Conflict on F Street

Tonight, after being thwarted for two days, Ronald Payne and I went to see Harry Potter V possibly one of the best movies of all time. This is consistent with my belief that Star Wars III, Transformers, and Matrix Reloaded are legendary in film or will be in the near future. Ron and I met at the movie theater at around 9:30pm, about twenty minutes before the movie was to start, and I had not bought a ticket yet.

While Ron and I talked a strange person decided to join us. He was taller than us and seemingly older. He had on a white t-shirt with a blue icon on the front, jeans, presumably tennis shoes. He had short curly brown hair and had a pale Caucasian complexion. It seemed a little strange that he would only have a t-shirt on; I was comfortable only when I had my sweatshirt on.

He approached us asking for help giving me the early impression that he was in need of money. I am not a very charitable person on the spot and would have refused him if he had asked. I feel there is a difference between supporting charities with my time and simply giving out cash to people, especially cash that is not really mine to give out. Instead the man asked if we would do him a huge favor to which I inquired what it was.

He basically wanted me to find shrooms and if I were to agree he would help us tremendously. The guy however, couldn’t stay on topic though. He declared that if we were to follow through with it he would give us grand spiritual powers. He demonstrated this by holding out his hand which presumably had invisible fire emitting from it. I didn’t care to deny his belief that his hand controlled fire. He went on to say that he was God and/or Christ and the God and/or Christ was speaking through his human body as if to convince us of the importance of his demand. He gave us a convincing case as to how he could be God and/or Christ. But I found myself unconvinced but decided not to question him on it.

After he was done with what could be considered a pitch he wanted to know if we would help him. I told him that we were going to see a movie in ten minutes and that we would have to do this later. He didn’t seem to accept that and so I asked where I could find these shrooms. He answered in ironic fashion that he had planted shrooms in my backpack. It was at this time that I became confused as to what he meant. If he had planted shrooms in my backpack what did he need me for? He said he would give me $30.00 if I assisted him in getting shrooms, or maybe he meant that he would sell them to us for $30.00. Either way, it didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

As I was still on the fence about this I asked if I could make a phone call to a friend and that I needed some time to think this over. He didn’t find this satisfactory and told me that if I were to call a friend it would bring demonic ruin to me and even more so to Ron since it was his phone. After playing along with this guy for a few minutes he found my lack of cooperation unsatisfactory and took off north on F Street.

After he was gone I quickly checked my backpack and found nothing unusual. It was later confirmed by Ron that the guy did not mess with my backpack during the conversation. Sure the guy was gone I went to the other side of the movie theater and asked for Ron’s phone. In my zeal for righteousness I called 911 and got the CHP computer which then informed me that all of their operators were busy. I then called the Davis Police Department using the information off Ron’s ID card. Calling the Davis Police Department number it took a few minutes to get to their operator to which I described the altercation.

They asked all the right questions and I provided a detailed account, almost as detailed as what I am writing right now. Since the movie was going to start in 10 minutes I request that a cop car go after the suspect and have a chat with him. This was complied with and I left the DPD to handle him.

It is unknown to me as to whether the DPD actually found him. If they had they would probably find him mentally unstable or having possessed or being under the influence of some drug. The odds are I believe is that the cops never found him, but I can find out later.

Now, I could have done a few things differently than what had occurred. I could have been a jerk and told him to scram immediately but then that could have caused a fight. I could have walked off, but then he might have followed. With these options I decided to locate myself right in front of the theater in front of a large group of witnesses. I also kept the conversation going for me to memorize his physical details and for potential line up purposes. But at times he even patted me on shoulder in a friendly manner.

As for reporting the individual I decided that if this guy were to hurt or cause injury to another on F street or elsewhere and I didn’t report it I would feel morally responsible. Ron concurred with this judgment. Also, I really had a great satisfaction in busting a druggie and possible drug dealer. I realized soon thereafter that if they caught the suspect the Court might require me to attend as a witness, even so I found that to be intriguing.

But it was also personal. This guy invoked religious arguments to try and convince me which is something I don’t take lightly. Both Ron and I are quite skilled in Christian thinking and this guy was annoying my moral sensibilities. It reminded me of an event in which Ron dealt with someone who was trying to sell off prophecies near a local church. It was later determined that he was not a registered prophet. During the conversation I almost thought that he seriously wanted us to exorcise demons or something to which I would reply that I would have to get a signed document from the dioceses in order to proceed. Thankfully this do not occur for it could have caused him even more anger. There are procedures after all. It was one of weirdest conversations I have ever had with a human being.

I would just like to say that drug dealers and those who are influenced by them are not part of a happy hippie world in which all is peacefull and full of harmony. Drugs and those who use them are part of a depressing, self destructive segment of society. It is dark, violent, threatening, and destroys people every day.

In any case Harry Potter V was well done but I would objectively give it a B grade. I found Ralph Fiennes to be the best character in the movie.

The Chavez Man

It is the beginning of the Summer Session II and things are generally uneventful in comparison to what has occurred in the recent past and will happen in the near future. It is the so called silence before the storm. I got word by scanning facebook accounts that James Schwab had been removed from Facebook which were followed by various GO supporters rejoicing. However, this was simply an error on their part as they hadn’t investigated Facebook as thoroughly as myself, in other words they didn’t spend two minutes to confirm it. I posted it on the Davis Wiki knowing Schwab would confirm or deny it. Whether or not Schwab uses Facebook is irrelevant to me or what I intent to do in the future, it’s just a nice little tool for recruiting purposes.

The Campaign for Spencer Higgins Draft is real. I should know, I am in the Facebook group and talk with Spencer indirectly on what’s going on. Those who doubt the seriousness of this situation will be surprised when the 410 form is filled out.

I picked up golf on Wednesday and granted I have clubs I will challenge the 18 holes to a duel. It would be a fine fight and the odds are against me but I am going through with it. Besides golf allows for the more exciting activity of using a go-cart and chatting about various things. If I score a 200 I will consider it a success.

Bowling is on the up swing, I find that I was able to get a higher score by bowling by myself in one lane all for myself. This is not to say that there weren’t others, but because it was going to close soon we got three separate lanes for ourselves. I got a 139 in less than 15 minutes.

The crew and I are also considering the purchasing of more powerful laser tag guns which will have chest plates and a visor which will allow me to lock onto a target for a perfect shot. We also have our light sabers ready to go for fencing practice.

As for the Empire Nation I am supposedly going to have some sort of session with the Director of Public Affairs today or next week, she hasn’t got back to me. Poor Ryan and Joe had an interesting chat and now have to modify their shows a little bit. I consider the whole experience good practice for the Fall granted I am able to keep the show around by that time.

During the last show I read an article and concluded that Chavez was a dictator. The article may have also said it, I don’t remember, but I am sure I said it. Shortly thereafter I got calls coming into the show saying I was wrong and brainwashed for called Chavez a dictator. As usual it’s the corporations who are feeding me such lies leading me to use my progressive slogan: “The Corporations!” Whenever there is a problem in America it’s always “The Corporations!” I suppose I watch too much South Park or perhaps I hear too many Liberals speak.

Now, I suppose I could Google Chavez but Google is a Corporation so that’s out. I could read a book but then that would be a publishing corporation. I could watch the news but all the news channels are corporations. I could read liberal blogs but then how would I know if the bloggers are not getting their sources from corporations. I could take quotes from politicians but they also use corporations for their news and information. I suppose I will have to drive to Venezuela to find out the truth of the matter. Unfortunately for the Chavez supporters I am too low class to afford such a thing. And then there is Wikipedia which is the Source of All Truth and is a non-profit enterprise.

Is Chavez a dictator? I suppose it depends on perceptions. There is still a legislative branch and some independents in the press. He still has term limits which will probably be abolished soon. Chavez’s model is Cuba, no mistake about it. He will become a dictator just like Fidel Castro if he is not stopped.

More importantly Chavez is an enemy to the United States. He has done everything possible to antagonize the United States politically and economically. The reason gas prices are so high is due in some part to him. Socialism will never work in any country. His country will become poorer than before and there will be a coup just as there was before. I am not too concerned about Chavez because capitalism will always win in the end; it’s just a matter of time. But until people realize this the Venezuelan people will continue to suffer.

So how does this fit in with my progressive nature? Democratic politicians have come out and accused Chavez of being a dictator and are acting more hawkish towards Chavez. One can be progressive and not be a communist. I think I can create the distinction on the show where is a conservative cannot. After all only a liberal can destroy another liberal.

In the meantime read some of Google’s finest searches and you will see what I mean.

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1265

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4199

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/18/131555.shtml

ASUCD Commission Behavior

In the Associated Students of the University California Davis or ASUCD, there are 7 commissions with at least 11 members in each one. The legislative branch of ASUCD includes the Internal Affairs Commission, Academic Affairs Commission, Ethnic and Cultural Affairs Commission, Gender and Sexuality Commission, Business and Finance Commission, External Affairs Commission, and the Environmental Policy and Planning Commission. They all have 9 voting members and at least two alternates although occasionally one may have 1 alternate while another may have three alternates. Commissions that have more than two earn my compliments while those who have less earn my lawsuits.

In order to get on a commission you have to fill out an application form that has your contact information and a description of your experience and qualifications. You should fill out a paper form and an electronic form because either or both can be lost by the system. Granted the chair gives you a call for an interview, (not always the case), you can become interviewed for the positions.

Most of the questions for the interview are vague and thus you could talk forever on your life story before they stop you. Other questions are more specific as to whether you truly have any experience in the field you wish to be involved in. Some questions are stupid though like what is your favorite actor, color, sports team, etc. How you answer this question may establish how human you are.

The interviewing committee consists of two Senators, a commission chair of the commission the applicant is applying for, a commissioner from the commission the applicant is applying for, and another commission chair of another commission. Legally the interview team can be made up of four people but the absent one must be a Senator. If there is less than one Senator or less than four members the interview process is illegal and the Court could rule that the interview process is void. This happened for my interview and so my External Affairs Commission position was unconstitutional.

In most cases active students, even freshmen can get on commissions. I have seen myself passed over by freshmen who know zip about the system. Then there are those who are selected because they are well connected or friends with those in power. Those that rebel against the system tend not to do so well.

Then the Senate usually rubber stamps what the interview committee judges. There have been some small controversies but I have never seen someone not confirmed until just recently with the Gender and Sexuality Commission.

In the commissions as I have observed there are different groups of people. There are the conservative establishment people, the rebels, and the wise men. The Conservatives are not politically conservative; they support the status quo and their way of doing things. They tend to have more experience, have greater arrogance, and are usually promoted to chair or Senate later on. The Conservatives often need to know what they are doing so that the Rebels don’t get the upper hand.

The Rebels are those who introduce legislation on the idea that they are the minority on the commission. They hope for the rare chance that the wise men will side with them against the Conservatives. They often have more fun than the Conservatives because they don’t take the process as seriously. They are liberal only when it comes to what they want done which is a lot of different changes. They may also hope to regress ASUCD back to a more glorious state. The Rebels tend to not promote anywhere within the association but hope for the day when they will rule over the Conservatives. The Rebels and Conservatives are generally experts on ASUCD processes.

The Wise Men never speak during Commission meetings. If you look at the minutes they have zero quotes. They are generally hard working on projects and writing reports but they have little to nothing to say about legislation. They are unpredictable as far as determining how they will vote but they tend to vote with the Conservatives. The Wise Men may know a great deal but this can never be determined and as such people sometimes get the impression that they know nothing about the system. They prove that one can still contribute to a debate without saying a word. They tend to not have as much fun as the Rebels or the Conservatives. They also tend to never promote and are generally content with their position.

Every once in a while accusations of cronyism are thrown around. This accusation is hard to prove and hard to defend which makes it a convenient attack. The story of Greg Webb does not surprise me at all. I aimed him randomly about running for ASUCD Senate in the Fall of 2006 and he agreed but he didn’t collect enough signatures. He managed to secure enough in the Winter of 2007 and joined the Student Focus slate after briefly being with ACT. After his loss in the Winter of 2007, Greg visited the Internal Affairs Commission frequently, and would later comment to me on what he thought of the meeting. He even wrote a letter to the editor commenting on a piece of legislation from IAC and every so often went to Senate meetings. While this was going on Greg Webb and I discussed the possibility of an ASUCD radio talk show on KDVS for the Fall quarter. The idea that he isn’t qualified or that he deserves last place is not surprising to me concerning status quo but is somewhat appalling to me. I fully expect Mr. Webb to be involved in some interesting things on the start of the fall quarter. As said above, Greg made the mistake of being a rebel.

Libertarian and Republican Connection

For most people there is the Republican Party and then there is the Democratic Party. Third party organizations have a difficult time winning high offices but on occasion surprise us by winning local city council elections and challenging the two major parties.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 200,000 members and 600 elected officials nationwide. Compared to the two major parties this might not seem like much but there are occasions when Third parties can make a significant difference. In 2000 Al Gore lost the presidential election in large part to Ralph Nader in Florida. Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul once ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian Party.

Why does Ron Paul have such great popularity with the young people? A lot of it has to do with the fact that students and young people behave very much like Libertarians when it comes to their political views. Many students who consider themselves liberal Democrats are actually Libertarians; they simply don’t consider themselves as such. Students seem to have this government hands off mentality and for good reason. Students don’t like regressive taxes; entitlement spending that doesn’t benefit them, budget deficits that they will eventually have to pay, and greater government involvement in their lives.

The Republican and the Libertarian view points collide on several points and I desire to list these points as I interpret the Republican and Libertarian mindset. I will further prove that an ultra-liberal socialist cannot be under Libertarian definition be a true Libertarian leader.

Libertarians favor tax breaks whether it be income tax, sales tax, social security tax, any kind of tax. Republicans agree as it has been shown with the Republican Ford administration, the Reagan administration, and the George W Bush administration. The Republican Congress during the years of 1995 to 2007 enthusiastically supported tax breaks and even under a Democratic controlled Congress Republicans were able to negotiate a small business tax cut in order to pass a higher minimum wage. On the California state level Republicans have generally been supportive of tax breaks and have always opposed tax increases. Governor Schwarzenegger vowed he would never raise taxes and has succeeded. In Davis however there have been constant tax increases under a progressive population and Davis City Council. There has been Measure O, P, and G which have increases taxes on the Davis population.

Libertarians favor greater economic freedom to develop and oppose government regulations. Republicans and Libertarians alike have supported greater growth in cities and have shown themselves to have a pro-business mentality. This is good, because it is business that keeps this nation as prosperous as it is, not the government. Those that opposed Measure K are not Libertarians where is those that did are more in agreement to Libertarian view.

Libertarians promote greater property rights and oppose eminent domain seizures. Republicans pushed for Proposition 90 which would have given greater compensation and protection to property owners. It failed but it was worth a shot.

Libertarians oppose taxation of religious institutions and many Republicans and myself agree. Religious organization should continue to have non-profit status and Republicans and Libertarians would be more agreeable to having welfare services flow through charity organizations than the wasteful government.

Libertarians and Republicans both agree when it comes to gun ownership. Democrats and progressives have put a great many restrictions on rural areas when it comes to purchasing various weapons. Both political parties consider the 2^nd Amendment seriously while some liberal judges have ruled that the 2^nd Amendment doesn’t even pertain to citizens.

Libertarians and Republicans agree on greater free trade. Free trade allows us to sell stuff and buy stuff from the world without restriction or tax from the government. It strengthens the economies of the Third World and makes things cheaper for us here in the United States. It doesn’t balance out the economic circumstances of the world but rather it increases capitalism and investment in the world. There is no zero sum game. The more money you have the more stuff you can do with it.

Libertarians and some Republicans have been tireless fighters of budget deficits and have decried the incredible spending under George W Bush. The amount of spending comes close to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. This kind of spending needs to be lowered in order to bring about a balanced budget. If we do not, the expense of the interest alone will hurt my generation and the generation beyond me.

When in comes to Social Security both parties agree that this institution needs to be privatized if it is to stay functional decades into the future. If it remains as it is more economic pressure will be put on the shoulders of my generation and future generations.

And finally the Republicans and Libertarians agree that we must have a secure border in order to protect the property rights of US citizens and to prevent run away spending of social programs on undocumented persons. Though these parties may disagree as to how much security is needed but they do agree on the fundamental principle that our social programs should not be held hostage by uncontrolled borders.

There are some obvious differences between Republicans and Libertarians but there are also many similarities. As such it is my belief that the two parties can work together when it comes to certain specific issues. When it comes to the city of Davis I fear that the 160 registered Libertarians and 7,000 Republicans are being ignored. Libertarians should identify that in city politics Republican social conservatism is rarely an issue but Republican economic policy is what is most important on the city level.

When it comes to myself I have disagreements on Libertarians on certain issues but I have more meaningful similarities. The two issues that have been brought before me is my ASUCD record on two bills I hope to and “will” pass; that being the So Help Me God oath of office bill and the Pledge of Allegiance.

It can be acknowledged that Libertarians believe in the Separation of Church and State but I feel that I need to give Senator-elect the public freedom to express whether they wish to say it or not and have that recognized. As I have said before ASUCD is not a state, it is an association. Those who oppose my bill have a more tyrannical nature in that they hope to silence religion in ASUCD and this was one step to do it. As for the Pledge of Allegiance I also consider this to be freedom issue. People should have the freedom to recite it and have it recognized under the system. It’s completely voluntary and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be a part of an association that is heavily entangled with the federal and state government. Even so, these two bills are minimally important in the grand scheme of things.

Now, I could change all of my positions to make everyone happy but that would insult the intelligence of the people and it would be flip flopping on the issues which I shall not do. Instead I believe that I need to keep the principles that I believe in but be open to new information and act accordingly. There is a difference between someone who acts like a fake to get an endorsement and someone who stands firm and gains respect from the general people. Despite my opposition to Giuliani’s positions I do find it respectable that he keeps to his positions and states to all those who listen, “This is who I am and you can either vote for me or not.” You can change your mind of course, but never change your political soul.

ASUCD TASER Resolution and Petition

It seems I have run into some trouble with my latest blog over the various things I had to say about Senator Andrew Peake, but before I can go into “greater” detail about Sen. Peake it has become necessary to clear up this insignificant issue.

The resolution in question is ASUCD resolution #8 of the 2006-2007 school year. It was written byPeake, co-authored by Laabs, and introduced by Peake. The Vice President, Genna Carnes, decided to send the resolution to Ethnic and Cultural Affairs. I thought this was a mistake and that it implied that the UCLA police officers acted in a racist manner which was not the case. Even the independent investigation that was revealed on August 2^nd, 2007 confirmed that racial bias was not a factor in the case. So why was it sent to this commission other than to make a statement? It went to the proper commission, that being the External Affairs Commission and then it went to the ASUCD Senate. In both commissions, the ECAC and EAC, I gave reservations concerning the resolutions. These reservations were not implemented but I am not shedding tears over the matter.

The first clause of the resolution states that Mostafa Tabatabainejad was tasered multiple times while non-violently resisting. I will agree that he was tasered multiple times. Some say he was shocked three times and other say it was four of five. The number of times is not overwhelming concerning to me. The part of the resolution I disagree with is that the suspect who I will from now on name “Mr. T” was not a non-violent suspect. He was screaming and yelling the whole time and requested that the other students around him assist him which I consider to be an inciting of the people around him. Non-violence gives the impression that he was some sort of Gandhi or Martin Luther King figure who committed acts of civil disobedience and are then calmly taken away. This guy was an idiot and he was asking for it.

The second clause states that the police used excessive force as if it were fact. You can’t have a resolution calling for an independent investigation and then at the same time make certain conclusions. You can’t conclude the suspect was non-violent and you can’t conclude that the police were excessive until the independent investigation is finished. The UCLA police department’s own investigation in which they hired outside people determined that the TAZER was not inappropriately used. Furthermore the police department dropped the case on the officers.

I also dispute within the second clause that it was the police that disturbed the peaceful environment of the library. Mr. T did by arguing with the security guard and then resisting the police. The police did their jobs and it was Mr. T who should receive the blame for his actions. The second independent investigation that Mr. Peake will use to justify his case also said that Mr. T was partly responsible for the incident and caused himself trouble when he didn’t have to.

In the first Therefore clause the resolution states that it “supports” an independent investigation and does not “call” for an independent investigation. This is one of those clauses where one can basically ride the success of circumstances already happening. If ASUCD were to “call” for an independent investigation they would have been ignored and then there would have been some evidence to suggest that no one cared what ASUCD thought.

In fact if you check any Internet search engine you will not find one news article or website that combines ASUCD with the independent investigation on the UCLA police incident except for ASUCD information material and the California Aggie. The Independent Investigation was jump started on November 19, 2006, fives days after the incident occurred. The ASUCD resolution was passed on December 7^th.

The resolution was not really radical in anyway, it didn’t call for an end to TASER weapons nor did it call for the resignation of any one officer. It didn’t obnoxiously call the officers racist like the UCSA did. I hereby call this resolution the “forgotten” one.

I personally appreciate former Sen. Rosas-Romero’s efforts on the subject because they are much more radical and promote ideas that are a lot bolder. The first part of her “petition” is to ban TASER weapons from UC campuses. The alternative to the TASER weapon is a baton. Allow me to describe this weapon. In the old days they would be made out of solid wood and were painted black. Although they could cause high amounts of pain they could break on occasion and were not as effective as they could be. Then a new baton came out which was made out of metal and plastic. They were short but extendable batons where one pushed a button releasing a metal shaft. This was much more painful, sturdy, and more effective. When you have a violent suspect this weapon causes a greater deal of pain and injury then a TASER. Another alternative is tear gas or pepper spray which by far is more painful to the sensitive eyes than a TASER weapon. Without the TASER the police would have had to use physical force to drag the suspect out of the library. The TASER is the safest way for the officer and for the suspect in almost all cases. Those against the TASER are losing the battle of ideals. More cities have TASERS now and whenever there is a complaint against them police departments purchase more developed ones. Normal citizens can now buy TASER weapons. You wouldn’t refuse citizens to buy TASERS for self defense would you?

I also have issues with the third clause which states that UCLA should have had other means to identify the suspect even if he didn’t have his ID card. Fact remains is that he did have his ID card and refused to show it. What was the security guard supposed to do at 11pm at night? Call his friends, use a finger printer machines, how about an eye code? He didn’t have any right being there if he wasn’t a student. Under UCLA policy you have to be a student to be there at the library. This is to protect students from people wandering onto the campus and possible threats. By restricting non-students from facilities it reduces violence and sexual assaults on these campuses, it’s a reasonable policy.

The fourth clause wants an independent review board at all UC police departments. That’s the answer to everything is a police review board. There must always be multiple boards actively attacking and harassing the police. These boards would be for the most part a waste of time and money because except for very rare occurrences there are no complaints.

The fifth clause demands that all charges should be dropped on Mr. T. This has probably already been done not because he is innocent but because the police and the district attorney don’t want to touch him after the controversial incident. Personally, he should be charged if he broke the law regardless of officer conduct.

I don’t like resolutions that already support status quo because then you simply ride the success of systems already in place. I don’t like resolutions that do not have follow up attached or are too obnoxious for a normal official to take seriously. I do not believe in resolutions designed to pander to some base or divide the student community. For the most part I have come to dislike resolutions all together except for the academic ones which are non-partisan, non-controversial, and actually work towards all students’ interests. I tried to pass a resolution on Measure K and it failed miserably but I won anyway. I tried to introduce a resolution on Proposition 83 which was passed by California voters overwhelmingly despite the insane opposition that came out of the ACLU.

Sen. Peake Seeks Reelection

It is becoming more apparent that Andrew Peake is running for reelection to the ASUCD Senate in the Fall 2007 Election. It is unusual for a Senator to run for reelection, I cannot recall a time when a Senator successfully ran for reelection. George Ajlouny may have broken some historic ground by running for reelection in the Winter of 2007, one year after he had been elected to the Senate in the Winter of 2006.

Andrew Peake is either a summer advisor or he likes to hang out with new freshmen. In any case he is campaigning among them in order to create higher visibility for himself. Being a summer advisor is an old but effective campaign trick to get freshmen on one’s side for an election. Freshmen don’t forget who their summer advisors are, except for maybe me.

Which begs the question as to whether it is entirely ethical to be campaigning while a summer advisor. I would say that it is as long as it doesn’t interfere with your job. The same goes for being an RA, there are perks for every occupation in society. A cop has a better chance of winning the Police association’s endorsement for Sheriff then someone who isn’t.

But what has Mr. Peake done in Senate that is of considerable significance that he should be allowed a reelection? There is the gender-neutral bathrooms resolution he had passed which pandered to the LGBT base of the LEAD party. Then there was the resolution calling for an independent investigation on a TASERing incident at UCLA. The independent investigation has not formed and nothing happened. Then there was the resolution in support of Sodexho which ultimately proved to be unwise as Sodexho employees decided to declare war on the campus.

I also remember Mr. Peake voting down a carefully crafted resolution authored by Senator Friedman which would allow UC Davis students to visit places like Israel and still get university credit. Then Mr. Peake voted down a small spending bill of $180 towards the Hillel House retreat, a bill also authored by Senator Friedman. Suffice to say Mr. Peake’s voting record is not all that friendly towards the political objectives of the vocal Jewish community.

Mr. Peake also made enemies among friends when he vocally slammed the Newman Center Tijuana House spending bill decrying the fact that it was a religious organization asking for funds. Due to Mr. Peake’s antics the meeting lasted over two hours and was finally passed when the Senate unanimously decided to give the Newman Center a grant and a loan. Mr. Peake is such great palls with the Hispanic community during the May 1^st march but couldn’t give the Newman Center a dime to assist poverty stricken Mexican families in Tijuana.

All of these things cause me great frustration but the Aggie also should be blamed for its biased reporting. Every time there is an incident concerning a conservative it’s Mr. Peake with a solution or a comment. He commented about me several times even when he was not directly involved and he had loads of fun with Pete Markevich who was involved in the DCR demonstration on May 1^st. According to the Aggie, Peake is a saint who also happened to promote civil disobedience and Markevich is the lowest of the lows for participating in a street theater that didn’t even get started.

But once school starts up again in September the Aggie will be recharged and ready to go. With Peake announcing his intentions to run now it provides some very interesting opportunities. As such I have developed a game plan as to how to move in this election game. By the time the ASUCD elections have started up I will be in a much greater position to influence the game. The students need to know about Mr. Peake and I am all too delighted to be their teacher.

I Supported Measure K

In June of 2006 the City Council decided to hand over the fate of Target to the voters or the “mob” as James Schwab would derisively comment. At the time I felt the Davis City Council should have made the decision itself. That is why they are elected to the council in the first place. In Redding we never had these large ballot battles over development, the council always decided.

If another future development like Target comes to Davis the council should decide on the question instead of tearing the community apart. City Council members have great access to staff, legal and environmental scholars, developer testimony, and so on. They are in the best position to decide these issues and indeed four out of the five of the council members sided with Target.

I also thought that it was rather inappropriate on the City Council’s part to make a decision on Target during the interim period between the June 2006 election and when City Council members are sworn in. This silenced Target as a political issue in the race because the new City Council members would have no say on the decision. It also shielded the existing City Council from damage. Although politically smart it is quite shady.

Target quickly mobilized resources to campaign on the issue. They rented out a suite in order to promote their campaign and gave out free t-shirts. Along with a professional website and professional people imported from other places they were ready to go. I joined the Target campaign in the Fall of 2006 until the end on the election day.

The Target store had many advantages that were seemingly ignored by the opposition. Target would bring considerable income into the City of Davis and would continue to expand as the years went by. The city at the time was too dependent on the University Mall for sales tax revenue. The Target would also provide products that could not be found in Davis and they were at cheaper prices. This would be very advantageous for students and for families.

The Target also had a Unitrans bus route that would pass along side it. It had an electrical outlet for electrical cars, crosswalks for pedestrians, and was convenient for West and South Davis residents as far as location was concerned.

The Target store was classified as a LEED bronze which is a very difficult rating to get. Only three buildings in the US had such a classification proving that it was the best environmental alternative. It was to be surrounded by trees to make it look nice and its size would block out undesirable traffic from the major highways in the area.

Critics pointed out the possibility of shop lifting but the police chief, who happened to endorse the project, debunked that theory as alarmist. Critics also said there would be a dramatic increase in traffic while at the same time declaring the store would close down due to a lack of business. The truth of the matter is that many people were burning fuel driving to Woodland to get their stuff. It is best to keep tax revenue in Davis instead of it being sent off to places like Dixon, Woodland, and Sacramento.

The alternative to Target would be a warehouse or a car lot. Now, car lots provide a lot of money to the city but not as much as Target. If one looks at the environment Target was the best plan. Some complained that the character of Davis would be forever changed despite the fact that box stores like Ace Hardware, Safeway, Borders, and Office Depot are already here. My point is that Target would do much better for Davis’ character than an open field where nothing happens.

So, all things considered, I volunteered quite a bit. I phone banked, delivered signs, precinct walked, made Facebook groups, argued on the Davis Wiki, held up signs on Election Day, and other small tasks. Was it momentous action? Probably not, but it did put a strain on my schedule and it was more than some other City Council candidates ever did.

In ASUCD I tried to pass a resolution in favor of Target which was introduced by an enthused Spencer Higgins (other Senators refused). It went through the proper channels of going to the External Affairs Commission. The EAC under Mike Lay’s command failed it unanimously. And it wasn’t like the resolution was bad format or content wise. I made changes as they were suggested. It was apparent however that the commission knew very little about the project and was confused by the presence of Lamar Heystek and Rob Roy. Those two fought against the resolution as I argued all the points that I could muster. Heystek had the usual tendency to go over time with his comments. Mike Lay didn’t decide to enforce time limits until I spoke a second time and only after I complained about it. James Schwab said that the resolution should fail due to its divisive nature on the students even though he wrote in his blog that he favored the project. After the resolution had failed it went to the Environmental Planning and Policy Commission. It was also voted down unanimously even as I had victoriously announced that Measure K had won. I was informed by Dan Xie who was the chair of EPPC that Measure K was in fact not environmentally sound. So it never went to Senate and the Senate never had a vote on the subject.

The EAC instead voted unanimously in favor of SMUD which was glorified by Heystek, Roy, and then Senator Salem. Interestingly SMUD was apparently more divisive as it failed in Sacramento and Woodland and barely passed in Davis. That resolution went on to pass unanimously in the Senate. Problem in judging political climate? Perhaps, but I wasn’t alone on this Target issue. President Darnell Holloway was a supporter of Measure K and would have signed into law a measure supporting Measure K. When the election was over Measure K had won with 51.5% of the vote. I won but ASUCD, Heystek, Greenwald, Roy, the EAC, and EPPC were all wrong.

The battle over Target didn’t end after the passage of Measure K. In his zeal to destroy Target Heystek introduced an ordinance that it would increase the minimum wage on retail stores to the same level as Safeway. This would have hurt Target and it was his intention to drive them out of business or at least punish them for wanting to come here. He was defeated by the other four City Council members but he already knew that was going to happen; he wanted to make a political statement.

I must oppose, for obvious reasons, legislation that is designed to destroy business in Davis. There is a way to deal with a certain issue and one cannot punish corporations in order to bring about prosperity. I hope to see Target open in 2009; it should be an exciting day for many residents. Those who voted against Measure K will surely change their minds upon seeing the benefits. But it really needs to be said that City Council candidates: Mike Levy, Lamar Heystek, Stan Forbes, and Rob Roy were all wrong on Target but Ruth Asmundson was right and that is to her credit. Perhaps that is one of the many reasons she got the most votes in the June 2006 election.