Rants and Raves Returns

This is San Jose Inside’s long-lost weekly open forum, where any topic of local interest is fair game. What’s on your mind?

87 Comments

  1. A big thank you to all the corporate leaders and politicians who have allowed millions of good jobs to be outsourced to countries using virtual slave labor. It has destroyed our middle class and it rapidly turning our society into the haves and have nots.

    • It is the policies of the Democratic Congress, our new Change President, who wants to change the best country ever, as well as state and local leaders everywhere who make it increasingly difficult to do business here who have caused the outsourcing. 
      Tom, if you ran a company here, but found out that you could build the same widget at less than a quarter of the price and import it to the USA, would you keep your highly paid American workers, or would you keep your company?  If you choose the former, I’ll give you the Mother Teresa Benevolent Award to hang on the dumpster you’d be living in, along with all you out of work employees.

      • Obama as well as the Democrats and Republicans alike as well as most of the corporate community have been a disaster for our country.

        If I were a business owner and could get a work force for pennies on the dollar with no labor laws in another country I would do so as all my competition would be doing the same. We as a society must accept that we are rapidly driving wages down in our own country for a majority of the citizens while unemployment continues to rise. This does not bode well for the survival of our country as we know it.

    • How about you get the state to stop running the “corporate leaders” aka “small businesses” into the ground with excessive regulations, fees and bureaucracy. Maybe then they’ll actually be able to AFFORD to keep jobs in the state. Are you surprised that California gets only 8% of its revenue from business taxes? I’m not. If you were getting charged $5,000 a month for a tiny apartment in East San Jose, would you stay and keep paying that or would you move to another place and pay $800 a month? Common sense folks. Use it.

      • I completely agree with you Jason. I use to own a small business and the regulations were overwhelming. I don’t equate most corporate leaders with owners of small business though. When I owned my business if I did not make a profit I got no paycheck. Most corporate leaders are still making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year even if their company is losing money. I do not consider most corporate leaders as very ethical, but I have a lot of respect for owners of small business who work their asses off while providing employment for others. Regardless of who is to blame, our countries middle class jobs are being rapidly sent to other countries and we will soon be a society of mostly low paying service jobs. Having a Socialist for a president sure doesn’t help. I really do fear for our countries survival.

  2. Great to see it back. Now how about allowing instant posting, rather than delaying the discussion via moderation? It’s really sad that the Merc can do so, yet SJI can’t figure it out.

  3. I’m glad the June elections and the San Jose City budget battle went my way.  I’m glad those people, these people, you people, your people, his people and her people lost.

    I hope the November elections also go my way.  I hope those people, these people, you people, your people, his people and her people lose the election.

    • Interesting use of adjectives.  The urban-coastal class has, of course, sought to ban such usages.  The most interesting claim to linguistic dominance and supremacy was by the Merc’s goofy editorial page editor on June 1, 2003, when he denounced a Cupertino vice mayor for using “these people” while seeking to ascertain the credentials of persons offering a large donation to Cupertino in return for naming rights.

      In those days, the editor’s pursed lip sneering was an example of “PC” or political correctness.  Nowadays we understand his snarky claim as simply a restatement of the dominant ideology of the urban-coastal class.

      By the way, the editor, after denouncing the term “these people” as divisive, saw fit to disclose his own version of “these people” by denouncing “old timers” who resisted change.  Yes, the prissy editor was a hypocrite.

      The editor has finally found a niche in the bosom of the urban-coastal class at ecoAmerica, a nonprofit on P Street NW in Washington.

  4. City Council,
        Please don’t cut the fire staffing for SJFD.  My daughter who is 24 wouldn’t be 24 if not for the actions of this fine department 20 years ago.  Today she is a vibrant lady whom has a college education. 
        If that were not enough I had a large home fire.  They were on scene in minutes.  Although my contents were a total loss, damaged photos and other items of family history I kept. (DAMAGED BUT NOT GONE)
        Minutes save lives and property.  I do not work for the fire department.  They work for us.  My daughters life has no price tag.  Before any cutbacks please consider the value of your child or loved one.  In all honesty my house was an ordeal that lasted a couple of years.  Had my daughter lost her life that would have been forever.

    • > Today she is a vibrant lady whom has a college education. 

      Would it be OK to cut SJFD staffing a little bit if your daughter were merely a bit jiggly instead of vibrant and only had a high school education?

    • Save the Fire Department,

      Thank you for sharing your story. I’m glad that your daughter and family are okay. You have survived a lot of horrific things and I for one am happy you are still here to tell your story. May God bless you and your family, and keep you safe from any further harm.

    • “My daughters life has no price tag.”

      I’m sure it feels that way to you, but if we could cut the Fire Department’s budget by 50 percent (not that I advocate doing that), and it would only lead to a single increased death over the next decade (a dubious proposition), it’d probably be a pretty good idea.  I’m glad they saved your daughter’s life, but fiscal realities are such that some modest cuts may very well have to be made.  The money just ain’t there, and the Firefighters don’t work for free (actually, they do in Saratoga and Monte Sereno).

  5. Well, the new improved airport terminal is open, and surprise, surprise.  Nothing has changed.  How can this be?  Wasn’t this terminal supposed to bring peace and prosperity to the world, or at least San Jose.

    It does not matter how much makeup we put on the airport, it still is ruining life for San Jose and north Santa Clara valley.

    • Nothing has changed at SJC because, well, nothing’s really changed.  We basically exchanged the old school jet stairs of Terminal C for the modern jet bridges of Terminal B; same number of gates, same capacity.  That’s why it’s so puzzling why some SJ officials touted the “new” airport would attract more airlines and flights when capacity wasn’t even increased.  Oh well, it does look nice at least (once you get past those creepy hands from hell of course).

      Close SJC by 2035 and move operations south to a greatly expanded Hollister Municipal Airport.  Connections from Diridon/SJ to Hollister SJC via high-speed rail in 22 minutes!  You won’t need to drive 50 miles to catch a flight; take the damn train!  Develop current SJC into magnificant urban development and lift high-rise ceiling downtown.  More to come…

      • Tony, you ignorant slut. The new terminal’s been open, what, two weeks, and you and the other “move it now” morons are complaining just because SJC’s passenger numbers didn’t instantly go through the roof? Have you not noticed that we have a lousy economy? Maybe we have to wait for a [hoped for] economic recovery before we can see the full benefits to the airport improvements.

        Let’s give the “move/close SJC” nonsense a rest. If the economy does not pick up, it doesn’t matter where the airport is located.

        • “ignorant slut”?  Wow, just wow.  Won’t respond in kind because parents taught me better, but will say this.  If those in charge of SJInside start allowing such verbal garbage/attacks, then this blog is definetely going down to MySpace levels and won’t be viewed as a place for mature, serious conversation re: topics of local interest/politics.  You guys/gals at the Inside have a choice to make.

          For the record, passenger numbers at SJC have been dropping since 9/11 and were actually artificially propped up during the Dot-Com Boom.  We’ve had decent economic times between 9/11 and now, but the numbers have nonetheless kept dropping.  Just saying.

        • “For the record, passenger numbers at SJC have been dropping since 9/11 and were actually artificially propped up during the Dot-Com Boom.  We’ve had decent economic times between 9/11 and now, but the numbers have nonetheless kept dropping.”

          It hasn’t happened the way you describe. Reading your post, one could get the idea that traffic has been steadily declining since 9/11. That’s not the truth.

          Take a look at Figure 1 in this report and try your best to follow along:
          http://www.sjc.org/about/improve/overview/CR_EIR_Add.pdf

          Peak traffic years at SJC were 2000/1, when airport traffic hit 13.1 pax/year. After the dot-crash and 9/11, traffic fell to around 11 million pax/year for 2002 and held steady at that level until 2007. This is the period of “decent economic times” that you refer to. After all of the marginal start-ups of the dot-com era folded and 9/11 shocked the system, traffic “nomalized” at around 11M pax/year.

          However, in 2008, with the economy starting to go south, pax traffic dropped to 9.7 million. In 2009, with the recession in full swing and business travel down, SJC saw only 8.3 pax/year. This is because we’re stuck in this awful recession. Meanwhile, SJC opens a long-overdue terminal on June 30, 2010 and you’re giving the airport a ration of crap because “Nothing has changed.” What did you expect? It’s only been 3 weeks! The economy is still lousy! You can’t fault the airport for failing to turn around the economy in 3 weeks!

        • I like SJ better than Oakland or SFO.  I use it when feasible (everything but international flights.)  I won’t use a Hollister Aiport (rail or no rail.)

        • “Ignorant slut” is a line from Saturday Night Live.  Its not meant to be taken literally, or personally.  How do people not know stuff like this?

        • “…If those in charge of SJInside start allowing such verbal garbage/attacks, then this blog is definetely going down to MySpace levels and won’t …”

          I guess you never watched early SNL

        • HJ,
          You know what you just desribed: SJC PASSENGER LEVELS DROPPING SINCE 9/11!  You tried your best to make it sound good, but alas you failed.  And for the record, I don’t watch Saturday Night Live; never have, never will.  Since some here like to be insulting, here’s my shot across the bow (fair is fair); based on some of the re:‘s to my post, when/if SJC is relocated to a more rural area ala Hollister in 25-30 years, most posting here will either be pushing up daisies or safely in nursing homes.  I don’t care if our downtown airport reaches 100 million passengers per year, how some think it’s in a “proper” location or doesn’t inhibit San Jose development is beyond me.

        • I agree with Hugh, you’re misrepresenting what happened. Traffic at SJC, after dropping a bit from the dot-com bubble, held steady until the recession hit.

          Right now, the big trend is “smart growth.” How, exactly, is building a huge new airport in the green fields of Hollister supposed to combat sprawl. Once an airport goes in, all that neighboring agricultural land gets converted into hotels and office parks.

          The city just spent gobs of money on improving SJC. We’d be stupid to throw even more money away by building another, more expensive sprawlport in San Benito County.

        • > How, exactly, is building a huge new airport in the green fields of Hollister supposed to combat sprawl. Once an airport goes in, all that neighboring agricultural land gets converted into hotels and office parks.

          > The city just spent gobs of money on improving SJC. We’d be stupid to throw even more money away by building another, more expensive sprawlport in San Benito County.

          Steve:

          Your analysis is correct.

          But tragically, stupidity is an ever-present possibility.

          Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and public sanity.

  6. Stop the negotiating.  Time to eliminate all public pensions.  Making promises (with other peoples money) decades into the future is bad practice and a terrible idea.

    Raise the current salaries and let people manage their own lives.

    • Your talking about a defined contribution system (such as the 401k plans popular at many private employers.)

      Interestingly enough, younger workers are more attracted to higher base pay and lower benefits, but also tend to move frequently between jobs looking for satisfaction (and higher wages.)

      More mature workers REALLY see the value of defined benefit pension plans and tend to stick around until retirement.  If you had a choice, wouldn’t you rather have a nice pension over some volatile stock market portfolio and watered down social security?

      • Blair,

        Why is it that the “mature” generation you refer to is attracted to defined benefits and pensions?  Maybe because they’ll get out more than they ever put in?  Because other people will have to pay for their expenses in retirement?  It is the ultimate ponzi scheme, and should be banned in the public sector.

        BTW- a defined contribution plan, (e.g. 401(k)) doesn’t have to be “volatile stock market portfolio”.

  7. > Making promises (with other peoples money) decades into the future is bad practice and a terrible idea.

    Absolutely right!

    In fact, we should probably have a Constitutional amendment barring the Congress from incurring any financial obligations beyond the term of the CURRENT U.S. Senate (six years).

    No more Obamacare pipe dreams justified on mythical spending and savings ten years in the future.

    • I’d like to see something in California to “reset” the system from time to time.  How about mandatory sunsets on all laws 10 years after passage, but they could be renewed with a majority vote.  Let’s start getting all the “brilliant” legislation off the books as time reveals it to be foolish.

      Same thing for agencies and services.  Force them to be reauthorized from time to time (or be phased out).

      And how about raising the threshold for amendments, especially those that benefit a narrow special interest be they unions or indian tribes.

      • > I’d like to see something in California to “reset” the system from time to time.  How about mandatory sunsets on all laws 10 years after passage, . . .

        Fine in theory, but realistically you’re asking the foxes guarding the chicken coop to stop snacking on the chickens and put fox-proof locks on the doors.

  8. Opinion: Navarrette: Silent immigration reform
    ” Liberals are just as upset because they consider the government-applied pressure heavy-handed and say that unemployed workers can’t provide for their families. Civil libertarians insist that, as word spreads, employers might eventually not hire anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, which could lead to discrimination against Hispanics. And business groups are likewise incensed because the government is leaving them with a worker shortage and a raft of jobs that Americans won’t do.”

    http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15534087

    If I hear this stupid arguement one more time I think I’ll scream! When will our government STOP caving into speacial interest groups and business and just enforce our laws and borders?

    • “When will our government STOP caving into speacial interest groups and business and just enforce our laws and borders?”

      I hate to sound partisan, but it’ll probably happen when Democrats and other left-leaning voters start really caring about immigration laws, to the extent they don’t do things like, oh, say, automatically re-elect people like Mike Honda in a silly token election that might as well not even be held.  Not that every Republican office holder is good on border security, or that every Democratic politician isn’t…but it does largely shake out that way.  As long as people like Pete Stark can be re-elected with 75 percent of the vote without even trying, our immigration problems aren’t going to be fixed.  I don’t care for Carly Fiorina at all (voted for Tom Campbell in the primary), but one of the main reasons I’m going to reluctantly vote for her is in order to get another proponent of de facto open borders, Barbara Boxer, the Hell out of the U.S. Senate.

      My wife feels the same way about immigration as you do, and I can’t even persuade HER to vote for Scott Kirkland over Mike Honda, here in District 15.  Until that sort of dynamic changes, nothing else will.  She doesn’t want to vote for Kirkland in part because Kirkland is against legal abortion.  Yeah, there’s a HUGE threat abortion is going to be made illegal.  The voters of this district/county/state/nation need to get their priorities in order.  So many people who care about immigration continue to vote for liberal Democrats.  That won’t work.

  9. > ” Liberals are just as upset because they consider the government-applied pressure heavy-handed and say that unemployed workers can’t provide for their families. Civil libertarians insist that, as word spreads, employers might eventually not hire anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, which could lead to discrimination against Hispanics. And business groups are likewise incensed because the government is leaving them with a worker shortage and a raft of jobs that Americans won’t do.”

    I’m convinced that people who spout this kind of drivel must have a microchip implanted in their brain, which also causes them to wet the bed and vote for Barbara Boxer.

    There is no other explanation.

    • Great! Then you, Regular American non-bed wetter that you are, will be the first to accept the challenge issued to you later in the same column:

      “Trying to drive home a point, the United Farm Workers of America — with the help of comedian Stephen Colbert — are inviting unemployed Americans and anti-immigrant pundits to put up or shut up. They suggest taking jobs away from farmworkers. Interested parties are urged to apply for the thousands of agricultural jobs being posted with state agencies as harvest season begins.”

      Some advice: wear sun screen.

      • Reader,
        So are you endorsing illegal immigration? Why can’t these “workers” come over here legally on a work permit? Why do they get to sneak over the border, break our laws, use stolen Social Security numbers, be exploited by American businesses, and lower both the wage, and safety standards that these business are supposed to be held to? Do you support this kind of exploitation by business?

        I don’t oppose LEGAL immigrants. I love diversity! My Mother and two sisters emigrated here LEGALLY. I have a lot of friends who emigrated here LEGALLY. What makes you think allowing illegals to come here is okay when others follow the law to be here? What kind of message are we sending those who DO follow the law by allowing ILLEGAL immigrants to come here and work ILLLEGALLY? And why are you defending law breaking businesses?

      • Weakly Reader,
        No need to worry about anyone getting sunburned.

        “Likewise, in the early 1960s, during hearings in California on the proposed termination of the Bracero program, tomato farmers claimed that “the use of braceros is absolutely essential to the survival of the tomato industry.” Congress discontinued the program anyway, and the results were not at all as the farmers had claimed; University of California economist Philip Martin has shown that with fewer workers available, the harvest was increasingly mechanized, resulting in a quadrupling of production over the next 30 years of tomatoes for processing, and a fall in real prices.”

        Cheap labor stifles innovation.

        • > Cheap labor stifles innovation.

          Good point, Novice!

          Certainly the cheap labor in China and India is cratering the innovation of Silicon Valley.

          However, I expect the San Jose public employee unions and every union slug from hear to Hackensack to start claiming that they can’t be innovative unless they are paid more.

      • > Interested parties are urged to apply for the thousands of agricultural jobs being posted with state agencies as harvest season begins.

        Dear Reader:

        Try reading something sometime that might raise your consciousness and your IQ.

        The operative word is “illegal” which neither you nor the wasted carbon footprint Stephen Colbert mentioned, or even seem to be aware of.

        There are perfectly workable LEGAL solutions for ensuring that the thousands of agricultural jobs are filled for the harvest season.  Ever heard of “guest workers” and “temporary visas”? 

        By the way, we don’t know that you’re not a racist.

        GOTCHA FIRST!!

        • > Nor do you often hear people say “You know, we really ought to go after those #%&*heads whose hiring of cheap illegal labor is stifling all that productivity . . .

          If you don’t hear people saying that, it’s only because you have your stupid iPod jammed into your ears with the volume set to 8.5 on the Richter scale.

          People are constantly demanding that employers be punished for hiring illegals.

          The PROBLEM IS:  the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS in collusion with a president who is possibly an illegal alien himself has made it IMPOSSIBLE to check the immigration status of new hires.  Employers are required, as a practical matter, to accept the (often phony) documentation on immigration and citizenship provided by job applicants.

          QUESTIONING the documentation would be “racial profiling” and Obama’s commie Attorney General Eric Holder would slam you with a lawsuit.

          Democrats are in power and Democrats WANT illegal immigration.

          Blame the Democrats.

        • Regular American,
          I have to agree with Reader here. Business isn’t being held accountable for breaking the law, AND I see people hiring illegals at Home Depot all the time. Until we stop giving them jobs, and punishing those who do, NOTHING will stop them from sneaking into our country illegally.

          One other vital point missed here is just how screwed up our immigration laws are! They need a serious revamp so that immigrants who want to come here legally can.

          Does anyone know what ever happened to Americans being allowed to sponsor an immigrant? Does that program still exist?

        • Wow! It’s like tapping a knee with a hammer. Mention immigration and watch those knees start to jerk, and how quickly the comments turn nasty.

          Because I referenced the Navarette column, people (some of whom obviously didn’t read the column) make many assumptions. Instantly, and paradoxically, I’m both a “racist” and a supporter of illegal immigration. Talk about a well-rounded individual!

          It’s no surprise nobody says “OK, I’ll go do the work that is done by illegal immigrants.” Nor do you often hear people say “You know, we really ought to go after those #%&*heads whose hiring of cheap illegal labor is stifling all that productivity Novice is worried about.” Yet I wonder if that bit of greed and sloth is, in a nutshell, why we have a broken immigration system.

          (BTW – Mechanical harvesters are why we have flavorless tomatoes, but what agribusiness does to our food supply is a whole other topic.)

          Here’s something for the chorus line to start kicking about: We all know, but seldom acknowledge, that those guys hanging out in front of Home Depot are only there because some Americans hire them. They’re out there everyday so they must be finding plenty of work, from people right here in your community.

          Who’s fault is that? Should we start tossing employers into jail? (Try selling that at a Chamber of Commerce meeting.) Why aren’t immigration-angry Tea Partiers out tailing contractors who hire crews of illegals, and turning them in? (Ah, you can’t blame a guy for trying to beat the system and save a few bucks. Besides, taxes, Obama, yadda yadda …) Why aren’t newspapers publicizing the names and locations of businesses that hire illegal workers? (And piss off advertisers, are you crazy?) Unions, not wanting to alienate some of their membership, are largely silent even though jobs are at stake.

          But instead of cutting the demand for illegal workers by eliminating the economic incentive (i.e the employers) we attack the symptom: the guy who sneaks into the U.S. to do the job that nobody else seems to want. It’s a lot easier politically to round up a truckful of Mexican nationals in dirty work boots than it is to round up some shady Americans who’s equally illegal actions create the problem.

          Meanwhile, get those jerking knees ready to go into overdrive: While California has an unemployment rate around 12%, we don’t see masses of the unemployed headed to the Central Valley to work in the fields, even though there are plenty of jobs. No surprise there, it’s hot, hard and difficult work with lousy pay. It is much easier, and ironically it pays better, to draw unemployment than pick crops. Some people even want a guest worker program so people can buy cheap lettuce with their unemployment checks.

          Now, contrast this with the work ethic of not so long ago when out of work Americans flocked to California to work the same jobs that now go to illegals. Most of us probably remember when teenagers in this town spent their summers picking fruit and cutting apricots. How many teenagers would do this today? (Would parents let them?) We have devalued certain jobs to the point that we now accept that “No American should do that work.” And we wonder why we have an immigration problem! 

          But before we completely decide that certain jobs should not be done by Americans, perhaps we should first face up to the real reasons we have an immigration problem. And maybe we should attack the problem at it’s source, rather than he charade of going after its symptoms.

        • Hi Kathleen, nice to see you again wink  I agree with you 100% on this. Businesses need to be held accountable for their actions regarding illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the illegal immigration issue is a bipartisan problem… the democrats want cheap votes and the republicans want cheap labor.

          Until we decide to reach across the aisle in a bipartisan effort to fix the border problem, we will continue to have problems that infuriate the left and right.

          My family came here legally in 1903 and I am a big supporter of LEGAL immigration and I believe most people on the right and left are as well. Let’s work to secure the borders and then work on streamlining the immigration process to allow people to immigrate legally.

        • As an immigration attorney for 30 years, I can tell you that a multitude of laws & regulations exist to allow Americans, American employers, American churches, American schools & colleges, American nonprofits, and American hospitals to sponsor many immigrants.

          Some San Jose middle & high schools and some community colleges send recruiting teams to other countries to employ “native language” teachers on school sites here, or for foreign students to enroll here.

          In addition, the federal government is Constitutionally empowered to add new permanent and temporary classes of immigrants at will.

          The United States has the broadest, most generous immigration policies of any nation…just try to immigrate to India, England, China, Egypt, Japan, or Mexico.  You’ll see.

      • Only a small minority of illegal aliens from Latin America are here to pick strawberries and onions.  A lot of them are working basically what you’d call “normal jobs.”  Those jobs don’t tend to pay very well, but as long as I’ve been unemployed, I’d take one.  Hell, I heard McDonalds was paying their employees like twelve bucks an hour, so I interviewed for a job at the Los Gatos McDonalds, and the guy told me that they had no openings at present, but if one of their employees went back to Mexico, he’d give me a call.  Yes, he really did say that.

        • I’m not certain what you’re trying to get across, but I can assure you, it did happen.  The guy did mention something about periodically losing workers who decided, after saving up ‘X’ sum, that they’d prefer to return to Mexico.  Though he never called.

        • > Hell, I heard McDonalds was paying their employees like twelve bucks an hour, so I interviewed for a job at the Los Gatos McDonalds, and the guy told me that they had no openings at present, but if one of their employees went back to Mexico, he’d give me a call.  Yes, he really did say that.

          A remarkable story!

          Since it hasn’t been the subject of a New York Times feature story, or an Obama photo op, I assume it must be totally factual and true.

      • Your logic is the same used by the Board of Supervisors in justifying regressive tax increases to pay for a county socialized medicine program that is broke and tailors to illegal immigrants. You can’t fix a gaping wound with a band-aid. Seal the border, enforce the immigration laws and poof, problem solved. I’m getting really sick of this nauseating political correctness here in the bay area. No wonder this state and this county are broke.

    • Everyone seems to forget that the US government has granted 1.1 million green cards to agricultural field workers since 1986.

      The only requirement was that the applicant performed agricultural field labor in the US for 90 days between 5/1/85 and 5/1/86.  We should turn to that 1.1 million workers first to fill any gaps in field labor.

  10. Santa Clara County plans to raise your property taxes again this November to fund a broken socialized medicine program called Healthy Kids which tailors to illegal immigrant children while blocking our legal American children from joining since it doesn’t have a legal citizen requirement. Why is no one talking about this? I just found out about it today through my local Tea Party group. This is outrageous!

    • There’s no way the Healthy Kids thing is going to pass. Our Tea Party president, Paul Crockett, has given us details on the program and told us the good and bad and told us to decide individually how we’re going to vote. I know damn well how I’m personally going to vote. A big fat NOOOOOOOOOO. I can’t believe how broken this program is and now they want us to pay for it? A program we can’t even use? For what? So illegals can get health care on my dime? Absolutely not. Just because the Tea Party isn’t actively campaigning against it doesn’t mean I won’t be telling everyone I know what this program is actually about. Vote NO!

  11. So K.O, just learn to speak Spanish and you too just might qualify for one of those coveted Mickey D’s “Latino only” assignments.

  12. So now we need the government to tell us that it’s hot outside.

    Could we possibly save some money if the government just issued its advisories to those who really needed them, like liberals.

  13. Even the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) we all hate to love and love to hate is in need of pension reform, as it is also on the edge of bankruptcy.

    You can find and view VTA’s proposed fiscal recovery matrix here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/31862576/2010-Proposed-VTA-Financial-Recommendations

    Amongst what VTA has proposed so far for YOU to fund:

    * an additional 10% bus & light rail service reduction to potentially save up to $17 million
    * Transitioning away from the ECO Pass program to potentially save up to $4 million
    * A ballot measure to make permanent the 1/2-cent sales tax voters approved in 2000 that currently expires in 2036

    On the staff side, VTA has also proposed:

    * 10% across-the-board layoffs
    * 10% across-the-board salary cuts
    * pension reform totalling at least $50 million in savings.

    We need to emphasize pension reform before VTA asks you to pay one more penny or give up one more.

    Gotta compare VTA’s 2002 budget

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34056969/VTA-2002-Adopted-Budget

    with the current budget:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34056858/VTA-s-FY-2010-2011-Approved-Budget

    Some of what you will find:

    operations – admin division – 62 in 1999/2000 now 112 – an 80% increase.

    $252 million in 1999-2000 now $359 million – an increase of 42%. 

    Salary & benefits went from using 67% of VTA’s operating budget in 1999-2000 to now using over 75% of VTA’s operating budget.

    To give you an idea of the benefits those administrative retirees get NOW, visit

    http://www.vta.org/jobs/benefits/administrative_retirees.html

    “VTA pays both the employee and employer contributions to PERS. The employee contribution is 7% of salary.  The employer’s contribution varies each year based upon an annual actuarial valuation of the plan.”

    All this comes as overall service has decreased nearly 30% since 2000, and fares have increased anywhere from 60% to over 300% (depending on your age).

    Between 2000 and 2009, bus ridership went from over 47 million boardings to just over 34,500 boardings in 2009 – a decrease of nearly 27%.

    Can you find more waste between VTA’s current and prior budgets?

    Be ready to discuss this at the latest meeting of the Silicon Valley Transit Users
    on Thursday, June 29 at 6:00pm at the San Jose Peace & Justice Center.  It’s at
    49 S. 7th Street in downtown San Jose.  Only a short walk from E. Santa Clara St.
    and the VTA’s 22, 23 522 Rapid bus lines.  It’s also a short walk from the Santa
    Clara light rail station. 

    See you all there.

    • Citizen Bradley:

      You’re fellow citizens admire and appreciate your vigilance and commend you for your report.

      > > * A ballot measure to make permanent the 1/2-cent sales tax voters approved in 2000 that currently expires in 2036

      No way.

      NO WA-A-A-A-A-A-Y ! ! ! ! !

      NO EFFING WA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-Y-Y-Y-Y ! ! ! ! !

  14. Good news!

    Shirley Sherrod, who was fired by Our President for being a RACIST, wasn’t actually a RACIST.

    She was only a communist.

    She is now a certified, authentic VICTIM!

    I expect that Our President will do the right thing and apologize to all black people on behalf of all white people for America’s RACISM, rehire her, give her a big sloppy kiss, and a great big gob of taxpayer money.

    Shirley Sherrod’s story is the Ruling Class’s twenty-first century American Dream.

    • Wow. Time to relax, BB. You left out, unintentionally I’m sure, how this story was taken out of context by your right-wing pals. I’m sure they didn’t mean to distort what was said—they were just being “fair and balanced” (so what if the facts got in the way of what they were trying to do.) You don’t help the credibility case much either. Sherrod was a communist? Is that the standard attack these days from you folks—if you disagree you are either a communist or the “ruling class.” You guys need some new talking points. The current ones are so laughable they really aren’t worth having a rational discussion about.

      • > You left out, unintentionally I’m sure, how this story was taken out of context by your right-wing pals.

        Earthling:

        Since you still seem to be just a baby moonbat and don’t yet quite know what you’re supposed to do with your talking points, let me help you out.

        Professional talker and bigtime moonbat Gene Burns on KGO radio tried out the “out of context” riff on his evening talk program.

        I think he even quoted the NAACP as saying “we were bamboozled” because the Sherrod quotes were “out of context”.

        Well, Duh! 

        That was the trap that Breitbart and Fox News set and the point they were attempting to make.

        News is NEVER complete.  News ALWAYS requires context.  And the left wing news organs ALWAYS distort the news by taking news out of context.  Hello!

        So, when Brietbart and Fox News FACTUALLY report Sherrod’s statement, what do the moonbats do?

        Do they understand the context?  NO!

        Do they jump to the conclusion that Sherrod makes them look bad and fire her? YES!!!

        Is it Fox News’ job to provide the moonbats all the context and interpretations that make the moonbats feel good and look good? NO!

        Do the moonbats blame Fox News for their OWN ignorance, stereotyping, incompetence, and bias? YES!

        Sorry.  The Breitbart report was FACTUAL.  Fox News report was FACTUAL.  Sherrod DID make the statements that Brietbart and Fox attibuted to her.

        Perhaps “context” changes the interpretation of the facts, but there are many, many relevant contexts.

        The main relevant context is that the Obama administration clearly has contempt for the rights of white people, as shown be the dropping of the New Black Panther voter intimidation suit by the Obama Justice Department.

        Did Sherrod SAY she had doubts about helping a “white” person? Did Sherrod tell the “white” person to seek help from “his own kind”?  Is disdain for whites in the DNA of the Obama administration and their hirelings?

        THIS is the relevance of the Sherrod statements, and this is why Breitbart and Fox news are correct and REPONSIBLE for reporting them, and why you and Gene Burns are vermin for trying to suppress it.

        • Bronco, very well said. Now if we can just get the left to produce some brain waves, maybe they’ll get it? Ya, probably not but at least it’s worth a try. Good post, you hit the nail right on the head.

      • The video is on YouTube; she told an anecdote about how she once discriminated against a White man, on the basis of his race.  Sputtering about it being “out of context” wouldn’t be worth jack frack if it were a White Republican appointee telling an anecdote about how he once discriminated against an African-American, due to his being Black.

        In America, we are all equal…but it increasingly looks as if some of us are more equal that others.

  15. Earth to Earthling, come in Earthling! You realize you just made a complete fool of yourself blaming the right for this. Fox never ran a story on this until AFTER the tape went public and AFTER she was fired (forced to resign.) So now, the only thing “laughable” as you say, is your comment. Typical. Reactionary. Liberal. No surprise there, but tiring nonetheless.

    • didn’t the story first break on rightwing blog? did you forget to mention that. typical. reactionary. rightwing. no surprise there, but tiring nonetheless.

      • Wow, how original. If you read the original posters comment, they mention the article was broken on Fox (fair and balanced) as did the NAACP. Both are wrong. Whether or not some right-wing blogger reported it is irrelevant as we are talking about Fox. NAACP didn’t accuse a right-wing blogger of breaking the story, they accused Fox which was incorrect. Nice try though. Anyone else clueless out there who needs clarification?

      • Fox News bothers you, doesn’t it.

        Tee hee.

        Well, there’s always Air America. 

        I encourage you to quote from your favorite Air America personality at your next medicinal marijuana group treatment. Pot heads will think you’re really, really intelligent. And that’s what’s important.

      • Yeah, the story broke on a “right-wing” blog, but the left immediately [on purpose] glossed over the point that the NAACP people in the audience:
        http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/21/finally-the-msm-finds-a-story-about-race-worth-their-time/

        At Big Government, Andrew Breitbart posts a story with accompanying video to make his case that a crowd at the NAACP — who had no idea they we’re listening to a story of reconciliation – quite obviously enjoyed Shirley Sherrod’s tale of a white farmer getting screwed because he was white. And in their first written statement, the NAACP agreed with Breitbart:

          “The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.”

      • Obama is sucking wind.  Approval numbers and right direction/wrong direction numbers are tanking.
        Democrats are heading for titanic losses in the fall.

        And still blaming Bush 20 months into your Presidency isn’t working.

        So what to do?  Open the playbook to page 1. Play the race card.

        All of this.  Every bit of it.  Is nothing but a tired, rehashed, desperate, ginned up, White House/DNC orchestrated attempt to:

        – fire up the base
        – try and smear the tea party and conservatives as racists

        Remember all that crap about Obama being the “post-racial” President?  It’s all about race all the time with Obama. 

        Starting with Reverend Wright, the Cambridge cop and professor incident, and Holder’s shutting down the black panther/polling station case.

        • Republicans were still blaming Clinton for everything that happened during Bush’s term *8* years into Bush’s presidency (and I’ve even seen clips from right wing talking heads blaming Clinton for things that are going wrong now).  Does a rational one really believe that 20 months is enough time to turn around a giant economic recession?

        • > Does a rational one really believe that 20 months is enough time to turn around a giant economic recession?

          Well, since the first post-racial president with large flappy ears promised six months ago that unemployment would not go above eight percent, and it’s now above ten percent (over 20 percent counting people who are underemployed), I think president flappy ears DESERVES some blame.

          By the way, did you know that the president is black?

  16. First time here. Is it always this crazy? Context doesn’t matter? Left wing news organizations always distort the news? Is this site only populated by paranoid conspiracy theorists? Is there a requirement that rational thought is not allowed?
    I am surprised at the level of vitriol and hatred for anything other than extreme conservative viewpoints. I expect their venom and sarcasm to be aimed my way next but I think I’ll look for a higher level of conversation somewhere else more tolerant. I’ll check back again someday after some you kids graduate and have learned to play well with others. Good luck.

    • King, Sounds like you’d be more comfortable hanging out at journolist.

      —In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

      Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

      Journalists – chock full of fake but accurate truthiness.

      Have a nice day.

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

    • As with virtually all Internet sites, the lunatic fringe has taken over this site.  These web-sites are the only place these fools can spout their nonsense without having people laugh in their face.

      • > As with virtually all Internet sites, the lunatic fringe has taken over this site.  These web-sites are the only place these fools can spout their nonsense without having people laugh in their face.

        Fortunately for you, there are safe, comfortable Internet sites where everyone will agree with you and tell you over and over how smart you are:

        http://www.moveon.org
        http://www.dailykos.com

        I understand that these sites are VERY exclusive and don’t allow anyone to just say anything they want to say.

        But undoubtedly, you are sufficiently PC that you won’t be banned.

%d bloggers like this: