A Progressive Alamedan

Come See the Amazing Delaine Eastin this Wednesday Night

2011-05-09T12:46:00.001-07:00

Back in November, I saw Delaine Eastin, former California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, speak at the E-board meeting of the California Democratic Party.

She absolutely brought down the house. Just an amazing, dynamic, inspiring speaker.

Through my suggestion, she will be coming to this month's meeting of the Alameda Democratic Club. I am really looking forward to hearing her.

She will be speaking about education and California politics. I can't recommend her enough. Please come!

The meeting is THIS WEDNESDAY EVENING at the Alameda Hospital, 2070 Clinton Ave @ Willow in Alameda. Start time: 7 PM. Everybody is welcome, no admission is charged.

(Photo Credit: Tom Torlakson (Yes, him!)

I guess there are other people with my name out there

2011-04-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

It was just pointed out to me that somebody has recently been posting comments to local political blogs using my name. I guess that's the disadvantage of having a short and common name. Or, maybe some low-life is trying to impersonate me - it seems like too much of a coincidence.

Unfortunately, there is no way to really confirm identity on the blogosphere.

But I just wanted readers of this blog to be aware that things may not be what they seem, especially if it seems that the person using that name is either spewing nonsense, or engaging in online activities that aren't characteristic of the real me.

MSNBC - Banksters & Government Exposed FINALLY by Mainstream News!

2011-03-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

I know this isn't Alameda-specific, but it's a great introduction to a topic that has been capturing most of my attention lately, moreso than local and state issues. Of course we here in Alameda are all affected by this national (in fact, international issue).

We Are All Wisconsonites

2011-03-06T08:37:00.000-08:00

From Michael Moore's Page

The results are in....

2011-01-08T19:59:00.001-08:00

Unfortunately I didn't not prevail personally at the election today, but many of my slate-mates did. Congratulations especially to Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, Nwamaka Agbo, Jessamyn Sabbag, and Jakada Imani, and also congratulations to the other winners as well. Thanks to everybody who came out to brave the cold weather, and the long lines — especially those who waited patiently while additional ballots were printed out. (They had printed 500 originally; I think there were about 700 votes total -- double last time around!)

Why I'm Running for Delegate Today

2011-01-08T07:48:00.000-08:00

If you are reading this blog on its publication date — Saturday the 8th — and you are a registered Democrat, and you live in Alameda, parts of Oakland, or Piedmont — The 16th Assembly District, represented by Sandré Swanson — I hope you can come head over to Laney College's Theatre building today, arriving after 2 PM but before 4 PM, to vote for me, and the progressive slate that I am a part of:

6 Women: Nwamaka AGBO, Pamela DRAKE, Susan HARMAN, Jessamyn SABBAG, Margaret SCHULTZ, Esperanza TERVALON-DAUMONT

6 Men: Sean DUGAR*, Joseph J. GEORGE (Jakada Imani), Abel GUILLEN*, Robert PECK, Sean SULLIVAN*, Dan WOOD

* = additional candidates recommended by the slate

I am also running for the position of EXECUTIVE BOARD. One person from the twelve winning delegates is eligible to become the E-Board representative for our district. As one of the most inveterate delegates in our district, I feel that I'm qualified to step up to this additional level of responsibility. Thus, there will be a second ballot; please write my full name on that additional ballot and turn that in.

But the main reason I'm writing this is to talk about why I'm running. It's very easy to get caught up in the calling, emailing, team-building, endorsement-collecting aspect of running a campaign ... whether it's a big campaign or a tiny campaign like mine. But more important than that is the original reason that a candidate is running in the first place. For me, there are so many reasons to run for delegate, to do what I can to make the California Democratic Party become more progressive.

I am running because the Party should not be helping out those Democrats-In-Name-Only who are just Republicans in disguise, just because they are the incumbents. Democrats stand for something, and when there is a "Democrat" in office who does not stand for something, they should be shown the door. I'm looking at Congresswoman Jane Harman, and at Senator Diane Feinstein, for instance.

I am running because as delegates, we have the ability to vote on which candidates for primary elections get the endorsement of the party. We got to have great candidates like Dave Jones, Kamala Harris, and Debra Bowen on our November ballots due largely to their backing by the Democratic Party in the corresponding June elections.

I am running because, when enough progressives get together and build up a Party Resolution, it's possible for the state party to get a message out that is not being given attention at the national level. For example, the Party's message just over a year ago was a resolution called End the U.S. Occupation & Air War in Afghanistan. This would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

I am running because we all need to put a stop to rampant corporate control of our media, of our politicians, of our government, and of us - including our children.

I am running because we need to put a stop to the powerful, out-of-control military forces. Our entire current military operations are based upon lies. I'm in the middle of an amazing book about the presidency of JFK, and how hard he had to fight against his military advisors' constant pressure upon him to go with a military solution. (It's astonishing that JFK was able to keep us from nuclear annihilation!) Fast forward 50 years of rampant military-industrial-complex growth, and I can imagine that it must be nearly impossible for even the most liberal President to have any control over this. Wikileaks' recent disclosures have shown how horrible things are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there doesn't seem to be any end in site.

(What can we do as mere delegates to the party about this? Only a little at a time, but it's better to try than to throw up our hands!) We have to do something to put an end to our Naqoyqatsi.

I am running because we need to do something about our economy, which is in shambles, and perched on the edge of a precipice. The State of California is close to bankrupt, mostly thanks to Proposition 13, which has protected corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. And thanks to our latest propositions from the November ballot, the legislature has no way to raise new revenues without getting held hostage by the Republicans (who would prefer to see the state budget go down in flames). And things are even worse at the Federal level. Our country is deep in debt; our dollars would be worth nothing if they weren't the international standard — and this artificial support could crumble any time — and there is no end in sight to the hemorrhaging by the military on our budget.

I am running because our health care system is still in a horrible state. The well-publicized, heavily debated congressional reform ended up being just another giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

I am running because we need to put pressure on our President to do actually implement some of the things he promised. [Broken Promises] We still have the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We still have corporate give-aways. We still have torture. We still have the USA PATRIOT act. (You know, it feels like we still have George W. Bush!)

And I am running for so many other reasons. We're running out of time, in our economy, in our climate, in our oil supplies (the other inconvenient truth), in our constitutional freedoms. I want our kids to have a future.

A single delegate who cares about these issues can only do so much. A swarm, however, can be pretty effective. Let's hope that we get a swarm of progressive elected across the state today.

I'm again running for Delegate to the CA Democratic Party

2010-12-29T09:40:00.000-08:00

As I have been doing once every two years since 2005, I am running for delegate to the California Democratic Party. This is a way that activists from the grassroots can have some influence on the largest state Democratic Party in the country. It's sometimes an uphill struggle against the lackluster establishment, but we have had some real victories. I can connect California Democrats' huge November victories back to the energy of the grassroots, and I want to keep that up!

The only way I can actually win is if enough of my neighbors who are registered Democrats come to an event in Oakland (at Laney College) at about 2 PM on Saturday, January 8, and vote for me, in person.

If you are a reader of this blog, living in the 16th Assembly District (represented by Sandré Swanson — Alameda, Piedmont, and about half of Oakland), I hope I can count on your support. [Not sure what your district is?] If you can definitely or maybe come to vote for me, please Email me your RSVP so I will know to expect you.

This is my candidacy statement:

I have been a delegate for the last six years, and I wish to continue in bringing a progressive voice to the California Democratic Party. I will resume my membership of the Progressive Caucus and also the very progressive Women's Caucus. I've been active in a number of campaigns, and organizations like DFA and the CADC. I have contributed resolutions and additions to the CDP's platform document to make sure that the party has a strong message. We must hold Democrats accountable to these principles, and support progressive candidates, even if that means challenging incumbent Democrats who have slithered too far to the right. I am passionate about a number of issues including election integrity, reining in out- of-control corporations, exposing corporate-owned media censorship, and ending our country's state of warfare based on lies. Also, we need to bring in more funding for the Democratic Party from small donors, so it's not beholden to PACs and rich contributors. (That's why I'm a proud member of the DEM2012 program!) Since communication with the people I represent is important, I use my 300-person email list and my blog at http://progala.blogspot.com to get the word out.

Every Vote Counts! Two years ago when the election meeting was at Alameda Hospital, I was probably overconfident in my chances of winning, and I wound up tieing for the last slot, and then I lost the coin flip! (Our district was the most competitive district in the entire state!) So if you want to see the California Democratic Party head in a progressive direction, please don't assume that I have this "in the bag" like some of my friends did last time around! :-)

If you are willing to invest an hour or so, about 2-3 PM, on Saturday January 8th, please mark your calendar, and be sure to email me your RSVP.

This is a very small campaign, but all that means is that every single vote counts in a BIG way. I really hope you can come out to help, and ideally even drag along a spouse, neighbor, or friend who shares your progressive values to come vote as well — and to share the ride and thus help the environment :-)

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts, in the comments or by emailing me.

May you have a Happy New Year!

RSVP here [Note: this is a temporary email address]

California Democratic E-Board Rundown

2010-11-23T21:17:00.000-08:00

Freshly energized from the November elections, and with local elections for delegates to the California Democratic Party just around the corner, I decided to attend the party's Executive Board meeting in Sacramento this past weekend. Most delegates only attend the annual convention. (Each district has a representative to send to the E-Board meetings as well.) I've wanted to see what it was like, so I attended as an observer.

The general session, as you would expect, was extremely up-beat. While nationally, Democrats suffered, the Red Invasion didn't make it here. If the current trend continues, with Kamala Harris with a growing lead over Republican Steve Cooley, it will be a Democratic Party sweep of the statewide offices. In spite of being outrageously outspent (to the tune of $265 million) by the Republicans, Brown and Boxer held their own. Not only did California hold back the Republicans, several new seats turned blue, such as the effervescent Dr. Richard Pan, who will be the new assemblymember in my parents' district.

One of the highlights of the debrief was the results of the DEM2010 program that Hilary Crosby created. D.E.M. stands for "Donate Every Month" and the idea is that it's a way to fund the party from a large number of small, monthly donations from ordinary people like you and me, rather than big donations from PACs and CEOs. Because of DEM2010, the party was able to get door-hangers (long-requested, and never quite available in years past) created and distributed across the state, to help Democrats figure out the party's endorsements. (Yes, it's obvious when there is a "D" next to a person's name, but the non-partisan, Democrat-endorsed Tom Torlakson cruised into victory as well.)

(I joined DEM2010 shortly after it started, because I would rather have the party be fueled by the grassroots rather than big donors. It's just about to transition to "DEM2012" but the goals will be the same as we approach the 2012 elections. Maybe I can convince you to contribute a few bucks a month, to help toward the goal of making the Democratic Party's biggest contributor be the grassroots?)

I was also pleased to hear that the staff of the state party going to be trying to start a new program, during the times between election cycles, of getting the message out about what it means to be a Democrat. If they can actually do this right — get some advice from George Lakoff, for instance — this could have some real long-term benefits.

Part of a convention or E-board weekend entails going to caucus meetings. I've tried a few different groups over six years that I've been a delegate, and at this point I've found two that are a good match for me.

The first one, perhaps surprisingly, is the Women's Caucus. No, it's not just for women! I helped my friend Karen Weinstein run for chair of that caucus two years ago, and she turned what had been described as a dreadful, low-key group into an active, progressive group. This meeting featured a panel discussion by recent female candidates for office from around the state; the highlight was Oakland's mayor-elect Jean Quan. She gave some fascinating insights on running a campaign with the Ranked-Choice Voting system. (See sidebar.)

Jean Quan's insights on RCV

A longer campaign season (bypassing a June primary) gives an opportunity to get into the issues
Less money spent, since it's one campaign
It's more democratic, since many more people vote in the November
It makes you build coalitions (e.g. asking for the second-choice vote if somebody is already supporting another candidate; suggesting a second choice.)

We also got to hear a presentation by Deliane Eastin, the former California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Wow, this is one progressive, impressive lady. Though she was glad to see the Democratic do well in this election, she did not pull any punches when it came to pointing out flaws and problems in our country and in the Democratic Party. She is somebody that I (and several others, it turns out) would like to see become chairperson of the California Democrats!

The Progressive Caucus was, not surprisingly, the political highlight of the weekend. It was also a fresh (albeit somewhat depressing) antidote to the giddy victory dance of the general session. We were reminded that with the passage of Proposition 25, the state legislature can now pass a budget with a simple majority, no longer subject to being held hostage by the Republican minority. However, a two-thirds vote is required to raise taxes, and with the passage of Proposition 26, the same thing goes for fees. So now we have a $25 Billion hole in an $80 Billion budget. And, not to mention, a new governor who promised no tax increases without a "vote of the people," so even if the legislature was likely to somehow come up with new sources of revenues, he'd likely veto it.

California is in deep.

We also heard some analysis of the Democratic Party doldrums around the country, and I think I agree with what I heard. Political activist Norman Solomon pointed out the ways that Obama is doing damage to the Democratic Party (and to the country) — he focused on the "deficit commission" that Obama created to essentially dismantle the New Deal. He also spoke about the "warfare state" that the country has become.

It was certainly an interesting and energizing weekend. Perhaps too energizing — There are so many things that need to be done and I feel like I'm being pulled in multiple directions. Well, I'll start out by running for the Delegate position again, and bring along as many progressive activists as I can in the process. The caucus meeting for this will be in early January, probably in Oakland, and I will be asking you (if you are registered Democrat living in the 16h Assembly district, represented by Sandré Swanson) to come out and vote for me!

The Impact of Ranked Choice Voting

2010-11-05T21:34:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the surprising news in the Oakland election is that even though Don Perata appeared to be in the lead, the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) system — used in Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro — has caused Jean Quan to be the winner, if the numbers stay steady.

This is a huge deal, and it took me a while to wrap my head around how it came about.

Up until now, I have thought of RCV as a way to let people avoid "throwing away" their vote in a race with long-shot participants. For instance, let's say that you are a Green at heart, so you would vote the for Green candidate (such as Ralph Nader in 2000) but put the Democrat as your second choice. Then, once the Green Party votes (and other minority votes) are transferred away, the combined first and second choice votes might affect the race. In 2000, that might have allowed Al Gore to win, for example.

But the impact in Oakland is even more stunning. It allowed the race to have plenty of candidates, and people could vote for the top three candidates that they would prefer. If their top choice didn't make it, then their vote would count toward their second, and possibly even their third choice.

It appeared that a lot of people who voted for Kaplan, who was in third place initially and also after the other candidates were eliminated, chose Quan as their next choice over Perata by a three to one factor. That meant that when Kaplan was eliminated in the tenth round, this put Quan over the top, giving her the majority.

This is way different from the Ralph Nader scenario I mentioned earlier. Is this some kind of sham? Didn't more people choose Perata? How does Quan get to win when Perata got more votes?

The ranked choice method is, literally, a run-off election. Remember, Perata didn't get a majority. So the instant run-off allows voters to choose between the top two vote-getters. More Oaklanders chose Quan than Perata, so she will be the winner.

Alameda's Turn?

We are surrounded by cities with RCV in their municipal elections, so maybe it's time for us to get on board too. Our Mayor-Elect was not elected with a majority, causing some people to gripe about it, but that is the way it currently works. What if our elections functioned similarly? The results we have now might not be the same.

For instance, let's take a hypothetical case with the city council. We had a crowded race this year. We had several great candidates, but there were certainly those who chose to vote "strategically" and not risk "throwing their vote away" on a candidate that they didn't think would likely win. For instance, John Knox White avoided any "honorable mentions" in his endorsements as Lauren Do and I did, because he didn't want to reduce the number of votes for the front-runner candidates on the "Democratic" side of the race.

If we had RCV, this wouldn't have been necessary. Somebody could have chosen, say, Jeff Mitchell as their first choice, with Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft as their second choice, and Rob Bonta as their third choice, and even if their first two choices didn't make it, their vote would help Bonta rather than be eliminated (bringing somebody like Jean Sweeney closer to being elected).

It also might have helped other candidates do better and even affect the final outcome. I actually tried running a hypothetical scenario starting with numbers that are similar to the current totals, and imagined elimination based on the dynamics of the election.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but here is a possible scenario I played with, using familiar names and imaginary rankings, coming in after all but the top four are eliminated. Bonta and Tam might be leading with 9800 votes and 8900 votes respectively, sharing most of the transfer from Jensen and Ezzy Ashcraft. Johnson and Sweeney would come in next with 6900 and 6700 votes respectively. But then, with Sweeney eliminated, I would guess about half of her votes would transfer to Johnson and the other half would be "exhausted" as they say — in other words, no second choice. That would bring Johnson into the top two right alongside Bonta. That would definitively eliminate Tam, and while we could imagine a lot of her votes transferring to the other candidates, it wouldn't really matter since it's the top two we need.

So from my scenario, Bonta and Johnson would be the definitive winners in the election, with Johnson getting her solid second place (as opposed to the razor-thin lead over Tam in the real world results) due to cross-over from the Sweeney voters.

	Top 6	Elim Jensen	Top 5	Elim Ezzy	Top 4	Elim Sweeney	Top 3
Bonta	7100	700	7800	2000	9800	100	9900
Johnson	6200	200	6400	500	6900	3000	9900
Tam	6100	800	6900	2000	8900	100	9000
Sweeney	6600	100	6700	0	6700	-6700
Ezzy Ashcraft	4300	600	4900	-4900
Jensen	2600	-2400

Of course, things could be different as well. I can imagine a scenario where Tam got more second- and third-choice votes to make her the highest or second-highest vote-getter. But then Sweeney's elimination would bring Johnson into first or second place, so she would end up on the council.

It's interesting that all of the scenarios that I run, we still end up with Johnson on the council.

The other insight I've gotten is that, for better or for worse, RCV (or at least its specific variation, Instant run-off voting, used in Alameda County — there are other approaches) seems to do well at clustering what I will call "teams" for lack of a better term. If you have two strong and separate ideologies in a race, you will probably end up with one representative in the final pick in the top two when the rest of the candidates have been eliminated.

That's how in Oakland, Quan and Kaplan essentially were part of the "Not Don Perata" team, and when you added their votes together, their winning team representative beat out The Don. In Alameda, a city council race with RCV might have given somebody from the Johnson/Sweeney mindset a seat, and somebody from the Tam/Bonta mindset a seat as well. Having RCV might actually affect campaign strategies; I heard that Kaplan and Quan were encouraging their supporters to choose their counterpart on the "Not Don" team as second choice. A combination of a slate and a competition!

The Mayoral race in Alameda would have have been interesting, and could have turned out different, too. It's hard to tell. The elimination of votes for Kahn and Daysog could have transferred any way, perhaps divided equally. A lot of DeHaan's votes might have transferred to Matarrese, making him the winner (just like Kaplan did to put Quan over the top). Then again, DeHaan and Matarrese were very close, and if Matarrese were eliminated by being in third place, he might transfer enough votes to Gilmore to make her the winner. Or maybe not.

Clearly, there is no way to know what might have happened with this election — this was for entertainment purposes only. However, I think it would be a good idea to consider having Alameda switch to this system for the future. I think that it would make the elections more representative (in spite of perhaps not electing my favorite candidates), but more importantly, I think it would attract more qualified candidates, and encourage people to vote for their favorite candidates while still being able to vote for "back-up" candidates in case their top choice didn't make it.

What do you think?

Lessons from the Election

2010-11-03T17:00:00.001-07:00

So many sweet victories and so many sad losses. What a mixed bag of an election!

Local Results

I have never seen such a divisive local campaign season in the dozen years I've lived in Alameda. So much mud-slinging from some candidates and their supporters, outside interference from disgraced corporations, and accusations of corruption.

Yet somehow, the candidates who focused on the positive managed to do pretty well. I am very pleased that Marie Gilmore will be our next mayor, by quite a large margin over Matarrese and DeHaan. I think she will do very well. It won't be hard to improve upon the do-nothing reign of Beverly Johnson, who unfortunately managed to come in second (at least, as of this writing while we wait for the last mail-in ballots to be counted) with her high name recognition overpowering her lack of a serious campaign. Rob Bonta ran a positive and energetic campaign, and got the highest vote count, so he will be our new Vice-Mayor for the next two years.

I'm happy to see that Lena Tam will be returning for another appointed half-term; hopefully the mist will have cleared by the time she is ready for her 2012 council campaign if she is interested in continuing. I only wish that Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, who is extremely qualified for city council, will try for the "third time's a charm" approach and throw her hat in the ring early in the 2012 season so she can rack up some well-deserved endorsements from the groups (e.g. unions, Democratic clubs) that gave Gilmore, Bonta, and Tam such a boost.

Of course, there are those in Alameda who are unsatisfied, and who are convinced that SunCal has won this election. A commenter on Lauren Do's blog summed it up well: "Gilmore, Bonta and Tam will have to work very hard to prove they owe SunCal nothing, and as we know, proving a negative is almost impossible." For those in Alameda who have shown that they believe in "Guilty until proven innocent," it will be hard to erase those expectations.

The other big news locally is Robert Raburn's huge victory over incumbent Carole Ward Allen. I had a good feeling that Alamedans would be voting for Robert in high numbers, but it's clear that his campaign and his message resonated throughout the district. Robert stopped by the tally-watching/victory party last night in Alameda, where almost all of the local winning candidates eventually found themselves, entering the room to a thunderous round of applause.

(Note: My son, Alameda's youngest political wonk, gathered up these folks for a group photo and took the above picture...)

State Propositions

On the other hand, I wasn't too pleased with the state propositions. At least we managed to defeat Proposition 23, the worst of them. However, the progressive Proposition 19 didn't make it — no surprise considering there was no institutional support behind it. And the passage of 26 is going to be bad news for California. Hopefully we can figure out a way out of it.

California Offices

On the other hand, Democrats did great in the California offices. Values defeated dollars when we kept Barbara Boxer and elected Brown, despite the millions spent by Fiorina and Whitman. The rest of the state officeholders did well, too. I'm crossing my fingers that Kamala Harris (pictured) manages to stay ahead of her challenger when the last of the votes are finally counted over the next few days. She'll be a dynamite Attorney General.

Nationally, a Disaster

On the other hand... (channeling Fiddler on the Roof here...)

I think Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, summed it up best:

The biggest lesson from last night is actually pretty simple. For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year.

One possible bright spot is that our neighboring congressman Jerry McNerney appears to have defeated his challenger. But only by 121 votes. There will probably be recounts and late additions to the count, so this is a nail-biter.

A Must-Read: BART Board Candidate Forum Recap, Part 1

2010-10-23T08:38:00.000-07:00

A great chance to watch the three candidates for BART Board, district 4, answer questions. The commentary comes to the same conclusions that I have ... and that you will probably too!

Check it out here.

The video of the BART board being raked over the coals by Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks for their inaction on the 2009 BART shooting — and incumbent Carole Ward Allen throwing a hissy fit and walking out during the scolding is astonishing. It's worth excerpting here.

Why would anybody want this kind of "leadership" of BART?

Finishing up the ballot

2010-10-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

This morning I actually filled out my ballot. (So robots, feel free to stop calling now, OK?)

I've already posted my recommendations on the propositions, BART Board (Robert Raburn), the Alameda offices, and the state/regional offices.

There are a few races that I haven't covered yet, so I'll post my thoughts here. I don't have such strong feelings, so I'll link to some other endorsements in a few cases.

First off, I recommend Victoria Kolakowski for Superior Court Judge. I'm not sure what happened to her campaign since the June primary when she won the plurality but not a needed majority. Her competitor Creighton seems to be running a strong campaign, at least here in Alameda, so I don't know how she will fare. Anyhow, I saw her and her (at the time) two competitors speak at a forum before the June primary, and I was very impressed by her … and not that impressed by the others. She is extremely smart, experienced, and progressive. She garnered the Democratic Club endorsement, and mine as well. Some people I know are pointing out how her election would be historic in the LGBT community, but that kind of thinking doesn't really carry much weight for me — I really prefer the best person for the job, not a token. Anyhow, I think she's our best choice. Read more about her in the Living in the O endorsements. The Alameda County Green Party has a good write-up on her as well; in spite of my earlier criticism for the Alameda branch's write-ups, I think that their research on the race was thorough and well-written. [PDF download; see page 15.)

Regarding the Judicial Yes/No votes: I have not heard about any controversial choices this time around, so if you have the time, it should be OK to vote Yes. Or, leave it blank and let others decide.

Alameda School Board: Since i am not that familiar with the School District, I am going to just go with the recommendations of most of the local Democrats on this one; I'm voting for Sherratt and Mike McMahon. I know Mike and consider him to be an asset to the school board (as well as the Alameda Democratic Club, where he serves as treasurer).

AC Transit: I can recommend Elsa Ortiz; she's been an asset to AC Transit since she joined the board a few years ago. I don't know much about Joel Young, but he did get the City of Alameda Democratic Club endorsement.

For the Hospital Board, I was quite impressed by Stewart Chen, and only somewhat with Leah Williams, when I heard them at a recent forum. (Those two got the Democratic Club endorsement.) I want to warn about Elliot Gorelick: This is a candidate who wants to close down the hospital instead of making improvements. He has a chip on his shoulder the size of Rhode Island. While I would entertain a sunset of the hospital district, I — and I"m sure you — don't want to see the hospital itself close!

Be sure to turn page 2 of your ballot over, and vote for Measure F. It's easy to miss!

And if you are mailing in your ballot, put your 78 cents postage on the envelope!

Non-Political: Amazing Halloween Front Yard

2010-10-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

Apologies for venturing into the purely non-political realm (though the previous post did a bit of that) but this was too cool not so share.

Be sure to swing by the place on Santa Clara Ave. that is just a bit West from Willow Avenue some evening as soon as you can (before any weather or "hey you kids off my lawn" damage gets done) — There is the most amazing Halloween yard display I have ever seen. You need to stay a few minutes to soak in all of the subtleties; it is not just a static display, but moving and, in one case, somewhat interactive.

It's cool during the day, but amazing when it's dark.

Trust me — don't miss this.

Here's a preview (click to enlarge); it came out amazingly well for a non-photographer like me!

Signs of the Times

2010-10-14T16:41:00.001-07:00

On a school-pickup errand this afternoon, I happened to bike by a house that I think somebody mentioned in the comments of Lauren Do's blog.

Somebody who can't make up their mind? Or perhaps they are happy with any of the above? How will the person who lives here vote?

Further along on my trip, I got a good shot of the Halloween signs in the window at the USA Kung Fu Studio on Park Street:

Update: Found this Flickr Set of the signs around town. The last one is probably the scariest! :-)

Slideshow for your convenience:

78-cent, Triple Postage Required, Unless...

2010-10-14T08:05:00.001-07:00

Just a friendly reminder prompted by a tweet: The ballot weighs more than one ounce, so you will need double postage (78 cents or more) for mailing back your ballot.

However, I should note that if you are voting for Meg Whitman as Governor, you do not need any postage, thanks to a generous ($32 Million!) donation to the California Postal Commission by the Whitman campaign. Just write "Whitman" in the place where your stamp should go.

Remember, this offer is valid only for Whitman voters. All others, be sure to use 78¢ or more.

And, thanks to the generosity of the Fiorina campaign, voters who choose Carly over Barbara Boxer will be express-counted, which means that you can return your ballot up to one week after the normal receipt deadline. If you are voting for Fiorina, just mail in your ballot between November 3 and November 8, 2010.

Voters for Barbara Boxer, however, must send in their ballot early enough to be received by Election Day, November 2. So pop it in the mail by Friday the 29th to be safe.

Now for the Propositions

2010-10-13T07:03:00.000-07:00

I'm getting near the end of my set of posts with my recommendations, including State Offices, BART Board, and Alameda Mayor/City Council. Now it's time to talk about the California Propositions.

When reading this, you might want to take a look at Courage Campaign's handy chart showing how various left-leaning groups have endorsed. Not a lot of discord, actually.

YES on 19: Tax and Regulate Cannabis. Unfortunately a lot of political groups are "neutral" on this issue, like it's some sort of political hot potato and they don't want anybody to paint them as being pot-heads. That's really unfortunate; however apparently the measure is polling fairly well, so it has a chance. If you have read anything (e.g. Reefer Madness about the California Prison system and the underground economy behind Cannabis, you would see that ending this modern-day "Prohibition" would have a huge number of benefits. Not, it's not going to make more people smoke weed, just as ending prohibition of alcohol didn't create a nation of alcoholics. Without the Democratic Party backing this, and plenty of conservatives opposing it because they are, well, conservative, we're going to need every vote we can muster up to get this to pass — I hope yours. http://yes19.org/

NO on 20: More Redistricting change. This is a complex issue, but let's take a quick look at who supports it. Good ol' Republican Party, the big-business-supporting California Chamber of Commerce, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers association. Who opposes it? The League of Women Voters (LWV), CA Democratic Party, and many more if you look at the chart linked above. http://www.noprop20.org/

YES on 21: Vehicle surcharge to find state parks. A no-brainer for me! http://www.yesforstateparks.com/

NO~~/Undecided~~ on 22. Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services. The CA Democratic Party endorsed a NO; but TransForm (a local group I respect) is neutral. Here's their analysis: http://j.mp/bB1IR5 "Living in the O" gave it a Yes. Usually when something isn't a strong YES, I'll go with a NO, so we can try again and make it right.

Update: I had misplaced this additional information about 22 from a friend, so I'll insert it here. She linked to an article calling it a "power grab" by California redevelopment agencies and to an editorial by a former Orange County supervisor and wrote:

I'm a strong NO. I've followed redevelopment closely in Fremont and what I see is that it's a slush fund the local politicos use to reward their favorites and build their pet projects (which are often sports stadiums). Local redevelopment is an increasing drain on the State's General Fund and the only big pool of tax dollars left, so the State and the local governments are fighting over it. The State wants to give it to the schools to reduce the State's daily attendance funding obligations, the local governments want to keep it to use for their own (always pro-development and frequently corrupt) purposes.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ... Where was I? Oh yeah, HELL NO on 23. Just about every environmental and political group that I have any respect for is emphatically saying NO on this. Sierra Club, the Dem Party, the LWV, etc. This basically suspends air pollution control laws and pollution reporting requirements. http://Factson23.com

YES on 24. OK, I just barely understand this: Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation. Apparently it plugs a lot of loopholes that big corporations are using to reduce their taxes — and I'm in favor of corporations paying their fair share. The progressive groups give this the thumbs-up, across the board, so I'm satisfied.

YES on 25. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Remember the times over the last few years when the state legislator couldn't pass a budget? The Democrats were trying to keep services running; the minority Republicans were happy to shut down the state government, so they would hold out for all kinds of ridiculous concessions. Well, this proposition is only half of what we need to solve our state budget being held hostage by "we don't care what happens to the state budget" Republicans. There was a much better ballot measure submitted that didn't make the cut. Oh well. This will help a bit, though. It gives the legislator majority rule (not minority tyranny) for passing a budget.

NO on 26: Yikes, this is almost the opposite of 25. This is called the "polluter protection" proposition. Democrats, Sierra Club, LWV, etc. all oppose it. http://www.stoppolluterprotection.com/

YES on 27. This is the other half of the confusing Prop 20. It would eliminate the redistricting commission that was formed a few years ago, which I was against -- and has basically been a joke. So I'm certainly for the elimination of it.

I hope this has been of some use!

What about the State Offices?

2010-10-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Unless you quickly sent in your ballot already, you are probably still puzzling over the many propositions and other state-wide races. For what it's worth, I thought I would offer my perspective on a batch of those items.

For the state-wide offices, I'm pretty happy with the Democrats on the ballot, so it wouldn't bother me if you were to just look at the partisan slate and vote that way. However, that's a pretty mindless approach, and I do have some more specific opinions, so I'll touch on a few of them.

Jerry Brown, for Governor, is not my favorite politician, and I wouldn't call him progressive. But he is certainly seasoned, and experienced. The alternative, Meg Whitman, is a frightening prospect. I wouldn't want to dilute Brown's chances of preventing her from getting the job, so its Brown all the way.

Debra Bowen, running for re-election as Secretary of State. The chief of our voting systems, I have been a big fan of hers ever since she was running for the office in the June primaries four years ago. She is more dedicated to fair elections than anybody I have ever seen; the exact opposite of the Secretaries of State that made Florida famous in 2000 and Ohio famous in 2004. She has done a great job in the last four years and absolutely deserves another round. (Personally, I'd like to see her as Governor someday!)

Kamala Harris has been my strong choice for Attorney General ever since I got familiar with her at the California Democratic Convention in Los Angeles earlier this year. Really amazing person. I highly recommend her book Smart on Crime as well. I look forward to seeing what she can accomplish.

Dave Jones is running for Insurance Commissioner. I first met Jones — currently an assembly member representing the Sacramento area — several years ago, and I've followed his career since then. He is truly a progressive, and a really charismatic leader. I think he'll be great at this job.

Betty Yee, up for re-election in the State Board of Equalization, is another real progressive that I've known and admired over the last few years. Not that it matters, but she lives in Alameda now!

Anyhow, the Democrats have a good line-up in this year's election. And let's not forget Barbara Boxer, who is, like brown, against another pay-for-your-election rich CEO multimillionaire, for Senate. I've seen her stand up for what's right when no other senator would. While I'd rather have another Senator instead of Feinstein, I firmly stand behind Boxer for another term in the Senate.

Local Green Party Tainted by Conservative Endorsements

2010-10-04T11:23:00.000-07:00

As I research the ballot propositions and candidates when it gets close to an election, I like to look at the endorsements from a number of groups and political parties on all sides of the political spectrum. If a group that I like is in favor of a candidate or issue, then that helps build my case on the positive side. Conversely, if a group that I tend to disagree with is on one side, then I'm likely to find myself on the other.

Considering myself progressive, I am always interested in seeing how the Green Party (at the State or local level) has analyzed the issues. It's a progressive party, though I prefer to try to make the Democratic Party more progressive from the inside, rather than promote never-in-a-million-years candidates. (If ranked choice voting is able to spread more, maybe we can truly vote on our principles without "throwing away our vote." But that's for another discussion.)

I was pleased to see the endorsements from the Alameda County Green Party (PDF download) recently become available. There are some thoughtful analyses of the state propositions; their endorsement of Robert Raburn (for BART board) and Victoria Kolakowski, whom I support for Judge, are good reads as well.

But then, take a look at their endorsements in the Alameda races! The Greens have turned into Conservatives!

They advocate Doug DeHaan, Jean Sweeney, and (weakly) Beverly Johnson.

Sorry, did I make a mistake? Was I looking at the endorsements for the Republican Party?

No, you heard it right.

It's clear that whoever is contributing the opinions of the Alameda election is firmly planted in the SunCal-Paranoia mindset. The endorsement article begins:

There are two outstanding candidates in the Alameda city election. The critical issue is to prevent developers SunCal/DE Shaw from returning from the near dead and funding candidates who will go against the 85 percent of the voters who rejected the developer takeover.

So that's it? This is all that is election is about? Not the city budget? Not the lack of leadership? Not the back-room dealings in City Hall? Not the terrible state of our school district funding? Not transportation? Not abuses of power by city staff? Not wasteful witch-hunts?

The article continues:

There are two candidates who stand out for a positive plan for a green Point that would benefit Alameda. They are Jean Sweeney (for City Council) a community activist, and Doug de Haan (presently on the Council, now candidate for Mayor). Steady, honest and trustworthy: they have done their research and have taken the correct stand since day one.

Honest, Trustworthy, I won't deny — I have known the Sweeneys for years and they are nice people as long as you don't disagree with them, and I would trust them to stick to their beliefs. But saying DeHaan is "steady" is going too far. I remember when he was against the theatre (a point that had its merits) but then he changed his approach after the project was a success, taking credit for it! There's a difference between changing your mind (which, despite those who like to use the term "flip-flop," is legitimate if somebody can admit they have learned and re-evaluated something) and going for 1984-style "We have always been at war with Eurasia" history-changing. That is not "taking the correct stand since day one."

This gets fun:

Regarding a second City Council candidate to be considered? It’s hard to call but we must say for city council vote “no” on Lena Tam and Izzy Ashcraft as the developer candidates. Bev Johnson, now terming out as mayor but eligible for council, is now independent of SunCal, hav- ing realized the highly risky plan. She would be our next choice. Bonta is a bit of a puzzle as he had been regarded as a Lena Tam protege. However when Tam was suspected of passing secrets to the developer and violating the Brown Act with majority emails, he distanced himself from her, and claims he voted again the SunCal plan.

Hmm, "Izzy?" You would think that with Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft involved in community service, saving the library, the hospital board, and the planning board for over a decade, the author would know how to spell a candidate's name right. Or perhaps the author, like former Blogger Don Roberts, was having a bit a flash back to his years as a schoolboy, when it was fashionable to make fun of people's names.

And check out the passive-agressive approach to just smearing Lena Tam's name with innuendo and then for no good reason, associating Rob Bonta with that same smear. Perhaps if the author had gotten to know Rob over the last few years as I have, or even read some of his statements, Bonta wouldn't be as much of a puzzle.

The larger Green Party is probably completely unaware that their local branch has been taken over by conservatives, much in the way that some branches of the Democratic Party have been partially infiltrated by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. (I know several former Green party members who have given up on the local chapter, and joined the Democratic Party and the Alameda Democratic Club.)

So enjoy and pay attention to the green's endorsements for non-Alameda issues, but consider the party "tainted" when it comes to local politics.

DeHaan Supporters Display Sour Grapes, Paranoia

2010-10-03T16:24:00.000-07:00

This afternoon, Mayoral candidate Doug DeHaan and a few dozen of his supporters rallied in front of the fire station, apparently to protest a number of things that they didn't like, such as some kind of supposed manipulation by SunCal of the Alameda Firefighters.

Showing signs proclaiming "Go Home SunCal" and "Dirty Politics", the rally marks a turning point for DeHaan's campaign, switching into "negative campaigning" mode.

I am guessing that the original intent of the rally was to protest against the firefighters' union for their endorsement of Marie Gilmore. Of course, I'm sure that if DeHaan's campaign were to get such a prime endorsement, they would proudly display it on their supporters page. That's one of the big functions of unions — they endorse candidates that they think will do a good job. (In fact, apparently they endorsed Gilmore despite her clearly telling them that she was vehemently opposed to one of their pet issues!)

So if this was the idea behind the rally, it's just a case of sour grapes.

Judging by the crew that assembled and the signs they carried, though, it seems that these particular supporters of DeHaan are more interested in showing off their paranoia about SunCal. Really pathetic, guys.

Perennial City Council Candidate Ash Jones showed off his sign, apparently he thinks that the election is being "cooked" somehow.

I'm sure that this group assembled to get some attention. However, I think that mostly what they are going to get from this stunt is backblow.

I think that DeHaan is a good person, even if I don't agree with his passive-agressive political tendencies — thus I can't support him for Mayor. I'm guessing that he was convinced by political consultants that this would be a good idea for his campaign. Hint: It isn't.

Naturally, there were no signs protesting the shenanigans at City Hall such as the phantom client of the City Attorney that had her proclaim the Fourth of July Parade as being an inappropriate venue for free speech, or the thousands of dollars spent on political witch-hunts. DeHaan has not spoken out about these major problems with our current city government; I certainly wouldn't expect him to start now!

Endorsement: Robert Raburn for BART board

2010-10-02T07:11:00.000-07:00

Most people in Alameda are talking about the race for Mayor and City Council, and are probably wondering a bit about the plethora of state propositions. Little attention is being paid to the "bottom of the ballot" races.There is one race that I have some very strong feelings about: the race for the BART director that represents Alameda (and part of Oakland).

As Alamedans, we have a love-hate relationship with BART. So close, and yet so far! And you might have heard about the current BART leadership's work on a $500 MILLION Oakland Airport extension -- that will drop people off in a parking lot rather than the terminal.

The leadership of BART is out of touch. Even though they lost $70 Million dollars in Federal funds for civil rights violations, they are still going ahead with this boondoggle project.

This is outrageous. We need to send our current BART director, incumbent Carole Ward Allen, packing.

Fortunately, we have a WONDERFUL candidate who is running against her:

ROBERT RABURN is somebody whom I have known for over ten years, and I have nothing but the highest respect for him.

Robert has been a tireless transportation advocate and expert from his Ph. D. training through his recent activism, working with me and Lucy over the years in his capacity in the East Bay Bicycle Coalition. He was instrumental in getting the bike station and the parking garage at Fruitvale BART, both of which I have found invaluable whenever I head over to San Francisco. He's also been involved in the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, helped replace the "world's shortest freeway" in Oakland, and chaired the Measure B Citizens Watchdog Committee.

Robert is the kind of guy who shakes things up and gets things done. He has gotten unanimous endorsement from the Sierra Club, and has lately been racking up endorsements from the City of Alameda Democratic Club (of which I am a member) and other clubs in the area.

Ward Allen and several of the other BART incumbents seem to be interested in laughable attempts to get re-elected by, for instance, lowering fares temporarily right before an election.

I hope you have a few minutes to watch this panel sponsored by the League of Women Voters. I found the incumbent to be oblivious to the current problems of BART and its misguided direction; other challenger Rivera had a few nice ideas but was light on specifics; Raburn, on the other hand, showed his understanding and expertise over and over in his answers.

Here are some profiles about the three candidates, and an article about the several challengers in the Bay Area trying to "Change Culture at BART."

I hope that you will vote for Robert in the upcoming election. And be sure to talk to your friends and neighbors about the BART race. In a low-information, bottom-of-the-ballot race, many voters tend to just vote for the incumbent. We can't let this happen this year.

If you, too, believe that we need a significant change, and you are sufficiently impressed by Robert Raburn's approach, feel free to contact me (see the info at the top of this blog page) and I will personally deliver a lovely sign for decorating your front yard!

Help Win in November at the Progressarita Party!

2010-09-24T15:47:00.000-07:00

THIS SUNDAY AFTERNOON, Fellow progressive activist David Teeters and I are throwing a party, and I wanted to make sure that both of this blog's readers — yes, that's you — are invited!

The idea is to get a bunch of Alamedans together under one roof (David's house, in this case), talking and munching and drinking — specifically, David's amazing Margarita. Two years ago at a similar event he called it the Obamarita; this time around it's the Progress-arita!

And, most importantly, we're trying to raise some money to help out Democrats (mostly progressive, or as progressive as we're gonna get) in their fight against the bizarre, often over-funded Tea-Bagger Republican challengers. We have chosen a handful of candidates who will get your donation — equally divided, unless you choose to split it up some other way.

The party is in Alameda of course — but if you happen upon this page and you are not in the area, or you can't make it, you are welcome to make a contribution in any case to help out!

Just head over to this page for details about the party and to make your contribution on-line, preferably in advance. (Or, bring your checkbook or credit card with you.)

http://www.actblue.com/page/progress-arita

We hope you can come!

My Endorsements for Alameda Mayor and City Council

2010-09-22T11:03:00.000-07:00

Today, Lauren Do posted here election roundup page. I guess that means I had better get on the ball and put my endorsements up; maybe if I ask nicely, Lauren will include these on her chart.

I'll write these over the course of a few days; I'll start with my endorsements for Mayor and City Council.

For Mayor I recommmend Marie Gilmore. This decision does not come lightly; I like several of the other candidates, so this was hard — at first. But I have noticed of late how Ms. Gilmore is one of the only two people on the City Council that seem to really give a darn about the terrible abuses of power that have been going on by our (current) Mayor, our City Attorney, and our Interim City Manager. Of the mayoral candidates, Gilmore is the only one who has spoken out, publicly and privately, against these abuses of power. I was really hoping that we would hear more, proactively, out of the other candidates, but the others have been disappointing.

Of course, that's just one issue — but a big one, because we need a leader who is willing to stand up to the staffers who seem to have a stranglehold on City Hall. City staff is supposed to answer to the City Council (who is supposed to answer to us), not the other way around.

I have observed the leadership styles of Gilmore, Matarrese, DeHaan, and Daysog on the council over the years. I have not really liked DeHaan's style, though away from the council seat he's truly a nice guy. Daysog and Matarrese have their hearts in the right places, but they haven't been as effective at turning the values they espouse into realities as I would like. Gilmore has a different style. She is often quiet and reflective, but then has a lot of insight, and jumps into action.

Though it is clear from looking around Alameda that Doug DeHaan is winning the "how many yard signs" race, I have noticed that most of the people I know (or know of) in Alameda that are really involved and interested in local politics are supporting Marie Gilmore. That probably explains the many endorsements she's been racking up from local organizations.

City Council: Lena Tam and Rob Bonta (with an honorary mention of Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft).

(Three names? Well, we can only vote for two — but if Marie Gilmore becomes mayor, vacating her council seat, the third-place winner will likely fill that spot. So I'm hoping that these are the three we get.)

If you look at Lauren's Chart, you will see that Tam and Bonta are racking up endorsements left and right. That's pretty impressive considering how an endorsement from an organization requires a pretty hefty super-majority, and the fact that we have so many candidates for council.

So am I just playing "me too" here? Well, no — I've actually known — and been a supporter of — both Rob and Lena for a while now. I have found that both of these candidates are super-intelligent and interested in making Alameda a better place.

Of all the candidates vying for a new spot on the city council, I think that Rob has the best mixture of qualifications, enthusiasm, intelligence, and values. (And Marilyn is right up there too; her experience on the planning board and her approachability have been stellar.)

Lena deserves another term on the City Council; I hope that enough people will understand that all of the controversy that was dragging her name through the mud was nothing but a politically motivated attack. For some, unfortunately, it seems that even an official exoneration is not enough. I hope that this is just a vocal minority.

New Poll! Maybe just a bit pushy...

2010-09-21T20:41:00.000-07:00

I had read about the robo-call anti-Matarrese push-poll making the rounds; I didn't get to hear it myself. But this evening, mere minutes ago, I got to participate in a call (made from a call center in Utah) about local politics. It was a bit more detailed, but I still think it had a "pushy" demeanor to it.

The caller asked for the male voter of the household. Interesting — the conductors of the poll (Hi, whoever you are!) are either trying to convince the men in the households, or maybe they are really want to find out what men in Alameda think about this.

After a bunch of basic questions, they got into the heart of the call. They asked for three priorities for the upcoming city council. They listed a number of choices. It was an interesting list, though by no means comprehensive. There were several choices that had to do with the running of city government (transparency, waste of taxpayer money on "witch-hunts," corruption in city hall, new jobs in Alameda, spending, etc.) but certainly there would be many possible priorities that some might have that were not listed in the choices, e.g. developing Alameda Point, improving our schools, solving transportation issues such as non-automotive access to Oakland for people on the West half of the island, and so forth.

One question went into great detail to mention the exoneration of Lena Tam by the District Attorney, asking if I was more favorable to her after hearing that she was declared innocent.

Finally, the pollster asked who I was planning on voting for in the local race. (I helped her pronounce "Matarrese" for the benefit of the next victim of her call!)

All in all, it certainly seemed less obnoxious and blatant than the annoying robo-call that was going around a few days ago. Whoever commissioned the call probably was trying to get a state of the campaigns, but also tried to make sure that people got the message out about Lena Tam's exoneration. Maybe they really were trying to see if knowledge of this would change people's minds enough.

In any case, I feel just a bit slimy from having gone through the poll. But I did it for both of you readers of this blog, so that you will be forewarned should your phone be the next to ring.

Alameda Democratic Club Endorsements

2010-09-16T17:13:00.000-07:00

I just got the results from last night's meeting of the Alameda Democratic Club where a huge crowd attended to help shape the upcoming election.

I couldn't be more pleased with the results.

From a very crowded field of candidates for City Council, Rob Bonta and Lena Tam reached the 60% threshold needed to get an endorsement. Bonta's endorsement was not a great surprise, considering he has been such an integral part of the club for several years; Lena Tam's endorsement showed that most of the club's members are ready to move on from the "hit job" that she was subjected to this summer, and let her get back to work in a new term.

Marie Gilmore got the endorsement for mayor. I had expected there to be too much competition (especially from Frank Matarrese and Doug DeHaan) to reach the 60% threshold, but there you go. Gilmore is a great choice; while I like and respect many of the other candidates, I think that Gilmore has shown tremendous leadership over the years; she is also the only mayoral candidate who has really stuck her neck out to try to expose "Paradegate."

Robert Raburn got the endorsement for BART board. This is a huge victory and a great step in bringing down the juggernaut incumbent Carole Ward Allen (whom I recently discovered was once a major Republican activist during the 1990's)! While Ms. Allen seems to be getting endorsements from elected officials in the area, showing that she has a lot of powerful friends, Robert Raburn and his message seems to resonate with ordinary citizens who are interested in stopping BART's Airport Connector Boondoggle and actually improving the status quo.

School Board endorsements were Mike McMahon (a long-time pillar of the club) and Margie Sheratt (the only other serious candidate for the position, from what I could tell). For Hospital Board, Stewart Chen and Leah Williams were given the nodd. For AC Transit, Elsa Ortiz (whom I supported when she was first running for the position) and Joel Young were endorsed.

All in all, a good show. The fact that so many endorsements were able to happen shows that Alameda Democrats are actually unified pretty well. Still, it will be a big fight come November— there are many supporters of DeHaan (at least, judging by the number of signs around town); I expect that many Measure-A-or-die fanatics will be supporting Jean Sweeney (who is, outside of the political arena, a very nice woman, but just doesn't seem to be able to deal with anybody who even slightly disagrees with her).

Great Editorial about BART Fare Reduction

2010-09-13T13:16:00.000-07:00

Did you see the editorial in the Alameda Journal last Friday? Here it is online.

The BART board of directors — Our representative is Carole Ward Allen — have so blatantly come up with this election-year scam. They think we are stupid enough to fall for it.

Maybe they think a nickel fare reduction (for a six month period) will make people forget about their boondoggle Oakland Airport Connector.

Well I'm not, and I'm sure you aren't going to fall for it either.

Carole Ward Allen, it's time for you to step aside.

(Later, I'll be posting a bit of information about Robert Raburn, my choice to replace her.)

Stark, Obama criticisms

2010-08-16T14:58:00.000-07:00

Last week, the Alameda Democratic Club had a visit from our representative in Congress, Pete Stark.

Speaking at a Democratic Club, as opposed to a town hall, it was a friendly audience. Most of the questions were thought-provoking questions, and he had decent answers to most of them.

Unfortunately, it was crystal clear that Mr. Stark did not understand the issue of "Net Neutrality." His answer was a rambling, incoherent non-response — the kind that make people hate politicians. I wish he had instead said something like "I'm really not familiar with that issue; let me get back to you on that."

Or better yet, our representative in Congress really should be familiar with this issue. Perhaps he can look into the criticism that some of his fellow Democrats in Congress had on the recent Google/Verizon proposal.

On another note, I wanted to make sure that people read an open letter to President Obama (PDF Link) by the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, of which I have been a proud member since shortly after I started being a delegate to the state party. This letter really sums up the intense disappointment I have had with the Obama administration.

A small excerpt:

You promised to work for meaningful health care reform – we got a woeful compromise. You committed to seek to reign in an out-of-control financial sector – we got third best. You seemed to be in favor of winding down unnecessary and increasingly inept and unwinnable foreign adventures – we got an escalation of an untenable and unending war. You promised to close Guantanamo and end don't ask, don't tell – neither has seen much of your efforts. You campaigned against the Bush imperial presidency, and then you expanded it. We could go on.

Wow. Please take a moment to read the whole letter.

Two or Three City Council Openings

2010-08-05T12:01:00.001-07:00

It appears that there are going to be a lot of candidates for City Council. It's actually frustrating to me; there are more candidates I'd like to support than the two openings can handle!

However, it occurred to me that there is a chance that the next mayor we elect may leave a fresh opening on the council, depending on whether their term is still active or not.

I checked with the City Clerk, and she referred me to Section 2-7(A)) of the City Charter:

Vacancies caused by the election of a Councilmember to the office of Mayor shall be filled by the candidate not elected for a contested Council seat who received the highest number of votes, provided said candidate received votes from at least 10 percent (10%) of the total number of voters.

Very interesting. So this means that if the mayoral election leaves an opening, there could be three people joining the council (as new or returning members).

"My Word" in the Journal

2010-07-23T11:14:00.000-07:00

I sent in a Letter to the Editor of the Alameda Journal, and it got published as a "My Word" editorial. You can read it at the "Inside Bay Area" page, or below.

I was disappointed to see no mention in last week's Alameda Journal of the abominable restriction of First Amendment free speech rights at the Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.

Yes, the as-yet-unsubstantiated attack by the acting city manager on Councilmember Lena Tam is certainly newsworthy, but in my opinion the "real" scandal going on is the abuse of power that somebody — we don't know exactly who — is wielding in order to stifle political opposition in the upcoming mayoral and City Council race.

A memorandum written by Alameda City Attorney Teresa Highsmith effectively banned candidates Rob Bonta and Tony Daysog from announcing their candidacies for city offices in the parade. Other groups such as the Alameda Democratic Club were prevented from any advocacy for the upcoming November election. (Pretty ironic that these restrictions took place on the day in which we celebrate our American freedoms, isn't it?)

Mayor Bev Johnson claimed in a television interview that the parade committee directed Highsmith to produce this letter. Does this mean that any 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization can now direct the city attorney to do its bidding? I called the City Attorney's Office twice to get confirmation of Johnson's statement, but my calls have been unreturned. Parade committee chair Barbara Price, in an e-mail to me, denied that the committee had the authority to make such a request and that somebody else directed the ruling.

Regardless of who instigated the ruling, it goes against Alameda's city charter, which states that the city attorney "shall not commence any action without permission of the council or written instruction of the city manager.

I confirmed with the city clerk's office that there was no written communication from the city manager or record in the City Council minutes of such a request being made.

This sounds to me, layman that I am, that the city attorney violated the city charter and acted at least unethically, if not illegally, in producing this letter.

And who is directing the city attorney to do their bidding? Could the acting city manager, or any member of the City Council, stand to gain anything by preventing nonincumbent candidates for council or mayor from declaring their candidacy in front of thousands of Alamedans?

I call upon the city attorney to tell us how she was directed to issue the memorandum, and I ask the Journal to do some digging as well. "Paradegate" is the real scandal happening in Alameda, and it reflects poorly on us a city until the responsible parties are exposed.

ParadeGate: Cui Bono?

2010-07-04T20:54:00.000-07:00

I'm posting a follow-up on the whole parade issue for two main reasons. First, I've always wanted to give a scandal a name that ends in "gate." Well, I'm calling this ParadeGate, and I hope that enough people raise a stink about what happened, and use this term to communicate the importance and local impact of the scandal and the long-term repercussions it brings.

Second, I want to make it clear, based on a misinterpretation of my previous post, that I was not accusing anybody in particular of being responsible for the City Attorney's letter. I cast shame upon the Mayor only because, well, it's the Mayor's Fourth of July Parade, and, as the Mayor, the "buck" is supposed to stop with her. Whether it came from inside city staff, or council, or the parade committee, or the KGB, it doesn't matter: She's the Mayor, so the shame is, ultimately, on her.

As far as who is responsible, remember Innocent until proven guilty. This is turning out to be a quite a mystery that will need a bit of investigation. As with crimes and political intrigue, a way of come up with a list of "suspects" is to ask yourself: Cui Bono — who benefits? The comments on Lauren's latest post about the issue are ripe with potential beneficiaries of this ruling.

Ultimately, I think that this dirty laundry will be one the line for us to examine within the next couple of weeks, as long as the issue doesn't get ignored. (I was surprised that there was no mention of the issue in this last week's Journal or Sun, but maybe they weren't prepared to write up something on such short notice.)

By the way, I thought that the victims of the gag handled their predicament with honor and grace. Rob Bonta's campaign was out in full force — family and friends wearing Bonta T-shirts, big Bonta signs on the convertible — but thanks to some last-minute self-censorship, the signs just said "for City." I wonder if people were perplexed by the display, or if enough people knew that this was a censored campaign entry. Tony Daysog's float looked a bit more self-serving, a rolling résumé of sorts, but people could probably figure out that he was running for something again even if they didn't understand why his display didn't say it. The third victim that I could find by perusing the program was likely to be Chris Pareja, an independent candidate running for Congress. I don't know if he even made it to the parade or not; he may have been there but just lost among the People Who Weren't In The Parade Last Year. I'm curious to find out if anybody else was told that their float couldn't contain any advocacy.

Shame on the Mayor and the Fourth of July Parade Committee

2010-07-02T08:45:00.000-07:00

The test of democracy is freedom of criticism.
David Ben-Gurion

The Fourth of July is the day we celebrate our nation's independence, and, indirectly, our freedoms that were written in the form of constitutional amendments starting in 1791.

The very first of these amendments — I would say it's the first because it's the most important — guarantees freedom of speech.

And so on on the very day we celebrate our nation's birthday, Alameda is cracking down on the first amendment.

Lauren Do broke the story earlier this week. Several candidates for office are not being allowed to express the fact that they are running for office!

All of the arguments that they make are ridiculous; I'll let you catch more details on Lauren's blog post.

Usually I am proud of Alameda, but this week I feel like Alameda is one of those back-water towns you hear about occasionally that get into a controversy (usually with the ACLU stepping in) when an unpopular group tries to express its views in a parade or other public display. And even though I would agree with the majority of the people that those people were scumbags, this is America, and it's their right to express their unpopular opinions.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

So this weekend, I say Shame on Mayor Beverly Johnson. And Shame on City Attorney Teresa L. Highsmith. And shame on the Mayor's Fourth of July Parade Committee.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
Noam Chomsky

Happy Birthday, America, and have a great Parade, Alameda. Just don't be surprised if more groups are restricted next year. Unless we put a stop to this right now.

Get those ballots in!

2010-06-03T14:52:00.000-07:00

The election is upon us! Actually two separate elections!

For the "regular" primary election, don't forget the recommendations I made a few weeks ago. If you are in hurry, please at least vote YES on 13 and 15; NO on the other numbered propositions.

Election Day is this Tuesday, June 8. If you don't have your ballot sent in by today, take it to any local polling place in town on Tuesday. Don't miss out on making your voice heard!

I haven't covered Measure E, the Alameda mail-in election, much here. (This election is mail-in only, with ballots for those due on June 22.) Measure E has been covered in the other blogs and the local newspapers' letters too the editor. It seems that about 105% of Alamedans are in favor of it. Let's just hope that translates to actual numbers when the votes are counted.

I was more than a little impressed with the commercial that Measure E supporters put together for viewing online and the local cable TV channels. Watch it even if you are already supporting Measure E. A lot of familiar faces there!

The whole video just exudes classy. It looks like it was shot on a really big budget, but it was apparently all-volunteer produced.

Pete Stark Opposes Wasteful Defense Spending, DADT

2010-05-28T15:08:00.000-07:00

Our congressman, Pete Stark, is the bee's knees. He voted against the wasteful defense spending bill. Of course, bills tend to package in a mixed bag of pieces, and he wanted to make sure that he was in favor of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This is his statement, which I think is worth reading.

MR. STARK: Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose out of control war and defense spending. This bill (H.R. 5136) would authorize a record $726 billion for defense. Congress refuses to find money to maintain COBRA premium assistance for jobless workers, but somehow we can afford yet another increase to our already bloated defense budget.

We should recognize that this legislation would fix a long-standing injustice by creating a path for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I was proud to vote for the Murphy Amendment and I look forward to the day when LGBT Americans enjoy equal rights in all facets of society, including marriage. Although I strongly support the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," I cannot vote for this legislation.

The waste in this bill is shameful. It includes $361.6 million more than the Pentagon wants for a missile defense program that doesn't work, and $485 million in funding for another engine for a fighter jet that already has a working engine. I offered an amendment that would have cut the extra funding for missile defense, but it was not allowed to come to the floor for a vote. An amendment to strike money for a duplicative engine that the Pentagon doesn't want or need was also defeated.

Congress needs to get our priorities in order. We should be working to create jobs and assisting those impacted by the recession, not continue runaway defense spending. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wasteful bill.

Beware the "Voter Information Guide" scam

2010-05-27T21:49:00.000-07:00

Back in 2008, I pointed out a suspicious flyer that looked like it held the Democratic Party endorsements, but didn't. Well, it's back! Take your pick: Democrat or Independent, you probably got a flyer this week that looks like a very handy voter guide.

And the source of those recommendations?

This time I dug a bit deeper, looking up the return address. It turns out that the flyer comes from Political consultant Larry Levine, who is happy to endorse you on his flyer — for a price.

He's probably not breaking any laws with this, but it is sure slimy; especially the flyer for Democrats that looks like an official Democratic Party slate card (which I am still waiting to receive).

If you look very closely, you will see that candidates Gavin Newsom, Alberto Torrico, and Dave Jones paid for his endorsement at the statewide level, and John Creighton paid for the endorsement as Superior Court Judge locally. And of the propositions, PG&E and Mercury Insurance paid for Levine's endorsements of Propositions 16 and 17.

How does that compare to the Democratic Party endorsements? The only overlap is that Dave Jones got the party's endorsement. (I'm disappointed in Jones for participating!) All other races either didn't have party endorsements, or are the opposite of the Democratic Party endorsement.

It's really a shame that thousands of voters around California are probably going to actually look at, and use this flyer in making their judgments.

(And check out this for a laugh: There's a "No on Prop 14" blurb on the flyer, which does correspond to the Democratic Party endorsement. On the flyer targeted to Democrats, it has a quotation attributed to California Democratic Party chair John Burton. (This makes the flyer seem legitimate, right?) On the flyer targeted to Independents, it has the same quotation, except that it substitutes "Independent voters" for "Democrats," but this time It's attributed to Allan Clark, President of the California School Employees Association. Hmmmm.)

At least it's nice to see that this flyer is getting some attention as being a scam. One blog post on Daily Kos uncovered it a several years ago; a concerned citizen has created a website www.VoterInformationGuide.org warning people who may have googled the flyer about its true origins. And just today, a SFWeekly blog post has a great headline: Gavin Newsom Pays For Endorsement in Bogus 'Voter Information Guide'.

It's important that the old-school, cigar-smoking, deal-making, money-grubbing political operatives are exposed.

It's no surprise that on his flyer, Levine recommends a NO vote on Proposition 15. He didn't need anybody to pay him for that position — Proposition 15 is the first step in putting the likes of him out of business.

Let's put him out of business.

My Recommendations for the June 2010 Ballot (Alameda area + California)

2010-05-08T07:30:00.000-07:00

Election Day for the June Primaries is a month away. As you know, I like to send out my suggestions for upcoming elections based on my experiences and research.

Since many of us vote by mail, I figured it would be a good idea to post my recommendations earlier rather than later. (Please save, bookmark, or print this page until you are ready to fill out your ballot.)

Feel free to excerpt this and forward this to other Californians who care! I've tried to segment out the local stuff so it's easy to extract the state-wide stuff if needed.

THE PROPOSITIONS:

There are only 5 propositions on this ballot. I'm calling this the "Power Grab" election because several of these are about big corporate groups trying to grab power by spending a lot of money.

13: YES. This one's a no-brainer and supported by both the Democratic and Republican Party of California. Allows people to do seismic retrofitting and not trigger a property value reassessment.

14: NO. Change the primary election process to be a so-called "open primary" with the top two overall vote getters duking it out in November. You could easily end up with the top two money-spenders as your two choices in November. Imagine if it came down to Meg Whitman vs. Steve Poizner ... which millionaire would you choose? In local elections, the main problem is that in Red areas, it will generally pit R vs. R; in Blue areas, D vs. D. That doesn't really allow for much diversity in choices, and would make it nearly impossible to "flip" a district. Obviously opposed by the Democrats, but I was surprised to see it's opposed by the CA Republican party for pretty much the same reasons.

15: YES, YES, YES!!! This is a small step toward what we were trying to pass as Proposition 89 in 2006. A pilot program for the Secretary of State's office, it is public financing for campaigns so that candidates with the best ideas and most support -- not the most money -- get to participate in politics. Imagine a world where politicians are free from the campaign contributions of special interests.
More info: http://www.yesfairelections.org/

16: NO!!! This is a big POWER GRAB by PG&E. You've probably gotten a lot of YES flyers - PG&E is putting a lot of money (I read $34.5 million) into this! Passing this would amend the state constitution on behalf of one company, making it extremely difficult for local governments to set up public power agencies - which would take business away from the power giant. As an Alamedan with a local power company, I have a lot of personal reasons to appreciate having our own power company, especially during the Enron days when Alamedans were paying the usual for electricity while the rest of California was being robbed blind. Do you know that nonprofit municipal utility customers pay an average of 20%–25% less for electricity than customers of for-profit electric utilities?
More info: http://www.noprop16.org/

17: NO! This is a power grab funded by one company: Mercury Insurance. It would roll back the insurance regulations that were passed as Proposition 103 many years ago. Their ads make it seem like a nice idea, but it's really a way for this company to get a lot of extra money.
More info: http://www.stopprop17.org/ http://www.consumercal.org/article.php?id=1203

Props 16 and 17 are so disgusting. The initiative process was supposed to empower people, not corporations. Maybe 15 is a small step in the right direction....

Other local/non-partisan items on the ballot:

Alameda County -- Superior Court Judge, Office #9: I'm supporting VICTORIA S. KOLAKOWSKI. I got to hear all three candidates at a panel last month, and she was the only one that impressed me. She's picked up the support of a lot of fellow progressive Democrats as well.

California State Superintendent of Public Instruction: I don't really have any strong feelings here. Tom Torlakson seemed to be the front-runner, at least from those on the Democrat side of the room.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY:

If you are voting as a Democrat (either you are a registered Dem, or you are independent but have asked for the "Nonpartisan Democratic" ballot), you will have an opportunity to vote for who will represent the Democrats in the November election.

For Governor, the obvious front-runner is come-back kid Edmund G. "Jerry" BROWN. Viewed as too liberal by the conservatives, and not liberal enough by the progressives like me, he will probably do a decent job. I don't think anybody else is as qualified! The only other candidate I've heard of it Peter Shurman, who had a minor presence at the Democratic Convention and is running as a progressive. You could toss your vote to him as a protest vote, I suppose, though I wasn't that impressed by him.

Lieutenant Governor: This is a tough one. The two front-runners are Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn. I'm somewhat ambivalent, but I am supporting JANICE HAHN only because I think that the ticket needs balancing; I think that Brown/Newsom would have a tough time competing against the Republicans in November; but pairing Brown with a woman, from Southern California, without a lot of the baggage that Newsom has, might be a winning combination.

Incumbents Debra Bowen (Yeayyy!), John Chiang, and Bill Lockyer are running unopposed on the Democratic ticket. I can't think of any reason not to vote for them.

Attorney General is the only state race that is truly an open field. I got to hear many of the candidates, and though I thought the "vote for pedro" T-shirts were cute, I am supporting KAMALA D. HARRIS, a D.A. from San Francisco. She comes across as one of the brightest people I've seen. I really like her "smart" (as opposed to "tough") on crime approach.

Insurance Commissioner: I'm supporting DAVE JONES; I've actually met him a few times here and there and I like his politics. Jones was supported by a supermajority of delegates at the convention, so he got the official Democratic Party endorsement.

State Board of Equalization, District 1 (Coastal California) I'm supporting the incumbent, BETTY T. YEE. I met her a couple of years ago and I've always been impressed by her political passion. (For people in District 2, covering most of inland California and into Santa Barbara, I recommend CHRIS PARKER.)

State Senator: BOXER. A true hero. 'Nuff said.

Ronald Reagan Day? Ewwww....

2010-04-22T12:26:00.000-07:00

Apparently our lawmakers in Sacramento are on their way to proclaiming February 6th of every year as Ronald Reagan Day, in celebration of all of the wonderful things he did for California.

This "law" has already been passed by the State Senate and is now up for a vote in the Assembly as AB2412.

Reagan would be the third person to get a special day of recognition; his predecessors are Harvey Milk and John Muir.

Ewwww.

I would rather have February 6th, Reagan's birthday, instead celebrate some other notables, perhaps Babe Ruth or Bob Marley, who also were born on that day. Or maybe in celebration of Rick Astley's birthday, February 6th could be "RickRoll Day."

Anything but Ronald Reagan. Remember, this is the president who brought you the Iran-Contra affair, aid to right-wing movements in Central America, union busting, ignoring of AIDS, unprecedented nuclear buildup, and so much more. And let's not forget his California legacy, like sending in the National Guard to Berkeley!

So call up Sandré Swanson's office at (510) 286-1670 or (916) 319-2016 and tell them that Ronald Reagan is not somebody we should be celebrating every year. I just did, myself!

Democratic Convention Report

2010-04-19T17:53:00.000-07:00

This last weekend, I participated in the California Democratic Convention as a delegate.

The main focus of the convention was the selection of which candidates for office in the upcoming June primaries the Democratic Party would support. Also at hand, though not at all controversial within the party, were the upcoming propositions.

There were enough speeches to make your head spin. Prominent visitors included Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Brown, Debra Bowen, and many more.

The party passed the following positions on the propositions, essentially without dissent or controversy: Yes on 13 and 15, No on 14, 16, and 17. I'll be posting some more analysis of these measures in the weeks to come.

Jerry Brown is not the only Democrat on the ticket for June for the Governor's race, but certainly the only viable one. There was some significant competition for delegates' support between Gavin Newsome and Janice Hahn for the Lieutenant Governor's slot. The delegates voted on whom the Party would endorse, but there was no clear winner. Newsome squeaked by with a 50% majority but 60% threshold is needed to show a consensus. So the party will not be pushing one candidate over another for June.

For the office of Attorney General, there are a half a dozen or so candidates for the job, and they had agreed that nobody would be seeking the Party's endorsement. So while we heard from these candidates, it's wide open as to who will represent the Democrats going into November. I'll be sharing my thoughts on this primary race later.

There were two candidates for Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones and Hector De La Torre. I actually met Jones a few years ago, and have followed his candidacy, and I've gotten to be a strong supporter of him — as well as most progressives I know. Jones reached the 60% threshold in support among the delegates, so he'll be getting the weight of the party going into June.

The main item of controversy was a bit of a replay of a couple of years ago. Right-wing Jane Harman of the 36th District in Southern California was again challenged by progressive Marcy Winograd. This time, Harman took the threat seriously enough to come to the convention and try to defend herself. She showed her true colors when she tried to convince the members of the Progressive Caucus that she held the values of a Democrat and a Progressive — it was painfully clear she does not. Unfortunately, the party insiders made sure that she, as an incumbent, got the party's endorsement, even though she really belongs in the Republican Party.

You can't win them all!

This was my sixth convention — and, quite probably, my last for a while. I don't want to be one of those delegates who continues year after year and gets stagnant — there is plenty of "new blood" and I'll be happy to let somebody else do this for a while. :-)

Fireworks Expected at Pete Stark Town Hall

2009-08-11T12:13:00.001-07:00

This Saturday, congressman Pete Stark will be doing his periodic town hall meeting in Alameda, noon at City Hall.

Usually these are interesting but fairly sedate. According to his latest email newsletter, he's focusing on issues such as health care reform, protecting our environment, fixing cracks in our mental health system, help for working families, and voting against war.

Apparently there are some right-wing groups that are targeting town halls across the country, and Pete Stark's is expected to be hit — the idea not being civil discourse and disagreement, but disrupting.

Democrats, progressives, and level-headed people are requested to come to the meeting to stand up for health care reform, our better-than-average congressman, and the principles of calm debate.

(If you attend, don't get sucked into having an argument with the right-wingers!)

Please arrive a bit early; it may be crowded this time.

If you want to lean on Mr. Stark, ask him to take the pledge to voting against anything but a strong public option in the health care bill. He has not yet taken this pledge. It's the only way to preserve this option while other Democrats are succumbing to industry pressure.

This time around, the Democrats are the Bad Guys

2009-06-27T09:59:00.001-07:00

I was absolutely sickened by the passage in the House of Representatives of the Waxman-Markey climate bill. It reminded me of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act of a few short years ago.

What's that? A bill to fight the climate crisis being compared to the so-called "Patriot" Act?

If you saw Michael Moore's infamous Fahrenheit 9/11, you may remember the shocking confession by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan that in Congress they often don't actually read the bill.

And this is just what happened yesterday. Apparently 300 pages were added at the last minute to the bill at 3 AM. And regardless of their motivation for wanting or not wanting the bill, it was the Republicans who were right for trying to actually put the brakes on the process and actually give themselves time to read the bill. Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, raised questions about whether "there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber."

So now are you starting to see the parallels between this and the "Patriot" Act? I don't care what a bill is supposed to solve; if Congress allows it to be pushed through to passage like the railroad car in Back to the Future Part III, then there is a big problem with Congress. And this time, it's the Democrats who are conducting this train - not the evil Republicans.

So where does our representative, Pete Stark, stand on this? I'm not sure. According to SolveClimate, Stark voted No "on the grounds that the bill wasn't strong enough". OK, that's fine. But I really want to find out what he thinks about the whole way that the Democrats are allowing bills to be passed, unread.

This is a defining moment for the Democratic Party. It fills me with incredible sorrow that we had fought for so long to wrestle control of Congress away from the Republicans, only to have the Democrats do basically the same thing.

What is in these 300 pages that were snuck in at 3 AM? We'll probably find out soon enough, just as we eventually did with the "Patriot" Act, and I'm pretty sure we're not going to like what it contains. Even if the overall purpose of the bill is a "good" thing, sneaking in 300 pages of provisions without vetting them is most assuredly not. Remember, at the time that the "Patriot" Act was proposed, everybody thought it was critical that it be passed for national security. Boy, do we wish that never happened!

The only glimmer of hope is that there is a movement afoot to stop the passage of laws in the dark like this. It's called "Read the Bill." The idea is that all leglislation be made available to the public (on the Internet) for 72 hours before it can be voted upon.

There is a bill on the floor in Congress, called H. Res 554, which would put this rule into effect. I have been trying to find out if Pete Stark is in favor of this (and if he'll even sign on as a co-sponsor). I've gotten the run-around from his office.

If you have a moment, please call Rep. Stark at 202-225-5065 (Washington DC) or 510-494-1388 (Fremont Office) and tell the receptionist about H. Res. 554. (It's important to use the term "H. Res." and not "H.R.")

Shame on Nancy Pelosi. Shame on Henry Waxman. Shame on Congress. We should be better than this.

APC party - a good time had by all, plus big funds raised

2009-06-03T11:43:00.000-07:00

Last weekend, David Teeters put on a fundraiser party benefiting Alameda Point Collaborative a non-profit that is working "to end homelessness by providing housing and services to create communities where formerly homeless families and individuals can flourish."

This is truly a wonderful organization that I've been a fan of for many years now. It's one of Alameda's "best kept secrets" but I'm one of many who are trying to help get more people aware of it.

David's party was a big success, and managed to raise over $2000 for a good cause. (If you didn't hear about it, then you must not be on my email list. Send me a message at the address listed at the top of this blog and I'll put you on my informal email list!)

If you missed the party, or if you just want to help, there are a lot of suggestions for how you can help. The list suggests a lot of non-monetary opportunities to get involved, or you can just make a tax-deductable donation online.

This is one of Alameda's most worthy nonprofits (among, for example, BikeAlameda, near and dear to my heart, and the ever-popular Meals on Wheels), and it deserves your helping hand - especially in these lean economic times.

Mothers Day Greetings!

2009-05-10T07:50:00.000-07:00

This short video talks about the origin of Mothers Day. Yes, it's great that we spend at least one day (if not 365) honoring the the mothers in our lives… but this day was not created as a Hallmark Card day. It was all about Peace.

Top Twenty Reasons Why Proposition 1A is a Bad Idea

2009-05-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

This is a flyer that local Kathy Neal, Mario Juarez, and I created and distributed at the California Democratic Convention a couple of weeks ago. Feel free to download the flyer and make some copies to give to your friends and neighbors — or email to friends across California.

1. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is for 1A

2. Tying the Legislature’s hands behind its back is the wrong way to do a budget - We’ve learned that with Props 13 and 98.

3. In times of recession, the need for State services increases.

4. Californians only receive 4 years of new taxes in exchange for a

permanent spending cap. Permanent cap, temporary revenues = BAD DEAL.

5. Allows short-term legislators to defer a real budget solution until they are gone

6. Proposes to fix a symptom rather than the underlying problem

7. True budget reform must address the structural deficit – 1A does not do this.

8. Constitutionally removes essential flexibility to deal with the State’s fiscal needs – prevents the Legislature and Governor from setting priorities essential to a particular time.

9. In financially difficult years will hold State spending at a level that is too low to guarantee

adequate services and in good years restricts State from increasing revenues

10. Undermines our system of checks and balances by allowing the Governor to unilaterally make mid-year cuts without consulting the Legislature

11. Hastily drafted, behind closed doors, in secret, in the dead of night, without a single hearing or independent analysis

12. Dictates a shift in spending that can’t be changed, regardless of future needs

13. Could require cuts to public education, health care, public safety and others in good times

14. Will not do what it promises and instead will lead to deep cuts in service

15. The League of Women Voters urges a NO vote

16. Most observers expect painful degradation of service

17. Mandates a permanent spending cap

18. Prohibits legislators from taking full advantage of additional revenues when California comes out of the recession

19. Shifts responsibility for future budget decisions away from the legislature and onto invisible state employees

20. Does not fix fundamental budget problem - California is one of only three states requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to pass a budget. Republicans continually hijack the process!

2/3 budget rule = 1/3 tyranny

2009-05-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

I've been talking about the problems with the current 1A-1F propositions on the ballot for the May 19 special election.

The real underlying problem with our state budget is that unlike 47 out of 50 states, our state needs a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget. Although this seems like a good idea on the surface, that it would build consensus, it just doesn't make sense when there are such strong ideological differences for which a consensus can never be reached. Fifty percent majority thresholds exist for a reason! So each cycle, the Democrats (who have a comfortable majority in both state houses) have to work to try to get just a few Republicans to cross party lines to make a budget that covers things like, you know, education, health care, salaries for state workers, and so forth.

I mentioned a while ago that our Senator, Loni Hancock, introduced SCA5, which would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to fix the problem. It just needs to get some more traction to get passed by the legislature — but will that happen? If you have California friends outside of our district, try to get them to get their state senator to support SCA5.

Here's Hancock talking about the issue. This is an excerpt (hat tip to Calitics and Josh Richman) of a video documenting an Oakland School's bicycle trek to Sacramento to raise awareness of the issue. Watch this two-minute excerpt here:

Look, Dad, I'm famous!

2009-04-30T10:03:00.001-07:00

A short post: It looks like a picture of me handing out "No on 1A" stickers last Sunday is in today's Chronicle on page B5 — "B" as in Babylon, of course.

To save all three of this blog's readers from the trouble of heading over to the corner of Park Street and Santa Clara avenue to buy themselves a copy, I'll direct you to the image here. It's part of a barely-related story about the state budget woes.

And yes, I called my Dad (and Mom) to tell them about it. Though the main reason for the call was to wish him a Happy Birthday…

My "No" Endorsement on Propositions 1A-1F

2009-04-28T08:05:00.000-07:00

I send out an occasional email to folks I know locally and around California before election time who might not read this blog. Without further ado, this is the core of a message I sent out yesterday:

You probably have already received your information and ballots, and probably some mailings as well about Propositions 1A -- especially 1A -- as well as 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F.

My super-condensed recommendation: JUST SAY NO. Please vote, definitely, but I'd be just as happy if you voted NO on every one -- well, especially 1A.

But you probably want a bit more detail and perspective and nuance, especially because you are going to be seeing and reading impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue over the days and weeks to come.

First off, who is behind these propositions? It's our state legislators - a democratic majority held hostage by a republican minority to trying to reach 2/3 majority to pass a budget for the state. Year after year, they have a horrible time keeping the state running because, to paraphrase my state Senator (I think it was her), "It's hard to make a deal with somebody who doesn't care about the outcome." These propositions were their Faustian bargain in order to get a budget passed and prevent the state government from shutting down a few months ago. So there is immense pressure by most of the legislators, and Governor Schwarzenegger, to pass this. (I should note that our local representatives, Assemblymember Sandré Swanson and Senator Loni Hancock are, bravely, standing in opposition to most other Democrats on this issue.)

The reason these propositions -- especially Proposition 1A, the main one -- are a bad idea is that they are a SHORT-TERM FIX with LONG-TERM DAMAGE to our constitution.

You will probably be getting a lot of pleas to pass these propositions from advocacy groups, especially education groups, saying that we must pass these or terrible things will happen. (I should point out that educators are actually quite split on the issue -- the California Teachers Association (CTA) is for 1A; the California Federation of Teachers and the California Faculty Association are against it.) We are indeed at a precipice but unfortunately with these temporary revenues (starting in two years!) comes a permanent spending cap on state services.

The League of Women Voters says that "this measure would only make things worse." I couldn't agree more. These ballot measures only fix a symptom rather than the fundamental underlying problem. Colorado implemented something like this in 1992 and has suffered greatly because of it.

In the weeks up to the Democratic Convention last week, the state legislators put tremendous pressure on delegates to get the Democratic Party to endorse these measures. Delegates have been deluged with emails, letters and circulars, and personal or robo-phone calls from our party leadership, begging us to endorse their compromise. But it didn't work. The grassroots know better. The party couldn't reach the required number of votes to show a party consensus on Proposition 1A and several others.

I am hoping that with the Republican party (except for Schwarzenegger) in opposition to 1A, and the Democratic Party not taking a position, that this measure and most of the other ones can be defeated, which just means that our representatives in Sacramento will have to continue to fight for a long-term solution. There will still be a lot of money spent on both sides, with most of the Pro-1A funding coming from the aforementioned CTA along with Schwarzenegger's PAC, the billionaire owner of Univision TV, and Chevron, for example. (Hmmm....)

So here is the breakdown on the propositions:

1A - A state spending cap. This is the poison pill that has to go along with 1B. If this passes we are in deep, deep trouble.

1B - Education funding. Looks good but here's the trick - it only goes into effect if Proposition 1A passes. So the Democratic Party came out in support of 1B, but as a symbolic gesture only. Some people are voting "yes" strategically so that if, worst-case, Proposition 1A were to pass, at least we'd get the short-term benefit. I'm inclined to "just say no" to the whole process.

1C - Sells bonds for education backed by lottery revenues. This one did get the nod from the Democratic Party though just barely, which I think is a shame. I agree with one opponent of this who said "balancing the budget on the backs of those who play the lottery is despicable and shameful."

1D, 1E - diverting funding for childhood services and mental health services. This has been described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amount of revenue this would save is trivial in any case.

1F - a time-waster initiative that will probably pass because it sounds like a good idea. This blocks pay raises for state officials if the budget is showing a deficit. Sounds like an OK idea on the surface, which is probably why it's doing so well in the polls. I really don't care one way or another if it passes. The Democratic party came out strongly in favor of it despite its many flaws for (as I see it) public relations purposes.

If you are interested in more, check out Calitics, a respected California political blog, which has a really good run-down of these measures, with much more analysis than I can muster.

http://tinyurl.com/calitics-1a

And here are the LWV's positions:
http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0905/flyer.html

But feel free to ask me if you have any thoughts or questions. I'm by no means the expert on this whole thing, but I talked to a lot of people on both sides of these ballot measures, so maybe I can help you come to a decision for your vote.

And as always, feel free to forward this missive along to your friends and neighbors.

CA Democratic Convention Wrap-Up

2009-04-27T07:09:00.000-07:00

Back from the weekend's California Democratic Convention, and with a good night's sleep behind me, I thought I would post my recap of the event. But first, the one-word executive summary: SUCCESS!

I came to the convention with high hopes for a number of candidates and issues. In earlier posts I talked about my positions on the candidates, specifically my endorsements of Karen Bernal for chair of the Progressive Caucus and Karen Weinstein for the Women's Caucus; my endorsement (along with a bunch of volunteering, even with the kids helping) for Hilary Crosby for Controller of the party, and my hopes to block a party endorsement of 1A and its little sisters.

When Karen Bernal easily won her race on Friday evening, I started a running gag with fellow progressive delegate (and issues chair of the City of Alameda Democratic Club) Mark Briggs: "One down, three to go." Saturday morning, after a dreadfully early 7:30 AM convening of the Women's caucus, we found the Karen Weinstein and in fact her entire slate that ran on the platform that the caucus should actually do something, all but swept the results. (One position ended up in a tie and I never found the final result.) I held up the number two (which, coincidentally, could be interpreted as "peace" or "victory", but I digress).

I should mention that most of my time Friday and Saturday was alternating between helping with Hilary Crosby's campaign and opposing proposition 1A, along with attending meetings and watching speeches from the main hall. I barely had a chance to rest or eat — when I took a walk and quiet lunch break finally on Saturday, I hadn't eaten a proper meal since the previous lunch!

Saturday evening I attended the "Red to Blue" dinner rather than the official Party's dinner banquet. It was attended by grassroots Dems whom I've known from the Howard Dean days as well as John Edwards campaign events. Howard Dean himself was there, first mingling and then giving a short but well-received speech. Following were awards presented to local "red county" congressional candidates (including the victorious Jerry McNerney). The speeches were heartfelt and received warm ovations — but when Hilary Crosby came up to the podium to announce that she'd just gotten the results, and that she had won the controller's race, the room erupted in cheers that dwarfed the earlier applause. She had won by 54% but it seemed like nearly 100% of the people in the room were her supporters or volunteers who spent hours making phone calls to fellow delegates (rather than her opponent's robo-calls), preparing campaign materials, and working the convention floor over the last two days.

"That's three."

Sunday, I spent the entire morning talking to fellow delegates and passing out anti-1A stickers that a small group of us in the area had designed and printed ourselves, alongside other folks who were handing out pro-1A stickers (We played nice) and other anti-1A groups. We had already distributed a couple of thousand bright orange informational "Why Proposition 1A is a Bad Idea" flyers on Saturday; now it was down to the final push. I had to take a break to go see Howard Dean and Debra Bowen speak, but otherwise it was non-stop trying to get people to show their support for blocking the party's endorsement of this proposition and help convince people who were on the fence.

When I saw the chairwoman of the resolutions committee up on stage, I knew it was time to go take my seat so I could vote. And after impassioned arguments from both sides of the issue (who care about the same things at the end of the day, which made it hard for many to grasp the issue), it came time to vote. These endorsement votes, designed to capture a sense of the party's consensus, require a 60% majority to pass. And 1A managed to get … 58%. I don't have the actual counts but we managed to block the endorsement by something like 22 or 26 votes. We managed to prevent the Democratic Party from endorsing Proposition 1A. And with the Republican party opposing it (yes, politics makes strange bedfellows), we may be able to prevent it from succeeding at the polls.

"That's four."

The other measures had some fights, but the results were pretty much what I expected. Proposition 1B, which brought education funding, easily got the party endorsement, though it's symbolic only because it would only go into effect if the damaging Proposition 1A were to pass. Proposition 1C's endorsement passed, which I'm not too happy about, but then again, I despise the entire way that the lottery ("taxation for the poor") is tied to our education budget. (One speaker argued "balancing the budget on the backs of those who play the lottery is despicable and shameful," which sums it up for me.) 1D and 1E failed to achieve an endorsement. Finally, Proposition 1F, a weak incentive to legislators to balance the budget, is clearly a measure designed to pander to the voting masses. I started out opposed to the measure, but the speakers in favor of it had some very convincing arguments that it would essentially be good public relations for the Democratic Party to come out in favor of reform, especially because it is polling so well. Most delegates ended up agreeing, and its endorsement passed overwhelmingly. What-ever.....

So all in all, a successful (and enjoyable) convention!

Pre-Convention #3: Just Say No to Propositions 1A-1F

2009-04-23T09:47:00.000-07:00

The California Democratic Convention, starting tomorrow, will have the most fireworks when it comes to the upcoming Propositions 1A-1F in the upcoming election. I predict that it will be a battle between the MACHINE and the GRASSROOTS for the soul of the CA Democratic Party.

Here's the deal: The Democrats in the California Legislature, as a way to compromise the minority rule of the Republican Party, have teamed up with the Republicans to write Propositions 1A through 1F, and then heavily promote them as a way to solve our state's budget crisis. Only this "solution" is not going to actually solve anything in the long term.

Most Democratic activists know this. Democratic clubs around the state (including our own City of Alameda Democratic Club) have rejected these propositions and are urging a NO vote. But most of the political insiders — almost all State Senators and Assemblymembers except, well, ours (Loni Hancock and Sandré Swanson) plus a few brave others, are pushing at the delegates to help the Democratic Party, when it meets this weekend, officially endorse these measures.

These propositions are a nightmare. They are a Republican's Wet Dream. They are the Democratic Party selling their souls to the Republicans. They are a wedge designed to split the party (1B sounds enticing, but it can only pass if 1A passes).

As a delegate, I've been bombarded with flyers and emails over the last couple of weeks from so-called progressive electeds. Mark Leno, Karen Bass, Jerry Brown, and others are trying their darndest to get us, the grassroots, to support their compromise.

I understand their "hands tied" position, but the reality is, if these propositions pass, the legislature's hands will be welded down, almost permanently. It's horrible that we are placed in this position where Democrats are pushing for permanent spending caps.

Fortunately there are are groups who are opposed to it. The League of Women Voters has come out strongly against 1A and most of its sisters:

The League would support real budget reform, but we regretfully conclude that this measure would only make things worse.

Bob Burnett writes in the Huffington Post:

It's clear that California's Democratic legislators were between the proverbial rock and a hard place and tried to do the best they could. But that's no excuse. It's not enough to put a temporary budget fix in place. The fundamental problem needs to be addressed.

At the convention this weekend, if the grassroots can resist the pressure from Democratic leadership to go along with this Faustian bargain, maybe we can defeat this horrible band-aid, and come up with a long-term solution that actually works.

By the way, I want to just express how fortunate I feel that we are represented here in the State Legislator by Hancock and Swanson. I haven't agreed with everything they have said or done, but in this case, they are sticking their necks out for what's right, and not caving into pressure or even retaliation for their principles.

I'll have more to say on these measures as we get closer to the election. But in case it's not clear yet: Please vote NO on the special election ballot measures, especially NO on 1A, the "lynchpin" of them all.

Convention Update: Caucuses PLUS Equal Pay Day in Alameda

2009-04-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

I was going to write about the caucuses at the California Democratic Convention, specifically the women's caucus, and propitiously as I entered Julie's Coffee and Tea Garden this morning (from where I write this) I noticed a prominent sign in the window announcing "Equal Pay Day" (link to PDF flyer) in Alameda, coming Tuesday April 28, a week from today. The goal of the day is to highlight that "on average, women are still paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men for the same position."

Although the numbers aren't the same, this reminds me of these lyrics from Laurie Anderson's "Beautiful Red Dress" from the late eighties:

OK! OK! Hold it!
I just want to say something.
You know, for every dollar a man makes
a woman makes 63 cents.
Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents.
So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3,888
before we make a buck.

Anyhow, that day features discounts for women from businesses all around Alameda, but more importantly, it raises awareness of an issue that just doesn't go away. Men and women around the island are asked to wear RED that day to help raise awareness.

So what does that have to do with this weekend's California Democratic Convention?

My friend Karen Weinstein is running for chair of the Women's Caucus of the Party. She's currently Political Development chair of the caucus, and is one of Alameda County's elected representatives to the Democratic Party. She's a 2008 alumna of EMERGE. And she's an amazingly dedicated activist.

She is running on the platform that the Women's Caucus should be a great opportunity for activism regarding Women's issues, but that the current leadership is just not taking enough leadership. A bit over a year ago, for instance, progressive members of the caucus managed to introduce and pass a resolution censuring Dianne Feinstein for her Republican-like stances on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and her support for Mukasey as Attorney General. This was against the leadership of the caucus. I've heard several stories like this.

Karen has been racking up endorsements, notably from the California branch of the National Women's Political Caucus. She will have my support and my vote at the convention. (Yes, men can be members of the Women's caucus - it's about women's issues, not a club for women.)

I've also been a member of the Progressive Caucus, almost from its inception. (I unfortunately missed the first meeting of the group, before it was officially recognized by the party. Some of the grassroots-vs.-Party-establishment fireworks that happened in that meeting have become legen....wait for it ...dary. Anyhow, for some reason the North vs. South co-chair sharing of leadership in that caucus is in jeopardy (Hmm, sounds like the party vice-chair issue I mentioned yesterday!) and if that change in leadership structure happens, I am supporting Karen Bernal for the leadership of that caucus. Actually, I'm hoping that this change in structure doesn't happen, at which point I don't know what will happen.

Ah, politics.

Democratic Convention Preview: Candidate Positions

2009-04-20T07:39:00.000-07:00

I realized recently that I had neglected to post the good news here, that although I narrowly missed being elected delegate to the California Democratic Party, I managed to snag an appointment by representative Sandré Swanson. All of our local state and federal elected officials have a few slots for delegate appointments, so I'm grateful to have had this opportunity to continue my quest.

The 2009 California Democratic Convention is coming up in less than a week, and it's looking to be a busy, exciting event — much more so than last year's perhaps because there was so much emphasis on the two-person Presidential Primary race (which, by then, I had lost interest in).

Each year is quite different. This year, most of the hubbub will be about the elected offices of the state party itself. I've been following the races closely, and though my analysis and position won't mean much to many readers, I feel it's important to express my thoughts to those few readers who may be delegates, and also to help people in the general public understand the issues.

The race that is most important to me is the race for controller of the Party. HIlary Crosby is running against incumbent Eric Bradley, and I have been working on her campaign by placing phone calls to fellow delegates across the state to spread the word. (When a delegate personally calls a delegate, it's usually welcomed, unlike political calls made to the general public.) Hilary is "one of us" - a grassroots activists whom I've known for several years. She's a CPA, so she really knows money, and she's been working with groups like Take Back Red California and California Democratic Council to train treasurers of local Democratic clubs across the state, a program which she can continue in all 58 counties if elected. Her opponent is more of an "insider" and while he is a good fundraiser, he's not a financial professional.

Interestingly, Hilary's opposition to him has "changed the conversation" in a big way. The things that Hilary says are important are now things that Bradley says are important too, as soon as he's re-elected. I'm sorry, but we are a lot smarter than that; you can't be an incumbent and run on a platform of changing the system — you are the system. Anyhow, Hilary has been racking up endorsements across the state from clubs, individuals, and elected officials. And she just got an endorsement from the national group Democracy for America, which is a big deal!

The vice-chair positions have gotten jumbled around a bit. Previously there was a Northern California and Southern California vice chair — a good idea since our halves of the state are so different — but for some bizarre reason they changed it to one Male and one Female vice chair. If we had some issue with gender participation, it might, but the CDP does not have an issue. We currently have two women in that position (Alexandra "Alex" Gallardo-Rooker from Southern California, and Alicia Wang from Northern California). Now they are running against each other! In any case, I've heard both of them speak several times, and I'm much more impressed by Alicia Wang so I'll be supporting her. Considering that Rooker has recently teamed up with Eric Bradley, sending out disingenuous messages about a need for change, my support for Ms. Wang has just gotten stronger.

As far as the Male Vice Chair goes, I've heard a lot of good things about Eric Bauman (a former candidate for the chair — more on that later) but I"m keeping an open mind; apparently he does have an opponent but I have not heard much about him.

As far as the Chair of the party goes? Well there initially was a healthy contest, with two or three candidates. But for reasons I don't quite understand, all of the candidates dropped out after State Senator John Burton got into the race. Apparently he's just unstoppable. And that's what worries me. He's a huge political machine — as one friend said, he's "Don Perata Squared." Shudder.

So as a throwaway "protest" vote, I am endorsing Chris Finnie, a late entrant to the race who is a grassroots activist, and, unfortunately, a total long shot. She is a true grassroots activist who actually has some really compelling plans. I know her chances of winning are nil, but I just can't stand for these Cuban style election farces, and that's what this race is. I wish it had been an opportunity to choose the most qualified candidate instead of a juggernaut.

In my next post I'll talk about the upcoming state propositions, which will be a big topic at the convention.

Alameda Democratic Club Gets a Blog

2009-03-10T09:46:00.000-07:00

Mark Briggs, long-time fellow delegate and now Issues Chair for the City of Alameda Democratic Club, pointed out to me that the club now has a blog:

It's called We've Got Issues.

Naturally, I've subscribed to the RSS feed for this; I hope you will too.

(And if you are still reading blogs over the web and you haven't discovered RSS, google around and learn how to save tons of time checking for new content!)

Sandré Swanson Punished for Not Falling in Line

2009-03-06T06:55:00.000-08:00

I just learned that our assembly member, Sandré Swanson, and two other Democrats in the State Assembly have been stripped of committee chairmanships because the refused to fall in line with the rest of the Democratic caucus.

Swanson was striped of his position as chair of the Assembly Labor and Employment committee by Assembly speaker Karen Bass, because he voted on principle, breaking with the Democratic caucus.

A Contra Costa Times article from Wednesday has the story. In this article, Swanson is quoted: "To ask members not to protest these cuts — it's a violation of my principles when I know workers are there to serve the elderly, catch a person when they fall," Swanson said. "Particularly at a time when this budget had $1 billion in tax breaks for corporations."

Apparently the Democrats had come up with a budget compromise to woo enough Republicans to join them to get the 2/3 majority needed to pass the budget. Even if I disagreed with Swanson's position, I think that he has a right to vary from the Party line from time to time. (If our representatives voted alike 100% of the time, why bother having multiple representatives?) Swanson should first and foremost be allowed to represent us, the voters in his district.

An editorial this morning from the CC Times disagrees with Swanson's position — this is Conservative Contra Costa, after all — but believes that these three lawmakers shouldn't be punished for independent thinking.

Democrats stand for diversity, but in this case, Karen Bass is showing that diverse opinions in her party will result in retribution.

Please call Karen Bass's office at (916) 319-2047 and let them know what you think. The email I got alerting me about this said that Bass was not even aware there was any controversy about this, so every phone call really counts.

SCA 5: A solution to our stupid budget situation

2009-03-03T16:26:00.000-08:00

We all watched in horror as the California legislature tried to get a budget passed over the last few weeks. Unlike most states in the country, California needs a 2/3rds majority vote to get a budget passed. So no matter which party has a majority in the senate and assembly, the budget is always going to be like this.

In a state where a simple majority vote in general election is able to alter the state constitution with a simple 50% majority, this seems particularly ironic.

I had been thinking "Well, who is going to do something about this mess?" Well, it turns out that our own new State Senator, Loni Hancock — whom I had supported because she's the kind of politician who takes bold steps — had already started on this, back in December! Here it is, SCA 5. Assembly speaker Karen Bass introduced a similar bill, ACA 4.

Hancock is a superhero in my book.

Here is an interesting article about the whole affair.

What a Great Time to Unplug Your Television

2009-02-08T16:54:00.000-08:00

With so many neighbors who have been complaining about the Alameda Power & Telecom transition to Comcast, I keep wondering why they don't just use this an excuse to just say no, and stop their cable service.

Today, one friend told me that he had just had enough with Comcast, after wasting an hour of his life on the phone trying to deal with them. He decided to just stop with the TV.

He gets my hearty applause and encouragement. It's hard to unplug yourself from the modern-day "opiate of the masses." I've been TV-free for several years now, and although it's hard to picture what it's like, it's like getting off of an addiction to a chemical substance. Painful at first, but then you feel clean and free of a demon.

With the Digital TV transition happening later this month (or not), a move sure to absolutely confuse and confound many TV watchers out there who haven't yet gone shopping for a cryptic converter box or, they hope, a brand-new flat-screen HDTV, I keep thinking that this is another opportunity for some people to kick the TV habit.

If you have been having troubles with the Comcast Transition, or if you haven't bought all the equipment for the big changeover, why not just use this as an excuse to just stop watching TV? Unplug yourself. Sure, let yourself still watch movies from time to time. The only drawback of dropping your cable TV is that you'll have to get your Internet another way (like DSL, which is an OK choice but has its drawbacks).

You will suddenly have an extra few hours per day. What to do with all that extra time from not having a TV consuming you every night? I suggest reading a book, taking a class, getting a board game from the new D20 game store on Santa Clara, or attending a City Council meeting.

Television: The more you watch, the less you know.

What Our New President Needs to Do

2009-01-20T21:53:00.000-08:00

I watched the inauguration ceremonies at the Alameda Free Library today. I'm relieved that Bush/Cheney are now officially out of power, and that we have a Democrat in the White House now. But I"m going to reserve judgement and enthusiasm on Obama until after I have seen what he actually does. He talks a good talk, but will it translate into real improvement?

Here is what I think the President needs to do in order to get my respect and approval:

The President needs to undo the damage done by a previous conservative President — in this case, Bill Clinton — and hit the media conglomerates hard. Deconsolidate the huge corporations that have turned our airwaves and media into right-wing, pro-corporate propaganda outlets. If our citizens cannot be informed, how will they really know what is going on? Our media should be commons, by and for the American people, not towers of deception.

The President needs to restore the Constitution fully. This means stopping the state of emergency that we have been in for the last seven years. It means uncovering the "Continuity of Government" plans that Cheney and Rumsfeld have been working on since the Ford Administration and probably put in to effect on September 11, 2001. Obama is a constitutional scholar, and if he does not take bold steps to restore our Constitution, then truly there is no hope for the restoration of our law.

Obama took an oath that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." George Bush certainly did the opposite. Will Obama restore it? And When?

The President needs to investigate the crimes of the previous administration and prosecute those found responsible. Yes, the people of America need to come together and heal the country. But the leaders who have performed unspeakable acts — I'm talking about people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, for starters — need to be tried for their crimes. Crimes like spying on Americans. Like performing torture. Like instigating invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretenses. And huge mismanagement of funds: Rumsfeld reported in 2001 that the Pentagon could not track 2.3 Trillion; how much have they thrown away since then? We cannot have justice in this country if those responsible are not accountable for their actions. And we do not do something about them, they will only come back stronger.

And part of bringing down the Republican criminals means adequate investigations, not white-wash, no-blame-em shell games. The Republicans had spent $40 Million to investigate Bill Clinton, yet the long-delayed investigation into September 11th, which held absolutely nobody accountable, was led by Republican partisans with a paltry budget of $14 million. Congress needs a reasonable budget to uncover what really happened in the days of the Bush Administration, and only our new President has the potential to get this going … certainly our Congress hasn't had the willpower our courage to impeach in spite of the opportunities.

The President needs to turn his back on the big-business interests who bankrolled his climb to power. He needs to say "Thanks, but your money does not buy influence." Otherwise we just have a "lite" version of the Republican corporate takeover of our country. If Obama stands up against the corporations that helped him get elected, he'll have a rougher time getting their financial support when it comes time for a re-election campaign in four years, but he would sure get the support of ordinary citizens!

The President needs to reconsider the conservative people he has chosen to surround himself with. Hillary Clinton, known for her talk of plans to "obliterate" Iran, is too hawkish to be an effective Secretary of State. His secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, is a schill for Monsanto, one of the world's most frightening corporations, supporting genetically engineered crops and the pipedream of biofuels. Sorry, but what change is this exactly?

If the President is going to actually tackle the Climate Crisis, he needs to stop pushing for so-called "Clean Coal" that The Reality Campaign has been fighting to bring to peoples' attention. Mr. President, you are no longer a representative from the Great Coal State of Illinois. You must lead America, and the world, in fighting the climate crisis. But it will take more than inspiring words to make it happen.

For all this talk about how far we've come to have an African American president, Obama is the President we need to take a stand against human trafficking — Slavery, if you will. Twenty-seven million slaves exist in the world today. If Obama is truly going to affect the world, this is a form of cruelty he should address — at least, to make people more aware of it.

The President needs to make bold, huge steps in getting us out of our occupation of Iraq. Over one million Iraqis have died as a result our invasion. That's starting to sound a lot like Genocide, with the blood on American hands. What bold steps will Obama take to make amends?

The President needs to stop the giveaway to Wall Street that our Democratically-controlled Congress just can't seem to get enough of. Corporations that have mismanaged our money do not deserve handouts.

Yes, I'm sure our new President will make us feel good about ourselves, and we can be proud of ourselves for electing a face of Change. But actions speak louder than words, and a lot of action is needed. What are you waiting for, Mr. President?

Call Schwarzenegger and ask him to pass that budget!

2009-01-12T10:25:00.000-08:00

Eve Pearlman talked about the state budget woes earlier today on her blog.

State Senator Loni Hancock came to Saturday's election meeting telling us that people need to call the Governor's office and let him know that he needs to sign the budget that the Democrats have worked so hard to make work.

I just called and talked to the nice phone attendant. Won't you take 60 seconds and do the same?

(916) 445-2841. ext 0

Lost the Battle, Won the War?

2009-01-12T09:51:00.000-08:00

Saturday was the big election (well, big for me, small in significance to, say, Presidential elections) and although I did not personally emerge victorious, I am still very happy with the overall outcome.

Here's what happened. The election to select twelve delegates from our assembly district to the California Democratic Party was held on Saturday afternoon. It was spectacularly well-attended. Though there were a number of candidates running independently, there were two main competing slates. Mine, a self-organized, grassroots, progressive group, included all of the incumbents who had decided to run again plus others who are involved in local groups like Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, East Bay for Democracy/DFA, and local campaigns. Theirs was a group that had joined a pledge of allegiance to State Senator John Burton in his juggernaut-bid for position as chair to the California Democratic Party. Presumably because of Burton's union ties, this slate brought out a huge number of union folks to come and vote. To be honest, I figured that our folks didn't stand a chance to this "political machine" — exactly the kind of politics that my cohorts and I have been trying to fight.

Amazingly, we as a group prevailed. Seven out of our nine candidates were elected, plus two others who were on neither slate. We shut down the power structure. It felt really, really good.

The personal downside for me was that I ended up tied for sixth in the vote count, and there were six slots available for men. So it came down to a coin toss. Which I lost. But I had just met the guy I lost to, Jakada Imani, earlier that day, and I really think he'll be a wonderful delegate.

I tried to thank everybody I knew who came out to support me and my progressive cohorts, but in case I missed you, please consider yourself thanked profusely for taking the time out of your day to participate in this always-under-publicized event.

I will still stay involved, especially in offering to help out the new delegates be effective in their new positions. Stay tuned!

Slate of Nine formed for CA Democratic Party delegates

2009-01-05T07:54:00.000-08:00

I mentioned recently that I am running for another term as delegate to the California Democratic Party. The election is being held this Saturday afternoon, January 10, on the second-floor Meeting Room "A" of the Alameda Hospital.

If you are a registered Democrat, and you are interested in seeing our area represented by good progressive citizens to strengthen our state's Democratic Party, I ask for you to swing by the Alameda Hospital on Saturday and cast your ballot.

I am running as part of a diverse and active slate of nine men and women. I ask that you cast a ballot for all of us. Here is this list. Women: Frieda Edgette, Alice Fried, Tara Marchant, Sumi Paranjape. Men: Mark Briggs, Abel Guillen, Wayne Nishioka, Chris Urkofsky, Dan Wood. Please bring this list with you.

Date: This Saturday, January 10. Times: Registration is from Noon to 2 PM. You can register and vote and leave if you want, or you can stay from 2-3 PM when the candidates will each give a brief speech to introduce themselves; votes are then collected and tallied about about 3 PM.

(Unfortunately, there is no other way to vote in this, you have to be there in person before 2 PM.)

Note: There is an annoying "poll tax" of $5 (goes to fundraising activities in the Democratic Party) per person to vote -- however, nobody will be turned away for lack of funds, so consider it optional.

I hope that some of my many Democratic readers out there in Alameda can come and help support me. For more information about my candidacy, please see my previous post.

Running for Delegate, Again

2008-12-11T21:22:00.000-08:00

After some soul-searching and conversions with fellow delegates and other political activists in the area, I have decided to run for another two-year term as a delegate to the California Democratic Party, representing the 16th Assembly District (Alameda/Piedmont/Parts of Oakland — Sandré Swanson's district).

I was toying with the idea of not running, because I felt that there was a big influx of Obama-maniacs (I'm still skeptical about him even if I'm glad he won) who would want to get involved. However, I've come to the conclusion that these new activists aren't quite bottom-up self-starters as we "old" Deaniacs are, and that what the California Democratic Party really needs is progressive people with experience. I guess you can say I have that now! Of course I will welcome fresh faces in the mix, but I don't want the foothold that we established progressive delegates have made to be lost.

The delegate election process is interesting. Any registered Democrat in the district can come to the caucus location and cast their vote, so the people who win are really those who are best able to convince their neighbors to take some time out of their day to support them. While this has been in Oakland for the past few years, this time it's in Alameda, at the Alameda Hospital. Hopefully this convenient location will encourage you, faithful reader, to come out and help me reach my goal.

The caucus will be at the Alameda Hospital, Meeting Room A, on Saturday, January 10, 2009. Registration will begin at noon and the actual caucus will begin at 2 pm. (I believe you don't have to stay that long, but it's interesting to listen to the candiates make their pitches.)

Closer to that date, I will post a reminder here, and send out note to my famous "political email list." (Please drop me a line at the address at the top of this page if you think you can make it to this event and you aren't on my email list.)

Here is the statement I've just submitted for my candidacy:

I am running for my third term as delegate, as a Progressive Democrat. While I'm glad we have beaten the Republicans in the White House and the Congress, experience has shown that our Democratic leaders at the state and national level don't have the courage to tackle critical issues like restoring our Constitution, deconsolidating the Media, halting fraudulent military expansion, and reversing the climate crisis. We can't afford to sit back and wait for our elected politicians to solve our problems for us. Our State Party needs experienced and active delegate participation to push our leaders toward implementing bold programs and being accountable to our party's platform -- rather than special interests. ("If the people lead, the leaders will follow.") The CDP needs to increase its presence in all 58 counties and turn more "red" and "purple" counties Blue.

I've been an active delegate in the past four years, authoring and contributing to several resolutions that have been passed by the state party, and contributing language to the Party's platform. I've been active in the Democracy for America/East Bay for Democracy groups; I've volunteered, contributed, or raised funds for the Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Obama presidential campaigns, for the Debra Bowen, Loni Hancock, Jerry McNerney and Bill Durston campaigns, as well as clean money and election protection campaigns. I also have a local political blog (progala.blogspot.com) and keep in touch with nearly 300 neighbors over email with highly appreciated election suggestions.

My combined list of recommendations on the propositions

2008-11-03T14:37:00.000-08:00

With the big day tomorrow, I wanted to post a general list of all the propositions and my recommendations today. If you've been reading this blog
then you may already be familiar with my take on some of these; I'll link to the more detailed article when appropriate.

Before I get underway, I wanted to point out this wonderful guide: The Courage Campaign's 2008 Progressive Voter Guide. It is a compact chart of many progressive groups and their takes on the state propositions. They neglected the Green Party's recommendations, which I think are also an interesting point of view to consider as well.

So for the state propositions, I'm going to assume that something is a NO unless there is a good case to make it a Yes. And this year's YES recommendations are: 1A, 2, 5, and 12. All the rest are NO - many of them are "reruns" of defeated initiatives from the last couple of years.

First, the few affirmatives:

YES: 1A - High Speed Rail. Think about how much energy is spent in air and motor transportation between Northern and Southern California. This is a long-term investment in California. It's green and will create 160,000 jobs. As you know I'm a big proponent of alternative transportation and reducing carbon emissions; this is a great step toward that. It has been smartly planned in conjunction with the Transportation and Land Use Coalition that Lucy and I have been involved with. YES to 1A.

YES: 2 - Stop Animal Cruelty. Many good groups endorse this; I've also checked with advocates of safe food production and they are on board as well. This is a no-brainer YES.

YES: 5 - If you've read Eric Schlosser's "Reefer Madness" you are probably familiar with how many people are in our prisons for minor, nonviolent drug offenses. This measure is about nonviolent offender rehabilitation, and will save California $2.5 Billion. This is about solving the problem rather than just throwing more people in already crowded prisons. I can't recommend this strongly enough.

YES: 12 - Veteran home loans - this is a renewal of an existing program for veterans that dates back to 1922. Ideally this kind of support should be coming from the Federal Government, but instead they are cutting Veterans' benefits so Californians need to pick up the slack.

And now for my negatives:

NO: 3 - Children's Hospital Bonds. This is one measure that I'm disagreeing with many "liberal" organizations like the California Democratic Party. While on the surface this looks good, it has some serious flaws. First off, apparently only a bit more than half of the $750 million allocated from 2004's Prop 61 has been actually used up. Why ask for more now? And eighty percent of the money is actually going to *private* hospitals; this reminds me of the recent measure B which was diverting taxpayer money to Oakland's Children's Hospital, a private entity which pays its executive gigantic salaries. I know that our health care system is badly broken but this seems to just make things worse in the long run.

NO: 4. Parental notification undermines teen safety -- It's baaaa-aack! NO again for the same reasons as previous years!

NO: 6 & NO: 9: Massive Prison Expansion. Arrrrrgh!!!! (See my Yes on 5 above)

NO: 7 (and NO: 10): Prop Seven seemed like a good idea but it's OPPOSED by so many environmental groups: Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Natural Resources Defense Council, and The California League of Conservation Voters. A proposition that supposedly increases alternative energy, and yet is opposed by the groups that are fighting the Climate Crisis every day? No way!

NO: 8: Another attempt to remove Californians of their rights. Yes, the "marriage ban" is back, pushed by the far-right extremists who feel threatened by people who are not like them. This is by far the most offensive proposition out there. It's about taking away hard-fought rights for committed couples. Not only do I recommend a NO vote, I also suggest that you make a contribution to the fund to knock down this horrible proposition ... it's going to be a close call this time around. Go to http://www.noonprop8.com/ to donate please!

NO: 11. This one is getting a bit of local support, probably because it seems like a good thing on the surface, and because it is heavily backed by the League of Women Voters, who generally have their hearts in the right places. Our status-quo districting system isn't perfect (and if anything it gives the Democrats a slight edge) but at least the process is transparent. A districting reform would, in my mind, need to improve on the status quo by offering more transparency/acccountability, and give a better shot at representation by third parties and independents. This "reform" does neither. The 14-member commission in this proposal makes decisions for all 58 counties, and at each step of the way, there is no opportunity for public input, no opportunity for appeal, and all decisions are final. Proposition 11 is a political "shell game" masked under the guise of Reform. It's opposed by minority groups, for its lack of diversity. It's heavily funded by big business, especially oil companies, and backed to the tune of 2.4 Million by Schwarzenegger, though you wouldn't know it. It's opposed by labor groups all around the state, by the California Democratic Party, by the California Green Party. The list of reasons to vote NO just keep piling on, and I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument in its favor.

So ... to recap: only Yes on 1A, 2, 5, and 12. NO on the rest of 'em.

I've already filled out my ballot, and I'll be up in the Sacramento area tomorrow helping to get out the vote for Congressional candidate Bill Durston.

Good luck to all of us! And even if we have some good wins, we can't give up the fight!

Beware the Eagle Flyer

2008-11-02T20:47:00.000-08:00

If you get a mailing like this one, watch out.

I remember getting one of these last time around, and like that one, this one looks very official as if it is the recommendations from the Democratic Party. However, it is not.

The endorsements on this are just tantalizing enough to seem like they are actual endorsements from the City of Alameda or maybe the County or the State Democratic Party. But it is definitely not.

Take, for instance, its "no" endorsement of Proposition 5 with a picture of Martin Sheen imploring us to protect our children from drug dealers. However, the California Democratic Party has endorsed a Yes vote on Proposition 5. As has just about every other Democratic and progressive group around that I could find.

Similarly, this handbill is suggesting a Yes on 10. Well, the state party is neutral on that one, but just about every group I've run into is saying NO on that.

The list continues, but you get the picture.

We have to do something about misleading flyers that make it seems that they are some kind of official party endorsements when they are just paid advertisements.

Despicable.

Yes on P - it supporters are not hiding

2008-10-31T09:14:00.001-07:00

I hadn't planned on writing a post about the local Measure P, but after seeing the advertisement in today's Alameda Journal, I had to write something.

The advertisement is a rebuttal to the Yes-on-P ad recently placed by the City of Alameda Democratic Club, one of the few paid Pro-measure-P placements I've seen. (I think I've seen two Yes on P yard signs in town.)

The Democratic Club's ad against Measure P talks about how the measure is largely opposed by the realtors and well-funded by their statewide group. So the realtors are acting in their own interest; I'm not surprised. They don't want another tax that will add a couple of thousand dollars to somebody's million-dollar investment. (Who cares that property values could end up dropping if city services had to be cut!) Unfortunately, as is the case with many other ballot initiatives, they are a well-funded group that are pouring large amounts of money into the campaign.

This "Yes" rebuttal advertisement attempts to discredit the association between the realtors and the No campaign. However, they did a laughably bad job at it..

My first clue? They way they use the word "realtors", defined in my computer's dictionary as "a person who acts as an agent for the sale and purchase of buildings and land; a real estate agent." Instead of using the word like a normal person would, they write it like this: REALTORS®. (That's followed by the "registered trademark" symbol in case your computer has trouble with Unicode.) Sorry guys, if you really wanted to disassociate yourself from the realtors, you need to learn to spell the word in plain English. Your funding is showing!

I'm fine with debating the finer points of how beneficial the tax will be, but I find it offensive to have a deep-pocketed group fund an opposition campaign and then try and distract the public as to who is funding the campaign. It's a shell game that happens over and over again.

I get tired of having new taxes, but the reality is, our state is sucking our city dry, and the city of Alameda needs to fund its essential services. So I am in favor of Measure P. And the other people and organizations who are in favor of it are quite up-front about who they are and why they are in favor of it.

So I"m going to recommend a Yes on Measure P.

No on 8 : Civil Rights and the Semantics of "Marriage"

2008-10-30T07:55:00.001-07:00

I had dinner with some very good friends recently, who, though we agree on just about everything political, told me they were voting "Yes" on Proposition 8. I asked why, and we had a productive and enlightening debate/discussion about the issue. It really gave me an understanding of why they would have come up on that side of the issue. And though I am grateful for my dinner guests for offering me their perspective, this conversation also cemented my belief that voting NO on Proposition 8 is the better choice.

Proposition 8 is one of the simplest, shortest ones on the ballot. It merely appends the following language to the California State constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Fourteen words.

To my friends, and I'm sure to millions of other voters out there, the word "marriage" is a sacred, religious word. And in Christianity, marriage is a sacred institution that is part of the Big Picture. It involves Man and Woman, being fruitful and multiplying, and so forth.

So to put those words into our Constitution, at least from my understanding of the matter, would just be a further manifestation of that sacred concept.

Except there's one thing wrong. What about the Separation of Church and State? The California Constitution, like our national one, is a Civil document. This separation isn't just a good idea, it's what's already in our State Constitution.

I am completely fine with any religion defining "marriage" in whatever way it sees fit. But the fundamental problem is that in our culture, a marriage is both a religious concept and a civil concept — and both use the same word. Unless we can magically come up with a separate word for each, we're stuck with this ambiguity.

California has recently managed to expand its civil rights to a large percentage of our population, and I don't think it's a good idea to take away those rights by the insertion of fourteen words into our state constitution. Doing so would change the fundamental meaning of other sections of the Constitution, as well as all our established systems, into taking away rights.

I've heard about (never been invited to) weddings in Mexico and European countries where many people get married twice: once in a civil ceremony, and once in a religious ceremony. We don't have that in the US, so it's very easy to get the two concepts mixed up, especially when the word is the same.

Given that we have this muddling of the word and the concept of marriage, we're going to have to live with the ambiguity, and just pay heed that the Constitution is a document about our government, not our religion. Let's leave the sacred, religious definition of marriage out of the Constitution, and continue to work on expanding civil rights, not reducing them.

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

The No on 8 Campaign is trying to raise some funds to counter a huge out-of-state-funded advertising push. Make a donation here.

No need to separate Blue/Green/Gray bin contents!

2008-10-22T09:31:00.001-07:00

This morning I was looking out my window and I saw our ACI collector merrily dumping the contents of our gray (trash) bin into our green (organics) bin.

Over the last few months, both I and my daughter have also seen these collectors dumping the contents of our gray bin into our Blue (recycling) bin.

I called out the window and politely asked the guy why he was doing it. He explained that they would sort it out later, and that he was doing it because he didn't want the gray-bin picking up guys to miss picking it up. (We have the "micro-can" for families that don't produce as much trash; it costs $28/year less than the normal gray bin, but the city won't let anybody order these anymore because they don't want to encourage people to produce less trash, apparently. Plus, the robotic dumping machines can't pick them up.)

It was a nice thought, and even though the people I spoke to at ACI on multiple occasions said that they should never be mixing in the separated waste bins, these guys keep doing it.

So apparently it's OK that the compost that we buy over at Davis street has little bits of styrofoam, plastic, broken juice glass, and gypsum wallboard that were in this week's gray bin. Or maybe the people work to process the contents of these bins have no problem separating 100% of that from the branches, chicken bones, and doggy-doo. Yeah, right.

Anyhow, it's clear that this system is broken. At least I know what to do with all the excess trash I have that needs to be thrown away from our semi-annual basement clean-up. I'll just dump it in the green bin or the blue bin. I haven't decided which one. What bin would you toss it into?

NO on Proposition 7: Looks good on the surface

2008-10-18T07:51:00.000-07:00

At a recent kids' soccer game, on of my friends came up to me and asked what I thought about Proposition 7. I hadn't looked into it, but what I had heard made it sound like a good idea. Who doesn't want to encourage renewable energy?

And, of course, all the big environmental groups I trust were for it. Right?

Wrong.

After some quick research I found out there are a few groups who oppose 7. Here is a partial list:

The California Democratic Party
The Sierra Club of California
The California League of Conservation Voters
The California Green Party
Natural Resources Defense Council
Union of Concerned Scientists

(This list came from here; I added the Green Party to this though.)

I tend to defer to the judgment of the groups that I'm familiar with. A NO from the Sierra Club and the CLCV is by far enough for me. The other groups joining the choir just seal the deal.

To quote Dan Kalb, the California Policy Coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists (and a fellow Calif. Dem. delegate):

"Proposition 7 would likely slow down the move toward more renewable energy in our state because the initiative locks into law significant loopholes and other serious flaws that will increase uncertainty and hinder renewable development. If we're going to address the very serious problem of global warming, we must get the solutions right. Sadly, Prop. 7 gets it wrong."

Some more reading about the arguments against 7 can be found, for example, here.

Belated "Blog Action Day" Post on Poverty

2008-10-16T08:04:00.000-07:00

I'm going to take a break from my series of California election endorsements to jump onto the "Blog Action Day" meme. Technically that was yesterday, October 15, but I didn't hear about it until this morning.

This year, Blog Action Day is addressing Poverty.

Does anybody remember when Poverty was one of the topic that Presidential candidates discussed? Well, one of them — John Edwards was. And when he dropped out of the race, he said that he had gotten commitments from the surviving Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, to focus on Poverty.

Well, it sure looks like Obama hasn't. So Poverty has fallen out of the limelight, again. See for instance the recent online articles "Poverty in America, A National Disgrace". Or in this article, "The Missing Debate on Poverty", the author writes:

Their strategic messages on the welfare of the middle class were loud and clear for the rest of the Nashville evening, but in this time of economic crisis, it was their silence on poverty that was truly deafening.

I've been very lackluster in supporting Obama, for many reasons like this. Yes, I want him to win, way more than the disgraceful duo of McCain/Palin. But I also think we can't be complacent about Obama just because he's better than his primary opponent.

So here's a small action you can do: Go to One.org's "Keep Our Commitments" website and sign the form to send a message to Obama (and McCain, for what it's worth) to keep an eye on the ball when it comes to poverty. The statement reads:

As you work to find a solution to the global financial crisis, please do not waver in your support for the world's poorest people. It is now more important than ever to stand up for effective, efficient solutions that save millions of lives, strengthen the global economy, and win the hearts and minds of people around the world. I’m keeping my commitment to fight global poverty, and I ask you to do the same.

Proposition 11: NO

2008-10-15T13:37:00.000-07:00

(This is the second of my series of articles about the propositions.)

Yesterday I received a big "Yes on Proposition 11" flyer. Wow, that sure looked like a winner, we definitely want to fix that districting problem, right?

Well, we do, but Proposition 11 needs a NO vote. It's a phony, partisan measure.

This proposition is a ploy to help the right wing. It has been called the "Republican Voters First redistricting measure." This is largely backed by Paul Singer, who was behind last year's failed measure to unilaterally drop the winner-take-all electoral college vote allocation which, if it had passed, would have meant that McCain would be getting a good percentage of California's 55 electoral votes. Proposition 11 is heavily opposed by minority organizations, labor, the Democratic Party, and the Green Party.

Vote No on "Republican Voters First".

Read more about Prop 11 at Calitics

Endorsements for the Upcoming Election: Props 1A (yes) and 8 (no)

2008-10-13T16:45:00.000-07:00

With the election just a few weeks away, I realized I should get cranking on sharing my thoughts about the upcoming races and propositions. I'll cover these a few at a time as a trickle, then summarize everything at the end.

Proposition 1A: YES

This one is easy. Look at who is opposing this, it's the don't-spend-any-tax-money Republican types. Proposition 1A — high speed rail — would have a huge number of economic and environmental benefits. It was endorsed recently by the San Francisco Chronicle. They write:

The passage of Prop. 1A would generate an estimated 160,000 construction-related jobs at a time when the state could use an economic stimulus. But its even greater long-term value to the state will be the economic and environmental benefits of connecting urban centers with growing inland cities that don't have major airports - and providing an alternative to the cattle-call flights between the Bay Area and Southern California.

This proposition would invest $9.95 billion toward a zero-emissions, high-speed train network that would make it possible to get from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 1/2 hours for a one-way fare of about $55.

It seems like a lot of money, but getting around in California is a huge issue. This is our opportunity to get cars off the road, and even better, planes out of the air.

Propsition 8: NO

The usual cranky, threatened conservatives have once again tried to reduce civil rights for a group of people they are threatened by. This proposition seems to come up every year in one form or another (much like this year's Proposition 4, which I'll get to later). This time around, California has made great steps forward in legalizing same-sex marriages, and they want to pull us back to the dark ages.

Here in Alameda, I see a lot of No on 8 signs. That's encouraging. Yet statewide, the proposition appears to be leading. This is sad news. Let's step up to the plate and help get the word out about the lies and smears that 8's advocates are using to push this through. Contribute online here. I just did.

On a lighter side:

Sign in my front yard

2008-09-22T18:38:00.000-07:00

Update, October 2008: I had to take it down. Several of our neighbors apparently thought we were supporting McCain. Ahem.

"The Obamarita" - Party on Sunday, Sept 28

2008-09-18T15:37:00.000-07:00

STEP UP AND CLOSE THE DEAL - with an OBAMArita

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1:00-5:00 P.M.
PARU STREET, ALAMEDA

Next weekend, I'm co-hosting a party at the house of David Teeters on Paru street. David is prepared to make 500 margaritas for this event so spread the word! RSVP to me (dwood at karelia dot com) or david (davidteeters at mac dot com) for the address and to help us judge how many people will be attending.

---

MONEY TALKS. If you’re waiting for an excuse to make a contribution, we’re hosting a fund-raiser to support Democratic efforts in swing states, not only for Barack Obama, but also for closely contested House and Senate races.

For a mere $25, you’ll receive a David Teeters margarita – fresh lime juice guaranteed. Write a $25 (min.) check to the campaign of your choice – we’ll have an update on the status of various contests. Bigger checks, bigger glasses – bring your own jug.

Drop by any time in the afternoon. No boring speeches. No live entertainment. But good music, good conversation, and good cheer. Bring your own chips (+).

(If you can't come, or if you want to make a donation in advance, please do so online at our special fundraising page: The Obamarita)

Remembering 9/11 .... the memories that Bush doesn't want you to have

2008-09-11T08:35:00.000-07:00

Once again, at the Republican Convention, the neocons were trotting out mentions of September 11th as a way to remind their base of our weakness as a nation, and through fear, inspire them to vote for McCain in November.

Funny, but my thoughts have always been that it was George Bush who was at the helm when September 11th happen, so doesn't that mean we need a different team, a different style of leadership who will keep our country safe?

And yet, they keep playing it as the "fear" card. So I'd like to follow up with a little something to counteract that. Let's really sit down and remember the tragedies of the day and the aftermath, and ask ourselves how anybody could want to see another moment with men like this in power.

(If you saw Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" this stuff probably isn't any surprise to you, it's just good to remember what our administration has been like....)

Let's Remember that when George Bush was told that our nation was under attack, instead of showing leadership and decisiveness (or even of being whisked away for safety by the Secret Service), our "leader" sat blankly in a classroom for about 8 minutes while the students read "The Pet Goat".

Let's remember Christine Todd Whitman telling the first responders and clean-up crews at ground zero that the air was safe to breathe at ground zero in the aftermath; many have died or are dying from being exposed to toxins.

Let's remember Condoleeza Rice testifying "No one could have imagined... using planes as a missile" when in fact just the opposite was true.

Let's remember how the investigation was stalled for two years (Compared to one week for the Kennedy assassination.) And that it was funded a mere $14 million dollars (compared to $75 Million for the Challenger disaster investigation and $40 Million for the Lewinsky scandal). And that the commission was led and heavily stacked with Republican partisans and White House Insider - an operation that Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission, called "the Gong Show."

Let's remember that Bush and Cheney would only talk to the commission together and without any notes being taken.

Let's remember the "Jersey Girls," who said that SEVENTY percent of their questions about the day have STILL gone unanswered.

Let's remember how September 11th was used as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. (And they are even trying to start tying Iran into the picture, to prepare for their next moves -- Keith Olbermann made a great commentary about that last night...)

Let's remember that President Bush, when asked about their supposed target of Bin Laden, said "I truly am not that concerned about him."

* * *

In doing research to re-find these numbers and quotes, I came across some weird things that people probably don't remember, or maybe didn't hear about on Faux News -- things that make you go "Hmmmm...." Such as that the US was running numerous training exercises that day that caused confusion for military response; that most aircraft interception could have taken place in time but didn't; that many first responders and other people testified of hearing explosions as both towers collapsed; that there was a third building that collapsed that day, and its cause was never made clear (and that no buildings have ever collapsed in that manner since the three did that day); and one that I had run across a while ago, that strangely on September 10, Donald Rumsfeld made an announcement, completely lost due to the events of the following day, that the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions".

Complete 911 Timeline was very useful with documentation and citations...

* * *

So let's remember this day but not as a path to fear and submission, but rather as a call to action to get rid of our corrupt and complicit leadership.

Please feel free to pass this along.

Great McCain Video

2008-09-04T17:31:00.001-07:00

I haven't posted to ProgAla in what seems like ages ... I think you could say that I have a serious case of political burnout. (I couldn't bring myself to watch even the smallest iota of coverage of the Democratic Convention last week. And to think that I had considered even going there! But things were very different back then....)

Part of my burnout is that I'm just not inspired or impressed by Obama. So I find it hard to do much for his campaign.

However, I absolutely detest McCain (or as I like say "McSame") and I find his choice of a running mate sad, but not surprising ... after all, think of how the antics of Dan Quayle and George Bush managed to distract the public from the deeds of their counterparts, G.H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

So I'm happy to work againt McCain and his ilk.

David T. sent me a link to the following video in an email, asking me to pass it on (and to ask those passing it on to ask others to pass it on.) I'm happy to oblige.

If you'd like to pass this video to others, you can copy and paste this message into an email message:

Take a look at the You Tube link below and pass it on. This is a view of John McCain that you probably won't see on the Network news. Pass it on to everyone in your address book and ask them to pass it on, too.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html

Or, just go directly to http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html and click on the big button to send it to a friend.

Bicycling, Scootering, Skateboarding is a Crime

2008-06-18T08:04:00.001-07:00

I am writing this post to encourage a thorough read of this morning's post on Stop Drop and Roll.

John's write-up just about says it all; I don't know if I do much more than just say "me too." I'm appalled that all five members of our city council: Beverly Johnson, Lena Tam, Gillmore, Frank Matarrese and Doug DeHaan, let something like this through.

I believe that a couple of these council members will be running for mayor in two years. Which one of these council members will stand up and say "Wait a minute, we made a mistake, let's work out a solution to our problem without throwing out the baby with the bath water."

UPDATE: The city council, the following week, reversed this. All is back to normal.

Election: Sad News for Measure H, Great News otherwise

2008-06-04T07:07:00.001-07:00

It looks like Measure H has not quite reached the 2/3 majority to pass, unless the provisional ballots pull it over the top. I don't think I can give this any better treatment than Lauren Do already has. I hope that the silver lining around this dark cloud is that these results will motivate more Alamedans to get involved in politics at the state level and work on reforming the state's prop-13 taxation system that is strangling our state financially while the big corporations get huge tax breaks, and replacing our Governator with a leader who will be able to manage the finances of the world's seventh-largest economy.

UPDATE: Just to clarify, Measure H ended up passing by a razor-thin margin after all the absentee and provisional votes were counted.

In spite of the measure H results, I couldn't be more pleased with the other results around the state. It looks like Measure 98 has been defeated (and measure 99 passed); I know a lot of people who will be elated with these results.

The other big local news is that Loni Hancock has defeated Wilma Chan in the primary race (and in this district, it's a virtual guarantee of a win in November). I'm sorry, fellow Alamedans who really wanted another Alamedan to hold that seat. I hope you can accept the results and unite behind Hancock in November. I know it will be hard to get behind her because of all the intensely negative campaigning by the Chan campaign — it must seem like we just elected Satan. Believe me, we didn't — we elected a progressive hero.

On the other side of the bay, Mark Leno trounced Carole Midgen and Joe Nation. This is also great news for progressives. Mark has passed some wonderful legislation. (He's also introduced some other wonderful legislation that was held up by Don Perata as a political move). I think he'll be a great replacement for Midgen.

Dennis Hayashi easily took the Superior Court judicial office. Most of us won't see any direct impact of this decision, of course, but I think we will have a sound judge in that office.

My only other disappointment — partial, at least, was the results of the race for the Democratic Central Committee in the 14th and 16th assembly districts. Here in the 16th, it looks like mostly the incumbents and "mainstreamers" won. Kathy Neal, Jon Stuart, Howard Egerman are the incumbents; the others, Darleen Brooks, Bonnie Wheatley, and Sharon A. Ball I don't know much about but at least they don't appear to be LaRouche types. In the neighboring 14th district, our Grassroots Progressives group had a partial victory, with grassroots incumbent Karen Weinstein the top vote-getter with Ces Rosales and Edie Irons making the top six — Congratulations! Incumbents Elizabeth Echols, Beverly Greene, and Maggie Gee were the other winners there. In this low-information race — you would be pressed to know who any of these people are unless you were canvassed by them or you had some personal connection or insider knowledge — the incumbents have a huge advantage. (It seems that people tend to vote for the incumbent lacking any other information.) I think that Edie and Ces were able to break through that barrier because they were tireless campaigners and have large personal networks. I just wish that there were some way for the average voters to find out about these office-seekers in future elections.

Well, it's time to take a breather everybody, because November's election is not that far away, and the battle is just heating up. The Presidential Election is Obama's to lose — and I think he could very easily lose if Democrats continue to be so cocky and divided — and there will be other battles at the local and statewide level as well.

Yet Another Election Day. Please Vote Anyhow!

2008-06-03T06:18:00.000-07:00

I just returned home from a fairly long vacation, and It appeared that a dump truck had deposited several trees' worth of pamphlets into my mail slot. I guess that means the election is ... uh.... today!

Thanks to California for having an early presidential primary (see how much good that did us!) we have three elections this year. Today is bound to be the least-attended election in a while due to (1) the lack of Obama on the ballot, and (2) voter fatigue/disgust.

Please vote anyhow. If you don't vote, then our future is decided by other people.

Obviously, the most contentious race is the race for State Senate. I'll get to that in a minute. But let me review some of the other items first.

The big local issue is Measure H. The clever sign showing two school-kids about to walk off a crumbling walkway sums it up just right — we need to pass this to make up for a huge budget shortfall thanks to our infamous governor. I hope the naysayers writing letters to the editor of the local papers are just a vocal super-minority. Please vote Yes on H.

The only statewide propositions are 98 and 99, both ostensibly about "eminent domain." I predict that they will both lose due to voter confusion, but from everything I have been able to tell, 99 is the "good" one and 98 is the "bad" (a.k.a. benefitting large corporations) one. 99 is backed by Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Gray Panthers, California League of Conservation Voters, and many other respected groups. And These same groups oppose Prop 98. Please vote for 99, and more importantly, don't let 98 pass.

Superior Court Judge: I have never known whom to vote for in these races, but I've seen 3 out of the 4 candidates speak at a meeting of the Alameda Democratic Club, and I was very impressed with Dennis Hayashi (who got the endorsement of that group). He really stood out head-and-shoulders above the other candidates. He'll easily get my vote and I can easily recommend him based on that (albeit limited) picture.

Democratic Central Committee will be on your ballot only if you are actually registered as a Democrat (not if you are an independent and you request a Democratic Ballot). 99% of people have no idea who any of these people are — but I do now, and now so will you! This is the place where the 'grassroots' can have an impact on the direction of the California Democratic Party, which is, well, doing OK in some aspects but filled with insiders making policy, finances and procedures that really need some transparency, and so forth. I've been working with a group of people from our district (Alameda/Oakland/Piedmont) and the neighboring district to the North of us, and there is a good group of active Democrats like myself who are all running to try to steer this ship in a more active, progressive direction. They have organized a website GrassrootsProgressives.org which has info. The folks in this group from our district, whom I know and respect and trust, are Mark Briggs and Sumi Paranjape. If you really want to help also prevent the wingnut LaRouche supporters from being elected — they tend to run in great numbers and rely on voter ignorance to get a few elected — you may want to cast your votes for this unofficial slate that many Alamedans are recommending: Mark Briggs, Sumi Paranjape, Jim Oddie, Wayne Nishioka, and Howard Egerman.

State Senate: This has been a horrible, contentious race that will probably keep regular voters away from the polls in droves due to the bad taste in their mouths. This is really a shame. I've been supporting Hancock for a while, which seems to have really, really upset a lot of people in Alameda. The emotions have risen so high on this one that I'm afraid that I have been made a pariah in certain local political circles. But, I have to call it as I sees it, and time and time again I see that many Alamedans are blinded by their allegiance to Wilma Chan because she is an Alamedan. I know I'm at least partially right because this has raised a lot of hackles when I've brought it up. And yet one of the boldest pieces of campaign literature I got points out that this is the biggest reason to vote for Chan — that she's an Alamedan, and that somehow this is more important than other factors.

I've been paying a lot of attention to how people form political loyalties. Perhaps because it took me a long time to find a preferred presidential candidate, and the candidate I preferred is no longer in the running, I've been observing how people (myself included), once they latch on to a candidate, find it hard to consider other candidates. Everything is filtered through those loyalties — to me, it seems very similar to "Framing" of issues that George Lakoff has famously brought to life in his recent political books.

I think that these loyalties are possibly as strong in our State Senate race as they have been in the Presidential primary battle. Looking at the emails being circulated by Chan supporters and Hancock supporters, you would think that the candidates were 180 degrees apart on everything, as if it were the most liberal Democrat and the most conservative Republican on the ballot.

Sorry to burst everybody's bubble, but this is just not the case. Both Chan and Hancock have beeen excellent legislators. Both have been effective. Both have worked on Important Issues. Both have passed a lot of bills. Both are progressive. Both are good people. Either, if elected, would represent us well.

So if you take away all the negative crap, what's left? Do you vote for somebody just because they are from your same home-town and so they are more likely to take Alameda-specific issues seriously? Or is there something else?

I've decided to support Hancock because of the grandness of the issues that she has taken on. Especially the "Clean Money " issue; Hancock is a hero among progressives like myself all over the State of California for this. Clean money has been described as the mother of all issues — if we can get corporate influence largely out of our elections in California, as they have done is several other states, the battleground changes significantly. No other legislator has taken this on, and thanks to Hancock, this corporate-defying bill passed the assembly. We need a fighter in the state senate if this bill is going to continue to gain traction. Oh, and Hancock's work on AB32 has been phenomenal; it has to do with an issue that some like to call Global Warming.

Our state, our country, and our world are in big trouble, and we need to take on the biggest issues around. Not just passing little laws that regulate this-and-that; I'm talking about making California — seventh biggest economy in the world — show some leadership in the world when it comes to taking on the corporate interests that have hijacked everything in our lives. Our district — perhaps the most progressive district in the state, which goes south from Richmond and out East to Livermore, is a big district, and this district needs a big-picture, heroic, fighting, visionary. That person is Loni Hancock.

If Chan wins, we'll have a good legislator representing us in Sacramento. (I refuse to stoop so low as to get negative!) But if Hancock wins, we will have an awesome legislator representing us in Sacramento!

Yes, I support Measure H

2008-05-02T10:03:00.000-07:00

I sent out an email to a bunch of people who might not read this blog, with some suggestions for the upcoming election. Though I suggested a "yes" vote on the upcoming Measure H, I got a couple of replies from people who said I didn't support it strongly enough.

Considering that I haven't mentioned Measure H here yet, and considering it is all the buzz in the other blogs, I thought I would make a post dedicated to Measure H and say that, yes, I support Measure H.

So if I support Measure H, why am I not shouting it from the rooftops? Well, one has to pick their battles. It's impossible not to see ubiquitous pro-Measure H signs, mixed in with the "throw away" signs that, while not mentioning measure H, do show the outpouring of support for our public schools. The only other political signs around town I've seen, in fact, are presidential and "Measure A" signs that have nothing to do with the upcoming election.

So I'm just picking other battles and I'll let others lead the charge on Measure H. I'm supporting Loni Hancock in this election, and I'm actively helping a group of grassroots progressives in their run for the Democratic Central Committee — Mark Briggs and Sumi Paranjape are the members of this group who are on the Democratic ballot in Alameda, and I would ask you to vote for them — and I'm trying to get out the word about Propositions 98 (NO!) and 99 (YES). [more info]

So, yes, I support Measure H, and I hope you do to. But as you can see, there are a lot of other issues on this ballot I'm supporting too.

Santa Claus isn't coming to town, but Pete Stark is

2008-04-29T16:10:00.000-07:00

It's great to actally have access to your congressional representative. I remember hearing about how it was close to impossible to provide feedback to the former Congressman from our neighboring 11th District. Fortunately that has changed now.

Through all of that, though, our representative Pete Stark has made himself quite available to his constituents. You can come to a "town hall" meeting in Alameda this Saturday, May 3, from 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers in Alameda City Hall.

Whether you want to praise him or complain, this is a good opportunity to do so!

Upcoming Sandré Swanson Budget "Town Hall"

2008-04-23T12:45:00.000-07:00

Sandré Swanson, our assembly mamber, will be hosting a town hall at Encinal High School to talk about the California Budget crisis, on May 3 from 10 to noon.

RSVP here.

Wilma Chan's Campaign is Push-Polling?

2008-04-08T20:56:00.001-07:00

I didn't take the call, but I was in the room when a "poll" phone-call came in this evening. Unlike a real poll, like the Gallup poll I participated in just a few days ago, this was almost certainly a push poll, and it was intended to make the recipient of the call have doubts about Loni Hancock and be more likely to vote for Wilma Chan.

I have had more than enough respect for Ms. Chan and her campaign up to this point, but I've just lost a huge amount of respect for them at this point. While not illegal (here at least), it's dirty.

I'm curious to hear if anybody else has taken this kind of call. I hope to bring up this issue at the Democratic Club meeting tonight, to give the campaigns a chance to embrace or disavow this technique.

Our opportunity to send good Clinton or Obama delegates to Denver

2008-04-06T20:30:00.000-07:00

I personally haven't been able to get very excited about either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but many Democrats in the area have been supporting these candidates either for a long time or more recently when their preferred candidates (Edwards, Richardson, etc.) dropped out.

This coming weekend, it's your opportunity to help select who will be the local delegates to the national convention who are pledged to vote for either Clinton or Obama — at least on the first ballot. If you want to help choose these people, you can attend a caucus to vote for them.

You can only attend one, since they are held at the same time. I got this information from the Alameda Democratic Club:

Obama: Updated!
Cal State East Bay Student Union
25800 Carlos Bee Parkway
Hayward

Clinton:
Walpert Center
1101 Walpert St.
Hayward

Which one you attend doesn't really relate to which candidate you most support, since the number of delegates California gets to send has already been chosen. Really, what matters is that we choose good, progressive people who will help with a progressive agenda at the national level, and not let the Democrats continue their slide towards "Republican Lite."

I think it's also important to select level-headed delegates with whom we can trust their vote in the slight chance that the Clinton/Obama deadlock is unbreakable and a compromise candidate has to be chosen. (Remember Abraham Lincoln? He was actually chosen on the third ballot at his convention due to a situation similar to today's.)

I am going to be researching just who are the candidates are from our area over the next few days, and I'll follow up later if and when I have any recommendations.

Update: "Doors open at 2:00 pm, and registration closes at 3:00 pm. The caucuses are open to all registered Democrats, and one can register the day of the caucus. An individual can only attend one caucus."

My Report on the California Democratic Convention

2008-03-31T10:38:00.000-07:00

I have just settled back home from a full weekend spent at the California Democratic Convention in San Jose. This is the state Democratic Party's annual gathering of delegates, candidates, office-holders, and interested observers.

If anybody saw mention of this on the news, they probably heard about the visit by former President Bill Clinton, as Hillary's Husband, there to try to convince California's Superdelegates to choose her as the Democratic nominee. More on that later. Really, though, the interesting things were at a more local level.

Loni Hancock's Huge Win

As I reported a couple of weeks ago, Loni Hancock got just over 70% of the endorsement vote, but one of those votes was challenged, meaning that there would be a new election at the convention to decide which candidate for state senate, if any, would get the official party endorsement.

At the convention, a non-incumbent candidate only needs to get 60% of the vote to get the party endorsement, so it's a smaller hurdle. Of course, the actual people voting is a slightly different mix (as I understand it, there are local Democratic Club representatives at the pre-convention endorsing caucus, but not at the convention); and opinions or loyalties may change, so you never know. I had heard that Wilma Chan's staff and supporters were confident that she had roughly half of the delegates' support.

Well, as it turned out, it would have been better for Wilma Chan not to bother challenging the 70% vote from before, because when all the votes were counted at the convention, Loni Hancock got just over 90 percent of the vote. It was a blowout, and frankly I felt a bit embarrassed for Wilma Chan's campaign, especially since I have a lot of respect for her and her supporters.

The party endorsement is a big deal; it means that Hancock's name will appear on all the publicity from the Democratic Party in the upcoming primary. In my opinion, what's worse is the clear advantage that Hancock has around the entire state senate district, which stretches from Richmond down to Alameda/Oakland and in a narrow band to the East through Dublin and Livermore. Yes, ultimately it's up to the voters to decide, but Hancock has the support of most of the active Democrats in these communities, and that is certain to have a lot of influence in the race.

So what's next for Wilma Chan? Perhaps it's enough of a serious blow to her campaign to consider dropping out — after all, she could be a real hero by donating her campaign war-chest to a nearby Democrat like Charlie Brown or Bill Durston, and find another avenue for public service for herself. I fear, however, that this will be a long, expensive battle, with each candidate spending perhaps a half a million dollars each for the June primary election. Of course, I will wholeheartedly support whomever emerges in June with the Democratic nomination, but I honestly feel that Wilma Chan doesn't stand much of a chance at this point, without the community backing that any candidate needs.

Humble Pie for Carole Migden

Meanwhile, at the convention, it was impossible to avoid being stopped by supporters/employees of the two candidates for State Senate in the 3rd district covering San Francisco, Marin, and parts of Sonoma county, where incumbent Carole Migden is challenged by assemblymember Mark Leno. I've been following this race peripherally; last September I blogged about how our current State Senator, Don Perata, has been abusing his power by holding up Mark Leno's legislation, as a way to help out the incumbent Migden. (This is the kind of behavior fitting to Karl Rove, not a Democrat, and certainly not a Democrat representing my town.) MIgden received a 55% endorsement vote at the convention; Leno supporters said that many of those votes came from incumbents and party "insiders" and not the grassroots. As an incumbent, she only needed a 50% majority, which is extremely unfair because it gives incumbents an advantage. (Don't they have enough advantages already?) The Leno supporters gathered up 600 signatures of delegates to bring the vote to the floor of the convention; the delegates voted to overturn the endorsement of Migden, leaving no party endorsement in the race between the incumbent and the challenger. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Presidential Hopefuls

Naturally there were a lot of people sporting "Hillary" or "Obama" buttons and shirts and signs. I proudly wore my John Edwards sweatshirt, and I got a lot of compliments about it. Waking around, especially when the air was filled with "Mind-Less-Chant! Mind-Less-Chant! Mind-Less-Chant," I felt like one of the Blues Brothers ready to play a gig at the backwater saloon where they had "both" kinds of music — Country and Western. Though I will cast my ballot against McCain (or, as I like to call him, McBush) in November, I just can't get excited about the leftovers.

The Clinton Campaign brought quite a proxy to speak for their candidate. It was certainly interesting to see a former President give a speech, but I couldn't help noticing how many of the points he brought up actually came from the issues that John Edwards was talking about when no other candidate would. (And a few points I could even attribute to Howard Dean!) When Edwards left the race, he had convinced both Clinton and Obama to start treating poverty as an issue, and certainly the Clinton campaign has come through on that. Half a dozen times, I heard Bill Clinton bring up specific issues such as homeless veterans that only John Edwards was talking about two months ago. I'm glad that Edwards has left a legacy in this presidential campaign by making both remaining candidates stronger.

It's About the People

This was my fourth convention, and while some people have been doing this for decades, I am wondering if maybe this should be my last. Maybe it was just because I've done this before and there's nothing new, or maybe it's that I felt I was swimming upstream by being excited about neither Clinton nor Obama, but I felt a bit jaded, and I kept wishing I had brought along a book to read. The endorsement action was engaging, and some of the speeches were nice to see (such as Lt. Governor John Garamendi, whom I will be enthusiastically supporting when he runs for Governor ) and Secretary of State Debra Bowen. But really the most interesting part of the convention was the interaction with people — fellow activists from around the Bay Area and the state whom I've known for up to four years now, random interactions with other delegates, chance meetings in the hallway or at the lunch table with candidates for office or current officeholders, and so forth. While it may be discouraging that our leaders at the national level don't have the courage to take on big business, combat the climate crisis, end the occupations abroad, or remove the criminals now in power, I'm heartened by the leadership found at the state and grassroots level, and I get a twinkle of hope for our future.

Loni Hancock achieves -- or not -- Democratic Party Endorsement

2008-03-17T09:12:00.000-07:00

At the local Democratic Party "Pre-endorsement" caucus on Saturday, Assembly member Loni Hancock either did, or didn't manage to achieve the required 70% threshold to claim the endorsement of the Democratic Party.

Here's how this works and what happened.

Shortly before the state convention, people running for office as Democrats can submit their name for consideration for endorsement by the state party. Endorsement by the party means that their names are on official party mailings and publicity, so it's quite a boost for their campaign if they can garner this endorsement.

Members of the California Democratic Party State Central Committee (including delegates like myself, county committee members elected by the general public, Democratic club representatives, and elected officials) can vote for these candidates (or vote "no endorsement") in person at the caucus meeting or by mailing in their vote in advance.

Congressman Stark received a 100% vote; Assembly member Swanson received not quite 100% (A couple of delegates voted 'no endorsement'). All of the races with only one member having filed for endorsement went something like that. In the contentious 14th assembly District (Berkeley and part of Oakland), there were four candidates vying to replace termed-out Loni Hancock, and no one candidate was able to achieve even a majority off the delegates. (Nancy Skinner and Tony Thurmond led the count.)

In the State Senate endorsement race, it was Loni Hancock vs. Wilma Chan. According to the vote count, Hancock achieved just over 70% of the vote, which would put her over the top and immediately achieve the party backing. However, there was a challenge issued about the validity of one of the votes (a question of whether one of the delegates voting was actually registered as a member of the Democratic Party). The votes were calculated to see if this would affect the result — and it did. This one less vote would bring Hancock to just under the 70% threshold for immediate endorsement. (The way this works is that if any candidate reaches a 50% majority but not 70%, a new vote will be held at the convention. This is what happened two years ago with Jerry McNerney, who did get the party endorsement in the new vote.)

So the result is up in the air — I don't know for how long, though. If the challenge succeeds, then there will be a new vote at the convention (where there will probably be a higher attendance, and much pre-vote schmoozing).

One factor that I found interesting, but not surprising, as the votes were read out loud — this is a public endorsement vote, after all. It seemed that most of the names of Alameda residents that I recognized were supporting Wilma Chan, and most people outside Alameda voted for Hancock. I suppose this could be "spun" either of two ways: that Alamedans know Wilma Chan well, and support her; or that Chan is only able to get significant support in her home town.

In any case, this is just an endorsement race, and not the general election. Who knows how things will turn out between now and June? As I"ve mentioned before, I'm personally supporting Loni Hancock — but I completely respect the choice of my fellow Alamedans who would prefer Wilma Chan, who is a strong candidate as well.

Why I'm Supporting Loni Hancock for State Senate

2008-03-11T11:49:00.000-07:00

This Saturday, I will be meeting with a number of fellow delegates to the California Democratic Party (not to be confused with presidential delegates who are going to the national convention in Denver later this year), to consider endorsements for the upcoming primary election.

Where we live, there is only one race up for grabs: State Senator, to replace the outgoing Don Perata.

I have decided to endorse Loni Hancock, over Wilma Chan, for this race.

I want to emphasize that I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Wilma Chan. I have met both candidates more than once, and I really like both of them. They are both personable, both extremely passionate and dedicated to public service, and I admire both of them greatly.

It would actually be very difficult to make a choice, much less make an endorsement, except for the undeniable fact, that Loni Hancock stands out, head and shoulders, as a progressive — not just a liberal. She has shown this in her positions and her leadership. The issues that she has taken on are the BIG PICTURE issues.

The biggest issue for me is "clean money" for campaigns. She is the author of AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, which is still a movement in progress (see caclean.org). Getting corporate money out of politics has had a HUGE impact on the game in those states where it has passed, and many of of the battles in the senate and assembly would diminish greatly if the politicians weren't bought and paid for largely by big business — e.g. the oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, financial companies, etc. I want a senator who has fought for, and will continue to fight for, clean money in politics.

Hancock has been a leader on the front of fighting the Climate Crisis, having co-authored AB 32, the big greenhouse gas emission bill, and she's been leading on many other "green" issues. Since we are not likely to have a President elected who is particularly strong when it comes to fighting global warming, we need to take advantage of the leadership that California can accomplish. We're talking about the survival of our species here, and I would rather have a senator who is truly dedicated to this issue.

On the other hand, Wilma Chan, while certainly having a good set of accomplishments, notably in the Health, Education, and child safety areas, has not really led on the major issues like these that we MUST address if we are going to get anywhere.

(My only downside of Hancock is that apparently she, like many politicians, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Then again, If she had endorsed Obama I'd be almost equally disappointed.)

My endorsement of Hancock will probably disappoint many people from Alameda; it appears that Chan has the endorsement of almost every elected official in the island city. (Mayor Johnson has endorsed both--?) Though it would be gosh-nifty-keen to continue to have an Alameda native son/daughter representing us in the State Senate, I think that we have to look at the big picture and see how our area and our state can be best served.

I am not making this plea for endorsement lightly. I think that in order to get an endorsement, a candidate has to strongly match with what you support. Loni Hancock fits the bill for this. Wilma Chan would make a good State Senator for us, but Loni Hancock would make a superb one. We need to send a true progressive to Sacramento because not many other areas in the state are likely to do so.

Some of my favorite people are on this video!

2008-03-01T13:02:00.000-08:00

This video, Democratic Activists: Run for County Central Committee! features some of my favorite people from the East Bay, including Alameda.

(I'm not running, myself, but I will be helping behind the scenes to get these people elected. Stay tuned for more details.)

New Blog in Town

2008-02-27T17:33:00.000-08:00

The Alameda Journal (which I sometimes snarkily think of as "Contra Costa Times, Island Edition") has a blog. It's run by Eve Pearlman, whom you may recognize from printed Journal articles. Welcome to the blogosphere, Eve!

Check it out here.

I'm Still Voting Edwards (with bonus topic: Measure A)

2008-02-04T15:16:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is Election Day, and I will be casting my vote for John Edwards for President.

Obviously he doesn't stand a chance to win; the Media had picked either Obama or Clinton long ago — but votes for Edwards will count, and it will help award him delegates, which can be used as leverage.

Many have asked me to support either "Barack" or "Clinton". I cannot really get behind either of them at this stage. Both are highly corporate-powered, neither are very strong leaders. I have no confidence that with them at the helm, there will be any improvement to the Iraq occupation or the climate crisis. I don't believe that either of them stand a very strong chance to be elected, and that we will be inaugurating a Republican in 2009. Of course Obama and Clinton are better choices than John McBush or whoever is chosen on that side, but that's not too hard to do.

So maybe it's tilting at windmills, but I am not ready to compromise my principles for the Primary Election. I'll wait until November to do that.

One thing I haven't mentioned is Measure A. No, not the one with the red signs all over Alameda, but the one that is actually on the ballot. While I admire Children's Hospital, and I am all for using our tax money to invest in our infrastructure, the fact is that Children's Hospital is a private corporation. I am not comfortable with using our tax money to help a private corporation grow. So I'm voting No on this.

Still Voting for Edwards

2008-02-01T07:46:00.000-08:00

A few random notes. With two videos -- one short and funny, the other long and serious.

I'm more than a little sad that Edwards wasn't able to stay in the race ... but considering that his main opponents were propped up by a corporate-owned media, I'm not surprised at all. On Tuesday, though, I'm still voting wiith my heart, and casting a vote for Edwards. Hey may pick up some more delegates at the convention, especially considering that many people have already voted absentee.

All this talk of change, by both Democrats and (surprisingly) Republicans, has been lampooned so well in this short video. Be sure to turn up the volume and watch the whole thing to get the full effect!

All this talk of "change" made me think of "spare change," and the issue of Poverty that only Edwards made into an issue for this campaign. We'll see if Clinton or Obama actually bring that issue into their campaigns as they pledged they would do.

Here's another "change" variation -- if we can't get a leader who will effectively lead, we need to bring down the criminals who are in power now ... not just replace them in office, but investigate and prosecute them. Have the neocons really done anything wrong? Well, here's a documentary (two hours long!) that I can recommend, but be sure to set your left brain on "skeptical" (of what you see here and of what you have already been told by the corporate media) and your right brain on "open minded" --then form your own conclusions. It's called Loose Change.

"Drinking Liberally" forum in Alameda

2008-01-28T16:11:00.000-08:00

An announcement for an event I will be attending:

This a last minute invite and get together, we expect a great turn out! I have been busy getting this event organized with my colleagues from our Drinking Liberally cohort in Oakland.

I spoke to many of you early in the week about a public open forum Drinking Liberally is holding, hosted by the owner of the Grand Lake theater at his site in Alameda, Auctions By the Bay. It should be exciting and citizens have shown interest in doing a discussion and open forum studying the potential candidates for the Democratic Nomination. There are still so many undecided voters.

We at Drinking Liberally, Oakland in the grip of the excitement of the first CA primary which will have an actual effect on the national race are putting together a special event for all progressives who would like to take part. It will be an open forum where you the citizen will be able to discuss the issues of the day and have a chance to get some feedback on your questions from staff members of the three leaders Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

The format will be to ask the audience 3 questions, right now from initial discovery it looks like those questions for Citizens are around: The Economy, Health Care, and an exit strategy in Iraq and on the Environmental strategies of each candidate's platform.

The idea is to facilitate questions and answers in a way the truly pulls forward the issues, and we hope to send a strong message to each candidate what the people of the East Bay would like to hear from their candidate. Much of the discussion I hope will lean toward the mechanisms to make make each platform come alive during their future presidency.

Super Tuesday is upon us!

The Citizen's Forum on The California Primary in the Democratic Party will be on:

January 29th, 2008

at

Auctions by the Bay

click here for directions

or this

Doors open at 6:00 pm

California Voting is Coming Soon

2008-01-14T20:39:00.001-08:00

And this video explains in a nutshell why I support John Edwards, and I cannot support any of the other candidates.

Please give it a quick watch.

Alameda Democratic Club's Candidate Night

2008-01-11T12:15:00.000-08:00

People representing Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Kucinich were at the Alameda Democratic Club this week, talking up their candidates.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-01T13:18:00.000-08:00

"All is quiet on New Year's Day" (U2)

Happy New Year all. It's been pretty quiet around here in the political world, where most energy seems to be centered around Iowa, with the caucuses only a couple of days away. I had entertained the idea of going out there to help John Edwards, but I decided my time would be better used at home, and I'd rather donate the amount of my transportation and accommodations to the campaign than to spend the money on airlines, hotel, and car rental.

You may have noticed some Edwards signs popping up around town. If you are a John Edwards backer and would like a lawn sign (or window sign), drop me a line. (See the tag line at the top of this website for contact info). I also have some bumper stickers, shirts, and probably more.

If you're undecided, come to the Alameda Democratic Club's meeting on January 9, (7 PM at the Alameda Hospital) for a presidential forum. You'll be hearing representatives from the campaigns talk and answer your questions. I'll be there, of course...

On an unrelated note: Did you hear about Don Perata being carjacked?

Buying Stuff

2007-12-08T20:48:00.000-08:00

Seth's blog today asked "How long has it been...since you went an entire day without buying anything at all?" Coincidentally, I just found out about The Story of Stuff - an entertaining and tremendously thought-provoking online video. It really makes me conscious of the stuff that I buy, and how often!

I've been surveyed

2007-11-26T19:09:00.000-08:00

I got a survey phone call this evening that I thought I would share.

It was conducted by FMMA, and as I got into it, it was clearly a poll about development. I'm not quite sure who was behind the poll; it may have been conducted by the City of Alameda, but I suspect it was conducted by the "Preserve Measure A at all costs" group.

The first set of questions were for my opinions about various individuals and groups. City Council members, Action Alameda and HOMES, developers like SunCal and Catellus, and various local bloggers and You Tube/Cable TV videographers. (OK, just kidding, no mention of bloggers or videographers!)

The next batch of questions, as I remember them, had to do with general issues affecting the city. I stated that the number one issue facing the city was Global Warming -- and I think I set the poor pollster back with that one. Because really, what's really that important about historical preservation, traffic levels, or housing density, if Alameda is underwater in a decade or two?

Most of the rest of the survey centered on Alameda Point - it got pretty specific in some cases. I think my answers were all over the political map in this section, and I answered 'not familiar' or 'neutral' in many cases because I'm really not that familiar with a lot of the specific pieces of the point development, and I don't really have much of an opinion about some specifics of land use like whether there is a sports field or not. There were a lot of questions about the importance of historic preservation, which actually is somewhat important to me as things go -- but where, ironically, a strictly Measure-A compliant development would end up tearing down a lot of the interesting historic structures there because they are too dense under the current law (as I understand it).

I felt that there were many kinds of questions conspicuously absent. There was not direct question related to Measure A at all, such as whether I felt that Measure A should apply to Alameda Point, or be amended to fit the specific needs of the area and its residents. Although there was a question relating to public transportation, there was nothing related to walkability or bikeability of the area and the need to provide an appropriate mix of residential and retail to minimize the need for people to use their cars for everyday needs.

It was fun to answer the questions, though my interest and energies are just not at this local level very much. Our country (and the world, as a result) is in pretty bad shape right now, so it's hard to get myself bent into a tizzy about local issues like development and Alameda Point....

November John Edwards Meetup in Alameda

2007-11-26T19:06:00.000-08:00

We will have our next monthly meetup for the Presidential candidacy of John Edwards this week. On Wednesday, November 28 at 7 PM, Crosstown Cafe at the corner of High and Encinal in Alameda. Come and learn about this candidate who is the most progressive, electable, and courageous of the Democratic candidates.

More information here.

41 Cents for Cheney Impeachment ... RIGHT NOW

2007-11-19T11:54:00.000-08:00

We're often sent emails or read requests on the web to sign onto some petition to add your voice to some cause or another. It's never clear just how much impact your actions will have on each of these.

Here is something specific and timely that you can do with the potential for tremendous impact.

As you may know, there is an impeachment resolution on the floor in the House of Representatives, hanging on but needing Nancy Pelosi's support to really move forward. This resolution calls for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who is in my opinion the true criminal of the current administration. The list of impeachable offenses is tremendous, and exposing his actions will start to put the brakes on this administration like nothing else can.

Pelosi has said that if she receives, before Thanksgiving, 10,000 handwritten letters supporting the current resolution (HR 333) to impeach Dick Cheney, she will proceed with it.

This is absolutely the best chance that impeachment has ever had. And with Thanksgiving just a few days away, it is vitally important that we act quickly.

I just popped a greeting card in the mail with "I support House Resolution 333 to impeach Dick Cheney" scribbled on it. You might want to make your case in more detail, or less. But flooding Pelosi's office with letters is of vital importance.

Won't you take just a few moments and 41 cents' in postage, and pop a quick request in the mail right now?

Cindy Sheehan is collecting the letters, and will count them and drop them off at Pelosi's ofice (without opening the letters). Send them to her at this address:

Nancy Pelosi
c/o Cindy for Congress
RE: Impeach Dick Cheney
1260 Mission St
San Francisco, Ca 94103

Alameda Point Input Opportunity

2007-11-09T10:41:00.001-08:00

If you want to submit your feedback regarding the direction of Alameda Point, here's an easy way to do it that doesn't involve going to a meeting. Go to www.alamedapointvision.org and click on the "Take the Survey" link.

Happy Halloween!

2007-10-31T10:21:00.001-07:00

This what I predict if Hillary Clinton is the candidates that the Democrats choose....

Instead, let's help choose somebody who can actually win in November 2008....

Republicans for Hillary

2007-10-23T07:31:00.001-07:00

I don't want to anybody to be able to accuse this blog of being anything but fair and balanced, so I have decided as a public service to the Republican Party to include a brand new commercial from "Republicans for Hillary." Enjoy!

Upcoming events in/near Alameda

2007-10-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

This Wednesday, October 24, I will be hosting Alameda's second meetup for the candidacy of John Edwards. We'll talk about the momentum that Edwards has been gaining in the grassroots (Yesterday Edwards won the Northern California's only Straw Poll in San Mateo), the Unions (10 SEIU states, including California, recently endorsed Edwards), and in the opinion polls (Edwards has a commanding lead in Iowa, despite having spent next to nothing on TV ads).

Come find out what Edwards is all about by talking with other Alameda voters on Wednesday, starting at 7 PM, at the Crosstown Coffeehouse at the corner of High and Encinal in Alameda.

On Thursday, November 1, Alamedan Allen Michaan will once again be using his Grand Lake Theatre for Left-wing and peacenik purposes! This is the stop of a lecture tour featuring William Rodriguez, who was working as a custodian at the World Trade Center, and saved fifteen lives on Sept. 11 2001. Honored by the white house on several occasions, he has been using his recognition to help draft and pass legislation on behalf of victim's family members and survivors, to help raise millions of dollars for the victims of 9/11 and their families, to bring attention to the health concerns of thousands of first responders, now sick with "Ground Zero Syndrome," to lobby for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, and to raise awareness of his testimony that was excluded from the final 9/11 Commission Report. Also at the event will be Peter Dale Scott, whose book The Road to 9/11 — a book I reviewed on Daily Kos — about (among other things) the journey of Monsieurs Cheney and Rumsfeld, starting back in the Ford administration, through the present day in their behind-the-scenes government operations; and Cindy Sheehan, America's most-beloved Anti-War activist mom, who has recently become disillusioned with the Anti-War movement.

On Thursday, November 8, the organization "Mix It Up East Bay" will be holding a Presidential Mix It Up featuring speakers represting several of the presidential campaigns. Yours Truly has volunteered to speak on the behalf of, you guessed it, John Edwards. Come out and support me! :-) The event will be at Arsimona's Bar and Lounge, 561 11th Street (@Clay) in Oakland, 6-9 pm.

Go Pete Stark Go!

2007-10-21T08:16:00.000-07:00

This is a must-see. Obviously he's taking a lot of flack from the right-wingers.

I am proud that Pete Stark represents me in Congress.

Hot off the YouTube presses!

2007-10-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

This video asks the question "What's wrong with choosing a woman as the leader of your country?"

This week: Immigration forum

2007-10-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

Passing this along....

The LWV of Alameda is pleased to announce that the City Social Service Human Relations Board has agreed to co-sponsor our forum. The Forum will be October 11th at 7pm at the new Alameda Free Library, 1550 Oak Street.

The Panelists will be: Rev. Mike Yoshii, Buena Vista United Methodist Church; Tamiko Moore, Immigration Attorney; Dr. Tony Iton, Director of Alameda Count Public Health; Cindy Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board Interim Chair; and Ardella Daley, Superintendent of Schools. Each will be addressing the topic of the impacts of immigration on our community based on his/her expertise and/or work experiences.

Each Panelist will have 10-15 minutes to present and then we will have about 40 minutes of Q and A.