Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:57 am
If Councilmember Matt Sullivan is upset that the Council job doesn't pay his rent, perhaps he should reconsider his run for his seat! What a lame excuse. The request to extend the deadline is a simple political tactic, just as the denial of such request.
Posted by Linda, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 9:57 am
Once again you speak from the comfort of your living room.
You have no perspective of what it is like to be keeping a paid job, raising a family and actively participating in the community. Even the council representatives that I don't support I respect for their commitment of time to our community.
What is the political advantage to extend the deadline? I believe it is a challenging process to refine the language. I do agree the denial to extend is political as there could be no harm to do so.
Posted by Mr. Wilson, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 10:10 am
It's the Adams vs the Jeffersons. Where's Mayor Hosterman? Vacation you say? Last report was, she was noodling(fishing with your hands) in the back lakes, behind Shadow Cliffs with Tim Hunt, securing positive press coverage for these next 2 1/2 months.It's reported that she may not attend anymore council meetings until Barack Obama calls her personally to engage. Mayor Hosterman, in a position, damn if you do and damn if you don't. As the Mayor might say, NO MATTER!
There are many important issues out there outside this agenda item, waiting until Monday would of changed "NOTHING". What does that mean? Jerry Thorne/Cheryl Cook-Kallio should of had patience until Monday.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm
And once again you base your position on a false assumption. No one in the US ever has to earn the right to form and speak their opinions. I will never expect you to actively participate in national politics before giving credibility to your opinions on the presidential election.
But hey, it wasn't me who was complaining they've got a job THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR that doesn't pay the rent.
"It held that the citizen's right to criticize government officials is of such tremendous importance in a democratic society that it can only be accommodated through the tolerance of speech which may eventually be determined to contain falsehoods."
"New York Times v. Sullivan, established the principle that freedom of expression is most highly protected when one is criticizing the government and government officials, and, conversely, that public officials enjoy very little protection from criticism, even when that criticism is based on error. "
"Freedom of speech is crucial in any participatory democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement."
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Exactly what I was saying! Through questioning my credibility, which can have the effect of diminishing my message in the minds of other readers, you're basically asking me to earn the right to criticize Mr. Sullivan. Your words are a basic ad hominem attack. Your position is based upon this false assumption.
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)." Web Link
Posted by Linda, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Ad hominem does not apply. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
The fact that you do not have the experience to support your criticism that Mr. Sullivan's claim is 'a lame excuse' is relevant. No false assumption... my intent is to diminish your message as I believe it is the false assumption.
Posted by disgusted with majority, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Sullivan and McGovern wanted to extend the deadline, which is allowed by Alameda Co registrar, by THREEE days (and really ONE business day since it's a weekend). With a business trip as a conflict for Sullivan, were is the harm in the extension? The other council members have done stuff like that before. Oh wait a minute, they don't like the citizen's initiative. I guess that explains it. Thorne and Kallio are about as biased as they come. Heaven help us if we lose McGovern or Sullivan.
Posted by disgusted with majority, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:09 pm
IT'S ONE BUSINESS DAY!!!! Continuing an item for another council meeting is 2 weeks, this is one business day!! I don't know the reason Sullivan continued the item you're talking about, but could there have been a reason behind it? Depending on what kind of item, could it have been due to someone from the public not being able to do it at that time? I don't know details and you didn't give any, so no way to judge. But again, it's one business day. And the reason Kallio gave was that having more time (a weekend) would prevent her from doing other work. HUH???????? Makes no sense, that is the reason it appears to be biased.
Posted by disgusted with majority, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I just copied two of my posts (above) from another blog with the same name (it's in "around town").
The comment that Sullivan should reconsider his run because of his job is so heartless to say. You're saying that anyone with a job shouldn't run? It sure is easier if you are retired or a homemaker, but most people aren't. If you were paying attention you would have heard that Sullivan has a business trip at the end of the week, he was not saying that his council job should pay his rent. Sometimes business trips are unavoidable. Again, what is the harm in extending a deadline by ONE BUSINESS DAY!!! How cruel.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:15 pm
So his job is more important than hers? and schedules don't matter. It is just one day. So it shouldn't have been a problem to get it done. It was the council that set the schedule with Sullivan voting yes.
Posted by disgusted with majority, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm
why do you think that I meant his job is more important than hers? He had a business trip and just asked for the weekend. You are just trying to be antagonistic because I never said anything about Kallio's job. Again, her excuse for not voting for the extension was that if she had more time, she wouldn't get things done. Look at the replay if you don't remember. Her response isn't logical and therefore, it was a biased response.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 8:05 pm
What you haven't done is provide a convincing argument as to why my experience level is relevant. I suspect the reason for that is because you can't. It would involve you having to explain: 1) why we don't hear other Councilmembers utilize that kind of excuse for things they don't agree with (perhaps because it is lame?), 2) why specifically volunteering in a community is a prerequisite despite the fact that time management is a common experience to the vast majority of humans on this planet, and 3) why you don't attack any other writer on this forum with my equal lack of experience that also criticize government officials (perhaps because it is irrelevant?). I mean, where are you on some of the other threads here championing your position against posters (not I) who criticize the actions of Hosterman? And so, as such, "ad hominem" applies.
If Sullivan's "dog ate my homework" excuse is acceptable to you, that is certainly your prerogative.
Posted by Mr. Wilson, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 11:27 am
Regarding my comments, relating to Mayor Hosterman and Tim Hunt. A friend called me to explain that my sense of humor might be taken as offensive. I asked why? He said, people who don't know you or understand the background, of relationships, will only see the bad. He said, the point I made was good but the analogy to get there was ridiculous. It was suppose to be ridiculous. If it was hurtful, in any way, I apologize deeply. I am glad to have, a good friend. Yes, words can be hurtful without clarifacation. Let me share with you where this mind was when I wrote comment.
a)thought that Mayor Hosterman should have been at meeting to hear her take on this matter(forgive me)... she was on vacation, I should respect that
b)MSN web page had a picture of a huge catfish...the thought of noodling came to mind,the art of catfishing with your hands
c)Tim Hunt came to mind, a man who speaks his mind with an occassional different view than the Mayor
e)Shadow Cliff pun, I walk there often
Point is, nothing came to mind other than just being ridiculous. There is useful information that comes from these blogs and realize that if people don't understand something, ask to clarify. Respectfully