I asked Gemini AI to create a profile on me, so I could have it compare candidates for office in California’s primary election, and recommend who would be good choices for me to select for my votes. Here’s what it came up with.
This is the political profile I have developed for you, based strictly on the content and commentary found on your blogs, primarily jimmiejoe.com and alternatingcurrents.net. I have used this specific set of values and priorities to analyze candidate platforms and determine which individuals most closely align with your viewpoints in the 2026 California primary.
Here’s how I’m voting in the California primary election for 2026.
With sixtyone(!) candidates on the ballot just for Governor, and sixteen for Lieutenant Governor, this ballot is a mess. The top two vote-getters for each office will move on to the general election in November. (For some offices on the ballot)
Since I recognize exactly zero of the candidates for many of these offices, I tried something I’ve never done before. I asked Gemini AI to create a political profile of me based on my blog posts here on Jimmiejoe.com, and at AlternatingCurrents.net. I then had it compare the profile of me it created to the public information of some of these candidates, and suggest which ones best match my politics. On some of the suggestions, it was difficult to choose between the top candidates who it said matched.
Here’s what we have. Not all of the candidates I’ve chosen were chosen with AI help.
I know it’s been going on for a long time, now, but I still find it annoying. Republicans in Congress are attacking transgender children, again, and trying to hide it in a misleading bill title.
H.R. 2616 is the “Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act or the PROTECT Kids Act”. It of course does exactly the opposite of that.
This bill requires public elementary and middle schools, as a condition of receiving certain federal funds for elementary and secondary education, to obtain parental consent before changing a student’s gender on school forms or changing a student’s sex-based accommodations.
Specifically, an elementary school or a school consisting of only grades 5-8 must obtain parental consent before changing a minor student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
A BILL
To require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor’s gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act ” or the “PROTECT Kids Act”.
SEC. 2. Parental consent requirement related to gender markers, pronouns, and preferred names on school forms and sex-based accommodations.
(a) Requirement.—As a condition of receiving funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), a public school that receives funds under such Act shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s—
(1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or
(2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
(b) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) COVERED STUDENT.—The term “covered student” means a minor who is—
(A) an elementary school student; or
(B) a student in any of the middle grades.
(2) ESEA TERMS.—The terms “elementary school”, “middle grades”, and “parent” have the meanings given such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
That’s it. That’s the entire bill. The entire intent is to out trans kids, regardless of the student’s wishes. Regardless of the hostility from family or the community. The child’s needs are irrelevant. Only the political points gained by the Republicans matter.
I sent a message to my Congressman, Vince Fong (R) about this bill, urging a NO vote. Here’s his response:
Dear Jim,
Thank you for reaching out to me regarding LGBTQ Americans. I understand that many people have strong and differing opinions about this issue. I take all of these views seriously and value the diversity of thought in our district.
While I am opposed to policies that ignore the fundamental biological differences between men and women and have supported legislation to protect the integrity of Title IX, I believe those in Congress should respect the dignity of all citizens when debating legislation.
Over the last few decades, our political discourse across America has worsened. Instead of having productive negotiations, lawmakers have turned policy debates into uncontrollable arguments, opting instead for whatever gets the most retweets or soundbite coverage on network news.
For too long, we have denied one another the chance to be seen not as a member of a particular political party, but as men and women with values, families and loved ones, and experiences that have shaped who we are and what we stand for. We must recommit ourselves to civility and respect one another as human beings no matter where we fall on the political spectrum.
Thank you again for contacting me. Hearing about what is most important to you and your family helps me represent California’s 20th Congressional District to the best of my ability. It is a great honor to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Should you have additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at my Bakersfield, Clovis, or Washington, D.C. offices.
If you would like to receive regular updates to learn more about my legislative work on behalf of our neighbors and communities, please sign up for my newsletter below.
Sincerely,
I suspect if I were to have access to a “politi-speak” AI, and asked it to explain to me what he said in this response, it would return “not much”. He’s going to vote in support, I suspect, regardless of how this bill would hurt kids.
I wonder what the price of a Republican soul is these days? It must be an impressive payoff, as so many of them have signed on the dotted line so easily.
Oh, credit where credit is due. Fong’s office responded quicker to my message than any Representative or Senator, or Assemblyman or state Senator has in the past. It only took a couple of days to get a response. That’s unusual.
Some more License Plate Reader fun. KMPH 26 posted a story about Merced’s Police Department discovering a, shall we say – just to be very understanding of the complexity of computerized systems – a “mis-configuration” of their automated license plate reader system. Although not the Flock ALPR, like Visalia’s, they released a statement on April 23, 2026, saying, in part, the following:
Merced, Calif – In the interest of transparency, the Merced Police Department is addressing recent concerns regarding automated license plate reader (ALPR) data sharing.
Following these reports, the Department conducted a comprehensive internal review of its ALPR system. That review determined that prior system configurations allowed data sharing with certain federal agencies.
Upon identifying this issue, the Department immediately disabled the identified connections and will continue to conduct additional audits to ensure ongoing compliance.
Merced joins Santa Cruz, Oxnard, and Ventura Police Departments to identify (through media reports, not, apparently, through their own oversight) problems with unauthorized access to their databases. Each agency has said they’ve fixed the problems, but one has to wonder how many other instances of unauthorized access have occurred.
I’ve sent the following Public Records Request to the Visalia Police Department:
To: Custodian of Records Visalia Police Department 303 S Johnson St. Visalia, CA 93291 (Or via NextRequest Portal)
Date: April 24, 2026
RE: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST – FLOCK ALPR DATA SHARING AND SPECIFIC PLATE RECORDS
To the Custodian of Records:
Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.) and California Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq., I am requesting the following public records held by the Visalia Police Department (VPD):
System Access & Inter-Agency Sharing Logs: Any and all records, audit logs, or documentation showing access to data compiled by the VPD via the Flock Safety ALPR system by any agency other than the Visalia Police Department. This request includes, but is not limited to:
Lists of “Hot List” hits shared with outside agencies.
Audit trails showing when outside agencies (federal, state, or local) queried the VPD’s Flock database.
Current lists of all agencies with whom the VPD has a data-sharing agreement for ALPR data.
The time frame for this request is from the initial installation/implementation of the Flock system to the present date.
Specific License Plate Records: All records, images, and data points captured by the VPD ALPR system (including fixed cameras and mobile units) that reference or identify the following California license plate: JJRJR.
This request includes time stamps, location data (GPS coordinates or camera IDs), and associated photographs for every instance this plate was recorded from the time of system installation to the present date.
Redactions and Privacy: If the Department contends that any portion of these records is exempt from disclosure, please provide the non-exempt portions pursuant to Gov. Code § 7922.525. If any portion of the request is denied, please provide a written response citing the specific legal authority for the denial within the ten (10) days required by statute.
Request for Digital Format: Please provide these records in electronic format. If the records exist in a searchable database or spreadsheet (such as CSV or Excel), I request they be provided in that native format.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Jimmie Joe Reeves Visalia, CA
That license plate request is for my own car, and I’m interested how many times the system has seen me while I’m running around town. From what I understand of their operational rules, they should have no images older than 30 days. We’ll see if I get anything, or get buried with data files.
I don’t believe in Bigfoot (we’d have found a body by now, if there was a population large enough to sustain a species – accidents befall even the most careful of us), alien visitation (too far, and there’s almost no science supporting the idea that FTL is possible), any of the popular – or momentarily in-the-news – ideas, like baby sacrifices going on in pizza parlor basements, or secret cabals running the world.
So, not a conspiracy nut.
But…
One has to wonder how the United States has so quickly fallen. It hardly seems like this is something we would deliberately do to ourselves, but it seems we have. We’ve gutted important government agencies, stopped aid to needy people around the world, broke alliances that had served us well since World War II, and disrupted the very fabric of our nation. Republicans in Congress have ceded their authorities and powers to the President, and the Democrats can’t seem to get their act together to present a unified resistance.
If I were an adversary of the United States, I would know one basic thing as truth. Nobody on the planet can seriously challenge the United States military, if the U.S. decided to stage an all-out response to attack. Military force is not an option.
However…
Americans are terribly myopic. The business world only sees as far as the next quarterly report. Politicians only see to the next election. People who are educated and study world affairs are ignored, most of the time. The general public is too focused on social media (now). Those who have been and are still watching television are enamored of “reality” TV, watching instigated drama in groups of people staged to be either physically attractive, or sufficiently sinister. News programming is increasingly dropping facts and analysis for ratings and clicks. Nobody is really “minding the store” that is the United States.
So how would a theoretical adversary on the United States overthrow them, destroy their leadership in the world, fracture alliances, and generally make them pariah in the world’s eyes, all without firing a single missile or bullet?
Now, this requires some long term planning, which at the very least, China has demonstrated they are willing to do. Russia keeps shooting itself in the foot, but it, too, has a longer outlook than does the United States.
Get compromising information on people who might end up in office. The most determined to attain power will probably have something in their closet they don’t want exposed to the light of day. If not, a honey-pot trap often works. Infiltrate other organizations, businesses, and universities. Feed disinformation to the internet and legacy news media. Be relentless with all of it. Convince people that “they, those people over there, the brown ones, the liberal ones, the media, the ‘others’ “, are the real enemies of the state.
Then along comes Donald J. Trump. They’ve already got all the kompromat they could possibly have over him (Epstein files? Pee tapes?), and they understand his narcissism and greed. Promise him money, threaten him with what they know, and he eats out of their hands. Feed his supporters with constant refrains of “only he can save us”, “only he can fix it”, “it’s the liberals fault”, “it’s the illegals fault”, “things will get better if you elect him”. Lie to them, but do it in a way that strokes their egos. Make them feel like they’re smart, they know what’s going on, their dire straights are not their fault, but the work of “them”. Elect Trump President.
So they did. What did we get?
He and his supporters in Congress and the Courts are systematically tearing down the framework of the United States, and putting long-time alliances that have kept the peace in Europe since 1945 in the position of no longer being able to trust the USA. Taking Greenland? Cuba? Venezuela? The Trump regime is creating chaos around the world. In the middle of it all, Trump is raking in the money faster than any one can count it. The rich oil states are shoveling money at him.
That, and more, might be what someone would do to undermine and diminish the United States, without firing a shot.
A charter city is a municipality where the governing system is defined by its own unique legal document—a city charter—rather than solely by general state, provincial, or national laws. Visalia’s charter was created in 1923, and updated in 1974. We’re due for some critical thinking on the charter, and some updates to reflect today’s world. Much of the charter still works, but much of it also needs amending. I uploaded the Charter to Grok, and asked it to analyze the current document, and suggest things to bring it into the 21st century. Here’s what it came up with. (The current Charter can be found at the end of this blog.)
Analysis of the City of Visalia Charter
The provided Charter of the City of Visalia, adopted in the early 20th century and last amended in 1974 (with Section 21 deleted), establishes a council-manager form of government with broad home rule powers over municipal affairs, as permitted under Article XI of the California Constitution. It is a concise document (around 25 articles) that emphasizes local control, fiscal conservatism, and procedural safeguards, reflecting the era’s priorities like post-Depression financial limits and mid-century urban planning. The charter aligns with California’s framework for charter cities, granting supremacy over “municipal affairs” (e.g., elections, officer compensation, zoning) while subordinating to state law on “statewide concerns” (e.g., housing mandates, labor relations under certain statutes).
Key strengths:
Home Rule Emphasis: It robustly asserts powers over utilities, zoning, franchises, and emergencies, consistent with charter city autonomy.
Fiscal Prudence: Strict limits on taxes (1% property tax cap, specials for libraries/parks), debt (20% of assessed value), and bidding (aligned with state thresholds) promote accountability.
Governance Structure: Council-manager system with appointed officials (e.g., City Manager handles operations) supports professional management.
Public Safeguards: Provisions for initiative/referendum/recall, open meetings, and audits enhance transparency.
Key weaknesses/outdated elements:
Language and Inclusivity: Gendered pronouns (“he,” “his”) assume male officeholders, excluding modern norms of gender neutrality.
Lack of Modern Priorities: No explicit focus on equity, sustainability, technology, or post-2020 innovations like remote governance.
Potential Conflicts with State Law: Some sections (e.g., zoning, elections) predate major reforms like Proposition 13 (1978), SB 9 (2021 on lot splits/duplexes), or redistricting laws (e.g., AB 764, 2024). Courts have increasingly classified housing as a statewide concern, limiting charter city exemptions.
Rigidity: Fixed processes (e.g., 2-hour notice for special meetings) hinder agility; no provisions for term limits, ethics commissions, or diverse representation.
Omissions: Lacks sections on climate resilience, data privacy, or economic development tools common in updated charters.
Overall, the charter functions but feels archaic compared to peers like San Francisco (reformed 1996, ongoing updates) or Oakland (1998 shift to mayor-council). Modern best practices, per the League of California Cities’ Charter City Toolkit and the National Civic League’s Model City Charter (9th Edition, 2021), emphasize flexibility, equity, and performance metrics. California’s 121 charter cities (out of 482 total) often use charters for tailored governance; Visalia could enhance efficiency without losing core principles.
Steven G. “Slade” Childers (Left-circa 1972 – Right-2025)
Wait, no… that’s not right. Steven sued Dallas. The Dallas Police Department.
Why?
Because they didn’t want a homosexual working for them. Really.
Later court and legislative battles are often remembered, like Lawrence V. Texas, California Propositions 22 and 8, and the Supreme Court of the United States case Obergefell V. Hodges. But in 1981, Childers V. Dallas was an early opening salvo in the battle for equality.
It was the 1970’s. Stonewall was just a few years earlier, in June of 1969. The Dallas LGBT community held their first Pride Parade in 1972, and Steven G. “Slade” Childers was there. He was 21 years old at the time, and working for the City of Dallas, Texas, in the city water department.
It had become clear to Slade that he was not being promoted in his current position, so when he saw a job opening listed for “storekeeper seven” with the city, he applied. The listing did not specify it was with the Police Department, so at this time, it could be assumed it was a position with the city administration. Slade took the placement test, making the highest score. He was put on the list for interviews, and was called by the Police Department for a job in their evidence storeroom. He was not hired, and not informed why.
The next year, he applied again, and again scored highest on the written test. He was called in by the Police Department for the same position as before. During this interview, he asked the person conducting the interview, the same person who had interviewed him before, why he hadn’t been hired?
Although it probably didn’t seem like it at the time, the proverbial feces hit the oscillating air mover.
I’m still trying to find out why “special meetings” held in the Visalia Unified School District’s Boardroom are not recorded and posted to YouTube, as are their regular meetings. (“Special meetings” held elsewhere I don’t expect to see video recorded, simply due to the equipment not being available at remote locations. That doesn’t apply to the Board room, since the equipment is all right there.)
Here’s my latest email to the District:
1/11/2026 Sara Sanchez, Legal Coordinator, Human Resources Development Visalia Unified School District
Dear Sara Sanchez,
This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.).
Background: On December 18, 2025, you responded to my prior correspondence regarding: Request No. 1 A copy of the District’s “policy of not recording ‘special meetings'”. You responded: “After conducting a reasonable search, the District determines that it has no records that are subject to disclosure under the PRA and responsive to the request. Accordingly, no records will be produced.” Request No. 2 “This request seeks copies of “any internal memos, emails, or other directives of any sort that direct staff not to record ‘special meetings’ that occur in the Boardroom.”” You responded: “Pursuant to Government Code section 7922.600, the District seeks clarification regarding your request in order to have a focused and effective request that reasonably describes identifiable records. The clarification will help us narrow the search in our email and other records systems and retrieve a more manageable number of communications that can be reviewed by District staff. In particular, please specify the date range of the “internal memos, emails, or other directives of any sort that direct staff not to record ‘special meetings’ that occur in the Boardroom.” Additionally, please identify the names or titles of District personnel regarding whom you are seeking the requested correspondence.”
To limit unnecessary records searches, I believe that the District employee responsible for recording Board of Trustee meetings held in the Boardroom of the Visalia Unified School District, or their supervisor(s), are the most likely sources of the information requested. Those job titles may include senior administrative assistant, technological services; senior information technology technician; information technology technician; and/or information technology assistant.
Please provide copies of any memos, emails, or other directions to District employees responsible for recording and posting the regular Board meetings that direct them to not record or post ‘special meetings’ held in the Board Chambers. Since Board meetings are posted to the District’s YouTube channel as of 1/25/2022, please limit the search to 1/1/2021 through the present date.
If any portion of these records is deemed exempt from disclosure, I request that you redact only those portions and provide the remainder of the records, citing the specific legal justification for each redaction as required by the CPRA.
Please inform me in advance of any fees associated with compiling or copying these records. If the estimated costs exceed $20, please contact me for approval before proceeding.
As provided by the CPRA, I look forward to your response within 10 calendar days regarding the availability of these records.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely, Jim J. Reeves, Jr. jim.visalia@gmail.com
They’ll get the email Monday morning. We’ll see what happens. Cross your fingers.
Random thoughts, occasional rants, illuminating commentary, and an odd story now and then from the world of 9-1-1 dispatching. All this and more from a gay liberal atheist living in California’s Bible belt. I recently married, so MAGA beware! I’m your worst nightmare! Some names have been omitted to protect the innocent, but the guilty will be hung out to dry!
JimmieJoe / KC6YRU 
Flock the Lawyers
May 11, 2026
Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal ai, ALPR, Flock Camera, License Plate Reader, News, politics, technology, visalia, visalia police department Leave a comment
Oh my…
Now the City of Visalia is running it by the lawyers. It also manages to push the “final” date out to June 1, 2026.
As you’ll recall, my first post about it was “What the Flock?“, where I looked at all of the locations where Visalia Police Department (VPD) had installed cameras.
The next post was about a public records request I submitted to VPD concerning the cameras, “Well, Flock me!”
Another blogger, Paul Flores, had the AI system DeepSeek create an interesting look at what I was doing. “More Flock, More Fun“
The first response to my Public Records request was this, “Flock you later“.
Tick Tock
Share this: