A debate has raged for years amongst practicioners of the obscure science known as politomathematics. The point in question has to do with quantifying the level of destruction caused by the Democrat party.
One camp has maintained that the amount of damage inflicted by Democrats increases in direct proportion to the number of branches of Government that they control. The other group has theorized that the damage increases as a function of the square of the number of branches that Democrats control. In other words, if they control two branches, for instance the House and the Senate, they do four times as much damage as they do by controlling only one branch, even if that one branch is the Executive. Moreover, by controlling three branches, the theory postulates that the country would suffer a ninefold (3 squared) increase in economic harm. Add Democrat control of the Supreme Court to the formula and the devestation wrought on our society increases by a potentially America-busting 16 times!
Understandably, neither group of scientists were eager to see their theories put to the test in the real world and both watched in morbid fascination as the November election unfolded. Since that time, the direct relationshippers have conceded that their calculations were incorrect and have conceded to the squares.
In the past few weeks though, a controversial new theory has been put forward. If this new “cubic hypothesis” is correct then the entire world is in imminent danger and we must do something now to reduce Washington’s “pork footprint”.
Isn’t this Rants & Raves thing great? I sure think so. Thanks Kathleen, for suggesting the idea to Mr. van Zandt. Oftentimes on SJI it’s the only avenue of expression open to those who aren’t exactly mesmerized by the whole Madison Nguyen recall debacle.
Also, Rants and Raves presents a unique opportunity to gain some insight regarding the degree of professionalism with which this blogsite is administered. Many of us are puzzled, throughout the course of the week, by instances of seemingly anomalous postings on SJI;
– postings that are personal slurs
– postings that are pure spam
– waiting vainly until late in the morning for the daily article to show up.
– posting a carefully composed comment only to find that it never appears.
– timestamps that are off by an hour (ruining o’connor’s alibis)
These things are puzzling because one wonders whether they should be attributed to unavoidable technical, impossible to understand, network issues, or are they the result of one or more of the unfortunate human qualities so spectacularly represented by the City of San Jose, viz., sloppiness, arrogance, inattention, laziness, tardiness, greed, rudeness and apathy.
Once a week we witness the writings of EJ. The introduction to Rants and Raves only requires a line or two but seldom does a grammatical error fail to appear. (Is it so hard to proofread what you just wrote?) It’s a strong indicator that the miserable technical quality of this website is NOT a technical problem.
That having been said, I’m still happy that there’s some sort of San Jose specific forum that doesn’t require me to support those commies over at the Mercury News.
Keep up the bad work, EJ!
John,
* I’m so fed up with both parties I’m going to register as an Independent!
* I agree. These articles about Madison are getting boring.
* What is with all these hit and runs resulting in death, or serious injury? In the past few months, it seems like drivers have lost their minds more than usual! Its rather frightening to think you could walk outside to check your mail, or take your dog for a walk around the neighborhood, and be killed by some loon driving a car. Where are all the Police, and Traffic Control Officers? Of that’s right, the budget doesn’t allow for those types of vital services…
#3 John Galt: Some of your criticisms are probably valid, despite the unnecessarily mean-spirited delivery. Be assured that I have a lot of respect for the site that Jack and Tom created here with the help of the regular commenters, including yourself. I will continue to do my best to preserve its integrity.
I am concerned about your note that some of your comments never appear; I can’t recall ever spiking one. There may be a technical glitch. Can you send me a specific example? I can be emailed with my first name @boulevards.com.
Since everyone on SJI was focusing on the recall, overanalyzing “Little Saigon,” many probably have not seen the news that the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, known as TRANSDEF, and two former BART directors, Sherman Lewis and Roy Nakadegawa, filed suits against MTC and ACTIA for funding BART from Fremont to Warm Springs because the funding from Warm Springs to San Jose is not lined up yet.
Maybe these so called “Carefully composed comments” John Galt speaks of are only carefully composed in his mind. In reality they are probably some hateful rants against so called “Commies”.
People like Kathleen, John Galt, Hugh Jardonn, Frustrated FinFan, and John Michael O’Connor are just upset because the Metro provides a slightly more progressive slant when it comes to issues like the downtown drunk in public arrests and other social issues. Originally they were drawn to McEnery’s SJ Inside because it reinforced their anti-Labor, anti-Immigrant rightwing views. Now that the Metro has changed that up a little, you’ve all gone into panic mode.
Sadly the only non-conservative commenter around here is James Rowen, but he’s insane. He’s supposedly a Democratic Central Committee member but all he does on his blog is attack fellow activists and elected officials. Good people like Paul Fong, Omar Torres, and Noelani Sallings.
The Democratic Central Committee and whatever the equivalent is on the Republican side are both nuts.
The activists on either side are either ultra liberal or ultra conservative. Both parties would do well if all the activists went away and the general public participated.
Mayor and Town CEO Jamie McLeod of Santa Clara has proclaimed the entire elimination of plastic bags, plastic pens, cars, and uncensored books in Santa Clara.
“Books tend to waste energy,” McLeod said.
Town Director Vanessa Cooper successfully opened CAMP FREEDOM for all homeless individuals, formely known as Central Park.
Seniors and TWP Home Owners in Berryessa have been directed by Cooper to open all vacant rooms to house homeless residents.
49er Stadium will be converted to a large open museuym of Boring Art under curator Michele Ryan.
Mary Emerson, director of schools in Santa Dlara, has placed new portraits of Lennin and Mao in Santa Clara schools.
Gee, California Democrat (#7) didn’t make it through the first paragraph before employing the “h-word” liberals use to avoid having to defend their ridiculous beliefs. They make it a point to brand anyone who doesn’t think like them a hater, then pass laws against hate. Now that’s a kind of liberal that Uncle Joe Stalin could love.
So, CalDem, according to your analysis, I am just one of many upset over SJI’s Metro-inspired “more progressive slant,” having come here to reinforce my anti-Labor, anti-immigrant views. Well, the truth is I came to SJI to debate the issues, and your labeling me (or anyone else who is independent-minded and issues-oriented) as being locked into this or that position on labor is a reflection of your own hopeless partisanship. Also, I note you didn’t make it out of the second paragraph without resorting to deception (of the sort that impugns your character), by branding five contributors to this site as “anti-immigrant,” when you know damn well that all expressed concern over immigration begins and ends with the word “illegal.” And if you don’t think the distinction important, if you think you and your political party can just declare it meaningless, I urge you to get your hands on an “illegal” firearm, or “illegal” drug, or some “illegal” porn and then flag down a cop to test your theory.
The absolute worst thing about the change to Metro has been its impact on honest debate. It seems that “progressives” are really good at believing things, they just aren’t very good at providing reason or fact-based evidence to support them. But not to worry, they are very good at calling names, political stereotyping, pigeonholing opponents, and waging other sorts or “us versus them” attacks.
Finfan, not to worry – “California Democrat” (#7) is a chickenshit, fearful of disclosing his real name. He probably lives in his mom’s basement and watches way too much porn.
11 – There’s been more than enough “calling names, political stereotyping, pigeonholing opponents, and waging other sorts or “us versus them” attacks” by all sides so that everyone ought to step back and start focusing on facts and issues for a change.
This weekend, my wife and I pondered all the things that are “controlled” in our life, and wondered how far the government can go until people revolt. Here is a short list of what I remember talking about, I’m sure there are hundreds more:
-We have to check if it’s ok to build a fire on cool evenings
-We can’t add a bathroom or fix our roof without approval
-We can’t choose what school to send our children to
-We can’t cut down the overbearing redwood trees in our backyard
-We have to wear a seatbelt or else we are fined
-We can’t use a cell phone while driving
-We are forced to put our money into a retirement ponzi scheme
-They want to control how much electricity we use
…What types of toilets we can have
…What washing machine we use
…When we can water our lawn
…What light bulbs we can buy
…How much garbage we dispose
-I’ve even heard rumblings of controlling the types of food we have access to
-We can’t hire the kid next door to help around the house unless we pay him a minimum amount, or offer benefits
-The amount of exhaust from my old pickup truck is monitored
-Money is given to developers building high-rises but we have to go through years of costly approval procedures to simply build a home
-We can’t have fireworks on the fourth of July
-You can’t fight a burglar caught in your home without fear of legal backlash
-Most importantly, when you add it all up, we can even keep half of the money we earn
Someone may want to remind Mr. Galt that there are three branches of government, not four. The legislative branch consists of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
An infrequent and unkind usage is to refer to “lunatic,” an antiquated label in itself.
But in our multicultural, multiracial society, it is never advisable to use the name of an animal to describe a human being. The next thing we know, you’ll be using bovine, canine, and porcine labels on people, not just avian labels.
In a post a few days ago, #4 referred to an unpleasant, improper label as offensive to some, but inoffensive to others. The proper test is, did the person so labeled pick the name for themselves? If the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter if it is offensive. Usage of labels without the consent of the labeled has nothing to do with “being offended,” it has to do with revealing the heart and mind of the person slapping the label on the Other.
Calling someone a “loon” is identical in meanness with calling someone a “retard” or “nuts.” Our society has advanced beyond all that.
#7-Evereytime someone comments on the Metro’s taking over the SJI, or criticizes the way its run, you or someone who writes just like you comes on here, and does this. Are you a Metro employee? Secondly, there isn’t any prejudice about the Metro here, we criticize ALL medias, and went after Tom and Jack when they owned SJI. You must have a thin skin to take it so personally. Yes, John was a bit harsh in his criticism, but he’s entitled to his opinion.
Secondly, calling James Rowen insane is unacceptable. You can disagree with him or with what he says, but making comments like that are hurtful, and inappropriate. So either post your real name and be a person of your own convictions, or shut up. Hiding behind a computer and making comments like that is just plain old cowardice.
You don’t know me, so you can’t make statements on my behalf, or even presume to speak about where I stand on issues.
I really resent your assertion that I am anti-labor. I can object to a Labor leaders position, or even a stand the Labor Union takes, but that doesn’t make me anti-labor.
Further, I am not anti-immigration; I am anti-“illegal” immigration. Try to get your facts straight, your credibility is as stake, whether you are posting anonymously or not.
Yes we were drawn to this blog when Tom and Jack started it, but not for the reasons you claim. We came here because they were credible….
And finally, try reading the commentary policy; you could learn a thing or two…
“Sadly the only non-conservative commenter around here is James Rowen but he’s insane.” I think most on here are middle of the road to pretty far left. I do agree with the latter part of your statement though.
Fin Fan,
I too find it difficult to believe that we are branded as anti this or that, or anti- Metro folks, when what we say is taken out of context. When Tom and Jack ran this blog, none of us let SJI get a way with anything either. I guess Cal/Dem only started reading SJI once the Metro took over.
And finally, I must agree with something else you said. I work in the Social Justice field and have for decades. It never ceases to amaze me that people who want intolerance and diversity respected are the first to limit freedom of speech, if the opinion given opposes with their viewpoint. The lengths I’ve seen taken to quash opposing points of view flies directly in the face of said efforts to increase tolerance, encourage change, and freedom. I’ll go one step further and call it out right hypocrisy in its finest form.
#7,
First of all, I’m proud to be included in the group you mentioned. Thank you. I think we realize better than you know that we are outside the local pc mainstream and I would think that you would believe it to our credit that we are eager to engage in discussions with those whom which we disagree. But maybe I’m wrong.
Would you prefer that SJI be uncontaminated by alternative points of view? Should liberals stick to liberal websites and conservatives to conservative websites, never the twain to meet?
I was under the impression that liberals were the openminded ones- the celebrators of diversity. Why is it then, that conservatives are interested in the thoughts of liberals but the converse does not appear to be true?
I’m beginning to see that my endeavour to comprehend the thinking of the left is akin to hunting for snipes. It’s a futile exercise. The snipe does not exist. Nor does the left think.
It just feels. And mimics. And follows.
#18- I want to make a correction to my post.
I said, “It never ceases to amaze me that people who want intolerance and diversity respected are the first to limit freedom of speech,..” I meant to say tolerance not intolerance.
You might understand the ‘left’ a little better if you turned down the rudeness factor in your posts. Seriously now, you come across like a big bully most of the time. It gets a little old and it destroys your credibility.
19 – You say, “…conservatives are interested in the thoughts of liberals …”” That is pretty difficult to tell from the vitriol you spew forth on a regular basis.
I’ll be watching to see when or/if any conservatives appear interested in anything other than their own attacks on those who dare disagree with them. I have rarely seen that on this or any other site.
14 – Interesting that you are concerned about rights. Almost every item you mentioned has impacts on persons besides yourself. When we live with other people we should not endanger them by our own individual actions and unfortunately many people do not care about the impact on others. When you can do all of things you list without endangering my health and/or safety or my finances as a taxpayer, then go wild and do whatever you want. Until that time however, if you can’t control yourself then the government has to step in to protect the rest of us from you and others like you.
I love it when folks impugn a commenter for being “anonymous.” Since when is “Kathleen” specific? Can I find you under that name in the phone book? How about “Frustrated Finfan” or “10 MHz Days” or any of about 2/3 of the regulars on this board? Just because somebody uses the same pseudonym to post every day doesn’t make them any less anonymous or any less “chickenshit.”
#24- You must be new to SJI. I posted my last name on this blog for at least a year. My last name is Flynn, in case you missed it! No, you won’t find it in the phone book because it is unlisted. I’m not big on phone solicitations. And yes, many folks know exactly who I am, so don’t even go there. Don’t believe me? Ask Council Member Oliverio.
Okay Jim, now it’s your turn. What is your last name?
Thank you for reminding me how much the modern person values style over substance. (I notice that no critic- not one- was interested in examining the basis of my rant. Rather, it was only worthwhile to criticize me for having written it)
This goes a long way toward explaining the choices that our enlightened electorate has recently made.
About 15 years ago Andre Aggasi did a commercial endorsement for some product- I don’t remember what it was, in which he proclaimed, “Image is everything.”
How right he was. And congratulations to the both of you for helping to fulfill his prophecy.
Respond if you wish. I won’t hold my breath as I’ve learned that the 21st century, enlightened, progressive thinker has a habit of running away from an actual discussion with someone who might not agree with him.
Flame fest on the SJI blogosphere. I guess it fits nicely into the Rant and Rave niche.
So is this what’s going to replace print journalism? I accept that we’ve already lost traditional journalism in the South Bay due to all the ownership changes at the Merc, but I honestly can’t believe there’s not something bright and hopeful out there to replace it.
How about moderated open-source investigative journalism where the authors can share in ad revenue and retain ownership of their work (original articles.) Could we have a pool of ad revenue that could be used to lure investigative reporters to write on subjects we wanted looked into? Maybe have a voting section on where our lidless eye should turn its gaze next?
Anyway, I know its neither a rant nor a rave, but I felt like changing the subject.
26 – Perhaps if you spent a little more time making factual statements and a little less time worrying about the names people use on this site people would take you more seriously. Just a thought, just my opinion but probably shared by many.
#30- Watcher,
Got a real name Watcher or do you want to continue hiding behind a computer screen making dumb comments you can’t be held accountable for?
You said,“Perhaps if you spent a little more time making factual statements and a little less time worrying about the names people use on this site people would take you more seriously.”
I think you can do a bit of that yourself. I stand by whatever I post, with my real name posted and all. How about you Watcher?
#29- Blair, SJI used to encourage people to submit articles. You are a pretty good writer. Have you thought of doing a column and submitting it?
#27-John Galt,
The fact that so few of the regulars post any more seems to support your comments.
31 – Dumb comments? That’s your response? You are basically saying “I know you are but what am I.”
You say you stand by whatever you post. That’s the problem. You are not always correct and asking for facts should not generate a snide response from you but it usually does.
See you on the playground.
Watcher,
You said, “You say you stand by whatever you post. That’s the problem. You are not always correct and asking for facts should not generate a snide response from you but it usually does.”
That is your opinion. Your rude remark in #30, to me started this entire thing; so don’t try to turn this around on me Watcher. Secondly, take responsibility for your actions. Instead of making rude statements like the one above, and the one in #30, why don’t you ask me to provide facts, when I post something your disagree with, rather than doing what you did in #30? You know, be respectful about it?
If I have been proven incorrect on something, I have admitted my mistake. And Watcher, no one is always right, not even YOU. So, I’m willing to start anew with you, hope you are too because life is too short to waste our time on this. Any way, there are plenty of wonderful things to debate and discuss. Wouldn’t you agree?
A debate has raged for years amongst practicioners of the obscure science known as politomathematics. The point in question has to do with quantifying the level of destruction caused by the Democrat party.
One camp has maintained that the amount of damage inflicted by Democrats increases in direct proportion to the number of branches of Government that they control. The other group has theorized that the damage increases as a function of the square of the number of branches that Democrats control. In other words, if they control two branches, for instance the House and the Senate, they do four times as much damage as they do by controlling only one branch, even if that one branch is the Executive. Moreover, by controlling three branches, the theory postulates that the country would suffer a ninefold (3 squared) increase in economic harm. Add Democrat control of the Supreme Court to the formula and the devestation wrought on our society increases by a potentially America-busting 16 times!
Understandably, neither group of scientists were eager to see their theories put to the test in the real world and both watched in morbid fascination as the November election unfolded. Since that time, the direct relationshippers have conceded that their calculations were incorrect and have conceded to the squares.
In the past few weeks though, a controversial new theory has been put forward. If this new “cubic hypothesis” is correct then the entire world is in imminent danger and we must do something now to reduce Washington’s “pork footprint”.
Isn’t this Rants & Raves thing great? I sure think so. Thanks Kathleen, for suggesting the idea to Mr. van Zandt. Oftentimes on SJI it’s the only avenue of expression open to those who aren’t exactly mesmerized by the whole Madison Nguyen recall debacle.
Also, Rants and Raves presents a unique opportunity to gain some insight regarding the degree of professionalism with which this blogsite is administered. Many of us are puzzled, throughout the course of the week, by instances of seemingly anomalous postings on SJI;
– postings that are personal slurs
– postings that are pure spam
– waiting vainly until late in the morning for the daily article to show up.
– posting a carefully composed comment only to find that it never appears.
– timestamps that are off by an hour (ruining o’connor’s alibis)
These things are puzzling because one wonders whether they should be attributed to unavoidable technical, impossible to understand, network issues, or are they the result of one or more of the unfortunate human qualities so spectacularly represented by the City of San Jose, viz., sloppiness, arrogance, inattention, laziness, tardiness, greed, rudeness and apathy.
Once a week we witness the writings of EJ. The introduction to Rants and Raves only requires a line or two but seldom does a grammatical error fail to appear. (Is it so hard to proofread what you just wrote?) It’s a strong indicator that the miserable technical quality of this website is NOT a technical problem.
That having been said, I’m still happy that there’s some sort of San Jose specific forum that doesn’t require me to support those commies over at the Mercury News.
Keep up the bad work, EJ!
John,
* I’m so fed up with both parties I’m going to register as an Independent!
* I agree. These articles about Madison are getting boring.
* What is with all these hit and runs resulting in death, or serious injury? In the past few months, it seems like drivers have lost their minds more than usual! Its rather frightening to think you could walk outside to check your mail, or take your dog for a walk around the neighborhood, and be killed by some loon driving a car. Where are all the Police, and Traffic Control Officers? Of that’s right, the budget doesn’t allow for those types of vital services…
#3 John Galt: Some of your criticisms are probably valid, despite the unnecessarily mean-spirited delivery. Be assured that I have a lot of respect for the site that Jack and Tom created here with the help of the regular commenters, including yourself. I will continue to do my best to preserve its integrity.
I am concerned about your note that some of your comments never appear; I can’t recall ever spiking one. There may be a technical glitch. Can you send me a specific example? I can be emailed with my first name @boulevards.com.
Since everyone on SJI was focusing on the recall, overanalyzing “Little Saigon,” many probably have not seen the news that the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, known as TRANSDEF, and two former BART directors, Sherman Lewis and Roy Nakadegawa, filed suits against MTC and ACTIA for funding BART from Fremont to Warm Springs because the funding from Warm Springs to San Jose is not lined up yet.
TRANSDEF’s explanation and court documents are here:
http://transdef.org/BART/Warm_Springs.html
VTA watch explains it here:
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/lawsuit-against-bait-and-switch.html
More here:
http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/04/lawsuit-challenges-the-warm-springs-funding-swap/#more-3033
and here:
http://www.abetteroakland.com/roy-nakadegawa-my-hero/2009-03-06
Lets hope that TRANSDEF is able to stop this insanity.
Maybe these so called “Carefully composed comments” John Galt speaks of are only carefully composed in his mind. In reality they are probably some hateful rants against so called “Commies”.
People like Kathleen, John Galt, Hugh Jardonn, Frustrated FinFan, and John Michael O’Connor are just upset because the Metro provides a slightly more progressive slant when it comes to issues like the downtown drunk in public arrests and other social issues. Originally they were drawn to McEnery’s SJ Inside because it reinforced their anti-Labor, anti-Immigrant rightwing views. Now that the Metro has changed that up a little, you’ve all gone into panic mode.
Sadly the only non-conservative commenter around here is James Rowen, but he’s insane. He’s supposedly a Democratic Central Committee member but all he does on his blog is attack fellow activists and elected officials. Good people like Paul Fong, Omar Torres, and Noelani Sallings.
The Democratic Central Committee and whatever the equivalent is on the Republican side are both nuts.
The activists on either side are either ultra liberal or ultra conservative. Both parties would do well if all the activists went away and the general public participated.
November 2011
SANTA CLARA, CA.
Mayor and Town CEO Jamie McLeod of Santa Clara has proclaimed the entire elimination of plastic bags, plastic pens, cars, and uncensored books in Santa Clara.
“Books tend to waste energy,” McLeod said.
Town Director Vanessa Cooper successfully opened CAMP FREEDOM for all homeless individuals, formely known as Central Park.
Seniors and TWP Home Owners in Berryessa have been directed by Cooper to open all vacant rooms to house homeless residents.
49er Stadium will be converted to a large open museuym of Boring Art under curator Michele Ryan.
Mary Emerson, director of schools in Santa Dlara, has placed new portraits of Lennin and Mao in Santa Clara schools.
Gee, California Democrat (#7) didn’t make it through the first paragraph before employing the “h-word” liberals use to avoid having to defend their ridiculous beliefs. They make it a point to brand anyone who doesn’t think like them a hater, then pass laws against hate. Now that’s a kind of liberal that Uncle Joe Stalin could love.
So, CalDem, according to your analysis, I am just one of many upset over SJI’s Metro-inspired “more progressive slant,” having come here to reinforce my anti-Labor, anti-immigrant views. Well, the truth is I came to SJI to debate the issues, and your labeling me (or anyone else who is independent-minded and issues-oriented) as being locked into this or that position on labor is a reflection of your own hopeless partisanship. Also, I note you didn’t make it out of the second paragraph without resorting to deception (of the sort that impugns your character), by branding five contributors to this site as “anti-immigrant,” when you know damn well that all expressed concern over immigration begins and ends with the word “illegal.” And if you don’t think the distinction important, if you think you and your political party can just declare it meaningless, I urge you to get your hands on an “illegal” firearm, or “illegal” drug, or some “illegal” porn and then flag down a cop to test your theory.
The absolute worst thing about the change to Metro has been its impact on honest debate. It seems that “progressives” are really good at believing things, they just aren’t very good at providing reason or fact-based evidence to support them. But not to worry, they are very good at calling names, political stereotyping, pigeonholing opponents, and waging other sorts or “us versus them” attacks.
Finfan, not to worry – “California Democrat” (#7) is a chickenshit, fearful of disclosing his real name. He probably lives in his mom’s basement and watches way too much porn.
11 – There’s been more than enough “calling names, political stereotyping, pigeonholing opponents, and waging other sorts or “us versus them” attacks” by all sides so that everyone ought to step back and start focusing on facts and issues for a change.
This weekend, my wife and I pondered all the things that are “controlled” in our life, and wondered how far the government can go until people revolt. Here is a short list of what I remember talking about, I’m sure there are hundreds more:
-We have to check if it’s ok to build a fire on cool evenings
-We can’t add a bathroom or fix our roof without approval
-We can’t choose what school to send our children to
-We can’t cut down the overbearing redwood trees in our backyard
-We have to wear a seatbelt or else we are fined
-We can’t use a cell phone while driving
-We are forced to put our money into a retirement ponzi scheme
-They want to control how much electricity we use
…What types of toilets we can have
…What washing machine we use
…When we can water our lawn
…What light bulbs we can buy
…How much garbage we dispose
-I’ve even heard rumblings of controlling the types of food we have access to
-We can’t hire the kid next door to help around the house unless we pay him a minimum amount, or offer benefits
-The amount of exhaust from my old pickup truck is monitored
-Money is given to developers building high-rises but we have to go through years of costly approval procedures to simply build a home
-We can’t have fireworks on the fourth of July
-You can’t fight a burglar caught in your home without fear of legal backlash
-Most importantly, when you add it all up, we can even keep half of the money we earn
All this in the name of the greater good…
Someone may want to remind Mr. Galt that there are three branches of government, not four. The legislative branch consists of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
#4, the use of “loon” to describe mentally ill drivers is a little slippery in 2009.
Loon is the name of a specific kind of bird, ie, it is an animal. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon
An infrequent and unkind usage is to refer to “lunatic,” an antiquated label in itself.
But in our multicultural, multiracial society, it is never advisable to use the name of an animal to describe a human being. The next thing we know, you’ll be using bovine, canine, and porcine labels on people, not just avian labels.
In a post a few days ago, #4 referred to an unpleasant, improper label as offensive to some, but inoffensive to others. The proper test is, did the person so labeled pick the name for themselves? If the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter if it is offensive. Usage of labels without the consent of the labeled has nothing to do with “being offended,” it has to do with revealing the heart and mind of the person slapping the label on the Other.
Calling someone a “loon” is identical in meanness with calling someone a “retard” or “nuts.” Our society has advanced beyond all that.
#7-Evereytime someone comments on the Metro’s taking over the SJI, or criticizes the way its run, you or someone who writes just like you comes on here, and does this. Are you a Metro employee? Secondly, there isn’t any prejudice about the Metro here, we criticize ALL medias, and went after Tom and Jack when they owned SJI. You must have a thin skin to take it so personally. Yes, John was a bit harsh in his criticism, but he’s entitled to his opinion.
Secondly, calling James Rowen insane is unacceptable. You can disagree with him or with what he says, but making comments like that are hurtful, and inappropriate. So either post your real name and be a person of your own convictions, or shut up. Hiding behind a computer and making comments like that is just plain old cowardice.
You don’t know me, so you can’t make statements on my behalf, or even presume to speak about where I stand on issues.
I really resent your assertion that I am anti-labor. I can object to a Labor leaders position, or even a stand the Labor Union takes, but that doesn’t make me anti-labor.
Further, I am not anti-immigration; I am anti-“illegal” immigration. Try to get your facts straight, your credibility is as stake, whether you are posting anonymously or not.
Yes we were drawn to this blog when Tom and Jack started it, but not for the reasons you claim. We came here because they were credible….
And finally, try reading the commentary policy; you could learn a thing or two…
California Democrat #7,
“Sadly the only non-conservative commenter around here is James Rowen but he’s insane.” I think most on here are middle of the road to pretty far left. I do agree with the latter part of your statement though.
Fin Fan,
I too find it difficult to believe that we are branded as anti this or that, or anti- Metro folks, when what we say is taken out of context. When Tom and Jack ran this blog, none of us let SJI get a way with anything either. I guess Cal/Dem only started reading SJI once the Metro took over.
And finally, I must agree with something else you said. I work in the Social Justice field and have for decades. It never ceases to amaze me that people who want intolerance and diversity respected are the first to limit freedom of speech, if the opinion given opposes with their viewpoint. The lengths I’ve seen taken to quash opposing points of view flies directly in the face of said efforts to increase tolerance, encourage change, and freedom. I’ll go one step further and call it out right hypocrisy in its finest form.
#7,
First of all, I’m proud to be included in the group you mentioned. Thank you. I think we realize better than you know that we are outside the local pc mainstream and I would think that you would believe it to our credit that we are eager to engage in discussions with those whom which we disagree. But maybe I’m wrong.
Would you prefer that SJI be uncontaminated by alternative points of view? Should liberals stick to liberal websites and conservatives to conservative websites, never the twain to meet?
I was under the impression that liberals were the openminded ones- the celebrators of diversity. Why is it then, that conservatives are interested in the thoughts of liberals but the converse does not appear to be true?
I’m beginning to see that my endeavour to comprehend the thinking of the left is akin to hunting for snipes. It’s a futile exercise. The snipe does not exist. Nor does the left think.
It just feels. And mimics. And follows.
#16-The Turning Worm,
Loon is also a slang term used for lunatic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic
I would agree with you on this though, I shouldn’t insult the animals by referring to humans as one of their species.
#18- I want to make a correction to my post.
I said, “It never ceases to amaze me that people who want intolerance and diversity respected are the first to limit freedom of speech,..” I meant to say tolerance not intolerance.
Mr Gait-
You might understand the ‘left’ a little better if you turned down the rudeness factor in your posts. Seriously now, you come across like a big bully most of the time. It gets a little old and it destroys your credibility.
-David (not a democrat BTW)
19 – You say, “…conservatives are interested in the thoughts of liberals …”” That is pretty difficult to tell from the vitriol you spew forth on a regular basis.
I’ll be watching to see when or/if any conservatives appear interested in anything other than their own attacks on those who dare disagree with them. I have rarely seen that on this or any other site.
14 – Interesting that you are concerned about rights. Almost every item you mentioned has impacts on persons besides yourself. When we live with other people we should not endanger them by our own individual actions and unfortunately many people do not care about the impact on others. When you can do all of things you list without endangering my health and/or safety or my finances as a taxpayer, then go wild and do whatever you want. Until that time however, if you can’t control yourself then the government has to step in to protect the rest of us from you and others like you.
I love it when folks impugn a commenter for being “anonymous.” Since when is “Kathleen” specific? Can I find you under that name in the phone book? How about “Frustrated Finfan” or “10 MHz Days” or any of about 2/3 of the regulars on this board? Just because somebody uses the same pseudonym to post every day doesn’t make them any less anonymous or any less “chickenshit.”
Thanks “jim”
-David Hollis (my real name)
#24- You must be new to SJI. I posted my last name on this blog for at least a year. My last name is Flynn, in case you missed it! No, you won’t find it in the phone book because it is unlisted. I’m not big on phone solicitations. And yes, many folks know exactly who I am, so don’t even go there. Don’t believe me? Ask Council Member Oliverio.
Okay Jim, now it’s your turn. What is your last name?
Which ‘team’ you are on seems a little too important in modern times.
The only time I really think about it is when poster #1 kicks off with ‘The other team is stupid’ or when someone gets picked last (#7’s post).
David Hollis and N Credulous,
Thank you for reminding me how much the modern person values style over substance. (I notice that no critic- not one- was interested in examining the basis of my rant. Rather, it was only worthwhile to criticize me for having written it)
This goes a long way toward explaining the choices that our enlightened electorate has recently made.
About 15 years ago Andre Aggasi did a commercial endorsement for some product- I don’t remember what it was, in which he proclaimed, “Image is everything.”
How right he was. And congratulations to the both of you for helping to fulfill his prophecy.
Respond if you wish. I won’t hold my breath as I’ve learned that the 21st century, enlightened, progressive thinker has a habit of running away from an actual discussion with someone who might not agree with him.
#26, Kathleen, you go girl!
Flame fest on the SJI blogosphere. I guess it fits nicely into the Rant and Rave niche.
So is this what’s going to replace print journalism? I accept that we’ve already lost traditional journalism in the South Bay due to all the ownership changes at the Merc, but I honestly can’t believe there’s not something bright and hopeful out there to replace it.
How about moderated open-source investigative journalism where the authors can share in ad revenue and retain ownership of their work (original articles.) Could we have a pool of ad revenue that could be used to lure investigative reporters to write on subjects we wanted looked into? Maybe have a voting section on where our lidless eye should turn its gaze next?
Anyway, I know its neither a rant nor a rave, but I felt like changing the subject.
26 – Perhaps if you spent a little more time making factual statements and a little less time worrying about the names people use on this site people would take you more seriously. Just a thought, just my opinion but probably shared by many.
#30- Watcher,
Got a real name Watcher or do you want to continue hiding behind a computer screen making dumb comments you can’t be held accountable for?
You said,“Perhaps if you spent a little more time making factual statements and a little less time worrying about the names people use on this site people would take you more seriously.”
I think you can do a bit of that yourself. I stand by whatever I post, with my real name posted and all. How about you Watcher?
#29- Blair, SJI used to encourage people to submit articles. You are a pretty good writer. Have you thought of doing a column and submitting it?
#27-John Galt,
The fact that so few of the regulars post any more seems to support your comments.
31 – Dumb comments? That’s your response? You are basically saying “I know you are but what am I.”
You say you stand by whatever you post. That’s the problem. You are not always correct and asking for facts should not generate a snide response from you but it usually does.
See you on the playground.
Kathleen, I agree with you. I always find Blair Whitney’s remarks to be well worth reading.
Joe Average (#14),
You might appreciate this:
http://home.att.net/~hideaway_today/t133/noah.htm
Watcher,
You said, “You say you stand by whatever you post. That’s the problem. You are not always correct and asking for facts should not generate a snide response from you but it usually does.”
That is your opinion. Your rude remark in #30, to me started this entire thing; so don’t try to turn this around on me Watcher. Secondly, take responsibility for your actions. Instead of making rude statements like the one above, and the one in #30, why don’t you ask me to provide facts, when I post something your disagree with, rather than doing what you did in #30? You know, be respectful about it?
If I have been proven incorrect on something, I have admitted my mistake. And Watcher, no one is always right, not even YOU. So, I’m willing to start anew with you, hope you are too because life is too short to waste our time on this. Any way, there are plenty of wonderful things to debate and discuss. Wouldn’t you agree?
35 – Yes.
#34-Fin Fan,
That is wonderful! Thank you for sharing it. I’m going to pas it on to some friends!
Can’t believe no one else has asked this yet:
Who is John Galt?
Watcher,
Glad to hear it.
#34 finfan
That was great! Although the truth behind it is scary.
#38 Kenny
Given the current times, a better question may be…is anyone going Galt? Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?