Hello, dear reader, just a quick note to officially wrap up the blog. I haven't put a real post in here since I left Hollywood, and it seems appropriate, after two years away, to finally put the mothballs in and say goodbye. Of course, you can still comment on the old posts, as it pleases you.

If I manage to start up a new blog I will let you know right here (I'm thinking, "Dave's Sandwich Review"), but until that moment, there will be no more posts on Hollywood Liberal. Thanks to everyone who's commented and everyone who's read my little opinions. It was great fun.

-Dave

MAD MEL BEYOND THE LAW?

If you're like me you don't pay too much attention to those tabloid stories. I really have no idea if O.J. did it; I didn't watch it on TV. Another thing I didn't watch was "The Passion of the Christ". Some said it was anti-Semitic; a friend of mine disagreed.

Though I'd rather not concern myself with celebrity justice, Mel Gibson's arrest the other day was worthy of the attention of this Jewish liberal blogger for a few reasons.

First, the quote. LA County Sheriff's Deputy James Mee's hand written report, leaked to TMZ.com said that Gibson, "continually threatened me saying that he 'owns Malibu' and will (three words were illegible) to 'get even' with me. Gibson blurted out a barrage of anti-semitic remarks about 'fucking Jews.' Gibson yelled out, "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.' Gibson then asked, 'are you a Jew.'"

Second, the coverup. TMZ reported that the Sheriff's department sought to cover up the anti-Semitic remarks. "Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of 'Jewish hatred,' that the situation in Israel was 'way too inflammatory.'" Was the Sheriff's office looking out for LA's Jewish community or for Mel Gibson who has appeared in their commercials and once gave $10,000 to a fallen deputy's stepdaughter?

Third, the second quote. Back at the station, Gibson said to a female sergeant, "what do you think you're looking at, Sugar Tits?' Back in December I blogged about Mr. Gibson because there were some folks trying to get him to run for Governor. Californians don't seem to mind that Arnold Schwarzenegger's been accused of groping women, why should we worry about Sugar Tits?

And the Sheriffs don't seem that worried either. Of course they're denying the coverup, but why did this source feel so compelled to leak that report?

Deputy Mee said that he offered to forgo handcuffing Gibson if he cooperated and got in the squad car. I don't know anyone else afforded that kind of respect by the sheriff's deputies who routinely cruise the Malibu beaches sniffing people's cups and writing alcohol tickets.

It took until today for them to release Gibson's mug shot, which is public information. Steve Lopez of the LA Times pointed out yesterday that they gleefully published Nick Nolte's image right away in 2002.

Lastly, what kind of alcoholic is Mel Gibson? The report says that his blood alcohol content was .12, barely over the legal limit in some states. What kind of Hollywood celebrity goes off on a rant like that with only a point-one-two? He doesn't even look buzzed in that mug shot! Bukowski is rolling over in his grave.

You can't say the booze wore off, either, Deputy Mee found "a 750 ml bottle of 'Cazadores tequila'" in a paper bag "within easy reach of Gibson..."

At least he drinks the good stuff.

Hollywood Liberal, Dec. 7, 2005: Conan vs. Braveheart:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15697913&postID=113402024600562676

Steve Lopez on Hezbollah Mel:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez31jul31,1,6600949.column?coll=la-news-columns

Thanks for the report, TMZ:
http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/gibsons-anti-semitic-tirade-alleged-cover-up/

TMZ's pdf of the partial report:
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf

That's Mad Mel's mug shot from the LA County Sheriff. I found it on TMZ.com.

ISRAEL WALKS THE LINE IN LEBANON
I heard on the news last weekend that the liberal bloggers were curiously mum about the situation in Lebanon. The suggestion was that nobody wanted to touch that issue with a ten foot pole. I've asked a lot of my liberal friends in the past couple of years what they think about Israel and I've found that a lot of them feel ignorant about the situation. They can't tell who's right and wrong.

I'm a Jewish liberal who is generally moderate about Israel. I'm certainly no expert, and I've swallowed my share of propaganda just like everyone else. This entry will be different from my others. I offer an emotional response to the new crisis, based on broad strokes rather than details.

I keep hearing that Israel has a right to defend herself, and this should not be in dispute. The trouble Israel has had for 68 years is the dilemma that we all will have this century. What do you do against a suicide bomber?

You can't punish him. You can't take anything away from him. When he's that far gone, you really can't deter him. So you go after the weapons, you go after the masterminds, you go after the network, the infrastructure of terrorism. You try to find, and prove, where the money's coming from, what governments are giving shelter and support to the terrorists. And then you attack.

That's what Israel's been doing. Only the terrorists don't have hideouts and bases, they stay in apartment complexes. With families. With kids. So to kill them, you have to kill the kids. They're going to yell and scream about how heartless you are, but they're the ones that shielded themselves with human beings. All wars have collateral damage and as long as Israel targets known terrorists and not civilians, all's fair.

Yassir Arafat was known to send money to the families of suicide bombers. That may be where Israel got the idea to bulldoze their houses on an hour or two's notice. Again, it sounds heartless, but what do you do about a suicide bomber? Act like it didn't happen? Take something away posthumously; sounds as reasonable as anything can after a suicide bombing.

Israel pulled out of Lebanon six years ago and watched as Hezbollah got stronger and more influential. The Lebanese government split from Syria just recently but has remained weak in the face of the terrorist group that controls the south. Now Hezbollah leaders condemn Israel for having had a plan for their destruction all along. Well yeah, Hezbollah's dedicated to the eradication of Israel, wouldn't you have a plan?

Hezbollah went into Israel, killed some soldiers and captured two more. I don't use the word kidnap because they're soldiers and it's part of war. They've been firing missiles unprecedented distances over the border. Israel decided to hit hard and not to stop until the soldiers were returned. Fair enough, as long as no civilians are targeted.

I believe Israel has now crossed that line and I don't support what they've been doing in Lebanon.

Hezbollah deserves everything it gets, but now I see Israeli fighters bombing bridges and power stations, civilian infrastructure. They bombed the airport, stranding thousands. The air strikes have been so indiscriminate that they killed four UN peacekeepers. The article below tells of refugees being killed fleeing Tyre. It's got to stop.

I can see where Ehud Olmert is coming from. His predecessor pulled out of Gaza last year and it hasn't stopped violence from Hamas. Now they've attacked inside Israel and taken a prisoner. Not to be outdone, Hezbollah took two prisoners six years after Israel left, and they've threatened that the worst is yet to come. The peaceful way hasn't yielded results and if all goes according to plan, Hezbollah can be neutralized and their access to weapons cut off. For now.

But this is the Middle East and nothing ever goes according to plan. When civilians are killed, fighters are recruited. A new generation of terrorists are studying to be martyrs as we speak because they have no other hope. Beirut had hope; it was rebuilt, its economy was growing. It was a diverse cosmopolitan center, a tourist destination and now it's bombed.

We can fight the terrorists here, there, anywhere, but in the long run the only way to stop terrorism is to give hope. Economic development that leads to better lives is the most potent weapon against terror. Those kids who have nothing to do, whose fathers are dead, who learn from madmen must be given a choice. Until then peace has no chance.

Megan K. Stack's great story from Monday:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-solebanon24jul24,1,7034544.story

The photo is by Robert Gauthier from the LA Times.

SCHWARZENEGGER IS WATCHING

Agents from the Governor's Office of Homeland Security have been gathering information at antiwar demonstrations, the LA Times reported today. The Times only got their hands on two of the daily reports from the office and both described legal protests along with terrorism assessments.

Besides the general spookiness of government snooping at political rallies, I found two particularly disturbing facts in the Times article.

Democratic Congressman George Miller was one of the protesters observed. He spoke at an antiwar rally in Walnut Creek. When the executive branch is sending clandestine agents out into the field to report back on activities of the rival party, that's not playing fair. Not only are they gathering potential campaign information at taxpayer expense, which is Nixon-esque, but they're doing it under the guise of fighting terrorism, and that's much worse that anything Nixon did.

The second disturbing thing I saw was that the agents at the three rallies reported were not employees of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS). "Officials [at OHS] said the details about the rallies were reported by SRA International, a company hired to provide counter-terrorism analysis."

That jogged my memory a bit. Isn't that the name of the company that maintains the gang list for Rocky Delgadillo? Why yes. As I wrote in my endorsement of Rocky's rival:

"There is a list of gang members managed by a publicly traded company, called the Cal/Gang Database. Once on the list, citizens are denied the right of assembly, free speech, and expression. You get on the list by having the wrong tattoo or being seen with known gang members. You get off the list... well, nobody's ever got off the list (KPCC report by John Rabe, 6/1/06). Even the most generous estimates say gang injunctions only reduce crime by 6-9% and opponents say they just move the crime to the next neighborhood over."

Boo hoo, say my libertarian friends, why pick on them because they're a publicly traded company? But even a libertarian will tell you that it's the government's job to protect us, not to outsource crime prevention.

SRA International is beholden to its shareholders and not to the citizens of California. What responsibility do they have to protect our privacy? What else might they use the information for? SRA has contracts with healthcare interests, the military, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

No wonder they're out at war protests.

A spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer denounced the program in strong terms. The AG's office apparently learned about it after the fact; I guess he's in the wrong party. Cheers to Peter Nicholas for breaking this story. Here's hoping he'll follow it where it leads.

The LA Times story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-security1jul01,0,6449051.story?coll=la-home-headlines

SRA International's list of project profiles:
http://www.sra.com/services/index.asp?id=60

My words on Rocky and Jerry:
http://hollywood-liberal.blogspot.com/2006/06/garamendi-bowen-brown-in-down-ticket.html

I found the photo from Total Recall through Google Images at Susan Stepney's website here:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/sf/films/trecall/index.htm

DON'T BE AS EVIL: OIL CO. GROWS ROSES

Are today's oil companies making strides towards cleaner energy for PR purposes? Are they making smart long term business decisions or are they just good people? The answer doesn't matter.

What matters is whether they're taking real, concrete steps towards more renewable, less polluting sources and systems. The New York Times' business section today reported a novel development from the Dutch. A Shell oil refinery in Holland is now pumping its byproduct to greenhouses.

"Shell aims to sell 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year" to 500 greenhouses, reducing its emissions by 8%, the Times said. That's a lot of roses. The carbon still mostly ends up in the air, but now the greenhouse owners can stop producing it. It's only 8% of one refinery, but it bespeaks more for the larger picture.

"'The debate about CO2 is changing,' Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive officer of Shell, said in a recent interview. 'You can either fight it - which is useless - or you can see it as a business opportunity.'"

Score one for the libertarian environmentalists of the world.

The trend began in 1997 when British Petroleum (that's Arco here in LA) chief executive Lord Browne declared that oil companies' carbon emissions were contributing to global warming. Since then they've famously invested in alternative energy sources like wind and solar. Now they're planning to spend $800 million a year to reduce their carbon impact by 24 million tons by 2015. BP has has been the industry leader in environmental initiatives, almost as much as it been the leader of marketing itself as environmental.

That may sound cynical, but it's not. Besides the fact that Arco stations are consistently the cheapest in town, buying your gas from BP - or investing your money - sends a message that the marketing works. Americans want greener fuel. Does a mega company like BP still do more harm than good? Sure, but if you drive, you're complicit anyway, so vote with your wallet for cheaper gas and less CO2.

Shell, for its part, is proud of its investment in biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel as well as its share in a handful of wind farms. Its website pegs the total investment in biofuel at over a billion US dollars, but doesn't mention the amount it's spent on
wind, solar, or hydrogen.

Too little? Yes. Too late? Maybe not.

With the success of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth", global warming is the top national environmental concern and one of the biggest issues in the upcoming midterm elections. The public is worried about it, the scientific community comes up with more evidence every day. Democrats and President Bush agree that it's an issue we have to deal with. The discord is over how aggressive we need to be.

But there are still some Republicans who deny that we have the power to stop it or even that humans have anything to do with it. Richard Pombo, the Representative from Stockton called global warming a "myth" in a 2002 press release. Closer to home, Dana Rohrabacher from Long Beach called it "global baloney" on Real Time with Bill Maher back in 2004.

While it's not too late to save the planet, it may soon be too late for guys like Pombo and Rohrabacher. Global warming could be THE wedge issue for 2006. If this midterm is going to warm up, Democrats must take advantage of these backward looking politicians and place the environment front and center.


The NY Times article by Jad Mouawad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/business/30carbon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Shell's environmental statement from 2/2/06 (click "Meeting the energy challenge):
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=rw-br

Al Gore on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml

Pombo's Press Release:
http://www.votepomboout.org/issues/GlobalWarming/PomboEarthDay2002.pdf

A more recent Pombo emission:
http://www.house.gov/pombo/press/press2006/jan31_06.htm

The photo is by Herman Wouters of the NY Times.

HOW DO WE TAKE BACK THE HOUSE?

Here's a place to start: Patrick Murphy of Penn-sylvania. First the story, fast as I can tell it.

The kid grew up in Northeast Philly, the son of a cop, worked his way through college and got the law degree. He did legal aid for poor people in Harrisburg as well as working as a prosecutor. He went into the Army in 1993, became a JAG attorney, went to Bosnia and then to Baghdad with the 82nd Airborne where he earned the Bronze Star. Murphy's taught at West Point and lectured around town and around the world.

And he wants us to get out of Iraq.

The latest addition to the Patrick Murphy story is the mid-campaign wedding to local girl Jenni Safford. They met while working together at a Philadelphia law firm.

Murphy's plan for Iraq is to withdraw the National Guard and the Reserves by summertime, then send home 50,000 more troops by the end of 2006. The rest of the troops would pull back and protect the borders with Iran and Syria, and an elite strike force would remain in the region, either in Iraq or Kuwait. He calls for a timeline for withdrawal and a clear plan from the White House. In making his case Murphy takes a first person perspective:

"I spent 7 months in Iraq as a JAG officer, assisting local Iraqi officials and U.S. forces create and maintain the rule of law. Having seen my share of combat, I am keenly aware of how security, military operations, and local politics are woven into a complex web of challenges that often defy simple solutions.

"But even in complex situations, the truth is the truth. And the truth is that we have asked far too much of our National Guard and Reserves fighting in Iraq. It is time to bring them home now and create a framework for drawing down our regular forces in 2006....

"To those who say this idea fails to clean up the mess we created in Iraq, let me tell you as someone who has been there that staying the current course actually undermines the mission of our troops and will not fix anything."

Patrick Murphy's website is thoughtful and detailed. He's got a commitment to what bloggers and the media are calling the netroots, and that's a commitment to democracy. The site gives simple, straightforward progressive stances on the things that matter and his signature issues, Iraq, veterans, and corruption are backed up with readable position papers.

http://www.murphy06.com

Murphy believes in choice, stem cell research, healthcare for all, and balancing the deficit. He's against the war, drilling in ANWR, letting drug companies write our drug policy and letting oil companies write our energy policy.

The incumbent, Mike Fitzpatrick is having trouble extricating himself from the Tom DeLay scandal. His healthcare position does offer some positive band-aids, but mostly hews to the PA Republican party line, which is that capping consumer lawsuits will solve everything. He voted against stem cell research, he's for the war and against a woman's right to choose. In his favor, he does have a half decent record on the environment; League of Conservation Voters gives him a 61%. That's ballsy for a Republican, but de rigueur for any politician in the Philly suburbs.

http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=150964&congress=1092&lvl=C

The Pennsylvania 8th is one of the key swing districts in the United States. Gore and Kerry won here by a few percentage points. This is one of those races that has national implications, and it's one of those districts that Democrats need to reach out to. Electing a smart, solid Democrat will go a long way in the long term toward turning PA blue. Putting more Democrats on the streets knocking on doors will also help Bob Casey Jr. beat Senator Rick Santorum. The 8th has a lot of swing voters per square inch.

If you want to take back the House and you're agonizing over where to send your money, look no further.

http://www.murphy06.com/tocontribute.html

And here's a blog of support from the netroots:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/31/213730/972

A PARTY POOPER REBUTS

The Courage Campaign is a sort of alternative California Democratic Party for disaffected Democrats. They're doing good work organizing in every county in California.

http://couragecampaign.org/

The Courage Campaign's chairman, Rick Jacobs wrote an op-ed in the LA Times called "'Party' Poopers" denouncing Democratic Party endorsements:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jacobs3jun03,0,5639944.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

I was asked to take time out on election day to write a guest blog countering Rick's arguments. Here's what I wrote:

A PARTY POOPER REBUTS

It was with dismay and a grain of salt with which I read my friend Rick Jacobs's editorial on Saturday ("Party Poopers", LA Times, 6/3/06). His main points are that the Democratic Party shouldn't endorse in primaries, that its insiders are out of touch with its rank and file, and that the party structure is abstruse and impenetrable. I might have agreed a couple years ago until Mr. Jacobs's boss, Howard Dean, inspired me to try and break down the party walls.

To become one of the 2,500 delegates it took a little persistence to be sure. I was elected by my Assembly District Committee, but I had some hoops to jump through. Some of the "well-intentioned, mostly older
individuals," described in the editorial first ignored my phone calls, then tried to strong arm me into voting their way, and then threatened to challenge my membership when I refused. But in the end, it was the new guard, mostly former Dean supporters, brand new to party politics, who swept the day.

Those of us who vote on party endorsements, Mr. Jacobs says, "have at best a cursory connection to those 7 million Democrats... And they have no connection to the 'decline to state' voters."

Most of my friends are in their late 20s and early 30s, and registered Democrat or decline to state. They care about the world, but don't have much time for politics. Though I've made many new friends in the activist world, I can safely say that I'm the only one in my social group who got bit by the political bug.

At parties I have a magnet in my ear for political discussions. I listen to my peers' attitudes and concerns. I ask a lot of questions, testing theories I have about "typical" voters. I send out an e-mail out at election time with my recommendations and I pitch new ideas like universal healthcare, clean money, and truth in initiatives to friends who aren't as engaged.

To me the point of being politically active is to win over opinions and win votes. I want to matter more than my one vote. At the California Democratic Convention in April, not only did I vote to endorse Phil Angelides, but I convinced four or five other delegates to vote for him. It paid off, too. The endorsement gave Angelides a nine point bump and now he's able to compete against Steve Westly and his personal fortune.

I didn't lean on anyone, threaten anyone, offer any jobs, or pay for anyone's flight. I just made sane arguments. It's worth mentioning that no one paid my way to Sacramento either, but if anyone would like to pay my way the next time...

Only 2 candidates in the 8 statewide races left the convention with endorsements. One of them, Debra Bowen for Secretary of State, was a shock to a lot of party insiders. The Assembly, Senate, and House
endorsements were decided locally, though some were challenged at the convention and one was overturned. The delegates I saw came in all sizes, ages, and colors.

Today I'm volunteering for Elena Popp, a candidate who was not endorsed by the party. By all accounts, Sacramento's fair-haired boy, Kevin de Leon, is polling third behind Elena and someone with something far more valuable than the party's endorsement.

Christine Chavez, the front runner for the 45th Assembly District seat is the only candidate in California whose grandfather has a holiday named after him. She doesn't go to candidate forums or debate ideas, but she does send more mail than I've ever seen, and almost every piece begins the same way:

"My grandfather, Cesar Chavez..."

In this race, the party endorsement is not battling the big money, it's battling the big name. We're hoping Kevin's endorsement and Christine's name recognition will cancel each other out, while Elena, who the LA Times calls "the most independent of the five," rises to the top. I have never worked on a campaign that covered its precincts so thoroughly or worked so hard to contact and win over every likely voter in the district.

The party's endorsement should not replace voter education, but I hope it counts for a little more than a candidate's bank account or famous relative.

Rick Jacobs is right that the party structure is ridiculously complicated and somewhat closed off. Its power to shift and channel money should evoke a healthy suspicion. But for those of us willing to put in the effort to make change, it's not hard to break in and to have an effect.

In my other life, as a location soundman, I've worked on a couple of TV shows with a young woman named Kate Sedrowski. She's quiet, hard working, and earnest. She's an active volunteer in the Valley and her car is covered with political bumper stickers. I was surprised to see her name on the ballot for Democratic County Central Committtee. It wasn't easy; she had to drive to Norwalk, do the paperwork and then gather signatures, but a little dedication goes a long way.

To those frustrated with the party and its arcane structure, I suggest you try to change it. There's plenty of room for no-nonsense folks with their hearts in the right place. It takes a little effort, but you'll see the results. As for me, I'll know the hard work paid off sometime around midnight tonight.