Friday Open Thread: NextGen Bush

Is America ready for the next generation of Bush family politicians? Here comes George P. Bush, son of Jeb and Columba Bush, and brother of Noelle and John W. Bush. He has one thing in common with his uncle GW: a "youthful indiscretion" which didn't make it to the criminal justice system. (police report here.)

George P. Bush might be a hunkalicious young Republican, but he still seems a bit creepy. So TSG wasn't too surprised to learn that "P" was involved ina troubling 1994 incident described in this Metro-Dade Police Department report. On December 31, 1994, Bush showed up at 4 AM at the Miami home of a former girlfriend. He proceeded to break into the house via the woman's bedroom window, and then began arguing with his ex's father. Bush, then a Rice University student, soon fled the scene. But he returned 20 minutes later to drive his Ford Explorer across the home's front lawn, leaving wide swaths of burned grass in his wake. Young Bush avoided arrest when the victims declined to press charges.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< First Asst. AUSA in LA Demoted for Online Commentary | CIA Chief Petraeus Resigns Over Extra-Marital Affair >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I deleted that comment (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    it was far beyond the spirit of this post, and uncalled for. Accidents happen.

    re Bushes: Too soon (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:21:01 PM EST

    Can't we please just ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    ... bask in the afterglow of a solid Democratic victory on Tuesday night, without having to consider the Bush family's future political prospects? As far as I'm concerned, dysfunctional plus lots of money and clout still equals dysfunctional.

    That said, it's really a damned shame that the parents of Jorgito's ex-girlfriend declined to press charges for breaking & entering and malicious vandalism, which potentially could have saved us from even having this discussion.

    Aloha. ;-D

    I wonder if a financial settlement (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    persuaded them to decline to prosecute.  

    I assume (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by sj on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    that's a rhetorical question.

    More likely... (none / 0) (#141)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 04:39:05 AM EST
    ...an aversion to having it all dragged through the news media.

    I expect anyone he was involved with came from a family with a few nickles of their own to rub together.


    Notwithstanding the 22nd amendment... (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    I demand at least the 20 years of consecutive Democratic presidencies to meet or exceed the FDR Truman run of 1932-1952. Saw a poll already that Clinton and Christie are polling favorites for 2016. Hillary would wipe the floor with him.

    Problem is... (none / 0) (#142)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 04:40:05 AM EST
    ...dysfunctional plus lots of money and clout can all too easily equal elected.

    Another Bush? Nooooooooooooooo (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:13:31 PM EST

    Oh, God! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    Stunned J is not all over this (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg has dismissed all misdemeanor marijuana possession cases currently pending in Washington's largest county.

    New book title..."kdog Goes To Washington."

    Not much of a stretch (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    The Seattle city attorney and SPD made marijuana posession and use their "lowest priority" a few years ago. Now that the legalization initiative passed, they are waiting for advice on how to proceed.

    News flash. Applications to (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:18:02 PM EST
    Aspen Music Festival swamping the festival:



    this (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    is how i feel too

    This reelection troubles me. It troubles me because of the signal it may send to some of the people running the Democratic Party, and to Barack Obama, a signal that may threaten the long-term health of the Democratic Party itself.

    And I agree with Lambert, too: (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    As the blogger Lambert Strether impishly put it on Election Day: "I'm betting the Ds, who wouldn't abolish the filibuster for health care or the stimulus, will abolish it if that's what it takes to kick the hippies and gut Social Security."

    As much as it pains me.


    I think the congressional Dems (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:50:34 PM EST
    that DO have to run again are well aware of their chances should Social Security be drastically 'reformed'.  And the number from the election they should be wary of is the one from FL that showed seniors trusting Mitt Romney a lot more on Medicare than they did Obama. I think those ads that said he took out 600 billion stuck, no matter how misleading.

    I hope their basic sense of self-preservation will prevail. Pols are pols, after all.


    From our "Atlas Unplugged" file: (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:15:53 PM EST
    Suffice to say that Hardin County (TX) GOP Treasurer Peter Morrison is very, very unhappy with some of us:

    Ft. Worth Star-Telegram | November 9, 2012
    Hardin GOP official: "Maggots" elected Obama -- Republicans are already using the s-word. One party official from Southeast Texas calls for -- not secession -- separation. 'Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government?' writes Hardin County Republican treasurer Peter Morrison, a Ron Paul supporter and author of a race-heavy Tea Party newsletter. Let each go her own way,' he writes, demanding an 'amicable divorce' from the U.S. and from the 'maggots' who re-elected President Obama."

    Peter Morrison, this is for you. Aloha.

    It's "Firday?" I was going to wait (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    until closer to Christmas to get a fir, otherwise it will be dropping needles and look like Charlie Brown's pitiful little Christmas tree by the big day.

    ::snark::  but all in good humor, really.

    Jeralyn, you need a proofreader.

    She has one! (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:45:15 PM EST
    Anne, you do a great job of it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:10:17 PM EST
    for me. Thanks!

    Happy to do it, but wish it was (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    as easy to see my own typos as it is to see everyone else's.

    Now, if I could just get my daughter's mother-in-law to quit saying "prostrate" when she means "prostate;" that really sets my teeth on edge.


    ha ha ha (none / 0) (#144)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:51:45 AM EST
    I live with a person who says prostrate disease.  Reminds me of a baby sitter my kids had that my ex and I loved.  She used to tell us about her grandmother with "that old-timers disease" who couldn't remember anything.  ..... what are you going to do.  People have other strengths.

    I think "that old-timers disease" (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 08:09:38 AM EST
    is a very colorful and creative way to describe her grandmother's illness.

    I don't think I'd mind a song (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    that went: "Firday, Firday.... FUN FUN FUN FUN." Rebecca Black's biggest mistake was not waiting for Jeralyn's typo. Now her career is in the toilet.

    Kid was at least driving an American car (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    Give him some credit.  Ahem.  

    But it sounds like he and Dubya might like the same carbonated liquid barley.

    Andrea Mitchell and her guests .... (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    .... are just slobbering all over themselves at the prospect of Obama "needing" to cave on Medicare and Social Security.

    Much more in favor of this approach (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    Florida Rep.-elect Alan Grayson (D) on Wednesday night said that Democrats should not concede anything in a grand bargain with Republicans.

    "Why talk about caving at all? The Democrats won the election," he told Current TV host Eliot Spitzer.
    Grayson insisted Democrats should not accept any budget deal that lowers taxes for the wealthy or cuts Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. link1 link2


    That is my representative! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    I am loving this. I can just STFU for the next two years!

    Evidently the poltergeist (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    ate my quote marks.

    You Just Made My Day (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    I had no idea Grayson he was back in it, and he won.

    Fricken Awesome,


    Yep! with the post-census redistricting (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    they had to carve out a new district around here, so it was an open seat. Glad I ended up in the district. Previously my district was one of those odd shaped pieced together things, and I was lumped with the much more conservative Space Coast even though I am much closer to downtown Orlando. The new district is much more representative of this area.  He won quite handily! I could not be happier!

    Such an act (4.40 / 5) (#25)
    by sj on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    Obama doesn't need to cave on Medicare and Social Security -- he put it on the table himself.  "Caving" implies reluctance and Obama wants to hack at Medicare and SS.  

    Their slobbering is justified if the Very Honorable Senator Bernie Sanders caves.


    he campaigned on hacking up (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:57:10 AM EST
    SS and Medicare/medicaid the first time around.  Does no one remember that?

    On second thought, never mind. I was going to (2.33 / 3) (#64)
    by Farmboy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    respond with a request for clarification - you know, cite a source to back up your claim because after all these years I'm pretty sure you're just making it up as you go along - but it won't matter. There's no possibility for holding any sort of dialectic on this, so just take my rating as an indication that I strongly disagree with you.

    Obama put Social Security on the table (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    as early as May 2007.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

    OBAMA: Yes.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences
    beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and
    Medicare. link

    common knowledge (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    it is accepted practice not to cite sources for common knowledge. The fact that you are not aware of Obama's position even though it is common knowledge is not the other talklefty's ( I think I just coined a nic name)problem.
    I'd give you a gratuitous and meaningless low rating, but I don't want to start a trend.

    Cite (4.00 / 4) (#71)
    by sj on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    right here but a google search produces this.  It's not hard to find.  The evidence is there for those who have eyes that are open.

    If I had time, I would look for Obama's comments during the 2008 primaries when he first stated that "entitlements" needed "reform".

    Or you could look it up yourself.  If you had eyes that were open and instead of deciding that anything you don't like is "made up as [I] go along".

    You're not usually such an a$$ so I would appreciate if you would stop being one now.  It is well known that Obama has targeted "entitlements."  The Bowles Simpson Catfood Commission was created after Congress wouldn't convene one of their own.  

    I'm pretty sure you don't really read much as you go along or you would know these things.

    That's insulting, isn't it?  Well, I'm insulted, too.  And pi$$ed off.  I am critical, but I'm not insane.  And I don't "make things up".  So stop being such an incredible a$$.


    I wouldn't mind the hero worship (none / 0) (#146)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    of Obama so much if it was based in reality.
    Are we better off with him in the white house rather than Mitt?  Probably, but not much.  You have made it pretty obvious you don't know Obama.

    Unfortunately the upper ranks of the (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    Democratic Party agree with Mitchell and her guests. November 9, 2012

    Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, extended an olive branch to Republicans, suggesting Thursday that he could accept a tax plan that leaves the top tax rate at 35 percent, provided that loophole closings would hit the rich, not the middle class. He previously had said that he would accept nothing short of a return to the top tax rate of Bill Clinton's presidency, 39.6 percent. link

    Schumer said in return, Democrats would be willing to negotiate changes on matters close to their party, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and indicated Obama might say as much in an address from the East Room of the White House on Friday. link

    Here is the text of a letter to Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    with 146 co-signers (Link):

    November 9, 2012

    The President
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President,

    The undersigned, representing 146 national organizations, understand the urgent budget decisions we face as a nation over the next few months. As you work to craft a resolution to these economic and fiscal challenges, we urge you to embrace the call of the American people to focus on job creation and avoid any actions that would cost jobs; oppose benefit cuts for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; protect our nation's safety net; and oppose any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans.

    Despite some important steps, the economy still has a long way to go to achieve a full recovery. More than 20 million people are in need of full-time work, and unemployment continues to hover around 8 percent. Given the current state of the economy, we have serious concerns that many of the proposals under consideration would require substantial reductions in federal investments, removing even more money from the economy and burdening many of the same working families that have already borne the brunt of our nation's deficit reduction efforts.

    With these pressing concerns in mind, we urge that any budget agreement adopted must include:

    Creating jobs and growing the economy. While our economy is still struggling, we urge you to prioritize job creation and economic growth in any agreement adopted. It must include steps to spur private investment and to create targeted investments in infrastructure and education that will grow the economy and create quality jobs. There are proposals available to that end, including the American Jobs Act. It is imperative that the administration and Congress address this urgent need.

    No cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security benefits or shifting costs to beneficiaries or the states. Millions of seniors, children, people with disabilities, and others, depend on these vital programs and they must not be cut. They are a cornerstone of our nation's health care and retirement systems, and a promise made to future generations.

    No cuts to the safety net and vital services for low-income people. We should not allow the fiscal burden to be shifted to poor and working families who have already borne a disproportionate share of the nation's economic pain in recent years.

    Stopping the sequester. We share the concerns of economists, small business owners, state and local governments, and the millions of individuals we represent, that sequestration will harm our fragile recovery, will result in a substantial loss of jobs in both the public and private sectors, and will make harmful cuts in vital services needed to promote health, development, and economic security for people and communities nationwide that have already sustained $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction losses. We urge Congress to stop the sequester with a responsible solution that includes new revenue.

    Requiring the wealthiest and corporations to pay their fair share, starting with ending tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent. We urge you to allow tax cuts that benefit only the richest 2 percent to expire on schedule, which would save nearly $1 trillion in revenues and reduced interest payments. While a wide range of programs have been cut in recent years, the very wealthy and corporations have so far not been required to contribute a penny in additional revenues toward deficit reduction. Securing substantial new revenue from those with the greatest ability to contribute will allow us to meet deficit reduction goals, chart a more sustainable fiscal path forward, invest in the job creation measures our economy needs, and protect the programs and services that families depend upon.

    Thank you for your consideration...

    Will the president take notice?  Because labor is paying attention, and there's a lot more foundation under Occupy now than there was a year ago - and it's not going to take much to see organized, focused presence.

    Bigger question: will Congressional Dems take notice?


    blechhh! aackk!! gag!!! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    Apparently only some things "take time".  Targeting SS and Medicare can be done straightaway.  And with dispatch.

    A week ago I was wondering why on Earth this was such a close race when the "brilliant politician" Obama should have been able to walk backwards to victory against any of the jokers the Republicans put up.

    Then I read this stuff and remember... oh yeah... that's why...

    I hate this.  For the next 4 years those programs are going to have to be protected.  From the Democratic President.  And I expect that he will eventually succeed at weakening them.

    Actually, he already has succeeded, hasn't he?  With the FICA "holiday".


    That's Chuck Schumer for you. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    Really, I would expect nothing less from a guy who loves to talk game, but who don't got game.

    He's more or less assured of being Governor (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    some day, but I don't see any Bush (even Jeb, no matter how many talk about him) being a huge threat to us on the Presidential level any time soon.

    what about in the House or Senate (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    He gets to vote on legislation

    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#12)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:53:45 PM EST
    I think Jeb could well end up in the WH.

    Not if I can help it. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    After enduring two-plus decades of feckless power politics from George H.W. Bush, and then the eight years of incompetence and disaster that defines his son George W.'s presidency, I daresay that members of the Bush family have forfeited any right to expect my future consideration.

    Did They Have... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    ...you past consideration ?

    Okay, I admit you got me there. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    But honestly, the Bush family should right have lost everyone's consideration two generations ago, when Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Walker:

    • First conspired with other American bankers and industrialists to foment a military coup against President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his inauguration in 1933, and then

    • Were cited by federal authorities uner the 1942 Trading with the Enemy Act during the Second World War, after setting up a shell company in neutral Sweden by which their Union Bank circumvented federal wartime restrictions on commerce, laundered money and continued doing business with Nazi Germany.

    How different American history might have been, had those two men been arrested by the Roosevelt administration and imprisoned and / or executed for their treasonous activities.

    And wouldn't it be a nice addition if (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:36:33 PM EST
    his son was running or in some public office at the same time Jeb was going for the Presidency? Hispanic reach-out and all ;)

    Interesting timing here . . .


    Not really familiar with George "P." (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    Just now reading about him I had expected Columba, his mom, to be "Mexican" in the same kind of way Salma Hayek is Mexican, iow a wealthy upper-class European-Mexican, but no, her dad apparently was a Mexican migrant worker.

    What's also interesting (to me, anyway) is the "Latinization" of spoken English that I've observed here in LA, CA. I'm on the phone all day with local customers, and over the past years I've noticed a distinct rolling of the R's among young local non-hispanics, particularly when they say the number "3."

    It is very clear that the GOP needs to get with the program regarding Latinos.

    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    I have to give you credit then for being smarter than your party in general. Unfortunately, I do not see the GOP doing anything about the Latino issues for quite a while as the party is basically Strom Thurmond Lives On.

    A girl can only dream. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:23:35 PM EST
    another "latinization" from L.A. (none / 0) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    at least as far as i can tell - & somebody please correct me if this is wrong - is that interstate highways used to be called simply by their numbers, i.e., "Interstate 10" or just "10," but now you hear them referred to as (e.g.) "the 10"

    that is a relatively recent development

    my hypothesis is that this usage began as a translation into English of el diez, as that highway would be called by native speakers of Spanish who are living in L.A. - then (if my hypothesis holds), non-Hispanic L.A. locals picked this usage up, & those who were writers for TV series that are produced in L.A. caused this way of designating interstate highways to propagate across the nation, so that now it's heard as far north as Seattle & as far east as . . . who knows?

    countervailing evidence, anyone?


    I'm "new" to CA, we moved here (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:18:13 PM EST
    in the early 90's but it was called "the 10," "the 101" & "the 5" when we moved here.

    Oculus has been here for much longer, though, so let's see what she has to say.

    fwiw, back east where I grew up in NJ I used to live "off 287," others lived "off 95" - no "Interstate," no "I," no "the."


    I grew up in LA (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    Was born there in the late 1950's. Those freeways have been called "the 10," "the 101," "the 405," etc. ever since I can remember. Furthermore, it's the only town I know that calls freeways by city names as well, eg. "the Pasadena Freeway," "the Hollywood Freeway," "the Santa Ana Freeway"...

    I'll have you know that ... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:49:32 PM EST
    ... as of August 1, 2012 the Pasadena Freeway has offically reverted back to its original name, the Arroyo Seco Parkway, and Caltrans is also considering lowering the roadway's speed limit back down to its original 45 m.p.h.

    Nowadays, on my trips back to SoCal, I've noticed more and more people are just calling it the 110. It's certainly less confusing when giving directions, since otherwise the Pasadena Freeway / Arroyo Seco Parkway turns into the Harbor Freeway once it passes south of downtown L.A., and vice versa.

    Some trivia for the non-Angelenos here: The inspiration for the Arroyo Seco Parkway was the German autobahn of the 1930s, and along with the Pennsylvania Turnpike (which opened in Sept. 1940), it was very first open roadway of its kind ever built in the entire United States. While certainly not a freeway by present standards, it was considered state of the art when it first opened to traffic in 1939.

    Here's a great video from Caltrans, which shows original 16mm color film footage of the freeway in 1939 and juxtaposes it with footage from the same approimate locations in 2010.


    For me, thankfully, the news has seemed (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    to mostly jettison the habit of using freeway names. I still don't know most of them and it was very confusing to listen to traffic on the news.

    Don't feel bad (none / 0) (#98)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    I lived there for twenty years and was always getting confused. Had to keep asking my mom, "Tell me again... which one is the Santa Ana Fwy, and which one is the San Bernadino??"

    Oh, and should we talk about the fact that up until the 1990's, people still referred to the city of San Bernadino as "San Berdu"?


    "San Berdu?" That, I've never heard! (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    I do find some old-timers pronouncing "Valencia" va len sha, the same type of way as "Placentia" (pla cen sha) which must be wrong, right?

    LOL. (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    You're right...it's wrong...but it's also right. At least nobody ever made the mistake of pronouncing the double "l"s in Spanish names (Camarillo, Cabrillo. etc.)

    When I was little, all the adults would say "San Berdu" and somehow, I got it into my head that "San Berdu" was a prison in the desert...


    your childhood impression was too far off...

    I'll confirm that. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:53:39 PM EST
    When I was growing up in Pasadena in the 1960s and '70s, our parents and pradparents used to refer to it as "San Berdu" all the time. Nowadays, the only people who still call it that are all seem to be over 80 years old.

    And state employees who must drive (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    there in the course and scope of their employment!

    My mom moved there in '77 and I followed (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    In '79.  It was already 'the 5' and 'the 405' etc then. Also the verbal names, which were still in use enough that I learned them all pretty fast. Of course I was used to that from the Chicago area where we had the Kennedy, the Eisenhower, and the Dan Ryan. Still don't know the numbers assigned to those,

    I've always heard "The I-15, etc." (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    But, when one crosses into L.A. COunty, suddenly the freeways have names, not numbers.  Examples:  SR 22=Garden Grove, I-10=Santa Monica, I-5=San Diego, 110=Harbor or Pasadena.  Very confusing.  

    I played a wedding in Garden Grove once (none / 0) (#103)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:14:45 PM EST
    but don't ask me for directions to get there.

    Where I live, in MD, we have (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:11:03 PM EST
    "the Beltway" that encircles Baltimore - there is, of course, one that also does the same to DC.  To distinguish, you might call the Baltimore one "695," v. the Washington one, which is "495."

    There's "83" that runs from PA through to Baltimore, and is sort of bisected by "695."  That has resulted in the northern stretch sometimes being known as "the Harrisburg" as in "Harrisburg, PA," and the southern stretch being known as either the "Jones Falls Expressway" - because it parallels the Jones Falls - or the shorter, "JFX."

    Interstate 95 is just "95," either north or south.

    If the route has a name, it has a "the" in front of it - if it has a number, it doesn't.

    Interesting the regional differences in the ways we label our roads, huh?


    Actually, the San Diego Freeway is I-405. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    As you drive south from the Grapvine and Santa Clarita, I-5 diverges into I-5 and I-405 in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley. It's then called the Golden State Freeway between the City of San Fernando and downtown Los Angeles, and the Santa Ana Freeway between downtown L.A. and Irvine in Orange County.

    The 405 / San Diego Freeway runs south from the City of San Fernando to Van Nuys, and then over the Sepulveda Pass past Santa Monica, Culver City, LAX, Long Beach, Huntington Beach and Orange County-John Wayne Airport until it merges with I-5 again just southeast of Irvine.


    Which may explain my difficultry driving (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    from Disney Hall to San Diego!

    As you head north, you have to ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:18:57 PM EST
    ... really pay attention as you approach Irvine, where I-5 splits into the 405 and 5, if you're heading to Disney Hall in downtown L.A. Otherwise, should you not exit to the right and remain in the left lanes -- which is an easy thing to do, especially if the northbound traffic is heavy -- you'll wind up in Seal Beach.

    It's coming home from Disney I have (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    trouble with.  Just getting to I-5 South from Grand.  I think I've got it though.  And getting there is easy now if I leave my house at about 2 p.m.  

    Traffic has gotten so bad on I-5 South ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:40:57 PM EST
    ... that when we're visiting my mother in Pasadena and want to drive to San Diego, we've started taking I-210 due east to I-10, then turning south on I-15 at the interchange just east of Ontario Int'l Airport. From there, it's a straight shot past Lake Elsinore, etc. to San Diego.

    It looks a lot longer on the map, but it actually saves 45 minutes to an hour on the trip, especially when you know traffic in the L.A. metro area is heavy. You ought to try going east on I-10 to I-15 sometime when you leave Disney Hall in downtown L.A., and see if that isn't faster for you.


    I've done that from Huntington (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:43:36 PM EST
    Library. But not from Disney post evening concert. No need.  

    I did learn that on my trip too (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:53:44 PM EST
    My friend took that route from Yorba Linda to San Diego, except getting to the 15 from the 91. Never would have occurred to me in the old days.

    Even after doing it for years I made that (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    exact mistake when I went back for a visit in July! Was heading north from Mission Viejo and hit Brookhurst Rd before I realized...Uh-oh, I'm never going to get to La Canada this way.  Rookie mistake!!!!

    In my defense, it is Irvine to Huntington Beach (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    that is in my muscle memory!

    thanks, all, for that lively discussion (none / 0) (#125)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:12:24 PM EST
    in my experience living in several regions of the country (the East Coast, the Midwest, the Great Lakes area, the Pacific Northwest, & the Bay Area) from the early 1950s to the present, the rule that Anne laid out has always (until very recently) obtained: number only ("take 480 half a mile south" or "merge onto I-5" or "continue toward 90-West"), & no definite article unless the freeway has a proper name ("the Lizzie Borden freeway")

    i'll repeat, L.A. is the first place i ever heard "the 10" (etc.) & i still have my ideas about how that usage came about


    I read somewhere... (none / 0) (#143)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 04:47:53 AM EST
    ...that whether California highways are called "number" or "the number" is dependent on whether you're up around San Francisco or down around Los Angeles.

    In other words, it's a regional dialect thing.

    But I don't remember which was which.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    They are beating the bushes looking for a candidate.

    It's time to start campaign 2014.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    ... If the GOP does not separate out the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class from the grand bargain negotiations, Obama and his SuperPac need to hammer the GOP to the point of running commercials to get the House back in Dems hands in 2014, and Obama just needs to do as much as he can via executive orders and agency rulemaking.

    Transcript of Pres. Obama's speech (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:34:48 PM EST


    Kind of goofy to have all those people behind him.  Biden, o.k., but why the unknowns?

    To show the mandate. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by magster on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    That he was there on behalf of the voters, not the beltway.

    Interesting idea of separating out (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    the middle class tax cut first. Let them vote on something immediately, before any kind of grand bargain thing with a lot of moving parts. If the GOP refuses now, it will be there for all to see that they do not intend to cooperate with anything.

    Of course for most of us it was there for all to see already, but now that we have everyone else's attention....


    One only has to read Boehner's latest (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:51:09 PM EST

    Petraeus out (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    ABC News just reported that Petraeus has resigned as CIA head.

    I hope we don't have to be (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    subjected to the image of the humiliated, yet supportive, wife standing off to one side looking stoic.

    Can't tell you how much I hate that.


    I think it would be far more appropriate ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    ... for his girlfriend to assume that position, since he's citing his extramarital dalliance with her as the reason for his resignation.

    Hooray (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    Don't care how it happened.  One big piece of overrated nothing, IMO, and always has been.  Good riddance.  Dude couldn't even keep secret the intelligence on his own marriage.  Amazing how many people have no real understanding OF people, much less manage to rise to his level of brute power.

    Interesting Jon Stewart interview with (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:35:50 PM EST
    Paula Broadwell. link

    Per NBC News... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    "CIA Director Petraeus submits resignation letter, citing extramarital affair".  

    There's your first replacement of the second Obama administration.

    Uhhh....okay? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    Not something I would expect to derail a CIA Director.

    Only the Dems. require falling on sword. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    And that is why an ex-CIA guy (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Towanda on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    and correspondent for CNN says that there is more to this.  He says that there have been affairs before for CIA directors, and the White House looks the other way, because the mistresses are not CIA.

    So the CIA guy guesses that the affair may have been with a subordinate in the agency, and he says that is not allowed.  Now, I don't know that's so in past, but it does have bad optics amid the current crusade against abuse of power in the military.


    I also feel that (none / 0) (#54)
    by indy in sc on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    there has to be more to it.  It's strange that he would cite the affair.  Why not just say "personal reasons" and leave it at that (unless the affair was about to become public).

    Maybe the mistress was threatening to out the relationship or she was someone who it would be a real problem if classified info got into her hands--completely speculation, of course.  Infidelity is a painful thing for a family, so maybe that's all it is and he really does want to focus on his family, but most people going through this kind of thing can do that and still keep their day jobs.


    Unless....unless it was going (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:33:35 PM EST
    to blow during Petraeus 2016.  Get it over with now.  Be properly made sorry and properly reprimanded/penalized.

    Petraeus 2016 (none / 0) (#81)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    I dunno.  How broad is his knowledge on domestic issues?  Can you imagine him, esp. with this, against Hillary in 2016?  I'm seeing a gender gap a mile wide.

    He probably just wants to be (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    A respectful leader.  So many people are not cut of that cloth that it is hard for me to give anyone the benefit of the doubt these days.  Sorry guys, I know there are many respectful dudes out there who do the right thing first.

    It was going to blow in 2012 (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:22:01 PM EST
    And maybe, just maybe, he was afraid of being blackmailed. You know, as the head of a major spy agency and all. But I still think there's more to this story than the affair.

    Good riddance to him, IMO.


    Maybe no one will notice. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    As of 12:24 p.m. PST, the L.A. Times website has the firing of Lakers head coach Mike Brown as its lead story, while Gen. Petraeus' resignation has been relegated to the side bar.

    Ha. First article on UT's website. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    Most unusual, as the Chargers seem to be the top news on this site.  

    ... L.A. builds a brand-new, state-of-the-art stadium facility near downtown, and then steals them from you by bribing Chargers owner Alex Spanos to move the team 100 miles north.

    We don't want them. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:17:25 PM EST
    Please speak for yourself only. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    That said, I happen to agree with you.

    I think the present proposal to build a new stadium in the downtown financial district near Staples Center would represent a collosal misdirection of taxpayer funds by public officials, particularly during challenging economic times, because:

    • If that doesn't amount to undue public subsidies for the billionaires who own the teams, then I don't know what does;

    • Many of those same public officials in Mayor Villaraigosa's office and the L.A. City Council are simultaneously cutting the LAUSD (public school) budget to the bone, and also scaling back spending on long-overdue infrastructure repair and maintenance; and

    • L.A. County already has two 90,000+-seat stadiums in the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl.

    Because I no longer live in SoCal, I don't have a say in the matter. But I will note from talking to people on my trips back there that there seems to be an awful lot of people in L.A. County who would support construction of a new stadium if if would attract an NFL team. If it ever came up for a public vote on a prospective bond issue, I'd bet that the balloting would be pretty close.

    It's not just L.A. public officials who have misplaced priorities here.



    wow. Well....of course my brain is conditioned (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    to first think...what does this do to his presidential chances?

    He's always been 1st class officer (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    So did the 1st class thing instead of dragging his wife and family through hell.  Where does he go from here?  Only time will tell but the Republican Party needs to get over their Puritanism.  He might be exactly what they need :)

    Who is his #2 guy at CIA? (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    Dunno (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    Saw a name mentioned when I went to read about it but didn't recognize the name.

    The name I saw mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    was Mike Vickers, who is currently the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and most known for the role he played at CIA during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - "Charlie Wilson's War."

    I wish I could remember where I saw it, but apparently he would really like to have the job - whether he gets it or not, who knows?


    It was HuffPo, (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:54:01 PM EST

    As for who will replace Petraeus in the longterm, a former senior intelligence official told AOL Defense that Mike Vickers is a leading candidate.

    "The prevailing wisdom is that Mike Vickers wants this with all his heart and soul," the official told AOL Defense. Vickers, now the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, is the legendary former CIA operative who led the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan chronicled in the book, Charlie Wilson's War.

    Saw it - Mike Morrell (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    He is taking over for now.

    I called my husband and told him to hurry (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    home, I wanna play the General and the young Captain :)  Actually though, who did he dawg?  We are only guessing....what a dawg.  My husband asks, "Who am I supposed to look up to now and who is supposed to be my mentor now when America's General does this?"

    Where did I put that riding crop?


    Rumor....rumor...rumor....rumor (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    Paula Broadwell

    Slate (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    is reporting your rumor

    They are like the male and female version (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    of each other, yang and yang :)

    They're both smart people, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    But in this particular case, they acted more like TweedleDum and TweedleDumber.  I mean, jeez.

    I just can't keep my hands off myself :) (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    This is too much fun.  I feel kind of bad for them.  I can see how this happened, easily.

    1,000s of emails sent to her (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    on his account?  Sex under a desk?  I hope it wasn't when the President stopped in to see him, but if anyone else stopped in to see him can it be much better? She may have tried to access his email account and an FBI investigation?  What kind of dummies are they? The things those endorphins do.

    Not everyone on endorphins (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:46:15 PM EST
    does such stupid things. But hey, I wonder if the Republicans in the House will try to impeach Petraeus for putting his office, and possibly, a whole lot of intelligence in real danger?

    Jesus (none / 0) (#121)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    that's one way to turn an extramarital affair into a career dead end.  At least for running for President.  Wonder if the investigation will end up barring him from further major public service.  Guess we'll find out.

    Seeing the video of her on The Daily Show.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    I remember seeing it when it happened and thinking hmmmmm, someone has a crush.

    I know (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    I caught it too but it was subtle and she has that soldier respectfulness thing covered, shifts to focus on the troops swiftly as all good leaders do.  She's gifted too, she's taking a hit over this.  Did you happen to see this?

    Caught being a dawg (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    The big General... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    caught thinking with his little Private!

    Second replacement (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    Secretary of State Clinton has said that she is not interested in another appointment.

    Nor Geithner (thank flying spaghetti monster) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by magster on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    Interesting, very clear video of (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    "where the debt came from":  


    Courtesy of Fl bro who is threatening to move to Kentucky to shoo Mitch out of office.  

    Gonna bookmark that (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    for when I have energy to force feed facts into my sister's FB threads again!

    BTD (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    If I was still allowed to comment on his chains, I would suggest that this tax situation is precisely why it made sense to make the Tax Deal in 2010.

    That tax deal would have been a failure if Obama lost.  Now that he's won, Obama has the power:

    God breakdown here.

    Be good to get his thoughts.  

    Now see this is the part where I break ranks and say that Obama needs to get some brass and push hard.  

    ABG, what a coincidence! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    I was just thinking about you.



    The cartoon (none / 0) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:16:19 PM EST
    Is so true it hurts.

    When property rights run amock: (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    Once again, common sense takes a back seat to selfishness and greed. In this case, the potential victims are a rare Chinese pine tree and a Colorado spruce in the small but very wealthy suburban Seattle community of Clyde Hill:

    Seattle Times | November 9, 2012
    Olerud backed by Clyde Hill board on removal of neighbors' tree -- "Nine years after he won his third Gold Glove as a Seattle Mariners first baseman, John Olerud has won a victory in a different venue. The Clyde Hill Board of Adjustment ruled Wednesday night that Olerud's neighbor to the west must remove two trees because they unreasonably obstruct Olerud's view of Lake Washington and the Seattle skyline. The board's 3-2 order is the first time the city has told a resident to cut down a tree under a 1991 'view obstruction and tree removal' ordinance. [...] Removing the trees would widen the west-facing view from his family room by 65 percent, Olerud told the Board of Adjustment, giving his house the same amazing view of Seattle's skyline that's visible from nearby Northeast 20th Street."

    Geez, talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees! That Chinese pine and Colorado spruce have been on the neighbor's property for a long time, certainly well prior to the Oleruds' 2008 purchase of their $.4 million home.

    I can't imagine any sane court of law ultimately allowing this particularly half-a$$ed board decision to stand, should the defendants in this action decide to escalate this dispute to a higher level.

    The Oleruds built the home, fwiw. (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    The local ordinance was voted for and enacted for dealing with exactly this type of situation. And apparently there was some infestation issues with the trees as well.

    Whether or not I agree with the ordinance it is in effect, and therefor it sounds like the decision was correct.

    Also, the trees are non-native, hence their "rareness." Well, rare in Seattle, that is. The Chinese pine is native to what looks like about 1/4 or more of China, so there are likely eleventy billion of them in their home country.

    And imo the ones getting the axe in Seattle are way overgrown and ugly to boot.

    People often plant trees w/o properly understanding just how big they'll get, which can lead to planting the wrong trees in the wrong places, as it looks like happened here.


    IMHO, it takes a lot of brass ... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:52:23 PM EST
    ... to first move into a neighborhood, and then try to get the city to compel the longtime residents living across the street from you to cut down their trees, because doing so would increase your property's assessed value by enhancing the view of the lake and the downtown skyline.

    I think John Olerud's being a real dick, if you ask me.


    Well, we had a lot of trouble (none / 0) (#133)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:06:16 PM EST
    years ago with "newbies" moving into farming areas, apparently thinking that the farms existed solely as "green space" for them to enjoy, and then complaining, and even bringing lawsuits, when the farmers did what farmers do, and spread manure on their fields.  Fortunately, after the county passed a "right to farm" ordinance, the lawsuits pretty much disappeared.
    You know, people ought not to move next to farms for the views and the "country experience" and then expect the farmers not to actually farm.  It's much the same type of thing as the tree-cutters.  "We want what we want, and the he!! with the people who were here before us."

    It's everywhere, it seems. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:28:00 PM EST
    Seriously, a lot of wealthy nouveau riche whites from the U.S. mainland moved out here during the '90s and the '00s and built their McMansions on the Hamakua coast of the Big Island and in the upcountry region on the slopes of Haleakala over on Maui -- both prime agricultural areas -- and then filed lawsuits because the neighbors' roosters were crowing at the crack of dawn and waking them up, etc. We've since had to pass similar "right to farm" ordinances, too.

    And yet... (none / 0) (#93)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    Former clients of mine, who live on Mercer Island, tried to get their neighbors to trim -- not cut down -- two huge pines that were blocking their view, and were unsuccessful, even in court. The year was 2007.

    Who had lived there the longest? My clients, who had bought their home in the 60's.


    on Mercer?

    Not to my knowledge (none / 0) (#100)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:06:44 PM EST
    But the residents there have been battling with the city council for a long time to change the tree ordinances. Mercer Island is a mix of very rich and very middle class. Clyde Hill is mostly rich, rich, and right next to Medina, also rich, rich (Bill Gates' estate is right on the water).

    In this entire region of Seattle and its surounding suburbs, someone cutting down a tree on their own property is practically met with universal condemnation and a S.W.A.T. team. The laws are ridiculous. The Seattle city council finally -- this year -- passed an ordinance outlawing any more McMansions on small lots in neighborhoods like Ballard and Wallingford.

    But in places like Clyde Hill, Medina, Kirkland... the lobbying of those homeowners is much more successful. Clout and wealth matters. (The eastide suburbs are also much more Republican than true-blue Seattle. Property rights and hatred of taxes rule.)


    If they have over 1" thick trunks you can't touch them. They grow really old (centuries) and the limbs spread really wide.

    My neighbor let a volunteer grow near our fence and although it's only about 20 years old it already has branches almost touching my house.

    I predict it being diagnosed with a tragic and fatal disease some time in the not so distant future...


    Under Honolulu ordinance, you would have ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:00:20 PM EST
    ... the right to compel your neighbor to trim those branches all the way back to the property line. And if you took it upon yourself to trim those branches for him, he'd have no legal recourse since the tree's growth has encroached on your property.

    Further, if the tree's root system was so extensive that it damaged your home's plumbing system or connection to the sewer line, your neighbor would be financially liable for the cost of any repairs you incurred.

    I'm sort of surprised that your city doesn't have the same type of ordinance.


    Oak Trees are as sacred to my town (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 12:26:55 AM EST
    as the view is to Clyde Hill.

    I live on 31 acres (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 08:29:48 AM EST
    our oak trees bother no one.  So the fact that we have two which shade several acres by themselves, which I expect to speak to me in Entish any day now is my pleasure and no one else's headache. The are ugly beautiful and I dread the day we have to cut either one down.  They must be over a hundred years old easily.

    Sounds beautiful. (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    Out here, except up in the mountains, Oak Trees are really our only native trees. Live Oaks and Valley Oaks. It's basically a golden-yellow grassland dotted with deep green oaks. Stunning, really, although I do think the Oak Tree ordinances around here are over the top...

    Where do you find stuff like this?! (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    I lived in Seattle for almost 6 years ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    ... when I attended UW, and then for a little while therafter. I read both the Seattle Times and the Los Angeles Times, because I like to keep up with current events in my former hometowns.

    It's the eastside, Donald (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    Where Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Craig McCaw live. The rules don't apply to them.

    The rich really are different.


    Yeah, I know where Clyde Hill is. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    I used to live in the U District, just across the lake. They're certainly a different breed over there, that's for sure.

    GOP circular firing squad begins (none / 0) (#108)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:29:39 PM EST