City Hall Diary
After finishing lunch at Pollo Loco on Winchester Blvd., Councilmember Pete Constant took me on a District 1 tour. District 6 and District 1 share a long border along Winchester. Recently, both of our council offices have been working with the RDA and small businesses to help build a larger business district for Winchester.
We started off on Cadillac and Impala Streets in the Winchester SNI. As in Hoffman Via Monte in District 10, I saw more “stacking” of the 1970s apartment structures that have “out-of-town owners” who neglect their buildings, negatively affecting the neighborhood. Two homicides occurred in this west side area recently.
Driving down Eden Ave. (which is parallel to Winchester), we looked at some of the traffic calming devices installed by the RDA aimed at slowing cars down on this street. However, one of the roundabouts was removed because local residents did not want it there after it was installed. It is tough to make everyone happy.
We then checked out the community policing station in a converted office building and the Calabazas library that will soon be closing to be remodeled (watch out to not hit your head in the bathroom).
Next, we visited San Jose’s only BMX park, a place where youths can show off their tricks and get some air. We chatted with some kids who told us of their love of the park. I’ll bet it looked pretty peculiar to see the two of us chatting it up with “bikers.” I told the kids not to talk to strangers next time.
Then we visited the Starbird Youth Center at Starbird Park, a newly built facility that took “green building” much too literally by not installing air conditioning! On hot days, youths sit outside the NEW facility. This center is just down the street from Waterbury Ct. and Boynton, where there was another homicide.
Now don’t get me wrong, District 1 is not just apartments and tragic homicides. It is filled with many single family homes, including both starter and expensive houses. It also has a few really big parks, like Rainbow Park, and awesome schools, like Lynbrook High.
The most bizarre thing about District 1 is the border it shares with Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Saratoga. As we drove, Constant constantly pointed out, “this side is San Jose and that side is Saratoga” or “Cupertino that side, San Jose this side.” Throughout the tour along the border, I was extremely pleased at the amount of commercial land San Jose was able to maintain on the city’s western edge. This is the reverse of the San Jose-Milpitas border, with Milpitas capturing most of the sales tax of San Jose residents.
However, it is pretty clear that some cities actually “get it” when it comes to signage for retail. The most obvious example is the Stevens Creek Auto Row. One side is San Jose and the other Santa Clara. Santa Clara has HUGE signs where the car brands are easily visible from a distance, versus the San Jose side, which has Lilliputian signs. No wonder Constant wanted to include areas other than downtown in the sign ordinance.
We finished our tour with a ribbon cutting in my district for a new furniture store on Bascom Ave., where we shared in a feast of food.
Pierluigi,
First let me say that I think it is awesome that you are making an effort to familiarize yourself with all of the districts in San Jose. I have always held that the Mayor and Council should look at our City as a whole, and not just be concerned with their own backyard. By doing what you are doing, I find that voting on an issue outside your district makes you better able to decide which way to vote, rather than just going along with the Council Member representing that district.
I think that past Mayors, and Council Members have always put too much trust in the residing Council Member’s take on things, and have just gone along blindly with them, in the hopes that no one steps on their toes when they want something for their own district. I think that Council Members listen to and stick to certain groups who got them in office, rather than listening to their constituency as a whole.
Secondly, I think the issue of boarding cities and sales tax is a vital topic that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you might consider doing a column on that PO. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Focus on downtown, not burb! Everything should be built and improved on downtown, not burb. No more neighborhoods focus because the measure of city’s respect and prestige is on downtown. Don’t forget $6 gallon of gas coming up. it’s too expensive to sprawl! Let’s be a downtown city, not a suburban because I’m tire of burbing-urps, excuse me.
Ahh, a new, politically-safe-to-disparage bogeyman: the neglectful—and no doubt greedy, “out of town owner.” Let’s all agree to hate them and blame them for all the area’s problems—but hope to god that they don’t decide to empty their units and take a loss, lest we then have the real “negatively affecting” element move to, and bring ruin to, new neighborhoods.
But notice, not a mention of the thousands of illegal immigrants and welfare mothers (Section 8 breeding units) living in the area—both groups working at top speed to feed the manpower needs of the street gangs actually responsible for the homicides. (Would the councilman like us to believe that neglected buildings shoot guns?)
Want to see what the hands-off the illegals policy looks like up close? Take a drive down Cadillac, or David, or Loma Verde and see how some of these humble, hard-working people have impacted neighborhoods in which homicides were once rare and gangs non-existent. Talk to the nice people living around Mary Jane Hammond park—ask them what they think about sharing their once idyllic little park with the undocumented of all kinds: Norteños, Sureños, and murder victims.
I have no sympathy for negligent property owners, but the damage they inflict on a neighborhood with their distressed properties pales in comparison to the horrors our government can bring with its asinine policies.
#3- There must be a flaw in your logic, finfan. You imply that our government’s policies have led to the ugly situation we see behind the McDonald’s on Winchester, but that can’t possibly be true.
After all, almost all of the politicians in San Jose are liberal, progressive Democrats who are committed to the ideals of diversity, equality, and justice for all. Such wonderful, starry-eyed idealists couldn’t possibly have created policies and laws that would turn San Jose into the noisy, squalid, dirty, boring, bland, corrupt, greedy, unfriendly town that it is.
Could they?
More important than just the fact that you are touring the city, Pierluigi: thanks for sharing.
#3- Finfan,
Here are SJI’s comment guidelines,
“Please read before posting comments
1. This is a moderated forum, meaning comments are reviewed before they are posted. As a result there will be a delay before your posts appear on the site. It can be within an hour or take several hours, depending on what time of day you post your comment.
2. We will not publish comments that incorporate the full text of articles from other sources. For articles, provide a maximum of 3-4 paragraphs and a URL.
3. We will not post racist, sexist or sexually explicit comments, obvious commercial promotion, off-topic comments or comments that constitute a slur against a person or group.
4. We will not publish comments that deride a person or group of people for their physical characteristics, and we will not post comments from “cyberbullies.”
5. Comment posters grant rights for their material to be posted on San Jose Inside as well as reposted and or excerpted on the web sites of other members of the Virtual Valley Network, including the print edition of Metro Silicon Valley, a free weekly newspaper distributed in the greater San Jose area.”
Do you see #3? Your comments like,
“But notice, not a mention of the thousands of illegal immigrants and welfare mothers (Section 8 breeding units) living in the area—both groups working at top speed to feed the manpower needs of the street gangs actually responsible for the homicides. (Would the councilman like us to believe that neglected buildings shoot guns?),” seem to be inappropriate and in violation of the terms you agreed to when you posted.
PO informed us :“The most bizarre thing about District 1 is the border it shares with Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Saratoga.”
I’d bet the road was in better condition on the other side than on the SJ side of the line.
#3 – Finfan:
Once again, you don’t get it. I might agree with you about this country’s immigration policy, and how it has affected our state and nation, or at least be willing to discuss where we agree and understand your viewpoints where we differ, but when you throw in those hateful statements –
“thousands of illegal immigrants and welfare mothers (Section 8 breeding units) living in the area—both groups working at top speed to feed the manpower needs of the street gangs actually responsible for the homicides.”
– you loose credibility, and your point. But I guess that is for you to discover. This is the second time you have discredited what could have been an honest, conversation on real issues with hateful statements.
Kathleen –
Thank you for your recent application for the position of SJI blog screener. After careful consideration of your qualifications and skill-set, we have determined your particular skills and judgement in this area to be somewhat lacking for our needs.
We appreciate your interest in SJI and will continue to keep your application on file in the event future opportunities arise matching your particular qualifications.
Sincerely,
SJI Human Resources
3 and 8 – Why do you try to engage FF? S/he just lies in wait for the next sucker to bite at his/her bait and you two make his day every time.
The moderator should be telling FF about the policies, not you.
Do what most of the rest of us do—ignore FF’s usually bigoted and racial slurs and move on. Keep dignifying what s/he writes and FF will be a happy camper.Don’t play the game.
Jack, I honestly think you either need to enforce the rules of your commentary section, or remove them all together. Allowing racist, hurtful comments like FF’s are counter productive to open exchanges of ideas and information, and I find them very offensive.
#9-Mark G.,
Like you, I have a right to my opinion. If you don’t like what I have to say just skip over my posts like a gentleman, and allow me the same courteously I give you, freedom of expression. I will give you this; SJI’s Editor should not be allowing this racist tripe on here and I should not have to ask that it be stopped, or read it, or skip over it because it is being allowed.
#10-B. Zarre,
Thank you for caring enough to point out FF’s motivations in doing what he/she does. I do get that this person is not only racist but uses it to try and yank people’s chain.
“Why do you try to engage FF? S/he just lies in wait for the next sucker to bite at his/her bait and you two make his day every time.”
I do not wish to engage him/her or anyone else in conversations about Hate Speech. I would think on a blog that is supposed to be credible, I wouldn’t have to. I do not think Hate Speech is something that should be ignored. By keeping silent about this hateful commentary of his/hers, I believe we are sending an unspoken approval of this type of behavior, especially when some of you guys over look it and participate in conversation with FF.
Secondly, I think you guys need to stop defending FF’s, his/her right to put this ignorant garbage on here, by telling me that I don’t have a right to expect enforcement of commentary rules, or when I object to reading it. I work with victims of Hate Crimes, and Hate Incidents, and I see the results and consequences of this type of hatred everyday. It is very disheartening to me to sit with a child or an immigrant who came here for a better life who was called a Nigger, Bitch, Anchor Baby, Welfare Bastard etc., or had their property vandalized by some racist, and try to explain to them that these people are just plain ignorant. For that reason and others, I will never keep my mouth shut when I see this kind of hatred being spouted, and if you guys don’t like it feel free to ignore my posts too.
#10 – B.Zarre –
I agree with you – the Moderator hould be telling FF about the policies, and screening out comments that don’t meet them. As two people who are involved in the field of fighting discrimination, it is something neigher of us find tolerable.
Thank you for the advice.
To all self-appointed arbiters of hate speech,
I throw myself on your mercy. Having been raised to be direct and honest, and educated to be accurate, I ask that you please consider the circumstances of my environment before sentencing me to the gulag or, even worse, having me banned from SJI. While addressing the issue of the degradation of those South Winchester neighborhoods I mistakenly thought that my pinpointing the groups most responsible for bringing gang warfare to it was important, and completely forgot that in modern day discussions accuracy is no excuse for offense.
To the all the welfare mothers currently residing and, without benefit of marriage, reproducing in Section 8 housing, I apologize for referring to you as “units”—a term that is clearly impersonal and, to some, offensive. I distinctly remember when composing that sentence realizing that I was surrendering accuracy by using units instead of parasites, but given that I was still stinging as a result of my recent use of the term anchor babies, I thought I’d take a more diplomatic approach. Apparently I still have a lot to learn.
So what to do? How does one go about tactfully identifying those about whom nothing good can be said? I mean, these women are not married, yet they choose to get pregnant. They have no jobs, yet they expect to get a monthly paycheck. They have no family support, yet they expect to have a place to live. They see the dismal results of their life choices, yet they repeat them over and over, delivering into poverty more and more fatherless children. I guess I could call them unbridled optimists, but that lacks accuracy. I can’t call them single mothers, because there are a lot of single mothers out there working, paying taxes, and raising good kids. I don’t know what to do—I’m stuck.
Wait just a minute. I think I see a way out of this. My problem is one of perspective. I’ve been viewing these welfare mothers in a negative light when it would be politically-correct and hate-free to see them in a positive light. But how to accomplish this difficult transition? Does there exist a set of facts about these women that might sway my judgement? Were they tumultuously uprooted from home and country and deposited into a foreign land, the way the Vietnamese were? Or born into a religion that sanctioned unmarried procreation and irresponsible parenting? Or perhaps raised in an economy that did not provide work for those willing to do it? I’m getting “no” across the board here and beginning to think that I was justified in voicing my offense to their offensive behavior, which leads me to realize that your criticism of me was based on your belief that it is offensive to offend even the offensive. But if that’s the case, and I find your decision to criticize me for my word choice offensive, which I do, then you yourselves are guilty of having offended the offensive, and thus committed an offensive act.
But, of course, if my conclusion offends you, I may be in trouble all over again (sigh). Someone get me the rule book.
#13-FF,
I have often read your posts with great interest, and in some cases agreed with you on your position. Even when I have disagreed with you, I have thought about what you’ve said. You seem intelligent, and you have some very excellent points, when you aren’t using disparaging language. I do not want you barred from SJI. I think you have some very insightful views on things. I am merely requesting that you stop using hateful, hurtful terms directed at certain groups when expressing your thoughts. Now given how intelligent I know you are, I think you can manage that, especially since you have made it very clear that you think people ought to follow the rules.
Council Member Oliverio,
What are your thoughts on this? Will you be attending any of these public meetings?
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9960996
#15 Hello Kathleen,
I blogged on this topic several months ago:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/fund_thyself/
#17 – John Galt –
“Racism never destroyed this country but the political correctness on display in this blog probably will. ”
Don’t you remember the Civil War? That was mainly about discrimination, racism, and slavery. So, yes, Racism DID actually almost destroy this country.
Kathleen –
I am not defending finfan. Although he does seem to occasionally go over the ledge on his own, he seems quite capable of taking care of himself. I am only suggesting you take your own advice and skip over his posts if you don’t like the content within them. I make the choice to read your posts because while they may contain little educational value, most of the time I find them amusing. (besides, ignoring a lady is not the sign of a true gentleman..) That said, it is not your role to police this site, and to assume that the rest of us here should adhere to your own personal sense of morality and word/term definitions is absurd. You repeatedly call out posts that offend your delicate sensitivities and request SJI censor them in some way. Jack can speak for himself regarding the comment policy, but don’t you think they would have refrained from posting finfan’s comments (or any of the others you have problems with) if he agreed with you?
If you want to waste your time attempting to police the site, who am I to stop you? As you wrote above, everyone has a right to express their opinion right? Just don’t expect me to stop wasting MY time expressing MY opinion about how ridiculous I think your ongoing censorship attempts are.
I agree with Mark G that Kathleen has no right to be the self-appointed censor of FF’s posts. If the forum moderators allow the posts, she has no reason to second-guess them just because FF offends her in some way. And I’d recommend a remedial English class for Kathleen as well, as “Hate Speech” is not a proper noun.
Christian,
The Founders apparently did not share your opinion regarding the threat posed by racist or hate speech, but they certainly saw Free Speech as necessary for a free society. Of course, “free” speech is pretty easy for a nation to define, while the definition of your “racist” or “hate” speech can never be anything more than, well, yours.
Oh, and as for your reading of history, you might find it interesting that just prior to his Emancipation Proclamation, which he classified as a “military measure” without legal justification, Lincoln clarified his position on the war and slavery in a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune (Horace Greeley):
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Let us not forget that finfan has the “honor” of having a post about Blanca Alvarado deemed racist and offensive. And, to my knowledge, this has been the only post on SJI removed after being posted.
Congratulations to finfan for his consistent work.
#17- John Galt,
“I congratulate the critics of finfan on their supernatural ability to detect “hate” and for pointing out his thoughtcrime to the rest of us.
Good work, komrades!” You are very welcome!
Racism has harmed this country through out history, and continues today. It is just too bad that just because you aren’t aware of the many ways in which it does, that you chose to ignore it. Here are some links you might be interested in reading. A little education never hurt anyone right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
#19-Mark G.,
I’m glad I amuse you, and thank you for the warning. It’s nice to know that you feel comfortable threatening me with constant harassment if I don’t follow YOUR rules, and drop my objections to racist, hate speech on here.
I realize that your chivalrous attempts at politely trying to indoctrinate me into participating in, or understanding the “Good Old Boys Network’s,” way of doing things is of good intention, but I don’t need a lecture on how to be deaf, dumb, and blind to things I find offensive, nor do I need to be threatened into subservience.
I did not make the rules for commentary on SJI. When Jack announced changes to SJI were in the making, this very topic was brought up. Jack agreed not to allow personal attacks, cyber bulling, and other such offenses. New commentary rules were put into affect, rules I follow and want others to as well, so that we all feel safe to express ourselves. The fact that Jack has allowed these types of violations after saying he would not, and the fact that he has not spoken up on this issue clearly proves my point. Silence is a sign of approval whether intended or not.
Expecting enforcement of rules is a crime of horrific measure to you I’m sure, but nonetheless I will not back off on this issue whether Jack enforces the rules on here or not. This is a public blog that thousands of people read everyday. What do you think their thoughts are on racist comments and hate speech Mark? And do you really want to reflect yourself to the world as a gentlemen who finds no value in someone’s right to object to hateful, cruel comments focused on unwed mothers, immigrants, children born without benefit of a father’s name, etc. who can be adversely affected by such comments or depictions?
Regardless of your answer Mark G., I stand firm in my conviction to speak up when I see this cruelty, even though I know you and others will try to bully me into doing otherwise.
#21 – Finfan –
And a politician doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, even back then in Lincoln’s time, suprises you? It think you left out the fact that hundred’s of thousands of people objected to the way Slaves in this country were treated. History bears out that Lincoln made a good political decision by freeing the slaves, even though he didn’t want to. How do you think Civil Rights came to be? All politicians have used the race issue at one time or another to further their agendas, and their political careers.
#20-Hugh,
I do not have to second-guess a rule that was written by SJI. It’s meaning is very clear try reading it. If you are unclear on the definition of what Hate Speech is, please see:
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech”
As to my needing a “remedial English class,” I beg to differ with you. Hate Speech describes a “certain type of speech,” and therefore it is a proper noun.
“Proper nouns are the names of individual people, places, titles, calendar times, etc..
eg: Janet; Simon; London; The President; Tuesday.
Proper nouns are always written with a capital letter. Nouns which are not written with a capital letter do not refer to the name of an individual person or thing and are called common nouns.
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/proper-noun.html
#16- Hi PO,
Hope you’re having a great summer! Thank you for the info. I just love the way your district works together to solve community issues. I’ll try to make it to one of your public outreach meetings. Do you think you can have Denelle jet me the dates, times, and places they will be held, or could you post them here on SJI? Thanks in advance!
Christian #25
Even though we are way off the topic here, in the interest of historical accuracy, it must be pointed out that the Emancipation Proclamation, in reality, didn’t free any slaves.
Despite his personal desire to end slavery, Lincoln’s foremost intent was preserving the Union. However, the political context of the war and worries about the British intervening on behalf of the Confederates made him determined to “issue a proclamation of emancipation such as I thought most likely to be useful” once the “rebel army . . . should be driven out of Maryland.” The Union victory over Robert E. Lee at Antietam in western Maryland, even at the terrible price paid by both sides, provided Lincoln with the opportunity. His Emancipation Proclamation “freed” only those slaves living in the Confederate States of America and therefore had no immediate practical effect, but it had a huge psychological effect and kept anti-slavery Britain from entering the conflict. Ironically, Maryland and the other three border slaveholding states remaining in the Union were unaffected by the proclamation.
#28- Thanks for the history lesson Jack, now how about explaining to ALL of us why you have allowed racist and hateful comments on SJI.
Jack –
Thank you for the update. I LOVE history. You are correct – the Emancipation Proclaimation was merely a document, had little effect. And yes, it was a politically strategic move, to keep Great Britian out of the Civil War (among other reasons). A nice one, of course. It does prove one point – Slavery was a key issue in the Civil War. Not only the issue of slavery directly (as in owning slaves), but slavery’s effect on the Southern economy, that the North was increasingly moving away from slavery (Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad), and even in Congress, Henry Clay and other legislators were more and more adopting a ‘separatist’ attitude due to northern attitudes against slavery.
#28 Jack, nice tie-in. A major street in Councilmember Oliverio’s district is Lincoln Avenue. It used to be named El Abra, but after President Lincoln’s assassination it was renamed Lincoln Avenue.
Kathleen:
“I did not make the rules for commentary on SJI.”
No you didn’t. So why do you feel qualified enough to interpret them for the rest of us?
“This is a public blog that thousands of people read everyday. What do you think their thoughts are on racist comments and hate speech Mark?”
I don’t know what their thoughts are Kathleen. You seem to be the only one talking about this. Apparently those “thousands” either disagree with you about what constitutes a racist remark, or they believe in free speech (good or bad) and don’t feel they need to be the censors on this blog. Perhaps they just feel that since they have you brandishing your censorship police badge everywhere, they don’t need to speak up. If you have been elected their queen censor, kudos to you I guess. Somehow I don’t think that is the case. Whatever the reason, before you keep on championing this cause in the name of other “readers”, I’d make sure they actually want you as their spokesperson.
I am very happy to see you standing firm in your convictions though. If we don’t believe in ourselves, what is there left to believe in? Keep on fighting the good fight and perhaps one of these days you might actually be right.
Kathleen #29
I was trying to stay out of this squabble and thought my silence spoke for itself. However, since you ask me the question publicly, I will give you an answer.
You are an important voice on SJI and I respect your opinions on subjects discussed here. But as to how this site should be run, you are wrong in this case. Finfan is also a very valuable member of the SJI community and although I almost never agree with anything he says, I will defend his right to say it.
Despite what you say, it is my judgement that Finfan has not crossed the line in terms of our policy. If, according to your definition, he wants to declare himself a racist and defend his position, then in the spirit of free speech, I will allow him to do so on this public forum as long as he continues to use the type of language that he does. If he wants to be his own worst enemy, I am happy for him to show his true colors, so to speak, and if he wants to commit what many would see as intellectual suicide on SJI, I say let him do it. At least he is honest about what he thinks, even if it is from the comfort of anonymity. If you don’t want to hear what he says, then don’t read him.
I hate Hitler and everything he stood for. But I have read Mein Kampf and believe that the book should be freely available in the public library and that everyone should be able to read it if they want to. You cannot fight something if you do not know what it is you are fighting.
If we don’t study views that we find abhorrent, we will never be able to effectively discredit them. We must not fear opposing ideas, but strengthen our own in order to combat them. You should show the courage of your convictions and never cry “foul” just because you don’t know how to battle back. Don’t advocate censorship—-it’s not an option here—-but use your considerable brain power to fight Finfan with words and ideas of your own when you don’t agree with him. Or, like other SJI readers have chosen to do, just don’t pay any attention to him.
I hope this explanation is satisfactory as I really have nothing else to say on the matter and I will not insert myself into an off-topic scrap between you and Finfan. Can we get back to the subject of Councilman Oliverio’s column now?
29 – Just my opinion, but you are starting to neutralize yourself. Many of us agree (or mostly agree) with your comments, but your bludgeon-like preaching approach is pushing many away from you. Not the most effective way to make a point. Yes, you are free to keep going the way you are. Just as I (and others) are free to pay no attention to what you have to say. If you think talking to yourself is the way to go, then have it.
Christian,
You may LOVE history, but you’re pretty reckless when citing it.
In post #18 you said this of the Civil War: “That was mainly about discrimination, racism, and slavery. So, yes, Racism DID actually almost destroy this country.”
Then, when I corrected you (#21) with no less than the words of the very man who led us into that war, you responded by citing that, “hundred’s of thousands of people objected to the way Slaves in this country were treated.” Needless to say, the fact that people objected to slavery, a fact never in dispute, does nothing to rescue your initial, in-your-face assertion.
Then, after being corrected by Jack (#28), you come back (#30) and try to use developments that occurred after the war started to salvage your statement about what the war “was mainly about.” Nice try at the bait and switch, but President Bush beat you to it.
What is most interesting is your motive in all of this, that being the condemnation and censoring of me for using terms you find racist and hateful. In other words, in the cause of political correctness and nothing else, you misrepresented history in an effort to silence me, and refused to let go when exposed. Thankfully, I still have the right to publicly confront you. Imagine how powerful you would be if your history was the official history and Jack and I could be imprisoned for correcting you? That the reality in most of Europe, where the spineless idiots have allowed political-correctness a chance to spread its totalitarian wings.
History (#22),
You are correct that I was censored here, but if memory serves me it was for the high crime of including an “offensive” word in a post that would’ve otherwise passed muster. The offending word, which was not the least bit profane, was a slang word, a feminization of the Spanish word for fat (gordo). I used it in my post in an attempt to best describe a group of attention-starved, uncouth and unsightly females who’d been aggressively displaying their wares downtown on cruise nights. It was another case of my “offending” when describing offensive people.
If your memory serves you, you will remember that I did not protest the censorship and even defended the moderator against the protests of other posters. I have no problem with SJI controlling the content here; I believe that all people should be free to set their own standards for the use of their property.
You are also correct that I am consistent. I intentionally use crude words and terms as my way of striking back at the offensive, misleading, politically-correct use of language in government, education, and the media. A prime example appeared today in the Washington Post, where this heading was selected for a story reporting the overwhelming link between immigration (from sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia) and TB in America:
U.S. Immigrants Bearing More of the TB Burden
“Bearing the burden?” How nicely put. But what absolute bullshit. What’s next? Welfare Mothers Bearing More of the Burden for Raising Fatherless Children?
Stay tuned.
El Pollo Loco rocks.
#33- Jack,
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with much of what you’ve said about freedom of speech, and also Finfan’s contributions to SJI, however ignorant and racist he is at times, I agree, he is valuable to increased readership, sensationalistic appeal, and in promoting SJI. The catfights you allow don’t hurt either.
I do however think you need to define what the line that cannot be crossed is, as I think the guidelines you’ve set forth in your commentary section covers not allowing terms such as Anchor Babies, Welfare Bastards, demeaning specific groups, etc.
It is your blog to do with as you wish of course and I truly do respect your opinion, but I think you are being hypocritical, and giving double messages when you are saying on the one hand “3. We will not post racist, sexist or sexually explicit comments, obvious commercial promotion, off-topic comments or comments that constitute a slur against a person or group.”
And on the other hand you are saying,
“Despite what you say, it is my judgment that Finfan has not crossed the line in terms of our policy. If, according to your definition, he wants to declare himself a racist and defend his position, then in the spirit of free speech, I will allow him to do so on this public forum as long as he continues to use the type of language that he does. If he wants to be his own worst enemy, I am happy for him to show his true colors, so to speak, and if he wants to commit what many would see as intellectual suicide on SJI, I say let him do it. At least he is honest about what he thinks, even if it is from the comfort of anonymity. If you don’t want to hear what he says, then don’t read him.”
By holding such conflicting views on this topic you are indeed contributing to the problem of comprehending what is and is not acceptable on SJI. And while I understand this is a blog and not a newspaper, even the Mercury News changed its complete format to stop bloggers from using terms like Finfan uses to ensure that they are not providing a forum for hatred and ignorance. Many credible blogs are not allowing anonymous posts, and certainly are not allowing bloggers to call people of color or immigrants terms you allow on SJI. I’m not crying fowl because I can’t hold an intelligent conversation with an ill-equipped person Jack; I’m calling fowl because you are not enforcing your written guidelines with your personal position on freedom of speech.
Finfan –
I will respond to your post #35 on Rants and Raves.
#34- Penny Lane,
You are right of course; I do allow the ignorance of some of the men on here to get to me from time to time. As to your reference about my pushing you a way with my “Bludgeon-like preaching,” I never claimed to be perfect. Being called uneducated, a self appointed censor, being threatened with harassment for calling into question commentary rules that continually go without being enforced, has a way of making me… well a bit grouchy!
Mark G.,
“I don’t know what their thoughts are Kathleen.” Try asking instead of threatening me, or taking every opportunity to try and belittle me Mark.
Racism never destroyed this country but the political correctness on display in this blog probably will.
I congratulate the critics of finfan on their supernatural ability to detect “hate” and for pointing out his thoughtcrime to the rest of us.
Good work, komrades!
Pierluigi,
Be careful, they sayyou are what you eat!
Kathleen –
If it makes you feel better to play the victim when dealing from a losing position then by all means, do what you need to do. I threatened you? Whatever…
I realize you probably are incapable of letting this go, so respond if you must. If you do feel the need to reply, please try to avoid crying “fowl”. (especially if you are trying to convince others you are not shying away from intelligent conversation.) I don’t think anyone likes the thought of you calling a “bird”
There is nothing racist about the terms “welfare mother, welfare baby,anchor baby” because there is nothing racial in those terms; except in the minds of the PC speech police, who obviously believe that no white people fit those descriptions, and thus FF must be speaking about “people of color”.
The Constitution is not necesary to protect bland, inoffensive speech, Kathleen. It is there, oddly enough, to protect hate speech. That’s why a bunch of Jewish lawyers from the ACLU sued to protect Nazis’ rights to march in Skokie.
On the other hand, the Constitution only protects people from a government attempt to abridge free speech. Private parties, and blogs, have a right to edit as they please.
FF often uses emotionally charged words to make his point. But if you were to substitute the bland, PC speech preferred by Kathleen and Christian, the message would be no less valid. It would, however, be boring.
This country is unundated by breeders, foreign and domestic, who contribute nothing and take everything from those of us who actually work. They are outbreeding the working folk at an increasing and alarming rate. The government largesse that keeps them alive and breeding more of their ilk cannot continue indefinitely.
If you are so convinced of the ultimate success of welfare/anchor babies, Kathleen & Christian, I suggest you take a few of them into your homes and you pay for their upkeep and the college education they all DESERVE. I’m tired of picking up their tabs.
Kathleen wrote @ #24:” but I don’t need a lecture on how to be deaf, dumb, and blind to things I find offensive…”
Wow, Ms PC calling an unfortunate mute person “dumb”. For shame, Kethleen! Would it not be offensive to a mute person to be called “dumb”? I’m sure the world is full of intelligent mute people. Kathleen, I am SHOCKED by your insensitivity to the mute people of the world by your use of such an offensive word to describe them. It’s so soundist.
And Jack, how COULD YOU let such an offensive term be posted on SJI?