrants is used (presumably double or so that of the LA Times article), the ratio drops considerably . . . hmmmm . . . if RG is right . . . and we continue to allow illegal immigration . . . maybe California will eventually become . . . crime free! Who-Ra!
27. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Nav – my point is that, regardless of whether or not there were illegal immigrants in the US, you would still have 10 people pointing a gun at you given the same facts and circumstances that put you into a situation where any people were pointing guns at you.
28. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Now you lost me Scott. If the 3 illegals weren’t in the picture because they never crossed our borders then there would only be 7 unless they went out and recruited 3 more illegals. Anyway, my point is that if we remove some of the fuel from the fire it won’t burn as long. This is my best shot at analagous retort.
29. Berta González-Harper says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Scott Ervin: So your point is what? We do not have enough homegrown criminals and terrorists so we should continue to import more.

    Vince: I have never argued that this issue would not bring negative publicity. I have argued that it is Bob Kellar’s right to speak out as an individual regarding the issue of illegal immigration. No one should have to refrain from speaking out because people will call them names, it may cause controversy, or bring unwanted publicity. That is why we are in the situation we are in. Politicians do not want to deal with the issue lest they “offend” someone, face threats of lawsuits, or lose potential votes. They were not elected to play it safe. They were elected to do the business of the people and that includes enforcing established law.
30. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    I’ll try one more time as well:

    I’m assuming that the total population in California would be the same, regardless of whether or not there was an illegal immigrant presence . . someone has to pick up the slack of the work they are now doing, right? If you don’t accept that, then you’re right, we have less people to pull guns on you.

    However, if other US citizens flow into the State, as I would expect they would have to, and if the rate of criminality for US citiens is the same as the rate of criminality for illegal immigrants . . . then you’re back to 10 my friend . . and all are US citizens.

    So the part of the argument that goes, “We should get rid of illegal immigrants because they are criminals!” is just not valid. you can continue arguing the economic elements ad nauseum.
31. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Berta, you said, “We can stand up for what is right or continue to go along with the flow until something terrible happens again: A terrorist attack is successfully carried out by someone who entered illegally and unnoticed. A horrible murder occurs again committed by an illegal criminal. And so on.”

    It’s a math thing Berta. I’m an accountant so everything comes down to numbers for me.

    My point is very simple: that statement you made (quoted above) is not valid for the reasons in my previous posts.
32. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Ok. Given your first paragraph we are both correct. Your statement does assume, probably correctly as well, that we still won’t have people already here going after jobs that the illegals were doing before they were escorted back across the border. Unfortunately I have to give you that one which is why we have so many illegals now. So how do we solve both problems?
33. NickelDime says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    spineflower:

    Yes, we can arrange a kiss in the rain, just not in Mentryville.
34. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Nav:

    I honestly don’t know . . but the first thing, before anyone can begin to solve any problem, is to focus on what the problem really is.

    That was really the only point of my posts.

    The problem is NOT that the currently illegal immigrants may or may not be committing crimes (aside from illegal entry). That’s a red herring and just stirs things up and covers the actual issues that need to be discussed and, dare I say it, prevents us from finding common ground.
35. Spineflower2 says:

    February 9, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    With the present unemployment rate in Cali, I don’t believe the argument that illegals take jobs no legal person would accept.

    Maybe not at below-minimum cash wages, but then we’re back to the “stop business from taking advantage of cheap illegal labor pool” argument.
36. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Spine, how many non-hispanics do you see standing on the curbs around rental sites? These guys aren’t making less than minimum wage in most cases. I’m not defending, just stating a fact.

    ND – There you go dissing Mentryville again!
37. Vince Hans says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Berta, apology accepted.
38. v-town OG says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Hispanic = illegal?
39. navigator says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    “Hispanic = illegal” Never said it or implied it.
40. v-town OG says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    back in the day, a man standing on the corner meant something. in this economy, you got every type of dude looking for some pay
41. Spineflower2 says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Navi, remove the illegals, fine employers big time, and I bet you see a more diversified group on those corners…
42. NickelDime says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    *sigh*

    And who will be taking care of their children who are citizens, spine?

    What’s your great plan?

    I’d argue that bringing these folks into the system and fining employers big time (the latter being a huge missing piece of the last amnesty program) would accomplish the same thing.
43. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    “With the present unemployment rate in Cali, I don’t believe the argument that illegals take jobs no legal person would accept.”

    Spiny: I never argued that legal people wouldn’t take the jobs now being done by illegals. I just argued that whoever does take their place will have the same rate of criminality, so, once again, the argument regarding those murderers (aka illegal immigrants) is invalid.
44. Vince Hans says:

    February 9, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    v-town OG says:
    back in the day, a man standing on the corner meant something. in this economy, you got every type of dude looking for some pay

    I agree V-Town…I see our brothers and sisters of all creeds and colors on the corners and median strips. If someone is trying to earn a buck these days, more power to them. And I give a handout to them whenever I can. If they were from a different era, we’d be writing about them as folk heroes.
45. Alan Ferdman says:

    February 9, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Hi All.

    Links to TimBen Boydston, Henry Schultz and Harrison Katz presentations at the January Canyon Country Advisory Committee Meeting can be found on http://www.canyoncountryadvisor.com.
    As the February and March CCAC meetings take place, all candidate presentations will be posted for your viewing pleasure. You are also more than welcome to come and see them live at the February 17 and March 17 CCAC meetings.
46. Linda Brown says:

    February 9, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Referring to IHeartSCV’ post regarding article in LA Times in that approximately 11% of prison population is illegal immigrants and 8% of total California population is illegal so they do contribute to more crime. While this may be true, consider this:

    According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 29% of the population is African American and only 7% of the population in California is African American. There clearly is a bigger crime threat here. Should we not allow African Americans into the state? (I’m just saying this for effect and dont mean this in one bit.)

    I dont buy the claim that illegal immigrants is a source for out-of-control crime. Maybe we should be looking at our own citizens to prevent crime.
47. mike says:

    February 9, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Mr. Ferdman, Will you be rescinding your endorsement of Mr. Gauny in light of his embrace of the out-of-town immigration nuts?

    http://scvtalk.com/2010/01/26/who-is-frank-jorge/

    http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/09/anti-illegal-roadshow-back-for-more-with-kellar-as-the-headline-act/
48. Scott Ervin says:

    February 9, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    How dare you besmirch the good name of nuts (I’m an almond man myself) . .
49. mike says:

    February 9, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Credit where credit is due: Duane Harte had a very eloquent and fair-minded pro-Kellar comment tonight.
50. mike says:

    February 9, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    oh, and I apologize to all plant-based nuts. A brush too broad.
51. Spineflower2 says:

    February 10, 2010 at 8:24 am

    “And who will be taking care of their children who are citizens, spine?”

    Hmmm, maybe their parents, perhaps?

    I didn’t breed them. Maybe the parents should have thought about the consequences of their crime instead of expecting “The State” to bail them out.

    Yet another expense of illegal immigration we all bear unfairly.

    Using their own kids as a “human shield” to justify breaking the law is despicable.

    Get real folks… the logical endpoint of open borders is equalization of the standard of living. Do you really want to live to the average north American standard? There would be civil war long before the average US citizen were reduced to that level of poverty. By adding yet another cycle of amnesty and future illegal immigration, we take another giant leap toward that end game. Examine the numbers of theat future state and think ahrd about whether you reallty want to go there. It makes the current recession look like boomtown, folks.

    Does no one pay attention in economics and government classes in school any more?
52. NickelDime says:

    February 10, 2010 at 9:30 am

    spine:

    That’s the point. We’re reversing decades-long sanctuary policies. It’s called “transition.” The about-face you and the Minutemen are proposing would be an international embarrassment.

    I don’t agree with your analysis. These people are already here, working for less-than-minimum wage.

    If we bring them into the process, punish businesses that skirt the system (wasn’t done last time), and secure the border (wasn’t done last time), and send those who fail a background check home, the concern about us becoming a “third world country” goes away. This process would elevate the standard of living by closing the massive loophole that they’re living in now.
53. Spineflower2 says:

    February 10, 2010 at 9:40 am

    ND, there is no political support (read: business backing) to do any of the latter enforcement steps, so they just won’t happen… just like they didn’t happen last time.

    So “amnesty and enforcement” will, again, become just “amnesty.” And we repeat the cycle as we spin to lower and lower standards of living for the hardest hit of our citizenry.
54. NickelDime says:

    February 10, 2010 at 9:52 am

    spine:
    It’s quite ironic we’re on the opposite sides of this. I’d guess if this were a real time conversation, we’d probably have more success convincing each other of our ideas.

    On your last point, you may be right. My statement is “not one without the other.” However, this is one instance where I welcome the fact that the President is in the tank for the unions, who would never let it happen any other way.
55. Berta González-Harper says:

    February 10, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    ND: Is that the same President whose aunt is an illegal from Kenya living in government-subsidized housing?