Guest Commentary
by Jim Babwe
As important as the law is in our society, it’s also important to apply common sense to enforcement. There’s a tacit understanding among most of us that it’s possible to get a speeding ticket for driving 36 miles per hour on a road where the speed limit is 35, but it’s not likely. Technically, it’s against the law to operate a football pool which tempts us to pitch in a couple of bucks and draw some numbers which we hope will match the final score of the Holiday Bowl, for example. Authorities do their best to be diligent about enforcing laws that are intended to deter and/or punish those who would inflict serious harm to others or cause significant damage to property.
Recently here in town, two current members of our City Council (incumbents in the upcoming election) were filmed as they drove around and put up their campaign signs a full two hours or so prior to the official time as stated in City Ordinances. A firestorm of protest erupted from political opponents who, by all indications, would have enjoyed seeing the blatant scofflaws carted off to some high security State penitentiary.
The videos were posted on youtube and finger pointers pointed fingers and said things like, “Looky. Looky. I’m not voting for you and neither should anyone else because you got caught putting signs up before midnight.”
While it might be true that some of these tenacious seekers of justice never drive 36 in a 35 zone, it’s also true that these people might work themselves into a frenzy and flood the 911 emergency dispatch system with urgent calls.
DISPATCHER: 911. What’s your emergency?
CALLER: We need help. There’s a fire next door. It’s in the backyard. And it looks like some sort of cult ritual. Animals have been cut into pieces and people are placing these animal parts directly over the inferno. Some of them are sitting in groups at wooden tables. And it looks like alcohol is involved. The people seated at the wooden tables are eating the charred animal parts. Hurry. Please hurry.
Okay, I admit the exaggeration. And I understand that, technically, displaying campaign signs a couple of hours prior to the legally designated start time violates the specific wording of a City Ordinance. But does this kind of act truly deserve the inordinate amount of attention it has received? Does the story really rank high enough in importance to warrant front page attention by at least two local newspapers?
If you believe the story does deserve the close scrutiny it has received and if you hope other citizens here in Encinitas need to join in to demonstrate with you as you voice your indignation and outrage, why is it that you are also willing to ignore a related story which has far more serious implications?
As it stands, I can tell you the part of the sign story that has somehow been ignored by many has caught my complete attention.
In a front page story written by Barbara Henry of the North County Times (October 9, 2012), Tony Kranz was reported to have signs which were displayed prior to the official start time. He was interviewed and quoted in the story as follows:
Acknowledging that it sounds far-fetched, Kranz said those signs were stolen from his garage, which he accidentally left open Wednesday night. He said he thinks the thief later stuck them up along the road and then photographed them to make him look bad.
“In fact, I was shocked to find signs at Leucadia Boulevard (on Thursday morning), I actually gathered them up. … It’s against the law,” he (Kranz) said.
No big deal?
It is for me.
I’m the guy he phoned on the morning of October 8 to accuse of “breaking into his garage to steal the signs, put them up, and photograph them.”
Kranz claimed he has a “security system” at his home and he “knew it was me on the recording because the quips” he heard sounded exactly like me.
I’ve known Tony for about a year or so and we’ve always been on good terms, so at first, I thought he was kidding. As soon as I heard the name calling—I mean, I haven’t been called “slime” since . . . well, I don’t think anyone has ever called me that name to my face. I mean, to my ear through a phone. Or to my face—I understood he was not kidding. As I began to understand the implications of his accusations (breaking and entering, theft of personal property) I realized there was nothing funny at all about the situation.
Putting signs out early is one thing, but being unjustly accused of felonies is quite another. Based upon the gist of the message and Kranz’s tone of voice, I hung up the phone and began to contemplate the prospects of deputies arriving at the school where I was teaching at the time. I remember thinking, “How am I going to prove that I don’t even know where Tony Kranz lives?”
In addition, there were these thoughts, too: if Tony’s garage was broken into and robbed and he calls the police and says I did it, the remainder of my day would seem to include a completely unexpected twist, especially in terms of the liberty I enjoy and appreciate.
Based upon what I’ve observed in their behavior prior to now, I will not be surprised if I become a new target of opportunity for juvenile name-calling and the like. If Tony Kranz continues to deny what he said to me on the phone that day, I will be a liar, right?
Weirdly enough, and lucky for me, there are approximately 34 high school students who heard my end of the conversation when Kranz called me at 8:58 a.m.. And there are a few of those 34 who were close enough to me and my phone that they heard Kranz identify himself and then go ballistic. Or postal. Or out to lunch without his lunch pail. Yelling. Name-calling. Accusing.
When Kranz continued to yell at me, I realized there would be no reasoning with him. I told him I had not been to his house, not stolen anything, not seen his signs, not taken pictures of his signs, but he continued to yell at me, so I hung up the phone and let him entertain himself with his incoherent ramblings.
Later in the day, Tony called me again. This time, he denied making the wild accusations and claimed to “not have a security system at his house.” He claimed I must have “misinterpreted” what he wanted.
Next he tried to ask if he could buy some photos from me. I explained that we had a serious issue to clarify prior to any discussion about buying photographs. I explained that I know what it’s like to wake up on the wrong side of the bed. I know how it is to be a bit irritable. I’ve said things I didn’t mean.
I said, “Tony, I’m giving you an out here.” And I explained to Tony that I was worried about him–especially if he continued to deny the earlier accusations. I told him again that I was giving him an out.
He continued to deny the earlier accusations. I explained to Tony that I worked with troubled people for a long time and I told him that many of those people (especially those who were prone to deny their own blatantly inappropriate misbehaviors) could be classified as sociopathic. Kranz immediately accused me of calling him sociopathic and launched into another incoherent tirade. I interrupted and explained as follows: denial of his previous tantrum did not change the event. I did not “misunderstand” anything about his first phone call that day.
Nobody’s perfect. I understand that part. But Kranz lost my vote on Monday.
I won’t be so presumptuous as to tell anyone else how to vote, but if Tony Kranz is elected, those of you who want to dump Jerome Stocks because you think he’s arrogant will have to clear the way for another kind of potential behavior that puts arrogance into an entirely new (and relatively harmless) light.
I also need to add this. Those people who want to be regarded as intelligent, fair-minded, trustworthy, and ethical might be able to maintain the appearance of those values in the eyes of their friends and neighbors. But if they continue to express their disdain for candidates who put up campaign signs a couple of hours early while ignoring or otherwise minimizing the atrocious (and threatening) behavior of Tony Kranz—I will know them as hypocrites.
# # #
Babwe is a resident of Encinitas.
_____
The views express on SD Rostra are the responsibility of the individual authors. Mr. Babwe provided the above as a written document and in follow-up communication indicates that he stands by the statement in its entirety.
Comments 17
Anger Management?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R09X8Hw9A_s
I do not know about your hearsay. I did see video of Mr. Muir and Mayor Stocks putting signs up two days, not two hours as you indicated, early. I have not seen any indication that any other candidates themselves put any signs up early.
This seems like the old ‘look at the monkey’ ploy.
I am inclined to not believe your hearsay and your affiliation with Andreen further makes your statements, at the very least, questionable.
Your repeating, a couple hours, does not change the fact that Stock and Muir knowingly put their political signs up two days early to get an unfair advantage and it was recorded. It was recorded.
You are not telling the truth.
The youtube video, referenced here, that Mr Andreen promoted two years ago and is promoting now has been highly edited. The gentleman in the video addressing our council was holding a sign promoting vile anti- American propaganda. The sign the man is holding read “DESTROY AMERICA”, before being edited. I have no doubt that all of us would have reacted much the same if we had witnessed what truly occurred rather than the unfairly edited video presented here. This video was identified years ago as an unrealistic depiction of what occurred and nothing has changed.
There is a difference, Chris Thomas, between, “I do not know about your hearsay,” or “your affiliation … makes your statements, at the very least, questionable” and “You are not telling the truth.”
In five or six sentences, you question the intention of Babwe’s column and refer to it as hearsay. Then, you end your comment by outright calling him a liar.
So, which is it? Are you saying you disagree with his hearsay, or are you calling him a liar?
As predicted, the name calling begins. And my “affiliation?” Please explain.
Mr Zone. I stated that I do not know about his hearsay. Andreen has previously and repeatedly posted these allegations of Babwe. The video, the truth, does not support Babwe’s premise that the signs were put up, “…a few hours early, or so…”, but in reality, two days.
I did not comment on the “intention of Babwe’s column”. That is obvious.
Please define “your hearsay” in reference to what I wrote.
. . . and exactly what is an “unrealistic depiction” when a person who wants to be elected to public office is clearly shown delivering an obscene gesture directly to someone holding a camera. “All of us would have reacted much the same?” Really? All of us? Which “us” are you talking about?
definition of heresy: “The report of another person’s words by a witness…”
“unrealistic depiction”: This relates to a video of a radical un-American nut job that was holding a ‘DESTROY AMERICA’ sign that was edited in a video and photograph cropped to read only AMERICA and publicly spreading un-American propaganda. Tony was standing up for principals that we all should hold dear. That is the ‘us’ I talk about.
I’m sure you too, Jim, would stand up comment against vile, ‘hate America messages’.
This is a link that was on a poster that Mr Ogden, alleged victim in Encinitas Goof’s video.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/battle-within-emerging-divisions-in-tea.html
everyone needs to chill
More anger management Kranz video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O87thpbgOA4
Anyone tell you how childish this all looks?
“I was assaulted last night by a stupid fat lady that was supposedly on our side, like you say, because she did not like my sign. I get more opposition from Tea Partiers that I do from the “other” side.”
David Ogden (video guy talking about another alleged assault)
I agree with SpinZone
‘Encinitas goofbuster’ is (deleted by admin).
As you can see, the comment above was made moot. Anonymity on SD Rostra is allowed. It thus follows that attempts to ‘out’ anonymous commenters are not allowed. Mr. Thomas, we also have no idea if the person you accused goofbuster of being, is correct. In fact, we don’t care who it is. But, a false accusation would be both unfair to the commenter and the accused real person, as well as potentially libelous.
I have several questions:
1. Were you taking a personal phone call during classtime?
2. Are you paid to take personal phone calls during classtime?
3. Do you think that “your side of conversation” should have been delivered in front of your students?
4. Do you think you exhibited good judgment by exposing your students to a personal conversation that has nothing to do with teaching the class?
5. Do you think that implying someone is a sociopath is conducive to an atompshere of mutual respect and congenial dialogue?
6. How did you calculate that the signs were posted two hours before the deadline when they were put up Friday night before midnight and according to the city clerk signs were not supposed to be posted until Sunday?
7. Do you teach math?
8. Do you agree that elected officials should avoid even the appearance of impropriety?
9. Are you teaching our children that breaking the law is okay if it is just a teeny tiny violation?
Thank you for your prompt reply.
1. Yes.
2. As a qualified, experienced teacher I understand that individual job descriptions cannot possibly cover everything a teacher is expected to do. Am I paid to take personal phone calls during class? I’ll explain this way. Like every good teacher I’ve ever known, I have spent my own money on supplies and logged more time past contractual obligations than you can possibly imagine. If you believe strict adherence to assigned hours is what you would expect, please let me know how you would answer the following question. If I’m done with my contracted teaching day and a student calls me and says she’s planning to commit suicide how should I explain to the student? “Sorry. School ended 10 minutes ago. That’s not part of my job description.” I’ve never regarded teaching as a “job.” It has been my work. By the way, the potential suicide situation was not a fictional example. Also, teachers and students are interrupted more frequently than you might think. Announcements, summons requests, leaf blowers, thunder. And, on occasion, phone calls. Why are you trying to portray a target (me) as the wrongdoer here?
3. “My side” was not “delivered” in any format which could be compared to instruction of any sort. In fact, “my side” was more difficult for students to hear than the loud voice of the person who phoned me. His volume was far greater than mine. Initially (for the first 10-20 seconds of the call), I thought Kranz was kidding. When I figured out he was not kidding and when I realized students could hear him, I walked away from the front of the room and stood in the doorway so the phone was as far away as I could hold it at the time. In terms of content and tone, I’d compare Kranz’s rant to something you’d expect to hear on the Jerry Springer Show. I’m certain none of the high school students in the room was damaged by the brief experience. The call lasted for slightly longer than 2 minutes. I estimate that my spoken contribution to the “exchange” lasted less than 20 seconds.
4. At the time, I was expecting an important call. I did not recognize the number as it was displayed by caller ID. Before I heard Tony’s voice, I thought I was answering a call I had been expecting. I was wrong.
5. My respect for the person who called me has been diminished. In terms of “mutual respect and congenial dialogue,” I shook hands and spoke briefly with Kranz prior to last Wednesday’s City Council Meeting. He maintains that I am not owed an apology. I disagree. I’ll survive. But considering Tony’s desire to serve on the Encinitas City Council, I believe it is my responsibility (and my right) to speak freely and honestly about my experience. If you inferred that this person is a “sociopath,” you misunderstood me. Have you misinterpreted my expression of concern for your own conclusions?
6. My two-hour estimate is based upon what I read in Barbara Henry’s NCTimes story of 10/09/2012.
7. I am not a math teacher.
8. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is usually a good idea. If Tony Kranz signs were displayed early, is it proper for him tell a news reporter that his garage was burglarized by people who wanted to make him “look bad?” Did he report the theft to authorities? What would most people do in response to a crime of this nature? Would a reasonable person make angry, unwarranted allegations against an innocent person? Is this the kind of behavior you would expect from a person who hopes to be elected to public office?
9. The easiest answer here would be a simple “No.” However, I’m a pretty big fan of Henry David Thoreau. Remember that guy? When slavery was legal in the United States, he understood that some laws are so unjust, civil disobedience is a viable option. I admit, this campaign sign business isn’t comparable (especially in terms of the harm) to a practice that was once legal (and immoral). The law can be wrong. And some laws can be so trivial that they should be disregarded. But remember–I didn’t write to complain about sign violations. I wrote to protest an accusation made via telephone, a false allegation I saw again (without my name included) in the following morning’s edition of the North County Times.
Have my answers helped you to understand why I won’t vote for Tony? Do you understand why your own credibility is compromised by your decision to complain about some of the early signs and not all of the early signs? Do you understand how this choice serves as positive reinforcement for the guy who interrupts my class time with a phone call and unfounded allegations he cannot possibly support with facts of any kind? Is this the kind of representation that can, in any way, be seen as beneficial to our community? You are entitled to your opinion, but mine goes like this: Tony Kranz is unfit for the job.