Last login: Friday, March 5, 2010
In my opinion, the inetersting and important issue here is Pam Slater's conduct. I like her politics, and I think it is just fine that she and the other Supervisors can be patrons of $2 million worth of whatever they like. The policy is also an ancient one. Slater's possible cupidity should not threaten the policy; the discussion should be about what she was thinking.
Y'all do seem to have trouble staying on topic. The Mayor testifies in favor of same-sex marriage, and you want to explore how common it is for public officials to testify. Huh??
One more example of slip-sliding away: you seem unable to focus for more than a few seconds on the benighted approach of the Supervisors to their social service obligations. They seem mired in the 19th century in their approach toward the needs and rights of poor people. Why not explore that?
March 5, 2010 at 10:56 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )