Here’s my early morning list of the jerks of the day:
- Tom Bates, Mayor
- Calvin Fong
- Linda Maio
- Darryl Moore
- Maxwell Anderson
- Dona Spring
- Laurie Capitelli
- Betty Olds
- Kriss Worthington
- Gordon Wozniak
They all get it for abusing their position as a representative FOR Berkeley in order to embarass the rest of the country, which they do not represent.
If Berkeley feels so compelled to speak on behalf of someone in Kentucky, be assured that person in Kentucky is more than ready to speak on behalf of the Berkeley City Council and say they are completely bonkers and I object to their motions and resolutions via a Point of Order that the resolution is not germaine to the entity considering the resolution and therefore should be reconsindered and removed from the table.
Of course, from what I can tell, points of order are completely irrelevent in Berkeley.
Needless to say, I won’t be visiting Berkeley again any time soon. Someone let me know when they elect a City Council with some God given sense.
Here’s part of the agenda of a recent governmental entity:
5. Discussion on a proposal to express Solidarity with Firestone Natural Rubber Company Workers in Liberia, and formulation of a recommendation to City Council.
6. Discussion on the Subcommittee on United Nations Reports and a recommendation to extend the Subcommittee through December 2008
7. Discussion on a request for the Peace & Justice Commission to co-sponsor the January 26, 2008 United Nations Association Symposium on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and formulation of a recommendation to the City Council.
And:
Withdrawal of
California National Guard Troops from Iraq Changing the United States Drug Policy
Chevron Corporation
Marine Recruiting Office in the City of Berkeley
Believe it or not, that’s a city council meeting. I don’t see anywhere in there where they actually discuss their own city’s maintenance.However, they did find time to:
- Asking the city attorney to investigate what the city can do with respect to the military recruiting office, given a conflict between the military’s prohibition against recruiting homosexuals and the city’s laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
- Asking the city manager to write letters to various U.S. Marine officials, telling them “that the marine recruiting office is not welcome in our city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.”
- Encouraging those groups that “volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the city of Berkeley.”
Folks, this stuff is straight out of their minutes. And, fearing not the military, apparently they do fear colognes, as they also demand:
Please refrain from wearing scented products to public meetings.
I kid you not. Straight out of THEIR agenda.
Berkeley, I’m here to tell ya. Most all of the rest of the country used to think your town is nuts. Now we know for sure they are. It’s bad enough to constantly trash people who’d lay down their lives for you all, but why the hell spend taxpayer money worrying about workers in Libya, the United Nations, and bunch of other crap that has nothing to do with the taxpayer money that put them there? I can guarantee you all 100% that if my councilor went to meetings and discussed nothing but garbage that did not affect my tax money, they’d be out ASAP. And, they know it. My city council’s pretty screwed up right now. But, I am quite certain, there is not a worse city council in the United States than Berkeley has right now. That agenda for the 2/2/04 meeting is a 100% waste of Berkeley taxpayer money. 100%. They are worried about everything BUT the welfare of Berkeley. I know a few people in Berkeley. They’re nowhere near as detached from reality as these council members are. I sure wish they’d run for council.
My idiot of the day, obviously, is most of the Berkeley City Council. Their arrogance and ignorance of why they are there amazes me.
30
Jan
In 1996, Ralph Nader electrified the disenchanted and ran as a third-party Green candidate for President. When it was all said and done, he came in fourth with .71% of the popular vote, not carrying enough votes to win one single small state. However, he did edge out Harry Browne ( remember him? ). This so motivated Nader that he decided to run again in 2000. In a highly polarized race, Nader garnered over 2.8 million votes, coming a distant third with 2.73% of the popular vote. In essence, he became the Ross Perot of 2000. It can easily be argued he cost Al Gore the election. Catapaulting on that dizzying feat, he ran again in 2004. He once again held third place, but this time with fewer votes than he got in 1996, nailing only .38% of the popular vote. Based on that twelve year span of losing profoundly badly, Ralph Nader is pondering a run this year as well. He doesn’t cite any popular support for his Green run. What he does cite perplexes me:
Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots.
For someone who’s railed against corporate greed for forty years, he sure sounds like a corporate man to me.
I will give him this much tho. The Green Party debates would definitely be the ones to watch!
30
Jan
Given Rudy’s flop in Florida, I fully expected him to give up. However, given Edwards’ usual tenacity in the face of obvious defeat, I fully expected him to ride the entire race out, even if he didn’t do so well in the polls. The reason being I never thought he had a chance to win this one given the dynamics of facing two unique candidates. So, I will admit I am surprised he is bowing out this early. I figured his game was to garner a certain amount of delegates in order to have a carrot come nomination day for a major position within the next administration. As close as the race between Obama and Clinton is shaping up to be, possibly, he could have had a major impact on the nomination itself. Apparently I was wrong. He’s out as of today. I’m not sure why, and I’m sure his resignation speeches won’t say exactly why as no one ever does. I’ll be a lot more interested in who he endorses than Rudy’s endorsement, only because I fully expected Rudy to endorse McCain and he did. I really have no clue who, if anyone, Edwards might back. Although he couldn’t win the primaries, his 10% to 15% constituency could swing this thing. I gotta admit, this one does surprise me.
30
Jan
Could someone PLEASE explain to me again what the issue is and why it matters? We don’t elect a Pope or head of the church. We elect an administrator to safe-guard our military and fiscal spending. That’s all. What difference does it make what church that administrator is a member of? Are people afraid that if Mitt’s elected all their children will become Mormons? When Kennedy was elected did all the Southern Baptist or Jewish children rush to become Catholics? When Reagan was elected did the children rush to be whatever Reagan was? Once in office, the church of the President has been an almost non-issue. Even with Dubya, who’s as overtly religious as any President I’ve experienced, how many people can quickly name the church he belongs to?
Mitt’s a successful businessman. He obviously knows how to manage large groups of people and large sums of money. That is really all that is truly expected of a President. The fact he attends a minority church to me is just a little more attractive than giving Bill the opportunity to bang fat pages in the White House again.
So, once again, what’s the big deal about Mitt’s religion?
30
Jan
After putting all his eggs in one basket, Rudy did dismally in Florida. He’s out.
I had hopes for Rudy being a viable candidate, he just either chose, or was advised some really awful strategy. By ignoring all the previous primaries, he ignored all the free publicity that comes with it. Even if he hadn’t won in the other states, the news would have been talking about him and giving him the opportunity to rally the troops in Florida. As it was, they pretty much had to sit around for a month while everyone else grabbed the spotlight. Additionally, he had no momentum going into Florida.
Bad plan.
The good plan is immediately endorsing another candidate and keeping his name in the mix. I’m sure a lot of people cringe at the suggestion of a McCain/Giuliani ticket, but I kind of like the mix. Both conservative but neither too much so.
First, she lost this one:
Now, a lot’s being said about that one, but I think it’s over-rated as far as the average voter goes. He’s popular in Boston, but that’s about it. The only thing it does show is a crack in the Clinton “establishment”. Bill & Ted
However, the endorsement Hillary seems to be losing that DOES matter comes in the form of this pic from Collegehumor.com.
Namely, she got trounced in South Carolina leading right into Super Tuesday. Now, without going into a ton of research into exit polls and the like, my basic assumption that makes South Carolina different than, say, Nevada, is the minority population. Namely, the minority population that identifies with the guy that beat her. Some people were implying Obama wasn’t “black enough” to appeal en masse with the African-American voter, but I think Hillary’s a little too white to offset the implied whiteness of Barack. Where this gets touchy for Hillary is next Tuesday. Namely, 1,059 delegates are at stake in states that have more than 10% African-American voters. I use this as the criteria because otherwise, most serious candidates will garner somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the vote regardless of anything else. A 10% block of votes will swing that election. In South Carolina, that block came in at about 30%. Obama won with about 47% of the delegates. Needless to say, the math sure looks obvious. Using that same math for 2/5, it looks tough for Hillary. It’s not enough votes to seal up the primary, since Hillary’s leading at the moment, but it sure swings the momentum to Barack in a major way going into the last few remaining big delegate states the following couple of weeks. A few of those have very large African-American blocks as well. So, that pic of Hillary and the little girl just sort of struck me as being totally iconic to the situation Hillary’s in. The bigger problem for Hillary that I can see is I don’t have a clue what she can do to overcome the unfair advantage that familiarity with a candidate based on purely non-political issues presents. Maybe I’m wrong, and I hope I am, but I really don’t expect this race to become anything more than a one issue race that Hillary and Edwards will not be allowed to debate.
22
Jan
Fred Thompson has pretty much declared it’s over.
I honestly never saw any indication he was in it.
22
Jan
I have the Social Security issue all figured out ( again ). It doesn’t require cutting back benefits or raising taxes. It’s simple too.
Just expand the death penalty to include crimes that result in abuse or death. That category would include molesters, drug dealers, and “insane” murderers. Make it a lot simpler to enforce if the evidence is obvious. Eliminate states’ choice in the matter. If one state won’t do it, send them to a state that will. Make it quick. Make it often.
THEN
Open the doors and let the Mexicans work here all they want. Just tax them as you would any US citizen.
What you get is a bunch of people who would drain the system are removed while a bunch more people contribute to it that can never use it.
Simple, huh?
22
Jan
I find this kind of ironic:
Isn’t that weird? The only non-commercial, publicly funded media is the least trusted by the American public. Maybe they should stick with classical music? I personally haven’t trusted them in over a decade.
