The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice. (Mahatma Gandhi)
Tom Boyajian, long time city councilman and mullet/foo man choo combo sporter (who finished 5th in the race for Fresno mayor this week), as quoted in the Fresno Bee:
"Fresno deserves better. We all deserve better. Neither Ashley Swearengin, nor Henry T. Perea has the integrity or the capacity to bring Fresno forward and this is why neither of them will receive my vote in November despite the inevitable outcome."
This wasn't a letter to the editor or a statement from his campaign. It was posted on his MySpace page. Yes, that's right. His MySpace page. And that, Mr. Boyajian, is why you will not now nor ever be mayor of Fresno.
Congratulations, Fresno. It looks like the voters there have finally seen fit to usher in a new generation of politicians.
They did so by narrowing the mayor's race down to Henry T. Perea and Ashley Swearengin - two candidates who are anything but status quo - to compete in the November runoff.
It's true. The old, tried, and failed Fresno has been running things for far too long. Fresno's greatest weakness lies with its leadership (lack thereof). The city has not had leaders with the critical combination of vision and management ability for decades, and the result is the mess that currently is Fresno. Sprawl, nonexistent city planning, lack of infrastructure, poverty, health disparities, a floundering economy, and a Downtown plagued with more potential than progress.
Regardless of who wins the November election, it is comforting to know that it won't be any of the old guard that have managed to screw things up so royally. Both candidates are smart (read politically savvy), under 40 (he is 30 and she is 35), and not white males - all big strikes against them in the eyes of Old Fresno, which is comprised almost wholly of old, white males. But there will still be a clear choice to make in the fall.
On one hand, you have an inexperienced and very, very liberal city councilman who was only elected in the first place because he shares his popular father's name, and purposely left his differentiating middle initial off the ballot. As far as I know, he has never run anything with a multi-million dollar budget, let alone an entire city. To his credit, he has elevated the Downtown debate and helped energize younger and minority voters, but his personal ethics are questionable at best.
On the other hand, you have an experienced business woman who has not only successfully managed the largest public-private collaborative in the region; she also knows how to handle a budget and bring people together to get things done. The Bee will try to criticize her for not single-handedly improving the Valley's economy, but they would be wrong to do so. The obstacles to progress did not stem from her management, but from the backward policies of Fresno area governments - the very policies she's running to change.
On a side note, I must say, the fact that the Fresno County Republican Party opted not to endorse her in the primary shows just how entrenched in the status quo and irrelevant they have become. Jerry Duncan never had a prayer of winning, and their decision not to support her was a politically stupid move.
If they had thrown their weight and volunteers behind her instead of siphoning off pro-business conservative votes for a candidate that couldn't win, Ms. Swearengin might be mayor right now, and Henry T. wouldn't have a 5-month opportunity to try talk voters into giving him a chance, whether he's qualified or not. Heck, they might have even been able to talk some sense into the Fresno Chamber of Commerce (since when did the Chamber endorse candidates that oppose the interests of their members, anyway?).
Regardless of the outcome, this will be a fascinating race to watch.
Last weekend, Brian and I flew out to California for a badly needed mini-vacation. We stayed in Huntington Beach and spent the day laying on the beach, walking on the pier, and watching the sun set over the Pacific Ocean.
It was a perfect day. Exactly what we needed.
I love the beach. I could absolutely spend every day laying on the beach, completely forgetting that there is a world out there beyond the California coastline.
It doesn't get much better than this...
After our fabulous relaxing and refreshing day, we walked back to our hotel and waited for my mom to arrive with my little sister. She had no idea we were coming to visit and started crying when she saw us, at which point I, of course, started crying. I miss her like crazy, and I hate that I don't get to spend more time with her. She's 12 already and is growing up way too fast.
We all went to Disneyland the next day and had an absolute blast. Disneyland has become a home away from home to us. Brian and I spent most of our dating years going there for weekends and spontaneous date nights when he was living in LA. It really is one of the happiest places on earth to us. The weather was a little chilly, which wasn't helped much by the fact that we (stupidly) decided to ride Splash Mountain at 11AM and proceeded to get soaking wet. But we eventually dried off and had so much fun.
I love California. I've realized I also really miss California. Our favorite ride is Soarin' Over California (also here), and I got a little choked up watching all the breathtaking beauty of my home unfold before me. I miss it. The mountains, the coast, the orchards. As much as I love living in Washington and what I do, California will always be home, and I'm sure we'll end up back there eventually. I think I'm destined to be bi-coastal forever.
I'm going to be archiving my old MySpace blog on here, just FYI in case you get a slew of new posting emails tonight. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience.
Since I'm sure most of you have heard by now (it was the top Google News story all day) that the California Supreme Court is at it again - this time rewriting the definition of marriage against the will of 61% of the electorate - I won't bore you with much on the decision itself (here is an interesting analysis if you're interested). In fact, I won't be discussing the underlying issue at all. Partially because I'm still sorting through my own personal position on gay marriage. Mostly because my real outrage here is not about policy, but process.
I'm not so outraged by the decision itself as by the fact that 4 judges could overturn the will of 4.6 million citizens. As big of a fan as I am of the Constitution, that just really pisses me off. I also find it questionable (at best) that the Court decided to rule on this now, as opposed to, say, right after the law was enacted in 2000 (when, I believe, California's Constitution was the same as it is today).
The irony of all this is, of course, that the gay marriage issue will now be elevated back up to the level of political discourse and become a major campaign issue for the fall election, thus mobilizing a previously apathetic conservative electorate to come out and vote. Gotta love unintended consequences.
Another observation (going back to my being pissed off): I just have to note how blatantly self-contradicting and hypocritical Democrats/liberals tend to be on so many issues. It's really just absurd sometimes. One day they are demanding that we pull troops out of Iraq because "that's what the American people want," then the next day they are perfectly content to throw the democratic process out the window to appease a tiny but vocal minority within their ranks. Beyond being a tragedy, it's intellectually dishonest and amazingly transparent. You can't have it both ways, folks.
This is an incredibly fascinating look at the evolution of the social divides that exist in America. A definite must-read. Also, Fresno got a shout-out.
"...Over the years, different theories have emerged to describe the educated/less-educated divide. Conservatives have gravitated toward the culture war narrative, dividing the country between the wholesome masses and the decadent cultural elites. Some liberals believe income inequality drives everything. They wait for an uprising of economic populism. Other liberals divide the country morally, between the enlightened urbanites and the racist rednecks who will never vote for a black man.
"None of these theories really fit the facts. It’s more accurate to say that the country has simply drifted apart into different subcultures. There’s no great hostility between the cultures. Americans have a fuzzy sense of where the boundaries lie. But people in different niches have developed different unconscious maps of reality. They have developed different communal understandings of what constitutes a good leader, of what sort of world they live in. They have developed different communal definitions, which they can’t even articulate, of what they mean by liberty, security and virtue. Demographic groups have begun to function like tribes or cultures...."
I'm now a hockey fan. Brian and I got to go to a Caps game for the first time the week before they made it to the playoffs, and we ended up going to 3 games in a row after that. I had never been to an NHL game before, and it was awesome (not that Falcons games aren't fun, but this was seriously the most fun I have ever had at a pro sports event). They ended up losing to the Philadelphia Flyers (boo) in game 7 of the series in sudden death overtime, but we're officially fans now, and can't wait til next season.
Wow, squeaking one in after just under a whole month! Here's an interesting observation from Dan Walters of the Sac Bee about California's voting patterns. So much for Democrats being the party of the poor.
Blue counties are the greenest, as in money
State tax officials are still processing millions of personal income tax returns for 2007, but they’ve released data about California’s widely varying income levels for 2006 and there’s an interesting – and perhaps inverse – correlation with political proclivity.
The widespread assumption is that Republicans are to be mostly found in high-income communities while Democrats tend to be on the lower end of the economic scale. But mixing the Franchise Tax Board’s income data with voter registration and voting results data from the secretary of state’s office produces the opposite result.
California’s bluest counties – as in most likely to vote Democratic – are also the greenest, in financial terms anyway, while Republican-voting counties tend, with some exceptions, to fall in the lower income strata.
The five highest-income counties, based on 2006 tax returns, were found in the very Democratic San Francisco Bay Area, topped by Marin County’s $116,626 median income on joint returns, with Santa Clara ($95,457), San Mateo ($95,394), Contra Costa ($87,478) and Alameda ($83,996) following.
You have to go to sixth-place Placer County ($78,652), seventh-ranked El Dorado County ($78,489) and No. 8 Orange County ($75,537) to find strong Republican voting tendencies.
The lowest-income county, Imperial ($37,582) is Democratic, as well as being heavily Latino, but most of the counties at the lower income levels, such as No. 57 Colusa ($41,008) and 56th-place Modoc ($42,361) are solidly Republican.
For anyone who wants to make his or her own comparisons, the latest income tax data are available here while county-by-county presidential voting numbers may be accessed here and voter registration numbers are here.
Small town, beach loving California girl turned DC Hill staffer. My great loves are music, politics, and my husband. I try to work to live rather than live to work. I value the company of a few good friends over many acquaintances. My favorite word is ultracrepidarianism. My guilty pleasures include dark chocolate, cigars, salsa dancing, and Oprah.
Tom Boyajian, long time city councilman and mullet/foo man choo combo sporter (who finished 5th in the race for Fresno mayor this week), as quoted in the Fresno Bee:
