Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Full Disclosure

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

Actually, the Council's job is to represent their constituents. If their constituents want them to obstruct an appointment and demand another nomination, there's absolutely nothing in the charter forbidding the Councilmembers from doing that.

Tha charter says the Mayor nominates. The charter does not forbid the council from using pressure on the Mayor to get her to nominate someone they want.

In the political realm, legislators get to vote on stuff, and they get to decide how to vote based on just about any reason they want (legal conflicts of interest excepted). This is a power game, it's silly to fault councilmembers when they use their power, especially when their constituents demand it, an especially when the mayor is as weak and unpopular as she is.

Posted by Max A on 10/14/2011 at 9:43 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

"The mayor's office received petitions to reappoint Margaret Gordon many, many months ago, and Ms. Gordon tried to reach the mayor at the same time. So the argument that she didn't know Ms. Gordon wanted to be reappointed is ridiculous."

1. Quan told me that Gordon did not apply to be reappointed until after she had already selected Imani several months ago. Regardless, it doesn't negate the fact that if Gordon really wanted to be reappointed, she should have gone through the formal process like Imani did.

2. Supporters of Gordon have every right to criticize the mayor for not reappointing her, and if Quan suffers in the progressive commmunity as a result, that's on her. But that's not what this piece is about. It's about the fact that the mayor made a choice, and it's up to the council to evaluate that choice and vote him up or down based on his qualifications for the job. It's not the council's job to tell the mayor who to appoint. It would be akin to Senate Democrats voting against an Obama appointee -- not because that appointee was unqualified -- but because they wanted someone else.

Yoyo g, "some councilmembers are treating current Mayor Jean Quan differently."

I was referring here only to appointments to boards and commissions. Nonetheless, overall I do think some councilmembers are not treating Quan with the same deference they gave to Dellums, Brown, Harris etc. The reason I think is that several councilmembers are still upset that they didn't run for mayor and that they can't get over the fact that Quan won. They view themselves as being more qualified than Quan, but stayed out of the race because they didn't think anyone could beat Perata.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Robert Gammon on 10/14/2011 at 9:26 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

This statement

"some councilmembers are treating current Mayor Jean Quan differently,"

begs the question, why?

I agree with this appointment but am having a delayed reaction to the piece and its central theme that Quan is for some (unknown) reason being mistreated by the council. That's either paranoid or suggests that the council dislikes this mayor more than previous ones. Perhaps, if true, there's a reason for their dislike.

Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/14/2011 at 8:38 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

You're wrong on this one, Bob. The mayor's office received petitions to reappoint Margaret Gordon many, many months ago, and Ms. Gordon tried to reach the mayor at the same time. So the argument that she didn't know Ms. Gordon wanted to be reappointed is ridiculous. Margaret Gordon's appointment to the commission was a special historic victory for West Oakland, because she is actually independent....calling out injustice wherever it exists....and that makes some folks very uncomfortable. Unfortunately Mayor Quan has a very narrow view of who her "progressive" allies are, and her attitude threatens to undermine the people's ranked choice victory over Perata.

Posted by M. Ortega on 10/14/2011 at 5:05 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

...and I don't need to say here that I am generally opposed to what Quan wants. This is an exception.

Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/13/2011 at 10:22 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

Quan also told the council she nominated Imani after "looking at the port's finances." This, to me, seemed a subtle indictment of Gordon's record there. I would not oppose Quan on this. It's one of the smartest moves she's made - forward-looking and progressive. Besides which, anyone good enough for Van Jones is good enough for me.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/13/2011 at 10:21 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

I too would oppose anything that Quan recommends. She repeatedly proves she is inept at best. The cronyism needs to stop, and Quan, along with lifetime council members Nadel, Reid, Brooks and Brunner have got to go!

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mugsy on 10/13/2011 at 7:59 AM

Re: “Council Rebuffs Van Jones Protégé

Quan, Jones, Imani and Gordon aren't simply "part" of the problem: they ARE the problem. My God, what a motley crew.

Cronyism + identity politics + socialism + bureaucracy = a city that will never ever escape from its self-induced nightmare.

Run, Batts, run, as far and as fast as you can from this hellhole. And everybody with half a brain should follow in his contrail.

Posted by Desmodian on 10/13/2011 at 12:07 AM

Re: “Liz Figueroa Lies About Her Residence

This comment was deleted because it violates our web site's Terms Of Use. People who repeatedly violate our policies will lose their right to post comments. You can read our entire Terms Of Use here.

Posted by Editor on 10/12/2011 at 2:33 PM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

"Who could disagree with Dan? Who is pro-recidivism?"

not to sound like a wise guy or anything, but the prison guard's union is pro-recidivism, pro-prison, and pro-prison-industrial complex. they are also one of the largest political lobbies in California.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Eric K. Arnold on 10/05/2011 at 11:58 AM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

LOL Who could disagree with Dan? Who is pro-recidivism?

Still waiting to hear which rag you write for. Are you going for the Pulitzer?

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/03/2011 at 6:38 PM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

agree with dan.

yoyo, you dont know how to be unsnarky, do you?

max: my block is not West Oakland, so it's more placid. But you act as if your ghetto badge somehow makes your argument more credible. the reality is you'll say just about anything to get attention, even if your arguments sometimes contradict each other.

i still don't think it makes your argument anything more than opinion. and i dont think opinions alone are much use in crafting solid policy. it's unclear how a teen curfew is a smart enforcement policy. and you still havent answered the accountability question, btw.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Eric K. Arnold on 10/03/2011 at 6:25 PM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

My letter from a few weeks ago...

First, Let's Focus on Recidivism -
Thanks for your excellent piece on why curfews don't work to reduce serious crimes. The most effective and cost-effective way to reduce serious and violent crime is to invest more in workable anti-recidivism programs at the state, county, and city levels.

With realignment about to phase in (with more convicts being housed in county jails), now is the time for counties, and the larger cities in each county, to invest serious funds in reducing the recidivism rate.

DAN KALB, Oakland

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by DanKalb on 10/03/2011 at 11:31 AM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

"a big joke"?

I've been living in GhostTown for 6 years. This is anything but a joke. I've had two friends shot. Friends slashed. Pistol-whipped. Sexually assaulted. A woman on my block was beaten, sodomized with a kitchen knife and set on fire. I've had to intervene when a man on my block was kicking his ex-wife in the face as she cowered on the sidewalk. And this is the abridged version of the list of horror I've seen.

No joke, man. No joke at all. How's the scene on your block?

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Max A on 10/03/2011 at 10:59 AM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

When your "investigative" masterpiece is ready, and has been vetted by all your "fact checkers" and "researchers," please post a link here. Until then, play fair. This is the furthest thing from a "big joke" to me.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/03/2011 at 10:50 AM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

i had researchers on my project, yes. of course, checking facts isn't really that difficult, it just takes time and effort. look, i expect sarcasm from the peanut gallery. you guys apparently think this is a big joke. i can tell you right now it's not. that's all i'm saying.

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Eric K. Arnold on 10/03/2011 at 10:07 AM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

And, Eric, fact checkers: wow. Seems a bit disingenuous to call out Max for not having them, as if his facts are therefore suspect. If you have fact checkers, you must write for a really rich publication. Just dying to know which illustrious outlet you're associated with.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/03/2011 at 8:54 AM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

Eric, Please let us know when this investigative masterpiece...er, article... runs, and where. Is it a secret? How about a little hint?
Max, why bother? Let it go. Eric has all the facts and statistics. He just can't REVEAL them yet. LOL

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by yoyo_guru on 10/02/2011 at 10:53 PM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

max, who's your fact-checker? i've provided three stats so far. you'll just have to wait for the piece i'm currently working on for the rest. not really interested in stroking your ego at this point. you do that just fine on your own.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Eric K. Arnold on 10/02/2011 at 9:04 PM

Re: “Why a Curfew Is Unnecessary

Eric, so far you've provided precisely one stat, unrelated to your claim that "punitive measures don't work". All that stat showed was that the incarceration rate in California sucks. And I agree.

Meanwhile, I just posted an article from Scientific American which notes all sorts of facts about how suppressive tactics helped NYC beat back their crime rate without displacing minorities or poor people, and without a massive increase in incarceration. In fact, it points out that those tactics reduced crime even in the poorest neighborhoods, and they did so while the police force was shrinking.

Here it is again for people who want to read it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-new-york-beat-crime

Call it unrelated again if you want. But then I get to call any evaluations on crime from other cities unrelated... that is if you ever get around to actually citing one.

Call what I have to say opinion all you want too. What you're doing is reciting dogma. That dogma has been widely accepted in Oakland for a long time, and for a long time, the body count hasn't changed much.


0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Max A on 10/02/2011 at 7:01 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation