Monday, August 4, 2008

Red County whistles in the dark


TODAY, on the popular Red County (OC) blog, Tyler H (one of RC’s stable of conservative bloggers) reports on the upcoming SOCCCD trustee races.

According to Tyler, “the Tom Fuentes' [sic] led majority seems well-positioned to deliver another victory this year.” He is referring, I suppose, to the block comprising Fuentes, Don Wagner, John Williams—and Dave Lang.

No doubt Don Wagner, the president of the board, will be pleased to hear that Tom is the leader.

C’mon Don. Don’t that piss you off? Not even a little?

Tyler refers to “Tom Fuentes ally and Area #1 Trustee David Lang.” It pleases me to have Lang’s sympathies stated so clearly and publicly. For many years, Lang had strong faculty support (especially at Irvine Valley College), owing to his distaste for board majority toady (President, then Chancellor) Raghu P. Mathur. But then visions of "OC Treasurer" danced in Dave's head—no doubt he figured that Fuentes would be helpful there—and so he suddenly became Mathur's big supporter. Why? Cuz Fuentes just loves Mathur. Why? Cuz Mathur will do anything Fuentes tells him to do.

Lang is the Benedict Arnold of the SOCCCD. We’ll never forget you, Dave.

Tyler thinks that, judging by Lang’s challenger’s (viz., Carolyn Inmon’s) recent political history, he is likely to hold onto his seat.

Incumbent Bill Jay (area 3: Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach and Dana Point) is seeking reelection. According to Tyler, he faces real estate investor Randall Johnson. Tyler tags Jay as the enemy, cuz he's a unionist:

Bill Jay has not been supportive of Tom Fuente's [sic] efforts to maintain fiscal sanity and is regarded as a "Union Guy", so it is unsurprising that the pro-Faculty website Save the socccd is supporting Bill Jay. Randell Johnson is a new face.

Fiscal sanity? Like our huge problem complying with the 50% law, caused by Fuentes’ man Mathur? Like the ATEP black hole, promoted by Fuentes' man Mathur?

And what about Accredular sanity? Thanks to the Fuentes board and their toady Mathur, for the first time in the district's history, its two colleges face the possibility of losing their accreditation (in January). The Accreds are not impressed with endless trustee micromanagement and the pall of despair created mostly by the ruthless and conniving Mathur.

BTW: gosh, Tyler, thanks for the mention. I didn’t think anybody read that little website (Save the SOCCCD). As soon as I created it several months ago, I couldn’t get anybody in the union leadership to visit it (I wanted feedback so that it would be OK with the PAC). I pretty much had to abandon it.

Well, at least this Tyler fella reads it.

Tyler seems wary of trustee John Williams, who is the incumbent in area 7 (Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita):

Area 7 … is the most curious race. Sixteen-year incumbent John Williams faces "Retired Educator" Carl Christensen. Tom Fuentes ally … Don Wagner considers John Williams a solid Republican, a fiscal conservative, and a helpful ally on the board. However the Save the SOCCCD website is also currently endorsing John Williams. Perhaps Carl Christensen is so focused on his favorite issue (he is a history teacher who recently spoke to the board about the need for more history classes) that he hasn't noticed that both opposing factions are supporting his opponent?

••••

On Friday, Red County’s Jubal (aka Matt Cunningham) posted about Tom Fuentes’ race against Bob Bliss (Tom Fuentes' Community College Re-Election Campaign Off To Powerful Start).

Fuentes, said Jubal, is “off to a powerful start” in his re-election efforts. The union, says the Jube, “might as well save their money, because Tom Fuentes will run over Bliss like a freight train.”

How come?

Well, first, Fuentes is the incumbent. Second, Fuentes has made lots of friends over the years, and they’ll pony up some big money. Then there’s Tom’s impressive list of endorsements (Jubal presents a list of 81—the usual suspects).

Jubal speculates that this is a case of a union leadership supporting candidates it knows will lose—to placate the rank and file.

Well, we’ll just see about that.

P.S.: At Red County, I've commented on both the Tyler and Jubal posts, indicating to each writer the error of his ways! I do hope they'll try to respond. Probably not. We're small potatoes.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Harumph!

Anonymous said...

I attended the union PAC meeting today, and it seems to me that we are running the most professional campaign (by far) we ever have. Plus we've got some big money. So, maybe so, these people are whistling in the dark. (And Fuentes isn't looking good at all, not that I want him to be sick.)

AOR said...

Apostrophes must go on strike! They take more abuse than any other punctuation mark. This must stop!

Roy Bauer said...

Yeah, I'm with you. I told this Tyler guy about his shitty punctuation and he turned around and blamed it on his proof-reading. Wadda nut.

You oughta go in there (Red County) and just correct their dang-blamed grammar each day. Within a week, they'd have to close down.

Bohrstein said...

[Off-Topic]
Chunk your Contra PalaVerities link is broken on the right side of the page.

Roy Bauer said...

Thanks, BS--er, Bohrstein. Fixed it!

Anonymous said...

Anything wrong with anticipating the demise of Fuentes?

Anonymous said...

Why not just look at it as Tom F.'s karma? I'm a big believer in that (what goes around comes around), but karma sure moves slowly in the SOCCCD. But it does work--anybody remember Pam Zanelli? Sometimes karma even gets those who weren't really at fault--anybody remember Cedric Sampson? I still think Dot F. should have faced fraud charges instead of being heralded as a heroine by her cronies when she was forced off the board, but at least she is gone--she was Fuente's equal in the evil department.

Roy Bauer said...

2:49, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but your belief in karma is nonsense on stilts. You seem to be saying that, when bad people get smacked, well, that reveals karma, but when they ain't been smacked yet, that reaveals karma also, since you haven't waited long enough yet for karma to come smackin'.

Why not just say: this karma thing is a nice idea, but there's no reason to believe it, cuz look at the likes of Mathur (and Bush, et al.)?

Reminds me of people who blame people for their misfortune. Q: "Why did she deserve that fate?"

A: "Um, because she failed to believe in JEEEsssus."

Q: "But wait. She always said she believed in Jesus!"

A: "Well, obviously, she didn't believe hard enough!"

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's not karma, but what someone called the stubbornness of facts, that makes the good side eventually win.

Suppose you say, "IVC is at the corner of Jeffrey and Irvine Center Drive" (that is where it is, right? Adjust otherwise) and someone else says, "No, it is up on a hill, East of UCI." Suppose the second speaker has an interest in perpetrating his lie, so he repeats it over and over, takes out ads in newspapers, asserts it boldly in court, etc. Even soppose that he convinces lots of people of his claim. Simple example and all, but obviously, the truth will out just because the first speaker's claim is backed up by reality and the second one's is not.

We don't need to postulate karma, or maybe karma is open to this naturalistic interpretation. It's similar with guys like Fuentes, et. al. Read Chunk's "15 minutes" essay on Conta Palaverities to see what kind of stuff David Lang tried to say in court, during the district's first case against Chunk/Roy. His claims just were not factual, and that came out clearly.

After all, why do we now know that there were no WMDs? Facts do not sustain falsehoods well at all. The facts came out. They tend to.

And that is why I have Hope.

Roy Bauer said...

If we’re talking about truth re empirical facts, I entirely agree with you re their “stubbornness.” John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech in “On Liberty” discusses this phenomenon—the marketplace of ideas. Science depends on it. Yep, you, me, Mill—we’re on the same page.

Ah, but justice is another matter entirely. As Kant and others have suggested, there’s no justice in this world, not judging by what happens. If one loves justice, I'm afraid that one will have to choose between theism (the wicked will suffer in an afterlife) or “getting’ philosophical” (i.e., things suck; but let’s keep on keepin’ on).

Most people can't handle the latter.

(Naturally, I don't need to read Chunk's piece in PalaVerities, since I wrote it!)

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...