Pancakes and Politics Official Voter Guide

Pancakes & Politics “Official” (as we are) V O T E R
G U I D E (also known as PPVG, by absolutely no one)

 by Alan Miller and Danielle Fodor

Pancakes and Politics had two goals this election:

• Eat Pancakes
• Talk Politics

On eating pancakes, we succeeded. There was even a bottle of Log Cabin syrup. No one seemed to know who brought this brand of syrup to the event, though some suspected that Log Cabin Republicans dropped it off during the night.

On the politics part . . . well, we talked politics for almost four hours, and we still didn’t get through the entire ballot. The rough souls in the room are of course among the most politically opinionated persons (POPs) in Davis, and, as such, keeping the discussions brief was like herding cats. Very politically opinionated cats.

Similar to the drummers in Spinal Tap, people who attend P&P sessions spontaneously combust as the meeting progresses. So you’ll notice our initial votes have SO many people voting, and then fewer and fewer as the day progresses, with more blinding flashes of light and another pile of smoldering silver dust. It’s hard to get a vote from a smoldering pile.

What follows is a highly filtered documentation of events, filtered mostly by our ability to remember. The Pancakes & Politics Voter Guide (PPVG) does not try to be fair, balanced, or accurate. PPVG is no more than a blurry recollection of the event; if you weren’t there, you missed it. So did we.

BORED IN SCHOOL ?

We noted that all candidates purported to love children, love our community, and work well with the community — EXCEPT JOSE GRANDA. Then people laughed.   Sinister, eh?

The statements of the candidates can best be summarized as “I fully support the good ideas of the community.” What no candidate said out loud was “elect me and we’ll all go down together.”

Winning the SIGN WAR are Adams, Archer, Sunder, & Poppenga. So say we.

There are no Incumbents . . . except FERNANDEZ, but no one is running against him. He’s been on board a few months and has only a two year term.   His existence on the board is due to the departure of Nancy Peterson. Oh, the tragedy of the Nancy incident, also known as “Volleyball-Gate.”

SUNDER, UCD law professor and local parent, was criticized for her pale signs, while being lauded for the bright red dress she wore to a voter forum, that stood out in the pale event photo like a penguin in a flock of ducks.   Sunder has great name recognition, endorsements galore, and a strategic plan that stressed balance, balance, balance, because if you are off-balance, one balance isn’t enough. She’s concerned about the achievement gap, and talked about tapping UCD for its precious resources. She’s a big proponent of the GATE program. (The over-simple explanation of Davis’ GATE controversy is that GATE used to be a place that kids who were “super-smart” could go to have a comfortable place to learn, and some feel it’s morphed into an “all the smart kids go to college” program.) One P&Per suggested Sunder needed to recuse herself from the controversy around the GATE program since she has kids in the GATE program, other P&Pers, not so much. All the candidates have a horse in the race, so to speak.

POPPENGA (not to be confused with “Poppin Fresh” of Pillsbury fame) was on the Professional Development Action Team. GO TEAM! He believes in the value of listening , and looking into research, and is also concerned with the achievement gap. He’s concerned about artists and kinesthetic learners (we assume a kinesthetic learner is someone knows what “kinesthetic” means). He’s concerned about the ability to raise awareness of alternative potential to kids, such as making a place for technical/vocational learning . . . “Bring Back Woodshop! Bring Back Woodshop!”  One in our party liked that he was a toxicologist and thus aware of developmental literature; no one else knew what developmental literature was.

Generally, pancake eaters were Impressed; yes, with a capital “I.” Mr. P showed credibility, and applied to city commissions.   Why is he running? To improve communication between the school district and the community. One Pancakian said he was cautious & political he’d not say something to alienate, yet they are still voting for him, though they wish he’d “come out” more. WE ended up endorsing, who he WASN’T, rather than who he WAS . . . wrap your head around THAT for a moment. Whoa. Whoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !

BARBARA ARCHER

She’s a public relations manager/served on PTA/served on the the Site Council/and was a DaVinci High volunteer endorsed by the Davis Teacher’s Association. And she wishes we wouldn’t use/slashes/to describe her.

She seemed to have a lot of info, a lot of actual stats on DAVIS local issues, whereas the other candidates based their positions more on feelings . . . nothing more than feelings . . . feelings like I’ll never have you, again in my heart. Feelings . . . . . whoa oh oh . . . feelings.

She expressed a wish for “new learning” in the district, as to help those from the Migrant Center who come to Montgomery . . . her kids go there, have challenges as non-GATE kids, she’s been open/honest about the struggles of her kids.

She’s described (by someone or another) as persistent. She had what could be a “negative” start (at least for us outliers), endorsed by “insider” machine people who didn’t endorse the non–machine candidates on City Council (did you follow that?). She baked cookies for PTA (or so it is rumored – it appears someone ate the evidence). After a coffee, one P&Per ended up endorsing her, saying she has the mental & intellectual capability to do the job. Second, she is forceful, direct, and not afraid to be confronted. We then called her and confronted her, just to check. A concern was that she speaks in generalities and maybe, maybe needs to dig in, but we speak generally when we say that.

THOMAS ADAMS — whose namesake invented gum.

He’s helped drafting Common Core guidelines, and was on the Cesar Chavez site council (even though the site was chosen years ago). He has long been into local school politics. He says the CC is stressing out teachers; certainly teachers seem stressed, but when has that not been true? P&Pers said he seems OK, winning lawn sign war, so people must like him. (They really should call a truce on the sign war.)

He speaks a lot about consensus building with colleagues, but realistically with the Brown Act, how can that be done? Not realistic maybe. He’s described as a “non-anxious person” . . . the sky is not falling kind of guy. Chicken Big. He’s got the Valley Oak thing is in his craw #shrug#. But, in a vibe sense, is he a school board member, or an administrator? Either way, maybe that’s OK.

RAIRDAN or NADRIAR (in backwards land).

Rairdan believes there is a need to better serve students who are not college bound. He touts accountability and fiscal responsibility and he may be good for the board as having an “outsider” perspective, though we’re not sure what he is outside of. Unlike the other candidates, no one has met him.   Maybe that’s why he appears to be an outsider. He’s the only one besides GRANDA who’s opposed to a parcel tax for education.

Jose GRANDA

(As soon as we mentioned his name, a dog in the room started growling angrily, for seemingly no reason. No, we’re not making that up.)

He’s been in politics for awhile, and spent 32 years as teacher/student in this fine town. He’s big on the structural deficit of the school district. He believes a non-profit should be established to help, but ‘twas asked why, as Davis already has the Davis Schools Foundation. He’d like to see a tutoring/technology center on the Grande property (NOT to be confused with the Granda property, no relation).

Is his election unlikely? Well, since votes for the other candidates could split the vote, and since there is a solid block in town opposed to taxes, he could come in as the third place winner.

He’s an “Interesting person” (“may you be an interesting person”). He was plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City over increase in tax, based on a technicality, that the City should have said half-percent not half-cent tax. Few P&Peers seemed impressed with this, being it was the technicality that allowed the lawsuit, not the principal. One person commented that there is “something wrong” with how he thinks about money, which was a thankful clarification from what they first said that didn’t quite come out right (in fact it came out wrong).

In probably the most hilarious moment of the entire day, one P&Per clicked on the “Why vote for Jose?” button on his web page.

It was a blank page.

One participant asked if perhaps his being on the board was good, for diversity of opinion, as long as that did not cause gridlock. But another participant was not impressed, pointing out that Granda didn’t even do his homework to make sure his lawsuit was factually correct. He just wasted a lot of people’s time.

MIKE NOLAN

He’s a “parent activist,” inspired after the Nancy Peterson meltdown-debacle-scandal, to “restore trust.” He has two older kids and is on the PTA. He was on the Climate Committee (and failed to change the weather, we may note) – and is concerned with bullying, and the climate of the class (first get rid of those pesky clouds). He ran in 2010. Some attorneys and the Davis Teachers Association endorse him.

In regard to the drug abuse in Davis – particularly the six heroin deaths of high school students, one P&Per noted he was the ONLY candidate that came to a recent very intense event on the matter. Dick Livingston (a former teacher) – endorses the Nolan Man. He’s opposed to GATE; instead he recently endorsed a “whole child ahead of elitism” concept, as “where it happens.”

SO, IN CONCLUSION, THE PEOPLE OF P&P SAY, IN NO PARTICULAR CLARITY: Because kids are the future, it’s important to vote on this even if you’re not a parent. Someone said only privileged families get to run (as they have the time, money and connections). Another complained that none of the candidates understands restorative justice, although there are signs that is changing, particularly with Archer and Sunder. With regard to the current School board, the candidates see charter schools as competition, when they could be seen as complementary (and why not elect someone who likes charter schools). Or something like that.

And now, at long last, the P&P straw poll:

Sunder – 7

Rairdan – 0

Poppenga – 7.5

Nolan – 3

Granda – Negative

Archer – 9

Adams – 0.5

Do not ask how we got half votes: It’s a P&P thing, and if you weren’t there, you wouldn’t understand. Understand?!!???!

HOW NOT TO GET PROPOSITIONED

Prop. 1 – Water – Another Prop. 1! Whenever the Governor wants something passed, they call it Prop. 1 again. Can we please have a proposition to stop any more so-called Prop. 1’s for at least a decade?

Features of Proposition 1:

• It’s Tax Neutral, Kids!
• It’s for $7.12 Billion, Kids!
• It’s for water infrastructure, Kids!
• It’s got Dams, Desalinization Plants & Canals, Kids!
• It Emphasizes Agriculture, Kids!
• But, the bonds will be paid for by the general fund, Kids!
• They say it will reduce water contamination and increase treatment, Kids!
• And it’s about regional management and treatment and water protection, Kids!
• And recycling and remediation, Kids!

Since the money is there for many possible projects, but not for any specific projects, supporters of their favorite projects are heard to say: “We support the good programs of the water bond.”

AGAINSTers: Include environ groups, but not all environmental groups, some are torn (aSunder?) as there is much Democratic support for this. The Sierra Club and Planning and Conservation League have not taken a stand either way. Arguments include that users should pay, not taxpayers, that it’s socialized water for a private interest. It’s a debt that will crowd other interests and further deplete the general fund. It also increases the number of dams and won’t help with the current drought. Said someone, sometime: “The problem isn’t the number of dams, it’s that there isn’t any water in the ones we have!”

The Against Opinion Further States: It’s Hubristic and a poor compromise (though it reflects political reality of state). One “expert” was troubled by the compromise, the so-called tunnel-neutral-ness that didn’t exclude the Delta Tunnels, and said there are no more “good” dam sites, that it was basically all for Southern California and Agricultural water districts. Instead we need to cut water wasting crops like alfalfa, cotton, almonds, cotton, and golf courses. Yes, golf courses are a crop!

Againsters further say that, in reality, all this domestic water use cutting means nearly nothing. In Yolo, agricultural is a huge percentage of the water use, and it’s mostly for irrigation and it comes mostly from Indian Valley Reservoir. Farmers are divided locally.  Many arguments are made that we need underground storage instead and localized projects; some were encouraged generally about the new law that will have local jurisdictions would managing groundwater. There were passionate arguments that the money could be used for environmentally destructive and “unacceptable” projects such as the Raising of Shasta Dam, Sites Reservoir (in them thar hills) and Temperance Flat, and would further destroy areas of the California landscape and inundate more houses and businesses and force people to move.

Supporters include farmers to the south, engineering and construction contractors, and Sean Parker the Napster dude! Also, one P&Per would say they “support while holding their nose.” Pro-argument is that we’ll have a more reliable supply during a drought, it’s fiscally responsible as it will not raise taxes, and it’ll increase reservoir capacity. The “socialized” aspect makes sense in this case, as that will create wealth and allow the market process to happen, and it will be paid back from the value of what is created. For-ists further say without the capacity increase, Cal will suffer negative health and economic impacts. Though imperfect, they argue, how else do get water? A sustainable perfect solution is politically impossible so we must act.

In conclusion, and in opposition to what was just said, one P&Per stated: “Why not wait for the good law? Send it back, rewrite it!”

After spraying everyone with a fire hose to get them to pipe down (then letting that fire hose run for about an hour in the yard, sorry about your plants, sorry about the drought), we voted:

For . . . 2

Against . . . 6

Undecided. . . . 3

Prop 2 – Double size of the Rainy Day Fund

A most ironically named fund, in the middle of a drought (both in rain and in money).

Everyone in the whole wide world is for this, except educational institutions who say the down side is it may take money from schools; Democrats and Republicans are for it; the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is for it, the wickedly popular Potrero Hill Democratic Club is for it; Newspapers are for it; Delaine Easton is against it, who? – Oh, the former sup of schools, so that makes sense, but Sheena Easton is for it, so it’s OK! Kids say “Who?”

How good are protections? Well, we don’t know, but everyone thinks it’ll do more good than harm, except Delaine; and hey kids, it’s a constitutional amendment, so it’s fun!

The halves have it,

5.53 for

0.47 against

PROP 45: It’s about Heath Care!

It’s about just the small number of people who are in small individual plans (9%) or small group plans (7%). Of course, if you are in those groups, it’s 100% of your plan. It’s got to do with the California Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care, and people In-Between Plans.

Concerns against are that Prop. 45 gives more power to the Insurance Commissioner who is elected and who could therefore be bribed . . . but, no insurance company money recently was supporting the Commissioner, so is it an issue? And can’t a non-elected be bribed as well? Ahem, that’s assuming there is “bribery” in our lily off-white state. Prop 45 is promoted by promoters to promote public disclosure and transparency, and to challenge premium increases by forcing those @#$(*! insurance companies to provide reasoning, yes reasoning, but can’t reject them, so WTF.

Those opposed inject the problem with O-bah-ma Care, that it’s more expensive for all; it exempts big corporations–why aren’t large corporation plans also compelled to ‘justify their love’?

Who’s for it: the California Nurses Association, consumer watchdog organizations, consumer attorney’s unions, bunch-o-senators, nuns. They raised a million bucks. But opponents raised $37.6 million bucks, including insurance companies, doctors, and the state chamber-o-commerce.

One P&Per summarized to say it might have been a good prop when started in 2012, but punt forward to 2014, not so much. And meanwhile we gots us Covered California now, and this separate layer caused a new burden so the prop may be unnecessary. And again, some felt it gave too much power to one individual, the Commish.

So, in the poll straw of health, we came out thus:

Yes – 1.5

No – 5

Abstain – 3

Prop 46 – Doctor & Drugs. The P&P presenter, in defiance of our “have no political opinions” policy (that we don’t have), wore a “No on 46” button. Turns out this prop will require random drug and alcohol testing of doctors, who’d be suspended if they get a positive test. And doctors don’t like to receive drug tests, they like to give drug tests. But it does seem extreme – there’s mandated reporting, i.e. physicians must take “positive action” and report any doctors suspected of using drugs, especially those nasty opiates. So you’ve got to rat people out, and rats might out you, considering tit for tat and all that. As if there wasn’t enough politics in the workplace. This would also raise the monetary cap on lawsuits for pain and suffering above economic loss, from $250,000 to $1.1 million. Legislative analysts say cost to government would be an increase of $10’s to $100’s millions. That’s more a top hat than a cap.

Yessers say it would prevent medical errors, so it will save lives because there are so many impaired doctors. It also will prevent patients from over-using prescription drugs by preventing over-prescribing of too many opiates. It will also eliminate the cap assigned in the 70’s that was never adjusted for inflation and thus respect people’s lives (i.e. their right to live without pain and suffering). In short, this law is Sausage. Overall, P&P agrees about raising medical malpractice; as the $250,000 was set in 70’s, not adjusted for inflation. Even with truly egregious medical errors, attorneys often won’t take a case because there’s no $$ reward, so a whole segment of society is left out because they can’t afford to sue

No-ers say most medical errors are not due to drugs and alcohol. They are caused by orderlies with vials using them the old way, back when vials looked similar so a nurse might grab a wrong vial, or see a wrong label. (Of course, the No-er present was a doctor, and why wouldn’t a doctor shift the blame to orderlies and vial manufacturers). New systems rely on checklists; new doctors reply on checklists. As far as drug testing people, even if random, and in hospital, it could be done for retribution, and false positives are commonplace, and those in suspect can’t work until an investigation is completed.

Reference CURES, the keep-babies-away-from-heroin database, as an example of the all-powerful-all-seeing-all-knowing database this law will create.   Ask a doctor about CURES (we asked not any doctor, but our doctor-in-residence, yes, that impartial one wearing the “No on 46” button). CURES database is great in theory but doesn’t work, as it may not update right away. There may be a better system up by 2016, but the current system breaches confidentiality. If it were a robust system “we” might agree.

As for the caps on pain and suffering, they are largely for a contingency fund for attorneys. As for the drug tests, other systems of mandatory testing/reporting show how prejudice and “good intentions” go wrong. For example, pregnant women are required to be tested for drugs if their physician suspects drug use, resulting in pregnant woman of color being drug tested at much higher rates than white women (though research suggests drug use amongst pregnant women is similar regardless of race). There’s a high number of false positives in these drug tests, resulting in terrible impacts on women of color and their families (i.e. babies put into foster care based on false positives). Since THAT system’s working soooo well – let’s extend it to physicians, eh? Then there could be unpleasant situations of colleagues using it against one another. Doctors may just choose not to practice in such a witch hunty work climate, as the whole act criminalizes doctors (or so says the doctor with the “No on 46 button”). And/Or, it’s a cost of living allowance for trial lawyers. Overall, 46 sets a legal precedent to expand drug testing.

Doctors vs. Trial Lawyers: take 10 paces, turn, and throw opiate filled syringes at each other. And be sure to log the results in the unreliable opiate database.

In the end, no one thought it was worth it due to all the negatives:

For – Zero

Against – Six

Abstainers – One

Measure 47 – Safe Neighborhoods & Schools

P&Pers say right up front: a sugary name like that is “Enough to Vote Against it.”

But despite the sap, we were in the end convinced.

Bottom Line: It makes a small group of felonies into misdemeanors. With the money saved, 10% will go to Victim’s Compensation; 65% to state board of corrections; and 25% to the Board of Education; drug courts, and mental health courts.

Background: In the 1980’s, crime was rising, so misdemeanors were turned to felonies and there was increased mandatory sentencing. So we put a lot of people behind bars. Now some people have… regrets.

So Prop 47 aims to get people out of state prison for some of these crimes that used to have lesser penalties and give jurisdiction back to counties. Also, it gives inmates who were convicted in this period the ability to appeal their felonies. There’s more money in state prison than in county jail and more than 5,800 criminals in state prison that could instead go into county jail. This is especially true of drug crimes. For-ish people say there are too many folks in state prison, and we should shift funds from prison to victim’s rights, social services, prevention and such.

So who supports it: Well, Newt Gingrich, that Netflix guy, and JayZ. But what about Valerie Bertinelli? Also, pretty-boy Gavin, Lonnie Hancock, Leno (Jay or Mark?), Steinberg, Skinner (Nancy or Leonard?), B. Wayne Hughes and Bruce Wayne.

There’s more money for than against: $4 mil, as opposed to $300,000 for against.

Those Who Oppose: The police and district attorneys, Feinstein, sexual assault victim advocates. Their argument is that someone can caught with possession of date-rape drugs a number of times, yet not receive the minimum sentence. Also, stealing handguns under $950 is a similar problem. Both date-rape drugs and gun theft are crimes that beget larger crimes, namely: rape and shooting people. Also, the argument against the appeals clause for existing felons is that the original judge knew the sentence for each felony charge, so in theory, the original judge already took sentence length into account and made adjustments. So, maybe it shouldn’t work retroactively, as the judge already took these factors into consideration. Maybe we need to make altering a sentence by a judge a felony, to be decided on by judges.

So, we wonderz: 30-40 years ago this crime was not dangerous as felony, then it was, and now, maybe it shouldn’t be again. Crimes for the Times.

When all was said and done, and we cleared the felons out of the room who had a conflict of interest, the vote was:

For – 5

Against – None

Abstain – 1

Prop 48 – – Ratify Two Native American Gaming Compacts

This involves two compacts specifically for the Mono & Wiyot tribes. It would exempt them from CEQA. It involves an East Madera County casino and some other casino. Tribes pay on average $10 mil for mitigation for a casino.

Yessers include: Jerry Brown, the Democratic Party, and the sponsoring Indian Casinos.

In Opposition: the world-famous Potrero Hill Democratic Club; the opposing Table Mountain Tribe with a competing Casino that spent $2 mil to oppose.

As for the confused and conflicted: the LA TIMES says pass, though feds should take stricter actions; The Bee opposes and says instead open the way to clearer policy.   On the pro-side it is said to create jobs.

Some in our group were opposed to the Casinos generally, but this is just two compacts, so really, what is the way to vote? Some in the group had a thing about paying to buy signatures for an initiative generally, and commercial deals like this stink when you can buy signatures. Then there was general confusion over: this tribe or that? Clearly building a casino near town will make all the surrounding rural “destination” casinos suffer. So maybe it doesn’t increase jobs or benefit native people – it just shifts the wealth from one tribe to another. Random fact: there are currently 59 casinos in CA.

So we voted:

For – 1

Against – 2

Abstain – 4

But then someone walked into the room and gave a passionate speech about how the Casino money helps disadvantaged tribes. And how we shouldn’t stop that. That confused everyone. Then we started talking about all those cars driving all that way to rural casinos, when they could just be making short trips, polluting less. Isn’t gambling sin enough, without adding pollution to your eternal soul? We weebled like wobbles, and the vote changed to:

For – 3

Against – 2

Abstain – 2

Take you pick.

Govern OR don’t Governor

Alright it’s the only office we covered. There’s a new way to primary, and its dullsville (blame 2010’s Prop. 14) with only two candidates left and none of those “fun” parties in the race.

One person gave a scathing poo-poo to Jerry Brown, his difficulty in working with people for compromise, his hubris, his support of the budget-busting high-speed rail plan and unions. They was impressed that Kashkari is socially liberal and that pisses off the Republican Party machine. NK also showed up in Fresno and pissed off the Republican mayor there by posing as a homeless man for several days and getting on national news.

On the opposing view, a passionate speech at P&P proclaimed that Kashkari is unsuitable for politics, too sure of himself, the self-proclaimed Crown Prince of Sacramento, and a shock jock who creates fireworks and who is therefore more suitable for reality TV and not for politics. He’s a business real estate owner and the interim secretary at the federal level who oversaw TARP.

In support of Jerry Brown: He frequently looks into issues personally: gun ownership, for example. He has done things for corrections: on AB-209 for example, Jerry recognized the chance to have people integrate into the community; of those, Jerry personally read the psychological autopsies of all of those eligible and takes the matter seriously. He’s a miser; witness the rainy day fund. On education he has countered some of the school privilege inequity issues, and redirected money to education in disadvantaged communities.

As for higher-ed, there’s been a decline in resources at UCD – where is Brown on UC? In the Age of Austerity, there was a promise of public education, just $16 when UC started, it’s now $5700 a quarter, and thus way less accessible to the average person. It’s $100’s just for a damn library card.

Some say Brown hasn’t done enough. In his “attempt to reclaim the title of Moonbeam”, he at first believed educatin’ must be free, and proclaimed to reform education, such as the Dream Act and to help the extremely disadvantaged in public schools. This was to be in a package he said he would work on. But for those “not disadvantaged enough” it isn’t working. It may be beyond his, or any governor’s, means to fix. “I wouldn’t try to run for governor” said one P&Per, wistfully.

In the end, we still leaned left-ish:

Jerry—5

Kashkari – 1

Not Vote – 1

THE REST OF THE OFFICES

We’d been talking for four hours, our brains were fried, half the people had burst into flames already, so we just said F—K it. And thus, we kinda sorta maybe didn’t get to Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Member State Board of Equalization 2^nd District, United States Representative, 3^rd District, and Member of the State Assembly District 4^th District.

Oops.

THOU SHALT NOT SHALL

We didn’t even try to cover was the 10 “shall” (unopposed) votes. Unless one sacrificed a goat at a City Council meeting, they are all going to be shalled in, even though few voting know who the F they are voting, #ahem# “for”. So if you wanted to know if Kathyrn Mickle Werdegar, Goodwin Liu, or Mariano-Florentino Cuellar shall be Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, or if Vance W. Raye, Elena J. Duarte, Ronald B. Robie, William J. Murray, Jr., Andrea Lynn Hoch, Louis Mauro or Jonathan K. Renner shall be Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeal, District 3, don’t ask P&P, we don’t give a flying F. Do you? Seriously, do you?

WE SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTED SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO CLEAN UP

The Corner COOP had to clean up all the silver powder and smoke damage. We are a terrible crowd to host, so noisy and rude. Thank you to the Corner COOP for putting up with our S—t. We love you! On to the next co-op.

——————————————————-

What and who is Politics and Pancakes?

A rowdy bunch of Davisites. Your neighbors, quite possibly. Whoever shows up, really, and cares to spend hours talking politics, taking notes, and trying to make sense (and fun) with the chaos that is our democracy.

What do we want?

Your money. No, really, send us some cash so we can print more voter guides. They’re collector’s items! Use PayPal to send donations to: communityartworks [at] gmail.com.

Join us next time!

Email mindx [at] omsoft.com to get on the mailing list.

Categories: