Monday, November 03, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
McCain Can't Type, but YES WE CAN
This YouTube video was made by disabled people who, unlike McCain, can type. It's very moving.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
If you want Sacramento to look like Phoenix, vote for Kevin Johnson
Please vote for Heather Fargo over Kevin Johnson for Mayor of Sacramento, here's why:Heather Fargo is an experienced, competent mayor (which in our weak mayor city means chair of the city council) who is pro-environment, pro strong
neighborhoods and pro smart growth. She isn't perfect, and isn't the strong leader that I'd want all other things being equal and she's been wrong on some things (such as the arena), but she's from a neighborhood activist background and is accessible and trustworthy.
Kevin Johnson on the other hand says that his model city for Sacramento to follow is Phoenix, Arizona! Can you imagine?! That city is the epitome of random sprawl, air pollution, no thought put into development at all, in other words, he wants to exacerbate all the bad choices the Sacramento region has made (something Fargo has tried hard to avoid). He is close to Bob Thomas and the Tsakopoulos developers and shares their philosophies.
Although he's saying the right things about the environment now, he refused to even let the Sierra Club interview him and refused to fill out their questionnaire, showing contempt for environmental positions.
Another reason not to vote for Johnson: a Planned Parenthood mailer today tells me that Johnson says he's pro life. And then when you add in the questions raised about him as a property owner/landlord and with possibly sexually harrassing teenage girls, I just don't think we can afford to gamble with this guy. I don't think he knows what he's doing.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
TOP 5 REASONS OBAMA SUPPORTERS SHOULDN'T REST EASY
Talking points from MoveOn.org:
1. The polls may be wrong. This is an unprecedented election. No one knows how racism may affect what voters tell pollsters—or what they do in the voting booth. And the polls are narrowing anyway. In the last few days, John McCain has gained ground in most national polls, as his campaign has gone even more negative.
2. Dirty tricks. Republicans are already illegally purging voters from the rolls in some states. They're whipping up hysteria over ACORN to justify more challenges to new voters. Misleading flyers about the voting process have started appearing in black neighborhoods. And of course, many counties still use unsecure voting machines.
3. October surprise. In politics, 15 days is a long time. The next McCain smear could dominate the news for a week. There could be a crisis with Iran, or Bin Laden could release another tape, or worse.
4. Those who forget history... In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote after trailing by seven points in the final days of the race. In 1980, Reagan was eight points down in the polls in late October and came back to win. Races can shift—fast!
5. Landslide. Even with Barack Obama in the White House, passing universal health care and a new clean-energy policy is going to be hard. Insurance, drug and oil companies will fight us every step of the way. We need the kind of landslide that will give Barack a huge mandate.
1. The polls may be wrong. This is an unprecedented election. No one knows how racism may affect what voters tell pollsters—or what they do in the voting booth. And the polls are narrowing anyway. In the last few days, John McCain has gained ground in most national polls, as his campaign has gone even more negative.
2. Dirty tricks. Republicans are already illegally purging voters from the rolls in some states. They're whipping up hysteria over ACORN to justify more challenges to new voters. Misleading flyers about the voting process have started appearing in black neighborhoods. And of course, many counties still use unsecure voting machines.
3. October surprise. In politics, 15 days is a long time. The next McCain smear could dominate the news for a week. There could be a crisis with Iran, or Bin Laden could release another tape, or worse.
4. Those who forget history... In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote after trailing by seven points in the final days of the race. In 1980, Reagan was eight points down in the polls in late October and came back to win. Races can shift—fast!
5. Landslide. Even with Barack Obama in the White House, passing universal health care and a new clean-energy policy is going to be hard. Insurance, drug and oil companies will fight us every step of the way. We need the kind of landslide that will give Barack a huge mandate.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Islamophobes, Democracy Now, and Me
Democracy Now with Amy Goodman carried a terrifying segment last Friday on how 25 million copies of a DVD called Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West have been distributed in key battleground states in the last couple of months (at a cost of $50 million!). According to Democracy Now, the film features graphic, violent images and makes comparisons of Islam to Nazism.
You can listen to the story for yourself if you like, “Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation”. I was struck by the guests mentioning the recent incident when a woman at a McCain rally called Obama "an Arab" only to be corrected by McCain, "no m'am, he's a decent family man and a citizen." The guests and I had noticed that McCain got kudos for proclaiming Obama's decency, but no one questioned the idea that calling someone "an Arab," meant that they were calling someone "indecent, not a family man and not a citizen."
One of the guests, Isabel Macdonald, communications director at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), and the co-author of FAIR’s new report “Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation," talked about how the mainstream media has been relatively diligent and interested in contradicting a widespread "whisper campaign" against Obama claiming that he is "an Arab" and a Muslim. But none of the media have contradicted or covered the underlying assumptions of the campaign, 1) conflating regional origin with religion and 2) that being either an Arab or a member of the Nation of Islam is a bad thing.
McDonald pointed out that in Poland in 1990 back, when there was a whisper campaign that a the incumbent Prime Minister of Poland was "a Jew," the American media covered it as an Anti-Semitic campaign, not solely as a smear campaign against the prime minister.
Not to belabor the point, but it is not just Obama who is being smeared by this campaign, it is all middle-eastern people and followers of Islam. [Side point: isn't there part of you that would just love to watch Obama win the election and elect to be sworn in on the Koran, and then be like, "psych!!!"]
Okay, I also have to admit a love/hate relationship with Democracy Now. I love it because she and her team tell stories that no one else is telling. I hate it because every time I listen to the show, my blood pressure soars and I move an inch further out on my already left coast left fringe existence--and it's scary out here. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
As a long-time lobbyist and a bit of a Sacramento (if no longer DC) capitol insider, I have been accused by close friends as being on the "quote unquote left" rather than just left. They later recanted, but I think some of my discomfort with Democracy Now actually bolsters their claim. I really like to have it both ways. I like to think of myself as changing the parameters of the possible, but operating somewhat with the boundaries.
Democracy Now is outside the boundaries. Democracy Now isn't afraid to be arrested to cover the Republican convention. Democracy Now isn't afraid to criticize Democrats when they do the wrong thing.
I agree with all that. Yet, I'm so happy listening to my little National Public Radio. Sure, if I actually know anything about a given story, I'm angry that they missed it, but most of the time these days, I'm blissfully out of the loop, thrilled to hear one more story from the Obama/McCain campaign trail.
I think the struggle for me is how to stay aware, engaged and still calm and peaceful. How can I as an active citizen and a spiritual practitioner educate myself on the important issues of the day, be sufficiently aware that I want to do something about them, but not get caught up in anger, fear, resentment, and the sort of moral superiority and outrage that it brings up in me?
Step 1, I just subscribed to a podcast of "Democracy Now" as an experiment.
Step 2, meditate, meditate, meditate.
No answers today, only questions. For snicholsblog, this has been snichols.
You can listen to the story for yourself if you like, “Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation”. I was struck by the guests mentioning the recent incident when a woman at a McCain rally called Obama "an Arab" only to be corrected by McCain, "no m'am, he's a decent family man and a citizen." The guests and I had noticed that McCain got kudos for proclaiming Obama's decency, but no one questioned the idea that calling someone "an Arab," meant that they were calling someone "indecent, not a family man and not a citizen."
One of the guests, Isabel Macdonald, communications director at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), and the co-author of FAIR’s new report “Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation," talked about how the mainstream media has been relatively diligent and interested in contradicting a widespread "whisper campaign" against Obama claiming that he is "an Arab" and a Muslim. But none of the media have contradicted or covered the underlying assumptions of the campaign, 1) conflating regional origin with religion and 2) that being either an Arab or a member of the Nation of Islam is a bad thing.
McDonald pointed out that in Poland in 1990 back, when there was a whisper campaign that a the incumbent Prime Minister of Poland was "a Jew," the American media covered it as an Anti-Semitic campaign, not solely as a smear campaign against the prime minister.
Not to belabor the point, but it is not just Obama who is being smeared by this campaign, it is all middle-eastern people and followers of Islam. [Side point: isn't there part of you that would just love to watch Obama win the election and elect to be sworn in on the Koran, and then be like, "psych!!!"]
Okay, I also have to admit a love/hate relationship with Democracy Now. I love it because she and her team tell stories that no one else is telling. I hate it because every time I listen to the show, my blood pressure soars and I move an inch further out on my already left coast left fringe existence--and it's scary out here. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
As a long-time lobbyist and a bit of a Sacramento (if no longer DC) capitol insider, I have been accused by close friends as being on the "quote unquote left" rather than just left. They later recanted, but I think some of my discomfort with Democracy Now actually bolsters their claim. I really like to have it both ways. I like to think of myself as changing the parameters of the possible, but operating somewhat with the boundaries.
Democracy Now is outside the boundaries. Democracy Now isn't afraid to be arrested to cover the Republican convention. Democracy Now isn't afraid to criticize Democrats when they do the wrong thing.
I agree with all that. Yet, I'm so happy listening to my little National Public Radio. Sure, if I actually know anything about a given story, I'm angry that they missed it, but most of the time these days, I'm blissfully out of the loop, thrilled to hear one more story from the Obama/McCain campaign trail.
I think the struggle for me is how to stay aware, engaged and still calm and peaceful. How can I as an active citizen and a spiritual practitioner educate myself on the important issues of the day, be sufficiently aware that I want to do something about them, but not get caught up in anger, fear, resentment, and the sort of moral superiority and outrage that it brings up in me?
Step 1, I just subscribed to a podcast of "Democracy Now" as an experiment.
Step 2, meditate, meditate, meditate.
No answers today, only questions. For snicholsblog, this has been snichols.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Bill Magavern's Recommendations for November California Ballot
Recommendations for November Ballot
These are strictly my personal opinions, for whatever they're worth. Feel free
to forward them or post to web, but please do not add the names of any other
individual or organization by way of identification or affiliation. And get
ready for some change we can believe in. -- Bill
Proposition 1A --Yes
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
If you’re wondering what happened to Prop 1, the Legislature replaced it with
1A, which is still a high-speed rail bond, but with significant improvements in
both fiscal accountability and environmental safeguards. This bond measure calls
for borrowing almost $10 billion, which is no easy sell, but creating a clean
and fast rail line linking most of the state’s population is a goal worth that
kind of investment. We need clean transportation alternatives to freeways and
airplanes, and if we don’t pass 1A it will be a long time before we have another
shot.
Proposition 2 -- Yes
Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
The Humane Society has a simple proposal: farm animals should have enough room
to actually turn around. Decreasing the density of confined animals will also
decrease pollution and help family farmers. The additional cost will be less
than one penny per egg.
Proposition 3 -- Yes
Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
Public borrowing for private institutions should have to pass a high threshold
of worthiness, and I think children’s hospitals meet that standard.
Proposition 4 -- No
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s
Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Sure, it would be great if minors discussed all important life decisions with
their parents, but having government require it is not going to make it happen.
A more likely result of passing this measure would be an increase in dangerous
amateur abortions.
Proposition 5 -- Yes
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
Treatment and rehab programs for nonviolent offenders are more effective than
the lock-‘em up policy that the state has relied on in recent decades. These
programs will cost money, but will save higher amounts over time.
Proposition 6 -- No
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative
Statute.
Does anybody really think that our prison populations are too small, or that
sentences are too short? This measure would throw a lot of money into the
prison-industrial complex without accountability for how the money is spent.
State money that now goes to schools and healthcare would be shifted to building
jails and funding other local responsibilities.
Proposition 7 -- No
Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.
A billionaire had a good idea – ramp up renewable energy standards. But he got
really bad advice, then his team refused to listen to experts who suggested
changes in the proposal, or to recognize that the Legislature and Governor are
already moving toward the nation’s highest and best clean-power requirement. So the ballot language
would actually obstruct development of the small-scale solar and wind projects
we need. Just about all the state’s newspaper editorial boards and major
environmental groups are opposed.
Proposition 8 -- No
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.
Why is it that the proponents of this constitutional amendment are so worried
that their marriages will be threatened if gay people are allowed to keep the
right to marry?
Proposition 9 -- No
Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.
This measure’s billionaire sponsor, Henry Nicholas, is under indictment for
fraud, drugs and prostitution, but he poses as a champion of victims’ rights.
Victims already have a bill of rights under the state Constitution, and Prop 9
would duplicate existing laws and cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars
a year.
Proposition 10 -- No
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Another billionaire trying to make energy policy through the ballot, but this
one – Swift Boat campaign funder T. Boone Pickens – knows exactly what he’s
doing: trying to enrich his natural gas business. Like Prop 7, Prop 10 also has
drawn opposition from just about all the state’s newspaper editorial boards and
every environmental group that has weighed in, along with taxpayer and consumer
groups. Natural gas vehicles are relatively clean, but shouldn’t be subsidized
by long-term state borrowing and shouldn’t be favored over cleaner alternatives
like battery electric vehicles.
Proposition 11 -- Yes
Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
CA needs to take redistricting away from the legislators, who have a conflict of
interest, and give it to an independent commission, as this measure would do. I
don’t buy many of the arguments of supporters – redistricting reform will not
make the Legislature more centrist or less partisan, which are over-rated virtues anyway. But it will make legislators
more responsive to their constituents, and will yield districts that are drawn
for their communities of interest and geographical compactness instead of the
self-interest of the politicians. Prop 11 isn’t perfect: it doesn’t cover
Congress, and the system of choosing the commissioners is overly complicated.
But it’s a lot better than the status quo, and is probably our best shot at
reform for a while, which is why the League of Women Voters and Common Cause
support.
Proposition 12 -- Yes
Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.
This system of financing veterans’ home purchases has worked before, at no
direct cost to taxpayers.
These are strictly my personal opinions, for whatever they're worth. Feel free
to forward them or post to web, but please do not add the names of any other
individual or organization by way of identification or affiliation. And get
ready for some change we can believe in. -- Bill
Proposition 1A --Yes
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
If you’re wondering what happened to Prop 1, the Legislature replaced it with
1A, which is still a high-speed rail bond, but with significant improvements in
both fiscal accountability and environmental safeguards. This bond measure calls
for borrowing almost $10 billion, which is no easy sell, but creating a clean
and fast rail line linking most of the state’s population is a goal worth that
kind of investment. We need clean transportation alternatives to freeways and
airplanes, and if we don’t pass 1A it will be a long time before we have another
shot.
Proposition 2 -- Yes
Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
The Humane Society has a simple proposal: farm animals should have enough room
to actually turn around. Decreasing the density of confined animals will also
decrease pollution and help family farmers. The additional cost will be less
than one penny per egg.
Proposition 3 -- Yes
Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
Public borrowing for private institutions should have to pass a high threshold
of worthiness, and I think children’s hospitals meet that standard.
Proposition 4 -- No
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s
Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Sure, it would be great if minors discussed all important life decisions with
their parents, but having government require it is not going to make it happen.
A more likely result of passing this measure would be an increase in dangerous
amateur abortions.
Proposition 5 -- Yes
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
Treatment and rehab programs for nonviolent offenders are more effective than
the lock-‘em up policy that the state has relied on in recent decades. These
programs will cost money, but will save higher amounts over time.
Proposition 6 -- No
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative
Statute.
Does anybody really think that our prison populations are too small, or that
sentences are too short? This measure would throw a lot of money into the
prison-industrial complex without accountability for how the money is spent.
State money that now goes to schools and healthcare would be shifted to building
jails and funding other local responsibilities.
Proposition 7 -- No
Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.
A billionaire had a good idea – ramp up renewable energy standards. But he got
really bad advice, then his team refused to listen to experts who suggested
changes in the proposal, or to recognize that the Legislature and Governor are
already moving toward the nation’s highest and best clean-power requirement. So the ballot language
would actually obstruct development of the small-scale solar and wind projects
we need. Just about all the state’s newspaper editorial boards and major
environmental groups are opposed.
Proposition 8 -- No
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.
Why is it that the proponents of this constitutional amendment are so worried
that their marriages will be threatened if gay people are allowed to keep the
right to marry?
Proposition 9 -- No
Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.
This measure’s billionaire sponsor, Henry Nicholas, is under indictment for
fraud, drugs and prostitution, but he poses as a champion of victims’ rights.
Victims already have a bill of rights under the state Constitution, and Prop 9
would duplicate existing laws and cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars
a year.
Proposition 10 -- No
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Another billionaire trying to make energy policy through the ballot, but this
one – Swift Boat campaign funder T. Boone Pickens – knows exactly what he’s
doing: trying to enrich his natural gas business. Like Prop 7, Prop 10 also has
drawn opposition from just about all the state’s newspaper editorial boards and
every environmental group that has weighed in, along with taxpayer and consumer
groups. Natural gas vehicles are relatively clean, but shouldn’t be subsidized
by long-term state borrowing and shouldn’t be favored over cleaner alternatives
like battery electric vehicles.
Proposition 11 -- Yes
Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
CA needs to take redistricting away from the legislators, who have a conflict of
interest, and give it to an independent commission, as this measure would do. I
don’t buy many of the arguments of supporters – redistricting reform will not
make the Legislature more centrist or less partisan, which are over-rated virtues anyway. But it will make legislators
more responsive to their constituents, and will yield districts that are drawn
for their communities of interest and geographical compactness instead of the
self-interest of the politicians. Prop 11 isn’t perfect: it doesn’t cover
Congress, and the system of choosing the commissioners is overly complicated.
But it’s a lot better than the status quo, and is probably our best shot at
reform for a while, which is why the League of Women Voters and Common Cause
support.
Proposition 12 -- Yes
Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.
This system of financing veterans’ home purchases has worked before, at no
direct cost to taxpayers.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Prescription: A healthier global warming plan
By Bill Magavern (published Thursday, October 09, 2008)
Even if pictures of stranded polar bears failed to warm your heart, global warming’s effect on your health should get your circulation going. As the California Air Resources Board takes on climate change with a plan scheduled for Oct. 3 release, Californians ought to scrutinize the effects that plan will have on our bodies.
Public health officials have predicted that human-induced warming will cause our elderly, outdoors workers and athletes to suffer increased amounts of heat-related illness, which in 2006 killed more than 100 vulnerable residents.
By taking action to slow global warming, we not only can lessen heat-related illness, we can also reduce the air pollution that plagues most of California. Curbing the pollution that causes global warming could prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths by 2020 and stave off an estimated 110,000 asthma cases, the California Air Resources Board has estimated.
Fortunately, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Assembly Bill 32, was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2006. Air Board experts have been developing their scoping plan for meeting that law’s requirement that California return its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. A revised version of the plan should come out Oct. 3.
As they design measures to reduce greenhouse gases, Air Board officials should provide the additional benefit of improving air quality, especially in communities that suffer from the most severe smog, particulates, and toxic air emissions. Low-income communities and communities of color should not have to sacrifice their right to breathe clean air in an environmentally just world.
The good news is that many common-sense measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also help us breathe easier. By raising the clean-energy standard for our electricity providers to 33%, allowing cities and counties to power up their purchase of renewable energy by combining buying power at the local level, and telling the automakers to put zero-emission vehicles on the road, California can combat climate change and air pollution at the same time.
But some proposals to address climate change could have drawbacks for local air quality if they are poorly designed. If the Air Board sets up a pollution-trading system for greenhouse gases, as it intends to do, permits to pollute should not be given away to the polluters. Handing out a valuable asset to the big oil and power companies would not motivate them to clean up dirty facilities in low-income communities as quickly as possible. Instead, polluters should have to pay for emission allowances through an auction. Funds raised through the auction should be used for public purposes such as energy efficiency, promotion of renewable energy and public transit, aid to low-income consumers, and providing training for green jobs.
Greenhouse gas “offsets” are another controversial issue. Offsets may have a role in reducing greenhouse gas, but they should be limited to assure the integrity of the emission reductions and fulfill the letter and spirit of the law. While projects such as planting trees or building clean energy facilities may benefit individual communities, regulators must not let polluters off the hook or those who breathe the air near polluting plants, landfills and kilns will suffer.
AB 32, which we strongly supported, drew much of its backing from the prospect that an enforceable cap on our state’s greenhouse gas emissions would spur the technological innovations required to fundamentally transform our energy economy, and that California would benefit by creating the green technologies that the rest of the country and the rest of the world will demand. Curbing global warming will require a rapid greening of our vehicles, fuels and power plants. If those sectors are able to comply with AB 32 requirements by outsourcing their emission reductions to other sectors and other jurisdictions, it could hold back the entire clean energy revolution.
We must prioritize offset projects that will provide environmental benefits to California, especially in communities suffering from excessive levels of pollution. AB 32 requires CARB to ensure that its implementation rules “complement, and do not interfere with efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions.”
Strengthening our global warming plan will provide a bigger dose of health benefits to California’s poorest and most powerless residents as we reduce climate change.
Plus, it might help the polar bears too.
Even if pictures of stranded polar bears failed to warm your heart, global warming’s effect on your health should get your circulation going. As the California Air Resources Board takes on climate change with a plan scheduled for Oct. 3 release, Californians ought to scrutinize the effects that plan will have on our bodies.
Public health officials have predicted that human-induced warming will cause our elderly, outdoors workers and athletes to suffer increased amounts of heat-related illness, which in 2006 killed more than 100 vulnerable residents.
By taking action to slow global warming, we not only can lessen heat-related illness, we can also reduce the air pollution that plagues most of California. Curbing the pollution that causes global warming could prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths by 2020 and stave off an estimated 110,000 asthma cases, the California Air Resources Board has estimated.
Fortunately, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Assembly Bill 32, was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2006. Air Board experts have been developing their scoping plan for meeting that law’s requirement that California return its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. A revised version of the plan should come out Oct. 3.
As they design measures to reduce greenhouse gases, Air Board officials should provide the additional benefit of improving air quality, especially in communities that suffer from the most severe smog, particulates, and toxic air emissions. Low-income communities and communities of color should not have to sacrifice their right to breathe clean air in an environmentally just world.
The good news is that many common-sense measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also help us breathe easier. By raising the clean-energy standard for our electricity providers to 33%, allowing cities and counties to power up their purchase of renewable energy by combining buying power at the local level, and telling the automakers to put zero-emission vehicles on the road, California can combat climate change and air pollution at the same time.
But some proposals to address climate change could have drawbacks for local air quality if they are poorly designed. If the Air Board sets up a pollution-trading system for greenhouse gases, as it intends to do, permits to pollute should not be given away to the polluters. Handing out a valuable asset to the big oil and power companies would not motivate them to clean up dirty facilities in low-income communities as quickly as possible. Instead, polluters should have to pay for emission allowances through an auction. Funds raised through the auction should be used for public purposes such as energy efficiency, promotion of renewable energy and public transit, aid to low-income consumers, and providing training for green jobs.
Greenhouse gas “offsets” are another controversial issue. Offsets may have a role in reducing greenhouse gas, but they should be limited to assure the integrity of the emission reductions and fulfill the letter and spirit of the law. While projects such as planting trees or building clean energy facilities may benefit individual communities, regulators must not let polluters off the hook or those who breathe the air near polluting plants, landfills and kilns will suffer.
AB 32, which we strongly supported, drew much of its backing from the prospect that an enforceable cap on our state’s greenhouse gas emissions would spur the technological innovations required to fundamentally transform our energy economy, and that California would benefit by creating the green technologies that the rest of the country and the rest of the world will demand. Curbing global warming will require a rapid greening of our vehicles, fuels and power plants. If those sectors are able to comply with AB 32 requirements by outsourcing their emission reductions to other sectors and other jurisdictions, it could hold back the entire clean energy revolution.
We must prioritize offset projects that will provide environmental benefits to California, especially in communities suffering from excessive levels of pollution. AB 32 requires CARB to ensure that its implementation rules “complement, and do not interfere with efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions.”
Strengthening our global warming plan will provide a bigger dose of health benefits to California’s poorest and most powerless residents as we reduce climate change.
Plus, it might help the polar bears too.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Tim Wise on White Privilege
Privilege
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Tim Wise
For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a "f'ing' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their f'ing' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot s**t" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Tim Wise
For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a "f'ing' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their f'ing' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot s**t" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Call before (or after) you complain about the bailout
If you're as concerned as I am about the prospect of Congress spending $700 billion to bailout the corrupt financial industry (when they could be spending it to reduce the national debt, fund universal health care, beef up education, rebuild roads, end global warming, pick one), please take time out of your ranting against it to call and rant against it to your congressman or woman. I called my Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and my Congresswoman Doris Matsui. Don't take anything for granted. If you're not sure of the name of your Congressmember, use this tool: Find your elected federal, state and local representatives.
Here are two toll free numbers to call Washington and ask for your representative. Just say, I oppose the bailout. They may ask your name or zipcode. They may be too busy to do so. 800-828-0498, 800-473-6711,
Here are two toll free numbers to call Washington and ask for your representative. Just say, I oppose the bailout. They may ask your name or zipcode. They may be too busy to do so. 800-828-0498, 800-473-6711,
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Best on Iraq, Lame on Economy
Initially I was pleased when I realized the Jim Lehrer was the moderator (much better than any of the random network guys, sorry dearly departed Tim Russert, you were not missed tonight) and that he was leading off with a question about the economy.
To me, Obama shoulda hit that one out of the park. But he couldn't and didn't. He couldn't because he isn't prepared to oppose an unprecedented $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. And although he tried to hit McCain pretty hard on supporting the Bush policies of deregulation that led to the massive failure, he alternated between campaign buzzwords like "wall street and main street" and a lot of inside washington jargon. He never really took it to McCain in this area. I woulda liked a bit of "John, this financial crisis is your fault. You bought the idea that big financial institutions would thrive without anybody making sure they were making good deals and you were wrong. And now you want to bail them out for their mistakes. Well, who is going to bail out the people who lost their homes?"
Obama tried to say that stuff, but he said it in such a way that my mother, who is an avid political watcher, literally fell asleep in the middle of one of his sentences. I've said it before, my mother is a reliable bellweather of what the average mainstream Democrat is thinking. It is not a good sign if she falls asleep when Obama is talking.
McCain on the other hand was feisty and plain-speaking on the economy and managed to push Obama into a corner by focussing on his earmarks and on McCain's record of weeding out pork barrel projects. The fact that Obama's 890 million dollars of day care centers on the south side or bridges in the loop pails in comparison to a $700 billion bailout cannot be said, and McCain knows it. The average person thinks hundreds of millions of dollars means something. And it does, but not in the context of a federal budget (jeez, it barely does in California).
Obama regained his footing and beat the crap out of McCain on Iraq. He hammered on "you were wrong," repeatedly and really scored points in my book. For the first time, I really got a creepy feeling about how personal the Iraq war is to McCain because of his experiences in Vietnam. I used to think that might be a good thing. Now I think that he might drag on the war for "a hundred years" like some weird ancient zorro searching the countryside to avenge his dead father--he repeatedly made reference to knowing what it was like to lose and not wanting to go through that again.
Woah! This really sets off alarm bells for me. Who the hell cares whether McCain wants to go through that again? Could the decisions about the war possibly be prosecuted on the basis of what's right for the country and world? How about that?
My mom (see above) was rightly appalled by McCain's creepy condescending tone towards Obama--the repeated references to his "naivite" made him seem bitter and mean. The fact that she noticed it makes me hopeful that others will, but maybe only yellow dog dems.
I found it particularly telling that McCain scolded Obama for "saying out loud" that he might invade Pakistan. And there was another instance later when he also seemed to hint that he would share Obama's strategy and thoughts secretly but that he thought it was somehow naive or lame to share those thoughts with the citizenry. So we need to trust McCain like we trusted Bush to take care of us and do the right thing, even though he doesn't trust us to share in advance what kind of thinking he would have on key foreign policy matters? Now who's naive?
Finally, I think Obama misses an opportunity when he just sort of shares McCain's view of Russia/Georgia. I know he is trying to put the initial weakness of his response behind him, but I think there's a larger point and opportunity that's being missed, to wit, how can we expect Russia to respect international boundaries and law, when we haven't respected international boundaries and law? By acting virtually unilaterally in prosecuting his war in Iraq, the Bush administration has destroyed the United States' credibility and ability to play a constructive role in getting Russia to behave. Obama is clearly the President who would be better able to declare a new era of decency and rule of law in foreign policy and restore the US to a point where it could be taken seriously in this context.
To me, Obama shoulda hit that one out of the park. But he couldn't and didn't. He couldn't because he isn't prepared to oppose an unprecedented $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. And although he tried to hit McCain pretty hard on supporting the Bush policies of deregulation that led to the massive failure, he alternated between campaign buzzwords like "wall street and main street" and a lot of inside washington jargon. He never really took it to McCain in this area. I woulda liked a bit of "John, this financial crisis is your fault. You bought the idea that big financial institutions would thrive without anybody making sure they were making good deals and you were wrong. And now you want to bail them out for their mistakes. Well, who is going to bail out the people who lost their homes?"
Obama tried to say that stuff, but he said it in such a way that my mother, who is an avid political watcher, literally fell asleep in the middle of one of his sentences. I've said it before, my mother is a reliable bellweather of what the average mainstream Democrat is thinking. It is not a good sign if she falls asleep when Obama is talking.
McCain on the other hand was feisty and plain-speaking on the economy and managed to push Obama into a corner by focussing on his earmarks and on McCain's record of weeding out pork barrel projects. The fact that Obama's 890 million dollars of day care centers on the south side or bridges in the loop pails in comparison to a $700 billion bailout cannot be said, and McCain knows it. The average person thinks hundreds of millions of dollars means something. And it does, but not in the context of a federal budget (jeez, it barely does in California).
Obama regained his footing and beat the crap out of McCain on Iraq. He hammered on "you were wrong," repeatedly and really scored points in my book. For the first time, I really got a creepy feeling about how personal the Iraq war is to McCain because of his experiences in Vietnam. I used to think that might be a good thing. Now I think that he might drag on the war for "a hundred years" like some weird ancient zorro searching the countryside to avenge his dead father--he repeatedly made reference to knowing what it was like to lose and not wanting to go through that again.
Woah! This really sets off alarm bells for me. Who the hell cares whether McCain wants to go through that again? Could the decisions about the war possibly be prosecuted on the basis of what's right for the country and world? How about that?
My mom (see above) was rightly appalled by McCain's creepy condescending tone towards Obama--the repeated references to his "naivite" made him seem bitter and mean. The fact that she noticed it makes me hopeful that others will, but maybe only yellow dog dems.
I found it particularly telling that McCain scolded Obama for "saying out loud" that he might invade Pakistan. And there was another instance later when he also seemed to hint that he would share Obama's strategy and thoughts secretly but that he thought it was somehow naive or lame to share those thoughts with the citizenry. So we need to trust McCain like we trusted Bush to take care of us and do the right thing, even though he doesn't trust us to share in advance what kind of thinking he would have on key foreign policy matters? Now who's naive?
Finally, I think Obama misses an opportunity when he just sort of shares McCain's view of Russia/Georgia. I know he is trying to put the initial weakness of his response behind him, but I think there's a larger point and opportunity that's being missed, to wit, how can we expect Russia to respect international boundaries and law, when we haven't respected international boundaries and law? By acting virtually unilaterally in prosecuting his war in Iraq, the Bush administration has destroyed the United States' credibility and ability to play a constructive role in getting Russia to behave. Obama is clearly the President who would be better able to declare a new era of decency and rule of law in foreign policy and restore the US to a point where it could be taken seriously in this context.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Use McCain (not Bush) to beat McCain
A substantial part of the Obama team strategy seems to be to Bushify McCain, to convince the public that McCain is really George Bush in disguise. In my opinion this is a flawed strategy. Let's use McCain to beat McCain, not Bush. Here's why:
The clearest reason not to stick to this strategy is that it's too obvious. It's going after McCain's weaknesses, instead of his strengths. Karl Rove based the current Republican playbook on the opposite premise: campaign on your greatest weakness, go after your opponent's greatest strength. Hence, Bush's obstinance in the face of repeated failures was painted as "strength, stick-to-it-iveness, and tenacity" while Kerry's record as a war hero was "swift-boated" into question.
Here, I'd consider taking McCain himself straight on, apart from Bush. "He calls himself a 'maverick,' but he voted lock step for blah blah blah. He calls himself a 'reformer,' but he voted for big money interests on this this and this.
Also, I'm not sure how to get it out there, but I think the public oughta know that most of McCain's colleagues in the Senate can't stand him. He's known as cranky, mean-spirited, cruel and untrustworthy. And while I personally might find being mistrusted by U.S. Senators to be a badge of honor, the American public seems to want to have a President that it trusts, likes and feels comfortable with. McCain is not that guy.
Focusing entirely on tying McCain to Bush can backfire. If the public fails to see the logic and finds McCain to be his own man (highly likely, see below), no amount of Bush-bashing will transfer and McCain, in the meantime, is free to create his own image with the public.
An even more fraught version of this strategy was attempted in 2006 in California in the campaign to defeat Gov. Schwarzenegger from his second term. The entire strategy was to tie Schwarzenegger to Bush. All campaigns and slogans of the Democratic campaign focused on this one theme. Schwarzenegger equals Bush. You don't like Bush. Therefore you don't like Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, had his own record, had scrupulously avoided appearing on the same dias as the President and sailed to a landslide victory against the unknown Democratic state treasurer Phil Angelides.
Granted it is a much easier case to paint McCain with a Bush brush than it was to paint celebrity moderate Schwarzenegger. McCain is a demonstrable social conservative and hawk who in the primary went out of his way to move as far to the right as possible and ingratiate himself with his base.
However, left to his own devices to define himself, McCain has plenty to distinguish himself from Bush. He's made a career out of defying expectations. He has made campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his work. He has voted against anti-environmental legislation (sometimes) that has been opposed by the majority of his party. And of course, he served in the military and was tortured by the North Vietnamese in tiger cages.
Let's get out there and clarify for the public who McCain really is: he's not Bush, and you still don't want him. Or, alternatively, call him a meaner, creepier George Bush, maybe make him Dick Cheney, instead of Bush (Cheney's negatives are even lower).
Food for thought.
The clearest reason not to stick to this strategy is that it's too obvious. It's going after McCain's weaknesses, instead of his strengths. Karl Rove based the current Republican playbook on the opposite premise: campaign on your greatest weakness, go after your opponent's greatest strength. Hence, Bush's obstinance in the face of repeated failures was painted as "strength, stick-to-it-iveness, and tenacity" while Kerry's record as a war hero was "swift-boated" into question.
Here, I'd consider taking McCain himself straight on, apart from Bush. "He calls himself a 'maverick,' but he voted lock step for blah blah blah. He calls himself a 'reformer,' but he voted for big money interests on this this and this.
Also, I'm not sure how to get it out there, but I think the public oughta know that most of McCain's colleagues in the Senate can't stand him. He's known as cranky, mean-spirited, cruel and untrustworthy. And while I personally might find being mistrusted by U.S. Senators to be a badge of honor, the American public seems to want to have a President that it trusts, likes and feels comfortable with. McCain is not that guy.
Focusing entirely on tying McCain to Bush can backfire. If the public fails to see the logic and finds McCain to be his own man (highly likely, see below), no amount of Bush-bashing will transfer and McCain, in the meantime, is free to create his own image with the public.
An even more fraught version of this strategy was attempted in 2006 in California in the campaign to defeat Gov. Schwarzenegger from his second term. The entire strategy was to tie Schwarzenegger to Bush. All campaigns and slogans of the Democratic campaign focused on this one theme. Schwarzenegger equals Bush. You don't like Bush. Therefore you don't like Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, had his own record, had scrupulously avoided appearing on the same dias as the President and sailed to a landslide victory against the unknown Democratic state treasurer Phil Angelides.
Granted it is a much easier case to paint McCain with a Bush brush than it was to paint celebrity moderate Schwarzenegger. McCain is a demonstrable social conservative and hawk who in the primary went out of his way to move as far to the right as possible and ingratiate himself with his base.
However, left to his own devices to define himself, McCain has plenty to distinguish himself from Bush. He's made a career out of defying expectations. He has made campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his work. He has voted against anti-environmental legislation (sometimes) that has been opposed by the majority of his party. And of course, he served in the military and was tortured by the North Vietnamese in tiger cages.
Let's get out there and clarify for the public who McCain really is: he's not Bush, and you still don't want him. Or, alternatively, call him a meaner, creepier George Bush, maybe make him Dick Cheney, instead of Bush (Cheney's negatives are even lower).
Food for thought.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Strickland or Webb for Obama
I can't take credit for this at all. I'm basically just parroting my husband--but he knows everything.
Bill says that Obama should consider the following two people for veep:
1) Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio:
pros: could swing Ohio; minister (Obama could say he's got a new minister!), centrist, Hillary supporter (unify the party), white male, he's a GOVERNOR not a Senator, has foreign policy experience.
cons: hmmm, well, white male, centrist, Hillary supporter (but that's just me).
Bill says just leave him to do the business of Ohio and campaign only in Ohio and neighboring key states, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky. All Obama has to do to win is hold all the states Kerry won plus Ohio.
2) Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia:
Pros: popular, Bible thumper, could maybe bring Virginia, centrist, is he another Hillary supporter?
Cons: another senator.
Okay, that's all for now. Trying to get back in the blogging game.
Bill says that Obama should consider the following two people for veep:
1) Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio:
pros: could swing Ohio; minister (Obama could say he's got a new minister!), centrist, Hillary supporter (unify the party), white male, he's a GOVERNOR not a Senator, has foreign policy experience.
cons: hmmm, well, white male, centrist, Hillary supporter (but that's just me).
Bill says just leave him to do the business of Ohio and campaign only in Ohio and neighboring key states, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky. All Obama has to do to win is hold all the states Kerry won plus Ohio.
2) Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia:
Pros: popular, Bible thumper, could maybe bring Virginia, centrist, is he another Hillary supporter?
Cons: another senator.
Okay, that's all for now. Trying to get back in the blogging game.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Can you tell the difference between John McCain and a Carrot?
Take this MoveOn.org quiz and see if you correctly answer 6 short questions about the difference between McCain and Bush--Click here to take the quiz.
Bonus points if you can tell the difference between McCain and a carrot on key policy questions: McCain vs. Carrot.
Bonus points if you can tell the difference between McCain and a carrot on key policy questions: McCain vs. Carrot.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
See Sam Shepard's Fool for Love at Capital Stage
(:)(:)(:)(:) for a very solid production of Sam Shepard's play "Fool for Love" now playing at the Capital Stage in Old Sacramento through April 27, 2008.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen this play produced. This is certainly the first time I've seen a production since I came to grasp something of the depth of obsession people can have for alcoholism and for each other. Sam Shepard gets it right on the money.
Jonathan Rhys Williams gives the standout performance as Eddie, the bad ass love obsession returned to make May miserable. His physicality combined with raw intensity is mesmerizing. He made me totally believe that he had driven 2000 miles to have May, that he thought that he had changed, and that he would never ever change.
Stephanie Gularte is stunning and believable as May, but she tends to push her performances a little over the top so that one is from time to time too conscious of her "acting." Also, having seen both Williams and Gularte in other productions, I am starting to form the opinion that Williams is the more versatile actor. Gularte has a way that she plays certain emotions and she tends to carry that way from part to part.
Most importantly, the chemistry and sheer obsessive connection between these two characters is established almost immediately. Without that, no production of this play could recover and this one has it in spades.
The play clearly is under a capable director in Janis Stevens (this is the first play I've seen that she's directed, so I was nervous). And Loren Taylor turns in a solid performance as The Old Man.
All and all another gem churned out by the increasingly reliable Capital Stage, Sacramento's newest professional theater company with (this year at least) the best deal in the region on season tickets, $50 total for 5 plays. See Fool for Love while its here and subscribe next year.
Oh, and if money and time is no object, join Capital Stage on a great sounding theater and wine trip to Ashland, Oregon next month.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen this play produced. This is certainly the first time I've seen a production since I came to grasp something of the depth of obsession people can have for alcoholism and for each other. Sam Shepard gets it right on the money.
Jonathan Rhys Williams gives the standout performance as Eddie, the bad ass love obsession returned to make May miserable. His physicality combined with raw intensity is mesmerizing. He made me totally believe that he had driven 2000 miles to have May, that he thought that he had changed, and that he would never ever change.
Stephanie Gularte is stunning and believable as May, but she tends to push her performances a little over the top so that one is from time to time too conscious of her "acting." Also, having seen both Williams and Gularte in other productions, I am starting to form the opinion that Williams is the more versatile actor. Gularte has a way that she plays certain emotions and she tends to carry that way from part to part.
Most importantly, the chemistry and sheer obsessive connection between these two characters is established almost immediately. Without that, no production of this play could recover and this one has it in spades.
The play clearly is under a capable director in Janis Stevens (this is the first play I've seen that she's directed, so I was nervous). And Loren Taylor turns in a solid performance as The Old Man.
All and all another gem churned out by the increasingly reliable Capital Stage, Sacramento's newest professional theater company with (this year at least) the best deal in the region on season tickets, $50 total for 5 plays. See Fool for Love while its here and subscribe next year.
Oh, and if money and time is no object, join Capital Stage on a great sounding theater and wine trip to Ashland, Oregon next month.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Truth About Me
Greetings from the Big Apple!
Okay, so it's been another long inexplicable period in which I haven't posted a thing. My readers are anxious, fretful even.
Here's the scoop: two things have been going. First, our son has been sick for another protracted period (continuously since the beginning of February, and most of January too). It's not life-threatening, but it's very debilitating and he feels terrible and has missed a disturbing amount of school.
For some reason, not actually sure why, this makes it very difficult for me to blog every day.
Secondly, a couple of weeks ago I started blogging daily on a new blog I helped create called The Truth About Us Movie Blog.
I trust I've told you about The Truth About Us, a new documentary about using spiritual principle to create the life you want. Among other reasons to watch it is that I am interviewed extensively. You can learn more about the film and buy the movie at www.thetruthaboutus.tv.
Most of you are loyal predominantly to read my political stuff. The stuff I write on the Truth About Us blog is about using spiritual principle to change your life.
Okay, so it's been another long inexplicable period in which I haven't posted a thing. My readers are anxious, fretful even.
Here's the scoop: two things have been going. First, our son has been sick for another protracted period (continuously since the beginning of February, and most of January too). It's not life-threatening, but it's very debilitating and he feels terrible and has missed a disturbing amount of school.
For some reason, not actually sure why, this makes it very difficult for me to blog every day.
Secondly, a couple of weeks ago I started blogging daily on a new blog I helped create called The Truth About Us Movie Blog.
I trust I've told you about The Truth About Us, a new documentary about using spiritual principle to create the life you want. Among other reasons to watch it is that I am interviewed extensively. You can learn more about the film and buy the movie at www.thetruthaboutus.tv.
Most of you are loyal predominantly to read my political stuff. The stuff I write on the Truth About Us blog is about using spiritual principle to change your life.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama's Coattails for Peace
People need to start recognizing that Obama is the best nominee, not just because he is more likely to beat McCain in November, but because he is more likely to beat him big, bring new voters into the process, thereby positively affecting the downticket races.
Donna Edwards is the first exciting case in point. Yesterday, Democrat Donna Edwards (who happens to be a former Congress Watch colleague of mine) pulled off a stunning upset against 6 term incumbent congressman Al Wynn (D-Maryland) in Maryland's fourth congressional district (a hybrid of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in suburban DC).
The margin of victory? 20%! Completely unheard of for a primary challenge against an incumbent not currently under indictment. Hmmm...Who else won his Maryland Democratic primary by 20% on Tuesday?
Three guesses and the first two wear bold colored pantsuits.
This is no joke. Maryland's appear to be the first congressional primaries of the year (February is very early). Donna is part of a slate of Democratic challengers across the country running against Democrats who supported the war and continued military buildup. And she won, not a little bit, but huge, with the exact same margin of victory as Obama.
People who know Maryland's fighting 4th tell me the little old lady faithful stayed with Winn. They've voted for him for years and saw no reason to change. So what made the difference for Donna is not the party faithful but new voters, or occasional voters; people who don't usually come in in droves in primaries.
We all know about the Clinton coattails (in his second presidential bid, Clinton not only maintained his loss of Democratic control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 50 years, but Democrats lost gubernatorial seats and control of state legislatures across the country).
I love the idea of peace candidate Obama first sweeping in new peace Democrats in the primaries, and perhaps adding to the Democrats' margin in November, transforming it in the bargain from a majority of Democrats, to, dare I hope? a majority of progressives.
Monday, February 04, 2008
"Nostalgia" for the Clinton Administration; Yes on 93 and other Unsolicited Advice on the California Primary Tomorrow
1. The Democratic presidential primary. I loved the L.A. Times Editorial for Obama on Saturday (link above and here). I can't possibly improve upon how they said it. This is a historic choice and the right choice is Obama.
I can't resist, however, a little last minute reminder in case anyone is having nostalgia for the Clinton administration. In the Bush era, believe me, it's easy to have nostalgia for Bill Clinton (hell, under Bush, I've even had nostalgia for Richard Nixon) but the time to wax nostalgic for just any Democrat is not in the primary, it's the general election.
Get a cuppa, relax and let's enjoy a trip down memory lane with the Clinton administration, some highlights:
**"don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military
**welfare "reform"
**passage of NAFTA and paving the way for free trade agreements that run roughshod over the environment, health and safety rules, and consumer protection (can anyone say lead toys from China? A direct legacy of this administration)
**weakening the enforcement of clean and safe food regulations, so that we began to have ecoli outbreaks in burgers, fear of mad cow disease, and many other problems in food safety that hadn't happened since the laws were strengthened in the early 70s.
and the number one legacy of the Clinton administration (drumroll please):
losing Democratic control of the Congress for the first time in 40 years!
No. Obama's not perfect. Many of his positions seem a little too calculated, mainstream and corporate-oriented for me. But here's what I believe about him. He has been against the Iraq war from the start. His record as a legislator in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate shows that he is a progressive (he started out as a community organizer). He is smart enough to create enough of a makeover for him to win the White House in November. He is an orator. He is a leader. He is inspiring. His very name, his very skin, his very being will be a healing presence for the nation and hence the whole world. Vote for Obama tomorrow.
And remember, the delegates are awarded congressional district by congressional district, so Clinton could win the popular vote in California but Obama could still get a delegate from your congressional district (for example, it's neck and neck in Sacramento Matsui's district here). So every vote matters. And if you're in a Republican district, don't despair, they only count the Democratic votes in the Democratic primary!
2. On the rest of the ballot. All you need to remember is Yes on 93, no on all the the other California propositions. Regardless of what you think of the current leaders of the legislature, it will bring increased sanity to California government to have legislators develop greater expertise and stay in one house for longer instead of hopping from Assembly to Senate.
I have worked in and around the California legislature for almost 10 years and I have seen speakers come and go. We need to retain experienced legislators and the only way we can tackle any of the big intractable problems in California is to develop a consensus over time. The current term limits law doesn't allow that to happen.
No on the Indian gaming pacts. No on the education initiatives because it unfairly ties their hands.
Re-read my husband's recommendations for more details on these if you like.
Bill Magavern's ballot recommendations.
See you at the Obama victory party!
I can't resist, however, a little last minute reminder in case anyone is having nostalgia for the Clinton administration. In the Bush era, believe me, it's easy to have nostalgia for Bill Clinton (hell, under Bush, I've even had nostalgia for Richard Nixon) but the time to wax nostalgic for just any Democrat is not in the primary, it's the general election.
Get a cuppa, relax and let's enjoy a trip down memory lane with the Clinton administration, some highlights:
**"don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military
**welfare "reform"
**passage of NAFTA and paving the way for free trade agreements that run roughshod over the environment, health and safety rules, and consumer protection (can anyone say lead toys from China? A direct legacy of this administration)
**weakening the enforcement of clean and safe food regulations, so that we began to have ecoli outbreaks in burgers, fear of mad cow disease, and many other problems in food safety that hadn't happened since the laws were strengthened in the early 70s.
and the number one legacy of the Clinton administration (drumroll please):
losing Democratic control of the Congress for the first time in 40 years!
No. Obama's not perfect. Many of his positions seem a little too calculated, mainstream and corporate-oriented for me. But here's what I believe about him. He has been against the Iraq war from the start. His record as a legislator in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate shows that he is a progressive (he started out as a community organizer). He is smart enough to create enough of a makeover for him to win the White House in November. He is an orator. He is a leader. He is inspiring. His very name, his very skin, his very being will be a healing presence for the nation and hence the whole world. Vote for Obama tomorrow.
And remember, the delegates are awarded congressional district by congressional district, so Clinton could win the popular vote in California but Obama could still get a delegate from your congressional district (for example, it's neck and neck in Sacramento Matsui's district here). So every vote matters. And if you're in a Republican district, don't despair, they only count the Democratic votes in the Democratic primary!
2. On the rest of the ballot. All you need to remember is Yes on 93, no on all the the other California propositions. Regardless of what you think of the current leaders of the legislature, it will bring increased sanity to California government to have legislators develop greater expertise and stay in one house for longer instead of hopping from Assembly to Senate.
I have worked in and around the California legislature for almost 10 years and I have seen speakers come and go. We need to retain experienced legislators and the only way we can tackle any of the big intractable problems in California is to develop a consensus over time. The current term limits law doesn't allow that to happen.
No on the Indian gaming pacts. No on the education initiatives because it unfairly ties their hands.
Re-read my husband's recommendations for more details on these if you like.
Bill Magavern's ballot recommendations.
See you at the Obama victory party!
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Edwards Effect by Paul Krugman
The Edwards Effect
By PAUL KRUGMAN in the New York Times
Published: February 1, 2008
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
Skip to next paragraph
Paul Krugman.
Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.
At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.
Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.
Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
By PAUL KRUGMAN in the New York Times
Published: February 1, 2008
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
Skip to next paragraph
Paul Krugman.
Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.
At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.
Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.
Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Edwards Fans: Time to Get Serious about Obama
The party's over, Edwards supporters. It's time to switch your allegiance to Obama, fast and furious.
I know Edwards says he's still in it, but it's clear that at this point he's not in it to win. He's in it to "make a difference" and to have delegates to broker at a convention. That's nice for Edwards, but it's a 1960 strategy in a 2008 election.
Listen, the 2 and a half people who read this blog know that I've been all out for Edwards. Heck, I even seriously considered driving to Reno to canvass for him in the Nevada caucuses. If that ain't commitment, I don't know what is.
John Edwards has already made a big difference in this election. If it weren't for Edwards' candidacy, there's no question that neither Obama nor Clinton would be talking as much as about poverty, the need for health care reform, or many meat and potato issues of concern to working class Americans. In particular, Obama seems to have adopted a muted version of Edwards' critique of money in politics. Granted, Obama focuses on lobbyists rather than corporations, but it's the same meme.
I supported Edwards because I thought he was the Democratic candidate for president who was the most progressive person with the best chance of winning in the general election. Now that it's clear that Edwards won't win the primary, his "electability" in the general is a moot point.
The race has narrowed to two people: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Of the two, the one who can and should win is Obama. Obama's voting record in Congress (and the Illinois state legislature) is pretty consistently progressive and effective. While not in Congress at the beginning, he was against the war from the start. More and more I hear Republicans and other swing voters who wouldn't be caught dead voting for Hillary being inspired by Obama.
Obama is inspiring. He's his own man. Inspite of and because of his unique background, he has the ability to appeal to broad cross sections of the American public. He is the best man for the job and the only Democrat poised to win in November.
I know Edwards says he's still in it, but it's clear that at this point he's not in it to win. He's in it to "make a difference" and to have delegates to broker at a convention. That's nice for Edwards, but it's a 1960 strategy in a 2008 election.
Listen, the 2 and a half people who read this blog know that I've been all out for Edwards. Heck, I even seriously considered driving to Reno to canvass for him in the Nevada caucuses. If that ain't commitment, I don't know what is.
John Edwards has already made a big difference in this election. If it weren't for Edwards' candidacy, there's no question that neither Obama nor Clinton would be talking as much as about poverty, the need for health care reform, or many meat and potato issues of concern to working class Americans. In particular, Obama seems to have adopted a muted version of Edwards' critique of money in politics. Granted, Obama focuses on lobbyists rather than corporations, but it's the same meme.
I supported Edwards because I thought he was the Democratic candidate for president who was the most progressive person with the best chance of winning in the general election. Now that it's clear that Edwards won't win the primary, his "electability" in the general is a moot point.
The race has narrowed to two people: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Of the two, the one who can and should win is Obama. Obama's voting record in Congress (and the Illinois state legislature) is pretty consistently progressive and effective. While not in Congress at the beginning, he was against the war from the start. More and more I hear Republicans and other swing voters who wouldn't be caught dead voting for Hillary being inspired by Obama.
Obama is inspiring. He's his own man. Inspite of and because of his unique background, he has the ability to appeal to broad cross sections of the American public. He is the best man for the job and the only Democrat poised to win in November.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Bill Magavern's 2008 California Ballot Rx
Well, they're here! The long-awaited Bill Magavern ballot recommendations. With so many people absentee voting, we get requests for these LONG before the election. Hold your horses, people!!! Unless you are leaving for Europe or a tour of duty, what is the friggin' hurry on voting? I still walk to the neighborhood precinct on voting day, but if I voted two or three or four weeks out I would often regret it. New info really crystalizes in the final weeks of a campaign.
So without further ado:
THE BILL MAGAVERN BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, FEBRUARY 2008
PROPOSITIONS
91 – NO
Even its authors have disowned this one. Its effect would be to expand the
circumstances under which all of the sales tax on gasoline – not the gas tax,
but the sales tax – could be spent only on transportation, which would bind the
hands of the governor and legislature during times of fiscal crisis.
92 – NO
91 and 92 share one of the worst features of ballot-box budgeting, because they
both would carve out slices of the budget pie without doing anything to enlarge
the pie. In this case, the cause is a worthy one – community colleges. But 92
wouldn’t raise any revenue, it would just direct existing revenues toward
community colleges, meaning other programs, like health, K-12 education, parks,
etc – would be cut. And capping community college fees is not as progressive as
it may sound. A much more equitable policy would be to raise fees on those who
can afford to pay and use the money to provide more financial aid for low-income
students.
93 – YES
CA’s legislative term limits are just about the tightest in the country, and
still would be even if 93 passes. The difference would be that a legislator
could serve up to 12 years in one house, which would greatly increase the
continuity and institutional memory in the Assembly. Currently, the lower house
looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing
their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –
almost all of it from special interests – never stops.
To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what
is the best policy for the long run. Allowing a legislator to make a 12-year
career in one house would definitely improve the quality of deliberation in the
Capitol – and I say that as someone who spends many of my working hours in that
particular sausage factory.
94-97 – NO
I’m certainly not thrilled that so much of California’s ballot space and
political advertising goes into gambling issues, when so many more important matters go neglected. In this expensive battle I side
with the labor and tribal interests who are trying to overturn 4 casinos’
agreements with the state. These agreements do not protect the rights of casino
employees.
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – OBAMA
He opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike his opponents. As a legislator,
he’s managed to pass tough bills by working with unlikely allies. My informed
source in Illinois politics has spoken highly of him for years. Obama’s theme of
participatory democracy – government by and for the people, not the corporate
lobbyists – could actually have a transformative effect. With Kucinich out of
the race, and Edwards’ campaign faltering, Obama is the progressive choice – and
also the one with the best chance of winning the White House.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – PAUL
His domestic platform is straight out of the 19th century, but he’s the only
Reep candidate opposed to the war, so if you’re in the GOP this is your chance to send a message.
I’m Bill Magavern, and I approve of this message.
So without further ado:
THE BILL MAGAVERN BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, FEBRUARY 2008
PROPOSITIONS
91 – NO
Even its authors have disowned this one. Its effect would be to expand the
circumstances under which all of the sales tax on gasoline – not the gas tax,
but the sales tax – could be spent only on transportation, which would bind the
hands of the governor and legislature during times of fiscal crisis.
92 – NO
91 and 92 share one of the worst features of ballot-box budgeting, because they
both would carve out slices of the budget pie without doing anything to enlarge
the pie. In this case, the cause is a worthy one – community colleges. But 92
wouldn’t raise any revenue, it would just direct existing revenues toward
community colleges, meaning other programs, like health, K-12 education, parks,
etc – would be cut. And capping community college fees is not as progressive as
it may sound. A much more equitable policy would be to raise fees on those who
can afford to pay and use the money to provide more financial aid for low-income
students.
93 – YES
CA’s legislative term limits are just about the tightest in the country, and
still would be even if 93 passes. The difference would be that a legislator
could serve up to 12 years in one house, which would greatly increase the
continuity and institutional memory in the Assembly. Currently, the lower house
looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing
their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –
almost all of it from special interests – never stops.
To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what
is the best policy for the long run. Allowing a legislator to make a 12-year
career in one house would definitely improve the quality of deliberation in the
Capitol – and I say that as someone who spends many of my working hours in that
particular sausage factory.
94-97 – NO
I’m certainly not thrilled that so much of California’s ballot space and
political advertising goes into gambling issues, when so many more important matters go neglected. In this expensive battle I side
with the labor and tribal interests who are trying to overturn 4 casinos’
agreements with the state. These agreements do not protect the rights of casino
employees.
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – OBAMA
He opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike his opponents. As a legislator,
he’s managed to pass tough bills by working with unlikely allies. My informed
source in Illinois politics has spoken highly of him for years. Obama’s theme of
participatory democracy – government by and for the people, not the corporate
lobbyists – could actually have a transformative effect. With Kucinich out of
the race, and Edwards’ campaign faltering, Obama is the progressive choice – and
also the one with the best chance of winning the White House.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – PAUL
His domestic platform is straight out of the 19th century, but he’s the only
Reep candidate opposed to the war, so if you’re in the GOP this is your chance to send a message.
I’m Bill Magavern, and I approve of this message.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Watch Obama's New Hampshire Primary Speech
Listen, I haven't weighed in lately on the Presidential campaign, or anything. Frankly, I've been preoccupied by a health crisis in our son. When he's really sick, I have trouble doing anything extra. So I've kept, up, but not in my thoughts to you.
It's okay that I'm behind because I'd rather not tell you, in the few days before the South Carolina primary, how I'm feeling about my man John Edwards' chances. I'd rather not tell you that on Sunday my son, now well, used some of his newfound energy to paste an Obama bumpersticker over the Edwards one on our family car and I let him do it.
Instead, I'll ask you to watch Obama's speech after the New Hampshire primary, if you haven't already and tell me what you think/thought.
Sara
It's okay that I'm behind because I'd rather not tell you, in the few days before the South Carolina primary, how I'm feeling about my man John Edwards' chances. I'd rather not tell you that on Sunday my son, now well, used some of his newfound energy to paste an Obama bumpersticker over the Edwards one on our family car and I let him do it.
Instead, I'll ask you to watch Obama's speech after the New Hampshire primary, if you haven't already and tell me what you think/thought.
Sara
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
What My Family is Doing to Eliminate Fascism
While I was emailing a friend threatening to risk a Giuliani presidency rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, my husband was working a little harder to identify and contain fascism. Here's his excellent letter published in today's Sacramento Bee.
Top cop's unshining moment
Re "Departure bittersweet for top cop," Jan. 2: What columnist Marcos Bretón describes as Police Chief Al Nájera's "shining moment" – the militaristic crackdown on peaceful protesters during the June 2003 Bush administration agricultural summit – actually amounted to an outrageous assault on the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly; the worst that I have seen during my decade in Sacramento.
What I saw when I emerged from the Capitol on that day shocked me. Hundreds of police officers in full Robocop gear had corralled a diverse group of Americans, including moms pushing babies in strollers, and refused to let them move freely in Capitol Park, despite the fact that they were doing nothing more threatening than chanting slogans about fair trade.
Why is Bretón, who makes his living from the constitutionally protected printed word, so thrilled that Nájera raised a red banner belonging to protesters and boomed, "We got their flag!"? Would the columnist be as exultant if the police had confiscated The Bee off of local newsstands because Nájera had decided one of the day's columns was politically incorrect? And is our police department so afraid of free speech that its biggest victory comes from confiscating a banner, instead of removing violent criminals from our streets?
- Bill Magavern, Sacramento
Top cop's unshining moment
Re "Departure bittersweet for top cop," Jan. 2: What columnist Marcos Bretón describes as Police Chief Al Nájera's "shining moment" – the militaristic crackdown on peaceful protesters during the June 2003 Bush administration agricultural summit – actually amounted to an outrageous assault on the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly; the worst that I have seen during my decade in Sacramento.
What I saw when I emerged from the Capitol on that day shocked me. Hundreds of police officers in full Robocop gear had corralled a diverse group of Americans, including moms pushing babies in strollers, and refused to let them move freely in Capitol Park, despite the fact that they were doing nothing more threatening than chanting slogans about fair trade.
Why is Bretón, who makes his living from the constitutionally protected printed word, so thrilled that Nájera raised a red banner belonging to protesters and boomed, "We got their flag!"? Would the columnist be as exultant if the police had confiscated The Bee off of local newsstands because Nájera had decided one of the day's columns was politically incorrect? And is our police department so afraid of free speech that its biggest victory comes from confiscating a banner, instead of removing violent criminals from our streets?
- Bill Magavern, Sacramento
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
California Dreaming in the New Hampshire Primary
Not knowing (but suspecting) what may happen in the New Hampshire primary today, here are my musings on the way things are shaping up:
Despite my support for Edwards, it is hard not to get swept up in Obama fever. I suspect that if this is true for someone like me who has followed the elections closely, and educates herself about the candidates, it is doubly true of the average voter.
Watching Obama's victory speech last Thursday in Iowa (Obama, not I, was in Iowa--I try to keep as far away from Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, and Clearlake as possible), I had this strange feeling: pride and a lump in my throat. If I had ever known, I had forgotten what it was like to be truly inspired by a presidential candidate (I was born while JFK was in office and was 7 when Bobby was shot).
That feeling of remembering a forgotten dream is very powerful. I want to be part of history. I want to stand on my feet and vote for change. I want to forget that Obama's sweeping rhetoric seems to mask a haziness about policy details. I want to forget that he has repeatedly voted to fund a war he says he doesn't support. I want to forget that I really know almost nothing about him. That part of his growing appeal is that corporate America is comfortable with him. That he wants the health insurance industry to play a role in ending the health care crisis....whaaaaa?
So I suspect that the people of New Hampshire will do the same. I suspect that Obama fever will/has spread to California. And I wonder what the dream of a new America will bring?
Despite my support for Edwards, it is hard not to get swept up in Obama fever. I suspect that if this is true for someone like me who has followed the elections closely, and educates herself about the candidates, it is doubly true of the average voter.
Watching Obama's victory speech last Thursday in Iowa (Obama, not I, was in Iowa--I try to keep as far away from Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, and Clearlake as possible), I had this strange feeling: pride and a lump in my throat. If I had ever known, I had forgotten what it was like to be truly inspired by a presidential candidate (I was born while JFK was in office and was 7 when Bobby was shot).
That feeling of remembering a forgotten dream is very powerful. I want to be part of history. I want to stand on my feet and vote for change. I want to forget that Obama's sweeping rhetoric seems to mask a haziness about policy details. I want to forget that he has repeatedly voted to fund a war he says he doesn't support. I want to forget that I really know almost nothing about him. That part of his growing appeal is that corporate America is comfortable with him. That he wants the health insurance industry to play a role in ending the health care crisis....whaaaaa?
So I suspect that the people of New Hampshire will do the same. I suspect that Obama fever will/has spread to California. And I wonder what the dream of a new America will bring?
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Juno is Mandatory Viewing
(:)(:)(:)(:) for Juno the sleeper comedy in movie theaters now. I'm a sucker for sweet little films. This movie proves that there are plenty of stories yet to be told and that they are worth telling. It's fresh, it's unpredictable, it's witty and fast-paced. It's funny, it's even sort of romantic without being anything you traditionally associate with a romantic comedy.
Actress Ellen Page is a screen gem: cute, ironic and watchable--impossible, however, for me to separate her from the character she played Juno MacGuff. Note: if you're an over-aged adolescent male like the character played so ably in this film by Jason Bateman, be aware that there are no Juno MacGuff's out there.
Juno is like Rory Gilmore on crack. In the real world of 2008, there are no 16 year old girls that are drop dead gorgeous, brilliant, wise-cracking with cultural references exclusively from the late 70's (15 years before they were born). This does not exist, we only wish it would.
We also wish director Jason Reitman (Thank you for Smoking) and his ilk would get more sweet smart little films like this made.
Actress Ellen Page is a screen gem: cute, ironic and watchable--impossible, however, for me to separate her from the character she played Juno MacGuff. Note: if you're an over-aged adolescent male like the character played so ably in this film by Jason Bateman, be aware that there are no Juno MacGuff's out there.
Juno is like Rory Gilmore on crack. In the real world of 2008, there are no 16 year old girls that are drop dead gorgeous, brilliant, wise-cracking with cultural references exclusively from the late 70's (15 years before they were born). This does not exist, we only wish it would.
We also wish director Jason Reitman (Thank you for Smoking) and his ilk would get more sweet smart little films like this made.