Twas the night before election, and all through the county
The sabanites scurried to shore up their bounty.
With the race all but over, and the kleenex all used
There's nothing much left but to buy some booze.
The whole staff piled in to the smart car all painted,
but one glance at the fuel gauge and poor Dan fainted.
"I was weak as a child", Saban explained,
"besides I've a plan, so hop on my train!"
One last stop to fill up, Saban shouted with glee,
as he charged one last tank to the campaign finance-ee.
Off to the wal mart for some mad dog 20-20,
it was all they had, after buying protests aplenty.
With a buzz and a headache, the crew turned in for the night
Dreams of firings, and pay backs, and fame felt so right.
But the sun did come up, much too fast for our hero
Because in the real world, he's still just a zero.
"I was wronged, outspent, felonies were committed!"
But sadly the truth is that he was outwitted.
Recall! came the shouts from his staff of two,
But alas, no one signs against Arpaio, oh poo.
With nothing left to do but relive the wasted weeks,
Dan said "lets get our towels so we can trade peeks!"
Some cheer returned as they formed in a circle
That Dan, you know, is one super good jerkle!
Dan Saban fixes the lies in his Buckeye Application
Dan Saban fired a guy at Buckeye PD for lying on a question in the application for the job. The question is something like:
Have you ever committed a felony or a crime of theft, fraud, or moral terpitude?
The answer is either yes or no, and this particular officer checked the no box, even though he had been arrested in the past for a felony. At trial, that felony was reduced to a misdemeanor, so the officer thought that his crime was a misdemeanor, just like the court did.
Dan Saban didn't though, and the officer was fired for lying on his application.
Dan Saban checked the box "no", too, but during a deposition for the failed Arpaio lawsuit, Dan admitted to selling transmission fluid and pocketing the money while working at a gas station as a teenager. Dan also admitted to helping himself to the gas once in a while.
When asked why he checked no, Dan said "Well, I didn't think they meant 30 years ago". There's no time frame on the question, and actually it clearly refers to anytime since your birth. But Dan doesn't think this is a lie.
It's clearly going to cause him problems though, so he calls up a buddy of his, who also donated money to his campaign, to change the application for him. Dan makes this out to be some high minded moralistic venture, when its really obvious that he's just covering his ass like the dirtbag that he is.
Watch the video and see for yourself.
Dan Saban leaves his 10 year old brother behind
Dan Saban left the home of his abusive mother, and never once considered going back for his 10 year old little brother. Even after becoming a police officer just 18 months later, he left his own little brother to fend for himself at the hands of a child molester.
...unless, maybe, she wasn't a child molester.
Decide for yourself: Is Dan Saban a liar or a coward?
Dan Saban gets his friends to lie, too
Dan Saban liked to tell everyone that he passed a polygraph test that proves he was indeed the victim rather than the perpetrator in a sexual tryst with his adoptive mother. What Dan Saban doesn't want you to know is that the firm that administered his polygraph also donated to his campaign.
Hey...who better to clear you of any criminal wrongdoing that some old friends?
Did Dan Saban expose himself to a child???
You decide:
Either one of Dan Saban's closest allies has an extremely vivid imagination, or Dan told him a story about what really happened that day. Obviously, it's not the same story he told his wife, or what he said during sworn testimony during a deposition.
Talk amongst yourselves...
Either one of Dan Saban's closest allies has an extremely vivid imagination, or Dan told him a story about what really happened that day. Obviously, it's not the same story he told his wife, or what he said during sworn testimony during a deposition.
Talk amongst yourselves...
Dan Saban Lied and tried to Cover it up
It seems our lovely candidate Dan Saban got a lot more than he bargained for in his failed lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In this video, attorneys question Saban about how the lies on his application for Buckeye PD were later covered up by a Saban campaign supporter, who happened to work at AZPOST (the certifying state agency responsible to ensuring police officers meet certain standards, such as honesty). It always helps to have friends, I guess, but do we really want yet another politician who will cover up his lies by calling in old friends to change official records?
Vanity thy name is Dan Saban
Sometimes it's fun to go back a few months and see what people have to say about things, before they know what will soon become common knowledge.
I found this in an East Valley Tribune article on July 12th, 2008:
Law enforcement applications are a bit unique in that a person's honesty on that application will determine whether they get the job or not. Every police agency in the US would refuse to hire anyone who lied during the hiring process. If they lie trying to get in, they'll surely lie later.
So Dan Saban gets confronted with the lies on his application during his deposition, and now that he knows it's out, he calls the Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training board (who issues the state certification based on the background investigation) and talks to his old buddy Steve Jacobs. Jacobs publicly endorsed Saban last election cycle.
Saban tells Jacobs to change the application so it won't look like he lied any more, and Jacobs agrees. But, Saban doesn't see any kind of conflict here.
I actually understand why.
Saban was so worried about covering up his lies, that he never even thought to consider the conflict. Being so worried that his "truth and justice" campaign would crumble, those lies needed to get off the record, and fast, so stopping to consider a conflict would be more than anyone could expect, under the circumstances.
And Dan isn't just a hypocrite during the election, either. He fired a police officer because he failed to check the box in the affirmative when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony. The officer had in fact been convicted of a felony, but it had been reduced to a misdemeanor, so the officer felt that it was now a misdemeanor conviction.
Saban fired the officer for lying.
Saban did the exact same thing, but his rules don't apply to himself, as we have seen before.
This is getting pathetic. The more I find out about Saban, the more I start to feel sorry for him. Does anyone know him personally? Is he handicapped? He must have mild downs syndrome, or something. Who else would be so foolish as to get into politics with his past?
I found this in an East Valley Tribune article on July 12th, 2008:
“I would say, on its face, it does appear to be another conflict in a long series of conflicts,” said Saban. Arpaio “has a long history of supporting those who support him.” Saban, a Democrat, pointed to recent sheriff’s investigations, such as the agency’s ongoing inquiry of Democratic state Attorney General Terry Goddard, as evidence of politically-motivated cases."Dan Saban criticizes Joe Arpaio for having a conflict of interest long after (but before we know) Dan Saban testified in a deposition for a lawsuit that he brought against the sheriff about his own application for Buckeye police chief.
Law enforcement applications are a bit unique in that a person's honesty on that application will determine whether they get the job or not. Every police agency in the US would refuse to hire anyone who lied during the hiring process. If they lie trying to get in, they'll surely lie later.
So Dan Saban gets confronted with the lies on his application during his deposition, and now that he knows it's out, he calls the Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training board (who issues the state certification based on the background investigation) and talks to his old buddy Steve Jacobs. Jacobs publicly endorsed Saban last election cycle.
Saban tells Jacobs to change the application so it won't look like he lied any more, and Jacobs agrees. But, Saban doesn't see any kind of conflict here.
I actually understand why.
Saban was so worried about covering up his lies, that he never even thought to consider the conflict. Being so worried that his "truth and justice" campaign would crumble, those lies needed to get off the record, and fast, so stopping to consider a conflict would be more than anyone could expect, under the circumstances.
And Dan isn't just a hypocrite during the election, either. He fired a police officer because he failed to check the box in the affirmative when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony. The officer had in fact been convicted of a felony, but it had been reduced to a misdemeanor, so the officer felt that it was now a misdemeanor conviction.
Saban fired the officer for lying.
Saban did the exact same thing, but his rules don't apply to himself, as we have seen before.
This is getting pathetic. The more I find out about Saban, the more I start to feel sorry for him. Does anyone know him personally? Is he handicapped? He must have mild downs syndrome, or something. Who else would be so foolish as to get into politics with his past?
Dan Saban: snake oil salesman
I found this on Dan Saban's campaign site:
The word "integrity" completely defines the law-enforcement profession. Our profession is really no different than others. But, our adherence to a set of ethics sets us apart because police officers must live at a higher standard of truthfulness.
Our citizens have the right to expect and demand that police officers have unquestionable honesty and reliability. The Police must be stewards of the public trust. We maintain trust by ensuring that police officers honor their professional integrity whether in or out of uniform.
In light of the video in the post below, this quote seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
Where was that higher standard of truthfulness during the depostion???
Must be that "ensuring that police officers honor their professional integrity" means he intends to ensure that everyone else is honest, but he doesn't have to be.
Just another "do as I say, not as I do" leader.
Wonderful.
Dan Saban Lies on Video
It's about time somebody got off their ass and finally put some video up on YouTube. If you still think Dan Saban stands for "truth and justice" after watching this video, you really need to get your head examined.
Dan Saban can't stop whining
Is it just me, or has there been more publicity on Dan Saban's penchant for hands on training coming from him than from the ad that announced it? Here we are, two weeks later, and he's still whining about it. And not only that, but Danny boy is establishing a pattern of getting other people to fight his battles for him.
First he has MCSA cause a ruckus at the Board of Supervisor's meetings, then has some of those same members picketing the Wells Fargo Building, and now he has the Democrats file a complaint for him on the republican party making all kinds of allegations they can't possibly prove because the most recent finance reports don't include the transactions that paid for the ad.
All because Dan Saban admitted to abusing the usual suspects, and likes to run home at lunch for a little Ménage à moi. In uniform.
So what if the guy needs a little break from the stress of the daily grind and chooses to polish his helmet? There really can't be anything all that wrong with cleaning his rifle, is there? A little assault on a friendly weapon never hurt anybody, did it? A little hair on the palms, maybe some chronic blindness, but all in all it's a healthy activity. Especially if you're trying to buff up one bicep.
I'm guessing it's his shooting hand, so he can draw from the holster quicker. That way, he can say it was all to further his career, and maybe even get training credit for choking kojack. I just hope he doesn't spend all his campaign money on gas, so he'll have some left over for lotion and kleenex. He's gotta have something for his dishonorable discharge.
First he has MCSA cause a ruckus at the Board of Supervisor's meetings, then has some of those same members picketing the Wells Fargo Building, and now he has the Democrats file a complaint for him on the republican party making all kinds of allegations they can't possibly prove because the most recent finance reports don't include the transactions that paid for the ad.
All because Dan Saban admitted to abusing the usual suspects, and likes to run home at lunch for a little Ménage à moi. In uniform.
So what if the guy needs a little break from the stress of the daily grind and chooses to polish his helmet? There really can't be anything all that wrong with cleaning his rifle, is there? A little assault on a friendly weapon never hurt anybody, did it? A little hair on the palms, maybe some chronic blindness, but all in all it's a healthy activity. Especially if you're trying to buff up one bicep.
I'm guessing it's his shooting hand, so he can draw from the holster quicker. That way, he can say it was all to further his career, and maybe even get training credit for choking kojack. I just hope he doesn't spend all his campaign money on gas, so he'll have some left over for lotion and kleenex. He's gotta have something for his dishonorable discharge.
Lawsuit Dismissed
This is why, when open border fanatics say "What about all the lawsuits???", Joe Arpaio and his supporters don't get fazed.
The lawsuit filed by the New Times over the arrest of their reporters for illegally publishing sealed grand jury subpoenas has been thrown out by a Federal Judge.
Granted, it was reported in the East Valley Tribune, so there is a strong chance that they simply made this story up, but it was sent out on the AP wire, so it could be true, too. And a little more digging found the same story on the local Yuma News so it's starting to gain a little credibility.
The funny thing is, where is all our valley's news outlets coverage of this story? Lawsuits filed against Sheriff Joe make front page news within minutes.
But when those very same lawsuits are tossed out in the very early stages by a Federal Judge, there's suddenly no mention of it. If they ever do get up to speed, there might be a small article buried deep inside, on a Saturday.
Is it any wonder that Newspapers are failing, reporters are getting laid off, and nobody wants to read the lies anymore? You can't trust sleazy politicians like Dan Saban. You can't trust the Newspaper. We all knew you could never trust the New Times (unless you were looking for a screaming deal on a car stereo, or wanted to find the cheapest happy hour, or wanted to know where every single topless bar in the valley is).
What a sad, sad world we live in. Can't anyone just tell the truth???
The lawsuit filed by the New Times over the arrest of their reporters for illegally publishing sealed grand jury subpoenas has been thrown out by a Federal Judge.
Granted, it was reported in the East Valley Tribune, so there is a strong chance that they simply made this story up, but it was sent out on the AP wire, so it could be true, too. And a little more digging found the same story on the local Yuma News so it's starting to gain a little credibility.
The funny thing is, where is all our valley's news outlets coverage of this story? Lawsuits filed against Sheriff Joe make front page news within minutes.
But when those very same lawsuits are tossed out in the very early stages by a Federal Judge, there's suddenly no mention of it. If they ever do get up to speed, there might be a small article buried deep inside, on a Saturday.
Is it any wonder that Newspapers are failing, reporters are getting laid off, and nobody wants to read the lies anymore? You can't trust sleazy politicians like Dan Saban. You can't trust the Newspaper. We all knew you could never trust the New Times (unless you were looking for a screaming deal on a car stereo, or wanted to find the cheapest happy hour, or wanted to know where every single topless bar in the valley is).
What a sad, sad world we live in. Can't anyone just tell the truth???
Allege Racial Profiling or How to Twist the Truth
Racial profiling is one of those touchy issues that is difficult to have a conversation about. Like politics and religion, most people have decided how they feel, and trying to change someone's mind about it makes about as much sense as arguing the color of the sky, or trying to convince someone they're not in love. Do yourself a favor and clean your toenails. It's just as distasteful, but at least when you're done, you've accomplished something.
At the risk of completely wasting my time, I'll give it a go, anyway. I've never been known for keeping quiet, even when it would be smarter to be so.
Racial profiling makes for a real nice platform, since no one in their right mind is ever going to say "I think it's a good idea to pull over all those people with darker skin...you know they're guilty of something." This country has had it's fill of racist idiots, and thank God for that.
The problem with racial profiling is that it's no longer a cry of injustice, it's a the cry of a perpetrator who wants you think they are a victim. Victims elicit pity, and criminals love it when you feel sorry for them, instead of their victims. The important thing to do before we can really talk about it, though, is to define it.
But here comes trouble again. Who's definition shall we use? I'll go for the most liberal one I can find, just to avoid any possibility of being accused as a cop loving racist, to wit: the ACLU -
If you look closely, you can see why racial profiling is so difficult to prove. In order to prove racial profiling, you have to be able to show the intent of the officer making the stop before the stop is made. And when the officer can identify a violation of state law as the reason for the stop, it can be very difficult to argue that his real reason was something else or that the violation of state law is actually not a valid reason for stopping people.
You really can't argue that violations of state law shouldn't be stopped and investigated. If the law shouldn't be enforced, then what's the point of having the law? Should the law really just describe the society we'd like to have, or is it the society that we demand?
But when a person of color does get stopped, how convenient for them to declare their rights have been violated and the only reason for the stop was the color of their skin, and not the statute, be it civil or criminal, that they have violated.
Case in point: Today's front page/above the fold/huge headline in the Arizona Republic. Crime-sweep records raise suspicions of Racial Profiling
Inside, we find the story of young Jose Romero, a hard working American Citizen driving his landscaping truck away from the last job of the day. He gets pulled over by an unmarked Sheriff's patrol vehicle and his two passengers, one of whom is under 17, are arrested for violations of the open container law.
Jose says "He (the deputy who pulled him over) didn't want anything to do with me. Pretty much it was them (his two passengers) he was after". The article goes on to explain that Romero felt the deputy didn't arrest or ticket him because he spoke English and showed an Az driver's license.
Or maybe, the deputy didn't arrest or ticket him because he had not violated the law.
The Republic article which posts a synopsis online, also explains that the records of Arpaio's crime sweeps show a high number of latinos arrested. For some reason, and I really can't explain why, but I am not at all shocked that white people were not arrested for illegal immigration, but latinos were. Maybe I'm a racist and I don't know it, but when I think of Mexicans entering this country illegally, I'm not picturing a bunch of white people running across the desert in the middle of the night. Does that make me a bad person?
But here is why we have a problem. There is a Federal law for a non-citizens to be physically in the country without proper permission and documents. Is it racial profiling to admit that non-citizens from Mexico are not white?
To be clear: Racial profiling is absolutely WRONG. It is not just a violation of civil rights, it is unjustifiable and an affront to the American Way(tm). I'm no right wing "throw em all out" kind of person. I believe our constitution protects the rights of all people in this country, whether they are legally in the country or not. I hope no one would ever suggest that a person arrested for illegal immigration does not deserve competent defense or is not entitled to a speedy trial, or does not have the right to a trial by jury for crimes they are accused of. If we are to allow some of the constitution, we must allow ALL of the constitution.
Many people seem to think the principles this country are founded upon only apply to US citizens or that it is strictly a political document for US citizens only. I say NO! The US constitution is the American message to the rest of the world about what we value, about what is important, about what we stand for. We do not believe that all american men are created equal or that only americans are entitled to a pursuit of happiness. No, our Declaration of Independence, is what Americans believe is the right way to do it. All men are created equal and these rights are unalienable. Soldiers die for it...let's not demean it or make it less than what it is.
But this also does not mean that if you happen to be Latino or African American that everytime you get a ticket it's because your skin is dark. And if you get arrested and deported for illegal immigration, it's not because your skin is dark, IT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ENTER THE COUNTRY LEGALLY. I'm not going to bore you with census statistics, but there are more than just a couple LEGAL Mexican immigrants in this country, and specifically in Arizona. I can only conclude, based on this inarguable fact, that some immigrants have done it correctly, and surprisingly, they don't get deported. Nor do they get arrested for illegal immigration.
I may be going way out on a limb here, but it seems that the solution to not being deported or arrested for illegal immigration is to legally immigrate. This really isn't that hard, is it?
But back to the problem at hand...what would you have your police do, when you give them a law that you expect to be enforced, but the only violators of that law, happen to be a minority?
Arizona borders Mexico and so obviously the most illegal immigrants in Arizona are going to be Mexicans. But if the police stop a Mexican, or a Latino, or a person with tan skin, the first thing the media wants to say is "Racist!".
The republic article is very creative in it's presentation of the facts to lead a reader towards a similar conclusion. For example, they break the crime sweeps up and analyze each one independently, and then give you some numbers and some percentages. I'll let you in on a little secret: anytime you read a report that compares numbers and also compares percentages, somebody is hiding something. Always and only compare numbers with numbers and percentages with percentages, and if the report doesn't give you both, they're hiding something. They can't get the percentage unless they know both numbers, so why not share ALL the information, instead of just what slants the facts in a certain direction.
For example, based on only the republic report, there have been 8 total operations that have netted a total of 279 arrests. 132 of those arrests are immigration violations, 147 are arrests for other crimes. There were 111 traffic stops for which the republic decided are "high-discretionary" which they define as stops most cops wouldn't bother with, such as cracked windshields.
We don't get to know how many total stops there were, but I think it's safe to say there were at least 279, and probably closer to 400 or even 500. Any cop will tell you that you don't make an arrest out of every traffic stop, and actually it's closer to 1 in 10, even if you only consider "high-discretionary" stops. Why didn't the republic tell us how many stops there were in total?
Because they want the reader to believe that Arpaio's deputies are running around stopping Latinos for minor infractions; infractions that they would not be stopping white people for.
But what the numbers really show is that less than half the total arrests are for illegal immigrants, and barely 1/3 of the arrests resulted from a minor infraction stop. And lets not forget: minor infractions are violations of the law, none the less, and we expect our police to enforce those laws.
The best, and perhaps the most condemning statistic they report is the number of high discretionary stops compared to hispanic surnames, which attempts to show what percentage of traffic stops for minor infractions have hispanic drivers.
But the reasoning and logic for this number is completely false. If you read deeply into the article, which the republic knows most readers won't, you'll find that the MCSO does not keep statistics on vehicles stopped when no citation is given and no arrests are made. The republic only analyzed arrests made.
So for example in the first crime sweep the republic reports that 9 of 9 (100%) of high-discretionary stops have hispanic surnames. That sounds really bad. BUT the first crime sweep netted 21 arrests, 13 of which were for immigration. So in reality, 43% of the arrests made were hispanic surnames and had a high discretionary stop. But 100% sounds sooo much better doesn't it?
It seems like I have to say this way too much: if you have to distort the facts to prove a point, your point is weak.
In reality, 74 of 279 arrests have hispanic surnames and a high discretionary stop, which represents a grand total of 27%.
Does it sound like the MCSO is running around harrassing Latinos for stupid reasons, now?
The most disturbing part of this particular article though, is the statistics raised based on hispanic surname. What's a hispanic surname? Isn't it racial profiling to assume a person is Latino because they have a hispanic surname? One of my neighbors has a last name of Leon. Is that a hispanic surname?
The simple act of looking at a name such as Leon, and assuming the person is Latino is prejudice just like racial profiling is. What about names like Gonzales, Rodriquez, Sanchez? Are those names exculsively Latino? Maybe they are, but when is it ok to assume so?
At the risk of completely wasting my time, I'll give it a go, anyway. I've never been known for keeping quiet, even when it would be smarter to be so.
Racial profiling makes for a real nice platform, since no one in their right mind is ever going to say "I think it's a good idea to pull over all those people with darker skin...you know they're guilty of something." This country has had it's fill of racist idiots, and thank God for that.
The problem with racial profiling is that it's no longer a cry of injustice, it's a the cry of a perpetrator who wants you think they are a victim. Victims elicit pity, and criminals love it when you feel sorry for them, instead of their victims. The important thing to do before we can really talk about it, though, is to define it.
But here comes trouble again. Who's definition shall we use? I'll go for the most liberal one I can find, just to avoid any possibility of being accused as a cop loving racist, to wit: the ACLU -
Racial Profiling is any police or private security practice in which a person is treated as a suspect because of his or her race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. This occurs when police investigate, stop, frisk, search or use force against a person based on such characteristics instead of evidence of a person's criminal behavior. It often involves the stopping and searching of people of color for traffic violationsSource
If you look closely, you can see why racial profiling is so difficult to prove. In order to prove racial profiling, you have to be able to show the intent of the officer making the stop before the stop is made. And when the officer can identify a violation of state law as the reason for the stop, it can be very difficult to argue that his real reason was something else or that the violation of state law is actually not a valid reason for stopping people.
You really can't argue that violations of state law shouldn't be stopped and investigated. If the law shouldn't be enforced, then what's the point of having the law? Should the law really just describe the society we'd like to have, or is it the society that we demand?
But when a person of color does get stopped, how convenient for them to declare their rights have been violated and the only reason for the stop was the color of their skin, and not the statute, be it civil or criminal, that they have violated.
Case in point: Today's front page/above the fold/huge headline in the Arizona Republic. Crime-sweep records raise suspicions of Racial Profiling
Inside, we find the story of young Jose Romero, a hard working American Citizen driving his landscaping truck away from the last job of the day. He gets pulled over by an unmarked Sheriff's patrol vehicle and his two passengers, one of whom is under 17, are arrested for violations of the open container law.
Jose says "He (the deputy who pulled him over) didn't want anything to do with me. Pretty much it was them (his two passengers) he was after". The article goes on to explain that Romero felt the deputy didn't arrest or ticket him because he spoke English and showed an Az driver's license.
Or maybe, the deputy didn't arrest or ticket him because he had not violated the law.
The Republic article which posts a synopsis online, also explains that the records of Arpaio's crime sweeps show a high number of latinos arrested. For some reason, and I really can't explain why, but I am not at all shocked that white people were not arrested for illegal immigration, but latinos were. Maybe I'm a racist and I don't know it, but when I think of Mexicans entering this country illegally, I'm not picturing a bunch of white people running across the desert in the middle of the night. Does that make me a bad person?
But here is why we have a problem. There is a Federal law for a non-citizens to be physically in the country without proper permission and documents. Is it racial profiling to admit that non-citizens from Mexico are not white?
To be clear: Racial profiling is absolutely WRONG. It is not just a violation of civil rights, it is unjustifiable and an affront to the American Way(tm). I'm no right wing "throw em all out" kind of person. I believe our constitution protects the rights of all people in this country, whether they are legally in the country or not. I hope no one would ever suggest that a person arrested for illegal immigration does not deserve competent defense or is not entitled to a speedy trial, or does not have the right to a trial by jury for crimes they are accused of. If we are to allow some of the constitution, we must allow ALL of the constitution.
Many people seem to think the principles this country are founded upon only apply to US citizens or that it is strictly a political document for US citizens only. I say NO! The US constitution is the American message to the rest of the world about what we value, about what is important, about what we stand for. We do not believe that all american men are created equal or that only americans are entitled to a pursuit of happiness. No, our Declaration of Independence, is what Americans believe is the right way to do it. All men are created equal and these rights are unalienable. Soldiers die for it...let's not demean it or make it less than what it is.
But this also does not mean that if you happen to be Latino or African American that everytime you get a ticket it's because your skin is dark. And if you get arrested and deported for illegal immigration, it's not because your skin is dark, IT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ENTER THE COUNTRY LEGALLY. I'm not going to bore you with census statistics, but there are more than just a couple LEGAL Mexican immigrants in this country, and specifically in Arizona. I can only conclude, based on this inarguable fact, that some immigrants have done it correctly, and surprisingly, they don't get deported. Nor do they get arrested for illegal immigration.
I may be going way out on a limb here, but it seems that the solution to not being deported or arrested for illegal immigration is to legally immigrate. This really isn't that hard, is it?
But back to the problem at hand...what would you have your police do, when you give them a law that you expect to be enforced, but the only violators of that law, happen to be a minority?
Arizona borders Mexico and so obviously the most illegal immigrants in Arizona are going to be Mexicans. But if the police stop a Mexican, or a Latino, or a person with tan skin, the first thing the media wants to say is "Racist!".
The republic article is very creative in it's presentation of the facts to lead a reader towards a similar conclusion. For example, they break the crime sweeps up and analyze each one independently, and then give you some numbers and some percentages. I'll let you in on a little secret: anytime you read a report that compares numbers and also compares percentages, somebody is hiding something. Always and only compare numbers with numbers and percentages with percentages, and if the report doesn't give you both, they're hiding something. They can't get the percentage unless they know both numbers, so why not share ALL the information, instead of just what slants the facts in a certain direction.
For example, based on only the republic report, there have been 8 total operations that have netted a total of 279 arrests. 132 of those arrests are immigration violations, 147 are arrests for other crimes. There were 111 traffic stops for which the republic decided are "high-discretionary" which they define as stops most cops wouldn't bother with, such as cracked windshields.
We don't get to know how many total stops there were, but I think it's safe to say there were at least 279, and probably closer to 400 or even 500. Any cop will tell you that you don't make an arrest out of every traffic stop, and actually it's closer to 1 in 10, even if you only consider "high-discretionary" stops. Why didn't the republic tell us how many stops there were in total?
Because they want the reader to believe that Arpaio's deputies are running around stopping Latinos for minor infractions; infractions that they would not be stopping white people for.
But what the numbers really show is that less than half the total arrests are for illegal immigrants, and barely 1/3 of the arrests resulted from a minor infraction stop. And lets not forget: minor infractions are violations of the law, none the less, and we expect our police to enforce those laws.
The best, and perhaps the most condemning statistic they report is the number of high discretionary stops compared to hispanic surnames, which attempts to show what percentage of traffic stops for minor infractions have hispanic drivers.
But the reasoning and logic for this number is completely false. If you read deeply into the article, which the republic knows most readers won't, you'll find that the MCSO does not keep statistics on vehicles stopped when no citation is given and no arrests are made. The republic only analyzed arrests made.
So for example in the first crime sweep the republic reports that 9 of 9 (100%) of high-discretionary stops have hispanic surnames. That sounds really bad. BUT the first crime sweep netted 21 arrests, 13 of which were for immigration. So in reality, 43% of the arrests made were hispanic surnames and had a high discretionary stop. But 100% sounds sooo much better doesn't it?
It seems like I have to say this way too much: if you have to distort the facts to prove a point, your point is weak.
In reality, 74 of 279 arrests have hispanic surnames and a high discretionary stop, which represents a grand total of 27%.
Does it sound like the MCSO is running around harrassing Latinos for stupid reasons, now?
The most disturbing part of this particular article though, is the statistics raised based on hispanic surname. What's a hispanic surname? Isn't it racial profiling to assume a person is Latino because they have a hispanic surname? One of my neighbors has a last name of Leon. Is that a hispanic surname?
The simple act of looking at a name such as Leon, and assuming the person is Latino is prejudice just like racial profiling is. What about names like Gonzales, Rodriquez, Sanchez? Are those names exculsively Latino? Maybe they are, but when is it ok to assume so?
Dan Saban just can't stop with the lies
The internet is such an interesting thing. I don't know if it's a place, or just some electrical impulses, or a series of tubes, but it has changed the world as we know it. Anyone can get on their soapbox in complete anonymity and say whatever they want to say. You've heard it before, and I'll say it again, don't believe what you read on the internet. It's not that it's always false, but you should be able to independently verify any facts presented, and if an author shows a pattern of disregarding the truth, I would recommend you disregard them.
Hopefully you don't miss the irony of reading this on the internet. That is why the truth is so important here. And if you find anything that you cannot verify, please leave a comment so that it can be addressed or deleted. If anything posted on this website is found to be false, you, dear reader, have my promise that it will be deleted, and a retraction posted in it's place.
Too bad Dan Saban doesn't feel that way. I'm starting to think that Dan Saban has lived his whole life in a web of lies and is no longer able to tell what is truth and what is fiction. According to the Arizona Republic, in an article linked below, Saban told the Buckeye city manager that he did not have intercourse with his foster mother, Ruby Norman, when he had already, just a few months before, told the press that she had raped him. Why would you think you can just change your story whenever you want, and people will still have some faith in your credibility???
Whatever that reason might be, it somehow gained validity in the mind of Dan Saban.
I found this relatively new blog just today: Phoenix Central Politics. It is supposedly geared toward the residents of central phoenix, and will talk about the political issues germane to that area. It seems like the only political issues they care about so far is Dan Saban, though. Out of 5 total posts so far, 3 are about Dan Saban.
And today's post is actually titled "Saban for Sheriff Campaign outraises Arpaio". But yesterday, the Arizona Republic reported just the opposite, that Arpaio had significantly out raised Saban. Who's telling the truth??? Well, my early money would be on the Republic, even though they don't exactly have the best record of truth, I'd trust them over a random, brand new blog on the web. Luckily, though, we don't have to take anyone's word for it. The campaign finance reports are public record, and avaialble on the internet at the maricopa county recorder's website.
According to the actual campaign finance reports filed by both Saban and Arpaio, Sheriff Joe raised over $91,000 and Saban raised $38,000. Now, I'm no math professor, but I'm pretty sure $91,000 is bigger than $38,000.
And this blog quotes Saban campaign manager, Bill Perry, as saying this is the second time in a row Saban has outraised Arpaio. Either Phoenix Central Politics is just completely fabricated fantasy and nobody ever spoke to Saban's campaign, or Dan Saban's campaign manager hasn't made it to kindergarten yet. To be fair, the blog does not say how old Bill Perry is.
But then the blog quotes Dan Saban as saying "We fully expect Arpaio to continue his campaign of lies and deceit". I hope this is inaccurate, but this one is consistent with Saban's other statements blaming Arpaio for the ads aired by the Republican party. And even if Arpaio had anything to do with them, they have already been shown to be true.
Why is Saban so afraid to admit the truth? What else is he lying about? How can we possibly trust him?
I hope anyone who votes for him can answer those questions, and if any of you would care to share those reasons here, I'd really like to see how a vote for Saban can be even remotely justified.
Hopefully you don't miss the irony of reading this on the internet. That is why the truth is so important here. And if you find anything that you cannot verify, please leave a comment so that it can be addressed or deleted. If anything posted on this website is found to be false, you, dear reader, have my promise that it will be deleted, and a retraction posted in it's place.
Too bad Dan Saban doesn't feel that way. I'm starting to think that Dan Saban has lived his whole life in a web of lies and is no longer able to tell what is truth and what is fiction. According to the Arizona Republic, in an article linked below, Saban told the Buckeye city manager that he did not have intercourse with his foster mother, Ruby Norman, when he had already, just a few months before, told the press that she had raped him. Why would you think you can just change your story whenever you want, and people will still have some faith in your credibility???
Whatever that reason might be, it somehow gained validity in the mind of Dan Saban.
I found this relatively new blog just today: Phoenix Central Politics. It is supposedly geared toward the residents of central phoenix, and will talk about the political issues germane to that area. It seems like the only political issues they care about so far is Dan Saban, though. Out of 5 total posts so far, 3 are about Dan Saban.
And today's post is actually titled "Saban for Sheriff Campaign outraises Arpaio". But yesterday, the Arizona Republic reported just the opposite, that Arpaio had significantly out raised Saban. Who's telling the truth??? Well, my early money would be on the Republic, even though they don't exactly have the best record of truth, I'd trust them over a random, brand new blog on the web. Luckily, though, we don't have to take anyone's word for it. The campaign finance reports are public record, and avaialble on the internet at the maricopa county recorder's website.
According to the actual campaign finance reports filed by both Saban and Arpaio, Sheriff Joe raised over $91,000 and Saban raised $38,000. Now, I'm no math professor, but I'm pretty sure $91,000 is bigger than $38,000.
And this blog quotes Saban campaign manager, Bill Perry, as saying this is the second time in a row Saban has outraised Arpaio. Either Phoenix Central Politics is just completely fabricated fantasy and nobody ever spoke to Saban's campaign, or Dan Saban's campaign manager hasn't made it to kindergarten yet. To be fair, the blog does not say how old Bill Perry is.
But then the blog quotes Dan Saban as saying "We fully expect Arpaio to continue his campaign of lies and deceit". I hope this is inaccurate, but this one is consistent with Saban's other statements blaming Arpaio for the ads aired by the Republican party. And even if Arpaio had anything to do with them, they have already been shown to be true.
Why is Saban so afraid to admit the truth? What else is he lying about? How can we possibly trust him?
I hope anyone who votes for him can answer those questions, and if any of you would care to share those reasons here, I'd really like to see how a vote for Saban can be even remotely justified.
The TRUTH about Dan Saban's lies
Finally, FINALLY, there's an honest reporter out there.
JJ Hensley, of the Arizona Republic wrote a story today, 10/4/2008, that explains all the statements in the hotly debated ads raising strong character questions about Dan Saban.
Rather than bore you with my own critiques, I think it's best to just let the reader decide for themselves.
Ad Against Saban elicits strong response, by JJ Hensley
Feel free to tell me what you think, now that the real truth is out. No comments are ever blocked or deleted, unless they are spam.
JJ Hensley, of the Arizona Republic wrote a story today, 10/4/2008, that explains all the statements in the hotly debated ads raising strong character questions about Dan Saban.
Rather than bore you with my own critiques, I think it's best to just let the reader decide for themselves.
Ad Against Saban elicits strong response, by JJ Hensley
Feel free to tell me what you think, now that the real truth is out. No comments are ever blocked or deleted, unless they are spam.
You be the judge
Decide for yourself if the statements are true. As shocking as it may be, the voters have a right to know.
Dan Saban: Pathetic Whining LIAR
This story just keeps getting worse and worse for Dan Saban. First the ads, paid for by the Republican Party, air on TV stating that he
The media's bias against Arpaio has never been more evident than what we've seen in the last couple days. Read the three allegations in the ad again, and then see what Saban's response is:
"Joe Arpaio called me a rapist"
OK, let's get something strait here. First, it's the Republican Party, not Joe Arpaio, and second, there's not a single mention of anyone being a rapist. This kind of grandiose exaggeration of the facts is just what you might expect from someone who is hiding something.
And so, Dan Saban, thinking he is the smart guy, goes on KTAR to talk about it, and tells host Darrell Ankarlo that he
Dan Saban calls Joe Arpaio a liar and a coward, but Joe didn't lie, and neither did the ad.
This is more than just obvious, but respected journalists such as EJ Montini want to know where the outrage is. The outrage over the truth in the ad, or Dan Saban's continual lies? Actually, neither...EJ wants there to be outrage over bringing up old allegations that have been already investigated. I guess if EJ's selection for the next sheriff lies about the content of that investigation, it's ok, because Saban isn't a rapist, he's just a liar.
Maybe EJ has just given up, since all we usually see from a politician is lies, so what difference does it make to have another one? Maybe EJ thinks it's ok to have a sheriff that stands for "truth and justice" but actually practices neither.
Maybe EJ Montini needs to pull his head out of his ass.
- mislead a government agency about a rape investigation
- was investigated for exposing himself to a child
- masturbated while on duty when he was a deputy sheriff
The media's bias against Arpaio has never been more evident than what we've seen in the last couple days. Read the three allegations in the ad again, and then see what Saban's response is:
"Joe Arpaio called me a rapist"
OK, let's get something strait here. First, it's the Republican Party, not Joe Arpaio, and second, there's not a single mention of anyone being a rapist. This kind of grandiose exaggeration of the facts is just what you might expect from someone who is hiding something.
And so, Dan Saban, thinking he is the smart guy, goes on KTAR to talk about it, and tells host Darrell Ankarlo that he
- mislead a government agency in a rape investigation (when he initially denied it, and later called it rape)
- investigated for exposing himself to a child (when a story was told as a joke at a party in which Saban exposed himself to a child...pretty funny joke, huh?)
- masturbated on duty when he was a deputy sheriff (when he was 20 years old, working as a reserve deputy, while at home for a coffee break...guess he just couldn't wait to rub one out)
Dan Saban calls Joe Arpaio a liar and a coward, but Joe didn't lie, and neither did the ad.
This is more than just obvious, but respected journalists such as EJ Montini want to know where the outrage is. The outrage over the truth in the ad, or Dan Saban's continual lies? Actually, neither...EJ wants there to be outrage over bringing up old allegations that have been already investigated. I guess if EJ's selection for the next sheriff lies about the content of that investigation, it's ok, because Saban isn't a rapist, he's just a liar.
Maybe EJ has just given up, since all we usually see from a politician is lies, so what difference does it make to have another one? Maybe EJ thinks it's ok to have a sheriff that stands for "truth and justice" but actually practices neither.
Maybe EJ Montini needs to pull his head out of his ass.
Dan Saban: LIAR
Some rather racy political ads ran on TV last night, and Dan Saban spoke out about them at a news conference today.
The commercial aired during one of my favorite shows, Law and Order SVU (just a bit ironic, isn't it?) and made 3 points about emerging concerns about Dan Saban. Those concerns are
The ad was paid for by Arizonans for Public Safety with major funding by the Republican Party. Channel 12 news shows Sheriff Arpaio commenting that this was an independent expenditure committee, and has nothing to do with him. (see the video at the link above)
And during the press conference, Dan Saban called Joe Arpaio a coward and a liar.
Not to be too invasive into a sensitive issue here, but I really don't care about allegations of rape from so many years ago once it has been investigated by a competent authority and no charges were filed. What I care about is lying to a government agency, exposing yourself to a child and masturbating on duty which is what the ad actually said.
But Dan Saban has nothing to say about those allegations.
Interestingly, Joe Dana, the channel 12 reporter who covered the story, only focuses on what Saban made up out of thin air at the press conference, that the ad somehow focuses on the rape allegation, rather than what the ad actually said: Saban lied about the rape INVESTIGATION to the government. Channel 15 News is obviously not biased against Arpaio, and their investigation actually shows parts of the commercial, including the introductory remark that clearly says nothing about anyone being a rapist.
Dan Saban also has nothing to say about the source of the allegations: his own deposition from a lawsuit that he, himself, filed.
If Dan Saban is going to call Joe Arpaio a liar and a coward, I would hope that he would have something to back that claim up. "Coward" you might be able to get away with as an opinion, since we all know what opinions are like, and how everyone has one and they all stink. But liar? That's a little more serious.
Even more serious is the allegation that Joe Arpaio sponsored these ads, or even knew about them. That would be a serious criminal violation of campaign finance laws, which demands proof before an accusation. For Arpaio to call me a rapist... Saban is clearly alleging that Arpaio sponsored these ads, although the ads never do call him a rapist.
I'll be expecting the criminal complaint to be coming any time now... Or not.
This is Saban's modus operandi. Hide the truth, and make up a sensational story to draw the attention of those who are unable, or unwilling, to look any deeper. Its a classic jerky move. Like perfume on a turd, or fake tits on a grandma. It might look nice for a while, but sooner or later the stink will come out and everything starts to sag again.
Dan Saban, the perenial liar and fraud, can now add hypocrite to his ever growing list of accomplishments. At the end of the commercial, it cuts to the video of the deposition. The interviewer ask Dan Saban "So, you were being untruthful when asked about any acts you committed that could have been a felony?" to which Saban replies "I believe so, yes".
From Saban's own lips come his admission that he lied. There doesn't get any better proof than that. Now, Mr. lying masturbator wants to call Joe Arpaio a coward and a liar??? People in glass houses should not throw stones there, Mr. untruthful. Now, the Republican party cited it's source of Dan Saban's own deposition and showed video of Saban himself saying that he was untruthful on acts that he may have commited being felonies. So where's Saban's proof?
There is none.
Anyone who flusters up as much as this guy, and makes up stories to divert attention away from the real issues (like lying, masturbating on duty and exposing yourself to children) doesn't ever have a grain of truth or justice in him. This is classic misdirection and manipulation, and at least so far, Joe Dana is in on it, too.
Too bad this truth and justice tour doesn't hand out any samples. Saban could really use some at this point.
The commercial aired during one of my favorite shows, Law and Order SVU (just a bit ironic, isn't it?) and made 3 points about emerging concerns about Dan Saban. Those concerns are
- Dan Saban misled a government agency about a rape investigation
- Dan Saban was investigated for exposing himself to a child
- Dan Saban masturbated while on duty as a deputy sheriff
The ad was paid for by Arizonans for Public Safety with major funding by the Republican Party. Channel 12 news shows Sheriff Arpaio commenting that this was an independent expenditure committee, and has nothing to do with him. (see the video at the link above)
And during the press conference, Dan Saban called Joe Arpaio a coward and a liar.
"for Arpaio to call me a rapist when he knows I was the victim of child abuse is a cowardly lie."And you know what? It sure would be cowardly to do that, but Joe Arpaio never did. Neither did the commercial. Nobody ever said Dan Saban was a rapist. The commercial said that Dan Saban lied about a rape investigation to a government agency. I can only guess, but I can't imagine any other government agency asking about the rape investigation, other than the town of Buckeye, which would have conducted a background investigation before hiring Saban 4 years ago.
Not to be too invasive into a sensitive issue here, but I really don't care about allegations of rape from so many years ago once it has been investigated by a competent authority and no charges were filed. What I care about is lying to a government agency, exposing yourself to a child and masturbating on duty which is what the ad actually said.
But Dan Saban has nothing to say about those allegations.
Interestingly, Joe Dana, the channel 12 reporter who covered the story, only focuses on what Saban made up out of thin air at the press conference, that the ad somehow focuses on the rape allegation, rather than what the ad actually said: Saban lied about the rape INVESTIGATION to the government. Channel 15 News is obviously not biased against Arpaio, and their investigation actually shows parts of the commercial, including the introductory remark that clearly says nothing about anyone being a rapist.
Dan Saban also has nothing to say about the source of the allegations: his own deposition from a lawsuit that he, himself, filed.
If Dan Saban is going to call Joe Arpaio a liar and a coward, I would hope that he would have something to back that claim up. "Coward" you might be able to get away with as an opinion, since we all know what opinions are like, and how everyone has one and they all stink. But liar? That's a little more serious.
Even more serious is the allegation that Joe Arpaio sponsored these ads, or even knew about them. That would be a serious criminal violation of campaign finance laws, which demands proof before an accusation. For Arpaio to call me a rapist... Saban is clearly alleging that Arpaio sponsored these ads, although the ads never do call him a rapist.
I'll be expecting the criminal complaint to be coming any time now... Or not.
This is Saban's modus operandi. Hide the truth, and make up a sensational story to draw the attention of those who are unable, or unwilling, to look any deeper. Its a classic jerky move. Like perfume on a turd, or fake tits on a grandma. It might look nice for a while, but sooner or later the stink will come out and everything starts to sag again.
Dan Saban, the perenial liar and fraud, can now add hypocrite to his ever growing list of accomplishments. At the end of the commercial, it cuts to the video of the deposition. The interviewer ask Dan Saban "So, you were being untruthful when asked about any acts you committed that could have been a felony?" to which Saban replies "I believe so, yes".
From Saban's own lips come his admission that he lied. There doesn't get any better proof than that. Now, Mr. lying masturbator wants to call Joe Arpaio a coward and a liar??? People in glass houses should not throw stones there, Mr. untruthful. Now, the Republican party cited it's source of Dan Saban's own deposition and showed video of Saban himself saying that he was untruthful on acts that he may have commited being felonies. So where's Saban's proof?
There is none.
Anyone who flusters up as much as this guy, and makes up stories to divert attention away from the real issues (like lying, masturbating on duty and exposing yourself to children) doesn't ever have a grain of truth or justice in him. This is classic misdirection and manipulation, and at least so far, Joe Dana is in on it, too.
Too bad this truth and justice tour doesn't hand out any samples. Saban could really use some at this point.
Dan Saban's backbone
We got a nice close up look at Dan Saban's backbone yesterday when he decided to throw his hat in the ring over the Guadalupe hoopla where Sheriff Joe says he'll cancel his contract with the town if the town tries to interfere with his legitimate enforcement actions.
Somehow believing that this strategy will win him votes, Dan Saban issued a press release according to Politickeraz.com which states, in part:
Enter the "lawman" Dan Saban, who "strongly disagrees" with Sheriff Joe. JerkyDan insinuates in his press release the Sheriff Joe will leave the town without law enforcement services, but that is not at all what this is really about. I suppose jerkydan could be more stupid that I originally thought, but I'm thinking (hoping) that he would know a little bit about the job he is pining for, to wit: the sheriff's office covers the areas of the county that do not have law enforcement services.
Why would the town pay for services then, you might ask? Because they want to have a guarantee that there will be a patrol car in their town at all times. If you lived in a county area, and wanted to band together a bunch of homeowners and pay for a deputies salary, you could have the same thing. But the mayor of Guadalupe (who has since been recalled) who votes to authorize this contract, wants to be able to tell the Sheriff what laws he can enforce and what laws he can't enforce.
If you know Sheriff Joe Arpaio at all, you know that it's just not a good idea to filibuster the man. He doesn't take it well. He especially doesn't take it well when some two-bit politico with a political agenda gets in the way of enforcing the law. Nope. No can do. Sheriff Joe is the elected head law enforcement official in the county, and some democrat open border mayor is not going to stop him from enforcing the law.
So Joe puts the loud mouth mayor in her place, and tells her that HE will decide when to conduct crime sweeps in Guadalupe, not her. HE is the law enforcement official, not her. And if she doesn't like it, well then, she can find herself another police department to push around.
And Dan Saban steps up to volunteer.
So if you want a spineless, lying, no count, do nothing, chair warmer to be your sheriff, then, by all means, vote for Dan Saban. He wants to lobby, he wants to partner, he wants to "build relationships", he thinks that voters are so dumb, they'll fall for any old string of buzzwords, and not even see through his thinly veiled true intentions. If the "American Lawman" Dan Saban gets to be sheriff, and some small town mayor tells him to get out of town...Saban will just roll over and show his belly.
But if you want a man who will not back down, who will not be pushed around by small town, big dreams mayors (or big town, big dream mayors either, for that matter), who will actually ENFORCE THE LAW, then your vote can only be for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the ONE man in this town who is actually doing the job we pay him to do.
Somehow believing that this strategy will win him votes, Dan Saban issued a press release according to Politickeraz.com which states, in part:
"I strongly disagree with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office actions against the Town of Guadalupe... Mr. Arpaio got his feelings hurt in a confrontation with the Town’s Mayor that took place in front of the media and now he wants to punish this small community by denying them law enforcement protection. That is wrong!""What this means to those who don't really understand what is going on here, is that Sheriff Joe went into Guadalupe, a town that pays MCSO for law enforcement services, to conduct one of his now famous "crime sweeps". The mayor of Guadalupe was so furious at Sheriff Joe for coming into "her" town and arresting illegal aliens for violating Arizona State Law, that she whined and cried all over the news about how Joe is such a bully. So, Sheriff Joe tells her, fine, you don't want real law enforcement in Guadalupe, you can find yourself another police department. Oh, and Good luck.
Enter the "lawman" Dan Saban, who "strongly disagrees" with Sheriff Joe. JerkyDan insinuates in his press release the Sheriff Joe will leave the town without law enforcement services, but that is not at all what this is really about. I suppose jerkydan could be more stupid that I originally thought, but I'm thinking (hoping) that he would know a little bit about the job he is pining for, to wit: the sheriff's office covers the areas of the county that do not have law enforcement services.
Why would the town pay for services then, you might ask? Because they want to have a guarantee that there will be a patrol car in their town at all times. If you lived in a county area, and wanted to band together a bunch of homeowners and pay for a deputies salary, you could have the same thing. But the mayor of Guadalupe (who has since been recalled) who votes to authorize this contract, wants to be able to tell the Sheriff what laws he can enforce and what laws he can't enforce.
If you know Sheriff Joe Arpaio at all, you know that it's just not a good idea to filibuster the man. He doesn't take it well. He especially doesn't take it well when some two-bit politico with a political agenda gets in the way of enforcing the law. Nope. No can do. Sheriff Joe is the elected head law enforcement official in the county, and some democrat open border mayor is not going to stop him from enforcing the law.
So Joe puts the loud mouth mayor in her place, and tells her that HE will decide when to conduct crime sweeps in Guadalupe, not her. HE is the law enforcement official, not her. And if she doesn't like it, well then, she can find herself another police department to push around.
And Dan Saban steps up to volunteer.
So if you want a spineless, lying, no count, do nothing, chair warmer to be your sheriff, then, by all means, vote for Dan Saban. He wants to lobby, he wants to partner, he wants to "build relationships", he thinks that voters are so dumb, they'll fall for any old string of buzzwords, and not even see through his thinly veiled true intentions. If the "American Lawman" Dan Saban gets to be sheriff, and some small town mayor tells him to get out of town...Saban will just roll over and show his belly.
But if you want a man who will not back down, who will not be pushed around by small town, big dreams mayors (or big town, big dream mayors either, for that matter), who will actually ENFORCE THE LAW, then your vote can only be for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the ONE man in this town who is actually doing the job we pay him to do.
Dan Saban's "Plan"
According to jerkydan, and this is a direct quote:
Oh, yeah. They have. Every single one of them, actually. Isn't this what they all say? I know, I know...the check is in the mail.
Well, let's take a look at this plan, anyway, just to see what ol' Dan has to say.
Um...there is no "smart on crime plan". I guess he means his "Countywide Public Safety Initiative". Oooh. That sounds niiiice. I like initiative.
Let's see....oh, goody...it's a 10 point plan. That's a lot. It must be good.
Create community partners in County Islands.
Great idea, but I think they call those contract cities, and they usually have a city council. You won't have to create anything. It's already there.
Establish a county wide approach to eliminate gangs.
Another great idea, but your plan calls for sending deputies to join GITEM. Isn't that a county wide approach to eliminate gangs? I thought you were going to establish one. Or is that just the next power word on the list?
Revive the Warrant service unit
Nice idea, but then you're going to send away more deputies to the FBI fugitive task force? How does sending deputies away revive anything?
Facilitate the collaboration of critical data sharing process
What the hell? Does that sentence actually say anything? So, Dan's gonna help people get together to share important information. Can you share it without getting together? Why do you think they need your help to get together? Aren't they already together?
This means you're going to ask for a briefing, doesn't it?
Why not just say you want a briefing instead of coming up with all these cheap, meaningless, tired old buzz words from the phrase book?
Speaking of which, what the hell does this mean:
And this doesn't say anything at all about how you're planning to accomplish this lofty goal. You might as well say that you're going to fly to the moon.
Promote the need for communications interoperability
You mean like Homeland Security has been doing for the last 8 years? I thought this was about initiative? Is anything going to be initiated? And what does it mean to "promote the need". Are you going to tell everyone that it's a really good idea that everyone talks together? Didn't this just get covered in the point above? You can stand on the corner and shout to fulfill this point.
When is the saving money and making it safer part?
This is just getting redundant. There is nothing in here at all that saves money or makes anyone safer. How can any literate man say that there is?
And what about the last one:
Create a regional public safety council
What good is that going to do? Another meeting during the day, when you should be planning, or saving money, or fighting crime in real time, or some kind of sheriff thing? You want to sit at the head of the table, don't you jerkydan.
This is just misleading. No money savings. No increase in effectiveness, other than to say it is desirable. Well, No kidding.
A plan is about what you're going to do. This is a Christmas wish list, not a plan.
Send it to Santa.
My smart on crime plan will protect you and your family at great cost savings.Well, thank goodness! It's about time we had a politician who would protect us AND save us money. I wonder why none of the other politicians have tried this before?
Oh, yeah. They have. Every single one of them, actually. Isn't this what they all say? I know, I know...the check is in the mail.
Well, let's take a look at this plan, anyway, just to see what ol' Dan has to say.
Um...there is no "smart on crime plan". I guess he means his "Countywide Public Safety Initiative". Oooh. That sounds niiiice. I like initiative.
Let's see....oh, goody...it's a 10 point plan. That's a lot. It must be good.
Create community partners in County Islands.
Great idea, but I think they call those contract cities, and they usually have a city council. You won't have to create anything. It's already there.
Establish a county wide approach to eliminate gangs.
Another great idea, but your plan calls for sending deputies to join GITEM. Isn't that a county wide approach to eliminate gangs? I thought you were going to establish one. Or is that just the next power word on the list?
Revive the Warrant service unit
Nice idea, but then you're going to send away more deputies to the FBI fugitive task force? How does sending deputies away revive anything?
Facilitate the collaboration of critical data sharing process
What the hell? Does that sentence actually say anything? So, Dan's gonna help people get together to share important information. Can you share it without getting together? Why do you think they need your help to get together? Aren't they already together?
This means you're going to ask for a briefing, doesn't it?
Why not just say you want a briefing instead of coming up with all these cheap, meaningless, tired old buzz words from the phrase book?
Speaking of which, what the hell does this mean:
increase police operational effectiveness and efficiencies in fighting crime in real timeCan you fight crime in any other time than "real" time?
And this doesn't say anything at all about how you're planning to accomplish this lofty goal. You might as well say that you're going to fly to the moon.
Promote the need for communications interoperability
You mean like Homeland Security has been doing for the last 8 years? I thought this was about initiative? Is anything going to be initiated? And what does it mean to "promote the need". Are you going to tell everyone that it's a really good idea that everyone talks together? Didn't this just get covered in the point above? You can stand on the corner and shout to fulfill this point.
When is the saving money and making it safer part?
This is just getting redundant. There is nothing in here at all that saves money or makes anyone safer. How can any literate man say that there is?
And what about the last one:
Create a regional public safety council
What good is that going to do? Another meeting during the day, when you should be planning, or saving money, or fighting crime in real time, or some kind of sheriff thing? You want to sit at the head of the table, don't you jerkydan.
This is just misleading. No money savings. No increase in effectiveness, other than to say it is desirable. Well, No kidding.
A plan is about what you're going to do. This is a Christmas wish list, not a plan.
Send it to Santa.
Jail deaths
I don't believe there is ever an acceptable reason for an inmate to die while in custody, unless it's of old age. There is no question that it is a tragedy. But the sad fact is that people die. They die in jail and they die out of jail. It doesn't make it ok, but neither is claiming a jail is mismanaged or is violating standards of decency because 15 inmates have died in custody over 15 years.
But that doesn't stop Dan Saban from saying it's wrong.
From that same article in KCAL, the CBS affiliate in Los Angeles, that cited the costs of LA county jail lawsuits, we find that 6 inmates died in custody over the past year alone, resulting in $5.6 million in payouts. 6 in one year, compared to MCSO's average of 1 per year.
If Saban wants to use this statistic to insinuate that Arpaio is mismanaging his jail, I suppose the argument could be made. But then again, it would only be reasonable that this argument would be applied to all the other Sheriff's, too, especially the LA county Sheriff, who had 6 times the number of deaths, just last year.
Being such a stand up guy and with all the truth and justice he keeps screaming about, I'm expecting a statement from Dan Saban any day now calling for the resignation of every sheriff in the country who has had 1 inmate per year (or more) die while in custody. And while he's at it, he should call for the resignation of every sheriff in the country who has been sued by the ACLU for inhumane treatment of inmates and human rights violations. Add to that list all the sheriffs who have paid out more than $42 million in lawsuits over the past 16 years, and I think you'd have every single sheriff of a metropolitan county accounted for, as well as most of the smaller ones, too.
But Dan doesn't want all those sheriffs to resign. He only wants one. The one who holds the office he so jealously craves. The one who beat him so soundly in the last election and bruised his ego. The one who maintains his popularity, despite all those dirty tricks.
If it wasn't for the mustache, I would swear Dan Saban was in junior high.
Maybe he just hit puberty early?
But that doesn't stop Dan Saban from saying it's wrong.
From that same article in KCAL, the CBS affiliate in Los Angeles, that cited the costs of LA county jail lawsuits, we find that 6 inmates died in custody over the past year alone, resulting in $5.6 million in payouts. 6 in one year, compared to MCSO's average of 1 per year.
If Saban wants to use this statistic to insinuate that Arpaio is mismanaging his jail, I suppose the argument could be made. But then again, it would only be reasonable that this argument would be applied to all the other Sheriff's, too, especially the LA county Sheriff, who had 6 times the number of deaths, just last year.
Being such a stand up guy and with all the truth and justice he keeps screaming about, I'm expecting a statement from Dan Saban any day now calling for the resignation of every sheriff in the country who has had 1 inmate per year (or more) die while in custody. And while he's at it, he should call for the resignation of every sheriff in the country who has been sued by the ACLU for inhumane treatment of inmates and human rights violations. Add to that list all the sheriffs who have paid out more than $42 million in lawsuits over the past 16 years, and I think you'd have every single sheriff of a metropolitan county accounted for, as well as most of the smaller ones, too.
But Dan doesn't want all those sheriffs to resign. He only wants one. The one who holds the office he so jealously craves. The one who beat him so soundly in the last election and bruised his ego. The one who maintains his popularity, despite all those dirty tricks.
If it wasn't for the mustache, I would swear Dan Saban was in junior high.
Maybe he just hit puberty early?
Twisted
Here's how stuff gets twisted:
From a new times article-
Notice how the reporter calls it "Arpaio's jail". It's a sneaky way to make you think that Arpaio is to blame, without actually saying it. If it said "Maricopa County jail lawsuits amount to 41 million, which included Correctional Health as well as Arpaio's Sheriff's Office" it would also be true. But "Arpaio's jail" is so much easier to write and it saves word space and we all know how the New Times always tries to conserve word space in it's articles.
Might they be biased against Apaio, trying to slant the reader to a particular point of view?
Naaaaah.
Until they start comparing the figures. Throw some math out there, confuse the reader (who's any good at math nowadays? isn't that what calculators are for?), and then draw a conclusion that is unsupported by the facts, but just act like it all ties up nice. Do they teach this formula at journalism school?
LA County had $100 million in lawsuits over the past 5 years and they try to compare it to Arpaio's $43.2 million over the past 16 years. For any real comparison, you can only compare the totals from the last 5 years, OR the last 16 years for both. Not one or the other.
And why don't they do that? Obviously because the numbers don't come out in their favor, that's why.
This is not even considering that Arpaio reports only $30 million in lawsuits, not $43 million. Maricopa County has a population of 3.8 million and LA county is at 10.3 million. Maybe not a big difference, but it's not 3 times the size. They like to say 3 times the size because it is easy and natural to triple Arpaio's number in your head to make the comparison. But they forget to include that they already more than tripled the number of years for Arpaio. This effectively triples Arpaio's number twice. And it makes him look bad, so it must be ok.
You should also wonder what wisdom, if any, was used to make the comparison of county population to lawsuit payouts. How do those two numbers correlate? Each state has their own laws and procedures, so if Arizona houses more inmates in county jails, the population numbers are meaningless, unless they are jail population numbers. When comparing just the two jails, which is what we're doing with lawsuits, we should just compare the jail populations, too. MCSO has about 10,000 inmates, LA County has 20,000. It's not triple. It's double.
So a fair comparison, using only the numbers reported by new times (which are not likely accurate), LA County had $100 million in lawsuits over 5 years. MCSO with half the population in the jail should have had half the lawsuits or $50 million. But they didn't. They had $43.2 million (again, same probability of inaccuracy) over 16 years. More than triple the amount of time, and less than half the dollar amount payout. If you use Arpaio's number, it is only one third the dollar payout over triple the amount of time.
You wanna compare "Arpaio's jails" to LA County and 3 other cities??? Fine. But do it fairly.
If the case against Arpaio is so strong, why be so misleading?
From a new times article-
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's lawsuits have cost less than $100 million, not $400 million, over the past five years, according to Rocky A. Armfield, the Los Angeles County risk manager. Proportionately, Arpaio's lawsuits have cost more, given that L.A. County is three times the size of Maricopa County.Anyone reading that would think that it made sense, and that there was nothing amiss with this reporters conclusions. There is a lot of true things in there, as well as names of sources of information. This is called an appeal to authority. In an argument, you simply state that this really smart person says something is true, and therefore it is. But that is a tenuous conclusion.In December, Maricopa County Risk Manager Peter Crowley produced records that showed the total cost of Arpaio's jail lawsuits to be $41 million. Since then, two more jail suits have settled for an additional $2.2 million. That brings Arpaio's total jail lawsuit bill to $43.2 million in a county of about 3 million residents — compared with less than $100 million in Los Angeles, a county of more than 10 million residents.
Notice how the reporter calls it "Arpaio's jail". It's a sneaky way to make you think that Arpaio is to blame, without actually saying it. If it said "Maricopa County jail lawsuits amount to 41 million, which included Correctional Health as well as Arpaio's Sheriff's Office" it would also be true. But "Arpaio's jail" is so much easier to write and it saves word space and we all know how the New Times always tries to conserve word space in it's articles.
Might they be biased against Apaio, trying to slant the reader to a particular point of view?
Naaaaah.
Until they start comparing the figures. Throw some math out there, confuse the reader (who's any good at math nowadays? isn't that what calculators are for?), and then draw a conclusion that is unsupported by the facts, but just act like it all ties up nice. Do they teach this formula at journalism school?
LA County had $100 million in lawsuits over the past 5 years and they try to compare it to Arpaio's $43.2 million over the past 16 years. For any real comparison, you can only compare the totals from the last 5 years, OR the last 16 years for both. Not one or the other.
And why don't they do that? Obviously because the numbers don't come out in their favor, that's why.
This is not even considering that Arpaio reports only $30 million in lawsuits, not $43 million. Maricopa County has a population of 3.8 million and LA county is at 10.3 million. Maybe not a big difference, but it's not 3 times the size. They like to say 3 times the size because it is easy and natural to triple Arpaio's number in your head to make the comparison. But they forget to include that they already more than tripled the number of years for Arpaio. This effectively triples Arpaio's number twice. And it makes him look bad, so it must be ok.
You should also wonder what wisdom, if any, was used to make the comparison of county population to lawsuit payouts. How do those two numbers correlate? Each state has their own laws and procedures, so if Arizona houses more inmates in county jails, the population numbers are meaningless, unless they are jail population numbers. When comparing just the two jails, which is what we're doing with lawsuits, we should just compare the jail populations, too. MCSO has about 10,000 inmates, LA County has 20,000. It's not triple. It's double.
So a fair comparison, using only the numbers reported by new times (which are not likely accurate), LA County had $100 million in lawsuits over 5 years. MCSO with half the population in the jail should have had half the lawsuits or $50 million. But they didn't. They had $43.2 million (again, same probability of inaccuracy) over 16 years. More than triple the amount of time, and less than half the dollar amount payout. If you use Arpaio's number, it is only one third the dollar payout over triple the amount of time.
You wanna compare "Arpaio's jails" to LA County and 3 other cities??? Fine. But do it fairly.
If the case against Arpaio is so strong, why be so misleading?
Parrot
I would imagine that most people might excuse this one, but I'm sorry, if you are running the "truth and justice" tour, claiming to be a man of high morals while leveling all sorts of criticisms to include malfeasance, then you had better check your facts.
To repeat a lie, even if it is because you never checked it out, is reprehensible, given the circumstances. Doesn't it take more than gossip to draw a conclusion? Doesn't it take more than hearsay to level an accusation of corruption?
Dan Saban doesn't think so, and obviously he thinks the voters of Maricopa County will agree with him.
Just about anybody who is paying attention has heard about all the lawsuits filed against Joe Arpaio's jails. Even a cursory look into it and you'll find the figure $43 million, expressed as the amount of money Maricopa County has paid out because of Joe Arpaio's jails. If you actually read reports from the New Times and The Mesa Tribune, you might even have read that 4 other large jails (LA, Chicago, NY, Houston) combined don't have anywhere near the number of lawsuits that Joe Arpaio has. In fact (they say) that the 4 other large jails have only generated 43 lawsuits altogether.
The actual quote from Saban's campaign site is:
In this previous post I outlined how the hate filled anti Joe website sponsored by the democratic party used these figures inaccurately, which is bad enough, but they are not on a truth and justice tour. They are not claiming to be a moral, ethical, "American Lawman". Dan Saban is.
I'm sure that the "truth and justice" candidate couldn't be bothered to spend the 0.2 seconds it took me to find the KCAL Los Angeles CBS news affiliate article that outlines the LA County Jail's lawsuit problems. That article says that from 2001-2004 LA county averaged 300 lawsuits per year (which is a total of 900 lawsuits) and from 2004-2007 they averaged 233 (which is 699 lawsuits ) for a total of 1599 lawsuits over a 6 year period. See it for yourself.
Now, I'm not all that good at that new fangled math, but I'm pretty sure if 1 of the 4 cities had 1599 lawsuits, the total of the combined 4 cities has to be more than 43. I mean that's enough of a discrepancy that I feel pretty comfortable saying Dan Saban is a liar. Oh, I know it's pretty far out on a limb, but, you know, I'm ok with the risk.
I'd sure like to know where that number 43 came from, but to be honest, it doesn't matter as far as Dan Saban is concerned. He is the truth and justice candidate. He is the one with morals. He is the one who says Joe Arpaio is corrupt (and sued him for it, but lost that one, too).
And this is just one of the many lies you can find on his website.
Oh, I know what his supporters will say. They'll say that the LA jail is so much bigger than MCSO's jail, because they want you to forget that they lied, and the size of the jail has nothing to do with the number they quoted. The only reason this came up is because Dan Saban brought it up. Dan Saban has on his website that Arpaio has so many lawsuits that it's more than 4 other large cities combined. The size of those cities is not important to this number. In fact the bigger they are, the more shocking the quote. Oh, if it were only true.
The truth is that LA County had 1599 lawsuits in the last 6 years, all by itself. I haven't even bothered to check to see what NY, Chicago, and Houston have, but I'll bet their numbers are fairly close. Even if each city only had 1 lawsuit each in the past 16 years, the quote is a lie.
I'm gonna be asking this question a lot, I think: If your case against Arpaio is so strong, why do you have to lie?
To repeat a lie, even if it is because you never checked it out, is reprehensible, given the circumstances. Doesn't it take more than gossip to draw a conclusion? Doesn't it take more than hearsay to level an accusation of corruption?
Dan Saban doesn't think so, and obviously he thinks the voters of Maricopa County will agree with him.
Just about anybody who is paying attention has heard about all the lawsuits filed against Joe Arpaio's jails. Even a cursory look into it and you'll find the figure $43 million, expressed as the amount of money Maricopa County has paid out because of Joe Arpaio's jails. If you actually read reports from the New Times and The Mesa Tribune, you might even have read that 4 other large jails (LA, Chicago, NY, Houston) combined don't have anywhere near the number of lawsuits that Joe Arpaio has. In fact (they say) that the 4 other large jails have only generated 43 lawsuits altogether.
The actual quote from Saban's campaign site is:
2150 jail condition lawsuits compared to only 43 for LA, Chicago, NY and Houston jail systems combinedThis sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? I mean who wouldn't be incensed by this fact? Oh, if it were only true.
In this previous post I outlined how the hate filled anti Joe website sponsored by the democratic party used these figures inaccurately, which is bad enough, but they are not on a truth and justice tour. They are not claiming to be a moral, ethical, "American Lawman". Dan Saban is.
I'm sure that the "truth and justice" candidate couldn't be bothered to spend the 0.2 seconds it took me to find the KCAL Los Angeles CBS news affiliate article that outlines the LA County Jail's lawsuit problems. That article says that from 2001-2004 LA county averaged 300 lawsuits per year (which is a total of 900 lawsuits) and from 2004-2007 they averaged 233 (which is 699 lawsuits ) for a total of 1599 lawsuits over a 6 year period. See it for yourself.
Now, I'm not all that good at that new fangled math, but I'm pretty sure if 1 of the 4 cities had 1599 lawsuits, the total of the combined 4 cities has to be more than 43. I mean that's enough of a discrepancy that I feel pretty comfortable saying Dan Saban is a liar. Oh, I know it's pretty far out on a limb, but, you know, I'm ok with the risk.
I'd sure like to know where that number 43 came from, but to be honest, it doesn't matter as far as Dan Saban is concerned. He is the truth and justice candidate. He is the one with morals. He is the one who says Joe Arpaio is corrupt (and sued him for it, but lost that one, too).
And this is just one of the many lies you can find on his website.
Oh, I know what his supporters will say. They'll say that the LA jail is so much bigger than MCSO's jail, because they want you to forget that they lied, and the size of the jail has nothing to do with the number they quoted. The only reason this came up is because Dan Saban brought it up. Dan Saban has on his website that Arpaio has so many lawsuits that it's more than 4 other large cities combined. The size of those cities is not important to this number. In fact the bigger they are, the more shocking the quote. Oh, if it were only true.
The truth is that LA County had 1599 lawsuits in the last 6 years, all by itself. I haven't even bothered to check to see what NY, Chicago, and Houston have, but I'll bet their numbers are fairly close. Even if each city only had 1 lawsuit each in the past 16 years, the quote is a lie.
I'm gonna be asking this question a lot, I think: If your case against Arpaio is so strong, why do you have to lie?
Gimmicks
From the Dan Saban campaign site:
How about gimmicks like the "falcon initiative", or an immigration plan that talks about the gang unit and really isn't any kind of plan at all? Or a dorky looking "smart" car. The car is not smart, and neither is the person driving it. It's just another car that gets good gas mileage that isn't even being driven. Or how about the $1600 spent to paint jerkydan's face on the side of this "smart" car. That's not smart at all.
The saddest part of all of this is that every single criticism leveled against Joe Arpaio is not true of him, but it IS true of jerkydan.
This particular bit of drivel finishes off with:
The best thing we can do for Dan is not to vote for him...it's to establish a charity fund for psychological counseling.
hmmmmm...I wonder if he can use campaign funds for that?
"Arpaio has used personal politics to hurt people and gimmicks to fool voters. That’s un-American."So what do you call a vicious lawsuit, filed after being trounced in an election against the guy that beat you, for baseless unfounded allegations, that ends up being a complete fabrication of facts as found by a JURY? Is that not using personal politics to hurt people? Didn't it hurt having to pay over $30,000 for your defendant's legal fees? I bet it did.
How about gimmicks like the "falcon initiative", or an immigration plan that talks about the gang unit and really isn't any kind of plan at all? Or a dorky looking "smart" car. The car is not smart, and neither is the person driving it. It's just another car that gets good gas mileage that isn't even being driven. Or how about the $1600 spent to paint jerkydan's face on the side of this "smart" car. That's not smart at all.
The saddest part of all of this is that every single criticism leveled against Joe Arpaio is not true of him, but it IS true of jerkydan.
This particular bit of drivel finishes off with:
"It's time for everyone to recognize that our public safety, our tax money and our American way of life are being spit upon by someone who pretends to care about the law."I assume jerkydan is talking about Arpaio, but he doesn't say because it actually applies to jerkydan, himself. It's Joe who is protecting our American way of life, and Dan is trying to give it away.
The best thing we can do for Dan is not to vote for him...it's to establish a charity fund for psychological counseling.
hmmmmm...I wonder if he can use campaign funds for that?
Credibility
I don't know about you folks, but credibility means a lot to me. You can say a lot of things about Joe Arpaio, but one thing you can't say is that he doesn't do what he says he will do. Or that he doesn't stand firm on what he believes in.
They call that "Integrity".
Maybe you don't agree with him, but you can never attack his integrity or his credibility. And you'll notice that nobody ever does.
Dan Saban and the democrats who support him, on the other hand, have no integrity and no credibility. It is precisely the lack of integrity that causes the lack in credibility. You see, when a person is blinded by their own rage, polluted by their own ego, motivated by revenge, and of low morals in the first place, only disastrous results can ever be expected.
This is how lies are born.
You might think this is small, but it shows how a writer doesn't check the facts. And if they let something so small go, what confidence would we have that anything else is accurate? What credibility could they possibly have?
That anti joe website says that deputies have to buy their own body armor.
It's a small thing, and it's not based on any recent news articles, or any other accurate information, because it is simply not accurate. Actually that's a nice way to say it.
It's a damn lie.
Deputies have been getting their body armor issued to them for something like 8 or 9 years now. The next time you see one, ask him or her, and they'll tell you. They get top of the line body armor issued to them very soon after the academy, and it gets replaced every five years.
Why make something like this up? What importance could it possibly have?
And if they have to make stuff like this up, what else are they making up?
If the case against Sheriff Joe is so strong, why make up anything at all?
Obviously, their case against Joe is not at all strong. They are on the verge of losing and they know it. This is what desperation looks like.
If they weren't so evil, I might actually pity them.
They call that "Integrity".
Maybe you don't agree with him, but you can never attack his integrity or his credibility. And you'll notice that nobody ever does.
Dan Saban and the democrats who support him, on the other hand, have no integrity and no credibility. It is precisely the lack of integrity that causes the lack in credibility. You see, when a person is blinded by their own rage, polluted by their own ego, motivated by revenge, and of low morals in the first place, only disastrous results can ever be expected.
This is how lies are born.
You might think this is small, but it shows how a writer doesn't check the facts. And if they let something so small go, what confidence would we have that anything else is accurate? What credibility could they possibly have?
That anti joe website says that deputies have to buy their own body armor.
It's a small thing, and it's not based on any recent news articles, or any other accurate information, because it is simply not accurate. Actually that's a nice way to say it.
It's a damn lie.
Deputies have been getting their body armor issued to them for something like 8 or 9 years now. The next time you see one, ask him or her, and they'll tell you. They get top of the line body armor issued to them very soon after the academy, and it gets replaced every five years.
Why make something like this up? What importance could it possibly have?
And if they have to make stuff like this up, what else are they making up?
If the case against Sheriff Joe is so strong, why make up anything at all?
Obviously, their case against Joe is not at all strong. They are on the verge of losing and they know it. This is what desperation looks like.
If they weren't so evil, I might actually pity them.
Todd Landfried
You've probably never heard of Todd Landfried, and for good reason. He's nobody. Worse than that, he's nobody trying to be somebody, and he's willing to lie to get there. There is a sadness there that is so deep, it's hard to fathom.
There isn't anything definitive, but Mark Manoil, chairman of the maricopa democratic party praised Todd Landfried for his work on an anti-joe website when it was announced that Todd was being replaced as executive director of the democratic party. It appears that, at least, Todd was instrumental in getting this pack of lies and insanity online.
Whether he wrote this next bit or not is unknown, but he must've known and approved it.
There's a page that claims Joe Arpaio wasted over 60 million dollars, and gives some suggestion for what could be bought with that 60 million. Most people will probably miss it, because it's way at the bottom, but this is one of Todd's suggestions:
"An engine for the tank...since it doesn't have one. The "show" tank (155mm self-propelled Howitzer) Arpaio parades around the county has no engine. In fact, for the $60M wasted so far, you could also buy a working cannon for the tank. No working motor and no working cannon. In short, the tank is completely and utterly useless and a total waste of money."
Obviously, this fella has no idea what it is like to serve his country. Had he ever risked his life in the service of others like so many proud veterans have, he would know that a self propelled howitzer is not a tank. Tanks are fast moving attack vehicles. Howitzers are long range ordinance delivery systems, which is military euphemism for big gun. Really big gun. The kind of gun that delivers it's payload from a long ways away, and when it lands, it hurts. A lot.
Todd seems to think that the howitzer is "completely and utterly useless" and a "total waste of money" while suggesting what would fix that: buy an engine and a working cannon.
I'm hoping this is a joke, but this website isn't really set up as satire. There's nothing at all funny about it, and there are no attempts anywhere to get a laugh. He can't be serious, but then again, he must be.
Not being a veteran, Todd has no idea what heavy tracked artillery will do to a paved road. And clearly he has no idea what ordinance is, let alone what it would do.
I'll tell you what, Todd, here's some advice to you:
Leave politics to the adults. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows. Badly.
There isn't anything definitive, but Mark Manoil, chairman of the maricopa democratic party praised Todd Landfried for his work on an anti-joe website when it was announced that Todd was being replaced as executive director of the democratic party. It appears that, at least, Todd was instrumental in getting this pack of lies and insanity online.
Whether he wrote this next bit or not is unknown, but he must've known and approved it.
There's a page that claims Joe Arpaio wasted over 60 million dollars, and gives some suggestion for what could be bought with that 60 million. Most people will probably miss it, because it's way at the bottom, but this is one of Todd's suggestions:
"An engine for the tank...since it doesn't have one. The "show" tank (155mm self-propelled Howitzer) Arpaio parades around the county has no engine. In fact, for the $60M wasted so far, you could also buy a working cannon for the tank. No working motor and no working cannon. In short, the tank is completely and utterly useless and a total waste of money."
Obviously, this fella has no idea what it is like to serve his country. Had he ever risked his life in the service of others like so many proud veterans have, he would know that a self propelled howitzer is not a tank. Tanks are fast moving attack vehicles. Howitzers are long range ordinance delivery systems, which is military euphemism for big gun. Really big gun. The kind of gun that delivers it's payload from a long ways away, and when it lands, it hurts. A lot.
Todd seems to think that the howitzer is "completely and utterly useless" and a "total waste of money" while suggesting what would fix that: buy an engine and a working cannon.
I'm hoping this is a joke, but this website isn't really set up as satire. There's nothing at all funny about it, and there are no attempts anywhere to get a laugh. He can't be serious, but then again, he must be.
Not being a veteran, Todd has no idea what heavy tracked artillery will do to a paved road. And clearly he has no idea what ordinance is, let alone what it would do.
I'll tell you what, Todd, here's some advice to you:
Leave politics to the adults. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows. Badly.
Joe's gotta stay!
There's a website out there in cyberspace, created by the notoriously unbiased maricopa county democratic party (if you can't sense the sarcasm, wise up), packed with regurgitated lies, some new lies, and some just plain old outrageous claims.
Not to worry, though, they have a disclaimer. They're trying to get it all right, really they are. It's like a public service. Really.
"We're Not Making This Up
To the best of our knowledge, everything on this web site is true and accurate. We have tried to use or link only to primary sources with the goal of providing you access to original research, articles and views, and to negate the claim by Arpaio and his minions that this site is "garbage." It isn't.
You can believe Joe Arpaio or your own lying eyes."
That's what it says, right on their website.
Didja catch it?
Read it one more time, if you missed it.
It's easy to gloss over. You see, your eye tends to "see" what you already expect to see, and something right there on the page will slip right by, without you ever noticing it.
It says:
"you can believe Joe Arpaio or..." Option #1 is to believe Joe Arpaio. We'll have to decide whether or not we'll like that option, as soon as we find out what option #2 is.
Option #2 is "your lying eyes".
Do you see it now?
Which of the following will you believe?
1. Joe Arpaio
2. your LYING eyes
Are your eyes lying to you? Why would your eyes lie to you? Only if what they are seeing is not the truth. It's a perception issue. Things are not always as they seem. Or maybe things are as they seem, but what you are looking at is lies.
I'm sure that now that it has been pointed out, they'll fix it right away, and dismiss it as a "typo".
Nope. Sorry. A typo is when you spell type but meant typo. You don't commit a typo by adding a word that was not supposed to be there. There's another word for that.
It's a Freudian slip.
They know they are lying, and they don't care. Whatever it takes to defeat Joe Arpaio, they will do. The ends justifies the means. And yet, they call Joe a hypocrite. They say Joe has no morals. And we should believe them, why? Because they're not like that?
Not to worry, though, they have a disclaimer. They're trying to get it all right, really they are. It's like a public service. Really.
"We're Not Making This Up
To the best of our knowledge, everything on this web site is true and accurate. We have tried to use or link only to primary sources with the goal of providing you access to original research, articles and views, and to negate the claim by Arpaio and his minions that this site is "garbage." It isn't.
You can believe Joe Arpaio or your own lying eyes."
That's what it says, right on their website.
Didja catch it?
Read it one more time, if you missed it.
It's easy to gloss over. You see, your eye tends to "see" what you already expect to see, and something right there on the page will slip right by, without you ever noticing it.
It says:
"you can believe Joe Arpaio or..." Option #1 is to believe Joe Arpaio. We'll have to decide whether or not we'll like that option, as soon as we find out what option #2 is.
Option #2 is "your lying eyes".
Do you see it now?
Which of the following will you believe?
1. Joe Arpaio
2. your LYING eyes
Are your eyes lying to you? Why would your eyes lie to you? Only if what they are seeing is not the truth. It's a perception issue. Things are not always as they seem. Or maybe things are as they seem, but what you are looking at is lies.
I'm sure that now that it has been pointed out, they'll fix it right away, and dismiss it as a "typo".
Nope. Sorry. A typo is when you spell type but meant typo. You don't commit a typo by adding a word that was not supposed to be there. There's another word for that.
It's a Freudian slip.
They know they are lying, and they don't care. Whatever it takes to defeat Joe Arpaio, they will do. The ends justifies the means. And yet, they call Joe a hypocrite. They say Joe has no morals. And we should believe them, why? Because they're not like that?
Wife Swapping
I've read some comments on other blogs and news stories that describe Dan Saban as having "morals". As far as I can tell, whoever uses that word in describing jerkydan has no idea whatsoever of the actual meaning of that word.
Consider the many past wives jerkydan has left behind. It seems like when he gets tired of someone that he has committed his life to, he dumps them off like a dirty napkin.
Consider the change in political parties. It seems like when one party no longer fits his personal use, he dumps them off like a dirty napkin. Whatever benefits jerkydan most, jerkydan wants.
And many people don't know this, but jerkydan once attended the Mormon church, but he dumped them, too, like a dirty napkin, once he realized he had nothing to gain from it. It was probably the 10% mandatory dues.
jerkydan now attends a Christian church in Mesa for just as long as it suits him, if he continues to follow the same pattern he has for his entire life. He likes to mention God whenever it suits him or he thinks it'll get him votes. God is not a campaign tool, jerkydan, and he has some pretty stiff penalties for those who use His name in vain. You better think twice before you betray Him. Just some friendly advice.
Now, I don't know who it is that has used this term, so I don't know what or how they developed their sense of morals, but I don't think any moral person thinks it's ok to commit to any relationship only to dump them like a hot potato when they no longer benefit you.
It is selfish, self serving, manipulative, and malicious.
There's a pattern here, alright, but it most certainly is not moral.
Consider the many past wives jerkydan has left behind. It seems like when he gets tired of someone that he has committed his life to, he dumps them off like a dirty napkin.
Consider the change in political parties. It seems like when one party no longer fits his personal use, he dumps them off like a dirty napkin. Whatever benefits jerkydan most, jerkydan wants.
And many people don't know this, but jerkydan once attended the Mormon church, but he dumped them, too, like a dirty napkin, once he realized he had nothing to gain from it. It was probably the 10% mandatory dues.
jerkydan now attends a Christian church in Mesa for just as long as it suits him, if he continues to follow the same pattern he has for his entire life. He likes to mention God whenever it suits him or he thinks it'll get him votes. God is not a campaign tool, jerkydan, and he has some pretty stiff penalties for those who use His name in vain. You better think twice before you betray Him. Just some friendly advice.
Now, I don't know who it is that has used this term, so I don't know what or how they developed their sense of morals, but I don't think any moral person thinks it's ok to commit to any relationship only to dump them like a hot potato when they no longer benefit you.
It is selfish, self serving, manipulative, and malicious.
There's a pattern here, alright, but it most certainly is not moral.
Effective Enforcement
There's an article today in the repulsive that says the feds will be stepping up their raids on illegal immigrants. It seems a program to allow illegal immigrants to self surrender and be given 90 days to settle their affairs netted only 1 arizonan...from Estonia.
Side note...Estonia is a country????? I need to spend more time watching the olympics!
"The lack of participation in Operation Scheduled Departure, a pilot program, showed that the only way to solve the problem of immigrants staying in the U.S. after being ordered to leave is through enforcement, Jim Hayes of Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a conference call Friday with reporters."
Well, how about that? Now, where have I heard that before????
You mean the most effective method of immigration enforcement isn't by establishing partnerships, lobbying the federal government, or sending your troops to join gang task forces?????
Oh my. Somebody better tell jerkydan! He needs to write a whole new 10 point plan. And just in the interest of fairness, and to give jerkydan a decent chance (it's no fun beating up a girl), here's some more free advice:
One of the points is not the one on top of your head.
Address the issue at hand, rather than use slight of hand to misdirect your voters to another topic. They are much smarter than that.
Use action words like "arrest", "detain", and "deport". You can be a lobbyist in your next life.
You really don't need a 10 point plan or a 5 point plan. You just need a plan. One that might actually work, instead of one filled with fluff words. That last attempt wasn't even a plan. It was a fart.
See? I'm really not a bad guy. I just have no tolerance for whiny, incompetent, braggarts who think they are better than everyone else.
Side note...Estonia is a country????? I need to spend more time watching the olympics!
"The lack of participation in Operation Scheduled Departure, a pilot program, showed that the only way to solve the problem of immigrants staying in the U.S. after being ordered to leave is through enforcement, Jim Hayes of Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a conference call Friday with reporters."
Well, how about that? Now, where have I heard that before????
You mean the most effective method of immigration enforcement isn't by establishing partnerships, lobbying the federal government, or sending your troops to join gang task forces?????
Oh my. Somebody better tell jerkydan! He needs to write a whole new 10 point plan. And just in the interest of fairness, and to give jerkydan a decent chance (it's no fun beating up a girl), here's some more free advice:
One of the points is not the one on top of your head.
Address the issue at hand, rather than use slight of hand to misdirect your voters to another topic. They are much smarter than that.
Use action words like "arrest", "detain", and "deport". You can be a lobbyist in your next life.
You really don't need a 10 point plan or a 5 point plan. You just need a plan. One that might actually work, instead of one filled with fluff words. That last attempt wasn't even a plan. It was a fart.
See? I'm really not a bad guy. I just have no tolerance for whiny, incompetent, braggarts who think they are better than everyone else.
3 kinds of lies
Some guy who is a whole lot smarter and a thousand times more witty than me once said "there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics". His name escapes me at the moment, but he really knew what he was talking about.
It is truly amazing what you can find on the internet today. I think just about all known information is on there somewhere, usually within minutes of it becoming known.
So, with all this talk of lawsuits against Sheriff Joe, I decided to use the google (as our dear prez would say).
It took me all of .2 seconds (the google has a timer!) to find an article from CBS news in LA, KCAL channel 9, which as all about the LA county jail system's lawsuit problems. I really hate to cite any media, with the severe lack of integrity our own local democrat controlled newspapers show, but this is all I have, so this is what it says:
"When looking at three-year averages over the past six years -- from 2001 through 2004 as compared to 2004 through 2007 -- the number of lawsuits closed dropped from an average of 300 a year to 233 a year, but the total amount paid rose from an average of $9.9 million a year to $10.5 million."
huh?
But that anti-joe website said that "from January 2004 through the end of July 2008, Joe Arpaio was the target of over 2,400 lawsuits for prison conditions in U.S. District Court. In the same period, the county jails of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston were sued a combined 43 times for jail conditions".
There's a lot of numbers in there, so it's kinda hard to parse that all out, which is exactly what the writers of this anti-joe website want (it comes from the democratic party, if you want to believe that...). Let's go through this a little:
If you can't see the most obvious flaw, there's no way in hell that 4 cities combined had 43 jail lawsuits over a 4 year period when one of those cities averaged 233 lawsuits a year. If LA averaged 233 lawsuits over a 3 year period, then they must've generated 699 lawsuits all by themselves. The only way this anti-joe website could come up with a number like "43" is to completely make it up. It's nothing but a fantasy, which these folks are used to. They think Dan Saban can win an election.
Now, they say that Joe's jails were the subject of 2,400 lawsuits over a 4 year period, although I seriously question their ability to add, at this point (they must've gone to the Mesa Tribune School of Mathematics). Earlier up the page, this site says that Joe Arpaio has been the subject of 4,911 lawsuits and that he is currently named in 300.
Now if these numbers are even close to accurate, which I doubt, then the past 4 years are responsible for almost half of all lawsuits, and of the 2400 lawsuits filed, 2100 have already settled, leaving 300 to go.
If Joe has lost 2100 lawsuits in the past 4 years, where's the data? I mean, if you're putting together a "I hate Joe" website and you know about 2100 lawsuits that he's lost, then you'd be a complete fool to keep those to yourself.
Unless of course, those 2100 lawsuits turned out like Dan Saban's (see below) and the plaintiff (whoever it might be who is suing) ends up paying back to the courts more than $30,000.
And if Joe's jails are really the subject of 4,911 lawsuits, over a 16 year period, that's an average of 306 per year. The same as LA's average from 2001-2004. If we had accurate data, I'd be willing to bet that MCSO's lawsuits have gone down, too, recently, and were probably higher in the past. This also most likely has nothing to do with actual conditions in the jail, but more likely associated with an inmates ability to sue based on recent court rulings. Inmates will sue because they don't get coffee, or they want chunky peanut butter instead of creamy. It's not a reflection of the jail administration.
The amount of money paid out is an indication, though. And LA pays out on average 10.5 million a year. That means that over the three years of 2004 to 2007, LA county paid out 31.5 million dollars in lawsuits. It is simple math here. 31.5 divided by 3 is 10.5, so a total payout of 31.5M over 3 years is an average annual payout of 10.5M.
Arpaio has been sheriff for 16 years and has paid out a total of 30 million dollars in lawsuits. LA county paid out more in the last 3 years than Maricopa County has paid out in the past 16 years. LA county pays an average of 10.5 million a year, Maricopa County pays an average of 1.8 million a year.
Do you see how the selective reporting of data can totally skew the picture?
See the article from KCAL.
It is truly amazing what you can find on the internet today. I think just about all known information is on there somewhere, usually within minutes of it becoming known.
So, with all this talk of lawsuits against Sheriff Joe, I decided to use the google (as our dear prez would say).
It took me all of .2 seconds (the google has a timer!) to find an article from CBS news in LA, KCAL channel 9, which as all about the LA county jail system's lawsuit problems. I really hate to cite any media, with the severe lack of integrity our own local democrat controlled newspapers show, but this is all I have, so this is what it says:
"When looking at three-year averages over the past six years -- from 2001 through 2004 as compared to 2004 through 2007 -- the number of lawsuits closed dropped from an average of 300 a year to 233 a year, but the total amount paid rose from an average of $9.9 million a year to $10.5 million."
huh?
But that anti-joe website said that "from January 2004 through the end of July 2008, Joe Arpaio was the target of over 2,400 lawsuits for prison conditions in U.S. District Court. In the same period, the county jails of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston were sued a combined 43 times for jail conditions".
There's a lot of numbers in there, so it's kinda hard to parse that all out, which is exactly what the writers of this anti-joe website want (it comes from the democratic party, if you want to believe that...). Let's go through this a little:
If you can't see the most obvious flaw, there's no way in hell that 4 cities combined had 43 jail lawsuits over a 4 year period when one of those cities averaged 233 lawsuits a year. If LA averaged 233 lawsuits over a 3 year period, then they must've generated 699 lawsuits all by themselves. The only way this anti-joe website could come up with a number like "43" is to completely make it up. It's nothing but a fantasy, which these folks are used to. They think Dan Saban can win an election.
Now, they say that Joe's jails were the subject of 2,400 lawsuits over a 4 year period, although I seriously question their ability to add, at this point (they must've gone to the Mesa Tribune School of Mathematics). Earlier up the page, this site says that Joe Arpaio has been the subject of 4,911 lawsuits and that he is currently named in 300.
Now if these numbers are even close to accurate, which I doubt, then the past 4 years are responsible for almost half of all lawsuits, and of the 2400 lawsuits filed, 2100 have already settled, leaving 300 to go.
If Joe has lost 2100 lawsuits in the past 4 years, where's the data? I mean, if you're putting together a "I hate Joe" website and you know about 2100 lawsuits that he's lost, then you'd be a complete fool to keep those to yourself.
Unless of course, those 2100 lawsuits turned out like Dan Saban's (see below) and the plaintiff (whoever it might be who is suing) ends up paying back to the courts more than $30,000.
And if Joe's jails are really the subject of 4,911 lawsuits, over a 16 year period, that's an average of 306 per year. The same as LA's average from 2001-2004. If we had accurate data, I'd be willing to bet that MCSO's lawsuits have gone down, too, recently, and were probably higher in the past. This also most likely has nothing to do with actual conditions in the jail, but more likely associated with an inmates ability to sue based on recent court rulings. Inmates will sue because they don't get coffee, or they want chunky peanut butter instead of creamy. It's not a reflection of the jail administration.
The amount of money paid out is an indication, though. And LA pays out on average 10.5 million a year. That means that over the three years of 2004 to 2007, LA county paid out 31.5 million dollars in lawsuits. It is simple math here. 31.5 divided by 3 is 10.5, so a total payout of 31.5M over 3 years is an average annual payout of 10.5M.
Arpaio has been sheriff for 16 years and has paid out a total of 30 million dollars in lawsuits. LA county paid out more in the last 3 years than Maricopa County has paid out in the past 16 years. LA county pays an average of 10.5 million a year, Maricopa County pays an average of 1.8 million a year.
Do you see how the selective reporting of data can totally skew the picture?
See the article from KCAL.
Lawsuits
It seems that lawsuits come up a lot whenever the name Joe Arpaio is mentioned. There's talk of abuse, corruption, neglect and all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, and to prove it, there's all these lawsuits out there.
Except that a lawsuit filed means absolutely nothing.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything these days. I could sue you for reading this, if I was that stupid. Luckily I'm not.
Not so for our gas guzzling democratic candidate for Sheriff, Dan Saban. Remember how sore he got after being trounced last year? The big production he made of delivering his sealed complaint to the FBI alleging 3 distinct violations? Nothing ever came of those, but jerkydan was not discouraged. He filed a lawsuit.
yay, dan saban.
The lawsuit alleged negligence, abuse of process and intentional emotional distress. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have to experience emotional distress in order to accuse someone of intentionally causing it. Which means that jerkydan must have spent more than a few nights crying his poor little self to sleep. Kinda sad, huh?
Before we get all weepy for poor abused dan saban, we need to remember that there is a legal process in this country, and allegations have to be proved.
Well, Dan Saban couldn't do that.
You see, dear reader, this lawsuit was completely unfounded. A big to do about nothing. Fabrications of a feeble mind. Poor Dan Saban? I don't think so.
The lawsuit was so far from the truth that the Judge found in favor for all the people he sued (it wasn't just Joe...he had to go after half a dozen others, too). But that's not all.
Dan Saban was ordered to pay the court fees in the amount of $33,410.12.
That had to hurt.
If he cried himself to sleep after losing the election, imagine how much sobbing, wailing and weeping this must've caused.
Let this be a lesson to all of us. No stupid lawsuits.
If you'd like to see the public record of this judgment, look here.
(It's at the Maricopa County Recorder's public records site)
Except that a lawsuit filed means absolutely nothing.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything these days. I could sue you for reading this, if I was that stupid. Luckily I'm not.
Not so for our gas guzzling democratic candidate for Sheriff, Dan Saban. Remember how sore he got after being trounced last year? The big production he made of delivering his sealed complaint to the FBI alleging 3 distinct violations? Nothing ever came of those, but jerkydan was not discouraged. He filed a lawsuit.
yay, dan saban.
The lawsuit alleged negligence, abuse of process and intentional emotional distress. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have to experience emotional distress in order to accuse someone of intentionally causing it. Which means that jerkydan must have spent more than a few nights crying his poor little self to sleep. Kinda sad, huh?
Before we get all weepy for poor abused dan saban, we need to remember that there is a legal process in this country, and allegations have to be proved.
Well, Dan Saban couldn't do that.
You see, dear reader, this lawsuit was completely unfounded. A big to do about nothing. Fabrications of a feeble mind. Poor Dan Saban? I don't think so.
The lawsuit was so far from the truth that the Judge found in favor for all the people he sued (it wasn't just Joe...he had to go after half a dozen others, too). But that's not all.
Dan Saban was ordered to pay the court fees in the amount of $33,410.12.
That had to hurt.
If he cried himself to sleep after losing the election, imagine how much sobbing, wailing and weeping this must've caused.
Let this be a lesson to all of us. No stupid lawsuits.
If you'd like to see the public record of this judgment, look here.
(It's at the Maricopa County Recorder's public records site)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
