Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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

      To:


Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Opinion

Re: “Port of Oakland Jobs Deal Should Be a Model for Amazon and Other Warehousing Corporations

Thank you. Our city and it's Port should abide by these agreements in letter and spirit.

Posted by Pamela Drake on 11/02/2017 at 3:45 PM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

Why only comments from union types and supporters? Why no comments from Robert Fellner himself? He is easily found and user friendly. What happened to objective journalism? Annika, you should do a follow up?

Posted by ahb1027@yahoo.com on 08/16/2017 at 10:16 PM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

The writer is upset that the taxpayers have found out that they are being blatantly ripped off by their hired help, so she's demanding that the facts be hidden? Oh really!

It is an undeniable fact that most of our public servants would earn significantly less in the private sector than they're taking from the taxpayers and it is also an undeniable fact that we could get exponentially more and better service for a fraction of the cost by privatizing most of our public services. Those are facts. Our public servants are quite blatantly stealing from us.

We've got freaking meter maids in Berkeley earning a total of $125k+ in compensation (look it up). We've got a former police officer (Cary Kent) - collecting $70k/year in pension benefits from the taxpayers after being CONVICTED of a FELONY for stealing drugs from the evidence locker. The list of fraud and abuse of the taxpayer by the public service unions is a long one and it goes on and on.

So yes, obviously the proper response is to blame the folks who are bringing transparency and shining the light onto these cockroaches! No. The answer is more light, more transparency, and yes - complete privatization of our public services because we can absolutely get a LOT more for a lot LESS money.

The numbers are undeniably clear that we can both significantly cut taxes in the Bay Area while getting a LOT more public service and actually taking care of our people.

As for the claim above - regarding the former officer Cary Kent, here are the details: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BERK…
http://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/…
http://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/…
http://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/…

Posted by Vladislav Davidzon on 08/15/2017 at 2:23 PM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

Par for the course, these privatization privateers (aka legal pirates) are relentless. All day every day they funell millions of dollars into attacks and hiring trolls to parrot faux outrage against "the evil government."
Don't be fooled. All they want is your money, they're using your resentment, prejudice, and abger to get it.

Posted by Patrick Mastrobuono on 08/11/2017 at 6:43 PM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

Seems like Transparent California is also paying commentators to gripe on any articles where they are being uncovered ;)

Posted by Patrick Mastrobuono on 08/11/2017 at 6:40 PM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

Simply a amazing article where the "reporter"... essentially suggests that the public is better off NOT KNOWING the facts about how much they are paying public employees or how high the pensions are for such employees.
Incredible that she would imply that newspapers, and other media outlets not have access to such information that can be passed onto the public.
I suppose this same reporter would banish the Brown Act that guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.
Yes lets hide the actions, budgets, and salaries of all government workers from the taxpayers who pay the way.
Secrecy in government is best... Public can't be trusted in understanding the facts. Just leave it all up to the politicians and public employees like in Bell California...
Sheesh... this article deserves some kind of prize for for the "Most anti-free press" article of the year.

Posted by Dan de'Data on 08/11/2017 at 1:03 AM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

This is a hack argument that attacks the messenger rather than the veracity of the data. I mean, the Koch brothers funded Wonder Woman too. Treasury Secretary and key Trump advisor Steven Mnuchin was an executive producer. Does that mean that we should stop taking our daughters to see it?

More information is good, and I'm happy that the Koch brothers are doing it rather than our time-crunched, cost-cutting newspapers (the Bay Area News Group used to perform the public records requests before Transparent California took over) or on an ad hoc basis by random citizens. The reason this information is public, which the writer failed to note, is because of the Bell scandal, where city manager Robert Rizzo and his crony Angela Spaccia collectively cost taxpayers of the poor city over a million a year, and lied to residents by giving them a forged document with his contract at $1 a page. Some city managers actually found that Transparent California raised employee compensation since unions could easily look up what their peers were making and ask for more. So I don't see how the data affects anything. you can choose to draw your own conclusions, but the NPRI's data is neutral.

Posted by Henry Fung on 08/10/2017 at 7:11 PM

Re: “How a Billionaire-Funded, Anti-Union Think Tank in Nevada Shapes Bay Area News Media Coverage of Public Employee Pay

What unmitigated garbage in this 'article' - more like an SEIU opinion piece. The arrival of entities such as Transparent California - and there are many, many more - are due to a growing pension debt approaching $1 TRILLION in California alone. Most of the public was unaware of how this could happen, until the salaries, pensions and benefits became available for all to see.

Unions are furious, of course. What was previously a secret is now common knowledge, and that knowledge has led to some major research into public pension systems and their drain on taxpayers. End of story. To have printed this article is an insult to people's intelligence. Who is funding YOU?

Posted by Jody Morales on 08/10/2017 at 10:59 AM

Re: “Are the Golden State Warriors a Dynasty? Obviously.

Did anyone else find the cover of this week's issue a bit... racist? You have two light-skinned African-Americans at the bottom, in the front, looking calm and civilized. Behind them, two dark-skinned men, waving their arms, with wide-open mouths showing white, kind of sharp-looking teeth. The one on the right looks just like King Kong. I don't happen to be African-American myself, so maybe it's not for me to complain, but it made me quite uncomfortable.

Posted by Michael Stoler on 06/19/2017 at 9:23 PM

Re: “Are the Golden State Warriors a Dynasty? Obviously.

. So, perhaps the more pressing dilemma is whether the teams Big Four will make the sacrifices to stick together in the coming years, as Oakland passes its legacy team off to that city on the other side of the bay.


Yes they will.

Posted by jo pac on 06/19/2017 at 2:44 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

michael good: it looks like (as i thought) that there was nothing to fear regarding property destruction from any demonstrator or protester.

absolutely nothing negative happened as a result of days of protest.

hope that crow tasted *good.*

Posted by Michelle Metiche on 02/19/2017 at 5:37 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

thank you cat brooks, for all you do . several people commenting are more interested in undermining your message than in understanding it . sad for them

Posted by demotro polis on 01/19/2017 at 6:10 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

I've heard the "diversity of tactics" so many times before. It's code for property destruction. I can see taking over space, or blocking a roadway for a period of time. But the babies who want to smash windows and light things on fire should be exposed and ejected by the group.

Posted by Rob Walker on 01/16/2017 at 8:57 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

I think you are understanding my point. There is no true clarity that Cat Brooks (or you?) is actually opposed to property damage. Nor is it clear that is she supportive of it.

Her lack of a call for property damage is, therefore, not an indicator of her support of lack of it. My call is for her to speak plainly about it.

If you trace back to your earlier postings, you said:

*****
"
"For the record: Neither I, nor APTP, have ever made a call for property damage."

hello.

what part of this is unclear?

some of the readers are playing stupid. cat made it crystal clear what the stance is on property damage.
"
****
So, hello, you do see what is unclear. It is clear that she did not make a call for property damage. It remains unsaid and unclear exactly how she actually feels about it.

Up to her to make decide whether or not she actually wants to be clear or obfuscate. And, as I said, maybe there is no nuance here. Maybe, she is actually quite opposed to property damage. That would be nice.

Posted by Michael Good on 01/16/2017 at 5:24 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

michael good also wrote:

Of course, causing death is not the same as property damage. But, you appear to have missed the point. Just because you do not call for an activity, does not mean you are against it. So, in war, just because you did not order the soldier to kill does not mean you are against the soldier killing. And, in Oakland, just because you did not call for property damage does not mean you are against it. Silence is not innocence.

*******

it is not that i've missed the point, it's that you've failed to make a sound one.

in ordering a sandwich, just because you did not ask for pickles does not mean that you hate pickles - nor does it mean you like pickles. it only means you didn't ask for them.

in oakland, just because you did not call for property damage doesn't mean that you are for it, either.

it's neither here nor there.

you're trying to force a confession to determine guilt of an imagined war criminal when there is no need to do so.

Posted by Michelle Metiche on 01/16/2017 at 4:14 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

michael good replied:

Come out and say it if you think any of these things are OK. Then tell us exactly what you and / or Brooks support."

********

regarding the last part of your response, i have no obligation to tell you what i personally do or do not support. you're no authority to me, and this isn't an inquisition or a trial. i'm only responding to that which is available for both of us to read and react to - which is this piece written by cat brooks.

there is no way i can tell you what books supports. i'm not a mind reader, and neither are you. we are both reading what has been published in EBX.

Posted by Michelle Metiche on 01/16/2017 at 4:07 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

Adding a bit:

Thanks you for the correction on the quote. She did not say she that she had not made calls for violence. She only said she had not made calls for property damage.

And, correcting my own post, I meant to type "pretending that all is clear" but I inadvertantly type "pretending that almost clear"

Of course, causing death is not the same as property damage. But, you appear to have missed the point. Just because you do not call for an activity, does not mean you are against it. So, in war, just because you did not order the soldier to kill does not mean you are against the soldier killing. And, in Oakland, just because you did not call for property damage does not mean you are against it. Silence is not innocence.

So, let us know which form of destructive or harmful activities are condoned and which ones are not. And, if it is OK to cause harm for some and not others, how does that work?

Thank you.

Posted by Michael Good on 01/15/2017 at 1:17 PM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

If I knew I would not ask.

But, while pretending that almost clear, you dance around and obfuscate. Violence has many degrees. A much lesser degree is vandalism. Worse is bodily harm. The most heinous results in death.

I would hope that no violence is supported against anyone or anything. Keep dancing and avoid the point.

Come out and say it if you think any of these things are OK. Then tell us exactly what you and / or Brooks support.

Posted by Michael Good on 01/15/2017 at 10:17 AM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

Michael Good remarked: "Well, Michelle Metiche, I hope it is that simple. Maybe there is little to no nuance intended by Cat Brooks in her remarks.

She never made a "call for violence." Not calling for it - is that the same as not condoning it? Is not actually issuing orders for the soldier to shoot and kill the same thing as being against the war?

"We not only emphatically condemn violence against the people" - Who are the "people"? Is that all of us? Or only the ones that Cat Brooks wants to support? Does it mean that she emphatically does not condemn violence agains the police and/or anyone at all?"

well first off, you misquoted cat brooks. she said, "For the record: Neither I, nor APTP, have ever made a call for property damage" in response to being accused of supporting vandalism. your war analogy makes no sense here, as a broken window is clearly not comparable to people's bodies being injured or to people being killed.

next, in response to your question about who are the people, let me ask you this: who is it that you THINK cat brooks is referring to?

Posted by Michelle Metiche on 01/15/2017 at 9:22 AM

Re: “Protest Trump's Inauguration in Oakland, But Please Don't Be Violent

Well, Michelle Metiche, I hope it is that simple. Maybe there is little to no nuance intended by Cat Brooks in her remarks.

She never made a "call for violence." Not calling for it - is that the same as not condoning it? Is not actually issuing orders for the soldier to shoot and kill the same thing as being against the war?

"We not only emphatically condemn violence against the people" - Who are the "people"? Is that all of us? Or only the ones that Cat Brooks wants to support? Does it mean that she emphatically does not condemn violence agains the police and/or anyone at all?

Sandy Sanders: "Disrupting the status-quo non violently." Good, one hopes you mean just that. Throwing rocks at windows is pretty violent, right? Throwing rocks at police? Burning trashing cans is pretty violent as is smashing up cars. Take it a step further - imagine blocking the freeway. Imagine a person having a heart attack or a woman in labor, maybe in an ambulance and maybe not. They can't get through to the hospital. They die. Is that OK? The death was a direct result of your deliberate and illegal act. Running out on the freeway and trying to stop traffic. Someone gets hit and killed. Is that peaceful? We are at great risk of these acts of violence.

It would be good if we could hold the protestors to the standard of behaving non-violently. And really mean it without wiggling out of it with excuses or rationalizations. Hope you are right.

We all have the right to peaceful assembly. Let's keep it peaceful. Everyone and in every way.

Posted by Michael Good on 01/15/2017 at 7:43 AM

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation