This is SJI’s weekly open forum, where opinions on any matter are welcome. What’s on your mind?
14 Comments
From the office of the very same city manager who is waging war with public safety unions over previously negotiated retirement benefits, we have:
– Jerry Newfarmer, former SJ city manager, stuffing his pockets from our coffers at $250/hr
– Kay Winer, retired SJ deputy city manager, extracting $125/hr
– Thomas Frazier, retired SJ deputy police chief, grabbing a cool $200/hr
This is being done via a $617k annual contract the city has with Management Partners, a consulting firm founded by Newfarmer, that facilitates, gathers input, analyses, reviews, and prepares reports for a city manager’s office we pay to do those very things. If the data I looked at was accurate, not only did the city this year* award Management Partners a 55% raise (imagine what it might have been were the city not belt-tightening?), but the city manager’s own budget is 30% higher than it was two years ago.
Gee, do you think any of the current top dogs in the CM’s office have a job with Management Partners in the post-retirement plans?
Ask yourself: have you ever met a retired city employee worth this kind of cash?
These people have very nice retirements; Newfarmer and Frazier are, at the very least, double-dippers. I am unaware of other city departments engaged in this type of supplemental retirement program—the hiring of retired expertise, and some of them, like police and fire, have to contend with ever-changing regulations and technologies.
Nice little scam… nice chunk of change, but are you being better served?
The October 7 posting about the county supervisor race in District One was one of the most interesting I have seen on SJ Inside in a long time. We typical white persons do have a hard time understanding how we can claim our own political identity. President Obama told us we were a separate sociological group (typical white persons) in America on March 19 last year, and I like the label he gave us.
The shortest definition for our political identity, however, is that we are the only ones to receive really appalling abuse when we speak up.
I agree that we typical white persons do need services from the county to help us with our children who have slipped and fallen victim to methamphetamine use, tobacco use, and binge drinking. We parents get no assistance whatsoever from the county to help us combat these public health problems with our children, even when typical white persons (youth division) are overrepresented as victims of these kinds of problems compared with other sociological groups.
I was gratified that VooDoo Lounge owners Tony Beers and Dave Powell realized that having homophobic musician Buju Banton perform at their nightclub is not in the local community’s best interests. So gratified, in fact, that I don’t mind that Sal Pizarro, in his daily column, usurped almost my very words in a letter I sent to the Mercury News commending Beers and Powell. I must admit that it is probably better that awareness of the averted hate-music concert appear in Pizarro’s widely read column.
For those who don’t know—and yes, it is still true that knowing is half the battle—some of Banton’s lyrics extol such niceties as shooting gay men in the head and burning them with acid. (And we thought Prop. 8 was bad!) I, and other community members, felt that San José was not an appropriate venue for the spreading of Banton’s message, so we raised our voices against the planned event. While VooDoo’s managers Matt Crudo and Anthony Hall were somewhat less than caring in their blunt dismissal of our concerns, the owners were immediately responsive when the controversy over Banton and his lyrics were brought to their attention. (A special thanks also goes out to city councilmember Sam Liccardo and his staff for contacting the owners on this matter.)
Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but what many fail to realize is that, like any right, it comes with responsibilities and consequences.
Serious scientists are shaking their heads at the Tech Museum’s puzzling plan to award the “James C. Morgan Global Humanitarian Award” to global warming obsessive Al Gore. An award for what?
Gore is not a scientist or technologist, but a divinity school drop-out. His scientific credentials are based on an error filled PowerPoint presentation. British school authorities require warnings and disclaimers before it can be shown to school students.
The Academy Award for his “documentary” film was awarded only after academy voters had been subjected to a million dollar lobbying effort on Gore’s behalf. And the choice was based on the votes of only the tiny handful of the academy’s voters who certified that they had actually seen all of the nominated documentaries.
And Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, like Obama’s Peace Prize, is simply the mischievous vanity of three leftist Norwegian politicians on the Nobel Prize Committee attempting to influence world opinion.
But scientists are most outraged by Gore’s role in the creation of the almost completely grant driven climate science industry. While Vice President, Gore installed his staffer Carol Browner as head of the EPA, in which role she distributed billions of taxpayer dollars to researchers, inviting them to prove the existence of human caused global warming.
In what scientists darkly referred to as “coin-operated science”, grant recipients built many complex and expensive computer models on the assumption that humans caused global warming. And, not surprisingly, the models reported reliably that humans DID cause global warming. Garbage In. Garbage Out.
It would be embarrassing at this point for the Tech Museum to acknowledge the inappropriateness of its invitation to Al Gore. However, it is known that Gore has avoided engaging in substantive debate on the reality of human caused global warming. If the Tech Museum were to advise Gore that the award ceremony would follow a debate on global warming, Gore would certainly decline to attend.
“scientists are most outraged…” Can you cite any sources. Or is this just more anti-environment gobleddy gook? It’s easy to continue to make up statements that the science behind climate change is false, but nobody can site a single peer-reviewed scientific journal article that draws that conclusion.
The disagreement is out there. For instance, google “German scientists global warming”, and find a letter signed by 60+ German scientists who think the issue is overblown. Or read some of my posts in here on the issue citing peer reviewed articles that contradict “consensus.”
Science is not about consensus. It’s about asserting an hypothesis and proving or disproving it. Global warming is an assertion awaiting proof.
As a simplified example, let’s suppose that 10 scientists performed independent research and 9 of them concluded that there is a 51% chance that man-made global warming is real. Since 90% believe that it’s real does that mean that there’s a 90% chance that it IS real?
No. At best it’s still about 50%.
Sheesh, Pat, hope those 60 german scientists don’t die of loneliness. What in the world is it going to take for you to understand that WE HUMANS are drastically changing our climate? Please note below that the sources are NOT liberal sources. they are primarily from science publications and blogs.
That’s almost laughable. Most of the citations refer to the same survey, where 3100 replies were received from over 10,000 invitations. There is no analysis of respondent bias, nor any attempt to follow up with people who didn’t respond.
Two other citations refer to an IPCC study. Note that the IPCC is an intergovernmental agency. Think there might be any bias there? Nah…
Climate models are not evidence. Science is a process of hypothesis testing. Right now, if one assumes that the climate models from the original 1996 IPCC thesis are the hypothesis, the evidence is proving them wrong.
I don’t disagree that global temperatures are increasing. I just don’t believe that the massive redistribution of wealth contemplated by cap and trade will do anything to change that. To say nothing of what it implies for third world countries, who do not have the wealth to adopt clean technologies.
> Climate models are not evidence. Science is a process of hypothesis testing. Right now, if one assumes that the climate models from the original 1996 IPCC thesis are the hypothesis, the evidence is proving them wrong.
EXACTLY SO!
Would you care to explain to the Doofus Nation whatever became of the notorious “hockey stick” graph, or shall I?
From the office of the very same city manager who is waging war with public safety unions over previously negotiated retirement benefits, we have:
– Jerry Newfarmer, former SJ city manager, stuffing his pockets from our coffers at $250/hr
– Kay Winer, retired SJ deputy city manager, extracting $125/hr
– Thomas Frazier, retired SJ deputy police chief, grabbing a cool $200/hr
This is being done via a $617k annual contract the city has with Management Partners, a consulting firm founded by Newfarmer, that facilitates, gathers input, analyses, reviews, and prepares reports for a city manager’s office we pay to do those very things. If the data I looked at was accurate, not only did the city this year* award Management Partners a 55% raise (imagine what it might have been were the city not belt-tightening?), but the city manager’s own budget is 30% higher than it was two years ago.
Gee, do you think any of the current top dogs in the CM’s office have a job with Management Partners in the post-retirement plans?
Ask yourself: have you ever met a retired city employee worth this kind of cash?
These people have very nice retirements; Newfarmer and Frazier are, at the very least, double-dippers. I am unaware of other city departments engaged in this type of supplemental retirement program—the hiring of retired expertise, and some of them, like police and fire, have to contend with ever-changing regulations and technologies.
Nice little scam… nice chunk of change, but are you being better served?
*http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20090210/20090210_0204.pdf
(my thanks to the anonymous poster at ProtectSanJose.com for revealing the connection)
The October 7 posting about the county supervisor race in District One was one of the most interesting I have seen on SJ Inside in a long time. We typical white persons do have a hard time understanding how we can claim our own political identity. President Obama told us we were a separate sociological group (typical white persons) in America on March 19 last year, and I like the label he gave us.
The shortest definition for our political identity, however, is that we are the only ones to receive really appalling abuse when we speak up.
I agree that we typical white persons do need services from the county to help us with our children who have slipped and fallen victim to methamphetamine use, tobacco use, and binge drinking. We parents get no assistance whatsoever from the county to help us combat these public health problems with our children, even when typical white persons (youth division) are overrepresented as victims of these kinds of problems compared with other sociological groups.
Angry Americans
“Whether you blame it on unemployment, lost homes, health care scares or other issues: America’s psyche is showing signs of wear:”
http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Angry-Americans.aspx?cp-searchtext=Angry Americans&FORM=msnhal
San José Just Said No
I was gratified that VooDoo Lounge owners Tony Beers and Dave Powell realized that having homophobic musician Buju Banton perform at their nightclub is not in the local community’s best interests. So gratified, in fact, that I don’t mind that Sal Pizarro, in his daily column, usurped almost my very words in a letter I sent to the Mercury News commending Beers and Powell. I must admit that it is probably better that awareness of the averted hate-music concert appear in Pizarro’s widely read column.
For those who don’t know—and yes, it is still true that knowing is half the battle—some of Banton’s lyrics extol such niceties as shooting gay men in the head and burning them with acid. (And we thought Prop. 8 was bad!) I, and other community members, felt that San José was not an appropriate venue for the spreading of Banton’s message, so we raised our voices against the planned event. While VooDoo’s managers Matt Crudo and Anthony Hall were somewhat less than caring in their blunt dismissal of our concerns, the owners were immediately responsive when the controversy over Banton and his lyrics were brought to their attention. (A special thanks also goes out to city councilmember Sam Liccardo and his staff for contacting the owners on this matter.)
Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but what many fail to realize is that, like any right, it comes with responsibilities and consequences.
Breaking News………………. . .
This just in!!!
Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!
Thanks finfan
San Jose contracts are looking like federal government’s – contracts for retiree contractor jobs deals or am i missing something
( except Frazier ? )
Serious scientists are shaking their heads at the Tech Museum’s puzzling plan to award the “James C. Morgan Global Humanitarian Award” to global warming obsessive Al Gore. An award for what?
Gore is not a scientist or technologist, but a divinity school drop-out. His scientific credentials are based on an error filled PowerPoint presentation. British school authorities require warnings and disclaimers before it can be shown to school students.
The Academy Award for his “documentary” film was awarded only after academy voters had been subjected to a million dollar lobbying effort on Gore’s behalf. And the choice was based on the votes of only the tiny handful of the academy’s voters who certified that they had actually seen all of the nominated documentaries.
And Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, like Obama’s Peace Prize, is simply the mischievous vanity of three leftist Norwegian politicians on the Nobel Prize Committee attempting to influence world opinion.
But scientists are most outraged by Gore’s role in the creation of the almost completely grant driven climate science industry. While Vice President, Gore installed his staffer Carol Browner as head of the EPA, in which role she distributed billions of taxpayer dollars to researchers, inviting them to prove the existence of human caused global warming.
In what scientists darkly referred to as “coin-operated science”, grant recipients built many complex and expensive computer models on the assumption that humans caused global warming. And, not surprisingly, the models reported reliably that humans DID cause global warming. Garbage In. Garbage Out.
It would be embarrassing at this point for the Tech Museum to acknowledge the inappropriateness of its invitation to Al Gore. However, it is known that Gore has avoided engaging in substantive debate on the reality of human caused global warming. If the Tech Museum were to advise Gore that the award ceremony would follow a debate on global warming, Gore would certainly decline to attend.
“scientists are most outraged…” Can you cite any sources. Or is this just more anti-environment gobleddy gook? It’s easy to continue to make up statements that the science behind climate change is false, but nobody can site a single peer-reviewed scientific journal article that draws that conclusion.
The disagreement is out there. For instance, google “German scientists global warming”, and find a letter signed by 60+ German scientists who think the issue is overblown. Or read some of my posts in here on the issue citing peer reviewed articles that contradict “consensus.”
Science is not about consensus. It’s about asserting an hypothesis and proving or disproving it. Global warming is an assertion awaiting proof.
As a simplified example, let’s suppose that 10 scientists performed independent research and 9 of them concluded that there is a 51% chance that man-made global warming is real. Since 90% believe that it’s real does that mean that there’s a 90% chance that it IS real?
No. At best it’s still about 50%.
Sheesh, Pat, hope those 60 german scientists don’t die of loneliness. What in the world is it going to take for you to understand that WE HUMANS are drastically changing our climate? Please note below that the sources are NOT liberal sources. they are primarily from science publications and blogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey.scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.real
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#How_do_we_know_that_humans_are_the_major
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists-agree-human-induced-global-warming-real-18250.html
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/survey_scientists_agree_human_induced_global_warming_125796.html
I am so very glad that you post here. Should you run for any public office again, I will be among the first to donate to your competitor.
> What in the world is it going to take for you to understand that WE HUMANS are drastically changing our climate?
Hmmmm. How about some actual conclusive scientific evidence based on controlled scientific experiments. Just like real science has always been done.
No government grant funded computer models, thank you.
No polls of government “policy makers” attending U.N. funded “climate conferences.”
No error filled PowerPoint presentations by ethics challenged political fundraisers.
Just some good old fashioned hard science by authentic scientists with real scientific integrity.
That’s what it will take.
That’s almost laughable. Most of the citations refer to the same survey, where 3100 replies were received from over 10,000 invitations. There is no analysis of respondent bias, nor any attempt to follow up with people who didn’t respond.
Two other citations refer to an IPCC study. Note that the IPCC is an intergovernmental agency. Think there might be any bias there? Nah…
Climate models are not evidence. Science is a process of hypothesis testing. Right now, if one assumes that the climate models from the original 1996 IPCC thesis are the hypothesis, the evidence is proving them wrong.
I don’t disagree that global temperatures are increasing. I just don’t believe that the massive redistribution of wealth contemplated by cap and trade will do anything to change that. To say nothing of what it implies for third world countries, who do not have the wealth to adopt clean technologies.
> Climate models are not evidence. Science is a process of hypothesis testing. Right now, if one assumes that the climate models from the original 1996 IPCC thesis are the hypothesis, the evidence is proving them wrong.
EXACTLY SO!
Would you care to explain to the Doofus Nation whatever became of the notorious “hockey stick” graph, or shall I?