Oregon Undersheriff: "F*** The Public"

---

LAW ENFORCEMENT / OREGON UNDERSHERIFF: "F*** THE PUBLIC"

---

One of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.

“F--- The Public” Says Brian Anderson

Affidavits cite Anderson as saying,“citizens get what they pay for”

Sheriff Candidate Brian Anderson

~ By Ron Lee
Investigative Reporter
US~Observer

Josephine County, OR - Recently, several ex-Josephine County sheriff deputies along with one on-duty officer have stepped forward with affidavits claiming that on many occasions Brian Anderson, current undersheriff, made disparaging remarks toward the public in briefings to his staff saying, "F--- 'em. They get what they pay for." According to an affidavit Anderson even went on to say that he would release the prisoners of the jail if the public didn’t want to fund it and let them deal with the criminals. In the affidavits Anderson also instructed deputies not to respond to anything other than emergency calls. Included as well was information alleging Anderson allowed "false investigations against deputies to proceed despite his knowledge the deputies were innocent," because they didn't belong to the "A Team" - a group some in the department call the good-old-boy club that currently exists. One of the affidavits even cites specific criminal misconduct. The US~Observer has also obtained a recent letter written by Grants Pass Chief of Police Joe Henner stating that the city police will no longer back the sheriff's department unless it is an absolute emergency. This is because there are no procedures in place within the sheriff's department to take care of many situations they face. In his letter Henner specifically mentioned that he had previously brought this to the attention of Undersheriff Anderson, but that no procedures have as yet been adopted. These affidavits and the letter by the city police chief come at a pivotal point for Anderson who is seeking to be elected as the county sheriff in the upcoming election on the grounds that he is well qualified for the position and has been doing a good job as undersheriff.

On October 10, 2006, US~Observer investigative reporter John Taft called Anderson for comment on the allegations stated in the affidavits, specifically that of him saying, "F--- the Public." Anderson at first responded that his remarks were taken out of context but later recanted saying that he never used the F-word. However, commenting on the grounds of anonymity one high-ranking public official stated that he had heard Anderson say this many times.

One of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.

Anderson has, in part, based his platform on running for the position of sheriff that there needs to be an individual in the top position who has budgetary experience as funding is, according to Anderson, the biggest law enforcement challenge this county faces saying, "we don't have stabilized funding so we end up losing a lot of our officers to other agencies because they might not have a job next year. And to me you can't fight the meth problem and any of those other issues if you don't have the staff to do it. You need detectives. You need deputies out there handling calls. You need directors for when people call in. You need the jail, a jail that's adequately funded to house people. I think funding is the biggest issue." But mismanagement of funds is one of the many issues the affidavits address calling into question Anderson's ability to head the department, one which obviously has more issues than previously known. As for “budgetary experience;” any experience Anderson does have is for naught given the excessive amount of lawsuits (most successful) that have been filed against the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office while Anderson and Dave Daniel have overseen the department, or in better terms, failed to oversee the department.

The authors of the affidavits all feel the public need to be informed of what is going on in the department. One of the affidavits reads in part, "In making these statements, it is not my will or intent to bring disfavor upon the Josephine County Sheriff's office. I still have many friends there that are good people that work hard. I simply want the citizens to know the truth about what has been happening ..." Another even says, "I do not believe that the public would want someone like this (Anderson) to be our sheriff for Josephine County."

With the election now days away the effects of these affidavits remain to be seen. As for Gil Gilbertson, Brian Anderson's opponent in the election, he had no comment when asked if he had any opinion on the effects the affidavits might have.

Editor's Note: It has come to light that the editor, Denis Roler, of the Grants Pass, OR local news publication, the Daily Courier, also has the affidavits and has yet to publish any kind of story. Is Roler trying to protect Anderson by remaining silent, or does he feel that it isn't worthy news for their readers? Whatever the answer, it makes one wonder.

Denis Roler at the Daily Courier can be reached by calling:
(541) 474-3700
or by e-mail at newsdept@thedailycourier.com

To voice your opinion to Brian Anderson, he may be reached by calling the Josephine County Sheriff's Department:
(541) 474-5123
or by e-mail at jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

© 2006, US~Observer. All Rights Reserved.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Liberal Influence Distorts Media Journalism

---

MEDIA / UNDER THE INFLUENCE: LIBERALISM DISTORTS MEDIA JOURNALISM, REPORTING

---

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Under the Influence of Liberalism

~ Nathan Tabor
Friday 3 November 2006

I find it interesting that, in today’s maniacal media world, conservatives are taken to task for every syllable they utter, but liberals are given a pass.

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Sen. John Kerry is the latest case in point. Kerry indicated this week that if you’re a student who does not study hard and do your homework, you will end up “stuck in Iraq.” It should be evident to every American that this is an insult to the fine men and women who have put their lives on the line to try to rebuild Iraq and keep us safe from Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

But a number of journalistas are telling us that no, the Democrat from Massachusetts couldn’t possibly have meant what he said, given the fact that he himself is a veteran of war. No, we’re told, he just botched a joke. After all, Kerry is no David Letterman.

It seems to me that a more likely excuse is that he was speaking under the influence of liberalism.

I wonder where these apologists were when actor Mel Gibson, while drunk, blamed the Jewish people for the wars in the world. When the report of Gibson’s inebriated gaffe first emerged, television viewers were told that alcohol had enabled Gibson to reveal his true, disturbing feelings about people of Jewish descent. In other words, being drunk was no excuse. Gibson also apologized, but certain members of the media still wouldn’t let the matter rest. They suggested that his apology wasn’t good enough -- that he had to back up his words with concrete action.

What about Kerry? Is it enough for him to say he’s sorry? Or should he be made to take an active role in supporting the Iraq war effort -- something that I seriously doubt he would do. If Kerry isn’t required to make amends, doesn’t that mean that the media are engaging in a double-standard, lambasting conservatives for ill-chosen words, but quickly forgiving verbal mistakes from the liberal side of the political spectrum?

Yet another example from recent headlines is the Michael J. Fox-Rush Limbaugh fiasco. Rush said that Fox’s movements in a political ad indicated that he was either acting or off his meds for Parkinson’s disease. Fox said he was actually over-medicated; Rush admitted he was wrong. Yet, we see Rush’s imitation of Fox’s TV performance replayed on the tube over and over again. But Fox, whose liberal, pro-embryonic stem cell research stance is beloved by many major media, is not taken to task for the fact that he hasn’t even read the Missouri ballot issue he favors.

In the same vein, we see so many sympathetic media profiles of the Dixie Chicks in the aftermath of an unfortunate comment criticizing President George W. Bush. Those who refused to buy the group’s CDs in light of the incident are portrayed as backward and unforgiving, rather than as patriotic and proud of the Commander-in-Chief.

Free speech is, indeed, priceless. But when it is misused, the costs can be high for our democracy and our security. It’s one thing for a radio talk show host to spout off -- it’s quite another for a Senator to criticize our troops in wartime.

The media should at least hold Senator Kerry to as high a standard as they reserve for Gibson and Rush.

If you want a leader to lead following a moral code of ethics, that leader must have a sound foundation upon which he bases his personal morality. If they do not have a moral foundation, such as the bible, we should not be surprised at ANY immoral or unethical action they make. It is OUR responsibility to make sure our leaders, those who represent us, have a sound moral foundation. - Alain

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't,
and die to find out there is.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Industry Giants Ply Congress In Entertaiment Industry

---

ENTERTAINMENT / INDUSTRY GIANTS PLYING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITH SATCHELS OF CASH SUPERCEDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

---

Law makers in Washington DC face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm.

On the outside are the American people. Across the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with Hollywood’s assault on their values, using the public airwaves they own. On the inside are the lobbyists for the entertainment industry giants, plying members of Congress with satchels of campaign cash, and demanding only … inaction. Which has a greater effect in politics today?

Nobody Runs Against Hollywood

~ By L. Brent Bozell III
November 2, 2006

Looking back at the fall campaign, it’s yet another cycle in which the Republican political brain trust sidestepped the issue of America’s growing concern for indecency oozing out of almost every perfumed pore of Hollywood. This time it may have been the fatal mistake.

The number one issue of importance coming out of the ’04 elections was “moral values,” thus presenting the GOP with the opportunity to pounce on the indecency issue during the ’06 campaign. I visited with one Republican incumbent running for re-election and suggested that this would be an ideal theme for his campaign. He responded that in all his years in the Senate he’d never received as much constituency mail as what landed in his mail box, his email and his voice mail following the Janet Jackson Super Bowl striptease. But he also left me with the clear impression, validated later by his campaign performance, that he’d do nothing on this front.

Republican strategists pull muscles just thinking about Dan Quayle scorning the “Murphy Brown” single-mom plot in 1992.

Here and there was an exception. In TV ads in Pennsylvania, family-values stalwart Sen. Rick Santorum told voters “I'm even working with Hillary Clinton to limit inappropriate material in children’s video games, because it makes more sense to wrestle with America's problems than with each other.” I’m sure a few other candidates had throw-away lines in their stump speeches. But there was nothing of substance, nothing serious coming out of this crowd.

And it was a lost opportunity in another way. The biggest rap against the GOP from its conservative base has been its do-nothing approach to governance, yet on the issue of decency the Republicans could point to a smashing legislative accomplishment. Still, no one could seem to locate the fact that on June 15, President Bush signed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which act increased tenfold the potential of FCC fines to those who continue to violate the public trust by pouring garbage on the public airwaves. The House version of the bill passed in June by a 379-35 margin, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent -- no roll call vote. It was a smashing success, exactly in line with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans.

So why the campaign silence? Maybe it’s because, as with so many other “values” issues, the Republican leadership was never enthusiastic. It’s important to note that it took the Republicans in the Senate two and a half years after the Janet Jackson breast-baring to pass their version of the bill -- and they did so only after massive constituency pressure.

And there’s the rub. The problem is that law makers in Washington DC face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm.

On the outside are the American people. Across the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with Hollywood’s assault on their values, using the public airwaves they own. On the inside are the lobbyists for the entertainment industry giants, plying members of Congress with satchels of campaign cash, and demanding only … inaction. Which has a greater effect in politics today?

Take the idea of cable choice, which would allow viewers to choose their cable channels a la carte and, more importantly, not have to pay for networks they don’t watch or, more emphatically, find personally offensive. It’s a slam-duck idea, one conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike, could endorse.

In June, Sen. John McCain offered an amendment to a Senate telecommunications bill that would have offered regulatory incentives to cable operators to offer cable choice to their subscribers. But it was defeated in committee by a vote of 20 to 2. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike -- they all fled. Only Sen. Olympia Snowe joined McCain in support.

One big reason? Common Cause reports that between 1991 and 2006, major cable industry interests and their trade groups spent more than $105 million on campaign contributions to federal candidates and on lobbying in Washington. Since 2003, major cable companies have ramped up “government affairs” spending and donating to keep Congress and regulatory agencies from asking tough questions about cable mergers, cable price increases, and to suffocate cable choice in the crib.

Will a strengthened Democratic presence in Washington prove to be any different in the indecency debate? In the Senate particularly there are members of that party -- Joe Lieberman, Jay Rockefeller, Byron Dorgan, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lambert Lincoln and Clinton come to mind -- with proven records. A move in this direction could bring waves of conservative Democrats, once-disaffected with their party, and now disdainful of their adopted GOP, back into the fold. But would these Democratic leaders be willing to buck the lobbyists as well as their Hollywood benefactors? What of the Republicans? Will time in the wilderness allow them to rediscover their roots? It’s a wide open question, with a wide open field, and a continuing political opportunity. Time will tell who grabs it.

Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Founded in 1987, the MRC is a 501 (c)(3) non profit research and education foundation.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Anticipating A Democratic Blowout

---

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: ANTICIPATING A DEMOCRAT BLOWOUT

---

TimesWatch Tracker
Documenting and Exposing the Liberal
Agenda of the New York Times

"There is something unusual bubbling in Democratic political waters these days: optimism.

"With each new delivery of bad news for Republicans -- another Republican congressman under investigation, another Republican district conceded, another poll showing support for the Republican-controlled Congress collapsing -- a party that has become so used to losing is considering, disbelievingly and with the requisite worry, the possibility that it could actually win in November.

TimesWatch Tracker: Our Latest Analysis
Monday, October 23, 2006

Today in TimesWatch:

Anticipating A Democratic Blowout

The Democrats (And The Times) Are Getting Giddy Together As November 7 Looms

~ Posted By: Clay Waters
10/23/2006 1:51:21 PM

The Democrats and their media allies are getting a bit giddy as the congressional elections loom, all but declaring victory before the opening whistle.

You can almost taste the anticipation in the headline to Sunday's front-page story by Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner, "With Guarded Cheer, Democrats Dare to Believe This Is Their Time," just one of several pro-Democratic stories to appear over the weekend and Monday.

"There is something unusual bubbling in Democratic political waters these days: optimism.

"With each new delivery of bad news for Republicans -- another Republican congressman under investigation, another Republican district conceded, another poll showing support for the Republican-controlled Congress collapsing -- a party that has become so used to losing is considering, disbelievingly and with the requisite worry, the possibility that it could actually win in November.

Democrats seem free to speak freely among sympathetic media types: "'I’ve moved from optimistic to giddy,' said Gordon R. Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. 'I really have.'

"Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is in line to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee in a Democratic House, offered wry evidence of the changing perception of the race. His office, Mr. Frank said, has been contacted by a portrait-painting firm offering to talk about possibilities for the traditional committee chairman’s painting, one of those perks of power long absent from the lives of House Democrats.

"'I’ve acquired a lot of new friends this year,' Mr. Frank said. 'And I haven’t gotten any nicer.'

"For Democrats these days, life is one measure glee, one measure dread and one measure hubris. If they are as confident as they have been in a decade about regaining at least one house of Congress -- and they are -- it is a confidence tempered by the searing memories of being outmaneuvered, for three elections straight, by superior Republican organizing and financial strength, and by continued wariness about the political skills of President Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove."

They conclude: "All this has put Democrats in an unfamiliar place, but one they seem to be enjoying. 'I’m a congenital pessimist,' said Howard Wolfson, a consultant advising Democrats in several competitive contests in upstate New York. 'But I’m as bullish on our chances as I have been at any time over the last 12 years.'"

There are more hoorays for the Democrats in Saturday's A1 story by congressional correspondent Carl Hulse, "Open Seats Lift Democratic Hopes in the House." That echoes a September 28 story by Robin Toner, "New Hope for Democrats in Bid for Senate."

Surveying a House race in Colorado, Hulse opines: "This year, there are 33 open House seats, including three that are vacant at the moment but had been held steadily by one party, and polls suggest that Democrats have a good chance to capture enough Republican-held districts to put them well on their way to tilting the balance of power in Washington."

Hulse implies that Republican issues are stern fear-mongering, while painting Democratic positions in more flattering terms: "In their closely watched race, Mr. O’Donnell has sought to emphasize a hard line on immigration and raise the specter of Democratic tax increases while Mr. Perlmutter has pressed the need for change in Republican-controlled Washington and emphasized stem-cell research, an issue he has personalized, saying it represents the potential for treatment of his daughter’s epilepsy."

Another story on Saturday from Joyce Purnick sees Democratic gains in the Republican state of Indiana ("In a G.O.P. Stronghold, 3 Districts in Indiana Are Now Battlegrounds").

Then there's Sunday's story by correspondent Lizette Alvarez, "In Two New Mexico Towns, Voices of Concern About the Party in Power."

Alvarez leads off with several paragraphs profiling the paper's favorite kind of Republican -- an ex-Republican: "Jerry Eller, a Republican engineer who built his own house in this small town with big mountain views, voted twice for President Bush.

"But his disenchantment with the Republican Party cuts so deeply that if the 2004 presidential election were being held this year, Mr. Bush would not get his vote. 'If Kerry was running this time,' said Mr. Eller, 53, referring to Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, 'I would vote for him.'''

Abby Goodnough reports from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in Monday's "Running on Experience, a Longtime Incumbent Finds Himself on the Defensive," on Republican Rep. Clay Shaw Jr.'s race with Democrat Ron Klein: "But whether Mr. Shaw’s strategy will save him or sink him on Election Day is anyone’s guess.

"Mr. Klein has called Mr. Shaw a lackey of President Bush, prompting Mr. Shaw to emphasize his differences with the president, whose popularity four years ago helped Mr. Shaw beat back another tough challenger."

The tone is more negative and foreboding when it comes to a story on Republicans trying to take over a Democratic stronghold, West Virginia. Ian Urbina writes from Charleston, in Sunday's "Wealthy Coal Executive Hopes To Turn Democratic West Virginia Republican." (As opposed to those impoverished coal executives, we guess.)

"Don L. Blankenship is not the governor of West Virginia. But here in coal country some say he may as well be, considering the power he wields.

"Mr. Blankenship, the chief executive of the state's largest coal producer, Massey Energy, has promised to spend 'whatever it takes' to help win a majority in the State Legislature for the long-beleaguered Republican Party in a state that is a Democratic and labor stronghold.

"In a state where candidates who win typically spend less than $20,000, Mr. Blankenship has poured more than $6 million into political initiatives and local races over the past three years. Mr. Blankenship has spent at least $700,000 in his current effort to oust Democrats, and the state is awash with lawn signs, highway billboards, radio advertisements and field organizers paid for by him."

Urbina brings up unrelated personal issues: "Mr. Blankenship, who received about $34 million in compensation last year (roughly four times the industry standard) runs the company from a double-wide trailer just across the state line in Belfry, Ky. In April, Mr. Blankenship’s personal housekeeper filed a lawsuit seeking unemployment benefits in which she accused him of responding with angry fits to infractions like getting the wrong McDonald’s order or stocking the freezer with the wrong ice cream."

Urbina lets Democrats paint Blankenship in unflattering terms as a union-buster and despoiler of the environment, while letting Republicans praise him as a combination of Karl Rove and political donor Richard Mellon Scaife, making the GOP come off rather cynical.

TimesWatch is a division of the Media Research Center.

Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(800) 672-1423 | Fax: 703-683-9736
E-mail: tgolab@mediaresearch.org (Thom Golab, Director of Development)

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Voter Polls - Evaluating The Numbers

---

ELECTION 2006 / VOTER POLLS: EVALUATING THE NUMBERS & PERCENTAGES

---

Don't Look At Polls, Look At Trends: Because of the margin of error built into every poll and the occasional statistical blips that cause polls to blow out in one direction or another, any one poll isn't necessarily all that meaningful (although of course, you'd always prefer to be ahead, rather than behind, and the bigger the margin, the more chance that it accurately portrays who's ahead and who's behind.)

A Simple, Three Step Guide To Getting The Most Out Of Election Polls

~ John Hawkins

You hear a lot of people saying that you can't trust the polls and that they're always slanted against the GOP. That's actually not true. Rather than go into a long, detailed breakdown on polling data, let me give you some short and simple tips on how to actually get meaning out of the poll numbers you're going to see in abundance in the run-up to the election.

• #1) What Type Of Voters Are Being Polled: Polls of adults? They're meaningless for political purposes and slant heavily towards the Democrats. Polls of registered voters? They're a bit more meaningful, but they still slant towards the Democrats. Polls of likely voters? These are the most meaningful and accurate polling numbers for election results.

• #2) All Pollsters Are Not Created Equal: In my book, there are two types of elections pollsters.

The first is reputable pollsters including, but not limited to: Gallup, Rasmussen, Survey USA, Quinnipiac, Mason Dixon, etc. The pollsters aren't perfect, but you can have some confidence in their numbers.

The second group of pollsters includes universities and newspapers in general, internal polls, polls done by partisan polling companies, and Zogby. These polls aren't meaningless, but you should really take the numbers they put out with a grain of salt.

• #3) Don't Look At Polls, Look At Trends: Because of the margin of error built into every poll and the occasional statistical blips that cause polls to blow out in one direction or another, any one poll isn't necessarily all that meaningful (although of course, you'd always prefer to be ahead, rather than behind, and the bigger the margin, the more chance that it accurately portrays who's ahead and who's behind.)

So, in order to get the most value out of polling data, you need multiple polls from multiple polling agencies to get a real sense of who's ahead or behind.

For example, show me three polls from a month ago showing a candidate down by an average of 15 points and three polls from last week showing the same candidate down by an average of 4 points and you can comfortably predict that candidate has momentum.

Show me three polls, all from roughly the same time period, showing a candidate down by 4, 1, and 5 points, and you can feel comfortable in saying that candidate is really down.

Show me three polls, showing a tie, one candidate up by 2, and the other showing the other candidate up by 3, and you can comfortably predict that the race is within the margin of error.

Now, will this always work? No, because when you play with statistics, you're going to come up with some oddball numbers every once in a while. But, it will usually work and if you follow trends, not individual polls, you'll have a pretty good idea of what's going on as long as there is enough polling data to work with.

© Copyright 2001-2006 John Hawkins

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---