Refuse the Juice

Cobos and Company Still Can't Get it Right

Kudos to Newspaper Tree for breaking what I think is a huge story. Find it HERE.

Seems like Cobos and friends are still trying to control regional politics by getting involved in Horizon's city council and mayoral races.  Turns out they haven't been participating in a completely legal manner.

The article goes into detail about how they aren't filing their reports associated with their PAC on a regular basis.  They also found a guy (former PAC treasurer) to say he was getting direction from the Judge's office on who to give money to and how much.  Sound like someone is running campaign efforts out of their public office.  That's a problem.

My sources also tell me that Cobos' hatred for the current mayor of Horizon stems from some kind of MPO or RMA vote.  Apparently the current mayor, Walter Miller, didn't vote the way Cobos wanted him to vote and Cobos didn't get his way.  Turns out that this vote took place before Cobos was elected judge.  It's unclear to me as to why he cared.

I am... too tired to keep up with these asshole for the next two weeks.

Obama Doesn't Strike Out

I know everyone is expecting me to give some kind of scathing review of Obama's prime-time speech last night.  I'm sorry that I'm going to let you down.

I thought he improved greatly on his first two speeches.  He managed to keep his opening remarks short and sweet.  So short and so sweet that nobody had a chance to grab a live shot of the teleprompter.  He was able to make that a non-issue for once.

Obama cut down on the long rambling answers to reporter's questions significantly.  In the past he's rambled on and on and talked himself into a few corners.  He was getting to remind me of that uncle that corners you and never shuts up. Last night he was in command of his answers most of the time.

The President was able to crack a few jokes and kept the mood overall very light in the wake of what's happening around the world and in this country.

He has come a long way from his first prime-time press conference where he came off very badly and pretty much angry.  He looked the same in the second press conference where he rambled and was angry.  This was a much better effort on his part.

However, we will not have our shows canceled or moved to a later time for another yawner like this one.  Fox decided not to carry the press conference on their regular programming channel and only carried it on their cable news program.  I would suspect NBC will be the next to do just that.  To much money in advertising dollars went away for a rather innocuous chat with the President.

The press left a lot to be desired from their half-assed attempt at doing their job.  I can only speculate that they were called upon by the President because they knew who would be asking the easiest or most bizarre questions.  Maybe he was just lucky and called on all the dunces.  Your guess is as good as mine, but nobody pushed the President like they did in the first and second press conferences.

I think had different questions from different reporters been asked we'd probably would have been better served.  I do understand that there was the general consensus that Obama would likely have answered any tough question with some excuse as to why it is Bush's fault.  So why even try?

Obama really needed this press conference to be as uneventful as possible.  He needed to make sure he didn't get angry like he did the previous two times.  This was an image building exercise that aimed for a new "in control" perception for the administration.  Obama even lied half as much as he had in previous press conferences, which means his team has realized that someone out there was actually fact checking the words of Jesus (Obama).

I think it was interesting that Dick Morris said last night that President Clinton had two prime-time national addresses (not counting State of the Union) his entire first term.  Obama has had three in five months.  Obama's image guy is David Axelrod and he knows how important it is for a President facing questions of his leadership to have good face time with the media and public.  It's easier to hate a guy you never see.

The President is still a socialist, don't worry.  I just had to give my honest assessment of his performance.

Know Your Facts Before You Approach Me in Public

I don't mind if the very few people out there in the world who know of me approach me in public.  It's usually quite flattering for me.  Heck, I could even say I like it. 

However, do not approach me and open the conversation by spewing some kind of pent up political rant you've had stored in your mind since you last heard my radio show.  I'm likely to turn around and quickly walk away. 

I was trapped on an elevator today at city hall where a guy recognized me and went nuts over the Patriot Act, Republicans and hypocrisy.  I let him go on about the Patriot Act all the up to the fourth floor and got off the elevator.  He followed.

I usually don't engage people in situations like this - there is nothing to be gained and only time to be lost.  But this guy was getting on my nerves so I figured I'd roll him with some facts real quick and get on about my day.

The problem with people who want to get angry about the Patriot Act is that they don't quite understand what is and what it does.  It also doesn't help that the democratically controlled legislative and executives branches haven't done a damn thing about it since taking power and don't have any plans to despite what they said before the election. 

I explained to the guy that our government has been able to "spy" on its own citizens for quite some time.  This has been done under the guise of battling organized crime.  All the Patriot Act did was make it a world wide operation under the guise of battling terrorism. 

He didn't like that answer and pushed me for an answer to his privacy fears.  So I told him to flush his cell phone down the toilet, stop using computers and only communicate in written code or in person.  He had a blank look on his face for a second, which gave me an opportunity to turn my body away from him signaling the end of the conversation.  Then he ask, "why?"  Crap... 

Here's where you liberal weenies really annoy me.  You have an assumption of rights and freedoms that are wrong.  You assume that your electronic communications are to be free from interception because you said so.  Never do the liberals take into account that they are using someone else's network to conveniently communicate over long distances and that because they do not own those networks, control those networks or otherwise have personal authority over them - there's no guarantee of security!  The government or anyone else can tell you all day long they aren't listening and you have no way of knowing whether or not they are telling the truth.

For example, if you are standing on a hill and your buddy is standing on the next hill over and you need to tell him something you're going to have to yell, pass a note or do something with the physical environment to get your point across. 

If you yell over to him there's no guarantee that the people in the valley between you won't hear you.  You could ask them to cover their ears, but they don't have to.

You could send a message over to him via a messenger.  You assume the messenger wouldn't open up the envelope and read what you wrote before handing it to your buddy on the hill.  You assume that, but have no control over it.  Assuming in this situation is like wishing or hoping and we all know that hoping and wishing on one hand leads to someone pooping on your other hand.

Sending up a smoke signal to your buddy or creating a really large sign with the message you need him to get are other options.  Again, you'd have to ask the people in the valley below to shut their eyes or ignore your sign.  They don't have to if they don't want to.

So if two guys on two hills 100 yards away form each other can't communicate without someone having access to their message, then why do you think you can call freaking Egypt with different results?

The only way to get your secret message to your buddy is to hike your ass over to his hill and tell him.  Even at that he may turn right around tell the whole freaking world two seconds later.  Even cavemen didn't have any guarantee nobody was eavesdropping on their communications.  Bitching about it isn't going to change something that exists in a little set of laws I like to call "reality."

I explained to this man in the above concept in just about the same way.  He reacted as I thought he would - "health care is a right of all Americans!"

I told him at this point that I had to go do my real job and that I'm not a radio show host anymore and I walked toward my destination.  He hit the button for the elevator probably feeling like he sure told ole David K a thing or two.  I hope he enjoys it. 

I only have one regret, though.

I thought about his last comment about health care and tried to marry it with his views on the Patriot Act. I wish I could have asked him the following question:

You're worried that the government may be listening in on your conversation about World Cup soccer with your brother in Mexico, but you don't mind if the same people who run the Department of Public Safety know that you wet the bed well into your teens, suffer from erectile disfunction and have herpes?

Sometimes I think liberals don't have the brain capacity to be Republicans and there's not a damn thing you can do about ti.

Thank God for the Swine Flu

Obviously I'm kidding... But...

Didn't a perfectly healthy 41 year-old executive level employee of a semi-governmental agency hang himself in his basement last week? 

Aren't we facing another trillion dollar handout to financial firms who just a few weeks ago claimed they were "A-OKAY?" 

Isn't GM about to become a government owned company?

That's just a few of the things this flu is running cover for.  One of these days we're going to look back and say, "wait a minute, what ever happened to....."  This diversion will surely cost us more than some sick days from work.

I think the fact that Obama's numbers were actually worse than Bush's after the first 100 days has the media and their God (Obama) searching for an opportunity to recreate a  9/11.  A little fear mixed with some live teleprompter reading should fix things right up for them.

The poor Mexicans can't get a break.  Last month it was Mexicans with machine guns Obama was railing about while he quietly gave away the entire GDP of the continent of Africa to failed financial institutions.  This month it's Mexican's with a cough he's using to repeat last month's gifts to the same losers.  I wonder if he's a got a guy on staff whose job it is to figure what scary stuff in Mexico can be used to divert our attention from the real issues. 

So much for the crowd who thought Obama would open the borders and kill all the white people for them. Maybe next time?

Be warned - you are about to have the ever-living-shit scared out of you over the next few weeks and you are going to be told that the only person who can save you is Barrack Obama.  You're just going to need to hand over more money and what rights you have left.  As long as you do that, we'll all be just fine.

Just wait to see what the airlines charge for a plane ticket by the end of the summer.  Remind me then and I'll explain why they are so expensive.

This Guy for President!

Very offensive language - you have been warned.  However, it's worth your time to see what our soldiers deal with every day in Iraq. 

I can think a few different groups of Americans who could use a speech from this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8

Let me Add This

I really liked Sito Negron's piece on Rachel Quintana's upcoming ordinance. You can catch it HERE.

I do think Sito missed one issue.  And I'm not just talking about the fact that the ordinance is aimed directly at me.  It's very obvious for several reasons.

1. Even the definition of "news media" in the ordinance is so stupidly broad that it snares anyone who comments on this blog into it.  She realized, I guess, that no sane person would include me in the "news media" group so she had to work very hard to try and include me.  I'm pretty sure the folks over at Webster's aren't rushing to include this definition in the 2010 edition.

2. Name one person in the "news media" that would have this conflict that she would know about?  The wording of the ordinance is written in a manner that only helps my case that this is about me.  You'd have to have some specific research about my role with my parent's company to word the ordinance in this manner.  In fact, you'd have to work at the city and have access to specific bids and proposals my parent's company has participated in.

Back to the point Sito missed. 

Since when is it up to a contractor or the media to make sure elected officials act in an ethical manner?  The warped premise of Quintana's ordinance is that if someone was going to be awarded a contract with the city and their son is a blogger, he might use his blog to browbeat or otherwise get a vote from council that would be desirable for the firm.

If you're stupid, you think that's a great idea.  Limiting someone's first amendment rights because there's an assumption that our elected officials are not ethical enough to make decisions based on staff recommendations is idiotic.  Any member of the city council who would trade his or her vote for positive news coverage should be voted out and at the minimum. 

The bottom line is that it's the responsibility of the elected official to be impervious to the media.  Rachel Quintana should have enough ethical spine to take staff recommendations on contract awards without considering what someone in the news media says about her. 

Here's the funniest thing about Rachel Quintana - She has let my writing that mentions her effect her votes on my parent's contracts.  Over the past couple of years she and Melina Castro have either walked out of the room when my contract was up for a vote or they have voted against it.  I guess my influence over City Council is not a positive one.  

So, basically Quintana is saying, "we have to outlaw anybody doing business with the city who has a family member in the media because I can't bring myself to not let a person's free speech cloud my vote." 

You must remember that contract awards are only brought to council for finally approval - 99.9 percent of the time they are approved unanimously.  My contracts are never approved unanimously - do I have a case?  You bet I do and this ordinance has only made that case stronger.

There are rules governing what anyone from a company seeking a contract with the city can say to City Council members before that contract is awarded.  These rules easily cover any situation where trading favorable media attention for a contract might occur.  Stripping people of their freedom of speech is not needed... Unless you are Rachel Quintana who has identified herself as someone who can not act ethically and proved it by putting this ordinance out there.

Expect to hear more on this soon.

Somebody Take the Shovel From Her

Newspaper Tree printed Rep. Chavez's latest popularity building essay today.  Catch it HERE.

This is like chapter five of the book "Why I Didn't Accomplish a Damn Thing This Session and Other Thoughts From Norma Chavez."

She still claims she was too busy with committee work to have helped out with the ethics bill.  Actually she was busy fighting me and going to school.  She needs to stop pretending we don't know that.

If I were her I would shut up and move on.  All she is doing is feeding her critics more ammo. 

The issue is clear - her cousin is a big wig with CLEAT and he's telling her what to do.  Is he a registered lobbyist?

Unethical access by special interests could be at work against a bill aimed at stopping unethical access by special interests.  I could have seen that coming.

Besides, what does she care?  She can do whatever she wants to the bill when it hits the floor.  Why doesn't she do that and walk away?  Why explain yet again why she CAN'T do something?

That's an El Paso motto to get you elected - "I can't and won't do anything as your representative." I can see the rest of the platform...

I won't do anything if I can help it.

I won't cooperate with anyone.

I won't vote for the budget.

I won't pass anything.

I won't be nice to anyone.

I won't go to committee meetings.

I won't stop reporting on what I can't accomplish.

Screw it... I've nothing more to say.  I can't improve upon this woman's actions.  Who am I to tell you what you already know?

Just a Note on Anonymity and This Blog

I really don't care that much that you post comments under a fake name.  It really doesn't do anything for your credibility, however.  Just know that you aren't completely anonymous when you do post comments here.

I just got a call from my blog provider folks in San Fran (TypePad) and they just got a query into what this blog is about and why their computers have visited it 28,000 plus times.   That question was asked by the EPISD's nerd department.

Here's the deal.  I can see you. Your server can see you.  Don't be visiting this site during work hours and posting things that may not be kosher for an EPISD employee to post.  Wait until you get home. 

This goes for city employees too.  They know exactly who is reading my blog and who is posting comments.  If you think it might get you in trouble, you need to wait until you are at home or the library etc. for you own protection.

Nobody has said anything about reading this blog, but commenting apparently has been the issue from the information I was contacted with.

Don't lose your job over this blog.  What you do from a taxpayer computer is regulated and watched.

You're welcome to have fun here, let's just not get in trouble at the same time.

Ever Had an Ordinance Written Specifically for You? I Have

Here's the proposed ordinance by Representative Rachel Quintana

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 (REVENUE AND FINANCE), BY ADDING CHAPTER 3.48 (CITY CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS); AND SECTIONS THEREUNDER; TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS BY WHICH POTENTIAL CITY CONTRACTORS MUST DISCLOSE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH MEMBERS OF THE NEWS MEDIA.

She wouldn't be talking about me, would she?  Too bad I have no press credentials.  Besides the obvious consitutionality of what she's proposing.

KVIA and the Cops - You Want My Info?

Watch the original package they ran on the news that night.  Realize that they can cut their video up and put it in any order they wish. 

You start out with the incident and then some video rolls and at the end they are literally shooting from directly above the crash victim surrounded by citizens.  That video showed last is what they shot first.

So, we know that Darren Hunt and his photog were very fresh to the scene and were able to capture a news agency's dream - the dramatic aftermath from five feet away.  Usually they are stuck 100 yards away interviewing nobody.

Darren was doing what Darren is paid to do - get in the middle of shit and get the story.   I know because my first jobs were at news stations here and you're expected to push the envelop.  I used to have to walk directly up to a door of a house where a toddler has just been killed in an accident and ask a grieving family for a picture of the kid.  You don't go home feeling 100 percent about yourself after that, but it's what the media does whether you agree with it or not.

I can imagine that Darren was literally interviewing the people tending to the victim, which is his job.  I can also imagine that the cop was none too happy about there being a news camera interfering with the care of the crash victim.  It's one thing to be there to help, it's another to be there distracting rescue efforts.  Again, Darren was doing what he's paid to do and he always risks a run in with authorities when he pushes further to get the story.

I sympathize with the cop who wanted to get the scene under control.  Remember, he's trying to make sure there aren't nine other wrecks after the initial wreck.  His instinct is to get all distractions from rescue and traffic control efforts away from the scene. 

However, he was rough.  He was quick tempered.  He should have continued yelling instead of touching.  He was right to ask them to get in their truck and get out of the emergency lane.  He just didn't execute his duty exactly the way we wanted him to.

I personally have never had a bad run in with a cop in my entire life.  I have found that if you quickly obey their commands they'll soon forget about you and move on.  I would say that 99 percent of the time the police at any level are not looking for a confrontation.  Calling the entire EPPD abusers of their badge is just plain wrong.  When you do that you scar the truly good men and women out there who are serious about policing their community.

I do not think the cop should lose his job.  I think he should get some training and some punishment and then go back to his duties.  He didn't beat an unarmed with a stick or shoot somebody in the back.  Let's keep this all in perspective here.

Darren, again, was doing his job.  His job is to ride that fine line all the time.  It's the profession he has chosen to provide his family with what they need.  Some people deliver mail, some people build houses - Darren reports the news.  He does what it takes to keep his job.   Had he just driven by the accident and went to the station he'd be in a load of trouble.

Darren shouldn't sue.  It's our tax dollars he'll be receiving for an incident that probably shot their ratings through the roof and built him an even better resume as a reporter.  I like Darren a lot and he's been fair with me in the past.  The incident was a little upsetting, but then again he was out of custody very quickly.  Anyone else would not be so lucky.

I applaud the EPPD for providing PIOs immediately for comment.  They did not hide from this.  They have not pointed fingers and they have not threatened to cut off communications with KVIA as punishment for the incident.

I have four friends on the EPPD force.  I haven't asked them what they think because that's just not what we talk about.   I am not protecting them in any way.  They don't expect me to have never asked me to write something favorable about their department or actions.  In fact, I'm not sure they even know I have a blog or write for NPT.

My observation of when cops take a situation to the next level (arrested)  has  proved to me two things. 

First, when someone gets pulled over for a ticket and wants to argue about it they are increasing their chances of being arrested.  People often forget that they have the chance to plead their case in court and that arguing with he cop does them no good.  A cop is not a judge.  As they argue with the cop and get nowhere they get angrier and do something stupid that gets them in real trouble.  When you hear someone say "I was arrested for speeding" you can usually find out that they were pulled over for speeding and arrested for their reaction to the ticket.

Second, when someone is approached by cops and they start lying they increase their chances of arrest.  The more they catch you lying the more interest they take in you.  For example, I have been witness to cops approaching a homeless persons drinking in front of a convenience store, which is illegal.  The first guys showed the cop his beer when they asked and he asked to stand next to the squad car with his beer placed out of reach on the hood.  The second guy lied and said he wasn't drinking and when it was obvious he had a quart in a ripped paper sack where you could read the label the cops decided to investigate further.  The first bum at that point was handed his beer and told to find another place to drink.  The second bum kept lying and kept being evasive.  They ran his name and he went to jail on a warrant.  Had he simply admitted he was drinking they would have sent him and his buddy on their way.  Instead, he gave them reason to be suspicious and he eventually got arrested. 

Cops will often tell me that their biggest busts happen when they stop people committing minor infractions.  Your behavior dictates theirs.