Skip to content


What others are saying

On this blog, I write about what interests me and what I think is most important to Oakland’s future. Throughout the media, other Oaklanders are doing the same. Here’s a roundup of recent opinions.

The Trib editorializes against returning local control to the Oakland school board. In the Berkeley Daily Planet, Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor responds, and Sandre Swanson responds in the Trib.

A letter to the Montclarion assails Dellums’ lack of vision, while strident Jerry Brown critic and Dellums supporter Ishmael Reed declares “The number one issue in Oakland is crime, and until that’s dealt with, all these visionary ideas should be set aside.”

Berkeley and Oakland are considering suing CalTrans over the EIR for the Caldecott tunnel bore.

The TransBay blog points out that retail is a great use for Broadway, while auto dealerships deserve the isolated, transit-inaccessible Army Base. Even Mr. Allen-Taylor seems to be tiring of the Wayanses’ broken promises.

An Oakland blogger is asking Dellums to cancel the city’s bottled-water contracts.

Everyone from BeyondChron to Chinatown condo-owners complain about Inclusionary Zoning.

An Oakland umbrella “progressive” group issues a City Council report card. Despite their support for IZ, Kernighan and Brunner still get Ds.

V Smoothe makes media-criticism hay from a widely-repeated error in a press release. Nobody seems to notice that the Chronicle erroneously asserted that the Franklin Square Wine Bar, by the owner of Luka’s, will be in Broadway Grand, instead of on Franklin Square (across the street).

Posted in armybase, citycouncil, dellums, iz, news, oakland, ousd.


8 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. ishmael reed says

    Strident! You mean the part of Jerry Brown’s receiving an award from the Manhattan Institute among whose fellows is Charles Murray, who believes that blacks
    are genetically damaged. Or the part about Brown
    picking fights with blacks, or telling the WSJ that
    he was going to break black leadership in Oakland.
    Not strident,but someone who does their homework.

  2. dto510 says

    I think those are strident criticisms, but I don’t mean that they’re baseless or irrelevant. Many of my blog posts and positions are strident, but I hope that doesn’t make people discount them.

  3. Deckin says

    Well, if they’re not baseless, there at the least problematic. For one, Jerry Brown did receive an award from the Manhattan Institue but so did Anthony Williams, the mayor of D.C. and Manuel Diaz, the mayor of Miami. So, for a white supremacist organization (among whose fellows now include John McWhorter, nee of Cal), they are doing a bad job of keeping their awards out of the hands of people of color. Of course, you could argue that Williams and McWhorter are Uncle Toms, but then we could argue about your definitions, no?

    As for Murray, he never said ‘blacks are genetically damaged’ or anything even to that effect. That’s a stupid claim. People with Down’s Syndrome are genetically damaged. No one large population of humans is genetically damaged, almost by definition. For someone who makes his living with words, I would think Mr. Reed would get at least those straight. Now, Murray does say some things whose truth is very questionable, but if you want to have an intelligent argument about what he does say, you need to get that straight.

    As for ‘breaking black leadership’ in Oakland, Brown did claim that he was going to up end the political machine that had run Oakland for almost 30 years, but that that machine was virtually all black (in a city that has never had a black majority) tells you something about how things were run and why Brown wanted to change things. How else to explain that under Elihu Harris all but one department head was black? But leave the representation issue aside, and you have the real problem with the machine: it’s lack of performance. Oakland lost an incredibly competent manager to Emeryville (and we see what he managed to accomplish there) because of his frustration with the machine. Oakland lost countless large scale projects (the Amtrack station in Emeryville) and opportunities during the machine’s dominance. Biotech flourishes in Emeryville and to this day Elihu Harris still can’t see that that was a major lost opportunity for Oakland. And you think it’s a knock on Jerry Brown that he wanted to break that strangle-hold on power?

  4. Becks says

    Thanks for putting this together. It’s funny because on Friday I was thinking how there were so many Oakland bloggers but I hadn’t seen anyone put together a round up of Oakland posts. Glad you beat me to the punch and introduced me to some blogs I had never read.

  5. Ishmael Reed says

    Anybody interested in the Manhattan Institute should go to Media Transparency and search “Manhattan Institute.” McWhorter isn’t an “Uncle
    Tom,” as much as a front man for the Eugenics movement. When I debated
    him on the Michael Eric Dyson show,he wasn’t aware of the Institute’s
    history or that it was founded by William Casey. Didn’t know that it
    hobnobs with race science quacks like Murray ( whose Scotch Irish ancestors
    were viewed as genetically damaged by the older Aryans) and Meyer Levin.
    McWhorter is confused. First he says that police brutality doesn’t exist,
    during a tirade against one of my books carried in NeoCon Commentary
    magazine, now says he believes it exists. Also, why don’t you read Murray.
    He recently said in the New York Times that rich people were of superior
    intellect and should breed among themselves. Also, if you are so sure of
    your arguments, why are you hiding behind a false name?
    in

  6. Deckin says

    I honestly don’t see how it’s incumbent on me, by dint of what I said, to defend either the Manhattan Institute, or John McWhorter, or Charles Murray, or anonymity (either my own or in general) on blogs. The Manhattan Institute could be a front for the Aryan Nation, for all I know, but youcriticized Jerry Brown for getting an award for them and I merely noted that Mayor Anthony Williams (whom you didn’t mention) received the very same award and that John McWhorter was a fellow there. McWhorter may be a confused front (I’ve only read his work in linguistics, you obviously have more knowledge of the man) for the Eugenics movement as well, but calling someone that is really quite demeaning–basically denying them the requisite intelligence to be even a worthy foe; but as I said, you know him. As for Murray, all I noted was what he didn’t say or even imply. It surely doesn’t follow from that that I agree with his position on anything. As for my anonymity, you no doubt have noticed that anonymity is rather the rule than the exception on blogs, so I imagine the blogosphere must be one long constant source of aggrevation for you. Like I’m guessing virtually all other people on blogs, I have my reasons, but these have nothing to do with my confidence in my arguments. To think that they must strikes me as a sort of playgroundish challenge. But in any event, since the question was about my arguments, I believe the question you asked can be turned around: What matters it to the strength of my argument what my legal name is or isn’t? To argue that it does is to commit a fallacy that (I believe) as yet has no name: argumentum ad nominem.

  7. Idetrorce says

    very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
    Idetrorce

Continuing the Discussion

  1. Flora opens « The DTO (Downtown Oaktown) linked to this post on November 7, 2007

    [...] The Franklin Square Wine Bar has [...]