Posted by Teacher, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm
I don't need to keep my opinions to myself when Jim Pollart is the one saying them. Quote from a letter by Jim Pollart:
"I'm sure it's not easy being in education these days, with a constant stream of bad press and budget cuts. Unfortunately, many educators take on a victim mentality and point to funding cuts to justify mediocre performance. Maurice and his team are not about complaining or making excuses."
Sounds pretty anti-teacher to me. He's all about CEO's know better.
Posted by WTF people, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2012 at 11:12 pm
I can not believe, well maybe now looking back with experience can, understand why a local paper would even get into politics. It is plain stupid and will alienate your subscribers, dip sh*%s! Plus some of the omissions and poor comments on some of the non "recommended" caniidates makes me that much more positive that we are canvising our neighborhood and everyone we know in the city to vote out EVERY SINGLE incumbant!
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
A correction my dear supporter from Gemello - The Teachers Union endorsed Pollart (along with Chiang and Lambert, but not Darrah or myself). To me, he does seem definitely tilted toward the District Office. That might make him inclined to accept DO recommendations like "efficiency" by class-size expansion, and a teacher "bonus" that is temporary and in place of a small inflationary adjustment. But - that's JUST A GUESS on my part - candidates were never asked that question and I haven't talked to Jim on that!
CI (Continuous Improvement) does not have to be "anti-teacher". Applied in a teacher-led work improvement circle (like Fuji Xerox, Xerox, GE, Monta Loma under Cathy Baur) this is very much like candidate Chiang has noted as "21st Century Schools". Pollard and I both strongly support CI. At least I strongly support the "bottom up" versions! As a worker at Xerox PARC, I felt strongly empowered by this, and I saw the same joy in the story from two Monta Loma teachers!
Posted by Regina, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Prop 37: I can't believe you are endorsing not knowing what goes into our food! In 60 countries labeling GMO products is law.
"Although no studies have found any health impacts, the industry is too young to know with certainty. Labeling isn't a bad idea, but imposing it by initiative in California prior to further studies and absent any evidence of harmful effects seems premature, and better addressed on a national level by the FDA or Congress."
This is an opportunity to NOT wait for FDA and lobbyist deciding what we need and not need to know about what we eat. Demand your right as informed consumer! or is ignorance blissful...?
Monsanto and other food producing multinational are pumping a lot of money into stopping this initiative.
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Nov 3, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I already voted and too late in game. On Prop. 32 deal. Anyway I can deny my dollars being used in the giving to Super PAC's by guess who? CEOs, hedge fund managers and others who will use the system for their private gain. Don't mess with my IRA, mortage industry, S & L's, or whatever will cause hardship and pain to shareholders, stakeholders. Wait they did it already, Carry On Greed.
Posted by MV resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2012 at 5:38 pm
As far as I know, it is illegal to label your food as GMO or non-GMO
If they put swine genes in your broccoli, is it Kosher? Do we have the right to know that?
If the food producers have nothing to hide, why are they spending all that money to defeat the "right to know"? If you remember California Proposition 65 (1986), we now have the right to know what hazardous chemicals may be in the products we use.