Rodney Thomas 
Member since Mar 15, 2011


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “How an Environmental Law Is Harming the Environment

One does not need a direct environmental reason to be against this project. One can be—and should be—against it simply because it is an affront to the neighborhood. This is just another piece of contemporary architectural schlock. It’s BORGchitecture: just ugly, inhuman cubes; slick boxes devoid of any attempt at beauty or humanity. Enough of junk like this. The residents who live in the surrounding, traditional, aesthetically-pleasing homes shouldn’t have to view this piece of junk every day.…

You don’t need any other reason to be against this project.

In reality apartments along Shattuck are not a bad idea. But with all the parking places provided to the residents this is, in fact, just another car-based project just like any suburban garden apartment complex—minus the garden landscaping. This also alone is sufficient reason to be against the project. IF this project were truly different they would have no parking and have new residents sign a pledge not to own an auto. After all, they will be offered car-sharing service and free transit passes.

EVEN IF every other aspect of the project were somehow acceptable, it should be rejected because it is based on the completely debunked carbon credit/global-warming scam pushed so hard by the author. “Smart Growth” is based on this scam and so the project should be rejected.

The idea of Global Warming is just a faith-based idea, a new religion. At Counterpunch the late, great, Alexander Cockburn systematically ripped apart the Global Warming (aka ‘climate-change’) religion in a series of articles, beginning with “Is Global Warming a Sin? From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits”:


And one can read in A.W. Montford’s book: “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science” the detailed, irrefutable shameful and lying history of the creation of the Hockey-Stick graph that kick-started the whole deceit. And Professor Robert M. Carter’s book “Climate: The Counter-Consensus - A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks” provides the irrefutable science—NOT computer-generated ‘climate models’--that there is no current anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW).

It’s nice of the author of the article to mention the most recent ginned-up pseudo-science report and not mention the hundreds of scientific reports that show that nothing is “wrong” with the climate. As we know, there hasn’t been any global warming now for the last 16 years. Therefore “climate change” has been substituted. The “new” 4,000 year so-called study mentioned by the author has already been undone by Geology Professor Don J. Easterbrook:……

“Global warming” is just a religion as is Obama. Obama the NDAA-police state, drone-child-killing, wars-in-eight-countries, whistleblower-prosecuting, nuclear-power-loving, high servant to Wall Street president is LOVED by Berkeley and Democrats despite all the facts available to them. For a quick summary, read “Obama is the Worst U.S. President Ever”:… Obama-The-Good is just a faith-based liberal religion.

Just as liberal San Franciscans continue to vote religiously for Nancy Pelosi despite the real-world facts of her refusal to pursue impeachment of Bush and her continued allowance of Iraq war funding under Bush and Obama and just as liberal citizens of Berkeley still religiously believe in Bush-3 aka Obama, there are some topics that for liberals are simply faith-based political positions, religiously adhered to: AGW is one of them.

Why do I tie Bush-Obama-AGW together? Because it’s all one faith-based, lying enterprise to destroy local communities and local control—whether it is in Iraq, Libya or Berkeley.

It’s a perfectly fine idea to push for in-fill projects—if they are architecturally acceptable to the neighbors. It’s perfectly fine to propose apartment buildings near transit and downtown—if they are not really disguised car-based projects. Saving energy is a good idea; meeting phony carbon-emission/footprint goals is not. Following the dictates of elite-created religions such as AGW, Obama and Bush/Pelosi is not good for anyone.

If you want to build an apartment complex just do it for honest, straight-forward reasons and do it and design it in a way that convinces the neighbors AND receives the approval of those neighbors. Why on earth should anyone be FORCED to accept such a project as this in their neighborhood?

It really is too bad that the people in Berkeley aren’t allowed to decide on this project all by themselves—without the tool for one side of a phony threat of carbon catastrophe or the threat of CEQA on the other side. As long as ‘smart-growth’ with the rationale of non-existent global-warming behind it is used by the larger state to force it on local communities, it and the Parker Place Project should be rejected, even if the project is designed by a resurrected Julia Morgan.

But certainly, as long as BORGchitects pray to The God of Slick Cubes to design morguechitectural boxes, Parker Place and all of the rest of them should be rejected for that reason alone.

4 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Rodney Thomas on 03/17/2013 at 5:22 AM

Re: “The SFJAZZ Center and the Rise of the Nonprofit Model

Can jazz survive in a corporate glass block? This stuff just won't die, will it? I consciously won't go to a place like this. What's bad for jazz is, you can't measure how many people subconsciously avoid going to a dead glass and steel box. You'll never measure that.

But for those who are true believers the emperor still has new clothes: "glass walls that merge the sidewalk with the main lobby" or, in other words, there is no there there.

Oh yeah, they'll survive like Berkeley Rep. I remember when the awful Roda Theatre opened and two women seating next to me were looking around and one of them said "This is what I imagine the inside of a prison looks like." Oh, I'm sure they still have their subscriptions...but you just can't measure those things or know for sure.

Posted by Rodney Thomas on 01/16/2013 at 11:56 PM

Re: “Climate Change Will Unleash Buried Toxics

Steve, thank you for the Warm List. And thank EBX for publishing the comments.

Posted by Rodney Thomas on 07/16/2012 at 8:42 AM

Re: “Climate Change Will Unleash Buried Toxics

Good luck wading your way through the article rwinburn recommended. The only way you'll have a chance of getting through that gobbledygook is by reading Montford's book which clearly explains all the scientific/mathematical/modelling details in a way that makes it all very comprehensible to the lay person.

In fact, it makes it WAY too comprehensible. The last thing rwinburn would want is for you to read the Montford book--then you'd know how the realclimate article is just meant to bury you in a bunch of technical jargon so that you feel that, well, maybe, he's told me something. Montford's book tells you something and tells it clearly.

These two articles by Alexander Cockburn (er...NOT a conservative) will get you started on the path away from the eco-fascism/gift-to-the-nuclear-industry of the global warmists. "Is Global Warming a Sin?" and "Who Are the Merchants of Fear?" AC: As Richard Kerr, Science magazine’s man on global warming remarked, "Climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s become almost respectable."……

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Rodney Thomas on 07/12/2012 at 1:16 PM

Re: “Climate Change Will Unleash Buried Toxics

Toxics are bad, bad, bad and they must be dealt with. No doubt about it.

But corrupt science based on distortions, lies and manipulation of data to reach pre-determined goals is bad, bad, bad.

There is no sea-level rise. There is no global warming. The whole fake crisis has been thoroughly debunked. You can start with "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" by A.W. Montford. In a way, you really needn't go further because the book lays out the detailed twisting of truth in a way that is hard to argue with. Of course, though, keep going and read more elsewhere.

You'll be surprised at not only the phony science but at who is really pushing the global-warming agenda and what their goals are. BTW, you've noticed it's now "climate change" and it's morphing into "protecting species" because the majority of people have informed themselves about the fraud. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, liberal areas like the East Bay love to wallow in the deceit. I don't know why.

1 like, 10 dislikes
Posted by Rodney Thomas on 07/11/2012 at 11:23 PM

Re: “Death of Oakland's Retail Plan

I agree with Leal, Mary & Len--especially Leal's comment that redevelopment is not kind to small folk. Wendy, John & Alex just breeze right through this horrid head-turner:

"But without redevelopment, such grandiose plans may be now impossible. Redevelopment, for example, allows cities to combine disparate plots of land into one large plot that could then be handed over to private developers, either for free or at a reduced cost. The Broadway-Valdez project, as it was envisioned, would have required such "land assembly." "

IT"S CALLED THEFT! I'm sure most people remember the infamous U.S. Supreme Court "Kelo" decision in which the Supremes said it was A-OK for New London, CT to use their power of "eminent domain" to TAKE private property from small folks and give it to rich developers "for free or at a reduced cost."

"Eminent Domain" is supposed to be the taking of private property (and paying reasonable compensation for it) FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. Oakland should consider itself lucky that Gov. Brown got rid of redevelopment agencies. As the other commenters note, the area is growing organically one small business at a time.

If this horrid redevelopment project had gone through, who knows how many existing or new small businesses would have been destroyed, how many small-scale buildings and homes. How many street "fronts" would become one long stretch of blank concrete 'backside' wall of a giant hotel or parking lot? Sure there were to be funds to help "spruce up" local businesses--that's just window dressing for a plan to shovel millions to big, rich businesses.

Doesn't Oakland remember that a few blocks up, just east of 580 there used to be a redevelopment shopping center--it's been torn down as it became a superfluous eyesore.

Local citizens throughout America have been having to fight destructive "redevelopment" plans ever since Robert Moses in New York created "authorities" as a way to circumvent democratic processes and destroy neighborhoods for the sake of big, pork development projects. Just read "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York" by Robert Caro -- or for more recent horrors read "The Assassination of New York" by Robert Fitch.

Locally, as an example of the destructive power and the sell-out of governments to big-time developers who are nothing but monetary leeches and community destroyers check out the fight of the small folks in Santa Rosa to save their city: http://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.…

Oakland got lucky with Brown's 10k plan and the restoration of the Fox. But as Leal points out: check out downtown! Not only does downtown have BART, it's got countless parking lots so not even parking is an issue there. What's holding it back? Subsidies to big retailers and big hotels? I think not.

And let us not forget the brilliant city council action a short while back to raise parking meter rates and extend meter hours which was so destructive to small businesses--while the big chain stores were unaffected because they have off-street parking in abundance. Can we expect more insightful decisions on behalf of small retailers?

BTW, perhaps the writers of the article should have noticed that the U.S. is in a recession/depression and, regardless of the state of the economy the U.S. is the most over-built retail place on the planet. No city needs even a square foot more of NEW retail space. Did the writers notice that big retailers are either going completely belly-up or closing massive numbers of stores? These are the same retail chains that a cup-in-hand-mega-developer would want to bring to their mega-retail space.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Rodney Thomas on 02/16/2012 at 4:19 AM

Re: “Jerry, Barack, and the GOP

Come on all you east bay liberals, how blind can you be? Let's see: in the debt ceiling debacle Obama offered up Social Security and the Republicans hadn't even asked for it! No Republican president could gut Social Security or privatize it--ask George Bush. That job falls to Obama and he is pursuing it with gusto.

Has Obama had AG Eric Holder prosecute anyone on Wall Street? Nyah. Did Obama offer up a health-care "reform" plan written by the health insurance companies? Yes.
Has Obama betrayed every promise he made to his constituency? Yes. Is Obama backing the abominable tar-sands pipeline (the decision to build it is his alone)? Yes.
Does Obama have 5 or 6 wars going? Yes?
Did Obama back the "rebels" in Libya whose leader is Al-Qaeda and whose fellow "rebels" are now mass-murdering black Libyans in what was the most developed country in Africa with freedom of religion and social services for all? Yes.
Is the "defense" budget untouchable under Obama? Yes. Did Obama back the extension and expansion of the PATRIOT act? Yes.
Does Obama back the renewal and expansion of nuclear power in the U.S.? Yes.
Does Obama continue drone attacks that kills thousands of innocents in Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and other countries?
Did Obama twist the arms of the black caucus in the House to vote for the banker bailout--before he was even in office? Yes. Has the Federal Reserve given the banks $23 TRILLION under Obama? Yes.
Did Obama cut the federal program of financial aid to African-American small business? Yes.
Is the TSA still harassing people and violating children under Obama? Yes. Is the FDA under Obama attacking natural food producers (such as supplement makers, raw food and raw milk producers)? Yes.
Has Obama gone after whistle-blowers more aggressively than Bush--even using a World War I law for the first time in over half a century to prosecute people? Yes.
Is the Obama White House pushing all the state Attorneys General to sign off on a deal that will let the big banks off the hook for their mortgage frauds? Yes.
The list is sadly endless.

Obama is nothing but Bush II on steroids and all of you east bay people should be ashamed for drinking the Obama Kool-aid. Your shame will be stamped large and loud on history as you overwhelmingly vote for Obama in the primary and in the general election--at the same time that he is extending his world wars to Syria, Algeria and other countries. You are no better--maybe even worse--than the Tea Party fanatics who say things like "government hands off my Medicare." Of course, they--and you--won't have to worry about that much longer since Medicare is an Obama target. You may not have to worry about anything at all soon if one of Obama's resource wars to deprive China of its energy needs and investments in Africa, Syria, Pakistan or elsewhere blows up into World War III.

Posted by erikSF99 on 09/14/2011 at 11:38 PM

All Comments »

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation