The Progressive Connection - Front Page

Progressive Democrats Sweep East Bay Primaries

robert klein — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:28:23 GMT

This year's June primary was one of the most exciting Democratic Party races in recent memory. Despite record-low turnout, every crucial Bay Area race was decided in favor of an experienced, progressive Democrat. With our help, they will lead our state and our country to a landslide victory this November.

For many in the East Bay, AD 14 was the race to watch. A little background: I am proud to have been one of Councilman Thurmond's early supporters. Tony is a real hero to me, and he ran a solid race. He received the endorsements of every newspaper in the district, but given the role of mail-in ballots and unprecedented low turnout, they came too late to make much of a difference. But I sincerely thank him for running, as well as all of you that worked to help get him elected. I hope we'll be seeing more of Tony Thurmond in the future.

Our future Assemblywoman from the 14th, Nancy Skinner, received over 51% of the vote, a truly remarkable feat in a four-way race. As anyone who has met her can attest, she is an incredibly sharp woman with a real grasp on the issues facing California. In particular, she has years of experience on environmental issues that are close to the hearts of East Bay voters. Once again, our district will have another true progressive representing us in Sacramento. I am sure Nancy Skinner will make all of us proud here in the 14th AD.
West of the hills, our current Assemblywoman Loni Hancock won the political fight of a lifetime, and by a very solid margin. She will be taking over the seat formerly held by Senate Speaker Pro Tem Don Perata, representing a district that runs from Oakland to West County. I will miss having Loni as my voice in Sacramento. But what's even more important is that she will serve in the capitol for eight more years, fighting for Clean Money (public financing of elections) and single-payer healthcare. Thanks to her tireless efforts, I think that when her two terms are up, these crucial reforms will be put into practice. Our state will be a better place because of it.

Across the bay in San Francisco and Marin, one of the state's most remarkable Democrats, Mark Leno, will also be moving on to the State Senate. Both Mark and Loni faced tough primaries against opponents who weren't afraid to play dirty, and they were both targeted by "independent expenditures" (special interest money, in this case) to try and prevent them from continuing their careers. They won anyway, with solid support from their constituents.

The Senator-to-be for nearly all of Contra Costa County, Mark DeSaulnier (SD 7) didn't have opposition on the primary ballot. But that is only because he had such widespread support that his opponent backed out early, despite having amassed a sizable war chest. If these three new Bay Area Senatorial nominees are any indication of how things have turned out statewide, I can't help but believe the next State Senate may yet be something for California residents to look forward to.

Speaking of the State Senate, longtime Senator Tom Torlakson was termed-out of that house and will be serving a final term in the Assembly from AD 11. But this is in preparation for his long-awaited jump to statewide politics in 2010, when he will make a run for State Superintendent of Education. They say "once a teacher, always a teacher." I already have my apple and pencil emblazoned campaign swag.

In AD 15, Joan Buchanan easily fought off a corporate Democrat challenger, and will be facing a "moderate" Republican (and we all know what that really means) in November. She's going to need our help, and the timing of this race means that it has a crucial statewide importance beyond the mere fact that her district would shift from Republican to Democratic control.

Since redistricting occurs every decade, it means that if she were to be re-elected, Democrats will have one more district in their tally going into the upcoming redistricting season. For better or worse, and even if a reform of this process takes hold, for any redistricting plan to be considered legitimate it will need to essentially preserve the current statewide partisan breakdown ("current" as of 2011). In other words, the results of this election may shape the composition of the California legislature for the next decade or so. The same goes for Jerry McNerney (CD 11) in Congress.

And in the most exciting victory of the night, with the conclusion of the primary season Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for President. Democrats' greatest challenge in recent elections has been our ability to effectively communicate our message to all Americans. Barack Obama is a candidate who can communicate not just to Democrats, but to independents and even many Republicans who are unenthused by McCain. It is up to us as Democrats and progressive activists to makes sure Americans get out to vote.

This November, we will all work hard for our Presidential nominee, but we must remember that he will need the support of Congress and the states to implement the change our country so desperately needs. Don't let anyone tell you that it's not worth working in California and that you have to drive to a "swing state" to make a difference. We must pound the pavement to elect Barack Obama, Joan Buchanan and Jerry McNerney in November. And that's the most important thing any of us in the East Bay can do to bring about the change promised in the Presidential campaign.

This has been a great primary for Democrats. It has never been a better time to be part of what Governor Howard Dean once called the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

Robert T. Klein
14 AD Elected Delegate, California Democratic Party State Central Committee
UC Berkeley Student, Class of '09

Science Debate 2008

delta — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:10:18 GMT

I have asked my Congressman, Jerry McNerney, to sign on as supporting A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology.

Taking from the "sponsors" web page, the following rationale:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy. Science Debate 2008.

More on the flip...
So far, 3 university presidents have endorsed this effort (Washington, Princeton, Duke) as well as 13 Nobel Laureates and 8 Congress Critters of both parties.

Unfortunately, the only California Congressman to do so has been Sam Farr.

If we are going to have any technological solution to the problems that face us, we need leadership that knows what science is all about, that understands what it can do and, of equal importance, what it can not do. McNerney has that knowledge, if he has the will to use it.

As for others... it is an open question. I would not hold Pelosi's support of a renewable fuel standard in the recent energy bill as being based on science. It was more than likely based on being able to pick up a few Democratic votes in the traditionally red states.

850 Acres And A Pony -- Revisited

babaloo — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:43:27 GMT

Early last month, I wrote a post about Rep. Jerry McNerney's most recent bill, H.R. 4042, which he announced as a first step to permanent repeal of the estate tax. Introducing his legislation to the local media, McNerney used a SF Public Utilities Commission employee and part-time rancher, Tim Koopman, as his front-man. Telling the tragic tale of how his family was forced to pay estate taxes on his inherited 850-acre ranch in Sunol, Koopman seemed the perfect pitchman.

The post I wrote, "850 Acres Are A Girl's Best Friend," explored the effect of McNerney's proposal to raise the estate tax exemption for farms and small businesses to $8 million ($16 million per couple) and $2 million ($4 million per couple) for family homes.

Well, I just received an email response to that post from none other than Mr. Tim Koopman:

The opinions and views expressed by a variety of writers participating in the discussion about Congressman McNerneys proposed Federal Estate Tax bill appear to be based upon a load of misinformation and distorted facts. It does not appear that anyone responsible for the content of the initial rant bothered to confirm anything.
If you have any interest in getting some background - please give me a call (925) xxx-xxxx.
I am in fact registered to vote in Alameda County
The final "death tax" total for the Koopmann family, including state in lieu taxes, Federal Estate Tax and capital gain taxes was $747,000 +.
I live in a 1983 model mobile home - not a "median priced house/condo valued at $978,000"
I don't play, and have never played golf
We don't have show horses (little girl's show ponies) for recreational purposes
My question to Alameda County about subdivision/re-zoning for the possible sale of a portion of the ranch was only an attempt to pay off the debt
Your comments were mean spirited and ill advised -
We do have 850 acres of well managed rangeland, that is utilized to graze livestock and provides valuable wildlife habitat and viewshed/open space.
Call me - I welcome a visit so that you at least have some understanding of the issues from my side, or maybe you are not interested in facts
Tim Koopmann

Oh, my. More on the flip...
Where to start...

Well, the first thing that I noticed was that Mr. Koopmann spells his name with an extra "N" at the end. You see, silly me, I had been working off of two press releases issued by Congressman McNerney's office. The first one, back in April, announced the appointment of "Tim Koopman" to McNerney's Agriculture Advisory Board. The second press release, in conjunction with H.R. 4042, introduced "Tim Koopman" as the human face for McNerney's estate tax shenanigans. I googled "Tim Koopman" and came up with lots of material. So yes (here's the mea culpa), I took it on faith that the guy's name was "Tim Koopman." In my defense, however, so did Lisa Vorderbrueggen.

With that intro, onward to Mr. Koopmann's concerns:

The opinions and views expressed by a variety of writers participating in the discussion about Congressman McNerneys proposed Federal Estate Tax bill appear to be based upon a load of misinformation and distorted facts. It does not appear that anyone responsible for the content of the initial rant bothered to confirm anything. [...]
I am in fact registered to vote in Alameda County

Well, back in November, I called the Alameda Registrar of Voters to check on the voter registration of Tim or Timothy "Koopman," with one "N." They told me that no one by that name was registered. I believe them. Now, I haven't had time to call them back and check out the new spelling, but I'm willing to accept at face value Mr. Koopmann's assertion that with the addition of an extra "N," he is registered to vote in Alameda County. But did you notice that he doesn't say how he's registered to vote in Alameda County? Gee, do you think it might have anything to do with his pattern of political contributions?

Contributor	Date	Amount	Recipient
Tim Koopmann	5/10/02	$250	NRCC
Tim Koopmann	6/19/02	$250	NRCC
Tim Koopmann	3/17/03	$250	NRCC
Tim Koopmann	11/22/02	$200	NRCC
Tim Koopmann	8/9/04	$500	Bill Jones [Barbara Boxer's 2004 Republican opponent]
Tim Koopmann	12/22/03	$500	RNC
Tim Koopmann	12/22/05	$500	RNC
Tim Koopmann	2/10/06	$500	RNC
Tim Koopmann	11/1/02	$250	NRCC
Tim Koopmann	5/30/06	$200	RNC
Tim Koopmann	7/7/06	$200	RNC

And they only list $500 of the $1,060 he donated to the RNC in 2004.

But let's address some of Mr. Koopmann's other assertions:

The final "death tax" total for the Koopmann family, including state in lieu taxes, Federal Estate Tax and capital gain taxes was $747,000 +.

Nice Republican framing -- oh, oops, never mind. Quite frankly, I never said that the total tax settlement wasn't $747,000+. What I did note was that Mr. Koopmann's story seemed to change each time he told it:

When Koopman initially told his story to the Heritage Foundation about inheriting his parents' ranch, he put his estate tax liability at $400,000, as you see above.
By 2004, when he was interviewed by Range Magazine, the amount he quoted had grown to "over half a million dollars" in estate taxes that had to be paid.
But by yesterday's conference call, Koopman was claiming the taxes were $750,000, nearly double the amount that he first reported.
Sounds like Koopman subscribes to Grandma Pombo's strategy:
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I guess it is terribly rude to point out that three different reporters were given three different numbers and that those numbers seemed to increase over time. But unless and until Mr. Koopmann is willing to produce actual tax records for documentation, it's his word against -- um, his other word.

Next on Mr. Koopmann's list of grievances?

I live in a 1983 model mobile home - not a "median priced house/condo valued at $978,000"
I don't play, and have never played golf
I don't have a period on my keyboard

Oh, wait, I made up that last one. Sorry, I can't help it. The holidays just bring out my mean-spiritedness.

But seriously, in my post I tried to give readers who are not familiar with Sunol a little bit of the flavor of this ultra-wealthy enclave in the Bay Area suburbs. And what I stated specifically were demographic facts -- that's all:

[A]ccording to the 2000 census, Sunol has a population of 1,332 people, 483 households, and 368 families. It is 85% white, and the median income for a family in 2000 was $96,121. Not a single family in Sunol lives below the poverty line. The estimated median house/condo value in 2005 was $978,900. Sunol also has a lovely golf course.

I also briefly toyed with mentioning that Sunol elected a Labrador retriever as its mayor in 1983. The pooch ran as a member of the Puplican Party, on a platform of "a bone in every dish, a cat in every tree, and many more fire hydrants." He served as mayor for eleven years.

Wait -- hold on, Mr. Koopmann! I'm NOT calling you a dog. Settle down.

We don't have show horses (little girl's show ponies) for recreational purposes

Well, once again, Mr. Koopmann, it's not always all about you.

I posted a photograph of an 85-acre farm that raises and trains show horses, one of several horse farms in Sunol that do NOT belong to Koopmann, and talked about the estate tax liability THAT farm would face without McNerney's giveaway tax breaks (it would be zero). But I can understand why a tough rancher like Koopmann would be so offended by any implication that his family's horses are "little girl's show ponies." So let me issue a clarification: the Koopmann family does not have sissy little-girl show horses. They only have manly show horses that compete in rugged events like team penning.

Then there's the matter of subdividing agricultural property such as Mr. Koopmann's:

My question to Alameda County about subdivision/re-zoning for the possible sale of a portion of the ranch was only an attempt to pay off the debt

Well, I never ascribed motive to Koopmann's attempts to sell a portion of his ranch. Here's what I said:

McNerney claims that his estate tax legislation is necessary for environmental reasons, that if the heirs of farmers and ranchers are unable to afford to pay estate taxes, they will be forced to sell to developers. That, in turn, will lead to depredation of open space, and critical species habitat will be lost to development.
But McNerney, either willfully or out of ignorance, has failed to take into account that counties have powerful land planning tools at their disposal. In the specific case of Tim Koopman, which McNerney cited today, Koopman's Sunol ranch is governed by Alameda County agricultural zoning regulations:
Agricultural districts, hereinafter designated as A districts, are established to promote implementation of general plan land use proposals for agricultural and other nonurban uses, to conserve and protect existing agricultural uses, and to provide space for and encourage such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare.

According to Koopman, he has actually tried in the past to subdivide his property into five-acre ranchettes, and Alameda County refused his application. Why? His property is zoned A-100, which means that it is zoned agricultural (see the above quote) and may not be broken into parcels smaller than 100 acres. Koopman, therefore could only subdivide his ranch into eight parcels at a maximum, and each one of those parcels would be allowed one main house and one smaller guest house.
So McNerney's proposed legislation has very little to do with promoting open space, preserving critical species habitat, or saving the environment. On the other hand, it has everything to do with saving a handful of wealthy landowners from paying taxes on their windfall gains.

Koopmann's reasons for trying to subdivide his property are his own and aren't actually relevant to the issue I was trying to discuss. The point is simply that McNerney presented H.R. 4042 as an environmental bill that would prevent farmland from being turned into housing developments. Regardless of Koopmann's rationale for trying to break his property into five-acre ranchettes, the fact remains that local zoning laws are more than adequate to protect open space and wildlife habitat, as his own experience so richly demonstrated.

And finally...

Your comments were mean spirited and ill advised -

Heh.

Please Call DiFi On FISA

babaloo — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:38 GMT

I'm guessing that many of you have seen the video put out by Courage Campaign on Dianne Feinstein and the FISA bill being considered in the Senate.

There has been a flurry of activity today centering around which one of the many versions of the bill that were passed out of committee would be brought to the floor. Now comes word from Sen. Russ Feingold that he and 13 other Senators are urging Majority Leader Reid to take up the Judiciary Committee's version of the FISA legislation. You can read a copy of their letter here.

The letter to Reid was signed by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Barack Obama (D-IL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Joe Biden (D-DE), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

So please call Dianne Feinstein today and urge her to support Title I of the version of S. 2248 reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Dianne Feinstein
202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)
415-393-0707 (San Francisco)
559-485-7430 (Fresno)

See some individual statements from the Senators signing onto the letter on the flip...
Russ Feingold:

The Judiciary Committee FISA bill fixes many of the flaws of the surveillance law we enacted in August and the new bill approved by the Intelligence Committee. Everyone agrees that we should give our intelligence officials the tools they need to go after suspected terrorists. There's no reason we can't do that while still protecting the privacy of innocent Americans and ensuring adequate oversight of these broad new surveillance authorities -- and without setting the dangerous precedent of granting retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an unlawful program.

Chris Dodd:

I strongly urge the Majority Leader to take up the Judiciary Committee's version of the FISA legislation. It is absolutely essential that as the Senate begins debating reforms to FISA we do not include retroactive immunity provisions for telecommunications companies that may have engaged in illegal conduct. Additionally, the Judiciary Committee's version of the FISA legislation contains much stronger safeguards which will serve to protect Americans against the President's warantless wiretapping program.

Barack Obama:

The Judiciary Committee bill restores oversight and accountability to the FISA program without unnecessarily providing retroactive immunity to companies that cooperated with the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It is my hope that this bill will be considered by the full Senate.

Bernie Sanders:

Of course we have to do everything we can to protect the American people, but we must fight international terrorism in a way that is consistent with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jim Webb:

I believe that the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee strikes the healthiest balance between protecting our national security interests and safeguarding the basic civil and constitutional rights of American citizens. The Judiciary Committee bill also remains silent on immunity for the telecommunications companies, which is appropriate. If there is a compelling case for immunity, Senators supporting it will have the opportunity to make their case on the Senate floor.

Ted Kennedy:

Congress must enact a FISA bill that will produce needed intelligence, protect the privacy of Americans and respect the rule of law. The bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee does those things without undermining the structure of FISA and the rule of law by giving retroactive immunity to phone companies that may have illegally invaded the privacy of millions of Americans.

Dianne Feinstein
202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)
415-393-0707 (San Francisco)
559-485-7430 (Fresno)

Would Ellen Tauscher Lie To Us?

babaloo — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:32:16 GMT

MoveOn just sent out an email to its members asking them to lobby their Congressional representatives on the upcoming (maybe today, maybe tomorrow?) House vote on Iraq appropriations:

According to the Washington Post, Democrats have apparently worked out a "deal" to give President Bush billions of dollars more for Iraq -- no strings attached -- in exchange for increased domestic spending.

The WaPo article details how the leadership (Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid in this case -- Nancy Pelosi seems to be noncommittal at this point) has decided that Democrats must "compromise" with Bush on Iraq in order to gain an additional $11 billion for domestic spending on items such as emergency drought relief in the southeast and the subprime mortgage crisis.

Apparently lost on these master tacticians is the fact that Bush has adamantly stated he will veto any domestic spending appropriations over and above what he has requested. But Hoyer, in demonstrating Democrats' willingness to yield to Bush, has already given away the store. The same article quotes House Minority Whip Roy Blunt: (emphasis added)

Blunt said yesterday that Democrats will give in on war funding, with or without additional money for domestic programs. "There's no reason to make a bad bargain," he said. "The president holds all the cards."

Of course, the president doesn't hold all the cards. He simply holds all the backbone.

More on the flip...
Congress has the ability to refuse to fund Bush's Iraq debacle, and, in fact, the Progressive Caucus sent a letter back in July, which was signed by 70 members of Congress (in September, they updated the letter, which was subsequently signed by 90 Representatives) which stated that these members of Congress would not support any funding for Iraq unless those appropriations specifically were directed to redeploying our troops home.

Dear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

But, getting back to reality, MoveOn's email today went on to talk about why Democrats are once again preparing to fold on Iraq and what we can do about it:

Why is this happening again? When Democrats get tough with the president on Iraq he usually accuses them of hurting the troops. This time, he has been threatening to lay off military personnel and blame the Democrats. Once again, Democrats got nervous and backed down.
Yes, Bush is a bully. But Democrats can stand up to him. They need to know that voters are counting on them to confront the president's scare tactics head on.
Here's how the New York Times explained their latest "compromise":
The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy. But Democratic leaders now say they have concluded that a logjam of 11 appropriations bills cannot be broken without acceding to at least some of the president's demand for more war money.

What we need to make clear to them is that you can't cut deals when it comes to war. There is no trade-off between getting our troops out of a religious civil war in Iraq and making progress on priorities here at home.
Democrats need to stand up and say that it's the president who is hurting our troops. He has them bogged down in an un-winnable civil war, with no end in sight. When he refuses to sign war funding bills that contain measures that would correct his reckless policy, he is the one who is keeping our troops and the Iraqis at risk.

What is most interesting to me about this email is that MoveOn is targeting Ellen Tauscher and asking her constitiuents to lobby her by phone today. Now, Ellen Tauscher is one of the original signatories to the Progressive Caucus's July letter and also signed the September letter. So I'm not quite sure why a lobbying effort targeting her would be necessary - unless (oh, my God, say it isn't so) she plans to renege on her promise to the American people.

Every Democrat in Congress needs to hear a groundswell of concern from their constituents. Can you call Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher right away and tell her to oppose any deal that does not include a firm timeline to end the war? Tell her that voters are counting on Congress to keep their word and stand up to the president-not capitulate, again.
Here's where to call:
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
Phone: 202-225-1880

Whose future are they playing with?

delta — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:36:14 GMT

I have not contributed much recently. That may be because I have not been pissed off enough to go on a rant. That has changed, thanks to some good reporting by Media News Group's Mike Taugher.

Customers of one of the state's largest water delivery systems secretly commissioned a study last year to estimate how much it would cost to build a highly controversial peripheral canal to deliver water around the Delta.
The $50,000 study, completed in August 2006, shows that contractors of the State Water Project were actively considering a new canal similar to the aqueduct voters killed in 1982.
The report, obtained under the California Public Records Act, estimates it would cost from $3.3 billion to $3.7 billion in 2006 dollars to build an unlined, 46-mile canal.

We have had, since late September, a special session of the State Legislature that was supposed to coming up with a plan, and the funding, to deal with the many problems of California's water woes.

As is typical with Sacramento, there has been a superabundance of political rhetoric and a surfeit of action. There has also been very little in major media of what I would call responsible journalism. The number of reporters / writers with both the interest and the knowledge to handle this story is smaller every year. Right now, it is concentrated mostly in the Media News Group (Taugher and Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury news) or in the Stockton Record (Hank Shaw and columnist Mike Fitzgerald).

Senior reporters from other media, who might have had the background to separate fact from spin on water issues, have either retired or gone to work for the Water Districts, where you know that there job will be to create more spin.

The legislative battle between State Senate President Don Perata (Oakland) and Republican Assumbly Leader Mike Villenes (Fresno)is more a partisan power struggle than a search for solutions that work for California. The Republicans make a lot of noise about new water storage.

"California has spent billions of dollars on studies, bureaucracy and environmental projects with very little to show for our investment, and today we're paying the price for ignoring the critical need to build more water storage," said Villines. "Planning responsibly for our water future requires building new reservoirs and more water storage to satisfy the water needs of our rapidly growing state. Californians should settle for nothing less in the special session."

Perata is not much better.

But we cannot give up. The stakes are too high. There's real potential for an agreement - and the need to help California conserve this precious resource remains urgent. To help foster good-faith discussions, I will forgo circulating my Safe Drinking Water Act initiative for the time being.

So, if the Water Districts are playing games and hiding information, if legislature is turning our future into a turf war, if the media is mostly not fulfilling its dute, where do we turn to get the information, the guidance to make informed decisions?

One place is the blog Aquafornia where the aquablogmaven has, by compiling a comprehensive archive of recent water related news itesm, created a resource where you at least get all sides of the truth. The other is from Restore the Delta. They have put together an organization of environmentalists AND farmers, suburbanites AND Chambers of Commerce, all focused on getting a solution that solves multiple problems, not just one that ships more water south.

Take heed folks. While we are sleeping off our Christmas dinner, Sacramento will be meeting behind closed doors, brains befogged from a Schwarzenegger cigar, and dealing away our future.

Fred Klaske (Gibberish Edition)

babaloo — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:17:26 GMT

In AD-15 news, the latest Fred Klaske email came out Friday, and aside from the big bombshell that he's dropping $100,000 of his own money into his race, it was vintage Klaske -- that is to say, mostly indecipherable:

More on the flip...
I hate to say it, but Fred Klaske has turned from cartoonish to vaguely scary. There was a threatening tone to his latest message that was just a wee bit unsettling. On Pearl Harbor Day, he took note of the shared sacrifice of Americans during WWII.

He started out as Dopey Ol' Fred with really bad syntax:

I'm doing what I can -- running for public office at a time when I could be out pursuing any number of far more lucrative opportunities in the field of renewable energy and fuels -- and I'm putting an extensive amount of my own money ($100,000+) on the line for this campaign.
I'm also in the thick of interviews with various political action committees and interest groups -- the latest being the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) and the California Teachers Association (CTA) -- with my having just completed a questionnaire and interview with the California Nurses Association (CNA).
The prospects for my getting the endorsement of most, if not all of those groups is good, but not guaranteed, and I do not take for one moment their endorsement for granted -- I intend to work tirelessly for their support. But my own money and my own hard work (18 hour days, 7 days a week) will not be enough - - and show those interest groups you want ME to be their choice to take on the Republican candidate in the fall of 2008 for this intensely swing seat - - this very weak Republican Assembly District seat.

Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. What the hell kind of sentence is this: "But my own money and my own hard work (18 hour days, 7 days a week) will not be enough - - and show those interest groups you want ME to be their choice to take on the Republican candidate in the fall of 2008 for this intensely swing seat - - this very weak Republican Assembly District seat"?

That girl talking about the airplane makes about as much sense, and she's a LOT prettier.

But after announcing that he was personally putting $100,000 into the race, Klaske took a sharp turn towards the dark side:

I don't expect you to give what I'm giving -- but I do expect you to give, to care, to help, to join me and MAKE HOPE HAPPEN. Your donation online right now, or a "yes, I'll give you a check" when you get a personal call from me, is not only greatly appreciated -- it will help avoiding your having to hear this question: "Dad, mom -- why didn't YOU stop this from happening to MY planet when YOU had the chance?"
That may seem dramatic to some of you, and it may seem harsh -- but I've seen the data and I know how to read technical trends -- and what I see is NOT pretty, and you need to be told what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. I need to get in there and roll up my sleeves and join the fight -- and I need YOU to help me open that door with a donation TODAY. Tomorrow will not be soon enough -- I need you to act TODAY. [bold added]

Give, damnit! I want to you give. Right now! Don't ask any of your stupid questions. I will tell you what you need to know. Just give me your money. And hurry! I don't have all day.

Sheesh. Dumbasses...

McNerney On Iraq: "There's Certainly Some Concern Still, But..."

babaloo — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:10:25 GMT

Well, NPR did a piece yesterday about how Iraq is fading as an issue in 2008.

The reported decrease in violence in Baghdad may be having an effect on politics at home. Some reports have shown that Iraq has become less of an issue in the presidential campaign.
Congressional representatives say concerns about Iraq remain, but the war is not the only top-tier issue among voters. Many have turned their focus to domestic issues such as health care, energy, the mortgage crisis and immigration.

The NPR story then went on to cite an interview with the Congressman from Stockton to support that thesis.

You can read a transcript of the interview on the flip...

Democrat Jerry McNerney is a first-term Congressman from California's San Joaquin Valley. His election last year was considered an upset. He rode a wave of anti-war sentiment and defeated a long-time Republican incumbent who supported the war. Jerry McNerney spoke to our colleague, Madeline Brand:
Q. Congressman, when I interviewed you during the campaign last year, the war was the biggest issue for voters. Here's a bit of what you told me then about Iraq and why you thought we should be pulling our troops out:
"We need to be realistic about getting out of Iraq because the longer we stay there, the more unstable it becomes. So we are going to have to be firm and pull out."

That was more than a year ago. What are you hearing from voters in your district these days about the war?
A. Well, there's certainly some concern still, but a lot of it has to do with the way we're treating our veterans. And it is a top-tier issue, but it's not the only issue up there any more. There's a lot of other issues that are competing with Iraq in Americans' minds.
Q. And what are those issues?
A. Well, I'd say energy is certainly a big issue. Immigration is an issue. Health care is an issue. Foreclosures and the general economic concerns are also issues.
Q. And foreclosures -- I understand that parts of your district have some of the highest rates of foreclosures in the nation.
A. That's right. Stockton is among -- if it's not the highest, it's among the highest foreclosure rate anywhere in the country. This last week, in fact, we had a foreclosure workshop. Five hundred people showed up for it, trying to find solutions for their concerns and problems.
Q. Now, it has been said by political pundits that Iraq had been a good issue for Democrats because this was an issue that the American people were on their side; they were not in favor of the Iraq war. So how is it, campaigning and hoping for re-election -- how is it -- how have you had to retool the way you campaign?
A. I haven't really had to at all, Madeline. What I'm doing is going out into my district, meeting with people. I've had 25 of our so-called Congress at Your Corners, where I've met people in grocery stores and bookstores and coffee shops. I want to understand what people are thinking, what they want, what their needs are. So I haven't really been running on the Iraq war or I haven't been making that a top issue. It's more about the veterans at this point.
Q. The veterans in your district?
A. The veterans in the district, of course, and the veterans -- you know, I'm on the Veterans Committee, so I can have some influence on what benefits are going to be made available to these veterans in the coming years.
Q. Aside from foreclosures, what are some of the other economic issues you're hearing from voters: concerns, and, in general, what are some other issues that voters are concerned about?
A. Well, you know, gas prices are a concern. But really, what I'm hearing more about is health care, and that's an economic concern; people are very concerned about being able to afford health care, about how expensive insurance is these days. It's a big issue and a lot of concern there. Immigration, another issue. Energy, overall, our dependence on importing oil from overseas, global warming. So there's a lot of issues that are sort of taking the front line here along with Iraq.
Q. Do you think that these issues are getting enough attention nationally as we focus on the presidential race?
A. I think so.
Q. And have you endorsed any Democratic presidential candidate?
A. No, I haven't, Madeline. I think all the Democrats out there are very qualified and would make very good presidents, and I'm going to hold back on that one for now.
Q. Well, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Democrat from Stockton, California, thanks for joining us.
A. Thanks, Madeline. I appreciate the chance to talk to you again.

Eine Kleine Politischmusik

babaloo — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:40:45 GMT

I just received a link to an interesting MySpace site run by a musician who performs under the name Max and the Marginalized. I'll let him describe his work:

This is Max and the Marginalized. It's pretty simple really. There is a horrible shortage of relevant and meaningful political music in a time when we need it more than ever. I write and record (with full instrumentation!) a new song every week that stays firmly in this realm. I hope it means something to somebody and that it makes you dance and think at the same time now and then.

True to his word, Max has been putting up a new song every Thursday for the last nine weeks. They're all pretty interesting, but the one he put up on Nov. 15 really struck a chord with me. I bet you'll understand why. Here are the lyrics:

Banner Year
365 days ago I stayed awake 'til four
Watching the numbers come up from under and give us control of the floor
But if I'd seen it all in a crystal ball I'd have thrown it through the TV
Standing your ground with a spine no thicker than the margin of victory
By degrees you diminished our demand
Swearing to hold them accountable, instead you held their hand
It's been a banner year
So blow the candles out and wish for your convictions that have long since disappeared
And only then might we remember exactly why it is that we brought you here
It's been a banner year
What took place in the next 60 days, I can't quite ascertain
By the time I'd awoken the people had spoken but your ears got messed up on the plane
Up 'til that night you promised a fight, so why'd we acquiesce?
In South Dakota, a man in a coma, well he hardly did much less
Let's address the matter of the vote you took last week
I don't assume wiggle room with those kinds of techniques
It's been a banner year
So blow the candles out and wish for your convictions that have long since disappeared
And only then might we remember exactly why it is that we brought you here
It's been a banner year
Reaching a hand across the divide is not what this is about
No one asked for a compromise, we asked you to get us out
And 365 days from now I'll be watching up 'til the end
And if we give just a little and shoot for the middle then we'll miss the mark again
It's been a banner year
So blow the candles out and wish for your convictions that have long since disappeared
And only then might we remember exactly why it is that we brought you here
It's been a banner year

You can give it a listen over at his site: Max and the Marginalized.

"Illegals" In America -- Read It

babaloo — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:58:20 GMT

In an absolutely brilliant essay entitled "Illegals" in America, New Mexico writer Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez (author of The Dirty Girls Social Club) explains how the current Republican anti-immigrant posturing is not only dangerous to ALL Latina/os but to our democracy as a whole. I'm going to quote far more than I usually would because I think it's so important that her message be heard far and wide. However, there is much more of the post at her blog, and I strongly encourage you to go on over and read the whole thing.

Last night, I watched (in high definition, God help me) the Republican presidential candidates flog immigrants some more, with smug little Mitt Romney (best hair of the bunch, worst soul) stating that undocumented children should have no rights to an American education. He was cheered. WTF? He neglected to mention that the parents of those children pay property taxes in their rent money each and every month, and that those property taxes pay for schools. He forgot to mention that those parents, like everyone else, also pay income tax.
It's all fine and good to be a New Mexican Hispano (or Texican, or whatever) opposed to "illegal" immigrants, but there's just one little problem. Listen carefully to what I'm about to tell you: Hate crimes against ALL Hispanics are on the rise as a result of the media's irresponsible assault on (primarily) Mexican immigrants. According to the Anti-Defamation League, hate crimes against Hispanics rose by a stunning 10 percent from 2005 to 2006. Experts attribute this steep climb primarily to right-wing talk radio and cable news shows that blame "illegals" for the economic woes in America.
To the skinhead or white supremacist, there is no difference between a Hispano New Mexican whose family came with a land grant from the King of Spain and a farmer newly arrived to Santa Ana, Calif. from Puebla, Mexico. To them, a Rodriguez is a Rodriguez, and all of us are to blame for the astronomical rise in poverty, loss of health care, failing education and crashing economy in America, under George W. Bush.
Of course, it simply is not true that immigrants are to blame for these complex social and economic ills. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, funded not through tax increases like every other war in our nation's history, but rather through loans into the trillions from China, is largely to blame. But in the war of words, the right-wing is winning, thanks in large part to corporate media ownership.
When you drive from Albuquerque to Phoenix, and listen to the radio, all you get are right-wing shows, all of them constantly beating the drums of hatred against "illegals," using a term that is invented for the purpose of marginalization and dehumanization and is intentionally misleading. (The "crime" of being in the United States without proper paperwork is a misdemeanor less severe than the "crime" of an old person in Detroit buying prescription medications from Canada, but nowhere do we hear of such people being called "illegal" seniors.) Words are powerful, and whenever the media use the right-wing invention "illegals" to discuss the "issue," the right-wingers have already won because the very terminology sways public opinion. It is the danger and beauty of propaganda done well.

The scary stuff is on the flip...
Valdes-Rodriguez then goes on to point out similarities between America at the beginning of the 21st Century and Germany in the 1930s. If you've read about Naomi Wolf's latest book where she discusses the common characteristics of fascist states, the notion of scapegoating ethnic groups for the systemic woes of a nation won't seem too far wide of the mark.

Hitler ran on a platform very similar to the one being espoused by most Republican candidates at the moment, particularly Tom Tancredo. Though we like to think of history as being linear, and time denoting progress in the human condition, neither is true. Germany before Hitler faced economic ruin, as we do now. The public was uneducated, as ours is now. It was easy to aim their discomfort and unhappiness at Jews as a target. The same thing is happening here, now, with regards to Hispanics.
"Deportation" was a key action of Hitler's government. In the past couple of years, in the United States, more than 13,000 American children have been left orphaned because the public happily accepts the government deporting their parents. Countless idiots post comments like "Oh, well, come here legally and we won't separate you from your baby," not understanding that there is not a just immigration policy in place to allow them to come "legally".
Most Americans forget the many other "laws" that people "broke" in the past. It was once illegal for Africans to NOT be slaves. It was once illegal for women to vote or own property. Sometimes, it is the laws that are broken. Americans forget. Americans are punative in the extreme. America is a scary place.
The pundits who blast "illegals" as being expensive to the system (though this, too, is flawed information and completely misleading) seem to have no problem whatsoever with the incredible costs, economic and social, of leaving tens of thousands of American-born children without the care of their families. This tells me that it's not about money; it's about hatred of Hispanics, regardless of citizenship. The democrats should be blasting the right-wing hate-mongers for all of this, but for the most part, they, too, are silent. And this, my friends, should be a wake-up call to all of us.

And this is exactly why Democratic support for H.R. 4088, the Shuler-Tancredo anti-immigration bill which is co-sponsored by Jerry McNerney, is so very troubling. Instead of standing strong for small-d and large-D democratic principles of fairness and and human dignity, Democrats like McNerney have put their own idea of what's good for their careers ahead of what should be our shared American values.

Put in plain language: We are entering a recession. The world despises our country, and many nations are switching to the Euro, abandoning the plummeting dollar. As this happens, more people will go hungry. More people will lose their homes in the escalating forclosure crisis. We face all of this in addition to an endless war machine and a trade deficit the likes of which we have never faced before. And still the pundits pass around the memo, saying that all will be okay if they can only deflect the attention from Bush and the neo-cons to "illegals".
I do not think all will be okay for Hispanics in America. I think we will continue to see escalating violence against all of us. I think the media will continue to brainwash the American public to blame Hispanics for their woes, just as Hitler blamed Jews. The entire system has been carefully set up for this. It is happening now, and it will only get worse.
And when the time comes to round up the "illegals" and put them in camps (already happening now, but will soon happen on a much larger scale) you would be foolish to think the crazed, hungry, desperate white (and black) masses will differentiate between Luis Jimenez, whose family came to Rio Arriba county in 1498, and Luis Jimenez, whose family waits for him in Zacatecas. They won't make those distinctions. When they come for you, who will be left to speak out?

Once again, the blog is The Latina (L)it Girl, and the essay is "'Illegals' in America."