Ed Markey grandstands following Epcot death

As someone who doesn't give a rat's ass as to which one of you are right, I'm wondering how it's turned into a 6 paragraph long amateur psychological analysis of the webmaster that never mentions the actual topic at hand. (Markey wonking about ride safety again)

Nothing surprises me around here anymore. :)

That's why I don't respond. This guy thinks he knows all about me and can write paragraphs after I post one sentence. Not someone I'd have a beer with at BeastBuzz.

If you had a democratic house/senate/President and then had a member of that party supported by nmerous member's of the same party trying too pass legislation then the lilkelihood would be great that said legislation would pass. But luckily at this point markeys attempts to legislate fun out of theme parks by over-regulating theme parks is DOA!

Democrats have an historical record of supporting big government, while the republicans have historically been federal minimalists (at least until Bush, whom I've supported at time and called an ass at other times).

This is a good sign of Big Government. There is no need for federal oversight of amusement rides, the states do a good enough job. I would be suprised, if this were put to a vote, that it weren't supported by 90% of the democrats and a few of the republicans.
Do I think ALL dems would support it, no...only the Sith deal in absolutes. Do I think a majority of its supporters would come from the left, only if yoda is short and green.

No for the real point of this.....Markey is just a politician (read, "idiot"). He just showing that he can grandstand with the rest of the idiots on the hill.

John

Again he missed the point..."the webmaster that never mentions the actual topic at hand"---but you are indeed correct and funny with your take Gonch! I'm too damn wordy...but at least I make a fair effort to stay on topic and I'm man enough to admit I'm not a know-it-all! Coasterbuzz could use some more leadership with said qualities...

Or we could just start serving Markey Kool Aid...

;)

Hostile takeover? aka geek war.

When I get older, I want to pilot a blimp.

Not trying to jump in or put words in Gonchar's mouth, but I think he was saying the analysis never mentioned the topic at hand, not the webmaster.

What We can do is attack markey with facts.Since more people get hurt in homes we should ask for federal oversight of all homes in the united states and since most deaths happen in the bathroom the federal government should outlaw indoor plumbing.

If someone can type up a offical looking house bill with markey as the author we can start sending by email to everyone we know.

It will find it's way into the press (we can multpile mail to all media) if we use his own statements and stupid idea's against him (with humor)

Kevin38

I see what you are saying. This is poor sentence structure. I assumed he was referring to the number of Jeff posts attacking me that are void of any reference to the discussion, but maybe he was referring to my last response.

I bet you are a really fun person. . . I just love hanging out with people that point out poor sentence structure. Its genius.

Um, if I was able to parse it with no trouble, I'd hardly say it's poor sentence structure. I suppose that in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries he might have put commas around "of the webmaster" but the usage of the language has evolved (for better and for worse). I can think of no different order that is really all that much clearer.

Is it more important to discuss the issue objectively or to continue to mock in effort to defend a friend? If this is indeed a matter of "insults" then I'll save everybody time and effort and grant you victors as I've no desire or interest in that type of banter. There is no way I can outnumber Jeff and his supporters.

If objectivity, truth, and the issue at hand are still a priority, then I'll participate as I always do. I enjoy give and take with reasonable-minded individuals that do not pretend to know-it-all and are willing to point-counterpoint without resorting to name-calling and unrelated clichés. I apologize for any of my responses that sank to the level of he who initiated. I do my best to avoid that type of ranting, but sometimes get sucked into by actions of others. I take solace in the fact that I appear to be the only individual that actually took time and effort to research information for this discussion. If I missed another participant that actually gave some facts and evidence then please let me know.

I can understand how Jeff might need some support in a thread like this. In the arena of ideas he's not fared too well. In the insult category he's struck first and struck often...and there seems to be many prepared to carry on in his tradition. These types of tactics always do better with numbered supporters.

The facts of this thread speak for themselves. I can only say that Jeff and everybody are better served attacking me and my character than spouting that "Markey is a lone ranger" stuff they tried at the beginning...So if you’ve something to add to the Markey discussion that may show my facts and opinions to be right or wrong, then by all means participate. Otherwise take solace in the fact that I’ve crowned Jeff and his supporters CB “champions of insult and character assassination.” They are much more organized and spirited than I.

P.S. Though reasonable-minded people may disagree with the merits, I do apologize to you Jeff and anybody else for any personal comments I made in response to your behaviors. In the future I will give better effort to avoid such actions other than to point out attacks on me that are off subject. It was immature of me to do such. I hope to lead by example and be the better man.

I was never arguing that Democrats as a party would be more likely to enact additional regulations on the ride/theme park industries than would the Republicans. I think that what most people are saying is that Markey is the only one pushing this legislation with other co-sponsors signing on as part of the lawmaking process. He seems to be the one crafting the bills, with others (yes, other Democrats) saying "That seems like a good idea" and by co-sponsoring the bill making public their support for the bill(s) before a vote is called.

Out of curiosity, has anyone looked at the text of the bill(s) in question?

Disclaimer:

Do not read this post if you have adverse reactions to more than a few lines of material. The following opinion piece is meant for those who are willing and able to participate in the discussion of the topic at hand. It is assumed that reasonable-minded people understand that there are no absolutes and that occasional summation and generalities must indeed be incorporated into the postings in order to allow for reasonable discussion. No all-encompassing prejudices are intended and/or assumed

Prabe:I read an older version of the legislation...but it has been quite awhile! He recently (but prior to the Mission Space accident) resubmitted a similar if not exact copy of his prior bill, which I have not read. I would try and ask Torgo on the other semi-related thread, just above this one, about common carriers. This guy knows more about this stuff than any I've seen on CB (or anywhere for that matter). He may be on vacation at the moment though.

I think everybody agrees Markey is a man who is pushing this agenda, unfairly in my opinion. However, the fact he was able to find 53 other co-sponsors is no minor feat. I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but I am quite sure that 53 supporters are way more than average (I dare say I’m 100% sure, but maybe 99.8%). A lot of bills get by with a sponsor and one co-sponsor (2 people). I follow law/bills a lot and can't particularly recall this many co-sponsors signing on to anything recently.

So, we in the coaster enthusiast community may think this guy and his ideas are a little off the mark, but he has clearly found a lot of support in the House. I think it would be a little premature and unreasonable for the enthusiast community to look at Markey as some fringe kook with a bone to pick and believe others feel the way we do. The GP may not see this issue quite the same. More importantly, it appears that many politicians definitely do not see it the way we do. I could argue that their opinions are a little more important than ours.

I just hope the recent accident (Mission Space) and the common carrier decision in CA are not enough to change the minds of any weak-kneed politicians who presently are involved in keeping this bill bottled up in committee. A vote on this issue at this highly charged emotional point of time might be closer than any of us would like.

*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 6/19/2005 10:29:48 PM ***

The text of the bill online runs to all of two pages, including verbiage. It strikes wording in the legislation giving the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Comission) the authority to regulate traveling rides but not fixed-site rides, changing it to give the CPSC authority to regulate fixed-site rides, as well. (If that's not clear I can rephrase ;) )

It seems reasonable to me to ask what the effect of CPSC regulation has been on the traveling carnivals, and to expect a simlar effect on parks.

I'll add that with a budget (in the text of the bill) of $500,000 it's probably intended and expected to be more of a clearinghouse for information than another layer of beaurocracy.

I wouldn't read too much into the number of co-sponsors. In many cases it's something of a quid pro quo, more or less guaranteeing my vote on your bill if you'll do the same on mine. In the House of Representatives with 456 members, 53 promising to vote for the bill before it goes to a vote isn't anything special. Markey's name is the only one in the text of the bill; were the co-sponsors that involved, their names would likely be there too.*** This post was edited by prabe 6/19/2005 10:51:58 PM ***

Disclaimer: Do not read this post if you have adverse reactions to more than a few lines of material. The following opinion piece is meant for those who are willing and able to participate in the discussion of the topic at hand. It is assumed that reasonable-minded people understand that there are no absolutes and that occasional summation and generalities must indeed be incorporated into the postings in order to allow for reasonable discussion. No all-encompassing prejudices are intended and/or assumed.

---

"It seems reasonable to me to ask what the effect of CPSC regulation has been on the traveling carnivals, and to expect a similar effect on parks."

---

This indeed is my take on the situation. I'll admit my initial bias is almost always against new regulations. However, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if it can be shown that the regulation will indeed save lives or prevent accidents. IF CPSC oversight is indeed successful, then I understand Markey's cause. If CPSC is just a useless regulatory agency that adds headaches to the parks AND has no RESULTS attributed to the cause, then Markey is the fool I believe him to be.

I do believe there needs to be some sort of independent agency that collects data on ride accidents across all state borders. Markey makes some sense on this issue. However, I believe this to be a more appropriate function of the insurance company rather than government. I would like to look at this data to get a relative sense of ride safety. For example what is more dangerous---walking up and down stairs or riding coasters---etc.

Unfortunately, there is no collective database available. I think independent (not collected by the parks themselves) and objective data could be used to get to the truth. I don’t believe that amusement park rides are a dangerous activity at all. It sure would be nice to have the evidence to prove it. As long as the parks themselves (IAPPA?---whatever the initials are) are responsible for educating the public, it may be considered a conflict of interest and at the very least have the appearance of conflict in interest.

Absent data to prove that there is even a reasonable problem. It is just "silly" to start proposing solutions...

*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 6/20/2005 12:08:42 AM ***

My understanding of CPSC's historical usefulness is that it's been something of a mixed bag. In some realms it's been pretty successful, while in others it's been less so. I'm NOT an expert on this, however, so my opinon should be taken with roughly a metric ton of salt.

My mention of the fact that CPSC currently has juristiction over carnival rides was more to get at a) have they gotten safer? and b) has it driven the traveling carnivals out of business? My immediate reaction (based on the two or three that go by every year) is that the answer to b) is "no." I have no information on a) but I'd be interested in hearing informed opinion. If the traveling carnivals haven't been driven out of business, then it seems reasonable to expect that the parks won't be, either. If the traveling carnivals' rides haven't been emasculated, then I doubt the parks' will be.

I'm less willing to call Markey a "fool" based on this one issue alone. I haven't researched his record, but I have a Mental Note (registered trademark) pinging telling me I've agreed with him on other issues. I'm not sure what they are, though.

Since many people seem to be getting all up in arms over bipartisanism can we discuss how grossly liberal the media is? You know, so liberal that none of them (not even Fox News) had the balls to call the election in Bush's favor even after separate networks declared different states in his favor...whose sum would give him the necessary 270 electoral votes?

:):):)

They didn't want to risk getting it wrong again. I've worked in newsrooms. There is no conspiracy.