1) How odd that the EPA has investigated so many instances of supposed contamination and found that, no, fracking was not responsible. Anti-frackers cried "EPA must Investigate! Investigate!" When that happened and they didn't like the result they began crying "EPA lies!"
2) I haven't read Pittsburgh's amendment. But if it contained the same anti-constitutional and terribly thought out language of the Youngstown amendment, then yes, Pittsburgh City Council has a majority of whack jobs.
3) "Similar amendments have been adopted across Ohio"?? There are a very few communities where this nonsense has been passed. In hippie-resort Yellow Springs, there is nothing to frack. Mansfield and Broadview Heights are not atop Marcellus shale, either. And again, if their "similar" amendments have the features of the justly failed Youngstown one, they will be struck down at the first court challenge.
Cubbies, put your energy into REAL environmental work! Get all your neighbors to stop driving their cars, those sources of carcinogens, particulates, carbon dioxide, and body smashing fatalities. They carry around tanks of gasoline that are much more harmful than fracking fluids, and spilling the stuff regularly. And work to shut down the bus lines. Have you read up on what's in diesel exhaust?
You've probably given up motor vehicles completely, haven't you? Because anything else would be hypocritical!
Democracy worked, and the vote wasn't even close. That's despite the dishonest scare stories and exaggerations of the anti-frackers, and despite their "If you disagree, you're stupid" arguments.
I voted against this because I researched fracking a lot, and decided the antifrackers were distorting the truth. And I voted against it because you CANNOT write a law that violates the constitution. And you CANNOT write a law that's so vague that it can forbid things like running the WRTA buses.
Yes, our buses "taint the air with toxins, carcinogens, particulates and other substances known to cause harm to health." And so do the cars driven by Biersdorfer and Cvetkovich. You CANNOT say "But the intent of the law is not to stop the polluting _we_ do!" A law is a law, and it must be written precisely. This was an idealistic, hippy era bit of nonsense.
It's very clear that the writers and promoters of this amendment have no experience writing laws. When writing a law, one MUST be extremely precise, to be sure the law achieves what is wanted, and does NOT cause unwanted side effects. There are countless examples of unintended consequences from badly written laws.
This amendment would set a record for bad law writing. Yes, it WOULD make driving a car literally illegal. It WOULD violate the U.S. Constitution. It WOULD violate Ohio law. It WOULD hurt the local economy. It's an exercise in naive and mindless idealism, motivated by demagoguery.
(Translation for those of you with low IQs: it will cause all sorts of trouble you don't want, it won't be enforceable, it will cost you money, and it's pushed by liars trying to scare you.)
It's not that the pushers are bad people. They're just kinda dumb, self-righteous, starry-eyed ex-hippies who somehow excuse their own car driving, their own use of coal-generated electricity, their own gas-heated homes.
But some of them are really rude in their claims that anyone who disagrees with them is "willfully ignorant." They simply can't believe that it's possible to study about fracking and correctly conclude it can be safe and beneficial. They assume that anyone who disagrees is evil. Such haughtiness! Such prejudice! Such demagoguery!
"The NRA spent $1,189,179 on independent expenditure ads to help get Portman elected to the Senate in 2010." But no, that had no effect on his vote? No effect at all? Some lies are so bad they disgrace even a politician.
The bulk of NRA members are juveniles and cowards for letting their organization pervert our legislative process, and turn back the will of over 80% of the country. They are paranoids who can't feel manly without their punk toys, and who live in fear they won't be allowed to play with their toys. They're GI Joe wannabees who never grew up. They deserve no respect.
So our local fractivists oppose any reasonable approach! Nothing will satisfy them except ... what? Totally outlawing the use of natural gas?
There are HUNDREDS of natural gas wells in the area. They've been fracking them for 50 years. The only difference is they can now turn horizontally a mile under ground and get a lot more gas by the same old technique. So if you don't want natural gas from a fracked well, you don't want natural gas, period.
I guess that means you don't want the electricity that's generated by burning natural gas either. Hmm. Maybe you prefer electricity from coal, with its miners deaths and black lung disease and leveling of mountain tops and far greater CO2 emissions?
"... the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal."
But our fractivists say "BRING ON CLIMATE CHANGE!"
The gun nut wimps are at it again! "Don't take away my toys!" And Gains is kowtowing to them, tossing logic out the window.
Stiffer penalties? Gains should crack open his old textbooks, or read up on his field. Because anyone with criminal justice background knows a slightly stiffer penalty makes no detectable difference. Likelihood of getting a penalty works, and stopping the whole opportunity for crime works. Taking away the tools stops the opportunity.
Background checks can't be done? They're done in many states, much better than this one.
Criminals will get guns anyway? But we enforce laws against speeding, even though we know people still speed. We at least keep it down some. We enforce laws against burglary tools, even though houses still get broken into. We don't say "Oh well, it's going to happen anyway." We enforce laws against building bombs, even though whackos still try to blow stuff up. We don't say "If bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
If we don't try to make things difficult for gang-bangers and crazies, society crashes. A prosecutor that doesn't want to make crimes difficult should find himself another job. Maybe open himself a gun shop.
Quinlan's Irish Pub in Niles has a traditional Irish sessiun 3rd Sunday of each month. 5 or 6 PM to 8 PM. They get like a dozen people playing and way more listening. Its fun!
@formerdemlib: You need to read _Freakonomics_. Great book with lots of startling findings, by a Nobel winning economist.
It had an entire chapter devoted to school choice, based on Chicago's experience. They followed up on students, where lots of parents _tried_ to get their kids into the best Chicago schools. But due to lack of capacity, only a few could get in. So Chicago chose students by lottery from those whose families had tried. This allowed researchers to compare those lucky enough to get in good schools vs. those who tried but weren't lucky.
Result? Student achievement had only a little to do with the school. It had a LOT to do with whether the parents had tried to get the kids into a good school. IOW, the family made much more difference than the school.
The school in the article above benefits from that phenomenon. Not to take away from their accomplishment! They deserve great congratulations! But think: Most charter schools do _not_ do any better than public schools, even though they're getting kids whose families are trying to give their kids better educations. It actually shows how bad the profit-driven charter schools really are!
I agree with JS. It's good for a town to have people out walking instead of driving everywhere in cars. Walkers get to know their neighbors. They keep an eye on things. They care about their town.
We should be able to walk to stores, so lets have more sidewalks and paths! Austintown and Boardman people should be able to walk to their Walmarts. Niles and Boardman people should be able to walk to their malls.
Loss of ‘anti-fracking’ issue was a gain for Youngstown
@ Cubbies:
1) How odd that the EPA has investigated so many instances of supposed contamination and found that, no, fracking was not responsible. Anti-frackers cried "EPA must Investigate! Investigate!" When that happened and they didn't like the result they began crying "EPA lies!"
2) I haven't read Pittsburgh's amendment. But if it contained the same anti-constitutional and terribly thought out language of the Youngstown amendment, then yes, Pittsburgh City Council has a majority of whack jobs.
3) "Similar amendments have been adopted across Ohio"?? There are a very few communities where this nonsense has been passed. In hippie-resort Yellow Springs, there is nothing to frack. Mansfield and Broadview Heights are not atop Marcellus shale, either. And again, if their "similar" amendments have the features of the justly failed Youngstown one, they will be struck down at the first court challenge.
Cubbies, put your energy into REAL environmental work! Get all your neighbors to stop driving their cars, those sources of carcinogens, particulates, carbon dioxide, and body smashing fatalities. They carry around tanks of gasoline that are much more harmful than fracking fluids, and spilling the stuff regularly. And work to shut down the bus lines. Have you read up on what's in diesel exhaust?
You've probably given up motor vehicles completely, haven't you? Because anything else would be hypocritical!
May 13, 2013 at 5:22 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Anti-fracking charter amendment soundly defeated in Youngstown
Democracy worked, and the vote wasn't even close. That's despite the dishonest scare stories and exaggerations of the anti-frackers, and despite their "If you disagree, you're stupid" arguments.
I voted against this because I researched fracking a lot, and decided the antifrackers were distorting the truth. And I voted against it because you CANNOT write a law that violates the constitution. And you CANNOT write a law that's so vague that it can forbid things like running the WRTA buses.
Yes, our buses "taint the air with toxins, carcinogens, particulates and other substances known to cause harm to health." And so do the cars driven by Biersdorfer and Cvetkovich. You CANNOT say "But the intent of the law is not to stop the polluting _we_ do!" A law is a law, and it must be written precisely. This was an idealistic, hippy era bit of nonsense.
May 8, 2013 at 10:29 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Vote no on charter amendment
It's very clear that the writers and promoters of this amendment have no experience writing laws. When writing a law, one MUST be extremely precise, to be sure the law achieves what is wanted, and does NOT cause unwanted side effects. There are countless examples of unintended consequences from badly written laws.
This amendment would set a record for bad law writing. Yes, it WOULD make driving a car literally illegal. It WOULD violate the U.S. Constitution. It WOULD violate Ohio law. It WOULD hurt the local economy. It's an exercise in naive and mindless idealism, motivated by demagoguery.
(Translation for those of you with low IQs: it will cause all sorts of trouble you don't want, it won't be enforceable, it will cost you money, and it's pushed by liars trying to scare you.)
It's not that the pushers are bad people. They're just kinda dumb, self-righteous, starry-eyed ex-hippies who somehow excuse their own car driving, their own use of coal-generated electricity, their own gas-heated homes.
But some of them are really rude in their claims that anyone who disagrees with them is "willfully ignorant." They simply can't believe that it's possible to study about fracking and correctly conclude it can be safe and beneficial. They assume that anyone who disagrees is evil. Such haughtiness! Such prejudice! Such demagoguery!
April 29, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Supporters of anti-fracking amendment unveil 2 billboards
The anti-frackers have already shown their lack of scientific sense and environmental sense. Now they're showing their lack of legal sense.
A smart teenage kid could tell that their proposal is terribly thought out, badly written, illegal and unenforceable.
April 19, 2013 at 7:01 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Sen. Portman says politics played no factor in his vote
"The NRA spent $1,189,179 on independent expenditure ads to help get Portman elected to the Senate in 2010." But no, that had no effect on his vote? No effect at all? Some lies are so bad they disgrace even a politician.
The bulk of NRA members are juveniles and cowards for letting their organization pervert our legislative process, and turn back the will of over 80% of the country. They are paranoids who can't feel manly without their punk toys, and who live in fear they won't be allowed to play with their toys. They're GI Joe wannabees who never grew up. They deserve no respect.
April 19, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Anti-fracking groups dismiss drilling certification as ‘publicity stunt’
So our local fractivists oppose any reasonable approach! Nothing will satisfy them except ... what? Totally outlawing the use of natural gas?
There are HUNDREDS of natural gas wells in the area. They've been fracking them for 50 years. The only difference is they can now turn horizontally a mile under ground and get a lot more gas by the same old technique. So if you don't want natural gas from a fracked well, you don't want natural gas, period.
I guess that means you don't want the electricity that's generated by burning natural gas either. Hmm. Maybe you prefer electricity from coal, with its miners deaths and black lung disease and leveling of mountain tops and far greater CO2 emissions?
"... the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal."
But our fractivists say "BRING ON CLIMATE CHANGE!"
April 15, 2013 at 5:58 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Mahoning prosecutor rejects assault weapon ban
The gun nut wimps are at it again! "Don't take away my toys!" And Gains is kowtowing to them, tossing logic out the window.
Stiffer penalties? Gains should crack open his old textbooks, or read up on his field. Because anyone with criminal justice background knows a slightly stiffer penalty makes no detectable difference. Likelihood of getting a penalty works, and stopping the whole opportunity for crime works. Taking away the tools stops the opportunity.
Background checks can't be done? They're done in many states, much better than this one.
Criminals will get guns anyway? But we enforce laws against speeding, even though we know people still speed. We at least keep it down some. We enforce laws against burglary tools, even though houses still get broken into. We don't say "Oh well, it's going to happen anyway." We enforce laws against building bombs, even though whackos still try to blow stuff up. We don't say "If bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
If we don't try to make things difficult for gang-bangers and crazies, society crashes. A prosecutor that doesn't want to make crimes difficult should find himself another job. Maybe open himself a gun shop.
March 25, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Irish music brings smiles to many in the Valley
Quinlan's Irish Pub in Niles has a traditional Irish sessiun 3rd Sunday of each month. 5 or 6 PM to 8 PM. They get like a dozen people playing and way more listening. Its fun!
March 15, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. permalink suggest removal
State rates Youngstown Community School ‘excellent’
@formerdemlib: You need to read _Freakonomics_. Great book with lots of startling findings, by a Nobel winning economist.
It had an entire chapter devoted to school choice, based on Chicago's experience. They followed up on students, where lots of parents _tried_ to get their kids into the best Chicago schools. But due to lack of capacity, only a few could get in. So Chicago chose students by lottery from those whose families had tried. This allowed researchers to compare those lucky enough to get in good schools vs. those who tried but weren't lucky.
Result? Student achievement had only a little to do with the school. It had a LOT to do with whether the parents had tried to get the kids into a good school. IOW, the family made much more difference than the school.
The school in the article above benefits from that phenomenon. Not to take away from their accomplishment! They deserve great congratulations! But think: Most charter schools do _not_ do any better than public schools, even though they're getting kids whose families are trying to give their kids better educations. It actually shows how bad the profit-driven charter schools really are!
March 6, 2013 at 10 a.m. permalink suggest removal
On the right trek
I agree with JS. It's good for a town to have people out walking instead of driving everywhere in cars. Walkers get to know their neighbors. They keep an eye on things. They care about their town.
We should be able to walk to stores, so lets have more sidewalks and paths! Austintown and Boardman people should be able to walk to their Walmarts. Niles and Boardman people should be able to walk to their malls.
What's it take to get sidewalks?
March 5, 2013 at 10:35 a.m. permalink suggest removal