Bloggers To Keep Chicken Capital Of The World From Becoming The Pork Capital Of Georgia

Jim Galloway has  this fine article online regarding the new power center of Georgia residing squarely in the 9th Congressional District.   But have no fear, because David Ralston says that no special favors will come to North Georgia, because, well, of some malcontents with access to the internets:

Then there’s the Internet, the House speaker said. Special favors for the home folk — at least the big ones — have become too difficult to hide. “Can you imagine the blogging that would go on?” Ralston asked. “Zell Miller didn’t have to worry about blogging on Brasstown Valley. I think you can’t ignore that anymore.”

Feel free to discuss the merits of whether anyone under the gold dome has actually changed their behavior because of those damn bloggers.


    • bowersville says:

      Didn’t I read recently that Ga. Power was seeking a rate increase to pay for new construction?

      Rate increase & SB 31, yeah they listen with tin ears.

      • B Balz says:

        Rome was not burned in a day…

        I maintain the full impact of immediate broadcasting by an organized group has yet to reach its’ full, unknown potential. AT various City/County level meetings it is very obvious that officials readily acknowledge that ‘net transparency is making them more careful about what is said.

        SB31 was an example of how much could be done by activists, just not enough. 70 lobbyists overwhelmed internet activism. That will not always be the case as coalitions grow, deepen, and become a larger force.

        • Andre says:

          According to Senator Robert Brown (D – Macon), S.B. 31 passed because Georgia Power employed a bunch of “bleach blonde” lobbyists.

          Maybe the state’s political bloggers should have a few dozen bleach blonde lobbyists on retainer just in case the situation warrants their use.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            “bleach blonde lobbyists…”

            Aw, but Glenn Richardson isn’t around anymore to… caucus with them.

          • B Balz says:

            Hey Jeff,

            I looked at the video, and aside from his MAJOR fashion faux pas, couldn’t disagree with what Mr. Muggridge was saying. Seemed like a pretty thoughtful, albeit fashion-challenged, man to me.

            Is it your belief that local government ought not regulate signage for the common good?

            • Jeff says:

              So you’re saying businesses should be banned from political advertising?

              I believe a sign ordinance should be one simple sentence:

              “All signs erected must have the approval of the property owner.”

              Then it becomes working with your neighbor or possibly the courts to either ask them to change their sign or show where you have actually been harmed by their sign. None of this “well, this COULD happen” mentality that eventually leads to Obamacare.

              Below, Doug Grammar, 9th District GOP Chairman, actively endorses the exact mentality that leads to Obamacare – and Republicans ask that we trust THEM to limit government????

              • B Balz says:

                I need to roll you down Buford Highway in Atlanta to show you what happens when there is no actively enforced sign ordinances.

                If I have to goto Court because my business neighbor puts up an offensive sign, I lose productivity, time, and money.

                As to your SNAP on Mr. Grammar, I don’t trust either Party or the Lib ‘solution’, either. One fact of life, Goverment Grows.

                • Doug Grammer says:


                  I’ve been posting on here long enough for you to learn my name. It’s spelled out with every comment I make. If misspelling my name is an active ploy to be petty, get over it. Throwing out my title if I make a comment you don’t agree with doesn’t bother me. I don’t type anything that I wouldn’t mind seeing on a billboard (right by your house) or in the AJC. I have accepted that as a fact of life, and I have to temper my comments.

                  Unlike you, I believe that government has some functions. Zoning ordinances and sign ordinances may not be popular, but they are good ideas for planning and controlling growth, and preserving quality of life and home values.

                  If your next door neighbor want to put up a overly large flashing neon sign that runs 24/7 and play “pop goes the weasel” very loudly on a loud speaker it WILL affect your property value and quality of life. That was a hypothetical, but I’ll follow with a true tale. In my county, someone decided they wanted to build a chicken farm in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The county stepped in, bought the farm, and then enacted zoning ordinances. If we had zoning ordinances enacted to begin with, the county could have saved some money to preserve people’s property values and quality of life.

                  The state has decided that political signs have to be at least 150 feet away from the outside edge of every polling place, even if you own land closer than that, no signs are allowed.

                  Whitfield county has a permit that is required by the candidates before they can put up signs in the county. I think they are charged more if the signs are not down within X amount of days after the election.

                  Obamacare is not authorized by the constitution as far as I can tell, therefore, I’m against it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have thoughts on how to reduce the cost of healthcare that are constitutional, but that’s a topic for another day.

                  You have your opinions and I have mine. The last time I checked, voters agreed with representatives of yours about 5% of the time. They agreed with representatives of mine a little more than 50%+1.

                  • Jeff says:


                    Like B Balz said, apologies for the spelling error. No foul meant there, sorry.

                    Now, as for your ignorant comment that I don’t believe government has a function: You’ve seen my writing enough to know that said statement is an outright LIE (typical from Republicans…).

                    I believe that at a minimum, Government MUST have a national defense force and a court system. That is why I do not go the anarchy route, because I DO believe Government has SOME legitimate purposes.

                    Infringing free speech is not one of them, and as I said above, if you have a problem with your neighbor’s sign, to me there are two valid options available to you: Talk to him as a neighbor to try to work something out, or take him to court and prove that he has harmed you in some way. Property value and quality of life may well be something the court would be willing to consider – but it is NOT a proper role of a legislative body or executive figurehead.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Apology accepted.

                      As far as my LIE goes, it was not to be taken literally, but to make a point; much like your innuendo that I back Obamacare.

                      Free speech is not absolute. There are restrictions placed on it all of the time. I can give examples if you require: shouting fire in a theater; pornography in public, wearing a campaign button while in a polling location, and much more.

                      It’s nice if people can talk things out, but laws and ordinances help give the court guidelines, and usually help reduce the need for going to court (or letting your neighbor know that he is wrong).

                      Quality of life, property values, zoning, and sign ordnances are proper concerns of county government.

                      I think we will be agreeing to disagree on this one.

                    • B Balz says:

                      I think that it is both impractical and unwieldy to shift the responsibility of determining harm from subjective, hard to prove issues such as diminished property value to the Courts.

                      Essentially you substitute one master for another, with less accountability.

                      Ordinances make sense for the common good, so stated by Mr. Grammer.

                  • chefdavid says:

                    That is why I live in Dade County. I moved there because of no zoning. And oh yeh my neighbor built 4 chicken houses. Didn’t bother me. If the signs bother them so bad buy the property or take care of it throuh nuciance statutes, but don’t infringe on their rights.

                    • Even as a Libertarian, I see value in zoning ordinances. I certainly wouldn’t want a chicken house next to my property, even though I have a few chickens myself. The smell from a dozen chickens is nowhere near as bad as the smell from thousands. When looking to buy our current property we looked at a few properties that were next door to chicken houses and passed on them primarily because of the smell.

                      We ended up buying a piece of property that is partially zoned residential, partially zoned for a mobile home park. The allowed uses include a horse stable but do not allow for certain agricultural uses such as chickens which means we shouldn’t have to worry about any sort of a nuisance like that. We also don’t have to worry about any sort of industrial facility moving in next door nor any shopping center being built across the road. There were certain things we looked for when buying and the farm we finally bought had every one of them – zoning included.

                      (And we’re in Cobb County if that makes a difference.)

    • griftdrift says:

      The difference is a few years ago SB 31 would have been just another arcane bill passed through committee and chamber with nary a peep and know awareness until people opened their electric bill.

      Instead, it was a major story with full and open debate.

      The first step is awareness.

      • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

        By the time people open that power bill it will be way too late. Ask anyone off the street about it and you’ll get a blank stare. It’s not even a campaign issue for those legislators seeking re-election or higher office.

        Not only was PP ineffective, but I was in the same room when a GP lobbyist and a legislator were reading PP off a blackberry and laughing at us…embarrassing.

        Sucks for us….since then, this Blog has been in a constant downward spiral. I actually look forward to the occasional Pete Randall post, that’s how bad it’s gotten here.

        • bowersville says:

          The old adage that if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it crash to the ground, does it make a sound comes to mind.

          • bowersville says:

            Small steps are what they are. Small steps. Until small steps translate to large votes at the ballot box the message is lost in the translation.

            If I were Barnes I’d pick up the mantra of the tea party and cram Senate Bill 31 down their collective throats. A letter worth reading on Senate bill 31 is that of Senator Brown found on Blog for Democracy.

            Senator Brown makes the point that the rate hikes will be payed largely by home owners and small businesses without oversight by the PSC. The power of corporate politics over the people is evident in Senate bill 31.

            • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

              SB 31 hasn’t been an issue for this campaign for the simple reason that neither side wants to upset GP.

            • Andre says:

              Barnes won’t go anywhere near S.B. 31.

              The reason why Barnes won’t touch Senate Bill 31 is because even though the measure was a bad bill, it was a bad bill with bipartisan support.

              Democratic Agriculture Commissioner candidate J.B. Powell voted for S.B. 31. Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Tim Golden, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Calvin Smyre and House Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Nikki Randall voted for the legislation too.

              It’s hard to criticize one party for a bad bill becoming law when the leadership of your party supported that same bill.

              Democrats and Republicans shoulder the same blame for S.B. 31 becoming law, and that’s why you’ll never hear Roy Barnes talk about it on the campaign trail.

            • B Balz says:

              I agree. I think pols read it to pick up on a juicy morsel, like everyone else. So from the standpoint of being able to get a message out to that audience it has value. Some value.

  1. Nathan says:

    Yep. Us backwards folk up here in North Georgia actually have electricity and can operate one of them magic boxes.

    Sounds like Speaker Ralston does care what the bloggers think. If he didn’t, he’d say “I don’t care” or wouldn’t mention the blogosphere at all. As for how much it keeps them honest, the jury is still out on that.

  2. rightofcenter says:

    A little sensitive, huh? You are really stretching to cast Ralston’s comments in a negative light. He’s just acknowledging reality, without a tone of judgment one way or the other.

    • B Balz says:

      Young and older reps know the power of social media. By virtue of mentioning blogging, the good Speaker acknowledges its’ power.

      I think pols in general are way ahead of most of society, esp. commerce, in recognizing the value and impact of social networking. In the ’80’s businesspeople may recall hearing folks say: “Are you going to get a computer?” In the ’90’s, virtually everyone had computerized their operations (micro-businesses mostly, big corporations were already there in the 60’s.)

      We are at the same point with social networking. Everyone will be doing it. It is almost Biblical, in a one language Tower of Babel, sort of way.

  3. I’m with grift: small steps.

    It wasn’t that long ago we had a Speaker of the House who said bloggers should be sued for libel and shut down. Now we have one who realizes the potential bloggers have to impact the process in a positive way (i.e. less graft).

Comments are closed.