Fear Mongering, Part 2

I never thought my previous post on the title subject would lead to a second post on the issue but I think perhaps now would be a good time to do so.

If you recall, I mentioned that fear is used as a means of control.

As an elected council member my fear is limited to making a poor decision that has unforeseen and negative consequences.  I fear that I will wake up on a Wednesday morning to find out that the previous night's decision would have a drastic negative impact.  But decide, I must; that is what your elected officials must do.

So with each decision, with each blog post, with each public appearance, I run the risk of saying or doing something that will have a negative impact and that, to some degree, makes me fearful.

However, I must keep a level head and remind myself and those around me that I am human and inclined to act as such.  "Be humble" I say to myself.

And if I should say too much, stumble or miss a step, the press is there to remind me of who I represent.  While we can certainly argue the role of the press and the various biases that each media outlet may have, it is of the utmost importance that all of us remember the role of the press.  In my opinion and that of many, the press serves the people equally as much as government itself.  The modern press is able to tell the public that which government would rather not share.

Sometimes the government (an all encompassing term which could include public employees, elected and appointed officials, etc.) makes an embarrassing mistake, like when Fullerton police officers mistakenly raided the wrong house.  Sometimes government withholds information because of ongoing investigations, like when the Fullerton Police Department refused to release the video of police confronting Kelly Thomas on July 5th.  In these two examples the public by and large knew of the incidents' occurrence and even some details.  However, it takes a complete disclosure of the evidence to paint an accurate picture of the events.  Since former Fullerton Police officers have certain rights of appeal with respect to their employment, I will not comment further on that case.

In both cases, though, the press had a specific role to play in sharing information with the public.  While the press can request information all day every day, it takes the government (again a broad term) to provide the press with the information.  We have the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees that the press can operate without interference from government.

But what about when a government has information which the public would take great interest in if the press knew of its existence and were to report it.  What if the government chose not to release it or even make its existence known?  This is where the importance of an elected representative can make all of the difference.  Having officials willing to open their doors to the press and the media and allow for complete, and sometimes even embarrassing, transparency is in my opinion the only way to ensure an honest government that places the citizens first.  Fear of the truth is power to some and terror to others.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

OC Register Columnist Avoids the Obvious

OC Register columnist David Whiting shows the same trait as the Fullerton City Council members being recalled- denial.

Whiting gives his impression of the Fullerton recall election and the reaction of the public since the video was released.

While Whiting is entitled to express his opinion, he chose to use his creative writing skills over his journalist skills to express his support of the three doomed council members Jones, Bankhead, and McKinley.

I suppose when the facts are present, one need only close their eyes and the facts go away.  I'm sure my toddler would agree.

Unfortunately, sticking one's head in the sand doesn't resolve anything.  It only drags out the inevitable demise that is certain to follow.

Whiting gives the before and after impressions of the soon-to-be ex-councilmen and uses some mild quotes. He ignores, as city council candidate Matt Rowe pointed out, numerous tasteless, insensitive, and demeaning comments made by McKinley.  Bankhead and Jones also made plenty of similar remarks that have reflected poorly on our city.

From Matt's Facebook post at the OC Register on-line:

Here's some better quotes for Councilman McKinley.
---
Theme: Compassion
On sexual assault and the FPD (Rincon).
"Those ladies weren't people like this." 
This is not compassion. This is judgement. Does Pat McKinley side with the victims here or with the officer? You decide, then read the next one.
"It was just inappropriate touching. Not a good thing, but it ain't a dangerous thing."
This is not compassion. Pat McKinley actively dismissed what it feels like to be sexually assaulted and defended the officer's actions. Need more, read below. 

On Kelly Thomas.
"You can't get six people around one guy."
This is not compassion. This is attacking witnesses to the crime. As the video demonstrates, you can certainly get six officers on one guy. They piled on and crushed Kelly to death. Again, this is not compassion, this is Pat McKinley defending the FPD on national television. Need more?
"I've had my eyes bloused a few times myself... facial injuries are not life threatening."
This is not compassion. This is Pat McKinley minimizing the injuries that Kelly Thomas received. He's making a foray into medicine and is not acting appropriately for a councilman. No eye blousing every received by Pat McKinley should EVER be compared to Kelly Thomas's injuries. Need more?
"I can guarantee neither of these officers intended for Kelly Thomas to die. They had no intention of murdering him."
THIS IS NOT COMPASSION. This is Pat McKinley, again, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. He has no idea what the officers' intent was. Here he is AGAIN advocating for the FPD and not advocating for a citizen of Fullerton, a victim of the FPD. Still need more?
"This should be an interesting trial and Mr Barnett is an extremely competent lawyer, and he has said that he has other information."
This is not compassion. This is Pat McKinley alluding to evidence held by the defense that may exonerate the officers. He has no business stating this, true or untrue. He's supposed to be advocating for citizens, for Fullerton, and for victims of crime inside the city limits. Making a statement about how good the defense attorney is and how interesting he's going to make the trial is not compassion. If it is, it's only for the FPD.
---
Theme: Police Discipline:
"I probably hired them all."
Yup. You probably trained them, too. Not exactly who I want ensuring my rights aren't violated.
"We changed the entire culture of the department."
I have no doubt you did.
"We put Rincon on administrative leave, immediately."
Really? This is a lie. Pat McKinley left Rincon on the job after receiving multiple complaints. He assaulted many many women. What did Pat McKinley do about it? He left him on the street, retired, then blamed the incoming police chief. View it yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg3uCUnivlU&feature=youtu.be
---
I have no idea why the person writing this article wrote what they did. What I can tell you is that we're not all on the same page. The quotes presented by the author, at best, occurred weeks and months after Kelly was killed. What the author should be presenting is what the council members said before the press got a hold of the case. That's the justification for the recall.
I guess this really sums up the reporter's journalistic ability: "As one speaker in council chambers put it, 'The world is watching this meeting.' I'm not so sure about the world."
The speaker was Ron Thomas. The world is most definitely watching. 10 million views and counting.
YES ON RECALL.

Well said Matt!  

Sticking our head in the sands of Fullerton have left us with over $1-BILLION of debt, no less than a dozen law suits, several former police employees incarcerated or on trial, accounting gimmicks and misappropriation of public funds, illegal taxes, and a blood on our streets.  \

The only cure for Fullerton's failed leadership is to replace the council with competent and caring leaders who will not look the other way while Rome is burning.

CAUSE: head in sand, EFFECT: (see images below)

A DUI crash mock-up. Unlike many

other Fullerton images, no one died

or was injured in this picture.

Free Speech or Trashy Signs

Is the placement and displaying of a political sign on private property protected by the 1st Amendment?  Not if it's in the City of San Juan Capistrano! 

The Orange County Register's Brittany Levine has an article on the issue HERE. 

The question has come up after a real estate developer,  Advanced Real Estate Services, received a notice of violation from the City for signs placed on private property.  The municipal code has restrictions on size and location of the signs but ARES spokesman Stephan Gregg told the Register that "We did receive a notice, but the signs are on private property and we have the constitutional right to free speech."  He explained that ARES is trying to work with the City to resolve the problem.  Though it is not immediately clear just how freedom of speech will be worked out with the municipality.

Political signs are an important part of our freedom of speech.  I cannot imagine a better example of a form of communication than those used on either side of an issue to proclaim a cause and show support one way or the other...so long as they are on private property with the consent of the owner or tenant.

The OC Register article gives some of the contentious background but at the heart of the sign issue is our inalienable right to speak freely through varied media including signs, even large billboards.

For the sake of San Clemente taxpayers, I hope City officials will drop the case and move on to more pressing civic matters.

________________________________________________

From the Orange County Register

ELECTION SIGN RULES
San Juan Capistrano has the following regulations for election signs on private property:
• No sign shall exceed 6 feet in height if free-standing, 6 square feet in area, and shall be located below the roof eaves if building-mounted.
• No sign shall be illuminated, revolve or otherwise function with mechanical parts or devices.
• No sign shall include flags, valances, pennants, lights or other similar attraction devices.
• Signs shall not be supported from any tree, utility pole or other utility installation on private or public property.
• Signs shall be posted no more than 30 days prior to the election date.
• Temporary signs shall be placed no less than 50 feet apart from identical or substantially similar temporary signs, and in no case shall more than one temporary sign per candidate or ballot-issue position be allowed per parcel.
• Signs shall be taken down and removed no later than five days following the election date.
Source: municipal code

9th Circuit Affirms IN GOD WE TRUST and UNDER GOD

OPINION


BEA, Circuit Judge:

This case calls upon us to decide whether the national motto of the United States, “In God We Trust,” and its inscription on the Nation’s coins and currency, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq, or both. We hold our decision in Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970), forecloses both claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court held that :  It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result only:

The majority opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, No. 05-17257, which has today become the law of the circuit, fails to comprehend the constitutional principles set forth in the relevant Establishment Clause cases that the Supreme Court has decided in the years following our decision in Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970). See Rio Linda dissent passim Reinhardt, Circuit Judge). Because I am now required to follow that precedent, no matter how misguided, I am also now required to conclude that Newdow’s claims in this case are foreclosed by Aronow, 4210 NEWDOW v. LEFEVRE and therefore to concur in the result. I do not express any view as to what result I might have reached in the absence of the numerous errors of constitutional law that the majority made in Rio Linda, and the erroneous result it reached.

Read the opinion from the 9th here and here.