California State Senator Roy Ashburn
I will call out any elected official who gratuitously demonstrates hypocrisy, no matter what their party affiliation is.
California State Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) was arrested on March 3 on suspicion of driving under the influence. Ashburn took a breath test that showed his blood alcohol level was 0.14 percent, or 0.06 percent above the legal limit. The next day, rumors began to spread that the Legislator had visited a gay nightclub in Sacramento before his DUI arrest and that he had an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his Senate-owned vehicle when he was stopped for driving erratically near the Capitol. Then on March 8, Ashburn, who has consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, came out of the closet and admitted that he was gay in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield. The 55-year-old divorced father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life for a long time.
This is yet another case of blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy being displayed by an elected official. Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk. Equality California, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights and other issues, has consistently given Ashburn a zero rating on its scorecard. For a gay man to vote so consistently against so many issues that are important to the gay community is an outright exhibition of hypocrisy.
Ashburn has attempted to deny that he has been a hypocrite by saying that his votes reflected the way the constituents in his district wanted him to vote, not necessarily his own views. This poses an interesting question about what the duty of an elected official is. We don’t really live in a democracy. The people do not vote on every issue. Instead, we elect representatives to vote on the issues for us in the state Legislature. Ashburn’s statements assume that it is the role of an elected representative to vote the way that the people of his or her district want them to vote on each and every single issue. If that were true, there would be almost no reason to have an elected representative in the first place. If that were the true function of the elected representative, then we could bypass the representative system entirely by simply having the people vote on each and every issue. That would be the surest way to ensure that the “will of the people” is carried out. And if time constraints were so prohibitive as to preclude the people from voting on every issue, then polls could be used to determine how a representative should vote on any given issue. A scientific poll could be taken to monitor the pulse of the electorate right before any bill came up for a vote, and the elected official would simply be charged with voting in accordance to the results of that poll (akin to a pledged elector), basically rubber stamping the will of the people from the district. At that point, the elected official becomes irrelevant.
I would argue that the proper role of an elected official in the Legislature is much different than the way Ashburn portrays it. There is no way that any elected official is going to be able to march in lock step with the will of the people of their district on every single issue. Instead, I believe a candidate for office should honestly tell the electorate exactly how he (or she) thinks and what sort of vision that he has for how government should interact with the people. That will allow voters to have a good idea on how a politician would vote on any given legislation that might come up for a vote. The voters then choose the person from amongst the candidates who they believe best represents the way that they think. Sure, there might be some disagreements on certain issues, but we are looking for a best-fit situation when it comes to our elected officials. The candidate who winds up getting elected should then legislate in a manner consistent with the way he portrayed himself to the voters. The elected official should be able to clearly and articulately explain to the voters the reasons for any deviation of their legislating behavior from that which was promised during the election campaign. (This accountability has the added benefit of exposing any changes in voting patterns caused by special interests.) If the elected official deviates too far from the way he portrayed himself to the voters, then he should be voted out of office in the next election. Or if the will of the people changes so that a different candidate is more in line with their views, then that other candidate should be elected in the next election. And if the electorate finds out that the candidate outright lied to them or was dishonest during the election campaign, then a recall effort should be initiated.
To me, this is the plain and simple way that elected representatives in the Legislature should behave. But, apparently, my view of how elected representatives should operate is completely different than the way Ashburn tried to communicate in order to cover up his hypocrisy. At least we can take comfort in the fact that Ashburn had previously announced that he did not plan to run for any public office after his State Senate term ends this year. Assuming that the seat he currently occupies is not then filled by another hypocrite, that should mean we will have one fewer hypocrite in office in the California Legislature at the end of 2010.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Nobody Else Speaks for Me, and I Stand Behind My Own Words
It has occurred to me that I am getting to the point in my campaign for State Assembly where people are really going to be scrutinizing anything and everything that I say. I am completely fine with that. I stand behind everything that I say. Of course, there are going to be times that I might occasionally make an offhanded remark or say something that is taken out of context. If such situations occur, I will not hesitate to clearly explain or clarify my statements in more detail.
But at the same time, I want to clearly state, for the record, that nobody else speaks for me. I have no official spokesperson. Nobody else is authorized to speak on my behalf. The only person who is authorized to speak for me right now is me.
I also want to explicitly state that any remarks or political statements made by those who I associate with, either frequently or occasionally, do not necessarily imply any agreement with or endorsement of such statements on my part.
Once again, I am the only person who speaks for me, and I stand behind my own words.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Declaration of Candidacy
Well, it’s official. Today, I went down to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters office in Oakland. I submitted all of the necessary paperwork, signatures, and fees to qualify to be on the June 8th ballot as a candidate for State Assembly in the 20th District (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas).
After everything else was done, the final document that I had to fill out was the “Declaration of Candidacy”. On the back of that document is an Oath of Office that I had to sign. The oath reads:
I, Adnan Shahab, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
I actually took the time to carefully read these words before I signed the Oath of Office. These words truly mean something to me. Unlike many other politicians, I have actually read the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California. Those documents serve as a contract between our government and the people. It is important to understand what is and is not allowed according those documents, and we must legislate with faith and allegiance to those documents.
On a little bit of a tangent, I am still waiting for the Democratic candidates for Assembly District 20 to agree to a debate with me. A Silicon Valley business group had contacted me a few weeks ago, attempting to set up an all-candidate debate with candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties. As I have been trying to set up a debate for months, I told them to name the place and time, and I would be there. At 1:38PM on Monday, I received an e-mail from the group confirming that the debate would take place on Thursday, March 4 at 9:15AM. Then at 9:42PM on Monday (eight hours after receiving the confirmation), I received another e-mail from the group stating that the debate would have to be postponed because “a majority of the candidates” could not be present. Let me think about this. Including me, there are three candidates running for the AD20 seat. In order to have “a majority of the candidates” present, we would need at least two candidates to show up. I told the group that I would be there. Does that mean that both Democratic candidates decided to bail out of the debate? Why are they hiding?
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Gut Check Time
When I arrived at work earlier today, my boss immediately asked me if we could sit down and talk about something. Already fighting a nasty cold, I could tell that this was not going to be good news.
Without going into too much detail about what I do for a living, I work for a company that is an outside contractor that works in various locations around the State of California. At each location, we have an exclusive contract with the owners of that location which basically gives our company the right to be the sole provider of our services in that location.
My boss and my supervisors sat down with me, and my boss informed me that there was a very real possibility that our contract, which expires on April 30, will not get renewed. He informed me that there is still a slim chance that the sticking points of the contract could get ironed out in time, but it was not looking good. He also informed me that, if the contract does not get renewed, the company would either help with relocating employees to another venue or lay us off and allow us to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Also, since I am one of the most veteran employees working at my current location (it will be nine years on May 1), my boss wanted any advice or input that I could provide as to how to move forward until the contract situation gets settled, one way or the other, especially when it comes to the emotional and financial concerns of my fellow employees.
Thinking about the situation that I am currently facing with regards to my employment, it occurred to me that this is a perfect time for me to put my money where my mouth is. It is possible that I am going to be tested in ways that I have never been tested before. It is exactly at times like this when one’s outlook, one’s world view, and one’s political and social ideals are put to the test. How I deal with this situation will help me figure out whether the views that I have been espousing are, in fact, how I really believe or whether I will abandon my ideals in times of stress. I will now find out how I truly behave when put in a bad situation.
Of course, in a best possible scenario, the contract renewal would get worked out and there would be absolutely no disruption to my employment status. But since I have been told that things are not looking good, I have to deal with the very real possibility that I might have to make some substantial adjustments in the near future. I am tied to my residence, so an actual physical move is out of the question right now. If an opportunity is made available to me to work at another location, that could involve a significantly longer commute and the possibility of a completely different work schedule. (I work in an industry that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.) I really like my current commute and work schedule, but we don’t always get to keep what we want in this world. If given the opportunity to relocate to another venue that is within reasonable proximity to my residence, I will seriously have to consider making the necessary sacrifice. Life is not always easy. Making sacrifices is what people have to do in order to survive.
If a viable place of employment is not made available to me to work at, then I might have to consider going on unemployment. I loathe the idea of going on unemployment. But at the same time, I realize that I have been forced to pay into the system for my entire working life. Had I had an opportunity to opt out, I could have kept more from every single paycheck and saved it for a rainy day situation such as this one. But that opt out opportunity was not made available to me. The government forced me to surrender part of my paycheck to it for each and every pay period that I have been out in the working world. That is my money, and if need be, I am entitled to get some of that money back through unemployment. I hope it does not get to the point where I must file for unemployment. But if it does get to that point, I can do so in clear conscience because that was originally my money that was taken from me by the government.
At the same time, if I did have to go on unemployment, I would want to get off of it as quickly as possible. I believe in working and being able to stand on one’s own two feet, not relying on the government to take care of you. And even if I were allowed to work at another venue, I would still not hesitate to attempt to find a job working for another company. That’s part of the free market system. I have some unique skills and training that makes me valuable in the eyes of employers. If a better job opportunity becomes available to me, it would crazy for me to not take that opportunity. That is the beauty of the free market. People with skills that are desired by employers will have more opportunities available to them than those with less marketable skills.
Add on top of all this that I am in the middle of a political campaign to win a State Assembly seat. Between work and my campaign, my schedule was already pretty packed as it was. All of this additional work-related turmoil will only add to my scheduling conflicts, making my campaign even more difficult. But I am committed to trying to win the Assembly District 20 seat. I will do whatever I can to accommodate both any necessary adjusted work schedules and my campaign efforts.
Perhaps all of this turmoil will turn out to be a good thing. Not only will it allow me to test my own integrity, but there is a chance that I could wind up in a much better position as a result of all of this.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Racist Republicans
I am tired of politicians buying their way into office. I understand that campaign funding is an essential component of a candidate’s ability to get their message out to the voters. I also firmly believe in the freedom of speech that is expressly guaranteed to citizens via the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. I believe that campaign contributions are a form of free speech, and, while I believe campaign financing should be disclosed and transparent to the public, I do not believe that there should be government-imposed limits on how much candidates can raise. As long as proper disclosure is maintained, I believe candidates should be able to collect as much in contributions as possible, without any caps on how much can be raised from individuals or groups.
That being said, I also understand that candidates who are well-funded are at a significant advantage when it comes to communicating with voters. After all, if the electorate has no idea who a particular candidate is, why would they vote for that candidate? Unfortunately, in my current race for State Assembly, I, as the sole Republican candidate, am being severely outraised by both of the Democrats running for the same seat I am running for. Combined, those two Democrats have already garnered campaign contributions approaching $300,000. By contrast, thus far, I have not even raised $2,000. As a result, the two Democrats will soon be flooding the airwaves with ads or wallpapering every square inch of Assembly District 20 (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas) with campaign signs. I simply do not have the resources to compete with all of that right now.
But to add insult to injury, I know that the two Democratic candidates are not out there articulating what they believe in to the voters. Instead, their campaign messages have thus far focused on vague notions of looking out for the common man and asking people to vote for them because they are registered Democrats. They seem to be relying on the fact that Democrats have a huge registration edge in AD20. It’s almost as if they are deliberately laying low and not saying anything of value because they understand that if the electorate actually found out what they believe in and what they plan on doing if elected, then they would be in trouble. By playing it safe, they are hoping the anti-Republican sentiment in the Bay Area, as well as the “D” next to their name on the ballot, will bring them through to victory in November. What ever happened to standing up in front of the voters and telling them what you truly believe in? Any attempts on my part or on the part of others to set up any sort of all-candidate forums or debates to bring the two Democrats together with me in front of an audience have met with a distinct lack of interest. That is cowardice on their part.
But now I get to the real point behind why I starting writing this blog post. Because of my contempt for the Democrats simply trying to get elected by not saying anything of any importance and, funded by those with deep pockets, being able to blast the electorate with meaningless messages to get name recognition, over the last few weeks, my campaign has been trying something different. Instead of simply cutting a check to pay the filing fee to get on the ballot (using money to buy one’s way into the system), I, as well as a group of volunteers who believe in what I stand for, have been going out and gathering signatures to get me on the ballot. Not only does this show that I am not simply trying to buy my way into government, but it starts getting my name out to the people. That way they can start to get a better idea of who I am and realize that there is a much better alternative out there than to simply vote for the Democrat. I am confident that, if voters are able to figure out exactly what I stand for, they will realize, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I should be the next State Assemblymember from District 20.
When I decided to run last spring, I understood a couple of things. First of all, I realized that, being a Republican, I would be at a severe disadvantage in the minds of the voters. There is an anti-Republican hatred that exists in the Bay Area. I am confident that a lot of this comes about as a result of ignorance, and I am more than happy to talk with as many people as possible to rectify their misconceptions about what it means to be a Republican or a conservative. But secondly, I understood the some people would not vote for me simply because of my name and my race. I know that, especially following the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there is hatred directed at people with Muslim-sounding names. (For the record, I am half Filipino and half Pakistani. My mother is Catholic, and my father (who passed away in 2007) was a secular Muslim. I, personally, am not a very religious person. If asked to define my religious views, I am most comfortable with the term “atheist”.) Once again, I am confident that if people have a chance to meet me in person or see me speak, then that will help overcome a lot of that bias that might exist in their minds. I believe people should vote for candidate based on that person’s stances on the issues, not because of their political party affiliation or because of their ethnic background. Unfortunately, with an obligation to hold down a full-time job in order to pay the bills, I cannot be everywhere. I do not have the time or the resources to be able to personally speak with every single voter. Help from volunteers and others to get my message out can cut help cut into the misconceptions, but it won’t have nearly the same impact as a voter being able to talk with me directly. So, there will be a portion of these biased people who I simply will not be able to convert to vote for me. It’s sad, but it’s true.
I received a call this morning from one of the volunteers who has been out gathering signatures to get my name on the ballot. She is a nice woman, who dresses in traditional Muslim attire, and is very interested in politics. She is a conservative who actually ran for a nonpartisan political position last November in the area, and she lost to the two liberal incumbents who were running against her. She found out about my campaign for State Assembly and contacted me, letting me know that she would like to volunteer to help my campaign. I told her about the signature drive to get my name on the ballot, and she enthusiastically agreed to help me. In order that she could target people who would be friendly to our cause, I handed over a list of addresses of registered Republicans to her, and she planned on knocking on the doors of those registered Republicans in order to gather signatures. When I talked with her on the phone this morning, she seemed apologetic, almost as if she felt she had failed me. She told me that her efforts to get out and gather signatures did not go well yesterday. Basically, somebody threatened to call the police on her, and she felt in fear for her life. In her honest opinion, while out gathering signatures, she had run into the racist faction of the Republican Party. Out of fear for her personal welfare, she cut her signature drive efforts short.
I am glad that no physical harm came upon that woman who volunteered for my campaign. But she is definitely shaken. For their own safety, I am now asking that all campaign volunteers who are out there working directly with me immediately cease getting signatures to get my name on the ballot. I will have to resort to finding the funds to pay the filing fee to get my name on the ballot instead.
Now, I have yet to have any conservative with whom I have spoken with about my campaign say anything directly to my face about not supporting me because of my name. Who knows what is going on in their minds or what they say to their friends when I leave, but people are usually fairly courteous when interacting with me. But clearly, as that campaign volunteer experienced, those racist notions exist in the minds of many people. Exactly how wide spread and how deep that racism runs is something that I do not know. It is my hope that it is quite limited in scope amongst the electorate.
I had always heard stories about the racist fringe of the Republican Party. Being as I have lived in the Bay Area most of my life, I really haven’t had much of an occasion to witness it firsthand. I had always assumed that the really severe racial stuff was going on elsewhere, be it in other states or in other areas of California. To know that such racial animosity exists anywhere is disheartening. To find out that it exists right here in my own backyard is infuriating. These people should be ashamed of themselves. I always grew up believing that you should judge a person by their individual skills, traits, beliefs, and actions. To find out that some registered Republicans, people who believe in the same things that I do, will not vote for me because I have a Muslim-sounding name clearly illustrates to me that there is ignorance among people of all political part affiliations.
Now I know what I am up against. Not only is there a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding out there about Republicans and conservatives, which I must overcome in order to get voters to realize that they probably share far more common beliefs in the issues with me than they realize, and not only am I going to be severely outspent and have to scratch and fight to get my message out the voters, but I am also going to have to deal with a racist element in society who will not vote for me because I have a “funny-sounding” name. This already difficult task has just become even more difficult.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
CA Democratic Legislators Seek to Tax Internet Sales and Sodas
Thursday seemed to be a banner day for Democrats in the California State Senate to attempt to raise people’s taxes. On the very same day, a tax on sodas was proposed, and a bill to tax Internet sales was passed in the state’s upper house.
State Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) proposed taxing sodas sold in California at a rate of a penny per teaspoon of sugar. For the average can of soda, that would add an extra nine or 10 cents to the amount that consumers would have to pay. The idea is to take the extra money, estimated at $1.5 billion per year, and divert it to help fund prevention programs.
Apparently, Mr. Florez does not believe in the California Constitution. Article XIII, Section 34 states:
Neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions shall levy or collect a sales or use tax on the sale of, or the storage, use or other consumption in this State of food products for human consumption except as provided by statute as of the effective date of this section.
To me, this seems to suggest that such a tax on soda would be illegal. But the legality of an issue seems to have absolutely no bearing on whether Democrats will attempt to pass bad legislation. So, let’s look at the basic notion behind the tax.
The idea is that sugary sodas lead to increased weight gain on the part of people in California. Clearly, the Democrats don’t want people to be obese. (Democrats don’t like fat people.) They feel that it is the proper role of government to step in and attempt to dictate what people choose to eat. Instead of trusting in individuals to make rational choices on their own, they seem to feel like the average citizen is either ignorant or too stupid to be able to decide what they want to put into their bodies. Remember, we are not talking about illegal drugs or anything like that here. We are talking about soda. Democrats are acting like the government is so smart that they should be in the business of regulating what foods and beverages people consume. They understand that they cannot outright ban sodas (or at least, doing so would not be politically popular), so they want to impose a sin tax on it, making it more expensive. They believe that making soda more expensive will cause fewer people to buy it, thus achieving their dream of limiting what sorts of “unhealthy” foods that people eat.
Quite frankly, I don’t think that government officials are very smart. I would be hard pressed to point at anything that the government does well. With such a poor track record, why should I start believing that an all-powerful, omnipotent government will make the right decisions for me? I believe in allowing citizens to choose which legal products they wish to consume. If they want to eat healthy, good for them. If they want to eat unhealthy foods, that fine as well. But don’t try to infringe on my right to choose what I want to consume. Part of the beauty of America is that, as long as we don’t hurt others, we have the liberty to do what we want.
On the same day that Florez proposed his tax on soda, the California Senate passed a bill that would require online retailers to charge sales tax on purchases in California. Such a tax on internet sales is expected to raise $107 million a year for the state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to veto the measure when Democrats proposed it last year, and it stalled in committee. But Democrats reintroduced on Thursday in a tax enforcement bill that was part of a $5 billion budget package moving through the Legislature.
The ironic thing in all of this is that the Democrats always claim to be on the side of the “little guy”. But both the soda tax and the internet tax will hurt lower and middle class people more than the rich. An extra couple of cents for a can of soda or having to pay sales tax on internet purchases can easily be managed by those with large incomes. It is the people in the poor and middle class who will feel the pinch of these new taxes the most. When you are already scrimping and saving just to make ends meet, every penny counts. How the Democrats can continue to claim to be looking out for the interests of the poor and middle class and, at the same time, propose additional taxes that will hurt those very same people astounds me.
It seems like I have already made an endless number of blog posts about how much California legislators love to increase taxes. But I need to hammer home the point that, if California voters continue to elect Democrats into office, that will only serve to increase the amount of taxes that residents of the Golden State will have to pay. I don’t know about you, but I like money. I like earning money, and I want to be able to keep the money that I earn. Whenever the government decides to raise taxes, that irritates me.
If the Legislature is having a difficult time balancing the state’s budget, the answer is not to continually devise new ways of taxing people. Instead, cut spending in non-essential programs. At the same time, implement programs (reduced regulations, lower taxes) that will revitalize business within the state and spur economic growth. Increased economic activity will lower the state’s unemployment rate and increase tax revenue flowing into California’s coffers.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
High School Graduates Not Prepared for College
The front page of yesterday’s edition of my local newspaper, The Argus, featured two stories emphasizing the reality that many California high school students who graduate with excellent grades eventually get to a university campus and find out they are not prepared for college-level work.
One of the stories opened up by following an 18-year-old high school student named Wesley Sims. In a science class, Sims’ teacher has the students spend the entire period drawing a crayfish, which was pulled from a tub, from different angles. The teacer says the exercise is meant to “sharpen their observational skills.” Other teachers might even tout it as a creative, hands-on lesson. Sims tells the truth to the reporter by emphasizing that such “easy work” does not really do anything to prepare him for college.
At an Oakland school board meeting last months, Sims spoke out by saying, “I woke up to take my SAT, and me being a 4.4-GPA student, I’m like, ‘All right, SATs, let’s go, I’m ready. I opened my book and knew, let’s say 25 percent of the things that were going on in the book.” Sims has been accepted to Cal State Northridge, which was his first-choice school. He will be taking his college placement test next month. That same test resulted in some of Sims’ friends, many of them honor roll students, being placed in remedial college courses.
The other article noted that many students who graduate at the top of their high school class find that they are not ready to succeed in college. “About 20 percent of the freshmen who enter Cal State East Bay with a 4.0 GPA need at least some remediation in math, English, or both.” And when you include all first-time freshmen in the California State University system, that number approaches 60 percent. “Most of the 25,000 Cal State students placed in remedial classes each year held at least a B average in high school and completed a long list of university-approved college preparatory courses, as the admissions system requires.”
Is anybody really surprised about any of this? I have long held the belief that the vast majority of public school education is nothing more that government-sanctioned babysitting. Many of our students are not being taught the facts and skills that they will need to succeed in life. Far too often, self-aggrandizing teachers will say how important it is to stroke the egos of students and not push them too hard. They feel that if they expect too much out of them, the students will simply quit trying and possibly drop out of school.
I witnessed all of this firsthand. I graduated as valedictorian of my high school in 1996. There were some wonderful teachers at my school who worked hard to teach us valuable lessons. And then there were some teachers who weren’t even good as babysitters. Some students, the ones who took their education seriously, found a way to learn and managed to graduate with a real education. Other students simply slid by until graduation. And when I got to U.C. Berkeley, I saw many students who were severely lacking in knowledge of basic concepts and who had absolutely no personal discipline or experience at working hard in order to learn. Quite frankly, many of these students should not only have never been anywhere near the campus of a prestigious university such as U.C. Berkeley, but they should not have been on any university campus anywhere in the United States.
The question then arises as to how we fix this situation where the education system is failing to adequately educate the students. There are some who seem to believe that the answer lies in providing more money to schools and education. Well, I hate to burst their bubble, but simply throwing more money at the problem is not going to fix it. This is especially true when many of those on the front lines of the education system, the teachers, are not doing their jobs properly. Instead of these touchy-feely notions of making kids feel proud of their sub-par performances, we need to demand that teachers actually instruct students with a vigorous courseload of essential skills. Instead of wasting valuable resources on peripheral skills that sound good in concept but yield questionable real-life results, we should get back to teaching the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, and government. These are the skills that the youth of America are going to need if they want to grow up and become the next generation of leaders in the global marketplace.
Sure, there will be students who will not be able to pass the more rigorous classes that I am suggesting need to be implemented. That’s fine. Not everyone is suited to move on to higher education. There will always be room in society for those who are not willing to work hard in order to succeed. But that’s part of the beauty of America. Those who are willing to put in the extra effort will be able to distinguish themselves from their peers. They will be able to separate themselves from the pack and carve a path for success for themselves. But the important thing is to not dumb down the entire learning experience for everyone in order to spare some from failing. Those who are going to fail should simply get used to it. They need to learn, at an early age, that they must exert themselves if they want to succeed in life. That is how the real world works. In the real world, if you don’t perform up to par, you will fail. And those who work hard and succeed will be rewarded.
We also need to be able to replace teachers who are not doing their part to educate our children. Instead of unions refusing to allow less than adequate teachers from being fired, we need to adopt a policy where great teachers are rewarded for their work with higher pay and lousy teachers are dismissed. After all, if the real goal is to educate, then the emphasis should not be on protecting the teaching careers of bad teachers. The emphasis should be on providing the best possible education for the children. If certain teachers are failing to teach the kids, they need to be removed from the classroom and should find another line of work. Once again, successful teacher should be rewarded and failure on the part of teachers should result in them losing their jobs. Why is that such a difficult concept for some people to understand?
But not all of the blame can simply be placed on the shoulders of the teachers. The ultimate responsibility for the education of a child is placed on both the child and the child’s parents. A child who is not motivated to learn will not learn. Ideally, the drive to succeed will come from within the child. But if that child does not inherently have such a drive, then it is the duty of the parent to nurture the child to want to succeed.
Once both the parent and the child have a clear goal of wanting to learn, then the child can tell the parent exactly what is going on in the classroom. Not only am I personally not too far removed from school to remember it, but I have talked to many young people about what goes on from the opening bell until the bell rings to end the school day. If parents knew exactly what went on in class on a daily basis, it would blow their minds. Sure, a good teacher would take it upon him or herself to communicate with parents. But, in reality, that doesn’t happen. (Even more so when it’s a bad teacher who does not want parents to exactly what kind of poor education is being delivered to the students.) A child who cares about his or her education and who feels that they are not receiving the education that they desire can communicate this to their parents. The parents can then take their concerns to the teacher, principal, and/or school board. And, at the end of the day, if the school district does not deliver the kind of education that the child deserves, then the parent should be able to pull their child out of that failing school and move them to either another public school or to a private school of their choosing.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – February 13, 2010
I was fortunate enough to meet up with some fellow law abiding citizens who are interested in unloaded open carry (UOC) earlier today. We met up at a coffee shop in San Leandro. Despite the assertions by some people that UOCing in “bad” neighborhoods would result in us being robbed of our firearms by criminals, nothing of the sort happened. There were approximately 20 people openly carrying firearms, and there were probably around 35 people total who showed up (including family and friends). The encouraging part revolved around a handful of people who showed up without firearms because they weren’t quite sold on the legality or details of UOCing. But after talking with some of the more experienced UOCers for a couple hours, many of them were confident enough to say that they will definitely be openly carrying the next time we have a meetup.
Two interesting things occurred while we were at the coffee shop. First of all, a man who was there open carrying informed me that he actually has a concealed weapons permit (CCW) issued to him by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. He said he’s had it for over 10 years. I was stunned to actually meet a real-life citizen who had been issued a CCW in a Bay Area County. The guy (I don’t want to name him because I don’t want anybody to pressure the Sheriff to rescind his CCW) told me that the only reason he was issued a CCW was because he is friends with someone who is pretty high up in the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. He admits that the system is flawed and corrupt and that, if he were not friends with someone in the Sheriff’s Office, there would be no way that he would have been issued a CCW. He told me that he was UOCing because he supported the cause. But he said that when he gets back in his car, he is going to put away his thigh holster and carry concealed.
I had always heard stories about how one must essentially be rich, famous, and/or well-connected in order to receive a CCW from a Bay Area Sheriff. It’s a shame to see that someone who has actually been issued such a CCW readily admits that connections are are the only reason why he was issued a CCW. That is not the way the government is supposed to deal with things. It is corrupt, plain and simple. It is also a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We must expose these unfair practices to the light of day.
The second thing that I noticed is that I am starting to be recognized by members of the general public for my efforts to educate society about California’s unloaded open carry laws. I mean, I can understand being recognized by people who specifically show up for the unloaded open carry meetup. It is not a stretch to understand that these “new” open carriers may have seen some of my postings on online discussion boards or seen one of my recent interviews with local media. These people are predisposed to UOC, so it’s natural for them to have seen me or heard about me somewhere. But there were two different customers (one Asian male, one African-American female) at the coffee shop who had absolutely no idea that we were meeting there today and just happened to be there while we were there. Separately, they came up to me and said they recognized me from some of the television interviews that I have done in recent weeks. They both seemed to be very supportive of what I was doing to educate people about what their rights are.
But then I started to think about the people in the general public who have started associating me with unloaded open carry. I want to clearly state that I am in no way whatsoever any sort of official “leader” in the open carry movement. I am just like anyone else who is interested in exercising their right to open carry. The open carry movement is not any sort of official organization with a power structure or anything like that. Nobody has to clear anything with anybody else in order to open carry. As long as you don’t violate the law (stay clear of gun free school zones, do not go into any public buildings, etc.), you should feel free to open carry whenever you want. This is a movement of law abiding citizens being able to exercise their rights. You don’t need any “leaders” in order to do that.
It also occurred to me that, if members of the general public are starting to recognize me, it is a natural assumption that members of law enforcement will start recognizing me as well. I seriously hope that no law enforcement officers get any sort of notions of trying to teach me a lesson by singling me out for extra scrutiny (i.e. illegal violations of my civil rights) because of my stance on gun rights. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that various law enforcement agencies around the Bay Area have taken note of some of my online posts and media interviews. Through a Public Records Act request made by another UOCer, I already know that some of my fellow open carriers are being closely watched by law enforcement. It would be insane for me to believe that I am in a different position. That’s fine. As long as they stay within the law, I have no problem with law enforcement monitoring my actions. But if any LEO begins specifically targeting me for any statements that I have made with regards to the unfair issuance of CCWs in California, my view on the thinly veiled threats to the lives of UOCers made by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, my respone to the comments made by the East Palo Alto Police detective who threatened to harass and shoot UOCers, or for any other political reason, I will not simply lay down and take it.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Assemblymember Torrico Proposes Tax on Oil Producers
Let’s see if two recent newspaper articles that included Assemblymember Alberto Torrico’s (D-Newark) name are correct. If not, I’m sure I’ll hear from him.
Torrico is currently the Assemblymember representing the district in which I live, California’s 20th Assembly District (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas). Since he will be termed out of office soon, he has decided to run for Attorney General. I am currently running to fill the Assembly seat that Torrico will be vacating at the end of 2010.
According to a Bay Area News Group article, Assembly Bill 656, proposed by Torrico, initially would have taxed companies 12.5 percent for oil and gas extracted in California. The proceeds would then be divided among the state’s three public systems of higher education: community colleges, the California State University system, and the University of California system. AB 656 hit a snag because there was controversy on exactly how the money would be divided up between the three public education systems.
“We didn’t have the votes in the Assembly,” Torrico said. The lawmaker has since gone back to the drawing board on the bill, but he said he plans to bring back the original proposal soon.
It seems like this is yet another example of Democrats coming up with every possible sort of plan to increase taxes in California. In this case, Torrico is trying to portray himself as the good guy who is looking out for higher education by taxing the “evil” oil industry. Enough is enough. We need to stop demonizing companies that are putting out a product that people both need and want and are employing tens of thousands of workers throughout the state and country.
And we all know that increased taxes on businesses ultimately wind up getting passed along to consumers. So, basically, Torrico’s plan would wind increasing the amount of money that every person in California would wind up paying at the pump. (In fact, there is no reason why the additional fees would not be passed on to consumers throughout the nation.) Instead of finding new ways to squeeze more money out of the pockets of citizens, Torrico should focus on cutting the waste involved in public education. Furthermore, if the Legislature were to enact business-friendly policies (fewer regulations, lower taxes, etc.), the entire economy of the state will gain momentum. A rising tide raises all ships. More business will lead to increased sales tax revenue for California. Increased business will also lead to the hiring of more workers, lowering the unemployment rate, and increasing payroll taxes that go to the government. That is the proper course that we should all be working towards.
For the moment, we can take solace in the fact that it takes a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to enact a new tax. Right now, it looks like the votes for such a tax on companies that extract oil and gas in California simply are not there. But we cannot rest on our laurels. We must understand that every single seat in the Assembly is important. Right now, the Democrats are only a few seats short of a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. Every one of those seats is up for re-election in November 2010. And every one of those seats that gets filled by a person who supports limited government is another vote to prevent the Democrats from being able to raise taxes whenever they want. If I get elected to the California State Assembly, I firmly pledge to take a stand against needless tax increases.
A different newspaper article, out of the Sacramento Bee, talked about all of the candidates who are running for the California Attorney General post that will be opening up when Jerry Brown finally makes his run for Governor official. Apparently, Torrico has already raised more that $1 million for his campaign for Attorney General. That is a whole lot of money that is flowing through Torrico’s hands. In these tough financial times, for them to contribute more than $1 million to his campaign, one has to wonder exactly what sorts of assurances are being made to organizations and special interest groups about the benefits they can expect to receive if Torrico were to win the Attorney General position.
It should also be noted that Fremont City Council Member Bob Wieckowski, who shares a law practice with Torrico, is running as a Democrat for the Assembly District 20 seat. With a close friend like Torrico, it should be no surprise, then, that Wieckowski is also raising significant amounts of money in his campaign for Assembly. In fact, I remember reading last summer that Friends of Alberto Torrico had contributed $3,900 to Wieckowski’s campaign fund. (I haven’t yet had an opportunity to view the most recent campaign finance disclosure forms to see whether any additional money has flowed from Torrico to Wieckowski.) Again, one must wonder what political promises of personal gain are being made to people in order for them to contribute so much money to Wieckowski’s campaign.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – February 7, 2010
With regards to my current interest in unloaded open carry, the last few weeks have been interesting. I have been contacted by numerous television stations and newspapers for interviews regarding unloaded open carry and the attempts by the Brady Campaign to strong arm businesses into banning law-abiding citizens from exercising their legal right to openly carry an unloaded firearm in their establishments. Thus far, Starbucks has stood strong, vowing to abide by federal, state, and local laws. California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee have bowed to the pressure from the Brady Campaign and have banned legal UOCers from exercising their rights in the stores.
I am a firm believer in property rights. I understand that it is fully legal for stores to create policies to control who enters their stores. But I would also like to point out that there is a limit to the extent that this can be done. I would argue that companies are not legally allowed to ban people of a certain race or sexual orientation from entering their establishments. Also, if a company were to bar people with tattoos, piercings, or certain hair stylings, I believe that businesses would be treading on thin ice. As in the case that people with exposed firearms on their persons might possibly make other customers uncomfortable, the same could be said in all of these other scenarios as well. The question then comes down to exactly where the line gets drawn between looking out for the comfort level of certain patrons versus the rights of others, who are not breaking the law in any manner whatsoever, to enter a business.
A couple other things have developed as well. On January 14, Lt. Ray Lunny of the San Mateo Sheriff’s Office issued a press release with regards to unloaded open carry (http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/sheriffs/pdfs/Press%20Releases/20100114_opencarry.pdf). At the bottom of that memo, Lunny included a “Caution” section. That Caution section reads:
CAUTION
Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation. When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.” Consequently, the law enforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat. Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection. It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms.
First of all, I do not necessarily believe that it is appropriate for law enforcement agencies to make recommendations to the public on what citizens should and should not do. The Legislature and other elected bodies are charged with making the laws. Law enforcement has a duty to enforce the laws. When law enforcement feels that they can start deciding which rights that citizens are and are not allowed to maintain, that is a dangerous situation. It is a slippery slope that cannot lead to a positive end result.
Secondly, a close reading of the Lunny’s Caution section shows that his agency is advising officers to respond to law-abiding open carriers with “hypervigilant urgency”. This is fancy code for telling officers to draw their weapons on unloaded open carriers, without any regards for how the person is acting. If the open carrier were acting in any sort of combative or threatening manner or brandishing their firearm (which is illegal), then such “hyperigilant” responses by law enforcement would be appropriate. But the mere presence of a gun on a person who is acting calmly and not doing anything illegal does not warrant having officers draw their weapons on that person. Doing so significantly increases the chances of the officer accidentally discharging his or her weapon, causing grave bodily harm to the open carrier. By stating that “Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their protection”, Lunny is basically authorizing officers to shoot any open carrier who does not hear or who misinterprets any instruction by an officer. And the part about open carriers making any move that could be construed as threatening seems to grant officers permission wide discretion in determining whether to shoot an open carrier.
All of this is going way too far on the part of law enforcement, which is attempting to hide behind notions of “officer safety”. Claims of officer safety should not give law enforcement the right to willfully violate the civil rights of law-abiding citizens who are doing absolutely nothing wrong. To think that an officer in the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office feels that it is okay to shoot law-abiding citizens is outrageous.
Lest people start to believe that I am misinterpreting Lt. Lunny’s press release and that this is just an isolated incident, I would like to remind everyone that I was told that Union City Police Department is advising all of its officers to approach all unloaded open carriers with their guns drawn and to prone to open carriers out, regardless of how the individual is behaving. This is not common sense. But it goes even further than that.
On February 7, I became aware of a Detective in East Palo Alto who made some posts on Facebook regarding unloaded open carry (http://kevinthomason.blogspot.com/2010/02/local-cop-advocates-shooting-law.html). This cop gloated about harassing a law-abiding open carrier last week by proning him out and giving him a “reminder” of things. He then shockingly made an off-hand remark about how, once they have open carriers proned out, if the officers were to shoot an open carrier, they would get rewarded with a 2-week vacation from their department. And to add insult to injury, he claimed that others should laugh at open carriers because “they can only dream to have a ccw.”
In the past, I have always been supportive of law enforcement. Until I began open carrying, my interactions with law enforcement were quite limited and generally positive for the most part. Whenever a news story would arise about officers going too far or about a rogue officer doing something inappropriate, I would always chalk it up to that being an isolated case and be comfortable in the feeling that the vast majority of law enforcement officers were good people who were on my side and were out there to protect me. But now that I see officers behaving in such ways with regards to unloaded open carry, which is completely legal in California, perhaps it’s time for me to start re-evaluating exactly who law enforcement is really out there looking after. Unfortunately, I am starting to get that feeling that they are not looking out for law-abiding citizens such as me. Perhaps they are only looking out for themselves. And that is very disappointing.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com