What We're Talking About

As we close out the week and prepare for a wonderful three-day weekend of sitting inside in air conditioning, cursing the sun for its ever-lasting power, a little experiment.

We took representative text from four sources and ran them through a nifty little tool called TagCrowd to get a handy visual representation of what, exactly, everybody is talking about.

For example.

Here is a representation of the text that, before the post you're reading was added, was on San Jose Revealed:

ad believe better blog blowhards business chuck city column contribute council course district fast feel food free going house including influence issue jose manny money obnoxious office picture post really reed san says site stampolis sure think true week yes

created at TagCrowd.com

Unsurprisingly, we talk about the city a lot. We also talk about 'san' a lot, be it Jose or Francisco. 'Council' gets good representation, as does 'Reed' - and, special this week only, 'Stampolis'.

Let's compare to our good friend Thomas "Fritz" McEnery, by looking at a representation of his last five posts.

arena ballot bart became card center changed city clubs county deal department downtown effort entertainment fair families future gambling garden going group guardino history involve jose leaders leadership looking major mall measure million past police political poll push reason retail san stores street svlg tax think valley venues vote vta

created at TagCrowd.com

True to bloviating form, it's all 'city' and 'valley' - with a big ol' 'downtown' in the mix. Don't be fooled by the word 'fair' - it's mostly a reference to the fairgrounds.

Next up: Metro's The Fly. Here are the last two week's columns.

affordable area ballot bay build california city clerk committee constant cortese council councilman councilmember county couple developers district donnelly employees fire francisco going himself housing liccardo mayor measure milpitas neighborhood obama oliverio pay percent perhaps project race raise rebuttal salary san silicon state station themselves think valley wants work years

created at TagCrowd.com

City. Council. Liccardo. Got it. Though I do like the 'constant cortese' pairing - maybe, given how frequently he's on the ballot, that should be his new campaign slogan. Constant Cortese - this time, Supervisor!

Finally, the last five editorials from our good friends at the Mercury News.

ad administration alone billion budget case charged cindy city college committee courses create crime cuts debate doesn't family force fund government graduation half-brother independent issue jose money number obama officer public rates really record reform rules san school state students sunshine system task today took trust university whitmore williams years

created at TagCrowd.com

Beyond the strangely highlighted 'students', this is pretty much what you'd expect - 'sunshine' is nice and big, and, of course, so is 'half-brother'.

There you have it. Now, off to the beach with you. But, while you enjoy the ocean breeze and think long and hard about the prospect of a 44 year-old Alaskan one fluttering heartbeat away from the Presidency, consider this: only one local institution is willing to make the word 'blowhards' a regular component of its work. Surely, that's worth something.

What The Future May Hold

There is a brouhaha brouing in Vallejo. (No, it's not San Jose, but bear with me.)

Yes, they're filing bankruptcy, blah blah blah. But, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the City has a wise strategy to combat that - preventing employees from viewing blogs critical of the City. This includes, mind you, the blog for the Vallejo Times Herald, which the City Manager Joseph Tanner labeled "a rag of a newspaper". We feel you, Joe.

The author of the other critical site, Vallejo Is Burning, says he isn't surprised. (Well, he says that when he's not lying his ass off, that is. He claims his site gets 60,000 hits a day - in a city with a population only twice that.) (He should really be counting page views.) (But whatever.)

Come on, Tanner. Blocking the sites? Like, what - the blogs are going to convince the City staff to revolt? If anything, letting staff see the sites might better allow them to prepare to respond to criticism they'll face in the community.

Obviously, this strikes pretty close to home. And, with talk of adding filters to city libraries, it raises questions about who determines what is OK. Sure, we all trust Pete Constant's judgment, but what if the next Councilmember from District 1 isn't so open-minded? What a slippery slope!

Here's a summary: Joe Tanner is irritated. The city he manages is a mess, and he feels impotent. So, true to form for people who feel their little taste of influence slipping away, he pulls a power move. Here in Silicon Valley, of course, they just start tabloid newspapers or self-satisfied blogs.*

* I thought long and hard about an adjective to distinguish this angry blog from McEnery's. How'd I do?

Quick Notes

• Why does anyone read Obnoxious Blowhards (UPDATE: explanation of this term added) anymore? Am I the only one who does? I mean, how predictable can their weekly line-up be?
  - Monday: Pierluigi mumbles his way through another demonstration of how great an elected official he is, always ending abruptly, and.
  - Tuesday: McEnery's daughter discusses whatever key issue she saw on MTV the preceding week.
  - Wednesday: Tom makes the case for putting more money into downtown. Next week: San Pedro Square should be lowered thirty feet under sea level so all loose change dropped in city limits can roll into his collection cup.
  - Thursday: Some Dutch guy asks a rhetorical question.
  - Friday: The reincarnated souls of every comedian who ever bombed over Labor Day weekend at the Catskills inspire an hilarious look at San Jose politics, in a little column I like to call "What if?" What if: Chuck Reed got re-married to a monkey?!?! What if: Don Gage wore an eye patch!?! Right now, in some pricey house in Willow Glen, the guy who writes on Fridays is irritated he didn't think of those first.
• Do I feel a little bad right now? Yes. Yes, I do.
• When reading an article from the Merc that relays how wealthy our city is, I couldn't help but compare it to a correlating article from yesterday's paper. It would be interesting to see a graphic distribution of the incomes. Would it be a bell curve? Or, true to form, would it be two peaks with a Valley in the middle?
• In their on-going (and much-needed) attempt to finally eradicate the Metro, the Wave Magazine is getting more locally-focused. You probably saw the big spread on downtown a few weeks ago, but you may not realize they also have a local news feature, which is actually interesting.
  Sometimes, when I'm day-dreaming, I picture the Wave Magazine and San Jose Revealed tied to a pole high on a mountaintop, as Dan Pulcrano and his cronies start to open the Ark of the Covenant. "Look away, Wave!" I yell. "Don't look at it!" Sure, we don't get to see the melting faces, but those of you at home can tell us how cool it was.*

* If you don't get this reference, you are a bad person.

BREAKING: Local Candidate Gets The Spotlight

Though not in the way he might have hoped.

Celebrity gossip blog TMZ.com has the scoop on West Valley-Mission College Board member and former California Democratic Council President Chris Stampolis (also the husband of County Office of Education member and fourth-place Assembly candidate Anna Song). Why this was on TMZ, we have no idea.

Here's the deal. It seems that back in 2005, Stampolis hit an employee at a Los Angeles storage center on the chin after she refused to give him access to a unit without authorization, which is kind of what she's supposed to do. TMZ also has audio of the 911 call she placed, which features a lot of yelling.

Stampolis, you may remember, was at the center of a dispute around a last-minute smear against Santa Clara Mayoral candidate John McLemore disguised as a community newspaper back in 2002. McLemore blames Stampolis for coordinating the phony mailer that McLemore says cost him the election. You say you don't remember all this? Not surprised.

Anyway. Stampolis is (was?) running for re-election to the West Valley-Mission College Board. I think his chances might be fading.

Introducing: The San Jose Post

Believe it or not, our goal here is not merely to disparage the elderly folks who creakily administer the city.

No, we really truly seek to bring more information to light. Granted, we try and make the information funny and potentially embarrassing to hypocrites and people whose goals we disagree with, but still.

In that vein, we felt it was about time that San Jose had a Huffington Post-style site where nearly anyone could go and post columns about issues of concern to everyone else out there. And we do mean anyone. If Chuck Reed wants to put something up on San Jose Post, he's welcome to do so. About the only stuff we'll censor is unattributable accusations and just pure malice. That goes here. (Kidding!)

The site is at TheSanJosePost.com.

If you want to post a column, just email us, and we'll get you set up. This is an experiment that requires your support. So jump in.

Well, Pierluigi, Who Influences You?

Today on Obnoxious Blowhards, Pickles Oliverio waxes superior on his strong stance against doing fundraising. After all, as he expresses:

I have heard the line before that a politician should be able to take money and be impervious to influence from the donor. Yet, when I look at the reality of politics in this country, I don’t believe that is true.

So, he says:

For me, I concentrated on raising money from friends and family first, then others second, including calling friends from grade school is an excuse to connect....

I do not have a friends account, nor do I raise money for “pet projects.” Sometimes I think my stance might be too harsh. For example, I would love to raise money for schools in my district. However, I believe keeping myself free from influence as best I can is best for everyone. Better to be too cautious then not cautious enough.

Nobility at its finest. God bless you Pierluigi!

However, in true Blowhards fashion, the reality doesn't align neatly with the rhetoric. Below, for example, are a large number of contributions - some $22,000 worth - which don't exactly seem to be from his grade school chums.



Notable names: Henry Schiro, gambling lawbreaker; Boots del Biaggio; any number of developers, including big chunks from the DiNapolis, Brandenburgs and Swenson; ROEM Developers, who have frequent business before the Council, including Sam Liccardo's affordable housing issue tomorrow; realtor and apartment association political action committees; mobile home park owners; and business after business after business.

So, Pierluigi. Since you admit you're not impervious to the influence of these donors, why not make next week's column about how and where you've succumbed to it? Thanks in advance!

Subprime Homes On Memory Lane

For those unaware, there's a great site, archive.org, which stores old versions of websites. Including the City of San Jose's always awesome offering.

Take a look, for example, at the home page from 1998 - not exactly at the dawn of the internet, though you'd never know from this image.



Done all in the traditional peach and blue of our fair city, the site didn't even list the Councilmembers. Not, of course, that the "webmaster" got many complaints, we're sure.

But anyway. Here's a gallery documenting the subtle dance of elected officials in and out of office. You'll see familiar faces, some really great hairstyles. Enjoy.

See the Council from: Feb 1999 Mar 2000 Feb 2001 Feb 2002 Apr 2003 Aug 2003 June 2004 Mar 2005 Dec 2005 July 2006 Mar 2007

February 1999


At this point, we've transitioned from peach and blue to purple and green, which ain't much better.

March 2000


No changes on the Council yet, but, you'll notice, Manny Diaz' name is still spelled wrong. Going on thirteen months.

February 2001


Pictures! At last! Forrest pops his collar, perhaps because Manny Diaz has moved on to the Assembly. And we welcome Ken Yeager, Chuck Reed and Dave Cortese.

From the same year, a look at the old Council Chambers:


What's with all the wood?

February 2002


One new addition: the mother of Jack Campos Struthers, Manny Diaz' former Chief of Staff.

April 2003


Forrest decides to go for the more formal look, and the winner of the District 7 battle royale makes his first appearance. No doubt, his picture will be here for a long, long time.

August 2003


A new picture for Cindy Chavez. But, for some reason, Lezotte sticks with hers.

June 2004


The City transitions from the totally awesome ci.san-jose.ca.us domain to the much lamer sanjoseca.gov. Fans of hierarchical domains weep.

March 2005


Please welcome Councilmember Vacant to the District 7 seat. He's more of a beer drinker. And good riddance to Pat Dando, who is off to work her magic in Sacramento. But not for long enough.

December 2005


Madison Nguyen bursts onto the scene, in all of her patriotic glory, to begin a term that, unlike her predecessor, is sure to be free of controversy.

July 2006


A new picture for Nora, and the last look at several folks on the Council.

March 2007


The new era dawns. Reed moves up, as does Yeager, and the Council waits for two new all-stars to enter the scene. And here's where we'll leave you.

Quick Notes

• Do you think, that if Pete Constant had taken ill yesterday, Chuck Reed wouldn't have deferred the fast food issue? Of course he would have. Nora Campos giving birth, however, warrants no such respect.
  
  And not that the ban would matter to Chuck, of course. That McDonald's salad that he loves so much is nowhere near his house, in the beautiful eastern foothills. In fact, the closest one is at the Great Mall ('C' below). He doesn't really have the option of eating fast food. Which is kind of Campos' point.
  

  Fast food near Reed's house. Well, not near.

• Now that it is owned by Dan "I Heart Prostitutes" Pulcrano, Obnoxious Blowhards today has a look at why prostitution should be legal. Yes, really. It does! I swear!
• The post on Blowhards ostensibly stems from the arrest of a San Francisco school administrator for prostitution. But it's a weird dynamic over there at Boulevards, Inc.
  
  Think about this. This arrest, and, probably most prostitution busts, impact Metro advertisers and, therefore, ad revenues. After all, the odds that those arrested in San Jose advertised in a free weekly nearly 25% of whose ads are for hookers is pretty good. Of course, the cops advertise on Obnoxious Blowhard (for some reason). Does this make up the difference? The mind boggles.
• Finally, this week's always decently drawn but politically incomprehensible Dicenzo cartoon implies that Dolores Carr's office found Kali-Rai and Arreola factually innocent in Pandorigate because they contributed to her campaign.
  
  First, what - you wanted them to contribute to one of the members of the same DA's office that was bringing charges against them? Second, they're innocent. So the revolving door stuff and the bogus finder's fee stuff - that's all been found not to be the case. So it seems a little libelous to put that out there again. Third - really? You're going to dis the District Attorney? Good luck with that.

Hypocrisy Overload

Allow me to quote from Tom McEnery's post last week on Obnoxious Blowhards.

The owners of Garden City were the subject of some very stringent enforcement, grand jury probes and indictments, and received the harshest of sentences. That should have been a lesson to the city. It wasn’t.

Under Susan Hammer and her budget director, Bob Brownstein, a very permissive attitude evolved, and a gigantic club, Bay 101, was permitted. They made large contributions to politicians and had significant ethical problems involving the same. At one time, they and their lobbyists were the most powerful special interest political donators in the city.

The bleak description McEnery lays out is this. After he left office, and Hammer came in, the clubs multiplied, salting the soil of economic development and laying waste to the ethically weak. Orphans and widows lines the streets, wailing unearthly laments and being callously run over by wealthy card club owners racing their Lamborghinis. McEnery may be Irish, but he sure wishes he were Dickens.

But a tipster provides another quote, from a May 23, 1987, article in the Mercury News describing the Garden City situation. Emphasis added.

Fourteen Garden City owners or associates were indicted early this month on charges ranging from tax fraud to campaign violations. Thirteen of them were accused of conspiring to launder political contributions.

Club records show that Garden City owners handed out money to 17 candidates, including San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery, county Supervisor Tom Legan, District Attorney Leo Himmelsbach, Sheriff Robert Winter and others.

The biggest recipient was McEnery, whose campaigns have received $16,960 from the club or its associates since 1981. That does not include approximately $8,500 given to the Measure J, the San Jose city charter amendment that last year substantially increased the mayor's power.

Yes. You read that right. At the height of the despicable corruption and widow-wailing, the casinos were handing out cash to no one more than Tom McEnery, who undoubtedly assumed his favorite position: hands out.

In fact, another article from January 29 of that year, goes into more detail.

McEnery, who over the past five years has received more than $10,545 from Garden City employees, and Winter, who has received $7,401 during that time, confirmed last week that they have been contacted by the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office about Garden City campaign contributions.

Many of the contributions were under $100, meaning they didn't legally have to be reported, though some, including McEnery, did. But, to most, that would seem to raise questions, including, apparently, the DA, who must have gotten tired of looking into McEnery by the time his term was up.

And where'd the money come from? A March 2 article answers.

To get around that, [Garden City President Nick] Dalis said, he would tell employees and partners he needed checks, then repay them in cash.

''I'd deliver them (to politicians) myself," he said.

No, in case you're wondering, that's not legal.

And of course, in classic small-town San Jose politics fashion, this plant's root run deep.

• The Garden City folks who went down were mostly targeted for tax evasion - skimming cash off the top of Garden City's profits. One of the main guys who took the fall, operations manager Henry Schiro, was stepfather to none other than the Chamber's favorite Mayoral contender, Michael Mulcahy. Mulcahy, in fact, is quoted in one Merc article calling his stepfather a "victim of a game of greed."
• The reporter on these articles? One Scott Herhold.
• And, of course, the campaign treasurer for many of the recipients of this money was none other than our old friend Chuck Reed. He was responsible for reporting this income and was paid, in part, from it. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

Six Years Ago Today

Remember this?


The great fire at Santana Row, which destroyed, in a complete coincidence, the block they were having trouble selling, resulting in an insurance windfall.

Was this conflagration a warning from above about welcoming the sorts of folks who like Santana Row into our community? Yes. Yes it was.

The Weak Mayor System

As you probably know, San Jose's charter stipulates that we're governed by a "weak" Mayor; that is, one who lacks veto power.

And, as you probably also know, that's not where I'm going with this post. Well, actually, it sort of is. But first, let's talk about Chuck Reed.

In a developing pattern, Chuck is caving to public pressure asking the City (of which he is ostensibly the leader) to not sell the cute little fire house at Cherry and Minnesota in Willow Glen. You see, a new fire station is going up at Curtner and Lincoln (a mere mile and a half away), which leads the City to think maybe both aren't needed. But the fire station at Cherry is just so cute!

(An aside: remember when Chuck hated fire houses? Surely, the fact that this is in Willow Glen, where people throw together blogs to support their cute fire station has nothing to do with it.)

The point is this. Take the most recent four Mayors: Tom McEnery, Susan Hammer, Ron Gonzales, Chuck Reed. Can you see any of the other three backtracking so frequently and obviously? Susan Hammer would have started knocking down fire station walls with a personalized claw hammer. Not to mention how Ron Gonzales would have handled Little Saigon.

But, as promised, back to the weak Mayor system.

As the Merc gleefully relates, tomorrow's Rules committee will look at the fast food issue, pitting Nora Campos against Mayor Reed. But the Mayor has a trick up his sleeve - something I like to call, in the spirit of the Olympic Games, the two-man veto.

Here's how it works. Instead of bringing items before the Council, where the elected representatives of all ten districts and the Mayor can debate and decide upon an issue, the Mayor and his pal Pete "Five Happy Meals, Please" Constant can decline to let the issue go forward. Two "no" votes and lights out. It's like a check on the checks and balances system! A pre-veto! Genius, really.

Maybe we should rename it the Passive-Aggressive Mayor system. At least, that is, until the wealthy folks or Chamber start complaining. Then it's whatever they want.

Learning About Our Elected Friends

You know how you always complain about how you don't know enough about your elected representatives? How you'll be standing around the ol' water cooler, having already discussed Michael Phelps for forty-two minutes (OMG Lezak!!!) and then someone invariably says, "Gosh, I wish we could talk more about our Councilmembers, but I just don't know enough!"

Well, I'm here to help.

• Pete Constant likes fast food. According to a tipster on the top floor of City Hall:
  

  Pete Constant is being the biggest jerk about the proposal to place a moratorium on fast food. He probably managed to say some along the lines of "they'll probably want to ban that too" about ten times today. [that is, Friday. - Ed.]

  Maybe he can add burgers to his list of his passions. And you're welcome for not taking the easy jokes here. I'll leave that to our humble readers.
• Pickles Oliverio, meanwhile, enumerates exactly who he believe constitutes a celebrity in another rambling, poorly structured post at Obnoxious Blowhards. In his words, ballot arguments are "star-studded" if they include:
  

  ...the mayor, vice mayor, council members, former mayor, county supervisor, the Libertarian Party and San Jose residents.

  WOW! Talk about water cooler conversation!
  
  I bet, if you play your cards right, he'd be willing to autograph your sample ballot. I have this image of him hiring his friends to stand outside his house taking pictures as he comes and goes, so he can first act irritated, then acquiesce and pose, muttering, "Damn paparazzi."
• And, just to quiet the clamoring for more discussion of him* - Don Gage grew up on a farm near Gilroy! And I bet he likes burgers, too.

* No, of course this didn't happen.

Facebook, Anyone?

So, we've got a Facebook thing now where you can become an official fan of this site. Just like Pat Waite himself, may his name be praised.

Anyway. Here's the page. The image on it is an actual photo, by the way. Unretouched.

The tech guy is also trying to put together an application that will show the most recent post on your Facebook page, if you want. Do you want?

Get 'Em While They're Hot

You may have noticed that Councilmembers Chu, Campos and Williams are proposing a ban on fast food restaurants. (Good luck with that.)

But please don't let this quote from the always business-obsequious Chuck Reed escape your notice:

"Nobody has any idea what fast food is and how you define it," Reed said. "Are we going to ban the taquerias? Chinese food places?"

That's called hitting them where it hurts.

What's wrong, Chuck? Couldn't you think of a type of restaurant that Forrest Williams stereotypically couldn't live without?

The Chamber, of course, steps into the fray unprompted, with their typical stupid response: won't someone please think of the businesses? They claim, of course, that banning fast food will further cripple the economy and cost the City huge tax benefits. Riiiight. The City, no doubt, makes a killing of all those McMuffins. Does the Chamber have any numbers to back this up? Of course not. But they'd be happy to do an unethical and possibly illegal hit piece against those who disagree.

On the plus side in news from our fair town, the impoverished and beleaguered Almaden Valley is finally getting a multi-million dollar investment from the City, for a new community center. That should help all those low income folks keep the weight off.

Please Welcome Your Host...

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to play America's favorite guessing game...



Yes, it's Well, Which One Is It?, where our contestants try and guess how San Jose power brokers really feel about issues on which they've taken both sides! Feel free to play along at home! Let's play!

(The lights lower.)

The San Jose Mercury News has been potty-training our puppies for decades. But how do they feel about backroom deals? When it's Ron Gonzales, they hate them - but when it's Chuck Reed meeting with card clubs, full steam ahead. Well, Mercury News - which one is it? (For that part, you at home are supposed to yell along. This is more fun if you're drunk.)

Then there's Chuck Reed himself. During his campaign for Mayor, gambling made him cry. But now that he realizes casinos make money, more more more! Well, Chuck Reed - which one is it?

We can't forget our old, old friend Tom McEnery, the man who discovered that bitterness can be a laxative. Yesterday on Obnoxious Blowhards, he denounced card clubs and their efforts to influence politics in San Jose, but, a tipster recalls, then-candidate McEnery himself took many contributions from card room dealers, in cash. So, Tom - which one is it?

That's all the time we have for today. Join us next time as we consider Pat Dando (does she hate negative campaigning or love it?), David Pandori (does he swear to uphold the law or to abuse it?) a return appearance by Chuck Reed (his 2006 views or 2008?) and special guest Dan Pulcrano (T or A?).

Good night, everybody!

Hotel accomodations for today's guests were provided by the Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco.

A Swing And A Miss

In an editorial today titled "Lobbyists' case shows flaws of mixing law and politics", the Mercury News takes a strong stand of condemnation against Pandorigate, and explains that it will immediately begin investigation into Pandori's actions and its own sycophantic coverage. And then Barbara Marshman was named Pope.

Of course, that's not at all what the editorial said. It said this.

Outrage at the lobbyist culture that permeated City Hall apparently clouded the judgment of then-District Attorney George Kennedy. At a minimum, Kennedy should have had a deputy other than David Pandori handle the investigation of lobbyists Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai over fees for a housing development...

In the end, the criminal prosecutions mostly have been a distraction. They were never necessary to make the point that lobbyist power was out of control in San Jose, or that public officials' striking secret deals and lying was wrong. Chuck Reed's decisive victory as mayor in 2006 - on a platform of high ethical standards, including lobbying reform - showed that voters got the point.

Please allow me to translate.

Despite the lack of evidence for our claims that lobbyist power was out of control, trust us - it was. I mean, come on! The voters got the point!

Oh, and Pandori really is a good guy. This was Kennedy's fault, since he's retired. OK. Move along. That's it.

That's much more refreshingly honest, don't you think?

Not that we'd expect honesty and forthrightness from a newspaper that writes multiple articles about Chuck's beloved gambling without once, as journalistic ethics would dictate, mentioning that those same gambling institutions pony up for ad space.


But then, at least the Merc bothered to address the issue, unlike the good old boys at Obnoxious Blowhards. After all, Pandori is one of their own - a former employee of McEnery's, his chosen Mayoral candidate, the works.

It's a good sign that the Mercury News decided to respond at all, indicating that they recognize the story has traction. But it should be little comfort to the people of Santa Clara County, still served by Assistant District Attorney David Pandori, that a prosecutor could be allowed to appear to have his opponents arrested and face no punishment - much less, public investigation.

Dolores Carr understood, within weeks of taking office, the need to open the windows to remove the stench of the George Kennedy era. She understood that, at some point, voters really will get the point.

Questions Multiply In Pandorigate

(Yeah? Pandorigate? Any better suggestions?)

If the prodigious volume of mail we received yesterday is any indication, the residents of our fair city are alarmed at the overarching question that remains as an aftertaste of the Kali-Rai/Arreola arrest - why?

In those emails, many additional questions were raised and some good resources revealed. Which we'll get to in a moment. Before we do, however - some issues worthy of note.

As we discussed last September, Dolores Carr moved quickly, upon taking office, to make adjustments to the culture she saw there, instituting both an ethics advisor and a set of by-laws, which include the following juicy phrase, right up front:

Cases should be analyzed on evidence and triability, not personalities, friendships, or politics unrelated to likelihood of prevailing before a jury.

Now why would she feel this is necessary? Why, within months of assuming the top crime-fighting position in our County, would she feel it necessary to establish that they pursue cases without bias? Certainly seems to indicate that there was indeed a corrupted culture in local politics - but not necessarily at City Hall.

As for the charges themselves, the Mercury News today quotes Steve Lowney, who reviewed Pandori's initial charges.

Carr dropped the charges in July 2007 after Lowney's review found insufficient evidence to support the case.

Lowney then examined the innocence issue, which clears a defendant's record entirely. While Lowney would not comment on the original decision to prosecute, he indicated his review of the evidence made the innocence determination straightforward.

"It wasn't a big leap," he said Monday.

Not a big leap? It was a simple matter to determine that the initial charges were without merit? How can that be?

While this entire affair was originally transpiring, the same Mercury News, of course, was falling all over itself to pile on. Here are three articles relating to the case, published in 2006 and 2007. The Woolfolk article paints a particularly dingy picture, demonstrating a "guilty until proven innocent" tone - with nasty quotes from former Chamber flack Jay Rosenthal. Meanwhile, Herhold extols his old friend Pandori, calling him a "very good prosecutor" and "brilliant".

Interestingly, the initial article from December 2006 by Rodney Foo, indicates that the warrant was signed on November 16th - meaning that, without question, the process of gathering evidence was begun well before the general election.

So we have a freelancing prosecutor, going after his political opponents right before Election Day, with an acquiescent boss and newspaper. When a new DA comes in, she feels the need to immediately declare the office's impartiality, and the accused individuals are declared completely innocent by that office. I repeat - something stinks.

And folks out there agree. Tipsters emailed a variety of information, including an article in Governing magazine looking at increased fervor by prosecutors who see great political benefit in uncovering "corruption". The article asks if "prosecutors are out of control." A choice quote:

Given the vast discretion prosecutors maintain in picking their targets, they are subject to regular complaints that they are interfering with the political process and the normal operations of government.

What if that interference is intentional?

Anyway. We're still digging through much of the other information we've been provided, so stay tuned.

The big question remains: what next? Will the grand jury take this up? Will the Mercury News revise its consideration of the issue? And, for God's sake, can anyone come up with a better name than "Pandorigate"?

Why Did Pandori Do It?

This morning we were faxed a press release indicating that, after nearly twenty months, former Ron Gonzales staffers Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai were completely, factually innocent of the charges brought against them by Deputy District Attorney David Pandori in December of 2006.

From the press release:

The utter and complete exoneration of Messrs. Arreola and Kali-Rai, as reflected in these filings, is the latest development in this case that makes it clear the two were the victims of self interest and a political vendetta by Mr. Pandori, leading one of the attorneys involved in the case to call for steps to be taken to prevent future political muggings of innocent civilians by a justice system gone wrong.

We've discussed this issue before - but the question remains:

Why would Pandori, a Councilmember who helped draft the rules that he attempted to use to ensnare Arreola and Kali-Rai, play so loose in this scenario that the charges are found to be completely without merit?

In late 2006, San Jose was enraptured with the idea that we were governed by a corrupt Mayor, in a sleazy culture of iniquity. This was based, in large part, on a deal that Ron Gonzales cut in 2001, and on a flubbed contract with Cisco Systems. (Remember that?) The image, then, of law enforcement officials busting down lobbyists' doors seemed fitting.

Today, it is widely accepted that this image of City government was vastly overblown - smoldering, dying embers fanned by the Mercury News and Tom McEnery into enough of a flame to propel Chuck Reed to the Mayor's office. Gonzales and his aide Joe Guerra had all charges dropped, including the ridiculous bribery allegation, and the County has gone one step further to clear his former aides.

But, again - why Kali-Rai and Arreola? Had it been before the primary, or even before the general election (which happened in November), the answer would be cut and dried. But it wasn't. So we have two options:

• Either Pandori, caught up in the echo chamber his buddy and former boss McEnery created, believed the hype, and did everything in his power to smash the culture of corruption - putting himself and the law out on a limb in the process, or
  
• This attempt to paint Gonzales (and, by extension, Cindy Chavez) with a dirty brush was in the works well before the general election, and took just a bit too long to materialize.

Choosing the first option above indicates a refreshing optimism about politics, if not a touch of naivete. There is little doubt that charges would have taken more than a few months to come to fruition, indicating with near certainty that the process began before the general election, if not the primary. Much as the indictment of Gonzales seemed suspiciously well-timed for Reed, this ancillary attempt to doom the so-called Gonzales-Chavez machine has a rotten smell.

That stink is conspiracy - this complete exoneration, stemming from charges filed by someone who should know better, could indicate that the office of former District Attorney George Kennedy (a Reed supporter) was complicit in allowing charges to be filed in an attempt to assure Reed's electoral victory. It's a stink that can only be removed in one way: a responsible news organization must seek the response of Kennedy and Pandori, and allow the community to judge.

Until that happens, the question remains. Why bring esoteric charges against individuals well outside of the sphere of influence in the city? Who benefitted most from the perpetuation of the myth of the corrupt culture? And what ever happened to his flag tie?

Going Through The Checklist

The Merc today discusses the Council's decision to allow the taping of closed City Council sessions. For those unaware, each week before the regular old open Council meeting, there's a private conversation in which the Council and staff discuss legally sensitive issues - lawsuits, land purchases, Pierluigi's nights on the town, that sort of thing.

Chuck Reed, in his brash, bold Reed Reforms, stated categorically that he wanted to tape those sessions and make them available to the public. Therefore:

Reed said Tuesday that although recording closed sessions was among his 34 Reed Reforms, he has since been convinced that the council should only record real estate transactions because of concerns about privacy violations and strategy disclosure.

"I've long been an advocate of recording closed sessions," Reed said, "but having had a year worth of discussions with fellow council members, I'm convinced not everything should be recorded."

Oops! Another one to cross off the checklist!

From the desk of Chuck Reed
Core values I ran on:

• Sunshine! Openness!
• Protecting the environment
• Hating gambling to death
• Doing anything for the Vietnamese community
  
• Feeling uncomfortable around homosexuals
  

Still one to go, Chuck!

Perfecting A Form UPDATED

UPDATE: Ha! They pulled the video clip. Apparently, we made Dan Pulcrano cranky. Rest assured, it was amusing.

An astute tipster notes that the previously mentioned "Fake YouTube Interview" is not unique to political campaigns. Its sibling style, "Awkward And Poorly Executed Actual YouTube Interview" has been brought to perfection by another of our city's finest, as evidenced in the following clip.



Some things I noticed:

• I'm not sure the interviewer knew who she was interviewing. And she may not have memorized her questions.
• Her smile, at times, if you look closely, seems a little forced.
• The microphone seems to work better when it is close to the person speaking.
• When Dan Pulcrano gets that close to a woman, he is physically unable to take his eyes off of her, lest she escape.

But the coup de grace, the element that puts this video over the top in tackiness, that component which shines a light into the deepest painful recesses of Dan Pulcrano's desperate-for-attention soul, is the solitary comment that has been posted on this video. This video, mind you, which is predicated on being about Boulevards.com:

Great video of Dan. Dan Pulcrano is a visionary and has a nice network of domains.

The author of the comment? A user named BoulevardsTV.

Dan couldn't resist having his own lackeys (or even he himself) post a comment praising him and the company from the company's own YouTube account. And that after a very poorly done interview in which Dan comes off as awkward, at best. "Great video of Dan?" I'd hate to see a bad one.

Naw, that's not true. I'd love to see a bad one. Feel free to email them in.

Spotting Hot New Trends!

You know what the kids have been doing? They've been using that YouTube. It's like a TV that you make your own shows for or something. You might remember hearing about it a few years back when Time magazine named you person of the year.

Even if you're not up with this hot new technology, some of our friends running for office are. Which leads us to a new trend, as much as something that happens twice can be called a trend.

I call this the "Fake YouTube Interview" - not to be confused with the "Poorly Produced and Legally Mandated Comcast Interview". Presented for your future anthropological identification, two (OK, the only) examples of my discovery.

First, from the Ash Kalra campaign in District 2.



This is one of a series, covering a broad range of issues, and hosted by Jeff Townsend. Yes, the Jeff Townsend! Who covers boxing for a local sports blog!

The full series on Kalra's YouTube channel is fairly well done, and a good investment for a first-time candidate. Cheap, easy to produce, easy to distribute.

Now, in theory, all of those things would apply to the following video as well.



But, is it just me, or does this come off as a little... I don't know... fake?

Here are some things I noticed.

1. The cast might be reading off cue cards.
2. They might be in front of a green screen.
3. Pat might be in a chair from his dining room.

Throw in the fact that I don't recognize the hostess (last name: Ajlouny!) (no relation, I pray) from any of my favorite local niche sport websites, and I gotta give it a thumbs down. On the plus side, though, this definitely makes his TV ad look better. And it is still better than this classic.

My ruling? Kalra's is the better example of this newly discovered genre. But then, maybe we're just biased. Only one of these two went out of their way to include the name of this humble blog in the video tags. That goes a long way. And no doubt, generates millions of visits.

A Little About That Sound You Heard

Late yesterday afternoon, people across the valley reported hearing a sharp, resounding noise. For those still curious, it was the sound of our Mayor getting positively smacked by the majority of the Council.

Chuck "Doesn't Know When To Fold 'Em" Reed, in his bid to be Mayor of Vegas-by-the-Bay, got beaten. Badly.

The issue at hand - whether more money could be wrung out of the City's card clubs to go to City services. Not a bad idea. Except that Chuck was happy to roll over and allow card clubs to expand their scope for the privilege.

Why was he willing to do so? Because, in a series of private meetings with the card clubs, they said they'd beat any and all measures to increase taxes if they weren't allowed to expand at the same time. So Chuck told them to get a separate poll, which they did, and this unseen poll by unknown pollsters demonstrated that increasing the number of tables at clubs would still allow an increase in club taxes to pass.

Well, the Council wasn't buying it. Only poor Pete Constant (and, of course, Pickles Oliverio) was there to carry Chuck's water. Pete had just voted against putting a reduced 911 fee on the ballot, despite the argument from his colleagues that they were just letting the voters decide. So when, desperate to gin up support, he needs to make a case to the rest of the Council, he argues that, hey! They're just letting the voters decide! Turn-about may be fair play, but that, as far as I understand, ain't how it works. (Pickles, meanwhile, voted for it because there's gambling on the internet. Or something.)

But here's the big question. What's with this poll? What did it say? And, perhaps more importantly, who did it?

I find it hard to believe that Vic Ajlouny wasn't involved in the process. If he was, and he earned even a nickel from the process - well, ladies and gents, that's pretty much, if memory serves, what Gonzales was dinged with in his bribery indictment - secret back-room deal, resulting in benefit for an ally.* Why no outcry by the Council? Why didn't the Merc, in their editorial, stop to ask where this info came from? I mean, this isn't Carl Guardino strategizing to pass a BART tax - we're talking about threats by card clubs to submarine unrelated measures in order to get more gambling in San Jose. If anything is worth sunshining, that's worth sunshining.

But lo, despite a number of odd speakers in support (including one lady who claimed that we shouldn't penalize a business for being profitable - I assume she's a coke dealer), the Council voted 8-3 to take the measure off the table. The card clubs will continue doing business, as is, for the time being. And Chuck Reed, an ice pack held to his still-stinging face, will plot other ways to trade his values for general fund money.

* The main difference with Gonzales, of course, was that Ron could actually deliver the votes.