Casualty of a right wing "get back" smear campaign
Van Jones resigned as White House environmental adviser September 6, 2009
Resignation http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html
1990's association to a Marxist group, and signing a 911 Truth petition that the US government may have been responsible or complicit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones
Who is Van Jones? Text and video at the Clean Energy Summit (scroll down) http://www.vanjones.net/
Van Jones is a globally recognized, award-winning pioneer in human rights and the clean energy economy. Van is a 1993 graduate of the Yale Law School. Van is the author of The Green Collar Economy, the definitive book on "green jobs." In 2008. As a tireless advocate for disadvantaged people and the environment, Van emphasizes that work, innovation and entrepreneurship in the clean energy sector are the keys to solving our nation’s economic and environmental problems. Van helped to pass America's first "green job training" legislation, the Green Jobs Act, which George W. Bush signed into law as a part of the 2007 Energy Bill. In 2009, TIME named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world. From March to September 2009, Van worked as the special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council for Environmental Quality. In that position, he developed policy recommendations to help implement the Obama Administration’s commitment to clean energy jobs.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
42 comments:
HaHaHa! Radical Left Propaganda/
That's a really pretty picture of him. I like the ones better when he is preaching to his choir and he has the angry face calling Republicans a bad name that is not really politically correct.
oh yes, there is a lot of him on you tube that the dems don't want anyone to see. SF Sup Mirkarimi and he are friends, same with Plater. They are all in co-hoots. For the record; not every one that belongs to a union or is a registered democrat is a communist. There are those that will try to make you think, that I, am saying that, I am not. I am stating that the democratic party has a problem with communists infiltrating into the party. Please don't blame this on the republicans or bush. The republicans are insignificant. THEY HAVE NO POWER. The people that are in charge of our lives right now are ALL DEMOCRATS. I have more info, I will post at a later time. Stay tuned.
This hatred of him helps fix Pacifica how, exactly?
I want to know what it is that causes people to obsess over trivial issues like Van Jones, ACORN, and a "communist threat" that ended 20 years ago. I mean, arguing over health care and the economy is one thing, but friggin' Van Jones and commies?
Talk to whoever started this food fight. I see the waste of government money a topic that should be discussed in any political realm. I think it is important to know the people that surround the leaders of any political group. Pacifica is in the dire straights that it is in because of the EPA/friends/NIMBY's agenda to protect frogs over seeking a sustaining economy.
Things happen when people do not pay attention to what you might consider "small stuff".
Anonymous - go back to Riptide. The "hate speech" argument is really old. Putting information out about someone is not "hatred".
The funny thing, Lois, is that if Pacifica's so-called "environmental" leadership actually followed some of Van Jones' suggestions, the city would not be on the verge of bankruptcy. We can debate all day about his character, but Van Jones does advocate for jobs, affordable housing, and protecting the environment.
Van Jones advocates ONLY government jobs. He is against capitalism, he is for raising taxes. He would not be good for anyone. Van Jones is a racist/bigot that spews hate speech against white people, but he made babies with a white woman. He is a fraud and a communist. I stand by my words.
"go back to Riptide" isn't exactly friendly, either.
The anger about "ALL DEMOCRATS" and "Radical Left Propaganda" is palpable. But what's it really about? This site's name is Fix Pacifica.
My question was about whether screeds are going to help. I don't believe they will. It's one thing to blow off steam, quite another to scream at people (or tell them to "go back" to where they theoretically came from, and Lois, you got it wrong thinking I'm from Riptide).
You want to fix Pacifica? Quick, get the pitchforks and torches! That always turns out so well.
Or maybe, like Steve is trying to do, build up some consensus on things that a group of people can accomplish that will make Pacifica a better place.
Like, for example: ...
How many people on the city council belong to the democratic party? Or, who work for the democratic party? I would like to know.
How many people in Pacifica are Democrats (or independents who don't have a beef with Democrats)?
How many people voted for Democrats?
What are you suggesting about your neighbors? Really?
"You want to fix Pacifica? Quick, get the pitchforks and torches! That always turns out so well." Anonymous, it seem that the polarized national political trend issues keep coming-up, so I'm staying with it for a bit longer. The campaign against Van Jones, and others are only examples of how extremism works.
Good point, in Pacifica extremism is a little different. Get elected as a mainstream candidate, follow the long time shadow "no growth" agenda, perpetuate propaganda while doing the bidding of the few and gutting city prosperity, keeping the city poor (all part of the agenda.
Appoint "friends" to commissions and committees, control citizen Task Force results. Skate responsibility, continue to make excuses "we did everything we could", promote "pet" projects, avoid substantial city infrastructure need, cover-up city deficiencies.
Is this ideological? Well, yes it is. Now were all talking about Pacifica, and extremism here.
for his position of Environmental Adviser is an example of how a campaign against a highly There was a campaign by the radicalized right to get rid of Van Jones who was highly qualified for his position as environmental adviser in the Obama administration. There has been an ongoing national campaign to discredit
The New McCarthyism issue is real
Sorry, please ignore the last paragraph and sentence intended to be cut. "Is this ideological? was intended as the last paragraph.
Do you truly believe that all city council members want to keep the city poor?
That it's actually part of an agenda?
Seriously?
What possible evidence could there be for that?
The last 8-12 years...
I've been in council chambers during a council meeting when audience-members cheered after it was mentioned how poor the city was.
I don't think council's objective is to keep the city poor, but that's what happens when you're hostile to economic development, which they are. Council still seems to believe the antiquated idea that it's either the environment or the economy.
Perhaps their objective is not to keep the city poor, but that has been the result of their governing. I believe that there objective has been to get whatever grants they can get from the Government, tax whatever they can tax and get what ever benefit they can get from whatever source they can find except to find sustainable resources for the City.
sorry...their objective
not to beat a dead horse, but during the candidate interview with the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee (and this was actually not the thing I called him on), Councilman Pete Dejarnatt's solution for Highway 1 - in the face of the Devil's Slide tunnel being completed - was to "let it get so bad the state will fix it" . . . I actually wrote that in my notes, I was so stunned.
A poor city gives power to the people who control it. Some people in Pacifica wear poverty like a badge of honor. But this sitting city council consciously allowed the sewer infrastructure to deteriorate so they could funnel money from the Sewer Enterprise to the General Fund as a means of resisting economic development. This was a conscious decision to put the infrastructure at risk to avoid development.
I don't think they actively seek to keep the city "poor" as much as they don't acknowledge the detrimental effect their neglect has caused, as long as they can point across the highway and say, "Look! Pretty hills!"
in light of what Sinai said, I recall one of Don Peebles' presentations where he showed the population growth of cities around Pacifica as being between 3% and 8%, while Pacifica's population decreased 3% over the last 20 years. Someone in front of us stood up and clapped. That was the last public event my wife was willing to attend in Pacifica. (sorry posted to the wrong thread!)
So if the city's treasury was fat, and the council spent it on economic development, what would that look like?
Will never happen, so we do not need to concern ourselves with that concept.
The council doesn't need to spend lots of money on economic development. The bigger problem is the way it habitually blocks development, and it would make a world of difference if it simply got out of the way.
When you look at the funding of the sewer enterprise, have you drawn a distinction between infrastructure needed to safely operate for the existing users, and that which would be needed for additional development?
I'm not saying you have or haven't, I'm asking whether you have.
Getting out of the way, to use your phrase, lies somewhere between maintaining the existing infrastructure and making new capital investments for potential future users. Funding for one may well be completely separate from funding for the other.
Do you imagine that expansion of infrastructure should be paid for by existing users? or by future users? How the council's actions are judged is going to be framed by how those questions are seen.
What the heck are you talking about, Anonymous?
You can probably count the number of people in Pacifica who care about the intricacies of paying for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades on my eleven fingers. As long as local homeowners can flush their toilets and aren't hit with big bills to pay for emergency or mandatory sewer upgrades, they aren't going to care about the details of the sewer enterprise fund.
How the hell did we go from Van Jones to Pacifica sewers?
It's a discussion of crap.
Steve, you used the sewer enterprise fund as the tie in to your claims of the city blocking development. I was working with what you started with. It seems to be one of the foundational underpinnings of this site, so I really want to have that discussion.
I'm trying to look more closely on the 18th at 7pm and understand it, and to try to follow it to any available logical conclusions. If my attempt is failing, ok. I hope this is sufficient to help you know that I'm trying to understand what you said.
And given that, perhaps a re-read of what I said above might come better into focus.
"Steve, you used the sewer enterprise fund as the tie in to your claims of the city blocking development. I was working with what you started with."
That was Jeffy. Good Lord, people are confusing me with Jeffy!!
"When you look at the funding of the sewer enterprise, have you drawn a distinction between infrastructure needed to safely operate for the existing users, and that which would be needed for additional development?"
in short, yes. new development provides some sewer connection fees and the cost of adding new piping to the existing city sewer mains is born on the developer, and eventually the new homeowner as part of the cost of the purchase of the home.
According to the RWQCB report slamming Pacifica for the 7 million gallon sewer spill in January 2008 (you know, the one Vreeland and Dejarnatt tried to lie about and cover up), the city should have been spending $1 million/year to upgrade their existing sewer infrastructure (which falls in line with the average spent in other cities). Instead, the city barely spent over $100,000. Meanwhile, they were funneling $700,000 out of the Sewer Enterprise to plug holes in the General Fund (as they also passed a Fire Assessment Tax, sold property, and reduced city staff) all in an effort to make it seem like the city was economically healthy and didn't need significant new development to survive.
I'm not even getting into the trickeration of recasting the Sewer Bonds and its long term cost on the sewer rate payers. Or the fact they are now trying to make up for this by adding ethereal line items into the sewer budget like $4 million over the next 2 years for "Sewer Plant Replacement".
The bottom line is that no-growth and anti-development took precedence over maintaining a safe sewer structure. Meanwhile, your sewer rates doubled over 6 years for NOTHING. Better yet, when people started to conserve water and lower their use as good environmentalists should, the city just jacked up the rate even more to compensate.
I vocally opposed this during my campaign, and pledged to lower sewer rates because I felt the people should not have to suffer for the financial shenanigans of this City Council.
If it would make the other editors happy, I'll start a new thread to discuss what has gone horribly wrong with the Sewer Enterprise over the last 9 years, and what factors really contributed to the 7 million gallon sewer spill that could have prevented that event from ever happening.
Excellent conversation, and, I rest my case. So, I ask again, what party do the city council people belong too?
As far as, "What are you suggesting about your neighbors? Really?"
Answer; Have you talked to your neighbors? I have.
It sounded like you were calling your neighbors communists. After all, the city council didn't get into office without the votes of the people of Pacifica.
well to answer your question about "what party" . . . they are Democrats, except when I questioned the treasurer of the Pacifica Democrats about the status of their dues, in which case they became part of some ethereal non-existent party.
btw I do not consider any of the sitting City Council Members to be "Democrats", any more than I consider the county party to be "Democrats" . . . they're Sierra Club and Green Party using the moniker "Democrats" as a convenience, but as I have published here on the blog, they follow few (if any) of the platform set forth by the California State Democratic Party.
Of course, I don't consider Sarah Palin a true "Republican" either . . .
Jeffrey, yes, a separate thread would be good.
Jumping ahead, when new development happens, not only do new lines and pumps need to be added, the treatment plant capacity (and perhaps the transmission capacity) is impacted. Proper accounting includes the cost of capacity to the transmission system and the treatment facility. It's easy to forget about that, but new connections shouldn't get a free ride on what everyone else paid to build.
If you could clarify, you mention the sewer plant replacement line items (sounds like you don't like that?), and also that they shifted funds from the maintenance/capital replacement fund (and sounds like you didn't like that). Could these actually be the same activities, previously unbudgeted, and now budgeted?
Yes, Jeffrey!!!!!
Why the fuck did you not win. Sombitch!!
Question; Do you think that the powers in control want to lose, for Pacifica, our corporate status??
Ummmm,,,,,can't quite figure out the right terminolgy....oh crap, say it like it is.
Do the powers that be in control see San Mateo County taking over Pacifica? And, the City Council, some, that also have positioned themselves into other environmental commissions, Agency's , etc. etc., see them selves in higher positions??
If that's the fricken case, then they have put this city in the right postion.
What would that mean for a regular citizen like me and you?
What would that mean for a regular citizen like me and you?
Higher taxes. :)
You know,,living here my whole life , and, watching the local politics, and, the creeping in of a certain type of activist/lawyer/gov worker/environ/politician, into , and starting out in, local governments, not all, but the amount of that certain type has grown and infiltrated faster than ever. I have always felt that group of , not all under the Democratic Party label, but most are,politician wants people off the California Coast line. Why? What do they believe? Are they trying to save us from some future natural disaster? Or, they just want to return as much of the coast to its pre-human status? What is it? Don't tell me they want the same as me, a regular Kathleen, some prosperity, relief of tax burdens under a depression. A boom in progress. What's really stopping us? We need something to look forward to. What is it? What do they have in store for us in their eyes. What does their ideal future for Pacifica loook like? Do they have one? Maybe they do and I'm not hearing it. Really?
Or, they just want to return as much of the coast to its pre-human status?
BINGO
Um, don't these "certain type of" people live here?
Infiltrated?
Would you have these "certain types" not allowed to participate in our government?
Or is government just bad all around, and there's no right way to do it other than give you everything you want at little or no cost to you?
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
I am just trying to figure out how you see Pacifica's future. How do you think you can pay for all the lack of progress that you want and more open space that does not generate tax revenue. Because your way is not working. I am unwilling to pay for your way anymore. So having said that, what are you going to do about it?
Houses don't generate net positive tax revenue, so new houses aren't going to help.
Pacifica's in a terrible location to attract Daly City type businesses. Costco, Home Depot, malls, they need to be at major crossroads, not off on some lonely branch catering to vastly smaller populations.
Tourist destination? Take a good hard look at how that's working out for Half Moon Bay. One hotel makes up a huge portion of the city's tax revenue, and the past year has been disastrous.
What's your vision of development that funds the city better (so you don't have to)?
Anyone who wants/demands a certain level of city services, who has chosen to live in that city, gets to pay for what it costs. There's no free lunch. It's great if you can attract good businesses that lighten the load, but until you do, the responsibility for paying for the services you want and demand are on each and every citizen of the city (no matter what city it is).
Hmmmmm.....I respectively disagree with you. You have missed some major points. How much of my taxes that I pay does Pacifica keep? To pay for my cadillac city services?
Keep? What do you mean keep?
And what parts of what I said do you disagree with?
Post a Comment