This is an open forum so tell us what’s on your mind this week.
26 Comments
Last week, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury struck an important blow for local taxpayers’ rights that San Jose citizens should know about. The Grand Jury issued an opinion on the deceptive practice of cash-out refunding, by which school districts (including quite notoriously San Jose Unified, which issued the largest one in the state) issue bonds for an agreed-upon sum, then later quietly refinance the bonds to generate additional proceeds, and keep the difference themselves. This is in violation of California law, which requires, quite reasonably, that any difference be refunded to the taxpayers.
For those of you unfamiliar with what can appear to be an arcane topic, this is a classic example of governments double-dipping taxpayers, and acting with blatant disregard for the terms of the ballot and voters’ and taxpayers’ rights. Cash-out refinancing ran wild in California and other states through early 2007, with lawyers involved in the dubious dealing making millions, school districts reaping 10s of millions in stealth taxes, and taxpayers silently fleeced.
In early 2007, a group I organized, Citizens for School Bond Accountability, announced our intention on sanjoseinside.com to file suit against San Jose Unified’s cash-out refinancing scheme, which was undertaken in late 2005 without any public notice. The Attorney General has committed to issue an opinion on the legality of the practice, and county treasurers and legal scholars have all expressed opinions calling into question the practice. Notably, since the threat of our suit appeared, along with a flurry a stories in the municpal bond press, and IRS investigations into the potential taxability of interest of some of these bonds, the cash-out refinancing practice has dwindled dramatically.
The San Mateo Grand Jury’s findings largely concur with our own. Its brave and foreceful demand that the secretive and deceptive practices of *not* informing taxpyers of school boards’ intents is another nail in the coffin of this dubious practice.
School boards have every right in the world to ask taxpayers to finance worthy and important activities to help students. But that doesn’t mean they have the right to secretly misappropriate taxpayer dollars for unaccountable schemes. Kudos to the San Mateo Grand jury for stepping up and shining a bright light into this dark corner of public finance.
Is anybody else angered by the return of the BART tax? Although the Merc just reported it here: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9906067
it has been an open secret that VTA, pushed by Carl Guardino, was bringing the tax proposal back despite the defeat of the 2006 Measure A sales tax proposal.
The Merc article states that “The transit district will meet next month to put a one-eighth-cent measure before voters this fall. It would raise about $42 million a year, with every penny going toward the operating and maintenance costs of a BART line from Fremont to the South Bay.” However, the article also points out “Though the tax would raise only $42 million a year of the roughly $50 million needed to run BART” and that the “The tax would fund only one project, BART, unlike past measures that included dozens of projects from road widenings to transit extensions.”
So, even with the new tax, there’s still not enough for the BART line, the capital cost of which is now in excess of $6BILLION.
The “Santa Clara VTA Riders Union” [not affiliated with VTA] has a useful “BART to San Jose News and Hidden Facts on BART” page here: http://www.vtaridersunion.org/bartsjx/
Meanwhile, word is out that the California Bureau of State Audits (BSA) has indicated it will release its audit report on VTA on July 31st at 9:00 a.m., at which time the report will be posted on the BSA website. The VTA audit is number 2007-129 and the link to the BSA website is: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/.
We can only hope that the audit contains some bad news about VTA’s finances that make them reconsider BART.
There is precedent for them to reconsider. The “VTA Watch” blog reports that the “Downtown-East Valley” project has been re-scoped: “Eight years ago, light rail on the that corridor was one of the key projects listed on the 2000 Measure A in order to woo voters. Now it has been watered down to a bus rapid transit project with a possibility of a light rail upgrade.”
How does this relate to BART? It shows that projects can be reconfigures to meet the budget:
“Although BRT is a good, cost-effective plan worthy of consideration, a switch from light rail to BRT nonetheless represents a pattern of double standards. If VTA actually put as much effort to develop a cost-effective alternative to BART as it did for light rail on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor, VTA wouldn’t have to ask voters for another tax increase this November.”
VTA needs to go back to the drawing board, instead of always asking the voters for more money.
When BART is up in running downtown in 2018, I’ll bet (like our current HP Pavilion) that you won’t find one person who voted against it; future generations will also be thankful for it. Cmon, 1/8 of a penny!?? You’ll be hard pressed to find one Valley resident who will go hungry if this tax increase is passed. Enough Obstructionism and naysaying…BRING BART TO SJ!
We’d be more thankful if they built a cost effective rail link with the existing tax revenue that Santa Clara County’s votors approved in good faith back in 2000.
By the way Jack, I think you ought to open a comment column, or section dedicated to just the topic of Bart! I understand it important to many SJI readers, but frankly, I’m getting tired of reading about it over and over again, even on columns that have nothing to do with Bart. If you have a column just for Bart, important topics like the one Jill in #1 posted might get a fighting chance at an honest, open discussion.
Jill, I must disclose that I know nothing about this issue. Is there any citizen oversight on how money gets allocated? How does this keep happening?
From the existing light rail in Milpitas you could run a line up Abel and Warm Springs Blvd. to the Fremont BART station. Or even better, you might be able to share the existing railroad right of way for part of the distance, as is done on the Campbell line.
Tony D, you want anything and everything that will boost the image of San Jose, but BART is a serious matter. We shouldn’t jump head first into some glorified showpiece with a recognized name. We can make transit work in much cheaper and more efficient ways.
Despite what the “internet experts” here and with the bay area rail alliance say, the good folks of San Jose know a good idea when they see it. I guess I must really hate this place because by voting yes for BART I am physically destroying San Jose.
Seriously though, you anti-BARTers would be a little more effective if you quit with the hyperbole.
Archie, I am related to Carl Guardino and as far as i`m concerned BART should stay to the north. We said NO to BART a long time ago. It`s
not our problem that these other county`s need
our taxes to throw down their sinkhole.
How many times does Carl get to go the voter well for this project? You ask us “obstructionists” to stop and “bring BART to SJ.” The cold, embarrassing truth is that some of us already have, and 8 years later we are no closer to getting this done. I for one am done funding one man’s sad crusade to build a failed legacy project…
Kathleen- Cash-out refinancing is a tough thing to get across. There are a lot of public officials who don’t understand where the money comes from. It probably needs a proper column, to start it off with a clear explanation so people know what they are talking about.
I also agree we could use a section on BART. Probably fairer to have two, since each side will want to frame the debate their way.
BART to San Jose is DOA. I can’t believe that our voters would pass this loser. Enough is enough – let the true beneficiaries, the East Bay ridership and SVLG, pay for it.
Richard #11, using your reasoning, the 2006 measure A sales tax proposal should have passed with flying colors. Despite Carl Guardino’s best efforts it failed for some valid reasons. Rather than accept the results Carl and his buddies just keep trying.
I read in the WG Resident that a senior development officer in the RDA has been diligently working on new rules for public newspaper racks in downtown SJ. How much staff time & $$ went into this burning issue? A SENIOR development officer needs to do an in depth study on newspaper racks? Bet she makes $150k or more. Bet she had lots of staff support to for this hugely important matter.
#14- Greg Perry,
Thank you for the great suggestion about having a proper column on Jill’s post in #1. I think you are correct, and I hope Jack is reading this, and takes you up on the idea of getting someone to do one.
I also agree that having two columns on both sides of the issue on Bart is an excellent idea, especially since we have to vote on it. I see both sides of the issue and I am still on the fence as to which way to vote.
#18-JMO,
From your lips to the Mayor and Council’s ears! I have never really understood the wasteful practices of doing studies and paying staff/ outside consultants such large sums of money for things that should be relatively simple. After all, doesn’t the City employ experts in fields that should know what to do already? God, look at their job requirements for positions in these fields! You would think these things would be no brainers to these folks.
*One by One, they pass by my cage,
Too old, too worn, too broken, no way.
Way past his time, he can’t run and play.
Then they shake their heads slowly and go on their way.*
*A little old dog, arthritic and sore,
It seems I am not wanted anymore.
I once had a home, I once had a bed,
A place that was warm, and where I was fed.
Now my muzzle is gray, and my eyes slowly fail.
Who wants a dog so old and so frail?*
*My family decided I didn’t belong,
I got in their way, my attitude was wrong.
Whatever excuse they made in their head,
Can’t justify how they left me for dead.
Now I sit in this cage, where day after day,
The younger dogs get adopted away.*
*When I had almost come to the end of my rope,
You saw my face, and I finally had hope.
You saw thru the gray, and the legs bent with age,
And felt I still had life beyond this cage.
You took me home, gave me food and a bed,
And shared your own pillow with my poor tired head.*
*We snuggle and play, and you talk to me low,
You love me so dearly, you want me to know.
I may have lived most of my life with another,
But you outshine them with a love so much stronger.
And I promise to return all the love I can give,
To you, my dear person, as long as I live.*
*I may be with you for a week, or for years,
We will share many smiles, you will no doubt shed tears.
And when the time comes that God deems I must leave,
I know you will cry and your heart, it will grieve.
And when I arrive at the Bridge, all brand new,
My thoughts and my heart will still be with you.
And I will brag to all who will hear,
Of the person who made my last days so dear.*
From “Constantly Eating and Pointing with Council Member Constant:
#35 – Finfan –
The namecalling aside, I do not agree with your asertion that “but you’re pretty reckless when citing it.”
1.) 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.
What Lincoln said in the article you posted was that he will use anything he can to save the Union, even the issue of Slavery. For Lincoln to use this issue as he did, it HAD to be a big issue of the time, and indeed, historical documents support this. I also pointed out that what he did was a political and strategic move, and one supported by many of his constituents. This indirectly supports my assertion that Racism did almost destroy this country.
2) 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.
Everything I talked about in my post #30 happened before the war. Henry Clay passed away in 1852 – see the link below.
As to Slavery being a crucial part of the Southern economy, I don’t understand how you can say that happened after the war. It is well known that the Southern economy relied on slavery as labor to harvest and prepare their crops. The north, however, was increasingly against slavery. It was a bone of contention in many debates in the Congress of the time, with Henry Clay engineering several compromises between what were then known as ‘slave states’ and ‘free states’.
You have successfully established that slavery was a key component of the Southern economy as well as an important factor in the Civil War, two things that no one ever disputed. What you have not done, and cannot do, is find support for the gem you offered (in response to John Galt’s suggestion that our country might be more imperiled by political correctness than it ever has by racism) when you said this about the Civil War;
“That was mainly about discrimination, racism, and slavery. So, yes, Racism DID actually almost destroy this country.”
Today you challenge me for saying something I never said, that being that slavery did not become economically crucial until after war broke out. This is inexcusable. If you want me to justify my words, please paste my words into your post along with your criticism.
Last week, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury struck an important blow for local taxpayers’ rights that San Jose citizens should know about. The Grand Jury issued an opinion on the deceptive practice of cash-out refunding, by which school districts (including quite notoriously San Jose Unified, which issued the largest one in the state) issue bonds for an agreed-upon sum, then later quietly refinance the bonds to generate additional proceeds, and keep the difference themselves. This is in violation of California law, which requires, quite reasonably, that any difference be refunded to the taxpayers.
For those of you unfamiliar with what can appear to be an arcane topic, this is a classic example of governments double-dipping taxpayers, and acting with blatant disregard for the terms of the ballot and voters’ and taxpayers’ rights. Cash-out refinancing ran wild in California and other states through early 2007, with lawyers involved in the dubious dealing making millions, school districts reaping 10s of millions in stealth taxes, and taxpayers silently fleeced.
In early 2007, a group I organized, Citizens for School Bond Accountability, announced our intention on sanjoseinside.com to file suit against San Jose Unified’s cash-out refinancing scheme, which was undertaken in late 2005 without any public notice. The Attorney General has committed to issue an opinion on the legality of the practice, and county treasurers and legal scholars have all expressed opinions calling into question the practice. Notably, since the threat of our suit appeared, along with a flurry a stories in the municpal bond press, and IRS investigations into the potential taxability of interest of some of these bonds, the cash-out refinancing practice has dwindled dramatically.
The San Mateo Grand Jury’s findings largely concur with our own. Its brave and foreceful demand that the secretive and deceptive practices of *not* informing taxpyers of school boards’ intents is another nail in the coffin of this dubious practice.
School boards have every right in the world to ask taxpayers to finance worthy and important activities to help students. But that doesn’t mean they have the right to secretly misappropriate taxpayer dollars for unaccountable schemes. Kudos to the San Mateo Grand jury for stepping up and shining a bright light into this dark corner of public finance.
The Grand Jury’s finding: http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2007/reports/cashoutrefunding.pdf
Our organization is at: Citizens for School Bond Accountability.blogspot.com
Jill Escher
Is anybody else angered by the return of the BART tax? Although the Merc just reported it here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9906067
it has been an open secret that VTA, pushed by Carl Guardino, was bringing the tax proposal back despite the defeat of the 2006 Measure A sales tax proposal.
The Merc article states that “The transit district will meet next month to put a one-eighth-cent measure before voters this fall. It would raise about $42 million a year, with every penny going toward the operating and maintenance costs of a BART line from Fremont to the South Bay.” However, the article also points out “Though the tax would raise only $42 million a year of the roughly $50 million needed to run BART” and that the “The tax would fund only one project, BART, unlike past measures that included dozens of projects from road widenings to transit extensions.”
So, even with the new tax, there’s still not enough for the BART line, the capital cost of which is now in excess of $6BILLION.
Exactly how bad is this project?
It is such a stinker that transit advocate Michael D. Setty and “antiplanner” Randal O’Toole, who don’t agree on much of anything, both have written articles against the project. In fact, Setty’s article is titled “I Must Agree (Somewhat) with O’Toole in This Case” which emphasizes the point. See the following:
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=50
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=423
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=289
The “Santa Clara VTA Riders Union” [not affiliated with VTA] has a useful “BART to San Jose News and Hidden Facts on BART” page here:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/bartsjx/
Also, transit advocates Bay Rail alliance are promoting a better, more cost-effective alternative:
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/caltrain_metro_east
Finally, for some general observations on VTA, see:
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, word is out that the California Bureau of State Audits (BSA) has indicated it will release its audit report on VTA on July 31st at 9:00 a.m., at which time the report will be posted on the BSA website. The VTA audit is number 2007-129 and the link to the BSA website is: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/.
We can only hope that the audit contains some bad news about VTA’s finances that make them reconsider BART.
There is precedent for them to reconsider. The “VTA Watch” blog reports that the “Downtown-East Valley” project has been re-scoped: “Eight years ago, light rail on the that corridor was one of the key projects listed on the 2000 Measure A in order to woo voters. Now it has been watered down to a bus rapid transit project with a possibility of a light rail upgrade.”
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Downtown East Valley
How does this relate to BART? It shows that projects can be reconfigures to meet the budget:
“Although BRT is a good, cost-effective plan worthy of consideration, a switch from light rail to BRT nonetheless represents a pattern of double standards. If VTA actually put as much effort to develop a cost-effective alternative to BART as it did for light rail on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor, VTA wouldn’t have to ask voters for another tax increase this November.”
VTA needs to go back to the drawing board, instead of always asking the voters for more money.
When BART is up in running downtown in 2018, I’ll bet (like our current HP Pavilion) that you won’t find one person who voted against it; future generations will also be thankful for it. Cmon, 1/8 of a penny!?? You’ll be hard pressed to find one Valley resident who will go hungry if this tax increase is passed. Enough Obstructionism and naysaying…BRING BART TO SJ!
We’d be more thankful if they built a cost effective rail link with the existing tax revenue that Santa Clara County’s votors approved in good faith back in 2000.
The “Santa Clara VTA Riders Union,” an independent group of transit advocates opposed the proposed 2006 BART tax. Their reasons why appear on their web site:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/causes/measurea2006.html
Many of the reasons apply to the 2008 BART tax proposal, although some specifics differ. You should read their page with an open mind.
Remember, we’re already paying sales tax to VTA:
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/santa_clara_county_transportation_revenue_sources
They don’t deserve a penny more; they need to re-think one very expensive project and build something with the existing tax revenue.
I read this article and thought it was pretty good. I feel the same way about paying more to get LESS!
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9919904?nclick_check=1
By the way Jack, I think you ought to open a comment column, or section dedicated to just the topic of Bart! I understand it important to many SJI readers, but frankly, I’m getting tired of reading about it over and over again, even on columns that have nothing to do with Bart. If you have a column just for Bart, important topics like the one Jill in #1 posted might get a fighting chance at an honest, open discussion.
Jill, I must disclose that I know nothing about this issue. Is there any citizen oversight on how money gets allocated? How does this keep happening?
Some good suggestions! May be the City Council ought to consider a few of these.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/7SurefireWaysToStayPoor.aspx
From the existing light rail in Milpitas you could run a line up Abel and Warm Springs Blvd. to the Fremont BART station. Or even better, you might be able to share the existing railroad right of way for part of the distance, as is done on the Campbell line.
Talk about humbling, and we think we have it bad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25757291/
Tony D, you want anything and everything that will boost the image of San Jose, but BART is a serious matter. We shouldn’t jump head first into some glorified showpiece with a recognized name. We can make transit work in much cheaper and more efficient ways.
Despite what the “internet experts” here and with the bay area rail alliance say, the good folks of San Jose know a good idea when they see it. I guess I must really hate this place because by voting yes for BART I am physically destroying San Jose.
Seriously though, you anti-BARTers would be a little more effective if you quit with the hyperbole.
#5 Archie B.
Archie, I am related to Carl Guardino and as far as i`m concerned BART should stay to the north. We said NO to BART a long time ago. It`s
not our problem that these other county`s need
our taxes to throw down their sinkhole.
Dave G.
Tony D –
How many times does Carl get to go the voter well for this project? You ask us “obstructionists” to stop and “bring BART to SJ.” The cold, embarrassing truth is that some of us already have, and 8 years later we are no closer to getting this done. I for one am done funding one man’s sad crusade to build a failed legacy project…
Kathleen- Cash-out refinancing is a tough thing to get across. There are a lot of public officials who don’t understand where the money comes from. It probably needs a proper column, to start it off with a clear explanation so people know what they are talking about.
I also agree we could use a section on BART. Probably fairer to have two, since each side will want to frame the debate their way.
What kind of scum would do this to innocent families?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25744423/
BART to San Jose is DOA. I can’t believe that our voters would pass this loser. Enough is enough – let the true beneficiaries, the East Bay ridership and SVLG, pay for it.
#3 Tony D
Gee, are you related to Carl Gardino?Sure sounds like it. I mean 1/8 o da penny, sounds gooood.
Richard #11, using your reasoning, the 2006 measure A sales tax proposal should have passed with flying colors. Despite Carl Guardino’s best efforts it failed for some valid reasons. Rather than accept the results Carl and his buddies just keep trying.
Our civil grand jury ought to look into the RDA.
I read in the WG Resident that a senior development officer in the RDA has been diligently working on new rules for public newspaper racks in downtown SJ. How much staff time & $$ went into this burning issue? A SENIOR development officer needs to do an in depth study on newspaper racks? Bet she makes $150k or more. Bet she had lots of staff support to for this hugely important matter.
#14- Greg Perry,
Thank you for the great suggestion about having a proper column on Jill’s post in #1. I think you are correct, and I hope Jack is reading this, and takes you up on the idea of getting someone to do one.
I also agree that having two columns on both sides of the issue on Bart is an excellent idea, especially since we have to vote on it. I see both sides of the issue and I am still on the fence as to which way to vote.
#18-JMO,
From your lips to the Mayor and Council’s ears! I have never really understood the wasteful practices of doing studies and paying staff/ outside consultants such large sums of money for things that should be relatively simple. After all, doesn’t the City employ experts in fields that should know what to do already? God, look at their job requirements for positions in these fields! You would think these things would be no brainers to these folks.
This is awesome!
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25797678/?GT1=43001
So’s this!
http://break.com/index/wrestlers-need-a-chair-and-fans-deliverb.html
Tony,
Talk to da guy, geeze he`s your family.Does the guy realizes what damage the guy can do to all of usses.Another meat head…
*Please Adopt a Senior*
*ONE BY ONE …*
*One by One, they pass by my cage,
Too old, too worn, too broken, no way.
Way past his time, he can’t run and play.
Then they shake their heads slowly and go on their way.*
*A little old dog, arthritic and sore,
It seems I am not wanted anymore.
I once had a home, I once had a bed,
A place that was warm, and where I was fed.
Now my muzzle is gray, and my eyes slowly fail.
Who wants a dog so old and so frail?*
*My family decided I didn’t belong,
I got in their way, my attitude was wrong.
Whatever excuse they made in their head,
Can’t justify how they left me for dead.
Now I sit in this cage, where day after day,
The younger dogs get adopted away.*
*When I had almost come to the end of my rope,
You saw my face, and I finally had hope.
You saw thru the gray, and the legs bent with age,
And felt I still had life beyond this cage.
You took me home, gave me food and a bed,
And shared your own pillow with my poor tired head.*
*We snuggle and play, and you talk to me low,
You love me so dearly, you want me to know.
I may have lived most of my life with another,
But you outshine them with a love so much stronger.
And I promise to return all the love I can give,
To you, my dear person, as long as I live.*
*I may be with you for a week, or for years,
We will share many smiles, you will no doubt shed tears.
And when the time comes that God deems I must leave,
I know you will cry and your heart, it will grieve.
And when I arrive at the Bridge, all brand new,
My thoughts and my heart will still be with you.
And I will brag to all who will hear,
Of the person who made my last days so dear.*
*Author Unknown*
#22- Novice,
Looks like some of the bloggers SJI when you disagree with them! Ha! Ha!
From “Constantly Eating and Pointing with Council Member Constant:
#35 – Finfan –
The namecalling aside, I do not agree with your asertion that “but you’re pretty reckless when citing it.”
1.) 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.
What Lincoln said in the article you posted was that he will use anything he can to save the Union, even the issue of Slavery. For Lincoln to use this issue as he did, it HAD to be a big issue of the time, and indeed, historical documents support this. I also pointed out that what he did was a political and strategic move, and one supported by many of his constituents. This indirectly supports my assertion that Racism did almost destroy this country.
2) 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.
Everything I talked about in my post #30 happened before the war. Henry Clay passed away in 1852 – see the link below.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761566041&vv=600
As to Slavery being a crucial part of the Southern economy, I don’t understand how you can say that happened after the war. It is well known that the Southern economy relied on slavery as labor to harvest and prepare their crops. The north, however, was increasingly against slavery. It was a bone of contention in many debates in the Congress of the time, with Henry Clay engineering several compromises between what were then known as ‘slave states’ and ‘free states’.
Christian,
You have successfully established that slavery was a key component of the Southern economy as well as an important factor in the Civil War, two things that no one ever disputed. What you have not done, and cannot do, is find support for the gem you offered (in response to John Galt’s suggestion that our country might be more imperiled by political correctness than it ever has by racism) when you said this about the Civil War;
“That was mainly about discrimination, racism, and slavery. So, yes, Racism DID actually almost destroy this country.”
Today you challenge me for saying something I never said, that being that slavery did not become economically crucial until after war broke out. This is inexcusable. If you want me to justify my words, please paste my words into your post along with your criticism.