Hollywood Liberal

2008-05-31T15:11:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-01T14:36:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-07-28T01:09:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-07-01T21:22:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-30T21:41:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-06-20T02:15:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-09T11:15:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-06-06T02:15:00.000-07:00

CALIFORNIA VOTER RECOMMENDATIONS - AS MUCH AS I COULD CHEW ON

In today's election, I've put together a set of recommendations. The polls are open from 7am to 8pm. If you're in LA County you can find your poll at

http://www.lavote.net/LOCATOR/

If you're registered DECLINE TO STATE, you get to pick whichever ballot you want. Unless you have someone in another party you really want to vote for, ask for the Democratic ballot. Not all states allow you to do this; we're lucky in California.

I've formatted this in the order it will appear on the ballot. I've put a * on races that everyone in California votes on. Sorry if I've left out some races in your area.

Here are my recommendations for the JUNE 6 Democratic primary:

*Governor: Phil Angelides
*Lieutenant Governor: John Garamendi
*Secretary of State: Debra Bowen
*Controller: Joe Dunn (by a hair)
*Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
*Attorney General: Jerry Brown
*Insurance Commissioner: no recommendation

Board of Equalization, 4th district: Judy Chu
Board of Equalization, 1st district: Betty Yee
*US Senator: Dianne Feinstein
US Representative: I like all of the LA area incumbents: Xavier Becerra, Henry Waxman, Diane Watson, Maxine Waters, Hilda Solis, Howard Berman, Brad Sherman. I have no recommendation for the race between Jane Harman and Marcy Winograd (coast from Venice to Long Beach)

State Senator:
-Mark Ridley-Thomas where I live
-Jenny Oropeza on the Westside.

State Assembly:
-Elena Popp here in my neighborhood (45th)
-Mike Feuer (by a hair) to the west of me (42nd)
-Julia Brownley on the Westside (41st)
-Steve Bradford to the south (51st)
-Mike Eng to the east (49th)
-Karen Bass (47th)
-Ted Lieu (53rd).

Party Central Committee
If you want to change the Democratic Party - the way it works and the candidates it fields - this is your best opportunity. This committee controls the party's endorsements in LA County and moves money to candidates and voter registration drives. I'll only vote for people I know personally and I know will do a good job.

In the 45th AD:
-Christopher Arellano
-Erika Gallo
-Bill Kysella
-Shirin Buckman

In the 42nd AD
-Andrew Lachman
-Kate Sedrowski

In the 43rd AD
-Teresa "Jodi" Owen
-Robert Silver

In the 44th AD
-Karen Wingard

In the 47th AD
-Jimmie Woods-Gray

In the 41st AD
-Agi Kessler

For the judges, I ought to recuse myself, but I can't help it. I have heard from some of the judges and for the rest, I'm going to fill it in with the recommendations of Americans for Democratic Action and the LA Times:

http://home.earthlink.net/~socalada/ADAWebsite/

#8: Bob Henry
#18: John C. Gutierrez
#28: Judith L. Meyer
#95: Richard Kraft
#102: C. Edward Mack
#120: Dzintra I. Janavs
#122: Daniel J. Lowenthal
#144: Randolph Martin Hammock

*Superintendent of Public Instruction: Jack O'Connell
LA County Assessor: Rick Auerbach
LA County Sherriff: Lee Baca
LA County Supervisor (3rd): Zev Yaroslavsky

State Ballot Measures
*Proposition 81: NO
*Proposition 82: YES

Thanks for voting, people.

--davefordemocracy

2006-06-05T13:58:00.000-07:00

GARAMENDI, BOWEN, BROWN IN THE DOWN TICKET RACES

The bad thing about the musical chairs of term limits is that good people are forced to retire just as they get their mojo working in their current jobs. The good thing is that we get to take a look at politicians' record in public office before we vote, not just their promises. Term limits also encourage a new crop of ambitious do-gooders to run for the legislature where, we hope, the cream will rise to the top.

There are six statewide races besides governor that have several big names jockeying to stay in elected office. Some need to keep their names in the news until the timing's right to run for governor, congress, or something even bigger. Others were born for the job they seek.

Here are my choices for the down ticket statewide races:

Lieutenant Governer: JOHN GARAMENDI
With this largely ceremonial position, we have to remember that the winner could become governor at any time. As insurance commissioner Garamendi has done a lot to protect consumers. He's steadfastly refused to take campaign money from the industry he regulates, and we've been spared the scary rate hikes that other states have had.

His strongest opponent, the less liberal state Senator Jackie Speier, is capable, but there's one big difference. Garamendi supports universal healthcare, and Speier does not. As an expert in the field of insurance, I think Garamendi has what it takes to advocate for the universal healthcare bill and the bully pulpit of the Lieutenant Governor's office is the best place to do it.

John Garamendi's website:
http://www.garamendi.org/

Secretary of State: DEBRA BOWEN
This is the office that oversees our elections. With new voting machines being churned out by for-profit companies, voter registration databases being threatened, and partisan squabbling over recounts, this is THE MOST IMPORTANT RACE right now in the state. Senator Bowen has taken the lead in the legislature to protect our elections from companies like Diebold whose CEO promised to deliver Ohio to George W. Bush in 2004. She begins her stump speech by saying, "I'm running for Secretary of State for two reasons: Florida and Ohio!"

When Democrat Kevin Shelley was forced to resign, the governor appointed Republican Bruce McPherson to the office, and immediately the standards for voting machine integrity were relaxed. Most recently, McPherson had tens of thousands of newly registered voters purged from the rolls because information didn't exactly match DMV records. So if your driver's license says Dave Jr., but you registered as David II, you're out. Bowen has fought that tooth and nail in the Senate.

The rest of her record shines too. Bowen has taken the lead on privacy protection in California; she wrote a 2001 bill to protect your social security number. She hasn't been so generous with your government's privacy; she authored the law that puts public records and legislative deliberations online for all to see.

She's a bold, stand up public servant, and if you want your votes to count, vote for Debra Bowen.

Debra Bowen's website:
http://www.debrabowen.com/

Controller: JOE DUNN
This one is really a tossup for me. Both Dunn and John Chiang will do a fantastic job. Dunn's experience and steady demeanor contrasts with Chiang's energetic, quick mind and I really like both. I give Dunn the slight edge because of his work as hairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he investigated the Enron scandal. According to Dunn, he lost a friend in Gray Davis because of it. He's a Democrat from Orange County, and quite a liberal one at that. Because of his cojones, I'll vote for Joe Dunn.

Joe Dunn's website:
http://www.joedunn.org/

Treasurer: BILL LOCKYER
Well, he's unopposed. That about does it.

Lockyer's website:
http://www.lockyerfortreasurer.com/

Attorney General: JERRY BROWN
"I used to be Governor Moonbeam," says Brown, "now I'm Mayor Pothole!" I love a guy who's been top dog in the nation's biggest state and doesn't mind stepping back to be mayor of a troubled town like Oakland. In attorney general races, we're used to hearing the tough-on-crime mantras, and it's refreshing to see someone different as the frontrunner.

Brown's two terms as governor and his three runs at the Democratic nomination for President have earned him a reputation as the liberal torch bearer. As mayor his pragmatism has pissed some traditional liberals off. But his creative approaches to his city's woes have reduced crime significantly, and Oakland is a city on its way up.

The opponent, LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo aims his square jaw at LA's gangs, and between him, Mayor Hahn, and Police Chief Bratton, we've seen a reduction in crime as well, but at at a significant price. Delgadillo says he wants to help gang members get out of the life, but his Orwellian gang injunctions have done the exact opposite.

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. This is the program upon which Delgadillo hangs his hat.

Jerry Brown will be fair and realistic. His years of public service prove that he cares about finding lasting solutions to our state's problems. Vote for a liberal for attorney general, vote for Jerry Brown.

The KPCC report:
http://www.scpr.org/news/index.shtml

Jerry Brown's website:
http://www.jerrybrown.org/

Insurance Commissioner: NO ENDORSEMENT
I'm not gonna lie. I didn't do my homework on this one. But I know two things, first, Cruz Bustamante is going to win. Second, he won't be as good an insurance commissioner as Garamendi has been. Bustamante has taken $158,000 from insurance companies, and he's running his campaign on a platform of pledging to lose 50 pounds by election day. He was a lame candidate carrying the Democratic baton in the recall race for governor, and he's still a lame candidate.

Steve Lopez' column in the LA Times says enough:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez10may10,1,7896491.column

2006-06-05T11:18:00.000-07:00

PHIL ANGELIDES FOR GOVERNOR

As an activist, I appreciate the fact that Phil's been walking the walk as far as getting liberals elected and opposing Governor Schwarzenegger. I like the attention to detail he's known for as an elected official and he's done a good job as treasurer, ringing alarm bells about our fiscal woes when necessary.

Steve Westly, with his personal fortune and very good commercials, has somehow positioned himself in some people's minds as the environmental candidate. Actually the Sierra Club has endorsed both candidates, but the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has endorsed only one: Phil Angelides. I'm not a scientist and so I trust the environmental groups, and the one I trust the most is LCV.

I'm usually alright with a little negative campaigning. As long as there are no lies, gross distortions, or race baiting, it's just part of a robust campaign. What gets me about Westly is the hypocrisy. I saw him, on at least three occasions, hold up a pledge not to air negative ads, and then he was the first to do negative ads. Some of the ads really do cross the line of distortion; the "Lake Tahoe" ad is so close to a lie that he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Westly's distorting attack ads are rebutted on Phil's website. The link is below.

As a developer, Phil built with a conscience, pioneering smart growth, protecting wetlands, and creating new ones. As treasurer he sits on California's pension boards. That's an unbelievable amount of investment power and Phil has taken the lead in investing it in renewable energy and environmentally responsible companies.

But the big difference between the two candidates is that Phil Angelides is upfront that we need to raise taxes a little on the rich.

If we're going to continue growing economically and not saddle our kids with the bill, we can't continue Schwarzenegger's anti-tax charade. Where is that money coming from? Well, let's see, tuition has gone up at all the state schools and city colleges. Los Angeles, in order to put enough cops on the street, is doubling fees for trash pickup. We are now being asked to vote to borrow money to fix crumbling libraries. In effect, we have a tax on students, a tax on homeowners, and a tax on our kids. Steve Westly takes no stand on raising taxes.

Both candidates are good businessmen, both now hold elected positions as stewards of state money. But when it comes to money management, I want the guy who's frank about how we're going to pay for everything. Phil will raise taxes on couples making half a million dollars and roll back tuitions to pre-Schwarzenegger levels.

Both candidates in this race are good men. Each will run a great campaign against Schwarzenegger and outshine him as governor. But this is a primary so vote for the better politician, not the better commercials. Vote for Phil.

Angelides' rebuttals to attack ads:
http://www.angelides.com/enviros/

LA Times: "Westly Stumbles in the Mud":
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-westly18may18,1,7150375.story?coll=la-headlines-california

2006-06-05T01:40:00.000-07:00

ELENA POPP FOR CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 45

I waited a long time to endorse anyone in the 45th Assembly District (AD 45). The three major candidates all seemed to be sufficiently liberal for my taste. They all had some heavyweights behind them. Kevin de León has Fabian Nuñez and the party machine. Elena Popp has the retiring incumbent, Jackie Goldberg. Christine Chavez, well she has the ghost of her grandfather Cesar Chavez. Pretty interesting race.

Each one recently moved to the district, though Elena Popp is the one who grew up here. She immigrated from Mexico at the age of 8 and went to public schools, including Marshall High, just down the road.

Elena was my early favorite because she actually came out to some of the activist events I was at, and stayed. She didn't just shake hands and leave, she listened and seemed genuinely interested in what was going on. When I questioned her she gave firm answers. Do you support the Clean Money bill? "Yes." Do you support Sheila Kuehl's universal healthcare bill? "Absolutely. And Senator Kuehl has endorsed me."

So I waited to hear from the other candidates. Surely Mr. de León would reach out to a delegate from his district. After all, I get to vote on the party's endorsement. Ms. Chavez sent a bunch of shallow mailers reminding me, ad nauseam, of her relation to her grandfather.

Hearing nothing of substance, I decided to call the campaigns. I asked about universal healthcare, Clean Money, gay marriage, and eminent domain, all hot issues that the legislature is or will soon be working on.

I found a phone number somewhere on the Chavez website which led me to her campaign treasurer, who referred me to her press guy who wouldn't answer any questions. He said he'd try to get Chrisine to call me back.

I called the de Leon campaign and the staffer who answered had no idea where his candidate stood on the issues. Again, I was offered a call back.

I called the Popp campaign, and heard, "Well hello, David!" It did not impress me that she had me programmed into her phone. It impressed me that she actually answers it. When I asked about eminent domain, she took a renter's rights perspective. I was already aware of her work defending the evicted tenants of Lincoln Place in Venice when their landlord decided to convert low income apartments to luxury condos. And of course she's for gay marriage; she's gay.

What I liked was the level of detail I got, and the candid quality of her answers. The LA Times noticed this too and endorsed her. The other thing they noticed was her independence. As a social justice attorney, she's been fighting for the little guy for years. Jackie Goldberg hand picked her and groomed her for the seat.

Kevin de Leon owes his childhood friend, Fabian Nuñez big. Nuñez is likely going to get challenged for the speaker of the Assembly position next year by Richard Alarcón. Word on the street is that Nuñez asked Mayor Villaraigosa to endorse Kevin in return for Nuñez' support for his school takeover. Kevin has signed a pledge to oppose mayoral control, but now says he's open to it.

Christine Chavez' big time political consultant is Richie Ross, whose star client is Alarcón. Ross is said to have a stable of Assembly candidates numbering in the teens, chomping at the bit to to support Alarcón's challenge. Remember too, that Alarcón ran against Villaraigosa in last year's election for mayor, pissing off a lot of people who thought he'd split the latino vote. Mmmm. The plot thickens.

By the way, I love Alarcón and I think he'd do a fantastic job as speaker of the Assembly. But in the race for the 45th AD seat, who will look out for the voters, and who will be holding water for one of the speaker candidates?

I went to a forum with Elena, Kevin, and Gabriel Buelna, who I thought he had no shot, but has made a great showing. Christine doesn't go to the forums, except sometimes to shake hands and then leave before the questions start.

As they spoke, I made a chart where I put checks under the candidate's names when I agreed with them on specific issues. Kevin came off as the big picture guy, telling a lot of emotional stories. Gabriel was the pothole guy who seemed to know the district best. Elena was the policy expert who understood the issues at all levels and went into to most detail.

Besides her work on behalf of renters, particularly low income renters, Elena Popp also founded a self-help domestic violence prevention program in the courts that helped her get the support of LA County Sheriff Lee Baca. She worked for Legal Aid. She created a program for mentally ill homeless people. She's helped preserve tons of low income housing. In fact she's done so much for social justice causes that Chavez' aunt, the co-founder of the United Farm Workers, Delores Huerta has endorsed Elena.

At the end of the forum I had a page full of check marks. In her closing Elena pointed out that since all three candidates appear to take the same stands on all the issues, it's a good idea to choose the candidate who gives a place at the table to three underrepresented groups -- females, latinos, and gays. That made a lot of sense.

But what makes even more sense is brains. Elena Popp knows her shit. Vote for her.

The LA Times Endorsement:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-assembly30may30,1,6733327.story?coll=la-news-comment

The LA Weekly on all the political intrigue:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/jackies-warring-clan/13658/

Elena Popp's website:
http://www.elenapoppforassembly.com/

2006-06-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

EXPENSIVE PROPOSITIONS

Prop 81 and 82 on the June ballot bring up two questions:

Where do we put our education dollar? Prop 81, the library bond, puts it toward libraries, where people go to read and research. Prop 82, Preschool for All, spends it on teaching 4 year olds things like the alphabet and how to hold a book right side up.

Where should that money come from? Prop 82 asks the rich to pay, and Prop 81 borrows money and then we all pay -- with interest.

NO on PROP 81, CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT (LIBRARY BOND):

This measure would have the state borrow $600 million to build and renovate libraries in California. Great idea, but it comes at the wrong time.

First of all, we're not out of our budget crisis yet and this project will cost twice as much to pay back ($1.2 billion with a "b"). Let's wait a few years until we have the money, or at least come up with a new source to offset the cost.

Los Angeles has already put the money into our libraries and done the work. City Council President Eric Garcetti told a group of neighborhood council leaders yesterday that this proposition "discriminates" against the City of Los Angeles. The bulk of the money in our region will go to the County which has let its libraries in poorer cities crumble.

I hate to be a Scrooge on this one, but we need to get our fiscal house in order first. I'd rather raise taxes than borrow money and leave the debt to our kids.

The LA Times on the Library Bond:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/elections/la-me-guidelibrary29may29,0,2199894.story

YES on PROP 82, PRESCHOOL EDUCATION:
This measure would raise taxes on the rich to guarantee quality preschool for all 4 year olds. This will help our kids learn and help our teachers teach.

Remember your first day of kindergarten? A lot of kids come into kindergarten at our public schools and don't know that we read from left to right. Some can't say the alphabet, some have hardly ever heard the English language. Imagine being the teacher in that class. Imagine being the parent of an unprepared kid. Now imagine it's the first day of school and you're the parent who HAS taught your kid to count and say the alphabet.

A half day of real, age-appropriate education will help level the playing field and improve early education for all of our kids. The Preschool for All initiative makes such intuitive sense that the best way to argue for it is to counter the arguments against it. So here they are:

-A lot of kids already attend preschool. Sure, but not quality preschool. This measure says there needs to be a teacher with a bachelor's degree and an assistant in front of no more than 20 kids. It puts in age-appropriate standards established by the educational community.

-It's a tax hike. Yes. It raises your taxes if you make more than $400,000 a year ($800,000 for couples). But it will raise $2.1 billion for children in its first year and if you are one of the lucky ones who make that kind of money, you've recently benefitted from President Bush's tax cuts. The first $400,000 is not taxed, the rest is taxed at 1.7%. So if you make $400,100, you pay One Dollar and Seventy Cents.

-It would hurt private preschools. Nope. If the teachers get credentialed and the school follows the guidelines for quality preschool for 3 hours a day, 180 days a year, that private school can be in the program. They can do anything they want for the rest of the day. Even religious schools can qualify as long as they keep religious education out of the 3 hours. And the program is voluntary, so parents who like their kids' preschool can keep their kids there.

The LA Times on Preschool for All:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/elections/la-me-guidepreschool29may29,0,4314320.story

2006-05-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

WHO I VOTED FOR AT THE CONVENTION AND WHY

When you knock on someone's door before an election, very often the first question you hear is, "is the candidate a Democrat?"

Although it's an uninformed question --all the candidates you get to vote for in this race will be Democrats-- it's important to be able to say, "yes he is, and he's the ONLY candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party." The party throws money and resources into the endorsee's campaign and gives him or her a certain legitimacy in the minds of a lot of primary voters. There are also a lot of Democrats who prefer to focus on unity against the Republicans, and an endorsement can get those folks going early.

The Democratic Party of California voted to endorse Phil Angelides for governor, Debra Bowen for secretary of state, and Judy Chu for Board of Equalization (BOE). In some statewide races the candidates all agreed not to seek the endorsement, in others there was no real competition. In local races, for the Senate, Assembly, and House, it was up to the delegates from those areas.

To keep it brief I will forgo all the usual pros and cons of each candidate and just give the one or two most important factors in each decision. Here's how I voted:

GOVERNOR: Phil Angelides
State Treasurer Phil Angelides has been actively opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger for a couple of years and his loud voice has been instrumental in exposing the governor's fumblings and negative priorities. As an activist, that impresses me more than Steve Westly's tepid opposition.

But the main reason I support Phil Angelides is that he is honest about the fact that in order to get our financial house in order we need to raise some taxes. Phil would raise taxes for people making half a million a year and then roll back the college tuition increases from the past few years. Steve Westly says he'll raise taxes only as a last resort. Why not take a firm stand?

SECRETARY OF STATE: Debra Bowen
The secretary of state is in charge of our elections. With all the new technology in voting machines, and all the election fraud that has been exposed since 2000, this may be the most important race of the decade.

Debra Bowen doesn't just talk about election protection, she's led the fight in the legislature to make sure the new machines are accurate, fair, and unhackable. I want somebody whose first priority is making sure every vote counts. Debra Bowen begins her stump speech by saying, "I'm running for secretary of state for two reasons: Florida and Ohio!"

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Jerry Brown
Who else has that kind of resume? Before being elected the Mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown was elected to the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, then Secretary of State, and then Governor of California. His record is one of justice, charity, and realism.

Brown's opponent is a big believer in gang injunctions. Gang injunctions put people on a blacklist based on their tattoos or who they've been seen with, and take away their constitutional rights regardless of whether or not they've committed a crime. I'd like the state's top prosecutor to concern himself with real justice rather than unfair "tough on crime" techniques of questionable efficacy.

The Democratic Party deadlocked on this race and issued no endorsement.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION: Judy Chu
This is the body that oversees taxation in California. In the Assembly Judy Chu authored two very important bills, one to prohibit companies from incorporating offshore to avoid paying taxes, and one offering tax amnesty for a limited time in order to collect back taxes. The state expected to collect $300 million from the amnesty, but it worked so well it brought in more than $4 billion.

Another important issue these days for any tax board is marriage equality. Judy Chu is endorsed by the major gay rights groups and has a 100% voting record from Equality California.

Judy Chu:
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a49/

Jerry Brown:
http://www.jerrybrown.org/

Debra Bowen:
http://www.debrabowen.com/

Phil Angelides:
http://www.angelides.com/

2006-04-29T17:39:00.000-07:00

LIVE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION 4/29/06 4:49PM

I went to the California Democratic Convention last year as a delegate, and it was duller than a John Kerry tax policy speech. This year, however, the excitement is palpable. Candidates jockey for their party's endorsement using every trick available to them. I received several phone calls a day last week from volunteers and tape recorders, but at the convention the gloves come off. Armies of volunteers are dispatched to whip delegates into camps, and when that doesn't work loopholes are exploited.

There is one tried and true marketing technique that works everywhere, and politics is no exception. Cute girls. At the two conventions Controller Steve Westly wins the award for bringing the most young ladies to hold signs, distribute pins, and solicit signatures. The Joe Dunn girls last year actually gave out green Mardi Gras beads (Senator Dunn's Irish. Get it?) which caught the attention, but didn't get me to his hospitality suite.

Ahh, but Dunn proved the smartest. He didn't even know what he was going to run for, but he knew how to gain supporters. Of all of the superficial means of gaining support, Dunn's was the most effective. FREE BEER. Green, of course.

But this year the stakes are higher. We have an actual election in a month, and the party's endorsement can put somebody over the top. When canvassers go to the door in a primary race, often the question they hear about their candidate is, "is he a Democrat?"

And if the answer is, "yes, and he's the only candidate with the endorsement of the Democratic Party," well, that's all a lot of people need to know. People who vote in the Democratic primary, that is.

There are about 1,800 of us delegates, and the statewide candidates who lose still gain name recognition and face time with the opinion leaders of the party. That should come in handy in future races. The more they stay on our consciousness, the better off they are.

--Side note here, Steve Westly just walked by to the high pitched hoots of the Westly girls taking a break in the Starbucks line--

Another candidate who brought a gaggle of hard core supporters is Marcy Winograd, a peacenik from the Westside who's challenging war-hawk Democratic incumbent Jane Harman. Harman won handily in the local caucus, but Winograd is taking advantage of a little used rule to force a floor vote tomorrow.

This could be the highlight of the whole weekend. She forced a second caucus meeting here that started about ten minutes ago. Assuming she can't overturn the decision there, she'll have about a 5 hour window to get 300 signatures from delegates to send it to the floor tomorrow. Then we all get to vote on whether the party endorsement goes to Winograd or Harman.

A lot of people I know are nice and pissed off at a lot of other people I know and have been hollering for a rule change. Should be fun.

I'm going up to the caucus now and then I need to vote by 7:00. I'll let you know who I chose.

2006-01-28T13:05:00.000-08:00

BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUTS A HUSH ON SCIENCE, USA TODAY PUTS A TWIST ON TRUTH

This past week I heard from a conservative friend of mine who sent me one of those gotcha articles about a liberal issue. The article from USA Today was called "Do trees share the blame for global warming?" It seemed to credit trees and plants for the warming trend we've heretofore blamed on ourselves.

When I was in high school science, I learned that the carbon in the air creates the greenhouse effect and since trees need the gas for photosynthesis, they're our best defense against global warming. It is also true that methane causes global warming which has led conservatives to the Cow Fart Theory that farms create greenhouse conditions. The USA Today article, which cites the journal Nature, reveals that, according to a recent study, a lot of our methane comes from plants and trees. 10-30% of it. Ouch.

So I checked into it. I found the German scientist, Dr. Frank Keppler online and discovered that he is indeed a respected scientist but he in no way endorses the theory that increased global warming is caused by trees. About a week after Keppler's dramatic finding, he and his organization, the Max Planck Institute put out a press release called,"Global Warming - The blame is not with the plants." In it he wrote:

"The most frequent misinterpretation we find in the media is that emissions of methane from plants are responsible for global warming. As those emissions from plants are a natural source, they have existed long before man’s influence started to impact upon the composition of the atmosphere. . . The fundamental problem still remaining is the global large-scale anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels."

For those of you, like me, who didn't continue with science past high school, dictionary.com defines anthropogenic as, "caused by humans".

I guess that does it for that. This headline was an example of a conservative publication twisting a scientific finding to suit a political ideology. If it's cow farts, volcanoes, and plants to blame, then who are we to disrupt the natural order? Might as well speed it up! But this is just a salvo in a radical right (dare I say it?) war on science.

Today the New York Times Online reports that a climate scientist at NASA says he's being censored by the Bush administration. Dr. James Hansen began receiving phone calls warning of "dire consequences" after he gave a speech in December about the dangers of global warming.

The main source of the threats seemed to be George Deutsch, a White House appointed public affairs guy for NASA. According to another public affairs officer, Deutsch said his job is "to make the president look good." The public affairs people, who are responsible for okaying scientists' interviews with the media, told Hansen he needed to submit his lectures and essays for their review.

Dr. Hansen has been with NASA since 1967 and does not plan to shut up or back down from his positions. In the video companion to the article, he said, "in my 30 some years of experience in government I've never seen control to the degree that it's occurring now and I think that it's just very harmful to the way that a democracy works. We have to inform the public..."

Let's hope more scientists step forward and make their voices heard about global warming. If we don't take proactive measures now, we'll find ourselves in a world that, as Dr. Hansen said in the offending speech, is "a different planet."

The NY Times article and video:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=28e236db0967ee7f&ex=1296190800&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

USA Today: "Do trees share the blame for global warming?"
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-18-trees-methane_x.htm

Max Planck Institute: "Global Warming - The blame is not with the plants."
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease200601131/

Anthropogenic: some useful vocab
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anthropogenic

2006-01-19T00:06:00.000-08:00

ROSENDAHL WINS SOME, LOSES ONE

Rookie City Councilman Bill Rosendahl has found some friends on the council, but last week showed he still has to take his lumps. Rosendahl pulled in 59% of the vote in May chiefly by opposing two of the biggest development plans to hit the Westside. . . ever. LAX expansion and Phase 2 of the Playa Vista development would change life on the Westside enormously.

Yesterday Rosendahl announced that the victory over airport expansion is final. The community groups that opposed it agreed to drop their lawsuits and settle for a more sensible solution. LAX passengers will be capped at 75 million a year, the community will be more involved in modernization plans, and new air traffic will have to be redirected to the city's other airports in Ontario and Palmdale.

New Council President Eric Garcetti, a late endorser of Rosendahl, and Valley councilmember Wendy Greuel have landed alongside him on some key votes. The three introduced a resolution to study Clean Money for the city that garnered a unanimous vote. The Clean Money system has gone a long way toward getting money out of politics in Arizona and Maine.

Garcetti handed the freshman some nice appointments, making him chair of the Public Works Committee and vice chair of the Commerce Committee which oversees LAX.

And Garcetti stood by his pal when Playa Vista came up for a vote last week. In Bill's first blow, his motion to mandate a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report from Playa Capital Inc. was defeated 7-3. At issue is the methane seepage beneath the behemoth and the dewatering system that may or may not keep water out of the pipes that keep the methane at safe levels.

Rosendahl's press release added, "dewatering can result in groundwater contamination, threatening the Ballona Wetlands. It can also cause subsidence and soil erosion, jeopardizing the structural integrity of some buildings." Requiring the report also would give more opportunity for public input.

“When there are questions of public safety, we should always err on the side of more, not less study,” Rosendahl said. “When there is a question of process, we should always insist on more, not less public participation.”

It may have been too much to hope for; Playa Vista has been chugging along for a while now and the political pressure is new, even if the public opposition is not. If he won every battle, Rosendahl wouldn't be reaching far enough. Both expansion plans seemed like done deals before he and Antonio Villaraigosa were elected, but public opinion has seen a major shift. The people of the 11th District were determined last year to slow the growth of development.

And the battle against Phase 2 is far from over. Look for more resistance to development on the Westside as traffic chokes the quality of life. Until some major public transit improvements emerge, community groups will push back against growth.

Here's to lots more Rosendahl victories and even maybe a couple tough defeats.

My last post on LAX expansion:
http://hollywood-liberal.blogspot.com/2005/12/people-and-pols-stop-lax-expansion-los.html

Mayor Sam's thread on committee appointments:
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2006/01/anything-catch-your-eye-here.html

Mr. Rosendahl's press release on Playa Vista:
http://www.lacity.org/council/cd11/press/cd11press12834909_01112006.pdf

Daily Breeze from Jan. 12:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2187972.html

The LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-playa12jan12,0,6645558.story?coll=la-headlines-california

LAX Master Plan:
http://www.laxmasterplan.org/

The Clean Money Campaign:
http://www.caclean.org

2006-01-15T18:35:00.000-08:00

WHAT'S THE RUSH, BUSH? THE QUICK ROAD LEADS TO FAILURE

Senator John McCain this morning acknowledged the tragedy that occurred in last week's US attack inside Pakistan. He said that he regrets the families killed and mud huts destroyed, but he said nothing of the fact that we basically attacked our most valuable ally in the war on terror.

"We have to do what we think is necessary to take out Al-Quaeda, particularly the top operatives," McCain said on CBS' Face the Nation. But he said it in an apologetic way.

This is the second US attack in Pakistan near the Afghan border in a week. This one, more garish than the last, targeted Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian Al-Quaeda operative who is reputed to be Osama Bin Laden's second in command. The rationalization goes that taking him out makes it worthwhile to break the delicate agreement with Pakistan not to kill their people.

The only problem is that, stunningly, our intelligence was wrong.

Zawahiri, apparently, had left the building. There was no time to ask for cooperation from Pervez Musharraf, or even the Pakistani tribes in the village. So innocent people died. The earlier attack was explained away by denying that US forces ever crossed the border. This attack will be harder to explain and it is but one example in the war on terror where the US took the quick way out with disastrous results.

Senator McCain, a torture victim himself, needled the Bush administration until the president agreed to sign a version of the his torture bill. Of Mr. Bush's qualified agreement, McCain told Bob Schieffer this morning that he was "not particularly satisfied." Sadly, the debate on torture has degenerated into the question of whether it works or not rather than whether it's morally right or wrong.

We can safely say that in some cases, the information gained from detainees is correct and other times it is not. In order to get that true or false information, we can use conventional interrogation techniques or we break the law and get it quicker.

Ibn al-Sheikh Al-Libi was renditioned to Egypt where US interrogation laws are not observed. He ostensibly was coerced under threat of torture to tell a story that he later recanted. It was his story, along with those of a prisoner in Germany known as Curveball, a known "fabricator", that formed the basis of Colin Powell's tragically flawed case that Iraq had biological weapons.

In the case of Libi, torture, the shortcut to intelligence, led us down the wrong path. President Bush could have taken a lesson and gone about intelligence gathering the lawful way.

But he has not. The Senate will soon begin hearings on Mr. Bush's wiretapping of US citizens within our borders. There is a legal way to conduct such surveillance, a special court, set up just for such a purpose, that can issue an order within hours. Not quick enough for President Bush. He has decided to bypass the check and balance that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) affords and move ahead without the FISA court's blessing. He has not cited a single case where America has benefitted from intelligence gained this way.

The price we pay for these hasty actions is different in each case. In attacking within Pakistan, we kill innocents and further strain the relationship with an unlikely ally, especially when we deny it. When we torture prisoners of war, we get false or exaggerated testimony and we risk prosecution in international courts. When we spy on our own citizens, we erode our own sense of security and undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances. In each case, we lose credibility, not only abroad, but at home.

These are just examples. Not sending enough troops led to looting after the fall of Baghdad. Breaking up the Iraqi army was a quick fix that led to further chaos. It may be that all this is a result of the commander in chief's inexperience in war and his emphasis on loyalty when choosing his advisers. Perhaps it is Mr. Bush's privileged upbringing that leads him to believe that everything is gained easily.

Whatever the case, the quick way out leads nowhere. That's why this war on terror has no end in sight. Let's hope that Mr. Bush doesn't respond to the escalating nuclear situation in Iran the way he did to a very similar looking state of affairs in Iraq.

Face the Nation:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml

LA Times on the latest US attack in Pakistan:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan15jan15,0,7462215.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews

NY Times; Al-Libi recants:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080104D.shtml

Newsweek on torture:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=617800&TICK=NEWS&STORY=/www/story/11-13-2005/0004214468&EDATE=Nov+13,+2005

2005-12-31T20:27:00.000-08:00

IN REVERSAL, SCHWARZNEGGER PROPOSES MINIMUM WAGE HIKE

Governor Schwarzenegger has changed his mind and decided to raise the minimum wage by a dollar over a year and a half. He'll announce it on Thursday in his State of the State address. Democratic legislators were quick to decry the move as politically motivated and not enough.

They're right in both cases. Schwarzenegger's approval ratings are down and he's been trying to look more like a Democrat ever since the special election debacle. When he hired state Democratic leader Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff, I wrote that a smarter move would have been to sign the minimum wage bill. Although he's vetoed two bills that would have raised hourly pay for our poorest citizens, Schwarzenegger has now decided that a less ambitious hike is the way to go.

Fabian Nuñez, who's just doing his job, told the LA Times that Arnold's olive branch, "doesn't make up for the ground that some of the state's hardest workers lost when the governor vetoed two previous attempts to raise the minimum wage."

Even a minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation, as Washington and Oregon have enacted, doesn't mean that workers will be able to afford the increase in cost of living. It also won't keep them above the poverty level if they have a kid.

But statewide worker's rights are hard to win. To get any increase under a Republican governor is pretty damn good. Democrats should look at this as a reward for all the hard work this year and they should take it and run with it. As quickly as possible.

Calling the governor's move a political tactic, true as it may be, is a political tactic. As long as the plan doesn't limit further increases, it's better than waiting a year. Perhaps lawmakers think that this is a slick move by a governor who doesn't actually feel, in his heart, that 2 million workers deserve the raise. If that's the case, then fighting him on it is just as sleazy as his proposing it.

Nuñez, et. al. should pick up their chips now and move to the next table. It's a long way to November and there's always time to call Arnold a flip-flopper.

But wait. Is this really a flip-flop? The governor has sworn in the past that he actually wants to increase the minimum wage. Democrats have said he has yet to put a serious measure on the table. Here's what the Times said:

"This year, Schwarzenegger vetoed a proposed $1 increase because it included a provision linking hourly wages with the previous year's inflation rate. The governor said the Legislature should not sidestep its own duty to set the minimum wage based on a host of economic factors, not just the inflation rate."

This suggests that he might be open to tying the rate to other cost of living indicators like the prevailing wage or the cost of food. More likely, he's referring to business factors or the state's economy. He could be saying that the minimum wage should actually decrease under some circumstances. Back in 2004 he vetoed another bill that would have raised it without tying it to inflation.

Regardless of what he feels in his heart, the Schwarzenegger proposal will raise the rate by a dollar. It would not be tied to inflation, or anything else. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, this idea is inconsistent with his his earlier statements. Even if Arnold's not a flip-flopper on raising minimum pay by a dollar an hour, he's ignored his own principle of tying such increases to economic indices.

Is that distinction going to play in the campaigns? No. If Democrats try to get an even better deal for workers, it will only keep this in the news. That can only be to Arnold's advantage. He's already burned the bridge with organized labor, and fighting an increase that can actually pass could undermine union leadership.

Democratic lawmakers should take the win, ignore the politics, and pass the bill.

My 12/7/05 message to Arnold:
http://hollywood-liberal.blogspot.com/2005/12/2006-primary-conan-vs.html

2005 federal poverty levels:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml

The LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-state31dec31,1,3306957.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

And one from the Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14028525p-14860715c.html

2005-12-25T01:19:00.000-08:00

ON THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS

The LA Times published an editorial yesterday that made me smile. Lately there's been this controversy between conservatives who've been politicizing Christianity since the mid-'90s and, well I don't really know who's on the other side. On the cable news shows they're calling it the War on Christmas.

LA writer Randye Hoder has declared a winner.

At the Grove shopping mall on 3rd and Fairfax, in perhaps the most Jewish neighborhood west of New York, stands the biggest damn Christmas tree you've ever seen. That's right, I said Christmas tree. The Grove loves Christmas. They've got Santa, Christmas music, dancing girls, the whole bit.

Hoder and I share an outsider's appreciation for Christmas including the spectacle, but I don't mind pointing out, as he did, the pecuniary serendipity of it all.

"Were the right-wingers grousing about the crass commercialization of Christ's birthday, I'd be singing from the same hymnal. But their insistence that there's an unrelenting campaign to eliminate all signs and symbols of the faith rings completely false — especially at a place such as the Grove."

The commercial potential of Christmas is not lost on the American Family Association (AMA). They've organized a boycott of any store that doesn't use the word Christmas in its advertising. They've got a list of retailers with explanations like, "Best Buy offers no 'Christmas' in their advertising." Their strategy is to preserve the commercialization of the holiday (oops, I meant the commercialization of Christmas! Sorry guys).

You better watch out. Pretty soon even Rick Santorum (R-Pa) will be taking the holy out of the holiday. In the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, what is now called the Santorum amendment said that schools should "teach the controversy" over evolution.

In 2002 Mr. Santorum wrote in the Washington Times, "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

This year Santorum's faith was truly tested. His Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board in a lawsuit over their introduction of intelligent design into science classes. But the War on Adam and Eve proved a little too costly for him in an election year.

"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer just before resigning from the Center's advisory board. Instead of defending the School Board he now has to defend himself against moderate Democrat Bob Casey Jr.'s assertion that he's a flip-flopper.

But Santorum didn't just become a flip-flopper over the Dover case, he was on NPR back in August, before all this war on Christmas stuff. That's when he said, "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

Why should I care about all this stuff? I'm a Jew. We love Christmas! Well here's the thing. When politicians use religion to divide Americans, emotions can run hot. I like seeing Christmas trees and light shows as much as anybody, but there is an air of intolerance toward inclusion.

That intolerance reared its head a couple of days ago in my old South Philadelphia neighborhood. Someone tore down a menorah and stomped on it in the dead of night. The menorah was put up in Cianfrani Park by a community group which promptly replaced it next to the Christmas tree.

I lived a few blocks away from there, two doors from a historic Jewish cemetery. I kept a mezuzah on my door. When the hate crime is so close to home, you'll forgive me for taking the attacks on inclusion personally.

Let me make it clear: I do not blame the malls that have Christmas sales. I blame groups like the AMA who divisively confront inclusion as a value.

When someone wishes me a merry Christmas I appreciate it. When they say happy holidays I recognize their sensitivity to my feelings and beliefs. What in the world is wrong with that?

Conservatives derisively label anything that smacks of inclusion as "PC". The implication is that political correctness is some liberal conspiracy that will lead to the bombing of churches. The truth is that the old rules of politeness didn't take into account the diverse country in which we now live. What they call political correctness is just good manners.

If you want to be nice to me today, say merry Christmas or happy holidays. If you know I'm Jewish, say happy hanukah. And if you really want to make me feel good, remember it in September and say happy new year.

Hoder: If it's a war, Christmas won:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-hoder23dec23,1,7297782.story

The Inquirer's Santorum story:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13461220.htm

Boycott the holidays!
http://www.afa.net/christmasban.asp

Menorah destroyed in Philadelphia:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/family_guide/13452962.htm

2005-12-23T19:34:00.000-08:00

NYPD + RNC = BIG BROTHER?

We live in an amazing time. The cops use video cameras to catch protesters committing crime, the protesters use video to catch the cops committing crime. But what happens when the cops' own video depicts police malfeasance? And what happens when the police video shows pornography?

Say what?

My New York friends knew the lockdown during the 2004 Republican Convention would be unreasonable. Many were just looking for an excuse to be out of town that week. Stores stayed closed and Manhattan resembled the green zone in Baghdad. One frisky couple took refuge on a roof during the protests, counter-protests, and police crackdowns, according to yesterday's New York Times. The Times didn't exactly say what the couple did, but it was scandalous enough to pique the policeman's prurient interest.

On August 29th, 2004 a policeman was taping a group of bike riders that included an undercover cop. Amid the extra convention security, the riders were handcuffed one by one. Except one. "I'm on the job," the guy said.

"Louie -- he's under!" said the uniformed officer. Louie led him a block away where he got back on his bike and left. This video was turned over to a lawyer for the cycling aficionados and was brought to the New York Times by Eileen Clancy, a forensic video analyst who has put together hundreds of tapes from the convention.

The next night a group of homeless people just so happened to peaceably assemble during the convention. Among them was an undercover officer carrying a sign and a backpack. When he got arrested the crowd got antsy, shouting "let him go! Let him go!" This prompted the John Q. Laws to escalate the issue and push back the protesters with batons. Two people were thrown to the ground, cuffed and arrested while the narc was escorted away and released.

Two days earlier, an amateur Vittorio Storaro working from an NYPD chopper shot some video with night vision, thermal-imaging, and a super zoom lens that can read your license plate from 1000 feet away. Those NYPD DPs get all the toys. The helicopter flew along not-so-subtly spying on the bicyclists and stopped above Jeffrey Rosner's penthouse.

"I had no idea they were filming me -- who would ever have an idea like that?" said Rosner who was innocently getting a little nookie high above the cyclists.

The flatfoot cinematographer plied his art for almost four minutes, shooting the couple through a bush though apparently missing the money shot. The tape would not have been made public had it not been turned over as evidence in the cyclists' lawsuit.

Paul J. Browne of the the NYPD said that it is routine to tape anyone on rooftop who is in a position to throw things at officers below. "The officer was instructed afterward to terminate taping once it was determined a threat did not exist." Hmm, four minutes to figure out that the couple was batting eyelashes and not throwing stones.

Why is protecting caucusing Republicans more important than privacy or civil rights? "We live in a more dangerous, constantly changing world," said New York's Police Commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly. Because of 9/11 police are given more freedoms, and their methods aren't scrutinized as heavily.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one making the connection between this and President Bush's recent admission that he authorizes wiretaps without a court order. As Congress wrangled over the Patriot Act yesterday, I found myself wondering what a victory against terrorism would actually look like.

Is it a victory if we have to live in a police state? Is it a victory when everyone's a suspect with or without probable cause? Are we free from terror when police infiltrate peaceful protests and then incite violence? When we are videotaped without our knowledge or consent? When the rhetoric of dissent is described as aiding the enemy?

Let's not go back to the days of the sixties when the FBI watched and listened to Martin Luther King in his hotel room. Those were the days when the Nixon White House listened in on telephone conversations with impunity. John Dean, Nixon's lawyer who went to jail for those activities, has called the Bush wiretaps an "impeachable offense."

For all his surveillance of others, Nixon was undone because he recorded himself. In this case it seems the NYPD has made the same mistake.

Police at the protests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html

Cops over rooftops:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22rooftop.html

A foreign perspective on the Bush wiretaps:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1135119019228&call_pageid=968332188492

2005-12-07T21:36:00.000-08:00

2006 PRIMARY: CONAN VS. BRAVEHEART?

Message to Arnold: if you wanted to attract Democrats, you should have signed the minimum wage increase.

Instead, Governor Schwarzenegger has taken the advice to clean house and hired Democratic operative Susan Kennedy. This has got the hard core activists in such a tizzy that they're threatening to withdraw their support for the conservative superstar.

Kennedy has worked for the ignoble Governor Davis, as well as the dreaded Democratic Party, and that's got Republican officials suspicious. The LA Times reports that the state party might not even endorse him.

Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, told the Times it was a "tragic step backward," and Duf Sundheim, the chair of the state Republican Party, asked, "what does it mean to have a chief of staff from the other party during a year of reelection?"

Perhaps because the GOP takes Mr. Schwarzenegger, just a little too seriously, Republican activist and anti-immigration crusader, Mike Spence decided to bring his action figures to life and create the website, MelGibsonforGovernor.com. The website has a petition you can sign to urge Mr. Gibson to run and it sells movies like The Patriot, Conspiracy Theory, and of course, The Passion of the Christ.

The Governor has outdone himself. First he alienated the legislature, the very people he needs to work with. When they called him on it he called them girlie men. Then he alienated labor with the union-busting special election. When nurses and teachers protested at his fundraiser he told the audience, "I'm always kicking their butts." And now he's alienating the very folks he needs most, the ones who donate to his campaign, the Republicans. He's due to put his foot in his mouth soon. Watch out for it.

And in the meantime, sign the draft Mel Gibson petition. It'll be funny. On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea.

Conan or Braveheart, you decide:
http://www.melgibsonforgovernor.com

The LA Times article by Robert Salladay:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-arnold7dec07,1,5788176.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

2005-12-04T09:56:00.000-08:00

WELCOME, UNCLE JED! JUST PLEASE DON'T DRIVE

A twelve story deluxe condo development is coming to that intersection of intersections, Santa Monica and Wilshire in Beverly Hills. You know the corner. The one you've avoided since that first year you lived in LA. The one with the Beverly Hilton. The busiest intersection in LA that's not next to a freeway ramp. The one that anyone with any sense stays as far away from as possible (except for by homies at CAA). Developers are proposing 1,600 new condos.

To its credit, the BH is a walking city. I appreciate that people can work, shop, golf, and live in close proximity. The significance of this almost-approved project is not lost on the mayor, Linda Briskman. "It's certainly one of the last great parcels in our city," she told the LA Times, "we need to carefully entitle it so it's compatible."

Some of the residents, too, are properly reticent. The Times reports that neighbors are worried about the shadow a 12 story midrise will cast on a nearby schoolyard and golf course. I guess their shares in sunscreen and sprinkler companies will decline. But concerns about property value and lack of sunlight miss the big picture.

We need a damn subway.

The more cars that idle there, the worse the air is going to be and that means asthma and skin cancer. Of course the environmental health risks are less immediate than the daily frustration. There is no good way to get from Hollywood to the Westside. Our businesses lose productivity and our families lose quality time. Road rage rises and our isolation intensifies.

When Century City, essentially a second downtown, was built, it was supposed to have a freeway. It didn't happen. Mayor Tom Bradley envisioned subways across town. The nimbys stopped it (with a little help from a methane scare).

Finally we have the political will to get on with the project (see my previous post). Hearts and minds are being numbed by gridlock and the public is warming up to it. We still need the money, yes, but with the region united for it, we'll get the money.

What we really need is to bring folks around to the vision. Get them to imagine a Wilshire Boulevard with mixed use developments around subway stops. Subway stops near shops. Near offices. Near homes. Near parks.

You can leave your apartment, take your bike onto the subway, and ride it at the beach in Santa Monica. Or take your golf clubs. Or your briefcase. Your car's safely tucked away under ground, and you can breathe freely. What if there was a subway stop in Century City? Rodeo Drive? Santa Monica and Wilshire? Will people use it? You bet they would. And we'll all be better off.

So have your 1,600 condos, Beverly Hills, and I hope everyone makes a lot of money, but please wait for the subway. Once we're all on board with the idea, it won't take long. You'll be glad you did, and so will your grandkids.

LA Times: Beverly Hills' Brake Light District:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-bevhills3dec03,1,2821827.story

The latest:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/wheel/la-me-subway15oct15,1,6483677.story?coll=la-news-local-wheel

2005-12-01T20:55:00.000-08:00

PEOPLE AND POLS STOP LAX EXPANSION

Los Angeles International airport will not be expanded thanks to some key elected officials and a very determined group of neighbors. Congratulations are in order to the Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion (ARSAC) for their successful legal, political, and community battle against the pollution, noise and gridlock of LAX.

ARSAC agreed to drop a lawsuit in return for several concessions that will force Los Angeles to adopt a regional approach to air travel.

But it could never have happened if we hadn't elected Bill Rosendahl to City Council and Antonio Villaraigosa to the mayor's office. Both made blocking airport expansion pillars of their platforms. It actually became a wedge issue on the Westside as their opponents supported the so called "consensus plan" for airport expansion.

With Jim Hahn and Cindy Miscikowski in office, few people believed that expansion could be stopped. I know because I spoke to a lot of voters in Westchester near the airport. To those residents, it must be unfathomable that an agreement was reached so quickly.

This is also a posthumous victory for Assemblyman Mike Gordon who passed away within months of taking office. As mayor of El Segundo, he teamed with the community to make people aware of the issue and helped us all believe that we could do something.

There are others who deserve credit, Maxine Waters being one, but the tipping point came less than 7 months ago when Rosendahl and Villaraigosa were elected. And they could never have been elected without the tremendous work of grassroots groups like ARSAC, and community members who felt they had a chance to change things.

The LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lax1dec01,0,857580.story?coll=la-home-local

2005-11-30T11:31:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-29T13:56:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-28T14:57:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-22T01:41:00.000-08:00

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/

2005-11-20T22:08:00.000-08:00

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/

2005-11-17T10:48:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-16T12:07:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-15T12:36:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-15T10:54:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-11T14:01:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-11T10:47:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-11T09:47:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-10T20:46:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-09T01:31:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-07T23:34:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-07T13:30:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-06T22:34:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-06T22:32:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-06T17:02:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-05T17:53:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-04T13:02:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-03T16:57:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-03T16:53:00.000-08:00

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.