Some More Not So Random Thoughts About Some of the Candidates and The Election.

As most of my regular readers know, I am a United States Air Force Veteran.

Unlike Councilman Campbell and Candidate Jerry Duhovic, I was not an officer, but I was a 'non-com' for a good deal of my adventures.

Every voter in this election had better be a United States citizen and true resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

When I see the flag of our country on a Web site of any candidate, I am somewhat uncomfortable with that.

'Waving' our flag anywhere can be seen as not only a sign of patriotism, which is very good, but it can also signal that other sites and those of us who do not need to wave any flags are less patriotic than those 'flag wavers'.

I know that I am a very strong patriot and I have demonstrated that time after time after time. I don't really feel that I have to offer more evidence to anyone about my devotion to our nation and I certainly HATE the concept that there should be any requirement to acknowledge our beliefs in any public venue.

Anyone and everyone who deems it necessary that everyone must salute a flag or repeat a pledge is demonstrating what continues to go on in places like China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and in places where people are ruled by a theocracy.

Don't you dare TELL me I must stand and salute my flag. I do it out of my own relationship with my government, community and the people I swore I would die for to protect.

That being written, anyone who wishes to challenge my patriotism for this nation, you are truly a nutcase!

I am also alarmed when I see as a goal of any or all candidates the call; "To restore civility to our Council."

Those words get me ticked off, especially after Brian and Anthony joined the Council.

I didn't vote for Councilman Campbell or Mayor Pro Tem Misetich, but they have been nothing but wonderful with the other members of our Council, whether they all agreed on something or some disagreed with others.

When I see anyone write about how they would work to 'restore civility' I think what I am reading is that they were not pleased with the terms of Long, Stern, Clark and sometimes Wolowicz.

It is very true that during the term of the late Dr. Peter Gardiner, there were time of less civility.

It is also very, very true that some in our city consider the issues surrounding The Marymount Plan and the issues revolving around on-campus housing at Marymount, can be viewed as less than as civil as it could have been.

HOWEVER, I have to have readers and historians looking for the real and total truth remembering there was a very wide two-way street that began long ago and continues to this day.

Many, far too many have been less than civil during the discussions, debates, and meetings concerning on-campus housing at Marymount.

I do not and will not offer more fault towards any member of the Council than I have seen from Dr. Brophy and other representatives of Marymount College.

"Restore civility" now means a set of buzzwords by those who did not appreciate the time, effort and considerations made by all the current Council members and former Mayor Larry Clark.

I am the one who uses 'that First Amendment thingy' to be civil, less than civil, and/or even uncivil should I choose to. But I do all of this remembering that I am just one person and I have seen, documented and revealed information regarding several issues that folks I disagree with also run from civil to uncivil.

For the last two years and for even longer, our City Council members have gone many extra miles to remain civil while lots of 'less-than civil' statements and other things have been thrown upon them.

Yes, there was a time during the terms of the late Dr. Peter Gardiner that were uncivil to the point of almost chaos. For this I do apportion SOME of the blame towards Council members other than Dr. Gardiner.

But to not acknowledge that Dr. Gardiner, while speaking very civilly also had supporters of his positions being less-than-civil to using the Freedom of Information act to cause the city funds, time and other resources that, in the end, amounted to a bunch of filled boxes waiting pick up to be left, without pickup.

It seems extremely uncivil to me to cause expenses to occur and taxpayer-funded staff time to be required to do work that some MAY have never intended on using.

I recently learned about campaign calls being made in support of Mr. Eric Alegria's campaign.

While some folks are reporting that "Marymount students" made those calls, not only would have that been completely LEGAL if those students did so on their own time, not using any of the Colleges funds or equipment, I cannot confirm that the callers were associated with Marymount in any way.

I would love to find someone who recorded a call. I would really love is someone who receives a call asks for more information from the caller as to their identity and whether they are associated in any way with ANY organization on The Hill.

Mr. Alegria's campaign can hire or seek volunteers to call residents, just like any other candidate can.

Now about Marymount students attempting to register and vote in this upcoming election.

I wrote quite a bit about this when Measure P was around and I still stick by what I wrote back then.

If a student lives in a residential structure, within the limits of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes AND is aged 18 year's of age or older and is sentient enough to understand which candidates they support and why then support them, they are legally qualified to register and vote, in our city.

If any student, faculty member, staff member or anyone else attempts to or even uses the address of Marymount College as the place of residence, they are a citizen of the United States having reached 18 years of age, they are in violation of election laws and can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Why?

The campus of Marymount College, Palos Verdes is not zoned for residential housing, at this time. Even I am not legally allowed to use the address of Marymount College to register to vote.

I am pleased to report, not that it really mattered, that I found no indication of anyone voting for or against Measure P used the College's address to register to vote.

But more eyes will be watching in this election and you can all be sure if there is any indication that persons of any legal age used Marymount's address as their residence for the purpose of registering to vote and then actually voting, our city has lots and lots and lots of Attorneys that would make sure a challenge to the election of any candidate thought to have received votes from those using a non-residence as their residential address for voting purposes, will be found out.

So, as civilly or as uncivilly as I want or need to be, here goes: If any candidate considered to be supported by supporters of Marymount College's plans for on-campus housing and/or any candidate supported by groups supporting on-campus housing at Marymount College who knowingly or unknowingly receives votes by persons using Marymount College's address for voter registration purposes, they will possibly and probably will be confronted with challenges going to the Los Angeles County Registrar of voters.

I get to state this as a resident and legally registered voter who resides within the limits of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I did NOT write this at the request of any candidate. I was asked by one candidate to inquire about this subject, but I constructed this post on my own, without any help from any candidate.

I am not implying any threat or any threat that could be attributed to any candidate. I have no idea what the outcome of the election will be and I have not endorsed candidates for my two remaining votes, I still am considering.

Mr. Dave Emenhiser, the only candidate I am endorsing and supporting at this time has never asked me to write about anything in particular on this or any of my blogs.

I am like a theater critic as far as my writing goes. I may listen to folks and think about things, but I write on my own and I do not necessarily consider the opinions of others while I am writing.

I had hoped that all the ugliness in this election stayed on this blog and that controversies could be hashed out in forums like this and other places on the Web.

But there are much thicker skulls in our city that just can't understand that we are going to look bad with regard to as others view our politics and issues, because of the ugliness that has reared and is rearing in this election.

We do have an opportunity to consider being very civil if we have the two debates on October 5 and October 12 and have the September 7 AND October 13 forums canceled.

That could demonstrate a willingness to offer civility during this election season.

So with that in mind, any candidate who suggests they will 'restore civility' can demonstrate that by removing himself or herself from the forums on September 7 and October 13.

Conversely, should candidates state they wish to 'restore civility' on their campaign sites yet still attend the September 7 and/or the October 13 forums, I contend their 'restore civility' is a smokescreen, not to be believed and something all voters should consider a less than truly honest statement from candidates that use those two words, like that.

Hey candidates, if you truly wish to 'restore civility' then show us that and remove yourself or yourselves from being at either the September 7 or October 13 forums.

If you choose not to, then I think we know what you really meant and what you really support.

*NOTE: Creating a blog using www.blogspot.com is free and that 'First Amendment thingy' applies to you just as much as it applies to me. If you don't like my writing, you can make comments, start your own blog or just go away.

Brian, Jerry, myself and others volunteered so that you remain having the rights to be heard and read and whatever rights you have left in our Constitution not taken away by this SCOTUS, be protected.