I think forced public financing is a strait-forward solution to a strait-forward problem. But the supreme court has ruled consistently that to prevent politicians from using private funding is unconstitutional. Similarly the court has had the wisdom to rule that law enforcement on Indian reservations may not enforce the law on Non-Indians. On a reservation in Idaho this has lead to lawlessness since the local police have refused to come onto the reservation. In case someone didn’t understand I am being sarcastic in calling the supreme court wise. I think new members on the supreme court is long overdue.

Obviously the simple solution to the indian problem is to allow the law enforcement that is already present to carry out justice without regard to race but that would be unconstitutional because of president from the 1970s. Or what about when the court majority decided that the federal government could not have a law against rape. Did you all know that the only other country that allows an unelected body to have this much influence over democratic laws is Iran. That is right; America and Iran have this commonality.

I don’t really think that the supreme court is inherently awful. My solution is to put wiser people on the court.

Ironically senators mostly just check that a court candidate has a lot of legal knowledge an no current ideological positions. Never mind that all justices enact their ideological positions but that ever since Robert Bork they don’t admit them. I have taken a detour from talking about the mayor of all Sacramentans.

I think whether or not it is positive development, depends on the true reason for him admitting it. In church the choir often sings a song, “We fall down, but we get up…” Johnson as mentioned falling down but getting back up (the Bee seems to suggest it’s due to boxing/ knocked down…) But in many black churches (including St Paul) it’s a song sung by the choir regarding sin and changing… I don’t know if Johnson is singing a hymn from memory or if he actually means the words he is saying. If the mayor fails and admits it for reasons other than gaining public approval then it’s a step in the right direction. But as it stands the journey of a thousand miles (and Johnson has many many miles to go) begins with its first steps…. I understand Johnson has to crawl before he can walk, walk before he can run but quite frankly I haven’t seen him get off his treadmill of telling the people what he thinks they want to hear and doing so with little to no sincerity. Some could argue positive development and others can argue Johnson’s status quo “got to give the people- give the people what they want”- to hear.

As far as I understand our present situation, developers have a lot of influence in city hall. Developers have used their “bridges” to build houses in flood zones and generally build the wrong buildings in the wrong places in order to maximize their personal profit. I don’t think I want Kevin Johnson “building bridges” with council members who have very strong “bridges” with developers.

In a system where we all have the same mission we should all “build bridges.” Like if we work in a factory we never oppose each other we all just do our part in our larger mission. But government isn’t the same. I want a mayor who fights for what is right and doesn’t just go with the flow.

And I don’t know if Kevin Johnson is going to be for the developers all the time or if he is going to be an independent voice but I certainly don’t want a mayor who is committed to working with everyone to the point where he supports the council’s vision even when he disagrees with that vision.

I think that “building bridges” with the current city council at least requires Kevin Johnson to serve developers and I don’t agree with that at all.

Given all this I am very surprised at Joe’s reaction to the mayor admitting to failure.

I am surprised that Joe is focused on the electoral aspect of what the mayor said instead of being pleased that he is talking about moving in a direction closer to what you have asked for. Or you could have focused on why you don’t trust what the mayor says. But admittedly it is interesting to talk about what he does in terms of if it will help him get reelected or not.

I just consider understanding what the mayor is doing or trying to do more relevant to me than if he is going to be reelected. I suppose there are no alternative articles evaluating Kevin Johnson’s potential elector success though. So that is a least a justification for the focus of this article.