I had read the Vanguard moderator's post directed at Ron and felt exactly the same way. Ron's comment was more in response to another commenter's post, not so much to the article itself. What's the goal at the Vanguard, to whittle it down to where only 2 or 3 people dare to comment? What's the end game because in my opinion many of the current Vanguard policies only serve to damage the blog.

So Ron commented again but the moderator ain't having no more of that:

"Moderator January 31, 2023 at 11:07 am
No more comments on this thread, please. If you have ideas for further discussion of the underlying issues, please submit an article for publication."

Ron, I seriously don't understand why you even bother posting on the Vanguard and leaving the decision to the whims of the moderator over there as to whether to post your comments or not. I refused to put myself through that aggravation anymore and quit posting.

This is Alan C. Miller reporting live from the Davis City Council meeting. While sitting here, I notice several of the "Usual Suspects" in the room this evening. Who are the Usual Suspects? Whomever you believe they are! :-| Yay :-|

But just marched into the room: Eight (8) student-appearing persons. Seven out of eight of them wearing masks. Is it the dreaded pizza-for-a-comment College Democrats ????? #scary music#

I'll let you know what they are here for.

OH! . . . three more just walked in and joined the group. One masked, two unmasked. 11 total now.

More to come ?

This is Alan C. Miller, live from the Davis City Council meeting.

Alan, I see your council comments were part of a Vanguard article this morning. I just wanted to say that I agree with the points you made. I find it interesting that the Vanguard writes an article a few days ago saying the council needs to step up more on the Memphis incident and here they are last night doing just that. Coincidence? You be the judge.

On Tuesday in Selma CA a young officer was killed by an early release convict due to the policies enacted by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Fingers are being pointed at the Governor for his role in this death but the Vanguard writes this:

"But advocates would point out that such attacks and focusing on such high profile cases – which may be exceptions is misleading and distorts the public discussion."

I mean seriously, this is exactly what the Vanguard does. David Greenwald often focuses on high profile cases, such as the recent Tyre Nichols case. So for him to now say this about the other side of the issue is so hypocritical..

By the way, I am making it my permanent trademark and signature to make glib comments that I find humorous regarding tragic situations. This seems to upset the sensibilities of some at the Vanguard and allows them to point wagging fingers at the judged moral rectumtude of those they disagree with, instead of engaging them on the issues. (Rectumtude is when one party thinks the other party's morals are sh*t.) Thus, I aim to be as offensive as possible in order to allow them to judge me and feel good about their own, superior morality. I am here to help.

Note: I will refrain in the case of temporally recent Davis (even Yolo-ish) tragedies (and/or murders). I do have some rectitude :-|

RO, are you making glib comments regarding tragic events?

Welcome to Al's Corner!

I'm sure a website with resources will eradicate racist f*ckwads. Read a web-page, melt the hate!

"Hate is the virus" indeed! I bet he thought he "may" have had something there with that one.

The difference of course is that decent people don't catch that virus. Nor do indecent people read websites and go to workshops.

And yeah, I am also concerned about the thought police aspect. I'll bet there are some that think are the haters who believe others are the haters. The thought police. Arborists and bloggers and lawyers. Oh, my! Thought police. Neener Neener !!!

Wow, I just read that article in the Enterprise. Wasn't sure what RO was referring to. What a empty string of hollow platitudes and vapor words. This is nothing but a feel good initiative to make politicians look good. I am actually horrified by this. Does anyone believe a positive attitude of a politician, not-being silent, cultivating change and manifesting safety [whatever the f*ck any of those actually mean] is a cure for deep-seated hate in hateful people? This is the biggest load of vaporized sh*t I've ever read.

Oh look everyone. The website, is rising. Rising. Into the sky. Beams are coming out. They are loud, not silent beams! Powerful! And yet safe, for targeted groups. A shield of safety is emerging from the hovering magical website. And the beams. The beams. Oh my God, they struck a racist! He's burning, burning his blood is boiling. He is being drawn into the mighty hovering website. Oh my God, he exploded over Davis, boiling racist body parts everywhere! But the shield of safety from the magic craft has protected targeted groups throughout the city. With pop-up tents. Magical pop-up tents.

Darn, an eyeball landed in the parking lot of the police station. And a dog ate it.

The website has retracted back into the dark web. I love Healthy Davis Together!!! Oh, I mean Hate Free Together . . . Davis/Yolo . . .

Where did that dog go?

I hope that was glib and insensitive enough for the do-gooder pearl-clutchers of Davis who believe this program will put a dent in actual racism. If not, I will try harder. To be glib. Or, I should really move on to irreverent and droll.

So I have to wonder who determines what is deemed as hate speech? Some of it we can all agree on but how about views that are on the fringe? Who makes the final determination? Who is this GOD of SPEECH?

What are these "range of resources and other action plans" that will be implemented and who determines who and where it will be directed at?

Just as liberals/progressives often view conservatives as being hateful conservatives can feel the same way about the left.

So where does this all lead?

A Vanguard article this morning states:

"At the same time, beyond that I’m not sure how much the local community can do. We have reported on the rise of right wing extremists groups locally – the Proud Boys who showed up at a campus protest and escalated the situation to potential violence.

The Chancellor of course fails to mention that recent incident, he also fails to mention the rise of right wing extremism which lies at the core of these hate incidents and is a key driver for them.

How do you address these things when you don’t mention them? More importantly, how much can we do locally when the seeds of hate were planted nationally?

I get it, in this space, we want to avoid this looking partisan, but by doing so, we are avoiding the actual problem."

So I ask, how do you mention the Proud Boys showing up to the protest without also highlighting the fact the the leftist protesters were trying to shut down free speech which included trying to smash the auditorium windows with steel barricades? So yes, you do look partisan, and you are avoiding the problem by not also mentioning the violence coming from the left.

Anyone who thinks that groups like the Proud Boys are an "enormous problem" is searching too hard for problems.

And the folks who have problems with those type of groups are often creating problems, themselves.

For most others, clashes between them might serve as a form of "infotainment". Created by people who don't have enough problems in their own lives, and feel a need to seek additional problems.

And anyone who thinks that the Davis police are on the verge of dragging someone out of their car for no reason (and then beating them to death) based upon skin color is simply detached from reality.

Along with anyone who believes that "disproportionate" interactions with police have nothing to do with differences in crime rates. (In fact, these people might be the most-dangerous of all, in regard to safety for a given community. The reason that they're dangerous is because some of those "in charge" also seem to subscribe to that view.

SUBJECT: "Outrage drives changes in society" [Davis Enterprise 2/4/2023]

https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/commentary-outrage-driving-changes/?utm_source=pocket_saves

I was prepared to hate this. But no, it was well-balanced, with statements such as:

"What to do about police violence? Vigilance is the first line of defense, but appreciating the police and holding them to account helps. Not many police officers feel appreciated, and that isn’t good for them or for society."

Such a relief after being beaten over the head by the Davis Vanguard. Self-inflicted, unfortunately. I didn't have to stand under hammer without a helmet.

SUBJECT: "Why Commissions Could Be Seen As a Proxy Fight for the Davis Housing Wars" [Favis Flantard, two day]

"Davis, CA – On the surface, it looks like a nerd issue. The ultimate of inside baseball. Commissions. It’s hard to get excited about the issues."

Commissioners are nerds. OK. Maybe we need commission cheerleaders to help us get excited about the issues. Rah-Rah-Shish-Boom-Measure-J! Rah-Rah-Shish-Boom-Infill! Rah-Rah-Shish-Boom-Affordable-Housing!

And yet there we had the spectacle of Colin Walsh yelling up to the dais in the middle of the meeting and Mayor Will Arnold responding by likening his conduct to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s shouting down President Biden.

The real proxy is that the title of the article is a proxy for DG having an excuse to bring up the "spectacle". Again.

YIMBYs are sick f*cks

--ALter Schwing!

KO: "If I’m wrong I’ll gladly except a 10 story affordable housing project next door to my home."

Oh, yeah? Well I'll accept eleven.

For reals: I, Alan Miller, did "accept" a five-story, 700-student housing project 200' from my living-room window. I worked with the developer personally, as did others in my neighborhood, and wrote up an MOU.

So if anyone, ever, calls me a NIMBY, I'm gonna slap you upside the face :-|

SUBJECT: "Tainted Trials, Part Two: 49er Gold-Digging Attorneys and Cops"

To protect the privacy of Jane Doe, and her family, we will not be republishing her name.

What is the point of 'protecting the privacy' of a person whose name you can find in 17 seconds via an internet search? My guess is to show how virtuous the Davis Vanguard is. Look, I understand if one chooses not to be part of spreading her name, but to claim it is to protect her privacy is a bit over the top.

I bow to the oracle of the Davis Vanguard and genuflect in the awesomeness of its virtue.

SUBJECT: "Criminalizing the Fentanyl Health Crisis in Yolo County" [Davis VGaard, 2-day]

" . . . if somebody’s convicted of driving under the influence . . . they’re given a warning about the dangers of drunk driving,” Reisig says. “And they’re told specifically if you drive drunk again and you kill somebody, you could be charged with murder.”

As you should be. I don't even think we should be nearly as tolerant as we are about drunk driving. Doing something stupid that threatens to kill innocent people and actually killing them is really the same thing, sans the luck factor."

“It’s a public health issue . . . And I think that we’re making it into a criminal issue.”

No, let me hold your hand and walk you through this: use of drugs is a health issue. Selling drugs is a criminal issue.

#eggfrying# Any questions?

Dumbasses.

Don’t forget the “Housing Wars” that the VanCanard wrote a story about .

SUBJECT: "Culture Wars Are Coming To Our Schools; We Better Wake Up" [Zavid Zanflard, tooooodae]

Oh, speaking of wars, more wars! Oh Goodie Goodie!

For a number of months I have been watching on the sidelines, somewhat silent

Somewhat silent? Is that like 'almost invisible' ? Why so almost silent, oh blogged one? Just couldn't find a single article on housing that didn't need to ever be published, ever?

. . . as a local cultural war is heating up locally.

The local war is heating up locally. Deep. Very very . . . Deep. And ya know what? The national war is heating up nationally. And the international war is heating up internationally!

. . . maybe it's pushback over programs for trans students

What sort of programs ? What sort of pushback ?

This reminds me of is that article a few weeks ago that talked about the same subjects, but didn't describe what the actual initiatives in question were so there was no way to form any opinions.

This week, the Davis Schools Foundation in an op-ed this week . . .

So this week there was an op-ed this week. Got it.

. . . warned that “our kids, our schools, and our community have recently come under assault. In recent weeks, Davis Parent University received hostile communications and felt pressured to cancel the latest installment of its lecture series . . .

Do we get to hear the nature of these 'hostile communications'? Because without the specifics, people will fill in whatever they want.

The speaker, Rachel Pepper, is a therapist who wrote the book, The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Parents and Professionals to Support Transgender and Non-binary Kids.

That doesn't really "explain". Can someone summarize what the views are in this book that are controversial? Also, I'm unclear how a virtual speaker series could manifest a threat, nor why the best choice was seen as giving in to those 'being hostile', thus giving them the power.

I feel like no one is speaking plainly here, and it appears to be on purpose. Not on the subject, not on the threats. From what I have gleaned from the national issue, there is:

• Concern of government having power over kids rather than parents;
• The issue of children being acknowledged by the gender they choose as their identity;
• The issue of giving medications and/or surgery to children who wish to psychically transition.

Seems the issues are being talked about in muddled terms so one can Mott & Bailey their opponents into corners without it being clear what issue is even being discussed. The depth and scope of #2 is quite different from #3.

What really PISSES ME OFF about the way this is being presented by the Davis Vanguard is that the typical DV 'us vs. them' narrative fails to acknowledge that anyone besides 'right wing' people have concerns about #3. While the 'Proud Boys' may not have a problem speaking at a School Board meeting and stating their views and being screamed at by the crowd, "Facists! Facists!" in a public meeting, I doubt a typical Davis leftist with concerns about #3 would speak up in such a volatile environment.

And yet, nationally, there are left-leaning people who are raising such concerns. Even citing evidence-based evidence (to keep with the DV writing style of the morning). With predictable backlash. A few examples of issues brought up, of many: Pointing out that some European countries are slowing or halting such practices with children. Pointing out a lack of data on long-term effects. Some who have transitioned young now expressing their regrets.

On a personal note, a close relative has a child who now identifies as a different gender than what we previously knew them as. All of us have had difficulty getting the pronouns right and are doing better over time. And everyone at the latest family gathering, I believe sincerely, see the choice to newly identify as very fitting for that child and are supportive. I discussed with one of the parents and they said the issue of surgery, 'had not come up'. Curious the parent's thoughts if it does.

I do believe there are many situations when parents are not open to a child's choices and/or do not know how to discuss. This is hardly unique to this issue. The school identifying the student as to the gender they choose is quite a different matter than the school encouraging or assisting a child to have surgery without the parent's involvement. And in what I read about Davis, I have no clear idea if this does or could happen, here. Anyone care to fill us in with plain language that anyone can clearly understand?

Another thing I don't understand is why anyone would think that a solution to flawed parents is school administrators and school bureaucracy? I have zero direct experience with Davis schools, but my recollection of public school administrators were that they were not the brightest bulbs in the box. And from what I have heard indirectly it appears the lumen levels have only diminished over time. So why would anyone put their faith in such persons for such an important and critical aspect of a child's life, that doesn't relate to the mission of the institution: education?

And over at the DV Comments Section as of 11:30am . . . no comments :-|

"Better Wake Up!"

SUBJECT: "The Latest Phase of the Housing Crisis Will Tell Us Which Way Things Will Go"

DG: "The coming weeks and months will be very interesting to follow."

If years more of mind-numbing, pro-YIMBY (evil developer, not that all developers are evil) bile is one's definition of interesting, it will be very interesting indeed.

Kill me.

Star Light, Star Bright . . . the first star I see tonight (or bird this morning, or something). I wish I may, I wish I might . . . not see a housing article in the Davis Vanguard!

#Turns-to-Vanguard#: "Legislation Would Extend SB 35 to Streamline Housing Production, Extend and Expand the ‘Builder’s Remedy’"

And oh Holy Jesus, it's a picture of Senator Scott Wiener - Oh Lord Please God Help Me!!! All the starts are going supernova! All the birds are falling from the sky!

SUBJECT: "CA Assembly Bill will End Use of Police Canines Linked to Racism" [Yavis Yanguard today]

Note: Despite the title, the bill is not about ending the use of racist dogs, it's about ending the use of police canines completely because the use of police dogs was deemed by the bill authors to be a racist practice.

What's Next?: "CA Assembly Bill will End Use of Police Guns Linked to Racism"

What's Next Next?: "CA Assembly Bill will End Use of Police Officers Linked to Racism"

SUBJECT: "AG Warns Huntington Beach Proposed Ordinance Violates State Housing Law" [DV-2day]

Walter Shwe February 15, 2023 at 5:19 am

Right on HCD and Attorney General Rob Bonta! Down with NIMBYISM in all its ugly forms! 👍

The DV continues to allow the pejorative 'NIMBY' while not allowing pejoratives that go against the politic of the DV. Even amplified the pejorative with 'ugly'.

F*ck the DV and its hypocrisy. And replace the asterisk with a "u".

Hey everyone, I have an announcement:

I changed my mind. Al's Corner will continue. Spasmodically.

A fan ?

Yes, the intent is for an open forum for anyone who cares to post about anything, sans personal insults (some leeway for public personas) and doxxing (of all). Personal insults are OK for one small population -- the Vanguard (especially insulting young female students barely in their 20's by men in their 50's and 60's -- not only is that allowed, but it is celebrated. We even have a party in Central Park with fireworks to celebrate this dynamic).

For me, mostly a place to make comments on Vanguard articles and comments, since I can't post there, because they banned me, because they are tiny little weenies. That was a personal insult :-( or two :-(

"I'm shutting down Al's Corner. It's been a great run."

I'm sure David Greenwald got excited for a second there.

"I changed my mind. Al's Corner will continue. Spasmodically."

Just to quickly be let down... LOL

The world needs Al's Corner, the corner where all ideals and free speech are allowed, where contributions are not subject to the whims and biased politics of some immoderater. (Bidlin gets total credit for that term, but it fits so well)

"Nevermind that there are published studies that directly contradict Tim’s assertions.

Did you hear that foks? These studies are published."

Published and handpicked with no bias whatsoever. Studies and polls ain't what they used to be, most can no longer be trusted.

If you are a True Believer, every study and every poll that fits your narrative is correct and true. And every pejorative that slams your enemies is justified because they are evil.

Hmmmmm, I also noticed that David hasn't responded yet. That strikes me as odd because David usually has a comeback and from my experience he rarely owns up to being wrong or giving in.

To continue on the current topic: Richard McCann may be an economist but he has no experience or expertise in housing and real estate economics. He’s way out of his depth and it’s funny to see him exposed by someone who knows the studies and topic in detail.

As far as Greenwald goes: he just makes up sh*t. It’s amazing how much someone can write about a topic (housing) while never learning anything.

R Keller writes:

"To continue on the current topic: Richard McCann may be an economist but he has no experience or expertise in housing and real estate economics. He’s way out of his depth and it’s funny to see him exposed by someone who knows the studies and topic in detail."

Awww, but he does know where Ron lives:

"Richard_McCann February 16, 2023 at 10:20 am
Please don’t respond to an individual who doesn’t live in Davis (I have proof)"

"Richard_McCann February 16, 2023 at 10:20 am
Please don’t respond to an individual who doesn’t live in Davis (I have proof)"

But what does Richard McCann do today, he responds to Ron O. who doesn't live in Davis:

"BTW, a study from 2015 isn’t necessarily “out of date”–David stated that it had been debunked. Ron, get that straight."

So what is it Richard, can commenters respond to Ron O or not?

KO: " . . . he responds to Ron O. who doesn't live in Davis"

Allegedly !!!

Is that like the when David writes articles for the Vanguard referring to himself as "we"?

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" -- Lennon/McCartney

. . . Or in 2023, perhaps: "He is they and she is they and he is we and we are all together" ?

KO: Or like referring to sources and references as "some people say"?

That's known as "passive (aggressive) voice" ;-)

Keith: "I always thought Ron O. was a person. Who knew they were only a geometric form without corners. Maybe it's the two O's in the name that DG mistook for 'certain circles'."

In my opinion, anyone who has a short last name that begins with the letter "O" is "O.K", in my book.

And is part of the "circle", challenging the Vanguard.

I'd also include those with a last name that begins with "M', but there's a notable exception to that.

I was just thinking this evening how blessed we are in Davis to have such a high-quality local journalistic source as the Davis Vanguard.

. . . and then the mescalin wore off.

Mescalin cocktails at my place at 4pm! All are invited! Except YIMBYs, people who write poorly and obsessively in blogs about housing, College Democrats, former supervisors who push district elections on cities, and plant shop owners who live in other counties.

In my opinion, David's concern for housing is primarily related to his desire to support an oversized school district.

Josh Chapman's comments in today's Vanguard article are particularly-concerning.

The overall "message" seems to be that Affordable housing should be built (and "poor" students recruited primarily to avoid right-sizing the school system).

And that the council will attempt to use this same argument to try to undermine Measure J. (Despite the fact that Measure J already has an exemption for Affordable housing.)

Reminds me of how some encourage illegal immigration so that we have poverty-level workers for jobs that "Americans" won't do. (The result being that those workers are forced into substandard housing.)

The shooting incident in Half Moon Bay comes to mind, though (as usual) the YIMBYs attempted to claim that this was a reason to build more (market-rate?) housing. (Apparently, the shooter or others working there lived on site, in some rather questionable "housing".)

Alright, now I've watched the entire Facebook release from the Sheriff.

Many may not agree with me on this, but at this point I am siding with the Mallery's. Not that Nicole makes an entirely sympathetic figure; but hey, neither do I. But despite the Sheriff's attempt to paint her as 'combative, non-compliant, attacking officers and making racial slurs against a black woman officer' -- all of which is true as such, what I saw was a terrified, traumatized woman in a complete freak out for being restrained and heading for jail. All of which I feel deeply. I have seen a lot of performative 'for the camera' racial or racialized incidents, and this didn't strike me as one. This struck me as someone who could not handle being restrained.

Now a lot of the behavior listed isn't cool and possibly not legal, like surveilling/taunting the neighbor or chasing people away from the bus stop. Hard to understand the context of this and if they are at fault.

But . . . the important thing is going back to the process server approaching the property, and then going past 'no trespassing' signs and walking around all their buildings. Seems the guy had a death wish doing that in rural eastern Colorado. And all I've seen online is conflicting reports about whether that is legal or not. If it is legal, it is stupid as f*ck.

And from her point of view, a woman, alone, naked in a house and looks out the window and sees a guy out there snooping around. I would have grabbed my shotgun, no doubt. And this, by the way, is why rural Americans need guns. No police force can protect them in time, and what keeps them safe is criminals know almost every one of them has a gun. I know this also because years ago someone walked under my kitchen window before the path was gated, and I grabbed a long knife and confronted them. In retrospect, yeah, I was more likely to get stabbed than the other way around -- but just pointing out when you see a stranger where they aren't supposed to be, you just act, unexpectedly to yourself sometimes -- and I wasn't a woman alone on a rural property who could have feared a rape. Had that been the case damn straight I'd grab the shotgun. (just to wrap, the guy said he was just confused and thought the path in my yard looked like a public path to the next street).

As for the discharge -- it did sound like she discharged the weapon. I haven't yet found if the forensics on the gun showed that they found it to have been fired or not. That isn't something that is a 'maybe'. But again, I'm a woman alone on a ranch and a guy shows up creeping around outside, I very likely would have fired a warning shot to scare him off. I don't know about the legality of his going onto the land and creeping around, and I don't know about the legality of a warning shot. She clearly lied about it if indeed it was fired. But I don't think he should be able to trespass without first trying to make contact in a safer manner, and I understand about firing the gun.

Clearly there is racism going on, but hard to say where it is. I can't tell for sure if the ranchers are playing the race card or if the neighbors and cops are racist or both. And once social media is involved, the whole thing goes down the crapper. The cops also implied Nicole had a record that was a factor that caused them to decide to bring in the SWAT team, but they didn't disclose what the record was.

I'm guessing few or none of the parties involved are squeaky clean in this. But my impression from the arrest footage is this isn't a show, this is woman with severe trauma about being restrained who is having a panic attack and is completely freaking out, not someone who is being combative and uncooperative. I know that's a fine line and judging from a tape, but thank God we have these videos, imperfect as they are, as clearly a lot of bad sh*t was done before that was not video documented at all. For now, I don't think the sheriff did themselves any favors releasing this. The husband comes across as reasonable and cooperating, just annoyed as f*ck.

Whatever the legalities, I'm on the Mallery side for now. But am open to change my mind as this progresses. What an incredible story.

I hope someone posts a comment on the Vanguard on this story to draw people to it.

And while you are at it, mention the links posted on Al's Corner!!!

Yeah, that'll happen :-|

SUBJECT “Guest Commentary: Catapulting the Propaganda Locally ” [Zavis Zansplard, 2day]

Walter Shwe February 19, 2023 at 7:46 am

I agree totally with this article. The private sector costs more. The differences between SMUD and PG&E are startling. Government always does things better in the long run. The sole mission of the private sector is to extract the maximum amount of profits at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Wow. Just Wow.

True enough about SMUD & PG&E costs, but PG&E's evil is the creation and the enabling of the evil California government. It is not fully a picture of nor a comparative example of 'public' vs. 'private' in all things.

David Greenwald writes:
"Monday Morning Thoughts: Media Uncritically Evaluates Reisig’s Bail Claims"

But you can always count on the Vanguard BLOG to be "critical" of Reisig.

"And of course, ironically, paying the union wages will make the housing more expensive."

Nothing but Democrat pandering to their donors. Affordable housing is all an expensive farce.

In regard to RM jury selection comment:

Dang. Can they also ask if you've been circumcised?

"The last time I went through jury selection, they did indeed ask if people had supported Reisig's opponent and that information was one of the factors in deciding whether they should be dismissed. I am not making this up."

I agree, eliminating a potential juror on how they voted is over the top. But saying "If I ever sit on a Yolo County criminal jury while Reisig is still the DA, I will automatically side with the defendent" should in my opinion be automatic grounds for elimination.

Jeez people, what does it take to get a conversation going about homeless policy in Davis ???

I feel in the groove like when Donald Trump said he could shoot someone and not lose any voters.

The only people that have a right to say whether homeless encampments should be or not be cleared are the people that actually live near them and have to deal with them. It's shallow for someone to say that homeless encampments should stay when they aren't experiencing the associated problems themselves. I'm pretty sure they would have a different opinion if their homes were close by the encampments.