I am pleased to inaugurate this new column entitled “Whopper of the Week.”
The mission of the column is to identify statements, quotes, articles, reports, and other forms of communication that contain a “whopper,” – a presentation that is highly inaccurate, misleading, distorted or deceitful.
Three categories of whoppers will be identified – based on the scale of the misinformation and the likelihood the misrepresentation is deliberate. They are whopper, mega-whopper, and galactic whopper.
Some recent examples may illustrate the difference between the categories:
In a column on November 11, 2013 San Jose Mercury columnist, Scott Herhold wrote, “Blaming the San Jose City council majority for an increase in crime is manifestly unfair.” That’s a whopper. Blaming the council majority for gridlock in Washington, D.C. would be “manifestly unfair.” The council has no authority or capacity to effect changes in Washington. But the police department receives the largest share of San Jose’s General Fund. Public safety is routinely proclaimed to be the city’s highest priority. The City Council can, indeed, be blamed for its failure to protect the city.
The Galactic Whopper of the recent past is, of course, the repeated claims by Mayor Chuck Reed and his City Council allies that Measure B, their “pension reform” initiative was legal and constitutional. The ballot arguments for Measure B stated, “The City Charter gives the voters the right to change retirement benefits.” The Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure B stated, “Measure B follows California law. The California Constitution grants the City authority to change employee compensation.” The ballot arguments somehow neglected to mention that the city’s legal position was utterly unsupported by case law. Nor were voters made aware of the fanciful legal theories on which the city’s position rested. Is fanciful too strong a term? I quote one section of Judge Patricia Lukas’s opinion that overturned Measure B’s salient provisions – “…the City provides no authority which supports the remarkable proposition that under the circumstances of such proposals, pension benefits could be transformed into compensation…”
Recent evidence of Mayor Reed’s efforts to launch a campaign to amend the California Constitution in regard to vested pension rights suggest he was aware that Measure B would be ruled illegal at the same time that he was telling voters it was lawful. After all, if Measure B was constitutional, then an amendment would not be necessary.
But what of Reed’s allies on the City Council? How can they justify supporting a measure so obviously lacking a lawful foundation. One expects they may argue – we didn’t know we were selling the citizens an unconstitutional concoction. If they do so argue, they may be guilty of what courts refer to as “willful blindness.” This doctrine holds that individuals cannot escape responsibility for their actions “by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances.”
If you spot a whopper, don’t keep it to yourself, send it to Lefthookblog@gmail.com and you may see it on the “Whopper of the Week.”
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments