In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…

When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal mix of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at all levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any wildfire victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same time, he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal) what used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build 'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…

When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal mix
of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at all levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any wildfire victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same time, he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal) what
used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build 'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t noticed there was wind the night before.


--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…

When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal >> mix
of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at all
levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any wildfire
victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his >> accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same
time,
he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal) >> what
used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build >> 'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and >> criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and try to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable housing". Welp, here we are.

Today the California Senate passed SB 549, granting L.A. County authority to purchase fire-destroyed lots for minimal cost and convert them into low-income housing, directly contradicting the repeated and televised post-fire
assurances of Gavin Newsom to homeowners that such government-driven property conversions wouldn't happen.

Trump gets a lot of shit from the media for his lies but none of them ever seems to care that you can't even ask Newsom about the weather without a lie spewing from his mouth.

Maybe we're seeing the reason why we're seven months out and no one can seem
to get a permit to rebuild. Maybe this was the plan all along. It even brings into question whether the lack of water in the Santa Ynez reservoir was negligence or was it intentional? It's prime real estate and the state is stealing it right out from under the people who own it. It's almost like this whole thing was planned.

They're strategically avoiding the use of eminent domain and couching it as 'voluntary sales', but at the same time the state is making permits to rebuild impossible to obtain. The landowners will have no choice to sell at vastly reduced prices, since the market value of a lot where a buyer knows they can't get a permit to build will be only a fraction of what it was before the fire, which allows the state to not only take the land, but get if for pennies on
the dollar.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:20:56 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery… >>>
When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal >>> mix
of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at all
levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any wildfire
victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his >>> accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same >>> time,
he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal) >>> what
used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build >>> 'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and
criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of >> palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t
noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT >that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and try >to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable housing". >Welp, here we are.

Today the California Senate passed SB 549, granting L.A. County authority to >purchase fire-destroyed lots for minimal cost and convert them into low-income >housing, directly contradicting the repeated and televised post-fire >assurances of Gavin Newsom to homeowners that such government-driven property >conversions wouldn't happen.

What does minimal cost? Does it mean under valued so a homeowner with
a mortgage can end up under water? If so I can't imagine any of the
voters wanting to vote for these politicians at the next election.

Trump gets a lot of shit from the media for his lies but none of them ever >seems to care that you can't even ask Newsom about the weather without a lie >spewing from his mouth.

Maybe we're seeing the reason why we're seven months out and no one can seem >to get a permit to rebuild. Maybe this was the plan all along. It even brings >into question whether the lack of water in the Santa Ynez reservoir was >negligence or was it intentional? It's prime real estate and the state is >stealing it right out from under the people who own it. It's almost like this >whole thing was planned.

I think you or someone else posted about people getting fines if their
plots weren't cleared. I saw a video just a week or two ago about a
guy who had lost his home in the fires that just got the people to
clear his lot. The people that did the work had to wait for multiple
other people to show up to either give approval or to watch the work
being done. There was even a biologist to check if there was some
protected animal there (luckily there wasn't.)

The point is it was just in the last month that his lot was cleared
because the people doing the work were so far behind. Yet the
government is threatening to fine people like him if they don't clear
the lot. So on the one hand we have the government slowly clearing all
the lots so that people can rebuild or sell the lots, and on the other
hand we have the government threatening to fine people for not
clearing the lots. This is sounding a lot like the stuff I used to
hear from Louis Rossman about his experiences with NYC government.

They're strategically avoiding the use of eminent domain and couching it as >'voluntary sales', but at the same time the state is making permits to rebuild >impossible to obtain. The landowners will have no choice to sell at vastly >reduced prices, since the market value of a lot where a buyer knows they can't >get a permit to build will be only a fraction of what it was before the fire, >which allows the state to not only take the land, but get if for pennies on >the dollar.

The one that makes the rules controls the game.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I think you or someone else posted about people getting fines if their
plots weren't cleared. I saw a video just a week or two ago about a
guy who had lost his home in the fires that just got the people to
clear his lot. The people that did the work had to wait for multiple
other people to show up to either give approval or to watch the work
being done. There was even a biologist to check if there was some
protected animal there (luckily there wasn't.)

Bonk

The hypothetical animal benefitted from the debris remaining place?

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 15, 2025 at 1:38:48 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:20:56 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery… >>>>
When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal
mix
of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at >>>> all
levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any
wildfire
victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his
accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same >>>> time,
he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal)
what
used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build
'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and
criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of
palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t >>> noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT >> that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and try
to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable
housing".
Welp, here we are.

Today the California Senate passed SB 549, granting L.A. County authority to >> purchase fire-destroyed lots for minimal cost and convert them into
low-income
housing, directly contradicting the repeated and televised post-fire
assurances of Gavin Newsom to homeowners that such government-driven property
conversions wouldn't happen.

What does minimal cost? Does it mean under valued so a homeowner with
a mortgage can end up under water? If so I can't imagine any of the
voters wanting to vote for these politicians at the next election.

That's the true root of the problem in California. No matter how badly or
often the government abuses the people here, they continually reward them with re-election. It's truly like a cult. They'd rather pay $8.00/gallon for gas, have vagrants shitting on their front lawn, and have a round of riots and looting every six months than EVER vote for someone who doesn't have (D) next to their name on the ballot. Which, of course, only emboldens the politicians to be even more abusive since they know there will be no electoral
consequences for it.

Trump gets a lot of shit from the media for his lies but none of them ever >> seems to care that you can't even ask Newsom about the weather without a lie >> spewing from his mouth.

Maybe we're seeing the reason why we're seven months out and no one can seem >> to get a permit to rebuild. Maybe this was the plan all along. It even brings
into question whether the lack of water in the Santa Ynez reservoir was
negligence or was it intentional? It's prime real estate and the state is
stealing it right out from under the people who own it. It's almost like this
whole thing was planned.

I think you or someone else posted about people getting fines if their
plots weren't cleared. I saw a video just a week or two ago about a
guy who had lost his home in the fires that just got the people to
clear his lot. The people that did the work had to wait for multiple
other people to show up to either give approval or to watch the work
being done. There was even a biologist to check if there was some
protected animal there (luckily there wasn't.)

The point is it was just in the last month that his lot was cleared
because the people doing the work were so far behind. Yet the
government is threatening to fine people like him if they don't clear
the lot. So on the one hand we have the government slowly clearing all
the lots so that people can rebuild or sell the lots, and on the other
hand we have the government threatening to fine people for not
clearing the lots. This is sounding a lot like the stuff I used to
hear from Louis Rossman about his experiences with NYC government.

They're strategically avoiding the use of eminent domain and couching it as >> 'voluntary sales', but at the same time the state is making permits to
rebuild
impossible to obtain. The landowners will have no choice to sell at vastly >> reduced prices, since the market value of a lot where a buyer knows they
can't
get a permit to build will be only a fraction of what it was before the fire,
which allows the state to not only take the land, but get if for pennies on >> the dollar.

The one that makes the rules controls the game.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 15, 2025 at 1:50:33 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I think you or someone else posted about people getting fines if their
plots weren't cleared. I saw a video just a week or two ago about a
guy who had lost his home in the fires that just got the people to
clear his lot. The people that did the work had to wait for multiple
other people to show up to either give approval or to watch the work
being done. There was even a biologist to check if there was some
protected animal there (luckily there wasn't.)

Bonk

The hypothetical animal benefitted from the debris remaining place?

Back during Bush the II's term, Congress had the Base Realignment Commission, which basically closed or consolidated a lot of military bases around the country. When they were looking at Fort Hood in Texas, they proposed shutting it down and moving its functions and personnel to Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The local community, whose livelihood depends on the 35,000 troops at Fort Hood, sued the government, claiming an environmental study showed that a species of rabbit would be adversely affected by the cessation of training activities at the base. They said the rabbit had become accustomed over the decades to all the shelling and explosions on the training ranges and if the military stopped bombing its habitat on a regular basis, it would suffer and fail to
reproduce.

That argument at least had uniqueness going for it.

It all became moot anyway when the commission decided to keep Fort Hood as
is.

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd spasm
of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government, but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:50:33 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I think you or someone else posted about people getting fines if their >>plots weren't cleared. I saw a video just a week or two ago about a
guy who had lost his home in the fires that just got the people to
clear his lot. The people that did the work had to wait for multiple
other people to show up to either give approval or to watch the work
being done. There was even a biologist to check if there was some
protected animal there (luckily there wasn't.)

Bonk

The hypothetical animal benefitted from the debris remaining place?

I think it's more that in the cleanup process there may be a home for
some protected critter. For instance in the video that I was talking
about he was able to remove a retaining wall that he had wanted gone
for years. It wasn't damaged in the fire but it leaked when it rained
so he wanted it gone. It was entirely possible some protected critter
could have been impacted by the removal of that retaining wall.

At least that's been my thinking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:56:33 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2025 at 1:38:48 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:20:56 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery… >>>>>
When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal
mix
of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at
all
levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any >>>>> wildfire
victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his
accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same >>>>> time,
he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal)
what
used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build
'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and
criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of
palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t >>>> noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT
that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and try
to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable
housing".
Welp, here we are.

Today the California Senate passed SB 549, granting L.A. County authority to
purchase fire-destroyed lots for minimal cost and convert them into
low-income
housing, directly contradicting the repeated and televised post-fire
assurances of Gavin Newsom to homeowners that such government-driven property
conversions wouldn't happen.

What does minimal cost? Does it mean under valued so a homeowner with
a mortgage can end up under water? If so I can't imagine any of the
voters wanting to vote for these politicians at the next election.

That's the true root of the problem in California. No matter how badly or >often the government abuses the people here, they continually reward them with >re-election. It's truly like a cult. They'd rather pay $8.00/gallon for gas, >have vagrants shitting on their front lawn, and have a round of riots and >looting every six months than EVER vote for someone who doesn't have (D) next >to their name on the ballot. Which, of course, only emboldens the politicians >to be even more abusive since they know there will be no electoral >consequences for it.

There's no reason they couldn't find Democrats that are more
responsible to the voters. The only other state I see hitting those
sorts of prices is Hawaii due to the logistics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 15, 2025 at 3:11:54 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:56:33 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2025 at 1:38:48 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:20:56 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>>>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…

When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal
mix
of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at
all
levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any >>>>>> wildfire
victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his
accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same
time,
he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal)
what
used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build
'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums,
addicts, and
criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing >>>>> citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of
palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t
noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT
that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and >>>> try
to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable
housing".
Welp, here we are.

Today the California Senate passed SB 549, granting L.A. County authority to
purchase fire-destroyed lots for minimal cost and convert them into
low-income
housing, directly contradicting the repeated and televised post-fire
assurances of Gavin Newsom to homeowners that such government-driven
property
conversions wouldn't happen.

What does minimal cost? Does it mean under valued so a homeowner with
a mortgage can end up under water? If so I can't imagine any of the
voters wanting to vote for these politicians at the next election.

That's the true root of the problem in California. No matter how badly or
often the government abuses the people here, they continually reward them
with
re-election. It's truly like a cult. They'd rather pay $8.00/gallon for gas, >> have vagrants shitting on their front lawn, and have a round of riots and
looting every six months than EVER vote for someone who doesn't have (D) next
to their name on the ballot. Which, of course, only emboldens the politicians
to be even more abusive since they know there will be no electoral
consequences for it.

There's no reason they couldn't find Democrats that are more
responsible to the voters.

"Responsible" moderate Democrats here are instantly labeled as Nazis and fascists. If you're not a hard-left 'progressive', you'll be primaried by the unions and run into the ground. Only the craziest get on to the ballot, so the typical California cult member, er... I mean voter ends up having to choose between a lunatic Democrat and a Republican. And since they'd rather chew off their own right arm than EVER vote for a Republican, the lunatic Democrat always wins.

The only other state I see hitting those sorts of prices is Hawaii due to the logistics.

Our gas prices are higher than Hawaii's. They're higher than everyone's. And Gavin says it's because the oil companies are gouging us but he's never been able to explain why they only gouge California and leave the other 49 states alone. (Of course the reason he can't explain it is because it's not true and he's lying again.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 15, 2025 at 6:58:18 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd
spasm of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government,
but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

I looked him up. John Hood had one hell of a bloody war record.

I never stopped calling it Fort Hood whenever I was back home and it came up
in conversation. Just like I still call that tall building Chicago the Sears Tower.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd
spasm of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government,
but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

I looked him up. John Hood had one hell of a bloody war record.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jul 15, 2025 at 6:58:18 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd >>>spasm of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government, >>>but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

I looked him up. John Hood had one hell of a bloody war record.

I never stopped calling it Fort Hood whenever I was back home and it came up >in conversation. Just like I still call that tall building Chicago the Sears >Tower.

John Hancock Life Insurance didn't renew naming rights, so it's now
875 N Michigan Ave

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 02:12:22 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2025 at 6:58:18 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd
spasm of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government,
but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

I looked him up. John Hood had one hell of a bloody war record.

I never stopped calling it Fort Hood whenever I was back home and it came up >in conversation. Just like I still call that tall building Chicago the Sears >Tower.

That tends to be the way of things. Fort Benning is always going to be
Fort Benning. Been around that place too many years to think of it as
anything else no matter the reason for the name change. Hell, that NFL
team in Washington DC will always be the RedSkins to me. We humans
tend to be like that with our connections to places and people formed
over the years.

Even the President of the United States of America can't force people
to think of a certain body of water as anything else but connected to
Mexico no matter what he wishes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 02:12:22 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2025 at 6:58:18 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd >>>> spasm of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government, >>>> but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

I looked him up. John Hood had one hell of a bloody war record.

I never stopped calling it Fort Hood whenever I was back home and it came up >> in conversation. Just like I still call that tall building Chicago the Sears >> Tower.

That tends to be the way of things. Fort Benning is always going to be
Fort Benning.

Hoover dam will always be Hoover dam.

Been around that place too many years to think of it as

anything else no matter the reason for the name change. Hell, that NFL
team in Washington DC will always be the RedSkins to me. We humans
tend to be like that with our connections to places and people formed
over the years.

Even the President of the United States of America can't force people
to think of a certain body of water as anything else but connected to
Mexico no matter what he wishes.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 15, 2025 at 7:58:25 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jul 15, 2025 at 6:58:18 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd >>>> spasm of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government, >>>> but Trump has nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

I looked him up. John Hood had one hell of a bloody war record.

I never stopped calling it Fort Hood whenever I was back home and it came up >> in conversation. Just like I still call that tall building Chicago the Sears >> Tower.

John Hancock Life Insurance didn't renew naming rights, so it's now
875 N Michigan Ave

Nooooooo!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:20:48 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Our gas prices are higher than Hawaii's. They're higher than everyone's. And >Gavin says it's because the oil companies are gouging us but he's never been >able to explain why they only gouge California and leave the other 49 states >alone. (Of course the reason he can't explain it is because it's not true and >he's lying again.)

Stupid question perhaps but what sort of gas prices do they have in
Alaska? Obviously we know Alaska has plenty of crude but I don't know
of any refineries there which means it would have to be shipped up
from Seattle (there are a couple of refineries north of Seattle and
the Canadian border while there are no oil pipelines from Canada.

Which probably means 'arm and a leg' gas prices. But I'd be curious to
know

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:06:15 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Back during Bush the II's term, Congress had the Base Realignment Commission, >which basically closed or consolidated a lot of military bases around the >country. When they were looking at Fort Hood in Texas, they proposed shutting >it down and moving its functions and personnel to Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The >local community, whose livelihood depends on the 35,000 troops at Fort Hood, >sued the government, claiming an environmental study showed that a species of >rabbit would be adversely affected by the cessation of training activities at >the base. They said the rabbit had become accustomed over the decades to all >the shelling and explosions on the training ranges and if the military stopped >bombing its habitat on a regular basis, it would suffer and fail to >reproduce.

That argument at least had uniqueness going for it.

Seems strange to me - if I were engaged in sexual intercourse I think
artillery sounds wouldn't be my choice of background music...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 01:25:32 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:20:48 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Our gas prices are higher than Hawaii's. They're higher than everyone's. And >>Gavin says it's because the oil companies are gouging us but he's never been >>able to explain why they only gouge California and leave the other 49 states >>alone. (Of course the reason he can't explain it is because it's not true and >>he's lying again.)

Stupid question perhaps but what sort of gas prices do they have in
Alaska? Obviously we know Alaska has plenty of crude but I don't know
of any refineries there which means it would have to be shipped up
from Seattle (there are a couple of refineries north of Seattle and
the Canadian border while there are no oil pipelines from Canada.

Which probably means 'arm and a leg' gas prices. But I'd be curious to
know

Google says between $3.72 and $3.91 this week for an average gas
price.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1056d78$8u20$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…

When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his
normal mix of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the
government at all levels would have the backs of those who lost
everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any
wildfire victim who still has any debris on their property, even while
he (and his accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And
at the same time, he's announcing a $200 million state program to
appropriate (read: steal) what used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific >>> Palisades and use them to build 'affordable housing', which is prog-speak >>> for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple
of palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadnâ
€™t noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT >that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and
try to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable >housing". Welp, here we are.

I immediately thought of you whne I heard the news about it, but it was a predictible prediction. :-)

--
Not a joke! Don't jump!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/18/2025 1:25 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:20:48 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Our gas prices are higher than Hawaii's. They're higher than everyone's. And >> Gavin says it's because the oil companies are gouging us but he's never been >> able to explain why they only gouge California and leave the other 49 states >> alone. (Of course the reason he can't explain it is because it's not true and
he's lying again.)

Stupid question perhaps but what sort of gas prices do they have in
Alaska? Obviously we know Alaska has plenty of crude but I don't know
of any refineries there which means it would have to be shipped up
from Seattle (there are a couple of refineries north of Seattle and
the Canadian border while there are no oil pipelines from Canada.

Nope, Alaska has refineries. My exhusband worked for Chevron shipping
and they hauled refined products from Valdez and Anchorage around to the islands.

Which probably means 'arm and a leg' gas prices. But I'd be curious to
know

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

Back during Bush the II's term, Congress had the Base Realignment Commission, >which basically closed or consolidated a lot of military bases around the >country. When they were looking at Fort Hood in Texas, they proposed shutting >it down and moving its functions and personnel to Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The >local community, whose livelihood depends on the 35,000 troops at Fort Hood, >sued the government, claiming an environmental study showed that a species of >rabbit would be adversely affected by the cessation of training activities at >the base. They said the rabbit had become accustomed over the decades to all >the shelling and explosions on the training ranges and if the military stopped >bombing its habitat on a regular basis, it would suffer and fail to >reproduce.

That argument at least had uniqueness going for it.

It all became moot anyway when the commission decided to keep Fort Hood as >is.

(Incidentally, the base was renamed Fort Cavazos during the post-Floyd spasm >of political correctness that pervaded all levels of government, but Trump has >nullified that and it's now Fort Hood once again.)

Is it still Burpelson Air Force Base?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 18, 2025 at 1:25:32 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:20:48 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Our gas prices are higher than Hawaii's. They're higher than everyone's. And >> Gavin says it's because the oil companies are gouging us but he's never been >> able to explain why they only gouge California and leave the other 49 states >> alone. (Of course the reason he can't explain it is because it's not true and
he's lying again.)

Stupid question perhaps but what sort of gas prices do they have in
Alaska? Obviously we know Alaska has plenty of crude but I don't know
of any refineries there which means it would have to be shipped up
from Seattle (there are a couple of refineries north of Seattle and
the Canadian border while there are no oil pipelines from Canada.

Which probably means 'arm and a leg' gas prices. But I'd be curious to
know

Alaska has three refineries:

Kenai Refinery, on the Kenai Peninsula, 60 miles southwest of Anchorage. It rocesses mainly Alaska domestic crude, some North Dakota crude, and limited international crude. It is the primary supplier of motor gasoline in Alaska
and also produces jet fuel for Anchorage International Airport.

North Pole Refinery (Marathon Terminal) about 15 miles southeast of
Fairbanks. It serves Interior Alaska’s fuel needs, including commercial and military jet fuel, mining industry supplies, and home heating oil.

Valdez Refinery in Valdez, which supplies fuel to south-central Alaska, the North Slope oil fields, and coastal communities like Kodiak and Dutch Harbor.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 18, 2025 at 2:50:16 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 01:25:32 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:20:48 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Our gas prices are higher than Hawaii's. They're higher than everyone's. And
Gavin says it's because the oil companies are gouging us but he's never been
able to explain why they only gouge California and leave the other 49 states
alone. (Of course the reason he can't explain it is because it's not true and
he's lying again.)

Stupid question perhaps but what sort of gas prices do they have in
Alaska? Obviously we know Alaska has plenty of crude but I don't know
of any refineries there which means it would have to be shipped up
from Seattle (there are a couple of refineries north of Seattle and
the Canadian border while there are no oil pipelines from Canada.

Which probably means 'arm and a leg' gas prices. But I'd be curious to
know

Google says between $3.72 and $3.91 this week for an average gas
price.

State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) posted this recently on his ex-Twitters:

BREAKING: California should brace for more than just $8.00/gallon gas. I just left a closed-door briefing for state legislators where we were told that the California oil industry is on the brink of collapse and the pipeline that brings crude from the oil fields in the north of the state to the refineries
in the south will likely shut down soon. It requires a minimum pressure to operate and will soon fall below that minimum due to the oppressive
regulations of Newsom and the Democrats in the Assembly. The result will
likely be $10-$12/gallon gas and gas shortages/rationing.

So we'll soon be paying ten bucks a gallon for gas while Nevada next door is paying $2.89/gallon. And all of it inflicted on us purposely by 'progressive' Democrats.

The only bright side in all of this is that it'll be the final nail in the coffin of Newsom's presidential aspirations. No way he can even survive a primary, let alone the general, with gas at $12/gallon and citizens having to wait in ration lines for it in California while the rest of the country is enjoying abundant gas at $2-3/gallon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 18, 2025 at 1:30:46 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

In article <1056d78$8u20$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…

When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his
normal mix of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the >>>> government at all levels would have the backs of those who lost
everything.

Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any
wildfire victim who still has any debris on their property, even while >>>> he (and his accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And >>>> at the same time, he's announcing a $200 million state program to
appropriate (read: steal) what used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific >>>> Palisades and use them to build 'affordable housing', which is prog-speak >>>> for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and criminals'.

Now vote for him for president!

Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple >>> of palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadnâ >>> €™t noticed there was wind the night before.

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT >> that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and
try to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable
housing". Welp, here we are.

I immediately thought of you whne I heard the news about it, but it was a predictible prediction. :-)

The outrage over the past week was apparently quite significant. The switchboards and email servers in Sacramento overloaded to the point where
they couldn't do their typical schtick and ignore the people they're being
paid to represent, so SB 549 got yanked and shelved. Of course things like
this are never truly dead, so now I predict the ghouls and reptiles in the Assembly will let it lie dormant for a year, then reintroduce it under another name and try and sneak it through.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) posted this recently on his >ex-Twitters:

BREAKING: California should brace for more than just $8.00/gallon gas. I just >left a closed-door briefing for state legislators where we were told that the >California oil industry is on the brink of collapse and the pipeline that >brings crude from the oil fields in the north of the state to the refineries >in the south will likely shut down soon. It requires a minimum pressure to >operate and will soon fall below that minimum due to the oppressive >regulations of Newsom and the Democrats in the Assembly. The result will >likely be $10-$12/gallon gas and gas shortages/rationing.

Do you know what regulation he's talking about that prevents the
pipeline from being used?

So we'll soon be paying ten bucks a gallon for gas while Nevada next door is >paying $2.89/gallon. And all of it inflicted on us purposely by 'progressive' >Democrats.

The only bright side in all of this is that it'll be the final nail in the >coffin of Newsom's presidential aspirations. No way he can even survive a >primary, let alone the general, with gas at $12/gallon and citizens having to >wait in ration lines for it in California while the rest of the country is >enjoying abundant gas at $2-3/gallon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:00:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) posted this recently on his >>ex-Twitters:

BREAKING: California should brace for more than just $8.00/gallon gas. I just >>left a closed-door briefing for state legislators where we were told that the >>California oil industry is on the brink of collapse and the pipeline that >>brings crude from the oil fields in the north of the state to the refineries >>in the south will likely shut down soon. It requires a minimum pressure to >>operate and will soon fall below that minimum due to the oppressive >>regulations of Newsom and the Democrats in the Assembly. The result will >>likely be $10-$12/gallon gas and gas shortages/rationing.

Do you know what regulation he's talking about that prevents the
pipeline from being used?

None. The problem as I see it is the cost of their gas is so high
people don't drive enough so there's little demand. With the low
demand the refineries don't need to produce as much gasoline and so
they don't use enough crude oil. Hence the lower pressure in the
pipelines.

I suppose the pipelines can be reconfigured to work with the lower
pressure but who knows how much that would cost and how long it would
take to implement.

So we'll soon be paying ten bucks a gallon for gas while Nevada next door is >>paying $2.89/gallon. And all of it inflicted on us purposely by 'progressive' >>Democrats.

The only bright side in all of this is that it'll be the final nail in the >>coffin of Newsom's presidential aspirations. No way he can even survive a >>primary, let alone the general, with gas at $12/gallon and citizens having to >>wait in ration lines for it in California while the rest of the country is >>enjoying abundant gas at $2-3/gallon.

Yeah, gasoline has dropped a bit locally so it's around $2.79 for
regular which is a few cents cheaper than when Biden was in office.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 18, 2025 at 1:00:28 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) posted this recently on his
ex-Twitters:

BREAKING: California should brace for more than just $8.00/gallon gas. I just
left a closed-door briefing for state legislators where we were told that the
California oil industry is on the brink of collapse and the pipeline that
brings crude from the oil fields in the north of the state to the refineries >> in the south will likely shut down soon. It requires a minimum pressure to >> operate and will soon fall below that minimum due to the oppressive
regulations of Newsom and the Democrats in the Assembly. The result will
likely be $10-$12/gallon gas and gas shortages/rationing.

Do you know what regulation he's talking about that prevents the
pipeline from being used?

It's all the regulations that are causing the oil companies to shut down their refineries and move to other states. As each refinery shuts down, the pipeline loses its contribution and now the amount of oil that's flowing through
doesn't provide enough pressure to keep it going.

In 2000, we had 34 oil refineries in California. Now we have six. And all because every year the Democrats in the Assembly make it harder, more onerous, and less profitable to be in the oil business in California. This is the result. They've destroyed the oil industry here, which definitely has been their goal all along, but they didn't expect it to come crashing down so suddenly and so dramatically. They thought it would just peter out over time and the people would slowly transition over to electric cars. Gas lines and
$12 bucks a gallon is a disaster for them. They know that this, finally, will snap Californians out of their Helsinki Syndrome.

So we'll soon be paying ten bucks a gallon for gas while Nevada next door is >> paying $2.89/gallon. And all of it inflicted on us purposely by 'progressive'
Democrats.

The only bright side in all of this is that it'll be the final nail in the >> coffin of Newsom's presidential aspirations. No way he can even survive a
primary, let alone the general, with gas at $12/gallon and citizens having to
wait in ration lines for it in California while the rest of the country is >> enjoying abundant gas at $2-3/gallon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <105e8ik$27scm$3@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:

On Jul 18, 2025 at 1:30:46 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

atropos@mac.com wrote:

I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on >>> RAT that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way >>> and try to convert a significant portion of the burned land into
"affordable housing". Welp, here we are.

I immediately thought of you whne I heard the news about it, but it was a
predictible prediction. :-)

The outrage over the past week was apparently quite significant.

Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!

BTW, looks like we were right about Obama and Crooked Hillary were being the Russian hoax after after all.

--
Not a joke! Don't jump!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 19:47:47 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

The only bright side in all of this is that it'll be the final nail in the >coffin of Newsom's presidential aspirations. No way he can even survive a >primary, let alone the general, with gas at $12/gallon and citizens having to >wait in ration lines for it in California while the rest of the country is >enjoying abundant gas at $2-3/gallon.

So you're arguing that good comes out of even the nastiest situations?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)