The mid-term 2010 Congressional elections are over and the exaggerations are front and center. “A tidal wave,” “an earthquake,” “a tsunami,” cried the Republican victors and their media acolytes.

Wait a minute! No more than 7 percent of the actual voters switched sides to create a 14 point spread. This amounts to about 3 percent of all the eligible voters who produced this “tidal wave.” That is what happens in our winner-take-all system. So when it is said that “the people have spoken,” chalk it up to 7 percent or so switcheroos. The rest voted the way they did in the previous Presidential and Congressional election (and about 28 million voters stayed home.)

Such sweeping descriptions gave incoming House Speaker, John Boehner, even more leeway than usual to play with words when he declared, without further elaboration, that “the peoples priorities and agenda are our priorities.” Mr. Boehner is the consummate corporate logo-man masquerading as a Congressman. If someone drew the logos of all the big companies that have marinated his career and put them on his suit coat, they would run into each other.

How then did the Democrats lose against the most craven Republican party in modern history—a Party that opposes again and again the fair rights of workers, consumers, investors, savers and patients.

Regarding patients, Boehner’s oft-repeated view of the modest, non-single-payer health insurance changes by Congress and Obama—“it will kill jobs, destroy the best health care system in the world and bankrupt our country.” Reporters listen to Mr. Boehner say this repeatedly and do not ask him to explain his wild rhetoric.

So, in listing some of the ways the Democrats failed to defend the country against such Republicans, put near the top not rebutting the crisp lies and abstract assertions that Republican candidates uttered while campaigning or “debating” their Democratic opponents. Listening to debate after debate on C-Span radio, I was amazed at how infrequently the Democrats demanded examples from their Republican opponents each time the words “cut spending,” “cut taxes,” “reduce the deficit,” “deregulate” and “create jobs,” were uttered.

In elections, one side is on the offensive and the other is on the defensive. The offense creates momentum unless it is countered and driven back. Since the Democrats are furiously dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars, it is difficult for them to stand for the people. That is why the Democrats are wishy-washy, reticent and reluctant to put major subjects of abusive power on the table.

Rarely did one hear Democrats state their position on corporate crime law enforcement, huge fraud on the taxpayer (Medicare), anti-collective-bargaining laws for labor, the bloated military budgets, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the flood of corporate subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts, or the grotesque tax escapes for the multinational corporations and the super-wealthy.

They did not want to talk about consumer rip-offs, or the hundreds of thousands of unprotected Americans who lose their lives every year from un-regulated workplace-related diseases/traumas, medical malpractice, air, water and food contamination, or having no health insurance.

Too many Democrats are cowering candidates. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told incumbent Democrats that they could criticize her if necessary to get elected and preserve their majority in the House. Since Republicans made a practice of assailing Pelosi in almost every debate or on every occasion, many Democrats did not rebut their Republican opponents. Some Democrats stated they would not vote for Pelosi as Speaker in 2012. Unrebutted political attacks often influence voters who wonder at mixed messages from members of a Party.

A key Democratic failure was not to keep on Howard Dean, as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Between 2005 and 2009, Dr. Dean, with his 50 state strategy, energized both the DNC and state Democratic Committees. He knew what it took to go on the offensive against Republicans. He produced victories in 2006 and 2008 before his bête noire, Obama’s Rahm Emmanuel, pushed him out.

Dr. Dean would have challenged the Tea Party and slowed its momentum. When the Democrats saw this self-styled conservative/libertarian rebellion receive the first of its vast mass media coverage (especially by Fox News and Fox Cable) in August, 2009 when Tea Partiers loudly showed up at town meetings of incumbent Congresspersons, there should have been a Democratic response. A “Coffee Party” of progressives and deprived workers rebelling against the corporate control that 75 percent of Americans believe is excessive might have caught on.

Instead, the Tea Partiers, in all their disparate strands and wealthy right-wingers trying to take them over, became the daily feature and news of the 2010 campaign year.

Obama came out of his 2008 victory with 13 million names of donors and supporters, along with great enthusiasm from young voters. The Democrats squandered this support. This astonishing blunder happened, in no small part, because Obama turned his back on his supporters and denied their leaders White House access that he so often afforded corporate CEOs—eg. from the health insurance giants, drug companies, and banking behemoths. That’s one reason so many of his 2008 supporters stayed home in 2010 and did not vote. They felt betrayed.

With 23 Democratic Senators up in 2012, as compared with 10 Republican Senators, the Democrats may lose both Houses of Congress. Voters shouldn’t only have the barren choice of voting for the least worst of the Two Parties. Here we go again. Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

———————————————————————

Tell your friends to visit Nader.Org and sign up for E-Alerts.

Since 1957 a vote of the people has decided who would be the Huntington Beach City Attorney. Since 1978 no incumbent holding that office has lost an election. Gail Hutton, who defeated incumbent city attorney Don Bonfa in the city election that year, easily remained in office until her retirement 24 years later in 2002.

Her replacement, Jennifer McGrath, was elected to the office next with 48.2 percent of the vote in a race against three opponents, but she ran unopposed in her 2006 reelection campaign.

Next November she will have one opponent listed on the ballot, T. Gabe Houston, who officially signed his candidate’s papers at the City Clerk’s office on Aug. 6, the last day to file.

Like other City Attorney challengers, Houston may also end up as election fodder. But his late entry reveals a serious flaw in the Huntington Beach City Charter—despite nine months of work by the City’s Charter Review Commission that recommend reforms—and exposes the hidden attempts (and not so hidden attempts) by various  members of the Huntington Beach City Council to gain political power by manipulating the reform process for better or worse.

Previously, the Voice showed how the council’s backroom political dramas have come to center stage at city council meetings. But recent e-mails obtained by the Voice give a sharper picture of the passion and acrimony flowing through the political veins of the city.

Some of the conflict centers on the office of City Attorney. One side wants the city attorney to be elected by vote of the people; the other side thinks that he or she should be appointed by the council or the City Administrator.

Related to that debate is the larger issue of how best to control the city’s budget when residents face severe cuts in essential services; specifically, how to take care of the city’s infrastructure shortfall and deal with public employee union pension costs that the city is obligated by contract to pay.

Houston’s last minute appearance at City Hall might have gone barely noticed if it had not followed a recent wave of discontent against McGrath stirred up by Chip Hanlon, publisher of Red County, the popular Republican blog, and city councilmember Devin Dwyer, over McGrath’s interpretation of Section 617 of the City Charter.

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Realizing that Coyote was sly and clever, the monster thought of a new plan. It would befriend Coyote by inviting him into its home. But first, Coyote asked if he could enter the monster’s stomach to see his friends. The monster allowed this, but Coyote cut out its heart and set fire to its insides. His friends were freed. From the monster’s body parts Coyote made the indigenous nations and they flourished. —Adapted from on a summary of the Nez Perce tale of Coyote, the Creator, written by Terri J. Andrew. Turquoise Butterfly Press.

By John Earl
Surf City Voice

In March, Huntington Beach residents living on the edges of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and the Naval Weapons Station packed a study session held by the city council and Chief of Police Kenneth Small, joined by state Fish & Game and Orange County Animal Control officials.

The citizens were snarling mad. Coyotes were invading their neighborhoods and city officials hadn’t done enough to stop them, they said. The citizens made it clear they weren’t going to take it anymore.

The emotionally charged meeting was a skirmish in the proverbial land war that has dominated the history of the American west since its first European explorers and would-be conquerors set foot on its soil centuries ago.

Until recently, there was no doubt about who was winning that war. But now, the coyotes are fighting back and seem to bes winning.

Lisa Comacho, who lives near the weapon station’s wide open fields, sounded desperate and angry as she described to the officials a homeland under siege.

Seven pets and been killed on her street in the past week, she claimed. The coyotes are more aggressive than ever and they no longer fear people. Instead, they growl at them and stalk them when they walk their dogs, she said.

“The other day they ripped into a friend’s rabbit cage….They’re killing dogs and cats,” she complained.

Comacho expressed her ultimate fear, the same fear held by others at the meeting. “All I know is that we bought homes to live comfortably and safely and we can’t let our children out. Babies can’t go in the back yard….What we’re looking at is someday a child getting hurt or killed.”

One young mother said that her cat had been killed by a coyote and that a coyote had torn a dog on her street into three pieces. Sobbing, she pleaded for her daughter’s safety. “Is it going to take my daughter to get attacked in order for you guys to do something?”

Then she issued a threat: “I can tell you—if I lose my daughter or my daughter gets harmed for this, there’s going to be a price to pay.”

A licensed day care provider said that her back yard was “social worker approved,” but that she can’t have children there anymore because of the coyotes—one killed her dog early one morning and a nearby school was put on lockdown when the predator came onto the playground, she claimed.

A roller and additional chicken wire atop a fence at Golden View park in Huntington Beach helps protect the livestock and small animals housed inside. Photo: Surf City Voice

She admitted that people cause the coyote problem by leaving food out for their pets and other small wildlife, such as possums and raccoons, which attracts the coyotes. But “eliminate” the problem coyotes, she advised, and educate the public.

“When I walk to the park with my day care kids, I carry a hockey stick, a baseball bat and an air horn,” she complained, describing the situation as “ridiculous.”

“Basically, I wonder if the city is insured for the risk of personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits. If the city does not take action, it will be a willful disregard of public safety,” she warned.

Some Friends
Despite the dramatic denunciations, Surf City’s Wiley Coyotes did have a few reliable friends on hand.

Julie Bixby, who lives with her husband Mark near the edge of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, cautioned that getting rid of coyotes could lead to a rabies outbreak, citing Central Park in New York City has one place where that happened.

Quoting from the book “Rewilding the World,” by Caroline Frazier, Bixby gave a more dire warning of her own: “Lose the animals, lose the ecosystems. Lose the ecosystems and the game is over.”

People, not coyotes, are the problem, she said.

“Coyotes would focus on their natural prey if people didn’t leave out tempting treats, like their trash, dog food and their cats,” she noted, adding that because of the presence of coyotes her cat is not allowed out at night.

A naturalist from the Bosla Chica Conservancy pointed out that coyotes are opportunistic predators that will eat anything. “If you put the pizza in your trash can you are ringing the dinner bell and they will come answer it,” she explained.

“You are ultimately responsible for the protection of your children and your pets. If you don’t want the animals in your back yard, don’t invite them in,” she advised.

Jamie Pavlat, representing the Wetlands Wildlife Care Center and Amigos de Bolsa Chica, was succinct: “The reality in 2010,” she said, “is that we have to learn to co-exist with wildlife. That’s just the situation we are in.”

Reconquista
Pavlat may be correct, but looking at history, co-existence is not the way it was supposed to be.

The descendants of the first European invaders of what is today Orange County long ago destroyed much of its natural habitat and pushed aside most of its indigenous occupants, both human and animal.  Where natural enclaves remain, like the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the invasion continues full force in the form of suburban sprawl.

But instead of dying off to suburban utopia, coyotes were fruitful and multiplied, feeding off the monster that stole their traditional homelands.

Call it the Reconquista, if you will, but studies show that coyote populations are getting stronger, ignoring the usual borders between humans and wildlife and are recapturing  ground throughout the west, especially in Southern California, while capturing new ground in the east, including in urban areas like Chicago.

A 2004 UC Davis study that cites an increase in coyote attacks  (Coyote Attacks: An Increasing Suburban Problem) compiled data from government agencies and other sources going back over 50 years and concluded that education, environmental and behavioral modification (in humans and coyotes)—and sometimes eradication of problem coyotes—are needed to prevent coyote attacks on people.

The study cited 89 documented coyote attacks in California since 1988 on children and adults, or on pets standing close to their owners, with most of the incidents occurring in Southern California. It also noted 77 other cases where “coyotes stalked children, chased individuals, or aggressively threatened adults.” In 35 cases, the study said, there was a likely possibility of serious or fatal injury to small children if they had not been rescued by adults.

City dwelling coyotes present a different kind of health problem as well. Although coyotes help to prevent rabies outbreaks by keeping skunk populations down, the UC Davis study points out that they can also bring rabies, a dog tapeworm that transfers to people, and other diseases to dog populations.

But the study also reveals that coyote populations thrive where affluent suburban neighborhoods touch upon natural landscapes that contain lush vegetation and provide an ample food source and breeding ground for rodents like gophers, moles and voles.

The rodents, in turn, attract coyotes, which are also drawn by a variety of other human provided food sources including pet food and kitchen leftovers in trash cans, as well as various fruits and vegetables found in many home gardens.

A different study in 2001 found that about 24 percent of the diet of tested suburban coyotes came from human activities, but other studies indicate that the percentage of human food could be much less, suggesting the plentiful availability of other food sources for coyotes.

A favorite food item for suburban coyotes is cats, according to the UC Davis study. In two other studies that examined scat remains from coyotes in Claremont and Malibu, up to 13.6 percent of their diet was from cats.

Suburban coyotes also survive on a steady supply of water runoff from lawns watering and outdoor water dishes for pets. People, who deliberately feed coyotes or other wild animals, which is illegal in the state of California, exacerbate the problem by making life in residential areas more coyote friendly.

In the end, coyote populations expand or contract according to their food supplies: more food, more puppies; less food, fewer puppies.

The well supplied refuge that residential neighborhoods provide for coyotes greatly increases their population density, the UC Davis study points out.

A male coyote living in natural setting, for example, lives in a range of between 8-16 square miles with a general density of about 1.5 coyotes maximum per square mile or—sometimes—up to 10 coyotes per square mile in wild areas in the western United States.

But Southern California’s suburban coyotes were found living in areas between one-quarter square mile and one-half square mile range.  And it was reported that 55 coyotes were killed within one-half mile of where a three-year-old girl was killed by a coyote in Glendale in 1981, the only incident on record of a human killed by a coyote in the United States.

“This suggests that suburban environments are extraordinarily rich in resources for coyotes, leading to high densities,” the study concluded.

A 2007 study of urban coyotes (Ecology of Coyotes in Urban Landscapes, Stanley D. Gehrt), i.e., coyotes living in city areas not adjacent to natural landscapes, came to similar conclusions.

Based on information taken from electronic tracking devices placed on 150 coyotes, the ongoing study concluded that there are from 200 – 2,000 coyotes living in urban Chicago, far from natural wildlife habitats and that coyotes living in metropolitan environments live longer than coyotes living strictly in the wild.

Escalating Conflict
The growing coyote populations in residential areas will inevitably conflict with people in a characteristic progression of seven identified steps as they gradually lose their fear of people. Starting with increased coyote sightings at night turning to daylight sightings of coyotes involved in various activities, such as going after pets, approaching child play areas and acting aggressive toward adults.

Coyotes attack people, especially children, because they consider them to be prey, and such attacks are more likely when coyotes are raising their young in the spring and summer months. But coyotes don’t necessarily attack out of hunger. Coyotes are also stimulated by “escape behaviors” and may take chase after people they believe are running from them.

Coyote densities in Huntington Beach haven’t been mentioned, but Chief Small reported that complaints about coyotes in the city have gone from 34 in 2006 and 54 in 2008 up to 80 in 2009. After two incidents of coyotes entering back yards during the day and killing dogs in front of their owners, he hired a private trapper to take out the offending coyote/s, but the effort failed to catch any coyotes.

While emphasizing their empathy for the angry and frightened residents, Fish & Game officials gave an informed presentation on coyote behavior and proposed a plan that seeks a balance between public safety and the need to coexist with wildlife, including coyotes.

The plan will be a team effort with participation from residents and the government agencies present at the study session, as well as the United States Dept. of Agriculture and officials from the Naval Weapons Station, and it will require education and discipline for people and coyotes alike.

That  approach, based on decades of research, was at least cautiously accepted by most of the city council members, but seemed to be lost on member Devin Dwyer, who hastily lapsed into his usual `government can’t do anything right’ monologues.

Dwyer arrived at the meeting late, after all the concerned residents—whose problems were the reason for the meeting in the first place—had told their stories. Obviously agitated, he took a pot shot at Fish & Game officials and offered his own off the cuff solution.

“To me, I just heard a lot of government rhetoric, to tell you the truth, with no answer,” he scolded. “Farmers don’t have problems with coyotes. Farmers don’t have problems with raccoons. I know how they solve their situations. This is a bit ridiculous.”

Councilmember Devin Dwyer: "This is a bit ridiculous." Photo: Surf City Voice

Police are authorized by law to kill coyotes they deem to be a threat to public safety—any coyotes that have to be trapped will be shot on the spot either by police or Fish & Game officials, although their mass execution is not an option for obvious environmental and political reasons.

Past experience indicates the Fish & Game plan can work, but it will require, above all, behavioral changes by people who may not be persuaded by education alone to sufficiently change a lifestyle that that attracted the coyotes into their neighborhoods in the first place.

In a sincere but muddleheaded effort to deal head-on with the human causes, Councilmember Joe Carchio proposed a city ordinance to ban feeding coyotes or other wild animals in the city. Good idea, but there is already a state law covering that and the HB police can enforce it anytime they want, or any time the city council wants.

Still, an ordinance would have the advantage of allowing the city attorney to prosecute violators directly, instead of handing cases over to the district attorney, and could send a message to irresponsible wild animal feeders—who, studies show, are always associated with coyote infiltration problems—that the city is serious about solving the problem.

Forget that, however, because Carchio withdrew his proposal from the city council agenda fearing that it would have no council support after a handful of critics trashed it and him on a local e-mail discussion board. An even smaller group expressed favorable views, but Carchio may have had flashbacks to the angry mobs that appeared at city council meetings 2 ½ years ago when Keith Bohr tried to pass a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance, another idea that if implemented would probably help keep coyotes out of peoples’ yards and away from their children.

“I guess no good deed goes unpunished,” Carchio lamented during the April 5 city council meeting as he withdrew the item from the agenda. “I did make the point that you’re not to feed the animals, especially coyotes in this case, “and we’re not going to kill them either.”

Carchio’s claim that coyotes won’t be killed will probably turn out to be incorrect in short order. But, so far, no more trapping attempts have been made, according to Lt. Russell Reinhart. Nor have police issued any citations to residents for feeding wild animals.

Meanwhile, the battle between Monster and Coyote continues with no end in sight.

Preparing for the march on city hall. Photo: Arturo Tolenttino

Day laborers in Costa Mesa are suing the city to repeal its anti-solicitation ordinance because they say it is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For years day laborers in the city have alleged that police have harassed them as they looked for work on public sidewalks, falsely telling them that they had no right to be there. The city’s ordinance does not ban looking for work on public sidewalks, but places tight restrictions on solicitations for work, business or charity that even the city acknowledges it would not apply to protesters. Police records and interviews by the OC Voice reveal that besides the questionable constitutionality of the ordinance, the city has enforced the ordinance unequally, applying it almost exclusively to day laborers while ignoring violations by numerous other workers who twirl signs and make other motions on city sidewalks in order to attract customers to local businesses. The OC Voice was the first to break the story of alleged police harassment under the ordinance and the possibility that a lawsuit would be filed by the ACLU on behalf of the day laborers in October, 2007. This is the fifth of five parts in video. This segment shows the musical overture to the press conference (Feb. 2 in front of City Hall) led by the Mexican folk band El Centro.

Day laborers hold press conference to announce a lawsuit against the city, Feb. 2, 2010.

Day laborers in Costa Mesa are suing the city to repeal its anti-solicitation ordinance because they say it is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For years day laborers in the city have alleged that police have harassed them as they looked for work on public sidewalks, falsely telling them that they had no right to be there. The city’s ordinance does not ban looking for work on public sidewalks, but places tight restrictions on solicitations for work, business or charity that even the city acknowledges it would not apply to protesters. Police records and interviews by the OC Voice reveal that besides the questionable constitutionality of the ordinance, the city has enforced the ordinance unequally, applying it almost exclusively to day laborers while ignoring violations by numerous other workers who twirl signs and make other motions on city sidewalks in order to attract customers to local businesses. The OC Voice was the first to break the story of alleged police harassment under the ordinance and the possibility that a lawsuit would be filed by the ACLU on behalf of the day laborers in October, 2007. This is the fourth of five parts in video. This segment shows the English version of the press conference held on Feb. 2, 2010 in front of Costa Mesa’s city hall. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the day laborers by the ACLU, MALDEF and ENDLON.

Day laborers prepare to march to city hall to announce their lawsuit on Feb. 2, 2010. Photo: Arturo Tolenttino

Day laborers in Costa Mesa are suing the city to repeal its anti-solicitation ordinance because they say it is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For years day laborers in the city have alleged that police have harassed them as they looked for work on public sidewalks, falsely telling them that they had no right to be there. The city’s ordinance does not ban looking for work on public sidewalks, but places tight restrictions on solicitations for work, business or charity that even the city acknowledges it would not apply to protesters. Police records and interviews by the OC Voice reveal that besides the questionable constitutionality of the ordinance, the city has enforced the ordinance unequally, applying it almost exclusively to day laborers while ignoring violations by numerous other workers who twirl signs and make other motions on city sidewalks in order to attract customers to local businesses. The OC Voice was the first to break the story of alleged police harassment under the ordinance and the possibility that a lawsuit would be filed by the ACLU on behalf of the day laborers in October, 2007. This is the second of five parts in video,  and the third  part of a three-part interview with Chief of Police Christopher Shawkey.

Protester outside of Costa Mesa city hall, Feb. 2, 2010. Photo: Arturo Tolenttino

Day laborers in Costa Mesa are suing the city to repeal its anti-solicitation ordinance because they say it is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For years day laborers in the city have alleged that police have harassed them as they looked for work on public sidewalks, falsely telling them that they had no right to be there. The city’s ordinance does not ban looking for work on public sidewalks, but places tight restrictions on solicitations for work, business or charity that even the city acknowledges it would not apply to protesters. Police records and interviews by the OC Voice reveal that besides the questionable constitutionality of the ordinance, the city has enforced the ordinance unequally, applying it almost exclusively to day laborers while ignoring violations by numerous other workers who twirl signs and make other motions on city sidewalks in order to attract customers to local businesses. The OC Voice was the first to break the story of alleged police harassment under the ordinance and the possibility that a lawsuit would be filed by the ACLU on behalf of the day laborers in October, 2007. This is the second of five parts in video,  and the second part of a three-part interview with Chief of Police Christopher Shawkey.

Chilling Effect, first reported in the OC Voice in Oct. 2007.

Day laborers in Costa Mesa are suing the city to repeal its anti-solicitation ordinance because they say it is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For years day laborers in the city have alleged that police have harassed them as they looked for work on public sidewalks, falsely telling them that they had no right to be there. The city’s ordinance does not ban looking for work on public sidewalks, but places tight restrictions on solicitations for work, business or charity that even the city acknowledges it would not apply to protesters. Police records and interviews by the OC Voice reveal that besides the questionable constitutionality of the ordinance, the city has enforced the ordinance unequally, applying it almost exclusively to day laborers while ignoring violations by numerous other workers who twirl signs and make other motions on city sidewalks in order to attract customers to local businesses. The OC Voice was the first to break the story of alleged police harassment under the ordinance and the possibility that a lawsuit would be filed by the ACLU on behalf of the day laborers in October, 2007. This is the first of five parts in video, including a three part interview with Chief of Police Christopher Shawkey.