GARCETTI TAKES OVER COUNCIL, WAXMAN PONDERS SUBWAY

Good news came for frustrated drivers yesterday. City Council unanimously elected Eric Garcetti of the 13th District, to replace Alex Padilla to head up the body.

So what's that got to do with your evening commute?

Garcetti has been an advocate for smart development. Tall buildings with stores on the bottom, apartments up top, and parking underneath have been sprouting up near the Red Line. These kinds of buildings, placed around transportation hubs, encourage the use of public transit, and not just for those who move in, but for shoppers and existing residents.

There are already two such buildings by the subway station at the southeast and northeast corners of Hollywood and Western. A third, in the historic Mayer Building, is being funded now on the southwest corner. A block away, at Sunset and Western, an old porn theater has been replaced with a mixed use building. More are planned near the Hollywood and Vine station.

Demonstrating his commitment to these projects, Garcetti plans to move his district office to the ground floor of the Mayer Building.

As Garcetti sets the tone in City Hall, I expect to see more mixed use apartment buildings throughout the city. Hopefully the new developments will also include parking for subway riders. It is not enough to encourage people to give up their cars, we have to help people who have cars find alternatives to driving as traffic approaches a critical mass.

Meanwhile on the Westside, Congressman Henry Waxman is softening his opposition to a subway to the beach. Twenty years ago, tunnelers encountered methane and caused an explosion under a Ross store at 3rd and Fairfax. Since then, Waxman has stood in the way of federal funds for further digging. Easy enough for him; the neighbors didn't want it.

For a while now, experts have said that a subway can be built safely. To the south, methane seepage hasn't stopped Playa Vista, the city's biggest development, from going forward. What has threatened it is the will of the community. As gridlocked travelers discover alternative routes, Waxman's constituents are feeling the squeeze. More traffic on local streets and more gridlock on their own commutes are forcing neighbors to warm up to the idea of an underground railroad in their community.

As the congressman contemplates releasing federal funds for a subway along Wilshire, people will cry out against mixed use developments in their backyard. Council President Garcetti will have to use the bully pulpit a bit to make the case for smart development.

Sooner or later, changes will need to be made. There is no end in sight to the population increase in LA and more people will bring more cars until there are alternatives. Mixed use will make it easier for all Angelenos to live, work, and shop without driving and that is good for everyone.


Garcetti's announcement:
http://lacityorgcd13.blogspot.com/2005/11/president-of-los-angeles-city-council.html

LA Times on Waxman's dilemma:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-waxman29nov29,1,4479830.story?coll=la-commun-los_angeles_metro

DUKE'S REBUKE: UP TO TEN YEARS IN JAIL

Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham's modest malfeasance has ballooned to a big bribery scandal. We thought the Rancho Santa Fe Republican had merely sold his house to a defense contractor at an inflated price, but it turns out that the cheating has gone far further. It's actually a wonder no one noticed before.

The LA Times reports today that Cunningham confessed to having the mortgage on his other house, and the down payment on his capitol condo paid by defense contractors. They also gave him a Rolls-Royce, several antiques, furniture, the use and upkeep of a yacht, and wrote him checks for over a million dollars. This guy is bolder than the ants that invade my apartment in the summer. And just as disgusting.

I'm sure any politician can tell you the story of Jerry Springer, who started out as the mayor of Cincinnati and got where he is today by paying a hooker with a personal check. Note to crooked pols: when you're breaking the law, do not write or accept a check!

In return, Representative Cunningham used his powerful position on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to hand lucrative contracts to the corporations that greased his palm.

I don't need to talk about how morally reprehensible (sound familiar?) the whole thing is; and I caution fellow Democrats to be careful about the rhetoric we use to condemn this. Our side is just as capable of screwing up. I was living in Illinois when Democrat Dan Rostenkowski went down for 15 months, and there have been any number of local scandals in cities whose politics are dominated by Democrats. Before we get on our moral high horse, let's remember that our patron saint, Bill Clinton actually pardoned Rostenkowski.

But it hasn't been the Democrats who've been moralizing lately, has it? Ever since Dole, Gingrich, and the Contract with America, it's been the GOP who have talked about character, morals, and values. It's part of the Christian Coalition's successful scheme to take over the country. The trouble with their logic is that they've narrowed down morality to opposing abortion and gay marriage, two positions particular to certain religions.

The Republican Party has so thoroughly divided America along religious lines that when we are asked about "moral values" the first things we think of are abortion and gay marriage. Democrats who are successful next year will either have evaded the issue altogether or broadened it as did Tim Kaine, the governor-elect of Virginia.

Rather than talking about certain principles that distinguish us, Democrats will have to prove they've lived up to the moral standards that everyone agrees on. Stealing is bad. So are accepting bribes, gifts, and letting people pay your mortgage in return for preferential treatment. Breaking campaign finance laws is bad and is tantamount to taking bribes. Lying is bad.

Democratic candidates in 2006 will be in the right when they trash their opponents for ethical violations. They should repeat the facts over and over until the public really gets it. But they will have to be careful to be open and honest with their own accountings and business relationships. If not, they will be vulnerable to the same accusations of hypocrisy that their Republican counterparts suffer from today.

The LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-duke29nov29,0,5594670.story?coll=la-home-local

WHITE PHOSPHOROUS: WHITE ELEPHANT FOR MILITARY

Chemical weapons were found in Iraq during the battle for Fallujah. Fleeing the fighting, Omar Ibrahim Abdullah, a resident of the insurgency hotbed, discovered dozens of charred bodies, the apparent victims of the US military's chemical weapon of choice, white phosphorous, the LA Times reported.

Also called "WP", or "Willie Pete", white phosphorous is used to increase visibility or to cause gruesome carnage. Fired into the air, it illuminates the night time battlefield. Used against human beings, it burns flesh to the bone leaving corpses black and red. It's kind of like agent orange and napalm rolled into one.

In the magazine Field Artillery, a group of artillery officers praised the chemical's versatility, "we used it for screening missions … and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents … when we could not get effects on them with [high explosives]."

LA Times embedded reporter Patrick J. McDonnell said, "we had rounds of white phosphorus burst in the air quite close to us, and the Marines were quite concerned, since they knew of its impact — that it burns through flesh and is impossible to extinguish."

The US has signed on to the Inhumane Weapons Convention, which says that incendiary weapons like WP can only be used on military targets. The controversy over our use of WP has largely centered over whether we used it against a military target or not. The town of Fallujah, it is argued, was a military target since most of the civilians had left. Sure, in a war, a few collateral casualties can be expected. But the convention we signed also provides that incendiary weapons should not be used on military targets near concentrations of civilians.

This is a higher bar; one we have not met. In the war on terror, it's nearly impossible to separate insurgents from civilians. Like agent orange, white phosphorous is dangerous to our own soldiers, and like napalm, its effects are too horrifying to risk inflicting on innocent people.

Of course killing and disfiguring the very people we're there to set free is counter productive as well as wrong.

The State Department and the Pentagon denied we were using white phosphorous in Fallujah, but they've recently recanted. 25 years ago, the United Nations, in another convention, put more limits on how incendiaries can be used, but the US refused to sign on.

I would like to be able to hold our military to a higher standard than the rest of the world. The United States should renounce the use of white phosphorous, or at the very least, sign on to the provisions of the 1980 UN agreement. Its use in Fallujah, and the subsequent denials are frankly unacceptable.


Here's the article from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-phosphorus28nov28,0,6777069.story?page=1&coll=la-home-world

WHERE'D MEAN JEAN GET HER TALKING POINTS?

By now you must have seen or heard the bellicose Jean Schmidt of Ohio on the floor of the House calling Korea and Vietnam vet John Murtha a coward. I bit of research reveals a few interesting things that you don't get from the sound bite played on NPR:

"He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through."

I thought she'd received a letter or phone call from a Marine in Iraq but she's actually referring to "Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio [State] Representative..." Bubp's a lawyer (Cincinnati Enquirer) and a Marine reservist who's never been to war. According to his campaign bio, he's never even been in a skirmish.

I also did not know that she's the one who narrowly defeated Democrat and Fallujah veteran Paul Hackett in a special election a few months ago. Hackett is probably the first Iraq War vet to run for office (and not the last). The suburban Cincinnati district is so dominated by Republicans and Hackett did so unexpectedly well that he's being hailed as a rising star in the party.

The New York Times referred to Bubp simply as a Marine colonel. Tim Russert on Meet The Press called him a state representative. Both are true, but the news media owes us more. Reporters could have at least given his name. Getting to the bottom of Schmidt's accusation would have taken very little effort, but the partisan bickering and catcalls are what make good TV.

The Republican powers that be are already talking about putting up a primary opponent to run against Ms. Schmidt. Meanwhile, Major Hackett is planning to run against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine for US Senate.

Said California's own Republican Representative David Drier, "very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine." (NYT)


The bio:
http://www.geocities.com/danin04/bio

The transcript:
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003927.html

The haircut:
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=88

The Cincinnati Enquirer:
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/29/loc_ohiohouse88dist29.html

The NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/national/20ohio.html

The campaign:
http://www.hackettforohio.com/

BEHOLD, A VERTEBRATE DEMOCRAT

At work today a guy complimented my bumper sticker ("Vote NO on 73-78") and mentioned that he'd worked in Democratic campaigns going back to Humphrey in '68. He's left politics to write screenplays and work on his house. Towards the end of the job, the guy lamented the state of the party and the lack of straight talk and back bone. He was not the only one.

When I got home I put Meet The Press on the TiVo. I was immediately heartened and, dare I say, proud to be a Democrat. US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania defended the House bill for which he was excoriated this week by Republicans. Rep. Murtha proposed that we begin withdrawing troops from Iraq soon and move toward a full stand down in the next year. This morning he explained his position and answered questions with honesty and aplomb.

He said it is time to bring the troops home, not all at once, but according to a plan designed to encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own protection. He said that yes, he does regret voting to give the president the authority to go to war. He also said that he has changed his mind in recent months about what is being accomplished and what can be accomplished in Iraq, and he no longer supports the occupation.

Much has been made in Democratic circles about the lack of a single unifying message. From Iraq to abortion, there are few issues that Democrats all agree on. Many don't know what the party stands for, and to hear the standard bearers speak, you wouldn't know where they stand either. John Kerry said that he respectfully disagrees with with Rep. Murtha. That's great, and we know that he disagrees with his former opponent, President Bush. I worked on Kerry's campaign, I met John Kerry. I do not know where John Kerry stands on the war.

The guy at work expressed a frustration almost universal in the Democratic Party today. Our side doesn't stand up for itself. Many of our leaders come off as timid or tepid.

I told him it's too late to complain, the only thing to do is get out and change things. Find the Democrats who speak from the heart. The bold and honest ones. Seek out those courageous enough to risk giving their real opinion, and work for them; help them win. John Murtha, a 16 term congressman, a veteran of Korea and Vietnam, is one such politician, and today I am proud to be from Pennsylvania and I'm proud to be a Democrat.


Here's the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10042399/

LA TIMES: GAS CASH INFUSION WILL BALANCE BOOKS

So much to talk about in one article. Elizabeth G. Hill, a nonpartisan legislative analyst, said that we'll have an extra $5.2 billion next June when we take our next look at the budget. That's about 4 times what was expected last year at that time.

Perhaps the drastic measures Arnold Schwarzenegger asked us to vote for last week weren't necessary after all.

Before you applaud the Governor for cutting the car tax, read a little further:
"Higher than expected corporate profits are leading to a large chunk of the extra cash flowing into state coffers — and much of that is attributed to the record oil company profits of late."

So our car culture has led to a car economy. More people can afford to drive because fees and gas taxes are so low. They spend that money at the pump, enriching oil companies. With the steady demand, the oil companies raise gas prices and make record profits. The taxes they pay on those profits make up for the budget shortfall caused by the lower taxes and fees.

Seems like everybody wins. You get to drive, the oil companies make money hand over fist, and the state budget is none the worse. But there are losers too. Air quality suffers. We stay dependent on the Middle East. Our roads are clogged so we spend more time in our cars and less time at work.

"There are other significant caveats," says the Times, "Hill's projection assumes the state would not repay billions of dollars that have been borrowed from schools over the last two years to balance the budget."

$3.8 billion of that $5.2 billion belongs to our kids. If I'm the Governor right now, and I have all that egg on my face, I pay back the schools and ask them for a towel. If the special election told us anything it is that California voters don't want school funding cut.


PERATA OPPOSES AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Meanwhile, across the aisle, Oakland Democrat Don Perata wants to take away $428 million in voter approved funds for after school programs set to get started next year. Said the Senate President Pro Tem, "It is absurd to talk about putting money into after-school activities when we are not funding core educational programs."

Absurd? The programs will take the kids off the street after school, when most juvenile crimes occur, provide tutors, and help with homework.

Our education system needs support when school is done. Ideally that should come from the parents, but in reality parents need a little help. When your choice is picking up your kid in the afternoon or working the extra few hours to put food on the table in the evening, an after school program is the perfect solution. After school will allow a lot of parents to work full time and that's good for them and good for the economy.

The gentleman from Oakland should listen to the people and recognize that robust after school programs are good for working families and will improve public schools across the board.

All that and more, in the Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget17nov17,0,1764840.story?coll=la-home-headlines

PLAME'S NAME WHISPERED TO WOODWARD BY LOOSE LIPPED LEAKER...

... And it wasn't Libby.

Apparently feeling left out, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post testified before Patrick Fitzgerald in the White House leak case. According to National Public Radio (NPR), Mr. Woodward testified that he was told of Valerie Plame's status one month before Bob Novak printed it. He did not say who leaked the information, only that it was a Senior Bush administration official and it was not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

David Folkenflik of NPR said, "a senior government official apparently went to the special prosecutor and said that he had had this conversation" with Mr. Woodward. Mr. Fitzgerald then called the reporter on November 3rd and asked him to testify.

So there was a second leaker on the grassy knoll. That could get Libby off the hook a little bit, and it opens up the case to more indictments. But will Mr. Woodward disclose the name of the one who disclosed the name? Has he even been asked to confirm the name?

When I heard this report, I found myself quite cynical about Woodward's motivation. Almost as important as the principle of not disclosing off the record sources is the principle of not making yourself the news. Woodward the author has a lot to gain by keeping his name out there, just a few months after the Deep Throat revelation. But then I realized that he actually hadn't come forward; he was drawn out by this mysterious source, according to NPR.

Woodward has done the right thing by keeping silent until his source identified him.

I admire all of the journalists who have held out and risked jail time because they gave their word to their source. We definitely ought to explore creating a federal shield law for reporters. The irony of this case is that those whose names are being kept secret are in trouble for not keeping someone's name secret.

You can find the NPR story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=2135

RICE BRIDGES DEAL ON GAZA BORDER CROSSINGS

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice truly has something to be proud of today. After some late nights and last minute laptop updates, Rice brokered a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to loosen the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt.

Working out agreements between Israel and Palestine is hard. Add to that Israel's current political upheaval and the guilty plea entered today by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's son, and the obstacles look overwhelming. Rice, who seems to make a better Secretary of State than National Security Advisor, successfully kept Sharon and his counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas on track and has achieved results.

In about two weeks the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt will open up under Palestinian control. Israeli and Palestinian officials will be able to watch what comes in and goes out on security cameras from a distant control room. If the Israeli officer doesn't like what he sees, he has to ask the Palestinians to make the stop. He can then appeal to a European Union team led by an Italian Major General.

Potentially even more significant is that Israel will begin allowing convoys to drive between Gaza and the West Bank in December. Travel between the two territories, or the lack thereof, was seen as the major flaw in Sharon's Gaza pullout in September. Under this agreement, the convoys will be accompanied by Israeli security officials.

Although Hamas, which is now a political party as well as a terrorist group, is not pleased with the compromise, this is a very good sign for Palestinian freedom.

The danger to Israel was exemplified when a missile was fired from northern Gaza into Israel today, according to the New York Times. Luckily for the new pact, the missile was not aimed at civilians and no one was hurt.

The true test of Rice's diplomacy will be in the coming weeks as more missiles fly and more bombs explode. Will the agreement hold up or will it stall as so many well intentioned compromises have in recent years?


From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/international/middleeast/14cnd-mideast.html?ex=1289624400&en=0233f5e354a836a8&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

From Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-15T192142Z_01_RID535079_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml

Reuters on Sharon's son:
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-11-15T114151Z_01_RID529332_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&related=true

THOSE HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS ARE AT IT AGAIN

The LA Times reports that would be Democratic nominees are already here shaking the money tree. Hillary Clinton, in particular, has been hitting the stump recently with two visits in the past six months.

I remember getting an e-mail about fundraiser in the Hills with names like Christina Aguilera and Scarlett Johansen on the invitation. I almost spent the hundred bucks just see them. Since then she's been back at least once, although this time the price tag was $500. John Kerry's been here, so has John Edwards, and even John McCain. Joe Biden, my favorite of the bunch, will be here this week.

Of course Howard Dean's been here raising money for the party. Al Gore and the Global Warming Tour have stopped in a few times. Neither is running, except in the wishful minds of their star-struck supporters. A kid can dream, right?

According to the Times:
"Los Angeles is like the Iowa caucus of the fundraising scene," said campaign strategist Bill Carrick. "Even people who say they're opposed to Hollywood values are out here raising money."

Well, it's like the Iowa caucus except that I don't see any of the candidates shaking hands outside of any factories.

By Hollywood values, I guess they mostly mean sex in movies. I wonder what our equivalent to ethanol would be? Perhaps we could rig up a car that's powered by your cell phone battery. Every candidate will have to pledge to subsidize your ego.


Here's the article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/cl-et-hollymoney15nov15,0,1603053.story?coll=la-home-headlines

AMERICANS THINK BUSH IS DISHONEST, BUSH SAYS CRITICS "THROW OUT FALSE CHARGES"

In one Associated Press story today, President Bush said some politicians "throw out false charges."

He was responding to critics of the Iraq War. "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," Bush said in a speech in Pennsylvania. He pointed out that those allegations were not backed up in the senate investigation.

I'd say he hit the nail right on the head. They did manipulate intelligence and mislead the American people.

In another AP story, it was the American people accusing the President of falsehood. According to the AP-Ipsos poll released today, "Almost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards."

So when Bush drags out that tired old rhetoric about patriotism, or "undercutting" our troops if you criticize the war, just remember, you're now the majority.

Moderate Republicans in the House know it too. They're breaking ranks over de-funding of food stamps, tax cuts, and oil drilling in Alaska. They saw how much a last minute Bush visit hurt the Republican in the Virginia Governor's race. The last thing they need is a lame-duck president with a 37% approval rating campaigning with them.

AP on the speech:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

AP on the poll:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_AP_POLL?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

PHILADELPHIA MAYOR'S BROTHER FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY

Ah, the foibles of the Street family:

"T. Milton Street Sr., the mayor's colorful brother who two years ago was earning $30,000 a month consulting for a private company at the airport, has filed for bankruptcy."

That's thirty grand a MONTH, folks. The entrepreneur and hot dog stand maven is apparently doing whatever he can to hold off on paying for storage at Penn's Landing, which is owned by the city.

He refused to pay rent for hot dog stand storage for so long that the non-profit Penn's Landing Corp. had to sue him. After the judge ordered him to pay more than $36,000, they had to sue him again to get the money. This past summer the Sheriff's Office did an inventory of the equipment and scheduled a sale. Wait, said Street's son, Milton Street Jr., some of those hot dog stands are mine! Nope, said the sheriff, tell Daddy to pay up.

Which leaves Street where he is now:

"On the handwritten form Street filed, which he did without a lawyer, he said he had $75,000 in unsecured debt. He said he did not own his home, and listed his only income as $900 a month, without identifying the source. He detailed just one necessary expense: $50 for monthly phone service."

It's like he's trying to mess up the paperwork just to ward off the sheriff's sale a few more weeks.

"So little information was provided that Terry P. Dershaw, the bankruptcy trustee appointed to the case, said yesterday: 'It almost looks to me like it would be dismissed by the clerk's office... . It appeared to me that it [the petition] was inadequate.'"

So onward we go. The guy who once went to court owing the city thousands in parking tickets, whose brother, the mayor, once had to take back an airport contract he got when critics complained, is now trying to bilk the city for thousands.

Milton, is it your divine right to cheat the taxpayers?

Mr. Mayor, when are you going to end the nepotism and ban your brother from any deal with the City of Philadelphia?

Here's your article from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13137270.htm?source=yahoodist&content=phi_news

TELL IT TO ME, ARNOLD!

A rueful Governor Schwarzenegger addressed reporters yesterday. As usual, he delivered some colorful copy. Can you identify the real quote?

"If I would do another 'Terminator' movie, I would have Terminator travel back in time to tell Arnold not to have a special election."

"If I would do another 'Total Recall' movie, I would have Hauser go back in time and tell Cauleefornia not to recall Gray Davis."

"If I would do another 'True Lies' movie I would have the character tell Arnold not to lie about taking special interest money."

"If I would do another 'Predator' movie, I would tell Jesse Ventura not to run for governor either."

The answer, and the whole article from Associated Press:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCHWARZENEGGER?SITE=MIDTN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

THERE WERE MEN WITH GUNS OUTSIDE MY WINDOW

It was a typical Sunday morning and I was lounging about my apartment watching Meet The Press on the TiVo, but the helicopter kept circling above. I paid the annoyance little mind until I heard somebody speaking Spanish through a bullhorn. Okay, I thought, time to go over to the window.

There were a good four or five cops across the street, at the mouth of the alley, aiming shotguns at an apartment building. A family huddled in their doorway at the top of a short staircase. Everyone else in the squat yellow building kept their shades drawn. Not me. My only regret is not grabbing my camera.

I've never heard gunshots on my block, never been mugged, or even threatened. I've never seen or heard of a car being stolen or robbed. There's graffiti, to be sure, and my pet peeve, illegal dumping, but my block is safe. I have seen guns three or four times in the past year, but always accompanied by uniforms.

I stared as the teenager followed his instructions to slowly walk backwards with his hands on his head the 15 yards or so to the cops. They grabbed him by the belt and searched him. Next came a woman, and then an older woman. The older woman was allowed to hold the hand of a five year old as she kept her other hand on her head. The little girl didn't make a peep. Behind the cops, a young boy stuck his head out the window to watch the action.

Once the family was under control, they went into the house. By the time I went out for some breakfast, there were maybe 12 or 15 of them conferencing. At the foot of my block were a group of residents, detained by police for their own safety. The cop at the roadblock told me they didn't get who they were looking for. Nor did they find the drugs.

What I couldn't help thinking about was the little girl. By all indications, she had done nothing wrong in her approximately five years on this planet, but she had to endure the trauma and embarrassment along with the rest of her ostensibly innocent family. What happens to her now?

I've never seen the police actually arrest anyone here, they just wave big guns and fly loud helicopters. I guess I should feel safer knowing that they're doing their jobs. Maybe it would be worse if they ignored us. As it is, I feel pretty secure walking around at two in the morning. The only time I feel threatened is when there are troopers outside my window with guns.

SCHWARZENEGGER LOSES EVERYTHING

At 1 am, with about half of LA County precincts reporting, it is clear that the governor's special election is a failure. Not a single one of the statewide ballot initiatives will pass. Arnold's flagship proposition, which would have increased his power over the budget, is his most stunning loss.

I've got to say that in my two years as an activist, I have never seen the grassroots political groups work so smoothly and fruitfully with organized labor. Though unions represent only a fraction of Angelenos, they truly speak for the plurality.

The California Democratic Party would have done well to withhold its support for any initiative on Governor Schwarzenegger's special election. The Dem supported propositions are faring the worst at this hour. The state party might have also done more to support Planned Parenthood in its effort to defeat Prop 73, the parental notification initiative, rather than throw its resources toward the Alliance For a Better California almost exclusively.

But this is a huge victory for the Democrats, and the labor movement, particularly the teachers. The Alliance is to be commended for better than expected turnout. If this level of enthusiasm continues, California will have a new governor a year from now.

Here are the results:
http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm#cty

And here's the LA Times story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-election9nov09,0,3181440.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Measure Y: SAFE, HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS REPAIR/CONSTRUCTION MEASURE

I'll vote YES on anything that gives public schools more money.

This measure issue bonds that will go toward building sorely needed new schools and making necessary repairs to old ones.

How did our schools get so crowded? We're in the middle of an unprecedented school building spree--160 new schools by 2012. The plan is to make sure every kid gets to go to school in his own neighborhood for a traditional school year. Some of the money will go toward repairs and upgrades like asbestos removal. 40% will go to build 25 elementary schools, according to the LA Times (11/6/05).

Measure Y is going to cost homeowners a little bit. We've got to raise almost $4 billion and we have a system where school funding comes from property taxes. The average cost is estimated at $26.71 per year for every $100,000, or $133.55 per year if your house is worth half a mil.

I've said that my inclination is to vote no on ballot measures until I see a good reason not to, but bond measures are a little bit different. In California, any bond issuance has to be voted on by the people. In fact, Measure Y needs 55% of us to vote yes. That's going to be no small feat when all the Democrats (myself included) are shouting, "no, no, no".

Education is our best investment and we owe it to our kids to spend a little more. Incidentally, while we're spending more, the Governor is trying to give us less. If Prop 76 passes, you can expect property taxes to increase some more.

Opponents argue that enrollment in LA Unified School District (LAUSD) is down by 20,000 kids this year. I would point out that kids at Hollywood High are still tracked and young Angelenos are still being bused to other neighborhoods to relieve overcrowding. The fact that we have a momentary slowdown in enrollment is no reason to interrupt the progress we're making.

Perhaps if we had implemented this plan years earlier, before the schools were so crowded, we could have avoided the overcrowding in the first place. Come to think of it, maybe there's a lesson on traffic abatement there.

I do have one bone to pick. In this flurry of school building, LAUSD ought to pay closer attention to historical preservation and the way it impacts communities when it uses eminent domain to take over building sites. But that's a story for another day, and has nothing to do with the funding we're voting for now. Famous assassination sites be damned, I'm voting Yes on Y.

Prop 80: ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

I'm voting NO

Energy regulation is a complicated issue that needs to be solved by experts in the field, consumer groups, and the legislative process, not by a rigid ballot initiative.

This initiative has some things going for it. It's pretty clear that deregulation in California led to the energy crisis. We can't trust huge companies like Enron to look out for our best interests, so we need to regulate the industry to prevent things like blackouts, price gouging, and corporate theft.

On the other hand, this initiative prohibits consumer choice, which is why even the solar and wind energy companies are against it. One might rightly ask, but we don't get to choose our electricity provider now, so what's the difference?

I was living in Pennsylvania when that state opened up electricity to competition. All of a sudden, I had the freedom to pick my own utility company, and the former monopoly had to improve its customer service dramatically just to compete. I chose Green Mountain Energy, the most environmental of the 6 or 7 choices. It was cheaper and all my light switches still worked. Just because we don't have energy choice now doesn't mean it's a bad idea and it doesn't mean we can't have it in the future.

This initiative appears to be good for the environment because it speeds up the requirements for renewable energy use. Under this measure, 20% of our energy will be generated by things like solar and wind by 2010. Without Prop 80, that doesn't happen until 2017.

So I found it curious that the major environmental groups (Sierra Club, NRDC, LCV) weren't endorsing this thing. I called the California League of Conservation Voters (CA LCV) and they referred me to Clean Power Campaign and the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT). These two groups are opposing the initiative.

The environmental argument against the measure is basically that, although it speeds up the goals for renewable energy, it locks us in to those levels. According to V. John White of CEERT, there's a drafting error that turns the goal into a limit. So we could have our 20% renewable energy, but then we'd have to overturn Prop 80 to go any higher. On top of that, environmentalists fear the damage that a monopoly could do to everything they've accomplished so far.

Here's Mr. White's editorial in the Sacramento Bee:
(http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/forum/story/13784915p-14626673c.html)

For a while, I was going to vote yes on this thing just for the environmental aspect, but I have to trust the experts. Does it sound like I don't actually understand a heck of lot about Prop 80? I don't. And if you don't understand it either, you ought to vote no.

Prop 78 DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Prop 79 PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

I'm voting NO on 78 and YES on 79.

Prop 79 will help more people and allow us to negotiate better prices with pharmaceutical companies.

When I first read these initiatives I was so suspicious that I was just going to say no to both of them. This is one of those things that needs to go through the legislative process and be vetted by experts who understand the complex world of health insurance. We should have national healthcare for everyone so I worry about stopgap measures that do very little but make us feel good about ourselves.

The reason that I gave them a real hard look is because they're competing initiatives. What that means is that just getting 50% plus one is not enough; the one that passes has to have more votes than the other one. They can both lose, but they can't both win. So which one is better?

Your first clue is that Prop 78 was written by a group of drug companies and Prop 79 was written by a consumer group. The drug companies have actually broken the record for spending on a ballot initiative.

They both give discounts for prescription drugs to lower income Californians. It's hard to say conclusively which gives better discounts; each has its own formulas. If drug companies get their way, they'll be able to jack up their prices to offset the discount. Under their plan, giving the discounts is voluntary. In Prop 79 however, the state can negotiate the prices we pay for prescriptions using the MediCal system for leverage.

Drug companies would have you believe they might just walk away from all that business, leaving a bunch of sick people with no drugs, but common sense tells you they won't. There are too many people here consuming their product, they would have a major PR problem on their hands, and they haven't walked away from Canada for negotiating better prices. No, they've spent too much money trying to defeat 79 for me to believe that it makes business sense for them to walk.

Prop 79 helps more people too. According to the LA Times, an individual making under $38,000 a year, or a family of four making less than $77,000 a year would be eligible for the discount under Prop 79. Under the drug companies' version, it would be $29,000 for an individual or $58,000 for the family. Prop 79 will help about twice as many people.

If you already have insurance that partly covers prescriptions you can still get the state discount under 79. You get nada under 78.

Finally, Prop 79 makes price gouging illegal. Say there's a bird flu epidemic and everybody wants Tamiflu. Under Prop 78, the company who makes it can raise the price as much as it wants.

If we can't have universal healthcare, at least we can have a real discount on prescription drugs for poor and middle class people. It's not much, but it's something. Let's vote for the real discount plan; the one with teeth, Prop 79.

Prop 77 REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

This ain't Texas and I'm voting NO.

This proposition would put reapportionment in the hands of partisan judges selected by a group of legislators that is disproportionately Republican.

In California, state legislators draw the district lines for Congress and for themselves every ten years according to census statistics. The problem is that they know where their supporters live and they can draw the lines so that they keep a majority of their supporters in their district.

For instance, the 53rd Assembly District includes liberal Venice, and also conservative Torrance. If I were a Republican drawing the district line, I'd want to make sure the district included Palos Verdes where there are a lot of Republicans, but I wouldn't want it to include Santa Monica, which is very Democratic. I would carve it out so that I kept my majority and then I would make sure that my homeboy to the north, who has to represent Santa Monica, also gets a good portion of Ventura county, which usually votes Republican.

We can reasonably expect legislators to draw the lines to favor themselves first, and to favor their party second. Prop 77 would take the power to draw district lines away from the legislature and give it to a panel of three retired judges.

So, being the skeptic that I am, the first thing I wanted to know was who picks the three retired judges?

Legislators --the very people this initiative purports to disempower-- pick the judges.

The governor supports Prop 77 and the governor has only campaigned for Republicans. He's always used his star power to advance his party. He says he's against the legislators, but then he leaves them in charge of the store. It doesn't compute. Let's look a little closer.

There are four "legislative leaders" who narrow down the candidates for the panel. Two are Democrats and two are Republicans. If redistricting happened today, it would be Fabian Nunez, Don Perata, Dick Ackerman, and Kevin McCarthy.

The three judge panel itself is required to have one Democrat and one Republican. The third is randomly selected from the remaining candidates. So the panel will be either 2/3 Republican or 2/3 Democratic. Instead of partisan legislators drawing the lines you have partisan judges picked by the partisan legislators.

The population of California is 1/3 Republican. We have elected a legislature that is 1/3 Republican. But this initiative gives the power to pick the panel to a group that is 1/2 Republican, and the panel itself could be 2/3 Republican.

To its credit, this plan has a lot of checks and balances in the narrowing down process. That could make it fairer than the current system, but if the panel is not representative of the people of California then it's one step up and two steps back. The measure also requires us to vote on the new lines. When I think about that election and how much money will be spent it makes my head spin.

It might be worth a try if it were easy to modify, but these things are hard to overturn once they've been implemented. When a bill goes through the legislature there are opportunities to fix its flaws, but ballot initiatives that pass can't be changed without a two thirds vote of the legislature or another ballot initiative.

The principle that we redistrict every ten years after the census should be respected as well. If we redistrict now we would be using six year old census data and the first election it would affect would most likely be in 2008. Let's take the time to work out a better plan that's representative of the people of California.

Prop 76: STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

I'll vote NO on anything that cuts school funding.

Besides giving the Governor unprecedented power over the budget, this initiative lets him cut school funding below the current minimum.

Schools in LA are so overcrowded that students go to school in shifts. Teachers pay for school supplies out of their pockets. and the city has to sell bonds just to fix crumbling walls and and get rid of lead and asbestos.

In 1988, voters approved Prop 98 which ties school funding to growth in school attendance and per capita income. At the very least, we have to spend 39% of our revenue on schools. There is a provision, if the economy is slow, to "borrow" some of the earmarked money and put it toward other things. When the economy picks up, that money is put back into schools.

Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger borrowed $2 billion from public schools. Education advocates agreed not to make a big fuss as long as he promised he wouldn't borrow more. This year he borrowed more. In total he's taken away $3.8 billion and if this initiative passes he will not have to give it back.

So right away that's a $3.8 billion cut. This governor's priority is certainly not education.

So you might say let's get our house in order and then talk about educating our children, and there are two serious flaws in that idea. First, an educated populace is the key to long term economic success. More and more unskilled jobs are going overseas and the ones that remain require brains. The other flaw is that the cost of education is going to be passed on to cities and counties. This stuff costs money and you're going to pay for it either way.

This measure has some good things in it. It creates a rainy day fund so when the state does unexpectedly well we set aside some cash for later. It also allows lawmakers to make midyear adjustments to the budget if the economy is unexpectedly bad. The legislature gets 45 days to decide on cuts and then the governor can step in. Though I'm not thrilled about giving the office of the governor that kind of power, it seems like a decent compromise.

I'm no economist, but it seems like this measure would do what it's intended to do, which is reel in spending, better our bond rating, and smooth out our financial outlook.

The trouble is that children will suffer. In the long term an educated populace is going to be better for our economy than an extra layer of spending limits.

We cannot shortchange our schools to balance the books.

Prop 75: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

I vote a thousand times no.

This is an attempt by Republicans to tell unions how to spend their money. There is no need for Governor Schwarzenegger to meddle with the finances of public employee unions, except that they all oppose his re-election.

First, a few background facts:

-The Supreme Court ruled a while ago that any union member may withhold the portion of his dues that would go to political contributions, but rarely do union members exercise this option.
-Unions almost always donate to Democrats because Democrats are the ones fighting for better work conditions and higher wages.
-Corporate shareholders do not have the option to opt out of contributions.
-Corporations donate 200 times more money than unions to political campaigns.

Prop 75 can best be understood by looking at an example. Let's take the case of the nurses' union.

The Governor proposed a law a while ago to reduce the nurse to patient ratio in our hospitals. Fewer nurses, more patients. I've spent a lot of time at hospitals, either for work or visiting sick family members. I will tell you that nurses work harder than anyone in there; if anything we need more nurses. The nurses' union raised hell and let all of us know what Arnold wanted to do, and he had to withdraw the scheme.

When nurses and teachers protested outside one of his fundraisers, the guests could hear the ruckus inside the ballroom. Quoth Arnold, "that's just the Special Interests; they're mad because I'm always kicking their butts."

Now he has put forth Prop 75, which would force a nurses' union member to go to every ward on every floor of every hospital in the city during every shift to get every single nurse to sign a government form authorizing a political donation. And they would have to do this every year.

Why in the world would Arnold want to impose this kafkaesque layer of bureaucracy on his political enemies?

Proponents of this initiative claim that it would give workers the right to withhold their money. They repeat this claim over and over, always ignoring the Supreme Court ruling.

If anyone tells you that this gives workers more rights or more of a voice, they lie.

Prop 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS.  WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No again.

This measure will discourage bright, young people from becoming teachers.

Public school teachers are underpaid. Our goal should be to get the best teachers in front of our kids and make public schools in California better. Prop 74 is a benefit cut for all teachers.

Right now, teachers who have been working for longer than two years become permanent and are harder to fire than new teachers. In their first two years, they serve a probationary period. This measure would change the probationary period for new teachers from two to five years.

It means that in the first five years a teacher can be fired without a hearing, and for no reason.

To put this in perspective, only two states have five year probationary periods. Most states have three year probations. This initiative also makes it easier to fire experienced teachers after they've become permanent.

Teachers don't make as much as their friends in the private sector, but they do have a some job security. That is the main incentive, besides altruism, to teach in public schools. When they're new, teachers can be bumped around, teaching first grade one semester, then 5th grade the next. But they can look forward to stability after their second year.

When I lived in Philadelphia in 1999 I had a friend named Joe from Ohio who was teaching high school in the inner city. The school was tough, some of the students were violent, and achievement was low. In an article about one of the violent incidents, a local weekly newspaper cited Joe's class as a reason for hope. There was energy and creativity in the class, the paper said, and the kids were learning.

Joe took a look at his finances at the end of the year. He had just got married, he was loaded down with student loans, and he hadn't become "permanent" yet. He had a job offer with a national consulting firm in North Carolina. The job was too good to pass up. He was offered similar benefits and way more money. The public schools lost a good teacher.

Do we want to sweeten the deal to attract better teachers, or take away benefits?

The goal of Prop 74 is to make the quality of teaching better. To do that we need to attract the best teachers. The best way to do that is to pay them more. This measure doesn't make a single class size smaller, doesn't hire a single good teacher, and it doesn't buy a single textbook. It doesn't even single out bad teachers; it just makes it harder for new teachers.

Teachers deserve the utmost respect in our society. Teachers should be rewarded with good pay and benefits, as are doctors and lawyers. That's why I won't vote to take away their benefits.

Prop 73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

I'm voting no.

This initiative risks young girls' health and maybe even their lives.

As nice as it sounds to force scared, vulnerable girls to come clean to their parents about their pregnancy, there is reality to consider. Some girls won't.

You can come up with any number of scenarios for how individuals can deal with this and situations where the law might be beneficial or not. The bottom line is that in the real world some girls are going to get pregnant and not tell their parents regardless of the law.

So what happens then? The girl has some choices. She can run away from home and have the baby, she can go to Tijuana and get an abortion, or she can try to end it herself.

I worked at a pizza place in Evanston, Illinois back in 1997 and there was a girl I worked with who got pregnant accidentally. Everyone applauded her decision not to have an abortion and so did I. Until she told me her plan. Because she didn't want the baby, and couldn't afford an abortion she was going to continue partying and refuse to take care of herself until she miscarried. And that is exactly what happened.

The initiative has a mechanism to allow girls to get a court order if they can't tell their parents, but common sense tells me that a girl who can't go to her parents won't go to a judge either.

The last reason to vote no on Prop 73 is that it changes the California Constitution. That's treading on dangerous ground in the first place, but in this case it's pernicious. According to your voter guide, the initiative "defines abortion as causing 'death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.'" What that means is that a fetus would, from Nov. 8th on, be defined as a child.

If a fetus is redefined as a child, then a lawsuit could allege that abortion is murder and all abortions could be made illegal. Don't believe it? Ask the 2000 to 3000 Evangelicals who are arriving in California this week to get out the Republican vote.

CALIFORNIA SPECIAL ELECTION: JUST SAY NO.

Californians will go to the polls Tuesday and vote on a series of ballot questions. The idea of a referendum is perhaps the closest we can come to direct democracy in our country. The trouble is, and this is especially true in California, that the ballot initiative process has been corrupted by money.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spent millions to get these propositions on the ballot, paying people $5 per signature. I've heard that some signature gatherers got as much as $15 not per hour, per signature. The special election called by the governor will cost taxpayers anywhere from $45 million to $80 million, depending on who you ask. Now, the campaigns for each initiative have spent millions to ask you to vote on something you don't fully understand.

This is not all the Governor's fault. Our system is flawed and until we find a way to take the money out of it, I, for one, will be inclined to vote against ballot measures until I see a good reason to vote for them.