Notes from the Blue Bear Republic

Nihilism for the Masses

For another progressive alternative for governor:

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A227292

posted by Terry Preston @ 5:20 PM 2 comments

Prop 90: Eminent Domain Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

There's a whole host of state propositions coming up in the November statewide race which may make the governor's race just one of the horses to watch.

We can count on at least one Trojan horse in all this. In November 2005 it was Prop 73, which aimed to limit young womens' access to abortion with a poison pill outlawing choice entirely should Roe v. Wade get overturned.

This time, to start, it's Prop 90, which argues that it's responding to the worries over the extensive use of eminent domain in the wake of a recent controversial US Supreme Court ruling on the issue. The court held that it was constitutionally permissable to seize land for private development as well as traditional "public" use such as schools and roads.

It would actually make it financially impossible for local government to use eminent domain at all. I can't explain it any better than a coalition of business, labor, environment groups who have come together to oppose it.

Read what they've got to say right here.

posted by Terry Preston @ 5:54 PM 2 comments

Prop 36: Under Fire or Given New Life?

The following is excerpted from a message send by Elizabeth Sholes of California Church IMPACT: http://www.calchurches.org

The issue is a bill written by Senator Ducheny, a San Diego Democrat, which provides more funding and authority for courts to impose a broader range of incarceration options for drug offenders, arguably violating the spirit if not the law of Proposition 36. Supporters claim that the measure reflects growing evidence that a strong stick makes the carrot of drug treatment more effective for drug offenders.

This is an interesting issue for progressives. Like most liberally-inclided folks, I want drug offenses to be treated as health problems, not criminal offenses. But my own observation of drug offenders and studies of the state's drug courts seems to find that many offenders need a club held over their heads to get in, stay in and get through effective drug treatment. I don't want to return to the "stick only" option but adding some more and tougher suasion might not be a bad idea.

-------------------------------------

Dear Friends:

ISSUE: SB 1137 (Ducheny-San Diego) has passed both houses cutting
funding for Proposition 36 offering drug treatment instead of jail
time.

Religious Leaders Endorse Petition to Protect Landmark Drug Treatment Law
Elected Officials Ignore Prison Crisis, Scrap Country’s Most Effective
Prison Diversion Program. Clergy Announce An Immediate Backlash.

Contact: Anthony Marsh (213) 989-1630

Over 50 religious leaders throughout Southern California joined Progressive Christians Uniting in urging Governor Schwarnzenegger to protect the landmark drug treatment law known as Proposition 36.

Clergy representing Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino and surrounding regions have endorsed a petition asking the Governor to veto a bill which would unconstitutionally alter the program designed to provide drug treatment rather incarceration to nonviolent substance abuse offenders.

Six years ago, over 60 percent of California voters overwhelmingly passed the drug treatment initiative Proposition 36. Now it is in jeopardy of being changed. "Changing a voter approved ballot initiative is not only unconstitutional," says Progressive Christians Uniting Executive Director Rev. Peter Laarman, "but it is morally unconscionable. The law is successfully saving lives and repairing families."

Since the treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative (Prop. 36) passed, 60,000 people have graduated from Prop. 36 program drug treatment. Far fewer people are in jail or prison for drug use as a result.

A recent study by UCLA researchers showed that taxpayers have also saved over $1.3 billion dollars through prison diversion. In a recent poll, over 70 percent of voters say they would vote for Prop. 36 if it were on the ballot today. Even the legislatures’ own lawyers and the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) have declared that certain provisions of the bill are unconstitutional because they violate the true intent and purpose of Prop. 36.

The bill (SB-1137) proposed by Senator Denise Ducheny of San Diego sits on the desk of the Governor to decide. If he fails to veto the bill, he is likely to see a long and costly legal battle over the constitutionality of the bill. He will certainly see a backlash from religious leaders seeking to help rather punish people for their addictions.

While we ordinarily are very supportive of Senator Ducheny's work, we strongly oppose her efforts in SB 1137. This cutback in Proposition 36 programs is foolish and ultimately damaging to those seeking recovery and re-entering mainstream society. Proposition 36 is a major
contributor to our work on restorative justice and must be preserved.

Please contact Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office to urge a veto.

(The governor signed the bill late today.)

Read the Sacramento Bee's review of the signing. Free registration may be required.

posted by Terry Preston @ 5:39 PM 0 comments

The Case for California Secession

Will Durst says it best:

http://www.alternet.org/story/14531

posted by Terry Preston @ 3:49 PM 0 comments

Go Jerry (McNerney) Go!

Dear Progressive Types:

As you probably know U.S. Congressional candidate Jerry McNerney is working hard to take back the 11th District in California away from Congressman Richard Pombo.

Right this minute, Jerry is facing the most important challenge since his overwhelming primary victory -- the FINAL ROUND of the Democracy for America "Grassroots All-Star" congressional candidate competition.

This is not some irrelevant online poll. It matters. The winner will receive DFA's $100,000 endorsement and DFA will send a fundraising message for that candidate to over 500,000 potential supporters.

On Monday, Jerry was #4 out of 5 finalists in the DFA competition.

On Tuesday, your votes moved Jerry up to #3.

On Wednesday, you helped Jerry take the next big step -- to #2.

Can Jerry make one final leap into first place before Friday at 2 p.m.?

To vote for Jerry McNerney visit http://www.jerrymcnerney.org.

posted by Terry Preston @ 12:39 PM 0 comments

Once More Unto the (Pro-Choice) Breach ...

I told you that Son of Prop. 73 was rolling around again. You read it here first, folks.

I’d like to say that I admire the right wing goofs’ tenacity but it’s really a massive waste of time and resources. One of the most frustrating parts of building the brave new progressive world is fighting these rear guard actions against the dark minions of Fantasy 1955.

I’d think of them are more honest if they weren’t also so dead set against contraception. You hear ‘em talk about how trying to prevent pregnancy even –within- marriage is “anti-life’ and leads right down that slippery slope toward Baby Killing. The fact that how when and why people, even just heterosexual people, choose to couple is a pretty personal decision goes right them. For this crowd, the only personal decision allowed is where you’re going to pray on Sunday.

So I’ll give my time, money and bile to the cause to hopefully drive them back underground for good, or at least a long time.

I mean, what are they doing here anyway? Don’t they know that Alabama is still in the Union and it’s cheaper to live there anyway?

posted by Terry Preston @ 5:03 PM 0 comments

Fixing the Electoral College State by State

There’s an interesting idea afoot in the California and other state legislatures. The goal, proposed by Tom Umberg’s (D-Santa Ana) Assembly Bill 2948, is to have participating states direct their Electoral College votes to support the winner of the popular vote for president. (Read the news here.) For example, if George Bush beats John Kerry by three million votes nationwide, all of California’s electors would vote for Bush when they gather in early December.

This seems a little weird at first. But when you look a little deeper you see that it's trying to fix something which needs fixing, by making sure that the popular vote is reflected in the electoral college White House is won by the man or woman who gets the most individual votes, not the most individual states, as is the current practice.

In 2000 we the loser of the popular vote won the election. In 2004 we almost had the loser by several million votes, John Kerry, win if he’d have taken Ohio. Both sides of the aisle are worried about this happening again, and some thoughtful souls are looking for ways to fix the current system without requiring a constitutional amendment which would be almost impossible to pass (as it should be; the Constitution is wisely designed not to be tinkered with easily).

So the reformers are looking at state-by-state reform, because under the current rules every state pretty much selects its electors as it pleases. A compact of the kind under consideration would probably require congressional approval under the Constitution’s Compact Clause but that’s a much lower hurdle than getting three-fifths of the states to approve an amendment.

The goal behind the compact idea is sound. But it’s going about it the wrong way.

Under the current system a presidential candidate only has to bother with the so-called “battleground” states” during the summer and fall. All of the others just stand and watch. Rich states like California are little more than ATM’s for both parties. And why not? Why waste resources on an irrelevant battlefield?

My suggestion is to divide the votes more proportionally within the states, which can be done under current law. States are allowed, under the Constitution, to decide how their votes are apportioned, so there's no constitutional change required. Each individual electoral vote represents a seat in Congress. I suggest tying each vote to how a specific Congressional district votes, with the two Senate seats going to whoever wins statewide. Maine and Nebraska do something like this. This puts most states back into play in presidential elections. Every state has something to offer. California would have the blue counties east and northeast of Sacramento and around parts of the inland to offer the GOP. Texas would have red counties to offer the Democrats. Candidates and national parties would have to see the election map as district-by-congressional district, not just state by state. Every state would be a potential "swing" state, which is the way it should be, and why other states would to want to sign up if we get the ball rolling on this.

My hope is that Umberg’s bill starts a discussion we need to have before the next presidential election rolls around. Unfortunately, history shows that it usually takes a train wreck to move real reform. But we can still try.

posted by Terry Preston @ 4:45 PM 2 comments

Taking Stock of New Bonds

Someone recently asked me about the big bond the Legislature recently agreed on. My response:

---------------------------

It’s not one bond, it’s several.


SB 1266 / SB 86‹ Transportation $18.975 billion
SB 1689 / SB 364 Housing 2.850 billion
AB 127 / SB 79 Education 10.416 billion
AB 140 / SB 87 Flood protection 4.090 billion

Total $36.331 billion


My prognosis:

My own gut instinct says that the Transportation and Flood Protection measures will pass. There's general agreement among enough people that our roads are in terrible condition. The measure will be opposed by transportation alternative advocates but with a simple majority needed the road-loving majority will prevail. As for floods, after Katrina this is almost a slam dunk.

The Education measure is a tossup given recent polling on how voters see education spending, and Housing probably dead on arrival. With home prices skyrocketing even in the inland areas, I feel that voters are going to be less likely to view (in perception) spending tax money to make it easier for someone else to keep a roof over their head.

There are a whole lot of potential measures for the November ballot, everything from eliminating domestic partnership, new taxes to allowing parents to give alcohol to their kids. This June is pretty thin regarding initiatives. There is also talk of the legislature removing a bond for high speed rail up and down the state. Next November is probably going to be a whole lot more interesting.

Here’s the secretary of State’s link to what’s on tap:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General

posted by Terry Preston @ 10:52 AM 0 comments

Leadership

Does this explain a lot of Red State political leadership style?

--------------------------------------------

Questions for Cesar Millan

Leader of the Pack
By DEBORAH SOLOMON - New York Times

Q: As the founder of the Dog Psychology Center in Los Angeles, you claim that Americans are driving their pets to the brink of insanity by smothering them with affection.

The U.S. is a very assertive society with people, but not when it comes to dogs. People are soft and kissy with dogs. That is why dogs take over. All dogs in America are suffering from the same problem — lack of exercise and lack of leadership.

On your television show, "Dog Whisperer," and in your new book, "Cesar's Way," you encourage dog owners to treat their pets with the "calm assertiveness" of a natural pack leader. Why is that state apparently so hard to achieve?

Because Americans are focused on making money. And to make a lot of money, you have to be hyper.

And you believe that we're projecting our own neuroses onto our dogs, even when we leave the house?

If what you do is say, "I'm sorry, baby, Mommy has to go, blah, blah, blah," the dog doesn't understand what you are saying. He only understands that you are in a soft state and he is dominating you.

So what departing words would you prefer we say to a dog?

"Bye, man."

Do you think it is O.K. for a dog to sleep in bed with his owner?

Yes, because a dog pack sleeps together. But the thing is, you have to invite the dog into your bed.

Should a dog be allowed on the living-room couch?

Make sure you invite them. The whole point is that you always remind them who owns the couch. The pack leader reminds them who runs the show.

How do you explain this country's infatuation with dogs? There are some 65,000,000 pet dogs in America.

You know why people like dogs? Because dogs can't talk and say, "You didn't walk me today." Do you realize how many people would be sued by a dog if a dog was capable of suing them?

Your Honor, my owner failed to take me to the park.

Believe me, it would go all the way to the Supreme Court. When a dog barks and destroys the house, it's because his physical body is not being fulfilled. In the natural habitat, a dog migrates constantly. They can cover 90 miles in one day.

Do you find that dogs on the West Coast or in the suburbs get more exercise than New York City dogs, most of whom live in apartments and don't have backyards?

The backyard is not exercise. It doesn't represent freedom. It doesn't represent fun. It doesn't represent balance. The backyard is just going back and forth between walls. People in New York don't have the backyard and are forced to walk the dog more often, which is the best thing that can happen to dogs.

Yet in your book you insist that many Americans and especially New Yorkers don't know how to walk a dog properly.

Every time I go to New York, I see dogs in front of people. Oh, brother. The dog should be behind the person. In the natural dog world, the dog is always behind the pack leader. Pack leaders never, ever tell the dog to go in front.

But what if a person is a schlepper by temperament? Not everyone can be a pack leader.

Not everyone is a pack leader with humans. But anyone can be a pack leader with animals.

On your show, you tend to play up your image as a virile, Mexican-born farm boy in touch with your animal instincts.

This isn't about gender. Look at female elephants. They rule the pack, and they don't act like males.

What do you make of that best-selling book about the dog who misbehaved, "Marley and Me: Life and Love With the World's Worst Dog"?

I didn't read enough of it to say. I didn't find it interesting from a psychological point of view.

You're not actually a psychologist, are you?

No. Not by a school. There is no college that teaches you how to control a pack of dogs.

But how can you justify running a dog-psychology center when your whole approach is based on the idea that we're already too dog-obsessed in this country?

The dog doesn't have to know that. Only the dog owner knows.

posted by Terry Preston @ 9:54 AM 0 comments

Splish, Splash: Senators to the Rescue

In an earlier post I noted that President Bush had turned down Governor Arnold's request to help rebuild and repair California levees.

Fortunately, the federal budget is within the general purvey of the legislature, not the executive. Our blessed Blue State senators Boxer and Feinstein have fought to include $22.3 million in levee work in a proposed supplemental spending bill. Among the projects that would be funded are:

– South Sacramento Streams: a project in southeastern Sacramento County includes building 12 miles of floodwalls and constructing 13 miles of levee improvements. The completed project improvements will provide minimum 100-year protection to over 100,000 residents.

– Sacramento River Bank Protection: a project north of the City of Sacramento provides erosion control bank protection for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees. Almost 200 actively eroding sites on levees banks have been identified, 29 of which are considered to have a high potential for failure during the next high water event.

– American River Common Features: this project includes levee improvements along the lower American River and Sacramento River that, when complete, will protect the 50,000 residents of Rancho Cordova in eastern Sacramento County as well as over 400,000 City of Sacramento residents downstream.

(Information provided by Senator Boxer's office.)

My flood insurance policy thanks them.

posted by Terry Preston @ 5:10 PM 0 comments