Town Square

Post a New Topic

Editorial: Sound approach on 'human rights city' issue

Original post made on Jul 17, 2015

The City Council is taking an "easy does it" approach to deciding on whether Mountain View should become an official "human rights city," an action it can take by signing the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's a good approach, given the vagueness of information at this time about the practical effects of such an action.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 17, 2015, 12:00 AM

Comments (27)

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 17, 2015 at 9:48 am

This is the second editorial in support of the proposal that the City Council declare that Mountain View is a "human rights city" that follows the 30 articles in a 1948 resolution of the UN General Assembly. It is combined with a "story" on the subject. The Voice ran an earlier "story" and editorial in March. In 1948, the UN resolution was supported by 48 countries with 8 abstentions. There are now 193 countries in the UN. Councilmember John Inks is correct that the resolution includes socialist principles (see articles 22-29). Some persons appear to be promoting the proposal to legalize otherwise illegal immigration. See comment concerning the accompanying "story."

Posted by An Inks Libertarian
a resident of another community
on Jul 17, 2015 at 7:36 pm

"As this process plays out, we hope that elected leaders and residents who have serious concerns about the Human Rights City proposal will tone down the rhetoric. Already, we're seeing hints of ideology nudging into what should be a focused and reasoned discussion. For example, at the July 7 study session, Councilman John Inks called the declaration "the U.N. agenda for socialism." Really, Mr. Inks? Socialism? Right here in River City"

In the article Mr. Inks referred to a specific section of the resolution. The editors, whoever they are because they are cowards and don't sign their own editorial, should have read the article one of their reporters wrote. Rather than address the concern made by Mr. Inks they engage in their own rhetoric and make a personal attack on him. So one wonders if the editors are in support of socialism, which is why they mock Mr Inks. Seems to me Mr. Inks made a credible reasoned argument, which you fail to address. Maybe it's the editors who should follow this own suggestion about focused and reasoned discussion

Posted by looking for evidence
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 17, 2015 at 9:15 pm

Gary, please support your argument that the Voice's editorials have been "in support of" the human rights city proposal. Some friendly advice: read the editorial carefully, with an open mind. Now, cite the language that supports your statement.

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 17, 2015 at 11:10 pm

I explained in my first post that the editor was not justified in attacking Councilmember John Inks' observation that the UN declaration includes socialist principles. I cited Articles 22-29 of the UN resolution. The editor cites no article or other language in the UN declaration. I also refer to my post in response to the "story" about evidence of a jidden agenda by some to legalize otherwise illegal immigrants. The issue was raised with the Voice and cty council but not even mentioned in the story or the editorial. This is the second time the Voice has presented a story and an editorial suggesting that. gee wiz, everyone must surely support a 1948 list of "rights." Read the 30 articles and see if you agree with them all. As to the articles you like, what could a city government do to secure or advance those principles?

Posted by looking for evidence
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 18, 2015 at 10:16 am

Gary, so in your opinion, the editor who wrote the editorial -- an opinion piece -- was not justified in attacking Inks. Ok, your opinion. That's fine.

But you also claim that the editorial is "in support of" the proposal to make MV a human rights city. I'm asking you to cite specific language in the editorial to back up your claim. I can't find it myself. Can you?

Posted by Meghan Fraley
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jul 18, 2015 at 12:56 pm

I, Meghan Fraley, support this action wholeheartedly.

I ​stand for human rights as a way of life ​in our​ ​communit​y​. Becoming a human rights city will empower us to generate innovative and exciting actions towards social and economic transformation. Adopting the declaration would enshrine guiding principles for future decisions that will affect the rights, dignity and equality of every member of the community.

I commend the Human Relations Commission and Ken Rosenberg for taking leadership in finding a way that the human rights declaration can become a true and guiding force in our community. Too often issues of human rights are left out of the conversation when deciding critical issues that impact all our lives. A human rights declaration is just a document with words until we find ways to ensure that the principles are woven in to all levels of government.

Becoming a human rights city will do just that, allow us to incorporate consideration of human rights on the city level. It means that we create an intentional frame for the important conversations city council has when they make critical decisions steering Mountain View. It empowers us to steer ourselves in the right direction, and intentionally incorporating the values we all stand for to guide decisions made by council.

Posted by An Inks Libertarian
a resident of another community
on Jul 18, 2015 at 12:59 pm

@ looking for evidence,

"Gary, so in your opinion, the editor who wrote the editorial -- an opinion piece -- was not justified in attacking Inks. Ok, your opinion. That's fine."

It's an ad hominum attack on Mr Inks and as I stated, it violates their own editorial point of suggesting a reasoned discussion on this issue. How can they justify their silly sarcastic response? Are they OK with socialism? What's the point other than making light of his point, which they fail to address .

The editor should be embarrassed but somehow thinks he is making a valid point

Posted by Patriotic Mom
a resident of Willowgate
on Jul 18, 2015 at 1:23 pm

The US has already signed on (in 1992), if folks have an issue with the UN declaration of human rights, perhaps they should contact their senator and congressional representatives and voice their concerns. As a mom and a patriot, I'm in.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Posted by Rand
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jul 18, 2015 at 3:00 pm

In the rights in the UN list:
Web Link
I don't see any that are qualitatively different from most of what we already have in the US.

There are some quantitative differences:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

In the US, our minimum wage is not a living wage, and less so in many more-expensive parts of the country. And we don't have security in the event of unemployment. Nor of security in the event of all sickness or disability, but we're much closer with the Affordable Care Act.

Similarly, the rights about education (Article 26, that someone else posted) imply a child has a right to an education chosen by parents. To me, this sort of implies vouchers... And, what if the parent (in 26-3) doesn't want the full education listed in 26-2?

America is already a blend of socialism and capitalism. I think we could call many of these things "socialist", but not particularly more socialist than America already is.

It might be left-of-center in the US in that it doesn't spell out people's responsibilities. And some on the right might say that no one has a right to a particular standard of living.

I don't know why the editor called out Mr Inks comment about socialism, or why Mr Inks made it. Perhaps he just means America is already socialist, as well as capitalist. I think it's constructive to say which articles/rights one disagrees with and why, rather than throwing labels around. And, we should continue to get past our notions that certain labels are good or bad, and just talk about what we want for our future.

Posted by Angel
a resident of North Whisman
on Jul 18, 2015 at 3:10 pm

I support this action. I believe that by Mountain View signing, local government acknowledges our citizenry's well being as guiding principle. It is important and never redundant, to be explicit about our priorities.
I really hope this passes... Also, enough with the demonization of socialism Mr Inks. First, it isn't a "socialist agenda". Secondly, this push comes from Mountain View's residents, not UN propagandists.

Posted by Patriotic Mom
a resident of Willowgate
on Jul 18, 2015 at 3:17 pm

Thanks Rand for your insightful thoughts. :)

Just to be clear! I support us becoming a human rights city!

I think freedom of education means you are allowed to home school or send your child to private school or religious based school if you want to. AND full person education is also available to all children. I'm excited that we now have Superintendent Rudolph here to bring innovative thinking, close the achievement gap, and take us even further with an excellent education system. :)

Posted by Oscar
a resident of another community
on Jul 18, 2015 at 8:17 pm

The editorial is similar to the one presented on March 28, 2015. It generally supports Mountain View's becoming a "human rights city," echoes some concerns and asks what will happen next. The Voice always supported the Day Worker Center as well. Day Workers are "undocumented," of course. As to their legal status, don't ask and they won't tell. But be assured that even an illegal immigrant can find a lawyer to sue for injuries on the job for which homeowners do not carry workers compensation insurance.

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 18, 2015 at 8:46 pm

Anonymous poster "Looking for evidence" appears to be just a stick in the mud. The editorial supports the proposal by speaking well of it, attacking Councilmember Inks unjustifiably and asserting essentially that anyone who might oppose the proposal is surely engaging in rhetoric. Anyone can read the editorial. Folks actually interested should read the accompanying story, the earlier story and editorial published in March, the UN declaration (especially Articles 22-29),the staff report for the May 7 HRC meeting and the May 6 letter to the HRC from the immigrants rights group in San Jose. What letter? Oh, right, the Voice did not mention it and the City does not have it online. But I'll emailed the letter to anyone who asks and provides an email address in a post. The claim of one poster that the 1948 UN declaration was "signed" by the United States in 1992 is false. Some of the "principles" are binding on the United States under treaties. But no poster yet has looked up and cited any treaties.

Posted by Job One
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jul 18, 2015 at 9:06 pm

Tackle the City's traffic and growth challenges. Manage the day-to-day of and tactical planning for the city.

That's what you campaigned to do, and it's a big enough job.

Posted by mike
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 19, 2015 at 9:40 am

human rights city

the concept is INDEPENDENT of the universal declaration of human rights, endorsement of which is not needed to promote the understanding that ALL city policies have human rights implications

this in analagous to santa clara county requiring that all policies consider their impact on the health of the county residents

and similar to the requirement by the county that a child impact statement be included in all county policies

who can deny that policies have an effect on access to housing, food, clean air,
safety, education etc -- explicit RECOGNITION of this fact is what being a human rights city is about

to those who feel the constitution is sufficient i suggest you read article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights - human rights included there are not explicit in our constitution

I suggest that we separate our thinking about what a human rights city is from discussion of the universal declaration of human rights - the endorsement of which is NOT essential to endorsing the concept and consciousness of being a human rights city

being a human rights city is explicitly recognizing the effect of policy on our residents which is what most good people are concerned about anyway

Posted by looking for evidence
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 19, 2015 at 11:38 am

I guess Gary wasn't able to cite language in the editorial to support his specious claim that the column is "in support of" the human rights city proposal, so instead he tries the old distract-by-attack trick.

So, Gary, I'm a "stick in the mud"? Sounds as if I'm more a stick in your craw for having the temerity to ask you to defend a claim that's obviously not defensible. Isn't it annoying when people ask you to speak responsibly while engaged in public discourse?

Posted by Jessica K
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 19, 2015 at 2:44 pm

Human rights ought to be a consideration as council tackles traffic and growth challenges.

Where do human rights come to play in terms of housing, food, and healthcare? It comes to play in the day to day decisions! This is a simple thing to do, let's spend our valuable energy debating over complicated issues (while considering human rights).Handling the day-to-day tactical issues of our city should be informed by our values and basic human rights.

Thanks to council for moving forward on this!

Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 20, 2015 at 3:42 pm

Jim Neal is a registered user.

Speaking entirely on my own behalf, I would first like to state that I strongly object to the characterization of those who disapprove of the UDHR as "skeptics" as it is a dismissive term intended to belittle and marginalize those who have valid objections.

Second, I was opposed to this from the very beginning and tried several times to have the issue tabled. I pointed out the fact that the government cannot grant rights, they can only take them away. A right is something that one is entitled to from birth and that any responsible government must act to secure such as the right to live and the right to be free.

We as citizens invest certain powers in our government to ensure that those rights are protected by all necessary means up to and including force (i.e police and military).

No one has a right to housing. Let me be clear about this, no one should be discriminated against for any reason when it comes to housing, but if housing is a right, then the government must provide housing for all those who want it. If they do not, then it cannot be said that it is a right. People should work and earn the money necessary to obtain the housing that they desire and the government, in a caring society should take whatever steps it can to assist people with locating and obtaining the housing people desire when possible, but it is not obligated to do so.

The government also cannot grant dignity to people. No one is dignified by receiving everything they want for free. Dignity comes from within and one's own feelings of self-worth and accomplishment. The thinking that the government bestows dignity upon people by divvying the resources of others and then handing them out to those deemed worthy is exactly the type of wrong-headed thinking that many of the UN articles exemplify.

I have included below the text of an e-mail that I sent to the City Council prior to the meeting. I was unable to attend because I am out of the country until the end of the month and the meeting was scheduled after I had already purchased my tickets:

Web Link

What is a right?

A right is something that you are entitled to by birth such as the right to life or the right to be free.

In order to be meaningful rights must be enforced. For example, you may have a right to be free, but if you are forced to live as a slave, then what true meaning does that right truly have? Even if most people agreed that slavery was bad, there has to be some mechanism to enforce the right of a person to be free, beginning with laws and up to and including the use of force.

What are Human Rights?

According to the UN Website:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal and inalienable

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.

Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

Interdependent and indivisible

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education , or collective rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.

Both Rights and Obligations

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.


If with regard to the State, the State is interpreted as only the Federal Government, then these obligations can only be fulfilled by the Federal Government. If State is interpreted as the state in which one lives, such as California or New York, then the same applies to government at the State level. If however the state is interpreted as all levels of government front the federal to the local level, then all levels of government must participate and therefore are obligated by law to fulfill all the requirements heretofore stated.


If Human Rights have no enforcement mechanism then what good are they? To say that Mountain View is a Human Rights City and to then fail to enforce those rights is meaningless.

There are several items in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I think would be problematic if this resolution is adopted and implemented such as:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

My understanding of this is that an International Social Security fund would be established whereby the monetary resources of all countries would be redistributed based on the strength of their economies. I do not believe this type of redistribution to be ethical nor moral as each time it has been attempted, it has resulted in massive economic and social failures such as Russia and Nazi Germany.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

If one has the right to work and to free choice of employment, then does that not mean that everyone who wants a job is entitled to one, and that if they are unable to find work through their own means, then the State (or in this case city) must not only provide a job, but the job that one chooses for oneself?

If one has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, who makes that determination? The State/City? The one seeking the job? If one has a job that does not pay enough, is the State/City obligated to make up the difference between what the job pays and what was determined to be 'just and favorable remuneration'?

If one has the right to join a trade union, does one have a right NOT to join? There are some jobs that require one to join a union.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Will the State/City determine what is a reasonable limitation of working hours and which holidays must be observed or is it left to the individual? Who determines what is 'reasonable"?

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Who determines whether or not the standard of living is adequate? Whose responsibility is it to provide food, clothing, housing, and medical care? Who determines the security to be provided in the event of sickness, disability and the other conditions listed? Why is widowhood singled out? Aren't women perfectly capable of caring for themselves or do we believe that the State/City needs to take care of women because they are incapable of doing so? The same applies to motherhood and childhood.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

What does this mean? Who determines what the best social and international order is?

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What duties are being referred to here? The use of the word 'duties' to me, means that one is not free to choose whether or not one wants to perform those duties.

Who determines what the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare are? Whose morality should we follow? That of the Catholic Church? That of Islam? That of the Atheists?

If the rights and freedoms cannot be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, then does that not override the principals and rights set forth in the Constitution of the United States?

There was a reason that those who created this country placed limits on government. The main reason was so that people could be free to make their own choices without interference. To make their own lives and to be free to succeed or fail. They were smart enough to know that it is impossible to guarantee equality of outcome, which is what I believe this document tries to do; but they wanted to instead guarantee equality of opportunity.

They realized that everyone is different, with different strengths and weaknesses, different abilities and thoughts. It is impractical if not impossible to make everyone exactly the same, and therefore people will achieve different results in life.

In my opinion, adopting this resolution will subject the city to the rules of the United Nations while simultaneously subsuming the Constitution which already guarantees many of the rights outlined by the UDHR. If we are unhappy with the Constitution, the framers created a mechanism called 'Amendments' that can be used to make changes to it. If we can decide to arbitrarily ignore those portions of the Constitution that we do not like, or to subsume it to the laws, rules or customs of others; then we also no longer have the protections that we are guaranteed by it and our rights that are protected by it cease to exist.

Full Definition of SOCIALISM

a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

If the HRC and the Council insist on adopting this resolution, then it is my belief that they should fully adopt it and outline how the new programs will be created to ensure:

1) That everyone who lives in Mountain View and wants a job will be provided with a job by the City, as well as the wages that the city intends to pay them.
2) Ensures that everyone who wants a home in Mountain View is provided with one by the city.
3) That all the responsibilities that the residents have to the city are clearly outlined and made available to the public
4) That the city create programs for mothers and children, and paid for from the general fund, to provide for their special care and assistance.

I was very pleased to see that some on the Council shared my concerns and I am looking forward to further discussion on the matter.

Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jul 20, 2015 at 6:57 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Having had to defend MARX and MARXISM in my formal debate class final exam, I just have some recommendations before the City of Mountain View makes a possible FATAL choice:

Read " Amimal Farm " by George Orwell. Read " 1984 " by the same author. That " 1984 " book was written in 1948 which was why the title was given to that book. We are actually seeing examples of the " reasons to re-educate " here NOW.

TANSTAAFL: WHO PAYS? That is the problem & the Iron Lady said it best:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

― Margaret Thatcher

Many Socialist countries have confiscated the rich people's wealth stating
" You do not DESERVE this money, your State will do a better job spending it equally to EVERYBODY ". So what will happen to your wealthy neighbor, your wealthy neighborhoods? Smart people are leaving the US now and taking their ideas and money elsewhere.

Some more data:

Web Link

That data is eight years old!

Is MV going to secede from the Union? Tax Google ( and other businesses ) out of existence? Give every person Fast, Free Internet ( Googlenet is verrry sloooow ). How about phone service? Everyone gets FREE PV Systems on their roofs! Free and plentiful water!

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "

-Karl Marx ( not Groucho )

Think hard and long before signing your future away.

Posted by Greg Perry
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 22, 2015 at 4:21 pm

If the council wants to worry about human rights, perhaps they would like to do a detailed review of our taser policies?

Or put a moratorium on office space construction so we stop driving out all our low income families?

No, it's easier to pretend we are Berkeley: Pass a feel good measure about foreign policy, while ignoring the real work at home.

Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 22, 2015 at 10:37 pm

The editorial is the second in support of the proposal. This one says go slow but the objections raised are without merit. It is the equivalent of an editorial declaraing that Hillary Clinton is great, all other candidates are trash but go slow and don't vote until the voting period begins. The editorial is accompanied by an article that reads like an editorial and is also the second article to promote the proposal that Mountain View become a " human rights city" with no evaluation of the actual "rights" involved.

Posted by OldMV
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 23, 2015 at 5:36 pm

"The road to Hell is paved with good [and ignorantly idealistic] intentions." Don't vote for it. We don't need any Communist UN propaganda in MV, nor do we need any supporters of UN propaganda. Let them move to SF where they belong. I look at measures like these and judge them by the Los Altos Standard": "Would Los Altos, a far more sane city than MV, vote for it?" If the answer is no, then that's the answer MV should adopt if it wants to return to sanity.

Posted by OldMV
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 24, 2015 at 5:08 pm

Mountain View does not need this Communist "manifesto" passed by the UN in 1948. It especially does not any language by added by unscrupulous special interests lawyers about the so-called rights of illegal immigrants and the LGBTQ community. This could result in all sorts of legal problems for MV from "social advocacy" lawyers and lawsuits. The MV City Council must reject this ultra-lib power play decisively to protect its citizens and their legal rights under CA and US rule of law.

Posted by @OldMV
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 24, 2015 at 5:18 pm

You forgot to add in "Sieg Heil!" again...

Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 24, 2015 at 10:01 pm

...Meanwhile in the rest of the world torture, rape, human trafficking, murder, child abuse, female genital mutilation, slavery, mass killings, as well as public floggings, amputations, and beheadings continue on an epic scale and with vim and vigor

The folks in this city who are clamoring for the adoption of this ridiculous human rights declaration come across as a group of insular, self-absorbed, over-priviliged, narcissistic first world whiners from whom a broken nail constitutes a medical emergency and a latte delivered at the wrong temperature a personal crisis.

Posted by Proof positive
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 24, 2015 at 10:46 pm

The disgusting responses above prove the city is doing the right thing about signing on. Hopefully, this will drive the few remaining right-wing racist and anti-Semites from our neighborhoods.

Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 25, 2015 at 8:34 am

@proof positive, proof positive that leftist radicals simply wish to silence opposition. It's apparent that in your lexicon tolerance means tolerating only those with whom you agree. The rest should be "driven out of the city" because they meet some warped definition of racist, bigotry, or whatever word du jour you hijack for your ends. In the meantime, I think your latte may be getting cold. Wouldn't want you having a nervous breakdown

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Boichik Bagels is opening its newest – and largest – location in Santa Clara this week
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,603 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,161 views

By Laura Stec | 13 comments | 1,091 views

Which homes should lose gas service first?
By Sherry Listgarten | 0 comments | 517 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Voice readers and foundations contributed a total of $84,000.