MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.: Proposition 74

Friday, October 14, 2005

Proposition 74 - the "Put the Kids First Act".

This initiative is another one of the Govenator's pet projects, and while it does seem to be reasonable to make teachers wait five years before granting them any hint of job security (Tenure is NOT a job for life), I believe instead that the true intent of this initiative is to bust the state employee's union. Judging from the wording, any benefit to "the kids" will likely only be collateral.

96 Comments:

Believe it or not, I am a former teacher. It's fine that teachers prove themselves for 5 years. I feel that (and this will no doubt cause criticism) educators NEED to take a look at test scores. I feel that improvements must be made NOW. I have a daughter in 7th grade and can't believe the baby work that passes for a public school eductation in the new millenium.
Merit raises would be great! Your classes show improvement for 2-3 years, guess what? You get a raise! Isn't productivity and improvement rewarded in other professions? Test scores reflect productivity and improvement and are the measure of the teacher's comittment to his/her job. Get to work, do the job well, get more money. And, p.s. Not everyone has a union behind them to get more pay or job security. Some of us just need to work hard for a long time. It's called "paying your dues" and I don't mean union dues.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:57:00 AM
Jenny,
As a businessman I too favor merit raises on performance. I have to ask a couple of questions to better educate myself. Is each classroom of a specific grade on the same level, if you are grading performance by test scores? Could one geographic area have better or worse acheiving students? If they were all the same then test scores would be equal across the board and it would be a fair way to judge. I would assume that the difference could also be measured and it doesn't matter where the starting baseline is unless, the lower baselines historically don't put in the same effort. I would assume that the students and parents committments would have to be equal to acheive the highest improvement. You could have a teacher performing at an incredibly high level with underacheiving students and get no merit increase? Or an underacheiving teacher with a overacheiving classroom of students getting a high merit raise?

How about fairness in the school systems? What would a teacher's salary be, if there was no union compared to having a union? Would the benefits still be the same? The salary and so on?

Is the teacher's union the group that decides your daughter's ciriculum? Or is it the school district or school board?

Just a few questions to educate myself as you are a former teacher.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:41:00 PM
Demographics definitely play a role in scores. However, if a school is in an area where there are a large number of ESL students, improvement must still be measured by "improvement".
All scores will not be the same, but if student scores improve yearly, the work is being done.
You have outlined the main problem of standardized testing. Obviously, the schools with large minority populations test lower over-all. Problems with the language? Maybe. Poverty? Uh, I have a problem with that one. I still feel that test scores would be higher if the work had been done in the earlier grades.
Here is a "back in the day" story. I was born in New Mexico. Given up at birth, I was adopted into an hispanic family. I actually learned Spanish before English. I went to a school in a very economically depressed area of Albuquerque with a primarily hispanic population. However, the teachers back in the 50's and 60's worked hard to make sure that we KNEW the work. Because if we didn't we would fail and repeat the grade! (A stigma in those days!) Oh, and the teacher would probably lose his/her job if the principal saw a large number of failures coming out of one teacher's class.
There was very little "social promotion" then. Unfortunately it exists today.
I quit teaching when living in El Paso, Texas a few years ago because I became exceedingly disenchanted with the idea of "making a difference". I teach high school, and the students I had been assigned to teach could not read simple paragraphs! 11th grade, Jeff! I asked a student how in the world he had made it to high school, and this kid, who could not read actually said, "social promotion". Sad. In other words, whether it be that the child is just too old to be in the 10th grade, or because the educational system is just tired of having these so-called slow learners in class, they are promoted. And no, it isn't just Texas, as I know it happens here as well. There are too few "Stand and Deliver" stories in California.
Once again, if all teachers were committed to educating children, particularly in the early years, there would not be a problem with test scores, for students OR teachers. Then, everyone would deserve tenure and a raise.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:21:00 PM
Jenny after after alot of thought I have chosen to vote yes on 74 and 75. I think teachers need more perfomance standards as well as the longer probationary period. I just have a hard time with the fact that the teachers union thinks that the teaching profession should have a different set of standards than the majority of us who are in the private sector. Poor performance and poor skill levels will lead to a firing in the private sector and I think the public sector should accept nothing short of excellence;especially from teachers. Did you notice where Jeff's line of questioning was leading? It sounded like he had just read the left wing teachers union hand book before he came up with his line of questioning. I am pro 74 and pro excellence for the teaching profession. I think the next step is to figure out a way to pay excellent teachers one third to one half more than they earn now. A little healthy competition will always raise performance. It works everywhere else and it should be applied to teachers.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 21, 2005 6:36:00 PM
Rholmgren,
I have no agenda in my questioning, Just logical thought. Remember I am part of a Corporation and unions are not my friend. However, I try and use logic when judging what these propositions are changing. Most of the laws they change were thought out long ago and have lasted the test of time. I don't like to vote for things that large corporation spend large amounts of cash to push through. Unions may have some power but Corporations dominate this world as they dominate the financial world. But the CEO only gets one vote, unions can muster many. I wanted to know why changing the current merit structure is worth all of this and what the corporate world's ulterior motive is. Remember, I do know about these ulterior motives because I use them myself. I budget a certain amount of money to donate to the lawmakers in this area.

But I don't walk up to the ballot box and pull one switch. You have already stated you are voting yes to every proposition. Of course you are, thats the conservative or liberal agenda's way. It doesn't matter what kind of politician proposed the laws, if it's endorsed by Republician or Democrats they will get thier sheep to aimlessly follow. BAH.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 21, 2005 7:05:00 PM
No not sheep Jeff. Republicans are the true progressives. Liberals are trying to falsely portray themselves as progressives but they lack original ideas and forward thinking. I am reform minded and just because something is status quo does not mean it is good. I see many areas that need improvement and change. These props are a good beginning. One more thing Jeff: The killing during the Revolutionary War was bad. The killing during the Civil War was bad. The killing during WW1 and WW2 was bad. The holocaust killing was bad. The killing during The Korean and Vietnam wars was bad. And the killing during the past and current Iraqi wars is bad. The question is: Is it evil for good and moral people to confront and defeat hostile and violent enemies by killing them? If it is wrong now then it has been wrong throughout our history.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 21, 2005 10:25:00 PM
Fellows,
FYI, I am a liberal Democrat. (Big revelation, I'm sure, since I own a metaphysical bookstore :-)
However, altruistic as it may sound, teachers need to sign up for the job because they want to educate children. Everything else is peripheral. Teachers in California earn darned good money. Not 6 figures, but not bad. I feel it's time to focus on what needs to be done...teach already!

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:55:00 AM
Jenny it is nice to hear you proclaim your ideology outright. I can respect that. There are too many who are liberal and deny their agendas. I always admire people who proclaim and defend their beliefs. Jeff defends his beliefs but he denies what he is. It is inspiring to read some common ground from the other side. There is hope that through these propositions real change can happen so that we can improve our schools.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:03:00 PM
Rholmgren,
Why do I have to defend to you, a man who's friends are former gang members, what I say as fact.

I am not a republican or democrat and it just confuses the heck out of you. You don't know what to attack do you. I voted for George Bush in 2004 because I picked the better of two evils. Would a liberal Democrat do that? No. I voted for the Govenator. Would a liberal Democrat do that? No. I am not for blanket abortions or underage children getting them without a parents consent. I am for the death penalty. I was for invading Afganistan. Are these the politics that make conservatives so happy?

You however still defend Rove, Frist, Delay, Cunningham, Cheney and our President, no matter what. If they were caught on tape doing something wrong, as a loyal true blue ideologe you would defend and call the people prosecuting them names, however if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be the first one standing screaming about it. The good thing for me is I am free to follow logic and scream at either party for the good of my family, my neighbors or my country. You are bound to defend at all costs no matter what happens to your neighbor and family and really become a sheep being led by the nose. Thats truly sad and not logical or smart. If you complain you become a traitor don't you? If you complain about Seyarto, no matter how much you want to, you would be disfellowshiped from your cause.

I am an independent voter who believes in his own agenda. Not one made up for me.

Jenny,
I agree, a person should be paid according to their performance. I am not a union person, another thing that crosses most liberals. Rholmgren needs to accuse and call people he doesnt understand names when they use logic to challenge his beliefs. It's because he can't think out of the conservative box. How embarrassing it must be as the Republican brain trust slowly sink into the mess they have made with lies. Don't we see the exact same comments coming out of their side as they get indicted for crimes and lies. Boy, I sure want them telling me to send my son or daughter to their death.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:04:00 PM
Jeff you are still the same truth twister. I said I was ACQUAINTED with former gang members. That is very different than being FRIENDS. You sure are an independent. I get it . Your opinions are mostly independent of the truth.You are so mistaken if you think I am following ideology without thought. I understand your line of thinking. Many elitists have the same mindset that you do. They think the masses are incapable of independent thought. There is also no logic to your assertion that being Independent frees you to be impartial or logical with your opinions. All parties can make the same assertion. What are the lies you keep referring back to Jeff? Are they the same lies that everyone in BOTH parties used to justify war? I will give you credit for making some good decisions as far as voting for Arnold and Bush. You had better pull the bullseye off Bush pretty soon. My focus is already on 2008 and getting a righter wing Conservative in office. Bush has just been O.K. I want someone who is willing to be a little more confrontational with the Socially Liberal Democrats. I also want a President willing to make real buget cuts. Under Bush Domestic spending has risen at a faster rate than any President in the last forty years. I want some Departments elimiated also and a good start would be to get rid or the Departments of Education and Commerce. The absolutely last thing we need right now is a Democrat in office. I do not want a tax and spend Democrat in office. All the Democratic front runners at this point are fiscal idiots. Also be ready Jeff for the witch hunts to boomerang bank and splash some people with alot of mud. I am pretty sure some careers are going to end early. I am pretty confident that most of the accused will exonerated. I have told you over and over Jeff not to confuse accusation with guilt. It is pretty funny to witness your panties getting wedged up your backside every time you get excited at the prospect of a mass Republican conviction frenzy. After it is all over I have a pry bar handy so that you can pry the cloth out of backside.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:34:00 PM
Rholmgren,
Witch hunts? Is that what it is when Grand Juries indict someone? Lying to Federal officials, Moving money through loopholes and pushing agendas by misleading, strecthing the truths are all felonies and unethical. But to conservatives and people like you, it's a witch hunt.

Fiscal idiots? You just commented on Bush spending more then any President in the last 40 years and Democrats are fiscal idiots. What President left office with a surplus? Wasn't he a democrat? LOL.

I made bad decisions by voting for Arnold and for Bush. They both have done incredibly bad jobs.

I am also making a bad decision arguing with someone who uses the same agenda of belittling and name calling like all good conservatives. There is a Republican running for the school board using "family values" and "Christian values" as the reason he should be voted for. We can look to local and federal government for those "conservative" family values he thinks Republicans stand for. You in each post lack respect for anyone who doesn't kiss your behind and compliment you. You glorify and are an exact example of what conservatives and Republicans represent. You wrap yourself in the flag and say all you do is in the name of Jesus, yet you are the exact opposite. Conservatives hate and discriminate, an example being that they have no problem eliminating programs for the weak and helpless yet give tax breaks so Corporations can pay CEO's millions and millions. If Jesus was here, what side would he back? Would he be cheering as we go to war? Would he cheer as our politicians lie and steal? Would he cheer as we hate people because they love each other? When you answer that question, then you will have some real values. They are against all the things Jesus gave as an example. Love for EVERYONE. Respect and consideration for all. Thou shalt not KILL. He didn't put in a line that said unless they have a different religion, political agenda or race.

I try to not come back by calling names even though you and Seyarto have continued to do it. I may have an opinion that Seyarto has misled the residents of Murrieta and I have opinions on why, yet I don't have any facts and have never called him a liar. I have stated many times that he must be a good family man and a good fire captain.

It doesn't matter one bit to me that you disagree with anything that I say, but the disrespect that you have shown all on here proves that you have alot of growing up to do.

I clearly have said I don't know everything. I don't have all the answers but truly beyond everything that you say I am a man of my word and my opinions are stated from my head and heart. Not by some talking points or an agenda that someone has set or by what a man making millions on a religious radio show says. Conservatives preach the Ten Commandments yet they show the complete opposite when it doesn't fit their agenda.

Accusation is not guilt, but when a jury decides that a politician that controls my money and my life has possibly misused that position, he should be quarantined. Our President has known that these people are involved yet lied to the American people for an agenda and said they weren't involved. Just in your statement that Bush has been OK, shows that you are totally embarrassed yet because of a stupid agenda you can't stand on your own and call what he has done like a man. Like I said, you would defend any conservative politician no matter what. So how credible do your thoughts and words make you when they are always biased? I have great respect for those that have the strength and foresight to stand up to unethical and illegal behavior no matter what the people around them think. To me thats the sign of a true man.

I am finished answering anything you say until the day you grow beyond name calling.

But this is a good night and I really don't take life as seriously as it comes across on here. My White Sox are up 2 games to none. My Bears are in first place. And some of the liars that sent have sent 2000 of our brave sons and daughters to their deaths are going to spend the next few months answering America why. It's a good night.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:43:00 PM
I see that another man with an agenda has entered the Murrieta School Board contest. Richard Ackerman. His cause is just that, promoting his conservative agenda above the welfare of our children. I would love to see him respond on here and tell us why is agenda deserves being the highlight of his campaign. For everyone's knowledge, during last years Presidential election the divide between church going voters was almost an even spilt. If conservatives have the advantage of "family values" and a lock on knowing what is right and wrong, should all the rest of the world give in to them? Of course not. I'm sure that every candidate has family values. If they didn't, why would they spend their time running when they could use this free time on personel things.

I do see Ackerman got an endorsement from the Riverside Republican party and Assemblyman Haynes. Isn't that the political party that tried to step into out local town recall vote? Of course, it doesn't matter who or what you promote to them, as long as it's conservative agendas and values. So I'm sure Mr. Ackerman isn't too popular with the teachers and isn't this his main focus along with our kids? What do you think he'd do to a family with gay parents? The kids would probably be segregated for fear that they would influence other kids sexual preferences. What a joke.

A person with an agenda will be a roadblock to fairness for all.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 24, 2005 12:46:00 PM
Jeff I have two quick points. Everyone has an agenda whether they admit it or not. EVERYONE. Almost every politician has to be a liar in order to function politically. They must lie to maintain secrecy with national and internal security issues. And they must lie to out manuever opponents. That is why I always tell you that if Bush lied then both partys lied about the war. THey were all saying the same thing until the Dems turned the war a political tool to try to gain power at the expense of our military.It is just a political fact and both partys are guilty. I support my party because of its platform. I am a realist as to what it takes to be a politician today. My beef is with those who have hidden agendas (Liberals) and pretend to support issues that they are really against.

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 24, 2005 2:19:00 PM
M.E you are referring to a different type of lying than I am. One has to do with national and internal security (like I said) And the other is to hide a hidden agenda (as Liberals do). Example: The Dems have been the loudest cryers about higher gas prices and yet for years they have been advocating policies that would lead to... higher gas prices. Also the Dems would love to raise taxes if given a chance but they know it would be politically damaging to publically support the issue. On the other hand Republicans want more oil drilling, and to ease regulations to make the construction of refineries easier to do. More oil and more refineries will mean ... Oh forget it you Libs will never understand. You Libs are great to socialize with but you do not belong in power. It also cracks me up when Libs try to re-gloss themselves as "MODERATES" or "INDEPENDENTS" or "PROGRESSIVES." There are many politicians on the left today reclassifying themselves but still they promote the same tired class and race envy and Socialist agenda. The Republican agenda has been clear for years and Bush has been straying in several areas.(Too much domestic spending and not enough deregulation and real government cuts)2008 will be the year of the righter wing Presidency. I want Oklahoma Republican Rep J.C. Watts to run. I think the man is unbeatable. I also think he would steal alot of votes for the Democratic base. The Dems had better start thinking quick. Their straegy of attacking a lame duck Bush is going to be worthless in a short time. They need some fresh ideas. I would not hold your breath because new ideas are definitely not the Lefts forte. Boy you sure are full of yourself. There was nothing illogical about what I said. I like the way you are trying to twist it though.

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 24, 2005 6:38:00 PM
MurrietanEyes,
All views should be tempered with thoughts from all sides, all races all parts of life. I too back only the truth in life and that includes politics. Anyone that hides the truth or lies usually hides some advantage to their side. Instead of being Americans with one purpose we become a people divided. What did Abraham Lincoln say about a people divided by a cause or an agenda? They cannot long endure.

Lying is OK if it suits your agenda? LOL....ok.

I seem to remember that only one White House lied and took us to war. I wonder which one that was?
They think it is OK to lie, to cheat, to abuse all in the name of our scared flag. I saw the Democrats protect Clinton when he lied, but he lied for personal protection, not to send this nation to war. It wasn't right, but it didn't cost a life. Bush on the other hand had to talk the American people into going to war. Do any of us think that every Senator and Representative knows all the facts as our President knew? Do you think that all the Presidents advisors briefed all of Congress. I think not. The President was trusted by Congress and he misled them. We see that it happened as we watch Special Prosecuter Fitzgerald unfold a story of decit and lies. There was a purpose to these lies and that was to discredit a man exposing the lies that the President laid out in his State of the Union address. ALL REPUBLICANS, are now blasting everyone around them. They don't know where to turn, as they are faced with an administration that could be exposed and dismantled and there is little that they can do except continue the lies. Very sad days ahead and it's hard to be proud of today.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 24, 2005 8:40:00 PM
This might sound weird but...wasn't this blog set about Prop 74? I am wondering if there are any more comments on that particular topic.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:17:00 AM
M.E. that was a nice male bashing comment. Are you a butch lesbian feminazi? Whoops I am stooping down to your precambrian level. I take the question back.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:14:00 AM
Jenny - All the blog strings in this Murrieta-focused site go back and forth between /a/ a combination of the defined subject plus a few important Murrieta-related messages, and /b/ the petty personal agendas of people who radically change the subject and start writing about national politics and their own personal prejudices.
The two people who tend to post the most signed entries happen to be those who see the blog as their personal playpin, and they change the subjects all the time like a child might change toys. If they changed subjects in a way that was of benefit to the local readership, it would be okay. But usually it's just to release their own bottled up emotions. The way to solve this problem is to look first for those two well known signatures, and then just skip their entries and go on to the next entry.
We2

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:10:00 PM
We2,
When one is attacked, one defends.

Sorry Jenny if I strayed.....lets talk about anything that you are concerned about. Didn't seem that too many people were commenting before.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:12:00 PM
Not a problem you all, I just kind of got lost. I was hoping, in a way, that another teacher, or ex-teacher would speak up in favor of the prop.
All I hear is the TV propaganda, and frankly, as I am sure you agree, it's hard to swim through the spin on both sides! I just wish someone, somewhere in the middle could give some real pros and cons on these props before some of us just go vote and reject or pass them simply because we either didn't really understand them or because it's easier to pull one lever or the other.

And, in closing, I think respectful debate is great and an amazing way to see both perspectives. However, I do keep reading personal attacks, and that, in my liberal 60's vernacular, just isn't cool :-)

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 6:56:00 PM
I keep going back and forth on 74. I am just not sure if extra tenure time will guarantee better teachers or higher standards. In the next few days I will have to read the sample ballot details and come to a decision. I do see alot of teacher's cars outside of schools with no on 74 75 and 76 signs. Our state is in a fiscal mess and every part of the state budget needs to take its share of cuts and that includes education. Our budget woes can be traced back to late in the dot com era when the state became flush for a few years with one time tax windfalls from capital gains on stock sales. the state stupidly raised spending as if these one time revenues would continue forever and locked in future spending at absurdly high levels. It would be the equivelent of a family winning $100,000 in the lotery and then proceeding to upgrade their future lifestyle as if they would win the lottery every year. It is a good formula for fiscal disaster. I think 75 and 76 would help California regain some fiscal sanity.
The name calling is an unfortunate part of blogging sometimes but if anyone such as M.E. wants to make a sewer level man bashing comment then I have no problem returning the favor. Her arrogance is boooorrrring. (; ANd so is her newspaper. It reminds me of another rag from the former Soviet Union called Pravda. Propaganda and lies.
Is anyone guilty yet Jeff? I have a crying towel ready for you.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:27:00 PM
R..
Yes, I too keep going back and forth on it. The problem for me is when someone says "cutting the funds for education" are they talking about raises and tenure or impoverishing schools? I mean if you are to believe the talking heads, our poor kids won't have a roof over their heads. Perhaps 200 children in per classroom will be huddled around one tattered book. The commercial that bothers me most is the sad faced teacher saying, "You're not the Governor we thought you'd be." Boo hoo, guilt trip. Since when has any state gotten the governor they thought they were going to get? Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter, a governor is going to make some decisions people aren't going to go ga-ga over all the time! Surprise, once in office the perspective is probably a tiny bit different then one had as a candidate, even a well informed one. We've all started jobs we thought would be a piece of cake and a week in gone, "Gee whiz, what have I gotten myself into?"
(Oh, and guess what, no, I did not vote for Governor Schwarzenegger).

One of the main problems, I feel, is that all issues are over "mediacized". Old ladies, (paid actresses, by the way) guilt trippy teachers, firefighters, (all of whom are not voting the same way, as the ads would have you believe) all trying to convince us to go this way and that way. Sheesh! Wouldn't it be swell to have "just the facts" and make intelligent decisions?
Anyhoo, I will read up on the props and try to find my way though the media muck...and muck-raking.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:38:00 PM
JL Kunkle,
Can we add more strings to the blog? Possibly separate out strings for murrieta politics, murrieta planning, murrieta school board, state and federal politics? Then it is possible for people to give their input on only the subject at hand. When the string has little interest, then people have no where else to post.

We2,
After thinking about your comments, where are ALL your thoughts and posts at? If you want to take someone to task for expressing their views then speak your own. I have seen little or nothing from someone complaining that strings are overrun by two people. Lets hear your comments.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:26:00 AM
We2, you are proposing two different formats.

A blog allows the blog owner to control the discussion by limiting the creation of new topics to only those of the owner. The readers may post comments, but may not create new discussions.

A threaded discussion group is one where the readers may begin new topics and reply to other's topics piquing their interest. These discussion groups often have software which allows the readers to review only the new posts on the topics in which they are interested.

Usually, such a discussion site has a moderator to "enforce" decorum rules and to eliminate spam and other annoying posts.

I don't recall ever seeing the two types combined. The latter type, however, does allow each reader to be a "blogger" in the sense that a new topic can always be started with the author's ideas explained.

Given the large range of potential issues germane to community discussion, there does seem to be a need for the second type of Murrieta discussion group.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:50:00 AM
Jenny you are right the commercials are pretty pathetic. I try to not be influenced by political commercials, pro or con, because they tend to slant the truth and be extremely superficial. The sample ballots help but even with that it is hard to determine exactly where cuts will happen or how a proposition will affect the status quo. Sometimes it just takes a leap of faith and hope that a proposition will accomplish what it says it is going to. I hate to depend on blind faith because too often we the public get burned for depending on politicians to solve society's problems. My simpleton rule of thumb as of now is: If unions like it... I don't. If taxes go up ....vote no. IF IT LEADS TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY...VOTE YES. I also wonder why public employees need to be unionized to begin with. They earn 25 percent more than their private sector counterparts and have obscene publicly paid for retirement benefits that are a rip off to taxpayers. I think what they recieve for compensation should be more in line with the private sector.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:51:00 PM
Going off topic again. I heard about the Libby indictment today. After two years and so much build up I thought ... thats it? Totally anti-climatic. And Plume is not even a covert CIA person to begin with? ( Just an employee)This investigation borderlines on stupidity.It does not even deserve any more comments.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 28, 2005 5:37:00 PM
Rholmgren said "After two years and so much build up I thought ... thats it?"

Here is the actual transcript of what Republican prosecutor Fitzgerald said "The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security." "
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter".

Rholmgren said " And Plume is not even a covert CIA person to begin with". The real truth again a quote "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."

No we shouldn't comment anymore. Just let the lies happen. Thats not the American way, but it is the conservative way. The conservative agenda continues to lie and mislead and this isn't over said Fitzgerald. Once Libby faces 30 years he will start spilling his weak guts and we will see more heads role. Right Rholmgren? You already said it's OK to lie. You just told two on here. Is that the family values Mr. Ackerman would bring to the school board?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 28, 2005 7:04:00 PM
ME,
Of course. Do you think I wouldn't know and would have instructed my assistant. It's proving when so many lie. If only the American people saw with such logic.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 28, 2005 7:49:00 PM
Jeff,
I've been reading your comments pretty consistently on this blog and although you seem to be a little too passionate and long winded sometimes I like much of what you say. Would you consider running for the City Council? At least I would have the confidence that you were going to be on my side when it came to deciding what was best for me. Think about it.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:54:00 AM
Yeah. That's what we need on the city council. A paranoid conspiracy theorist who can expand to the local dias his endless chants of hatred against national political figures. Please, let's keep it confined to this little blog. There's a very serious year of local politics coming up. No need to dilute the larger local political discussion with this hateful anti-conservative BS.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 8:51:00 AM
8:51,
No let's fill it with pro-family values conservative lies.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:15:00 AM
Anonymous above wants Jeff to talk about Murrieta issues that haven't yet come before us. Instead of talking about a National Security risk, let's talk about nothing if it shows Republicans in a bad light. Well I am a Republican and I feel ashamed and embarrassed for my party because this wasn't just one man's wrong doing, many more are involved. Jeff, you say stupid things sometimes but on the importance of our National Security you are right and Mr. Rholmgren is wrong

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:13:00 PM
Jeff I saw the press conferernce in its entirety. After a weeks of hype and build up it all ended with a wimper. All of your and the media's speculation of conspiracy theories are less than worthless. Go back to dreamland and piece together more disconjointed "facts." Go luck on finding a new issue to harp about. This one is basically DOA as of now. One more thing Jeff Wilson outed Plume as a CIA "employee" before any of the chain of events transpired. You will find out during the trial when Libby is found "not guilty." Also did you ever wonder why a smart man such as Libby would submit his own notes knowing that those notes would lead to indictment? This whole thing smells fishy. Go back and ask the mental patient Sheehan or M.E what to do next. I also think you should run for council. Our city needs more wacko conspiracy left wing theorists.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:24:00 PM
12:13 is a Republican in the same way Teddy and Hillary are Republicans. Not.
Sounds more like Jeffy Boy recycled a an anon. Hi, Jeff. The Republican mask does not fit you well for Halloween. Just be yourself, that's a lot more scary in a funny kind of way.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:30:00 PM
12:30 you are right. I have known for some time that Jeff has posted from multiple computers. I just did not want to call him out because I wanted him to think he was getting away with pulling a fast one. Anyway there is quite a trail established. Jeff thinks he is the epitome of truth and ethics but he is only fooling those that think like him. The rest of us know a faux wunderlich when we read one.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 2:22:00 PM
12:30,
I only write under my name. You see my mentors don't get indicted for lying, stealing and cheating. Everything conservatives say is the exact same as what all Republican politicians have been instructed to say...play this down as nothing but politics. But what you see is nothing but the same thing. Calling names. Stand up against any self-righteous conservative and all they know how to do is call you a name. Post after post the same BS. I think it is just one guy posting over and over. No sane or intelligent person could stand up and defend what these Washington Republicans have done to our great country. Oh...yes...another 3 boys died last night. Maybe Cheney and Bush have some more lies to tell usabout that. Conspiracy??? Seems like all the conspirators are getting caught. But I'm not laughing. My brothers in arms keep dying and no one has an answer for that.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 2:25:00 PM
Yes....you caught me Rholmgren. All I have to do is run to different computers to try and fool someone that knows gang members. Hurry and go listen to Fox News. They have some more talking points for you. How embarrassing to be aligned with the liars of the world.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 2:28:00 PM
O.k. Jeff we are all liars and troop killers. Every conspiracy theory you hold true is a reality. You have no vision and your only ideology is to accuse others of lying. You hold pretty pathetic positions. You would not recognize the truth even if it ran over you. And it will.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:06:00 PM
M.E if Bush and Cheney are guilty because their underlings supposedly lie then are police departments as a whole guilty when one of their officers beat someone or lies about a crime scenario? I think your guilt by association argument is weak and lacks real world logic. A+B=C works well in math but not well with human behavior. Automatic guilt by association makes no sense. Maybe I am a criminal too since I associate with ex gang members? Your thinking is simple minded.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:10:00 PM
Rholmgren,
You are disrespectful period. If you are an example of conservative America, you are an embarrassement. The way you talk to me and others including females embarrasses me that you are a man.

Yes, guilt by association is why police departments get sued when one of their officers beats someone. Thats the law. But your ideology doesn't care about laws. It just steps all over them and when caught blames everyone else. Conservatism in this country is supposed to be for family values. Does anyone think that the way Rholmgren talks he supports family values. Does anyone anywhere think that conservatism in this day and age is about wholesome activity. All I see is hate from it. Hate for a different opinion, hate for the freedoms others hold dear, hate for gays, hate for women's rights. Yet these are the people that hold my flag and my God in front of them and say they represent it. How laughable. How disrespectful.

Opinions are one thing and you have a right to them but disrespect is a totally different thing.

Why are my opinions pathetic. They are arresting the people who support your opinions and ideologies. The only truth you know is what Rush tells you. Now did he get his pills from the gang boys you associate with?

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld......right down the line are behind all of this and it has cost 2000 of our brave soldiers their lives and another 15,000 are disabled. They aren't coming home. But you don't know about that Rholmgren because you never served. What were you doing? Oh thats right you were hanging out with the bloods.

So what is your opinion of anyone else worth???
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:27:00 PM
You know Rholmgren I don't respond often to your posts anymore. However, you are performing a valuable function. You have shown me just how intractable our Nation's problems have become because you evidence no humility in the face of mountinous problems.

Some here have objected to Jeff's posts because he addresses National issues on a blog that dedicated to Murrieta problems. But that's exactly the disconnect that needs to be addressed.

I read a column this week by Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, (she was a speech writer for Ronald Regan, I believe) and I invite you and everyone else reading this blog to read her article. You can find it at http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

She titled the article "America is in trouble--and our elites are merely resigned."

I thought her words expressed admirably the feeling I have that things have gotten too out of control. It shouldn't have escaped you, during the Murrieta recall, just how closely the anti-recall forces tracked the same tactics of smear, personal attacks and lies all supported by business contributions to politicians from whom the businesses intend to extract favors.

The National political tactics and agendas have been brought right down to the local level in Murrieta. It's not really possible to discuss the problems we face without noticing and commenting on the scope of the National problems we face.

How did our country arrive at the sorry state we now have? Why do we only have politicians who lie to the voters and suck up to the corporate and business interests (and I'm not excluding the corporate union interests)?

Why is there no outcry over torture? Why is there no public outrage over Cheney's providing his Haliburton friends billions in non-bid contracts. How much money can the various taxing authorities of this country extract from the working people while simultaneously giving tax cuts to the very wealthy?

And I could multiply these "Why?" questions to dozens.

Do you ever think -- perhaps in the dead of night -- that something is terribly wrong? Then read what Ms. Noonan said and see if you don't agree that there is the beginning of a collective unconscious developing that the trolley is simply off the tracks and careening out of control.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:22:00 PM
Pollyanna here!
This is way off topic but I keep hearing this and am wondering why it keeps popping up in these entries.
I don't know why anyone has a problem with anyone else hanging out with ex-gang members. If this were a larger metro area many of us would be hanging out with ex-gang members. I think everyone has value, even if they've made mistakes in the past.
Anyhoo...

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:13:00 AM
9:27
The saying "small minds thrive on trouble" was written about people like you. Your writing shows a wierd enthusiaim for reporting on body counts and such. A close look at your arguements shows them to be a very thinly disguised surface-level retelling of Headline News. You are the reader's disgest of basically democrat-leaning propaganda. There is not a bit of anything that sounds constructive in all your bitter little sound bites. But, it's better that you take out your frustrations in this blog instead of beating your dog or something like that, so maybe some good can be found in anything.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17:00 AM
M.E. do you have proof that it is guilt in the first party? Are you that fly on the wall in the oval office? What insu=ide info do you have that the rest of us degenerate masses lack? I would read your paper but I lack the education to fully understand the B.S. nuances of you publication. And Jeff respect is earned and is not an entitlement. I extend no respect to you because you do not deserve any. People with you beliefs need to be put in the political coner of insignificance. I do not want to shut you up. I value the first amendment. I just like it that people with your opinions are losing power and are on a downward spiral toward being meaningless. Mr Faunce even though I do not agree with you on many things I think that your opinions are very thoughtful. I will read the column you mentioned. I value reading opposing views more than reading views that parrot my own. By drawing parrallels between National and local issues you provoke some interesting thoughts on issues. I am trying to figure out what the future holds.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:45:00 PM
Jenny some people reading this blog would be VERY surprised to know what occupations some of these ex gang member hold and the level of economic success they have achieved ...within the law. Everyone deserves a seocnd chance and everyone deserves opportunity.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:51:00 PM
Im sure those ex-gang members are wonders to society and they should move in next door to Jenny. I'll bet if we went down to the local jail the percentage of ex-gang members that frequent the revolving door would be quite high.

My enthusiaism is sarcastic. I'm making a point about how terrible war is. How terrible it is when it wasn't needed. But most people posting on here have just seen the horror of war and death through John Wayne movies or at best Private Ryan. If you think that was bad it was nothing. Horror beyond Freddie or halloween movie and fear beyond anything you know. But our young men face it each day. But they don't face it for reasons of National Security or even security for our neighbors. These insurgents can't feed themselves let alone fly here or they would be trying as this country is not hard to enter. Our boys are fighting for lies that took us to war. Proof happened last week as we had a high and powerful White House official indicted because a grand jury says he lied.

They are fighting for the oil companies that thought this would be a gold mine yet it has driven prices up here ten fold. They are putting billions in the pockets of profiteers and losing billions through careless management. And way above the loss of money is the loss of young American lives. Who answers for it in the end. When 5,000 or ten thousand are dead and then we walk away. The Republicans? The conmservatives of this world? No....the boys. With their lives.

What you don't get is I'm trying to be sarcastic enough for people to understand how stupid it all is.

Go listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They preach word for word what Rholmgren spews. Word for word, yet every day more people are tired of all this. Today Republicans are calling for apologies from Bush and Cheney and for the cleaning of house at the White House. Is that my voice? No, they know America is shocked and embarrassed by what is happening and they also know elections are next year again.

If Im wrong, read back to my posts earlier, and then read the conservative side. Its a war for oil and its OK to kill and it's OK to lie. I don't believe it, but if you do, explain to your kids why it's OK. In the years to come tell them why you want them to go to Iraq if we are still there. You won't, because it will be your son or daughter and not someone elses.

Rholmgren does want me to shut up because he knows what I say is true and it kills his agenda. It makes him look silly and small and embarrassed to believe in something so unethical.

Rholmgren has abused everyone that doesn't agree with him using name calling and other childish phrases. What he stands for is that lying is OK. That killing for an agenda is OK. That you should stand behind anyone who supports your agenda no matter what. He can't fight with me on war because I did do my duty. 6 years worth and earned the right to tell people what it is to fight and risk your life for your country. I left a piece of myself fighting for it. He can talk this and that, and I fought for him to have that right, but I didn't fight for him to try and stiffle others through bullish tactics.
I don't need his respect as he has shown the type of person he is. If you talk against his agenda he will call you a name and belittle you. Is that what you want to teach your kids to do. Jenny is that what you want your kids to do? So speak up and tell me?
Jenny, do you want your kids to talk to others as Rholmgren does? His examples are ex-gang members. Thats why I question that he hangs with them. You have seen it in his words. You have seen the name calling.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:29:00 PM
Back to Murrieta,
I see that our City Council is back to being a team. At least thats what the Laura Mitchell in the Californian is saying and quoting the council members. It must be that the Mayor is doing an excellent job of molding a team instead of dividing a team. Good for him. Ed, seems you agree as your statements were part of the article. Then I guess we are all united and headed for a City Council that serves it's residents and not the development community. I would ask Councilman Seyarto to respond as his comments the last few months have been negative towards the Mayor. Seems the Mayor has stepped up and been the leader that Recalled Mayor Van Haaster wasn't. As we turn the corner into an election year, we should get behind the Mayor and support his leadership. He must be the reason for this turnaround. Maybe the only thing we needed was to get the rotten apple out of the basket.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:00:00 PM
jeff how would you know what hannity or Rush promote? You must listen to them way more than I do. I listen to sports radio. It is just more entertaining. You also try to read between the lines too much and twist what I am saying. Acquaintances are not necessarily FRIENDS. To be honest Jeff my responses are getting shorter to you because yu are a lost cause and are only worth about two minutes of unproofread typing time.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:08:00 PM
I read today the pathetic amount that teachers recieve for supplies. It truly is distressing that schools allocate such a pittance for supplies for each year. I wonder how much more money teachers would have for supplies if they did not have to pay worthless union dues. Public employees unions are a political racket at best. Is there a way to repeal the Jerry Brown law that allowed unions to represent public employees? How about a new proposition next year.I would also like California school districts to be required to post a breakdown their yearly budgets on the net. I will bet there is alot of worthless and wasteful spending that could be redirected towards the classroom. Also M.E. you should rename your paper the Murrieta Pravda and hang the red star flag from your porch.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:18:00 PM
I'm answering this because it seemed like a "how would you like it if they lived near you" comment a few posts back.
Jeff, I am actually not even sure if my neighbors are not former gang members. I've never asked. I do know that they treat me kindly and seem to respect my family and me. And, I am absolutely positive that in the 40 years I lived in Albuquerque, at some points, I lived next door to, and was friends with ex-gang members, ex-cons, ex-substance abusers, etc.
However, I think you may have some kind of inside info on friends of Mr. Rholmgren that I am not in on.
The weird thing is, as a liberal democrat, I am for the underdog. People who have paid, or are in the process of repaying their debt to society should certainly have an opportunity to do so.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 9:11:00 PM
Well Rholmgren, you got a few of your facts wrong. You said that it distresses you that so little is allocated for school supplies. Guess who is in charge of that allocation? The administration, i.e., the just resigned Chet Francisco and his buddies on the Board, Austin Linsley (who also decided not to run again) and School Board President Ken Dickson.

And by the way, at a time when Murrieta did not have sufficient class rooms, the School Board and the Administration built a $10million dollar administration building. But this is nothing new, children always come last to administrators. Their perks are more important. Seems to me that in setting school budgets, the direct costs of the classroom should be budgeted first and then if there’s anything left over, administration can have something.

You also said that you wonder how much more money teachers would have for supplies if they didn’t have to pay worthless union dues. Teachers should not be buying supplies out of their salary irrespective of whether they pay union dues. The school district budget should buy the supplies.

You also referred to the “Jerry Brown law that allowed unions to represent public employees.” Actually, there are several laws, the Meyers-Milias-Brown (not Jerry) which covers local employees including the City of Murrieta, the Winton Act which covers school employees and the State employees bargaining bills. Virtually every State in the nation has adopted public employee-employer relations laws.

The reason they were adopted is that around the time of the air traffic controllers’ strike (during the Regan administration), the state legislatures and the federal gov’t decided to provide a form of collective bargaining to public employees, who, in return, would give up the right to engage in strikes and work stoppages. Perhaps you have noticed that there have been no public employee strikes within recent memory.

And finally, no group of public employees are represented by a union unless the affected unit of employees votes to be represented. There is never 100% support for any organization. So when you hear TV ads with someone saying that they are a teacher, firefighter, etc. and they oppose the unions taking their money, you can bet that they are in the minority and they are just being used to make it appear that most public employees feel the same way. Balderdash, if a majority didn’t want the unions in the first place, the unit of employees would be unrepresented. Its just sour grapes. (Sort of like those who didn’t vote for Bush have got to pay for his Iraq war)

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, October 30, 2005 9:19:00 PM
Mr Faunce thanks for the input. I knew you would respond with a legal clarification. I was throwing a dart out by using Jerry Browns. I am anti union in general for many reasons but I do not see any point in arguing the value of union representation. My opinion is a result of previous contacts with unions during past work experiences, and I have never come away impressed by union employee productivity or their work ethic. My experience was not with any public employee unions. I just do not see why union representation is necessary in the public arena.

I do agree that no teacher should be pay for their supplies. And that 10 million dollar expense you mentioned really makes my blood boil. This is definitely one area whre there is common ground. What candidates for school board would actually back the policies that you stated in your last post? Also do you think it is possible legally for districts to post a break down of their budgets so that the money wasting administrators can be held accountable?

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 31, 2005 8:40:00 PM
Rholmgren, you asked: "do you think it is possible legally for districts to post a break down of their budgets so that the money wasting administrators can be held accountable?"

There are several ways to handle this. First, the District budget is a public record and can be viewed and copied by making a demand under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Second, if the District does not currently publish its budget on line, once the budget is obtained under the CPRA it can be scanned and put on a community website.

One of the original ideas generated at an early Rescue Murrieta meeting was that we should maintain a website where important official documents could be accessed by community residents.

In addition to budgets,I have always thought that a copy of Murrieta's General Plan should be online.

One of the tricks in studying budgets is to locate where the extra, i.e., discretionary money is hidden. This is often accomplished by lumping a number of categories together under an innocuous category name. In order to understand a budget, one almost has to get the line item document.

Over time, a group of community residents could develope expertise in reading and commenting on the various local agency budgets. Not a bad idea.

In my judgment, we citizens do not participate sufficiently in our institutions to adequately protect our valuable rights. Forming citizen investigatory committees which publish information over the web would bring diverse talents and views together.

Who knows, we might both work on the same committee and actually learn from each others views!!
Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 31, 2005 9:41:00 PM
Ed,
Are you going to run for Council. This city needs a leader. Someone who is knows the ins and outs and what the residents need. Are you going to?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 31, 2005 9:57:00 PM
Jeff, I've no ambition to be a City Council member. Wasn't it Shakespear who said "show me a man's ambition and I'll show you his weakness." (Or words to that effect.)

I went to the City Council meeting last night to register my complaint about how Alexander Communities was trying to buy then bully our council members. I pointed out that when AC failed to maintain their three-vote block by losing van Haaster, they resorted to a lawsuit against Gibbs, Enochs and Ostling to keep them from voting on two new AC condo projects. AC claimed that those three could not vote because they had an economic interest now that they were defendants in AC's lawsuit.

I said that if Enochs and Ostling (Gibbs had settled earlier) had a conflict then so did Seyarto and McAllister. In fact, these latter two had a more direct conflict because of AC's $10K donation to their anit-recall campaign.

I said that the Murrieta residents did not like the bullying tactics involved in a developer suing individual council members and that we would be watching to see how Seyarto and McAllister handled their conflicts in the "court of public opinion."

True to form, Seyarto responded with a personal blast at those he said would not move on from the recall.

What nonsense. The reason we were there was because Alexander Communities had NOT moved on from the recall. But, of course, Kelly S. had no words of condemnation for AC, only for the Rescue Murrieta members who were speaking on behalf of a legitimate community interest in allowing our elected representatives to vote on developer projects.

Kelly took my comments personnally even though the comments were addressed to a much larger issue. He demonstrated, once again, that he is so wrapped up in his own personal agenda, he cannot see the viewpoint of City residents.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:20:00 AM
Mr Faunce I rarely use hypotheticals but I ask this: If there is success in preventing AC from building on the two lots and AC sells the lots to another developer who then proposes to again build condos as the lot is zoned; Do you think there would be the same opposition to the second developer? Basically is the beef with AC or condos being built on those specific lots?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:58:00 AM
Morning Rholmgren: Well the neighbors to the proposed condos object to the projects for a variety of reasons.

Even the Planning Commission complained that the MU3 zoning was too imprecise to give much guidance. And the Planning Commission Pres., Randon Lane, was the lone opposition vote saying that he thought the condo development at the Southeast corner of Lemon and Washington was not a "good fit" for that corner.

Rescue Murrieta did not take a position on the condo development per se. We were addressing the attempt of Alexander Communities to either "buy" the necessary council votes or "intimidate" the council members. Our opposition was to Alexander Communities tactics rather than the condo projects.

If Randon Lane's observation is correct that a condo project just doesn't fit that corner, then the oppoisition to that project would undoubtedly continue irrespective of whether AC sold to another developer.

Our concern is that long-term the City of Murrieta not have to face developer lawsuits against individual council members simply because the developer desires to disqualify them from voting.

Our position is that if the developer voluntarily jumps into the political arena by making political contributions, then don't whine when your "horse(s)" don't win.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:02:00 PM
Ed,
It's really interesting to read that piece by Ms. Mitchell in the Californian about the serenity and cohesivenes of our City Council but Councilmen Seyarto's comments that you reported on are really the tip of the truth. We heard his constant postings on here for the last six months and they were anything but someone who is working as a teammate. This is still a very divided Council. In my opinion they are still working against each other which in the short and long run means they are working against the citizens of this city. If you don't run Ed and get some strength and backbone into this council I guess I'll just have to draft you in....can we do that? Someone has to stand up and challenge Seyarto and you are the guy to do it.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:09:00 PM
Ed,
It's really interesting to read that piece by Ms. Mitchell in the Californian about the serenity and cohesivenes of our City Council but Councilmen Seyarto's comments that you reported on are really the tip of the truth. We heard his constant postings on here for the last six months and they were anything but someone who is working as a teammate. This is still a very divided Council. In my opinion they are still working against each other which in the short and long run means they are working against the citizens of this city. If you don't run Ed and get some strength and backbone into this council I guess I'll just have to draft you in....can we do that? Someone has to stand up and challenge Seyarto and you are the guy to do it.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:10:00 PM
Jeff and others bloggers here, I forgot to mention that the Council announced last night that the plans for the Golden Triangle are to be revealed in just a few days. No specifics were given, but I got the distinct impression that all of the Council members had been made aware of what's coming and they are looking forward to the public input.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:50:00 PM
Mr Faunce I understand the specifics now. If there is opposition to condos at those two locations then tthere must be an alternative out there that could be supported. It seems to me that lately (the last year or two) that there is opposition to most of the "fill in" projects around town. I think that there needs to be more that groups need to do than merely oppose. They need to also voice their alternatives. Otherwise it seems like those groups are opposing ANY development on the last empty lots in their area. I have said before that there needs to be more clarity as to how many condos will exist at build out. I think that as of now that number is ambiguous.

In the previous post your point was made that there are many line items that are hidden within district budgets. (And budgets at every government level) There must be an accounting method available that could create categories and budget breakdowns in order to catch wasteful spending. This is the computer age. I am surew that some compter wizard out there could create a user friendly interface that would enable a user to scan through certain categories of likely waste. I think areas ripe for scrutiny would be Administrative structure and overhead. I wonder how much money could have saved if that 10 million dollar building was not built and instead the district bought and moved into an existing structure elsewhere in town. There is also the issue of public employees versus private subcontracting. I am sure that there are many ways to streamline operations in many areas and free up those funds for the classroom.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:17:00 PM
After listening to pro and con arguments and commercials on these propositions all week I have observed two things overall. Those against most of these propositions have irrational and selfish slants with their anti- proposition propoganda. Those who are for the propositions put forth reasonable arguments as to why changes are needed. Prop 74 is a good example: A school administrator I heard on the radio today reasoned that increasing tenure to 5 years would give districts a more reasonable time to evaluate teaching performance. She also reasoned that most teachers come into their own professionally after years 3 and 4 and that a 2 year evaluation was too short of a period to evaluate a teacher's competence. The second issue that was brought up was the difficulty removing a poor teacher. An example was given of a teacher in Orange County that used his own text books and refused to use the school's text books. He was also caught on many occasions cursing at students and using profanity while teaching. Under the current system it took 2 YEARS at a court cost of $20,000 PER DAY in court. This proposition in my opinion will swing the pendulum away from a system that is out of balance. It should not be so difficult, or so expensive, to remove a bad teacher. The teachers union is simply trying to protect teacher's jobs at the expense of student's instructional quality.
Hopefully people will look past superficial campaign ads and vote with their brains and not with their initial emotional response to the advertising they hear and see.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 04, 2005 6:06:00 PM
Mr. Rholmgren,
I am a teacher that has acheived tenure in our local school system. I am neither irrational nor selfish in my thoughts. I will vote no and encourage parents to vote no. Your examples don't address the real issues here. The issue here is not the Governors concern for the quality of our educators but his concern is his attack on the union members, your teachers. We work with dwindling funding, increased class sizes, good teachers leaving the system because they find higher paying positions in the secular work community, lack of suppiles and now what you want to eliminate is our security in employment, taking away due process in a termination. Teachers without tenure have no right to due process, no hearings, no ability to defend their position.
A teacher can be dismissed for unsatisfactory performance at any time in their career, not just in the first two years. But the Govenors goal is not to increase the abilities of the teachers but to chip away at the Teacher's Union. The one instance you talked about was only because that teacher chose to fight his dismisal through the courts. Even teachers that don't have tenure could fight through the courts for 2 years costing the State thousands. That example doesn't hold water.
Instead of addressing class sizes, funding and lack of supplies, the Governor has chosen to attack his foe. His interest is not to help the public but it's to hurt his enemy, my union.
Almost every state's tenure is at a 2/3 year period. We would join only Indiana and Missouri at 5 years, being the longest in the country. Doesn't that seem strange that this Governor wants to take his teachers to the highest level instead of the main stream.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 04, 2005 7:06:00 PM
7:06 I support excellence in teaching and I also believe in merit pay to promote excellence in teaching. I am sorry to say alot of us in the private sector do not see anything wrong with easier termination for poor performance. The majority of us in the private sector live with performance stress every day. If I perform poorly I deserve to be fired. I am required to perform at a high level of excellence in my field and I expect others to set high standards for themselves also. There will still be due process for teachers if 74 passes . As a matter of fact teachers will still enjoy more due process than the majority of us even if 74 passes. You also mentioned how many good teachers are leaving for higher paying positions somewhere else. In every field you will find that a certain percentage of people are more ambitious than than the rest of the pack. Why do you think there is a problem when people seek higher pay in different employment. It happens every day in every field. The teaching profession is no different. As for your union busting assertion: Hopefully there will be enough people that vote on Tues that realize that Public Employee Unions represent just a small fraction of California's workforce and yet have a voice that is disproportionately larger than their numbers. (Legislature influence)It is time to check that power back to a proper proportionate level.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 04, 2005 8:09:00 PM
Mr. R.
5 years is certainly fair.
I am beginning to wonder if I really AM a liberal Democrat! I agree with you completely!
(On this issue at least :-)

The teacher above states: "Teachers without tenure have no right to due process, no hearings, no ability to defend their position." I believe, and would like to be corrected if I am wrong, that a wrongful termination suit could be filed no matter what the profession, if it comes to that. Is the number of terminated teachers without tenure very high at this time? Will it skyrocket because of this measure? I honestly don't think so, and will apologize on this blog a year from now, if this passes and the sky falls.
But, I would also like to know how many actual "wrongful terminations" there are in a given year.
Also, employees in the public sector rarely have "due process", "hearings" or the ability to defend their position. The usual course of action for terminated employees is to update that resume and hit the pavement. Not to demean the profession, as you will recall I am a former teacher, let's also keep it in perspective. It is a job, and in a job we are expected to perform. In the State of California performance has been extremely poor. Students are not getting less intelligent. The books are not lacking in information. The drips from the leaky ceiling aren't smudging test scores. Harder work needs to be done. It is not only a tenure issue. It is not only a money issue.
Once again...merit.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 04, 2005 10:15:00 PM
Ms. Wright and Mr. Rholmgren,
If your points are to be taken as fact, why have tenure at all. What makes the teaching profession any different then a bricklayer? The facts are again, the Governor wants to make California only the 3rd state to raise it's tenure to 5 years. The standard for public school teachers is 2/3.
School teachers are not asking that we not be judged by merit. A teacher with tenure can be dismissed but have earned the right to a hearing. In California, workers with no tenure can be terminated for any reason unless they are contracted outside the law. That means, even if an employee has performed outstandingly, the employer can let them go for no reason. Wrongful termination, and if I'm wrong let someone correct me, is when someone can prove they were let go because of discrimination, not performance.
Now we get to the "unsatisfactory performance" part. This will then have to be negotiated between California and the Union. The Union will not let this be all uncompassing and more and more guidance will be written in where there is none today, effectively making it harder for a school to fire a teacher for unsatisfactory performance. Twice as many evaluations will have to be performed by overloaded school administrations resulting in millions of dollars in spending. Where are the resources and funds going to come from? From our childrens educations. In the next 10 years, California is going to need 100,000 new teachers and they have to draw these resources from other states. Why, would any teacher come to California when most surrounding states have 2/3 year probabtion periods. The studies that were presented by SDSU last month stated there would be zero improvement in overall performance by extending tenure to 5 years by looking at the performance in the two states that currently have a 5 year probation period.
Results of this proposition will be a further reduction of teachers in recruiting, a need for more administrators and the cost to taxpayers will be in the millions. And as the study states the improvement in performance is minimal if any. The cost will be to our kids who are already being shorted.
You won't ever change tenure for teachers in this country. Yes, Mr. Rholmgren, we are protected as public employees. We are proud of our performance but with politics involved we are different then most workers. By taking California to higher levels you will lose teachers to other states. All you would have done with raising the years is taking away the right to a hearing for teachers who have to work hard to educate our kids.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 04, 2005 11:15:00 PM
As one who has been both a school teacher and has represented very large public employee unions, I would like to give a little different perspective to this debate.

First, comparing teachers, or any public employee, to the private sector is fundamentally unfair. Unlike the private sector where businesses have to make a profit in order to survive, the public agencies are not subject to that type of market place correction.

The reason why many jobs are in the public sector, vis-a-vis the private sector, is that it is impossible to put an economic value on the services performed. The most obvious example is the safety services (police and fire). But many other jobs likewise must be put into the public sector.

Teachers, for example, perform a societal necessary function of getting children ready to take their place in the adult community.

Second, there is another potentially pernicious aspect in the way our public agencies are organized, i.e., hierarchially.

Why, for example, are administrators paid more than teachers? What role do they play in the teaching process that places a higher value on their services.

I suggest that a more horizontal organizational structure would be more appropriate. Administrators should be good at providing ancillary services such as building upkeep, supply delivery, scheduling classes, etc. But those skills do not translate into a hierarchial reason to give them an overlord function of grading teachers.

If you have never taught in a public school system, then you could not possibly understand just how incompetent many administrators are. Not only incompetent, but mean, weasely nasty humans.

When I taught school, (chemistry, physics, advanced math) the school administrator was a former football coach who had spent his summers attending education courses until he amassed sufficient credits to be appointed a principle. Did that make him qualified to judge my performance in subject matters that he could not even comprehend? Of course not.

The larger public community needs to understand the inordinate power that administrators have over teachers -- and that power is largely undeserved.

My experience with public agencies is that once you get above the level where the basic services are being performed, such as the classroom teacher, the hierarchially higher people mostly spend their time consolidating there power and meeting with others as they plan their upward route through the public hierarchy. It's not a pretty picture and even worse to try to perform your duties.

Rholmgren, how would you insure that administrators would be competent to judge the performance of teachers? Who's going to judge the administrators?

The inherent flaw in Arnold's proposition is that it attacks the wrong level of responsiblity - the teacher. If teachers are not getting the job done according to some objective standard, then why aren't the administrators held accountable? Why do they have tenure? Why don't their heads roll? After all, they're in charge.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 04, 2005 11:44:00 PM
This is a tough call Ed.

On one hand my workers have a 90 day probation period until they are considered term employees and although we can terminate for no reason we elect to give each employee a right to be heard in the termination process, but this is not mandatory. I do believe in merit but 5 years is a long time if the only benefit to this is more tax dollars thrown at it.

On the other hand I respect teachers for the work and other intangibles that they do. As the teacher above says, California loses many teachers to the private sector because of salaries and the real reason to accept lower salaries is to have job security. Also if the study thats been done has looked at States with 5 year probation periods and there is no marked improvement why spend the millions in administrative costs to pass this Proposition. I'd rather there was a Proposition concerning the issues she did bring up, ones that parents are concerned over and thats the size of classes and money for supplies and programs. We the parents really don't monitor everything being taught in the classroom and hand over that responsibility to the administrators. I didn't see Arnold addressing those issues. He just attacked the union members making me think this is all about politics and not about educating the kids. Except for the Proposition 73, 79 and 80 which I will vote for, I think this is just a political group of Propositions pitting Corporate money against Union money. Democrats power against Republican power.

I think when it comes to the size of Union members and their voice, Corporations have an even stronger voice with far less members.
Like everything else the lines are drawn here around ideology instead of our kids.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 05, 2005 12:39:00 AM
Yes Jeff, I definitely believe that this proposition fundamentally targets unions and union money rather than upgrading the teaching profession.

I'm no fan of union money, but people have to have a way to organize to oppose big business money. If we could take all of this type of money out of our political process I'd support it.

Ralph Nader made a statement, when running for president, which really struck and stuck with me. He said that on the day after he was elected, he would begin the process of making it easy for "little people" to organize against bigness of all types.

Really good teachers either leave the profession or simply "suck it up" and put up with the incredible nonsense that is heaped on them because of some personal committment.

The misery that teachers experience won't change until the organizational structure which gives job security control to administrators is eliminated.

I think its kinda funny that anecdotally John and Ken, today, had an alleged school administrator on their show who claimed that it takes two to three years and thousands of dollars to remove an incompetent teacher. But, I can tell you, as one who was general counsel to numerous public employee unions, that our view was that once the public agency fired an employee, it was impossible to get their job back.

The only way the market place is going to have an impact on public schools is that more and more citizens are putting their children in private schools or home schooling. I understand that LA Unified had about 25% less students this year than they anticipated. They cannot stand to lose that much money.

But the private schools are organized with much less administration, its too costly.

One futher point. I often have to deal with public agency administration, human resource personnel, risk managers, and their attorneys. I am constantly amazed at their incompetence and stupidity. They would rather litigate than settle. The public doesn't understand why that's the case. But the reason is that public administration is about control not the protecting the bottom line.

As long as administrators have tax dollars to cover the costs, they would rather harrass the work force and keep them controlled through fear. It is a very sick system. Arnold's solution is so far off the mark that it will only make the situation worse. My God, why would we give incompetent, overpaid, pompous, stuffed-shirt school administrators more power over the teachers? Do we really want all the good teachers to just quit?

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:21:00 AM
Mr Faunce

As you stated, the Golden Triangle plan has materialized. Could it be the winner it sounds like? I’ve got my fingers crossed, and I think it’s for real.

And now, the future sales and hotel tax revenues can skyrocket for Murrieta if the commercial potential for not only inside, BUT ALSO AROUND the Triangle is allowed to properly develop in a commercial sense. All of this throws the spotlight back on the ridiculous proposal to build 400+ apartments on one of the few remaining commercial treasures of Murrieta, being the commercial corridor flanking the Murrieta Hot Springs Road /Jefferson intersection.

I’ve done some reading at City Hall, and it looks to me like that high of an apartment density would not be a shoo-in for approval purposes in an MU-3 zone. It would take special approval of the council to make it happen.

A huge amount of potential sales tax revenue hangs in the balance for our city. Depending on how it all plays out, this commercial corridor decision will result in either a permanent fiscal bonanza from sales taxes, or a never ending costly fiscal detriment to our city. The economics of this issue are obvious, but what’s going on in the political shadows might be anything but obvious.

This ridiculous extremely high density apartment complex idea is designed to benefit only the developers and their supporters, not the city. When compared to the commercial sales tax benefit, there is no possible justification for putting a massive jungle of low rent structures on this very valuable site. In fact, if you take away the rent potential of extreme high density, the next best thing for a developer in this location is obviously exactly what benefits the public the most, and that is commercial development. With commercial rather than apartments in this valuable location, it would be a win-win situation; the difference being that the developer’s profit is just very high instead of extremely high; and the public gets a permanent sales tax benefit instead of a heavy permanent tax drain.

There will be a developer’s propaganda snowstorm on this, but it will still be a no-brainer that it would be an absolute sin to turn this beautiful natural commercial location into high density apartments.

I bet the politics of this process will be one for the history books.

Been There

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:26:00 PM
Mr Faunce you had many good points with your 11:44 post and I agree with your stances on Administration. To me Prop 74 addresses the issue of tenure and removing bad teachers and I support it but your point is well taken that there also needs to be a shake up at the administative level also. I think some of these officials should be ELECTED so that they would have to pay the price at the polls if they spend district funds unwisely. I do disagree with your statement "that it is impossible to put an economic value on the services performed" (by the public sector)I also think that the public sector is subject to "market place correction." The economic value of a public sector employee is established by salary level. If a salary level of a public employee position attracts few qualified applicants then the salary level will need to rise until the applicant pool is sufficient. The rise or fall of a salary level would be considered a market place correction would it not? The supply side would be the salary and the salary level would determine demand for the position. If 74 causes fewer people to seek the teaching profession then the best way to re-attract people to the profession would be higher salaries. I have found that people will overlook many workplace issues when salaries are higher.

By Anonymous, at Monday, November 07, 2005 8:07:00 PM
It seems that the right people were voted into the School board. It seems that the conservative proposition agendas were squashed. It also seems that in almost every major election moderate Democrats prevailed. Seems our President and the conservative agenda is not what a majority of this nation wants anymore. Maybe they have seen enough lies, untruths, misleading statements, deaths from a very unnessasary war to last a lifetime. You know, it's beginning to look alot like Christmas.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:20:00 PM
Keep smiling Jeff the Bolsheviks felt the smae way in 1917 after the revolution. I am also sure the the Nazis were exuberant after taking power in the '30's. Wait I forgot no power changed hands. There are still the same number of Republican governors as Nov.7. The only thing that was proven by this election in Calif. is that misleading T.V. advertising works. What should California do now? Increase taxes on the wealthy? If you do revenue will shrink. Rich people can establish residency ANYWHERE. Why do you think Tiger Woods moved to Florida after he got his first millions. This state should just raise a Red Star and Sickle flag and rename itself The Peoples Reublic of California. Jeff your lie assertions are stale and you are still Benedict Jeff former war hero and now present traitor. Everytime a terrorist reads anything from someone with your point of view they feel pumped up to go out and kill some more with the hope that they can persuade more little Jeffs of the world to be appeasing wimps. Are you French Jeff? Their appeasing attitude really works!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:01:00 PM
Anger and disrespect reign with conservatives. They show the class of people they are. Nothing seems to be going right for them. Losses at the polls. Indictments. Ethics violations. Power plays. Approval ratings falling. War dragging on and going nowhere except draining our tax dollars. Gas prices way too high.

Polls are not to be believed or are they? But everything is falling around them as an ideology crumbles with their greed and hunger for power.

Instead of propositions to benefit Republican agendas, why won't politicians start looking at the needs of the people?

Yes, was it logical that we set in place a law that requires parents to be notified if an underage child is having an abortion. Of course. But people aren't knocking each other over in Sacramento to make this happen. It's to satisfy the far right Christian base that we are moving and tearing down Roe vs Wade. The rest of the propositions were just to limit liberal based unions which are opposed to Republicans backed by corporate dollars.

Instead, if the people were the most important part of all of this, why not propositions on education that limit the size of classes, that supply dollars for the needs of the classes, after school programs that build our children instead of letting them go home to empty homes. Propositions on health care. Propositions to stop the hiring of illegal aliens. Propositions that put limits on gasoline profits. No, we want to worry about tenure of union employees. Who really cares! All of us care about our kids, our families and our homes. Thats what it's all about. Not letting Corporations take more and more control of these things and our lives.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:39:00 AM
From Jeff's first line until the last line, nothing but criticize, moan, groan, whine, accuse.

This is just a guess. Under Jeff's name in his high school year book: Most Likely to Never do Anything but Complain.

Has the guy ever had a constructive thought in his life (beyond meaningless one-liners)?

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:26:00 AM
Jeff your proposition proposals would make Karl Marx proud. Perhaps you should hang California's Red Star Flag on your house. Can you imagine using this phrase during the WW2 or any other war before the present one: "I support our troops but I am against this illegal war by choice." Any war is made by choice and all wars were viewed as illegal by some party. FOR YEARS the U.S. let terrorism grow and fester( and yes it was growing through Republican and Democratic administrations) We did almost nothing until 911 happened. Well Jeff from now on if some dictator, or nation, takes pot shots at our military, or our civilians directly or indirectly, then they must be dealt with. Diplomacy has its place but words do not mean a damn thing unless you can back them up with force. Look at France: They thought they could be against us and therefore guarantee immunity from the terrorist wrath. Look at the way they are dealing with the youthful terrorist hooligans. The police have been impotent. It is even sadder to see that good French citizens have either been unable, or unwilling, to stand up to such outragious treachery and vandalism. If any such movement happened here I guarantee you that those of us good citizens with civilian arsenals would aid law enforcement and lethally end such an outburst. The anti war movement today is macabre. Their myopic tally of the body count disrespects the service people's sacrifice for our country and totally disregards all the positve things that the military has accomplished for Iraqi freedom over there and American safety here. I dare any of you anti war types to go to Pechanga any night of the week ( The mighty Marines are having their balls there) and protest the war and logically justify how you support THEM but not THEIR efforts. Jeff you have become a parroting mouth piece for the far far far ultra extreme left like Moveon .org and MOORORON. Many of your thoughts and phrases are almost direct quotes from the positions that are taken by the anti war wierdos. Stop being a lemming and a sheep and grow back the spine you had in your youth. We need Americans that act with courage and not little Jeffs who want to take the easy way out when the going is tough. The Vietnam ways are for losers and we absolutely should not listen to those that advocate the losing mentality that the Vietnam era represented. Also Jeff the Christmas you spoke of was an empty box. Absolutely nothing changed Nationally. There were no seats gained or lost by either party. The Dems must be desperate for someting positive to hold on to when they get so giddy over a faux win.
M.E. your point about the T.V. ads was true. I did not like what was going on from both sides. Regular advertising must be truthful or a lawsuit will be filed. I think something needs to be done to hold campaign ads legally accountable to the truth.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:43:00 AM
8:26,
Well, lets look at your post. You criticized, moaned, groaned, whined and accused. Great post! Now come up with something that makes sense. My constructive comment was that it's beginning to look alot like Christmas. But I encourage more comments from conservatives and liberals other then name calling, lying, and disrespect.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:09:00 PM
I love to hear the fear in the voices of the close minded ideologues of this world. They are afraid of everything and if someone rattles their cage they react with violence, and classless name calling. They're answer to everything is Bill Clinton, liberal, gutless and love it or leave it. 59%+ feel the American people were lied to and 55%+ think the war was wrong on the facts we now know were lies at the time. That leaves another 10% that don't care and 30% that only can read the word Republican in the voting both. Some people use common sense, others are led by the ring in their noses. Choose for yourself.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:19:00 PM
Jeff's pleased that Christmas is coming, so let's think of gifts for him.

1 Kleenex, to dab his constant flow of tears.
2 An autographed picture of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Allah willing.
3 The Idiot's Guide to Political Hate. (No, don't bother, he has this one already).
4 Bill and Hillary dolls.
5 A donation on Jeff's behalf to the Ho Chi Mihn library. (A donation not for Jeff's active duty service, but for everything he has done since).

Anyone need more Christmas ideas for Jeff? Just say so.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:50:00 PM
Jeff is what he accuses others of being. Oh the irony!

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:48:00 PM
Please forward any Christmas gifts for me to the Bill Frist, Scooter Libby, Tom Delay, Rep. Cunningham, potentially Dick Cheney and Karl Rove defense fund. All crying towels should be forwarded directly to anyone working at Fox News with one exception going to Richard Ackerman, did he get any votes?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:12:00 PM
M.E. Pat speaks for many of us. What you are seeing is the righter wing of the Republican party verbally slapping Bush for straying from Reagan Doctrine. We also do not like the way that the Bush administration is handling or confronting the Left Wing. We do not like Bush's new tone engagement of the left. We have had enough of it and we are demanding a more confrontational approach. In other words there are alot of mad Right Wingers who are frustrated with Bush not countering the lies of the Left in a harsher way.
Jeff lets analyze your first assertion that 59% of the American people feel that they were lied to. Who lied Jeff? Clinton? The Democratic leadership in Congress? The New York Times? I say again Jeff for about fifth time that everyone of those that I mentioned were saying exactly what Bush was saying years and months before the war. And yet you can only lamely accuse Bush as the sole liar. LAME!
Your next assertion that 55 percent of Americans are against the war. What was the question? Did the polster ask: Do you approve or disaprove of Bush's handling of the war? If a pollster asked me that question I would say disapprove. I know you would say the same. How can two people with opposite views of the war answer this question the same way? I believe Bush is fighting a timid war and I want more definitive and harsher action taken. You are just anti war. Jeff you one dimensionally assume that the 55% believe as you do and it scares me that someone of your CEO stature cannot grasp the complexities and frailties of poll numbers. Have you ever thought of how many other polls can make opposing views answer a question the same way? Can you see how such polling practices can be used by the media to sway public opinion? Oh I am sorry Jeff I forgot that you are a lemming and critical thinking is not one of your best attributes.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:13:00 PM
Murrietaneyes,
Thank you, I hadn't read that. Buchanan rarely talks sense but what he said is just pure logic. It isn't twisted by ideology or lies. Just common sense.

See, do I know my stuff. As soon as I come back with logic, who's name appears....Bill Clinton. LOL. Did you all know that EVERYTHING is his fault. The closest any of these big talkers has been to the military is driving past Miramar on the 15. LOL.

This administration may go down as one of the worst in the history of this great country. Scandal, abuse, lies, manipulation, big government, fiscal waste.......but wait, the rich got a big tax cut.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:23:00 PM
Jeff who would believe a guy that complained about a lack of parks but had many so close by his house)had common sense. I do think the crown for the piss poorest Presidency belongs to Jimmy Carter. Clinton is in second only because he was impeached but the economy was good. Under Carter everything was a mess any way you sliced it. I always thought it was ironic that when Clinton first ran for office he was claiming that '91 was the worst U.S. economy in 50 years. Anyone who lived through the Carter years would know that Clinton's claim was a lie. If you claim Bush is a liar and his administration is scandal ridden then you must surely admit that Clinton was the King of all liars and lawbreakers.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:24:00 PM
One more thing Jeff. How can you cut income taxes for the poor when they barely pay any. Any tax cut that is made would have to go to those that pay the majority of the nations's tax bill.The top ten percent of wage earners pay roughly two thirds of the nations tax bill. Or how about this : The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay only 5 percent of the nation's tax bill. Google the details yourself. Just common sense and logic Jeff. Jeff you are also for raisiong taxes on the rich in California. Did you know that there are barely 200,000 people in California that fall into the "rich" income category. THey also pay almost two thirds of all of the income tax collected by the state. It would be fiscally reckless if the state started raising taxes and targeted this group in particular. This is the group of Californians with the most mobility. We should have a tax policy that encourages the rich to claim residency here. I am afraid though that under the current leadership at the Peoples Republic of Sacramento that the trend is to attack this group for more funds. What a mistake that would be.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:38:00 PM
I don't argue with people that show no class or respect for anyone elses opinions. Ed Fanuce in a previous post said it is a waste of time and I agree. It's exactly like I have stated in many posts that these conservative and liberal ideolologes have been taught through listening to Fox News and Conservative talk radio the exact talking points to twist the truth. Well, polls of course have a slight 3% error, but they are proven correct. Going into the proposition election, all the polls were dead on. They don't lie no matter how conservative talking points tell people they do. Our President is thought of as a liar and unethical by a great majority of Americans including me, so my points are not fanatical nor are my points radical. They are supported by facts.

Yes, all these tax savings went only to people that didn't need them as the poor don't pay the bulk of the taxes. So why have tax cuts when the deficit is growing and out of control? To appease the Republican's best friends, the corporation.

The war is slipping out of control said John McCain yesterday. Anti-war?? Not me. I wanted us to attack Afganistan and find and kill Osama Bin Laden. Yes, we attacked Afganistan but like the first Gulf War a Bush didn't finish the job. Al Queda and Bin Laden are still running free blowing things up, killing Americans. But what we have done is brought our brave boys lined them up out in the desert and made them easy targets for roadside bombs. Why? OIL. If our purpose was to eliminate a horrible dictator, why not Iran? The Sudan? Syria? Conservatives love war and killing. We are also there to pay back a Middle Eastern country for 9-11. The conservatives in power wanted a scapgoat for 9-11 and found one by twisting the truth, manipulating Congress and the American people with talk of WMD's and a connection to Al Queda. We now know both were lies, perpatrated on us through manipulation of our media by the White House. They thought this would be a calkwalk and they would come out glowing. Yes, it was a cakewalk the first month, but they forgot to measure everything as the OIL was sitting there waiting for them. Well 15,000 american casualties later, we have a quagmire. Were 15,000 dead and injured American boys and 300 billion dollars worth an Iraqi constitution? I don't think so and more and more Americans everyday believe what I said months ago. So let the conservative ideologues defend this White House that is full of liars and manipulators. But I guess it's all Bill Clinton's fault. Yes he lied about an affair and it cost millions to figure that out, but Bush's lies have cost 15,000 American casualties. I'll take Clinton's cheating everyday of the week. Intelligent people can think clearly for themselves, but ideologues don't know any better. If Sean Hannity told them not to bathe would they?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 7:14:00 AM
Jeff, you said: “Yes, all these tax savings went only to people that didn't need them as the poor don't pay the bulk of the taxes. So why have tax cuts when the deficit is growing and out of control? To appease the Republican's best friends, the corporation.”

I would change your last sentence to read: “To appease the [Politicians’] best friends, the corporation.”

We are living the scenario that Eisenhower warned us about – the Military/Industrial complex. Only it’s worse than he imagined. The evil he identified should be renamed – the Corporate/Politicians complex.

The more money the corporations extract from the political process, the more money they have to buy politicians. By now, the corporations have so much money, we the people, are no longer relevant to the process. Even our elections are stolen.

Fundamentally, what is under attack is the Constitution of the US. The Federal Gov’t only got the power that the States ceded to it. All other powers were reserved to the States. But the need to have a “United States” rather than a “United” States has led to the development of doctrines, e.g., under the commerce clause the war power amendment, that have aggregated States’ influence at the Federal level.

Once the power was consolidated at the Federal level, it was much easier for the corporations to buy that power. Make no mistake, the Federal Judiciary participated in the consolidation principally on the decisions of “Conservative Activist” judges. In the long run, we all stand to lose far more by allowing the Feds to control every aspect of our lives than we would if some states allowed such things as gay marriage.

It pains me to read the invectives passing from Rholmgren to you. Both of you are passionate in your desire to make our political experiment work. And, it is no help to the debate that Rholmgren equates your passion with communism, facism, or any other “ism.”

I refuse to support, with membership, any political party. At this time, I believe that we are best served by identifying ourselves as “independent.”

I also believe that those who want to be our politicians, should, for the most part, be avoided. The politician “lifers” have given themselves too comfortable a lifestyle and they spend their lives devoted to planning their continued involvement in perpetuating that lifestyle. The corporate money is what solidifies their opportunity to escape the work-a-day life that most citizens must live.

I know this post is somewhat rambling, but my point is this, we ALL do ourselves a disservice by identifying ourselves as democrats, republicans, greens, etc. because, by dividing ourselves into separate camps, we have been foolishly fighting each other while the corporate interests have simply co-opted, i.e., purchased, the entire landscape.

When will a citizens’ critical mass gain the insight that our political process is our undoing irrespective of whether it is directed by republicans or democrats?

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 10:51:00 AM
Ed Faunce...
Very thoughtful and insightful entry. Some might think you were referring only to national politics, but I know what you said is all true right here in Murrieta. Your line, "The more money the corporations extract from the political process, the more money they have to buy politicians. By now, the corporations have so much money, we the people, are no longer relevant to the process"... could easily be about the high density residential plague which is eating up our commercial corridors. This would not be happening without the huge power of the housing development corporate world, which is so big it can apparantly overcome what is best for our city as a whole.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 11:52:00 AM
Ed,
I am not a Democrat either nor do I follow anyone's ideology other then my own. I am so upset the path that our government has gone down that most issues driven by the conservative or liberal world, that I passionately defend my thoughts to speak independently. However, today's ruling class happens to offend the things that I hold dear, my personal freedom. This is what I risked my life fighting for. Today, most Republican or conservative initiatives want to take freedoms away, giving more and more to the corporations which I happen to work for. I hate also with a passion lying, manipulation in order to serve an ideology. But what I represent is my feelings and I don't want anyone to hold back their own by using name calling or disrespect to frighten them from speaking out. I don't think anyone is a coward, traitor, radical for passionately speaking their mind. Thats exactly what I fought for and believe it is the duty of the people in this country to do so. I have a problem with those who speak the same rhetoric and don't have a thought for themselves. How can masses of people not differ in one or two things and would defend liars, cheats, manipulators just because they label themselves the same? They really lose all credibility when they have no "real" personal opinion.

No, Ed. you are right. We should view each issue independant of ideologies and labels. We should not belittle independant thinking, but challange each other, not through disrespect but through an open forum like this. But we can see what the conservative leaders, from Washington to the Evangelistical leaders try to use fear and name calling to frighten Americans out of their views and opinions. Read what Pat Robertson told the community in PA as an example. I hold scared my right to speak and oppose those trying to take that right away with disrespect and hate.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 12:11:00 PM
11:52,
Your comment is so relevant to Murrieta and our City Council. It is not about cash money but the power to buy elections outright. The more money that can be poured into advertising and resources the more success that is generated to "helpful and cooperating" power hungry politicians. It surely happens here and it is something that needs to be regulated and stopped. The people need to take back the power of government, like the two recall elections that we have had. However, we see that through lawsuits that the power can still stay in the hands of corporations with the most money. How many lawsuits can the City of Murrieta fend off, if the Council is attempting to do what's best for the residents?

So you have a good point. None of these comments apply to just national politics. We have back door politics happening right here under our nose.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 1:48:00 PM
Everyone has an ideology Jeff. Even you do although you falsely deny having one. The biggest obstacle to controlling Corporate and other big money will be whether there is a First Amendment infringement by doing so. I do not think there is any clause in the Constitution that denies bigger or wealthier free speech. I think that trying to regulate one group's free speech rights sets a precedent that could lead to free speech regulations of other groups. Restrictions to free speech could also lead to authoritarian leadership.Having Corporate heavyweights involved in the political process may by the price we pay for having the most successful Capitalist system in the history of the world.

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 8:09:00 PM
No lets not regulate anyone's free speech. Except the liberal unions. Lets destroy them so Corporations have no challange. Defend those conservative organizations no matter what the issue.

No, not everyone has an ideology. I for sure don't, If someone convinces me differently, at any moment I am flexible to change. Ideologues have no flexibility. Logic would say that even conservatives would be asking, why would Scooter Libby manipulate the media, why does Tom Delay have so many ethic violations and an indictment, why did Bill Frist call for an investigation and then cancel it when he found out another conservative was involved? But they can't say it. What is their reaction to all accusations of any Republican politician. Defense and then attack with name calling, trying to create hate towards those challenging them. Unchristian, unpatriotic, cowards, traitors. They don't have the reasoning power nor the ability to admit wrongdoing nor any compassion. Read back to this conservative's posts. Bill Clinton is at fault, which was predictible. Liberals fault. The fault of the other side for everything. George Bush lied because the liberals forced him to.

A reasonable intelligent person would be asking, why did they do this? Ideologies have no reason, no thought. Just follow the leader.

Ideologies are for the weak, the scared, the frightened. The Religious right is afraid of homosexuality and the fear that God will bring his wrath down on them is a woman chooses an abortion. But its OK to drop a bomb on a neighborhood in Mosul because they are Islamic. Like I said, it is only fear that drives all of them. Fear of other religions, cultures, races, sexuality, terrorists, criminals to the point of hesteria. Thats what this administration has used to scare the public into thinking they need them to protect them. But we have seen the protection they have offered. We have watched Katrina, the Iraq War, the gas prices, jobs, illegal immigration, the deficit. We have no protection from these things. What we have is a government taking all of this away from us and giving it to their best friends.

We see this happening right here in town, the same BS with our Councilmen selling us out to HIGH DENSITY housing and using stupid, ridiculus excuses. Young families will leave for Arizona if we don't build them. And some people believe that. I'm shocked. We should be standing up and saying...NO.

Drive down Jefferson. Have you ever driven on a road so bad. Pot holes, flowing water, traffic backups. This hasn't been for a year during construction. This has been a problem for YEARS. But development throws up the condos and apartments in a few weeks. But are the roads improved. Nope. On and on and on it goes and soon, that part of our city will have more high density homes and the roads will never be upgraded. But I'll bet Wal-Mart will be happy.

I love this town. I love being an American. Thats why I live here. I don't sit here and list all the things I love about it. I do list things I would like to see changed. That is what blogs are for. People don't come on blogs to pat each other on the back. They come on to raise issues, discuss change, talk about how we can improve. We have a year now to talk about the issues of our city. We have a year to consider making more change, making this city better and better for the people who live here today. Lets bring in some people who think independantly. Who are not backed by big business. Who care about the future of us, not them. People like Ed Faunce. People who know the law and don't think first about how they personally can move up politically but how they can benefit the residents. People who use sound reasoning mixed with passion for all of us.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, November 11, 2005 10:57:00 PM
Here we go again....

Seyarto and McAlister have made another move to take the current residents voice out of the way of developers shoving projects down our throats. They are attempting to take away a Councilmen's right to appeal the planning commission at no charge. The cost for a resident is $885. Many residents cannot afford the $885 filing fee and have asked a Councilmen to file for them.

Well guess who doesn't want a Councilmen to be able to appeal for free. Our Councilmen Seyarto and McAlister. Who else?? This is the Seyarto who comes on here and says he cares about our kids futures and the Seyarto who cares about housing for low income teachers and police officers. BS. If he cared he give them the ability to be able to appeal the planning commission without spending their rent monies. What this is all about is taking our voice out of the appeal process by asking a Councilmen to appeal for us at no cost. If the Councilmen feels the appeal is not warrented they can say ...no. But thats not what Kelly and Dougie want. They want more protection for the development community. They don't want us appealing and if we do, they want it to hurt us so we don't do it often.
These guys are just shills for the developers and we as a community need them out. When was the last time Seyarto stood up for us? When was the last time he took a stand against development for us the residents......let me see....NEVER. If we want to save this city we need to cleanse it of these two mouthpieces of high density developers. Anyone that can defend these two needs to come on here and tell us why, that if a resident goes to a Councilman and asks him to file an appeal for free and he agrees that this process should change. Tell me why if I am a low income family, barely surviving financially and I have a serious problem with a developers plan, why it should cost me $885?

Bottom line is we need these two men gone so we can improve our city and not be force fed by developers. You will notice that Seyarto has not been posting here lately. His posts were controversial and I'm sure the sentiment he was stirring up caused the developers or the Van Haaster agenda to shut him up. Let him come back and tell us why he wants to shut up the low income families that his high density excuses were about.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:09:00 AM
Jeff, you took the words right out of my "post."

Who said, "follow the money." I've been doing an analysis of the contributions to the Southwest Taxpayers for Responsible Government, aka, Dan Stephenson and clones. I now have the detailed FPPC contribution lists from 2004-2005 for the City Council recall. As soon as I finish the analysis, I'm going to ask that it be published on this blog as a separate entry. If should be shocking to see how much money came from developers and from out-of-the-area developers to save the seats of Seyarto and McAllister.

Don't forget, McAllister announced that he had sold his business (he ran for office as a local small business owner) and wanted to get into development consulting.

Does anyone know whether McAllister has achieved his stated goal?

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:03:00 PM
I read that article today in the Californian and am now convinced Jeff that all your ranting has a point to it. At first I thought you were just a complainer but you have enlightened me to these two Councilmen. I will never vote for men who sell me out.
Thanks for your efforts and Ed Faunce's, they have convinced me that we have some real ethics problems here in Murrieta

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:17:00 PM
Ed Faunce - The efforts you are making to research the facts and clearly expose the truth could not have come at a more important moment in the life of this town. Once Murrieta's choice real estate has been exploited, it will be too late. The element of timing is crucial to those who are trying to take unfair advantage of the city which is our home. If no one takes a strong and intelligent stand, the abusers will have their way with our land and then be gone. Once the prime properties of this community have been raped by the greed of high density residential developers, they will be ruined forever, and Murrieta will become a tax-consuming third-rate bedroom community, instead of an affluent tax-producing role model of civic success.
Your leadership is not only appreciated, it is vital. Thank you so very much.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 3:33:00 PM

MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Proposition 74 - the "Put the Kids First Act".

96 Comments:

About

About Me

Links

About Me

Previous