.
.
.
On July 6, the libertarian (and Republican leaning) Friends for Fullerton’s Future (“FFFF”) Blog published a story, authored by its “Mr. Peabody,” which accused State Sen. Josh Newman of hypocrisy in sponsoring SB 442, a law requiring pool owners to limit pool access by implementing multiple barriers of protection for pool safety:
The supposed payoff of the article? That Senator Newman has both a pool and a young child — but uses no pool safety measures. (“Typical liberal,” the story sneered.) The story was then amplified by being featured on KFI’s “John and Ken” show.
The story doesn’t hold water.
We’ll explain why — but first, some background.
State Republicans are desperate to recall Senator Newman — not due to any wrongdoing in office, but just because based on his district he’s the most politically vulnerable of the 27 Democratic Senators giving his party a supermajority in that house. Since libertarian Fullerton City Council member Bruce Whitaker decided to enter the race to replace Newman, th FFFF blog has apparently decided to do its part.
Republicans have been grasping at straws to find a way to disparage the Senator’s efforts to preserve the safety of families: a popular cause with most voters who want to minimize drowning deaths among children, but less so with hard-core libertarians. It being hard to attack SB 422 on the merits, a “hypocrisy” argument was the next best option.
FFFF published misleading articles that were further indiscriminately broadcast by KFI on Saturday, July 8. They claimed that while Newman, who has a small child, was “waxing about the importance of pool protection,” he himself “is deficient in pool safety” and “lacks any sort of pool fence or pool cover, which are strictly required by his own proposed law.” FFFF showcased pictures to press the point that his own pool was recently uncovered pool. (See pictures number 4 & 6 below).
Here are the facts:
- Senator Josh Newman supports the bill.
- Senator Newman does in fact meet the rules of the pool safety bill by implementing multiple barriers of protection.
This story is all about timing.
On January 13, 2017, the Newmans purchased an “All-Safe” pool safety net and leaf cover system, which was installed to meet strict ASTM safety codes. (Prior to that time, their infant child was unable to walk or otherwise get close to the pool.) The cover was removed for the first time on July 2nd, 2017.
Prior to January 13, they didn’t have a child safety need — and so the pool would appear to be unprotected. Prior to July 2, they were meeting the child safety need. Then, starting on July 2, they occasionally would take off the cover and swim — as one does with one’s pool.
Let’s go to the photos.
(Pic 1) Newman’s safety net covered pool, protecting their toddler.
(Pic 2) The covers in their racks and visible on the deck
Senator Newman’s multiple barriers of protection include the safety net and leaf cover system, childproof locks on all patio doors, and self closing locking gates.
(Pic 3) These anchors are so small that you wouldn’t see them in a picture taken from any significant distance.
In the FFFF blog the caption above an Internet transmitted satellite picture reads: “We sent the FFFF spook drone over Newman’s ultra-posh Fullerton residence.” This is that picture:
(Pic 4) FFFF blog photo (with Sen. Newman’s address blurred out). It looks similar to the Google satellite photo below.
(Pic 5) Google map satellite pic. (Again, unlike FFFF, we blurred out the Senator’s address).
(Pic 6) Yes, at some moments a pool cover does come off. Otherwise, there’s little sense in having a pool.
Someone (assertedly acting on FFFF’s behalf, as they claim to own the photos) went through a lot of trouble, by accessing adjacent private property, to capture this photo of the Newman’s recently uncovered pool — presumably during a period that it was in use, if this was after January 13, and post it in the FFFF blog. We’re not sure whether this constitutes invasion of privacy — but we do know that it completely fails to make its disparaging point about Senator Newman. There’s no evidence here of hypocrisy — even presuming that the photos were taken this month.
KFI and FFFF should set the record straight regarding their failure to establish that Sen. Newman was in any way hypocritical. Asking for an apology might be pointless, but at a minimum they should set the record straight.
And we should take anything that FFFF or KFI says about Sen. Newman with more than a grain of salt.
Welcome to the blog.
Would be great if you could introduce yourself and explain why you’re here.
Not to get off on the wrong foot, but given the content of this post, I’m not exactly sure you belong here.
Ryan it appears that Nancy is trying to insert honesty into the story that FFFF ran a couple of weeks ago.
God knows they won’t do it themselves, and if you tend to disagree with their posts, hey no problem, they will delete your comments and block you from posting yourself.
The truth can be inconvenient to those with hidden agendas.
I have yet to see FFFF delete any comments.
It would appear you have honesty issues as well.
Anyway, I asked Ms. West a direct question. I don’t think you or Greg need to jump in with knightly antics.
Ryan how could you possibly know anything about my integrity?
I can actually prove that FFFF deletes comments.
What I know is what you typed. You said FFFF deletes comments it disagrees with.
I haven’t seen any evidence of that. So what I’m left with is your blind claim to reality. No sale.
Congratulations on your proof. Not that I really care what FFFF does or is doing, but I think you’ll understand me doubting anything you have to say behind your cloak of anonymity. Maybe you’ll publish your proof somewhere and maybe we’ll have a discussion about why anyone does or doesn’t care.
Here’s a post from today from FFFF by Tony B, aka: “Joe Sipowicz”, where he states that he is not going to tolerate post hijacking, which is the same as deleting comments that you don’t agree with.
I also have a video of myself posting comments and what happens afterwards,that I’d be happy to share with Orange Juice readers if you prefer?
Reply
Joe Sipowicz
July 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM
What dilemma? When she was good she was good, and deserved “support.” When she blew it – which was very often – the old FFFF tuned her up good. This blog was never partisan one way or another although we have always favored those who worked toward accountability.
BTW, I’m not tolerating post hijacking anymore.
Sure, post it up.
Ryan, if you do a search on “Nancy West” you’ll find nine stories in which her name has appeared, usually in connection to the main issues she’s addressed over the past half-decade or so: domestic violence (especially “Officer Involved Domestic Violence” or (“OIDV”) and (more recently) homelessness, where her proposal for “Alfresco Gardens” has received positive commentary from many quarters (as well as detractors from some, MOST of which you don’t like.)
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2016/11/a-domestic-violence-survivors-advocate-takes-apart-fizzling-ling-changs-final-assault-on-josh-newman/
One of those posts, “A Domestic Violence Survivors’ Advocate Takes Apart Fizzling Ling Chang’s Final Assault on Josh Newman” she authored, but we published it under “Admin.” Here’s my Editor’s Note under that post:
She has commented here before, most notably in this exchange with me on May 23, in a post where Vern was lionizing homophobic homeless advocate Joshua Collins. Here’s the entire exchange:
She was also mentioned by Zenger in a comment earlier today. [Edited to add: that last comment, back in May, was her 14th one on this site.]
She’s not “new to the blog,” and not new to writing about SD-29 here. What’s new is that, rather than posting this under “Admin,” I decided that it was (past) time to make her her own account. (In part, I’ve wanted to facilitate her posting on Alfresco Gardens and discussions about it.)
I’m proud that we have people here writing from both sides of the SD-29 recall race — as I’m sure you haven’t forgotten Sean Cocca’s posts from a few months past. That’s not always comfortable, but it’s good for reporting the news.
What I’d like to know is your reaction to what at a minimum raises the possibility that the original FFFF article calling out Josh for hypocrisy is arrant bullshit based on photos from (1) prior to the installation of the pool cover and (2) if taken later, from the trail, apparently from a period of a day when the pool was in use and the toddler safely away from it.
Doesn’t THAT seem like the story here?
“She was also mentioned by Zenger in a comment earlier today.”
No, I copy/pasted your reference then told of my experiences on kleptoblog.
Her name appeared in your comment. You don’t want to call that “mentioned,” fine. She did not just appear today out of the blue, is the point.
I don’t know where she came from or who she is. Don’t use me as a citation to prove her existence when you’re the one who threw her name out.
Why not? Legally, I can do it.
You’re off the deep end, Greg.
Legally do what? Use me proof of someone’s existence because I copy/pasted YOUR reference to that person?
That’s pathetic.
I’m playing against the discussion in another thread, Ryan, about the difference between what’s legal and what’s rightful.
Y’all seem to want to say that because the system doesn’t require good reason for removal, all bets are off. Well, if all bets are off, y’all aren’t going to like it very much — especially when wearing your good government hats — because once we get away from “what’s right” things go downhill fast and hit hard.
She can answer for herself I assume?
Pardon my chivalry — and my enhanced ability to search comments for names, which helped me find some of what I was looking for..
I’m not the one to pardon it, but perhaps at some point you should stop.
“Someone (assertedly acting on FFFF’s behalf, as they claim to own the photos) went through a lot of trouble, by accessing adjacent private property, to capture this photo”
No they didn’t, dingbat, the adjacent property that photo was taken from is the Juanita Cooke Greenbelt trail, accessible to hikers, bikers and horseback riders. Google it, as they say.
Google WHAT? “What property is directly adjacent to State Senator Josh Newman’s house”? Or should I have just started by Googling “aardvark” and continued through the alphabet until I got to “Juanita Cooke Greenbelt Trail”?
Since you know what’s there, nipper, maybe you can tell us when that photo was taken — and a little bit of the circumstances around it. Was it after January 13? (Jeez, I hope so. Otherwise it’s creepy that he was being staked out like this for so long.) Was it from after July 2? If so, how long was the photographer out there?
The reason I think that that last question matters is that it looks like their sliding door might be open. The right half of the glass door to the right of the pool has both a reflection and what looks like a screen. The larger left side has neither — suggesting that it was an open invitation to flies coming in. If the latter, one may speculate that someone either had been there and went inside, or was inside and about to return outside. (People do sometimes leave doors like that open for more than a couple of minutes — but in my experience generally NOT if they have a screen door, as we see here.)
So if the person was there for a quick hit-and-run snapshot, then maybe they just got lucky/unlucky and found a moment where it looked like the pool area was deserted and uncovered. But if they were there for a while and waited until someone left the area, then that would be manipulativeness of a piece with the rest of the article.
Not to be a jerk, but if the door isn’t self closing, then the owner isn’t in compliance with the new law.
Looks like you and the author of this post sorta proved FFFF’s point.
It’s not obvious that the Senator has the required layers of protection necessary to comply with the law.
When did the new law go into effect? I asked some questions on FFFF about when it actually requires the pool to be covered during an afternoon of use. My guess is: you can leave it uncovered, in between swimming, when the kids are being tended to elsewhere. Didn’t get an answer as of last night. Got one?
Don’t need one, Greg. You’re missing the point.
The most substantive one at the moment is the loud silence of Ms. West.
Always happy to provide a pretext for another GD monologue, you’re welcome.
I have no idea or interest when or by whom the photo was taken, but it’s obvious from where it was taken. Google what? Did that strike you as me being cryptic? You could Google the address, something even the esteemed post author managed to figure out how to do, and see the labelled trail right-the-f there in all its un-cropped glory.
You know, I’m a curious fella’ so I Googled the address again. The resulting page says, at the bottom left, “Imagery © 2017 Google”. This is when the sat photo was taken. I mean, it shows the current patio furniture so this must be a given.
According to the above post, the only times the pool was uncovered was “prior to January 13” or “starting on July 2”, “occasionally”.
If so, the sat photo could have only been taken on one of those ~28 days, or roughly 14% of the 197 days of 2017 that have elapsed. Certainly it wasn’t taken during the remaining ~86% of the time.
Survey says… OK!
Ah, and since the FFFF post dated 6 July includes the sat photo, let’s subtract the nine days since then for good measure. That makes it a 9.6% – 90.4% uncovered – covered split. Surely.
So by your professional calculations, a satellite photo of the uncovered pool could have been taken during January 1-13 or July 2-July 5 — the latter ONLY IF the photo went online pretty much immediately, so that Mr. Peabody could snag it for the piece.
Very clever! Of course you’re presuming that the 2017 copyright must apply to photos taken during 2017 itself, which is woeeeeefully dumb. It could have been taken in 2015 or 2016 and had the Copyright 2017 date because they WANTED it to have that date — no one’s checking! — or (entirely properly) because the satellite photos were UPDATED sometime in 2017 and that represents the date of FIRST PUBLICATION rather than the date that THE IMAGE WAS CAPTURED — just like pretty much ANY OTHER photographic publication.
Thanks for your illuminating commentary — and with MATH, too!
Now, can YOU show us the text of the law from which we can calculate when a pool owner with an ambulatory child has to have safety measures up? You’re the third person I’ve asked. This is VITAL to the (bogus) charge of hypocrisy — so let’s see one of you produce it and show when it went into effect? I’d hate for you to lose ALL OF THE EFFORT you put into this ridiculous sting of yours because it turns out that he had the cover installed right when he was supposed to!.
The photo is from 2017 not only because of the copyright date, but because IT’S THE SAME FURNITURE IN THE EXACTLY THE SAME PLACES in both photos, or did the patio gear came as part of the purchase with stipulation that it shall not be moved an inch? Nancy West will appear shortly to produce that document, dated tomorrow.
The point, which apparently eludes only you, is that nobody had to sneak around and pounce to get a shot of the uncovered pool, because the satellite got the same view, against, according to the fact-challenged original post, very steep odds indeed.
You know what, I am wrong, I was under the impression that Newman just purchased the property, but that isn’t the case. Mea culpa – don’t say I won’t cop to being demonstrably wrong.
I’m not even getting into the pool safety thing. But I do take issue with this claim;
“State Republicans are desperate to recall Senator Newman — not due to any wrongdoing in office, but just because based on his district he’s the most politically vulnerable of the 27 Democratic Senators giving his party a supermajority in that house. Since libertarian Fullerton City Council member Bruce Whitaker decided to enter the race to replace Newman, th FFFF blog has apparently decided to do its part.”
Not due to any wrongdoing in office…”some of us disagree. Josh Newman ran a highly likable campaign as the everyday guy, and then screwed the everyday citizen by voting for the gas tax. Now I don’t like that my beloved GOP has targeted him when there were others far more culpable for the gas tax than Newman’s lone yes vote, but one cannot claim Newman is entirely without fault here. This kills me, because I like the guy personally. But dammit, he not only stuck it to the very people he most appealed to as the “not establishment” maverick but he has since failed to understand why people are so pissed off, and instead of standing his ground and facing the recall on its merit he plays legal games to squash the recall in court, and my sympathy light is blinking and on its way out. I cannot support him as a candidate because of my commitment to party affiliation, but I was prepared to fight to demand he was treated fairly, and now i don’t feel like bothering with it, because he just plain doesn’t get it. You can object to the recall (I don’t like the way we are going about it) but to claim he is being targeted for no reason isn’t realistic.
I strongly think that those of us who care about good government have got to be pretty scrupulous in distinguishing between “wrongdoing” and policy disagreement.
Was there a quid pro quo? Payoff to supporters? Etc.?
Or does he just think that the roads need to be fixed after all these years — and that it’s not going to happen any other theoretically possible way? And that the bill could be improved by the constitutional amendment he demanded to keep this from becoming a slush fund?
The recall campaign was dirty as hell and deserved exactly what it’s gotten.
This post makes a familiar error. Recall in California was not meant to replace “wrongdoers” (if by wrongdoer one means one guilty of malfeasance in office). That’s why we have DAs and Attorney Generals and a whole criminal legal apparatus.
Liberals just don’t get it. The ability for Californians to recall is sovereign and is encumbered by no legal or especially legalistic restraint.
N.B. A lot of people believe creating a highly regressive tax IS doing wrong, and many of them are “progressives.”
And your comment makes a more serious familiar error: failing to distinguish between what is legal and what is moral, ethics, and custom.
It’s true: BY LAW, you can recall Newman for any reason. You can recall him because he’s Jewish, because his wife works — anything you can get people to bite at. But it’s wrong — and it’s a deviation from custom and the usually agreed-upon basis for recall.
You know what else is “legal”? Police killing someone any time they have a subjectively reasonable suspicion. DA’s acting arbitrarily, if no one can step in and stop them. Defunding everything Republicans want. Meetings where the outcome is determined in advance, so long as the majority of the Council is not in the same room when it happens or the action where the determination is made doesn’t have other aspects of a formal “meeting.” (That’s how we at CATER lost our Brown Act case, unbelievably enough.)
Great argument, Zenger. It tosses pretty much everything you care about out the window.
“Great argument, Zenger. It tosses pretty much everything you care about out the window.”
So this is an issue of morality, ethics and custom? No, that sort of thing would be like moving the goal posts after the kicker has kicked the football.
The law is perfectly and unambiguously clear. You can try to confuse it all you like. But notice that in 100 years no one has challenged the ethics, morality and custom of the recall law except those being recalled – and their pals.
Also, please don’t cite this comment – where I copy/pasted your reference to Zenger – as proof that I believe Zenger really and truly exists. That would be wrong according to morals, ethics and custom.
For many many years, Zenger, people were not brought in and paid by the signature so that they could make their rent. Yet, lo, now they are. That’s because the USE of the law has changed — one could even say, “been perverted.” You don’t like it? Too bad — the law says that any aspect of it not firmly embedded and clearly enunciated in state Constitution CAN be changed — and apparently that’s all that matters to you.
When you complaint about the retroactive application of the new law — a concept firmly embedded in our legal system — as being unfair to apply to the poor proponents who had thought they’d GOTTEN AWAY with a chance to cut the size of the electorate down by maybe an order of magnitude and now it turns out CAN’T RELY on their crafty little plans — what do you think that YOU’RE arguing about, if not “morality, ethics, and custom”? Certainly not “law”: the law is clear.
I’m less concerned about Zenger than I am about Peabody.
*Being that we live in the most populace state in the union….and being that we have a multitude of Pension Hungry Political Establishments…..and being that our Governor, the great DTJB wanted to work over the system a bit…..and being that……..Cal-Trans and the Republican party in California have an insatiable appetite for causing make work schemes….and being that Josh Newman is a Democrat and gives the Republicans the smallest sliver of hope to replace him with “any Republican”……and being that they have already collected 90,000 signatures……and being that it is against the law to use an electrified fence around a swimming pool………well…..who in the world really cares whether Nancy West is a LaRouche Libertarian, United We Stand, Trump voter or not? Should we fix the roads with new money, old money, tired money, Toll Road Money or Measure M money? Please…..folks get a grip.
The whimpering object of this essay was a character attack on Josh Newlman, Ron. It DOESN’T actually matter much, because it’s bullshit, but it still deserves to be refuted for whatever power its adherents claim for it.
*Beneath your integrity…sir. These people are shooting at shadows and hoping to hit something. Ridiculous……like going after Webster Guillory or even T-Rack for some minor incursion. If you want to do good you have to catch them with the bate in their mouth….Like Jack….with the Dana Thing….except Dana may be dirty enough that he has to hide the real deal.
Where is chairman Vern to put order in the house? Isn’t this a political mosh pit, or as Ryan likes to say a “marketplace of ideas” or something like that. Vern as editor/publisher could’ve suggested a different subject to introduce Ms West to the rough world of political blogging.
I gather that Ms West proposes an idea similar to the little homes village for homeless. According to a person who had discussed this project with Vern, there are strong objections, such as location, safety issues, and other logistics. Hopefully Ms West will not get discouraged by the welcoming to the blog, and post a piece on her project.
Regarding the recall, a tax perceived as regressive is harder to justify, but whether the recall proceeds or not, whether succeeds or fails, it is a political game. No need to shed crocodile tears in either side of the aisle.
By now you’ve certainly noticed, Ricardo, that Vern is sometimes gone from this blog as much as a month at a time. I keep it going during his absences.
You seem to think that we usually dole out assignments here — although from your own experience you know better. For the record, Nancy proposed this subject for a piece after I told her (not for the first time) that I was hoping that she’d write for us. I helped with editing. I hope that she will post on Alfresco Gardens soon — it has a website, if you’d like to check it out sooner than that — but in the meantime she also has expertise in OIDV, “Officer Involved Domestic Violence,” of which we apparently just had a horrific example in Seal Beach, so my hope is that she’ll write about that first.
But, as you know, I don’t have a lot of control over what our contributors write and when they write it.
I hadn’t paid attention how long Vern’s absences are. You’re right, based on my experience, I choose the issues of my posts. I was surprised to read a pro-Newman post here, other than yours.
Thank you Greg for introducing me. Hi David, I apologize for my delayed visits.
About the pool issue: Sen. Newman has multiple barriers of protection at his home. I believe all the doors in the picture are closed and that is not an open screen door. It’s a vertical grid door. We don’t even know if the baby was home at the time of the photo. She may have been supervised inside the house, or what if she was supervised in the pool? Would that be a violation? Of course not, because barriers are for when children slip out of sight. Either way multiple barriers is all about having one barrier in place when/if the other is penetrated, in this case, removed, which has to happen if you’re going to use or maintain a pool.
Thank you Ricardo. I’m not discouraged and I will post about my project hopefully sooner than later. It’s not a mini houses plan, but yes, there are strong objections and misconceptions of Alfresco Gardens, predominantly by individuals claiming to know its ins-and-outs without reading my report or hearing it from me. That’s why I’ll be giving a thorough presentation to Greg before I post.
See above. You seem to be spoon feeding is information directly from the Senator.
I’d really like to know why.
What the everloving fuck, Ryan? *FFFF* started this by trying to smear Josh as a hypocrite.
SHE found that sliming of him disgusting and did the research. SHE contacted HIM to get the story. I know, because I contacted him and asked him how all of this came about.
So let me ask you again — what part of the law went into effect that put a burden on Josh, as parent of a infant daughter who only relatively recently become ambulatory, that marks him as a hypocrite? Doesn’t falsely charging someone of hypocrisy bother you?
Dude.
Calm down.
Sorry, I’m not here to argue about this one, just provide a little information.
Surely, SURELY, you can do better than that.