UC Davis sexual offense statistics–when more is better?
That’s what they are saying–that the huge discrepency between UC Davis and the rest of the University of California Schools actually is a good thing.
At one point, UC Davis was heavily criticized for the failure to report the true number of statistics–now it is leading the way.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
“No one is saying UC Davis has more crime. Experts say other schools probably have similar numbers but aren’t doing as good a job with outreach programs and counseling services to make victims feel comfortable about reporting rape and other sexual assaults.”
It goes on to cite Daniel Carter, vice president of the national watchdog organization Security on Campus, who told the Bee, that UC Davis deserves credit for addressing a problem that affects most college campuses equally.
Kudos to Josh Fernandez of the Woodland Daily Democrat
First of all, his story on the Freddie Oakley’s protest of same-sex marriage prohibitions was outstanding.
Second, he has a great blog entry where he himself gets a certificate of inequality and ends up with his photographer.
No word yet on where gifts and donations can be sent…
Strange Happenings from Bob Dunning
First, Dunning’s criticism on Tuesday of the membership of the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee was right on:
While we can quibble about a name here or a name there, the council has obviously gone to great lengths to appoint a diverse, talented, dedicated group of individuals.
Or at least as diverse and talented and dedicated as 15 white people can be.
The complete lack of persons of color, not to mention the dramatic underrepresentation of renters and politically unconnected folks is stunning for a town and council that prides itself on diversity.
Dunning not only is dead-on in his criticism, but he then follows it up yesterday with praises, yes praises some of the progressive members of the committee:
ABOUT THAT COMMITTEE … while the racial makeup of the newly seated General Plan Housing Element Update Steering Committee has drawn some well-deserved criticism, blame the appointers, not the appointees … of the 15 who have agreed to serve, there are several who will bring an interesting perspective to the every-other-Thursday meetings …
Pam Nieberg has been involved in more causes than most people have fingers and toes, and her passion and love for Davis are beyond dispute … the same for Pam Gunnell, who nearly won a council seat several elections back and has a one-issue-at-a-time approach that defies labels …
… Mike Harrington served on the council and has a realistic understanding of what will fly and what won’t …
Eileen Samitz is too smart to have ever run for council, but like Pam Nieberg, her commitment to making Davis a better place is without question …
Then perhaps most shockingly he strongly supports Measure J (CORRECTION: originally I wrote that Dunning opposed Measure J, he has since informed me that he in fact supported it at the time.)
While Measure J doesn’t apply to either proposal, maybe it’s time we consider putting all projects of a certain size on the ballot and let the people decide directly … despite predictions of gloom and doom by opponents, the Measure J concept has served Davis well … it doesn’t prevent growth, it simply allows everyone to have a say …
Dunning’s strong and sudden paddle to the left is enough to leave us all stunned, but we’ll remain wary of the “wary one” for the foreseeable future.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
…..if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
….perhaps another sign that People’s Vanguard of Davis is making Dunning’s antics irrelevant as this blog erodes his “market share”.
I second keeping a wary eye on the wary I.
…..if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
….perhaps another sign that People’s Vanguard of Davis is making Dunning’s antics irrelevant as this blog erodes his “market share”.
I second keeping a wary eye on the wary I.
…..if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
….perhaps another sign that People’s Vanguard of Davis is making Dunning’s antics irrelevant as this blog erodes his “market share”.
I second keeping a wary eye on the wary I.
…..if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
….perhaps another sign that People’s Vanguard of Davis is making Dunning’s antics irrelevant as this blog erodes his “market share”.
I second keeping a wary eye on the wary I.
You get a “yes” vote from me too. Keep a wary eye on the Wary 1. Votes = 3 to 0. Does that mean we win?
However, I do want to commend Dunning for recognizing four of the people who bring a lot to the table on this issue: Neiberg, Harrington, Samitz and Gunnel.
Whether or not you agree with them 100% on every issue these four outstanding Davisites are committed to keeping Davis as “Davis” and working to make our city better where improvements are needed.
You get a “yes” vote from me too. Keep a wary eye on the Wary 1. Votes = 3 to 0. Does that mean we win?
However, I do want to commend Dunning for recognizing four of the people who bring a lot to the table on this issue: Neiberg, Harrington, Samitz and Gunnel.
Whether or not you agree with them 100% on every issue these four outstanding Davisites are committed to keeping Davis as “Davis” and working to make our city better where improvements are needed.
You get a “yes” vote from me too. Keep a wary eye on the Wary 1. Votes = 3 to 0. Does that mean we win?
However, I do want to commend Dunning for recognizing four of the people who bring a lot to the table on this issue: Neiberg, Harrington, Samitz and Gunnel.
Whether or not you agree with them 100% on every issue these four outstanding Davisites are committed to keeping Davis as “Davis” and working to make our city better where improvements are needed.
You get a “yes” vote from me too. Keep a wary eye on the Wary 1. Votes = 3 to 0. Does that mean we win?
However, I do want to commend Dunning for recognizing four of the people who bring a lot to the table on this issue: Neiberg, Harrington, Samitz and Gunnel.
Whether or not you agree with them 100% on every issue these four outstanding Davisites are committed to keeping Davis as “Davis” and working to make our city better where improvements are needed.
Kudos to Bob Dunning! All of the members of the committee bring unique backgrounds and talents, but there are clearly a few perspectives missing (renters, for example).
“maybe it’s time we consider putting all projects of a certain size on the ballot and let the people decide directly…”
That would be interesting. It might encourage developers to think a little smaller. Part of the problem with recent proposals hasn’t been their design but rather the scale.
Kudos to Bob Dunning! All of the members of the committee bring unique backgrounds and talents, but there are clearly a few perspectives missing (renters, for example).
“maybe it’s time we consider putting all projects of a certain size on the ballot and let the people decide directly…”
That would be interesting. It might encourage developers to think a little smaller. Part of the problem with recent proposals hasn’t been their design but rather the scale.
Kudos to Bob Dunning! All of the members of the committee bring unique backgrounds and talents, but there are clearly a few perspectives missing (renters, for example).
“maybe it’s time we consider putting all projects of a certain size on the ballot and let the people decide directly…”
That would be interesting. It might encourage developers to think a little smaller. Part of the problem with recent proposals hasn’t been their design but rather the scale.
Kudos to Bob Dunning! All of the members of the committee bring unique backgrounds and talents, but there are clearly a few perspectives missing (renters, for example).
“maybe it’s time we consider putting all projects of a certain size on the ballot and let the people decide directly…”
That would be interesting. It might encourage developers to think a little smaller. Part of the problem with recent proposals hasn’t been their design but rather the scale.
Don, Lucas Frerichs is a renter, so that perspective is represented. Lucas was appointed by Stephen Souza.
Don, Lucas Frerichs is a renter, so that perspective is represented. Lucas was appointed by Stephen Souza.
Don, Lucas Frerichs is a renter, so that perspective is represented. Lucas was appointed by Stephen Souza.
Don, Lucas Frerichs is a renter, so that perspective is represented. Lucas was appointed by Stephen Souza.
there is at least one renter….(although there should be more) on the steering committee
there is at least one renter….(although there should be more) on the steering committee
there is at least one renter….(although there should be more) on the steering committee
there is at least one renter….(although there should be more) on the steering committee
Bob correctly identified those on the steering committee that will bring a steady hand to the committee. I think that rather than than looking at specific populations, i.e. renters, etc., it is more of a dissapointment that there are not newer, or rather, younger faces in the crowd from the newer areas of town. The major activists in town (on both sides) are getting old.
Bob correctly identified those on the steering committee that will bring a steady hand to the committee. I think that rather than than looking at specific populations, i.e. renters, etc., it is more of a dissapointment that there are not newer, or rather, younger faces in the crowd from the newer areas of town. The major activists in town (on both sides) are getting old.
Bob correctly identified those on the steering committee that will bring a steady hand to the committee. I think that rather than than looking at specific populations, i.e. renters, etc., it is more of a dissapointment that there are not newer, or rather, younger faces in the crowd from the newer areas of town. The major activists in town (on both sides) are getting old.
Bob correctly identified those on the steering committee that will bring a steady hand to the committee. I think that rather than than looking at specific populations, i.e. renters, etc., it is more of a dissapointment that there are not newer, or rather, younger faces in the crowd from the newer areas of town. The major activists in town (on both sides) are getting old.
Bob identified only SOME of those who will bring a “steady hand” to the committee…oh, and, I think that Bob writes an OPINION column…and it should be taken as such, right?
Bob identified only SOME of those who will bring a “steady hand” to the committee…oh, and, I think that Bob writes an OPINION column…and it should be taken as such, right?
Bob identified only SOME of those who will bring a “steady hand” to the committee…oh, and, I think that Bob writes an OPINION column…and it should be taken as such, right?
Bob identified only SOME of those who will bring a “steady hand” to the committee…oh, and, I think that Bob writes an OPINION column…and it should be taken as such, right?
Professional association with developer interests should exclude individuals from the steering committee. If Vanguard’s profile is accurate concerning Lucas Frerichs, being a renter does not negate this conflict of interest.
Professional association with developer interests should exclude individuals from the steering committee. If Vanguard’s profile is accurate concerning Lucas Frerichs, being a renter does not negate this conflict of interest.
Professional association with developer interests should exclude individuals from the steering committee. If Vanguard’s profile is accurate concerning Lucas Frerichs, being a renter does not negate this conflict of interest.
Professional association with developer interests should exclude individuals from the steering committee. If Vanguard’s profile is accurate concerning Lucas Frerichs, being a renter does not negate this conflict of interest.
According to the Vanguard profile, the associations that are mentioned (in the abridged profile of Lucas Frerichs) are with two AFFORDABLE HOUSING developers…so I guess affordable housing (ie. housing for folks with little means) is now viewed in the same negative light as all other development?
Why the mentality…I have mine (home in Davis) and so now any outsider is going to be unwlecome (because a new house would have to be constructed for them)??
According to the Vanguard profile, the associations that are mentioned (in the abridged profile of Lucas Frerichs) are with two AFFORDABLE HOUSING developers…so I guess affordable housing (ie. housing for folks with little means) is now viewed in the same negative light as all other development?
Why the mentality…I have mine (home in Davis) and so now any outsider is going to be unwlecome (because a new house would have to be constructed for them)??
According to the Vanguard profile, the associations that are mentioned (in the abridged profile of Lucas Frerichs) are with two AFFORDABLE HOUSING developers…so I guess affordable housing (ie. housing for folks with little means) is now viewed in the same negative light as all other development?
Why the mentality…I have mine (home in Davis) and so now any outsider is going to be unwlecome (because a new house would have to be constructed for them)??
According to the Vanguard profile, the associations that are mentioned (in the abridged profile of Lucas Frerichs) are with two AFFORDABLE HOUSING developers…so I guess affordable housing (ie. housing for folks with little means) is now viewed in the same negative light as all other development?
Why the mentality…I have mine (home in Davis) and so now any outsider is going to be unwlecome (because a new house would have to be constructed for them)??
“Dunning’s strong and sudden paddle to the left is enough to leave us all stunned, but we’ll remain wary of the ‘wary one’ for the foreseeable future.”
David,
Your conclusion here is off-base (as are most things you opine about Dunning).
First, he’s not an ideologue. He did not “shift” to the left. Because there was nowhere fixed to shift from. I’ve been reading Bob’s column for 30 years and, other than on a few issues that I believe come from his strong Catholic faith (such as abortion), Bob never writes from a fixed point of view. Some things he writes may be received more or less sympathetically by each of these groups. But I can assure you that it is not Bob’s intent to conform his ideas (or his jokes) to an ideology or to please and displease anyone who is ideological.
I think the reason that you and your comrades so often misunderstand Dunning is because your perspective is a rigidly left-wing perspective. That is, you see things from an ideological basis, and that causes you to misjudge Dunning.
Second, his column is not “The Way One.” It is “The Wary I,” as in the first person singular subjective pronoun.
“Dunning’s strong and sudden paddle to the left is enough to leave us all stunned, but we’ll remain wary of the ‘wary one’ for the foreseeable future.”
David,
Your conclusion here is off-base (as are most things you opine about Dunning).
First, he’s not an ideologue. He did not “shift” to the left. Because there was nowhere fixed to shift from. I’ve been reading Bob’s column for 30 years and, other than on a few issues that I believe come from his strong Catholic faith (such as abortion), Bob never writes from a fixed point of view. Some things he writes may be received more or less sympathetically by each of these groups. But I can assure you that it is not Bob’s intent to conform his ideas (or his jokes) to an ideology or to please and displease anyone who is ideological.
I think the reason that you and your comrades so often misunderstand Dunning is because your perspective is a rigidly left-wing perspective. That is, you see things from an ideological basis, and that causes you to misjudge Dunning.
Second, his column is not “The Way One.” It is “The Wary I,” as in the first person singular subjective pronoun.
“Dunning’s strong and sudden paddle to the left is enough to leave us all stunned, but we’ll remain wary of the ‘wary one’ for the foreseeable future.”
David,
Your conclusion here is off-base (as are most things you opine about Dunning).
First, he’s not an ideologue. He did not “shift” to the left. Because there was nowhere fixed to shift from. I’ve been reading Bob’s column for 30 years and, other than on a few issues that I believe come from his strong Catholic faith (such as abortion), Bob never writes from a fixed point of view. Some things he writes may be received more or less sympathetically by each of these groups. But I can assure you that it is not Bob’s intent to conform his ideas (or his jokes) to an ideology or to please and displease anyone who is ideological.
I think the reason that you and your comrades so often misunderstand Dunning is because your perspective is a rigidly left-wing perspective. That is, you see things from an ideological basis, and that causes you to misjudge Dunning.
Second, his column is not “The Way One.” It is “The Wary I,” as in the first person singular subjective pronoun.
“Dunning’s strong and sudden paddle to the left is enough to leave us all stunned, but we’ll remain wary of the ‘wary one’ for the foreseeable future.”
David,
Your conclusion here is off-base (as are most things you opine about Dunning).
First, he’s not an ideologue. He did not “shift” to the left. Because there was nowhere fixed to shift from. I’ve been reading Bob’s column for 30 years and, other than on a few issues that I believe come from his strong Catholic faith (such as abortion), Bob never writes from a fixed point of view. Some things he writes may be received more or less sympathetically by each of these groups. But I can assure you that it is not Bob’s intent to conform his ideas (or his jokes) to an ideology or to please and displease anyone who is ideological.
I think the reason that you and your comrades so often misunderstand Dunning is because your perspective is a rigidly left-wing perspective. That is, you see things from an ideological basis, and that causes you to misjudge Dunning.
Second, his column is not “The Way One.” It is “The Wary I,” as in the first person singular subjective pronoun.
Rich: If you are going to correct my syntax, don’t make typos.
Rich: If you are going to correct my syntax, don’t make typos.
Rich: If you are going to correct my syntax, don’t make typos.
Rich: If you are going to correct my syntax, don’t make typos.
Affordable housing projects are a mandated part of every development project. Actually, Davis’ own policy builds more than the state- mandated % of affordable housing.. So.. the more development, the more affordable housing projects.. a clear conflict of interest for those who make $$ directly or indirectly from affordable housing development.
Affordable housing projects are a mandated part of every development project. Actually, Davis’ own policy builds more than the state- mandated % of affordable housing.. So.. the more development, the more affordable housing projects.. a clear conflict of interest for those who make $$ directly or indirectly from affordable housing development.
Affordable housing projects are a mandated part of every development project. Actually, Davis’ own policy builds more than the state- mandated % of affordable housing.. So.. the more development, the more affordable housing projects.. a clear conflict of interest for those who make $$ directly or indirectly from affordable housing development.
Affordable housing projects are a mandated part of every development project. Actually, Davis’ own policy builds more than the state- mandated % of affordable housing.. So.. the more development, the more affordable housing projects.. a clear conflict of interest for those who make $$ directly or indirectly from affordable housing development.
Rich.. I think that you are probably correct. The Wary I takes on whoever is perceived to be vulnerable and without local political “muscle”…. ideology has little to do with it..bullying and ridicule are the usual bill of fare with the Establishment being off-limits. Dunning’s “conversion” could suggest that he senses that the local political winds may be shifting.
Rich.. I think that you are probably correct. The Wary I takes on whoever is perceived to be vulnerable and without local political “muscle”…. ideology has little to do with it..bullying and ridicule are the usual bill of fare with the Establishment being off-limits. Dunning’s “conversion” could suggest that he senses that the local political winds may be shifting.
Rich.. I think that you are probably correct. The Wary I takes on whoever is perceived to be vulnerable and without local political “muscle”…. ideology has little to do with it..bullying and ridicule are the usual bill of fare with the Establishment being off-limits. Dunning’s “conversion” could suggest that he senses that the local political winds may be shifting.
Rich.. I think that you are probably correct. The Wary I takes on whoever is perceived to be vulnerable and without local political “muscle”…. ideology has little to do with it..bullying and ridicule are the usual bill of fare with the Establishment being off-limits. Dunning’s “conversion” could suggest that he senses that the local political winds may be shifting.
Hey guys:
Dunning did a nice distortion job on my email to him in today’s column.
Kind of funny in a sordid manner.
But I would suggest the following headline:
“Bob Dunning Announces that his Kids are Not Going to College”
Anyone who reads his column will understand what he means.
Peace
Hey guys:
Dunning did a nice distortion job on my email to him in today’s column.
Kind of funny in a sordid manner.
But I would suggest the following headline:
“Bob Dunning Announces that his Kids are Not Going to College”
Anyone who reads his column will understand what he means.
Peace
Hey guys:
Dunning did a nice distortion job on my email to him in today’s column.
Kind of funny in a sordid manner.
But I would suggest the following headline:
“Bob Dunning Announces that his Kids are Not Going to College”
Anyone who reads his column will understand what he means.
Peace
Hey guys:
Dunning did a nice distortion job on my email to him in today’s column.
Kind of funny in a sordid manner.
But I would suggest the following headline:
“Bob Dunning Announces that his Kids are Not Going to College”
Anyone who reads his column will understand what he means.
Peace
with regard to the affordable housing comments by davisite,
you can make a conflict of interest exist about nearly anything, ie. Mike Harrington has a conflict of interest because his multiple properties in the Core Area may directly or indirectly increase or decrease in value due to development aound them.
do i think that Mike Harrington is unqualified to serve on,or should be removed from, the steering committee because of this potential conflict? no.
do i think a potential conflict of interest exists? yes.
nearly everything can be made into a conflict of interest.
with regard to the affordable housing comments by davisite,
you can make a conflict of interest exist about nearly anything, ie. Mike Harrington has a conflict of interest because his multiple properties in the Core Area may directly or indirectly increase or decrease in value due to development aound them.
do i think that Mike Harrington is unqualified to serve on,or should be removed from, the steering committee because of this potential conflict? no.
do i think a potential conflict of interest exists? yes.
nearly everything can be made into a conflict of interest.
with regard to the affordable housing comments by davisite,
you can make a conflict of interest exist about nearly anything, ie. Mike Harrington has a conflict of interest because his multiple properties in the Core Area may directly or indirectly increase or decrease in value due to development aound them.
do i think that Mike Harrington is unqualified to serve on,or should be removed from, the steering committee because of this potential conflict? no.
do i think a potential conflict of interest exists? yes.
nearly everything can be made into a conflict of interest.
with regard to the affordable housing comments by davisite,
you can make a conflict of interest exist about nearly anything, ie. Mike Harrington has a conflict of interest because his multiple properties in the Core Area may directly or indirectly increase or decrease in value due to development aound them.
do i think that Mike Harrington is unqualified to serve on,or should be removed from, the steering committee because of this potential conflict? no.
do i think a potential conflict of interest exists? yes.
nearly everything can be made into a conflict of interest.
There seems to be a misperception about the issue of conflict of interest. One does not need to remove themselves from the committee because of this issue. They may need to recuse themselves from the discussion on an issue around them. So if we were to deal with a development in Harrington’s block, he would recuse himself.
There seems to be a misperception about the issue of conflict of interest. One does not need to remove themselves from the committee because of this issue. They may need to recuse themselves from the discussion on an issue around them. So if we were to deal with a development in Harrington’s block, he would recuse himself.
There seems to be a misperception about the issue of conflict of interest. One does not need to remove themselves from the committee because of this issue. They may need to recuse themselves from the discussion on an issue around them. So if we were to deal with a development in Harrington’s block, he would recuse himself.
There seems to be a misperception about the issue of conflict of interest. One does not need to remove themselves from the committee because of this issue. They may need to recuse themselves from the discussion on an issue around them. So if we were to deal with a development in Harrington’s block, he would recuse himself.
Back to Rich’s point for a second:
I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.
As my friend John Lofland likes to remind me, he’s not sure that Dunning has actual beliefs either way. To me that makes his commentary a bit more dangerous.
Here are his thoughts from the yolosoapbox:
Lofland on Dunning
Back to Rich’s point for a second:
I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.
As my friend John Lofland likes to remind me, he’s not sure that Dunning has actual beliefs either way. To me that makes his commentary a bit more dangerous.
Here are his thoughts from the yolosoapbox:
Lofland on Dunning
Back to Rich’s point for a second:
I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.
As my friend John Lofland likes to remind me, he’s not sure that Dunning has actual beliefs either way. To me that makes his commentary a bit more dangerous.
Here are his thoughts from the yolosoapbox:
Lofland on Dunning
Back to Rich’s point for a second:
I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.
As my friend John Lofland likes to remind me, he’s not sure that Dunning has actual beliefs either way. To me that makes his commentary a bit more dangerous.
Here are his thoughts from the yolosoapbox:
Lofland on Dunning
Doug… financial conflict of interest is a descriptive term that can be applied to more general categories than the strict procedural definition used by the council. This goes to the legitimacy of the decisions that come out of the committee.
Doug… financial conflict of interest is a descriptive term that can be applied to more general categories than the strict procedural definition used by the council. This goes to the legitimacy of the decisions that come out of the committee.
Doug… financial conflict of interest is a descriptive term that can be applied to more general categories than the strict procedural definition used by the council. This goes to the legitimacy of the decisions that come out of the committee.
Doug… financial conflict of interest is a descriptive term that can be applied to more general categories than the strict procedural definition used by the council. This goes to the legitimacy of the decisions that come out of the committee.
I think Desmond Jolly would have been a strong nominee for the Steering Committee. Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color, he has served on a number of Davis committees and not only is he knowledgeable, he is also articulate and clean (I can say that because I am an African American, can’t I?)
I think Desmond Jolly would have been a strong nominee for the Steering Committee. Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color, he has served on a number of Davis committees and not only is he knowledgeable, he is also articulate and clean (I can say that because I am an African American, can’t I?)
I think Desmond Jolly would have been a strong nominee for the Steering Committee. Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color, he has served on a number of Davis committees and not only is he knowledgeable, he is also articulate and clean (I can say that because I am an African American, can’t I?)
I think Desmond Jolly would have been a strong nominee for the Steering Committee. Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color, he has served on a number of Davis committees and not only is he knowledgeable, he is also articulate and clean (I can say that because I am an African American, can’t I?)
Yes you can Tansey and I agree. Desmond also has a lot of historical about Davis.
Yes you can Tansey and I agree. Desmond also has a lot of historical about Davis.
Yes you can Tansey and I agree. Desmond also has a lot of historical about Davis.
Yes you can Tansey and I agree. Desmond also has a lot of historical about Davis.
Since the Housing Element Steering Committee is essentially a euphorism for lobbying efforts directed at the Davis voter, the same public should have their complete arguments, including the give and take of their deliberations, available. All public meetings of the Steering Committee must be televised and recorded for streaming video. The truncated financial disclosure that they are now allowed to submut is inadequate to this process.
Since the Housing Element Steering Committee is essentially a euphorism for lobbying efforts directed at the Davis voter, the same public should have their complete arguments, including the give and take of their deliberations, available. All public meetings of the Steering Committee must be televised and recorded for streaming video. The truncated financial disclosure that they are now allowed to submut is inadequate to this process.
Since the Housing Element Steering Committee is essentially a euphorism for lobbying efforts directed at the Davis voter, the same public should have their complete arguments, including the give and take of their deliberations, available. All public meetings of the Steering Committee must be televised and recorded for streaming video. The truncated financial disclosure that they are now allowed to submut is inadequate to this process.
Since the Housing Element Steering Committee is essentially a euphorism for lobbying efforts directed at the Davis voter, the same public should have their complete arguments, including the give and take of their deliberations, available. All public meetings of the Steering Committee must be televised and recorded for streaming video. The truncated financial disclosure that they are now allowed to submut is inadequate to this process.
“Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color…”
Can someone inform me as to why someone’s race or ethnic heritage matters one whit when it comes to service on the housing planning committee?
I can understand the argument for diversity on such a panel: a diversity based on significant differences in perspective regarding housing. Having home builders, contractors, home owners, renters, long-time residents, students (who are usually short-time residents), people of average or higher income, low-income people, etc.
Individuals from those categories bring different needs and perspectives regarding housing. But race? Last time I checked, a black person’s housing needs, ceteris paribus, are indistinguishable from a person who has no skin color.
Race may be a significant background perspective on a few issues. But for the most part, even considering race as a factor in diversity is not only insulting, it’s racist.
“Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color…”
Can someone inform me as to why someone’s race or ethnic heritage matters one whit when it comes to service on the housing planning committee?
I can understand the argument for diversity on such a panel: a diversity based on significant differences in perspective regarding housing. Having home builders, contractors, home owners, renters, long-time residents, students (who are usually short-time residents), people of average or higher income, low-income people, etc.
Individuals from those categories bring different needs and perspectives regarding housing. But race? Last time I checked, a black person’s housing needs, ceteris paribus, are indistinguishable from a person who has no skin color.
Race may be a significant background perspective on a few issues. But for the most part, even considering race as a factor in diversity is not only insulting, it’s racist.
“Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color…”
Can someone inform me as to why someone’s race or ethnic heritage matters one whit when it comes to service on the housing planning committee?
I can understand the argument for diversity on such a panel: a diversity based on significant differences in perspective regarding housing. Having home builders, contractors, home owners, renters, long-time residents, students (who are usually short-time residents), people of average or higher income, low-income people, etc.
Individuals from those categories bring different needs and perspectives regarding housing. But race? Last time I checked, a black person’s housing needs, ceteris paribus, are indistinguishable from a person who has no skin color.
Race may be a significant background perspective on a few issues. But for the most part, even considering race as a factor in diversity is not only insulting, it’s racist.
“Prof. Jolly is a respected long time Davis citizen of color…”
Can someone inform me as to why someone’s race or ethnic heritage matters one whit when it comes to service on the housing planning committee?
I can understand the argument for diversity on such a panel: a diversity based on significant differences in perspective regarding housing. Having home builders, contractors, home owners, renters, long-time residents, students (who are usually short-time residents), people of average or higher income, low-income people, etc.
Individuals from those categories bring different needs and perspectives regarding housing. But race? Last time I checked, a black person’s housing needs, ceteris paribus, are indistinguishable from a person who has no skin color.
Race may be a significant background perspective on a few issues. But for the most part, even considering race as a factor in diversity is not only insulting, it’s racist.
And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.
And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.
And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.
And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.
“I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
“Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.”
David,
I agree with this. And the reason is because, as I said above, you are an ideologue and he is not.
I don’t think it’s fair to say he has “no beliefs.” He certainly has some (and, if you know him at all, you’d know his religious beliefs are strong). But his political positions are usually not set in stone. On most issues, Dunning is simply looking for a humorous angle, not trying to enlighten his readers on his platform.
Hence, when he “goes after” a left-winger like Lamar, it usually has nothing to do with Lamar’s politics — it’s much more because Lamar appears to be a good target for humor. (I don’t doubt that sometimes Bob just disagrees with Lamar’s position on an issue, but I can’t think of one where that inspired a column.)
An interesting comparison can be made in Dunning’s approach to the “characters” he has made the most fun of in his column: Dave Rosenberg and Julie Partansky.
In the Davis political divide, DR was on the “right” (even though he is well to the left of the American center) and JP was on the “left.” He went after those two, just because he found them to be good targets for humor.
Dunning never “went after” Lois Wolk (whose positions were virtually identical to Rosenberg’s), because Lois wasn’t as good a target. Equally, Dunning never “went after” Ken Wagstaff, whose politics were in line with Julie’s, because Ken was never as ripe a target as Partansky.
You seem to think that Bob’s “attacks” on Lamar are agenda driven. But you are just flat wrong on that. Dunning doesn’t have an agenda, as such. I would guess that Lamar is a good target for much the same reason Rosenberg was when he was at the center of Davis politics: too much self-importance.
You don’t seem to have any sense of humor about this issue, but it was clear to me that Dunning’s comments about Lamar and the “struggle” conference were made in that vein — that Lamar appeared to be taking himself way too seriously, and Bob likes to deflate such egos when the opportunity appears. I don’t know how Lamar feels about such columns by Dunning. But he would do well to enjoy them for laughs, to not take himself that seriously.
Maybe the most engraciating trait that Judge Rosenberg ever had in his political career was his ability to laugh at himself, even when he was the butt of Dunning’s jokes. If Lamar hopes to someday be as effective a leader as Rosenberg was, he would do well to take the same approach.
“I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
“Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.”
David,
I agree with this. And the reason is because, as I said above, you are an ideologue and he is not.
I don’t think it’s fair to say he has “no beliefs.” He certainly has some (and, if you know him at all, you’d know his religious beliefs are strong). But his political positions are usually not set in stone. On most issues, Dunning is simply looking for a humorous angle, not trying to enlighten his readers on his platform.
Hence, when he “goes after” a left-winger like Lamar, it usually has nothing to do with Lamar’s politics — it’s much more because Lamar appears to be a good target for humor. (I don’t doubt that sometimes Bob just disagrees with Lamar’s position on an issue, but I can’t think of one where that inspired a column.)
An interesting comparison can be made in Dunning’s approach to the “characters” he has made the most fun of in his column: Dave Rosenberg and Julie Partansky.
In the Davis political divide, DR was on the “right” (even though he is well to the left of the American center) and JP was on the “left.” He went after those two, just because he found them to be good targets for humor.
Dunning never “went after” Lois Wolk (whose positions were virtually identical to Rosenberg’s), because Lois wasn’t as good a target. Equally, Dunning never “went after” Ken Wagstaff, whose politics were in line with Julie’s, because Ken was never as ripe a target as Partansky.
You seem to think that Bob’s “attacks” on Lamar are agenda driven. But you are just flat wrong on that. Dunning doesn’t have an agenda, as such. I would guess that Lamar is a good target for much the same reason Rosenberg was when he was at the center of Davis politics: too much self-importance.
You don’t seem to have any sense of humor about this issue, but it was clear to me that Dunning’s comments about Lamar and the “struggle” conference were made in that vein — that Lamar appeared to be taking himself way too seriously, and Bob likes to deflate such egos when the opportunity appears. I don’t know how Lamar feels about such columns by Dunning. But he would do well to enjoy them for laughs, to not take himself that seriously.
Maybe the most engraciating trait that Judge Rosenberg ever had in his political career was his ability to laugh at himself, even when he was the butt of Dunning’s jokes. If Lamar hopes to someday be as effective a leader as Rosenberg was, he would do well to take the same approach.
“I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
“Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.”
David,
I agree with this. And the reason is because, as I said above, you are an ideologue and he is not.
I don’t think it’s fair to say he has “no beliefs.” He certainly has some (and, if you know him at all, you’d know his religious beliefs are strong). But his political positions are usually not set in stone. On most issues, Dunning is simply looking for a humorous angle, not trying to enlighten his readers on his platform.
Hence, when he “goes after” a left-winger like Lamar, it usually has nothing to do with Lamar’s politics — it’s much more because Lamar appears to be a good target for humor. (I don’t doubt that sometimes Bob just disagrees with Lamar’s position on an issue, but I can’t think of one where that inspired a column.)
An interesting comparison can be made in Dunning’s approach to the “characters” he has made the most fun of in his column: Dave Rosenberg and Julie Partansky.
In the Davis political divide, DR was on the “right” (even though he is well to the left of the American center) and JP was on the “left.” He went after those two, just because he found them to be good targets for humor.
Dunning never “went after” Lois Wolk (whose positions were virtually identical to Rosenberg’s), because Lois wasn’t as good a target. Equally, Dunning never “went after” Ken Wagstaff, whose politics were in line with Julie’s, because Ken was never as ripe a target as Partansky.
You seem to think that Bob’s “attacks” on Lamar are agenda driven. But you are just flat wrong on that. Dunning doesn’t have an agenda, as such. I would guess that Lamar is a good target for much the same reason Rosenberg was when he was at the center of Davis politics: too much self-importance.
You don’t seem to have any sense of humor about this issue, but it was clear to me that Dunning’s comments about Lamar and the “struggle” conference were made in that vein — that Lamar appeared to be taking himself way too seriously, and Bob likes to deflate such egos when the opportunity appears. I don’t know how Lamar feels about such columns by Dunning. But he would do well to enjoy them for laughs, to not take himself that seriously.
Maybe the most engraciating trait that Judge Rosenberg ever had in his political career was his ability to laugh at himself, even when he was the butt of Dunning’s jokes. If Lamar hopes to someday be as effective a leader as Rosenberg was, he would do well to take the same approach.
“I was thinking about this–and the one thing that strikes me is that agree or disagree, you always know where I am coming from.
“Do I understand where Bob is coming from? Not really.”
David,
I agree with this. And the reason is because, as I said above, you are an ideologue and he is not.
I don’t think it’s fair to say he has “no beliefs.” He certainly has some (and, if you know him at all, you’d know his religious beliefs are strong). But his political positions are usually not set in stone. On most issues, Dunning is simply looking for a humorous angle, not trying to enlighten his readers on his platform.
Hence, when he “goes after” a left-winger like Lamar, it usually has nothing to do with Lamar’s politics — it’s much more because Lamar appears to be a good target for humor. (I don’t doubt that sometimes Bob just disagrees with Lamar’s position on an issue, but I can’t think of one where that inspired a column.)
An interesting comparison can be made in Dunning’s approach to the “characters” he has made the most fun of in his column: Dave Rosenberg and Julie Partansky.
In the Davis political divide, DR was on the “right” (even though he is well to the left of the American center) and JP was on the “left.” He went after those two, just because he found them to be good targets for humor.
Dunning never “went after” Lois Wolk (whose positions were virtually identical to Rosenberg’s), because Lois wasn’t as good a target. Equally, Dunning never “went after” Ken Wagstaff, whose politics were in line with Julie’s, because Ken was never as ripe a target as Partansky.
You seem to think that Bob’s “attacks” on Lamar are agenda driven. But you are just flat wrong on that. Dunning doesn’t have an agenda, as such. I would guess that Lamar is a good target for much the same reason Rosenberg was when he was at the center of Davis politics: too much self-importance.
You don’t seem to have any sense of humor about this issue, but it was clear to me that Dunning’s comments about Lamar and the “struggle” conference were made in that vein — that Lamar appeared to be taking himself way too seriously, and Bob likes to deflate such egos when the opportunity appears. I don’t know how Lamar feels about such columns by Dunning. But he would do well to enjoy them for laughs, to not take himself that seriously.
Maybe the most engraciating trait that Judge Rosenberg ever had in his political career was his ability to laugh at himself, even when he was the butt of Dunning’s jokes. If Lamar hopes to someday be as effective a leader as Rosenberg was, he would do well to take the same approach.
“And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.”
So if there were one black person on this commission, that would not be racist? Or, Antwan, must there be two? Or three? At what point is your quota for a particular race met?
And if it is racist to black people, must there be a quota for other racial, ethnic or religious groups on this panel that has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion?
We have more Latinos in our community than African-Americans: what should their quota be?
We also have a diversity of religion in our community. Would it be anti-Hinduist if the housing committee had no people of that faith?
It’s sad that you think it’s reasonable to judge people on the basis of the color of their skin (or other factors unrelated to housing) and not on the perspective they bring to housing issues. But I suppose such morality is antiquated in your mind.
“And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.”
So if there were one black person on this commission, that would not be racist? Or, Antwan, must there be two? Or three? At what point is your quota for a particular race met?
And if it is racist to black people, must there be a quota for other racial, ethnic or religious groups on this panel that has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion?
We have more Latinos in our community than African-Americans: what should their quota be?
We also have a diversity of religion in our community. Would it be anti-Hinduist if the housing committee had no people of that faith?
It’s sad that you think it’s reasonable to judge people on the basis of the color of their skin (or other factors unrelated to housing) and not on the perspective they bring to housing issues. But I suppose such morality is antiquated in your mind.
“And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.”
So if there were one black person on this commission, that would not be racist? Or, Antwan, must there be two? Or three? At what point is your quota for a particular race met?
And if it is racist to black people, must there be a quota for other racial, ethnic or religious groups on this panel that has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion?
We have more Latinos in our community than African-Americans: what should their quota be?
We also have a diversity of religion in our community. Would it be anti-Hinduist if the housing committee had no people of that faith?
It’s sad that you think it’s reasonable to judge people on the basis of the color of their skin (or other factors unrelated to housing) and not on the perspective they bring to housing issues. But I suppose such morality is antiquated in your mind.
“And to many black people having an all-white committee is not only insulting but racist.”
So if there were one black person on this commission, that would not be racist? Or, Antwan, must there be two? Or three? At what point is your quota for a particular race met?
And if it is racist to black people, must there be a quota for other racial, ethnic or religious groups on this panel that has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion?
We have more Latinos in our community than African-Americans: what should their quota be?
We also have a diversity of religion in our community. Would it be anti-Hinduist if the housing committee had no people of that faith?
It’s sad that you think it’s reasonable to judge people on the basis of the color of their skin (or other factors unrelated to housing) and not on the perspective they bring to housing issues. But I suppose such morality is antiquated in your mind.
Rich: I disagree with one thing, I’m really not an ideologue. I think most people who know me in person would agree with that assessment. I am from the left–that is for sure.
Rich: I disagree with one thing, I’m really not an ideologue. I think most people who know me in person would agree with that assessment. I am from the left–that is for sure.
Rich: I disagree with one thing, I’m really not an ideologue. I think most people who know me in person would agree with that assessment. I am from the left–that is for sure.
Rich: I disagree with one thing, I’m really not an ideologue. I think most people who know me in person would agree with that assessment. I am from the left–that is for sure.
Rich: I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up. Lamar was associated with that issue and became a target at that time. The ferver that Bob attacked the police issue and those associated with it, suggests there was some sort of agenda there.
On your point to Antwan, I will suggest that we know it when we see it–and that is that all / none is not a good thing. I wouldn’t suggest quotas, I would suggest that there is probably a perspective missing from this body that Bob Dunning rightly pointed out.
Rich: I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up. Lamar was associated with that issue and became a target at that time. The ferver that Bob attacked the police issue and those associated with it, suggests there was some sort of agenda there.
On your point to Antwan, I will suggest that we know it when we see it–and that is that all / none is not a good thing. I wouldn’t suggest quotas, I would suggest that there is probably a perspective missing from this body that Bob Dunning rightly pointed out.
Rich: I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up. Lamar was associated with that issue and became a target at that time. The ferver that Bob attacked the police issue and those associated with it, suggests there was some sort of agenda there.
On your point to Antwan, I will suggest that we know it when we see it–and that is that all / none is not a good thing. I wouldn’t suggest quotas, I would suggest that there is probably a perspective missing from this body that Bob Dunning rightly pointed out.
Rich: I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up. Lamar was associated with that issue and became a target at that time. The ferver that Bob attacked the police issue and those associated with it, suggests there was some sort of agenda there.
On your point to Antwan, I will suggest that we know it when we see it–and that is that all / none is not a good thing. I wouldn’t suggest quotas, I would suggest that there is probably a perspective missing from this body that Bob Dunning rightly pointed out.
Rich – Three points:
1) You missed the point (at least as I understood it) that Antwan made. He said that to many black people it’s insulting to have an all White committee.
However, that is not to say that there needs to be a “set number” of Black people on the committee, but that the committee does fail to represent the diverse groups within the city of Davis.
Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.
2) The so-called jokes that Dunning makes about Lamar are in poor taste. You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim. On the contrary, he is very honest, very down-to-earth and sincere. When all odds were against him he prevailed and won a seat on the city council. I don’t think Dunning likes being proven wrong and he was.
If Dunning is joking why can he dish out jokes, but not take jokes in return? I think some refer to it as poor sportsmanship.
3) People who write emails and bloggs, ooops…I meant to write, “b-l-o-g-s” will have typos at times because they’re in a hurry or don’t have a chance to catch every little error. For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.
Rich – Three points:
1) You missed the point (at least as I understood it) that Antwan made. He said that to many black people it’s insulting to have an all White committee.
However, that is not to say that there needs to be a “set number” of Black people on the committee, but that the committee does fail to represent the diverse groups within the city of Davis.
Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.
2) The so-called jokes that Dunning makes about Lamar are in poor taste. You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim. On the contrary, he is very honest, very down-to-earth and sincere. When all odds were against him he prevailed and won a seat on the city council. I don’t think Dunning likes being proven wrong and he was.
If Dunning is joking why can he dish out jokes, but not take jokes in return? I think some refer to it as poor sportsmanship.
3) People who write emails and bloggs, ooops…I meant to write, “b-l-o-g-s” will have typos at times because they’re in a hurry or don’t have a chance to catch every little error. For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.
Rich – Three points:
1) You missed the point (at least as I understood it) that Antwan made. He said that to many black people it’s insulting to have an all White committee.
However, that is not to say that there needs to be a “set number” of Black people on the committee, but that the committee does fail to represent the diverse groups within the city of Davis.
Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.
2) The so-called jokes that Dunning makes about Lamar are in poor taste. You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim. On the contrary, he is very honest, very down-to-earth and sincere. When all odds were against him he prevailed and won a seat on the city council. I don’t think Dunning likes being proven wrong and he was.
If Dunning is joking why can he dish out jokes, but not take jokes in return? I think some refer to it as poor sportsmanship.
3) People who write emails and bloggs, ooops…I meant to write, “b-l-o-g-s” will have typos at times because they’re in a hurry or don’t have a chance to catch every little error. For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.
Rich – Three points:
1) You missed the point (at least as I understood it) that Antwan made. He said that to many black people it’s insulting to have an all White committee.
However, that is not to say that there needs to be a “set number” of Black people on the committee, but that the committee does fail to represent the diverse groups within the city of Davis.
Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.
2) The so-called jokes that Dunning makes about Lamar are in poor taste. You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim. On the contrary, he is very honest, very down-to-earth and sincere. When all odds were against him he prevailed and won a seat on the city council. I don’t think Dunning likes being proven wrong and he was.
If Dunning is joking why can he dish out jokes, but not take jokes in return? I think some refer to it as poor sportsmanship.
3) People who write emails and bloggs, ooops…I meant to write, “b-l-o-g-s” will have typos at times because they’re in a hurry or don’t have a chance to catch every little error. For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.
Dunning’s contrived cynicism and ridicule of people’s political stands who “take themselves too seriously” serves to puncture and let the air out of the balloon of grassroots activism.. perhaps one of the reasons for his longevity on the Establishment Davis Enterprise payroll.. By the way, is the writer of the comment concerning Dunning’s
interest in the “sin” of self-importance not aware that this may strike closer to home than is comfortable?
Dunning’s contrived cynicism and ridicule of people’s political stands who “take themselves too seriously” serves to puncture and let the air out of the balloon of grassroots activism.. perhaps one of the reasons for his longevity on the Establishment Davis Enterprise payroll.. By the way, is the writer of the comment concerning Dunning’s
interest in the “sin” of self-importance not aware that this may strike closer to home than is comfortable?
Dunning’s contrived cynicism and ridicule of people’s political stands who “take themselves too seriously” serves to puncture and let the air out of the balloon of grassroots activism.. perhaps one of the reasons for his longevity on the Establishment Davis Enterprise payroll.. By the way, is the writer of the comment concerning Dunning’s
interest in the “sin” of self-importance not aware that this may strike closer to home than is comfortable?
Dunning’s contrived cynicism and ridicule of people’s political stands who “take themselves too seriously” serves to puncture and let the air out of the balloon of grassroots activism.. perhaps one of the reasons for his longevity on the Establishment Davis Enterprise payroll.. By the way, is the writer of the comment concerning Dunning’s
interest in the “sin” of self-importance not aware that this may strike closer to home than is comfortable?
… just a few of good material items for “targetting” Establishment council reps that were ignored by Dunning in the past…..
1. Lois Wolk, in a fit of pique, following the defeat of her Richard’s underpass project, publicly writing that her constituents were uninformed and hysterical.
2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.
3. Numerous gaffs by Ruth Asmundson which were ignored or treated with “kid gloves”
Additional observation: Dave Rosenberg’s political cynicism fit in very well with Establishment’s antipathy to effective political grassroots activities.
… just a few of good material items for “targetting” Establishment council reps that were ignored by Dunning in the past…..
1. Lois Wolk, in a fit of pique, following the defeat of her Richard’s underpass project, publicly writing that her constituents were uninformed and hysterical.
2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.
3. Numerous gaffs by Ruth Asmundson which were ignored or treated with “kid gloves”
Additional observation: Dave Rosenberg’s political cynicism fit in very well with Establishment’s antipathy to effective political grassroots activities.
… just a few of good material items for “targetting” Establishment council reps that were ignored by Dunning in the past…..
1. Lois Wolk, in a fit of pique, following the defeat of her Richard’s underpass project, publicly writing that her constituents were uninformed and hysterical.
2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.
3. Numerous gaffs by Ruth Asmundson which were ignored or treated with “kid gloves”
Additional observation: Dave Rosenberg’s political cynicism fit in very well with Establishment’s antipathy to effective political grassroots activities.
… just a few of good material items for “targetting” Establishment council reps that were ignored by Dunning in the past…..
1. Lois Wolk, in a fit of pique, following the defeat of her Richard’s underpass project, publicly writing that her constituents were uninformed and hysterical.
2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.
3. Numerous gaffs by Ruth Asmundson which were ignored or treated with “kid gloves”
Additional observation: Dave Rosenberg’s political cynicism fit in very well with Establishment’s antipathy to effective political grassroots activities.
“For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.”
What a whiner. I don’t pick at ‘every little error.’ When I make mistakes, I appreciate when others point them out. That is what improvement is alway built upon. So always feel free to correct or point out any mistakes or typos I make; and, on occasion, I’ll point out errors that I see.
“For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.”
What a whiner. I don’t pick at ‘every little error.’ When I make mistakes, I appreciate when others point them out. That is what improvement is alway built upon. So always feel free to correct or point out any mistakes or typos I make; and, on occasion, I’ll point out errors that I see.
“For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.”
What a whiner. I don’t pick at ‘every little error.’ When I make mistakes, I appreciate when others point them out. That is what improvement is alway built upon. So always feel free to correct or point out any mistakes or typos I make; and, on occasion, I’ll point out errors that I see.
“For you to pick at every little error made by people to have entries on this or any other blog is a bit petty.”
What a whiner. I don’t pick at ‘every little error.’ When I make mistakes, I appreciate when others point them out. That is what improvement is alway built upon. So always feel free to correct or point out any mistakes or typos I make; and, on occasion, I’ll point out errors that I see.
You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim.
I don’t think that I ever said that Lamar can’t take a joke. (Though I have spoken with Lamar a few times, I don’t know him personally.) However, I think it’s pretty clear that a number of Lamar’s supporters who post on this blog cannot take a joke when it comes to Lamar.
What I do think, though, is that Lamar (at times) comes across as a bit puffed up when he’s on the council dais. And as such, he’s good fodder for humor.
You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim.
I don’t think that I ever said that Lamar can’t take a joke. (Though I have spoken with Lamar a few times, I don’t know him personally.) However, I think it’s pretty clear that a number of Lamar’s supporters who post on this blog cannot take a joke when it comes to Lamar.
What I do think, though, is that Lamar (at times) comes across as a bit puffed up when he’s on the council dais. And as such, he’s good fodder for humor.
You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim.
I don’t think that I ever said that Lamar can’t take a joke. (Though I have spoken with Lamar a few times, I don’t know him personally.) However, I think it’s pretty clear that a number of Lamar’s supporters who post on this blog cannot take a joke when it comes to Lamar.
What I do think, though, is that Lamar (at times) comes across as a bit puffed up when he’s on the council dais. And as such, he’s good fodder for humor.
You obviously do not know Lamar very well. He does not “take himself too seriously” as you claim.
I don’t think that I ever said that Lamar can’t take a joke. (Though I have spoken with Lamar a few times, I don’t know him personally.) However, I think it’s pretty clear that a number of Lamar’s supporters who post on this blog cannot take a joke when it comes to Lamar.
What I do think, though, is that Lamar (at times) comes across as a bit puffed up when he’s on the council dais. And as such, he’s good fodder for humor.
“I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up.”
I may be all wrong on this. If you could quote what Dunning wrote about Lamar that reflect an agenda by Dunning, you might persuade me.
Also, it’s interesting that you use the word “attacks.” I’d like to see just where he “attacked” Lamar. Or is any disagreement an attack?
“I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up.”
I may be all wrong on this. If you could quote what Dunning wrote about Lamar that reflect an agenda by Dunning, you might persuade me.
Also, it’s interesting that you use the word “attacks.” I’d like to see just where he “attacked” Lamar. Or is any disagreement an attack?
“I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up.”
I may be all wrong on this. If you could quote what Dunning wrote about Lamar that reflect an agenda by Dunning, you might persuade me.
Also, it’s interesting that you use the word “attacks.” I’d like to see just where he “attacked” Lamar. Or is any disagreement an attack?
“I also disagree that the attacks on Lamar were not agenda driven, he did not start attacking Lamar until the police issue blew up.”
I may be all wrong on this. If you could quote what Dunning wrote about Lamar that reflect an agenda by Dunning, you might persuade me.
Also, it’s interesting that you use the word “attacks.” I’d like to see just where he “attacked” Lamar. Or is any disagreement an attack?
“2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.”
Davisite, keep your day job. Comedy is not your forte.
“2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.”
Davisite, keep your day job. Comedy is not your forte.
“2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.”
Davisite, keep your day job. Comedy is not your forte.
“2. Ted Puntillo’s multiple public statements from the dais that were openly distainful of the Davis voters.”
Davisite, keep your day job. Comedy is not your forte.
“Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.”
I must have missed the vote in which you were elected spokesman for ‘people of color in Davis.’
“Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.”
I must have missed the vote in which you were elected spokesman for ‘people of color in Davis.’
“Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.”
I must have missed the vote in which you were elected spokesman for ‘people of color in Davis.’
“Therefore, by having an all White committee it is insulting to people of color in Davis who are once again ignored on pertinent issues within the city of Davis.”
I must have missed the vote in which you were elected spokesman for ‘people of color in Davis.’
Those who spend their time and what little money they can spare in grassroots politics do so because they take it seriously…. feigning weak humor when challenged( as-I was only joking)may work in the schoolyard but not with grownups.
Those who spend their time and what little money they can spare in grassroots politics do so because they take it seriously…. feigning weak humor when challenged( as-I was only joking)may work in the schoolyard but not with grownups.
Those who spend their time and what little money they can spare in grassroots politics do so because they take it seriously…. feigning weak humor when challenged( as-I was only joking)may work in the schoolyard but not with grownups.
Those who spend their time and what little money they can spare in grassroots politics do so because they take it seriously…. feigning weak humor when challenged( as-I was only joking)may work in the schoolyard but not with grownups.
“a euphorism “
…my favorite new word!
“a euphorism “
…my favorite new word!
“a euphorism “
…my favorite new word!
“a euphorism “
…my favorite new word!
Don… as usual, you are just too kind!! I go to bed tonight knowing that today was not wasted.. I learned that it is euphemism and not euphorism.
Don… as usual, you are just too kind!! I go to bed tonight knowing that today was not wasted.. I learned that it is euphemism and not euphorism.
Don… as usual, you are just too kind!! I go to bed tonight knowing that today was not wasted.. I learned that it is euphemism and not euphorism.
Don… as usual, you are just too kind!! I go to bed tonight knowing that today was not wasted.. I learned that it is euphemism and not euphorism.
Don… how about euphorism- a word that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?
Don… how about euphorism- a word that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?
Don… how about euphorism- a word that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?
Don… how about euphorism- a word that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?
i don’t remember what lois said about the richards underpass, but i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.
single most rediculous thing the city’s done politically in my life. i mean, the toad tunnel was funny, but didn’t actively mess anything up.
as for dunning, the problem is that he’s not all that funny, he just sort of sneers and then calls it “just kidding.” it got old years ago.
i don’t remember what lois said about the richards underpass, but i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.
single most rediculous thing the city’s done politically in my life. i mean, the toad tunnel was funny, but didn’t actively mess anything up.
as for dunning, the problem is that he’s not all that funny, he just sort of sneers and then calls it “just kidding.” it got old years ago.
i don’t remember what lois said about the richards underpass, but i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.
single most rediculous thing the city’s done politically in my life. i mean, the toad tunnel was funny, but didn’t actively mess anything up.
as for dunning, the problem is that he’s not all that funny, he just sort of sneers and then calls it “just kidding.” it got old years ago.
i don’t remember what lois said about the richards underpass, but i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.
single most rediculous thing the city’s done politically in my life. i mean, the toad tunnel was funny, but didn’t actively mess anything up.
as for dunning, the problem is that he’s not all that funny, he just sort of sneers and then calls it “just kidding.” it got old years ago.
“i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.”
Take the Mace Blvd. overpass. It is efficient, avoids all the freeway traffic, and is just a few blocks from downtown. I almost never use Richards anymore.
“euphorism- a word [or phrase] that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?”
Perfect. So from a gardening standpoint, “sunny tomorrow” is a euphorism.
“i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.”
Take the Mace Blvd. overpass. It is efficient, avoids all the freeway traffic, and is just a few blocks from downtown. I almost never use Richards anymore.
“euphorism- a word [or phrase] that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?”
Perfect. So from a gardening standpoint, “sunny tomorrow” is a euphorism.
“i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.”
Take the Mace Blvd. overpass. It is efficient, avoids all the freeway traffic, and is just a few blocks from downtown. I almost never use Richards anymore.
“euphorism- a word [or phrase] that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?”
Perfect. So from a gardening standpoint, “sunny tomorrow” is a euphorism.
“i quietly curse stan forbes and the people who voted to block that widening every time i crawl under it through unnecessarily gridlocked traffic.”
Take the Mace Blvd. overpass. It is efficient, avoids all the freeway traffic, and is just a few blocks from downtown. I almost never use Richards anymore.
“euphorism- a word [or phrase] that makes you feel very happy(euphoric)?”
Perfect. So from a gardening standpoint, “sunny tomorrow” is a euphorism.
sorry: I meant PoleLine overpass, not Mace!
sorry: I meant PoleLine overpass, not Mace!
sorry: I meant PoleLine overpass, not Mace!
sorry: I meant PoleLine overpass, not Mace!