Venice For Change

National Media Picks Up On CA Endorsement Scandal, "When Democratic Party Bosses Cling to Power"

2012-02-09T07:57:00.000-08:00

Just in time for the California Democratic Party convention in San Diego this weekend, the Huffington Post picked up on the story we ran earlier this week on how Assembly Speaker John Perez is diverting resources away from winnable swing districts to protect "incumbent" Assemblymembers running is super-safe Democratic districts.

Paul Hogarth gives some good background that I had left out in the original piece, so I include it here.

Ten years ago when it came to redistricting, Democrats in the legislature made an unholy alliance with Republicans to carve "safe" districts for each party. Not only did it polarize the legislature, but it also gave right-wing Republicans artificially high representation -- at a time when the state was getting younger, browner and more progressive every year. But with a new map drawn by a Citizen Task Force, Democrats are poised to gain seats this November -- and if they play their cards right, maybe win a two-thirds supermajority. If that should happen, we could finally pass real revenue solutions in Sacramento that make millionaires and oil companies pay their fair share.

If you were John Perez, the Speaker of the State Assembly, this should be an historic opportunity to herald resources at expanding the Democratic majority. Instead, he has made the re-election of Assemblywoman Betsy Butler his #1 priority. Even if it means moving her to a new district -- because the one she currently represents is no longer as "safe" as it was. Even if it means having her challenge other Democratic candidates, progressives who have deeper ties to that community. And even if it means using the State Party's obscure rules to stack the deck at Democratic Party endorsement meetings.

This weekend, Osborn faces a tough uphill battle to block that endorsement. If anything, the deck is even more stacked against her than it was in the AD-50 pre-endorsement caucus, where Butler got 57% of the vote, most of it coming from delegates Perez had pulled from Assemblymembers in other districts.

Legislators can appoint half of their delegation outside of their own district, and those appointees get to vote in their own districts. Speaker John Perez has been pretty vocal in encouraging Ms. Osborn to "wait her turn" until Ms. Butler is termed out. The problem with that is that she had been waiting her turn for Asm. Mike Feuer to term out in 2012. Butler's district barely touched this new AD-50, in fact she represents less than 2% of the new AD-50 now. However, as Butler decided not to run for the now more Republican friendly district that encompasses much of her new district, Osborn is now being told to wait again by the Assembly caucus. Except she is not waiting, and has continued to run her campaign.

As a result, Speaker Perez has been organizing a dump of delegates into the new district, tilting the balance from Osborn to Butler. At the convention, where the Democratic club members do not get to participate, this tilt of power towards legislators becomes more pronounced. If Butler is able to get 2/3 of the delegates in her column, the only way to remove the endorsement from the consent calendar is to get 2 members from the Pre-primary endorsement review panel (PERC) to agree to pull it off the consent calender for PERC review. If less than 2/3 support Butler, Osborn supporters will be able to gather 300 signatures to bring the endorsement to the floor.

So this weekend promises to be interesting. Osborn's supporters aren't the only ones promising to bring the endorsement to the floor for a vote. Delegations from the Progressive, LGBT, Women's and Environmental caucus have been vocal on Dem party listserves, as have members of Take Back Red California.

As a result, expect Osborn's people to have lots of help collecting the 300 signatures needed to take Butler's endorsement off the consent calendar.

If Butler can be held below the 2/3rds threshold in the endorsement vote on Saturday, expect a floor fight on Sunday.

Campaign Contributions Raise Troubling Questions For Speaker John Perez And Sacramento Democrats

2012-02-05T22:29:00.000-08:00

Assembly Speaker
John Perez

Democratic activists hoping for big gains in the California legislature this year were dealt a serious blow after campaign finance reports released last Thursday raised troubling questions about Assembly Speaker John Perez's strategic priorities and the California Democratic Party's ability to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Senate and Assembly.

Democrats currently enjoy a majority in both the Assembly and the State Senate, but would have to pick up at least two more seats in each chamber to achieve the super-majority needed to pass revenue increases over the objections of a recalcitrant Republican minority.

Yet campaign finance reports reveal that Speaker Perez, Sacramento Democratic lawmakers and PACs donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to safe Democratic Assembly districts while virtually ignoring new "swing" districts or defending others against possible Republican pickups.

In the 10th Assembly District (Marin, D+35) Sacramento Democrats gave $80,600 to Mike Allen, an incumbent Assemblymember who moved into the open district when his existing district was carved up and reapportioned. This, even though Mr. Allen is running against two other Democratic candidates and no Republican opposition.

In the 50th Assembly district (Santa Monica, D+33), Perez and Sacramento Democrats donated $88,750 to Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, who moved north to the Democratic stronghold after redistricting meant she'd have to run in the new, more conservative 66th Assembly district (Torrance, D+3). Butler is running against Democratic candidates Torie Osborn and Richard Bloom, both long-time residents of the district. The lone Republican in the race, Brad Torgen, is not considered a viable candidate.

Records also show that most of these donations were given to Allen and Butler during a three-week period last December, and that many Democratic Assemblymembers who donated did not give money to any other Assembly campaigns. The timing suggests a coordinated and conscious effort from leadership to funnel money to these candidates at the expense of other candidates running in more competitive districts.

Perez is also using his considerable energy and influence to secure endorsements for Allen and Butler, including endorsements from the state Democratic Party (which can mean substantial institutional support and resources). In what party insiders are calling an unprecedented move, Perez is using a controversial technique known as "delegate stacking" to pull dozens of delegate appointments from Assembly members state-wide to vote for Allen and Butler in local endorsement caucuses. Perez's intervention has already secured a state party endorsement for Allen, and virtually guarantees an endorsement for Butler.

But as Butler and Allen enjoy the largess of their colleagues in Sacramento while running in districts so safe a Democratic corpse could win, two other candidates running in swing districts which could potentially lead to Democratic super-majorities enjoy no such protection.

In the South Bay, Torrance School Board member Al Muratsuchi became the Democratic candidate for AD66 after Betsy Butler left the district. Election experts consider the race highly competitive for Republicans, giving them the best opportunity in two decades to pick up a seat in that area.

AD66 candidate
Al Muratsuc

However, not a single Sacramento Democrat, including both John Perez and Betsy Butler have yet to make any financial contributions to his campaign.

Even Democratic State Senator Ted Lieu, whose district overlaps much of AD66, gave $1,000 to Butler, but nothing so far to Muratsuchi.

Additionally, while PACs - including the Professional Engineers in California Government, the State Building & Construction Trades Council and the California State Council of Laborers - gave over $300,000 to Butler and Allen, many of them presumably at Perez's direction, Muratsuchi received only $11,900 in PAC money, including $1,000 from the California League of Conservation Voters - $6,800 less than they gave to Betsy Butler.

Sacramento's indifference means Muratsuchi has had to loan his campaign $45,000 to defend the new South Bay Assembly seat against two Tea Party candidates, Nathan Mintz, who ran and lost a close race against Butler in 2010, and Craig Huey, who ran an unsuccessful $500,000 self-financed congressional campaign against Janice Hahn last year.

(Muratsuchi responded to this story on Calitic.com, "I fully believe that the Speaker will help our campaign raise the funds to make me a member of the state Assembly this November.")

In the Central Valley, where termed-out Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani is running for Senate District 5 (Stockton, D+4), only one Sacramento lawmaker, fellow Democratic Assemblymember Kevin De Leon, contributed to Galgiani's campaign.

Galgiani has $140,000 in cash on hand while her two Republican opponents, Assemblymember Bill Berryhill and former County Supervisor Leroy Ornellas, each have twice that amount.

Galgiani represents much of the district now and is considered a popular moderate. AroundTheCapitol.com reports the race is "likely the bellwether Senate district for 2012....Galgiani came out as gay to the Stockton Record on November 1, and will be running in a district that voted 64% in favor of prohibiting same-sex marriages."

If elected, Galgiani would be the first openly gay legislator elected from a Central Valley district.

SD05 candidate Cathleen Gagliani

Taken in their entirety, campaign finance records, along with reports of political maneuvering, clearly and consistently demonstrate Speaker Perez and Sacramento Democrats are prioritizing the reelection of "incumbent" Assemblymembers in safe, Democratic districts over obtaining a two-thirds majority in the legislature in 2012.

To understand why, you need to understand the Holy Trinity of most California politicians: money, term limits, and the value of personal relationships.

First, lets talk about money. If you're part of the Democratic Assembly caucus in Sacramento, it makes sense to collectively pool your fundraising and PAC resources so you don't have to do what AD50 candidate Torie Osborn has had to do every day for the last 15 months - solicit funds from small-dollar individual donors. Her work paid off, having raised $520,000 from 1,639 individual donors, but that sort of labor-intensive fundraising isn't practical for sitting lawmakers trying to legislate during a 2-year election cycle.

So the caucus pools resources through their individual campaign committees, building up massive war chests with millions of dollars donated each year from individuals, corporations, and political PACs. In turn, these resources are apportioned and prioritized by the leadership. Which is where Speaker Perez comes into play.

In 2010, John Perez survived a bruising political fight to became the first openly gay Assembly Speaker in the chamber's history, succeeding the termed-out Karen Bass. As Majority Leader in the California Assembly, the Speaker wields considerable power by controlling the caucus' purse strings. Theoretically, if there's an opportunity to flip a red district blue and maximize his caucus' chances of achieving a super-majority, that's where Perez should be spending money.

AD10 candidate Mike Allen

Instead, Perez's primary objective in 2012 appears to be consolidating loyalty within his own caucus by taking care of vulnerable members who aren't yet subject to term limits - in this case Allen and Butler, neither whom are termed out until 2016 (remember, Galgiani, the Assemblymember running for Senate in the Central Valley, is termed out this year). Nothing consolidates loyalty like cash.

Term limits factor heavily in this game as well. California lawmaker's careers are short - only 6 years in the Assembly and 8 in the state Senate. Perez himself is termed out of the Assembly in 2014. While I'm not suggesting intervention on Allen's and Butler's behalf is a literal case of quid pro quo, it is indicative of a culture of mutual protection, where an insular community of Sacramento lawmakers trade favors and keep careful score against the day they'll need to cash in their chits.

Perez is not alone in this - most Sacramento lawmakers see politics not just as a calling but as a career. As a result, both Democrats and Republicans are caught in a cycle of short term gain over long term, strategic thinking.

For Republicans, it's radicalized their caucus as moderate representatives find themselves challenged, their livelihoods threatened if they dare break with Grover Norquist.

For Democrats, it's meant an endlessly revolving door between the private and public sectors, where lobbyists spend millions to influence lawmakers and termed-out lawmakers become lobbyists to influence former colleagues. It forces even the most altruistic lawmakers to limit their horizons to only a few years into the future, and less altruistic lawmakers to be more accountable to special interests than they are to the voting public.

All this raises an even more troubling question. Do Sacramento Democrats even want to achieve a two-thirds majority?

Doing so would mean taking ownership of the mess our state is in, and making tough, unpopular calls on tax increases vs spending cuts. Raise taxes and risk the wrath of Californians who mistakenly believe cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" would fix everything, or keep whacking away at the social safety net or infrastructure spending and risk alienating powerful public employee unions sick of seeing their membership take the brunt of Sacramento's budget woes.

AD50 candidate
Betsy Butler

Either scenario would be deeply unattractive to a lawmaker with one eye on the exit sign worried about their next job.

Political insiders will claim this just isn't true, that Sacramento's strategy will change after the June primaries, focusing less on incumbents and more on flipping swing districts.

However, even if accurate, considering California's new top-two election rules, it's a deeply flawed strategy.

In the case of both AD66 and SD05, there's no guarantee Muratrsuchi and Galgiani will survive a June primary and make it to November. And even if they do, their well-funded opponents will have already had a six-month head start to rip the Democrats to shreds with negative mailers and media spots.

When the California Citizens Redistricting Commission upended the political landscape in 2012, it opened up a unique opportunity for Democrats, but only if we have the foresight and political will to take advantage of that opportunity. Now is the time to stop paying lip service about achieving a two-thirds legislative majority and actually do something about it.

Until that happens, we're just kidding ourselves that we can fix what's really wrong with California. The best we can hope for is triage.

As our convention convenes this weekend in San Diego, I hope the delegates, activists, candidates and politicians assembled will take a hard, cold look at how the political landscape is shifting beneath our feet.

These issues are more important than any single election or candidate, they go to the very heart of what it means to be a Democrat in California in 2012.

UPDATE:

State Senator Ted Lieu responds:

Re: My $1000 contribution to Betsy Butler's committee. As you know, I have not endorsed in the race. The contribution was made in April 2011, months before the first draft of Assembly maps were released, and months before Betsy Butler announced where she was running. In early fall, my Ted Lieu for Senate 2011 committee was frozen due to the Kinde Durkee case.

Regarding AD 66, when the Kinde Durkee legal proceedings are resolved, I will contribute to Al Muratsuchi's campaign. I endorsed him early and am helping him in a variety of other ways.

The Situational Ethics Of WeHo/Beverly Hills Dem Club Prez Lillian Raffel

2012-01-31T09:33:00.000-08:00

WeHo/Beverly Hills Democratic Club President, Lillian Raffel

Last week, an obscure Democratic club endorsement meeting in West Hollywood made headlines when WeHo Mayor John Duran was caught on videotape screaming obscenities at 50th Assembly District candidate Torie Osborn after the candidate he supported, Betsy Butler, lost the vote 28 - 43.

Apparently, he wasn't the only Butler supporter upset that night. Because Lillian Raffel, president of the club, made a beeline for the media to complain about the vote.

Weho-Beverly Hills club members say their endorsement process was hijacked by way of a slew of new members who allegedly joined the club for the sole purpose of securing the Osborn endorsement....

The organization has about 125 members, 35 to 40 of whom are actively involved, according to the club's president, Lillian Raffel. She said the club received 45 new members on Dec. 29—their memberships all paid for with a single check amounting to $1,125.

Some of those new members live in communities outside the area, including Glendale and Norwalk, which are not in the new 50th Assembly District. Club bylaws do not have any residency restrictions, just that a member voting on the endorsement must have joined within the previous 25 days.

Raffel is certainly entitled to voice her opinion, but there are a few things she conveniently left out of her narrative.

First of all, when Raffel complained to a Patch reporter that Osborn's campaign had "stacked" the room, she failed to mention ~~she not only endorsed~~ supported Betsy Butler she was a Butler delegate for the California Democratic Party. I later learned she didn't even disclose this to her fellow club members. She certainly never brought it up at Wednesday night's meeting.

Secondly, Raffel (and John Duran, for that matter) failed to explain to the media how it was the membership rejected her recommendation that WeHo/Beverly Hills dual endorse both Butler and Osborn.

Jeanne Dobrin

Osborn was prepared to accept the dual endorsement, but long-time club member and Butler supporter, 90 year-old Jeanne Dobrin, objected to the recommendation and called for a vote. That in turn started the dominoes falling - with a series of votes, motions, and counter-motions, which eventually lead to Osborn winning the sole endorsement of the club.

Lastly, Raffel claimed no one had ever paid for multiple club memberships with a single check before - a claim that proved to be untrue when Patch discovered a candidate for the West Hollywood City Council had done exactly the same thing the year before. At the time, some members and other candidates complained, yet nothing was done to amend the rules. So for club president Lillian Raffel to suddenly yell "foul!" because the candidate she didn't support utilized the same rules isn't just hypocritical, it's unethical.

Frankly, the time for Raffel to have voiced concern about a single check paying for multiple memberships was at the time she received the check, not a month later when her candidate lost (perhaps she was hoping the check was for Butler supporters?).

For the record, the Raffel cashed the check.

Look, I get that Butler's campaign and her surrogates need to gin up controversy about club endorsements to inoculate her against both the lack of local support and against what's about to happen at the CDP convention in San Diego.

Assembly Speaker John Perez "stacked" the AD50 pre-endorsment caucus with 42 of the 64 votes Butler received - giving Butler 57% of the vote - enough to send the question to another caucus vote at the Convention. Perez pulled those delegate slots from Assembly members as far away as San Francisco and Yolo County. These same delegates will vote in San Diego, so there's probably no way for Osborn to block the endorsement.

I'm reasonably sure we won't hear a peep about this from any of Butler's supporters who previously complained about Osborn's endorsements.

Lastly, I'll say this - both the club endorsement process and the CDP endorsement process sucks. To the layman, club and party endorsements are assumed to mean that local activists have weighed the merits of each candidate and chosen one through a democratic consensus process. But as we've seen, club and CDP rules often produce the opposite result, with candidates winning endorsements by strategically utilizing those rules, as well as existing political connections to produce the desired result.

With our state's new "top two" primary system, where two Democrats could end up running against each other in the general election, the integrity of the CDP and local club endorsements will be very much in doubt unless the endorsement process is overhauled top to bottom.

Party insiders have refused to deal with this problem for years. Until they take their heads out of the sand they have no right to complain about candidates using the existing rules to gain competitive advantage.

Help AD50 Candidate Torie Osborn Win The DFA Endorsement

2012-01-28T10:44:00.000-08:00

Good morning all! I just need five minutes of your time to make a HUGE difference in helping a local grassroots Assembly candidate overcome the machine in Sacramento.

If you've been reading my blog this month, you know I support community organizer Torie Osborn for the 50th Assembly District race. Osborn has an uphill battle against - ironically enough - my current Assemblywoman, Betsy Butler.

Please go to this link to help Torie Osborn win the Democracy for America endorsement.

I actually voted for Butler in 2010, but I can't support her decision to abandon our district and move north to a "safer" Democratic area because she wants to avoid running for reelection against a couple of Tea Party candidates.

As a party insider, Butler has the full backing of Sacramento, and the machine is working overtime to clear the field for her. Assembly Speaker John Perez has engineered the California Democratic Party's endorsement for Butler by pulling delegates from Assembly members as far away as San Francisco and Riverside. Grassroots delegates will do what they can to help Torie, but it's widely believed they won't be able to block the CDP endorsement when it comes up for a vote at the annual convention next month.

Winning the DFA endorsement would go a long way towards countering Sacramento's outsized influence in this local race, making sure it's the voters of the 50th Assembly District, not lobbyists and special interests, who will choose who they want to represent them.

Please go to this link to help Torie Osborn win the Democracy for America endorsement.

EDITORIAL: Is It Time To Reform the California Democratic Party Endorsement Process?

2012-01-26T12:05:00.000-08:00

In a word, yes. Yes it is.

Last night I had the "pleasure" of witnessing the end result of the most divisive and arcane political process the California Democratic Party has to offer - the local Democratic Club endorsement meeting.

As candidate Torie Osborn won her 8th club endorsement for the 50th Assembly District - this time from the West Hollywood/Beverly Hills Democratic club - supporters of her opponent Betsy Butler immediately descended on reporters in the room, claiming Osborn had cheated by "packing" the room with new members. Supporter (and Mayor of West Hollywood) John Duran was so incensed he stormed out of the room yelling "Bullshit!" at Osborn, saying "West Hollywood would not forget."

It's a claim Butler and her supporters have made repeatedly since the first endorsement meeting in Malibu - that Osborn's campaign had cheated by organizing - and sometimes even paying for - new members to join local Democratic clubs for the sole purpose of voting in endorsement meetings.

And some members of these clubs aren't happy either, believing this practice dilutes their endorsement by taking it out of the hands of local activists.

However, the reality is Osborn's campaign and her supporters followed club rules to the letter. Most clubs have deadlines for registration (usually 30 days before an endorsement meeting), but almost none of them have residency or attendance requirements. And club treasurers happily deposit new member's checks - whether that check comes from a single supporter or individually, from the new members themselves.

On their part, Osborn's supporters say they had to move aggressively to seek the support of local clubs because of Sacramento's outside influence and interest in the race. Assembly Speaker John Perez publicly backs Butler, and reportedly secured forty-two out of the sixty-four delegate votes Butler received at the CDP's pre-endoresment meeting by "borrowing" them from assembly members in districts as far away as San Francisco and Riverside.

Butler won 57% in that endorsement meeting, sending the recommendation for another vote at the yearly CDP convention in San Diego. It's widely believed Osborn will be unable to block the final endorsement.

Are these practices unfair? Do they reward the candidate who's best able to "game" the system? Yes. Absolutely.

But under CDP rules, neither of these candidates are cheating.

And that's the problem. To the layman, club and party endorsements are assumed to mean that local activists have weighed the merits of each candidate and chosen one through a democratic consensus process. But club and CDP rules often produce the opposite result, with candidates winning endorsements by strategically utilizing those rules, as well as existing political connections to produce the desired result.

With our state's new "top two" primary system, where two Democrats could end up running against each other in the general election, the integrity of the CDP and local club endorsements is very much in doubt.

So how do we fix this?

It has to start at the top. At a minimum, politicians from other areas should not be allowed to "lend" their delegates to candidates in CDP pre-endorsement caucuses. Both the delegates themselves and the politicians controlling the delegate assignments should be local to that election's district.

At the club level, clubs could require each member register and pay for their own memberships (the Santa Monica Democratic club requires this for instance). They could also require that members be registered Democrats within a certain geographical area. Or they could require members attend a certain number of meetings in advance of an endorsement vote. The clubs have many ways to skin this same cat.

But until that happens, it's a fool's errand to blame candidates for using the existing rules to gain competitive advantage.

Unless the California Democratic Party gets serious about reforming the endorsement system, the party risks endangering the integrity of the Democratic "brand" in this state, confirming the worst fears of a cynical and disengaged electorate that already believes our political system is broken and unresponsive.

We have a chance to fix this, but we need to do this, and we need to do it now.

VIDEO: WeHo Mayor, John Duran, Storms Out Of Dem Club Meeting After Torie Osborn Wins Endorsement

2012-01-25T23:51:00.000-08:00

From left to right - AD50 candidate Betsy Butler,
West Hollywood Mayor John Duran and LA City Councilman Paul Koretz
(both have endorsed Betsy Butler in the AD50 race)

Tensions ran high in West Hollywood this evening as AD50 candidate Torie Osborn beat out opponent Betsy Butler for another local Democratic club endorsement.

When the West Hollywood/Beverly Hills Democratic club voted to give its endorsement to Torie Osborn by a vote of 43 - 28, West Hollywood Mayor John Duran stormed out of the meeting as Osborn thanked the club membership.

Transcript:

DURAN: You all come out to West Hollywood soon. We're not going to work for you, Torie! This is bullshit!

CLUB MODERATOR: Can we please come to order.....

DURAN: This is bullshit!

CLUB MODERATOR: Please come to order.

DURAN: (Pointing at Osborn) You divided our community. You divided our community.

CLUB MODERATOR: Will the meeting please come to order.

DURAN: West Hollywood will remember, Torie.

CLUB MEMBER: You get out-organized, you get out-organized... (unintelligible)

DURAN: I'm not being a misogynist, I'm working for a woman (indicates towards Butler) Wake up! They're not all lesbians!"

This morning, Duran tweeted this:

Duran has endorsed Butler in the race.

Despite losing the support of every local Democratic club that's endorsed in AD50, Betsy Butler is widely expected to win the California Democratic Party's endorsement at it's annual convention in San Diego next month - largely due to the intervention of Assembly Speak John Perez, who helped Butler win a "pre-endorsement" caucus vote last weekend.

More photos from the meeting at this link.

AD50 Candidate Betsy Butler Loses Every Local Dem Club Endorsement, Yet Secures CA Dem Party Endorsement With Sacramento's Help

2012-01-22T21:55:00.000-08:00

Betsy Butler at the Stonewall Democratic Club endorsement meeting.
She lost to opponent Torie Osborn.

Despite losing every Democratic Club Endorsement in the district to opponent Torie Osborn, AD50 candidate Betsy Butler managed to win the California Democratic Party's "pre-endorsement" caucus today with 57% of the vote.

So how did this happen, and more importantly, why should you care?

Every year, CDP delegates meet a few weeks before their yearly state convention to "pre-endorse" (aka recommend) Democratic candidates they believe are worthy of their party's institutional support.

In 2010, I wrote about the process during the Harman/Winograd primary battle:

If you're a registered Democrat in California, right around election time, some helpful soul will hang a brochure on your front door knob that lists all the official California Democratic Party (CDP) endorsements for the election in your district.

So here's how a Congressional candidate in California gets that endorsement: Local CDP delegates, county committee members and representatives of local Democratic clubs get to vote in something called a pre-endorsement conference for the Congressional candidate they would like to see endorsed. If 70% of the voters at that conference endorse a candidate, then that recommendation is sent to the full CDP Convention a month or so later where, usually, the recommendation is accepted by unanimous consent and placed on the coveted CDP Door Thingee.

That CDP Door Thingee can potentially mean thousands of votes for the endorsed candidate, especially in our new "open" election system, where two Democrats can potentially face off against each other in both the primary and the general election. Which is why candidates always scramble this time of year to secure the endorsement.

Theoretically at least, the delegates voting in these caucuses are supposed to be from the home district of the candidate they're voting to endorse. And actually, the delegates themselves are.

However, the politicians who "own" these delegates don't have to be.

You see, only about a third of CDP delegates are elected by popular vote. The other two-thirds are appointed by politicians or elected by Sacramento insiders. And in contested races like the one for the 50th Assembly District, delegates can be traded amongst politicians like playing cards.

That's exactly what happened today in the AD50 pre-endorsement caucus.

Of the 64 votes Butler received, 5 of those came from delegates she herself appointed. Forty-two delegates were assigned by Assembly Speaker John Perez, who pulled them from assembly districts as far away as San Francisco and Riverside.

Torie Osborn, on the other hand, not being an elected official, could not assign herself delegates. The numerous Democratic club endorsements she secured weren't particularly helpful either, since party rules severely limited the number of delegate they're allotted.

Sheila Kuehl, Torie Osborn, Jackie Goldberg

Butler failed to get the 70% needed for unanimous consent at the CDP convention, so she'll have to wait until February for convention delegates to give their seal of approval. It's entirely possible grassroots activists won't let this go without a fight, and could organize to block unanimous consent, forcing a full vote on the floor.

Such moves are rare, success rarer still. As a group, convention delegates are an almost perfect microcosm of Sacramento itself - insular, inclined to protect the status quo and resistant to overcoming institutional inertia.

But in the age of "occupy", grassroots activists seem less willing than ever to put up with the status quo. As one young Osborn supporter put it, "Folks in Sacramento should take note that AD50 supports Torie Osborn without a doubt, and will fight to make her voice heard"

Fasten your seat belts, kids, this could be a bumpy ride.

Pacific Palisades Democrats: No Endorsement in AD-50 Race

2012-01-16T11:02:00.000-08:00

Perhaps reacting to last week's Malibu meeting, candidate Betsy Butler packed the Pacific Palisades Woman's Club yesterday with vocal supporters, outnumbering both those who came to support competing candidates Torie Osborn and Richard Bloom as well as interested community members who just came to hear the candidates speak.

However, unlike Malibu, where the membership votes on endorsements, candidates need at least 60% support from the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club's 21-member board to win an endorsement.

Sources familiar with the process said Butler was eliminated in the first round of voting. Osborn was able to win a majority in the second round, but did not reach the 60% threshold needed for endorsement.

Club leadership declined to release the vote totals to the press.

Before the vote, candidates took pre-written questions from the Democratic club as well as questions from the audience. Topics touched on a variety of subjects, including the California budget crisis, education reform, the candidate's positions on the death penalty, health care reform and high speed rail.

One audience member, Palisades resident Liesel Friedrich, told Butler she had "no sense" of the Assemblywoman in the district, and asked her pointedly how long Butler had lived or worked in the district.

Butler gave a somewhat meandering response, saying she had lived in Marina del Rey, "in the district", for twenty-five years.

Marina del Rey is currently in Assembly District 53, and has never been a part of the district Butler is currently seeking office for.

When asked if she was satisfied with that answer, Friedrich replied, "No. Not really. I'm afraid she's got the Sacramento lingo down."

My Open Letter To RedState and Daily Kos: On Jan 18 Join the SOPA blackout

2012-01-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Last Wednesday, I wrote an extensive piece on how I, as a Hollywood professional, cannot support the anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA. Out of everything I wrote, I received the most feedback for this passage:

What do Darrell Issa, Nancy Pelosi, the ACLU, Daily Kos, RedState.com, Markos Moulitsas and Ron Paul have in common? They all oppose SOPA/PIPA.

Personally, I've never agreed with Darrel Issa on any issue ever, but I agree with him on this.

How is this possible? Because the divide over SOPA/PIPA isn't political, it's between those who understand how the internet works and those who don't.

Nowhere is this more apparent than at two websites which normally inhabit diametrically opposing ends of the political spectrum; liberal Daily Kos and conservative RedState.

"There’s simply nothing partisan about this issue." wrote Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas for The Hill, "Social media have been critical to both the Tea Party and Occupy movements, to trade unionists and anti-abortion groups alike.... The question isn’t whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, it’s whether you prize freedom of speech and freedom of the press for all, over the narrow intellectual-property concerns of a few."

RedState founder Erik Erikson is so incensed about the legislation, he's threatening to primary it's Congressional supporters......and - incredibly - called on left to join him in that fight.

"This battle is so important — and is one of those rare fights where the left and right are united against Congress — that I suggest the left and right unite and pledge to defeat in primaries every person named as a sponsor on H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.", Erikson posted. "This might mean some allies are taken out. It might mean we take out Marsha Blackburn on the right and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the left. But sometimes a fight is that important..... Letting the Attorney General of the United States shut down the internet as he wants, whether it be Eric Holder or a future John Ashcroft, should scare the mess out of every American."

The bipartisan pressure seems to be working. In the Senate, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) says he'll "delay" implementation of DNS blocking until "further study". In the House, Lamar Smith (R-TX) says he'll remove DNS blocking altogether. And yesterday, the White House issued a statement saying the President wouldn't support anti-pirating legislation "that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. There are too many weasel words in all these declarations. Now simply isn't the time to let up.

Which is why I'm asking both RedState and Daily Kos to join a blackout action planned for Wednesday, January 18th.

From 8am - 8pm EST, thousands of websites - including Reddit, BoingBoing, Mozilla, and TwitPic (to name a few) - will go dark. Users trying to access those sites will instead be redirected to a "blackout" page livestreaming a hearing called by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to give technical experts and critics of the bills the chance to testify before the House Oversight Committee. Users will also be asked to contact Congress and voice opposition to the bills.

I can't think of a better way to send a powerful message to both Congress and the mainstream media that opposition to these bills transcends the political and should, as Erikson put it, "scare the mess out of every American."

Congress Back-Peddles On Internet Anti-Piracy Bills As Major Websites Threaten One-Day Strike

2012-01-13T19:43:00.000-08:00

Anti-SOPA site www.sopastrike.com calls from a world-wide web strike Jan. 18th

Opponents of internet anti-piracy bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), got a bit of a victory today.

Senator Patrick Leahy, lead sponsor of PIPA, announced he would delay implementation of DNS blocking until further studies can be done. In the House, Lamar Smith, one of SOPA's biggest backers, announced DNS blocking would be removed altogether from the bill.

"After consultation with industry groups across the country," Smith said in a statement released by his office, "I feel we should remove DNS-blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [U.S. House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision.

"We will continue to look for ways," Smith continued, "to ensure that foreign Web sites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers."

Though DNS blocking will be removed, the bills would still compel domestic financial service providers like PayPal to cut off payment options to foreign illegal sites. Search engines like Google would also still be required to remove infringing sites from their search results. Copyright holders can still bring "private rights of action" against foreign Web sites they claim infringe on the intellectual property.

Although seen as a step in the right direction, opponents are far from satisfied. Many seem especially skeptical of Leahy's statement, claiming a delay in the implementation of DNS blocking is just a semantic trick, and won't result in removing it entirely from the bill.

Unfortunately, despite the clear words in the announcement, it appears that Leahy's staff is going around suggesting to the press that this means he's dropping DNS. Thus you get reports in Wired and in ReadWriteWeb saying that Leahy is offering to remove the DNS blocking provisions. That's exactly what Leahy's staff would like people to believe, in the hopes that this makes the bill palatable. First, it wouldn't actually make the bill palatable, but it's important to read what Leahy actually said:

As I prepare a managers' amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented...
That is NOT removing the DNS blocking provisions. It is merely delaying them.

Furthermore, since the DNS blocking was such a key component of the bill and, at the very last minute, Leahy is suddenly claiming that we can all ignore that section for the time being, isn't that reason enough to stop and wait, rather than rushing this bill forward?

Meanwhile, a coalition of major websites, including Reddit, MoveOn.org, Mozilla and Twitpic are still planning on a one-day "strike" January 18th in order to keep pressure on Congress.

It’s on — at least partially: Reddit has announced that it will go dark for 12 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that he hopes to coordinate with the site so that Wikipedia does the same. Will other sites join in? Should we prepare for the Great Internet Strike of 2012?

Writing that it’s “not taking this action lightly,” Reddit announced on Tuesday that it will black out its site on Jan. 18 for 12 hours, starting at 8 a.m. E.T. During that period, the site’s content will be replaced with “a simple message about how the PIPA/SOPA legislation would shut down sites like reddit, link to resources to learn more, and suggest ways to take action.”

The strike will coincide with that day's hearing for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Chaired by leading SOPA opponent, Congressman Darrell Issa, the hearing will focus Internet security, intellectual property and economic growth.

Anti-SOPA/PIPA organizers are also asking the public to petition Google, Facebook and Wikipedia to join the strike as well.

Confessions Of A Hollywood Professional: Why I Can't Support the Stop Online Piracy Act

2012-01-11T21:36:00.000-08:00

According to a report published by the AFL-CIO, online piracy costs content providers (mostly TV networks and movie studios) a lot of money. Around $20 billion annually. That, in turn, costs a staggering number of industry-related jobs - over 140,000 by some estimates.

As a freelance film editor, this scares the hell out of me. If the networks and studios I work for don't make money, sooner or later I'm out of a job. And if I'm out of a job long enough, I lose my union health benefits, my pension, the whole ball of wax.

I know it scares the hell out of my union, IATSE, judging by numerous emails warning how my livelihood is in grave danger from "foreign rogue sites" dedicated to wholesale theft of the intellectual property of my employers.

On the flip side, there were petitions filing my inbox from internet watchdog groups urging me to tell Congress to "preserve free speech", and that if I didn't, the "internet as we know it" would cease to exist.

Now, if you don't know what they're talking about, you're not not alone. Until I started getting these emails, I too was blissfully ignorant about the alphabet-soup of anti-piracy legislation currently grinding it's way through the bowels of Congress - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate.

But as I researched the bills and clawed my way though mountains of evidence on both sides predicting internet Armageddon, I quickly realized online piracy (and the solutions being put forth to curb it) is something we don't have the luxury to ignore. Because what happens in the next month could profoundly affect many aspect of our lives, not just how we interact online.

So I'll make you a deal: If you'll stick around to read this, I'll spare you the hyperbole and techno-speak and explain what I've learned in plain English.

Please, let my pain be your gain.

BUT FIRST, A HISTORY LESSON.....

SOPA and PIPA are designed to close existing loopholes in online piracy enforcement. To explain how, I first have to talk about another law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, otherwise known as DMCA.

Enacted in 1998, DMCA was Congress's first attempt to deal with the brave new world of illegal file sharing. In a nutshell, it criminalized online copyright infringement while protecting "Fair Use" doctrine, as well as giving "safe harbor" to internet service providers (ISPs), websites and search engines which unknowingly hosted or linked to pirated material.

(I'll circle back to "fair use" and "safe harbor" later, but keep these terms in your head. They're really, really important - it's why YouTube, Facebook, Flickr and even small sites like this blog aren't sued out of existence every time someone uploads a photo or links to a movie clip.)

However, DMCA was limited. It only applied to domestic ISPs, websites and search engines. Why? Because US copyright law ends at our borders. Domestic plaintiffs can't collect damages for overseas copyright infringement.

Of course, the first thing online pirates did after DMCA became law was set up shop overseas and out of the reach of US courts.

So ten years later, Congress passed another law, the PRO-IP Act, which increased penalties and gave new enforcement powers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency most recently known for mistakenly deporting a 14 year-old girl to Columbia.

ICE could, with a simple affidavit, obtain a court order to seize the site's domain name and IP address. Anyone clicking on a seized site would see this:

Even though hundreds of domains were seized ( a partial list here ), critics complained PRO-IP didn't solve the "foreign rogue websites" problem. Perpetrators - especially those operating overseas - disappeared easily, escaping fines and summary judgments, quickly setting up new and anonymous Internet storefronts at will. Even if found, there was often no way of tying the individuals who ran foreign sites to assets in the United States.

Got all that?

Good. Because this is where the fun starts.

SOPA AND PIPA TO THE RESCUE!

SOPA and PIPA are designed to do one thing and one thing only - tie online pirates to assets in the United States so our justice system can get at them to collect civil judgments and cut off sources of revenue.

Of course, making that happen is not so simple. The internet is a complicated, borderless thing which changes faster than a teenager's hormones on a Pepsi high.

So the bill's authors tried to come up with a number of different ways to skin the same cat.

Extend the authority to seize domain names and IP addresses to foreign websites determined to be in violation US Copyright law.
Compel domestic ISPs, websites and search engines to block internet access to any foreign websites determined to be in violation US Copyright law.
Prosecute developers who offer products or services that could be used to circumvent the blockade of foreign websites determined to be in violation US Copyright law.
Compel domestic financial service providers (Paypal, Visa, Wells Fargo, etc....) and internet advertisers to close accounts and block payments to any foreign websites determined to be in violation US Copyright law.

The bills also includes a provision the American Bar Association labels "a rather novel reinvention of online"market-based" enforcement" by allowing copyright owners and their agents to initiate a "private right of action" to seek termination of an infringing site's advertising and financial services.

Lastly, this legislation gives blanket immunity to any US-based financial service providers, advertisers, ISPs, websites, and search engines which voluntarily blocks internet access or terminates its services. It does this even if the site's owners did not knowingly host pirated material, or the allegations later prove to be unfounded.

AND THIS IS WHERE IT ALL GOES SO HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY WRONG......

Even without SOPA/PIPA's First Amendment implications (you can read some pretty good arguments here, here and here), the bills as currently proposed are horribly flawed documents devised by people who either don't understand how the internet works, or worse, understand it all too well and are trying to game the system for unfair competitive advantage.

SOPA's sponsor, Texas Republican, Lamar Smith, thinks any fears are "completely unfounded".

“The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality,” said Smith, R.-Texas, in a statement. “Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts.....they need to read the language. Show me the language.”

You're on, Lamar.

SOPA/PIPA ARE BILLS BUILT ON A FOUNDATION OF QUICKSAND

As I said before, ICE has seized hundreds of domestic domains under the PRO-IP Act. Well, it turns out some site owners are fighting back, suing the government for violating their First Amendment rights, saying the law's "seize now, ask questions later" enforcement equals prior restraint. In at least one case, a judge agreed, throwing out part of the government's case and expediting the site owner's suit.

And then there's the Kafkaesque case of dajaz1.com, a popular hip-hop music site which had it's domain seized in 2010, then restored over a year later - all without a single charge being filed.

As the details came out, it became clear that ICE and the Justice Department were in way over their heads. ICE's "investigation" was done by a technically inept recent college grad, who didn't even seem to understand the basics of the technology. But it didn't stop him from going to a judge and asking for a site to be completely censored with no due process.

The site's lawyer, Andrew Bridges, filed a motion to get the site back. Instead of responding as the law required, the government stonewalled Bridges while they secretly pursued multiple filing extensions from the court in order to hold on to the site.

The government was required to file for forfeiture by May. The initial (supposed) secret extension was until July. Then it got another one that went until September. And then another one until November... or so the government said. When Bridges asked the government for some proof that it had actually obtained the extensions in question, the government attorney told Bridges that he would just have "trust" him.

You can read the whole story here. It's not pretty. Eventually, the government unilaterally decided it didn't have probably cause after all and just dropped the case without comment.

SOPA/PIPA INTERFERES WITH UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY

Don't expect oppressive regimes like Syria, Iran, or Burma to take our lectures about internet freedom seriously, not while Congress is proposing protocols for site blocking that China already uses to restrict their citizen's access the web.

Worse, if ICE starts going after software developers, they're going to have to go after contractors the State Department hired to do the very thing Congress just made illegal.

Seriously. I'm not making this up. Last June, the NY Times reported:

The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks.

The effort includes secretive projects to create independent cellphone networks inside foreign countries, as well as one operation out of a spy novel in a fifth-floor shop on L Street in Washington, where a group of young entrepreneurs who look as if they could be in a garage band are fitting deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a prototype “Internet in a suitcase.”

Financed with a $2 million State Department grant, the suitcase could be secreted across a border and quickly set up to allow wireless communication over a wide area with a link to the global Internet......

Some projects involve technology that the United States is developing; others pull together tools that have already been created by hackers in a so-called liberation-technology movement sweeping the globe.......

“The cool thing in this political context is that you cannot easily control it,” said Aaron Kaplan, an Austrian cybersecurity expert whose work will be used in the suitcase project. Mr. Kaplan has set up a functioning mesh network in Vienna and says related systems have operated in Venezuela, Indonesia and elsewhere.

SOPA/PIPA INTERFERES WITH US CYBER SECURITY

First, by mandating provisions completely incompatible with next-generation internet security standards and secondly, by throwing US software developers into legal limbo.

It turns out targeting software which could potentially be used for circumventing blacklisted websites also means targeting the same security software we use to keep our personal computers safe from malware, networked businesses safe from denial-of-service attacks and even payments to online financial service providers like PayPal safe from theft.

Meanwhile, as legitimate software developers sit around twiddling their thumbs, 20 year-old hackers have already created workarounds to domain blocking in anticipation of SOPA/PIPA.

Have fun with that.

SOPA/PIPA PLACES ALL THE BURDEN FOR ENFORCEMENT ON
US WEBSITES AND BUSINESSES

Supporters, including my union, like to point out that SOPA/PIPA only affects foreign websites. This is demonstrably not true.

Remember, the Justice Department has no jurisdiction overseas, but it does have jurisdiction over domestic ISPs, websites, and search engines, domestic financial service providers and domestic software developers. SOPA/PIPA may target foreign sites, but all the legal liability and compliance costs would fall on American companies. As techdirt.com points out,

We've been trying to make this point for months, and the folks in favor of these bills just keep ignoring it insisting time and time again that this is just about foreign sites. Most of those people have never been entrepreneurs. They've never worked at a company where the threat of legal action is a BIG DEAL, that can massively disrupt operations (and cash flow). They don't realize that increasing liability, compliance costs and legal risks isn't just a nuisance -- it can force an entire business to shut down. We've talked about how these bills change things so that it's not just two engineers in a garage any more, but two engineers... who need a team of a dozen lawyers.

SOPA/PIPA CAN BE MANIPULATED TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH AND
FREE MARKET COMPETITION

Remember how I mentioned "fair use" and "safe harbor" at the beginning of this post? Let's circle back to that now.

I use a lot of social media - YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to share information, links, videos and other online content. And I do this under the "Fair Use" doctrine, which allows me to use copyrighted material without permission for "transformative" purposes such as commentary, criticism and parody.

What is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Now, to illustrate my point, I'm going to embed this really cool video created by a fan of "Castle", the ABC Television show I work on. Go ahead, have a look. I'll wait.

Great video, isn't it?

It also happens to be made up of hundreds of copyrighted clips I'm reasonably sure ABC Television never gave permission to use. But that's OK, because I'm also reasonably sure the video is covered by Fair Use. But if I'm wrong about that, this is where DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions come in.

Safe Harbor assumes I didn't knowingly post anything which violates US copyright law. So even if my ISP gets a take-down notice from ABC, Safe Harbor is supposed to protect me as long as I comply with the notice and remove the video.

Together, Fair Use and Safe Harbors allow for innovation because they create safe space for both free expression and honest mistakes. But content providers hate Fair Use and (more importantly) Safe Harbors because providers think these exceptions take the teeth out of enforcement, creating loopholes you could drive a truck through.

SOPA/PIPA gets rid of Safe Harbors. There is no safe space. A copyright holder can initiate a "private right of action", convince a judge to issue an injunction (which we now know is way too easy to do) get your domain blocked, your advertising pulled and your finances frozen.

And thanks to to SOPA/PIPA's immunity provisions, a copyright holder wouldn't even need a court order shut you down, just a letter to your service providers threatening to.

This section says that anyone who takes voluntary action "based on credible evidence" basically gets full immunity. Think about what that means in practice. If someone sends a service provider a notice claiming infringement on the site under this bill, the first thing every lawyer will tell them is "quick, take voluntary action to cut them off, so you get immunity." Even worse, since this is just about immunity, there are no counter notice rules or anything requiring any process for those cut off to be able to have any redress whatsoever.

Between blanket immunity, the loss of safe harbor, and the lack of any redress for impacted site owners, SOPA/PIPA actually incentivizes wholesale abuse.

It's already happening. Entire legal industries have been built around responding to DMCA takedown notices in bulk. Thin-skinned businesses routinely ignore Fair Use to issue DMCA takedown notices against sites which criticize them. Unscrupulous content providers also sue legitimate online competitors for copyright infringement just to bankrupt them.

In 2007, Universal Music Group (UMG) brought a lawsuit against Veoh Networks (Veoh), a video hosting website, alleging that Veoh facilitated copyright infringement by providing a website that hosted videos containing music owned by UMG. On December 20, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a summary judgment in favor of Veoh and held that Veoh was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) “safe harbor” provisions....

While Veoh’s website was found to be perfectly legal, its victory is bittersweet; the small startup company filed for bankruptcy early in 2010 from the high cost of defending its case.

At least under DMCA, Veoh could keep it's business running while the case was litigated.

The SOPA/PIPA bills, however, would have immediately shut Veoh’s website down before it even had its day in court, thereby keeping Veoh from running its business which, in this case, was ultimately found to be perfectly legal. There is cause for concern when copyright holders abuse the law to stymie innovative new startups.

There are also some nasty implications for political campaigns. Implications that ought to give the bill's Congressional supporters pause.

Imagine you are running for Congress in a competitive House district. You give a strong interview to a local morning news show and your campaign posts the clip on your website. When your opponent’s campaign sees the video, it decides to play hardball and sends a notice to your Internet service provider alerting them to what it deems “infringing content.” It doesn’t matter if the content is actually pirated. .... If you don’t take the video down, even if you believe that the content is protected under fair use, your website goes dark.

I'm sure nothing like that would ever happen, because, you know, it never has before.

During the waning days of the 2008 presidential race, there was an important but overlooked occurrence on the John McCain campaign. In mid-October, the McCain campaign awoke to find that its Web videos and online advertisements were disappearing from its YouTube page.

The culprit turned out to be a major television network claiming they owned portions of the videos and that posting the clips was a violation of copyright law. Even though the campaign, and many others in the online community, believed the content to be privileged under the “Fair Use Doctrine,” the videos were pulled down.

John McCain, by the way, is one of PIPA's co-sponsors.

THE DIVIDE OVER SOPA/PIPA ISN'T POLITICAL - IT'S BETWEEN THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE INTERNET AND THOSE WHO DON'T

What do Darrell Issa, Nancy Pelosi, the ACLU, Daily Kos, RedState.com, Markos Moulitsas and Ron Paul have in common? They all oppose SOPA/PIPA.

Personally, I've never agreed with Darrel Issa on any issue ever, but I agree with him on this.

How is this possible? Because the divide over SOPA/PIPA isn't political, it's between those who understand how the internet works and those who don't, those who see opportunities for growth and innovation and those who fear change and are holding on to old business models for dear life.

During the House Judiciary Committee's SOPA hearings last December, it became nightmarishly clear Congressmembers who support these bills are in the "don't understand how the internet works" camp.

It’s exactly as we feared....this is like a group of well-intentioned amateurs getting together to perform heart surgery on a patient incapable of moving. “We hear from the motion picture industry that heart surgery is what’s required,” they say cheerily. “We’re not going to cut the good valves, just the bad — neurons, or whatever you call those durn thingies.”

This is terrifying to watch. It would be amusing — there’s nothing like people who did not grow up with the Internet attempting to ask questions about technology very slowly and stumbling over words like “server” and “service” when you want an easy laugh. Except that this time, the joke’s on us.

It’s been a truism for some time that you can tell innovation in an industry has ceased when the industry starts to develop a robust lobbying and litigating presence instead.

Which brings me back to my union, IATSE.

I believe my union leadership is acting in good faith to look after the best interests of its membership. But I don't think my union leadership understands how the Internet works. By backing the industry's position on SOPA/PIPA, I believe they're tying themselves to a business model that simply can't be sustained and won't be rescued by badly crafted legislation.

Look, you can't un-ring this bell. Internet file sharing, streaming video, and movies-on-demand aren't going away. Fans of American television shows and movies use the internet to form international online communities, upload their favorite clips via YouTube and share them on Twitter and Facebook. As an industry, we should encourage them. Because today's "pirates" are tomorrow's customers.

It's a brave new world out there.

We've been down this road before with the music industry. Ten years ago, while all the major record labels responded to file sharing by locking up content and suing Napster into the ground, Steve Jobs quietly developed iTunes. By tapping into a market that was already habituated to file sharing and offering quality content conveniently and legally at a price point people were willing to pay, Apple dominated the music industry while the record labels tanked.

We either follow the path of the record labels or we follow the path Apple took. I'd rather follow Apple. And frankly, I wish IATSE was leading the charge.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

PIPA is scheduled for a cloture vote in the Senate on January 24th, meaning it would take 60 votes to break a filibuster. So far 49 Senators are on record as supporting PIPA, which means they'd need 11 more to advance the bill to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote.

Opponents of SOPA/PIPA have set up this handy website so you can find out which lawmakers support the bills. If it turns out your Senator supports the bills, click on their name and the site will take you to a page with their contact information. Please call them right away.

If you're in California, and especially if you're in the entertainment industry, CA Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein need to hear from you. Both are co-sponsors of PIPA. (Feinstein seems particularly clueless, stating she thought the tech industry were just fine with the bills)

Click on this link to get Barbara Boxer's contact information

Click on this link to get Diane Feinstein's contact information

Torie Osborn wins Assembly race endorsement in Malibu

2012-01-09T11:31:00.000-08:00

Osborn and Malibu City Councilman
Jefferson Wagner

50th Assembly District candidate Torie Osborn beat out competitors Betsy Butler and Richard Bloom yesterday to win the endorsement of Malibu Democrats. In a lopsided victory, Osborn won 41 votes, Butler 5, and Bloom, none. Thirteen voted "no endorsement".

"I'm over the moon," Osborn said in an interview with Malibu Patch after receiving the endorsement. "It was decisive and it feels like a dry run for the whole campaign."

This is Osborn's second Democratic club endorsement. The Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains voted to endorse last October.

Osborn also garnered the endorsement of Malibu City Councilman Jefferson “Zuma Jay” Wagner.

Richard Bloom

In a press release, Wagner said this was his second time seeing Osborn speak, and the debate between the three candidates was a key factor in his decision to endorse Osborn for the open seat in the newly configured district.

“Torie electrified the crowd, and demonstrated to me that we need her leadership, her vision, and her abundance of bold and new ideas in Sacramento,” said Wagner. “She has a deep understanding of the many issues that Malibu residents are concerned about. As an Independent, I look for candidates who can cross party boundaries, develop coalitions, provide answers and common-sense solutions that will help to fix our state. That’s why I am confident that she’ll be an exceptional representative of our community.”

The vote was not without controversy, however. Butler said the vote was not a reflection of the candidates' popularity in Malibu, claiming she heard Osborn's campaign signed up 42 people to join the club prior to the 30-day deadline.

Ari Ruiz, political vice president for the Stonewall Young Democrats, and a volunteer organizer for Betsy Butler, commented on the Malibu Patch story,

I was at the meeting today. Staffers from City Hall (Los Angeles) were there in full presence supporting Ms. Osborn. I know that the room was stacked, you want names? I'll be happy to email a list.

Strategists I spoke with familiar with the Democratic Party club endorsement process were incredulous of the criticisms.

"If Betsy is unhappy with the outcome, there's an easy way for her to fix that, " said one strategist. "She can bring out her own people."

Apparently, Butler's campaign attempted to do just that, with this letter from campaign manager Lindsay Bubar,

As you know, it is critically important to receive the support from local Democratic clubs in races like these. With new Assembly districts and so many elections on the ballot next year, many people will rely on endorsement information from their local Dem club when they make their decision at the ballot box. We have the opportunity to secure support from key Dem clubs in the next month, but we will need your help to make that happen.

Below you will find a list of Dem clubs that are endorsing in Betsy's race. You can help by doing two things:

Betsy Butler

1) Join as many of the Dem clubs as possible (for most of the Clubs, the only requirement to join is that you be a registered Democrat. For
instance, you do not necessarily need to live in the Pacific Palisades to join the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club). In order to cast a vote for
Betsy, you will need to join by the deadline listed below AND attend the membership vote IN PERSON. If you can not attend on the date listed then please do not join the club.

2) Ask ask many friends as you can to also join and attend as many Dem clubs as possible.

Every vote counts and we need to make sure we do everything we can to secure these critical endorsements for Betsy.

Unfortunately for Butler, her campaign manager sent the email after Malibu's 30-day registration deadline.

Candidates give closing statements

Many long-time Malibu club members waited until they had heard from all three candidates before casting an endorsement vote. Marcia Hanscom, an environmental activist who who's been involved for years in both Ballona and Malibu Creek restoration issues, was one.

"I endorsed Torie Osborn last year -- before the district lines were changed and when I thought Torie's only opponent would be Richard Bloom." Hascom said in a comment to Malibu Patch, "I told Betsy that I would consider a dual endorsement, and I was waiting to hear how things went at today's forum. If I had thought Betsy would half-way represent the things I care about in Malibu, where I lived for 10 years and where I work now on numerous issues - I would have voted for 'no endorsement' -- but I voted for Torie to be endorsed by the Club. A clear choice after today."

Malibu resident Athena Shlien came to the meeting undecided, but left supporting Osborn, "Betsy Butler's first comment was about how Malibu is slow to develop, she shot herself in the foot with that statement. Doesn't she know that Malibu wants to retain its mountain and seascape charm?" Shlien commented, "I went to the event with glazed eyes, thinking that this would be politics as usual. It turns out there are people who really do want to change the world for the better! Thank you Torie for giving me hope."

The next club endorsement meeting will take place in Pacific Palisades on Sunday.

AD50 Candidate Torie Osborn Raises Over 500K In 2011

2012-01-05T20:43:00.000-08:00

The deadline to report fundraising totals isn't until next Tuesday, but CA assembly candidate Torie Osborn has unofficially leaked her fundraising numbers almost a week early.

According to an email sent to donors and supporters, Osborn raised over $520K from 1,638 donors.

Never before has a first-time Assembly candidate raised this kind of money so far out from the primary. I’ve raised 13 times as many online contributions and 7 times the total dollars as my nearest competitor. And the average donation online to my campaign is 50% smaller, showing that grassroots strength will power this campaign to vicTorie in 2012.

Although fundraising totals on Act Blue - an online fundraising site for Democratic candidates - doesn't reflect offline or in-kind donations, it's still a good barometer to assess the comparative strength of a candidates' campaigns.

Osborn has raised $156,033 from 960 donors on Act Blue. Opponent Betsy Butler lists 61 donors who've donated a total of $20,460. Santa Monica Mayor Richard Bloom, also running for the district, uses a different online fundraising site which does not make fundraising totals available to view online.

The official deadline for all candidates to report their 2011 fundraising totals is Tuesday, January 10th. The results should be made public a few days later.

On Sunday, all three candidates will meet at Malibu City Hall to compete for the Malibu Democratic Club endorsement. This will be the first of several endorsement meetings throughout the district to determine who - or if - the California Democratic Party will endorse a candidate.

A CDP endorsement is considered helpful since the top two vote-getters in the June 5th "open" primary, regardless of party affiliation, will face off in the general election in November.

The meeting is open to the public, but only club members are allowed to vote. Doors open at 11:45 a.m., the forum will start at 12:30 p.m. The event will take place in the Malibu City Hall Multipurpose Room.

PHOTOS: Venice Canals Holiday Boat Parade

2011-12-12T13:24:00.000-08:00

On Sunday Venice Beach celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Venice Canals Boat Parade, an annual holiday tradition that brings out the closet mariners (Because nothings says Xmas like standing in a leaky boat surrounded by badly wired electrical devices).

It's also a great excuse to party as residents along the canal open up their homes. Here are a few photos I took of the festivities. (click on any photo to see full-sized versions)

Merry F*cking Christmas

2011-11-25T09:17:00.000-08:00

Because nothing celebrates the birth of Christ quite like "competitive" shopping and pepper spray

From the LA Times:

In Porter Ranch, a woman pepper sprayed customers at a Wal-Mart in what authorities say was a deliberate attempt to get more "door buster" merchandise. In San Leandro, a Wal-Mart shopper walking to his car was shot and wounded in a suspected robbery early Friday.

At Porter Ranch, 20 customers, including children, were hurt in the 10:10 p.m. incident, officials said. Shoppers complained of minor skin and eye irritation and sore throats.

"This was customer-versus-customer 'shopping rage,'" said Los Angeles Police Lt. Abel Parga.

The woman used the spray in more than one area of the Wal-Mart "to gain preferred access to a variety of locations in the store," said Los Angeles Fire Capt. James Carson.

"She was competitive shopping," he said.

Police are searching for the woman but said they've had trouble getting a clear description of her.

Black Friday sales began at the Wal-Mart at 10 p.m. and featured sales on toys, including $5 Bratz dolls, $10 Wii video games and $29 tricycles.

Witness Matthew Lopez described a chaotic scene in the San Fernando Valley store among shoppers looking for video games soon after the sale began.

"I heard screaming and I heard yelling," said Lopez, 18. "Moments later, my throat stung. I was coughing really bad and watering up."

Lopez said customers were already in the store when a whistle signaled the start of the Black Friday sale at 10 p.m., sending shoppers hurtling in search of deeply discounted items.

Lopez said that by the time he arrived at the video games, the display had been torn down. Employees attempted to hold back the scrum of shoppers and pick up merchandise even as customers trampled the video games and DVDs strewn on the floor.

"It was absolutely crazy," he said.

Excuse me while I weep for the future of our country.

My Question For Amanda Marcotte: Who Gets Family Planning Advice from "The Walking Dead"?

2011-11-22T13:44:00.000-08:00

OK, I know this is a stupid thing to bring up, but there's something about this post that just completely rubbed me the wrong way.

Sunday's episode of The Walking Dead created a massive internal conflict for me. As explained at Jezebel, the episode featured a character who has discovered her pregnancy, and understandably, considering the zombie apocalypse, feels this isn't the right time to bring a new baby into the world. (She also understandably fears for her own safety, since giving birth in a ditch without medical assistance is associated with a high maternal mortality rate.) So she obtains morning after pills, takes a bunch of them, throws them up, and then, according to TV tradition, decides not to abort because in TV-land, there's never a good reason to have an abortion. No, not even if it means being ripped limb from limb by zombies.

The problem with this storyline, outside the tedious fear of getting letters from irate anti-choicers that dictates TV's near-absolute approach to unintended pregnancy, is simple: Morning-after pills are not abortion. You can't even get abortion pills from a typical pharmacy, since RU-486, the actual abortion pill, is dispensed mainly at doctor's offices.

(snip)

My honest impression is that whoever came up with this plot also mistakenly thinks that morning-after pills are abortion. If they had intended the misinformation to be a comment on the characters' ignorance, there was no indication of it.

As Erin at Jezebel points out, no matter what the intentions of the writers, what was on screen was simply distracting. It could have been avoided altogether by simply having the character take RU-486 instead of morning-after pills. It's hard to trust the show's portrayal of the larger philsophical and emotional issues around such a traumatic pregnancy situation when they can't even spend five minutes on Google to get the biology right.

I'm calling bullshit for a couple of reasons. First, with all due respect, I don't think anyone is getting family planning advice from "The Walking Dead".

Secondly, it's a drama, it's not a documentary.

Conflict creates drama. The writers are having these characters improvise as best they can with what they have. And that includes limited medical resources. When the Glen character hands the pills to the character who is pregnant, Lori, he asks her if she thinks they will work. She honestly answers, "I don't know". Next we clearly see her OVERDOSE on the pills - I think it's safe to assume Lori didn't take the recommended dose because she knew she wasn't taking the correct pill. But she's doing the best with what she has, hoping an overdose will somehow work. It's an act of desperation.

It was risky for the show to trust the audience to get that, but I appreciate it's a risk the writers were willing to take. It's one of the reasons I like the show so much.

After that, Lori realizes how conflicted she is, and vomits the pills back up. Then she does what she should have done to begin with and tells her husband she's pregnant (and that she had an affair and all the other crap she's been withholding from him). Rick, the husband, clearly wants the baby, but also tells Lori he would never force her to carry it to term. They talk about it like adults. The word "choice" is bandied about more times than I can count. It's dramatic.

I consider myself a feminist and very pro-choice. I'm well aware that women's reproductive health is under constant threat these days, so I appreciate how this subject is a sensitive one. Clearly it's one that Marcotte felt strongly enough about that she needed to say something (side note: having a photo of two male writers from "The Walking Dead" laughing - presumably laughing at women - included in that post doesn't help)

Again, with all due respect, this is a really stupid hill to die on.

Your Moment of Occupy Zen

2011-11-21T18:16:00.000-08:00

A "making of video" from the #occupy "bat signal" crew. Inside look at this series of inspirational video projections on the side of the Verizon building on November 17th.

Watch this full screen. And turn the sound up really, really loud.

International Coverage Of UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident Gives A Whole New Meaning To "The Whole World Is Watching."

2011-11-20T23:34:00.000-08:00

It's not surprising, given escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran, that the Iranian government would seize on a domestic incident like this and twist it around to serve its own purposes.

Justified or not, this gives the phrase, "The whole world is watching." a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

UC Davis: Speechless

2011-11-20T11:16:00.000-08:00

Turn off your TV. Put down the phone.

Just watch.

From reporter Lee Fang, who witnessed the scene last night.

A pretty remarkable thing just happened. A press conference, scheduled for 4:00pm between the UC Davis Chancellor and police with local press on campus, did not end in an hour, as planned. Instead, a mass of Occupy Davis students and sympathizers mobilized outside, demanding to have their voice heard. After some initial confusion, UC Chancellor Linda Katehi refused to leave the building, attempting to give the media the impression that the students were somehow holding her hostage.

A group of highly organized students formed a large gap for the chancellor to leave. They chanted “we are peaceful” and “just walk home,” but nothing changed for several hours. Eventually student representatives convinced the chancellor to leave after telling their fellow students to sit down and lock arms (around 7:00pm).

The video is so quiet you can hear the echo of Katehi's shoes on the concrete. The students remain seated, staring at her with disdain, less than 24 hours after the police Katehi ordered to disperse the protestors forcibly opened the mouths of some of the them to shove pepper spray down their throats.

I'm in awe of these UC students, here and in Berkeley, who have consistently adhered to the principles of creative, non-violent civil disobedience. They've punched through the conscience of a nation, laying bare the militarization of our domestic police force while simultaneously taking control of their own narrative.

These kids can't easily be characterized as "dirty hippies" by the main stream media (although, of course, they're trying) because the the videos show what a bright shining lie that is.

They have focus, purpose. They know why they're there. And now, thanks to their discipline, the rest of the country will too.

We can help. Sign this Change.org petition to Governor Jerry Brown, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, and the UC Board of Regents demanding Chancellor Katehi's resignation.

Click on this link to sign.

Then, imagine if you will, thousands of these silent, reproachful demonstrations happening at corporate headquarters all over the country, on Wall Street, in the halls of Congress. How, well, unnerving that would be.

Yes, we can.

"Occupy The Rose Parade" Organizer's Law License Suspended For Theft, Is 9/11 "Truther"

2011-11-19T11:51:00.000-08:00

Peter Thottam (in suit and tie) appears at a 2007 Los Angeles "9/11 Truth" rally

Venice resident Peter Thottam recently made headlines when he set up a website, "Occupy The Rose Parade", and put out a call for "'40,000 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters and supporters to come together from across California, New York and rest of the USA & World" to disrupt the Pasadena Rose Parade.

Back in 2010, Thottam made headlines for a far different reason when the Daily Breeze newspaper ran an investigative report on Thottam, who at the time was a candidate for the 53d Assembly District.

As a candidate for the Democratic nomination in Tuesday's 53rd Assembly District primary, Peter Thottam has stressed his financial expertise.

But the Venice resident's financial acumen - and his judgment - has been called into question by his brother and sister in a drawn-out probate case over their late mother's will.

Allegations leveled against Thottam by his siblings in court documents related to the trust set up for them include:

That his brother and sister, Jameson and Elizabeth, were "considering removing Peter as a co-trustee because Peter lost $800,000 playing the stock market and misappropriated rents" from a property belonging to the trust "to cover margin calls on his personal stock account."

That he was "an unsuitable trustee because he was convicted of shoplifting from the UC Irvine bookstore and was previously caught shoplifting from a clothing store on the East Coast and again shoplifting from a store in Mexico where he was subsequently placed in jail."

Prominent on Thottam's website are various links to Paypal. Supporters who can't make the protest in person are strongly encouraged to make donations via an "Occupy The Rose Parade" account.

"We need funds from OWS supporters," writes Thottam, "to enable us to obtain banners, pamphlets (for on-site distribution), and for the BackBone Campaign's "human float" & other visuals during Occupy The Rose Parade outreach."

Emails sent to potential supporters via a Google listserve also push hard for donations, "This has the potential to be huge," writes Thottam, "but it requires as many occupiers as possible putting in $10, $20, in order to make it happen."

Organizers for Occupy Pasadena say they are not connected to "Occupy The Rose Parade" and no mention of Thottam or his plans appear on the group's website. Occupy Pasadena activists told the Pasadena Star News it's unlikely the Rose Parade protest will get support from their group.

“Disrupting cherished city traditions is really not an appropriate step to take.”

"It is tempting to leverage all that media, but the parade feels like it's something that is such a part of the fabric of Pasadena that we don't want to go there," said Maddie Gavel-Briggs, 46, of Pasadena, and a MoveOn.org activist.

Beyond the public relations concerns, Occupy Pasadena has other reasons to be circumspect. In addition to fiscal allegations, Thottam is prominently involved in the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement", a coalition of loosely-affiliated fringe groups who believe the attack on the World Trade Center was actually a controlled demolition orchestrated by the US government. Thottam participated in a number of 9/11 Truth "conventions" as well as protests, including this action in 2007 during a taping of the HBO show, "Real Time with Bill Maher".

Maher was talking science during a round table panel discussion when the first activist named Randy stood up, held up his smuggled-in sign reading ‘9/11 is a cover up fraud’ and shouted “Investigate 9/11, Nothing else matters” and other comments to the same effect.

Randy was swarmed by show crew members, and Bill Maher scampered into the audience, put his hands on the back of a crew member shouting, “Out, out, out”.

After making his way back on stage, Maher barely got his mic back on when a second activist, Katy Kurtzman stood up and shouted “What about Building 7? What about Building 7, Bill?” Maher stood up and said “I’ll kick your @ss out of here, too!” and producers proceeded to escort Kurtzman out of the audience.

One of the panelists, Joel Stein, LA Times columnist then jokes “I was only allowed two guests so things should be okay after this.” That’s when the third activist, Peter Thottam challenged Maher once again about Building 7 “Tell us what happened to Building 7, Bill!”

As Peter was grabbed and dragged out of the audience, Maher replied, “You are a nut case… Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I’m the one who’s being naive,” Maher stated. “How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think ‘Well, if you believe that was the cause…’ Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.”

Lastly, the Daily Breeze investigative report uncovered a history of firings and theft, the latter which resulted in Thottam having his law license suspended in 2008.

Thottam, an attorney who was admitted to practice law in California in 2000, was suspended by the State Bar for "moral turpitude" in June 2008 in the wake of his 2004 misdemeanor conviction for petty theft for stealing two books worth $71 from UC Irvine, according to court documents.

He was placed on probation for one year and ordered to complete 20 hours of community service and pay $130 in fines and fees by an Orange County court after pleading guilty to the charge.

The State Bar noted that Thottam admitted to a "miscarriage of judgment" because he was suffering a "great deal of stress and sleep deprivation" related to his mother's serious medical problems at the time. She died in July 2004.

Thottam never reported his criminal conviction to the State Bar - his brother reported the incident - something the State Bar Court called the "only aggravating factor" in the case

(snip)

Thottam was earlier arrested in Mexico in June 2003, an incident described in an August 2003 article by The Village Voice. The alternative newspaper's story warned that getting arrested for even minor crimes in Mexico could result in a lengthy jail stay.

According to the Village Voice article, Thottam was inside a Sanborns department store when his tourist guidebook "disappeared." As he was looking for it, the article stated, he was "nabbed for almost stepping out with a pair of the store's socks in his hand."

That resulted in a four-night stay with 13 other prisoners in a cell designed for four where guards and inmates demanded cash for access to the bathroom, mess hall and other amenities.

"I couldn't get over how surreal it was," Thottam told the newspaper, "all over a pair of socks."

Eventually a friend posted $1,100 bail for him and he "hightailed" it out of the country.

(snip)

In a phone conversation, Thottam threatened to sue the Daily Breeze "for every penny I can get" if an article was published, and then hung up.

Thottam's brother and sister could not be reached for comment. Their lawyers did not return calls seeking comment.

(snip)

In at least two of his jobs in the financial realm, Thottam was involuntarily dismissed.

From 1999 to 2001 Thottam worked for the Silicon Valley law firm of Wilson, Sonshani, Goodrich & Rosati before he was fired for "performance-based" reasons, according to the company as reported in an April 2002 article published by the Communications Workers of America.

In the article about the stigma workers carry for being fired rather than being laid off, Thottam claimed he was actually laid off.

Thottam subsequently went to work for the prestigious law firm of O'Melveny & Myers in San Francisco from 2001 to 2002.

Again, Thottam claimed he was laid off according to a March 2002 article in the Daily Journal; the company responded in the article by saying the firm had suffered no layoffs and was, in fact, hiring.

Thottam has refused repeated requests for comment.

UC Davis Police Go "Bull Conner" On Student Protestors

2011-11-18T23:21:00.000-08:00

Sometimes there just aren't any words....

This news report includes a different angle, where one officer is clearly heard yelling at the seated protestors, "Move, or you're going to get it in the face! Move!"

The Davis Enterprise reports:

The confrontation took place after UCD held off on enforcing a camping ban overnight Thursday. On Friday morning, a Student Affairs representative delivered a letter from Chancellor Linda Katehi asking the protesters to take down their tents by 3 p.m.

In a second letter, sent to the campus community on Friday night, Katehi wrote that protesters “(offered) us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.”

The bulk of the protesters chose not to budge....

...At 3:30 p.m., about 35 officers wearing helmets and carrying batons on their hips, some with guns filled with pepper balls, crossed the quad as about 60 protesters chanted “Shame on you!”

“We’re fighting for your children’s education!” yelled one.

Shouting into the crowd noise, Lt. John Pike three times ordered them to clear out under section 409 of the California penal code. The law requires that those taking part in an unlawful assembly disperse.
By the time Pike ordered the police skirmish line forward, the crowd of onlookers had swelled to perhaps 150, many recording the slow-motion confrontation on cell phones.

Officers almost immediately drug three protesters to the ground and pinned them. Many in the ring sat down, arms locked, chanting, while supporters pulled away the tents.

Police took down more protesters, tightening plastic restraints around their wrists.
Some onlookers joined the protesters, chanting “Set them free!” They rose as a group, then, moving to surround the officers, who drew their batons.

Having at least once ordered the sidewalk cleared, so that those arrested could be dragged away, Pike later pepper-sprayed seated protesters blocking the officer’s path from point-blank range.

Some of you may be familiar with an internet axiom called "Godwin's Law", which goes something like this: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

I'd like to bring your attention to the very start of the video. The UC Davis officer - identified as Lt. John Pike - makes a show of "presenting" the can of pepper spray to the crowd before he starts in on the protestors sitting on the grass.

He knew there were cameras. He was showing off. He was proud, defiant, taunting and thoroughly enjoying himself.

So forgive me for invoking Godwin's Law, but in all honesty, that attitude reminded me of the German prison guards one would see in WWII newsreels.

A UC Davis professor has already sent an open letter to Katehi, demanding her resignation.

These students attended the rally in response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons, hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty, and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and linked arms to protect them.

Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.

Fortunately for the protestors, UC Davis Police have an entire department devoted to complaints. That is, of course, if they don't mind submitting those to the Lt. Pike, who oversees the department.

Oh, and by the way, don't expect to read about any of this in the LA Times. They're too busy building a case against the 99% with hit pieces like this.

They Can't Evict An Idea. Tomorrow Morning We March On Los Angeles

2011-11-16T20:29:00.000-08:00

84 year-old Dorli Rainey after she was hit by pepper spray by police at Occupy Seattle.

They came for them in the dead of night, wearing riot gear and carrying assault rifles. Within hours they'd erased any trace of their presence in Zuccotti Park, ripping apart tents, throwing away books, beating, macing, and jailing at will. Not just Occupy Wall Street in New York, but all over the country - Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Chapel Hill and Denver.

In all, over a dozen municipalities coordinated with Homeland Security to crush the occupations.

As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

Local agencies were...advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.

Clearly, the goal wasn't just to evict protestors from from the public square, but to evict the very idea they were protesting for, and to silence those who were willing to put their bodies on the line for the 99%.

They failed miserably.

Thousand occupy Sproul Hall at Cal Berkeley

Less than 24 hours later, 10,000 students and activists marched on Cal Berkeley, the largest protest that college had seen since the Vietnam War. Only a week before, campus police viciously beat back
hundreds of those same unarmed students as they attempted to occupy the commons. But last night they came back, thousands of them standing on the Mario Savio Memorial steps in front of Sproul Hall, renamed for the free speech activist who stood on those same steps in 1964 and electrified the nation with these words:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

Folks, corporate greed is still killing good jobs. Congress continues to refuse to tax wealthy corporations and millionaires to fund legislation that will put people back to work. And a Congressional "super-committee" is still considering even more drastic budget cuts.

I apologize for the late notice, but events on the ground are moving very fast. Tomorrow, more than ever, we need you to show the 1% that you can't evict an idea whose time has come.

We need you to put your bodies upon the gears.

November 17, 7:00am

Meet at the intersection of Third and Hope

Downtown Los Angeles

VIDEO: UC Berkeley police attack unarmed student protestors

2011-11-09T19:53:00.000-08:00

UC Berkeley campus police in riot gear beat back hundreds of unarmed student activists this afternoon as they attempted to set up camp on the college campus.

The tents had been erected on the lawn in front of Sproul Hall after a noon rally and march to protest tuition and fee increases for university students and funding cuts to all levels of public education.

The demonstration is intended to be in the style of "Occupy Wall Street," "Occupy Oakland" and similar protests, and participants planned to set up an encampment that would stand for at least a day.

The protesters had set up the tents on the lawn after a 1:30 p.m. general assembly, and had linked arms and formed a circle around the tents to prevent police from removing the small encampment.

However, around 3:40 p.m., dozens of police in riot gear pushed their way through the human chain using their batons and began taking the tents down.

There were scuffles between the officers and protesters, and the crowd began chanting, "Stop beating students."

This is what non-violent disobedience civil looks like. The students are standing still when the line of cops start prodding and hitting them with their batons.

No one raises their fists. No one retaliates. The students simply stand their ground, then someone says "Stop beating students!". The rest begin chanting, and after a couple of minutes, the cops back off.

Now, contrast this with what vandals and violent anarchists did during last week's General Strike in Oakland, and tell me who we're supposed to be rooting for.

We should all be humbled by this. And inspired.

The Power of Non-violence
Martin Luther King, Jr.
June 4, 1957

From the very beginning there was a philosophy undergirding the Montgomery boycott, the philosophy of nonviolent resistance. There was always the problem of getting this method over because it didn’t make sense to most of the people in the beginning. We had to use our mass meetings to explain nonviolence to a community of people who had never heard of the philosophy and in many instances were not sympathetic with it. We had meetings twice a week on Mondays and on Thursdays, and we had an institute on nonviolence and social change. We had to make it clear that nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist. It is not a method of stagnant passivity and deadening complacency. The nonviolent resister is just as opposed to the evil that he is standing against as the violent resister but he resists without violence. This method is nonaggressive physically but strongly aggressive spiritually.

NOT TO HUMILIATE BUT TO WIN OVER

Another thing that we had to get over was the fact that the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. This was always a cry that we had to set before people that our aim is not to defeat the white community, not to humiliate the white community, but to win the friendship of all of the persons who had perpetrated this system in the past. The end of violence or the aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community. A boycott is never an end within itself. It is merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor but the end is reconciliation, the end is redemption.

Then we had to make it clear also that the nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than individuals who happen to be caught up in the system. And this is why I say from time to time that the struggle in the South is not so much the tension between white people and Negro people. The struggle is rather between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And if there is a victory it will not be a victory merely for fifty thousand Negroes. But it will be a victory for justice, a victory for good will, a victory for democracy.

Another basic thing we had to get over is that nonviolent resistance is also an internal matter. It not only avoids external violence or external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. And so at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love. The attitude that the only way to ultimately change humanity and make for the society that we all long for is to keep love at the center of our lives. Now people used to ask me from the beginning what do you mean by love and how is it that you can tell us to love those persons who seek to defeat us and those persons who stand against us; how can you love such persons? And I had to make it clear all along that love in its highest sense is not a sentimental sort of thing, not even an affectionate sort of thing.

AGAPE LOVE

The Greek language uses three words for love. It talks about eros. Eros is a sort of aesthetic love. It has come to us to be a sort of romantic love and it stands with all of its beauty. But when we speak of loving those who oppose us we’re not talking about eros. The Greek language talks about philia and this is a sort of reciprocal love between personal friends. This is a vital, valuable love. But when we talk of loving those who oppose you and those who seek to defeat you we are not talking about eros or philia. The Greek language comes out with another word and it is agape. Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive good will for all men. Biblical theologians would say it is the love of God working in the minds of men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. And when you come to love on this level you begin to love men not because they are likeable, not because they do things that attract us, but because God loves them and here we love the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does. It is the type of love that stands at the center of the movement that we are trying to carry on in the Southland—agape.

SOME POWER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT WORKS FOR JUSTICE

I am quite aware of the fact that there are persons who believe firmly in nonviolence who do not believe in a personal God, but I think every person who believes in nonviolent resistance believes somehow that the universe in some form is on the side of justice. That there is something unfolding in the universe whether one speaks of it as a unconscious process, or whether one speaks of it as some unmoved mover, or whether someone speaks of it as a personal God. There is something in the universe that unfolds for justice and so in Montgomery we felt somehow that as we struggled we had cosmic companionship. And this was one of the things that kept the people together, the belief that the universe is on the side of justice.

God grant that as men and women all over the world struggle against evil systems they will struggle with love in their hearts, with understanding good will. Agape says you must go on with wise restraint and calm reasonableness but you must keep moving. We have a great opportunity in America to build here a great nation, a nation where all men live together as brothers and respect the dignity and worth of all human personality. We must keep moving toward that goal. I know that some people are saying we must slow up. They are writing letters to the North and they are appealing to white people of good will and to the Negroes saying slow up, you’re pushing too fast. They are saying we must adopt a policy of moderation. Now if moderation means moving on with wise restraint and calm reasonableness, then moderation is a great virtue that all men of good will must seek to achieve in this tense period of transition. But if moderation means slowing up in the move for justice and capitulating to the whims and caprices of the guardians of the deadening status quo, then moderation is a tragic vice which all men of good will must condemn. We must continue to move on. Our self—respect is at stake; the prestige of our nation is at stake. Civil rights is an eternal moral issue which may well determine the destiny of our civilization in the ideological struggle with communism. We must keep moving with wise restraint and love and with proper discipline and dignity.

THE NEED TO BE "MALADJUSTED"

Modern psychology has a word that is probably used more than any other word. It is the word "maladjusted." Now we all should seek to live a well—adjusted life in order to avoid neurotic and schizophrenic personalities. But there are some things within our social order to which I am proud to be maladjusted and to which I call upon you to be maladjusted. I never intend to adjust myself to segregation and discrimination. I never intend to adjust myself to mob rule. I never intend to adjust myself to the tragic effects of the methods of physical violence and to tragic militarism. I call upon you to be maladjusted to such things. I call upon you to be as maladjusted to such things. I call upon you to be as maladjusted as Amos who in the midst of the injustices of his day cried out in words that echo across the generation, "Let judgment run down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." As maladjusted as Abraham Lincoln who had the vision to see that this nation could not exist half slave and half free. As maladjusted as Jefferson, who in the midst of an age amazingly adjusted to slavery could cry out, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As maladjusted as Jesus of Nazareth who dreamed a dream of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. God grant that we will be so maladjusted that we will be able to go out and change our world and our civilization. And then we will be able to move from the bleak and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man to the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice.

Al Muratsuchi, Torrance School Board Member, To Run In AD66 After Betsy Butler Abandons District

2011-11-08T18:29:00.000-08:00

Shortly after Assemblywoman Betsy Butler abandoned her South Bay district to run in the arguably bluer Santa Monica/West Hollywood Assembly district, rumors started to circulate in AD66 that a viable Democratic candidate would soon take her place.

Well I'm happy to announce that Al Muratsuchi, a long-time resident of Torrance and current Torrance Unified School Board member, has stepped up to the plate to the oppose Tea Party candidate, Nathan Mintz, for the 2012 South Bay Assembly race.

Muratsuchi has served on the Torrance Unified School Board for 6 years, serving as its President in 2009. According to Muratsuchi's campaign website, in that time Torrance Unified "has maintained its status as a high-achieving school district despite state budget cuts, consistently delivered a balanced budget of up to $200 million, and embarked on the largest school repair and modernization program in the district's history."

Muratsuchi is also a Deputy Attorney General and a prosecutor with the California Department of Justice since 2001. Before that, he was a prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Santa Ana City Attorney's Office.

This Saturday, the Torrance Democratic Club will be hosting a meet-and-greet fundraiser for Muratsuchi. Folks, I can't emphasis enough how important it is for us to support him in this competitive race. AD66 could be the key to achieving a 2/3rds legislative Democratic majority in the CA legislature and breaking the stranglehold a Republican obstructionist minority has on our state.

Here are the details.

When: 3pm-5pm Saturday, November 12
Where: 411 Via El Chico, Redondo Beach, CA 90277

RSVP by ordering tickets at this link. Even if you can't make it, please click on the link to make a donation.

Questions? Contact the Torrance Democratic Club at 310-538-0245 or email torrancedems@hotmail.com

Dear Occupy Wall Street, It's time to purge the violent Anarchists and Vandals. Love, the 99%.

2011-11-04T13:33:00.000-07:00

During Tuesday's General Strike, so-called "Black Block" anarchists vandalize stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them.

These are anarchists, folks. They are no more a part of the Occupy movement than the Koch Brothers, and will destroy the movement just as quickly if allowed to fester from within.

Occupy's Asshole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie
Sara Robinson
November 4, 2011

I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they're not. In fact, they're problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain.

As a veteran of those days -- with the scars to prove it -- watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, racists, and anarchists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn't think we were allowed to say "no" to. It's heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call "the asshole problem." In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks -- things that it's high time somebody said right out loud.

1. Let's be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. #Occupy may be a DIY movement -- but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we're obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they're able to meet that standard.

2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: "You're either on the bus, or off the bus." Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty "personal freedom" to do that? Great. You're with us, and you're welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space.

Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an asshole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept -- we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles #Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual's divine right to be an asshole, or the assholes will take over. Which brings me to....

3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It's very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You've got a new asshole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible.

4. Once you've accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people's behavior, and exclude those who put their personal "rights" ahead of the group's mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic assholes?

This is the problem Occupy's leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I've been a part of asshole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that's been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it's like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave.

This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual "we" statements that reflect the observations of the group. "We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave."

When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic assholes is they're usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up -- always with "I" messages. "I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We're all worried about the cops here, and we think you're putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave." Every statement needs to end with that demand -- "We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back." No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line.

These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a pee break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed assholes will get the message that they've crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they're faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once.

Given the time this takes, it's tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don't do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well).

This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not OK, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences ("if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning"), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order.

Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings.

And finally:

5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get shit for this. "But...but...it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit!" No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association -- which includes the right to exclude people who aren't on the bus, and who are wasting the group's limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you're not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You're just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You're eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you're also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people's behavior without sanctioning their being -- while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.