Quick Notes
8:13 AM - Link to this article.
- Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are debating tonight, and the mention of that might trick people into coming and reading about less-interesting (to them!) information about San Jose politics. So I will just casually mention that I know who will win tonight and that secret Katie Couric interview footage was leaked and read here all about the strategy for Sarah Palin. That should get some Google traffic. Most of those statements, loyal readers, are untrue.
- I have always wondered why the Merc (and other news organizations) have been so slow to incorporate maps into their articles.
This morning, for example, I noticed an article on the Merc website about a three-alarm blaze at a strip mall. It was in "West San Jose", at some high-numbered Moorpark address. Well, guess what, people-in-Colorado-who-run-the-Merc - San Jose is a big city, and I can't just picture where everything is instantly.
So here it is:
Did that add much to your day? No. But isn't it slightly more interesting? - Do you know what constitutes a "massive letter writing campaign" in a city of a million people? 351 letters. Or so Josh Molina would have us believe.
When it comes to anything having to do with Little Saigon, Josh is like the kid in elementary school who says his uncle is David Hasselhoff and David Hasselhoff is coming to his birthday party and then, when the party rolls around, he "wasn't able to make it".
Really? Something fascinating is happening with Little Saigon? Surrrre, Josh. Well, you go ahead and write about it then. - Confidential to C. G.: Time to take Blanca off the Christmas card list.
- The Metro this week tries to offset the negative karma of supporting prostitution by devoting a multiple-page spread to Larry Pegram and the Values Advocacy Council. (In that name, the word "values" is defined pretty narrowly.)
Let me be blunt. Pegram is attention-starved and closed-minded, and deserves a feature article as much as Tom McEnery deserves respect as a community leader. Why not profile Andy Diaz? He's crazy, but at least he's up-front about it. - In case you were keeping track, at the end of the day, eighty hours of Councilmember and Mayoral time will have been spent, at our expense, being lobbied by the Chamber in Chicago. Just so you have some perspective.
Labels: Chamber, Chuck Reed, City Council, The Mercury News
11 Comments:
The spread on Pegram was frightening! I always thought he was a bit off, and that he really didn't respect women or their opinions, but to know the guy has a 10,000.00 member following is alarming. Can you imagine a City Council full of male Pegrams? YIKES!
Mr. Waite, are you a follower of Pegram? If not, what are your thoughts about a man like Pegram who doesn't respect the separation of Church and State? Will you use your council seat, if you win, to further your religious beliefs? Would you support Pegram's agenda?
I would not categorize myself as a "follower" of his, although he supports my candidacy. This support has been in the form of advice, a few introductions, and acknowledgment at the couple of VAC events that I've attended. As far as I know, my campaign has received no monetary contributions from VAC members, other than my personal contributions. But there are 10,000 members, apparently, so maybe somebody did.
Rather than go into the subject of Prop 8 again, I will point you to my recent comments (to the 9/29 & 9/26 blog entries). Essentially, government should get out of the "marriage" business.
My thoughts on Larry? He's a smart guy who is committed to his beliefs. He has as much right to his opinions as you or I do. He has as much right to exercise our political processes as anybody else. That does not mean that I agree or disagree with his positions. Some I agree with, some I don't.
The only belief that I would dream of furthering as a councilperson would be a belief that we need much more tolerance in the world. We have become increasingly polarized, especially on the political spectrum. It's unfortunate, because most of the solutions lie in the middle, not at the extremes. An inability to talk to the other side is preventing us from changing things for the better. That's a bad thing. And it's why I choose to participate in threads like this. We have to have open communications to accomplish things that benefit everybody.
Thank you for your response, but with all due respect, I don't think you answered my questions. I feel you are being non-committal, and giving middle of the road answers that won't allow us to hold you accountable, nor do we know where you really stand on issues.
You say that government should stay out of the "marriage business." Do you believe equal rights are something that should be ignored? Or do you think Gay marriage is a religious issue, and not one of Civil Rights?
Secondly, I want to ask that you clarify my understanding of this statement,” My thoughts on Larry? He's a smart guy who is committed to his beliefs. He has as much right to his opinions as you or I do. He has as much right to exercise our political processes as anybody else. That does not mean that I agree or disagree with his positions. Some I agree with, some I don't."
Do you believe in separation of Church and State? Are you going to have the same open door policy with all your constituents, as you already have with Pegram?
Finally you say, "The only belief that I would dream of furthering as a councilperson would be a belief that we need much more tolerance in the world. We have become increasingly polarized, especially on the political spectrum. It's unfortunate, because most of the solutions lie in the middle, not at the extremes. An inability to talk to the other side is preventing us from changing things for the better. That's a bad thing. And it's why I choose to participate in threads like this. We have to have open communications to accomplish things that benefit everybody."
When and how many times have you met with the President of BAYMAC to discuss the "other side" of this vital issue? And what would you do to bring both sides together to encourage respect and tolerance of their differing rights?
I'm sorry. If I'm sounding middle of the road, it's because I'm something of a social moderate. Live and let live. I'll try to be a bit more specific.
Marriage: I'll reiterate my statements from earlier entries. I believe that government should not issue "marriage" licenses, period. To anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The government should come up with a different name for the document that creates a set of implied contracts between two people, and offer it freely to male/female, male/male, and female/female couples wishing to engage in that set of implied contracts.
Separation of church & state: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Hard to argue with that. What gets argued is what constitutes "establishing," and what constitutes "prohibiting." Is allowing Cub Scouts to gather in a public elementary school "establishing" a religion? Is preventing their gathering "prohibiting" one?
Open door policy: my door is open to anyone. Always has been, always will. I answer my own phone (408.564.9980), generally without checking caller ID. None of us is as smart as all of us.
BAYMAC: zero. But that is also true with many other community organizations. I have spent my campaign time listening to the citizens of my district, to best understand what their issues are, and what they believe the best solutions are. Education, traffic, amenities. So that's what we've focused on.
Bringing the sides together: I'm open for suggestions, especially if it helps resolve our fiscal problems and makes San Jose a better city for all concerned.
Hope that helps.
Sounds like Pat Waite stands along with Barack Obama and Joe Biden as against Gay Marriage.
Thank you Mr. Waite. Interesting response. A suggestion if I may, if you are going to have such a close association with Larry Pegram and state that you are open to both sides of an issue, please remember the phrase "You are judged by the company you keep."
When seeking endorsements, community groups require you to answer questionnaires regarding your stands on differing issues. I'm sure you've been or will be interviewed by PACT, and other organizations like theirs. If you are indeed open minded and fair, and I have no reason to think you aren't, I think you might want to contact BAYMAC and request a meeting with their President because your district is not only liberal, but hundreds of Gay couples live there, are employed by the City, and as a prospective Council Member, you will be forced to deal with changes in the law regarding Gay marriage.
On another note, I noticed you did not answer the following questions: "Do you believe equal rights are something that should be ignored? Or do you think Gay marriage is a religious issue, and not one of Civil Rights?" Please do take the time to do so, as I know many of us are interested in your viewpoint, given your strong connections/associations with Pegram, and Constant.
Please understand that I am asking you these questions because I have come to realize that a candidate’s personal associations, and personal beliefs are something we voters need to start looking more closely at. Our country is in a lot of trouble right now, and I have come to understand that if we voters start being a lot more careful about who we vote for, and start asking the really tough questions that need to be asked, may be, just may be we’ll a candidate who walks his/her talk.
Kathleen, equal rights should absolutely not be ignored. I think all marriages are a religious issue, and that the government should not be in the marriage business. As Senator Biden put it in last night's VP debate: there should be "absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple." I have been consistent in that message. I absolutely support all people who want to be couples sharing the same rights.
I agree with you that our country is in a world of hurt right now. Credit markets are seizing up. Right here in San Jose, auto dealers are closing, downtown clubs are failing, people are battening down the hatches. There is every likelihood that our three year budget outlook next spring will be significantly worse that it appeared just 6 months ago. Given that, the question informed voters would be considering foremost is "what kind of budget experience should our next D8 representative have?"
By the way, I don't have a "close association" with Larry Pegram. I haven't talked to him via phone or face to face since just after the primary (IIRC) and he and I last exchanged emails on July 16th. I think it's just an easy shorthand for the media that's trying to paint me as some evil, way right of center, religious nutcase who can't work with others.
Well, Pat, it is great to dance around the issues, but the world isn't hypotheticals. You'd prefer the government be out of the marriage business, but the fact is they are in it. Given that, Prop 8 is intended to prevent equal application of the law for different groups. So are you voting yes on Prop 8, along with Larry Pegram?
As for separation of church and state, you use a nice straw man argument. Should the government endorse organizations that don't embrace religious freedom?
I have found recently that those who say we need "more tolerance in the world" usually are more concerned with defending those who are intolerant. When folks like Larry Pegram speak their language of intolerance (read "hate") and folks point out their intolerance, those folks are accused of being polarizing. The implication is that in order to be "tolerant" we have to allow the voices of hate to be in the mainstream.
I just want voters to make sure to recognize that candidates are a reflection of their supporters. The candidate endorsed by Larry Pegram is quite risky in a city that values diversity, tolerance, and freedom.
Pat, are you going to join Pete Constant in leading the fight for censorship in our city libraries, as desired by Larry Pegram?
Very, very well said David. I agree 100%.
Mr. Waite, David makes some excellent points. You seem to be focused on Gay marriage rather than on the real issue at hand, and that issue is equal rights. Rights, by the way that the Supreme Court has up held. Marriage and its definition are in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that banning Gay marriage to be discriminatory. Hence if you truly do believe that," equal rights should absolutely not be ignored," then it is vital that you abandon your support of Pegram and others on Prop 8.
Secondly, you say,” the question informed voters would be considering foremost is "what kind of budget experience should our next D8 representative have." I disagree that that is ALL we should be concerned with when we vote for a candidate. First, Gay marriage, if up held by voters, and I believe it will be, will most certainly affect the City's budget because benefits by employees in Gay marriages will change. The Mayor and Council will have to contend with the monetary changes to the budget that will bring the City.
Also, people are their principles. If you are indeed in favor of banning Gay marriage because you think marriage is none of governments business, then your loyalty will be with intolerant bigots disguising themselves as Christians. You will cave into the pressure they put on you when it comes to issues like library filtering, etc. THESE Mr. Waite are civil right issues, and are most certainly something we voters need to be concerned about when voting for candidates for ANY office.
If you indeed are not closely associated with Pegram, then please explain your first statement,” I would not categorize myself as a "follower" of his, although he supports my candidacy. This support has been in the form of advice, a few introductions, and acknowledgment at the couple of VAC events that I've attended. As far as I know, my campaign has received no monetary contributions from VAC members, other than my personal contributions. But there are 10,000 members, apparently, so maybe somebody did.”
And finally, few of you running for a Council Office confine yourself to just one venue of politics. Your beliefs on marriage alone would disqualify you for a position on the Board of Supervisors because the County is responsible to ensure "equal rights," and "equal opportunity," for all our citizens, something Pegram, and Constant seem to have forgotten in their quest to free us all from "evil."
Again, I do appreciate your willingness to address our concerns and questions, but until you make an effort to walk your talk by meeting with the President of BAYMAC, so you can look at both sides of the issue, then your statement, “We have become increasingly polarized, especially on the political spectrum. It's unfortunate, because most of the solutions lie in the middle, not at the extremes. An inability to talk to the other side is preventing us from changing things for the better. That's a bad thing.” will just be cleverly designed words spoken to get votes.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your comment that government should not be in the marriage business. With 1,138 federal statutory provisions that confer some benefit due to the status of a couple being married (provisions that are published by the U.S. General Accounting Office), it is clear that marriage is so entrenched in our country, both on a religious level and a secular level, that government could not possibly "get out" of it, even if it wanted to. Moreover, marriage is a cultural institution that links two people together in a recognized bond of love and devotion. The fact that two people of the same sex may wish to enter into the same time of relationship in no way diminishes the institution; on the contrary, it strengthens it. The argument that government should get out of the business of marriage is a slick way of saying that you don't think gays deserve the same rights as straights, because you know for a fact that straight marriage will never be abandoned. And although Pegram may have won the battle for Proposition 8, at least temporarily (perhaps very temporarily), we all know that opponents of gay marriage will lose in the long run. "Whether you like it or not," gays and lesbians one glorious day will have full equal rights.
Post a Comment
<< Home