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: Election 2012

Re: “Redefining Sex Work

"(Now is probably as good a time as any to note that, like the Village Voice, the thirteen other papers its parent company owns throughout the US, and the vast majority of alternative weeklies, the Express carries escort ads. We consider this part of our identity as a sex-positive paper.)" F*cking seriously? SERIOUSLY? No wonder you attempted a puff-piece on the privileged little psychopaths who are more concerned with protecting their bank accounts than they are with protecting marginalized women and children from exploitation. Wow. Just wow.

Posted by Penny White on 10/11/2015 at 9:22 PM

Re: “Big Oil Targets Little Richmond, Again

I am very saddened that Nat Bates, and his Chevron co-hart, Gary Bell, will be on the city council for four years. It's a wonder to me why these people care more about their own silver-lined pockets than this city that has so much potential, and that has come a long way just in the last few years with the progressives on the council. It's also a wonder to me that they prefer to be on the side of a huge corporation that gave Mitt Romney twenty-five million dollars to his campaign. Bates is a player. Just look at his signs: "Obama/Bates". He glad hands the African American population in Richmond to get their votes, and he doesn't really give a damn about them. He doesn't live in their neighborhoods. He rubs shoulders with the rich and powerful.

Chevron wants Richmond to be a dump. That way they can do whatever they want regarding emission standards and upgrades. If Richmond goes backwards, they are happy because everyone will be struggling so much to just keep their heads above water. Shame on Bates, Bell, and Booze. They are pawns in a very dangerous game with a powerful corporation.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jeannette Kortz on 11/16/2012 at 3:42 PM

Re: “The Final Tally

As of Tuesday night Measure B1 is now at 66.19%, with less than a 2,500 vote margin between winning and losing. Not sure how many provisional ballots there are left to count but it may be a mathematic impossibility for it to pull ahead at this point. There is still the option of a recount, however, if it gets any closer.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Robert Prinz on 11/14/2012 at 7:43 AM

Re: “Redefining Sex Work

I totally agree with all of the sex positive empowering comments about sex work. I am also actively engaged in prevention and aftercare efforts to end/heal commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC) in Oakland. In response to some of the comments on just targeting those who buy and sell underage people for sex, I am interested to know your thoughts on separating out this issue.

Many people exploiting children are using the same tools (Redbook, craigslist, etc.) and working in the same area (International Blvd., Richmond, Sacramento...). Other than eliminating poverty so that people have economic options, improving our education system (overall, and by improving sexual health and healthy relationship skills for youth), and addressing our broken foster care system and the way we respond to children with abuse cases in the system and homeless youth (three groups that are very vulnerable to CSEC), how can this population really be singled out? Particularly for the exploiters? How do we only reach exploiters who go after children?

The way I see it, there is a demand for sex work and children are extremely vulnerable to being brought in to meet that demand. This can happen through kidnapping, or through a manipulative man who makes a child feel special and provides them with affection and clothing that they did not have access to, or a child may chose to be involved in sex work for money or as a coping mechanism to abuse they experienced in the home, or because the media has made it seem cool (that applies more to being a "pimp" usually). Many people who are involved in sex work started before they were 18 for various reasons. I think people have a right to be involved in sex work, and I also think that the industry does not support the protection of children, it thrives on their vulnerability in order to meet the demand. Would legalizing sex work solve these problems? Could the legalization be linked to the prevention of children becoming CSEC? Would sex workers support efforts to protect children?

I also did not support 35 because I am hoping that we can come up with a more meaningful way to discourage exploiters of children than by putting them in a cell. Exploitation will always exist as long as there is capitalism and the prison industrial complex is our convenient way of putting people aside who get in the way. It does not solve anything.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by JackieE on 11/07/2012 at 11:12 PM

Re: “Questions Swirl Around Zoo Tax Measure

I am thoroughly disgusted by the incredibly expensive campaign of misinformation put out by the Oakland Zoo in their attempts to pass Measure A1. Today I got two robo-calls from Kelly Sorenson, head of the Ventano Wildlife Society (think Condor reintroductions). Kelly stated that we shouldn’t be swayed by “lies” from opponents, and that we should “join him” in voting for Measure A1. But Kelly isn’t an Alameda Co resident.

I returned the favor and called Kelly today. I informed him that he should have spent a bit more time educating himself before becoming a shill for the Zoo.

Last week, I received an expensive glossy flyer touting the support of Barbara Lee, who in this case does NOT speak for me, and the S.F. Chronicle, whose reporters received several behind the scenes zoo tours. Awww, lookit all the cute animals! And there goes journalistic integrity.

Buses have that “poor starving lion” cartoon on their sides, billboards around Oakland do, too. In fact, I would say hands down, the Oakland Zoo has spent more money locally than anyone on any other campaign.

When that kind of money and blanketing disinformation campaign is being waged, you have to wonder why. Over a million bucks and counting will buy a lotta ZooPreme for the lion. Perhaps the real reason is Zoo Director Joel Parrot’s megalomania…he hopes to have “the largest zoo in NA” by expanding the Zoo into pristine areas of upper Knowland Park.

Not on my dime.

Debbie Viess
Oakland and Alameda Co. resident

Post a comment

Oakland N

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Amanitarita on 11/05/2012 at 8:01 PM

Re: “Endorsements Part IV: Vote Barbara Parker, Jody London, and Sheryl Walton

Measure J will be paid for by people who pay property taxes. I'm seeing figures of $60 per 100k of property value. I own a house in Oakland but have no income; it would cost me hundreds of dollars more than the taxes that already cost me about 1/3 of my annual expenditures. I can't afford this!

I see that Jerry Brown wants me to tax myself for his measure 30. I also see he's endorsed Ignacio De La Fuente who is clearly scum. So why should I trust him on anything else?

I keep thinking I should just vote against all the taxes. There's no place for me to get the money to pay them with!

Posted by Evelyn Sinclair on 11/05/2012 at 4:14 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

I know people are so blind!!!

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by kunklejaney on 11/05/2012 at 3:47 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

You are right this does sound like Mario Juarez.

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by TomAnderson12345 on 11/05/2012 at 6:33 AM

Re: “An Express Endorsements Cheat Sheet

Juarez really? All the stuff you talk about Ignacio and you go and endorse Mario 'east oakland crook' Juarez.

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by TomAnderson12345 on 11/05/2012 at 6:27 AM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente


8 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Harriet Ford on 11/04/2012 at 4:43 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

Being against Ranked Choice Voting is not a bad thing. Or do you think Quan is doing a good job? And would she have won w/o IRV?

7 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Michael Santos on 11/04/2012 at 3:04 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

I was completely shocked and dismayed last October when Rebecca Kaplan voted AGAINST Ignacio De La Fuente's proposed gang injunctions and youth curfews. This vote shows that Kaplan is completely out-of-touch with the fact that Oakland has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation and that crime is by far the city's most dire problem. I voted for Kaplan in 2008, but I will not vote for her again until she shows that she is serious about fighting crime.

16 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Andrew Hatch on 11/04/2012 at 11:00 AM

Re: “Endorsements Part IV: Vote Barbara Parker, Jody London, and Sheryl Walton

Got to take issue with your endorsement of Pete Stark, which was a safe pick but not too thoughtful. It's past time for a change in CA 15, as Pete Stark, God bless him and all, is just too old. It's OK to retire, really, it is. Time for new blood and Eric Swalwell has just that. Yes he's young and quickly gaining experience. But do we really need career politicians? I'd much rather have new faces and new ideas, continually. Also, given the right tilt of things, how effective is liberal Pete going to be. What's he done in the last 2 years. Swalwell has an opportunity to reach across the aisle and start building partnerships, particularly on the upcoming reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill, which will have a key impact in the Tri Valley. I'm supporting Eric!

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dave Campbell 1 on 11/03/2012 at 12:51 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

I voted for Tolbert, Kapland was my second choice. Love ranked choice voting! I mean I voted for her because she has served thepublic and you all have made it a two person race. Looking at the ballot I wish you had discussed some of the other options as well. It is a disservice not to. As for is way past his time to go.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Earl Marty Price on 11/02/2012 at 9:15 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

Yes, in short: To hell with this guy. One thousand percent.

14 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Conan Neutron on 11/02/2012 at 12:50 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

No, that doesn’t quite cover it; I have an 11th.

11. He put settling a vendetta above the interests of his district and Oakland schools.

In 2000, when a highly respected developer wanted to reuse the original portion of the Montgomery Building for housing, he was determined to see it demolished because “preservationist” had previously prevented him from demolishing for a shopping mall. The developers deal was so good for the city with great support from labor. that he had to come up with proposal to stop it—give it to the school district so he could frame it as, “preservationists against school children.”

So instead of a revitalized Fruitvale with 540 new housing units, 20% affordable, in a magnificent restored Montgomery Ward building 10 minutes from BART, we have a school, which at another site would have cost about $15 million, costing more than $50 million! De la Fuente was essentially willing to bomb his own district to settle a vendetta. He remains a symbol of an elected official who prevents Oakland from being all it can be.

26 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Joyce Roy on 11/01/2012 at 2:26 PM

Re: “Endorsements Part IV: Vote Barbara Parker, Jody London, and Sheryl Walton

The Oakland Tribune and East Bay Express recommendations for Oakland School Board lack any kind of substantive analysis the free and informed voters of Oakland deserve. On the surface they are petty endorsements. But as we look further we see these candidates are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars funneled through Great Oakland Schools PAC or GO by SuperPAC's like the Wichita Kansas oil tycoons Koch brothers and the CA Charter Schools Association PAC. These SuperPAC's and the candidates you endorsed (London, Hinton-Hodge, Torres and Harris) are simply business people promoting Charter Schools, which Oakland already has 40 and counting. Anyone opposed to Tony Smith and Jody London's closing 5 elementary schools on 1,000 children according to your endorsements are not deemed fit for office. It is really a sad state of affairs when you have local newspapers so critical of those who dare to speak out against this assault on our public education system. We can do better for Our Children by electing Thearse Pecot in District One, Mike Hutchinson in District 5 and Alice Spearman in District 7.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Timothy Terry on 11/01/2012 at 12:59 PM

Re: “How Well Do You Know Your Candidates?

In my humble opinion; I don't think anyone knows their political candidates. We as a society, have reached and acceptted the position of selecting the lessor of evils. Shameful! We elevate people to these power positions to decide processes and furture growh for us based on what? Their lies and continued broken promises? I am so sick of all the negative political advertisements. Why can't a candidate just state(truthfully) what their record is and what they will do, or at least attempt, for whom they represent? Why? Because it is not in the humane nature to do so. I will be so glad when this "election" (or erection) period is over and we can all get back to improving our own lives, along with others...and watching sports on television. Laugh! You'll feel better.:)

Posted by Emile J. Mocklin on 11/01/2012 at 12:32 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

Wow. Until his mailer arrived, I hadn't known anything about this guy. Outside, it's a "scare" piece talking about crime, and inside it turns into an ugly list of terrible things about Kaplan, emphatically listed as "True!"

As soon as I got to one I remembered, from a newspaper article, I realized that it was NOT true -- no, she did not say Oakland cops are pedophiles -- this was just too much sleaze for me; I decided not to vote for this guy. I mean, if he can't keep from telling obvious lies in the course of saying hello, I don't think it's going to get any better.

Thanks to this article for MORE of the ugly stuff on this guy. Yuk!

Oh, and Jerry Brown endorses him? What a shame.

20 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Evelyn Sinclair on 11/01/2012 at 11:57 AM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Editor on 11/01/2012 at 11:09 AM

Most Popular Stories

© 2019 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation