So after my write up yesterday about Eric Maundry and his blog "Sierra Madre Tattler" I realized that his blog followers - lets just call them lemmings - were just about as misinformed as he is. Both of his articles http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/10/does-bob-huff-love-ed-roski-too-much.html and http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/10/huffing-puffing.html have generated at least 30 or so comments each and I've decided to dedicate this article to responding to some of them. Lets start...
From article #1 -
"As a certain City Council person has been saying for years, if you really care about who you vote for willing to abstain from the "Free Candy Band Wagon", stop voting for the Republicrats, vote based upon ethical behavior, character.. Huff has to go. Unfortunately, you would have to vote 85% of the legislators out. This kind of corrupt practice has become so common place in Sacramento, it's starting to look legal. We may have to build an additional prison just to deal with these people. They should be prosecuted and given prison terms."
What exactly is this "illegal" behavior you're speaking of? If you think the legislators that are currently in office aren't "ethical" and exhibit bad behavior, what do you think that says about the PEOPLE who vote them into office? Your idea of prosecuting and giving prison terms to current legislators sounds like a fantastic idea - especially since you just finished reading an article complaining about the current economic standing of our state - did you forget that more prisoners = more tax dollars? Maybe you should abstain from voting, please.
"The whole thing is just sickening. And note the repetitious theme of suspending environmental protection laws. CEQA is trashed whenever the moneyed interests want a project in. Isn't that nice?"
Its been quite amusing to read CEQA related comments. Most of them have this sort of tone - "WE MUST SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT AT ALL COSTS!!!!". Let me tell you why I think you're a gigantic hypocrite.
1. You probably drive a non-hybrid car and everyone in your family who is of legal driving age probably has their own non-hybrid car. I'm betting that you don't carpool or take public transportation.
2. You probably run your AC all day during the summer and your heater all night during the winter.
3. You probably eat a ton of meat, most of which is probably cows.
4. Chances are, you're not a poster child for recycling.
Want to know a good place to start when it comes to improving the quality of our environment? Look no further than the tip of your own nose.
"Private profits and socialized risk--We developers will take the profits and leave you the citizens holding the bag."
Holding what bag? Roski is putting in $800 million OF HIS OWN money to fully fund this project. It will create an estimated 18,000 job, over 6,000 of which will be permanent. Once completed this project will create a projected $760 million in revenues for the area EVERY YEAR! You're saying that this is a bad thing in an economy that is gasping for its last breaths? In case you didn't learn in your remedial high school government class, we live in a capitalistic country where, yes, people make profits.
"California is just one big lie now."
Then move to Arizona, or better yet, Africa. Bye bye.
"2:44 - yeah, but I'll bet none of those Huffs have the stylin' pimp mobile we the California taxpayers bought for California State Senator Bob Huff."
Ughhhh... I hate when people say "we the taxpayers bought..." blah blah blah... Do you think that Huff doesn't pay income taxes? If you want to put it that way, just think that Huff paid for it with the money that HE paid in taxes. If you want to put it another way, lets say that there are 100,000 people within his district that pay taxes and lets just say that the state paid $41k for the vehicle out-right (which they didn't) - that means you spent 41 cents of your hard earned taxes on the "pimp-mobile". You can't even buy something off the dollar menu at McDonalds with that.
"And a big thank you to Sir Eric for bringing to the light of day, the insanity that seems to be so prevalent in the world of politics as evidenced in this incredible article."
You think that copy & paste make an "incredible article"? If it's this easy to win people over, maybe I should go into journalism... or politics.
"Aww, how cute. An apologist for Big Ed's favorite boy has come to lecture us. So Cadillac Bob needs a $41,000 automobile to conduct state business? You mean like riding around at 4th of July parades waving at the citizens? No wonder we're going broke. By your goofy logic the economy could be saved if the government bought us all American cars. And you do know, Mr. Revisionist, that the LA Times article had nothing about Tailfin Huff returning those wheels. Did they ever print a retraction?" - this is Eric Maundry in reply to one of my comments.
I didn't come to lecture you, I came to give you some insight on your complaints with Huff. You seem to like to make a lot of assumptions, like believing that I think the economy will be saved if the government bought us all American cars - did I ever make any mention of that? No. I stated that, yes, Huff did receive a state-paid-for vehicle to conduct government related business in, but you seem to misunderstand that this is an American vehicle so this money is being pumped right back into our economy. What do you think the "cash-for-clunkers" incentive was all about? You also seem to think that whatever isn't printed in the LA Times must not be true - articles only need to print retractions if they're wrong at the time it is printed.
"Wotta maroon. All that rage over the car, not about the Huffsters (MiMi and Cadillac Bob) getting dough from Big Ed, a person whose interests he voted to approve. You have to wonder if maybe it wasn't written by Cadillac Bob himself."
WOTTA MORON. You gotta think that if this dude is writing articles, he should at least know the names of the people he's writing about. It's MEI MEI, not MiMi. What interests did he vote on again? Because you fail to mention this in any of your articles. And I can say that I'm not Huff. =)
"The car that each and every legislator should drive on business time is the Ford Focus. Anyone who does not should be ashamed."
Why a Ford Focus? Why should they be ashamed if they don't?
"Two editorials in Thursday's LA Times take to task the Ed Roski assult on CEQA and subversion of legislators with cash. Further the ballyhood job creation claim really is about minimum wage stuff associated with stadium work. Most of which is part time. But the real thrust of the articles are that Roski has singlehandly opened a door that will destroy the desirable qualities of life in California."
A lot of people seem to think that this project only consists of a stadium and nothing else. This is also a complex which will house a state-of-the-art medical facility, theaters, restaurants, offices etc.. Many of these jobs will be permanent, high paying, and full time. What is wrong with part-time, minimum wage work? Ask anyone currently affected by unemployment and I'm sure they'll tell you that they'd take part-time work over no work any day. What, by the way, are the "desirable qualities of life in California"?
"If any of you were following the stadium stories in the local papers, and the comments in topix, it is easy to see that the huff, industry, and roski's team has many paid trolls to squash comments and opinions of independent media and individuals who dare question the needs or actions of the group."
I am one of the commentators on the Topix website and have been posting about the proposed NFL stadium for quite sometime. I've yet to see a paycheck show up in my mailbox from Roski. How do these trolls squash comments? Just because they don't happen to agree with the anti-stadium crowd and they happen to be more informed and less emotionally driven means that they're squashing comments? What a cry-baby.
"Here's the scary part about the pro-Huff poster. We get the usual parsing and funny nudges, but then we get immigrant bashing? I grew up in the south, and friend, substitute the word "negrah" for "illegal immigrants" and you're talking pure Klan politics."
How was I bashing illegal immigrants? I simply stated that we shell out $9 billion a year on illegal immigrants - AND ITS TRUE! But somehow, just because I'm anti-illegal immigration, I'm a racist? You are out of your mind.
Well there you have it - there were quite a few more comments, but not really worth mentioning. As you can see, many people just simply believe whatever they read and don't take the time to find the truth for themselves. I've also taken a big liking to people who make assumptions or false accusations without first thinking their thoughts through - it completely brightens my day when I prove you wrong.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Get It Straight
My first blog! Yay!
I decided to make a blog for one reason - to provide people with information that is ACCURATE! Recently, I was forwarded an article written by another blogger that, quite frankly, made me furious. http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/10/does-bob-huff-love-ed-roski-too-much.html and http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/10/huffing-puffing.html. Apparently to him LA Times, OC Register, and SGV Tribune are reliable sources of information, especially information pertaining to politics. But there are those of us, myself included, that know news media cannot be trusted for information because it is often biased, it does not lay down all the facts or is just flat out WRONG. What really pisses me off is that he posts these articles that he writes for others to read, injects his mundane opinions, and this misinformation spreads like a disease.
So here we go - I'm going to pick apart his articles (actually there isn't much to his articles - he just copy and pastes from online news articles then writes 5 words about what he thinks - I figure this is because he doesn't have enough brain power to come up with something substantial to write himself) and give YOU the facts!
"And we certainly can't see any conflict of interest whatsoever in the Huffster voting to further the empire of Ed Roski now, right? Naw, not one little bit."
Here's a little run down of this guys beef with Huff and Roski.
-Huff is a CA State Senator and his wife Mei Mei works for Majestic Realty.
-The owner of Majestic Realty, Ed Roski, has an interest in building an NFL stadium in the City of Industry which is located in Huff's senate district.
-Ed Roski has contributed money to Huff's campaign fund.
In conclusion, he thinks that there is a conflict of interest because Huff has received contributions from Roski and because his wife works for Majestic which Roski owns. The only problem is, and one that he hasn't figured out yet, is that THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE HUFF HAS NOT MADE ANY VOTES PERTAINING TO THE NFL STADIUM. Huff even refrained from voting on the Senate bill that would exempt Majestic from environmental laws. I think where this guy is getting confused is that Huff voted to move the bill to the Senate floor for vote - but this does not pose a conflict of interest because it is a PROCEDURAL vote. "Section 87102.5 of the Political Reform Act of 1974, an elected official cannot vote on an item where there is a conflict of interest except "on a vote on the budget bill as a whole, or to vote on a consent calendar, a motion for reconsideration, a waiver of any legislative rule, or any purely procedural matter.""
"My my (or should that be Mei Mei)... Like perhaps a direct financial tie with a stake in future profits?"
Um, What? First of all, her name is pronounced MAY MAY, not "my my"... you can't be clever when you can't pronounce words correctly. The rest of the statement is purely speculation and does not contain any accuracy whatsoever.
"State Legislators have spent over $3 million on luxury cars since 2007: Our state is broke, but we have spent over three million dollars over the past three years providing luxury cars to our state legislators ... Republican State Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, who represents Chino Hills and part of Chino on the western end of our county, drives a Cadillac CTS that cost the state $41,300, including $4,226 for upgraded wheels and Bluetooth, according to an L.A.Times report." - this excerpt was taken from the LA Times & OC Register, I believe.
"Sacramento issued IOUs to school teachers because there wasn't any dough to be found there, but they still managed to secure a few bucks to keep Fightin' Bob stylin' around the Valley in a top of the line convertible Cadillac with tricked out wheels and a really cool state of the art remote dial cellphone." - And this is what he had to say about it.
This is the problem I have with a lot of people these days - they nit-pick small and seemingly insignificant things and refuse to look at the big picture. All state legislators recieve a $350 a month allowance to purchase a vehicle that they can conduct government related business in - this car is not used for personal reasons - the article is wrong, the state did not spend $41k on the car, it is paid on a month-to-month lease. You tell me - if your employer required you to use your personal vehicle to conduct business related matters in, you would expect to be reimbursed for your expenses, right? Kinda like the came concept, but in this case, the employer provides the vehicle for you, therefore they don't have to reimburse your mileage - this, I believe, is around 45-50 cents per mile driven... if you want to think in terms of which is cheaper for the state, each legislature would only be able to drive 700 miles per month before it begins to get more expensive for the state to reimburse for mileage.
Now here's the big picture - this state spends upwards of $9 BILLION a year on illegal immigrants - on their health, their education, their imprisonment, and whatever else - I DONT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT A CAR!!! If you want to complain about how our state is wasting our money, there is a GREAT place to start.
This was the bulk of his first article. He actually didn't have much to say himself, however, I did find one of his comments rather amusing - "Sacramento is just so disgraceful." I wonder how long it took him to come up with an opinion this original, insightful and articulate?
Well I had quite a few things to say to this person in the comments section of his blog - a few of them even contained profanities and were deleted. But I guess I got under his skin SO much that he made a separate blog about my comments - I FEEL SO ACCOMPLISHED! Here's some of his second artcle...
"Somebody is VERY upset with The Tattler."
You're damn right I'm upset - it's because you spread this information as truth, when it is actually very inaccurate.
"Last Saturday we posted an article about some ethical questions being raised in the press regarding our illustrious State Senator, Bob Huff. In particular his vote that helped developer Ed Roski of Majestic Realty fame gain approval for his football stadium and shopping mall through the gratuitous waiving any possible Sacramento mandated environmental reviews."
This guy never mentions what Huff voted on... thats because he never voted on anything pertaining to the NFL stadium in the first place!
"Something that also put an end to a lawsuit initiated by concerned citizens from the City of Walnut. The possible ethical concerns stemming from the deep financial ties the Huff family has with Mr. Roski."
Want to know what this "lawsuit" was about? It's about 8 people... yes, 8 people, in the city of Walnut who oppose the stadium and are trying to EXTORT Roski - mitigating $800 million in settlements that have nothing to do with the impact of the stadium is a HUGE ethical concern, ESPECIALLY when it is headed by people who are currently on and running for Walnut city council. "Concerned citizens"? I think there are more people concerned about the stadium NOT being built than being built. Once again, what are the "ethical concerns"? Theres no conflict of interest.
"Two of these comments had to be deleted due to obscenity, but the others are kind of amusing. You see, what is bothering this individual isn't the questions of serious ethical retardation on Bob's part, rather it's all about that Cadillac."
Obviously it was bothering him first, why else would he mention it in his article? But when I make comments to SET HIM STRAIGHT, he starts to think I'm crazy...
"Obviously this guy has doubts about my intellectual abilities"
First of all, I'm not a guy. This dude loves to assume. I don't doubt your intellectual abilities, I just don't think you have any clue about what you're saying.
"We're not supposed to worry about having to foot the bill for Bob's $41,000 Cadillac CTS because the State Legislature, which Bob is a member of, is shelling out $9 billion a year to people living in this country illegally?"
This is his reply to my statement that we hand over $9 billion a year to illegal immigrants. He's obviously had his head up his ass when it comes to some of the more positive things Huff has tried to do for our state - like penning out a comprehensive package of bills while in the State Assembly which would have at least helped deter illegals from entering the state. These bills did not pass. (AB 2418, 2420, 2421, 2422). So yes, Bob is a member of the state legislature that shells out $9billion a year to illegal immigrants, but he doesn't support it - comprehend?
"Somebody has got to explain to this guy that a legislature is a body of elected officials who deliberate upon the peoples' business. Individual members of a legislature are called legislators. You'd think that someone this uncomfortable with immigrants would be a tad more conversant in the English language."
I guess I was spelling "legislator" wrong in a couple of my comments and it looks like Mr. Maundry is not only a blogger, but an English teacher as well. Well, if my one spelling mistake bothers you THAT much, imagine how much it bothers me when you blog about things you don't even know about. I would think that someone this uncomfortable with the dealings of the government would have MUCH bigger gripes, and if not, at least know all of the facts about the little petty ones.
"Anyway, I'm willing to make a deal with our friend here. I'll drop the Cadillac talk if he agrees to discuss Bob Huff's ethical shortcomings. Particularly in regards to the vote cast in favor of the financial interests of a fellow who is paying the salary of Senator Huff's wife."
Wait... You're the one that brought up the whole Cadillac thing and I rebutted you. If you're willing to drop arguments about what you believe in that easily, you're just a sorry pushover... that or you know I'm right on that issue and would rather make a compromise to not mention it again rather than to just come out and say you're wrong. Which one is it?
On a final note, I would like to point out the title of this dudes blog - "ALL THE NEWS THE OTHER FELLOWS WON'T PRINT". Want to know why? Because it has already been printed as evidenced by your heavy use of the copy & paste function. Quite frankly, no one gives a rats assss about your opinions.
I decided to make a blog for one reason - to provide people with information that is ACCURATE! Recently, I was forwarded an article written by another blogger that, quite frankly, made me furious. http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/10/does-bob-huff-love-ed-roski-too-much.html and http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2009/10/huffing-puffing.html. Apparently to him LA Times, OC Register, and SGV Tribune are reliable sources of information, especially information pertaining to politics. But there are those of us, myself included, that know news media cannot be trusted for information because it is often biased, it does not lay down all the facts or is just flat out WRONG. What really pisses me off is that he posts these articles that he writes for others to read, injects his mundane opinions, and this misinformation spreads like a disease.
So here we go - I'm going to pick apart his articles (actually there isn't much to his articles - he just copy and pastes from online news articles then writes 5 words about what he thinks - I figure this is because he doesn't have enough brain power to come up with something substantial to write himself) and give YOU the facts!
"And we certainly can't see any conflict of interest whatsoever in the Huffster voting to further the empire of Ed Roski now, right? Naw, not one little bit."
Here's a little run down of this guys beef with Huff and Roski.
-Huff is a CA State Senator and his wife Mei Mei works for Majestic Realty.
-The owner of Majestic Realty, Ed Roski, has an interest in building an NFL stadium in the City of Industry which is located in Huff's senate district.
-Ed Roski has contributed money to Huff's campaign fund.
In conclusion, he thinks that there is a conflict of interest because Huff has received contributions from Roski and because his wife works for Majestic which Roski owns. The only problem is, and one that he hasn't figured out yet, is that THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE HUFF HAS NOT MADE ANY VOTES PERTAINING TO THE NFL STADIUM. Huff even refrained from voting on the Senate bill that would exempt Majestic from environmental laws. I think where this guy is getting confused is that Huff voted to move the bill to the Senate floor for vote - but this does not pose a conflict of interest because it is a PROCEDURAL vote. "Section 87102.5 of the Political Reform Act of 1974, an elected official cannot vote on an item where there is a conflict of interest except "on a vote on the budget bill as a whole, or to vote on a consent calendar, a motion for reconsideration, a waiver of any legislative rule, or any purely procedural matter.""
"My my (or should that be Mei Mei)... Like perhaps a direct financial tie with a stake in future profits?"
Um, What? First of all, her name is pronounced MAY MAY, not "my my"... you can't be clever when you can't pronounce words correctly. The rest of the statement is purely speculation and does not contain any accuracy whatsoever.
"State Legislators have spent over $3 million on luxury cars since 2007: Our state is broke, but we have spent over three million dollars over the past three years providing luxury cars to our state legislators ... Republican State Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, who represents Chino Hills and part of Chino on the western end of our county, drives a Cadillac CTS that cost the state $41,300, including $4,226 for upgraded wheels and Bluetooth, according to an L.A.Times report." - this excerpt was taken from the LA Times & OC Register, I believe.
"Sacramento issued IOUs to school teachers because there wasn't any dough to be found there, but they still managed to secure a few bucks to keep Fightin' Bob stylin' around the Valley in a top of the line convertible Cadillac with tricked out wheels and a really cool state of the art remote dial cellphone." - And this is what he had to say about it.
This is the problem I have with a lot of people these days - they nit-pick small and seemingly insignificant things and refuse to look at the big picture. All state legislators recieve a $350 a month allowance to purchase a vehicle that they can conduct government related business in - this car is not used for personal reasons - the article is wrong, the state did not spend $41k on the car, it is paid on a month-to-month lease. You tell me - if your employer required you to use your personal vehicle to conduct business related matters in, you would expect to be reimbursed for your expenses, right? Kinda like the came concept, but in this case, the employer provides the vehicle for you, therefore they don't have to reimburse your mileage - this, I believe, is around 45-50 cents per mile driven... if you want to think in terms of which is cheaper for the state, each legislature would only be able to drive 700 miles per month before it begins to get more expensive for the state to reimburse for mileage.
Now here's the big picture - this state spends upwards of $9 BILLION a year on illegal immigrants - on their health, their education, their imprisonment, and whatever else - I DONT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT A CAR!!! If you want to complain about how our state is wasting our money, there is a GREAT place to start.
This was the bulk of his first article. He actually didn't have much to say himself, however, I did find one of his comments rather amusing - "Sacramento is just so disgraceful." I wonder how long it took him to come up with an opinion this original, insightful and articulate?
Well I had quite a few things to say to this person in the comments section of his blog - a few of them even contained profanities and were deleted. But I guess I got under his skin SO much that he made a separate blog about my comments - I FEEL SO ACCOMPLISHED! Here's some of his second artcle...
"Somebody is VERY upset with The Tattler."
You're damn right I'm upset - it's because you spread this information as truth, when it is actually very inaccurate.
"Last Saturday we posted an article about some ethical questions being raised in the press regarding our illustrious State Senator, Bob Huff. In particular his vote that helped developer Ed Roski of Majestic Realty fame gain approval for his football stadium and shopping mall through the gratuitous waiving any possible Sacramento mandated environmental reviews."
This guy never mentions what Huff voted on... thats because he never voted on anything pertaining to the NFL stadium in the first place!
"Something that also put an end to a lawsuit initiated by concerned citizens from the City of Walnut. The possible ethical concerns stemming from the deep financial ties the Huff family has with Mr. Roski."
Want to know what this "lawsuit" was about? It's about 8 people... yes, 8 people, in the city of Walnut who oppose the stadium and are trying to EXTORT Roski - mitigating $800 million in settlements that have nothing to do with the impact of the stadium is a HUGE ethical concern, ESPECIALLY when it is headed by people who are currently on and running for Walnut city council. "Concerned citizens"? I think there are more people concerned about the stadium NOT being built than being built. Once again, what are the "ethical concerns"? Theres no conflict of interest.
"Two of these comments had to be deleted due to obscenity, but the others are kind of amusing. You see, what is bothering this individual isn't the questions of serious ethical retardation on Bob's part, rather it's all about that Cadillac."
Obviously it was bothering him first, why else would he mention it in his article? But when I make comments to SET HIM STRAIGHT, he starts to think I'm crazy...
"Obviously this guy has doubts about my intellectual abilities"
First of all, I'm not a guy. This dude loves to assume. I don't doubt your intellectual abilities, I just don't think you have any clue about what you're saying.
"We're not supposed to worry about having to foot the bill for Bob's $41,000 Cadillac CTS because the State Legislature, which Bob is a member of, is shelling out $9 billion a year to people living in this country illegally?"
This is his reply to my statement that we hand over $9 billion a year to illegal immigrants. He's obviously had his head up his ass when it comes to some of the more positive things Huff has tried to do for our state - like penning out a comprehensive package of bills while in the State Assembly which would have at least helped deter illegals from entering the state. These bills did not pass. (AB 2418, 2420, 2421, 2422). So yes, Bob is a member of the state legislature that shells out $9billion a year to illegal immigrants, but he doesn't support it - comprehend?
"Somebody has got to explain to this guy that a legislature is a body of elected officials who deliberate upon the peoples' business. Individual members of a legislature are called legislators. You'd think that someone this uncomfortable with immigrants would be a tad more conversant in the English language."
I guess I was spelling "legislator" wrong in a couple of my comments and it looks like Mr. Maundry is not only a blogger, but an English teacher as well. Well, if my one spelling mistake bothers you THAT much, imagine how much it bothers me when you blog about things you don't even know about. I would think that someone this uncomfortable with the dealings of the government would have MUCH bigger gripes, and if not, at least know all of the facts about the little petty ones.
"Anyway, I'm willing to make a deal with our friend here. I'll drop the Cadillac talk if he agrees to discuss Bob Huff's ethical shortcomings. Particularly in regards to the vote cast in favor of the financial interests of a fellow who is paying the salary of Senator Huff's wife."
Wait... You're the one that brought up the whole Cadillac thing and I rebutted you. If you're willing to drop arguments about what you believe in that easily, you're just a sorry pushover... that or you know I'm right on that issue and would rather make a compromise to not mention it again rather than to just come out and say you're wrong. Which one is it?
On a final note, I would like to point out the title of this dudes blog - "ALL THE NEWS THE OTHER FELLOWS WON'T PRINT". Want to know why? Because it has already been printed as evidenced by your heavy use of the copy & paste function. Quite frankly, no one gives a rats assss about your opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)