California Parks Agency Considers Sponsors -Park signs could be potentially changed to show sponsors

[Kadie]

California Parks Agency Considers Sponsors
California State Parks Faces $39 Million In Total Budget Cuts

POSTED: 2:55 pm PDT July 28, 2009
UPDATED: 3:07 pm PDT July 28, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Stadiums, racetracks and public broadcasting are all sponsored. Why not California's state parks?

That's what California State Parks is considering as the agency faces $39 million in total budget cuts Tuesday.

During a conference call with reporters, Parks Director Ruth Coleman said $12 million worth of services are affected by mandatory furloughs, compounding the millions of dollars in budget cuts.

snip...
Park signs could be potentially changed, Coleman said, to show the park's sponsor.

more...
http://www.kcra.com/money/20206040/detail.html


Oh no....

[RandomThoughts]

1. If a company can afford to put advertising on a stadium, street, or park

They can afford higher taxes.


The argument is that people with money should be able to decide where that money is spent. While taxes means people that vote decide where that money is spent.

What doctrine, or what defense do people with large amounts of money make to claim they can name or control things just because they have wealth actually made by the work of people in society?

[havocmom]

11. BINGO!

The world is turning into a commercial. Corporations need to be taxed fairly. Right now, they are getting off to easy and not shouldering their share of the cost of the society/infrastructure they use to prosper.

I am fucking tired of subsidizing fat cats who abuse me and my nation.

[Catshrink]

2. I can see it now...

Warner Brother Yosemite Sam Park.

[MichiganVote]

4. LOL! Have to put the Road Runner at the Grand Canyon

[Catshrink]

6. Budweiser Big Sur

[RandomThoughts]

5. Wanting to claim ownership of everything.

a park that is government owned, and named by government, is owned by society.

By putting a corporate name on a social park, they can claim ownership of another part of society, since their ultimate goal is to control though money, not through justice, all segments of society including people themselves.

[MichiganVote]

3. Yup, that's America! So who gets the Blue Light Special?

Maybe we could tattoo the ass of the 47 million Americans w/o insurance too.

[NYC_SKP]

7. "Lake AstroGlide"?

I'm there!

:rofl:

[Quasimodem]

8. Grand Canyon National Park

sponsored by makers of Preparation H

[RandomThoughts]

9. From a purely logical point of view.

If a claim that money is most important, is used to buy signs put at a park.

Then anyone that thinks something like toothpicks are most important has the same claim to be able to put a sign up at the park, or remove the other sign.

Since money does not defend idea of rule of the many, it creates an interesting situation.

Money can get a sign by buying people needed to make that thing happen.

But a person that thinks tooth picks are most important, even if he can only buy the cooperation of 10 people with tooth picks, those 11 people have the exact same right to remove the money sign and put up a tooth pick sign.

Because money inherently goes against rule of majority. So they do not have any claim to have any authority that is more then a few toothpickers. The money's fight against democracy makes them lose the ability to claim more authority then any other group of people (which is anarchy and chaos)

And that comes full circle to how Bush and Republicans want anarchy, and want to establish a system where rival groups fight for everything. Which leads to law of the jungle, and explains the whole doctrine. It is all very tight and consistent and comes from the same single thought. What ever you can get away with you can do.

Does that make sense, money's direct defiance of democracy lets any group that wants to, while working with in money's own rules, do what ever they want if they think something else is more important then money.

[Walk away]

10. Will they sponsor the homeless families living in the parks as well?