Edgewise

California "here we come"

The barbarians are at the gates, and Washington, D.C. may never be the same. If American voters thought the war in Iraq was the most pressing issue of the day, Barbara Boxer may soon be disabusing them of that notion. Likely to be the next chair of the Senate Environment committee, Boxer is ecstatically planning her new campaign to save us from ourselves. Count on her to ramp up the volume on eco issues. DiFi, rarely raising her voice but a master of backroom deal making is rumored to be in line for Trent Lott’s seat at the Rules committee, and California rules are sure to look a lot different than Mississippi ruhls. Harry Reid may not be from California but the State of Las Vegas might as well be a territory of Los Angeles. In any case, my sense is that this will turn out to be a historic mid-term election but not for the currently pundited reasons. I think we’re finally seeing the end of the iron grip of The South on national politics and an end to the long reign of Dixiecrats in election politics. It has taken over 150 years for California, the economic powerhouse and cultural cutting edge of the country to get a few places at the table in Washington and it’s a harbinger of the changes in the national political landscape to come. No matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Special Election as fodder for theater

John Warren from Unconditional Theatre invites us to hear stories about the upcoming special election:

The Special Election is less than a month away. How much do you know about the ballot measures? Wondering whether it's worth going to the polls at all? Unconditional Theatre is here to help!

We're hosting an evening of stories & dialogue focused on California's Special Election, to help you get familiar with the measures and connect with the unique reasons for your voting decisions. We'll share personal stories that relate to the measures, offer dramatic readings from the ballot book, and discuss the content of the propositions themselves.

It's a fun way to get a handle on the measures and discuss them with your peers. Even if you already know how you're voting, this can help you articulate your reasons and become a better advocate for your position.

UNCONDITIONAL THEATRE'S
SPECIAL ELECTION STORIES & DIALOGUE

Sunday October 23rd, 7:00pm

Epic Arts
1923 Ashby Ave at MLK, Berkeley
(across the street from Ashby BART)

Epic Arts is kindly donating the space to us, and we'll have snacks and drinks on hand. As always, anyone who shows up is invited to read and discuss. Participation is free.

DIRECTIONS

By BART: Take the Richmond line to Ashby station. As you exit the turnstile, bear right and then right again as you exit the station. Cross the parking lot diagonally to the corner of Ashby & MLK. Epic Arts is across Ashby, the yellow building two doors down from the Ashby Stage.

By Car: From San Francisco, cross the Bay Bridge and take Highway 80 eastbound to Ashby. Take the lefthand fork of the exit ramp, and follow Ashby about 1.5 miles. Park as soon as you cross MLK. Epic Arts is on the left hand side, the yellow building two doors down from the Ashby Stage.

Posted by xian at 8:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Got (moooo) Smog?

A curious editorial in the Sunday New York Times points out that California's agricultural heartland may be at the heart of an air pollution crisis that could require regulation of cow emissions as well as car emissions. It seems that the mammoth dairy farms of the San Joaquin Valley--where about twenty percent of the nation's milk comes from-- are emiting about 19 pounds of pollution per cow per year. Add that by 1.7 million dairy cows (in all, there are 5.2 million cattle and calves in the state) and you've got a lot of bad gas. Dairy farmers disagree that their cows are contributing to air pollution. And they have political clout; the state's biggest industry is agriculture and the top-earning commodity is "milk and cream", earning them well over $4 billion annually.

The other major air polluter in California also happens to have a lot of political clout. Although the state has managed to enforce the strictest vehicle emissions laws in the country, the rising numbers of vehicles and particularly the rising numbers of SUVs--which do not have to meet the same pollution emission standards as other passenger cars--means the state is losing the battle against air pollution.

Recently, Bay Area residents, who have some of the least polluted air in the state, have been required to meet the more stringent smog standards of more polluted regions (e.g. the San Joaguin Valley). That means this year when I renew the vehicle registration on my 1988 Toyota Tercel I must take the old jalopy to a "test only" smog station where I'll probably be told that the old gal (EVE294) doesn't pass the test.

A reasonable solution to this dilemma might be to purchase a new SUV...or I could try to disguise the Toyota as a cow.

Schwarzenegger's popularity down to Bush levels

The Field poll says only 39% of respondents would vote for Schwarzenegger again.

Going, going, ....

JC's Unitarian Jihad

RaptorMage noted this on RaptorMagic and it was so perfect, I felt compelled to repost here. Highly recommended.

How do you measure work ethic?

In What's so great about the work ethic?, Mark A. R. Kleiman wonders why the much longer hours we work in the US (as compared with Europe) should be interpreted as a good thing and a sign of a strong work ethic.

Glad someone is questioning this.

California judge strikes down gay marriage ban

A quickie (I'm at SXSW): California Insider - Court strikes down gay marriage ban:

A San Francisco Superior Court judge has found the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. [Full story here in the Sacramento Bee].

St. Francis of the slots

Our bay of St. Francis is primed to become the Monte Carlo of the West by the looks of all the recent casino proposals, a result of both intentional and unintended actions of legislators, disenfranchised tribes, and savvy money men who could smell the profits from three time zones away.

In effect, the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior is running a tribal gaming franchise business that allows casino complexes to be plopped anywhere in the U.S. in what amounts to a tax-free zone. Not all tribal casinos are going to be huge or even profitable, however. The gold standard is a casino site in an urban area where the potential gamblers have easy access. But urban casinos have been few and far between until recently because most tribal lands are in rural areas.

That is changing in California. It began with a little noticed change to a 2000 federal spending bill in which Congressman George Miller retroactively reinstated tribal land status for a small disenfranchised Pomo group known as the Lytton Band. The land happened to be a few acres in the middle of San Pablo, a city on the perimeter of San Francisco Bay.

Enter the money men, the consultants, and a Bay Area cottage casino industry....It only makes sense when you know what the numbers are. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission (nigc.gov), in 2003 Indian gaming revenues were $16.7 billion from 330 gaming operations throughout the U.S. However, just 43 of these casino operations located in California account for $4.7 billion in revenues. Compare that to total Nevada state non-Indian gaming revenue of about $900 million (including Las Vegas casinos).

With that kind of money in play it's no wonder that high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff got a little greedy. Now being investigated by the Senate Indian Affairs Committtee, headed by Sen. John McCain, as well as a federal grand jury, Abramhoff and his partner Michael Scanlon--a former spokesman for Congressman Tom DeLay--have been accused of funneling much of the $66 million they charged Indian tribes for consulting services into slush funds benefiting conservative and Republican causes. (see Washington Post article from Nov. 8, 2004 by Thomas B. Edsall)

In California, tribal contributions to California political campaigns have become the subject of litigation. The question is whether tribal sovereignty trumps campaign contribution disclosure laws. The California case began when the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) sued the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, saying it was subject to the state's Political Reform Act. The agency accused the tribe of failing to file semi-annual disclosure statements for more than $8.1 million in campaign contributions.

The Agua Caliente Band owns two casinos near Palm Springs. Though its located close enough to Los Angeles to be a popular weekend resort destination, it couldn't be considered urban. The first truly urban casino on tribal land is yet to come. But when it does it's likely to be a San Francisco Bay landmark.

casino california

I blame Arnold. Well, why not. There really is nobody to blame but ourselves for the mess we're in here. The casinos are coming to town whether we want them or not. A few people are going to make millions, perhaps half of them people of the First Nations, and the rest of us will be free to lose our millions in the rococco halls of the gambling malls. Uh, and we also lose our sovereignty. What?

In California, gambling of the Las Vegas type (slot machines) is only allowed on tribal land. Many tribes, however, lost their status over the decades and their reservation land. But new legislation in recent decades allowed tribes to re-establish their sovereign status via application to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs--or BIA.

With the arrival of the casino craze in California, getting sovereign tribal status has suddenly became the hottest game in town. Big money developers have gone looking for tribes to invest in--and tribes are looking for land to buy. In the San Francisco Bay Area alone there are as many as five proposed tribal gaming developments. These are huge Vegas-style entertainment/gaming/hotel facilities that have one purpose--to get you to pull the stick of a slot machine. As the odds are set, every dollar you plunk into the slot will earn the Tribes twenty cents (and the developer, and the consultants, and the casino management company and, oh I almost forgot, the politicians).

There's nothing new about gambling or get rich quick developments. What is new is that tribal land is being created within municipal boundaries. That is, the tribal property, once approved by the BIA, becomes a sovereign nation, even if it's smack dab in the middle of Oakland. No permits, or zoning laws, or environmental impact reports, or tax remitances need apply. It's a whole new world of urban planning and I got a taste of it last week at the Oakland City Council meeting....more to come.

Torture is bad

There. I've gone out on a limb and said it. I feel so brave.

Quoting from the Nielsen Haydens' blog (Happy New Year):

Ogged of Unfogged:

[...T]his will become a "Democrats are soft and looking to score points" issue. I've given up. Complain, protest, organize and fund all you want; one more attack here and your neighbors will be lining up to torture somebody, anybody.

Ezra of Pandagon:

Unfogged is right; barring a miracle of competence and media responsibility, opposing torture will end up making the Democrats look like we get the vapors whenever the menfolk whip out the cigars and talk terrorism. Our press flacks are ineffective, our caucus can't stick to a message, and we don't have a party leader charged with articulating our position to the public.

Doesn't matter. Torture just isn't something you compromise on. I'm as coldly political as the next guy, but not torture. That's not part of the country I grew up believing in.

Digby of Hullabaloo:

[T]he mere act of finally drawing that line in the sand, of saying "No More," is the very thing that refutes the charge. It's hemming and hawing and splitting the difference and "meeting halfway" and offering compromises on matters of principle that makes the charge of Democratic spinelessness believable. This isn't about a special interest giving money or bending to the will of a powerful constituency. People can feel the difference. There is nothing weak about simply and forcefully standing up for what is right. [...] I think it may just be a defining issue for Democrats.

It's not that I believe that all Americans are horrified, or even a majority of Americans are horrified. Clearly, the dittoheads think it is just ducky. But that isn't the point. Just because they aren't horrified or even endorse it on some level doesn't mean that they don't know that it's wrong. They do. And it is very uncomfortable to be put in the position of defending yourself when you know you are wrong. Even good people find ways, but it cuts a little piece out of their self-respect every time they do it.

Every person alive in America today grew up with the belief that torture is wrong. Popular culture, religion, folklore and every other form of cultural instruction for decades in this country has taught that it is wrong, from sermons and lectures to films about slavery to photographs of Auschwitz to crime shows about serial killers. ^[1] It is embedded in our consciousness. We teach our children that it is wrong to torture animals and other kids. We don't say that there are exceptions for when the animals or kids are really, really bad. We have laws on the books that outright outlaw it. The words "cruel and unusual" are written into our constitution.

The problem is not that there isn't a widely accepted admonition not to conduct torture, it's that many people, as with all crimes, will choose to ignore the admonition under certain circumstances. However, that does not mean that they do not know that what they are doing is wrong. There is nothing surprising in that. It's why we have laws.

The arguments for torture being raised by the right are rationalizations for what they know is immoral and illegal conduct. Their discomfort with the subject clearly indicates that they don't really want to defend it. (Witness the pathetic dance that even that S&M freak Rush Limbaugh had to do after his comments were widely disseminated.) Will they admit that they know it's wrong? Of course not. But when they take up their manly jihad and accuse the Democrats of being swooning schoolgirls they will also be forced to positively defend something that many of them know very well is indefensible. And every time they do that their credibility on values and morals is chipped away a little bit.

I don't expect them to change their tune. Way too much of this comes from a defect in temperament and garden-variety racism and that's not going to go away. But Democrats have to thicken their skins and be prepared for the usual attacks and insist over and over again that it is against the values and principles of the United States to torture people, period. It is not only right, it is smart.

As I wrote below, the opposition will bluster and fidget and scream bloody murder. But listen to the tenor of their arguments. ^[2] [The Wall Street Journal] rails against the "glib abuse of the word" as if they can run away from the issue by engaging in a game of semantics. They are reduced to claiming that unless we torture it will be unilateral disarmament. We, the most powerful military force the world has ever known, will be defeated by a bunch of third world religious misfits if we don't engage in torturing suspects. Just who sounds weak?

-----
[1] Maureen Dowd: "Before [Alberto Gonzales] helped President Bush circumvent the accords and reserve the right to do so 'in this or future conflicts,' you had to tune in to an old movie with Nazi generals or Vietcong guards if you wanted to see someone sneeringly shrug off the international treaty protecting prisoners from abuse. ('You worthless running dog Chuck Norris! What do we care about your silly Geneva Conventions?')"

[2] The Poor Man: "The point is this: 'To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."' Alberto Gonzales thinks that the Magna Carta is liberal pablum."

the fish must pay

And so far, the fish owe the farmers of California $26 million for depriving them of their water rights during the drought years of 1992 to 1994, according to federal claims court judge,
John Paul Wiese .

Since fish don't have bank accounts it's the federal government that will have to pay. For depriving farmers of water that is delivered to them via a federally-owned viaduct system built with taxpayers' dollars. The farmers belong to collectives known as Irrigation Districts that negotiate the price of water in contracts with the federal government.

Whose water is it? According to California law, the water belongs to the public, specifically the state Department of Water Resources which holds the rights to the water it diverts for farm and municipal use. Judge Wiese has ruled that the water not delivered to the farmers is, essentially, their property--and they, and not the fish, are the victims of a "taking."

Oh, and it pretty much voids the Environmental Protection Act which allowed for the river water to go to the fish during those drought years. If you want to protect fish habitat (hint: its WATER), you'll have to pay the farmers.

Of course, the federal government could challenge Judge Wiese's ruling that it owes millions to farmers in California. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.), however, has urged the administration not to do that. He's with Judge Wiese, who said that "The federal government is certainly free to preserve the fish; it must simply pay for the water it takes to do so."

gambling on your life

Now that the referendum on war and family values is behind us I think it's time we turned our attention to the center ring in this American circus and take a look at how the Republicans are planning to dismantle our social safety net. I read a little article in the San Francisco Chronicle last Sunday that talked about how those Republican-vaunted health savings accounts are difficult to set up and hardly worth the trouble in a state like California that doesn't give you a tax break for them. Considering how much those tax breaks could cost the state (about $25 million per year, according to the article), I'm not sure we want them.

But say you have no other way to get health insurance and you at least want federal tax break? Well, good luck. You'd probably be better off going to the race track or your friendly local casino than trying to find a bank or other financial institution that will set one up for you. I had to laugh at the article's example (from something called Spidell's California Taxletter - a year's subscription is only $127) wherein our typical resident in need of health care insurance puts $2,000 into said "health savings account" (the maximum contribution allowed per year is $2,600) and the account "earns $250 per year" according to Spidell's experts.

Ok. We can stop right there. $250 on $2,000? Where is this account - at the Bank of Halliburton? I'll have you know my esteemed Washington Mutual "Preferred" Savings Account earns 1.37 percent at the moment - and that's up from somewhere below 1 percent for most of the last year. That means that on $2,000 I earn $27. 40 over one year. Say this wonderous "health savings account" is allowed to be invested in the stock market. Then I might possibly earn $250, or I might lose the whole wad ala Bill Frist's campaign fund.

Say I have no choice but to put $2,600 (the maximum, remember) into one of these accounts and get my federal tax break (say, for fun, it's worth $100) and, at Mafia interest rates, garner an extra $250 over the year. That means I have paid out $2,600 and made $350. But does that pay my health insurance premium cost for the year? Well, in my own case those premiums (for my non-profit health care provider Kaiser) cost over $3,600 per year. And that's with a high co-pay and no prescriptions.

You can see how excited I might be about the "invest-on-your-own social security account."

Blue Heartland

"We officially no longer give a shit when family farms fail. Fewer family farms equal fewer rural voters." (The Urban Archipelago, It's the Cities, Stupid., by The Editors of The Stranger (11/11/04))

Whoa Nellie! The heartland isn't as red as it might appear. Take Fresno. Please. The former Raisin Capital of the World is now a city of 457, 652. And they voted blue (54.4%). This heartland of American agriculture where family farms churn out steak and eggs, milk, cotton, rice, almonds, and a hundred other edibles for domestic and foreign markets, is no more a conservative stronghold than is Oakland (pop. 399, 484) in the blue heart of the Bay Area. I don't know how to parse this information except to say that what's happening in the crimson center of the Golden State may be the future of farmland America.

Why cater to exurbanites?

It's the Greeks versus the Romans. This editorial from the Stranger (The Urban Archipelago, It's the Cities, Stupid., by The Editors of The Stranger (11/11/04)) makes it clear:

The Democrats are party of cities.

The Republicans are the party of the heartland.

Grow our base, say the editors of the Stranger. Press urban issues. If the nation can be ruled from the hinterland, why can't it be ruled by city-states (aka Blue States)?

Target the most urban red states, for example, and grow their activist and voting population in its cities.

Push issues that matter to cities and ignore rural problems, they say, in their cold urban stylee:

If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad.

Conservative label poised for stigma

Liberals often complain that the liberal "brand" has become sullied by its relentless tarring from the right as the philosophy of weakness, equivocation, elitism, wastefulness, and self-delusion.

This is nothing new. Kennedy had to defend the term liberal long before Dukakis danced around it. Kerry ducked it and couldn't resist the liberals' favorite sophist tactic: "You're not even really conservative." (OK, he actually said "'compassionate Conservative' ... what does that really mean?" but his point was the same)

In Yes, These Are Conservatives at MyDD, Chris Bowers turns the whole thing on its head at last.

Stop saying "these people are not true conservatives." Stop trying to sell liberalism as the natural response to honest bedrock conservatism. Accept that the meaning of the label conservative has also changed, and that it's poised for ruin.

Conservatives now control two branches of the federal government, a majority of statehouses, and a plurality of state legislatures. Their grip on the judicial branch has strengthened.

Over the course of the next two to four years (and beyoond), the liberal opposition headquartered in the Democratic party should be prepared to point out the weakness, equivocation, elitism, wastefulness, and dishonesty of the ruling conservative ideology.

Patient Earth & Dr. California

Out here on the Left Coast things are looking curiouser and curioser. Detroit is threatening to sue us for requiring cars in California to pollute less. Do they really care that much? Yes, because four other states peg their auto emission standards to California's, and three more intend to follow suit. And why does California get to regulate its air quality instead of the feds? Because we passed a Clean Air law first.

But that's not the main story. The reason the California Air Resources Board passed the higher emissions standard was to address the problem of global warming. With 35 million people driving two cars each (statistically) Californian's contribute a lot of global warming gases to the world's air. But Detroit (as well as the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Bush Administration) is not convinced about this climate-change thing.

As reported in The New York Times the president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers representing everybody but Nissan and Honda doubted the reality of global warming. "I come from Maine" he said "and we had one of the coldest winters on record....It was very very cold." So, not to worry folks!

Rain in Maine doesn't help us much out West, however. In an attempt to briefly describe what rising temperatures would mean in California, the Times reporter, Danny Hakim, fashions a poetic - if weirdly inaccurate - vision of our demise:

"Higher temperatures impede the state's battle with smog and can worsen forest fires," he writes. "They also contribute to the early melting of mountain snow, which can lead to winter flooding and less water runoff for crop irrigation in the spring, threatening the state's $3.2 billion wine industry."

I think Danny may be worried about his supply of Napa merlot. He should be more worried about where his next salad is coming from. Forget the wine industry. That "runoff" from the melting Sierra Nevada snow in the spring fills the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers which feed thousands of miles of cement aquaducts and reservoirs of the gargantuan water network irrigating California's 6 million acres of farmland. The state's farm industry (largely fresh fruits and vegetables and cow products) is worth at least $20 billion a year.

Then there's the rising sea level problem which could, according to the article, "threaten coastlines and ... contaminate the state's fresh water supply." I'm not sure how rising sea level threaten's the water supply. I suppose it could make groundwater wells along the coast saltier. Believe me, it's the snow pack we watch with hawk eyes.

California is just the canary in the coal mine here. The California Air Board is taking the threat of a heating planet seriously. One of its members put it like this, "The patient here is the earth and its habitants. The treatment option is here before us today."

American Emperor

Some call it the Left Coast and others dismiss it as a fantastical realm of gurus and gayness but today I want you to think of it as the birthplace of the Republican Emperor on this the officially declared day of mourning for Ronald Reagan, late president of the Empire and former governor of the Barbarians.

But, you say, Reagan was born in Illinois, in the heartland of the Empire. True, but the myth of Reagan, the hero of the well-shod and down trodden, was born in the West. Those were not wingtips but custom-made cowboy boots hanging from the stirrups in his funeral parade.

The Reagan eulogies tend to skip his governorship but the Barbarians cannot forget it - from his inaugural swipe at the inadequacies of the governor's mansion to his siccing of the National Guard on his unruly subjects. Even the Giant Redwoods felt his scorn, "If you've seen one tree you've seen them all," he jovially declared in a photo op with lumber company executives. And they do tend to look the same as stacks of two-by-fours.

He ruled us but he could not tame us. Besides, if you want to have real power you must rule the Empire - not its hinterland. Even though that hinterland is a land of empires (Disney, Silicon and the Great Central valleys).

So we watch, some with nostalgia, some with pride, others with amused annoyance, the gilding of the Reagan funeral lilies by an American Emperor wiping the flop sweat from his momentarily relieved brow - he can relax for as long as the eulogies hog the front pages. Then it's back to the disasters of his flailing foreign campaign.

And for those who have forgotten the political roots of this cherished champion of American Enterprise you might just want to rent an old movie for a preview of Emperors to come... it's called "Conan the Barbarian."