Football Fans Impressed With President’s Resolve
The weary and battered citizens of Raider Nation received their first hopeful news of the season earlier in the week when they learned President George W. Bush was sending in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Oakland to rescue the ailing Raiders football team.
“What is winless, we will make win,” pronounced the President while mugging for cameras with Raider owner Al Davis during a staged brush clearing photo op on the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Political experts opined that the decision to send FEMA to Oakland was not coincidentally planned, but positioned just before the midterm elections in order to stem a tide which many believe will give the Democrats control of the House and Senate. “This isn’t so much a promise to improve a team,” said John Madden of NBC, “as it is blatant pandering to buy votes from people who have never actually voted before. Hey, pass some of that chicken…”
Regardless, thousands of fans made their way to McAfee Coliseum to see proof of the President’s bold pledge before considering a Republican vote. “We may be as stupid as we look,” said Skull Punisher, a loyal member of Raider Nation, “but we’re not going to make this a Red State without a win at Arizona this weekend.”
FEMA confidently charged into town, after their triumphant foray into New Orleans, with their specialized Sports Franchise Division fully equipped to dispense team unity, speed, interim coaches and steroids. “After a few dozen studies by professional consultants,” said freshly hired FEMA Director Susan F. Shick, “we will try and pinpoint what needs to be fixed.”
But that wasn’t enough for an impatient and embarrassed Raider Nation that wants results now. In a revealing poll commissioned by the Oakland Tribune, fans were asked what should be done to improve the team. Out of 35,000 polled, the results were truly shocking:
14% said fire the coach.
10% said fire the players.
76% said just let me urinate on the fan in front of me.
“Mission accomplished,” declared a satisfied President. “Just win, Baby!”
Before the team can be restored the stadium denizens must be deloused and moved to safety. Pass out the nit-removal combs, assemble the prison buses, and make ready a secure facility (Alcatraz?).
Oh, and dispatch the proper authorities to the fans’ homes to deal with the unattended meth labs and pit bulls.
It looks like an O-fer season for the Silver & Black. Ha!
The only part of this piece that isn’t satire is the pissing in the stands. I went to a Raider game several years ago and will never go back. I think I witnessed 5 golden showers and 3 fights. Nice, relaxing, family day at the park…
THE WORST OF WORST AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND I DON’T MEAN THE TEAM. THE FANS! THEY MUST ALL COME FROM MIAMI.
“Yer doin’ a great job, Shickie.”
While I do agree that there are a number of fans that are an embarassement to the team and sports itself I also must say as a Raider fan, that a majority of the fans do not fit into this category. I go to the games and enjoy myself as much as I can but I have to admit that with the way the Raiders are going it’s getting very difficult to do so. I have experience a couple of instances where I have instructed security that if they didn’t take action against a couple of fans we would do so ourselves and they immediately took action and warned them of being taken out if they continue with their actions and the poblem was solved. Unfortunately it tooks us bringing the issue to security before anything was done. I have also gone to a couple of niner games and observed the same type of behavior so it isn’t only a Raider problem. Do not dare go to a niner game dressed as a Raider fan or A’s fan because you are in for a long afternoon of being harrased so there is plenty of blame to go around. That said firing the coach won’t solve anything but getting rid of a couple of under performing players might. Jerry Porter and Randy Moss comes to mind. Go Raiders.
Seeing that there aren’t a lot of posters, kindly let me bring something forward.
When candidates file for city council races, they sign an “Affidavit of Nominee” which states in part, “that he or she will accept the office in the event of his or her election” and that he or she takes “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and…will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which (he or she is) about to enter.” It’s not for the first day or the first year, it’s for the four years of the term of office.
So this is an area in which we can compare Chavez and Reed, namely, did they live up to the oath they each took when they filed for office. Clearly Chavez did…she will serve until the end of this calendar year when she will complete her council term. Her Affidavit of Nominee for her 2002 campaign will be shown to have been utterly honest in taking that oath when she leaves council membership at the end of this year.
But Reed has ignored his oath to “discharge his duties” by seeking to abandon his office in mid-term for a higher office.
Each of us will have to consider whether or not politicians are bound by such oaths, and whether or not unilaterally cancelling such oaths renders one fit or unfit for office.
When Reed signed his “Affidavit of Nominee” on 12/2/03, it was widely known that he intended to run for mayor in 2006. He had been working for that goal for at least a couple of years and it was certainly well known in Berryessa, so it is difficult to accept his claim on that affidavit to have had no “mental reservation or purpose of evasion” regarding his council member duties over the next four years.
Reed is the candidate who has raised honesty, accountability, transparency, and responsibility to a very high pitch. Applying his own claimed standards, it cannot be said that his oath to serve his term of four years back in December 2003 was honest, forthright, or truthful.
***********
This issue has cost implications to taxpayers because it will cost money to elect his replacement if he were to win the mayoral race.
***********
And this issue, unless questioned, will legitimize the apparently prevailing view of politicians that mere oaths are details to be swept aside in the service of ambition. In North San Jose there is a whole troop of volunteers eager to run for Reed’s council seat if he advances. Unfortunately, at least three of them already have political offices, so the ripple effect will go a long way and cost taxpayers a lot.
Just (One) Win Baby?
Mr Warner,
Your attack is shameless, and irrelevant, having nothing to do with the Raider Nation. How about this: if ONE qualified person steps forward to run for the seat when Chuck wins, and there’s a general community consensus that this person has what it takes, will you back that person so we can avoid a special election?
Nah, you’ll have your name in there alongside whoever that competent person is, like you did in March 2004. Let’s look at the results of that waste of ballot space:
CHUCK REED 10,224 86.11%
DALE WARNER 1,649 13.89%
Source:
http://services.sccgov.org/scc/assets/docs/scc040302_dtl.htm#cont959
Dale,
I understand you have an ax to grind with Chuck Reed. That said, do you really believe Cindy would make a better Mayor?
In 2000, our city council was swimming in money! Yet, somehow the RonCindy administration managed to squander it all, a big chunk on a lavish, over priced city hall that is far from serving its intended purpose of housing most of our city staff. We were also assured it would not have an effect on city services (swimming pools, Libraries, youth centers…)!
I also understand Cupertino Electric just received a sweet deal to rewire the structure because the original wiring is insufficient to handle the load requirements with the current staff levels.
You know all this and more, yet you refuse to accept it. Do not let your anger cloud your judgment.
Dale
Have you ever been for something not always against almost everything?
What positive things have you done for San Jose or your neighborhood that did not involve anger and attacking others?
Why do your comments always have to have attacks against your favorite targets – Chuck, Vic, Rick who defeated you for City Council
Based on your shameless public behavior and personal attacks the voters were right not to elect you
If we got off the Raideres somehow and Dale got us started on mayoral politics again then let me assure everyone that Cindy has not always been the Vice-Mayor. It seems as thought Pat Dando was involved in the beginning but she is never mentioned.
Referee: “Encroachment, number 7, five yards and repeat the down.”
Al Michaels: “Looks like Dale Warner got a little overanxious on the defensive line. Can’t say as I blame him. Stopping Reed is a big job.”
John Madden: “I remember… I think it was their last meeting, Warner spent the entire game watching Reed run over him. It was a real mismatch: Pop Warner meets the NFL. Got his bell rung at the end of the game; I think it’s still affecting him.”
Dale,
If this were a Western this would be the part where the Cindy supporters run out of ammo and start throwing rocks at the Indians. (Oops…we’re not supposed to talk about Cindy and the Indians!)
OK, back to football.
Fascinating responses to the issue I raised. Not even one person responded to the actual issue which was whether or not we want our politicians to live up to their oaths. I guess describing a messenger as “shameless” or “angry” is what passes for political discourse in San Jose in 2006.
**********
#10 raised the new city hall as an issue. Kathy Chavez Napoli, Robert Becklund, and I were the authors of the ballot argument against Measure I which the voters endorsed, thus allowing the city council to construct the new city hall.
At the time Measure I was on the ballot in November 1996, Chuck Reed was utterly silent about a new city hall. If he was concerned about the cost overruns, land acquisition costs & methods, and other issues we raised in our ballot argument, he certainly was not active at all in opposing Measure I.
Reed first took office in late 2000, and raised one or two issues about the proposed new city hall, but cannot be said to have ever actually campaigned against it.
In addition, Reed has adopted the strange position in his mayoral campaign that the new city hall will cost taxpayers $507 million. (Reed Reformer II, page 6)
In fact it will cost us taxpayers close to or slightly above $1 billion. As Pete Campbell has persuasively pointed out several times on this web site, it is not only the cost of design and construction that must be taken into account, it is also the cost of the money borrowed to pay for the cost of design and construction that must be taken into account.
It’s an odd misrepresentation by Reed, and one I’m at a loss to understand. It seems obvious to me that the cost of borrowing money is part of the cost of building the new city hall.
**********
And now I’m off to my 9:30 AM anger management class.
Dale,
It is my understanding that the new city hall would not affect other services. Do you believe that to be true?
Didn’t the late Al Ruffo lose his lawsuit against the city trying to prove the terms and conditions of measure I would not be adhered to by the city?
Can anyone really say that the construction of the new city didn’t affect other city services?
Didn’t Chuck Reed vote against the new city hall?
Just think, if you should decide to support Chuck, and he wins, you could ask for his endorsement to replace him on the city council.
Good luck in class Dale
#3: only three fights?
Way 2 go finfan #13. Dale, if you can’t stay on topic, stay silent.
“Chavez and Reed, namely, did they live up to the oath they each took when they filed for office. Clearly Chavez did…she will serve until the end of this calendar year when she will complete her council term. “
Dale if this is the case, can you explain why Cindy has been absent to the last 2 months of Rules Committee meetings while shes been campaigning? All the while Chuck has met all of his city obligations.
Its illegal to campaign on city time Cindy! Please explain yourself!
Hey Mercury News… if you’re reading along….
How about an investigative report on this?
Not a good way to start the weekend! DALE, GET OUTTA THE FLOWER GARDEN.
I’m surprised SkullMan and his buddies have not come forward to defend the soon to be San Jose Raiders. We blew the A’s to San JO with the missed spelled sign in “Phonix”. If the Raiders go 2 and 14 as the niners did several time years ago Al Davis may decide to approch Ron and Larry to boost for the team to come to San Jose. Think about it.
“San Jose, The Center of Raider Nation” We could bring back Joe Bugle as the coach. Steve De Burg as the Captain of the Offensive unit. Cheer leader? How about the present City Council?
If the Raiders had the below the belt “Offensive Tactics” being exibited in the present San Jose elections, they should win Sunday. Just win Baby!
OK so I’m a bit upset. It’s hard to see our Village being dragged thru the dirt that has befallen us. Perhaps a good Raider Game seems a lot more family fun than San Jose Politics, fights, drugs, booze and all!! Hell, we even have shooting here right down town. Beat that Raider Nation! Come on down, we could teach you a thing or two about “Offensive play”.
Go Niners. Go World Series. Go Raiders. Go Good Guys.
I’m Going Fishing!
The Village Black Smith
Did anyone catch today’s story about Manny Diaz?
It seems he has a “slush fund” that he is using to funnel money into the council race.
The best is that he was too busy lobbying to pay down campagn debt…
Oh, and that Darren Seaton is defending him.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15827024.htm
Let’s not pick on Manny Diaz too much. He’s the next Terry Gregory. I guy who gets into debt then needs to get out.
We should all hope that he makes it back to the council so that we will at least have a decent scandal to keep us entertained and blogging next year.
Gregory took wine and tickets. Manny deals in cash and checks.
Does anyone have Julius Finkelstein’s e-mail address?
San Jose has many “local political storytellers” who frequently rewrite history
– to serve current political agendas, candidates or distance themselves from political failure by implying what is not so – telling a lie long enought that public believes it with little regard to facts
– to justify special interest or political paybacks as “community interest” without stating long term costs that if know would defeat it
– to take individual political credit for group or community work, for thing they had little or nothing to do with. that would have happened without them (economy / jobs getting better)
– to show support for a popular public issues when they objected, voted against it, late supporting or are still working to prevent implementation
– using common words with different meaning to public or government – Is not a tax – it is a license, user fee, assessment, benefit fees, revenue enhancements. impact fee, cost recovery, duty, tarriff or toll – try not paying it and you will see it is a tax
(Reposted)
Has anyone in District 3 asked Diaz when he intends to propose his AB 935 – New BART / Downtown VTA Transit Tax to tax strapped City Council and county VTA – early 2007 ?
Where is Liccardo – New BART / VTA Taxes or Not ?
Chavez and Reed, Chamber and Labor all support – New BART / VTA Taxes – Do You ?
Diaz AB 935 – San Jose City Council and VTA Board ( has 5 SJ Council) can vote to establish New BART / VTA Transit Benefit District Taxes which goes into effect unless property owners of at least 25 percent of total assessed real property value within 1/2 mile BART / transit station file petition within 30 days
Long time lower assessment Downtown or North San Jose property owners get less votes than new higher assessed downtown residential condos and downtown high rises property owners Large property owners can at their cost file to be excluded or have reduced assessments
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_0901-0950/ab_935_bill_20031009_chaptered.html