More importantly from my perspective is that there was no clear and obvious means of response to the battery of unrelenting attacks day after day against the Buzayans, the HRC, the progressives, Heystek, and even the ACLU. Fighting Dunning through letters to the editor meant a 350 word response to his five columns a week. Even esteemed members of the ACLU and former Mayors of Davis were not immune to the well-oiled Dunning machine, with full backing from both the DA’s office and the DPOA attorneys.
As Twain wrote, never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, clearly he had Dunning in mind as he wrote this.
Ironically, Dunning has been fairly quiet in the ensuing months, but on Friday, once again, he chose to fire off an attack. This time aimed at a Lamar Heystek claim that the Measure K vote was “by no means a mandate.” A modest statement if there ever was one.
Dunning points out that in fact, Target doesn’t need a mandate, just a one-vote victory. The implication was that Heystek was somehow a sore loser.
My interpretation of Heystek’s statement is somewhat different. Dunning is correct, that Target needs no mandate, it simply needs authorization–which it received. However, as Dunning should darn well know having been a long-time resident here, Heystek’s statement was a reflection of a broader importance and that goes to the heart of the issue–Target was a vote on a single-issue and not a broader mandate for growth, for big boxes, or an acceptance of varying other possible constructed outcomes that the council majority might be willing to use to further their future goals.
The city remains closely divided on the issue of growth, what kind of growth we would like to see, and our acceptance of large corporations moving into our close proximity. Also just because the voters narrowly approved Target, does not necessarily mean they oppose the living wage, a point that Dunning eludes to in a short comment. He writes:
living wage… an admirable goal this living wage, but why not provide it for everyone? does Nugget charge you less for a loaf of bread if you can prove you are employed by a small, independent, local business.
Interesting that he would used almost identical verbiage as Souza did when he argued against a living wage ordinance. Cleverly veiled as it is, it is also tranparent the point tht Dunning is ultimately making. Dunning talks the talk of a non-commital and impartial observer, but he rarely walks that walk.
Dunning is also naive if he believes that the council majority would not be claiming a huge mandate for growth if Target was approved by say a 60-40 margin instead of by a 600-plus vote margin.
Heystek was the target of Dunning during the elections, the question is, whether this will be a mere passing moment where Dunning takes a few parting shots at the young councilmember or whether this will mark a turning point where Dunning begins to focus his attention on Heystek, who he may view as the next progressive theat. It was noted to me, that in the past Dunning has taken open shots at other progressive members of the Davis City Council when they emerged as threats to his world view.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“Heystek’s statement was a reflection of a broader importance and that goes to the heart of the issue–Target was a vote on a single-issue and not a broader mandate for growth, for big boxes, or an acceptance of varying other possible constructed outcomes that the council majority might be willing to use to further their future goals.”
You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.
The council majority and the majority of voters in Davis who approved Measure K, including myself, have said all along that this vote was a stand alone vote.
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
However, this is what the anti-K group on the Planning Commission wrote to The Enterprise: “[Target] will spur development of more big-box stores.”
“The city remains closely divided on the issue of growth, what kind of growth we would like to see, and our acceptance of large corporations moving into our close proximity.”
I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me. I can’t recall a single phrase uttered in the whole Measure K campaign where the market capitalization of the Target Corporation was the issue at hand.
Safeway and Longs and Rite Aid and Big 5 and Office Depot and McDonald’s and Burger King, etc., are large corporations. No one in Davis, even on the anti-K side, was arguing that they should no be allowed to do business in Davis. (And for what it’s worth, the General Plan was ammended for some of them to do business here, too.)
“Also just because the voters narrowly approved Target, does not necessarily mean they oppose the living wage …”
Who said it did?
“… a point that Dunning eludes to in a short comment. He writes: ‘living wage… an admirable goal this living wage, but why not provide it for everyone? does Nugget charge you less for a loaf of bread if you can prove you are employed by a small, independent, local business.'”
It’s impossible to argue with the logic of Dunning’s statement: if one employer should have this burden thrust upon them, then all others should, as well. We don’t say that McDonald’s must pay the minimum wage but Bistro 33 can pay half that.
Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.
What I don’t understand is why left-wingers don’t push for a higher EITC. That has far less negatives for the economy; and if generous enough, it would do much more for low-skilled employees.
“Interesting that he would used almost identical verbiage as Souza did when he argued against a living wage ordinance.”
I would use the same verbiage. It’s not rocket science.
“Dunning is also naive if he believes that the council majority would not be claiming a huge mandate for growth if Target was approved by say a 60-40 margin instead of by a 600-plus vote margin.”
That’s a complete non sequitir. Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.
The approval of Target was a mandate for just one thing: the building of the so-called Second Street Crossing.
“Heystek was the target of Dunning during the elections …”
Come on, Doug. Dunning is a mostly just a humorist. Insofar as he “targetted” Heystek, it was for the funny things Lamar said or did. Dunning takes shots at anyone or everyone who is a public person and in need of a little deflation. Your implication that Dunning went after Lamar for ideological purposes is mistaken. Bob just isn’t the politically charged character you imply he is.
Dunning is not an ideologue. He’s first and foremost a humorist.
“… the question is, whether this will be a mere passing moment where Dunning takes a few parting shots at the young councilmember or whether this will mark a turning point where Dunning begins to focus his attention on Heystek, who he may view as the next progressive theat.”
Now that’s funny.
I’m laughing that you think that Bob is worried about… a progressive threat. I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan.
Even Lamar fully understands that Bob is kidding. If you recall Heystek’s first run for city council, you will remember the friendly exchange of letters that ran in Dunning’s column, where Lamar was responding to Dunning’s assertion that Lamar was a million to one shot. I thought Lamar came off very well in those exchanges, because Lamar showed that he had a good sense of humor.
“It was noted to me, that in the past Dunning has taken open shots at other progressive members of the Davis City Council when they emerged as threats to his world view.”
What world view is that?
The biggest target of Dunning’s humor over the years has always been David Rosenberg, the man Dunning called “the candidate for life.”
Given the construct of the political divide in Davis, it’s hard to say that Rosenberg, who is very much a liberal in the national sense, would qualify as “progressive” in Davis. I think Rosenberg is closer philosophically to Wolk and Thomson.
Julie Partansky, who would qualify as a “progressive,” was a target of his jokes, too. But, come on, even Julie’s most ardent supporters loved to laugh at her at times. She was funny. Don’t you remember when the Daily Show with John Stewart had her on? Even Comedy Central found Julie to be funny.
“Heystek’s statement was a reflection of a broader importance and that goes to the heart of the issue–Target was a vote on a single-issue and not a broader mandate for growth, for big boxes, or an acceptance of varying other possible constructed outcomes that the council majority might be willing to use to further their future goals.”
You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.
The council majority and the majority of voters in Davis who approved Measure K, including myself, have said all along that this vote was a stand alone vote.
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
However, this is what the anti-K group on the Planning Commission wrote to The Enterprise: “[Target] will spur development of more big-box stores.”
“The city remains closely divided on the issue of growth, what kind of growth we would like to see, and our acceptance of large corporations moving into our close proximity.”
I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me. I can’t recall a single phrase uttered in the whole Measure K campaign where the market capitalization of the Target Corporation was the issue at hand.
Safeway and Longs and Rite Aid and Big 5 and Office Depot and McDonald’s and Burger King, etc., are large corporations. No one in Davis, even on the anti-K side, was arguing that they should no be allowed to do business in Davis. (And for what it’s worth, the General Plan was ammended for some of them to do business here, too.)
“Also just because the voters narrowly approved Target, does not necessarily mean they oppose the living wage …”
Who said it did?
“… a point that Dunning eludes to in a short comment. He writes: ‘living wage… an admirable goal this living wage, but why not provide it for everyone? does Nugget charge you less for a loaf of bread if you can prove you are employed by a small, independent, local business.'”
It’s impossible to argue with the logic of Dunning’s statement: if one employer should have this burden thrust upon them, then all others should, as well. We don’t say that McDonald’s must pay the minimum wage but Bistro 33 can pay half that.
Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.
What I don’t understand is why left-wingers don’t push for a higher EITC. That has far less negatives for the economy; and if generous enough, it would do much more for low-skilled employees.
“Interesting that he would used almost identical verbiage as Souza did when he argued against a living wage ordinance.”
I would use the same verbiage. It’s not rocket science.
“Dunning is also naive if he believes that the council majority would not be claiming a huge mandate for growth if Target was approved by say a 60-40 margin instead of by a 600-plus vote margin.”
That’s a complete non sequitir. Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.
The approval of Target was a mandate for just one thing: the building of the so-called Second Street Crossing.
“Heystek was the target of Dunning during the elections …”
Come on, Doug. Dunning is a mostly just a humorist. Insofar as he “targetted” Heystek, it was for the funny things Lamar said or did. Dunning takes shots at anyone or everyone who is a public person and in need of a little deflation. Your implication that Dunning went after Lamar for ideological purposes is mistaken. Bob just isn’t the politically charged character you imply he is.
Dunning is not an ideologue. He’s first and foremost a humorist.
“… the question is, whether this will be a mere passing moment where Dunning takes a few parting shots at the young councilmember or whether this will mark a turning point where Dunning begins to focus his attention on Heystek, who he may view as the next progressive theat.”
Now that’s funny.
I’m laughing that you think that Bob is worried about… a progressive threat. I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan.
Even Lamar fully understands that Bob is kidding. If you recall Heystek’s first run for city council, you will remember the friendly exchange of letters that ran in Dunning’s column, where Lamar was responding to Dunning’s assertion that Lamar was a million to one shot. I thought Lamar came off very well in those exchanges, because Lamar showed that he had a good sense of humor.
“It was noted to me, that in the past Dunning has taken open shots at other progressive members of the Davis City Council when they emerged as threats to his world view.”
What world view is that?
The biggest target of Dunning’s humor over the years has always been David Rosenberg, the man Dunning called “the candidate for life.”
Given the construct of the political divide in Davis, it’s hard to say that Rosenberg, who is very much a liberal in the national sense, would qualify as “progressive” in Davis. I think Rosenberg is closer philosophically to Wolk and Thomson.
Julie Partansky, who would qualify as a “progressive,” was a target of his jokes, too. But, come on, even Julie’s most ardent supporters loved to laugh at her at times. She was funny. Don’t you remember when the Daily Show with John Stewart had her on? Even Comedy Central found Julie to be funny.
“Heystek’s statement was a reflection of a broader importance and that goes to the heart of the issue–Target was a vote on a single-issue and not a broader mandate for growth, for big boxes, or an acceptance of varying other possible constructed outcomes that the council majority might be willing to use to further their future goals.”
You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.
The council majority and the majority of voters in Davis who approved Measure K, including myself, have said all along that this vote was a stand alone vote.
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
However, this is what the anti-K group on the Planning Commission wrote to The Enterprise: “[Target] will spur development of more big-box stores.”
“The city remains closely divided on the issue of growth, what kind of growth we would like to see, and our acceptance of large corporations moving into our close proximity.”
I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me. I can’t recall a single phrase uttered in the whole Measure K campaign where the market capitalization of the Target Corporation was the issue at hand.
Safeway and Longs and Rite Aid and Big 5 and Office Depot and McDonald’s and Burger King, etc., are large corporations. No one in Davis, even on the anti-K side, was arguing that they should no be allowed to do business in Davis. (And for what it’s worth, the General Plan was ammended for some of them to do business here, too.)
“Also just because the voters narrowly approved Target, does not necessarily mean they oppose the living wage …”
Who said it did?
“… a point that Dunning eludes to in a short comment. He writes: ‘living wage… an admirable goal this living wage, but why not provide it for everyone? does Nugget charge you less for a loaf of bread if you can prove you are employed by a small, independent, local business.'”
It’s impossible to argue with the logic of Dunning’s statement: if one employer should have this burden thrust upon them, then all others should, as well. We don’t say that McDonald’s must pay the minimum wage but Bistro 33 can pay half that.
Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.
What I don’t understand is why left-wingers don’t push for a higher EITC. That has far less negatives for the economy; and if generous enough, it would do much more for low-skilled employees.
“Interesting that he would used almost identical verbiage as Souza did when he argued against a living wage ordinance.”
I would use the same verbiage. It’s not rocket science.
“Dunning is also naive if he believes that the council majority would not be claiming a huge mandate for growth if Target was approved by say a 60-40 margin instead of by a 600-plus vote margin.”
That’s a complete non sequitir. Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.
The approval of Target was a mandate for just one thing: the building of the so-called Second Street Crossing.
“Heystek was the target of Dunning during the elections …”
Come on, Doug. Dunning is a mostly just a humorist. Insofar as he “targetted” Heystek, it was for the funny things Lamar said or did. Dunning takes shots at anyone or everyone who is a public person and in need of a little deflation. Your implication that Dunning went after Lamar for ideological purposes is mistaken. Bob just isn’t the politically charged character you imply he is.
Dunning is not an ideologue. He’s first and foremost a humorist.
“… the question is, whether this will be a mere passing moment where Dunning takes a few parting shots at the young councilmember or whether this will mark a turning point where Dunning begins to focus his attention on Heystek, who he may view as the next progressive theat.”
Now that’s funny.
I’m laughing that you think that Bob is worried about… a progressive threat. I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan.
Even Lamar fully understands that Bob is kidding. If you recall Heystek’s first run for city council, you will remember the friendly exchange of letters that ran in Dunning’s column, where Lamar was responding to Dunning’s assertion that Lamar was a million to one shot. I thought Lamar came off very well in those exchanges, because Lamar showed that he had a good sense of humor.
“It was noted to me, that in the past Dunning has taken open shots at other progressive members of the Davis City Council when they emerged as threats to his world view.”
What world view is that?
The biggest target of Dunning’s humor over the years has always been David Rosenberg, the man Dunning called “the candidate for life.”
Given the construct of the political divide in Davis, it’s hard to say that Rosenberg, who is very much a liberal in the national sense, would qualify as “progressive” in Davis. I think Rosenberg is closer philosophically to Wolk and Thomson.
Julie Partansky, who would qualify as a “progressive,” was a target of his jokes, too. But, come on, even Julie’s most ardent supporters loved to laugh at her at times. She was funny. Don’t you remember when the Daily Show with John Stewart had her on? Even Comedy Central found Julie to be funny.
“Heystek’s statement was a reflection of a broader importance and that goes to the heart of the issue–Target was a vote on a single-issue and not a broader mandate for growth, for big boxes, or an acceptance of varying other possible constructed outcomes that the council majority might be willing to use to further their future goals.”
You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.
The council majority and the majority of voters in Davis who approved Measure K, including myself, have said all along that this vote was a stand alone vote.
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
However, this is what the anti-K group on the Planning Commission wrote to The Enterprise: “[Target] will spur development of more big-box stores.”
“The city remains closely divided on the issue of growth, what kind of growth we would like to see, and our acceptance of large corporations moving into our close proximity.”
I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me. I can’t recall a single phrase uttered in the whole Measure K campaign where the market capitalization of the Target Corporation was the issue at hand.
Safeway and Longs and Rite Aid and Big 5 and Office Depot and McDonald’s and Burger King, etc., are large corporations. No one in Davis, even on the anti-K side, was arguing that they should no be allowed to do business in Davis. (And for what it’s worth, the General Plan was ammended for some of them to do business here, too.)
“Also just because the voters narrowly approved Target, does not necessarily mean they oppose the living wage …”
Who said it did?
“… a point that Dunning eludes to in a short comment. He writes: ‘living wage… an admirable goal this living wage, but why not provide it for everyone? does Nugget charge you less for a loaf of bread if you can prove you are employed by a small, independent, local business.'”
It’s impossible to argue with the logic of Dunning’s statement: if one employer should have this burden thrust upon them, then all others should, as well. We don’t say that McDonald’s must pay the minimum wage but Bistro 33 can pay half that.
Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.
What I don’t understand is why left-wingers don’t push for a higher EITC. That has far less negatives for the economy; and if generous enough, it would do much more for low-skilled employees.
“Interesting that he would used almost identical verbiage as Souza did when he argued against a living wage ordinance.”
I would use the same verbiage. It’s not rocket science.
“Dunning is also naive if he believes that the council majority would not be claiming a huge mandate for growth if Target was approved by say a 60-40 margin instead of by a 600-plus vote margin.”
That’s a complete non sequitir. Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.
The approval of Target was a mandate for just one thing: the building of the so-called Second Street Crossing.
“Heystek was the target of Dunning during the elections …”
Come on, Doug. Dunning is a mostly just a humorist. Insofar as he “targetted” Heystek, it was for the funny things Lamar said or did. Dunning takes shots at anyone or everyone who is a public person and in need of a little deflation. Your implication that Dunning went after Lamar for ideological purposes is mistaken. Bob just isn’t the politically charged character you imply he is.
Dunning is not an ideologue. He’s first and foremost a humorist.
“… the question is, whether this will be a mere passing moment where Dunning takes a few parting shots at the young councilmember or whether this will mark a turning point where Dunning begins to focus his attention on Heystek, who he may view as the next progressive theat.”
Now that’s funny.
I’m laughing that you think that Bob is worried about… a progressive threat. I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan.
Even Lamar fully understands that Bob is kidding. If you recall Heystek’s first run for city council, you will remember the friendly exchange of letters that ran in Dunning’s column, where Lamar was responding to Dunning’s assertion that Lamar was a million to one shot. I thought Lamar came off very well in those exchanges, because Lamar showed that he had a good sense of humor.
“It was noted to me, that in the past Dunning has taken open shots at other progressive members of the Davis City Council when they emerged as threats to his world view.”
What world view is that?
The biggest target of Dunning’s humor over the years has always been David Rosenberg, the man Dunning called “the candidate for life.”
Given the construct of the political divide in Davis, it’s hard to say that Rosenberg, who is very much a liberal in the national sense, would qualify as “progressive” in Davis. I think Rosenberg is closer philosophically to Wolk and Thomson.
Julie Partansky, who would qualify as a “progressive,” was a target of his jokes, too. But, come on, even Julie’s most ardent supporters loved to laugh at her at times. She was funny. Don’t you remember when the Daily Show with John Stewart had her on? Even Comedy Central found Julie to be funny.
Wow that is a book.
“You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.”
What I would say is that a big win would have been, a narrow win, and I think they are going to be more conservative. That’s the main point I think I was trying to make and Heystek was making.
“I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me.”
You’re drawing too fine a distinction on my choice of words.
“Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.”
Heystek was calling for $10 per hour.
Wow that is a book.
“You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.”
What I would say is that a big win would have been, a narrow win, and I think they are going to be more conservative. That’s the main point I think I was trying to make and Heystek was making.
“I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me.”
You’re drawing too fine a distinction on my choice of words.
“Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.”
Heystek was calling for $10 per hour.
Wow that is a book.
“You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.”
What I would say is that a big win would have been, a narrow win, and I think they are going to be more conservative. That’s the main point I think I was trying to make and Heystek was making.
“I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me.”
You’re drawing too fine a distinction on my choice of words.
“Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.”
Heystek was calling for $10 per hour.
Wow that is a book.
“You have this point upside down. The folks who have for 2 years been claiming that a yes vote on Target would mean an invitation to all big box stores are the anti-Target people. You imply it is just the opposite.”
What I would say is that a big win would have been, a narrow win, and I think they are going to be more conservative. That’s the main point I think I was trying to make and Heystek was making.
“I don’t think “large corporations” was ever at issue in this debate or any others. If I am wrong, that the Target question was one revolving around the size of the corporation, then please enlighten me.”
You’re drawing too fine a distinction on my choice of words.
“Beyond that, a $15 per hour minimum wage — is that about what the ‘living wage’ would be? — is economically problematic.”
Heystek was calling for $10 per hour.
Goodness! Now we all know how to jerk Rich Rifkin’s chain: accuse his hero, Bob Dunning, of having clay feet, and watch Boy Blunder spring into action!
Goodness! Now we all know how to jerk Rich Rifkin’s chain: accuse his hero, Bob Dunning, of having clay feet, and watch Boy Blunder spring into action!
Goodness! Now we all know how to jerk Rich Rifkin’s chain: accuse his hero, Bob Dunning, of having clay feet, and watch Boy Blunder spring into action!
Goodness! Now we all know how to jerk Rich Rifkin’s chain: accuse his hero, Bob Dunning, of having clay feet, and watch Boy Blunder spring into action!
“I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan. “
I forgot to respond to this but this is complete and utter nonsense.
In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case. Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA. Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.
And this time I see him using the same argument that Souza was making against living wage. There are legitimate reasons why you might impose a differential wage policy for large employers just as you might impose a health care policy for large employers and not small employers. Legally speaking, you can look up the clip that I posted a few weeks ago, there is no reason why the city could not do that if they chose.
If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.
What I resent more than anything else is duplicity and gamesmanship. Dunning is the master of that. Souza is the master of that. As much as I may disagree with Rich on issues, at least he’s upfront about what he believes most of the time, even if he too has the tendency to fixate on tiny points such as my use of large coporation rather than big box, or such as the HRC’s use of avenue rather than street.
“I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan. “
I forgot to respond to this but this is complete and utter nonsense.
In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case. Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA. Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.
And this time I see him using the same argument that Souza was making against living wage. There are legitimate reasons why you might impose a differential wage policy for large employers just as you might impose a health care policy for large employers and not small employers. Legally speaking, you can look up the clip that I posted a few weeks ago, there is no reason why the city could not do that if they chose.
If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.
What I resent more than anything else is duplicity and gamesmanship. Dunning is the master of that. Souza is the master of that. As much as I may disagree with Rich on issues, at least he’s upfront about what he believes most of the time, even if he too has the tendency to fixate on tiny points such as my use of large coporation rather than big box, or such as the HRC’s use of avenue rather than street.
“I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan. “
I forgot to respond to this but this is complete and utter nonsense.
In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case. Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA. Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.
And this time I see him using the same argument that Souza was making against living wage. There are legitimate reasons why you might impose a differential wage policy for large employers just as you might impose a health care policy for large employers and not small employers. Legally speaking, you can look up the clip that I posted a few weeks ago, there is no reason why the city could not do that if they chose.
If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.
What I resent more than anything else is duplicity and gamesmanship. Dunning is the master of that. Souza is the master of that. As much as I may disagree with Rich on issues, at least he’s upfront about what he believes most of the time, even if he too has the tendency to fixate on tiny points such as my use of large coporation rather than big box, or such as the HRC’s use of avenue rather than street.
“I’ve known Bob since I was in high school, and I can say one thing for sure about him: he is not, in any sense, a partisan. “
I forgot to respond to this but this is complete and utter nonsense.
In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case. Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA. Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.
And this time I see him using the same argument that Souza was making against living wage. There are legitimate reasons why you might impose a differential wage policy for large employers just as you might impose a health care policy for large employers and not small employers. Legally speaking, you can look up the clip that I posted a few weeks ago, there is no reason why the city could not do that if they chose.
If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.
What I resent more than anything else is duplicity and gamesmanship. Dunning is the master of that. Souza is the master of that. As much as I may disagree with Rich on issues, at least he’s upfront about what he believes most of the time, even if he too has the tendency to fixate on tiny points such as my use of large coporation rather than big box, or such as the HRC’s use of avenue rather than street.
Most living wage proposals I’ve seen are $10 – 12 an hour and apply only to businesses which have contracts with the city. Lamar’s, as I understand it, is like the one proposed in Chicago: all employers over a certain size would have to pay it. That hasn’t been tested in court, but it was enough to send Target skedaddling there.
I think the concept is flawed for various reasons. But regardless, it’s important to note that there are winners and losers when living wage is implemented. Low-skill low-wage employees, high school students, marginal employees all lose. Employers avoid them. It’s probably not the best thing for Lamar to be pursuing at the moment anyway, since he won’t prevail. It would be a good time to pick his fights more carefully and try to broaden his appeal.
I remember when Mike Corbett’s supporters were upset with Bob Dunning because he was regularly skewering Mike. At least in terms of the local politicos, I think he’s an equal-opportunity satirist. Developing a good sense of humor about it certainly helped Dave Rosenberg throughout his career here.
Most living wage proposals I’ve seen are $10 – 12 an hour and apply only to businesses which have contracts with the city. Lamar’s, as I understand it, is like the one proposed in Chicago: all employers over a certain size would have to pay it. That hasn’t been tested in court, but it was enough to send Target skedaddling there.
I think the concept is flawed for various reasons. But regardless, it’s important to note that there are winners and losers when living wage is implemented. Low-skill low-wage employees, high school students, marginal employees all lose. Employers avoid them. It’s probably not the best thing for Lamar to be pursuing at the moment anyway, since he won’t prevail. It would be a good time to pick his fights more carefully and try to broaden his appeal.
I remember when Mike Corbett’s supporters were upset with Bob Dunning because he was regularly skewering Mike. At least in terms of the local politicos, I think he’s an equal-opportunity satirist. Developing a good sense of humor about it certainly helped Dave Rosenberg throughout his career here.
Most living wage proposals I’ve seen are $10 – 12 an hour and apply only to businesses which have contracts with the city. Lamar’s, as I understand it, is like the one proposed in Chicago: all employers over a certain size would have to pay it. That hasn’t been tested in court, but it was enough to send Target skedaddling there.
I think the concept is flawed for various reasons. But regardless, it’s important to note that there are winners and losers when living wage is implemented. Low-skill low-wage employees, high school students, marginal employees all lose. Employers avoid them. It’s probably not the best thing for Lamar to be pursuing at the moment anyway, since he won’t prevail. It would be a good time to pick his fights more carefully and try to broaden his appeal.
I remember when Mike Corbett’s supporters were upset with Bob Dunning because he was regularly skewering Mike. At least in terms of the local politicos, I think he’s an equal-opportunity satirist. Developing a good sense of humor about it certainly helped Dave Rosenberg throughout his career here.
Most living wage proposals I’ve seen are $10 – 12 an hour and apply only to businesses which have contracts with the city. Lamar’s, as I understand it, is like the one proposed in Chicago: all employers over a certain size would have to pay it. That hasn’t been tested in court, but it was enough to send Target skedaddling there.
I think the concept is flawed for various reasons. But regardless, it’s important to note that there are winners and losers when living wage is implemented. Low-skill low-wage employees, high school students, marginal employees all lose. Employers avoid them. It’s probably not the best thing for Lamar to be pursuing at the moment anyway, since he won’t prevail. It would be a good time to pick his fights more carefully and try to broaden his appeal.
I remember when Mike Corbett’s supporters were upset with Bob Dunning because he was regularly skewering Mike. At least in terms of the local politicos, I think he’s an equal-opportunity satirist. Developing a good sense of humor about it certainly helped Dave Rosenberg throughout his career here.
“Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.”
Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?
“Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.”
Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?
“Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.”
Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?
“Target was never a question of ‘growth.’ It doesn’t add to our town’s population. It doesn’t expand our borders. It just relieves many Davis people from having to drive out of town to shop for some basic retail items.”
Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?
Moreover Rifkin is incorrect on that point–Target is indeed growth. Any addition to the city, any new development is in fact growth. There are in fact two different types of growth, one is the addition of new people. The other is the addition of new business development. Any type of development is properly classified as growth.
Moreover Rifkin is incorrect on that point–Target is indeed growth. Any addition to the city, any new development is in fact growth. There are in fact two different types of growth, one is the addition of new people. The other is the addition of new business development. Any type of development is properly classified as growth.
Moreover Rifkin is incorrect on that point–Target is indeed growth. Any addition to the city, any new development is in fact growth. There are in fact two different types of growth, one is the addition of new people. The other is the addition of new business development. Any type of development is properly classified as growth.
Moreover Rifkin is incorrect on that point–Target is indeed growth. Any addition to the city, any new development is in fact growth. There are in fact two different types of growth, one is the addition of new people. The other is the addition of new business development. Any type of development is properly classified as growth.
“Any type of development is properly classified as growth.”
So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?
“… watch Boy Blunder spring into action!”
Boy Blunder? What happened to when you used to just call me Ugly Bald Guy?
“In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case.”
Those Dunning columns were directed against two ACLU attorneys. I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.
But the attacks were, as I recall, far from one-sided. I think someone — Bill Kopper? — publicly requested that the McNaughtons fire Dunning for his views. That got Dunning’s dander up, as a group whose supposed purpose is to defend the rights of free speech would then work to fire a columnist for exercising his own free speech.
“Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA.”
Okay.
“Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.”
I’ve never said that Dunning is “neutral.” He has opinions. Some of them very strong.
But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.” A partisan works on behalf of one side of a political divide. Dunning doesn’t advocate for candidates or against candidates. He makes fun of candiates and office holders from all perspectives (as Don Shor noted). He very often, even in the most contentious debates, takes no position at all. (I don’t know where he stood on Target, for example. Or SMUD.) But when he does take positions — for example, he was against Measure L, which as you know I strongly backed — it is not because that is how his “party” feels. He’s just not a partisan sort.
As you’ve made clear on this blog, Doug, you identify very strongly with what you call the “progressives.” And it seems like any time Dunning makes fun of, or disagrees with, your party, you conclude that he must be a “partisan” of the other side. That is just a total misread of Dunning.
“If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.”
If you are going to force one employer to pay a $10/hour minimum wage, then all employers ought to face that just the same. But do I favor it? Of course not. I have two degrees in economics. No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms.
If the minimum wage is relatively low, it has almost no impact on the economy at all. It doesn’t help or hurt most low-skilled workers. If it is regularly raised to keep up with the general price inflation, it’s harmless. However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.
You would do well to study some Milton Friedman. Friedman was the father of the EITC (which he called the negative income tax). We have that now, but it’s too niggardly. If you want to lift low-skilled workers out of poverty, which I do, then you should advocate for making the EITC more generous. Forget artificial price mechanisms like “the living wage.” They won’t help the poor. They very well may hurt them.
“Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?”
It’s mostly a question of price. For families with kids, and most people struggling with the high cost of housing in Davis — about to go up a lot more with the new sewage and water bills — Target is helpful because it offers a lot of basics at a better price. Just for example, I bought a pair of dress shoes at Target for $30 a couple of months ago. Maybe I could have bought dress shoes in Davis, I’m not sure where. But not for $30. They may not be of equal elegance as $300 shoes would be. But they will serve my purpose for the next 4-5 years.
“Any type of development is properly classified as growth.”
So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?
“… watch Boy Blunder spring into action!”
Boy Blunder? What happened to when you used to just call me Ugly Bald Guy?
“In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case.”
Those Dunning columns were directed against two ACLU attorneys. I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.
But the attacks were, as I recall, far from one-sided. I think someone — Bill Kopper? — publicly requested that the McNaughtons fire Dunning for his views. That got Dunning’s dander up, as a group whose supposed purpose is to defend the rights of free speech would then work to fire a columnist for exercising his own free speech.
“Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA.”
Okay.
“Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.”
I’ve never said that Dunning is “neutral.” He has opinions. Some of them very strong.
But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.” A partisan works on behalf of one side of a political divide. Dunning doesn’t advocate for candidates or against candidates. He makes fun of candiates and office holders from all perspectives (as Don Shor noted). He very often, even in the most contentious debates, takes no position at all. (I don’t know where he stood on Target, for example. Or SMUD.) But when he does take positions — for example, he was against Measure L, which as you know I strongly backed — it is not because that is how his “party” feels. He’s just not a partisan sort.
As you’ve made clear on this blog, Doug, you identify very strongly with what you call the “progressives.” And it seems like any time Dunning makes fun of, or disagrees with, your party, you conclude that he must be a “partisan” of the other side. That is just a total misread of Dunning.
“If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.”
If you are going to force one employer to pay a $10/hour minimum wage, then all employers ought to face that just the same. But do I favor it? Of course not. I have two degrees in economics. No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms.
If the minimum wage is relatively low, it has almost no impact on the economy at all. It doesn’t help or hurt most low-skilled workers. If it is regularly raised to keep up with the general price inflation, it’s harmless. However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.
You would do well to study some Milton Friedman. Friedman was the father of the EITC (which he called the negative income tax). We have that now, but it’s too niggardly. If you want to lift low-skilled workers out of poverty, which I do, then you should advocate for making the EITC more generous. Forget artificial price mechanisms like “the living wage.” They won’t help the poor. They very well may hurt them.
“Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?”
It’s mostly a question of price. For families with kids, and most people struggling with the high cost of housing in Davis — about to go up a lot more with the new sewage and water bills — Target is helpful because it offers a lot of basics at a better price. Just for example, I bought a pair of dress shoes at Target for $30 a couple of months ago. Maybe I could have bought dress shoes in Davis, I’m not sure where. But not for $30. They may not be of equal elegance as $300 shoes would be. But they will serve my purpose for the next 4-5 years.
“Any type of development is properly classified as growth.”
So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?
“… watch Boy Blunder spring into action!”
Boy Blunder? What happened to when you used to just call me Ugly Bald Guy?
“In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case.”
Those Dunning columns were directed against two ACLU attorneys. I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.
But the attacks were, as I recall, far from one-sided. I think someone — Bill Kopper? — publicly requested that the McNaughtons fire Dunning for his views. That got Dunning’s dander up, as a group whose supposed purpose is to defend the rights of free speech would then work to fire a columnist for exercising his own free speech.
“Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA.”
Okay.
“Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.”
I’ve never said that Dunning is “neutral.” He has opinions. Some of them very strong.
But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.” A partisan works on behalf of one side of a political divide. Dunning doesn’t advocate for candidates or against candidates. He makes fun of candiates and office holders from all perspectives (as Don Shor noted). He very often, even in the most contentious debates, takes no position at all. (I don’t know where he stood on Target, for example. Or SMUD.) But when he does take positions — for example, he was against Measure L, which as you know I strongly backed — it is not because that is how his “party” feels. He’s just not a partisan sort.
As you’ve made clear on this blog, Doug, you identify very strongly with what you call the “progressives.” And it seems like any time Dunning makes fun of, or disagrees with, your party, you conclude that he must be a “partisan” of the other side. That is just a total misread of Dunning.
“If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.”
If you are going to force one employer to pay a $10/hour minimum wage, then all employers ought to face that just the same. But do I favor it? Of course not. I have two degrees in economics. No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms.
If the minimum wage is relatively low, it has almost no impact on the economy at all. It doesn’t help or hurt most low-skilled workers. If it is regularly raised to keep up with the general price inflation, it’s harmless. However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.
You would do well to study some Milton Friedman. Friedman was the father of the EITC (which he called the negative income tax). We have that now, but it’s too niggardly. If you want to lift low-skilled workers out of poverty, which I do, then you should advocate for making the EITC more generous. Forget artificial price mechanisms like “the living wage.” They won’t help the poor. They very well may hurt them.
“Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?”
It’s mostly a question of price. For families with kids, and most people struggling with the high cost of housing in Davis — about to go up a lot more with the new sewage and water bills — Target is helpful because it offers a lot of basics at a better price. Just for example, I bought a pair of dress shoes at Target for $30 a couple of months ago. Maybe I could have bought dress shoes in Davis, I’m not sure where. But not for $30. They may not be of equal elegance as $300 shoes would be. But they will serve my purpose for the next 4-5 years.
“Any type of development is properly classified as growth.”
So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?
“… watch Boy Blunder spring into action!”
Boy Blunder? What happened to when you used to just call me Ugly Bald Guy?
“In April and May Dunning launched a string of attacks on anyone who insinuated the police did wrong in the Buzayan case.”
Those Dunning columns were directed against two ACLU attorneys. I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.
But the attacks were, as I recall, far from one-sided. I think someone — Bill Kopper? — publicly requested that the McNaughtons fire Dunning for his views. That got Dunning’s dander up, as a group whose supposed purpose is to defend the rights of free speech would then work to fire a columnist for exercising his own free speech.
“Dunning got in a tit-for-tat with the lawyers from ACLU and his chief advisors were a retired Deputy DA and the lawyer for the DPOA.”
Okay.
“Sorry, but that was strongly partisan. He hides behind his neutral label but if you watch the string of events at a key moment, he was anything but neutral.”
I’ve never said that Dunning is “neutral.” He has opinions. Some of them very strong.
But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.” A partisan works on behalf of one side of a political divide. Dunning doesn’t advocate for candidates or against candidates. He makes fun of candiates and office holders from all perspectives (as Don Shor noted). He very often, even in the most contentious debates, takes no position at all. (I don’t know where he stood on Target, for example. Or SMUD.) But when he does take positions — for example, he was against Measure L, which as you know I strongly backed — it is not because that is how his “party” feels. He’s just not a partisan sort.
As you’ve made clear on this blog, Doug, you identify very strongly with what you call the “progressives.” And it seems like any time Dunning makes fun of, or disagrees with, your party, you conclude that he must be a “partisan” of the other side. That is just a total misread of Dunning.
“If you want to argue that Safeway and Nugget and other stores of that kind should be bound by living wage requirements as well, that’s fine. Do it. I have no problem with that. I’m all for expanding it.”
If you are going to force one employer to pay a $10/hour minimum wage, then all employers ought to face that just the same. But do I favor it? Of course not. I have two degrees in economics. No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms.
If the minimum wage is relatively low, it has almost no impact on the economy at all. It doesn’t help or hurt most low-skilled workers. If it is regularly raised to keep up with the general price inflation, it’s harmless. However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.
You would do well to study some Milton Friedman. Friedman was the father of the EITC (which he called the negative income tax). We have that now, but it’s too niggardly. If you want to lift low-skilled workers out of poverty, which I do, then you should advocate for making the EITC more generous. Forget artificial price mechanisms like “the living wage.” They won’t help the poor. They very well may hurt them.
“Rich Rifkin, are you not forgetting that these “basic retail items” can already be had at stores in Davis?”
It’s mostly a question of price. For families with kids, and most people struggling with the high cost of housing in Davis — about to go up a lot more with the new sewage and water bills — Target is helpful because it offers a lot of basics at a better price. Just for example, I bought a pair of dress shoes at Target for $30 a couple of months ago. Maybe I could have bought dress shoes in Davis, I’m not sure where. But not for $30. They may not be of equal elegance as $300 shoes would be. But they will serve my purpose for the next 4-5 years.
“So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?”
Pro-growth is obviously a relative term. That would be a pro-growth position, yes. She calls for less growth than the majority on council, so by comparison she is less in favor of growth than three other members.
“I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.”
I disagree with you–pretty much anyone who challenged the police was fair game. Including someone like Shieda Trotter. Does anyone in this town even know who someone like Shielda Trotter is?
“But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.””
This is a problem that I’m starting to have with you Rich, you like to take a specific term and argue against in. Ironically, in this case, partisan was your term. My original claim was that he was not neutral. You then responded that you’ve known Dunning for years and he’s never been a partisan. That term entered this discussion by you, not me. However, he does have a strong establishment bias imo.
He does make fun of “candiates and office holders from all perspectives”–I agree. However, just like O’Reilly claims he’s not a partisan, if you watch him in action, his words belie him. O’Reilly is a tough interviewer when he disagree with the person. He asks mush ball questions when he agrees. It’s fascinating to watch. At the end of the day, however, you can tell who Dunning likes by who he attacks in a humorous manner versus who he lays into.
He laid into Heystek rather savagely during the election. He has now gone back to that attack, albeit in a bit more laid back manner. That is different from some of his other tactics.
“No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms. “
At least no conservative economist…
“However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.”
To which I would respond as follows:
First, Target is supposedly hiring 250 employees for the Davis site. So if they have to pay $10/ hour rather than minimum wage, are they going to not come here? Doubtful.
Would they hire fewer people? Possibly.
But given the fact that it is difficult to live in Davis on a minimum wage salary, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Would they raise prices to compensate? That seems unlikely because they generally price things to maximize profit and that is generally determined independent of cost of labor.
Why would I support it at Target and not other places? First, it would mitigate the competitive advantage that Target has over local business. Second, Target would be able to absorb the higher prices for labor more easily than other smaller businesses.
I’ve read enough Milton Friedman, thanks.
“So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?”
Pro-growth is obviously a relative term. That would be a pro-growth position, yes. She calls for less growth than the majority on council, so by comparison she is less in favor of growth than three other members.
“I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.”
I disagree with you–pretty much anyone who challenged the police was fair game. Including someone like Shieda Trotter. Does anyone in this town even know who someone like Shielda Trotter is?
“But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.””
This is a problem that I’m starting to have with you Rich, you like to take a specific term and argue against in. Ironically, in this case, partisan was your term. My original claim was that he was not neutral. You then responded that you’ve known Dunning for years and he’s never been a partisan. That term entered this discussion by you, not me. However, he does have a strong establishment bias imo.
He does make fun of “candiates and office holders from all perspectives”–I agree. However, just like O’Reilly claims he’s not a partisan, if you watch him in action, his words belie him. O’Reilly is a tough interviewer when he disagree with the person. He asks mush ball questions when he agrees. It’s fascinating to watch. At the end of the day, however, you can tell who Dunning likes by who he attacks in a humorous manner versus who he lays into.
He laid into Heystek rather savagely during the election. He has now gone back to that attack, albeit in a bit more laid back manner. That is different from some of his other tactics.
“No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms. “
At least no conservative economist…
“However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.”
To which I would respond as follows:
First, Target is supposedly hiring 250 employees for the Davis site. So if they have to pay $10/ hour rather than minimum wage, are they going to not come here? Doubtful.
Would they hire fewer people? Possibly.
But given the fact that it is difficult to live in Davis on a minimum wage salary, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Would they raise prices to compensate? That seems unlikely because they generally price things to maximize profit and that is generally determined independent of cost of labor.
Why would I support it at Target and not other places? First, it would mitigate the competitive advantage that Target has over local business. Second, Target would be able to absorb the higher prices for labor more easily than other smaller businesses.
I’ve read enough Milton Friedman, thanks.
“So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?”
Pro-growth is obviously a relative term. That would be a pro-growth position, yes. She calls for less growth than the majority on council, so by comparison she is less in favor of growth than three other members.
“I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.”
I disagree with you–pretty much anyone who challenged the police was fair game. Including someone like Shieda Trotter. Does anyone in this town even know who someone like Shielda Trotter is?
“But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.””
This is a problem that I’m starting to have with you Rich, you like to take a specific term and argue against in. Ironically, in this case, partisan was your term. My original claim was that he was not neutral. You then responded that you’ve known Dunning for years and he’s never been a partisan. That term entered this discussion by you, not me. However, he does have a strong establishment bias imo.
He does make fun of “candiates and office holders from all perspectives”–I agree. However, just like O’Reilly claims he’s not a partisan, if you watch him in action, his words belie him. O’Reilly is a tough interviewer when he disagree with the person. He asks mush ball questions when he agrees. It’s fascinating to watch. At the end of the day, however, you can tell who Dunning likes by who he attacks in a humorous manner versus who he lays into.
He laid into Heystek rather savagely during the election. He has now gone back to that attack, albeit in a bit more laid back manner. That is different from some of his other tactics.
“No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms. “
At least no conservative economist…
“However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.”
To which I would respond as follows:
First, Target is supposedly hiring 250 employees for the Davis site. So if they have to pay $10/ hour rather than minimum wage, are they going to not come here? Doubtful.
Would they hire fewer people? Possibly.
But given the fact that it is difficult to live in Davis on a minimum wage salary, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Would they raise prices to compensate? That seems unlikely because they generally price things to maximize profit and that is generally determined independent of cost of labor.
Why would I support it at Target and not other places? First, it would mitigate the competitive advantage that Target has over local business. Second, Target would be able to absorb the higher prices for labor more easily than other smaller businesses.
I’ve read enough Milton Friedman, thanks.
“So when Sue Greenwald calls for infill development, she is a pro-growth candidate?”
Pro-growth is obviously a relative term. That would be a pro-growth position, yes. She calls for less growth than the majority on council, so by comparison she is less in favor of growth than three other members.
“I don’t think they were against “anyone” who challenged the police.”
I disagree with you–pretty much anyone who challenged the police was fair game. Including someone like Shieda Trotter. Does anyone in this town even know who someone like Shielda Trotter is?
“But that doesn’t make him a “partisan.””
This is a problem that I’m starting to have with you Rich, you like to take a specific term and argue against in. Ironically, in this case, partisan was your term. My original claim was that he was not neutral. You then responded that you’ve known Dunning for years and he’s never been a partisan. That term entered this discussion by you, not me. However, he does have a strong establishment bias imo.
He does make fun of “candiates and office holders from all perspectives”–I agree. However, just like O’Reilly claims he’s not a partisan, if you watch him in action, his words belie him. O’Reilly is a tough interviewer when he disagree with the person. He asks mush ball questions when he agrees. It’s fascinating to watch. At the end of the day, however, you can tell who Dunning likes by who he attacks in a humorous manner versus who he lays into.
He laid into Heystek rather savagely during the election. He has now gone back to that attack, albeit in a bit more laid back manner. That is different from some of his other tactics.
“No economist worth his salt favors artificial price mechanisms. “
At least no conservative economist…
“However, if you make it substantially higher than the marginal productivity of labor, then it would have disastrous consequences for employers and low-skilled employees alike. All economists understand this.”
To which I would respond as follows:
First, Target is supposedly hiring 250 employees for the Davis site. So if they have to pay $10/ hour rather than minimum wage, are they going to not come here? Doubtful.
Would they hire fewer people? Possibly.
But given the fact that it is difficult to live in Davis on a minimum wage salary, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Would they raise prices to compensate? That seems unlikely because they generally price things to maximize profit and that is generally determined independent of cost of labor.
Why would I support it at Target and not other places? First, it would mitigate the competitive advantage that Target has over local business. Second, Target would be able to absorb the higher prices for labor more easily than other smaller businesses.
I’ve read enough Milton Friedman, thanks.
Someone just pointed this out to me, from Dunning’s column:
“wow, not only is the boy a City Councilman, he’s also a rocket scientist, able to do higher math and everything”
They thought this was pretty insulting.
Someone just pointed this out to me, from Dunning’s column:
“wow, not only is the boy a City Councilman, he’s also a rocket scientist, able to do higher math and everything”
They thought this was pretty insulting.
Someone just pointed this out to me, from Dunning’s column:
“wow, not only is the boy a City Councilman, he’s also a rocket scientist, able to do higher math and everything”
They thought this was pretty insulting.
Someone just pointed this out to me, from Dunning’s column:
“wow, not only is the boy a City Councilman, he’s also a rocket scientist, able to do higher math and everything”
They thought this was pretty insulting.
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community. Rumors are aflutter as big-box developers are already inquiring about the space west of the Target site. Gee, I guess DBBD wasn’t kidding when they said that voting yes on K would set a precedent for future development. YEA! Let’s put a huge strip mall behind a neighborhood park. Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood. That seems to be the shallow, lazy, neuvo-Davis, “I came here from the Bay Area but I still want the Bay Area” mentality. Crap on thy neighbor first so thee don’t get crapethed upon first. B Street “Visioning Process,” Grande, 8th Street (Simmon’s property), Wildhorse (and your pathetic Clubhouse zoning issues), Wildhorse Ranch …y’all are next. At least you can console yourself with knowing that “Hey, at least it’s not a Target the size of IKEA!”
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community. Rumors are aflutter as big-box developers are already inquiring about the space west of the Target site. Gee, I guess DBBD wasn’t kidding when they said that voting yes on K would set a precedent for future development. YEA! Let’s put a huge strip mall behind a neighborhood park. Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood. That seems to be the shallow, lazy, neuvo-Davis, “I came here from the Bay Area but I still want the Bay Area” mentality. Crap on thy neighbor first so thee don’t get crapethed upon first. B Street “Visioning Process,” Grande, 8th Street (Simmon’s property), Wildhorse (and your pathetic Clubhouse zoning issues), Wildhorse Ranch …y’all are next. At least you can console yourself with knowing that “Hey, at least it’s not a Target the size of IKEA!”
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community. Rumors are aflutter as big-box developers are already inquiring about the space west of the Target site. Gee, I guess DBBD wasn’t kidding when they said that voting yes on K would set a precedent for future development. YEA! Let’s put a huge strip mall behind a neighborhood park. Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood. That seems to be the shallow, lazy, neuvo-Davis, “I came here from the Bay Area but I still want the Bay Area” mentality. Crap on thy neighbor first so thee don’t get crapethed upon first. B Street “Visioning Process,” Grande, 8th Street (Simmon’s property), Wildhorse (and your pathetic Clubhouse zoning issues), Wildhorse Ranch …y’all are next. At least you can console yourself with knowing that “Hey, at least it’s not a Target the size of IKEA!”
I made that point explicitly in my October 18 column: “If, years later, some other retailer wants to build a big box inside the city limits, we can vote on that, too.”
Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community. Rumors are aflutter as big-box developers are already inquiring about the space west of the Target site. Gee, I guess DBBD wasn’t kidding when they said that voting yes on K would set a precedent for future development. YEA! Let’s put a huge strip mall behind a neighborhood park. Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood. That seems to be the shallow, lazy, neuvo-Davis, “I came here from the Bay Area but I still want the Bay Area” mentality. Crap on thy neighbor first so thee don’t get crapethed upon first. B Street “Visioning Process,” Grande, 8th Street (Simmon’s property), Wildhorse (and your pathetic Clubhouse zoning issues), Wildhorse Ranch …y’all are next. At least you can console yourself with knowing that “Hey, at least it’s not a Target the size of IKEA!”
2 points, rich
1. greenwald only calls for infill when she’s discussing perimeter growth. the moment anyone starts talking about actually doing infill growth, she switches gears and starts warning about the infrastructure problems that all those new people will cause. she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.
2. milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot, any more than ayn rand is a novelist that everyone admires. minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice, just in conservative “free” market economic theories. in practice, they have tended to create a mild increase in economic activity at the lower levels of the economy, and tend to be spent locally.
2 points, rich
1. greenwald only calls for infill when she’s discussing perimeter growth. the moment anyone starts talking about actually doing infill growth, she switches gears and starts warning about the infrastructure problems that all those new people will cause. she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.
2. milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot, any more than ayn rand is a novelist that everyone admires. minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice, just in conservative “free” market economic theories. in practice, they have tended to create a mild increase in economic activity at the lower levels of the economy, and tend to be spent locally.
2 points, rich
1. greenwald only calls for infill when she’s discussing perimeter growth. the moment anyone starts talking about actually doing infill growth, she switches gears and starts warning about the infrastructure problems that all those new people will cause. she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.
2. milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot, any more than ayn rand is a novelist that everyone admires. minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice, just in conservative “free” market economic theories. in practice, they have tended to create a mild increase in economic activity at the lower levels of the economy, and tend to be spent locally.
2 points, rich
1. greenwald only calls for infill when she’s discussing perimeter growth. the moment anyone starts talking about actually doing infill growth, she switches gears and starts warning about the infrastructure problems that all those new people will cause. she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.
2. milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot, any more than ayn rand is a novelist that everyone admires. minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice, just in conservative “free” market economic theories. in practice, they have tended to create a mild increase in economic activity at the lower levels of the economy, and tend to be spent locally.
oh, and 3.
dunning may once have written more in the playfully teasing voice, but he has become increasingly mean-spirited and cranky in the past decade or so, to my ear.
oh, and 3.
dunning may once have written more in the playfully teasing voice, but he has become increasingly mean-spirited and cranky in the past decade or so, to my ear.
oh, and 3.
dunning may once have written more in the playfully teasing voice, but he has become increasingly mean-spirited and cranky in the past decade or so, to my ear.
oh, and 3.
dunning may once have written more in the playfully teasing voice, but he has become increasingly mean-spirited and cranky in the past decade or so, to my ear.
“Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community.”
I think the people who opposed K were mistaken. However, I would not accuse them of “not caring about their community.”
“she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.”
If that is true, then Sue sure lies a lot. She has been talking about building a new high density housing development on the PG&E property between 2nd and 5th east of L Street for a long time. And as far as I know, the mayor is in favor of the Cannery Park project.
My understanding, which very well may be wrong, is that Sue’s greatest objection to growth is outward. That is, she is very concerned about sprawl. She doesn’t want viable farm land to be converted into housing and commercial real estate.
I agree with you, though, that beyond that, Sue is fiscally cautious. She is outspoken when she believes new projects will create new burdens on the city’s finances. I also think Sue is almost alone on the council in not wanting to burden ordinary homeowners with huge new city services bills — which is just what is going to happen over the next year or two with our water and sewer charges.
“milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot…”
I couldn’t name a single mainstream economist who would argue with what I said: if you raise the minimum wage signficantly above the marginal productivity of labor, you will suffer severe problems in your low-skilled labor market.
That has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman. I mentioned his name because his idea, the negative income tax (known now as the EITC), is an economically superior idea to an inflated minimum wage.
“minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice…”
This is untrue. In the early 1970s, when the real minimum wage was raised to levels much higher than it is today, unemployment skyrocketted among teenagers and other low-skilled worker groups (most notably poor blacks).
However, currency inflation by the late 1970s greatly eroded the buying power of that earlier, problematic minimum wage. And we have never had a minimum wage that matches in real dollars what we had in the early 1970s.
In fact, most increases in the nominal minimum wage since the early 1980s have been short of general price inflation. Therefore, they have had no negative effect for most low-skilled workers.
But regardless of the effects of the minimum wage (or the living wage), I still don’t understand why you would oppose using the EITC to reduce the relative poverty of low-paid workers?
“Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community.”
I think the people who opposed K were mistaken. However, I would not accuse them of “not caring about their community.”
“she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.”
If that is true, then Sue sure lies a lot. She has been talking about building a new high density housing development on the PG&E property between 2nd and 5th east of L Street for a long time. And as far as I know, the mayor is in favor of the Cannery Park project.
My understanding, which very well may be wrong, is that Sue’s greatest objection to growth is outward. That is, she is very concerned about sprawl. She doesn’t want viable farm land to be converted into housing and commercial real estate.
I agree with you, though, that beyond that, Sue is fiscally cautious. She is outspoken when she believes new projects will create new burdens on the city’s finances. I also think Sue is almost alone on the council in not wanting to burden ordinary homeowners with huge new city services bills — which is just what is going to happen over the next year or two with our water and sewer charges.
“milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot…”
I couldn’t name a single mainstream economist who would argue with what I said: if you raise the minimum wage signficantly above the marginal productivity of labor, you will suffer severe problems in your low-skilled labor market.
That has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman. I mentioned his name because his idea, the negative income tax (known now as the EITC), is an economically superior idea to an inflated minimum wage.
“minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice…”
This is untrue. In the early 1970s, when the real minimum wage was raised to levels much higher than it is today, unemployment skyrocketted among teenagers and other low-skilled worker groups (most notably poor blacks).
However, currency inflation by the late 1970s greatly eroded the buying power of that earlier, problematic minimum wage. And we have never had a minimum wage that matches in real dollars what we had in the early 1970s.
In fact, most increases in the nominal minimum wage since the early 1980s have been short of general price inflation. Therefore, they have had no negative effect for most low-skilled workers.
But regardless of the effects of the minimum wage (or the living wage), I still don’t understand why you would oppose using the EITC to reduce the relative poverty of low-paid workers?
“Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community.”
I think the people who opposed K were mistaken. However, I would not accuse them of “not caring about their community.”
“she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.”
If that is true, then Sue sure lies a lot. She has been talking about building a new high density housing development on the PG&E property between 2nd and 5th east of L Street for a long time. And as far as I know, the mayor is in favor of the Cannery Park project.
My understanding, which very well may be wrong, is that Sue’s greatest objection to growth is outward. That is, she is very concerned about sprawl. She doesn’t want viable farm land to be converted into housing and commercial real estate.
I agree with you, though, that beyond that, Sue is fiscally cautious. She is outspoken when she believes new projects will create new burdens on the city’s finances. I also think Sue is almost alone on the council in not wanting to burden ordinary homeowners with huge new city services bills — which is just what is going to happen over the next year or two with our water and sewer charges.
“milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot…”
I couldn’t name a single mainstream economist who would argue with what I said: if you raise the minimum wage signficantly above the marginal productivity of labor, you will suffer severe problems in your low-skilled labor market.
That has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman. I mentioned his name because his idea, the negative income tax (known now as the EITC), is an economically superior idea to an inflated minimum wage.
“minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice…”
This is untrue. In the early 1970s, when the real minimum wage was raised to levels much higher than it is today, unemployment skyrocketted among teenagers and other low-skilled worker groups (most notably poor blacks).
However, currency inflation by the late 1970s greatly eroded the buying power of that earlier, problematic minimum wage. And we have never had a minimum wage that matches in real dollars what we had in the early 1970s.
In fact, most increases in the nominal minimum wage since the early 1980s have been short of general price inflation. Therefore, they have had no negative effect for most low-skilled workers.
But regardless of the effects of the minimum wage (or the living wage), I still don’t understand why you would oppose using the EITC to reduce the relative poverty of low-paid workers?
“Get ready to start voting …or not since it appears people are tired of caring about their community.”
I think the people who opposed K were mistaken. However, I would not accuse them of “not caring about their community.”
“she’s against everything, infill is just a line IMO.”
If that is true, then Sue sure lies a lot. She has been talking about building a new high density housing development on the PG&E property between 2nd and 5th east of L Street for a long time. And as far as I know, the mayor is in favor of the Cannery Park project.
My understanding, which very well may be wrong, is that Sue’s greatest objection to growth is outward. That is, she is very concerned about sprawl. She doesn’t want viable farm land to be converted into housing and commercial real estate.
I agree with you, though, that beyond that, Sue is fiscally cautious. She is outspoken when she believes new projects will create new burdens on the city’s finances. I also think Sue is almost alone on the council in not wanting to burden ordinary homeowners with huge new city services bills — which is just what is going to happen over the next year or two with our water and sewer charges.
“milton friedman is not an unproblematic figure in economics, and certainly not an “all economists agree” sort of fellow by a long shot…”
I couldn’t name a single mainstream economist who would argue with what I said: if you raise the minimum wage signficantly above the marginal productivity of labor, you will suffer severe problems in your low-skilled labor market.
That has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman. I mentioned his name because his idea, the negative income tax (known now as the EITC), is an economically superior idea to an inflated minimum wage.
“minimum wage increases have not been proven to undermine economies in practice…”
This is untrue. In the early 1970s, when the real minimum wage was raised to levels much higher than it is today, unemployment skyrocketted among teenagers and other low-skilled worker groups (most notably poor blacks).
However, currency inflation by the late 1970s greatly eroded the buying power of that earlier, problematic minimum wage. And we have never had a minimum wage that matches in real dollars what we had in the early 1970s.
In fact, most increases in the nominal minimum wage since the early 1980s have been short of general price inflation. Therefore, they have had no negative effect for most low-skilled workers.
But regardless of the effects of the minimum wage (or the living wage), I still don’t understand why you would oppose using the EITC to reduce the relative poverty of low-paid workers?
“Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood.”
And that’s just what the city council majority wants: pitting neighborhoods against each other so no one looks too closely at the big picture and the huge changes they’re trying to make. What’s the Ben Franklin quote? “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
“Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood.”
And that’s just what the city council majority wants: pitting neighborhoods against each other so no one looks too closely at the big picture and the huge changes they’re trying to make. What’s the Ben Franklin quote? “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
“Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood.”
And that’s just what the city council majority wants: pitting neighborhoods against each other so no one looks too closely at the big picture and the huge changes they’re trying to make. What’s the Ben Franklin quote? “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
“Personally I’m ready to vote YES on everything that craps on everyone else’s neighborhood.”
And that’s just what the city council majority wants: pitting neighborhoods against each other so no one looks too closely at the big picture and the huge changes they’re trying to make. What’s the Ben Franklin quote? “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Out of town for the weekend on this one… must have been a gray, nasty one with the computer key board beckoning.. Of course, you are right Doug.. but this back and forth sounds like Scalia vs. Ginsberg … basic divergent realities with no meeting of the minds so argument is pointless… On the concept of Heystek’s living wage ordinance, there is a legal history, although couched in interstate commerce, that there are different rules for businesses with a small number of employees as opposed to very large operations.
Leveling the playing field for small operations to compete is a worthwhile goal and can happen if society decides this is what they desire…probably will take a change in Supreme Court makeup .
Out of town for the weekend on this one… must have been a gray, nasty one with the computer key board beckoning.. Of course, you are right Doug.. but this back and forth sounds like Scalia vs. Ginsberg … basic divergent realities with no meeting of the minds so argument is pointless… On the concept of Heystek’s living wage ordinance, there is a legal history, although couched in interstate commerce, that there are different rules for businesses with a small number of employees as opposed to very large operations.
Leveling the playing field for small operations to compete is a worthwhile goal and can happen if society decides this is what they desire…probably will take a change in Supreme Court makeup .
Out of town for the weekend on this one… must have been a gray, nasty one with the computer key board beckoning.. Of course, you are right Doug.. but this back and forth sounds like Scalia vs. Ginsberg … basic divergent realities with no meeting of the minds so argument is pointless… On the concept of Heystek’s living wage ordinance, there is a legal history, although couched in interstate commerce, that there are different rules for businesses with a small number of employees as opposed to very large operations.
Leveling the playing field for small operations to compete is a worthwhile goal and can happen if society decides this is what they desire…probably will take a change in Supreme Court makeup .
Out of town for the weekend on this one… must have been a gray, nasty one with the computer key board beckoning.. Of course, you are right Doug.. but this back and forth sounds like Scalia vs. Ginsberg … basic divergent realities with no meeting of the minds so argument is pointless… On the concept of Heystek’s living wage ordinance, there is a legal history, although couched in interstate commerce, that there are different rules for businesses with a small number of employees as opposed to very large operations.
Leveling the playing field for small operations to compete is a worthwhile goal and can happen if society decides this is what they desire…probably will take a change in Supreme Court makeup .
As to who Dunning “really is” , it is of no conseqence. The Wary I attempts satire at the expense of those whom its author decides is vulnerable and SAFE to ridicule. All one needs to do is compare his pieces about Ruth Asmundson with those about Julie Partansky, Sue Greenwald and now Lamar Hestek.. His column in the Enterprise amuses some, irritates others, both look to see what foolishness he has written that day… all that really matters to Enterprise circulation and the author’s paycheck. Blunt barbs, when occasionally launched, against those of the Davis Establishment and sharp ones routinely for those whom he decides are safe to ridicule remains the modus operendi of Dunning’s “wit”.
As to who Dunning “really is” , it is of no conseqence. The Wary I attempts satire at the expense of those whom its author decides is vulnerable and SAFE to ridicule. All one needs to do is compare his pieces about Ruth Asmundson with those about Julie Partansky, Sue Greenwald and now Lamar Hestek.. His column in the Enterprise amuses some, irritates others, both look to see what foolishness he has written that day… all that really matters to Enterprise circulation and the author’s paycheck. Blunt barbs, when occasionally launched, against those of the Davis Establishment and sharp ones routinely for those whom he decides are safe to ridicule remains the modus operendi of Dunning’s “wit”.
As to who Dunning “really is” , it is of no conseqence. The Wary I attempts satire at the expense of those whom its author decides is vulnerable and SAFE to ridicule. All one needs to do is compare his pieces about Ruth Asmundson with those about Julie Partansky, Sue Greenwald and now Lamar Hestek.. His column in the Enterprise amuses some, irritates others, both look to see what foolishness he has written that day… all that really matters to Enterprise circulation and the author’s paycheck. Blunt barbs, when occasionally launched, against those of the Davis Establishment and sharp ones routinely for those whom he decides are safe to ridicule remains the modus operendi of Dunning’s “wit”.
As to who Dunning “really is” , it is of no conseqence. The Wary I attempts satire at the expense of those whom its author decides is vulnerable and SAFE to ridicule. All one needs to do is compare his pieces about Ruth Asmundson with those about Julie Partansky, Sue Greenwald and now Lamar Hestek.. His column in the Enterprise amuses some, irritates others, both look to see what foolishness he has written that day… all that really matters to Enterprise circulation and the author’s paycheck. Blunt barbs, when occasionally launched, against those of the Davis Establishment and sharp ones routinely for those whom he decides are safe to ridicule remains the modus operendi of Dunning’s “wit”.