Wednesday, March 29, 2006
ROB REINER RESIGNS
The Governor missed an opportunity to look like a reformer.
Official Statement by Mike Spence--President of CRA sponsor of FireReiner.com
"Rob Reiner was allowed to use his position to benefit his personal political projects at taxpayer expense. Governor Schwarzenegger should have fired him. Reiner's resignation does not end the controversy. Now we need an audit to see what campaign consultants benefited through Reiner's actions."
See article about Reiner here.
Official Statement by Mike Spence--President of CRA sponsor of FireReiner.com
"Rob Reiner was allowed to use his position to benefit his personal political projects at taxpayer expense. Governor Schwarzenegger should have fired him. Reiner's resignation does not end the controversy. Now we need an audit to see what campaign consultants benefited through Reiner's actions."
See article about Reiner here.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Sowell on Immigration.
Great piece from Thomas Sowell on immigration. See it here.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The Kids Made Me Do It
Reiner thinks his scheme for preschool grants him immunity for any wrong doing. Make sure you sign the petition at FireReiner.com.
Below is a wonderful editorial I read this a.m. in the Wall Street Journal. Good stuff on Reiner.
Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008097'
Hands Off My Fridge, Meathead'
By SHIKHA DALMIA and LISA SNELL
March 16, 2006; Page A12
LOS ANGELES -- Hollywood film director turned political activist Rob Reiner believes that he ought to be exempt from accountability because of his good intentions. That was the clear message from his press conference on Tuesday,called to address accusations that he violated a state ban when he diverted taxpayer dollars from First 5 -- an unelected commission to promote children's health that he's headed for six years -- to run an ad campaign promoting his latest ballot initiative called Preschool for All. A bipartisan group of senators has ordered an audit of the commission's funds. Mr. Reiner, who first rose to fame when he played Meathead, Archie Bunker's liberal son-in-law on "All in the Family," vowed not to resign, because he wants to do "right by the four-year-olds."
This is not the commission's only questionable contract. First 5 has received to date $800 million -- about 20% -- of the tobacco proceeds that Mr. Reiner convinced California voters to impose on themselves in a 1998 referendum. Of this, the commission has awarded contracts totaling about$230 million to firms or individuals known to Mr. Reiner -- some of them without competitive bidding. Meanwhile, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office is mulling whether to launch its own investigation to determine if there was any cronyism involved in awarding the ad campaign contract to a firm with long-standing ties to Mr. Reiner.
Mr. Reiner is unfazed by all of this. The commission's ad campaign, he says,was perfectly legitimate because it was merely informing parents of the benefits of preschool -- not telling them how to vote on his new initiative. No doubt this is the kind of creative thinking that has made him such a successful Hollywood director. If state authorities buy this logic, however, they will effectively legitimize a scheme to leverage the tax proceeds from one referendum to support another involving still more taxes.
But now that Mr. Reiner has succeeded in putting his Preschool for All initiative on the ballot, the most immediate issue for voters is not how he financed it, but what he is selling them. The initiative sounds like a great bargain: By imposing a 1.7% tax on couples making over $800,000 ($400,000 for individuals), it seeks to generate $2.4 billion to fund three hours of free preschool every day for California's four-year-olds.
Yet even the Reiner folks don't expect to enroll all four-year-olds in the program -- just 70% of them. However, 66% of California's four-year-olds already attend some form of preschool. This means that $2.4 billion willf und 22,000 new kids -- about $109,000 per new preschooler, according to are cent analysis by the Reason Foundation. For this kind of money, a lot of poor parents could put their kids through a good state college and graduate school and still have some change left for a family field trip to the Galapagos.
Mr. Reiner's spokesman Nathan James disputes Reason's cost estimate on grounds that although 66% of four-year-olds currently get preschool, only about 25% get "quality" preschool. "It could be baby-sitting or throwing a kid in front of a TV set," he told the New York Sun. The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating -- and what's coming out of Oklahoma and Georgia, two states that implemented universal preschool over a decade ago-- is not particularly appetizing. Last year, the gains in reading scores of fourth graders in both states ranked among the bottom 10 on the National Assessment of Education Progress tests -- the premier benchmark for comparing student performance across states. Even more stunning, not one of the 10 best performing states had universal preschool programs.
Even before Mr. Reiner went on the offensive this Tuesday, some California Democrats were beginning to wonder about the wisdom of his scheme. Two of them, Tom Torlakson of Antioch and Don Perata of Oakland, have publicly withdrawn support from his initiative, citing concerns that it would only subsidize kids who already have preschool, not those who most need it. Indeed, because universal preschool programs are by definition not means-tested, they help not the poor so much as middle-income or wealthy families who are better at negotiating the system. In Quebec, for instance,which implemented the most ambitious universal preschool program eight years ago, about half of the government-funded day care spots are taken up by families in the top 30% income bracket who can well afford to pay out-of-pocket.
But this is not the only way that Mr. Reiner's attempt to play Robin Hood would end up back-firing on the poor. An analysis by LECG, an economic consulting firm in California, has found that the Reiner tax-hike would actually result in more than $4 billion in general fund losses over the first five years as rich taxpayers either flee the state or report less taxable income. This would either mean cuts in health, welfare and other programs for the poor -- or an even bigger fiscal deficit. There is a better way to help poor parents without soaking taxpayers or jinxing the budget. California already spends $3 billion on preschool. It would make far more sense to hand this money to lower- and middle-income families in the form of targeted preschool tax credits.
Mr. Reiner's ad campaign mentions neither the indifferent results of universal preschool nor its budgetary consequences. This, in itself, would not be a problem, because a democracy counts not on any one person's script,but many partial ones from numerous interested parties, to get the full story across to voters. But there is a problem when someone has unfair access to taxpayer dollars to bank roll his script over others. This is why California authorities need to give close scrutiny to Mr. Reiner's tactics-- and California voters to his grand taxing plans. As Archie Bunker would say: Hands off my fridge, Meathead.
Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst and Ms. Snell the director of education policy at the Reason Foundation.
Below is a wonderful editorial I read this a.m. in the Wall Street Journal. Good stuff on Reiner.
Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008097'
Hands Off My Fridge, Meathead'
By SHIKHA DALMIA and LISA SNELL
March 16, 2006; Page A12
LOS ANGELES -- Hollywood film director turned political activist Rob Reiner believes that he ought to be exempt from accountability because of his good intentions. That was the clear message from his press conference on Tuesday,called to address accusations that he violated a state ban when he diverted taxpayer dollars from First 5 -- an unelected commission to promote children's health that he's headed for six years -- to run an ad campaign promoting his latest ballot initiative called Preschool for All. A bipartisan group of senators has ordered an audit of the commission's funds. Mr. Reiner, who first rose to fame when he played Meathead, Archie Bunker's liberal son-in-law on "All in the Family," vowed not to resign, because he wants to do "right by the four-year-olds."
This is not the commission's only questionable contract. First 5 has received to date $800 million -- about 20% -- of the tobacco proceeds that Mr. Reiner convinced California voters to impose on themselves in a 1998 referendum. Of this, the commission has awarded contracts totaling about$230 million to firms or individuals known to Mr. Reiner -- some of them without competitive bidding. Meanwhile, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office is mulling whether to launch its own investigation to determine if there was any cronyism involved in awarding the ad campaign contract to a firm with long-standing ties to Mr. Reiner.
Mr. Reiner is unfazed by all of this. The commission's ad campaign, he says,was perfectly legitimate because it was merely informing parents of the benefits of preschool -- not telling them how to vote on his new initiative. No doubt this is the kind of creative thinking that has made him such a successful Hollywood director. If state authorities buy this logic, however, they will effectively legitimize a scheme to leverage the tax proceeds from one referendum to support another involving still more taxes.
But now that Mr. Reiner has succeeded in putting his Preschool for All initiative on the ballot, the most immediate issue for voters is not how he financed it, but what he is selling them. The initiative sounds like a great bargain: By imposing a 1.7% tax on couples making over $800,000 ($400,000 for individuals), it seeks to generate $2.4 billion to fund three hours of free preschool every day for California's four-year-olds.
Yet even the Reiner folks don't expect to enroll all four-year-olds in the program -- just 70% of them. However, 66% of California's four-year-olds already attend some form of preschool. This means that $2.4 billion willf und 22,000 new kids -- about $109,000 per new preschooler, according to are cent analysis by the Reason Foundation. For this kind of money, a lot of poor parents could put their kids through a good state college and graduate school and still have some change left for a family field trip to the Galapagos.
Mr. Reiner's spokesman Nathan James disputes Reason's cost estimate on grounds that although 66% of four-year-olds currently get preschool, only about 25% get "quality" preschool. "It could be baby-sitting or throwing a kid in front of a TV set," he told the New York Sun. The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating -- and what's coming out of Oklahoma and Georgia, two states that implemented universal preschool over a decade ago-- is not particularly appetizing. Last year, the gains in reading scores of fourth graders in both states ranked among the bottom 10 on the National Assessment of Education Progress tests -- the premier benchmark for comparing student performance across states. Even more stunning, not one of the 10 best performing states had universal preschool programs.
Even before Mr. Reiner went on the offensive this Tuesday, some California Democrats were beginning to wonder about the wisdom of his scheme. Two of them, Tom Torlakson of Antioch and Don Perata of Oakland, have publicly withdrawn support from his initiative, citing concerns that it would only subsidize kids who already have preschool, not those who most need it. Indeed, because universal preschool programs are by definition not means-tested, they help not the poor so much as middle-income or wealthy families who are better at negotiating the system. In Quebec, for instance,which implemented the most ambitious universal preschool program eight years ago, about half of the government-funded day care spots are taken up by families in the top 30% income bracket who can well afford to pay out-of-pocket.
But this is not the only way that Mr. Reiner's attempt to play Robin Hood would end up back-firing on the poor. An analysis by LECG, an economic consulting firm in California, has found that the Reiner tax-hike would actually result in more than $4 billion in general fund losses over the first five years as rich taxpayers either flee the state or report less taxable income. This would either mean cuts in health, welfare and other programs for the poor -- or an even bigger fiscal deficit. There is a better way to help poor parents without soaking taxpayers or jinxing the budget. California already spends $3 billion on preschool. It would make far more sense to hand this money to lower- and middle-income families in the form of targeted preschool tax credits.
Mr. Reiner's ad campaign mentions neither the indifferent results of universal preschool nor its budgetary consequences. This, in itself, would not be a problem, because a democracy counts not on any one person's script,but many partial ones from numerous interested parties, to get the full story across to voters. But there is a problem when someone has unfair access to taxpayer dollars to bank roll his script over others. This is why California authorities need to give close scrutiny to Mr. Reiner's tactics-- and California voters to his grand taxing plans. As Archie Bunker would say: Hands off my fridge, Meathead.
Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst and Ms. Snell the director of education policy at the Reason Foundation.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Day of Silence is a red herring
In the lovely and aromatic hamlet of Gilroy, CA, there has been an ongoing battle to stop teachers from participating in what was supposed to be a "Student Led" silent protest against alleged harassment of homosexual students. There is far more hostility towards Christian's and Conservatives than towards this miniscule sector of society. Yet this squeaky and well funded group continues its' effort's to undermine the traditional family so that they don't feel...well..queer. MZ
attached is a letter crafted by Pacific Justice Institute on my behalf and sent to our local paper as well as to each School Board Trustee and the Superintendent:
March 15, 2006
Jim Rogers, Trustee
Rhoda Bress, Trustee
Jaime Rosso, Trustee
Patricia Midtgaard, Trustee
Tom Bundros, Trustee
David McRae, Trustee
Javier Aguirre, Trustee
Edwin Diaz, Superintendent
GILROY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
7810 Arroyo Circle
Gilroy, CA 95020
Re: Open Letter Concerning School Employee Participation in the Day of Silence
Dear Trustees and Superintendent Diaz,
Last spring, on April 21, 2005, we wrote to you regarding school employee participation in the Day of Silence. Moreover, one of our attorneys and the President of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), Brad Dacus, addressed the Board on this issue.
Members of the Gilroy community have notified us that the Board will again be considering the Day of Silence, via a Superintendent’s Report, during the Board Meeting tomorrow night, March 16, 2006. For that reason, we are writing to remind you of important legal principles in connection with this event.
Definition of the Day of Silence
The Day of Silence, as described by its organizers, is explained as follows:
“a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment -- in effect, the silencing -- experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”[1]
Student Speech vs. Employee Speech
As an initial matter, the Day of Silence is a “student-led day.” The U.S. Supreme Court has held that students do “not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Moreover, “[s]tudents of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech…[unless such speech] so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school. Educ.C. § 48907.
The purpose of the Day of Silence is not to give teachers, who stand in a position of authority, an opportunity to influence the pupils in their classroom by participating in a student protest. It is a “student-led day.” As the courts have explained, an instructor is “one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in the high school’s classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his views with those of the school is substantial.” Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994).
Additionally, the legislature has limited First Amendment activities of school employees. By way of example, instructors do not have the same First Amendment rights as students in the area of political activities. (California Education Code §7054, CTA v. Governing Bd., 45 Cal.App.4th 1383 (4th Dist. 1996)). In view of this, teachers do not have unbridled discretion to express themselves by joining a student gay rights protest.
Academic Freedom
The First Amendment provides teachers the right to academic freedom. L.A. Teachers Union v. L.A. City Board of Education, 71 Cal.2d. 551 (1969). However, “a teacher’s right to speak is constitutionally protected as long as it does not result in any disruption, or impairment of discipline or materially interfere with school activities.” Adcock v. Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District, 10 Cal.3d 60, 65 (CA Sup. Ct. 1973).
When teachers refuse to speak in a classroom, they interfere with their essential duty to communicate with pupils. By doing so, instructors diminish the curriculum focused learning experience of students. In sum, the refusal of teachers to speak materially interferes with the most important activity for which a school can engage – teaching.
Curriculum
The governing board of school of a school district is charged with the task of preparing, and enforcing the execution of, courses of study prescribed for the schools under its jurisdiction. Educ.C. §§ 51040, 51053-51054. Moreover, part of the process of selecting curriculum involves teacher, parent and community involvement. Educ.C. § 60002. Of course, the final approval rests with the board. Educ.C. § 60004.
It is self-evident that academic freedom is to be exercised within the parameters of the curriculum.
Diversity Curriculum
At its discretion, a governing board can proactively implement diversity education in its curriculum. This can be done to combat discrimination and harassment under Educ.C. § 201.[2]
However, the law does not allow teachers to take it upon themselves to develop their own diversity curriculum that has not been approved by the board. In like manner, the law does not allow teachers to bring in diversity curriculum and instructional materials that are not approved by the board. This would defeat both the academic safeguards guards and the intent of the democratic process put in place by the legislature under Educ.C. § 60000, et seq. As to the democratic process, teachers, parents and members of the community jointly select instructional materials which are then put before the board of trustees (the elected representatives of the people) for review and decision as to whether said materials will be adopted.
In the matter at hand, teacher participation in the Day of Silence, if it is not a part of the previously board approved diversity curriculum, cannot be undertaken as a means to comply with Educ.C. § 201, et seq.
Prevention of Classroom Interruptions
Interruptions to classroom instructional time “seriously impairs the educational process.” Educ.C. §32212(a). As such, school boards are to “formally address the problem of classroom interruptions and adopt a policy to control those interruptions.” Educ.C. §32212(b).
Teacher participation in the Day of Silence would undoubtedly be an interruption to classroom instructional time. Indeed, arguably so would student participation.[3] The school district should aim to maximize classroom time by having both teachers and students fully engaged during class.
Conclusion
In view of the above, a school district has the authority to prevent teacher participation in a student protest, such as the Day of Silence, during instructional hours. If the board would like a model policy drafted which would strike a legal balance between First Amendment rights of students and teachers and the district’s duty to maximize learning during instructional time, our legal department can assist in this.
Very truly yours,
Kevin T. Snider
Chief Counsel
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Cc: Mark Derry, Editor, Gilroy Dispatch
[1]dayofsilence.org
[2] The school must prevent harassment based upon sex, ethnic group identification, national origin, race, religion and physical or mental disability. Educ.C. §§ 200-201. Of course, it is inappropriate to have diversity education which exclusively, or even primarily, focuses on one protected class. That would clearly defeat the purpose of “diversity” education.
[3] The school can adopt a workable policy to provide full First Amendment freedoms to students while keeping students fully engaged in their studies in the classroom. For example, setting up a free speech area on the campus but disallowing protests in the classroom would be a reasonable time, place and manner restriction.
attached is a letter crafted by Pacific Justice Institute on my behalf and sent to our local paper as well as to each School Board Trustee and the Superintendent:
March 15, 2006
Jim Rogers, Trustee
Rhoda Bress, Trustee
Jaime Rosso, Trustee
Patricia Midtgaard, Trustee
Tom Bundros, Trustee
David McRae, Trustee
Javier Aguirre, Trustee
Edwin Diaz, Superintendent
GILROY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
7810 Arroyo Circle
Gilroy, CA 95020
Re: Open Letter Concerning School Employee Participation in the Day of Silence
Dear Trustees and Superintendent Diaz,
Last spring, on April 21, 2005, we wrote to you regarding school employee participation in the Day of Silence. Moreover, one of our attorneys and the President of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), Brad Dacus, addressed the Board on this issue.
Members of the Gilroy community have notified us that the Board will again be considering the Day of Silence, via a Superintendent’s Report, during the Board Meeting tomorrow night, March 16, 2006. For that reason, we are writing to remind you of important legal principles in connection with this event.
Definition of the Day of Silence
The Day of Silence, as described by its organizers, is explained as follows:
“a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment -- in effect, the silencing -- experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”[1]
Student Speech vs. Employee Speech
As an initial matter, the Day of Silence is a “student-led day.” The U.S. Supreme Court has held that students do “not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Moreover, “[s]tudents of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech…[unless such speech] so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school. Educ.C. § 48907.
The purpose of the Day of Silence is not to give teachers, who stand in a position of authority, an opportunity to influence the pupils in their classroom by participating in a student protest. It is a “student-led day.” As the courts have explained, an instructor is “one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in the high school’s classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his views with those of the school is substantial.” Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994).
Additionally, the legislature has limited First Amendment activities of school employees. By way of example, instructors do not have the same First Amendment rights as students in the area of political activities. (California Education Code §7054, CTA v. Governing Bd., 45 Cal.App.4th 1383 (4th Dist. 1996)). In view of this, teachers do not have unbridled discretion to express themselves by joining a student gay rights protest.
Academic Freedom
The First Amendment provides teachers the right to academic freedom. L.A. Teachers Union v. L.A. City Board of Education, 71 Cal.2d. 551 (1969). However, “a teacher’s right to speak is constitutionally protected as long as it does not result in any disruption, or impairment of discipline or materially interfere with school activities.” Adcock v. Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District, 10 Cal.3d 60, 65 (CA Sup. Ct. 1973).
When teachers refuse to speak in a classroom, they interfere with their essential duty to communicate with pupils. By doing so, instructors diminish the curriculum focused learning experience of students. In sum, the refusal of teachers to speak materially interferes with the most important activity for which a school can engage – teaching.
Curriculum
The governing board of school of a school district is charged with the task of preparing, and enforcing the execution of, courses of study prescribed for the schools under its jurisdiction. Educ.C. §§ 51040, 51053-51054. Moreover, part of the process of selecting curriculum involves teacher, parent and community involvement. Educ.C. § 60002. Of course, the final approval rests with the board. Educ.C. § 60004.
It is self-evident that academic freedom is to be exercised within the parameters of the curriculum.
Diversity Curriculum
At its discretion, a governing board can proactively implement diversity education in its curriculum. This can be done to combat discrimination and harassment under Educ.C. § 201.[2]
However, the law does not allow teachers to take it upon themselves to develop their own diversity curriculum that has not been approved by the board. In like manner, the law does not allow teachers to bring in diversity curriculum and instructional materials that are not approved by the board. This would defeat both the academic safeguards guards and the intent of the democratic process put in place by the legislature under Educ.C. § 60000, et seq. As to the democratic process, teachers, parents and members of the community jointly select instructional materials which are then put before the board of trustees (the elected representatives of the people) for review and decision as to whether said materials will be adopted.
In the matter at hand, teacher participation in the Day of Silence, if it is not a part of the previously board approved diversity curriculum, cannot be undertaken as a means to comply with Educ.C. § 201, et seq.
Prevention of Classroom Interruptions
Interruptions to classroom instructional time “seriously impairs the educational process.” Educ.C. §32212(a). As such, school boards are to “formally address the problem of classroom interruptions and adopt a policy to control those interruptions.” Educ.C. §32212(b).
Teacher participation in the Day of Silence would undoubtedly be an interruption to classroom instructional time. Indeed, arguably so would student participation.[3] The school district should aim to maximize classroom time by having both teachers and students fully engaged during class.
Conclusion
In view of the above, a school district has the authority to prevent teacher participation in a student protest, such as the Day of Silence, during instructional hours. If the board would like a model policy drafted which would strike a legal balance between First Amendment rights of students and teachers and the district’s duty to maximize learning during instructional time, our legal department can assist in this.
Very truly yours,
Kevin T. Snider
Chief Counsel
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Cc: Mark Derry, Editor, Gilroy Dispatch
[1]dayofsilence.org
[2] The school must prevent harassment based upon sex, ethnic group identification, national origin, race, religion and physical or mental disability. Educ.C. §§ 200-201. Of course, it is inappropriate to have diversity education which exclusively, or even primarily, focuses on one protected class. That would clearly defeat the purpose of “diversity” education.
[3] The school can adopt a workable policy to provide full First Amendment freedoms to students while keeping students fully engaged in their studies in the classroom. For example, setting up a free speech area on the campus but disallowing protests in the classroom would be a reasonable time, place and manner restriction.
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Case for Pay as You Go
Think the only way to fund infrastructure is a big bond? Assemblyman Bob Huff has penned a piece explaining Pay as You Go. See it here. If you haven't call your Assembly Member to tell them to vote NO! on the Bond, do so now!!!
Friday, March 10, 2006
Who will squish on the bond?
According to Bill Bradley at New West Notes, the Governor is still short of the six votes he needs from Assembly Republicans to pass his bond for bike paths, farm worker housing and oh ya some roads. Of course with no reforms. See the item here. See the action item below and call now!!
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Why Steve Poizner Deserves Our Support...
PCC: As you know, I was an outspoken critic of Steve Poizner for many months. I have now endorsed Steve, the CRA has endorsed Steve because Steve Poizner gets it with regards to Insurance Regulation... Garamendhi and BustaMEChA do not.
From my personal Blog:
This Makes the Case for Poizner for Insurance Commissioner
RC: Here's the ball game, you have a self-made Billionaire businessman ruinning against a racist career politician for Insurance Commissioner. I use an editorial I am attaching to make the case for why career politicians should never be Insurance Commissioner.
Steve Poizner has signed both sides of a paycheck, John Garamendhi has lived off of the taxpayers most of his adult life in office as has Cruz BustaMEChA. (this highlights Cruz' membership in a racist organization that has as their desire the RE-Conquista of the territory we took from Mexco after they attacked us in 1848.) We call Bustamonte either BustaMEChA or "the Chalupa".
This editorial is about Garamendhi's latest idiotic Insurance Regulation Idea... People who live in the real world don't think of stuff like this. For those of you that read this blog who live in and North of Kern County with the exception of the Bay Area... you should be keenly aware as our rates will get hammered if this Bombastically Idiotic regulation gets adopted.
At least Garamendhi has a brain, he knows why he hates the Insurance Industry... Cruz BustaMEChA on the other hand is just looking for another government job. The "Chalupa" as insurance commissioner would make the below story would only be the tip of the iceberg.-----
Garamendi insurance plan invites cynicism
San Dieto UNION-TRIBUNE Editorial
February 16, 2006
It sure sounds fair. That's the initial appeal of Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi's plan to revamp auto insurance rules to make premiums more dependent on driving records and how much one drives than on ZIP codes.
“This regulation is simply a requirement that insurers base rates primarily on how people drive, and not where they live,” the veteran Democrat said at the Dec. 22 unveiling of his proposal, which he hopes to implement this summer.
But the more one looks at what Garamendi wants, the less it looks like a noble public servant pursuing “basic fairness” and the more it seems crassly political.
Consider some of the many strong counterarguments against his plan. Here are three: Accidents are hardly the only factor in setting insurance rates. Auto thefts and vandalism are hugely costly. This is why ZIP codes are crucial to insurers' formulas. Why should drivers in low-crime areas be forced to subsidize those in high-crime areas?
Driving records aren't nearly as reliable in predicting risk as one might think. The ease with which motorists can erase accidents and violations from their driving records by going to worthless “traffic schools” reduces the salience of those records. Many drivers also don't report fender-benders.
All mileage is not equal. Accidents are much more likely in cities than rural areas. Is a 10-block trip in Los Angeles less risky than a 10-mile drive in Imperial County?
In a phone interview, Garamendi stuck to his guns. He said the idea that ZIP codes offer great insight into driver risk is nonsense. He said the reason insurers object to his proposal is because of their concerns about maintaining their “marketing strategies,” not because they want to use rational formulas to calculate risk. And Garamendi said that beyond arguments on the merits of the changes, he was obligated to pursue new rules to conform with Proposition 103, the 1988 auto-insurance initiative.
We are unpersuaded. The present rules have been upheld by the courts, and insurers – especially Mercury executive George Joseph – make a strong case the current system does a good job of judging risk.
Besides that, we are far more inclined to trust the private sector to know how to run a business than a government bureaucrat, even an elected one. That is especially true when the bureaucrat is running for lieutenant governor. (Editor's note: There's the rub...)
It is hardly cynical to note the drivers who would most benefit from Garamendi's plan are in heavily Democratic areas – big cities and working-class suburbs. The drivers who would be hit the hardest are in generally Republican areas – rural counties and affluent suburbs.
So Garamendi wants to take money from Republicans and give it to Democrats, and in an election year in which he's seeking the Democratic nomination for a new, high-profile office. If this is a coincidence, it's one that is remarkably beneficial to Garamendi. Here's hoping this point and all the insurers' counterarguments are hammered home at the hearing on the new rules to be held on Feb. 24 in San Francisco. What John Garamendi bills as smart reform looks far more like political opportunism.
RC: Expect nothing different from the Chalupa...
From my personal Blog:
This Makes the Case for Poizner for Insurance Commissioner
RC: Here's the ball game, you have a self-made Billionaire businessman ruinning against a racist career politician for Insurance Commissioner. I use an editorial I am attaching to make the case for why career politicians should never be Insurance Commissioner.
Steve Poizner has signed both sides of a paycheck, John Garamendhi has lived off of the taxpayers most of his adult life in office as has Cruz BustaMEChA. (this highlights Cruz' membership in a racist organization that has as their desire the RE-Conquista of the territory we took from Mexco after they attacked us in 1848.) We call Bustamonte either BustaMEChA or "the Chalupa".
This editorial is about Garamendhi's latest idiotic Insurance Regulation Idea... People who live in the real world don't think of stuff like this. For those of you that read this blog who live in and North of Kern County with the exception of the Bay Area... you should be keenly aware as our rates will get hammered if this Bombastically Idiotic regulation gets adopted.
At least Garamendhi has a brain, he knows why he hates the Insurance Industry... Cruz BustaMEChA on the other hand is just looking for another government job. The "Chalupa" as insurance commissioner would make the below story would only be the tip of the iceberg.-----
Garamendi insurance plan invites cynicism
San Dieto UNION-TRIBUNE Editorial
February 16, 2006
It sure sounds fair. That's the initial appeal of Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi's plan to revamp auto insurance rules to make premiums more dependent on driving records and how much one drives than on ZIP codes.
“This regulation is simply a requirement that insurers base rates primarily on how people drive, and not where they live,” the veteran Democrat said at the Dec. 22 unveiling of his proposal, which he hopes to implement this summer.
But the more one looks at what Garamendi wants, the less it looks like a noble public servant pursuing “basic fairness” and the more it seems crassly political.
Consider some of the many strong counterarguments against his plan. Here are three: Accidents are hardly the only factor in setting insurance rates. Auto thefts and vandalism are hugely costly. This is why ZIP codes are crucial to insurers' formulas. Why should drivers in low-crime areas be forced to subsidize those in high-crime areas?
Driving records aren't nearly as reliable in predicting risk as one might think. The ease with which motorists can erase accidents and violations from their driving records by going to worthless “traffic schools” reduces the salience of those records. Many drivers also don't report fender-benders.
All mileage is not equal. Accidents are much more likely in cities than rural areas. Is a 10-block trip in Los Angeles less risky than a 10-mile drive in Imperial County?
In a phone interview, Garamendi stuck to his guns. He said the idea that ZIP codes offer great insight into driver risk is nonsense. He said the reason insurers object to his proposal is because of their concerns about maintaining their “marketing strategies,” not because they want to use rational formulas to calculate risk. And Garamendi said that beyond arguments on the merits of the changes, he was obligated to pursue new rules to conform with Proposition 103, the 1988 auto-insurance initiative.
We are unpersuaded. The present rules have been upheld by the courts, and insurers – especially Mercury executive George Joseph – make a strong case the current system does a good job of judging risk.
Besides that, we are far more inclined to trust the private sector to know how to run a business than a government bureaucrat, even an elected one. That is especially true when the bureaucrat is running for lieutenant governor. (Editor's note: There's the rub...)
It is hardly cynical to note the drivers who would most benefit from Garamendi's plan are in heavily Democratic areas – big cities and working-class suburbs. The drivers who would be hit the hardest are in generally Republican areas – rural counties and affluent suburbs.
So Garamendi wants to take money from Republicans and give it to Democrats, and in an election year in which he's seeking the Democratic nomination for a new, high-profile office. If this is a coincidence, it's one that is remarkably beneficial to Garamendi. Here's hoping this point and all the insurers' counterarguments are hammered home at the hearing on the new rules to be held on Feb. 24 in San Francisco. What John Garamendi bills as smart reform looks far more like political opportunism.
RC: Expect nothing different from the Chalupa...
The Governor is trying to play the "Fee Increase" Game...
PCC: He was not happy just proposing a massive bond to pay for roads and infastructure... now we have a water fee game going on.
PCC: Remember when we were slamming the Democrat Legislature for not calling "Fee Increases" tax increases?
Now our Republican Governor is pulling the same Crap.
No new taxes means just that, no new taxes... don't be an economic girlie man Ahnuld!!!----
Proposal favors farmers over residents, critics say
By Michael Gardner
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
March 8, 2006
SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious waterworks plan for the state could cost San Diego County homeowners and businesses about $2 million every month.
But the governor's proposal to impose water-bill surcharges ranging from $3 to $10 a month across the state has met with strong opposition. “I don't think anyone in the water community likes what's being proposed at this point,” said Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District. The resistance jeopardizes an important piece of the governor's 10-year, $35 billion plan for California's water system and flood control. “We have to invest in a lot of different kinds of projects in a lot of different locations to secure and sustain a reliable water supply for California,” said Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources.
Over the next 10 years, the fees would raise an estimated $5 billion for local and state projects to keep pace with growth by targeting conservation and improving water quality, Snow said. Financing of those projects would be largely separate from the governor's bond package to repair the state's levee system.
Critics say the flat fee has numerous flaws: It favors farmers over residents and would fund projects far from where the money is raised. There would be no limits on future increases, and lawmakers could raid the account, much like past state diversions of gas sales tax and property tax revenue. (Editor's Note: So this is like a statewide Parcel Tax...)
Just as important, in their view, the structure moves away from the principle of paying based on use – an urban water district mantra adopted to encourage conservation. The fees are part of Schwarzenegger's $222 billion public-works agenda, which has produced a deep division between the administration and lawmakers. They're staring at a Friday deadline to approve some of the package for the June ballot, a target that appears increasingly unlikely. Only the governor's $6 billion proposal to shore up levees in the Sacramento Delta appears to have any traction in a Capitol fearful of a disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. Even so, lawmakers have sharply questioned the plan's costs and environmental concessions.
Californians would feel the pinch of the governor's plan through water-bill surcharges: $3 a month per household, $5 for most businesses and up to $10 for industrial and agricultural users.
Lawmakers have recoiled from the fees. “They appear to be DOA,” said Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento. However, Jones has introduced legislation to collect fees only from those who draw water from the Sacramento Delta. “Those who benefit from the system should pay for it,” Jones said, explaining why he proposes to spare much of rural Northern California while collecting from San Diego and Los Angeles.
Water-supply giants have lined up to oppose Schwarzenegger's proposal. “This is just another way for the state to get local money to pay for state responsibilities,” said Bill Patterson, president of the East Bay Municipal Water District in the Oakland area. The San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District, two prominent wholesalers, contend that it's a giveaway to subsidized agriculture and a reversal of pricing policies designed to encourage conservation. In San Diego County, 600,000 residential customers would be billed $3 a month, or $1.8 million. Nearly 34,000 businesses would have to pay $5 a month, or $170,000, according to county water authority figures.
Patterson has accused the governor of promoting a plan of “gross disparity” between agricultural and city users. “It takes money from little old ladies on a fixed income,” he said.
Patterson cited figures that show all Oakland users would pay $4.9 million a year in fees for 46,000 acre-feet of water. In contrast, a 20,000-acre farm using 60,000 acre-feet would pay $7,500 annually, based on estimates of irrigation connections drawing from channels and streams. Two average households use about an acre-foot a year. City agencies also worry that there's little local oversight of spending and no ceiling on fee increases, Patterson said.
“You have a fund that could run amok. It's all suspect,” he said. Republicans say the surcharge is a tax, which would take a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. “Let's call it what it is – a tax,” said Sen. Sam Aanestad, a Grass Valley Republican who otherwise supports Schwarzenegger's broader public-works program. (Editor's Note: Now that I live in Lincoln, I am now a constituent of Senator Sam... a past CRA endorsee...)
Snow, the governor's water chief, argued that all Californians have a stake in every project regardless of the location. Two-thirds of Southern California's water supply, including 44 percent of San Diego County's, flows through the Sacramento Delta. Conservation in the north helps the water-strapped south, he said.
Snow also defended the relatively low fees on agriculture, from $3 to $10 a month depending on the size of the farm. City plumbing systems should pay more, proportionately, because they are the most in need of repairs and growth benefits from conservation and water projects more than agriculture, he said.
But the Valley Ag Water Coalition, which represents several powerful San Joaquin Valley farm districts, has issued a stinging rebuke of the fee. “This shift of funds undermines the financial position of all districts and transfers local financial resources to the state with no guarantee of any return,” said Robert Reeb, its executive director.
PCC: Arnold, what in God's green earth are you doing!!!
Posted By Aaron F. Park, CRA Sgt At Arms
PCC: Remember when we were slamming the Democrat Legislature for not calling "Fee Increases" tax increases?
Now our Republican Governor is pulling the same Crap.
No new taxes means just that, no new taxes... don't be an economic girlie man Ahnuld!!!----
Proposal favors farmers over residents, critics say
By Michael Gardner
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
March 8, 2006
SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious waterworks plan for the state could cost San Diego County homeowners and businesses about $2 million every month.
But the governor's proposal to impose water-bill surcharges ranging from $3 to $10 a month across the state has met with strong opposition. “I don't think anyone in the water community likes what's being proposed at this point,” said Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District. The resistance jeopardizes an important piece of the governor's 10-year, $35 billion plan for California's water system and flood control. “We have to invest in a lot of different kinds of projects in a lot of different locations to secure and sustain a reliable water supply for California,” said Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources.
Over the next 10 years, the fees would raise an estimated $5 billion for local and state projects to keep pace with growth by targeting conservation and improving water quality, Snow said. Financing of those projects would be largely separate from the governor's bond package to repair the state's levee system.
Critics say the flat fee has numerous flaws: It favors farmers over residents and would fund projects far from where the money is raised. There would be no limits on future increases, and lawmakers could raid the account, much like past state diversions of gas sales tax and property tax revenue. (Editor's Note: So this is like a statewide Parcel Tax...)
Just as important, in their view, the structure moves away from the principle of paying based on use – an urban water district mantra adopted to encourage conservation. The fees are part of Schwarzenegger's $222 billion public-works agenda, which has produced a deep division between the administration and lawmakers. They're staring at a Friday deadline to approve some of the package for the June ballot, a target that appears increasingly unlikely. Only the governor's $6 billion proposal to shore up levees in the Sacramento Delta appears to have any traction in a Capitol fearful of a disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. Even so, lawmakers have sharply questioned the plan's costs and environmental concessions.
Californians would feel the pinch of the governor's plan through water-bill surcharges: $3 a month per household, $5 for most businesses and up to $10 for industrial and agricultural users.
Lawmakers have recoiled from the fees. “They appear to be DOA,” said Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento. However, Jones has introduced legislation to collect fees only from those who draw water from the Sacramento Delta. “Those who benefit from the system should pay for it,” Jones said, explaining why he proposes to spare much of rural Northern California while collecting from San Diego and Los Angeles.
Water-supply giants have lined up to oppose Schwarzenegger's proposal. “This is just another way for the state to get local money to pay for state responsibilities,” said Bill Patterson, president of the East Bay Municipal Water District in the Oakland area. The San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District, two prominent wholesalers, contend that it's a giveaway to subsidized agriculture and a reversal of pricing policies designed to encourage conservation. In San Diego County, 600,000 residential customers would be billed $3 a month, or $1.8 million. Nearly 34,000 businesses would have to pay $5 a month, or $170,000, according to county water authority figures.
Patterson has accused the governor of promoting a plan of “gross disparity” between agricultural and city users. “It takes money from little old ladies on a fixed income,” he said.
Patterson cited figures that show all Oakland users would pay $4.9 million a year in fees for 46,000 acre-feet of water. In contrast, a 20,000-acre farm using 60,000 acre-feet would pay $7,500 annually, based on estimates of irrigation connections drawing from channels and streams. Two average households use about an acre-foot a year. City agencies also worry that there's little local oversight of spending and no ceiling on fee increases, Patterson said.
“You have a fund that could run amok. It's all suspect,” he said. Republicans say the surcharge is a tax, which would take a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. “Let's call it what it is – a tax,” said Sen. Sam Aanestad, a Grass Valley Republican who otherwise supports Schwarzenegger's broader public-works program. (Editor's Note: Now that I live in Lincoln, I am now a constituent of Senator Sam... a past CRA endorsee...)
Snow, the governor's water chief, argued that all Californians have a stake in every project regardless of the location. Two-thirds of Southern California's water supply, including 44 percent of San Diego County's, flows through the Sacramento Delta. Conservation in the north helps the water-strapped south, he said.
Snow also defended the relatively low fees on agriculture, from $3 to $10 a month depending on the size of the farm. City plumbing systems should pay more, proportionately, because they are the most in need of repairs and growth benefits from conservation and water projects more than agriculture, he said.
But the Valley Ag Water Coalition, which represents several powerful San Joaquin Valley farm districts, has issued a stinging rebuke of the fee. “This shift of funds undermines the financial position of all districts and transfers local financial resources to the state with no guarantee of any return,” said Robert Reeb, its executive director.
PCC: Arnold, what in God's green earth are you doing!!!
Posted By Aaron F. Park, CRA Sgt At Arms
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Effect of a CRA Endorsement...
RC: This is why the CRA is the most important Club/Organization in the California GOP.
Yes, the Women's Federated do more ground work as they register voters by the thousands. The Women's Federated clubs are the backbone of any precinct orgainzation that any campaign wants to organize. That being said, the major difference is as follows:
The CRA can endorse pre-primary and our organization is large and is followed by many people. This means that we directly influence the outcome of elections... this is why our conventions usually feature a ton of elected officials that attend.
Witness the two attached Press Releases and how those sending them regard the CRA Endorsement...
Insurance Commissioner Candidate Steve Poizner...
Poizner Gains Endorsements from Senator McClintock and the CA Republican Assembly Poizner unites GOP base(Bakersfield) -
The Steve Poizner for Insurance Commissioner campaign picked up two major endorsements over the weekend: GOP Senator Tom McClintock and the California Republican Assembly (CRA).
"Tom McClintock is, by far, one of the most popular and trusted Republicans in the state, and his support for Steve Poizner is a significant benchmark in this race," said campaign spokesman Tim Clark. "
Tom's support, coupled with the endorsement from the CRA, adds tremendous strength to Steve's effort to consolidate and unite the Republican Party behind his candidacy."
At their annual convention Sunday, California Republican Assembly delegates gave Steve Poizner several loud ovations and easily delivered the required 2/3 vote to endorse Poizner on the first ballot.
Editor's Note: I was there and I was proud to speak to the gathering on his behalf. This report is accurate as the dissent was vacuous at best and the endorsement was handed down on the first ballot.
"I am grateful to have the CRA's support, and I look forward to working closely with the grassroots of our party as we prepare for the November elections," said Steve Poizner.
Ronald Reagan described the CRA as the "conscience of the Republican Party" and is the largest GOP grassroots organization in the state.
Steve Poizner has been endorsed by virtually all Republican members of the Assembly and Senate Republican caucuses, as well as those of the California GOP delegation in the U.S. Congress.
From Controller Candidate Tony Strickland:
Tony Strickland Wins Endorsement from California Republican Assembly
Will be featured on their statewide slate mailing (Bakersfield)
Continuing a string of major victories, Tony Strickland was endorsed over the weekend by the California Republican Assembly at their annual statewide convention. The endorsement ensures that Strickland will be featured on that group's statewide slate mailing adding another prominent slate to the list of Strickland mailings.
"Tony Strickland is exciting the Republican grass roots base, and their support is a key to victory in a down-ticket primary", said Strickland campaign strategist Tim Clark. "His near unanimous support among the CRA delegates is a significant sign of his popularity in our party."
"Just as important, Tony will now be on yet another statewide mailing", continued Clark. "Tony will be listed on some of the most trusted and effective Republican slate mailings, including the CRA and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC, among many others. The CRA endorsement continues Tony Strickland's success in gaining major organization endorsements, including support from the Young Republican Federation of California PAC and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC, among dozens of others.
"Tony Strickland enjoys united support from virtually all of our party's grass roots organizations," said campaign spokesman Chris Wangsaporn. "Our momentum is growing, and our reach will be wide in this primary election."
Tony Strickland has also been endorsed by Senator Tom McClintock, Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, and 28 Republican legislators. (and this blogger...)
RC: The CRA endorsement has made many political careers, this is why what the CRA does, matters.
Editor's Note = Roseville Conservative and Placer County Republican are brothers.
Posted by CRA Sgt. At Arms Aaron F. Park
Yes, the Women's Federated do more ground work as they register voters by the thousands. The Women's Federated clubs are the backbone of any precinct orgainzation that any campaign wants to organize. That being said, the major difference is as follows:
The CRA can endorse pre-primary and our organization is large and is followed by many people. This means that we directly influence the outcome of elections... this is why our conventions usually feature a ton of elected officials that attend.
Witness the two attached Press Releases and how those sending them regard the CRA Endorsement...
Insurance Commissioner Candidate Steve Poizner...
Poizner Gains Endorsements from Senator McClintock and the CA Republican Assembly Poizner unites GOP base(Bakersfield) -
The Steve Poizner for Insurance Commissioner campaign picked up two major endorsements over the weekend: GOP Senator Tom McClintock and the California Republican Assembly (CRA).
"Tom McClintock is, by far, one of the most popular and trusted Republicans in the state, and his support for Steve Poizner is a significant benchmark in this race," said campaign spokesman Tim Clark. "
Tom's support, coupled with the endorsement from the CRA, adds tremendous strength to Steve's effort to consolidate and unite the Republican Party behind his candidacy."
At their annual convention Sunday, California Republican Assembly delegates gave Steve Poizner several loud ovations and easily delivered the required 2/3 vote to endorse Poizner on the first ballot.
Editor's Note: I was there and I was proud to speak to the gathering on his behalf. This report is accurate as the dissent was vacuous at best and the endorsement was handed down on the first ballot.
"I am grateful to have the CRA's support, and I look forward to working closely with the grassroots of our party as we prepare for the November elections," said Steve Poizner.
Ronald Reagan described the CRA as the "conscience of the Republican Party" and is the largest GOP grassroots organization in the state.
Steve Poizner has been endorsed by virtually all Republican members of the Assembly and Senate Republican caucuses, as well as those of the California GOP delegation in the U.S. Congress.
From Controller Candidate Tony Strickland:
Tony Strickland Wins Endorsement from California Republican Assembly
Will be featured on their statewide slate mailing (Bakersfield)
Continuing a string of major victories, Tony Strickland was endorsed over the weekend by the California Republican Assembly at their annual statewide convention. The endorsement ensures that Strickland will be featured on that group's statewide slate mailing adding another prominent slate to the list of Strickland mailings.
"Tony Strickland is exciting the Republican grass roots base, and their support is a key to victory in a down-ticket primary", said Strickland campaign strategist Tim Clark. "His near unanimous support among the CRA delegates is a significant sign of his popularity in our party."
"Just as important, Tony will now be on yet another statewide mailing", continued Clark. "Tony will be listed on some of the most trusted and effective Republican slate mailings, including the CRA and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC, among many others. The CRA endorsement continues Tony Strickland's success in gaining major organization endorsements, including support from the Young Republican Federation of California PAC and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC, among dozens of others.
"Tony Strickland enjoys united support from virtually all of our party's grass roots organizations," said campaign spokesman Chris Wangsaporn. "Our momentum is growing, and our reach will be wide in this primary election."
Tony Strickland has also been endorsed by Senator Tom McClintock, Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, and 28 Republican legislators. (and this blogger...)
RC: The CRA endorsement has made many political careers, this is why what the CRA does, matters.
Editor's Note = Roseville Conservative and Placer County Republican are brothers.
Posted by CRA Sgt. At Arms Aaron F. Park
Governor' Prop 49 hurts state
Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton, who I rarely agree with, has a great inisght into Prop. 49. Please note that CRA opposed Prop. 49, while the CRP supported it. See it here.
Friday, March 03, 2006
WESTERN UNION-URGENT MEMO
ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS OF THE CRA..STOP..THERE IS SERIOUS EVIDENCE OF AN OUTBREAK OF RINO VIRUS..STOP..THIS IS NOT TO BE MISTAKEN FOR THE COMMON RHINO VIRUS WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF SNOT..STOP..WHILE THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF SNOT AND SNORTING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS VIRUS..STOP..IT HAS A MUCH MORE SERIOUS MANIFESTATION IN THAT A LARGE HORN GROWS OUT OF THE HEAD OF THE INFECTED INDIVIDUAL..STOP..WARNING! AVOID THIS INFECTION AT ALL COST!..STOP..LIKE HERPES, ONCE YOU CATCH IT, IT WILL ALWAYS BE THERE JUST WAITING TO POP OUT AGAIN..STOP
END OF MESSAGE
END OF MESSAGE
