Friday, October 31, 2008

Joe's Voter Guide: State measures

Joe's Quick Voter Guide:

A few people have asked "how am I voting" so by popular demand, here are my picks starting with the state measures and propositions:

State measures: No on everything except 5, 11, 12. If you're curious read on. If not, don't worry about it.

There are so many statewide ballot measures! Almost all are terrible examples of the initiative process gone wrong. Things should be debated and deliberated but instead we get an unchangeable "new law" that we all have to say yes or no to on one day and this allows the unscrupulous to send out propaganda days before the election. That's no way to decide things!

So for all the initiatives, the answer is NO. With these possible exceptions:

Prop 5 moves away from the "war on drugs" which has become a "war on the American people." The downside is that it creates a bunch of new commissions and funds "treatment programs." But on balance, and even the impartial analysis has to agree -- contrary to all the rhetoric from people who make money from the prison system -- that it will save over a billion dollars a year minus it's cost of almost half a billion, so that comes to a savings of a $500 million a year.

But more important than money is the attempt to put some sanity into the drug laws. If you believe anyone who smokes a plant or is addicted to something but otherwise doesn't hurt anyone should be thrown into the dungeon for their "crimes" of "hurting themselves" then prop 5 isn't for you. But if you believe human beings have a right to their own bodies so long as they don't hurt others then you should consider voting yes on Prop 5.

I know this conflicts with what "all the police chiefs say." But they are responding to the incentives of their position. They always want more laws, more prison, more budgets. They will tell you anything to keep you afraid and their budgets intact. The prison-industrial complex only cares about one thing: more laws to break, more people sent to prison. And they tell you it's for "your own good." The politics of fear. (They are criminals!) But now is your chance to actually give your view.

Maybe prison for minor drug addicts who don't hurt anyone else should be a thing of the past. Maybe vote yes for Prop 5.

Prop 11: Redistricting

Did you ever wonder how the "districts" are drawn? You are represented at the state by representatives who draw lines on a map and decide what their "territory" is. Politicians like to stay in power! So they like to draw their districts to include people who are "like them." In other words, currently instead of you picking your representative, your representative picks you! That's why very few incumbents are ever not re-elected.

Prop 11 is an idea to take the power to draw those districts away from the politicians and let some commission of citizens draw them. That may not be the absolutely best method possible, but if we wait for the best possible thing we'll wait forever. I would consider voting "yes" on prop 11.

Prop 12 is replenishing funds for a program that helps veterans purchase homes. This program has been in place a long time (since WWII, I think). It's not related to the current "mortgage crisis." Most people support this because they figure you should get something for helping fight a war or two. I'll agree and vote "yes."

Don't get me started on the other measures. Just NO!

Yes, I know that includes prop 8, the so-called "gay marriage" ban. I say "no." Why do I care what gay people do? I don't expect gays to tell me how to live, so I'm not going to tell them what to do.

Change the state constitution? That's crazy! Constitutions are about recognizing (or granting) rights to people, and restricting government. For example, the right to speak your mind, to practice your religion, to arm yourself, to have a trial with a lawyer if you're ever accused of something. Those are rights! And constitutions restrict government ("congress shall not" etc). Here prop 8 would restrict people and grant government a new power, exactly opposite what a constitution should do.

If you hate gay people that much that you can't even live in peace knowing that somewhere a gay person exists then by all means vote "yes" and hope that some right you cherish isn't next on the list of things for people vote over. How would you feel if some right you cared about was just "put to a vote" and if more than half voted "no" then c'est la vie it's gone. Sorry, majority rules you aren't allowed to own a firearm or majority rules your religion has been outlawed. But if you think certain things are private and that we really shouldn't "have a vote" on someone's life then vote "no" of course.

I don't think much needs to be said on prop 1A. $9.95 Billion. Sounds like it's on sale from $14.95 Billion. That won't pay for one rail of that train. That's not in dispute -- everyone agrees. The prop 1A people say "we'll get the rest of the money later... this is just a start." What kind of plan is that? You know they would say "give us another 10 billion, after all you don't want that last 10 billion to go to waste?" And so on and so on. People agree the train would cost at least $50 billion and most likely double that. If we're lucky. And for what? A train from somewhere we aren't really sure where to somewhere no one wants to go. Not just "no" but "hell no."

Prop 3 sounds irresistible. Who wouldn't want to help the poor sick children in the "Children's Hospital?" But that should be done by the legislature. Just say no.

Same with prop 2. What do I know about animal husbandry? Sure, a big cage sounds reasonable but what it really means is some new commission and inspections by "animal rights activists" and costs and paperwork for farms. Lets face it, prop 2 just means "no raising chickens or cattle or hogs in California - we will henceforth buy food from other states or countries where they don't have to deal with the animal rights nuts." Of course, this will not help the total number of animals raised on farms, they will just be in raised in other places -- so prop 2 is dumb. Vote "no"

Prop 4 is about "abortion." Do I need to say more? Let's set all that aside and let me explain, no there's too much, let me sum up:

Say a young girl becomes parent at age 14. She is automatically emancipated and is "no longer a child" when she gives birth. It's like magic. A 17 1/2 year old can't get an ear pierced -- but a 14 year old who gave birth can consent to any medical treatment. Not just treatment for her baby but also for herself too. Including an "abortion."

If she could consent to an abortion if she gave birth that doesn't make any sense. But that's the basis for why a young girl can currently get an abortion. Because if she would become an "adult" if she didn't get the abortion then she can decide for herself.

Does this make perfect sense? No. But it's the uneasy work-around for our culture's abnormally high age of majority and the realities of human life on earth. I wish there was some easy answer but there isn't.

And this is where prop 4 disrupts the delicate balance of the byzantine universe of conflicting rights. Prop 4 only mandates "notification" and not "permission" technically and and a "waiting period." On the practical side I think most young people do tell their parents. For some reason they just do. But for those who don't or can't I don't have the wisdom to dictate how things should be in everyone's family life so for that reason I'd say to vote "no" on prop 4 and leave things as they are. Similar propositions have failed in the past in California.

Also, 4 affects the state constitution and there's no way such a thing should be in a constitution so that's another reason why no on 4 is just the only option regardless of how you feel about abortion.

Let's see... prop 7 and 10 or "energy" laws. No and NO. Thanks T. Boone, I'm sure CNG is a wonderful fuel. Now explain why I should make it a law that everyone must purchase your product? Can't you just sell it now if it's so great? Likewise, Prop 7 is high minded: do you want electricity generated from rainbows and butterflies. Why yes I would. No matter what the costs? No matter how many lives or families are destroyed? Hmmm, no thanks.

By the way, pictured at right is my home made solar oven. No prop 7 or 10 needed. If you want to use alternate energy go right ahead no one's stopping you.

That leaves prop 6: more money taken from more people causing more poverty -- for more laws and more police to send more people to prison. No thank you, I'll pass on the Police State and hope you will too.

That leaves prop 9, Rachel's law or Marsha's law or Buffie's law or something. These are very complicated things. Sure victims of crime suffer greatly but you have to balance that with the rights of the accused. You can't just pick someone off the street and punish him whether he did it or not because it makes the victim feel better. Vote no, this is a job for the legislature or else you may suddenly find yourself in a prison cell with no right to a "fair trial" because we voted it away.

Whew! Thanks for reading. Next up: Candidates in Manteca.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Lathrop's October Surprise II

Keep an eye out for more information coming out about the man who claims to be the sole driving force behind kristysayles.com: Jeremy D. Maurer, fearless P.I. and "opposition researcher." This may be Lathrop's second "October surprise" today and we're going to give you a sneak preview.

Back in 2005, Maurer set up a website to defame someone named James Morrison. Mr. Morrison fought back and won a civil judgment against Maurer in 2008 in North Carolina to the tune of $165,350. Since we know how much everyone loves "documents," we have copies of the judgment from North Carolina included in "application for entry of judgment on sister-state judgment" and a "notice of entry of judgment on sister-state judgment" from California ordering Maurer, who resides in California, to pay Morrison.

The defamatory website was taken down but we discovered remnants of it posted on another website. One of the accusations made by Morrison against Maurer was that he and an associate tried to extort money from Morrison by offering to sell him the website for $50,000. Still think Jeremy Maurer is doing this for free?

Lathrop and Mayor Sayles press on

Today, both the Manteca Bulletin and the Stockton Record ran prominent stories about Lathrop politics. Bulletin editor Dennis Wyatt defended Mayor Kristy Sayles against some of the 'brutal' attacks being made on her including from his own newspaper. In the article he links the mailer recently sent out by Lathrop's Dan MacNeilage to TCN Properties (Tom and Cathie Luckey) by their postal permit number. Isn't that curious?

The Bulletin's assassin, Rose Albano-Risso, wrote a story about Lathrop's city manager, Yvonne Quiring, who is supposed to be getting a sum of $335,000 to leave her position today. At the core of the termination supposedly is a letter from the city employees union, SEIU, complaining about Quiring. Between the unions and the developers, who's really running things at city hall? Both groups seem to wield undue power and have enough money and influence to mobilize and destroy people they don't like.

The Record story is about the 'vicious' campaign against Sayles and her request to have the grand jury investigate the website behind most of it, kristysayles.com. Two of Sayles' opponents, Robert Oliver and John Rock, were quoted in the article as decrying the nastiness of the website, but say Sayles brought some of it on herself. Oliver basically says that it's what Sayles deserves because "she attacked local developers." Rock thinks it's only a handful of people posting under different names and that the website has its positives because information about Sayles is getting out and "people are getting involved." (getting involved in libel maybe)

Two weeks ago the Record weakly endorsed Robert Oliver, saying it was more a vote of no confidence against Sayles.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Manteca Bulletin's assassin

What an election season this has been. In less than a week, it will all be over and our country will have a new president. Whether it's Obama or McCain, it will be an historic event for the United States. We will either have the nation's first Black president or the nation's first woman vice president. God bless America...we're gonna need it.

Political campaigns have always been nasty and ugly, even when we pretend to be civil. One of the nastiest campaigns I've ever seen is playing out in the city of Lathrop. With the mayor's and two council seats up for grabs (potentially three council seats if the councilman running for mayor wins), there's a tremendous amount of power, prestige and money at stake. Someone with lots of money to spend and even more to gain from ousting the current administration is bankrolling the vile campaign to unseat mayor Kristy Sayles.

In the last 10 days or so, Rose Albano-Risso, city editor of the Manteca Bulletin, has written two hit pieces on Lathrop's mayor Kristy Sayles and taken pot shots at her in a couple others. The Bulletin rarely "disses" local politicians like this. For the most part, they treat incumbents and candidates with respect and they usually don't do endorsements. This is the opposite of an endorsement and is even lower than the Bulletin's usual ethical standards.

In the first piece, Albano-Risso chastises the mayor like a child for being mean and ungrateful to developers Tom and Cathie Luckey, beneficent landed gentry of Lathrop who bestow goodness and mercy upon all the citizens there. The Luckeys contributed to the mayor's last campaign but they are aggrieved that she hasn't given them special treatment or something and they have been very vocal about their displeasure with Sayles.

In the most recent hit piece published prominently on page 1, Albano-Risso interviews political opponents and known enemies of the mayor and repeats opinions, accusations and outrage posted on a smear website from unnamed "citizens." She got around the standard journalistic ethic of allowing someone being smeared in print to respond by calling the mayor's home late at night when the mayor was sleeping. The article was published a few hours after that phone call was made. From the tone of Albano-Risso's article, one would almost think this was done on purpose.

It looks like the Manteca Bulletin, or at least its city editor, has joined the ignorant villagers.

Flyer flap

Outrageous fabrications attributed to Dan MacNeilage!(?)

I have a few questions:

1. Was this really sent by Dan?

2. Was it "paid for by Dan MacNeilage" as it says? Including postage?

3. Who's permit number 819?

4. Didn't someone calling himself Dan MacNeilage complain bitterly when I pointed out that the Sayles smear website was "full of fabrications?" What are those pictures of checks? I got some questions from people in Lathrop and they believed those checks were supposed to be photographs of actual checks! Of course they are not.

5. How do you vote against someone? Why does that language sound familiar?

6. Did the mayor really "write a check" for 37 million dollars? Does the mayor keep the city checkbook in her purse? Doesn't it take four other members of the city council? Why do you show only "Kristy Sayles" on the check fabricated for this mailer? Is that to make it look like Kristy Sayles alone does things? Is she like a dictator now?

7. Why is the mayor being blamed for the school's sewer? The schools are not built by the city! The schools are built by the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD).

I happened to be at that MUSD meeting when "some guy" from some builder/sub-contractor, I don't even remember, sauntered before the school board and "announced" that he wasn't going to finish the sewer pipe -- he didn't feel like it because he felt someone (the main contractor or the school board or someone) "owed him money."

This was during public comments, it wasn't even on the agenda. The trustees had to ask him, "eh... the school opens in two weeks...when we flush the toilet, what happens?" And "this guy" said there was some tank out there and they could truck out the waste. And then he left. This was a complete surprise -- two weeks before the school opened. No one at the school board or the mayor or any member of the public knew there was some problem before this guy "dropped" it on us.

The problem is not related to sewer capacity. There is plenty of sewer capacity. That's what the city was responsible for. If the guy didn't build the pipe correctly, that's not Mayor Sayles' fault. If anything, it was the fault of the contractor and it's somehow related to some "cash flow" problems from one of the big land-developers.

Both MacNeilage and Councilman Oliver have raised this spurious issue. What's bad is they both know better. They both know the mayor cannot fix disputes at the school district.

8. Aren't those payments related to "pay as you go" development agreements? And guess what -- who approved of "pay as you go" (crazy method of development)? The mailer blames Sayles for these payments. The exact opposite is true: Mayor Sayles voted against the things she's being blamed for! It was Oliver, Rhodes and Dresser who voted in favor of the "pay as you go!"

This is right from the public record (page 8 of the pdf), the minutes from the 18 Jul 06 meeting of the Lathrop City Council.

After hearing about the "pay as you go" scheme from Richland and Richland's consultant and after public discussion, Sayles (then mayor pro tempore) moved to approve the agreement without the pay as you go provision. Mayor Rhodes, Councilmen Oliver and Dresser voted against this and the motion failed. Immediately after that, Mayor Rhodes moved to approve the pay as you go development. Rhodes, Oliver, and Dresser voted "yes" and Sayles and Dhaliwal voted "no!"

Here's a page from the documents (people seem to like documents). You can click on the image to enlarge it or look at the original pdf file (pg 8 and 9).

No wonder so many are throwing so much money at getting Sayles out of the way. Sayles is the only thing standing between the developers and big money taken from the Lathrop taxpayers!


I almost forgot... I liked the part in the mailer about how Sayles "has been accused of ..." The translation: One person accused her. This citizen apparently didn't know it was legal for people to donate money to a candidate. Or the complaint was "someone I don't like donated to the candidate, so that must be illegal." Or something like that. The grand jury found everything was proper. But it's an "accusation." If that's the standard now, then I'm going to start "accusing" people of things.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Email outage @ mantecalive

If you sent email to anyone @ mantecalive.com yesterday after 8 am or today before noon we may not have gotten it. This would affect jackie@mantecalive.com or joe@mantecalive.com.
From Manteca Live!

I opened a trouble ticket with the IS provider at 3 am and told them how critical it was because "there are candidates writing in and the election is coming up...." I don't know if that impressed them or not. But it sure did annoy me.

As far as I can tell the email stopped working sometime during the day yesterday the 27th after 8am and was not working until about noon today. If you tried to send something you should probably have gotten a "failure notice" that returned the email.

So if you sent us email, or if you sent in your candidates' answers and we didn't answer you please send it again. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Don't blame us

Here's an excerpt from the Manteca City Council candidates forum. Councilman Snyder outlines a narrative where whatever problems we have they are caused by outside forces, "the economy" or things over which "we have absolutely no control."



(And I don't mean to pick on Councilman Snyder because I think he's one of the more wise members of the council -- and this idea that "the problems are not our doing" has been expressed more or less by all the local politicians.)

But is this really true? Here are some graphs for you:

First, Millville, New Jersey:



Next, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Notice the similar graph:


And finally, Manteca, California:

Who says economic policy and the damage done by "planning departments" don't have a negative effect on people's lives? It's not "the outside forces" -- that's just an excuse. We are responsible for the world we create.

p.s. The candidates forum will be re-broadcast on comcast channel 97 at 6pm tomorrow (Monday, 27 Oct 08)