Bogus Social Media Profiles

One of the things that’s so unique about modern social media is the requirement that you use your real name.  Back in the early days of online communities, you were expected to come up with a unique “handle” that reflected your personality.  In the early computer bulletin board days were you communicated in online forums using slow paced modems and ancient software, you would see various user names such as “Pacman,” “FunnyGuy,” “Biker,” or darker, slightly silly ones like “CreepingDeath” and “WildProwler.”  It was a different time back then and it could take you months before you learn someone’s name.

These days, it’s different.  You sign up on a service like Facebook and you use your first and last name.  The first order of business is to upload your avatar, or picture, so people know what you look like.  From that point on, you’re interacting with others and using your real identity. Your behavior online is a direct and immediate reflection on you. Years ago, I had a big problem on this site where people hid behind pseudonyms and trashed elected officials, candidates trying to get elected, or each other. I switched the commenting system to Facebook to avoid that going forward. Now, when commenting, you’re using your real name, your real face, and you’re authenticating with the Facebook user authentication system.

Sadly, people are still gaming the system. Cruise the Simi Valley forums, and you’ll find questionable account profiles. It’s not hard to create a fake Facebook profile and it seems people are doing it somewhat regularly. These people often have profiles with a limited history (i.e. they were created a month or two ago) but regardless, they’re up on the discussion threads that have taken place over the past many months. Their knowledge rarely (oddly) raises any suspicion.

Simi Valley benefits hugely from people who are willing to say what’s on their mind and stand behind it, using their real names.  Otherwise decent conversations go right in the toilet once they are graced by the presence of a phony profile. If you have something to say about Simi Valley but you don’t feel comfortable saying it using your real name, it’s probably not worth saying. You may take heat sharing your opinions using your real name (I have), but you’ll earn a good deal of respect as well.

Do you love Simi Valley?  Do you want to share that passion in a respectable way? Then ditch the bogus social media profiles and use your real names. Have a great rest of the week.

Dear Mitch, May 12, 2013

556920_497264096977712_385366256_n
Dear Readers,

Its been a busy week and my inbox is going nuts. While there is still interest on what is happening at the Simi Valley City Hall regarding the City Attorney’s continued troubles, what with this week’s news article regarding her paying a claim in violation of the California Tort Claims Act, it seems the focus at City Hall has shifted dramatically over to spotlight the continued poor judgment displayed by Council Member Mike Judge with his Facebook misadventures re soft porn likes and now his sharing of “snuff flicks.”

I am not really sure where all this City Hall Lack of Good Judgment thing is coming from, either.

Since the Simi Valley Police Officer’s Association (the local police officer union, not to be confused with the Simi Valley Police Department, a municipal police department), staged a successful coup in taking over City Hall three years ago in 2010, with the election of their endorsed candidate Mayor Bob Huber and the accidental election of “supported candidate” Council Member Mike Judge over their endorsed candidate Keith Mashburn, the word from inside City Hall is things have never been worse, have never been so unorganized, and morale has never been lower.

To back up a touch, the term “accidental election” regarding Mike Judge is a local colloquialism referencing the fact that in the 2010 municipal election, the Police Officer’s Association, the local police union, not to be confused with the Simi Valley Police Department, a municipal police department, endorsed council candidate Keith Mashburn, a retired fire department battalion chief. The Police Officer’s Association, the local police union, not to be confused with the Simi Valley Police Department, a municipal police department, flooded the town with signs for Mr. Mashburn, and on each sign, to show that Mr. Mashburn was endorsed by the police officer union, a police officer badge was prominently displayed. Come election booth time though, it is believed many associated the police officer badge on every other sign posted around town with the guy who had police officer next to his name on the ballot, Mike Judge.

And to explain the issues coming from inside City Hall, the first hand word that I have received is no decisions are being made, nothing can get done, everyone is so worried about protecting their backside that the documentation on each and every task has gone up multiple folds not to ensure the work is correct, but to protect one from the inevitable sharp shooting that comes from actually making a decision on something. Clerical staff get yelled at and belittled by a certain elected official. Department heads have given up on trying to deal with a certain high level attorney as it is possible that the person just cannot remember what she said from one day to the next, hence her constant denial of prior conversations and decisions. To the receivers, the shocked impression is that she is outright lying to their face, when an equally plausible explanation is that she suffers mental issues normally associated with advanced years.

In 2012, the police union again supported and helped elect Council Member Keith Mashburn. Mr. Mashburn appears to be getting comfortable with his new elected role and with six months now on the job, his honeymoon period with the press is about over. It remains to be seen what his positions are going to be in the future, but he also does not share the blame for the currently ongoing City Hall woes.

So back to the inbox. With the Mike Judge decapitation murder snuff flick issues going on this past week, my inbox has been snuffed, er, stuffed, with all kinds of things from the “whatever . . .” to “its his right to look at whatever he wants!” to “it’s a private Facebook page, get over it!” to “disgusting,” “where does this woman hating misogynist get off???” and “violence against women is not a training film!”

Frankly, I wish the issue would just go away. But instead of an apology from the wayward council member, we get weird postings from him along the lines of “no one is going to tell him what to do.” Kind of like how my then juvenile boys handled issues in seventh grade. And until he fesses up that he really, really blew it, things will continue to compound. Or as one observer relayed to me at the Street Fair (nice job by the way Chamber!), this snowball has taken a life of its own and its headed down hill fast.

So lets get started.

Dear Mitch

Did you see Mike Judge’s Friday’s Thought for the day? It looks like a cat with a torn up pizza in it’s mouth with the caption, “I regret nothing. NOTHING.” So he posts a picture of a cat that has obviously done something wrong and shows no remorse about it as something to think about? And that’s the message he felt like sending out? Is Mike really trying to say he has zero remorse and is fully aware that he did something wrong? I sure hope that is not what he intended. But if he was trying to say “I did nothing wrong” and totally missed that the picture he used sends a different message, what does that say about his ability to comprehend?

Judge Cat

Dear Reader (too many today to come up with cute names for you, so you all get to be “Dear Readers),

Yeah, I did see that post! What is up with that? The one comment that was sent to me was “This guy is an arrogant idiot!” The same person sent me a screen shot of Judge commenting Friday night, “I’m getting to the point where I wish dueling was still in vogue.” Now, what do you think Mike meant by that? Another reader sent me the same screen shot with the caption, “Mike Judge Wants to Shoot You.”

So here’s the question for today: Do you think that a) Mike Judge was just being cute with his statement that he wishes dueling were back in style; b) do you think Mike Judge was implying he wants to shoot someone? c) do you think Mike Judge was conveying the message that he would like to shoot me?

Here’s the screen shot . . .
Mike Judge Duel

***

Dear Mitch,

Mike Judge says he’s a Police officer who happens to be a City Councilman. Great. Do we really want someone who views representing our city and its citizens as something he just kind of does on the side?

Dear Reader,

Interesting take. I too noticed the play on words. Perhaps there is confusion over which hat to wear at any one time . . .

Or perhaps . . ., well, perhaps that observation can stay in the pocket for now . . . 😉

***

Dear Mitch

Have I got it right that at first the explanation for posting the decapitation video on Mike Judge’s Facebook page was to ID the killer and then when it was pointed out this was obviously a Mexican Drug Cartel video, the explanation went to it was a training tool? So when we find out something like there are rules against using these kinds of video as a training tool, will the explanation switch to something else?

Dear Reader,

Wow, it is so amazing how you caught that! If you were to listen to the supporters of this conduct, these simple observations tend to get lost, overlooked or (pointing finger in opposite direction), Hey! Quick! Look Over There!!!

My kids used to play the same games too . . . “Well, MAYBEE it happened that way!” Sure kid, and just MAYBEE you’re gonna git chur butt whipped! (Ahem, figuratively . . ., such tender dear boys . . .)

***

Dear Mitch

What is going on with City Hall? Between signing void contracts, posting videos of people’s heads being cut off and paying $20,000 on expired claims, it makes you wonder if there is anyone who works there that has half a brain? And as long as they are passing out free money, when can I get mine?

Dear Reader,

Heck, I’d like some free money too. Maybe some health and dental benefits, pension contributions . . ., all that. Then MAYBEE I could sit at my desk all day long, twirl around in my chair, suck up to my elected friends, take long naps behind closed doors, rush off with my clip board in hand looking very busy, “Not now! See me when I get back! Better yet, send me a memo!!”

But then again, I also like actually getting things done . . .

***

Dear Mitch

Remember when Doug Crosse was ready to sue over Steve Sokja’s cell phone reimbursement that was something like $7,000 over 14 years? Where is he now that the City has forked over $20,000 on a claim it didn’t have to pay?

Dear Reader,

Yeah, what is that all about?

Doug Crosse! Come back! Your City Needs You! Bring Your Broom!

***

Dear Mitch

What happened to all your posts on Vote Simi Valley? You and Chandler still cool post the Mike Judge issue?

Dear Reader,

Yes, I think so, but the Mike Judge issue hasn’t gone away yet, so that remains to be seen. Until we see how all this shakes out, lets just say we are working things out, and the prior columns have all been safely tucked away.

***

Dear Mitch?

I saw that you have been kicked off the Facebook page, Simi Valley Letters to The Editor again. And then the natives enjoyed a good old fashion “parade the head on a stick” post hatchet job party at your expense.

You are probably not missing out on too much, other than the denial of your First Amendment Rights for pointing out the Councilman “wears no clothes.” Funny how the defenders of a certain local politician demand First Amendment rights for their boy to watch and share human decapitation videos, but insist on censure and denial of those same First Amendment rights for anyone pointing out that this public figure has publicly embarrassed himself and Simi Valley.

You do know that Letters to The Editor was started as a Republican political operation, and it has now been taken over as a propaganda site for the radical right fringe group called the California Republican Assembly or CRA for short? And the voices there all tend to agree with each other as they boot anyone who does not follow the right wing fringe Republican agenda.

Wherever YOUR political sympathies lay, I doubt they fall in with the “right wing fringe” group.

OK, “Dear Reader,” that voice was barely disguised. But I’ll play along and say, “I couldn’t have said it better myself!”

***

Dear Mitch,

Bill walked from Santa Monica to Westwood. It took 45 minutes to walk from Santa Monica to Brentwood. Then it took 25 minutes to walk from Brentwood to Westwood. He just arrived in Westwood. the current time is 2:30 P.M. At what time did he leave Santa Monica?

Do you start at the beginning of the problem, add 45 minutes and 25 minutes and then subtract that from the current time? Do you start at the current time and then go backwards 25 minutes and then another 45 minutes? Do you use a technique of random selection using reasoned deduction or do you methodically go in order to arrive at your solution?

Let me know which method you use.

***

Dear Reader,

Here I have to confess that I learned how to solve these kind of equations in my head at an early age. When I see a story math problem, I keep a running total in my head while I read the problem, waiting for the “call of the question.” If this were a formal test with a series of similar questions, I would be disciplined to glance first at the call of the question, here “At what time did he leave Santa Monica?” Then when I read the question, I see that we start in Santa Monica. Great. Add 45. Plus 25, running total up to 70. We arrive somewhere at 2:30, less 70 minutes = 1:20 in my head at the same time we arrive at the end of the paragraph with the final sentence, “At what time did he leave Santa Monica.” That for me happens simultaneously for me as I read the question.”

I learned how to do the same thing when I read a government claim coming into the City. You just knew which ones had denial written all over them from first glance, which ones blew their statute of limitations giving us an easy win before it even started, and which ones to pucker about. Its not really rocket surgery, its just doing the same thing over and over again and learning from your prior mistakes.

But if you keep doing the same mistake over and over again, well then, in the words of Ron White, “You can’t fix stupid.”

To recap, I do not always start at the beginning of a problem when I notice a trend. Sometimes you have to start with the patterned result, and then work you way backwards and then back forward again to arrive back at that same result. And then ask yourself, “Is there a pattern here that I need to be concerned about?”

So Simi Valley, what do you think?

Is there a pattern going on here we need to be concerned about?

***

Tell Mom you love her today, and if for some reason you cannot do that in person, thing loving thoughts of Mom and find your own way of telling her anyway.

Mitch

PS: I dare you all to share this link with our friends at Letters to The Editor! Such a shame they would miss out on our discussions . . . 😉

Snuff film

556920_497264096977712_385366256_n

“Snuff film”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.”

***

Did you know that “sharing” a video of a puppy or kitten getting its head cut off can get you seven years in the federal slammer? And that it was our own Elton Gallegly that helped get that bill passed?

“Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010”.

18 USC § 48 – Animal crush videos

(a) Definition.— In this section the term “animal crush video” means any photograph, motion-picture film, video or digital recording, or electronic image that—
(1) depicts actual conduct in which 1 or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 and including conduct that, if committed against a person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242); and
(2) is obscene.
(b) Prohibitions.—
(1) Creation of animal crush videos.— It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly create an animal crush video, if—
(A) the person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) the animal crush video is distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.
(2) Distribution of animal crush videos.— It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.

(d) Penalty.— Any person who violates subsection (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 7 years, or both.

(e) Exceptions.—
(1) In general.— This section shall not apply with regard to any visual depiction of—
(A) customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices;
(B) the slaughter of animals for food; or
(C) hunting, trapping, or fishing.
(2) Good-faith distribution.— This section shall not apply to the good-faith distribution of an animal crush video to—
(A) a law enforcement agency; or
(B) a third party for the sole purpose of analysis to determine if referral to a law enforcement agency is appropriate.

[Note: Just being a member of law enforcement and sharing the crush video with your law enforcement buddies on social media is NOT an exception to prosecution]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48

From the The Feministe blog, I quote,

The New York Times describes ”Crush Porn” as follows (You have been warned!):

“A decade ago, Congress decided it was time to address what a House report called “a very specific sexual fetish.” There are people, it turns out, who take pleasure from watching videos of small animals being crushed.

“Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,” the report said. “In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter. The cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain, can also be heard in the videos.”

Congress went a step further and in 1999 outlawed the depiction of crushing, and most depictions of cruelty to animals, making crush-porn illegal.

Last month, the United States solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. “Depictions of the intentional infliction of suffering on vulnerable creatures,” the brief said, “play no essential role in the expression of ideas.” The First Amendment, the brief went on, is therefore irrelevant to the case.

Interestingly, most of the cases that have been brought under this law have depicted dog-fighting, not crush-porn. But crush porn essentially disappeared from the market after 1999; since a Third Circuit court ruled that the law banning animal cruelty videos is unconstitutional, the videos have sprung up again. To complicate things further, it doesn’t matter if the act was legal where it was filmed; the standard is that if the act of cruelty is illegal where the video is bought or sold, the law is being violated. So a video of bullfighting in Spain (or dog-fighting somewhere dog-fighting is legal) is illegal to sell in the United States.

Basically, the “crush” law places depictions of animal cruelty in the same category that we place depictions of child pornography, where we say that depictions of the crime have absolutely no free speech value; or alternately, where the potential for harm is so great that it justifies this kind of reach. Amy Adler, who I had as a professor at NYU, has written about the exceptionalism of child pornography laws extensively, and I’d recommend checking out her stuff for a deeper understanding of the constitutional issues involved here. The other legal scholars who the reporter speaks to also seem to think that the law will be struck down.”

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/01/06/crush-porn-and-free-speech/

And here is the link to the Congressional Report re “Crush Videos”

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?sel=DOC&&item=&r_n=hr397.106&&&sid=cp106FWNRg&&refer=&&&db_id=cp106&&hd_count=&

There are challenges to the “Crush Video” law, as demonstrated recently by a ruling in Texas.

“Torturing animals and filming their painful deaths is an activity protected by the U.S. Constitution, according to a federal judge in Texas.

In an opinion issued this week, U.S. District Judge Sim Lake tossed out charges against a Houston couple accused of violating the federal “animal crush video” statute. Lake wrote that the law “abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

Ashley Nicole Richards and Brent Justice allegedly created and distributed violent sex fetish videos — animal snuff films — that depicted the torture of puppies, kittens, rabbits, and other animals.

In one of the videos, Richards was seen torturing a pit bull puppy. According to the Houston Chronicle, Richards bound the puppy’s mouth with tape, cut its back leg with a meat cleaver, slit its throat and severed the dog’s head from its body.

Other videos purportedly show Richards crushing crawfish, crabs and lobsters under her bare feet or stilettos.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Judge_Animal_snuff_films_protected_by_1st_Amendment.html

And not withstanding that one judge’s ruling in Texas, the Crush Video law still remains the law of the land everywhere else in the nation.

So, the question of the day remains,

IF IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHARE ANIMAL CRUSH SNUFF VIDEOS, WHY IS IT NOT ILLEGAL TO SHARE HUMAN MURDER SNUFF VIDEOS???

Riddle me that, Batman

“Snuff film”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.”

I Still Like Mike Judge

I hear the news vans have been to City Hall today regarding the recent news about Councilmember Mike Judge.  Honestly, that bothers me.  Here’s why:

I see Mike Judge as an important symbol in our community. It seemed the odds were against him when he first ran for City Council, but his numbers were pretty decent.  He gave Barbra Williamson a run for her money, but she still retook her seat.  The next time around, he firmly landed a seat on the Council.  He did that without the business accolades and awards.  He did that without the community connections and big dollar donors.  He did that without the support of sitting Council members.  For me, it was an exciting milestone.  It was sad to see Michelle Foster leave, but exciting to see a guy that we could all relate to be victorious.  His campaign style and general demeanor were very appealing to me from the very beginning.  I liked seeing him win.  I’d like him to stick around.

To Mike Judge: we’ve all made errors in judgment over the years ever since email gained traction as a main stream form of communication.  When you can share content with a ton of people by a simple click of a button, bad things are bound to slip out.  Own it.  Accept accountability and apologize.  You have a lot of supporters, and those who are troubled by this can forget about it and let it go if they know it won’t happen again. Your First Amendment rights are a true privilege that you value, I understand.  But a few people and the media are concerned.  So commit to not doing it again.

To Mike Judge’s advisors: thanks for sticking by him during a tough time. But if you’ve got an agenda to protect and you’re not publicly defending him, then you’re not doing anyone any favors.  You know who you are.

Mike Judge is a solid person who I respect as an individual and as a Councilmember.  I’d like to see this blow over really soon.  Let’s move on with a little assurance from Mike that this isn’t a concern moving forward.  It’s time to get back to business, folks!